Dear Mr. Jackson,
I am a great fan of the Lord of the Rings, and particularly of your recent film trilogy. It is an impossibly difficult task to bring such a lengthy, diverse and much-loved book to the screen, but you have managed so to do, making the story accessible to those who have not read the books, without alienating those of us who have read it (and the related books) several times. I am particularly impressed by your use of the DVD releases, and have spent many enjoyable hours both watching the extended versions of the films and listening to the commentaries, which have added an extra dimension to my enjoyment.
One of the things that I like most about the Lord of the Rings is the richness of the story and the depth of history behind many seemingly small details. For this reason I have found the discussions between Fran, Philippa and yourself on the DVDs to be particularly fascinating. From my perspective they are often an extension of the kinds of thoughts that I sometimes have about the story, such as the discussion about why the eagles weren't used just to drop the ring into the fire on Mount Doom, or why the army of the dead were released by Aragorn. There are of course a teeming multitude of such discussion points, which is a significant attraction of the story. Of these, there are two that I would draw to your attention: the death of the Witch-King and the abandoned idea of Aragorn battling Sauron.
As you are aware, the death of the Witch-King is a favourite part of the book for many people. In some ways, it is a more satisfactory version of the "No man may kill me" line from MacBeth; in others, it is one of those classic vignettes which bring various elements of the book together. In my opinion, the film version is somewhat unsatisfying, as it leaves a lot unexplained, and has perhaps missed some dramatic opportunities (although I recognise that there is lots happening at this point in the film, and not everything can be explained). Clearly it was not known to anyone (presumably not even to the Witch-King himself) that he was vulnerable to women and hobbits --- surely, had this been widely known, we would have had an army of women and hobbits march on Minas Morgul to rid Middle-Earth of the Nazgul once and for all. In the book, of course, Eowyn's blow has no effect at all, for the Witch-King is dead before she strikes, and his death is due entirely due to the blade that Merry carries (which, as I am sure you are aware, came from the weapons guarded by the barrow-wights in the Old Forest, from whom the hobbits were rescued by Tom Bombadil). I understand why the escapade in the Old Forest on the way to Bree was not included in the first film; however, finding an alternative source for this special blade would have significantly improved this scene for me. Perhaps the most obvious such source would be for the blade to be the gift of Galadriel to Merry, which could have been used, in a flashback, as a means of connecting Galadriel to the story, just as is done with Frodo and the glass of Earendil. If my memory serves me correctly, I think there is a reference, deep in one of the appendices or some similar passages, about how the Witch-King himself placed the knife in the care of the barrow-wights, thus perhaps creating the legend that as the only weapons which would be effective against him were now out of the reach of all mortals, then no man could harm him. Recall also that the Witch-King was once the king of Angmar in the North, and he was the captain of the army which destroyed the northern kingdom, and was driven out of it shortly afterwards by a force which included both elves from Rivendell and men sent from Gondor. All this history makes the confrontation on Weathertop all the more remarkable; the Witch-King attacking one hobbit, unaware that another who will eventually kill him is cowering nearby, and presumably also unaware that the heir to the long-destroyed kingdom is the man who attacks them after Frodo is stabbed. For that matter, the confrontation at the ford near Rivendell with Arwen becomes more significant as well, as Arwen has here taken the place of Glorfindel in the book, and Glorfindel was also present at the battle that drove the Witch-King out of the North (and in fact is the one who pronounces that "not by the hand of man will he fall"). Just to get totally carried away with this idea, when Merry offers his sword to Theoden, it is an opportunity for Theoden to remark on the unusual blade, and for Merry to briefly explain its origin (and perhaps pontificate on what damage could be done by it). A final note on this point is that the Witch-King's history in the North gives Aragorn a special reason to despise the Witch-King, and for the Witch-King to despise men of Numenor. Perhaps Aragorn, also seeing the ghoulish light emanage from Minas Morgul, should be the one to narrate the powers of the Witch-King, and inform Legolas and Gimli of the legend about him?
When I heard the discussion about the possibility of Aragorn battling Sauron, I found myself both fascinated and horrified (the latter being the classic purist reaction, I guess). The explanation given on the DVD, as I recall, was that it was abandoned because the first film opened with Sauron battling Elendil and Isildur, and hence to repeat the dose with Aragorn was to appear uninspired and unoriginal. My fascination comes from the fact that in a sense, this repetition of history is a fundamental aspect of the story. At the end of both the Second Age and the Third Age, the heirs of Numenor confront Sauron in battle in Mordor. Thousands of years have passed betwen the two, of course, so there have to be some differences, but the grand sweep looks the same (in fact, as the only one known to the film audience to be present at the earlier battle, might not Elrond have accompanied Aragorn?) One can also see parallels between Elrond imploring Isildur to destroy the ring, and Isildur keeping it for himself, and Sam imploring Frodo to destroy the ring, and Frodo keeping it for himself. Both times, Sauron is defeated; the crucial difference is Gollum, in that, in part due to Bilbo's and Frodo's pity for him, he is present at the end to thwart Frodo's claim to the ring, and by a glorious accident, causes the ring to be destroyed. This contrast, of course, serves to emphasise how friendship and mercy can achieve things that strength of arms cannot. Sauron has been a disembodied flame all through the films, and so to have him appear in armour at the climax would seem incongruous (indeed, a minor sub-theme of interest to me in the books is the way that Sauron physically degrades as the ring grows in importance. After the fall of Numenor, he can no longer take on a form "comely to men", and after the ring is cut from his hand, he cannot take bodily form at all). In a sense, it would be perhaps more satisfying for Gandalf and Sauron to confront each other, and for Aragorn to confront the Witch-King (rather than vice-versa, as it would have been in the planned version of the film). However, that would probably be stretching the story too far, as Aragorn and the Witch-King are never in the same place apart from the confrontation on Weathertop. There is some appeal, though, in Aragorn kicking the empty helmet of the Witch-King after Eowyn is discovered. There is also some appeal in the idea that Eowyn saves Aragorn from the Witch-King. This would be on the Pelennor Fields, of course. Assuming that Aragorn and his army arrive earlier than depicted in the film, the Witch-King flies up from Minas Tirith, sees the two new armies attacking, and determines to attack the two leaders (Theoden and Aragorn). Having despatched Theoden by throwing him and his horse, he lands to make sure he is dead, and is about to fly off to attack Aragorn when Eowyn intervenes, and cuts off the beast's head. This would also add some poignancy to the later scene in the extended version when Aragorn unwittingly saves Eowyn from Gothmog.
Anyway, as you can see, I think you can measure your success in the adaptation of the book to the screen by the way that you have kept to the spirit whilst changing or omitting some details, and engaging those of us who know many of the minor details in the process.
Yours sincerely,
James Harland
PS One minor anomaly that my (then) nine-year-old son pointed out in The Fellowship of the Ring': when Gandalf is imprisoned on the top of Orthanc, Saruman has taken Gandalf's staff. When Gandalf escapes, he does not have his staff, but it is there with him when see him in Rivendell. How did he get it back?