The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room: The Tale of Years (Appendix B): Part I

Forum Nav

TORn Nav

The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
The Tale of Years (Appendix B): Part I – The 2nd Age, 1 -1600

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 23 2009, 6:42am

Post #1 of 161 (7900 views)
Shortcut

The Tale of Years (Appendix B): Part I – The 2nd Age, 1 -1600	Can't Post

The ‘Tale of Years’ section of the LotR Appendix has always been intriguing for many Tolkien enthusiasts, condensing thousands of years of Middle-earth history into a maddening, ambiguous and altogether too brief few pages. But what was once merely an interesting mine of Tolkien data for various long-winded Middle-earth disputes has taken on the added luster of possibly finding its way into the second of two planned Hobbit films, and a single vague sentence describing a certain year may well be the hinge-point for any number of aspects of the film, most importantly character development. I shudder at the prospect.

Not surprisingly, I will be offering an overview of ‘The Tale of Years’ chronologically, which is only logical, time wise. I will section off the discussion as follows:

Part I – The 2nd Age, years 1 – 1600
Part II – The 2nd Age, years 1601 - 3441
Part III – The 3rd Age, years 1 - 1976
Part IV – The 3rd Age, year 1977 - 3017
Part V – The 3rd Age, the Great Years 3018 - 3021
Part VI – The Last of the 3rd Age and Concluding Comments

There is a brief preface describing the end of each Age, but we shall dispense with dwelling on it, save for the sly literary device Tolkien often employs which ends the preface: “the histories of the time are not recorded here,” and later when he states, “Of events in Middle-earth the records are few and brief, and their dates are often uncertain,” as if implying the specific author of this piece (Frodo?) did not have access to the historical accounts of the 1st Age and barely anything for the 2nd Age (or perhaps I’m just reading more into the statement for the sake of a decent question).

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?

I personally find the 2nd Age more intriguing than either the 1st or the 3rd Age. This is perhaps due to the dearth of information surrounding that epoch in comparison to the other Ages. Sador did an admirable job reviewing the Numenorean Kingdoms; therefore the necessity of reiterating the anomalies and errors of the royal line as fleshed out more fully in ‘Unfinished Tales’ would be redundant. But essentially the 2nd Age could be rightly described as the Age of Numenor, because its politics, empire-building and wars defined the era (of the 38 entries for the 2nd Age, 26 deal in whole or part with Numenor or Numenoreans in exile). And although it may be a Numenorean Age, predicated on the foundation through to the destruction of the ‘Land of the Gift’, the prime mover was, of course, Sauron, whether in his guise as Annatar, or in his last incarnation as the dark and dreadful Lord of Mordor.

You know, I had never really noticed it before, but Sauron started his seduction of the Elves in the year 1200 SA, but Celebrimbor and the Elven smiths of Eregion did not begin the crafting of the Rings of Power under Sauron/Annatar’s tutelage until 1500 SA (Celebrimbor completed the Three Rings in 1590), and Sauron himself did not forge the One Ring until 1600 SA – an interim of a full 400 years!

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron. Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)?

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits? Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains. Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?

Another interesting aspect of the 2nd Age is the Odd Couple relationship between the Elves of Eregion and the Dwarves of Moria. The primary motivation of the Noldor settling in Eregion at first seems to be based strictly on the Dwarves finding mithril: “This they did because they learned that mithril had been discovered in Moria.” But a genuine friendship eventually flourished, perhaps because the Noldor did not share the Sindar’s hatred of the dwarves stemming from the sack of Menegroth.

In other news, Sauron chose the land of Mordor as the site for Barad-dur in the year 1000 SA, sending local property values plummeting. It would seem even then that Sauron considered Numenor a greater threat than the Elvish kingdoms.

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence? Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think? Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

(This post was edited by Ataahua on Feb 23 2009, 5:53pm)

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 23 2009, 5:04pm

Post #2 of 161 (7072 views)
Shortcut

My thoughts [In reply to]	Can't Post

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?
It increases the depth of the sory for me, and gives the illusion of factuality. I like the way he covered his backside, too, by admitting the uncertainty of the dates. Therefore, we can dismiss inconsistencies as the sort of thing that happens in haphazard folk history, rather than seeing it as a writer's error that jars suspension of disbelief, even if it really is a writer's error.

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron. Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)? It shows that Galadriel and Gil-Galad's intuition was on-target, yet even among elves intuition alone cannot persuade others, and Gil-Galad could not substantiate his suspicions enough to justify forbidding his followers to hobnob with Annatar.

400 years of influence? That could sink deep into the culture, even coming around to those who do not listen to Annatar directly. Sauron would hit each species at their vulnerable point. Even as he later troubled men about their mortality, he would have troubled elves about their immortality, inflaming their desire to keep all things unchanging, so that eventually even Galadriel and Gil-Galad would not pass through untouched, but accept rings that would help them to hold off decay in their own realms.

This would also delay the fading of the elves, which for humankind would mean never coming into their own; men would wait like restless, aging heirs, whose abnormally long-lived predecessors have used unnatural means to hold onto what in the normal course should have been their inheritance. Or like adult offspring who cannot escape parental authority long after it comes time to strike out on their own. All of which Sauron could use to stir up all kinds of nasty resentments, ingratitude, and murderous inclinations.

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits? Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains. Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?
No, I find that quite consistent with records kept by someone with limited resources. What looks stagnant might merely imply lack of information. Also, those who keep track of royal lines notoriously fudge. The Romanovs of Russia, for instance, actually had a break in the succession practically in every generation, but managed to hush it up so well that they literally got away with murder for sport based on the divine right of kings. Was this Tolkien's intention? Not necessarily. But if he's basing his history on real life histories as taught in those days such stagnant lines of succession abounded without too much question except in limited academic circles. Maybe he knew this, being an academician, himself, but he certainly knew that Frodo wouldn't.
Another interesting aspect of the 2nd Age is the Odd Couple relationship between the Elves of Eregion and the Dwarves of Moria. The primary motivation of the Noldor settling in Eregion at first seems to be based strictly on the Dwarves finding mithril: “This they did because they learned that mithril had been discovered in Moria.” But a genuine friendship eventually flourished, perhaps because the Noldor did not share the Sindar’s hatred of the dwarves stemming from the sack of Menegroth.
Correct me if I'm wrong--but isn't there something about dissident dwarves who did not agree with the sack of Menegroth fleeing eastwards and eventually settling in Moria?

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence? Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think? Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation? 1. The Council of Elrond made clear that Sauron could cause the very hills to writhe in torment. I always took this to mean that he gave Mordor its peculiar shape, that it is not a natural configuration. Sauron wanted a place protected on all sides, so he created one. 2. People without precise surveying instruments have a natural tendency to square up maps. For instance, it is hard for folks to wrap their brains around the fact that Reno, Nevada, is west of San Diego, because everybody knows that Nevada is east of California, and San Diego is on the west coast of California. Even living a life with accurate maps frequently in front of their faces, people forget just how much the Pacific Coast slants. Mapmaking under the medieval conditions that Tolkien sets forth would fall far short of an exact science. Mordor is probably not near so boxy as it appears on a map, but then neither are many features on ancient maps. As to what it was like before Sauron, I can picture it as serene, pastoral, perhaps even level, not yet vulcanized. He was, after all, an earth-maia, and stirring up selective volcanic activity would be as much up his alley as Gandalf making the best fireworks that the Shire had ever seen.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Darkstone
Immortal

Feb 23 2009, 6:24pm

Post #3 of 161 (7064 views)
Shortcut

"...any historical value it may possess must always be of secondary importance." [In reply to]	Can't Post

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?

It provides a cover for the differences in histories, geographies, genealogies, and writing styles that we encounter in the book and appendices. Either Tolkien was covering up for being lazy, or this all means something. I’m thinking it’s like how if you pick up a edition of an ancient manuscript like, oh, say, Beowulf, there’s a multitude of footnotes all through the text and an annotated bibliography at the end with conflicting interpretations from a boatload of scholars explaining all the historical and philological implications of this word and that. But as Tolkien said:

"Beowulf is in fact so interesting as poetry, in places poetry so powerful, that any historical value it may possess must always be of secondary importance."
-JRR Tolkien, Beowulf and the Critics

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron.

Elves are pretty dense.

Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)?

The laws of the Elven High King were more like guidelines anyway.

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits?

Creation officially started precisely at nightfall, October 22, 4004 BC and so began the world. Rome officially fell September 4, 476 AD and so began the Dark Ages. Archivists in charge of “official records” tend to like things tidy. Real life tends to be much less precise. Tolkien would know this.

Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains. Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?

According to official records, the Japanese Imperial family is the longest unbroken ruling bloodline in the world. The key phrase here is “according to official records”.

Another interesting aspect of the 2nd Age is the Odd Couple relationship between the Elves of Eregion and the Dwarves of Moria. The primary motivation of the Noldor settling in Eregion at first seems to be based strictly on the Dwarves finding mithril: “This they did because they learned that mithril had been discovered in Moria.”

So Eregion was a boomtown. No wonder it’s a ghost town now. Same story played out all over the American West. One can imagine Elven storekeepers overcharging Dwarven miners for goods. And then there's the Elven-maids in the dance halls....

But a genuine friendship eventually flourished, perhaps because the Noldor did not share the Sindar’s hatred of the dwarves stemming from the sack of Menegroth.

The possibility of wealth overcomes petty prejudices.

In other news, Sauron chose the land of Mordor as the site for Barad-dur in the year 1000 SA, sending local property values plummeting. It would seem even then that Sauron considered Numenor a greater threat than the Elvish kingdoms.

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence?

Probably overcrowded. Everyone was leaving and migrating West. Those left behind were poor and without hope, ripe for a Fascist strongman to come along and lead them to prosperity.

Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think?

Coincidence? I think not!

Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?

The Golden Triangle of the Rockies, The Devil’s Triangle of Bermuda, The Golden Triangle of Thailand, The TransAtlantic Slaves-to-Molassas-to-Rum Triangle.

But geologically speaking, there’s the Fergana Valley in Central Asia, a triangle formed by the Tien Shan, Gissar, and Alay mountain ranges. If you’re willing to stretch geography a bit, it’s pretty much where Mordor would be in the real world.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 23 2009, 7:51pm

Post #4 of 161 (7048 views)
Shortcut

ANOTHR Wiped Out Post! [In reply to]	Can't Post

Geez, I posted here last night....

Or thought I did and it's missing today. Very fustrating.

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?

It gives the impression of 'realism', the plotline that Tolkien uses that Middle-earth morphed into the world we live in today.

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron. Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)?

The Elves could take 4 centuries to sing songs in the Hall of Fire without stopping for all we know.....

400 years to them is not what it is to us and this is hardly the most active time in Middle-earth in the West.

AS for the Noldorin Elves of Eregion, it is quite natural that they would be drawn to Annatar, a former Maia of Aule, in a fair guise, feigning to do what he can do to better 'this Middle-earth of our's' as Celebrimbor & the Elven-smiths want to do.....

This is the trap that the Elven-smiths quite naturally fall into that the other Elvish leaders like Gil-Galad, Galadriel & Elrond who are not craftsmen persay do not feel drawn into.

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits? Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains.

I don't see that at all......

The Second and Third Ages both go on about the same length. Somebody who lives a set amount of years has to rule those years and it adds up. Tolkien uses the 3017 years of the Third Age leading up to the 'Great Years' to carefully craft a history of the rise & decline of the Numenoreans & return of Sauron. So no, I don't see any inconsistency or overstretching.

Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?

No, I think this depth of believable history is what makes Tolkien the 'Grandfather of all Fantasy'.

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence? Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think? Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?

Well, I don't think it was the Elvish Riviera before Sauron got there......

I don't know world geography to a 'T', but I doubt it.

Remember 'The Gates of Sirion' too....

It is fantasy, not reality after all.

squire
Half-elven

Feb 23 2009, 10:34pm

Post #5 of 161 (7044 views)
Shortcut

Drawing the line [In reply to]	Can't Post

we can dismiss inconsistencies as the sort of thing that happens in haphazard folk history
Maybe he knew this, being an academician, himself, but he certainly knew that Frodo wouldn't.

Mordor is probably not near so boxy as it appears on a map

As much as I know you respect Tolkien's achievements as an artist, all these statements sound to me like: "Whenever Tolkien doesn't provide my imagination with what I want, I just tell myself that Tolkien was wrong."

Specifically, once we dismiss inconsistencies in the Tale of Years as "haphazard folk history", what basis do we have for accepting any of it as true at all? Shouldn't all of it be assumed to be wrong?
I agree that Frodo wouldn't know much about Romanov history, whether as it was taught in the 1940s or today. But could Tolkien be so sure that Frodo, student of Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, and Bilbo, would not know that the lines of succession of the Stewards and Dunedain were elaborately forged and faked, possibly even splashed with blood and poisons, if in fact they were -- and Tolkien knew they were? The thing becomes absurd. As above, the question is whether the violent facts and vulgar fictions of real world history should make us question the annals of Middle-earth. If so - then we should question it all. If not - then not.
If Mordor is not as box-shaped as it is shown on all the maps that Tolkien drew, all of which are drawn as consistently as possible with what he wrote - because, of course, "ancient maps" are always quite unreliable in such matters - how will we ever know? Perhaps Christopher Tolkien should be informed that Mordor's geography seems open to question on grounds of geophysical probability, and would he care to draw - sorry, "discover" or "find what had long thought to be lost forever" - a new (no, make that a "better") map that would satisfy our complaints?

squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 23 2009, 10:42pm

Post #6 of 161 (7050 views)
Shortcut

Thoughts. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Tolkien's insistence." From time to time Tolkien pretends that other authors are involved, and nowhere more so than in the Appendices, but even here I contend that on close examination the pretense pretty quickly breaks down. Tolkien is too obsessive to introduce actual contradictions and inaccuracies and biases into his account of the kind we might find in a history that really was written by different people throughout history with imperfect knowledge and political agendas.

So, despite the objections of others, I continue to see it as a mistake to take the historical pretense too seriously, unless we are more interested in playing Tolkien's game than in critical analysis of what he actually wrote. For me, the sense of depth in LotR comes not from the Prologue or Appendices, but from the bits and pieces of The Silmarillion and The Akallabeth and the history of the Third Age that Tolkien strews throughout the tale.

Then again, perhaps I should lighten up and enjoy the Appendices! They do give us a glimpse into Tolkien's creative process, and if Tolkien liked to refer to a fictional historian from time to time, and readers like to imagine the same, what's the harm?

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron. Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)?

I find it very hard to imagine any of the Elves we meet in LotR being deceived by Sauron, just as I find it hard to imagine Gandalf and the White Council being deceived by Saruman. Tolkien rarely shows us such deceptions take place, and when he does the victims seem as guilty as the deceivers. Celebrimbor must have been quite a piece of work -- lesser than but similar to Feanor, who was similarly deceived by Melkor.

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits? Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains. Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?

It's a feature, not a flaw. Tolkien's ideal was the Undying Lands, where nothing changed. Even in decadent Gondor, or under the Dunedain Chieftans, they prided themselves on their stability, and thousands of years of tradition. Even the hobbits, whose history was not nearly so long and illustrious, took pride in the stability of the Shire. And that's not even counting the elder races, the elves, ents, and dwarves, whose histories made even the Dunedain look like upstarts. Tolkien was quite conscious of this feature, and his timeline moves more quickly when lesser men and more recent times are involved, and more slowly when elder races and earlier ages are involved, but always and everywhere much more slowly than in our contemporary, everchanging world.

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence? Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think? Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?

We know quite well that Melkor was capable of raising mountain ranges as walls. We also know from Morgoth's Ring that Morgoth polluted the world with his Taint. Mount Doom seems to be a center of that Taint, and Sauron seems to have located there in order to take advantage of that Source of Taint. Mordor seems to have been designed as a fortress filled with Morgoth's Taint, although it seems unlikely that Sauron was the designer. More likely it was a southern outpost of Morgoth's of which Sauron was aware.

Tolkien's mountain ranges are far less permeable than real-world mountain ranges. They help him force his characters into certain paths, as if they were in a maze or dungeon instead of the wide world. In Dungeons and Dragons, dungeonmasters liked to try to force players into these paths; the best players always tried to go around the paths, and the best dungeonmasters had to foresee such attempts without being too heavy handed. It's easier for an author -- the characters don't fight back -- but Tolkien still had to work at it a bit to satisfy the readers. Even now, many readers wonder why the Eagles didn't carry the Fellowship at least part of the way to Mordor, and perhaps all the way to Mount Doom. So no, the Mountain Ranges of Middle-earth are not like those in the real world, even if we can find something that looks similar. But they are close enough that we can suspend disbelief and pretend that these are naturally-occurring mountain ranges such as we might encounter in the real world.

squire
Half-elven

Feb 23 2009, 11:01pm

Post #7 of 161 (7050 views)
Shortcut

Hey, darken down! Stop having fun! Take this more seriously! [In reply to]	Can't Post

I contend that on close examination

I continue to see it as a mistake to take the historical pretense too seriously

we are more interested in ... critical analysis of what he actually wrote.

For me, the sense of depth in LotR comes ... from the bits and pieces of The Silmarillion and The Akallabeth

the Appendices...do give us a glimpse into Tolkien's creative process

Why do you somewhat defensively assume that the above sensibility is in need of "lightening up" and learning to "enjoy"? Everyone here reads Tolkien for their own reasons and in their own way. Of course there's no "harm" in anyone trying to read Tolkien's "internal authors" fantasy about as far as possible, if not further (hahae).

But I don't agree that a more - external? - approach (mine, for instance, which agrees with your post here in most respects) is somehow a downer that lacks a sense of lightness and enjoyment. I feel joy and lightness when I analyze Tolkien, anyway. That's why I'm here!

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 24 2009, 1:32am

Post #8 of 161 (7022 views)
Shortcut

In addition... [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I find it very hard to imagine any of the Elves we meet in LotR being deceived by Sauron, just as I find it hard to imagine Gandalf and the White Council being deceived by Saruman. Tolkien rarely shows us such deceptions take place, and when he does the victims seem as guilty as the deceivers. Celebrimbor must have been quite a piece of work -- lesser than but similar to Feanor, who was similarly deceived by Melkor.

The problem I have with such a long associaton between the Elves and Annatar is that it seems no one among the Noldor asked a simple question like: "Who are you, and how come I don't ever remember you being around when I was in Valinor?" There had to be at least a few remaining Eldar among the Noldorin contingent in Eregion who had lived in Aman, and if that was the case, one would sensibly believe that such an elf would be acquainted, or at least met, every Maia in Valinor. Their High King mistrusted Annatar, Galadriel mistrusted Annatar, but none could penetrate the disguise? No one said, "Okay, you say you are a Maia of Aule, well I worked for a few centuries in Aule's forges and don't remember seeing you once. Who did you hang out with again?"

