Ask anything. If I can't answer it then Malacandra will step in an answer it. (Or anyone else that wants to.)
I don't know it all or as much as QtM, but I know way too much or where to find it.
Printable View
Ask anything. If I can't answer it then Malacandra will step in an answer it. (Or anyone else that wants to.)
I don't know it all or as much as QtM, but I know way too much or where to find it.
All right, fine. I'll ask.
Why Tolkein?
I'm not dissing you, believe me. SMBFATF*. I'm a fanboy, I can dig it. But I've read the books both as a teenager and an adult, and while they're all right, I don't share the experience of fascination and delight that many seem to get from them. What is it that speaks to you, draws you to these books? What do they mean to you, and in your life? What sparks the fire they light under you? This might be a bit personal for Cafe Guggenheim, so consider it a general inquiry as well: what patterns do you see in how your fellow Tolkein fans react to the stories?
*Some of My Best Friends Are Tolkein Fiends.
I've read very little of the tons of stuff that's come out sinceThe Silmarillion How much of it is worth reading, and how much of it can be confidently identified as the father's work and not Christopher's?
Damn board ate my post, be careful of that save button.Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Edison
I think this is a good question.
When I first read the books in 6th grade it sparked my love of reading. I found the books were exciting and great in scope but more than that the books had a level of detail I had never seen before and still haven't seen since. Tolkien created a world with fully realized races, languages, runes and scripts, meticulous maps and history. Every piece fits together. He described flowers and stone cities in a way rarely seen.
I loved the emotional changes that he succeeded with. The horror of the attack of the Ring Wraiths at Weathertop, the heroic high of Aragorn and Éomer holding Helms Deep, the feeling of loss at Gandalf's fall, the depression of trudging across Mordor and the thrill of the march of the Ents. The hero of the book was not a wizard or great swordsman but rather a small unsure but brave Hobbit. This hero overcame great odds and yet failed in the end. His mission was only saved as he showed mercy where few others would have.
I love the way everything fit together, I love the way the Hobbits and others fit into the framework of history. I love the way it felt like our own past somehow. The story was completely logical within its own framework and yet still had room for an enigma like Tom Bombadil.
The tragedy of the Elves in the Simarillion and the Lord of the Rings, the changing of Gimli the Dwarf in the Lord of the Rings show details I don’t recall in any other fantasy.
The books just ring true to me and speak to my soul and I never tire of them. I find fans are happy to discuss the books from the obscure to the grand.
If you enjoyed the Silmarillion, then Unfinished Tales is well worth reading but the 12 volume history is only for fanatics and scholars.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
The recently released The Children of Húrin is quite good. One of my oldest friends is a light reader and he did not really enjoy the Silmarillion but he did love The Children of Húrin.
Thanks for that great answer, What Exit. I can definitely relate to that feeling of passion for a work. Actually, I think you've helped me figure it out. I don't get the same reaction because it sounds like fundamentally what's great about Tolkein is that, if you love fantasy, he created some of the greatest examples of it there are. I have loved some fantasy novels and stories, but just don't find myself responding the genre on that deep level, so that's probably why.
Like anything, what makes it great to many either won't appeal to some or will actually be the reason someone does not like it.Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Edison
I know people who don't like the books for any of the following reasons:
They just don't like Fantasy.
The poetry/songs annoy them.
The languages and odd names don't work for them.
Tolkien spends too much time on descriptions.
The opening of the Silmarillion is far too boring or confusing.
The Hobbit is too much like a fairytale.
The lack of strong female characters or generally the lack of females.
They had to read it in High School and they don't feel like giving it another try.
etc.
This is an apt thread. I am quite active on a website nominally devoted to JRRT, LOTR specifically. The site is an offshoot of TORC. But I hardly ever posted about Tolkien at TORC, I stayed in the political discussion forum. I believe the LOTR threads at TORC are still there, still active, etc., but I never enter them. I'm pretty well talked out about LOTR and JRRT, etc., not that I don't enjoy discussing them at times. But the white hot fury and intensity of the Purist vs Revisionist days are long gone. I still love the book, still read it a couple of times a year, but the movies . . . . well, we won't go there just yet. Still, I am eternally grateful to that PJ person because without him I would never have begun any internet activity at all beyond paying the electric bill.
Our "daughter site" was begun rather as this site was begun, only the disgruntlement began over some unfair bannings that took place when one of TORC's founders got very drunk and went on a rampage. That's the story I heard. I, and a few others, were so cheezed off by it all that we joined the bannees at the new joint. Well, the first new joint. There were further ructions and a half-sister came along and it turned out to be the one I love best.
I found The Dope a year or so ago, and I really liked some of the posters, their wit, their unabashed cussing when appropriate, the level of discourse, etc. I didn't post there a lot, though. Intimidated, partly. That would make my older internet friends laff their guts out, as I am not generally intimidated. On The Dope I got crushed by a nasty man in the first week of my posting and it stung, so I hung back and am still diffident.
Odd, I don't feel diffident here. :mrgreen:
I don't think I have anything new to say on the subject of LOTR, though. A friend of mine has written a book entitled "Arda Reconstructed", he is sending me a copy (signed by the author!!!") and after I've read it, I might know new stuff, or be prompted to make new observations. Anyone who really wants to know how much of the other writing is JRRT and how much was "created" by Christopher Tolkien would probably find my friend's book worth reading. It's available at Amazon. "Arda Reconstructed" by Douglas Kane.
LOTR is one of my favourite books. But I also found, somewhat to my dismay, that it was possible to overdo the discussion, at least for me. It began to feel as though the bloom was coming off the rose, if you know what I mean. I am not a literary critic, don't have a degree in literature, I am just a common reader who loves a great book. While I admire my friend's vast learning and scholarship, it doesn't add anything to the pleasure of the books, as far as I'm concerned.
To return to PJ and the movies. As I said, joining online discussions about LOTR got me hooked on the internet. It was fun, and at the time it all began, in late 1999 (for me), I was at a very bad place in my life. I would have had a very much worse time with things if I hadn't had that old original Decipher/New Line Offical Fan Club to take me away from things. I began writing Fanfic. Yes, I blush to admit it. :oops: I wrote REAMS of the stuff. 2 long novels' worth, in fact. Some of it was awfully good and much admired (no slash, no Mary Sue). Writing it showed me I could write something long, maintain the narrative, create characters, manage plots, etc., and while I gave up writing fanfic a long time ago, I sure as hell did not give up writing. I was always a "writer" but now I'm a Writer, if you follow me.
I will watch this thread with interest and join in when the spirit moves me. Thanks for the invite, all.
Ok, here's a question I stumbled onto last night, as I was channel surfing. LOTR was on some cable channel and it was the scene where Elrond is showing Arwen her future, IF she stays behind for Aragorn. He quotes that loveliest of passages re Aragorn: the one about the death of kings unto the breaking of the age* etc. Pure, Tolkien; excellent poetic phrasing, almost Biblical in its lyricism. And it suddenly occurred to me: WTH does happen to Arwen, in the end? She has her son for comfort, and then probably his offspring and theirs and their and theirs, etc, but I find it almost impossible to believe that she never gets to the Grey Havens, EVER. Is she still wandering around ME, like some possessed spirit? Whatever happens to Arwen?
*why, no, I can't be arsed to go look it up. I'm sure someone will get the quote correct and post it here for me. I'm lazy like that...
Arwen died (of grief), a year after Aragorn, at the tragically young age of 2901.
Quote:
Originally posted by fachverwirrt
No way. :o She didn't get to see her kids grown? Oh, wait--Aragorn had unnaturally long life, too, so they probably saw their grandkids die off, right? Once she died, did she go to GH? Or is that for living things? And when does Legolas finally go to GH? I think he wanders around ME with Gimli for a while, no?
