Welcome to Gaia! ::

Already Read It: The Lord of the Ring & The Silmarillion

Oh, Tolkien. Love you or loathe you, everyone knows of you.

One of my early memories from childhood actually consists of seeing the Lord of the Rings trilogy over and over on our bookshelf at home, and wondering what it was about. Really early on, I think I had this vague impression that it was a "grown-up" book, and had something to do with religion. (The only time I'd heard "lord" at that point was at church.)
The boxed set was black, with writing in a sort of flowy gold-coloured script. I think my father picked it up some time in the 70s.

Later, in elementary school, I encountered Tolkien again as we were learning how to read and draw maps. One of the exercises required us to look at a map of a part of Middle-earth and answer questions. I didn't know what "orcs" were, and I don't recall the teacher giving us any details, but I finally suspected that maybe the trilogy wasn't biblical at all. Instantly, it was more interesting to me.

Although I'm not sure when I actually sat down and read them, it was definitely some time in my early teens. I was initially pretty put off by the sheer wordiness, (I guess, in a way, I still am. Hah.) and gave up part way through the Fellowship of the Ring. But I was compelled to give it another go after my little brother finished not only the Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit AND the Silmarillion. It was bad enough that he could now say he'd read it first; there was no way I would be the only one of us who hadn't read it.

I wish I could say I really liked the story of Frodo and the companions. I didn't dislike the story, and I still feel a real sense of awe when I think about this whole complete world, created by a single person. But I don't know if I'd ever read it again. There were times when it felt like I'd read the same paragraph 10 times without absorbing a thing, and unlike some other books that I just can't put down, there were many times when I had to force myself to keep on reading.

I really enjoyed the movie adaptations; the pages upon pages of description about the trees and the mountains and the countryside made for a beautiful, visually stunning film. The battle scenes, already epic in text, were incredible on the screen. Despite this, though, I'm glad I read the books. At some point, I think I ought to reread them. I feel like my impatience and lack of attention span deprived me of the real experience. (Or, who know, maybe my expectations are just realllly high because of the way everyone salivates over the LOTR? Maybe there was nothing wrong with my initial impression? It remains to be seen.)

I haven't ever seen it. I have seen the movie adaptations of both I, Robot and I Am Legend, and they pretty much have me convinced that Will Smith needs to stay the ******** away from books-turned-movies. :/

The Hitchhiker's Guide movie wasn't bad at all, although a lot of the funniest parts of the book don't really translate to film. The actors did a great job with the material, though.

Although it's not a movie, I am in love with the TV adaptation of Game of Thrones. <3

I haven't seen Watchmen, but I might watch it after I read the graphic novel.

Blade Runner is based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". Personally, I think the book title is more interesting, but I've never seen the movie.

I've seen both StarShip Troopers and The War of the Worlds, and wasn't really a fan, but it's been a long time.

The StarDust movie was pretty good. I especially liked Robert DeNiro's take on the captain. xD

I may be one of the only people born in the 80s who hasn't seen Princess Bride. I'm a fan of Mandy Patikin, though, so I'll get around to it eventually.

Uh, is number 14 supposed to be Necromancer?

oh my god!!!! you definiteyl gotta watch Watchmen! it's awesome!

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

I’m not sure we ever established that androids even technically dream, or even sleep. (I could have just missed it; I started reading pretty early this morning, hah.) They certainly seem to have wants and maybe even needs.

If someone asked me, what’s the difference between an android and a human, my initial response would be, “Humans are organic; androids are machines.”

But what if androids were made from flesh? I mean, humans are technically machines, too. We can restart a heart with electricity, or stop it. We can make humans in a lab environment, although not fully-grown humans.

What if the androids are capable of experiencing emotions? Then what? It wasn’t something I’d really thought about before reading this, and I doubt I would have been able to come up with an answer.

The idea that’s presented in the book, though, is that humans are capable of empathy, whereas artificial life is not. That’s actually one of the only ways left, in this burned-out future, to tell the difference between humans and “andys”.

Makes sense. But what about humans who lack empathy? Sociopaths, for example. Are they inhuman? I lived with a girl that I would swear was a legit sociopath. She was capable of emotion, but empathy really seemed beyond her. She was always friendly to me, but she hurt so many people without ever caring. It amused her to see other people cry or get angry. It took me a while to figure out what exactly was so strange about her. Lots of people are mean, but it eventually occurred to me that most people who do cruel things do so out of anger or spite or in retaliation for something. This girl was usually perfectly pleasant to me, was perfectly functional in her day-to-day life, and also perfectly willing to cause pain to people or creatures for her own amusement, provided she wouldn’t face any negative consequences.

I certainly don’t have any medical training, so it’s probably unfair for me to insist that she lacks any sort of conscience or sense of empathy. That said, while I was reading about one of the androids slowly decapitating a spider for fun, I was immediately reminded of my former roommate. She’s the closest thing to an “andy” that I’ve ever met.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the book. It wasn’t a long or difficult read, although the questions it raises are both difficult and probably over my head. The obsession with owning animals seemed strange at first, but considering the setting, it makes sense. It’s hard to imagine that humanity could endure the planetary conditions when the vast, vast majority of other animals could not. But, I guess it’s human nature to desire “status items”, and if animals really did die out, I can easily see how they’d become the most sought-after luxury good. There’s also empathy playing a part, I suppose, but I’m not really sure how to phrase what I mean. Going back to the idea about sociopaths…isn’t that usually how we can tell something is wrong with someone? When they hurt animals with no feelings of guilt? If that’s the case, I wonder where the line is, because most people have no trouble at all killing bugs. If mosquitos suddenly became endangered, would we stop swatting them?

I really hope that we, as a species, can sort out our issues before things get that bad. :s