There is an element of implausibility there that rankles me. It's one of the aspects of the story I have to ignore in order to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 1:49am

Post #9 of 161 (7044 views)
Shortcut

Perhaps I am sensitive about the Reading Room's [In reply to]	Can't Post

reputation. Many people claim to be intimidated by the tone of the Reading Room, and I don't want to scare any of them away. But yes, I have fun treating LotR the way I would Plato's Republic or War and Peace, and not just as a game of pretend.

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 4:34am

Post #10 of 161 (7023 views)
Shortcut

Some Thoughts About Some of Your Thoughts [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

From time to time Tolkien pretends that other authors are involved, and nowhere more so than in the Appendices, but even here I contend that on close examination the pretense pretty quickly breaks down. Tolkien is too obsessive to introduce actual contradictions and inaccuracies and biases into his account of the kind we might find in a history that really was written by different people throughout history with imperfect knowledge and political agendas.

I disagree with you, particularly if you look at the broader legendarium. The device of "other authors" is very common throughout the legendarium, and there are many instances of actual contradictions and inaccuracies and even biases that are introduced. Here's a few that I can think of, just off the top of my head. There is the statement in "Of the Rings of Power .." that Frodo cast the Ring into the Fire, which of course contradicts the story as told in LOTR. There is the Second Prophecy of Mandos, which Tolkien says in the commentary to the Athrabeth was a Mannish myth, not Elvish history, and which should have ended the Quenta, and which directly contradicted the statement in what Tolkien wrote as the final coda of the Valaquenta (but that Christopher instead used as the final coda of the Quenta) that "if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos." There are two completely different tales (written at roughly the same time) of the Nirnaeth, one of which has Maedhros delayed by the treachery of Uldor the Easterling, and another in which that element is completely lacking (and Maedhros is intercepted by a separate army of Morgoth's). And there are numerous different variations in the story of Turin (perhaps the most significant being that in one alternative, unlike the version included in The Silmarillion and CoH, Turin firmly DID love Finduilas, but tried unsuccessfully to avoid drawing her into his Doom). There are many other examples, but I'm sure you get the point.

In Reply To

Celebrimbor must have been quite a piece of work -- lesser than but similar to Feanor, who was similarly deceived by Melkor.

Despite the superficial similarities of being create craftsman and being deceived by Melkor and Sauron, Celebrimbor was really quite different that Feanor his grandfather. He was a much milder, and ultimately wiser, person. For instance, there is the statement in The Silmarillion that Celebrimbor repudiated the deeds of his father Curufin and stayed in Nargothrond when Curufin and Celegorm are driven out from there after Finrod's death. This was actually an editorial edition that Christopher says was based on a late note. I believe this late note was actually a note that Tolkien wrote on one of his copies of the second edition of ROTK next to the statement in Appendix B about Celebrimbor being descended from Feanor that Celebrimbor was the son of Curufin and was aghast at his father's behavior and refused to go with him when he left Nargothrond (which Christopher mentions in a footnote to the the essay "Of Dwarves and Men" in PoMe). Moreover, Celebrimbor's actions with the three Elven Rings contrasts starkly with Feanor's greedy, selfish conduct with the Silmarils. Instead of hoarding the Three Rings, Celebrimbor delivered them to the wisest of the Elves, and he perceives the designs of Sauron, enabling the Three to be hidden from him. There is also one of the versions of the story of the Elessar, in which Celebrimbor made a replica of the original stone to ease Galadriel's cares.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

squire
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 5:34am

Post #11 of 161 (7033 views)
Shortcut

The broader legendarium is a first class mess. Not the work of a niggling and perfectionist writer. [In reply to]	Can't Post

If I remember, Tolkien from the beginning of his Silmarillion project imagined that it would all be written as if transcribed by some travelling seaman from England - an idea he changed in midstream to it all being a transcription by a late-history Elvish scholar. And he never quite let this go, although it never seemed to stick or work very well. The same idea is certainly present in The Lord of the Rings, retrofitted into its later stages - the "Red Book", etc. Ditto, but with far less success, for The Hobbit.

But isn't Curious pointing out that the "numerous authors" device is used by Tolkien in the post-LotR years mostly to excuse inconsistencies and changes in style that Tolkien knew were there, but which he did not have the time or ability to remove? If I understand Curious, he believes that Tolkien strove to eliminate all contradictions and inconsistencies wherever possible, something he would hardly have done if he felt that the "translation/ancient authors" device was working in his favor.

Seen this way, this whole layer of appreciation is not a clever addition of mock-authorial depth to the legendarium, for which Tolkien the artist is to be congratulated, but rather a desperate solution to an insoluble problem caused by a too-extensive creative urge. Tolkien's biographer, and of course Christopher T. his literary executor, repeatedly point out that Tolkien was not a great finisher, starting far more textual projects than he could possibly coordinate. He always preferring to rewrite from the beginning rather than edit systematically, which produced even more inconsistent (when not incoherent) texts.

All the examples you cite, after all, come from his notoriously large corpus of "unfinished" work. In my mind, he left them unfinished, if for no other reasons aesthetic or narrative, because he was so daunted by the prospect of hunting down and eliminating all the conflicts you (and others) now perceive. But he would have, if he could have - he always sought a single voice, even if that voice was of an author-substitute, when he was writing his primary narratives.

And wouldn't he have loathed the possibility that his readers might be forced to say: "How brilliantly Tolkien constructs a simulacrum of a real mythology! Why look here: text A seems to be by Elvish author xx, while text B must surely be read as being by Numenorean scribe yy." He would have grabbed either A, or B, and tossed it on the grate. Or.. no.. let's face it, he would have grabbed A, looked briefly at it, frowned, turned it over, and begun writing C... adding fiercely worded instructions on the envelope in which all three were later forwarded to Allen & Unwin, that none of the enclosed was meant for publication, but rather for his editors' elucidation in proofing the already-submitted D.

The results were returned to him four months later, in proofs as Appendix A.II.2, and he - with no time left - let it go with just the addition of an italicised footnote or two about "Findregil, the king's scribe" doing a bang-up job on what is, frankly, a mess.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 6:25am

Post #12 of 161 (7010 views)
Shortcut

I am not "looking at the broader [In reply to]	Can't Post

legendarium." I'm looking at LotR itself.

As squire notes, the inconsistencies in the broader legendarium come from Tolkien's efforts to rewrite the legendarium several times over. HoME, after all, includes the drafts to LotR, as well as several versions, none final, of The Silmarillion. Yes, there are inconsistencies in those drafts, but there, too, they do not read like history, but instead like the author of a fictional history trying again and again to eliminate inconsistencies.

Stating that Celebrimbor repudiated the deeds of Curufin and Celegorm, or did not hoard the Three Rings after he realized Sauron's evil designs, isn't holding him to a very high standard. It's like saying that Boromir was, in the end, better than Denethor because he realized his sins before he died trying to make up for them. And remember that Feanor himself, when he was first seduced by Melkor, was not yet the Kinslayer. If Feanor had realized his mistake after Melkor cut down the Two Trees, he still could have saved his soul, if not the Silmarils.

My point is that in order to have been seduced by Sauron, despite the clear warnings of wiser elves, Celebrimbor must have been, for several hundred years, more clever than wise, and probably deceived himself because of his own desires. Yes, in the end he realized his mistake, but it was still a grave mistake, with dire consequences for all of Middle-earth.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 6:32am

Post #13 of 161 (7023 views)
Shortcut

Was Annatar pretending to be an elf? [In reply to]	Can't Post

It seems to me more likely that Annatar declared himself to be one of the Maia, which indeed he was, or perhaps one of the miscellaneous spirits, where Bombadil is often classified. There are plenty of those who did not live in Valinor, or if they did may have had another guise, like the Istari. Indeed, Annatar is in some ways a precursor of the Istari. Perhaps Sauron anticipated the kind of messenger the Valar might really send, and pretended to be such a messenger.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 8:51am

Post #14 of 161 (7017 views)
Shortcut

I don't get it. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Why do you assume that the idea of the texts being written by different authors is a mere "game" on Tolkien's part? Isn't that an intrinsic part of the kinds of manuscripts he was inspired by in his professional life? And isn't writing via the voices and viewpoints of one's characters a serious and valid approach in literature?

And conversely, why do you find it a more worthwhile and serious approach to "suspend disbelief and pretend..."? Couldn't it be said that it's pretending that a fantasy world is "real", and making obsessive attempts to reconcile all the conflicting evidence into a single, correct 'canonical' answer, whether it's about balrogs, dragons or Elven history, that's the real "game"?

Compared to that, it seems to me that examining the literary effect of presenting a story as a set of linked legends might be the more interesting and serious approach to the work. It may be, as squire argues, that Tolkien eventually came to want to eliminate all the inconsistencies that would have been perfectly fine in a set of legends, and that his failure to be able to do this was what led to much of his work remaining unpublished. But Voronwë_the_Faithful provides interesting evidence that at least in the early stages, a set of linked and sometimes contradictory legends was Tolkien's aim. And, as we've discussed many times, there are many references to this approach in LotR itself (although, as you say, there are none of the deep contradictions that real-world legends often have).

It seems to me to be doing Tolkien a disservice to assume, as squire seems to, that all this was a mistake that Tolkien deeply regretted but was unable to fix. Why not at least consider that it may be an integral part of the work? Even if in his later years (perhaps after he saw the way people reacted to LotR as an "alternate reality" and failed to appreciate his medievalist's viewpoint) he tried to clean up his multiple versions into a single "history" (and I don't know if this is fundamentally true or not), the "legendarium" approach is still deeply embedded in the work. To look at this seriously is not just about making an excuse for Tolkien's messy imaginative processes - in fact, perhaps his imaginative processes might have been inspired by just this sense that there are many valid versions of every story.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

sador
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 1:43pm

Post #15 of 161 (6995 views)
Shortcut

Now it was my turn! [In reply to]	Can't Post

To have a long post deleted...
I'll try to answer in brief this time:

Does Tolkien’s insistence that various other authors recorded the events of his mythos (Bilbo, Frodo, Elendil, Samwise, etc.) increase the depth of the story for you, or give the illusion of factuality? Why or why not?
Perhaps it does. But squire is right - I don't think the different authors really have different voices; it's more like Tolkien trying to be "authentic" and explain where he got his material from.
Personally, I like to occasionally ask whether there might be an influence - but it's more likely that different accounts vary because of the different approach Tolkien took each time.
And the only one around here except for me who looks at things this way is Darkstone (perhaps it would be more correct to start with him, and add me as a support - but you've asked what this does to me...).

Discuss the significance of four centuries of lasting interrelationship between the Elves and Sauron. Do you not find it strange that both Galadriel and the Elven High King, Gil-Galad, immediately refused Sauron’s advances, yet the elves of Eregion (who certainly owed vassalage to the High King) remained on friendly terms with Sauron for such a long period of time (albeit in his incarnation of Annatar)?
The politics of the Elves in Middle-earth were likely to be very complex. Tolkien dealt with them rather briefly, and I find it far from satisfying.
We are left to speculate: Galadriel was far older than Gil-galad; she was married to a Telerin prince, ruling a Noldorin realm; Celebrimbor seemed content to be ruled by her, and in one account actually loved her; the smithes might have been Feanorean, in which case they would deeply resent her rule; on wonders why they didn't revolt earlier, given that a grandson of Feanor was amongst them; in fact, Celebrimbor's whole history is extremely obscure - for instance, how did he escape the sack of Nargothrond?; Annatar, as a supposed emissary from the Valar would be naturally resented by Galadriel, who refused the summons - there is no need to suppose tshe saw through him!; Elrond might have, but was he trusted?; add to all this that Tolkien changed his mind about Gil-galad's ancestry, which (if accepted) would weaken his authority even more in the eyes of Feanor's followers - and there is a lot of trouble brewing. A lot of political discontent and suspicions for Sauron to work with.
One might try and visualise his way through it - but this would belong more properly in the Fan Art forum than in the Reading Room!

From another standpoint, when reviewing the ‘Tale of Years’ or Tolkien’s other chronological records, do you perhaps find an inconsistency in Tolkien’s method of stretching out eras well past their plausible limits? Other cases in point would be the rather stagnant line of succession among the Ruling Stewards of Gondor, wherein no political or title change occurred for almost a thousand years, or the interminable line of Dunedain Chieftains. Do you consider this a weakness of an author perhaps lost in the vastness of his own creation?
I wonder. For a conservative like Tolkien, wouldn't this stability seem like the proper thing? But I agree that to our modern eyes this seems strange.
And as for the Stewards - well, Boromir agreed with you!

What do you think Mordor was like prior to Sauron’s negative influence? Rather fortunate for Sauron that mountain ranges form three sides of a square around Mordor, don’t you think? Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?
Well, I've discussed that in length, in previous discussions I've led - here, here and here.
I feel like a jerk doing this, so I'll add a fourth link!
On the 2005 discussion, Finding Frodo asked for pictures which resembled Mordor. enjoy!

"He gave out that he was interested in history and geography (at which there was much wagging of heads, although neither of these words were much used in the Bree-dialect)."

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 24 2009, 2:05pm

Post #16 of 161 (6996 views)
Shortcut

What 'Miscellaneous Spirits'? [In reply to]	Can't Post

When did Tom Bombadil get classified as a 'miscellaneous spirit' - I didn't know such things existed......

must he be anything other than what he told us? "Eldest" Or what Goldberry said? "He is".....

Anything else is just trying to make something round fit into a square hole that Tolkien himself never intended.

In Reply To

Voronwe posted my thoughts on Celebrimbor before I could (after another post crashed last night) and more thoroughly than I had intended anyhow..... I also don't see the issue of deception being so terribly hard to fathom..... Manwe himself was deceived by Melkor after his three ages in captivity in Mandos by going about doing good, giving aid and counsel: 'and it seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured forever.'

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 2:27pm

Post #17 of 161 (7000 views)
Shortcut

Tolkien in his later years was not the literary equivalent of a dog chasing his tail [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

It may be, as squire argues, that Tolkien eventually came to want to eliminate all the inconsistencies that would have been perfectly fine in a set of legends, and that his failure to be able to do this was what led to much of his work remaining unpublished. But Voronwë_the_Faithful provides interesting evidence that at least in the early stages, a set of linked and sometimes contradictory legends was Tolkien's aim.

Actually, all of the evidence that I provide comes from his later work, after LOTR was completed. And there are many other examples from that time period. I certainly agree with with squire (and Curious) that Tolkien was famously bad at finishing things (it is a bit of a miracle that he completed LOTR). But I see little evidence that his failure to complete The Silmarillion was due to his inability to eliminate all the inconsistencies that resulted from there being different versions of the legends (I think his speculations about the viability of such things as the story of the creation of the Sun and the Moon, and the nature of the Orcs, was something else altogether). In fact, I think he was moving more towards that tendency, not away from it, so that (if completed) it truly would have resembled a set of linked and sometimes contradictory legends.

In Reply To

It seems to me to be doing Tolkien a disservice to assume, as squire seems to, that all this was a mistake that Tolkien deeply regretted but was unable to fix. Why not at least consider that it may be an integral part of the work? Even if in his later years (perhaps after he saw the way people reacted to LotR as an "alternate reality" and failed to appreciate his medievalist's viewpoint) he tried to clean up his multiple versions into a single "history" (and I don't know if this is fundamentally true or not), the "legendarium" approach is still deeply embedded in the work. To look at this seriously is not just about making an excuse for Tolkien's messy imaginative processes - in fact, perhaps his imaginative processes might have been inspired by just this sense that there are many valid versions of every story.

I agree, and I think that is well said. I don't believe, as squire and Curious seemed to imply, that Tolkien's work in his later years was essentially the literary equivalent of a dog chasing his tail (sorry but that is the strong image that I get from reading both of their posts). Rather, I see it as the finally flowerings of one one of the most imaginative minds that has ever graced this earth. I don't think his inability to finish the work was because he was unable to finally limit it to a single cohesive legend. Rather, I think he was finally defeated by his inability to expand it to match the infinite scope of what he saw in his imagination. To use the imagery of Leaf By Niggle Tolkien great picture was infinitely expanding; beyond the mountains, there was always more mountains to be seen and added. And though he ultimately was not able to achieve that impossible goal, that final flowering yielded some of his most brilliant and thought-provoking work, including the Athrabeth, LACE and the associated extended story of Miriel and Finwe, the various different and conflicting stories associated with Turin, and with the Nirnaeth, the Wanderings of Hurin, the coming of Tuor of Gondolin, the brilliant Shibboleth of Feanor, and much more.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 3:02pm

Post #18 of 161 (7014 views)
Shortcut

I should stop talking about serious / not serious. And I didn't say "mere." [In reply to]	Can't Post

One can be quite serious about treating the Appendices or the legendarium as if it were a real history, filling in all the blanks as if we, too, were historians. And, as squire notes and often exemplifies, analyzing Tolkien's writings as pure fiction does not have to be a serious enterprise either -- I come here to have fun, and leave here when more serious matters demand my attention. So forget I said anything about that.

However, when I use the word game I use Tolkien's word, one I got from his letters. Nevertheless, just because Tolkien called it a game doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously, or that his readers shouldn't do so. I don't mean to be dismissive, or to pass judgment when I use that word. I don't think I ever said "mere" game -- that was your term.

I will say, however, that approaching LotR and the legendarium as a real history is different from literary analysis. There are places where they overlap, but they are different. I judge it to be a mistake to treat the Appendices as a real history when engaging in literary analysis. I judge it to be quite appropriate to speak of Tolkien's conceit that it was real, and to analyze whether that conceit holds up under critical examination. Playing Tolkien's game, seriously or gleefully, is an entirely different and mostly uncritical enterprise, in which every contradiction is a mystery to be explained not by giving up the idea that this is a real history, but by inventing plausible explanations.

(This post was edited by Curious on Feb 24 2009, 3:09pm)

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 3:24pm

Post #19 of 161 (7000 views)
Shortcut

It's just a theory. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

When did Tom Bombadil get classified as a 'miscellaneous spirit' - I didn't know such things existed......

In some of his writings Tolkien contemplated the idea that there may be spirits in Arda not classified as Valar or Maiar. And some readers reject the idea that Bombadil is one of the Valar or or Maiar. Indeed, you seem to reject that idea yourself, as an attempt to "make something round fit into a square hole that Tolkien himself never intended." But Bombadil clearly is immortal, and if he really was around before the first acorn, it seems likely that he was a spirit. Therefore he would be either one of the known spirits, Valar or Maiar, or one of the miscellaneous spirits, not Valar or Maiar.