Her kids were all grown and Eldarion was of a ripe age to assume the Crown. So Arwen got to see all of her kids grow up and possible some grand kids. She passed away in Lothlorien tended by her daughters (IRC). From there she would have briefly went to the Halls of Mandos and then on to the unknown away from the world where all humans went.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Legolas left in the year 120 and it is said Gimli went with him.
They were married for 120 years or so. Eldarion (their son) was about 100 when she died.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Not strictly "of grief", either. As a descendant of Elrond, Arwen could choose the fate of either Elves or Men, and appears to have been given every latitude to make that call as late as she liked, in this case when she got married. And as such she was given the Numenorean gift of being allowed to say "OK, time to die. Come and get me," and pass from health and strength into peaceful death without an intervening period of senility.
She had the assurance (though it would doubtless have called for a step in faith) that, as Aragorn said to her on his deathbed, that they were "not bound forever to the circles of the world; and beyond them is more than memory".
It's funny but when I read the books long before the movies came out I had always pictured Arwen (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) starting to age naturally as soon as she chose mortality.
It never occured to me that, as depicted in the movies, she would continue to appear to be the same age while Aragorn aged, albeit more slowly than lesser men.
I have a really obscure nit-picky Tolkein question of my own but it will have to wait until I get home tonight so I can refer to the books.
The movie basically got it right in this part. Aragorn and Arwen did not appear to age much. Maybe a bit careworn and Aragorn was weary but they had the gift of living long and healthy and mature without much aging and choosing their time of death.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
:ugeek: I am looking forward to your question.
Don't worry, it isn't THAT hard. :)
Just a line of dialogue in The Two Towers that has never made much sense to me and I have always wondered if it was a mistake that was missed in editing or something.
(I have to say I like this new board except for the smileys, the ones at The Other Place are superior. This place will move ahead though if Smashie comes home.)
:mrgreen:
I like Smileys. ;) It is a little known fact that many Dwarf runes were, in fact, Smileys. :shock: If you examine Durin's famous doors to Moria? You will see smileys everywhere. :o Tolkien knew that some geeky people would pick up on it so he never put it into actual English or Elven words, but rather enjoyed his little joke. :lol:
When we come to the Silmarillion, of course, the thing is positively "infested" with Smileys, to use the terminology employed by Smiley-hating critics. But they are big fat poopyheads. :mrgreen:
Here's a question I asked on the SDMB, but still remain puzzled by. It's been a long time since I read the books.
What exactly does the ring do?
To make things a little more specific, let's say an alternate universe less wise Gandalf the grey decides "The heck with it. I'm taking the ring and will use it to help man, hobbit, and every other race." What sort of things could he do that he couldn't before.
The ring had both specific powers and worked as a power magnifier.Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Borgia
Specific powers we know of:
1) Invisibility but placing wearer partial in the wraith realm.
2) Controlling and eavesdropping on the wearer of the other Rings. Working best on the 9 and least on the 7 as the Dwarves were too ornery to control.
3) Extended or more accurately the stretching of life.
4) Extended senses
5) Work to preserve Sauron life force in cases of death.
6) Grew stronger the closer to Mt. Doom it gets.
7) Sauron's invested the Ring with a significant portion of his life force and thus it have an evil influence on those that would use it.
8) It had a power of command that even Frodo was eventually able to tap.
Which takes it to the what ifs:
Gandalf was a Maia or Angelic being of considerable power and great wisdom. His powers uncloaked were great. The Witch King was no match for Gandalf the White. With the Ring Gandalf the Grey was likely able to throw off is cloak as a mere Wizard and tap his full powers as a Maia. Gandalf had never expanded his native power like Sauron had so with the Ring he would probably have grown even greater than Sauron. The corrupting influence that Gandalf was well aware of would overcome him. (Beside absolute power corrupts absolutely would have come into play in this case.)
Going by letters and essays I have read this is the future of Middle-Earth with Gandalf as the ultimate dictator.
He would have defeated Sauron and Saruman and started out doing well. He would have built a large single nation though with all power deriving from him. It would be an example of an extremely law driven state and been ordered to the point of oppression beyond Sauron's petty evil. He might well have built a society that none could break with secret police and no secrets allowed. Tolkien made it clear that Gandalf would have been corrupted.
Specifically:
His power over fire would have been greater.
His ability to read minds (look into the souls of others) would have been great.
His ability of command would be absolute.
He would have been able to command Galadriel and Elrond.
We know he would have subdued Saruman with ease and probably made him a toady like Saruman did to Wormtounge.
He had some strong skills with Lightning and they would be greater.
Of course he would have gained control over the Nazguls.
BTW: Galadriel apparently would have ended up something like the Ice Queen of Narnia.
Thanks, What Exit. Follow up question: What if someone more ordinary got the ring? What benefits do they get? It didn't do a lot for Gollum.
What if Boromir had taken the ring? He had a certain authority already.
All my conjecture based on mulling these issues over before and my readings. QtM or others might cite specific parts where I am wrong. They of course will have difference guesses to some degree great or small.Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Borgia
The Ring varied by power and knowledge. Gollum never had much ambition or strength and he retreated away. Additionally Hobbits were very resistant to the worst aspects of the Ring natively. Samwise would not have likely grown to much power but there was an inner character to Frodo and strength of will where he may have grown some power, especially of command and insights.
Aragorn if given a chance would have grown fearsome in strength but never near the power of Sauron. He would probably have been able to control the Nazgul if he had enough time he already showed a propensity for commanding the Dead. He had a great strength of will and might have been able to survive long enough to gain mastery of it. Sauron would still be there to try to lead him to disaster.
Boromir would have taken the Ring to bring to Denethor. When it came time though he would have not given it up. He would have used the Ring to help him in Battle, fight the Nazguls and command his men and others. The Ring would try to make him foolhardy and lead him to taking silly risks in battle where he could have and would have been killed. If he survived long enough, he would have declared himself King and grown paranoid of those that would unseat him. Faramir would probably have to flee or end up dead. However the Ring would have brought him down. He did not have a great enough store of power and wisdom to control the Ring enough to defeat or subdue Sauron.
[quote=What Exit?]All my conjecture based on mulling these issues over before and my readings. QtM or others might cite specific parts where I am wrong. They of course will have difference guesses to some degree great or small.Quote:
Originally posted by "Larry Borgia":npjbdod7
The Ring varied by power and knowledge. Gollum never had much ambition or strength and he retreated away. Additionally Hobbits were very resistant to the worst aspects of the Ring natively. Samwise would not have likely grown to much power but there was an inner character to Frodo and strength of will where he may have grown some power, especially of command and insights.
Aragorn if given a chance would have grown fearsome in strength but never near the power of Sauron. He would probably have been able to control the Nazgul if he had enough time he already showed a propensity for commanding the Dead. He had a great strength of will and might have been able to survive long enough to gain mastery of it. Sauron would still be there to try to lead him to disaster.
Boromir would have taken the Ring to bring to Denethor. When it came time though he would have not given it up. He would have used the Ring to help him in Battle, fight the Nazguls and command his men and others. The Ring would try to make him foolhardy and lead him to taking silly risks in battle where he could have and would have been killed. If he survived long enough, he would have declared himself King and grown paranoid of those that would unseat him. Faramir would probably have to flee or end up dead. However the Ring would have brought him down. He did not have a great enough store of power and wisdom to control the Ring enough to defeat or subdue Sauron.[/quote:npjbdod7]
I think I'm missing something here Skald. What did you mean to post?
What Exit, I have a feeling I read something about this in Tolkien's letters, but I forget. How did he rationalize the Shire basically being Georgian England, with umbrellas, nice books and the like, while the rest of Middle Earth seemed to be perpetually in the Middle Ages?
