Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

VanSandman posted:

For those who don't know, Feanor, the creator of the Silmarils which are then stolen by Morgoth, vows to seek vengeance without the help of the gods. Most of his fellow tribesmen follow suit, including the youngest to make the vow, Galadriel.

Feanor's seven sons are the ones who make the vow, but Galadriel is the daughter of Finarfin. Finarfin's kin neither make the vow nor participate in the kinslaying of the Teleri, and therefore are the only line of the three kindreds to be allowed into Doriath by Melian and Thingol.

Also Feanor kind of hated them and left them behind when he crossed the Helcarax� in the stolen ships- Finarfin's people were the ones who had to walk to Middle Earth.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2013 20:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:39

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

xcheopis posted:

Not at all. Cirdan is definitely older and Celeborn likely is as well. Probably quite a few of the Telari and Avari are older, actually and possibly some of the few remaining Noldor, e.g., Glorfindal.

Would Glorfindel count? He did die, after all, fighting the Balrog in Gondolin. Wikipedia says he was sent back to Middle Earth by the Valar in the Second Age, so would you count his age from then or whenever he was actually born?

# ¿ Feb 19, 2013 01:13

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

The wikipedia article on Glorfindel is actually really interesting. I'd give it a look as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorfindel

# ¿ Feb 19, 2013 02:22

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Oh my god, that art is incredible.

In return I give you What Middle-Earth would look like from space.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 02:26

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Seconding the recommendation to read the Unfinished Tales if any of you haven't yet. It's full of really great background information (like the stuff about Saruman) but also is a great insight into the way the history of Middle-Earth changed during Tolkien's lifetime. I know that's technically what the Lost Tales is more supposed to do, but the Middle-Earth in Unfinished Tales is far more recognizable as the same world from LotR than the more primitive versions in the Lost Tales. It's still pretty jarring (in an interesting way!) to read about how something you thought was "fact" was actually completely different in Tolkien's mind, since he altered a lot of things even after LotR was published. Even little things, like how Amroth of the Amroth and Nimrodel story was at one point supposed to be Galadriel's son.

Also, goddamn, Aul� must have had some poo poo taste in people to have had both Sauron and Saruman as his household Maiar.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 06:55

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

NikkolasKing posted:

I think Tolkien is trying to draw some sort of theme with creativity and genius leading to pride, arrogance and impatience.

quote:

Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and Machine. With Fall inevitably, and that motive occurs in several modes. With Mortality, especially as it affects art and the creative (or should I say, sub-creative) desire which seems to have no biological function, and to be apart from the satisfactions of plain ordinary biological life, with which, in our world, it is indeed usually at strife. This desire is at once wedded to a passionate love of the real primary world, and hence filled with the the sense of mortality, and yet unsatisfied by it. It has various opportunities of "Fall". It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as "its own", the sub-creator wishes to be Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel against the laws of the Creator- especially against mortality. Both of these (alone or together) will lead to the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly effective,- and so, to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of developments of the inherent inner powers of talents- or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills.

From a letter by Tolkien to Milton Waldman, 1951 (it's included in my copy of the Simarillion)

Though I do think that his saying that Saruman's fall is just because of his incarnation contradicts other things Tolkien had said on the same subject. In the Unfinished Tales, Saruman is described as being jealous of Gandalf even in Valinor when they are originally chosen to go as messengers to Middle-Earth. I'm sure the incarnation helped his Fall, but it seems like the desire for primacy was already present even when he was in Valinor.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 21:10

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

TildeATH posted:

I think that Tolkien is implying that someone like that (and the radical bit is even someone like Aragorn) would actually destroy Sauron. otherwise, why march out to attack him at the end of RotK? At least, that's how he acts. Sauron's goal is personal power, he doesn't give a whit if the world is ruled by a Sauron-like person that isn't himself.

Aragon and the free peoples don't attack Sauron to destroy him. They know that's impossible without also destroying the Ring- the attack at the end of RotK is just an attempt to draw Sauron's attention away from Mordor to give Frodo a chance to accomplish his mission without being discovered first.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2014 14:25

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

I think we're saying the same thing. Both Aragorn and Sauron know that Sauron can't be destroyed without also destroying the Ring. Aragorn et al. know that without the Ring their attack won't seriously harm Sauron. Sauron knows that with the Ring (as he thinks), Aragorn can diminish him, the same way he was diminished after having the Ring taken by Isildur.