Quote
Manwe himself was deceived by Melkor after his three ages in captivity in Mandos by going about doing good, giving aid and counsel: 'and it seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured forever.'

Yes, well, I've always found that hard to swallow. Manwe seems very innocent and gullible. But at least Manwe was not deceived into doing great harm like Feanor or Celebrimbor are. Manwe is more like Treebeard, or the elves who kept Gollum captive, wanting to see their prisoners reform, and getting deceived by their better natures.

(This post was edited by Curious on Feb 24 2009, 3:33pm)

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 3:36pm

Post #20 of 161 (6978 views)
Shortcut

"Mere" was probably my addition, I agree. [In reply to]	Can't Post

But, rightly or wrongly, I read your post as being quite dismissive of the "game", whatever it may be.

In Reply To

However, when I use the word game I use Tolkien's word, one I got from his letters.

Would you be able to point me to the letter in question? "Game" doesn't appear in the appendix, and I'd be interested to see exactly what he said. Just what exactly did he consider the game to be? Is it something that he indulged in while writing, or something he engaged in after the fact, perhaps to please his fans?

And yes, I agree that we're all here to have fun. People have many different ways of enjoying Tolkien, and it's all good. In fact, that's what I love about these boards - whatever "flavour" of Tolkien you like, there's sure to be something for you here!

Smile

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 3:48pm

Post #21 of 161 (7025 views)
Shortcut

*Suddenly I'm* the one looking for errors?** [In reply to]	Can't Post

Oh, that's rich, coming from Squire!

I wasn't seeing the examples you gave as errors on Tolkien's part at all. I was seeing him as cleverly mimicking the sort of errors that creep into historical documents all the time--and incidently covering himself, in case, like any writer, he lets a few continuity errors slip in--which he has, and which you've caught time and time again, ignoring that he wrote in a device to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

As for dismissing inconsistencies as the sort of thing that happens in haphazard folk history, I was saying exactly what Tolkien himself said--that the in-story writer of this timeline did not necessarily have access to accurate dates. That was quoted, directly, at the very start of this thread. Tolkien wrote that, not me.

As for the integrity of the royal line of succession, I'm not the one who claimed that it was "stagnant" if not filled with scandal. I merely played along and said that if such a line inevitably must have scandal, then it would also have, just as inevitably, scribes and bureaucrats busily covering the scandals up. The two go hand in hand. If, on the other hand, one does not require scandal for a royal line to be realistic, then one also does not need the real-world host of cover-up artists.

As for the boxiness of Mordor, first off, I wrote a valid argument for why it might really be that shape: Sauron artificially created the mountains, as alluded to in the Council of Elrond.

Second, allowing for the possibility of it not actually being that boxy, as was proposed in the first place, I'm serious about the research on how people think about spatial relationships--if you look at any old map drawn before the days of modern scientific surveying, you will find all lines somewhat more boxy than reality--not perfectly so, but the errors always pull towards either 90 degree or 45 degree angles. That is a psychological fact of human perception. That includes Tolkien's perception, when he drew his maps. Notice, throughout the entire map that lines tend to pull towards the vertical, horizontal, or a 45 degree angle, in the lines of forests, mountains, rivers, and coastlines. Not completely, but more than actually warranted by geography. Everybody draws maps like that, unless corrected by precise instrumental readings.

Now answer me honestly: Did you, Squire, think of Reno as being west of San Diego before I pointed it out? Or that Bolivia is east of most of the United States?

(A word of warning: the last time anybody drew a line in the sand in Yaqui territory, we creamed the Spanish army.)

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on Feb 24 2009, 3:54pm)

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 4:02pm

Post #22 of 161 (6980 views)
Shortcut

Not so implausible to me [In reply to]	Can't Post

If you take the view that Middle Earth is essentially run by maiar, great and small, urging each seed to sprout and flower to bloom, and no rock, river, or tree is without one, then it would not surprise anyone for an earth-maia to introduce himself to the elves without anyone having met him in Valinor. Many different peoples have held a similar view about fairies, devas, nymphs, or guardian angels. Since Tolkien was steeped both in Catholicism and fairy lore, absorbing the same opinion from two perspectives at once, plus being well-versed in Classical Greek mythology (perspective #3) I would assume that his maiar behave in the same way. I would consider it rather odd if he omitted something so culturally natural to a man of his background.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

hanne
Lorien

Feb 24 2009, 4:17pm

Post #23 of 161 (6983 views)
Shortcut

real world boxy mountains [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

Is there any real world geological precedence for such a seemingly incongruous formation?

The Tarim Basin in Western China is enclosed by mountains on three sides, and there are a couple of quite angular corners in those ranges. Sorry to link instead of just showing the image but I could not figure out how to make the image I took of it just 50K - so here is the Google Maps link:
http://maps.google.ca/....125&t=p&z=6

Quote

Mordor is probably not near so boxy as it appears on a map, but then neither are many features on ancient maps.

That made me think of the Peutinger Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana), which is rectangular - sort of carrying the concept to the extreme!

When I first saw the maps, I thought Morder's configuration couldn't have been real, but thought it was just poetic license. After reading the Silmarillion, I thought the mountains must have been raised artificially. The two are probably one and the same. The Morgai, for example, are described as "the fences of the land".

I would love to know what would have happened if the Easterlings had had an Aragorn or a Gandalf - Mordor would have been wide open to their heroes and armies. But it seems the further East you are from the less heroic you can be, in Middle Earth.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 6:49pm

Post #24 of 161 (6968 views)
Shortcut

Letter #160, as [In reply to]	Can't Post

Darkstone recently noted.

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 24 2009, 8:01pm

Post #25 of 161 (6952 views)
Shortcut

Never Heard That [In reply to]	Can't Post

In some of his writings Tolkien contemplated the idea that there may be spirits in Arda not classified as Valar or Maiar.

I'm not aware of that.....

Where?

There is mention of 'minor spirits'.....

I do know he says in 'Myth's Transformed' that Tolkien refers to these spirits as First Age Orc Captains, 'corrupted minor spirits assuming bodily shape (These would exhibit terrifying and demonic characters)', but also says, 'Melkor had corrupted many spirits, some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least of these could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs...'

So, it appears that Tolkien classifies these 'minor spirits' as Maiar nonetheless.

As far as anything like Bombadil, he's something all right, but certainly not Vala as they are all accounted for & that is really a leap of speculation when we are told that all the Valar except Ulmo are in Valinor while Bombadil is in Middle-earth all those years (he was there when the Elves went West).

So, can he be an Ainu? of course.....

But all Ainu are Vala or Maia from what I gather.
Can you post some passages where Tolkien says otherwise as I never saw any?

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 24 2009, 8:05pm

Post #26 of 161 (2567 views)
Shortcut

This is one of the most inexplicable editing decisions in the published Silmarillion [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Quote
Manwe himself was deceived by Melkor after his three ages in captivity in Mandos by going about doing good, giving aid and counsel: 'and it seemed to Manwe that the evil of Melkor was cured forever.'

Yes, well, I've always found that hard to swallow. Manwe seems very innocent and gullible. But at least Manwe was not deceived into doing great harm like Feanor or Celebrimbor are. Manwe is more like Treebeard, or the elves who kept Gollum captive, wanting to see their prisoners reform, and getting deceived by their better natures.

It is in Chapter Six “OF FËANOR AND THE UNCHAINING OF MELKOR” where we see Manwe acting in this way. This is due in part to a very odd editing choice in which Christopher replaced a newer passage with an older version. As I state in Arda Reconstructed:

Quote

We then find a curious and unfortunate example of older material replacing the newer version. Both the twelfth and thirteenth paragraphs (“Before the gates . . .” and “Then Manwë granted . . .”; Silm, 65–66) are taken from LQ §48, partly as emended in the second phase and partly as originally written in the first phase. The passage in which Manwë is shown to have been duped into believing that Melkor was cured because he did not comprehend Melkor’s evil was taken from the older version, replacing a much longer, emended passage. The emended passage acknowledged that Melkor’s evil was beyond full healing, but pointed out that since he was originally the greatest of the powers, his aid would, if he willingly gave it, do more than anything to heal the hurts he had caused. It goes on to state that Manwë judged that this was the path that Melkor was on, that he was treated fairly, and that Manwë was slow to perceive jealousy and rancor, since he himself did not experience these things (see MR, 273). Had the emended portion that was not used in the published version been taken up, things would have been a little clearer, and Manwë would not come across to many readers as being quite such a naive simpleton in his dealings with Melkor.

Just to clarify, when I refer to "first phase" and "second phase" I'm referring to the work on the 'later Silmarillion,' with the first phase taking place around 1951, when LOTR was finished but not yet published, and the second phase taking place around 1958, after LOTR had already been published.

I would dearly like to know what the rationale was for using the older version rather than the newer.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 24 2009, 8:37pm

Post #27 of 161 (2560 views)
Shortcut

Wouldn't It Be Great [In reply to]	Can't Post

'Listening' to you expound on the problems of the construction of The Silmarillion & knowing the wealth of information Christopher Tolkien later released, I always wondered what a 'Quenta Silmarillion' would look like if somebody rewrote it using all the information at hand & Tolkien's most recent ideas.

Too bad it won't happen.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 24 2009, 9:51pm

Post #28 of 161 (2546 views)
Shortcut

Very interesting!// [In reply to]	Can't Post

squire
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 12:24am

Post #29 of 161 (2573 views)
Shortcut

I have no desire to be creamed like the Spanish, or anyone else. [In reply to]	Can't Post

So I will drop the question of questioning Tolkien based on Morthoron's questions.

As far as geographic psychology goes, you're right of course about people's tendency to straighten our and righten their internal maps. The Reno question is an old brainteaser gag - I don't remember when or whether I ever fell for it, but I don't any longer. Likewise with South America being east of North America. And did you know that ships transit the Panama Canal from Atlantic to Pacific by sailing east? Did you know that Brooklyn is south of Manhattan, not east of it?

I would, in one well-meaning effort to engage this last subject without getting creamed, suggest that it is not Tolkien's "perception" of Middle-earth that causes him to draw the map of Middle-earth with a lot of right-angled (or N-E-S-W oriented) features. That would align his relationship to his fictional map, with people's general relationship to real maps. But he is not perceiving it, he is determining it. He invented the land, and its map, unlike people who are uncertain about Reno.

As a trained mapmaker and deep student of landscape, he knew, of course, that real geography pays little attention to compass directions. But there is a very distinct sense of orthographic orientation in Middle-earth, as you point out. I have long maintained that this comes from his need to have the map illuminate and define pre-existing journeys. Journeys are the core of most of his stories, certainly the ones that required that maps be drawn. His strong belief was that journeys are most easily understood and symbolized when they follow the compass points, both because of the human quality of simplification you mention, and because the compass points have moral associations when linked to the Northwestern European cultural geography that underlies Middle-earth: West is good/safe, East is bad/scary, North is noble/severe, South is corrupt/comfortable, etc.

It is interesting to see how jumbled the Silmarillion map (Beleriand) is, compared to the LotR map. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that the Sil has a great many stories, with a great many journeys, most of which were written before the map had really come into being. So there is no one organizing principle; and in fact it really does look "pasted together", because it was pasted together.

On the other hand, the LotR map descends from the Hobbit map, with its single east-west there-and-back-again journey across all the necessary north-south barriers. LotR repeated the principle because it repeated the story, with the additional complication of displacing the final destination quite far to the south, since the Hobbit's destination already occupied the region directly east of Bilbo's home.

Mordor's wall of mountains only follows the logic of the overall moral geography of Third Age Middle-earth. Sauron is open to the East, where his support comes from; and closed to the North, West, and South for defense from his enemies. As a fortress kingdom, it makes perfect sense, no matter how silly it looks in terms of the real earth. I agree that we may assume that Morgoth (not Sauron) created it, although the suggestion in the story itself is that the land just naturally lent itself to Sauron's needs. What I would like to know is when and how the climate and soil were desertified; my belief is that prior to Sauron's occupation, Mordor was grassy steppe with fertile patches on the hillsides, like Anatolia or perhaps further east in central Asia.

Tolkien would, I think, be the first to admit that almost all of his geographic features, as expressed in the map, are similarly "exaggerated" to add drama to his story. What makes his maps "believable" are not the maps at all, but the highly realistic and artful landscape descriptions in the actual book, which the maps only serve to support like a crude framework.

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 25 2009, 12:42am

Post #30 of 161 (2547 views)
Shortcut

Mordor [In reply to]	Can't Post

As a fortress kingdom, it makes perfect sense, no matter how silly it looks in terms of the real earth. I agree that we may assume that Morgoth (not Sauron) created it, although the suggestion in the story itself is that the land just naturally lent itself to Sauron's needs.

Well, yes...

If Mordor didn't offer the protection Sauron needed, he would've chosen somewhere else.

What I would like to know is when and how the climate and soil were desertified; my belief is that prior to Sauron's occupation, Mordor was grassy steppe with fertile patches on the hillsides, like Anatolia or perhaps further east in central Asia.

This makes perfect sense as Sauron destroyed the Brown Lands & there was even the green grass of Ard-Galen growing right up to the Gates of Thangorodrim before the Battle of SDudden Flame - So we clearly see the Enemy can and does create deserts out of fertile land.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 12:47am

Post #31 of 161 (2550 views)
Shortcut

Excellent points! [In reply to]	Can't Post

Please pass me the cream of crow soup.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 25 2009, 2:06am

Post #32 of 161 (2534 views)
Shortcut

Hmmmm.... [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Please offer some background on your proposition that there were Maiar for every flower, rock, river and tree. For instance, Yavanna created the Ents to defend trees. There weren't specific hamadryad, oread, limoniad or nereid-like Maiar inhabiting each and every bit of flora and fauna. One never gets the impression there were thousands of Maiar tripping over each other to claim their specific species of lichen, igneous rock or tree-shrew.

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 4:04am

Post #33 of 161 (2527 views)
Shortcut

Difficult [In reply to]	Can't Post

To me your request sounds like, "Please offer textual proof that gravity exists in Middle Earth, that water always, consistently, flows downhill unless forcibly pumped or carried elsewhere." I merely pointed out that this world saturated with spiritual life would be consistent with the kind of world-view or concept of reality that Tolkien seems to exhibit overall. There is no specific text describing the obvious.

I will concede that I might err in assuming that Tolkien thought in a fashion consistent with people all over the world who actually form relationships with trees and land and stars and the Creator behind it all, as he did, indeed with all aspects of the cohesive, living real world, and who loathe, as powerfully as he professed to loathe, the "modern" spirit of alienation championed by Saruman-like minds of gears. I might have erred, though I find it hard to believe, myself. I do not see JRR Tolkien at all as part of the Dominant Culture, hampered by their blindness. I see him as one of us. And in our world, angelic spirits guide, protect, and infuse everything. And every so often messed up, "Fallen" ones do the opposite.

Maybe I'm biased.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

squire
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 4:32am

Post #34 of 161 (2528 views)
Shortcut

Tolkien was powerfully conflicted [In reply to]	Can't Post

Tolkien was powerfully conflicted between his Catholicism and the literary need for a kind of pantheism in his mythology. If you read the evolution of his ideas about the "Powers" or Valar, you'll see they start in the Book of Lost Tales as a rather colorful and emotional pantheon of mythological gods. Over time they are sucked dry of their independent lives and reduced, bit by bit, to a kind of higher class of angels working for the One God. As he himself put it about his mythological pantheon,

“The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, not creation, making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the world. ... On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.” (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 284)

As went the Valar, so went the Maiar - which did not really exist as a "class" before the 1940s. You will be interested to know that, again, in the Book of Lost Tales the Valar are merely the leaders of an immense host of smaller spirits of all kinds, who encompass the roles played in European mythology by sprites, fairies, hobgoblins, etc. You might well believe these unnamed but evidently numerous creatures could have served (as you like to think) as nature spirits for every plant, grove, and nuzzling creature in the Great Lands (only later called Middle-earth).

However, this did not last. All mention of these things was systematically eliminated from later texts of the Silmarillion, just as most of the capricious and personal interference of the Valar in the world was cut. And so, as Morthoron points out, in Tolkien's later (final) thinking about his legendarium and its world, only selected aspects of Nature in Middle-earth are vivified explicitly by the spirits of the Ainur. Tolkien allowed plants and animals to have spiritual natures on a kind of "need-to-feel" basis. When a story demanded a "living" mountain or fountain or tree, he would spin some tale about how a morose and bodyless Elf or Maia might indeed have inhabited that particular entity.

Did Tolkien have a relationship with trees and land, as you say? Of course. But it was explicitly channeled through what you only add as an afterthought: through their Creator. In the end, as a devout sub-Creator, he refused to create a fictional world that diverged too radically in its spiritual underpinnings from what he believed God and Christ's primary world was like. If you were to concede that the Catholic Church of the early 20th century was somehow part of the Dominant Culture - I know I would - you might want to think of him as at least partially "hampered by their blindness." But I don't think he'd agree with you, on the blindness thing.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 7:53am

Post #35 of 161 (2521 views)
Shortcut

Check [In reply to]	Can't Post

out these links.

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 25 2009, 2:07pm

Post #36 of 161 (2504 views)
Shortcut

Door Number Three [In reply to]	Can't Post

"I'll take door (link) number three please"....

Why must everything become paralysis by analysis?

I doubt Tolkien knew what Bombadil was in the context of a structured Lord of the Rings Middle-earth ordered World since he existed apart from Middle-earth & he just threw him in......

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 2:38pm

Post #37 of 161 (2520 views)
Shortcut

Morgoth's Ring is my favorite book in the HoME series, [In reply to]	Can't Post

and indeed the only one I own. So I love Tolkien's late musings. But I think you will have to admit that he was contemplating radical changes to his legendarium, including getting rid of the whole story of the Two Trees, that would have require another fifteen years to complete. His musings do not read like a history, but like, well, musings of someone who has spent his lifetime inventing and reinventing a world. When Tolkien explains that Arda was Morgoth's Ring, it is the omniscient author speaking, not some obscure and biased historian. When Tolkien contemplates various explanations for the orcs as a race of irredeemable creatures, it is the conflicted Roman Catholic Author speaking, not some racist theologian or metaphysicist in Gondor. And the stories to which you refer are stories, not histories. They do not read like the Appendices; at their best, they read like the text of LotR.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 3:13pm

Post #38 of 161 (2503 views)
Shortcut

Ah, but... [In reply to]	Can't Post

...there are different kinds and qualities of Catholicism, and "indigenous thinking" may be found both within and without Christianity. There have always been, and always will be, Catholics who believe that every facet of nature has its own guardian angel, and the official stance is that this belief is a permissible variable, neither mandatory nor taboo. And there are certain pro-nature or pro-creation orientations that can find an equally comfortable home with Christians or Pagans, or other religions besides--why do you think there are so many devout people, of radically different religions, who all feel like Tolkien's writings speak to them on a spiritual level?