Several factors, but he never went into too much detail. A minor part was that he actually mentioned Dwarves never adapting to matches, preferring tinderboxes. There were a few other things like that.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
The main reasons, from memory: The Shire was a protected area blessed by a long peace, extremely fertile land and a pleasantly mild climate and little government. They had a lot of free time and a reasonably large leisure class. They were extremely imitative of others and the Shire was an amalgamation of the best technologies thought of by the Dwarves, Elves, Old Dúnedain kingdoms of the North and the Hobbits own innovation. Everywhere else life was tough. In most cases very tough. Rohan wasn’t too bad, but they were in many ways a simpler more barbaric people then the Hobbits. 1600 years of peace will do wonders for a society. Rohan was warrior oriented and feudal. The Shire was basically a mercantile democracy.
Gondor could make books and the other stuff and did in some cases, but Gondor was a dying culture on a long decline with little trade left. The Dwarves made many marvelous things and the Hobbits were happy to buy them and trade food and goods for them or hard currency of gold and silver. The men of Dale and Erebor also appeared to have some creature comforts as they benefited from being a trading nation, but no where near as safe and secure as the Shire.
Victorian, I would say. Not Georgian.
But yes, The Shire is a 'hop out of kin' in Tolkien's world.
I wrestled with that, but the Victorian age was huge on railways and factories, and the Shire seemed free of those, at least until Sharky got to work.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
Point taken.
However, the Post Office struck me forcibly as being Victorian, and the pubs, etc.
A mixture, obviously, of the things Tolkien was nostalgic for.
There is one thing that I wondered recently. Do we know whether the Gaffer pays Master Baggins or the other way round? In other words, is he a tenant or an employee?
One would assume an employee, since he doesn't seem to be a farmer or pubkeeper.
It's been a source of unending amusement for me to be involved in discussions of Sam's relationship to Frodo. Manservant? Valet? Batman? Special chum?
It's hard for people nowadays to grasp the master/servant relationship, particularly in the USA.
But whatever Sam began as, he ended as a "gentlehobbit", being raised in status by his service to Frodo and Middle Earth in general, and his friendship with the King of the United Realms in particular.
I believe his descendants became "Gardener" rather than "Gamgee".
Hamfast was an employee and one of the poorer residents of the Hill, living in #3 Bagshot Row just below Bag End. He apprenticed first to Holman Greenhand for nearly 20 years and was the chief gardener for 40. BTW: Hamfast means Stay at Home via Old English hámfoest.Quote:
Originally posted by Feirefiz
Actually they went with “Gardner” and his kids did very well. Especially Elanor "the Fair" Fairbairn who was a maid of honor to Queen Arwen. She married Fastred of Greenholm and removed to the towerhills where they established the Undertowers and Fastred was the Warden of the Westmarch.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
Sam’s daughter Goldilocks married Faramir Took who was Thain after Pippin. Frodo Gardner inherited Bag End. So Samwise had truly elevated himself and his family. The 7 terms as mayor did not hurt either.
It's specifically stated that pre-Sharkey hobbits didn't like machines more complex than a forge-bellows, a water-mill or a hand-loom. They are pre-industrial. Georgian era is a good fit (you can't tell me there were no pubs in England then).
Bilbo and thus Frodo had a clock of course. It sat on the mantle and occasionally smoke rings would go around it and notes were stored under it. A clock is a very advanced piece of technology but it is clean and fairly quiet and my guess is that Dwarves made it.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
As promised: My obscure, nit-picky question:
Some background chronology:
February 26th 3019...Eomer hears of the descent of the orc-band from the Emyn Muil
February 27th...Eomer aginst Theoden's orders sets out from Eastfold about midnight to pursue the Orcs.
Feb. 28th...Eomer overtakes the Orcs just outside Fangorn Forest
Feb. 30th...Eomer returning to Edoras meets Aragorn.
Jan. 2nd...Gandalf heals Theoden, the Rohirrim ride west against Saruman, Erkenbrand defeated.
The orc band descended to the plains of Rohan near Rauros, well east and a little north of Edoras. Eomer, against Theoden's (really Wormtongue's) orders, goes to find them and defeats them near where Entwash comes out of Fangorn, almost due north of Edoras. Helm's Deep, the Fords of Isen, and Isengard (the stronghold of Wormtongue's true master Saruman) are all northwest of Edoras.
Eomer, when he meets Aragorn: "Indeed, in this riding north I went without the king's leave, for in my absence his house is left with little guard."
Wormtongue, when Gandalf, Aragorn et. al. arrive in Edoras : "In Eomer there is little trust. Few men would be left to guard your walls, if he had been allowed to rule."
So now, when Gandalf is talking to Theoden about Wormtongue's betrayal he says "But when I escaped and warned you then the mask was torn, for those who would see...Do you not remember how eagerly he [Wormtongue] urged that no man should be spared on a wildgoose chase northward, when the immediate peril was westward?"
What the hell is Gandalf referring to in the bolded section? When did Wormtongue ever urge Theoden to send men northward? It can't be referring to Eomer leading his men out against the orc-band, that was obviously against Wormtongue's plan. And I don't think Wormtongue would be urging Theoden to send men northwest, to attack Isengard. What is he talking about?
The clock was wizard powered. A wizard did it.Quote:
Bilbo and thus Frodo had a clock of course. It sat on the mantle and occasionally smoke rings would go around it and notes were stored under it. A clock is a very advanced piece of technology but it is clean and fairly quiet and my guess is that Dwarves made it.
In the part you quoted, Wormtounge urges that no man be spared to go North. He was trying to leave the way clear for Saruman's servants to go from the Anduin to Orthanc. He was trying to keep Éomer from going North.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Quote:
'Indeed in this riding north I went without the king's leave, for in my absence his house is left with little guard. But scouts warned me of the orc-host coming down out of the East Wall three nights ago, and among them they reported that some bore the white badges of Saruman. So suspecting what I most fear, a league between Orthanc and the Dark Tower, I led forth my éored, men of my own household; and we overtook the Orcs at nightfall two days ago, near to the borders of the Entwood. There we surrounded them, and gave battle yesterday at dawn.
Just so we're clear here...the part I'm having difficulty with is Gandalf talking about Wormtongue, not Wormtongue speaking.
If Gandalf is speaking about Eomer's pursuit of the orc-band why would he call it a "wild goose chase"? That phrase means a useless or futile search, which Eomer's pursuit of the Orcs certainly wasn't, as Gandalf well knows.
Gandalf was referring to how Wormtounge refereed to Éomer's ride north. Wormtounge tried to stop it. Éomer was not allowed to take any troops to ride north and actually took his own house company. Oddly enough this is dealt with a bit in one of the 12 volumes histories.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Consider "urged that no man should be spared on a wildgoose chase northward" to be Gandalf quoting or at paraphrasing Wormtounge.
If what you are saying is true then I would say it is an editing mistake. I didn't pick up that meaning in 1,000 readings.
You could well be right on the editing problem. My own editing skills are poor.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
I'll try to find the reference to this event in the Histories tonight or tomorrow. That would at least clarify what Gandalf was talking about.
Any more questions?
Did you like the poems, or did you tend to skip through them like me?
I actually liked his nonsense poems like the Dwarves cleaning up or the Man in the Moon and Tom Bombadil's but his more proper poems are probably the part I am most likely to skip through in rereading. I do really like the farewell to Boromir.Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
I think the poems are one of the most common complaints against the books even by those that otherwise enjoyed them. Actually Tom is another common complaint come to think of it but Tom I love.
I like the poems. I have read the Lay of Leithian(what there is of it) many times, and I love Bilbo's poem in Rivendell, "Earendil was a mariner..."Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
However, I was not happy with the Adventures of Tom Bombadil. I was expecting prose, and I suppose that was my first error. I tried to read it, but I didn't make it through more than four pages.