The first poster was saying that the attack at the end of RotK proved that Tolkien meant that Aragorn/another Ringbearer would destroy Sauron, but I don't think either Aragon's attack nor Sauron's reaction prove anything other than that Sauron could be diminished with the Ring.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2014 16:45

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Isn't Galadriel the only person surviving from the Noldor's exile? I don't even think Cirdan is that old, is he?

Also I think in the Simarillion there is actually an attempt to distance Galadriel from Feanor's guilt specifically. It's explicitly noted that she doesn't take the Oath, but only goes to Middle-Earth out of her desire to rule a place of her own. She has her own kind of corrupt desires separate from Feanor's kind.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 00:59

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Found a letter of Tolkien's that deals with this subject:

From a Letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (draft), September 1963 posted:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him � being an emissary of the Powers
and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of
Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and
supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.
But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with
imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen
in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous
thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now
adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient
generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by
force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine
the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On
one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron
was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and
expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been
for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken
from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the
master in the end.
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained
'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the
benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great)

Unfortunately that seems to be the end of the letter, so Gandalf-as-Ring-Lord isn't expanded upon further.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 11:04

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

That reminds me of the first part of the letter I quoted earlier, where Tolkien directly addresses Frodo's failure to destroy the Ring at the end:

quote:

Frodo indeed 'failed' as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he
gave in, ratted. I do not say 'simple minds' with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple
truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their
weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time,
in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that
we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present
in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect
knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of 'morality'. To ourselves we must present
the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength
(+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could
achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a
scale tempered by 'mercy': that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in
judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against
the force of particular circumstances.�
I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring
would reach its maximum � impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long
possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he
could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation
in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his
sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy
towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.
...
Frodo undertook his quest out of love � to save the world he knew from disaster at his own
expense, if he could; and also in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate
to the task. His real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on
the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did that. I do not myself see that the breaking
of his mind and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than the
breaking of his body would have been � say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by a falling
rock

Source is The Letters of JRR Tolkien edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien.

Radio! fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Mar 26, 2014

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 00:30

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

I actually ran into this same question once with another ebook in old GBS. The mod told me since the book was readily findable on google it wasn't a problem to link. If Hieronymous Alloy feels otherwise though I'll take it down.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 01:23

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Gianthogweed posted:

Yeah, but he usually prefaces it by saying something "until the end of the world" "never again on this world" implying that after the end of the world things get reset, for the immortals at least. No one knows what happens to mortals. Men apparently will have a place in the next music of the Ainur.

This got me thinking, did Tolkien ever address what happens to orcs after death or is it one of those things he sort of hand-waved away? If you look at it from the perspective of orcs being corrupted elves I could see an argument for their just going to the Hall of Mandos they would have had they not been corrupted, except that there's still the weird disconnect with elves being immortal and orcs being mortal (presumably?).

# ¿ Mar 27, 2014 06:22

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien explicitly says somewhere that Hobbits count as the race of Men, but how they came to be is one of those no one knows things.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2014 14:09

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

They've all moved to the Shire movie set in NZ and no one even suspects.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2014 18:23

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

euphronius posted:

Saruman's Orcs are Half-elven. So each chooses to be mortal or immortal.

The choice of fates isn't inherent to Half-Elves, just to descendants of Earendil.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2014 22:18

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Levitate posted:

To some extent probably...the major characters are all men, women play a secondary role in everything even if they are given more attention than just "sit there and look pretty".

I feel like his women characters are generally done alright but like I said none of them are really major players, even in the Silmarillion more of the notables are men. I guess it'd be more interesting and accurate to have a woman's opinion on it.

I'm a lady and in general happy with Tolkien's presentation of women. Yeah, there's aren't very many, but like others have said, the ones that are there are usually not only important but also completely under their own agency. Galadriel and Melian are both undisputed rulers above their husbands, Haleth is not only a warrior but the leader and namesake of an entire people, Eowyn is the obvious example of a woman taking charge of her own life and decisions and proving herself not only equal but even more capable than men, even Nienor is brave enough to defy her mother's orders and disguise herself as a man to take care of her family.

Actually my biggest complaint about Tolkien's women is Luthien. She's immensely powerful, willing to make her own decisions and stand by them no matter what, and even takes back a Silmaril from Melkor almost by herself (yeah, Beren was there but he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without her). Yet despite all that what she's most remembered for is being beautiful. "You can be strong and beautiful" is a good message, but I can't help but feel that Luthien gets shorted in being primarily remembered just for being beautiful instead of a hero.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2014 00:31

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

True. It would have been better to say undisputedly more powerful.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2014 01:13

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

I think it sort of depends whether you believe Aragorn's view when he points out that Eowyn doesn't really love him, she loves the idea of him and the freedom he has. She doesn't fall for him as a person, she falls for the idea that being with him would be a way out from a suffocating situation. It's a little more complicated that just being motivated by romantic love, though it's still male-centric in that males embody the freedom she actually desires.