Tolkien might have struggled with what to call his in-story spiritual entities, what powers or limits to impose on them, and what natures to ascribe to them, but he strongly felt that he had to have them anyway, in some form or other. From this and numerous other indicators I hypothesize that he lived in a spiritually crowded world, full of angels, demons, saints, and divine intervention, and quite possibly allowing also for a diverse wealth of fairies as well (he played his cards close to his chest, but his non-fiction seems to take extreme care to neither definitively profess skepticism nor belief, yet provide tantalizing hints at belief.)

His overall behavior, both in his writings and in what scraps we know of his everyday life, are 100% consistent, by every indicator that I know about, with what is now called "Indigenous Mind" (indigenous in the sense of a close link to land and tradition, in a specific pattern commonly found among tribal peoples throughout the world, yet also found among non-tribal people who have regained or never let go of heritage dating back to tribal times)

As a Roman philosopher once said, "Romans believe that lightning comes from clouds bumping into each other. Etruscans believe that clouds bump into each other in order to create lightning." Tolkien thought more like an Etruscan than a Roman. He did not discard science, but felt that it served something greater rather than merely existing in a vacuum. Both his writings and his life display an expectation of chance being more than chance, of purpose behind it all. And he expressed this in ways consistent with someone who not only presumed a god to intend that lightning should strike, but also clouds that could consent (or not) to cooperate with this intention.

His personal relationships with trees, and his ardent defense of their rights, indicates someone who perceives some level of sentience not dependent upon neurology. He felt horrified when gardeners hacked at trees for reasons that had nothing to do with the tree's health. He knew perfectly well that trees do not have nerves that feel pain in the same fashion that we do, yet something about this outraged him; one can reasonably conclude that he felt offended by a violation of the spirit of the tree.

While this sort of thinking is unusual for Christians in this day and age, it does not contradict Christianity. Christianity only forbids the worship of created things; it does not forbid relationships with created things, by any means.

I think Tolkien was one of us.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 3:32pm

Post #39 of 161 (2524 views)
Shortcut

Actually, he never comtemplated eliminating the Two Trees [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

It is certainly true that he contemplated radical changes, including eliminating the "astronomically absurd" story of the creation of the Sun and the Moon, but rather remarkably these changes did not involve eliminating the story of the Two Trees. As Christopher says "why is the myth of the Two Trees (which so far as record goes he never showed any intention to abandon) more acceptable than that of the creation of the Sun and the Moon from the last fruit and flower of the Trees as they died?"

In Reply To

His musings do not read like a history, but like, well, musings of someone who has spent his lifetime inventing and reinventing a world. When Tolkien explains that Arda was Morgoth's Ring, it is the omniscient author speaking, not some obscure and biased historian. When Tolkien contemplates various explanations for the orcs as a race of irredeemable creatures, it is the conflicted Roman Catholic Author speaking, not some racist theologian or metaphysicist in Gondor. And the stories to which you refer are stories, not histories. They do not read like the Appendices; at their best, they read like the text of LotR.

Yes, the essays in "Myths Transformed" are simply the musings of a creator of world musing about the nature of his creation. They are not what I am talking about. But even in those musings you can see how he contemplated imposing the structure of how these stories exist within the world he created. For instance:

Quote

It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a 'Mannish' affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men's ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must have known, or at least their writers and loremasters must have known, the 'truth' (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized, and centred upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back - from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand - blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

I certainly agree with you that at their best, the stories that I referred to read like the text of LotR (but mostly with a "higher" style). Tolkien, at his best, was after all a storyteller.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 25 2009, 3:53pm

Post #40 of 161 (2491 views)
Shortcut

Nonetheless.... [In reply to]	Can't Post

Dreemdeer, there is no tangible evidence that supports the proliferation of Maiaric spirits inundating every nook and cranny. Whether Catholics believe that several dozen angels can dance on the head of a pin (refer to Isaac D'Israeli or Thomas Aquinas for further information) or not, this was not the position Tolkien took; in fact, by the time of the writing of Lord of the Rings, the amount of Balrogs had decreased dramatically and their power increased manifestly. Corporeal manifestations of Maiar were far and few between, and personifcations of nature (Yavanna, Manwe, Ulmo, Osse, etc.) are even fewer.

Nevertheless, I do not believe the Elves of Eregion considered Annatar to be an Elf. The name Annatar itself, the 'Lord of Gifts', is too pretentious for an Elf in the first place, and in the second place, Annatar gives the impression that he is from Valinor, as he states plainly: "But wherefore should Middle-earth remain forever desolate and dark, whereas the Elves could make it as fair as Eressëa, nay even as Valinor?" Therefore, it seems that the Elves of Eregion were downright blind to allow Sauron into their midst, particularly after the stern warnings they received from Gil-Galad. His ability to deceive the Elves is integral to the making of the rings; however, as a plot point it does not seem plausible. As someone stated earlier, it does not seem possible that the Noldorin Elves we meet in the Lord of the Rings would be so easily deceived by Annatar, particularly since the greatest among them, like Gil-Galad and Galadriel, or even Elrond, had serious misgivings regarding his intentions.

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 4:20pm

Post #41 of 161 (2514 views)
Shortcut

Still seems plausible to me... [In reply to]	Can't Post

...even without the hypothesized spiritually dense landscape (although I'm not letting go of that, we will just have to agree to disagree. As I said, one cannot prove one way or another that gravity, evolution, or molecular theory works consistently in Middle Earth, either.) Now, I was born and raised in San Diego, and spent most of my life there. If someone here in Tucson were to come to me and say, "Hey, I'm from San Diego, too!" I'm not going to say, "You're lying!" just because I never met him. San Diego's a big place. Valinor is even bigger.

Or, let's be still more specific. I belong to the International Association for the Study of Dreams. I know the three founders, and most of the leading people involved in it--you'd think I'd be at least as informed, in my community, as the Noldor are in theirs. Yet if somebody unfamiliar comes to me saying that he, too, is a member, but his work hasn't gotten much publicity, because he feels that more could be done with dreamwork than the hierarchy really wants to deal with, I would not assume that he was lying--especially if he demonstrated knowledge of the inner politics of IASD, and showed himself really, really skillful in dreamwork. I might feel suspicious as to why he ran afoul of the Ethics Committee, like Galadriel or Gil-Galad, yet if I was a dissident, myself, I might find it easy to believe him a dissident professor, whose voice I have not heard only because the hierarchy has suppressed it. And that might count as a point in his favor to my rebellious heart.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Noldor are rebels, and the ones who remain in MIddle Earth into the second age are the most hardened of the lot. The idea of a maia taking their side would appeal to them. Having believed themselves hemmed in in Valinor, it would not surprise them to learn of a maia barred from their paths in the West, yet finding more freedom to contact them here.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 25 2009, 5:02pm

Post #42 of 161 (2493 views)
Shortcut

Why Not? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Nevertheless, I do not believe the Elves of Eregion considered Annatar to be an Elf. The name Annatar itself, the 'Lord of Gifts', is too pretentious for an Elf in the first place, and in the second place, Annatar gives the impression that he is from Valinor, as he states plainly: "But wherefore should Middle-earth remain forever desolate and dark, whereas the Elves could make it as fair as Eressëa, nay even as Valinor?"

Very good deduction.....
Well put!
However, knowing Valinor does not mean one cannot be a Noldo.

Therefore, it seems that the Elves of Eregion were downright blind to allow Sauron into their midst, particularly after the stern warnings they received from Gil-Galad. His ability to deceive the Elves is integral to the making of the rings; however, as a plot point it does not seem plausible.

I find it totally plausible These Elves may not have been on the best of terms with Gil-Galad in respect to being on the same page with him, as they had left his kingdom. Also, Celebrimbor was the greatest Noldorin Elf ever in skill of hand after his Granfather Feanor, so he would be susceptable to the (true) line that Annatar was handing him about making Middle-earth as fair as Valinor. Thirdly, the Noldor had also received the aid of the Valar coming to them from the West at the end of the War of Wrath, so the way was not closed any longer. Finally, Gil-galad & Elrond themselves did not know where Annatar came from, but just 'doubted him' - no concrete evidence to back it up. I would guess they might have said something in their message of warning like "Be careful, we don't know who this guy Annatar really is, but we don't know anything for sure."

As someone stated earlier, it does not seem possible that the Noldorin Elves we meet in the Lord of the Rings would be so easily deceived by Annatar, particularly since the greatest among them, like Gil-Galad and Galadriel, or even Elrond, had serious misgivings regarding his intentions.

Let us not forget that these are the Elves that have lived through the deceptions of Sauron in the Second Age & all the grief and destruction that it brought about......

'Fooled me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.'

They have had 4500 more years to not only learn from their mistakes, but grow in wisdom by the time we see them in TLOR.......

Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal

Feb 25 2009, 5:36pm

Post #43 of 161 (2510 views)
Shortcut

I'm always a bit surprised [In reply to]	Can't Post

at how nearly north and south the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains run through Colorado:

link

And the San Luis Valley in the southern center of the state is pretty boxy. (It's hot and dry, but otherwise nothing like Mordor; it's a beautiful place with a rich ethnic heritage.)

In fact, if you reverse the map, tilt it a bit, and put the ocean at the 4500-foot elevation line, it looks a lot like MIddle Earth:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(This post was edited by Aunt Dora Baggins on Feb 25 2009, 5:40pm)

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 6:18pm

Post #44 of 161 (2497 views)
Shortcut

Perhaps the HoME stories you love [In reply to]	Can't Post

most resemble the story of Arwen and Aragorn in Appendix A, which you also love: they are stories, in a high style, and for the most part incomplete. They are different from the rest of the Appendices. And they don't resemble modern histories, although they may resemble ancient histories such as those written by Herodotus.

Again, most of my comments in this present discussion were intended to apply to the Appendices, and especially the Appendices other than the story of Arwen and Aragorn, which is more of a story, and less of a mock-history. The mock-history is what I see as part of Tolkien's "game" (Letter 160). I have other reasons for my discomfort with the story of Aragorn and Arwen -- as Tolkien himself recognized, it doesn't really fit into the hobbit-centric story of LotR, and as Tolkien failed to recognize, to me it seems classist and borderline racist. But I still like it better, and find it more susceptible to literary criticism, than the rest of the Appendices.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 6:29pm

Post #45 of 161 (2493 views)
Shortcut

Where would I find each of these stories? [In reply to]	Can't Post

You mentioned Athrabeth (that's HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, right?), LACE and the associated extended story of Miriel and Finwe (also Morgoth's Ring, right?), the various different and conflicting stories associated with Turin and with the Nirnaeth, the Wanderings of Hurin (Unfinished Tales, Children of Hurin, The Silmarillion -- any others?), the coming of Tuor of Gondolin (Unfinished Tales, any other?), the Shibboleth of Feanor (HoME XII, Peoples of Middle-earth, right?).

I think the Shibboleth of Feanor is the one I haven't read at all, although I don't think I've given proper attention to Athrabeth, either. You were focusing on late writings -- I've also heard that The Fall of Gondolin, from The Book of Lost Tales, Volume 2 (HoME II) is a good read.

And if you have any other recommendations, early or late, I would be interested.

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 6:30pm

Post #46 of 161 (2486 views)
Shortcut

Quite true [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

[Perhaps the HoME stories you love ]most resemble the story of Arwen and Aragorn in Appendix A, which you also love: they are stories, in a high style, and for the most part incomplete.

That is quite true, and a good observation. Even the Annals of Aman and the Grey Annals, which were originally supposed to be more in the style of the Tale of Years appendix that we are discussing this week, expanded into long narratives (so much so that much of the published Quenta Silmarillion is taken from them, rather than the Quenta as written by Tolkien.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 7:56pm

Post #47 of 161 (2484 views)
Shortcut

"The Wanderings of Húrin" is in HoMe XI. [In reply to]	Can't Post

The War of the Jewels, the second part of the two-volume "Later Silmarillion" subset of The History of Middle-earth -- following on Morgoth's Ring. Both books contain "Silmarillion" texts that Tolkien wrote in the 1950s, in the form of:

1. revised tales to the "Quenta" mode that he had developed in the 1930s, and that are well known from the Silmarillion of 1977;

2. chronological "Annals" that are in original intention more record-like but which in places expand to become nearly indistinguishable from the "Quenta" stuff; and

3. miscellaneous essays by Tolkien, both in his own voice and as imagined documents.

The two volumes are divided not by the date that Tolkien wrote them (as is the case with most of the HoMe volumes) but by the chronology within the imagined stories: texts that pertain to Valinor and the time before the Noldor depart are in Morgoth's Ring; texts that pertain to life in Middle-earth are in The War of the Jewels. (This is an approximation. For instance, the Athrabeth, a conversation in Beleriand between elvish Finrod and mortal Andreth, is found in the first volume.)

"The Wanderings of Húrin" is a substantial but unfinished story that tells of Húrin's experiences in Brethil, where his son had killed Glaurung and met his doom. It has a much more immediate tone than most "Silmarillion" material.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Feb. 23- Mar. 1 for The Tale of Years.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 8:16pm

Post #48 of 161 (2472 views)
Shortcut

Thanks! I'm not [In reply to]	Can't Post

sure it is worth buying HoME volumes II, XI, and XII because of individual tales within them which have been recommended, but perhaps I will get them from the library.

squire
Half-elven

Feb 25 2009, 10:34pm

Post #49 of 161 (2473 views)
Shortcut

*Among other unique features, that story has a hero lawyer* and a trial scene! FYI //** [In reply to]	Can't Post

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 25 2009, 11:06pm

Post #50 of 161 (2467 views)
Shortcut

Sorry for the delay [In reply to]	Can't Post

It looks like N.E.B. has mostly answered your questions before I could respond. I'll just add a couple of things. The the various different and conflicting stories associated with Turin are only partly described in The War of the Jewels (along with UT, and CoH). Christopher states that that is the one area of the first age stories that he doesn't not completely cover in HoMe. As for The Fall of Gondolin in the second volume of the Book of Lost Tales, it is of interest because it is the only extended version of the fall of Gondolin that Tolkien ever wrote. But I personally am not especially enamored of the extremely archaic language used, or some of the more absurd features (metal dragons, anyone?).

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 12:54am

Post #51 of 161 (2329 views)
Shortcut

?????? [In reply to]	Can't Post

have other reasons for my discomfort with the story of Aragorn and Arwen -- as Tolkien himself recognized, it doesn't really fit into the hobbit-centric story of LotR, and as Tolkien failed to recognize, to me it seems classist and borderline racist.

Borderline rascist?

Where do you get that from? Can you explain to me how you deduced that? It never crossed my mind......

squire
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 1:13am

Post #52 of 161 (2340 views)
Shortcut

Isn't calling an early 20th century English author "classist"... [In reply to]	Can't Post

...kind of like calling a fish "wet"?

But if The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is in fact so awful on those grounds, I'm relieved to hear you're still perfectly comfortable with that evidently non-classist epic, The Lord of the Rings.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 1:56am

Post #53 of 161 (2317 views)
Shortcut

Well, the emphasis of [In reply to]	Can't Post

the tale of Aragorn and Arwen, for obvious reasons, is on the upper class, and their magnificent bloodlines. The emphasis of LotR is on the hobbits, even though they do interact with the upper class.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 2:04am

Post #54 of 161 (2350 views)
Shortcut

We discussed this recently. [In reply to]	Can't Post

See this post and the thread that follows.

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 4:15am

Post #55 of 161 (2326 views)
Shortcut

Oh Boy.... [In reply to]	Can't Post

Eight pages? Crazy

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 4:28am

Post #56 of 161 (2321 views)
Shortcut

Enough.... [In reply to]	Can't Post

I get the gist of it already....

To quote NEB:

Would it irk you.....

...if on the basis of his fiction an author were accused of tolerance?

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 10:20am

Post #57 of 161 (2296 views)
Shortcut

*Oh, that* game...** [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I continue to see it as a mistake to take the historical pretense too seriously, unless we are more interested in playing Tolkien's game than in critical analysis of what he actually wrote.

I sense that you are confusing two different issues here. I agree that it's a very addictive "game" to treat the legendarium as if it's "real" history, with a potential answer to every question. That's rather like crossword puzzle-solving, or trainspotting. It's detailed, obsessive, and lots of fun, if that's to your taste. And it's obviously a game that Tolkien himself enjoyed playing, especially when he found out how many fans liked playing it too! Not that real history works that way, of course. There are always many prisms through which to view past events, so this puzzle-solving approach, fun though it may be, actually treats the legendarium not as "history" but more the way we might treat a modern children's story, or perhaps a modern thriller - the author has complete control of what he writes, so we assume everything he writes within the fiction is "true", and the fun lies in extrapolating from that, and/or finding potential plot holes and other inconsistencies.

But that is a quite different issue from the point that several of us have made in this thread and elsewhere, that Tolkien writes his stories as "history" in the real sense - that is, accounts written after the event by people trying to make sense of a mass of complex memories, and influenced by national, or generational, or other biases that naturally occur in all human history-making. This, I think, is very much an issue that is amenable to critical analysis, since it's a very subtle study of the unreliability of human memory, and of the way stories change and evolve over time. I think Tolkien was ahead of his time in addressing what has become something of a postmodern issue, but he did it by being so far behind his time (by being immersed in medieval texts that illustrate this effect so clearly), that he ended up, completely accidentally, ahead of the curve!

But most critics and commentators seem to be so focused on squeezing Tolkien into the mainstream of 20th century literature that they overlook the idea that he maybe might have been a visionary for the 21st!

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

squire
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:24am

Post #58 of 161 (2310 views)
Shortcut

Not that real history works that way [In reply to]	Can't Post

Good point about Tolkien's different levels of simulated historical creation: he tried to create both a complete world and historical time line, and then to write about it from more than one point of view and with the sense that memory and bias has influenced the story the that the reader is given, compared to the "actual" historical events that took place.

Real history does not end with the accumulation of chronological facts, but it certainly begins with it. As in the World War II subthread that recently developed, we find ourselves trying to establish what facts we agree on, and all know, before arguing for a particular or contested interpretation of them. Not that people always agree on what a "fact" is, once it gets more complex than the simplest kind of action or event.