Galadriel's song about Aman in FOTR, despite it being quite short, can bring me to tears. :geek:
[quote=What Exit?]I actually liked his nonsense poems like the Dwarves cleaning up or the Man in the Moon and Tom Bombadil's but his more proper poems are probably the part I am most likely to skip through in rereading...[/quote:1wxbwe02]Quote:
Originally posted by "ivan astikov":1wxbwe02
I agree on both counts, I love the dwarves cleaning up and also Sam's Troll poem. There is also a great part in The Hobbit I had forgotten about until I just re-read it, the dwarves have a poem or chant about the wind that they do in Beorn's house. It's just a great scene, it is night and they can't go outside because of the bears, and the Bilbo sees the dwarves sitting together performing this spooky poem.
I often think about that aspect of The Hobbit, about Bilbo being the outcast in an alien culture, one hobbit among 13 dwarves. Did they not speak Khuzdul the whole time? Did they only speak it when they thought Bilbo couldn't hear them?
It is worth mentioning that there will be a new Tolkien book available May 5th, 2009.
The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún which he wrote in the 20s and 30s.
I've got this thing in the back of my head about the dwarves, specifically the ones of Durin's line. I seem to recall that they believed that Durin had been re-incarnated several times. I also seem to recall that in the appendixes at the back of "Return of the King" there was a genealogy of Durin's people that indicated in the future there would be a final Durin. (I don't have any copies of LOTR handy to confirm this)
(a) Am I right about this?
(b) Did Tolkien, a Catholic, envisage a last Durin at the end of the world, just as the second Pope to be named Peter is the one to be around for the last days?
a) You are correct.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
b) I don't believe so. In fact it was expected that Durin VII would be the one to lead the Dwarves back to taking over Moria (Khazad-Dûm) and he may have been the son of Thorin III Stonehelm* and so born early in the fourth age, possibly before Aragorn past away in the year 120 FA. It is also possible that Durin VII was born later but everything points to him being born in the fourth age and not too many centuries after the War of the Ring.
Tolkien seemed to envision the Dwarves slowly dwindling in numbers until none were left as it became a world of men. The Elves would be largely gone or hiding and Hobbits dwindled in size and became even more shy of big-folk. The stories of Leprechauns and Brownies would be tied to the descendants of the Hobbits.
* Thorin III Stonehelm was King under the Mountain after his father Dáin II Ironfoot died defending the gates of Erebor and the body of his friend and closest ally, King Brand of Dale.
So, that Glorfindel. How dead is he?
He should be quite alive and yes the Glorfindel of Gondolin that died killing a Balrog is the same Glorfindel of Rivendell that scared the heck out of the Witch King around 1973 Third Age. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
[quote=What Exit?]He should be quite alive and yes the Glorfindel of Gondolin that died killing a Balrog is the same Glorfindel of Rivendell that scared the heck out of the Witch King around 1973 Third Age. :D[/quote:awdb2ih0]Quote:
Originally posted by "Rube E. Tewesday":awdb2ih0
Well, a zombie elf would scare the heck out of me.
[quote=Rube E. Tewesday][quote="What Exit?":10ut4n8m]He should be quite alive and yes the Glorfindel of Gondolin that died killing a Balrog is the same Glorfindel of Rivendell that scared the heck out of the Witch King around 1973 Third Age. :D[/quote:10ut4n8m]Quote:
Originally posted by "Rube E. Tewesday":10ut4n8m
Well, a zombie elf would scare the heck out of me.[/quote:10ut4n8m]
That would be scary. Glorfindel was even more scary to the actual Undead though like the Witch King.
He was apparently given a new body in Aman by the Valar and then they eventually sent him back to help fight Sauron.
By the end of his life Tolkien leaned towards Elves were returned to a new adult body and not reborn. Earlier on he was thinking in terms of rebirth. Something similar was actually done for Lúthien & Beren.
Is there a worthwhile book that focuses on the cultural and mythic sources behind Tolkien's works?
Tom Shippey's Author of the Century is probably what you are looking for.Quote:
Originally posted by terrifel
Interesting, I would recommend The Road to Middle-earth which is also by Tom Shippey. I might have to find and read Author of the Century.Quote:
Originally posted by Struan
Clocks were a pre-industrial invention, btw. They were mechanical and needed to be wound (usually daily). Clocks
I always put The Shire in the time of Queen Anne in England, but Georgian works for me as well. There were plenty of clocks, then...
Did Sauron ever return (in whatever guise)?
After the Ring was destroyed Tolkien stated that Sauron would never again be able to have a physical form and his spirit was powerless and dissipated.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Other Evils would challenge the world but never Sauron again though some cults were probably formed/continued that did evil in his name.
Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
And WHAT were they (in whatever guise)? (jeesh, you ask a simple question. Some expert.....)
What evils were done?Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Well it never got past notes and a few chapters at best, but the sequel to the LotR moved us forward to the Reign of Eldarion (Aragorn & Arwen's son) and already Gondor had problems with teenagers beginning to play at be orcs and some cults to Sauron similar to those that afflicted Númenor at the end and many of the dark lands of Middle Earth.
I don't think there are any details available.
And so the cycle begins again, eh? And this time, no elves to help things along... Any speculation on the how the Fourth Age ended?
Speculation I am good at. The fourth age was shorter than those that came before. The Dwarves dwindled and something happened to make them and the Hobbits go into hiding from men. Elves seriously disconnected from humanity and became but rumor in the millenniums to come.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
I suspect that either a Ring Wraith survived or a highly school dark sorcerer like the Mouth of Sauron continue to work against the Reunited Kingdom. The was also the possibility of a Blue Wizard that had turned holy to corruption challenged the might of Gondor.
Rot and humans way ended the great beginning of the House of Telcontir. The world changed again at the end of fourth age and came to resemble the modern world.
The end of the third age was roughly 6000 years ago according to Tolkien.
We know a series of copies of the Redbook of West March somehow survived all the way to a Professor of Oxford.
What we do know:
In the short term the Elves cleaned up Mirkwood and the larger portion of those that remain of Lórien moved to the south of Mirkwood renamed Eryn Lasgalen or Greenwood.
Dale and Erebor and the Glitter Caves all prospered and eventually Durin VII (and the last) was born and they retook Moria.
What I'd like to see is a bit of broadening into other types of personal adornment. Sure, there was that one Ring--the evil precious one. But what about that tiara? And that bracelet of doom? I hear there's a certain dwarvish brooch that could kill on command...
Let's see what old JRR could do with some costume jewelry, folks! ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
When non-Feanor Noldor die, they get better. Mandos lets them out as soon as he feels they've matured. It's not commonly known, but Buffy Ann Summers was actually a distant descendant of Galadriel.
[quote=Skald the Rhymer]Quote:
Originally posted by "Rube E. Tewesday":1q8a9bhr
When non-Feanor Noldor die, they get better. Mandos lets them out as soon as he feels they've matured. It's not commonly known, but Buffy Ann Summers was actually a distant descendant of Galadriel.[/quote:1q8a9bhr]
I'm not sure if by "non-Feanor Noldor" you mean "Noldor other than Feanor himself" or "Noldor other than those of Feanor's party", but the latter would be more like it except that pretty much all Noldor did share in Feanor's rebellion and were at the least guilty by association of the Kinslaying. That meant the Curse of Mandos, which included among other things a permanent sentence of non-embodiment for any who were killed, even if their very victims were to plead for their forgiving.
But Glorfindel got a special pass through being seriously heroic.
