Reading, The Sunday Salon, Whatnot
Comments 16

My favorite place in the Middle Earth

Farewell, Lorien!

The Fellowship of the Ring by J. R. R. Tolkien

Date Started: June 4, 2012. 1:15 AM.
Date Finished: June 11, 2012. 2:30 AM.
Book #33 of 2012

It’s Lorien. Or Lothlorien. I haven’t seen the film yet and I think that works to my advantage because my imagination is not influenced by anything. Autumn leaves in winter? That alone tickles my fancy, although I haven’t experienced any autumn or winter yet in my lifetime, my country being a tropical island with eternal summers. And now, I am curious how this place is depicted in the film adaptation, or if it even was included in it. I heard from one of my bookish friends that the scene at the Old Forest was not included. That disappointed me because I like Tom Bombadil. He’s a fun elf (is he an elf?). He’s my favorite LOTR minor character so far.

And by minor, I mean one who is not among The Company (Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, et al). I also like Lady Galadriel, the lady leader of Lorien and the bearer of one of the elf rings. I imagine her as an airy, majestic elf queen. With the fair physical attributes and celestial wardrobe, who wouldn’t?

More on this book in my upcoming write-up, which I hope to deal with soon.

* * * * *

The Sunday Salon

The past week proved to be a time of great mourning in the literary circle as Ray Bradbury passed away. I haven’t read any of his books yet, which I realize now is a shame but I do have a copy of Fahrenheit 451. His death makes me want to read this immediately, but I feel that this will be selected soon as our book club’s book of the month so I decided to let go of it for the mean time.

Another death: Barry Unsworth. He is relatively less popular than Bradbury, but him being the author of the Booker-winning Sacred Hunger doesn’t make him any less of a writer. Now that is a real doorstopper, and with such books, I always feel that I have to plan ahead if I want to read them.

Speaking of the Booker prize, I recently wrote my write-up of Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty. I was not supposed to post anything about it yet since I follow a writing schedule (I am anal in such matters). But when my friend relayed the news of our friend’s death due to complications caused by AIDS (I suspect pneumonia), I was prompted to do so.

So my post was a little melodramatic and a little personal, although I have to stress here that it did not totally veer from the book. If you are curious, please check out my post and tell me if it isn’t so. It just so happened that my write-up was framed around the AIDS crisis in relation to the death of my friend and the AIDS crisis as it is in our country. So far, I had a number of people liking it, and by that I mean the number of people clicking the Like button on the post. I cross-posted this elsewhere, and to my surprise, I received an outraged comment regarding the way I wrote it.

The cross-post resulted in an exchange of comments, and I will try my best to sum it up here. Commenter said the following (based solely on memory):

  • that he was disconcerted that I only felt the reality of the AIDS crisis now,
  • that people dying of AIDS will not describe their condition as “strangely, vaguely beautiful,” Which I guiltily wrote for an effect and for something else,
  • that he thought the way I wrote my post was more of my personal reaction to the AIDS crisis,
  • that I should not talk politics and keep my thoughts on the novel,
  • and that he’d rather not read the unexamined opinions on people’s private lives, particularly if it involves some moral judgment.

Apparently, the commenter is more learned in terms of literature than I am. I admit that much. But what I cannot take is when he said that I should have framed my post this way and not that way. Well, why would anyone tell someone how to write his posts? I know I have a rather bizarre way of writing a review, which is why I don’t call them reviews as much as possible. I call them my write-ups, or book rhapsodies, if I feel the need to be more specific.

Usually, most reviews give a synopsis of the book, an examination of the good and bad points, a dissection of the aspects of the novel (themes, setting, characterization, plot, style, etc.), and a final verdict. I also do that, but as much as possible, I’d rather not write my posts on books like that. I try to add my own personal touches, like what made me read the book, what are the effects that it had on me, what are my experiences in relation to the book, and what thoughts came about regardless of relevance to the book.

And is it so wrong to be personal? After all, reading is a personal conversation, and whatever you write about what you have just read, whether you do it the “standard” way or your own quirky way, is a personal reaction, so I don’t understand why the commenter is saying that he’d rather not read personal reactions. In addition, since we are writing about books, our judgments will always surface here and there. There is a lot of ourselves revealed in what we write, so I think it cannot be altogether avoided to come upon a lot of judgments and opinions in the things that we read.

I will no longer explain the other bullet points because I think I have somehow explained them in my write-up. My little talk with the commenter is not a big deal in such a way that I broke down and cried, but I just wonder: should there be a standard way to write your reviews?

In fairness to the commenter, he put down his thoughts on my behalf, because he thought that there are others out there who might be offended. But do we have to write to please our possible readers? If yes, what is the point of it? Besides, we cannot please everyone. I don’t know about you, but I think that is not a good practice. It is constricting, isn’t it?

Okay, I think I’ve gone on too much on this matter when it has already been closed and when I myself mentioned that it isn’t much of a deal to me. Perhaps it is; otherwise I wouldn’t have posted something about it. But it speaks of something, that blogging is becoming an effective medium to draw out discussions. And that we, as bloggers, can somehow affect eternity.



  1. I think you’re definitely better off reading the books before seeing the movies. I think the movies are great, but no movie image of a Nazgul could ever live up to the Nazgul of my imagination which were the embodiment sheer terror.


    • It has always been my practice to read first before watching, just so I could compare my readings with what I am seeing on the screen.


  2. There have been many thoughts on pleasing the masses, whether it’s as a writer, painter, actor or singer. At the end of the day, you should write to please yourself. People will agree with you, or they won’t. I like your approach to reviews; there IS a standard way to write them, and the web is full of it. It might be time for something different.


    • there IS a standard way to write them, and the web is full of it. It might be time for something different.

      Right on! Thanks for this. I’ll take this as a sort of encouragement. :)


  3. Oh, and if you catch the extended edition of The Fellowship of the Rings, they do touch on Lothlorien a fair amount (at least, as much as is possible in the course of a movie). They did miss out Tom Bombadil, and likely because he’s a minor character; he doesn’t really influence the plot of the book a great deal.

    The movies are not a perfect replica of the books, and they couldn’t be. They are a near-perfect adaptation, which is really what you should go into them expecting.



    • I think though that Tom Bombadil makes the whole Ring affair more complex than it already is. He has some explaining to do on why he is not affected by the ring (although this has been pretty much explained at the second book of volume one).


  4. Have you read Terry Goodkind’s “Sword of Truth” series yet? As a Tolkien fan, I cannot even conceive of the possibility that you would not enjoy this series – each and every book is exquisite in and of itself. I honestly don’t even have words to convey the deliciousness of the series as a whole.


    • Not yet, and honestly, I haven’t heard of it until now. I am not officially a Tolkien fan yet (I’ve just read The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring), but yes, I will make a mental note of your suggestion. Thanks! :)


  5. Even before the movie came out, I was a fan of Galadriel. Well, all Elves, actually, and so I also loved Lorien. But when I saw the movie adaptation and Cate Blanchett played Galadriel, my heart just keeled over in adoration. :D


  6. What a strange attack on your Hollinghurst post. We all write our blogs in our own way, some more rigidly following a schema than others. If your way is personal then that’s your way.


  7. I read book blogs because I want personal opinions…I want to see how a book has affected someone. And not everyone is effected by every crisis at all times. If you are just now beginning to “see” the AIDS crisis…well at least you are now. (Have you read And the Band Played on?) I think you can say more about the book by your reaction than if you had just done a traditional review.


    • I think I have heard of that book, but as of this moment, it escapes me. Thanks for dropping by. I’d like to see that book soon. :)


Thoughts? Feelings?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s