I think the "game" that Tolkien perceived was taking place among his fans was not the crossword puzzle-solving kind. That would be the equivalent of reading all of the books (or Appendices) thoroughly, so that one had a complete command of all of Middle-earth that had been published. What Tolkien was referring to was the compulsion to extend Middle-earth further, to create new bodies of fictional history and knowledge that are only implied by existing writings, but which presumably exist by analogy with the real world. As he said, fans had absorbed everything he had written about Gondor or Hobbits. Now they wanted to know more about Gondorian economics, or metalcrafts, or Hobbit customs! He understood this because he felt the same urge about his own creation. Can he make up more of it? Can he keep it both consistent with what's already established, and plausible within the set of rules that define Middle-earth's differences and similarities "of imagination" with the real world Earth?

At the time, whether they were making things up themselves, they were also writing the author, asking him for more information. After all, the way the Appendices are written, they imply that far more material about Middle-earth exists than could be fit into the end of the third volume. Surely J.R.R. Tolkien can satisfy my curiosity about the geological structure of the White Mountains compared to the Misty Mountains! Or can tell me how the royal council of Gondor adjusted to the change to the rule by the Stewards!

Now that Tolkien is dead, we no longer ask him for this stuff. We just make it up. As you say, we "extrapolate" from the crossword phase of reading everything that has been written. I would point out that "finding" plot holes and inconsistencies is quite different from trying to solve or reconcile them, by inventing additional history.

Now I would argue that your point about Tolkien's having another "game" - the device of creating multiple and uncertain narratives, so that Middle-earth "history" is seemingly just as indeterminate and subjective as real history - is making too fine a distinction. One of the things we have been arguing about is to what degree it is acceptable to play the game of extending and reconciling Middle-earth by invoking the various narrators. We soon begin to debate, was what Tolkien himself was doing on purpose? or are the various narrators just artefacts of his various modes of creative writing, although obviously influenced by his own high awareness of real-world histories and manuscript archives, which he then made use of for additional "flavor" rather than with intent to make his history indeterminate than it was in his head?

I guess my point is that we all agree (unless we are going to pretend Middle-earth is real beyond a reasonable point of discourse) that it's all J.R.R. Tolkien. Unlike real history, there is nowhere else to go, no more books to read, no other maps to consult. We can't bring in a new author we've read, who's opened a new archive or visited a new place, to add to our fellow fans' knowledge and so swing our argument our way. Once we've completed the crossword puzzle - that is, read everything Tolkien has written that's in print - we're all on absolutely equal ground on most of these issues. The puzzle is completed, but as Tolkien understood, the game is not over. We still want more. At that point using Tolkien's narrators, rather than his chronologies, simply to explain plot holes and inconsistencies or suggest plausible extensions, is still just playing the same game of mock-history, only with slightly different and more sophisticated mock-historical tools.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 12:00pm

Post #59 of 161 (2295 views)
Shortcut

Agreed. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

At that point using Tolkien's narrators, rather than his chronologies, simply to explain plot holes and inconsistencies or suggest plausible extensions, is still just playing the same game of mock-history

If all we use the narrators for is to obsess over plot holes and so on, then you are certainly right that it's still all part of the game.

That's not the way I see the multiple-narrator effect at all though - I see it as pretty much making the plot-hole stuff, and even the extensions of the stories, essentially a non-issue. There might be some fun to be had in trying to extrapolate what might "really" have happened, in the same way that philologists like Tolkien tried to extrapolate the original "asterisk-words" that might lie behind the written forms of the language we have, and I can see why Tolkien was sometimes tempted to play that game with his legendarium. I can see why he might have wanted to deduce what Gondorian metal-craft was like, for example, based on the "evidence" that he'd already imagined in his stories, just as he tried to deduce links between the medieval tales he knew and obscure bits of English history.

But that's not the important issue at all, for me. What strikes me is how impossible it is ever to know the "truth" at all about Middle-earth (or about our own ancient history). Because for the time-periods that Tolkien studied, just as you say about his fantasy, "there is nowhere else to go, no more books to read, no other maps to consult." There are a few new techniques, like carbon-dating of artefacts, or x-raying manuscripts to look for emendations or earlier texts, but essentially, as movie-Galadriel says, "much that once was is lost." We can never "know" much more than we do about our own ancient history. That's what comes out of LotR, for me - the sense of uncertainty, and of a world that is irrecoverable, not just because we don't have the documentary evidence, but because it belongs to a way of seeing the living world that we can no longer recapture. (In fact I think this is also a comment on the fundamental unknowability even of modern history, despite the evidence we have, both because of the incredible complexity of events as seen from different viewpoints, and because of the difficulty we have of imagining ourselves into the mindset of another time.)

That's why I just can't play the "game" at all. I don't even care about balrogs' wings. Because for me, there's every possibility that the balrogs themselves are metaphorical, mythic creatures that can never be "known", having been born from a long-lost sense that things that we would call inanimate (like eruptions from the earth's core) are living, sentient beings that will help or harm us.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 12:23pm

Post #60 of 161 (2304 views)
Shortcut

And that's why I have bigger issues with you [In reply to]	Can't Post

than with those who acknowledge that they are playing Tolkien's game. You have decided that it isn't a game at all, that LotR should be interpreted as a history, and that it holds up as a history. I disagree strongly with that point of view. I find it frustrating to argue the issue, though, because every time I note how the history doesn't hold up, you can offer a rationalization of that inconsistency, and claim it was Tolkien's intent all along. Every flaw in Tolkien's narrative becomes evidence for your theory that the narrative was deliberately flawed. There's really no way, it appears, to disprove your theory, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 1:05pm

Post #61 of 161 (2304 views)
Shortcut

Not at all. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

You have decided that ... LotR should be interpreted as a history, and that it holds up as a history.

I just got through arguing that it shouldn't be interpreted as a history at all!

And anyway, it's not about should and shouldn't, because I certainly don't intend to suggest that the approach I prefer is the only one. Far from it, I think it's mostly in the subtext, but Tolkien's subtlety in presenting his world as contingent and subjective is something I've become more aware of over the years, and that has made the story richer in its implications for me.

I don't disagree with your approach at all - I just like to present my own approach to the questions being discussed from time to time. If you don't agree with it, that's fine with me. As you say, there's no way to disprove my theory. I just don't see why that bothers you!

Wink

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 2:01pm

Post #62 of 161 (2291 views)
Shortcut

What's the big deal? [In reply to]	Can't Post

If one person reads the books & never looks at the appenices but just enjoys the story as a story, while the next (like me) tends to view it as a historical fact yet knows in his heart that it's not and you'll never have all the answers even though you try to get as many as you can?

It's all done to accomplish, as the author himself said "The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers (sucess!) amuse them,delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.'

So, if adding all these backgrounded layers of history helps hold my (our) attention, so what?

I really don't get the point any more than Aragorn & the Numenoreans being 'borderline rascists'.......

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 5:10pm

Post #63 of 161 (2301 views)
Shortcut

I have a bias [In reply to]	Can't Post

towards theories for which there is evidence, even if the evidence is not conclusive. That's why I have problems with Joseph Campbell archetypes or Freudian analysis; they seem to be articles of faith applicable to any text, rather than anything gleaned from this particular text.

I will grant you that Tolkien gives us every reason to treat LotR as a fictional history. That's the game which Tolkien clearly intended, and in which many readers delight. But when that conceit breaks down I don't see any evidence that Tolkien intends for us to treat the breakdown as the work of a fictional unreliable narrator, or series of unreliable narrators and translators. Instead, I think it breaks down because the fictional history is just a conceit, which Tolkien makes no effort to carry on throughout the text. I think I have evidence for that, based on the text.

But any evidence I cite you turn into intentional flaws, planted there by Tolkien. If I accuse Tolkien of classism, for example, you say no, it's the fictional unreliable narrator who was classist, not Tolkien. Apparently Tolkien was a perfect writer, or else gave himself a perfect cover, because none of what he wrote can be attributed to him. All the credit and the blame should be given to the fictional unreliable narrators. At which point, we are not engaging in critical literary analysis at all.

It's like trying to apply critical literary analysis to the Bible with someone who is convinced that the Bible was written by God, and therefore cannot be wrong or self-contradictory. I find such a discussion frustrating because there is no way to reason with someone who has begun with the premise that the Bible is perfect, and rationalizes everything that seems imperfect.

But what really bothers me is that you seem to insist you are engaging in critical literary analysis, and not a pleasant game or an article of faith. Rationalization is not critical analysis. Everything can be rationalized by a true believer, but I don't find such rationalizations persuasive.

And I hasten to add that I do enjoy discussing this topic. I find it frustrating that I can't seem to get my point across, and that I have no means of persuading you or reaching a middle ground, but I don't find you frustrating at all. On the contrary, I'm glad you are willing to discuss it calmly, and without rancor. If at any point I offend you, please let me know.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 5:16pm

Post #64 of 161 (2296 views)
Shortcut

Enchantment and Disillusionment [In reply to]	Can't Post

What about a middle ground approach? It seems to me that, being human, Tolkien made some mistakes here and there. Then, being brilliant, he deliberately set up a way of viewing the stories that would prevent such mistakes from destroying the enchantment--that is, he would cast it in the context of a history crafted by many viewpoints. Once resolved, he threw in some additional inconsistencies deliberately (such as the official Gondor version that says that Frodo destroyed the Ring himself) and then went through a great deal of trouble to set up and maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the books.

I am not saying that the manuscripts are devoid of flaw--Tolkien himself admitted that he caught many flaws, after it was too late to amend them. What I am saying is that his work enchants the reader, that the author intends this, that he has made every effort to patch the flaws credibly, and that he deserves credit for the effort. Part of the effort includes the device of history from multiple viewpoints, which he went through a great deal of trouble to construct and maintain. To discount that is like trying to remove the seasonings from soup, as not being intrinsic to the food.

There are different kinds of literary critique. The kind of critique that I prefer starts with the reality that "This work enchants!" then goes from there to explore what makes it so enchanting--how, precisely, did this writer cast this spell on me, and can I learn to do it, too? I also unabashedly enjoy the "Let's play the game that the author gave us with such joy!" approach to the books. I do not, on the other hand, like the approach of, "Let's prove that Tolkien was an idiot, and all of you folks who got sucked into the enchantment are idiots right along with him, and let's rip off every veil and every patch and while we're at it pull down the author's pants and show the holes in his underwear, *snicker*!"

Now, I can see the validity of sometimes negative criticism of the newspaper kind, when a reviewer reads a book on behalf of those who have not yet decided whether or not to read it, and tells them whether, in his opinion, it's worth spending money on or not. But we're past all that. We have already bought the books, and in fact most of us enjoyed them so much that we keep on wanting to discuss them, year after year. And we have a signing-on process to protect us from the drive-by shouters who periodically bombard Tolkien fandom's open boards with messages like, "Get a life, you brain-dead geeks! Hobbits don't exist!"

Yes, I know. It's fiction. Yes, I know. It's imperfect. I want to study why it works anyway. That's useful information, how to cast a spell on the imagination. I am not so much interested in the testimony of those who want to save me from enchantment through their own disillusionment.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 5:24pm

Post #65 of 161 (2285 views)
Shortcut

I don't have any problem with your approach. [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't have any problem with readers who enjoy pretending LotR is historical fact. Tolkien clearly enjoyed that pretense himself.

I do have problems with the theory that Tolkien carried that pretense or conceit along with him throughout the text, with every word he wrote, so that what appears to be the voice of an objective narrator is in fact the voice of a series of fictional unreliable narrators, invented by Tolkien, and imagined by him as he wrote each word. Thus if we find any flaws in the text, they are intentionally planted there by Tolkien as part of the fictional history.

And for that matter, we really shouldn't trust a word Tolkien wrote, because it is all the work of unreliable narrators. Maybe another narrator somewhere would have revealed that the orcs are tragic heroes and the hobbits villains. It's all relative.

I don't think that's right, but I find it very hard to disprove, because every flaw or discrepancy can be rationalized as intentional. It's really an article of faith, and I find it hard to reason with anyone who holds that faith.

It's like arguing with a Creationist who believes that God planted the dinosaur bones during the seven days of creation, and planted the evidence that fools our carbon-dating methods, as well. There's no reasoning with someone who's willing to rationalize all of the evidence that contradicts his or her theory.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 5:37pm

Post #66 of 161 (2286 views)
Shortcut

I like finding a middle ground. [In reply to]	Can't Post

What about a middle ground approach?

Sounds good.

It seems to me that, being human, Tolkien made some mistakes here and there.

Agreed.

Then, being brilliant, he deliberately set up a way of viewing the stories that would prevent such mistakes from destroying the enchantment--that is, he would cast it in the context of a history crafted by many viewpoints.

Well, I'm not sure that's what he had in mind. I don't think he created his fictional history in order to cover his mistakes. I think he did his best (and very well indeed) to eliminate the mistakes he could eliminated, and to gloss over the inconsistencies or holes in the fabric of his Secondary World he couldn't eliminate. Nor do I think he cared whether the enchantment was maintained throughout the story -- on the contrary, I think the idea that LotR is fictional history is found mostly in the Prologue and Appendices, and only here and there in the text.

Once resolved, he threw in some additional inconsistencies deliberately (such as the official Gondor version that says that Frodo destroyed the Ring himself) and then went through a great deal of trouble to set up and maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the books.

And this is where we part company completely. I don't see any evidence that the summary of LotR in The Silmarillion which says that Frodo destroyed the Ring is in fact the work of an unreliable narrator Tolkien invented. Nor do I see any evidence that Tolkien went to a great deal of trouble to maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the text of LotR, as opposed to the Prologue or Appendices. He alluded to it from time to time, but then wrote the story mostly without any reference to unreliable narrators, and mostly from the perspective of an objective, omniscient narrator.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 5:56pm

Post #67 of 161 (2280 views)
Shortcut

Thank you for a gentlemanly response... [In reply to]	Can't Post

...and I apologize for getting a little testy--I was really thinking more of other posters who take delight in finding fault.

Regarding the topic:

Quote

And this is where we part company completely. I don't see any evidence that the summary of LotR in The Silmarillion which says that Frodo destroyed the Ring is in fact the work of an unreliable narrator Tolkien invented.

The only alternative explanation that I can see is that Tolkien forgot that Frodo didn't throw the Ring into the volcano. Is that what you're saying?

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 6:18pm

Post #68 of 161 (2291 views)
Shortcut

What if your premise is wrong? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

The kind of critique that I prefer starts with the reality that "This work enchants!" then goes from there to explore what makes it so enchanting--how, precisely, did this writer cast this spell on me, and can I learn to do it, too?... Yes, I know. It's fiction. Yes, I know. It's imperfect. I want to study why it works anyway. That's useful information, how to cast a spell on the imagination.

How do you critique works which don't enchant you? How should readers discuss Tolkien if they don't like certain aspects? Lots of people who post to these boards, for instance, prefer the film incarnations of Aragorn and Boromir to their book versions, while still admiring many other aspects of Tolkien's book. Wouldn't they want to know both why some parts work and why other parts don't work?

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 6:18pm

Post #69 of 161 (2283 views)
Shortcut

Well I'm glad... [In reply to]	Can't Post

that you enjoy discussing this topic, because I do too. I'm sorry if I frustrate you, but I do appreciate your willingness to push me to defend myself, because that helps me to judge whether my ideas have merit in my own eyes. I should say that I'm not at all sure that I'm on the right path at all, but I have noticed more and more evidence recently that Tolkien may be writing in the voices of narrators other than himself, and I have found it an interesting theory to pursue. If I sound as if I'm completely convinced of this idea, that's really an artefact of the rules of debate, I guess - I don't know how to make my points clear without taking the position completely. I'm assuming that you are debating in the same spirit, so there's no cause for rancour at all, I hope. I'm not wedded to my "theory" (if it justifies the term - maybe it's more of a "hypothesis"), just trying to test it to the best of my ability.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 6:21pm

Post #70 of 161 (2284 views)
Shortcut

It's possible. [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's also possible that this unpublished summary of LotR would have been revised if Tolkien had published it. It's also possible that Tolkien was giving Frodo credit for destroying the Ring because Gandalf gave him credit for destroying the Ring, even though the Grace of the Higher Powers and the intervention of Gollum also played their roles. It's also possible that this particular passage was written in the voice of a scribe from Gondor, as are passages in the Appendices, but that the text of LotR is not. There are lots of possibilities, and settling on one as the only correct answer seems to me highly speculative.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 6:33pm

Post #71 of 161 (2291 views)
Shortcut

It's not unpublished. [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's in the Silmarillion.

For Frodo the Halfling, it is said, at the bidding of Mithrandir took on himself the burden, and alone with his servant he passed through peril and darkness and came at last in Sauron's despite even to Mount Doom; and there into the Fire where it was wrought he cast the Great Ring of Power..."

It was published posthumously, of course. But according to Voronwe it was written quite late, so it presumably reflects Tolkien's mature thinking. The "it is said" suggests that this is a tradition or later legend. Not only is there the very obvious misrepresentation of the facts about how the Ring got into the Fire, but there's a rather bald statement about Frodo taking on the burden "at the bidding of Mithrandir". This idea is kept very much more ambiguous within LotR itself.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 6:45pm

Post #72 of 161 (2286 views)
Shortcut

Written before LOTR was published. [In reply to]	Can't Post

And published in The Silmarillion more or less unchanged from Tolkien's final draft, I think (as I recall, earlier drafts are lost, so Christopher Tolkien never traces the text's history) though wikipedia --whose Tolkien articles, by the way, do play the "game" more than they should-- says, "After Tolkien's death in 1973, Christopher Tolkien completed this part, assisted by Guy Gavriel Kay." Voronwë?

Tolkien would almost certainly have modified it had he seen The Silmarillion to publication --lots of small changes were made to LOTR after the story was completed-- but we have no idea how he would have amended it.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 7:40pm

Post #73 of 161 (2293 views)
Shortcut

What, exactly, have you noticed? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

I have noticed more and more evidence recently that Tolkien may be writing in the voices of narrators other than himself ....

See, that sounds like you are basing this on evidence, rather than an article of faith. Pardon me if I have been obtuse about your past posts, but what is it you have noticed? Upon what textual evidence do you rely? Feel free to refer me to a past post if you like.

I do see Tolkien writing in the voices of narrators other than himself in the Prologue and Appendices, but where I notice it Tolkien actually tells us as much. What I'm looking for is evidence that he consistently writes in the voice of narrators other than himself throughout the text of LotR without telling us that is what he is doing, and that there is no such thing as an objective narrator in the tale. And by the way, I would just as soon stick with LotR, and not bring The Sil, UT, or HoME into it.