Galadriel is specifically mentioned of not taking part in the Kinslaying. She knew nothing about it. She had no notion. She wasn't there. Nevertheless she shared in the Noldor's sentence and was barred from returning to Aman until the end of the Third Age, not least because of her decision to keep her hands off the Ring when it was within her reach, and indeed freely offered to her.
[quote=Malacandra]I'm not sure if by "non-Feanor Noldor" you mean "Noldor other than Feanor himself" or "Noldor other than those of Feanor's party", but the latter would be more like it except that pretty much all Noldor did share in Feanor's rebellion and were at the least guilty by association of the Kinslaying. That meant the Curse of Mandos, which included among other things a permanent sentence of non-embodiment for any who were killed, even if their very victims were to plead for their forgiving.Quote:
Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer
But Glorfindel got a special pass through being seriously heroic.
Galadriel is specifically mentioned of not taking part in the Kinslaying. She knew nothing about it. She had no notion. She wasn't there. Nevertheless she shared in the Noldor's sentence and was barred from returning to Aman until the end of the Third Age, not least because of her decision to keep her hands off the Ring when it was within her reach, and indeed freely offered to her.[/quote:3q62wb7y]
Um...I thought it was pretty clear from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer joke that that post was meant mostly in jest. I mean, half the reason I replied was so that I could type "non-Feanor"; the other half was so that people could criticize me for not typing "non-Fëanor"; and the other other half was to outrage people for claiming a kinship between the houses of Summers and Finarfin.
Anyway, sorry for whooshing you. If I can find any non-enchanted Turkish delight I will send it to you via tesser.
Galadriel the Vampire Slayer. I think even Dracula would be short work. Dracula sneaks up on a very tall beautiful blond woman. Very shapely and young looking. She turns, blazes with a Holy Light and there is naught but ashes left?Quote:
Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer
Actually, pretty much any dwarvish brooch can kill on command, if you stab someone hard enough with it.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
This form of attack is known as "brooching the subject."
Quote:
Originally posted by terrifel
<limps out of thread, a broken woman>
Falvwen would roughly be Broken Woman.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
[quote=What Exit?]Galadriel the Vampire Slayer. I think even Dracula would be short work. Dracula sneaks up on a very tall beautiful blond woman. Very shapely and young looking. She turns, blazes with a Holy Light and there is naught but ashes left?[/quote:jehb0nkc]Quote:
Originally posted by "Skald the Rhymer":jehb0nkc
I can't imagine any literary vampire doing well against any Noldo. Maybe--MAYBE--Legolas, if he were distracted by his hopeless longing for Gimli at the time. :mrgreen:
[quote=Skald the Rhymer][quote="What Exit?":1flrbxm3]Galadriel the Vampire Slayer. I think even Dracula would be short work. Dracula sneaks up on a very tall beautiful blond woman. Very shapely and young looking. She turns, blazes with a Holy Light and there is naught but ashes left?[/quote:1flrbxm3]Quote:
Originally posted by "Skald the Rhymer":1flrbxm3
I can't imagine any literary vampire doing well against any Noldo. Maybe--MAYBE--Legolas, if he were distracted by his hopeless longing for Gimli at the time. :mrgreen:[/quote:1flrbxm3]
First off, Legolas is Sindarin and not Noldo. If he was prepared the vampire would have the wooded stake of an elven arrow through his heart in no time but if taken by surprise I suspect Legolas would be no match for the typical very strong vampire.
Finally, Legolas did not have a thing for Gimli and Gimli pined with the doubly forbidden and bit squicky love for Galadriel.Though being a Dwarf he mostly pined for her Golden hair.
I've always thought Strider's description of the Nazgul on Weathertop was very interesting, something like "They smell at all times the blood of living things, desiring and hating it". It's always sounded very vampire-like to me. Many other aspects of the Nazgul are reminiscent of vampires (their association with death and blackness and the dread the living hold them in).Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Never thought about it, but good point. The way that they don't die, but don't grow or obtain new life is like the vampiric undead also.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Like but not like. They did not need living blood or any sustenance that we know of. They were both more powerful in some ways and less in others. The Nazgûl’s power was tied to their distance from either Sauron or their Rings or both though oddly not the One Ring. They could be vastly powerful sorcerers and very few vampires have ever had such ability. On the other hand many Vampires have been portrayed as being quite charming. No Nazgûl could be charming.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
Another place they were similar was also both Vampires and Ring Wraiths had a fear or hesitation about running water but one they could overcome. Dogs seemed to bark at the presence of either.
<hangs head in shame>Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
No matter what the topic, I always end up hurting those around me...
[quote=What Exit?]First off, Legolas is Sindarin and not Noldo. If he was prepared the vampire would have the wooded stake of an elven arrow through his heart in no time but if taken by surprise I suspect Legolas would be no match for the typical very strong vampire.Quote:
Originally posted by "Skald the Rhymer":m1abpoe4
[/quote:m1abpoe4]
:?:
The fact that Legolas is not Noldo is my point, amigo. Any adult Elda who had seen the light of the Two Trees is going to massacre any Buffyverse vampire. Probably any Blade vampire. Definitely any Christopher Lee vampire. Sindarin Elves such as Legolas, who had not seen the Light of the Trees, might not do as well. But, even if he were entirely ignorant of vampires prior to the encounter, I'd give good odds that Legolas would take down most vampires. He can't match them in strength, but his coordination and reflexes are, frankly, superhuman, as are his senses and prescience.
Legolas was TOTALLY in love with Gimli, and the reverse. I used hopeless to mean "never to be lessened," not "never to be fulfilled." You'll never convince me otherwise. :twisted:Quote:
Finally, Legolas did not have a thing for Gimli and Gimli pined with the doubly forbidden and bit squicky love for Galadriel.Though being a Dwarf he mostly pined for her Golden hair.
More seriously, the fact that Gimli & Legolas's love was supernal rather than sublunary doesn't mean it wasn't real and passionate. Legolas went out of his way to get Gimli to the Undying Lands. That wasn't just the cameraderie of warriors; that was love, baby.
Um, horsefeathers. "Love" if you mean "Legolas loved Gimli". Not "love" if you mean Legolas was "in love with Gimli".
We all take what we want from LOTR, which is one of its beauties. But when I read it, and I have read it many dozens of times, I also remember what the author brought to it, and what his sensibilities were. In the first flush of fanatic fandom we spent hours and hours and days and days nattering on about these important issues. In some places, we still do!
Tolkien, himself, would have done for Gimli, or another comrade from the wars, what Legolas did. While I am in general no fan of the warrior mindset, the loyalty and love, passionate without being sexual, between men who have endured the horrors of war is still something I can admire.
I always believed and will continue to believe that Legolas had a lover back home, and in his aloof Elvish way he kept that secret. No doubt she was waiting in the Blessed Isles.
And as for Gimli, well, he was "in love" with Galadriel, and I am unanimous in that, to quote the immortal Mrs. S.
Quote:
Skald the Rhymer:
Legolas was TOTALLY in love with Gimli, and the reverse. I used hopeless to mean "never to be lessened," not "never to be fulfilled." You'll never convince me otherwise. :twisted:
More seriously, the fact that Gimli & Legolas's love was supernal rather than sublunary doesn't mean it wasn't real and passionate. Legolas went out of his way to get Gimli to the Undying Lands. That wasn't just the cameraderie of warriors; that was love, baby.
I won't take issue with Legolas's feelings for Gimli. However, I will say that Legolas had no pull with the Valar. Galadriel did. So, whatever Gimli felt for her, she returned it enough to get him into the Blessed Realm. Maybe she just liked dwarvish adoration.
What Exit?....I love the Galadriel/Gimli courtly love thing. It's sweet.