I agree with you about the Faramir thing, though, as much as I love them as a couple because they are my two favorite characters.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2014 01:51

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Oh man, that's really interesting. I never really thought about their work in Ithilien being analogous to Galadriel and Lothlorien but I guess it's pretty obvious thematically.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2014 04:32

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Have you tried just telling him you didn't like it.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2014 03:44

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

The first few times I tried to read Fellowship I definitely hated the first chapters and it put me off finishing but nowadays I really enjoy them. It feels sort of homey, I guess? Like once you've been through the whole story already the time you spend in the Shire when you read it again is a nice comfortable settling down to what you know is going to be a sweeping adventure full of dark times, so you appreciate the cozy Shire parts more. Just like Frodo :haw:

# ¿ Dec 12, 2014 20:31

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

What always surprises me is how young the other hobbits are. Pippin wasn't even an adult yet, but even Sam and Merry were only like 36, which is barely adults.

The hobbits: one weird middle aged dude and a bunch of teenagers.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 17:46

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Speaking of weird questions, what do you guys think of the theory that Sam might not be white? He's described as having "nut-brown" skin in RotK (and probably elsewhere but I only remember that one), and Tolkien said that the Harfoots, which common consensus seems to think Sam is, had browner skin that other types of hobbits.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 21:17

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Yeah, I know it's more than likely just a class thing but it also sounds like the Harfoots are naturally darker regardless of occupation (and Fallohides naturally paler).

# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 21:31

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Re: Sam being not white, I think whoever pointed out the American/English divide is right. As an American, race and class are so strongly tied historically that describing Sam as being brown skinned immediately reads as a different race to me. I'm sure English readers fall more strongly on the tanned white laborer side just due to their perception of class relationships in general/in the time Tolkien was writing. I'd be curious to see what perception of Sam a reader from a non majority white country has.

Unrelatedly, can the Eagles fly across the sea or are they stuck in middle earth? Their noninvolvement in most of the war of the ring might make more sense if they could just peace out if Sauron won.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2014 19:35

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Isn't there a mention somewhere of other fireworks though (maybe Dale-made?) that aren't as good as Gandalf's? Not to say that his aren't the best because of Narya, but it would imply that gunpowder is a general thing that exists.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2014 00:39

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Yeah there's an inland sea and a bunch of rivers in south east Mordor, so presumably there was opportunity for food and trading there. Also considering the general reputation orc food had I wouldn't be surprised if they did eat slaves/prisoners.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2015 00:27

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Ynglaur posted:

After reading The Silmarillion, you start to realize what a family affair the whole War of the Ring was. Sauron killed Galadriel's brother while he was a prisoner, for example. Her father was slain by Sauron's master, Morgoth. Sauron later destroyed Hollin, which Galadriel had established in pale memory of Doriath after Beleriand sank into the ocean. Lothlorien was kind of "take 3" for Galadriel.

Galadriel is also the heir to the high kingship of the Noldor. She could have been High Queen, but apparently preferred--or was bound to--patriarchy. Celeborn was only her consort. That means Galadriel's male heir would be the next in line for the Noldorian High Kingship. She had one daughter, who married Elrond. Good so far. Now things get a little confusing: Arwen had two brothers, but it's unclear to me if she was older than them. If she was older, then the High Kingship should, I think, go to Arwen's oldest male heir, who unfortunately is a Man.

Writing this, I now wonder: should one of Elrond's sons been High King of the Noldor?

Elladan and Elrohir are about a century older than Arwen, but iirc isn't it sort of unclear whether they choose to go West with Elrond or not?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2015 00:56

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Pippin pretty much asks the same question about Saruman's magic in Two Towers right before they go to talk to him.

quote:

'What's the danger?' asked Pippin. 'Will he shoot at us, and pour fire out of the windows; or can he put a spell on us from a distance?'
'The last is most likely, if you ride to his door with a light heart,' said Gandalf. 'But there is no knowing what he can do, or may choose to try. A wild beast cornered is not safe to approach. And Saruman has powers you do not guess. Beware of his voice!'