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 9:13pm

Post #74 of 161 (2271 views)
Shortcut

You are quite correct [In reply to]	Can't Post

It was written before LOTR was published. From AR:

Quote

There is only a small amount that can be said about this text. We know that it was probably in existence by 1948, because in a letter to a Mrs. Katherine Farrer most likely dated June 15 of that year Tolkien says he was unable to find it (see Letters, 130; see also MR, 5–6, in which a draft of that letter is quoted).

Christopher tells us that portions of the essay were actually taken from drafts of "The Council of Elrond" chapter. But that is obviously not true of the passage in question, regarding the destruction of the Ring. In one of those weird coincidences that sometimes occur, I have just in the past week received some private correspondence about this very passage, but I can't quote from it until and unless I receive permission to do so. Suffice it to say that it more than suggests that Tolkien definitely meant to say what he said in this passage, and that it wasn't simply an oversight. I can quote myself without seeking further permission, and because what I said in that conversation is directly relevant to the discussion here, I will do so:

Quote

As you are no doubt aware, Tolkien consistently portrayed himself as simply passing on (and perhaps translating) texts written by others: LOTR and The Hobbit were portions of the Red Book written by Frodo and Bilbo, the Tale of Aragon and Arwen printed in the appendix was taken from a text written by Barahir grandson of Faramir, the Akallabeth was written by Elendil, the Ainulindale was written by Rumil, etc. I suspect that "Of the Rings of Power ..." was meant to be a text that either was written by someone who didn't know the true story of the Ring was destroyed, or (more likely) was written by someone who full well knew the real story, but didn't want to deny Frodo his due renown by focusing on his failure at Mt. Doom. In any event, any observant person is going to notice the contradiction, ...

Personally, I don't think that there is any chance that Tolkien wrote this forgetting that Frodo didn't actually cast the Ring in the Fire. Christopher notes in both Sauron Defeated and The Return of the Shadow that his father had known from back as far as 1939 that when Frodo came to the Crack of Doom he would be unable to cast the Ring into the Fire, and that Gollum would take it and fall in. So I don't agree that he would have emended this had he published it himself. He might, however, have made it more clear that this was in fact a text that was purported to have been written by a secondary author.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

squire
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 10:08pm

Post #75 of 161 (2268 views)
Shortcut

I don't think Tolkien lived in his own fantasy land all the time. [In reply to]	Can't Post

As you are no doubt aware, Tolkien consistently portrayed himself as simply passing on (and perhaps translating) texts written by others: LOTR and The Hobbit were portions of the Red Book written by Frodo and Bilbo ...

I would correct this. Unless I'm way off my understanding of the matter, I believe Tolkien inconsistently portrayed himself as simply passing on the LotR as a text by Frodo and Bilbo. Aren't there numerous letters, and other texts like the Foreword to the Revised Edition, in which he takes quite a lot of pride in his authorship and his powers of invention? Not to mention numerous unpublished texts, such as his various legal contracts regarding publication and rights?

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 10:27pm

Post #76 of 161 (2125 views)
Shortcut

You mistake my meaning [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

As you are no doubt aware, Tolkien consistently portrayed himself as simply passing on (and perhaps translating) texts written by others: LOTR and The Hobbit were portions of the Red Book written by Frodo and Bilbo ...

In stating that Tolkien consistently portrayed himself as simply passing on texts written by secondary authors, I certainly did not mean to imply that he somehow convinced himself that these works truly were written by these secondary authors, or at least that he pretended that it was true at all times. I simply was making the point that it was devise that he often used, as a way of suggesting that this was a likely explanation for the obvious contradiction between the statement in "Of the Rings of Power ..." about the destruction of the Ring, and the story as actually told in LOTR.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

FarFromHome
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 10:33pm

Post #77 of 161 (2124 views)
Shortcut

That's difficult to answer. [In reply to]	Can't Post

I certainly haven't found some big and irrefutable piece of evidence, just an accumulation of small instances. I tend to mention them whenever a question comes up where this approach seems to provide a possible answer. I've made no attempt to catalogue them, and probably all of them could be explained in some other way as well. Obvious things are the way we hear the story from Frodo's viewpoint until he takes Gollum's oath, after which the point of view changes to Sam, except for the occasional moment when something strongly affects Frodo.

There are certainly many references throughout the text of the hobbits writing their story, some of them off-hand (like Merry and Pippin discussing the chapters they are going to get in Bilbo's book), and some of them quite explicit, like Sam, Merry and Pippin in Cormallen discussing how it will take weeks for them to get the story straight and then for Frodo to "write it all down". And there's that very self-referential discussion about stories on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol.

I think, too, that it's pretty much always possible in LotR to figure out who told which part of the story. Gandalf's solo adventures are almost always recounted by him in his own words after the event - they aren't described in "real time" directly to the readers. The tale of the Three Hunters is explicitly told to Merry and Pippin afterwards, the Ride of the Rohirrim sounds as if it's taken from their own songs, and so on. We get almost no private thoughts from anyone but the hobbits, and no private conversations either, which may be one of the reasons the story of Aragorn and Arwen couldn't be made to fit.

It's interesting to compare the book with the movies, where we do get to witness plenty of scenes where the hobbits aren't present, so that we see private discussions between Gandalf and Elrond, Elrond and Aragorn, Aragorn and Arwen, among others. All these scenes advance the story in interesting ways, so it's striking that no such scenes are shown in the book. If a hobbit couldn't know about it, it's not there.

All this is off the top of my head (it's late, and I have to work in the morning), and it's hard to remember all the little things that have made me start to look at the text from this perspective.

Let me stress again, though, that I'm not trying to force this interpretation on you or anyone else. I'm just putting it forward as a possible different perspective from which to look at LotR. Not to replace other viewpoints, just as one more thing to consider in this very rich and complex story.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 10:38pm

Post #78 of 161 (2126 views)
Shortcut

In the films, do we really witness those events? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Or are we witnessing Peter Jackson's recreation of those events, based on biased sources?

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 10:45pm

Post #79 of 161 (2123 views)
Shortcut

Dog Chasing the Tail [In reply to]	Can't Post

And for that matter, we really shouldn't trust a word Tolkien wrote, because it is all the work of unreliable narrators. Maybe another narrator somewhere would have revealed that the orcs are tragic heroes and the hobbits villains. It's all relative.

From your recent posts, I have a question for you, Curious: Do you even like Tolkien?

It's like arguing with a Creationist who believes that God planted the dinosaur bones during the seven days of creation, and planted the evidence that fools our carbon-dating methods, as well. There's no reasoning with someone who's willing to rationalize all of the evidence that contradicts his or her theory.

Do you really want to go here?
Is it necessary to make comments that paint somebody of faith as an ignorant twister of 'fact' when what you are really talking about are theories, not facts, that you too have put your faith in (science).

Every 'creationist' I know does not say God 'plays tricks' but intelligently backs up their point of view with as much or more 'evidence' in their view as 'evolutionists' do......

The fact is, neither side has facts that can be proved absolutely. Carbon dating has no way of being proven as accurate - no way. Nobody was there even 3000 years ago to actually document an item and put it aside to test the accuracy of the system of dating, let alone 300,000 years ago or 20 million years ago. Therefore, it's all theoretical, but of course, presented as cold, hard fact.

And, perhaps the big issue here is your first line:

It's like arguing

Why do you feel the need to prove your point in either case?

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 10:57pm

Post #80 of 161 (2122 views)
Shortcut

And I would argue [In reply to]	Can't Post

that inconsistency extends to the text of LotR itself, which at times makes reference to Bilbo taking notes in Rivendell or Frodo writing it all down in the Shire, but mostly ignores the conceit that anyone is writing anything down, or that what the apparently-objective narrator is telling us is really the work of an unreliable and biased narrator, or even the work of several translators and scribes adding to and altering the tale over thousands of years.

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:05pm

Post #81 of 161 (2127 views)
Shortcut

Can we not take this subject any further? [In reply to]	Can't Post

You've both made a point about evolutionary science and creationism, so I'd like to suggest that we move back to Tolkien. Those subjects have been discussed before, are far off topic, and in my experience always lead to long, long debates. If either of you wants to pursue the debate, I propose that it happen on the Off Topic board. (And first, you might use the 'search posts' function, to find the previous such discussion, in which Ertur of the Grey Company was a prime mover.)

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:07pm

Post #82 of 161 (2123 views)
Shortcut

No, I hate Tolkien. [In reply to]	Can't Post

That's why I've spent thousands of hours destroying him in the Reading Room over the past several years.

I hope your sarcasm detector is working. Wink

Let's not argue about Creationism vs. Evolution. You and I obviously have very different points of view on the subject, and I don't want to offend you or anyone else, especially since it is very off topic. So you are right, I don't want to go there.

Why do I want to prove my point? Well, I do hope I'm willing to find a middle ground, where there is a middle ground to be found. I hope I don't need to be right all the time, and that I'm willing and eager to be persuaded that I am wrong. But before I give up my position I would like to see some evidence for a different position.

Why does it matter to me? Because it's fun, and I like to learn through constructive argument and civil discussion. But if it is simply a matter of subjective belief, I'm willing to say to each their own. FarFromHome, though, seems to think there is more to it than subjective belief, and has assured me that she wants to keep debating this point in order to test her theory.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:09pm

Post #83 of 161 (2114 views)
Shortcut

Agreed. [In reply to]	Can't Post

My apologies for bringing it into the discussion.

Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 26 2009, 11:14pm

Post #84 of 161 (2111 views)
Shortcut

I agree totaslly [In reply to]	Can't Post

I had and have no desire to go there - I felt blindsided by the tone of the analogy, that's all.

Case closed.

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:26pm

Post #85 of 161 (2152 views)
Shortcut

Yes, the book is hobbitcentric. [In reply to]	Can't Post

I just don't see that as evidence that what appears to be an omniscient, objective narrator is really a biased, unreliable series of narrators.

If RotK is written by Sam, he must have changed quite a bit of what Frodo wrote, or what Frodo gave him must have been woefully incomplete. And what about the adventures on the other side of the River? They obviously are not seen through the eyes of Frodo or Sam. So who acts as the protagonist doesn't necessarily tell us who is narrating the tale.

There are discussions of turning the adventure into a book, which Bilbo has already done with his previous adventure. I acknowledge that conceit, I just don't think it is consistent throughout the book. Indeed, I think Tolkien mostly ignores that conceit except where someone is talking about it. And I don't think those references are frequent, considering the size of the epic. That's in contrast with a first-person account, or a series of first-person accounts from different characters, which can be found in other fiction.

I would also contrast the text of LotR with the Prologue and Appendices, which include long passages described as the work of other authors -- but there, Tolkien very clearly marks them as such. There's nothing subtle about it, and there's no need to speculate about what Tolkien had in mind.

I understand that you are not trying to force this perspective on me, but it does seem that you are saying Tolkien might have intended us to see LotR from such a perspective, and that it isn't just your subjective preference. Therefore I would like to test your theory through debate, and see whether it might stand up to criticism, without, I hope, offending you or anyone else who shares your views.

(This post was edited by Curious on Feb 26 2009, 11:27pm)

squire
Half-elven

Feb 26 2009, 11:35pm

Post #86 of 161 (2115 views)
Shortcut

I get you now [In reply to]	Can't Post

You're saying that whenever Tolkien used the alternate authors device, he always - or "consistently" - used the same one. I'll grant you that for LotR and The Hobbit. I'll leave it as needing more support in the Silmarillion realm, where his ideas on the stories' provenance varied widely over time.

I tend to agree with Curious that in LotR, the consistent story comes and goes according to the author's convenience or ease of execution. It works well in explaining point of view, as Far From Home shows in her recent post. It also can be put to use in justifying the wide range of writing styles, as we are finding especially in the Appendices.

But for the large parts of LotR that are written in a conventional omniscient narrator's voice appropriate for a twentieth-century fantasy romance, a voice that is the grown-up descendant of the Hobbit's narrator where Tolkien was just telling a tale to his kids, any detailed explanations about a "skilled translator", etc., become too labored to interest me.

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Feb 26 2009, 11:42pm

Post #87 of 161 (2102 views)
Shortcut

I agree with both you and Curious about the narrator of LOTR [In reply to]	Can't Post

I certainly agree that for the most part, the idea that LOTR is a portion of the Red Book written by Frodo simply doesn't hold up through most the book. And that is, perhaps, even more true about The Hobbit being a portion of the Red Book written by Bilbo (of course, the idea didn't even exist at all in Tolkien's mind when The Hobbit was first written).

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 27 2009, 2:00am

Post #88 of 161 (2113 views)
Shortcut

I'll have to disagree... [In reply to]	Can't Post

Tolkien's subcreated authorial device is consistent throughout LotR. The story is indeed Hobbitcentric, and supplementary material outside the reckoning of Hobbits and their limited sociopolitical sphere is either supplied in firsthand accounts by the major players (Gandalf relating his capture at Orthanc or the battle upon Weathertop), or by those well acquainted with the lore (Bilbo in Rivendell working along with Aragorn, for instance). The further we get from the Hobbit protagonists, the less information we receive, and the information dwindles to almost nothing when not in context with other close associates of the Hobbits, like Aragorn or Gandalf (the eastern battles of the War of the Ring in Mirkwood, Erebor and Lothlorien account for only a few paragraphs of material). The Battle before the Morannon is abruptly ended when Pippin is knocked unconscious, and is taken up later in recollective form on the Field of Cormallen. I think the manner in which Tolkien used the device is quite ingenious, and it is evident that he implemented the idea early on in the story.

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 27 2009, 2:11am

Post #89 of 161 (2105 views)
Shortcut

Who saw and reported on the "most tragic moment" in LOTR? [In reply to]	Can't Post

That's Tolkien's description of a scene that none of the story's imagined authors saw or heard described. FarFromHome has an answer, but it depends on the idea that Tolkien is consistent in his conceit, therefore can't be used to prove that idea..

Morthoron
Gondor

Feb 27 2009, 2:39am

Post #90 of 161 (2098 views)
Shortcut

Very true... [In reply to]	Can't Post

But Faramir, in his sensitive manner, could have imagined such a sad demise for the tragic queen. I would have to say that the citation I offered in relation to the deluge certainly has a sympathetic air of a Gondorion bemoaning the fall of his ancestor's homeland. That being said, is any history really factual? I would say the further one goes back, the less reliable the data. Did Jacques De Molay of the Templars really curse King Phillip and Pope Clement to meet him before God within a year of his being burnt at the stake? No, it is patently false, a legend, but the fact that both did die within the year became a handy foil for historians and moralists to devise a whopping good story. The old adage that history is written by the victors is certainly true as well.

Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 27 2009, 2:55am

Post #91 of 161 (2123 views)
Shortcut

Hmm. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Actually I was thinking of Tolkien's description of Gollum's near-repentance in the Mountains of Shadow, when he sees Frodo (and Sam) asleep --"A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head", etc.-- but returns to evil when Sam awakes and sees Gollum touching his master. How do Frodo or Sam know that Gollum almost didn't betray them to Shelob? FFH's answer is that Sam later remembered that on waking, Gollum's tone was oddly subdued, and so he had Frodo insert two paragraphs of fanfiction into the Red Book.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Feb 27 2009, 4:27am

Post #92 of 161 (2097 views)
Shortcut

Yes [In reply to]	Can't Post

If something doesn't work, then I would indeed want to know why. But it has to really not work. I see your point, yet I approach it with caution; I do not want to get sucked into the fashion of disdain, on the mistaken notion that this marks someone of discriminating taste--too cool to have fun syndrome. I don't see much to gain in training myself to look down my nose at books that have given me so much pleasure. I want to analyze where the pleasure comes from.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Feb 27 2009, 5:02am

Post #93 of 161 (2094 views)
Shortcut

Harder and more elusive. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

If something doesn't work, then I would indeed want to know why. But it has to really not work

So you don't want to know what makes middling works merely mediocre? Tongue

I don't think any of the regular posters here are fashionably disdainful. Rather they are reporting their honest reactions, warm and cool, to various facets of Tolkien's work, and then following John Simon's advice to critics, to pursue "their own reactions down to the rock bottom of their subjectivity".

Curious
Half-elven

Feb 27 2009, 8:13am

Post #94 of 161 (2091 views)
Shortcut

Focusing on the hobbits protagonists is not the same [In reply to]	Can't Post

as consistently telling the tale in the voice of a series of unreliable, biased narrators. It's not the same as stories told in the first person throughout, by one or more characters in the story. It's not the same as the Prologue or Appendices, in which Tolkien claims to quote various historical sources, and generally identifies those sources.

But even the hobbitcentricity is not consistent throughout. The narrative of the Three Hunters in Rohan, and the battle at Helm's Deep, which together take up most of one of the six books in LotR, is not told through the eyes of the hobbits. The romance of Faramir and Eowyn is not told through the eyes of one of the hobbits. And there's no indication that anything witnessed by Merry and Pippin was written down by them.

It's true that there are not many scenes the hobbits couldn't have researched if they had interviewed all their friends. There are some. At various times we get a glimpse of the thoughts or actions of Gollum (on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol), Shelob (after Sam wounds her), the Mouth of Sauron (his personal history), and even Sauron himself (his reaction when Frodo claims the Ring) that cannot be easily explained as something overheard or witnessed by the good guys. But I'll admit those moments are rare.

For the most part, we see the story from the perspective of the good guys. Tolkien does make it possible to imagine that Frodo did, in fact, interview all his friends, and that the entire narrative is based on their memories. But boy, do they have good memories! The story is told in the voice of an objective, omniscient narrator, and it takes a consistent effort to imagine that in fact it is told by a series of biased, unreliable narrators pretending to be objective and omniscient and pretending to remember everything that happened along the way.

I don't object to imagining such narrators, or at least I don't object to other people imagining such narrators (I find it tiring myself), as long as it doesn't get in the way of literary criticism. If every inconsistency or potential flaw or hole in the narrative is explained as the work of an unreliable narrator, then suddenly Tolkien has become immune to criticism, and should therefore be immune to credit as well.

I don't think Tolkien intended to use the conceit of a memoir or history as cover against any attempt to analyze what he wrote. Tolkien certainly did not hold back in critiquing other works of fiction, and he also spent a good deal of time musing about LotR, much the way we do on this forum. For example, Tolkien did not explain away the seemingly irredeemable nature of orcs as the work of unreliable narrators; he tried (and failed) to come up with a plausible explanation consistent with everything else he had said about orcs. There are times where he blames an inconsistency on an unreliable narrator, but only when the inconsistency was clearly stated in the voice of one of the characters, as for example when Treebeard speculates about the origin of the trolls.

sador
Half-elven

Feb 27 2009, 8:29am

Post #95 of 161 (2089 views)
Shortcut

In the Prologue, Merry is considered to be a bit of an author [In reply to]	Can't Post

Which actually strengthens your point - as it becomes even more conspicious that 'The Uruk-hai', and to a lesser degree 'Treebeard', are told as if Pippin wrote them!
I once toyed with the idea of systematically going through LotR and collecting all evidence about such narrators - but that would take a lot of work, and require careful re-reading with taking notes all the time. I'm not sure when I will be able to afford the time - I'm afraid it won't be on the coming thematic discussion, unless it takes much longer than planned at the moment.