[sub:323sj68c]ETA: my quote tags got messed up. Tried to fix. I'm a code moron. Carry on.[/sub:323sj68c]
I did too, I was just joking a little. People tell me that I might take Middle-Earth a little too seriously. So I try to throw in a little levity every once in a while.Quote:
Originally posted by lilacs
I also agree that is was surely Galadriel and maybe Gandalf more than Legolas that got Gimli entry. Maybe even Aüle put in a good word. It was quite rare to find a Dwarf for whom gold no longer had any power over.
I clearly am going to have to use more smileys. Or perhaps use different smileys. Or perhaps use the same smileys I am using now but more adroitly. or something.
As I wrote upthread, I wouldn't say, except as a joke, that L & G ever made the beast with two backs. I'm just saying that they had a deeper friendship than, say, Legolas & Aragorn--despite what the movie seems to imply--and that I think the word 'love" is the best descriptor for their feelings for one another.
I knew you were joking you irreverent person you. But it was fun to rift on what you posted. Besides I really do think Gimli was in Luv with Galadriel.Quote:
Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer
BTW: Middle Earth RPG here ?
Quote:
Originally posted by terrifel
Ah, that's ok. Just don't ask me to play the riddle game. Ha!
I think that not only did that love exist between Gimli and Legolas, but also between Sam and Frodo and Pippin and Merry. I cannot accept this immature snerking at male comradeship and love. They all became a band of brothers who were loyal and true to one another for their lifetimes--IMO, it says more about those who cannot wrap their heads around such a concept (and would you want anyone like that in your foxhole, eh?).
I don't mind the jokes; it's the people who insist that male friendship=homosexuality that irk me. (and that is not to say that homosexuals cannot have the same type of friendships with other gays or straights....)
I knew you were joking. I take my Gimli/Galadriel fanfic very seriously. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer
What Exit?...Y'all just were talking about a topic near and dear to my heart. I had to jump in. I could see where Gandalf may have input as well as The Maker. Maybe Elrond put in a good word as well.
Question: Do we ever find out if Thranduil heads over sea?
Tolkien never said, but I would guess that he would stay through at least most of the 4th age and probably found a way to extend his rule over the West Lórien Elves of Southern Greenwood.Quote:
Originally posted by lilacs
[quote=What Exit?]I knew you were joking you irreverent person you. But it was fun to rift on what you posted. Besides I really do think Gimli was in Luv with Galadriel.Quote:
Originally posted by "Skald the Rhymer":2j1awsiq
BTW: Middle Earth RPG here ?[/quote:2j1awsiq]
I wouldn't call what Gimli felt for Galadriel "love" as I use the word. Theirs was an I-It relationship, not an I-Thou one.I don't think he stayed through "most" of the Fourth Age--assuming, of course, that the Fourth Age lasted around the same length of time as the second & third--that is, about 3,000 years, give or take a few hundred years. I can't believe that after FA 1000, say, there was a single Dwarf or Elf community remaining in Middle-earth.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
[quote=Skald the Rhymer]I don't think he stayed through "most" of the Fourth Age--assuming, of course, that the Fourth Age lasted around the same length of time as the second & third--that is, about 3,000 years, give or take a few hundred years. I can't believe that after FA 1000, say, there was a single Dwarf or Elf community remaining in Middle-earth.[/quote:g1975ryj]Quote:
Originally posted by "What Exit?":g1975ryj
It is hinted at that the ages grow shorter. The Fourth Age began roughly 6000 years ago according to some notes by Tolkien. This would put the end of the Fourth Age before the heyday of the Egyptians. I very much thinks Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and even Hobbits lasted into the medieval period.
We don't know how long into the Fourth Age it took for the Dwarves to retake Khazad-Dûm, but they not only take it but hold it and get the Mithril flowing again apparently from a few hints given to us.
I see no reason for Thranduil to leave, at least not until men were seriously encroaching on his domain. He had enough magic and determination to maybe have stuck it out as the last Elf King. Anyway FA1000 is far too soon for there to be not a single Dwarf or Elf community to be remaining.
Malacandra, what do you say on this? Others?
[quote=What Exit?]It is hinted at that the ages grow shorter. The Fourth Age began roughly 6000 years ago according to some notes by Tolkien. This would put the end of the Fourth Age before the heyday of the Egyptians. I very much thinks Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and even Hobbits lasted into the medieval period.Quote:
Originally posted by "Skald the Rhymer":17jw3jjl
We don't know how long into the Fourth Age it took for the Dwarves to retake Khazad-Dûm, but they not only take it but hold it and get the Mithril flowing again apparently from a few hints given to us.
I see no reason for Thranduil to leave, at least not until men were seriously encroaching on his domain. He had enough magic and determination to maybe have stuck it out as the last Elf King. Anyway FA1000 is far too soon for there to be not a single Dwarf or Elf community to be remaining.
Malacandra, what do you say on this? Others?[/quote:17jw3jjl]
The problem I have with your notion here, Jim, is that -- since we're in the "pretend the books* happened in the real world" mode-- we know when the CURRENT age began: with the birth of Christ. Therefore we are no earlier than the 5th age, and probably the sixth or seventh. I have some problems with the notion of Elves coexisting with Christ, which I will go into when I hav a trifle longer to think about it.
Bump time, any more questions?
I've been reading "The Hobbit" with my kid. At the beginning of the book, when Thorin is describing Smaug's attack, it sounds like the North is practically alive with dragons. Why don't we ever hear about any more after Smaug's death?
Damn good question and one with little answer. Everywhere else we hear of dragons has them in the past. The only later one that Tolkien wrote about was Chrysophylax in England and captured by Farmer Giles of Ham. We cannot be sure if this story takes place in the future of the Hobbit or not.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
There was a reference somewhere that some of the lesser dragons survived until historic times. But Smaug was the last of the Great Dragons.
Giants seem to disappear after "The Hobbit", too. Any insight on that?
Do you mean trolls? Perhaps those two that Bilbo outwitted were the last of their kind.
No, there's lots of trolls in LOTR. But, in "The Hobbit", there's giants. They play games during storms, and Gandalf considers asking a decent one to block up the entrance to a goblin den. I'd forgotten about them, but there they were.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Two answers: Tolkien chose to ignore some of the more juvenile/Fairy Tale parts of the Hobbit that did not fit into Middle-Earth or the Giants were rare and reclusive and the Fellowship simple did not go near the areas they lived.Quote:
Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
There was of course the mention of Tree-Men near the north border of the Shire as Samwise mentioned in the The Green Dragon tavern before they left the Shire. The Tree-men or Giants have been speculated to be anything from a large troll, a stray Ent or Huorn, an actual Giant or just a tall tale.
'All right,' said Sam, laughing with the rest. 'But what about these Tree-men, these giants, as you might call them? They do say that one bigger than a tree was seen up away beyond the North Moors not long back.'
They did reappear in Farmer Giles of Ham but as stated above, no proof of a connection between Middle Earth and the Farmer Giles tale.
Have you ever been uncomfortable with or had problems explaining the views on race that might be found in the text?Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
I mean, I love the books. I read everything except HOMES. You can rationalize seemingly uncomfortable parts.
It's a fictional mythology of a specific culture, told from the limited perspective of the people of the north-west of Middle-earth. If you want to accept its purported origin, then archaic views on heredity and a healthy dose of in-universe ethnocentrism only add to the verisimilitude.
Nevertheless I'm not so sure that I wouldn't gloss over a thing or two if I had to explain Middle-earth ethnology to a good friend of mine, Asian and not into fantasy.
I find most of the views on race are perceived and not real. He really did not use any derogatory racial statements. The humans of Middle-Earth could be perceived as practically Aryan and at least European but the lands he wrote of occupied the geographical area of Europe more or less. There is but a handful of sentences that can be considered racist from what I recall and reading them in place they are not.Quote:
Originally posted by Feirefiz
Did you have any lines specifically in mind?
