: Well, a lot of the freshness this time around comes from the fact that I'm really visualizing every scene - trying for the first time to really *see* what LOTR would look like on screen.

: And I've realized that it's very dificult. Tolkien is a quirky SOB. One thing most Tolkien fans agree on is his incredible and vivid descriptions. But what I've noticed, is that a lot of his descriptions are actually quite vague.

: Yes, some passages are quite detailed (and of incredible beauty). But they are usually descriptions of landscapes, or of someone's feelings, etc.

: It should go without saying that in any visualization choices about certain things must be made. But in Tolkien, much more is at stake in our individual interpretations, because he leaves what is usually considered basic and necessary up to our own imaginations.

: It amazes me that such basic things as the appearance of the main characters offers so much debate. Legolas's hair is probably the best known example. But can anyone recall a truly vivid description of Aragorn? Or Frodo?

: For instance, Aragorn is tall, but does that mean tall in an absolute sense (like close to 6-1/2 or seven feet)? Or does it just mean tall compared to your average run of the mill Briton (say a bit over 6 feet)? He has dark hair which is flecked with grey, but does dark mean jet black? Or kind of black? Or brown? Tolkien says several times that he's kind of scruffy looking, but cleans up nicely. But does that mean he gets beard stubble? Or does his face just get a kind of rascally look, which he can discard at will? And in any case, good looking can mean so many different things, that it is really no help at all as an objective guide.

: Does any other author manage to write well over a thousand pages, and fail to give us a clear picture of the protagonists?

: I know this all has been discussed before, but the extent to which I'm finding a lack of real, physical descriptions of people is jarring me. I've found that in my attempt to visualize LOTR, I've been forced to make decisions. (And this is finally my point... sorry it took so long to get here.)

: It's a conscious process, this making decisions. Where the narration leaves off, or only hints at the feelings of the characters involved, the director of a movie version or the ordinary reader trying to *see* the narration must simply choose. This is obviously the case in anything of this type, simply because words cannot convey every detail down to the last spec of dust. (Well, they probably can, but it would be a dull read.)

: A good example is the battle of Helm's Deep. Ever since my first read, I've tried to visualize how exactly Helm's Deep looks, with the Deeping Coombe, the outer wall, the outer court, the citadel, the main gate and the causeway leading to it, the stream, and that damn postern door (I had never understood that litle thing). And I've been less than successful at it. My problem was that I was always looking for the details in the text, thinking that I just wasn't understanding something.

: This time however, I just started making decisions. "OK. This is how it's set up, this is where Aragorn runs at this point, this is where and how the orcs sneak in, and this is how the postern door is situated." And it worked! I was amazed. If Peter Jackon has any imagination whatsoever (and I'd say he does), this movie cannot help but be amazing. When I read of the final melee of the Battle of the Hornburg, when at dawn the king's companies ride from the citadel, when the men pour out of the caves driving back the orcs like water, when Erkenbrand's men appear over the hills with Gandalf at their head, and when the forest of Fangorn appears where before there war an open valley, all I can say is watch out! I got shivers all over, seeing this in my head. Hopefully we all will come summer 2001.

: Dave C-Q

I agree, Dave. I think that part of the genius of Tolkien's work is that he leaves alot to the amagination. Two people can visualise the same scene in totally different ways and have completely different concepts of the imagery, etc. This is what makes LOTR and others such a great work of art.

On the other hand, though, this may be the thing that hampers a movie. Peter Jackson may see a scene differently to how you or me see it and we may be a little disapointed because it didn't seem right to us. The point I'm trying to make is that Jackson is going to have a hard time visualising and creating all the scenes and if it does not come out the way we expect it to, we must also try not to be over-critical.