"He gave out that he was interested in history and geography (at which there was much wagging of heads, although neither of these words were much used in the Bree-dialect)."

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 1 2009, 4:33pm

Post #96 of 161 (2069 views)
Shortcut

Not quite that. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

FFH's answer is that Sam later remembered that on waking, Gollum's tone was oddly subdued, and so he had Frodo insert two paragraphs of fanfiction into the Red Book.

First of all, my assumption is that Sam himself inserted material into the Red Book after Frodo left (I think there's a reference to this in the unpublished epilogue). I never imagined that Sam told Frodo what to write! In fact, the story tells us that Sam was surprised to see how much Frodo had written at the time the book was handed over, so it's pretty clear there was no collaboration on the actual writing (although Frodo must have listened to the recollections of many people, and Sam was surely one of them).

An an important part of my hobbit-narrator argument, in fact, is the clear shift of point of view from Frodo to Sam that happens around the time that Frodo takes Gollum's oath. We rarely see into Frodo's mind after that, as if perhaps the bulk of the story comes from Sam after that point. The implication would be that Frodo's memory of the actual journey began to fail as his attention became more and more focused on fighting the effects of the Ring. He comes back from time to time (the meeting with Faramir might be one such episode) perhaps when his attention is drawn away from his internal struggle for a while.

Secondly, my argument, if I correctly remember what I wrote, was not that Gollum tone was "oddly subdued", but that Sam awoke in time to see exactly what is described in the scene, that is, Gollum reaching out to touch Frodo. In fact, the story tells us that Sam saw this - it's just that being woken suddenly made him jump the wrong conclusion ("pawing at master"), as he explains to Gollum himself right afterwards ("you startled me out of my sleep....and that made me a bit sharp.") I think it's possible (if one wants to follow the hobbit-narrator conceit where it leads) that Sam understood the whole thing when he looked back on the episode, but too late to do anything about it. That's one of the most tragic interpretations of all, I find - that Sam ultimately realized that not only had he forced Gollum to be the "villain" (having wondered aloud only a few minutes earlier whether Gollum wanted to be "the hero or the villain"), but that he'd also made a mistake that ultimately may have been a cause of much of Frodo's suffering.

However, just to be clear, I don't think any of this is provable - I just find that it gives a different perspective that leads to some new thoughts about the story. For me, it's a bit like the way following up on Tolkien's clues about Hobbit society or Elven biology can extend the story. It's yet one more way that Tolkien's thoroughness (in this case, his thoroughness in imagining who might have witnessed the story) can give us new avenues to explore. And I guess I'm just more interested in literary theory and narrative styles than I am about sociology and biology!

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Mar 1 2009, 4:49pm

Post #97 of 161 (2065 views)
Shortcut

Do you really think [In reply to]	Can't Post

that Sam would have described Gollum as having looked like an old, weary Hobbit?

I find that most difficult to believe.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

squire
Half-elven

Mar 1 2009, 5:05pm

Post #98 of 161 (2065 views)
Shortcut

Well, it's certainly arguable [In reply to]	Can't Post

Far From Home makes a believable argument that Gollum's epiphany and reversion could have been reconstructed in retrospect by Frodo and Sam, based on Sam waking up in time to see Gollum reaching out to touch Frodo, and seeing Gollum's expression revert to hatred and spite.

I would assume that it was Frodo who had the insight that Gollum's appearance betrayed his hobbit-origins at that point, based on an intelligent probing of Sam's memory. In other words, Sam saw what he saw, and he and Frodo between them realized what it may have meant - primarily, I'd say, Frodo because of his extreme sympathy for Gollum's situation. Certainly we have to concede that the hobbit writers here portray as fact what they could only guess at, which is typical of the kind of indeterminacy that the Red Book interpretation brings to what is seemingly (and in the author's intention as documented in his letters) an important and highly determinate scene.

So I still think this is not the best way to read this scene, but as FFH says, it's just one approach to the material that focuses on point of view and the conceit of the Red Book. I tend to agree with NEB that Gollum's private moment belongs to the Narrator, who makes quite a number of appearances in Book IV as Frodo becomes more and more inarticulate.

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Mar 1 2009, 5:09pm

Post #99 of 161 (2062 views)
Shortcut

Sure. [In reply to]	Can't Post

The older, wiser Sam, who only after this incident actually had the experience of wearing the Ring; who knew that only through Gollum's intervention the Ring was destroyed, and that Frodo forgave him; who had seen how Frodo was changed by his experience with the Ring -- he might think of Gollum as an old weary hobbit. However, "The Grey Havens" and the "Epilogue" say only that Sam finished up the final pages of the book, which when Frodo leaves it already has as many chapters as are found in The Hobbit and LOTR through "The Scouring of the Shire".

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 1 2009, 6:26pm

Post #100 of 161 (2059 views)
Shortcut

We witness them [In reply to]	Can't Post

in terms of narrative approach. I'm not talking about biases in the imaginary "history", I'm comparing narrative technique between the two media. Peter Jackson takes the standard "omniscient" approach to the story. So we the audience witness private discussions between the Wise and others, discussions that the hobbits have no access to. No such scenes are presented to the readers of the book. With very few exceptions, everything we witness in the book comes either directly through the eyes of the hobbits, or is told to the hobbits second-hand. That makes a difference to the way the Wise are portrayed, I think. People who dislike the movies often find one of the things they most dislike is the way the noble characters like Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn seem too flawed and "human". In the book perhaps what makes it possible for these characters to be believably portrayed as so unquestionably wise and/or heroic is the fact that they are only seen from the hobbits' perspective.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 1 2009, 7:05pm

Post #101 of 161 (2116 views)
Shortcut

Sounds good to me. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Therefore I would like to test your theory through debate, and see whether it might stand up to criticism, without, I hope, offending you or anyone else who shares your views.

As I said, I'm not sure my idea does hold water. I may be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps the thing I've noticed - which is that so much of the story comes from so few, mostly hobbit, points of view - is a technique Tolkien is using for some other reason, rather than to try to make his story reflect the development of a legendary or mythic tale.

As it happens, I heard an interesting discussion on the radio the other day about modernism's attitude to mythology (in the context of both Joyce's Ulysses and T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land). One of the speakers said something about myths being "translations without originals", and that immediately reminded me of the Sil. Here's what the speaker said (I transcribed it from the podcast):

Modernist writers all became obsessed with myth. It was an obsession they inherited from the Victorians. I think what they were obsessed by, fundamentally, is not so much the content of myths, but that myths were translations without originals. If you think of any myth, there are lots of different versions of it, and you never know which the version is.

That's made me wonder if Tolkien was perhaps deliberately rejecting this modernist approach of seeing myths as fragmented and essentially unknowable, by creating a story in the mythic form that, to the extent he could manage it, isn't self-contradictory and fragmented. He didn't like the fractured quality of the Celtic myths, and I think he said he regretted that Beowulf mixed the pagan and Christian viewpoints. So maybe he was just trying to create the kind of ideal myth that didn't have this frustratingly muddled quality. In which case, the ambiguity in the story-telling technique may not be to make his readers wonder what lies behind it, but quite the opposite - to let them have, despite the potential ambiguity of the viewpoint, a single, unified story.

But the ambiguity of so many of the scenes is certainly something that interests me, especially the ambiguity that comes from the fact that in some scenes we are only told how something "seemed" to Frodo or Sam (especially them, but occasionally to the other hobbits). Very rarely do we hear that something "seemed" a certain way to any other character. One clear exception is Aragorn on the Seat of Seeing. I'd be interested to know how many other exceptions there might be - maybe my memory of the story is shaky at this point. To what extent is our viewpoint constrained to that of the hobbits? As I mentioned in my earlier post, there's a clear difference between Peter Jackson's fully "omniscient" narrative technique, in which we have scenes between characters like Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn that allow us access to their thought processes, and Tolkien's narration from relatively limited viewpoints, so that we see these "great" characters mostly from the outside, the way the hobbits might see them.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Mar 1 2009, 7:31pm

Post #102 of 161 (2107 views)
Shortcut

Gandalf, Gimli and Legolas, the hosts of Mordor. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

Very rarely do we hear that something "seemed" a certain way to any other character. One clear exception is Aragorn on the Seat of Seeing. I'd be interested to know how many other exceptions there might be - maybe my memory of the story is shaky at this point.

When Tolkien clearly identifies a point of view --something he certainly does not do consistently-- it is usually that of a hobbit. Because there are fewer occasions when we see from others' viewpoints, there are naturally fewer instances of "seeming" moments that aren't hobbits. But three examples jump to mind; there are probably a few dozen more, particularly for Gimli.

--"But to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet."

--"Then it seemed to Gimli and Legolas who were nearby that she wept, and in one so stern and proud that seemed the more grievous."

--"But the hosts of Mordor were seized with bewilderment, and a great wizardry it seemed to them that their own ships should be filled with their foes; and a black dread fell on them, knowing that the tides of fate had turned against them and their doom was at hand."

Quote

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there's a clear difference between Peter Jackson's fully "omniscient" narrative technique, in which we have scenes between characters like Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn that allow us access to their thought processes, and Tolkien's narration from relatively limited viewpoints, so that we see these "great" characters mostly from the outside, the way the hobbits might see them.

I think Tolkien wanted us to believe in, and that he thought he was creating, Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn as unambiguously good and noble characters. However, several discussants over the past sixteen months, squire and sador especially, have reminded us that Tolkien shows how even these characters make mistakes.

squire
Half-elven

Mar 1 2009, 7:40pm

Post #103 of 161 (2114 views)
Shortcut

Think of hobbits as a lens, not as authors [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think Tolkien, starting out to write a sequel to The Hobbit, naturally wrote from the hobbits' point of view as Fellowship began. I also think, as he looked back at The Hobbit, that he saw ever more clearly the value of the tension between the "bourgeois" or "modern" hobbits and the grand epic fairyland of dwarves, dragons, and gold, when trying to write such a fairytale or romance for modern audiences. He may even have still been stinging from the criticism his Silmarillion tales had been given by his publisher's readers: that they were too elevated in tone to be really entertaining.

Starting from this vantage point, he saw his way through to the end of a far larger, and far more elevated, story than he had ever meant to write when he began. The scale and elevation are thrilling, yet all agree the story benefits from not being too serious, or too antiquarian, at all times. The hobbits' perceptions, language, and focus on earthy comforts all contrast with the "knights of olde" deeds and sayings of the heroic characters. I think this keeps the reader engaged in a way that (for instance) the Silmarillion has a very hard time doing. And Tolkien - no fool about such matters - knew it.

I would even say he made sticking to the hobbit point of view a writer's rule for himself that was almost hard and fast - not to be broken, except when absolutely necessary, because it is such a darned good concept. But he was never enslaved to it, either. After all, next to the criticism of the Silmarillion's style, he also held in his mind his publisher's early criticism of the LotR drafts: that there was "too much hobbit talk". He confessed that he had a weakness for such drivel (read it in HoME VI if you can), and we might say that the success of LotR comes from Tolkien's successful effort to balance his wide-ranging tastes in adventure literature.

Finally, I guess that this highly effective and literary lens approach later tempted Tolkien to continue the gag from The Hobbit, which only occurs at the end of that book, that LotR is a "translated" manuscript from ancient Middle-earth, actually written by the hobbits themselves. It's clever, and it adds another layer of interest to the book, but it was not applied to the actual writing so much as layered on for fun at the end. He spends more time on the "Red Book" effort in the last few chapters, and in the post-writing segments (Foreword, Prologue, Appendices), than he ever does in the main body of the story. It's because of those vast stretches of story that are pure Tolkien that I don't think it's very convincing to say that he wrote LotR intentionally as if it was somehow "discovered", "translated", etc. etc.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 12:16am

Post #104 of 161 (2092 views)
Shortcut

I discussed most of these points [In reply to]	Can't Post

earlier in this same thread.

Quote

That's an interesting thought. Tolkien seemed frustrated, in particular, that so little Anglo-Saxon mythology survived. I'm not sure he was frustrated that Beowulf mixed the pagan and Christian viewpoints, though. I think he criticized the tales of Arthur for being too Christian, but in Beowulf I think he saw it as a feature, not a flaw -- an essentially pagan tale seen through a Christian lens. One could almost say the same of LotR!

And although LotR is more orderly than many myths, it does draw on many myths and fairy-tales. It pretends to be the source of such myths, but in fact is the product of them, reimagined by Tolkien, of course.

Quote

Most of the adventures of the Three Hunters in Rohan and at Helm's Deep and in the Paths of the Dead are not told from the viewpoint of the hobbits. Faramir's romance with Eowyn is not told from the viewpoint of a hobbit, even though Merry was nearby. But as I noted in my previous post, even where the hobbits are the protagonists, as in the adventures of Frodo and Sam, the story is not told in their voice, and for me it requires a good deal of effort to reimagine it as a tale told by a series of biased, untrustworthy narrators pretending to be one objective, omniscient narrator.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 12:30am

Post #105 of 161 (2103 views)
Shortcut

Myth of idealized heroes [In reply to]	Can't Post

I have never seen Tolkien's characters as idealized in the actual writing. I have seen plenty of fans, however, who had a need to perceive the characters as idealized, and who'd get downright angry at anyone else seeing them any other way. Then this becomes so enshrined that people next discuss the "flaw" of Tolkien writing unrealistically idealized characters, or else Peter Jackson's "fault" in not writing unrealistically idealized characters. But in the actual text, they're all quite approachable folks, with plenty of imperfections that they manage to overcome to get the job done anyway.

I prefer to think of their better qualities, even as I prefer to think of those in my friends, but if you must have an itemized list:

Aragorn. He made numerous mistakes, and sometimes would admit so quite frankly, as at the Breaking of the Fellowship. He could not quite keep his boast that "My cuts, short or long, don't go wrong" (Although they eventually came out alive, getting lost to the point of skirting the fringes of troll country--which took Aragorn sufficiently by surprise that it would qualify as "lost", at least until he suddenly realized that he'd gone too far north--and worst of all suffering the Ring-bearer to sustain an incurable morgul-wound, qualifies as having gone wrong, even though Glorfindel rescued them.) His attempts at lightening the mood with humor at the Prancing Pony failed embarrassingly (which immediately endeared him to me, having launched many a failed joke in my day, myself) He fumbles and second-guesses himself and suffers occasional failures of confidence. I find that actually rather charming, and find myself rooting for him to pull together and eventually become the King that he must be.
Gandalf. Short-tempered nicotine freak whose lack of organization often leaves him chaotically bouncing around and never finishing anything. Sometimes rude and testy, but like some of my best irascible friends, has a heart of gold well worth exploring beyond the crusty surface.
Hobbits. All of them, can sometimes be shallow, unobservant, frivolous at inappropriate moments, impudent, and ignorant, though granted Frodo somewhat less than the others. They have no inhibitions about drunkenness or gluttony--Frodo definitely included. Sometimes they need keepers more than bodyguards. But that's all just part of their charm.
Theoden. Starts out as a mean-spirited hypochondriac with a disastrous foreign and domestic policy, trusting to bad advisors and waxing dangerously petulant even with his own kin. He became heroic with effort and better counselors, but he had to work at it. So here's another example of someone who repents.
Eomer. Trusts to superstitious rumors and leaps to unflattering conclusions before being taught better. Obviously ignorant and rough around the edges. Played right into Grima's hands by responding with brute force to more sophisticated verbal barbs. But hey, everybody needs at least one good-natured barbarian for a friend.
Faramir. Probably the best of the lot, but fully capable of being tempted by evil, even if he didn't give in to it. Also crippled by a daddy complex to the point of riding nearly to his death. Although a nearly-perfect gentleman in most regards, he apparently lets out his aggressions and his less-sophisticated Shadow-side by indulging in rough humor and practical jokes, because how else can you explain that his men shrugged it off as one of the Captain's little jests, when their guests suddenly leaped to their feet and grabbed at their swords? Does that often happen at your parties?
Eowyn. I love her dearly, and admire her wholeheartedly, but for her PMS stands for "Pass My Sword!"
Galadriel. Rebel. Sorceress. Not immediately included in the general amnesty afforded most of the other Noldor. Had to pass a test that she came within a hair's breadth of failing. Yet the ideal woman, so I've been told, is an angel with just enough of a touch of devil in her for spice.
Legolas. Loveable goofball. Tolkien called him the least effectual of the Fellowship.
Gimli. Even more of a loveable goofball, though I find him the more eloquent of the two--take that, elves!
Elrond. Admirable on many levels, yet also complex and conflicted. We really don't know that much about his individual quirks, but he must have a vulnerable side if he winds up bonding with his kidnapper as a little elfling, when his father didn't even try to rescue him before sailing off on what everybody called an impossible quest.
Bilbo. Curmudgeon. A gallant one, but a curmudgeon all the same.

Oh, and I forgot to mention in an earlier thread: Lobelia repented, too.

Am I missing anybody?

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 3:29pm

Post #106 of 161 (2088 views)
Shortcut

They may have foibles, but have any of them [In reply to]	Can't Post

sinned? Maybe Galadriel did, but Galadriel in The Silmarillion and Galadriel in LotR are two different ladies, as evidenced by Tolkien's attempts to rewrite Galadriel's history in Unfinished Tales. LotR is a world of absolutes, with a bright line between Good and Evil, Saints and Sinners, Heroes and Enemies. That doesn't mean that Saints and Heroes are perfect, by any means, but they Do Not Sin. Tolkien excused even Frodo, who claimed the Ring, saying he fell under an unbearable burden, rather than succumbing to sin.

Of course, if you ask the Saints and Heroes what they think of themselves, they will tell you all of their flaws, because they are, of course, as Humble as they are Brave and Wise. But the Great and the Wise honor them.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 3:52pm

Post #107 of 161 (2099 views)
Shortcut

Sin is relative [In reply to]	Can't Post

Stories never tell us all the details. We don't know whether Aragorn has cheated at cards, or whether Eomer has entertained a lady or two after hours, or whether Elrond cusses in private. These things have nothing to do with the story.