It is worth finding his letter to one of the Nazi's about the Hobbit. It was quite scathing and this was before the war I believe. I'll try to track it down if you like.
I know that one. I'm not arguing that Tolkien was an actual racist. If you buy into the fictional history of the books it becomes a non-issue because all objectionable parts are in-universe. What I mean is that some people might hold the author responsible for the narrator's (or even characters') views.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Potentially problematic parts include for example:
- A hierarchy of men with a strong biological component[/*:m:2xs672p7]
- Racial purity as a positive and beneficial characteristic[/*:m:2xs672p7]
- Correlation between race and alignment[/*:m:2xs672p7]
- Although Eldacar is the good guy in the kin-strife, Gondor's decline is still tied to miscegenation[/*:m:2xs672p7]
Again, I'm not really arguing against the books. What I wanted to know is whether you consider any of these issues potentially problematic and what your position on them is.
Where were the trolls in LOTR? :???:
You all are going to make me read them again, aren't you? I don't want to reread them. I just did that last year and recall no trolls in LOTR.
(or did Gimli call them by yet another name? she asked, snidely)
Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
They didn't have names like in "The Hobbit", or cool talking purses, but they were fighting against Minas Tirith, especially when it came to swingin' Grond. Pippin stabs one, who promptly falls down dead on top of him, almost leading to Pippin's death.
Funny the things that come back to you.
A hierarchy of men with a strong biological component: Ah, good point, there was a lot of that from Bard in the Hobbit to the Dúnedain. The difference here is that for the purposes of the book Bard's ability to understand Thrush was an inherited trait and the Dúnedain were descended from men actually blessed by Erü. The one true King is such a major part of legends and lore that I must forgive Tolkien this one. Else I must lodge the same complaint against King Arthur.Quote:
Originally posted by Feirefiz
Racial purity & miscegenation: To counter some of this the greatest heroes were often the Half Elves.
Race and Alignment. Is this Orcs = Evil and Dwarfs and Elves and Hobbits mainly good but Men are all over the place? I guess I never really bought. No shortage of Numenoreans had turned to evil. The black part was not skin color but simply meaning evil.
There was also a notable troll's foot in Moria that Frodo stabbed with Sting at the Chamber of Mazarbul. In the movie Jackson had the Troll attack Frodo instead. I rather disliked that change.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Oops. I forgot about the cave troll (movie). Carry on.
Trolls also put stone slabs over the flaming floor fissure (say that three times fast!) in Moria so the Orcs can cross over it.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
I am trying to lure Qadgop the Mercotan into this thread for some help with 3 of the questions. He is the master of our order. :wink:
The Cave Troll in the movie - that ALONE - ensures PJ a place in Hell.
Oh absolutely. I, for one, was only goaded into seeing the movie by assurances that a Cave Troll would not appear. I don't know how many times I said, "There had better not be any Cave Troll in this movie." Literally hundreds of people from all walks of life promised me that there surely would be no Cave Troll. Then I went to see the movie, and BAM! Cave Troll.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
"What the hell?!" I cried out. "God damn you Peter Jackson! Damn you to the uttermost depths of frozen Cocytus, motherfucker! Why the hell is there a Cave Troll in this movie? I paid good money to see a legitimate adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien, not to watch a goddamned Cave Troll! Oh why must my eyes be forever soiled by the vision of a filthy Cave Troll?!" I keened, rending my garments asunder in berserk fury and hewing down those about me, like as to stalks of wheat before the thresher.
God, it pisses me off even now. Say what you will about Bakshi's version, but at least he didn't force everyone to watch a Cave Troll. What the hell is the point of even attempting to adapt Tolkien, if you're just going to shoehorn in a completely unrelated Cave Troll?
Are you happy, Jackson? Are you glad that we all got to look at your stinking Cave Troll?
I swore that day never to look at another Cave Troll for as long as I lived.
Ooh.... methinks someone's title should be Cave Troll... :tongue:
It's a movie, folks. Some of it good, some of it bad. PJ seems to like monsters (as he himself says in an interview). I will never see King Kong because no likee monsters, but the cave troll did provide some cinematic drama. When I think of how bad the films could have been (and they could have been truly heinous), I am glad they are as good as they are. I don't agree with some of their decisions (and whatsherface, the third scriptwriter who is NOT Fran should probably be tortured by orcs), but they are what they are. Make peace with the film trilogy, for your own sake, mmkay?
Cinematic drama? Cinematic DRAMA?? *foams at the mouth*Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
Yeah, I know I go over the top a tad - thank you ever so much, terrifel, you made me laff and laff! - but if there is anything that Cave Troll doesn't represent, it's "cinematic drama".
Was there, in fact, a cliche of movie making that PJ did not use? Even one? I have to stop and think - I guess there was no puppy. That's about it. No puppies were run over/stabbed/kicked/burned alive/threatened/cuddled/or otherwise interacted with by a character in LOTR's 3 films.
PJ got so much so very right. And that's what makes the crap so hard to take.
*foams at the mouth, just thinking of the Scrubbing Bubbles of Erech*
The scrubbing bubbles? :dub:
It's ok. It's gonna be all right. Here, drink this....
I agree that some of it is hokey--Aragorn and Arwen's lines (for the most part) are pure pork. But you don't have to watch the films; you can read the books.
I'm not fond of the cave troll (although it gave Bean a great line--very well delivered, too), but when I watch the films, I tend to skip the battle scenes anyway. I've made it into MY movie--the way I want it (except for the no sex part, but I digress).
What were we talking about, again? :smile:
I have a weird relation to the movies. I recognize that Jackson gave us the benchmark that all Fantasy Movies need to be measured against. He got the breadth and look of Middle-Earth incredibly right. There are scenes he shows which are straight out of my brain and that almost never happens. The Shire and Argonath scenes come to mind sharply. The beacon scene took my breath away. On the other hand I am such a fanatic that many of the little changes annoyed me and the big changes were painful. I did love the "They've got a Cave Troll" line but I hated the look of the Cave Troll. Besides there was no cave troll in the chamber dammit! Just his foul scaly foot briefly. The Arwen stuff added nothing and cost us Glorfindel. I shall never forgive Jackson for this. Part of the problem is that Miss Tyler is a very poor actress as was the dud they picked for Elrond.Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
It was my pleasure I assure you. I am always happy to lend my support in such matters.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
*stands on lone hilltop above the blasted heath, raises clenched fists as face twists in rage, and screams to the unforgiving heavens*
CAAAVE TROOOLLL!!!
DISTANT ECHO, HIGH ABOVE PLANET SURFACE: *CAAAVE TROOOLLL*
terrifel's post reminds me that one of the reasons movies such as Plan 9 from Outer Space and Manos: The Hands of Fate are rightly regarded as the cinematic classics they are is the complete lack of Cave Trolls in either.
I agree Liv Tyler isn't a great actress but I think if they hadn't given her Glorfindel's part at the Fords the character would have been practically invisible. Non-fans would have been wondering who this chick was when she married Aragorn. I also think Hugo Weaving was an odd choice for Elrond but my main problem with movie Elrond is more at the level of the script and the director's decisions about how the character would be portrayed than the way the actor carried out the performance.
My question: how should I pronounce 'Aule'? How many syllables, where is the accent?
I thought Tor Johnson was supposed to be a Cave Troll in plan 9. What was he then?Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
:wink:
Two syllables. ow'leh roughly Owl-lay but the Owl is almost a long O.Quote:
My question: how should I pronounce 'Aule'? How many syllables, where is the accent?