And a little before that, Aragorn and Pippin are talking specifically about Saruman's voice:

quote:

'No,' said Aragorn. 'Once he was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvellously skilled; and he had a power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps. There are not many in Middle-earth that I should say were safe, if they were left alone to talk with him, even now when he has suffered a defeat. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, perhaps, now that his wickedness has been laid bare, but very few others.'
'The Ents are safe,' said Pippin. 'He seems at one time to have got round them, but never again. And anyway he did not understand them; and he made the great mistake of leaving them out of his calculations. He had no plan for them, and there was no time to make any, once they had set to work. ...'

# ¿ Jan 11, 2015 20:13

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Nessus posted:

Saruman, Gandalf, AND RADAGAST...

I think the two blue wizards went into the distant east and did... something outside of the scope of the LOTR narrative. One theory is that they failed and became mystery cult lords, like Saruman became a mechanization maniac, who later left the seeds of future religions, or else that they kept Sauron from accumulating vast armies in at least that area.

I read something once about the consideration on whether all the other wizards "fell" like Saruman or just "failed." Radagast got discussed; if he did 'fall' it was probably less bad than Saruman since he just got distracted/high rather than actively turning to evil.

I think we discussed earlier in the thread at some point that Radagast technically failed, but didn't fall. He didn't fall victim to pride like Saruman did, but he definitely failed in the sense that he got distracted by the living things of Middle-earth and put all his energies into that instead of opposing Sauron like he was sent to.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2015 00:44

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Sauron immediately knows where Frodo is when he puts the ring on in Mount Doom because Frodo claims the ring then. I guess Sauron and the ring are so interconnected that as soon as someone else claims the ring's power, he's instantly aware of it/its location. When Sam wore the ring, he wasn't claiming it, and wasn't technically within the borders of Mordor yet, which apparently made it more difficult for Sauron to sense the ring's location as well.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2015 02:36

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Yeah but is Frodo really the main character the way Bilbo is or is it actually Sam?

I think probably most of the people in this thread would say it's Sam because he's the better audience analog. Sam tags along on this epic, incredible adventure the same way the reader tags along with the story. He doesn't become a king, or even a knight, and he's not magic, he's just a regular dude like the people reading the books (and like Bilbo was). Sam's reactions to the world and events are way easier to relate to as a reader- he's just wants to see some Elves, he's not already familiar with the world the way even Frodo is. The parts of the books where the reader would be really rooting for Frodo to get up and continue on his journey, Sam's doing the exact same thing and making it happen.

Radio! fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 21, 2015

# ¿ Jan 21, 2015 01:54

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Someone in the comments pointed out that Ar-Pharazon had a pretty metal death as well: sailed to war against the Valar but stopped when God himself stepped in and reshaped the whole loving world, burying Ar-Pharazon and his army under the earth until the Last Battle.

:black101:

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 16:26

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Lotro has a lot of cool details and things to look at/explore if you are a big nerd. There's no endgame or raiding and the servers are pretty dead but it's overall neat and you will probably enjoy at least looking at stuff even if you don't end up liking it enough to play. Playing it also really solidified my knowledge of Middle Earth geography but that's like a weird bonus.

Plus there's a whole series of quests where you turn into a chicken and have to run, defenseless, across Middle Earth to talk to other animals about all the weird poo poo going down in the Shire.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2015 02:46

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

webmeister posted:

Would happily cut someone's hand off for this

I dunno about a whole hand. Maybe a finger or two.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 03:08

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

28/30, Imin hosed me up too, that bastard.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2016 05:54

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

euphronius posted:

Turin Turambar is way too depressing for anything that would be filmed today. Same for Beren and Lutien. It's over.

Considering how well GoT does with crazy unlikable characters, incest, and everyone dying, I think Turin could actually go over pretty well.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2016 03:41

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

Data Graham posted:

Sometimes I wonder whether it might have been better to leave well enough alone, and relegate the movies forever to the world of the "unfilmable".

As someone who got into the books because of the movies, I have to disagree. LotR are my favorite books of all time, and I only have that because 11-year-old-me loved the movies so much I became determined to power through the first ~100 pages of the Fellowship no matter how boring it was (ironically I love that section now).

I think you have to look at it like any adaptation or reboot of a thing you love- a new take on a thing doesn't diminish the value or meaning of the original thing. It's the same way female Ghostbusters don't actually ruin anyone's childhood. You can enjoy both in different ways.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 04:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:39

Radio!: Mar 15, 2008; Look at that post.

euphronius posted:

It wasn't meant for men. So it's kid of wierd to say no men returned. Elves and Maiar came back and forth.

It wasn't meant for men but a few Numenoreans managed to set foot during Ar-Pharazon's invasion and got wrecked. Plus, you know, Earendil.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 00:17

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Tolkien's Middle-Earth: He was just Beorn this way

«‹›3 »