I never saw Hugo Weaving before I saw LOTR, so I had no notion of him. I thought he was fine, as an actor. But the character!!!! My god, where did the noble and lordly Elrond Halfelven go? What we got was a snotty suburban dad who was cheezed off at his daughter for hanging out with a lowlife biker. And the scene where he pulls Arwen out from behind the curtain and hands her off to Aragorn? I nearly tossed the old cookies, right then. That idiotic smarmy smile just drove me mad. Mad, I tell you. Mad, mad, mad, mad, mad. And, really annoyed, too.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
OTOH, I thought the bit at the coronation where Aragorn sang in the shower of petals was lovely. One of the few moments in the movies where the "tone" was right out of the books. Gave me goose bumps, just like the very first bit of the first movie, when Cate Blanchett was speaking about "change is in the air, the earth . . ." etc.
If only Viggo Mortenson didn't have that nasal, whiny voice. Ew. And if only Sean Bean had gone halfway to New Zealand.
Me I couldn't stand the "alternative endings" format... but wait! There's MORE! And no Scouring. But overall, I like the movies. I have no ire re Elrond or the actor who played him--I've never seen the Matrix. Tyler was too lightweight to carry her role, but then we have such a good Eowyn....
Éowyn really was quite good. I don't think they could have casted her much better though she seemed just a little old to me when I saw the movie. I wish they had just decided to expand her role or tell of Arwen in a series of flashback and not actually give Liv Tyler a real role.
Yeah, Eowyn is supposed to be what? 20-21? I was amazed when I found out Miranda Otto was 35 when TTT came out, she sure didn't look it in the movies.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Of course I was partially blinded by her near-incandescent hotness.
I feel obliged to defend Elrond here. Remember, by choosing to be with Aragorn, Arwen chooses to be of the race of men--which is to say, to DIE, in what doubtless seems to Elrond to be an extremely brief time. Elrond is nearly seven thousand years old; the hundred seventy years or so before Arwen and Aragorn are married must seem, to him, like a month or two. Moreover, she dies not long after Aragorn, and as her spirit is sundered from his until the end of the world. I can easily see how a father would think that a horrible idea.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
That is about right: Éowyn was born 2995 of TA so she was 23-24 at the time of the War.Quote:
Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Miranda Otto was born 16 December 1967 so she was 33-35 for the filming of the two she was in. She was very pretty and looked younger and her acting was excellent as was her sword play. I just thought she was a little older than I had pictured Éowyn. It was not a huge thing and not one that bothered me.
Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Plus there was the hotness. Don't forget the hotness.
[align=right:2oqxpvf6]bump[/align:2oqxpvf6]
I get it...this is one of those posts you need to read by the light of a full moon in order to see the runes, er, letters...Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
[quote=Laughing Lagomorph]I get it...this is one of those posts you need to read by the light of a full moon in order to see the runes, er, letters...[/quote:7qvmw0d6]Quote:
Originally posted by "What Exit?":7qvmw0d6
Moon Letters, exactly.
I mean, how constrained is he?
For example the wizards were not only limited by their policy against overly direct displays of power but also by the nature of their incarnation.
Now compare that to the words of Gandalf the White after disclosing his identity to the companions who had just tried to attack him.Quote:
Originally posted by Unfinished Tales, The Istari
(Let's not forget that those weapons include Anduril which has a certain record of having ruined a Maia's day.)Quote:
Originally posted by The Two Towers, III.5
Is Gandalf telling the truth? That's a very strong statement considering that in principle it seems possible to disembody a Maia by force. On the other hand I don't recall any instance of a Maia suffering significant harm who wasn't either an unenhanced wizard or to some degree diminished by expending their power on evil domination.
Is it simply hyperbole? I.e. in theory they could have slain him but confident in his newly enhanced badassness he considered it excedingly unlikely.
Is his (second) incarnation permanent?
Is he stuck with his humanoid body forever?
Will he eventually die again and for good in the West?
I want to see The Lord Of The Umbrella Stand!Quote:
Originally posted by eleanorigby
[quote=Feirefiz]I mean, how constrained is he?
For example the wizards were not only limited by their policy against overly direct displays of power but also by the nature of their incarnation.
Now compare that to the words of Gandalf the White after disclosing his identity to the companions who had just tried to attack him.Quote:
Originally posted by Unfinished Tales, The Istari
(Let's not forget that those weapons include Anduril which has a certain record of having ruined a Maia's day.)Quote:
Originally posted by "The Two Towers, III.5":1cr1m3wh
Is Gandalf telling the truth? That's a very strong statement considering that in principle it seems possible to disembody a Maia by force. On the other hand I don't recall any instance of a Maia suffering significant harm who wasn't either an unenhanced wizard or to some degree diminished by expending their power on evil domination.
Is it simply hyperbole? I.e. in theory they could have slain him but confident in his newly enhanced badassness he considered it excedingly unlikely.
Is his (second) incarnation permanent?
Is he stuck with his humanoid body forever?
Will he eventually die again and for good in the West?[/quote:1cr1m3wh]
My interpretation of this is as follows:
Gandalf the White was largely unfettered compared to Gandalf the Grey. He was sent back to finish his job not by Manwë but by Eru himself is what is hinted at. He was much closer to Olórin as Gandalf the White. He was free to use his powers much more openly. He was no longer tied to his ‘frail seeming’ human body on his return. The odds are that his wounds would not bleed and he would not die from either Anduril or the Nazgul's foul blades. Saruman could no longer stand against him; indeed, Saruman was clearly stronger than the Grey but clearly inferior to the White. Sauron and Sauron alone probably was all Gandalf the White really had to fear. The Witch King was foolish and arrogant thinking he could hurt Gandalf at the Gates of Minas Tirith. If he did not race off to stop Rohan and die by his arrogance there, Gandalf would have surely discorporated the Witch King yet again. Of course with Mordor so close that would have only removed the Witch King from the battle. He would have been back shortly is my understanding.
Gandalf was free to return to his spirit form once he returned to the West. He could once again walk invisibly among the Gardens of Lorien. He would not die as he is still a Maia. As Gandalf the White he was as much a Maia as a Wizard.
Gandalf's claim that "none of you have any weapon that could hurt me" should also be understood in light of his unfortunate PCP addiction.
First synthesized by Aulë as an anaesthetic agent to ease the trauma associated with death and resurrection of a Maia's mortal shell, PCP ("Valar dust" or "embalming fluid" on the street) is a potent psychoactive which became popular as a recreational drug early in the Second Age. Users frequently experience intensely debilitating side-effects, which may include hallucinations, euphoria, numbness, delusions of invulnerability, and irrational behavior such as concealing one's identity from well-known acquaintances for no obvious reason.
Even Morgoth eventually took steps to curb use of the drug among his minions, after several of his Balrogs fell to their deaths while under the delusion that they could fly.
I'll never forgive PJ for adding the scene where Gandalf was bested by the Witch King (granted, it's only in the Extend Edition, but he turned up without his staff). And you can't knock down the walls of Minas Tirth. I know..a siege scene without crumbling stone walls is boring right? *grumble*
Anyway, my questions:
1) Who are/were are the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves, and what happened to the non-Durin dwarves?
2) Is there any account why Legolas' kin uses a different types of bow from the Lorien elves?
3) What are the changes between the original Hobbit to the revised Hobbit? I read an old copy once about 12 years ago, and I'm not sure now if I am reading the first, pre-LOTR Hobbit
4) After the fall of Sauron, could the same ring lore taught by him to create non-Sauron-influenced rings of power?
5) Is Gondor a fiefdom? I am recalling the chapter where reinforcements come to Minas Tirith from all various parts of Gondor and they were grumbling is there are too few reinforcements. It seems that each province has the right to decide how many to send.
6) Where is the administrative capital of Gondor anyway? Did Tolkien ever address the fact that Gondor's capital (I assume that where it is, since the Steward is there) is at the edge of its border, close to enemy's ground?