But yes, some of these characters have sinned in the story. Tolkien did not say that Frodo did not sin--he said that his fall was understandable and inevitable. Not inevitable in the sense of having no free will, but inevitable in the sense that Frodo was a mortal who cannot possibly be perfect. In one of his letters I'm fairly certain that I read Tolkien saying that Frodo's fault was in not asking for enough help, trying to bear the temptations all alone. Frodo is forgivable, not perfect.

Pippin stole the palantir. Sure, he was tempted, but as Gandalf said, he should have asked for help with his itchy fingers.

Theoden sinned in listening to Grima's seductive counsel, that absolved him of responsibility by pandering to his hypochondria.

Oh, and by the way, saints do sin. They're human beings. They overcome sin, but they all have their pasts. St. Augustine's illegitimate child, St. Paul's past of persecuting Christians, St. Matthew's past as a graft-taking Roman collaborator tax-collector...I could go on.

Sam sinned against Gollum in his judgmentalness, and paid a terrible price for it.

Eowyn sinned by disobedience, though it all worked out in the end.

Bilbo stole the Arkenstone, saying, "Now I am a burglar indeed", although he later put it to good use.

Not all literature has to be Xena Warrior Princess turning from villain to hero. Heroes are often like us (in fact the more like us, the better.) We don't necessarily manifest our imperfections on a spectacular scale.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on Mar 2 2009, 3:55pm)

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 4:02pm

Post #108 of 161 (2077 views)
Shortcut

My edits vanished [In reply to]	Can't Post

Saints do sin. They're human beings who overcome sin, but they all have pasts. Some of the more obvious examples include how St. Augustine begat a child out of wedlock, St. Paul used to rally people to stone Christians to death, St. Brigid and St. Francis both began by giving to the poor what wasn't actually theirs to give, St. Matthew began as a tax-collector, which in his day meant a Roman collaborator getting rich on graft (prostitutes and tax collectors were often spoken of in the same breath, as people who got their money in a bad way) etc. I could go on. But again, these are the more spectacular sorts. Most of the saints had the usual run of sins, like the rest of us. Same as the heroes in LotR.

What sort of sinning would it take to make these characters believable to you?

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 4:04pm

Post #109 of 161 (2084 views)
Shortcut

Oops--they didn't disappear! [In reply to]	Can't Post

I just accidentally put them in the middle of the post!

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 4:54pm

Post #110 of 161 (2076 views)
Shortcut

Hmm. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

There's your unreliable narrator again. I have no way to refute such arguments, I suppose. You can imagine them all as secret sinners if you like.

Quote

Tolkien did not say that Frodo did not sin--he said that his fall was understandable and inevitable.

In Letter 246, Tolkien said that Frodo was not guilty of "moral failure." To me that sounds like he did not sin.

Quote

Pippin stole the palantir. Sure, he was tempted, but as Gandalf said, he should have asked for help with his itchy fingers.

Yes, well, Gandalf examined Pippin carefully to make sure no permanent damage had been done -- and by that I take it he judged that Pippin had not fallen into evil. But yes, it was close. I think the explanation is that Pippin was allowed to succumb to curiousity to fulfill a Higher Plan.

Quote

Theoden sinned in listening to Grima's seductive counsel, that absolved him of responsibility by pandering to his hypochondria.

Theoden was the victim of Saruman's spells.

Quote

Sam sinned against Gollum in his judgmentalness, and paid a terrible price for it.

Sam judged Gollum correctly. That wasn't sin, it just wasn't a match for Frodo's superhuman mercy and trust in Providence.

Quote

Eowyn sinned by disobedience, though it all worked out in the end.

Tolkien makes the point several times -- think of Hama or Beregond, as well as Eowyn and Merry -- that disobedience is not a sin when done for a moral purpose.

Quote

Bilbo stole the Arkenstone, saying, "Now I am a burglar indeed", although he later put it to good use.

Again, disobedience -- in this case, disobeying Thorin -- is not a sin when done for a moral purpose.

Quote

Oh, and by the way, saints do sin. They're human beings. They overcome sin, but they all have their pasts. St. Augustine's illegitimate child, St. Paul's past of persecuting Christians, St. Matthew's past as a graft-taking Roman collaborator tax-collector...I could go on.

LotR is much more strict than the New Testament or the tales of the saints, where the whole point is that Christ dies for our sins, and gives every sinner the opportunity to repent.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 5:16pm

Post #111 of 161 (2081 views)
Shortcut

*Tolkien's characters are* believable within** [In reply to]	Can't Post

the confines of Tolkien's fantasy world, which is different from the Primary World. No one was more aware of those differences than Tolkien. But they also raise the bar for us in the Primary World, and make us wonder whether we could turn those ideals into reality, and whether the fantasy could be true not just because it is internally consistent, but because it gives us a glimpse of what Tolkien called "evangelium," i.e. "good news," i.e. the promise of the Christian Gospels. I don't think you have to be a Christian to be seduced by this vision, though -- it's just that Tolkien was a Christian, so that is the language he used for his own idealized vision.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 5:28pm

Post #112 of 161 (2068 views)
Shortcut

That works for me. [In reply to]	Can't Post

I'm more interested in the implications of LotR being the hobbits' story, not in the mechanics of how they managed to actually write it (although I do like the idea of the palimpsest - the multiple-layered effect of legends retold, recopied, added to and edited - which Tolkien must have been very familiar with in his day job).

In Reply To

I think Tolkien, starting out to write a sequel to The Hobbit, naturally wrote from the hobbits' point of view...

I'm not sure it's really relevant to try to explain what Tolkien's motivations might have been when he started out. I'd rather look at the completed work and see what it gives us. Just saying that Tolkien did this or that for mundane reasons that he hadn't thought through doesn't really do justice to his work, I don't think. We have to assume that he wrote what he meant to write, and that he meant what he wrote. Otherwise what's the point of studying his work at all?

In Reply To

I would even say he made sticking to the hobbit point of view a writer's rule for himself that was almost hard and fast - not to be broken, except when absolutely necessary...

Yes, I'd agree with this. When moments came along that just wouldn't fit into the hobbit-centric approach, Tolkien allowed himself the freedom to step outside the hobbits' viewpoint.

In Reply To

...the gag from The Hobbit, which only occurs at the end of that book, that LotR is a "translated" manuscript from ancient Middle-earth...

So you're pretty sure that Tolkien was just making a laboured academic joke here, are you? You don't think that all the many mentions of the Red Book and the writing of it are more than a childish gag, inherited from The Hobbit? I have to part company with you there. Tolkien's entire creative life was taken up with the development of a "legendarium", a "mythology for England". He would hardly stoop to making it no more than a pointless gag in his most serious work.

In Reply To

He spends more time on the "Red Book" effort in the last few chapters, and in the post-writing segments (Foreword, Prologue, Appendices), than he ever does in the main body of the story.

True, although a) that's to be expected, because that's when the story might actually be written; b) there are small mentions here and there throughout; and c) there's a very long and developed discussion about stories, in which Frodo and Sam talk about the theory of story-writing (the need for a little laughter - "why didn't they put in more of [Sam's] talk, Dad? He makes me laugh!", the need for suspense, and even the fundamental insight that a story told from a different point of view can be a very different story indeed: "I wonder if he thinks he's the hero or the villain?")

That all seems a bit much for a simple gag.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 5:33pm

Post #113 of 161 (2079 views)
Shortcut

Are we on the same page? [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

"There's your unreliable narrator again. I have no way to refute such arguments, I suppose. You can imagine them all as secret sinners if you like."

I didn't mean to offer such silly examples as things that I actually imagined. I am trying to say something about literature in general. Literature, mind you, not court transcripts. All stories, not just Tolkien's stories, leave stuff out for pacing purposes, and not only allow but intend for us to fill in the blanks. We not only don't know about the character's sins, we don't know what Elrond likes for breakfast, whether or not Galadriel wears underwear, what's Strider's bar-tab at the Prancing Pony, or who tutored Faramir in mathematics.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that every single thing left out of a story must be presumed to not exist. That doesn't work with art. Art works by implication. Right now I'm looking at a print beside the computer, of a Botticelli painting of the Annunciation. The background shows a window, through which one can see a castle on the hill. If you insist, I cannot prove, from the blurry glimpse provided, that the castle has any furnishings whatsoever inside. You might fault me for assuming that it does, on the basis that it is normal for dwellings, especially of those who can afford to build castles, to contain furnishings, but it would really be off base to claim that Botticelli painted an unrealistic picture just because he provided no visual evidence that the castle in the distance was furnished.

To answer your contentions:

Frodo was not guilty of moral failure because he tried his best. His best was not perfect, but he deserved forgiveness for trying. Moral failure would mean damnable. Frodo is not damnable.

Pippin had not fallen into evil in the sense of becoming a tool of Sauron's. He was guilty of a petty sin, not of going over to the enemy.

Movie-Theoden was a victim of Saruman's spells, not book-Theoden. Although Saruman could enhance his persuasiveness magically, strong wills could resist him, as we later see in Isengard. Theoden was guilty of not exerting his will. Gandalf came to heal him, but sin is a disorder of a soul out of balance. Notice how Gandalf heals him. None of that "Saruman be exorcised!" theatrics, although Gandalf did engage in some special effects to underline his points. No, he persuades the King to realize that he's sounder than he wants to admit--and his health demands responsibility. In other words, Gandalf persuades Theoden to repent letting himself get seduced into hiding behind his age.

Sam did not judge Gollum correctly, in the moment of Gollum's repentence--thereby undermining the repentence while it was still weak and immature.

I'll give you the ones about Tolkien allowing disobedience for a worthy cause--in general, at least. The question is, just how worthy was Eowyn's cause? Good came of her resolve, but her motive was suicide. And Bilbo's motive was not originally to provide Thranduil with a bargaining-chip--at first he just plain wanted the Arkenstone out of greed, and his statement about being a burglar indeed reflects his awareness of his own guilt in the matter. He had finally reached a point where he could no longer rationalize his behavior--he had become exactly what everybody called him.

I will repeat my question: What sort of sin would make these books seem realistic to you?

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 5:42pm

Post #114 of 161 (2067 views)
Shortcut

How do we know [In reply to]	Can't Post

...that what Tolkien "omitted" about Aragorn wouldn't actually make him look better, not worse, than he does in the story as presented? Maybe Tolkien really did want to create characters who were good beyond our experience.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Mar. 2-8 for Family Trees, Calendars, and Writing and Spelling.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 5:46pm

Post #115 of 161 (2066 views)
Shortcut

FYI: "mythology for England" isn't Tolkien's phrase. [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's a minor point and doesn't undercut your argument, but: while Tolkien certainly once intended something like a "mythology for England" --though when he comes closest to saying so, he's describing a project long abandoned-- that phrase was actually coined by Humphrey Carpenter in his biography of Tolkien.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 6:04pm

Post #116 of 161 (2063 views)
Shortcut

I won't repeat [In reply to]	Can't Post

my answer.

The book also implies that Theoden was a victim of Saruman's spells, although the spells are much more subtle.

Okay, can we agree that none of Tolkien's heroes are guilty of damnable sins, as opposed to petty sins?

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 6:18pm

Post #117 of 161 (2062 views)
Shortcut

Different intention [In reply to]	Can't Post

Forgive my lack of clarity. I did not intend that material omitted would have made Aragorn appear better or worse per se. If anything, it would probably make him appear both better and worse. Richer, more detailed. I'm saying that he comes across as normal, so why can't we assume that he has a normal complement of strengths and weaknesses? Good normal, granted. Better than average--much like the sort of people that we seek out to befriend. Brave, well-meaning, self-sacrificing--who doesn't have friends like that? Middle-Earth history put him in a position to let his inner hero step forward, but we all know people who would be heroes if called upon. Some are quiet heroes at home, making incredible sacrifices that don't get into history books.

Tolkien stated that his goal was to portray the ennoblement of the humble, and it's there in his writing for anyone who wants to see it. Because Strider has endearing little fallible moments now and then, we identify with him, we know that he is capable of sins even if we don't see them up front, and that it doesn't matter, because his overall orientation is good. People with an overall orientation towards good stand a much better chance of becoming heroes in a pinch than people whose overall orientation is spiteful or selfish, because of the habits that they create.

How do people become heroes? By making a habit of choosing integrity (commitment to one's values whether or not they're convenient) through a series of increasingly difficult tests, until that integrity becomes steel-hard and unbreakable. Aragorn is someone like us, who made a habit of integrity his entire life, which eventually paid off in making him strong in the face of near-despairing odds. That's a hero: somebody whose integrity has become, through practice, strong enough to make them do heroic things.

Tolkien has alway written on the same theme in Middle Earth, starting with Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit". Bilbo starts out as a pompous, self-centered, petty little bore. Step by step he transforms into a truly admirable hero, by a series of decisions to maintain his integrity (except in the matter of thievery--psychologically, he had to let go of his artificial construct of "respectability" in order to achieve a more real kind of virtue--that whole salvation by way of Shadow journey.)

Having integrity is not the same as sinlessness. The more I think about Tolkien's trauma regarding his mother's death, the more I see how it shaped everything he wrote. He watched her die a horrible death, when denying her beliefs would have gotten her the special foods that could have bought her up to three more years of life and a relatively healthier, more comfortable existence. She was not some extraordinary being, not some idealized literary fabrication, but a real-life woman with flaws like everybody else--but she had integrity, and it made her become a hero in her son's eyes. Tolkien believed in this trait, which he witnessed firsthand, enough to bestow it on all his favorite characters.

Think of what he might have written, had she chosen to give up her faith in order to survive a few more years, and not suffer so much. He would have written of tragic compromises, intrigues, people doing "what they had to do" without moral compass, prolonging their lives a little longer "because they had no choice", no doubt all written very sympathetically. His stories, would, in short, have become much like many other stories that get published, read for awhile, and then forgotten. He would have no less talent; I daresay his writings would have become required reading in the better colleges. But they would not have inspired in the same fashion; they would not have gripped the imagination of the world the way that his writings have in this real world of ours. Their appeal would not span cultures, races, classes, religions, and generations. After awhile, only academics would care.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 6:21pm

Post #118 of 161 (2047 views)
Shortcut

Agreed. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In other words, none of the heroes are villains.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 6:32pm

Post #119 of 161 (2048 views)
Shortcut

Yep, there's a bright line between them.// [In reply to]	Can't Post

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 6:39pm

Post #120 of 161 (2072 views)
Shortcut

Who wants "better than average"? [In reply to]	Can't Post

You have lots of friends like Aragorn? Worthy of absolute power over a universal empire? Worthy of marrying the semi-angelic Arwen? Sorry, me and my friends are at best more like Fatty Bolger -- brave to a certain extent, better than the average hobbit, perhaps, but hardly capable of freeing the Shire, let alone the world.

(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 2 2009, 6:40pm)

squire
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 6:54pm

Post #121 of 161 (2046 views)
Shortcut

I take back the "gag" remark [In reply to]	Can't Post

I wasn't writing or thinking clearly, I see. I meant that in The Hobbit, the "memoirs" conceit is a gag, added at the very end as a kind of literary in-joke. I agree that it's more than a simple gag in the later book; as I said, it's cleverly done and it adds a layer of interest. I think the connection I resist is not that Frodo and Bilbo write a book, the "Red Book", within the story, that tell the stories of The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. That follows Tolkien's lifelong interest in the origins and meaning of stories, and reflects also his earlier attempts to give the Silmarillion a fictional provenance as "discovered" legends.

I do resist the idea that because we read about the story-element of the Red Book, therefore The Lord of the Rings, as written and published by Tolkien, is meant to be read and understood as that book in translation, etc. throughout the story. Thus the narrative voice is understood to be Frodo, and any inconveniently inconsistent elements were added relatively seamlessly by later scribes and editors, such as the omniscient scholars of Gondor. If this does not convince, we are asked to believe that Tolkien "rewrote it" as the narrator, but only as a translator updating the discovered "manuscript" to the readability standards of the 20th century. I find the entire premise too flimsy to support such a great book, especially compared to Tolkien's own self-described dream of writing "a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them."

To a couple of your other points, let me say that I analyze Tolkien's process not because I don't think he meant what he wrote, especially after he re-wrote it, several times. It's because he seems often to have discovered what he meant, after he wrote it. His process of writing by discovery means that he often took early ideas and repurposed them in retrospect. For instance, once the idea of Trotter the hobbit-guide proved unsupportable, Tolkien didn't just eliminate the character and rewrite the necessary chapters. Rather, he transformed Trotter into Strider the man, and eventually Aragorn - leading to a phenomenally massive evolution in the entire tale's meaning. Yet much of Strider's early dialogue and action is almost unchanged from Trotter's, leading me (for instance) to question who Trotter the Hobbit was thinking of so intently as he chanted the tale of Luthien to the other hobbits on Weathertop. It sure wasn't Arwen, yet the transition to it being Arwen works perfectly once the song was taken over (so to speak) by Strider. Tolkien thus kept that moment in, whereas he eliminated the wooden feet completely.

Similarly, when we study his process in writing The Lord of the Rings, we see that the idea of telling a fairy-tale romance from the bourgeois hobbits' point of view had already proven successful and so he started from that immediately, long before he realized the epic scope of his project - so that I conclude that the hobbits-as-lens is a more reliable and interesting way to explain the distinct hobbit-centric narration than the conceit of hobbits-as-authors. Then in the course of further writing, as the story took on aspects of an actual history, but especially during the preparation for publication, I imagine that he re-purposed the hobbit-centric point of view to support a "translation from the Red Book" idea. But he never did it consistently or thoroughly, since that would have required essentially a complete rewrite that would probably have destroyed the book as a work of art. Put another way, discovering a mundane beginning doesn't mean I judge the final product mundane at all; it makes it all the more amazing, to me.

Finally, I think the discussion between Frodo and Sam on the edge of Mordor, about the nature of the story they find themselves in (and also other such remarks by Merry and Pippin, etc.) is way too self-conscious to be considered support for the Red Book idea. Rather, it shows Tolkien having a go at the self-referentiality of his modern-day fairy-tale, for his reader's benefit. It's an extremely modern sequence that has drawn critical praise for its deftness in acknowledging and justifying its own artificiality. If anything, it is a passage that all by itself makes fun of the idea of the Red Book, while ostensibly promoting it - because it asks us to believe that 1) the hobbits had such a conversation and 2) they then included it in their own book about themselves which 3) asserts that their entire adventure is both "fiction" and "true". We can assert that Frodo is capable of such literary introspection, but such an assertion elevates him right out of the book and into Tolkien's seat. Once Frodo becomes Tolkien, we're back in Oxford with a don who deeply cares about story and its paradoxes, not with a Westron-writing hobbit from some primeval European culture of seven thousand years earlier.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 2 2009, 7:13pm

Post #122 of 161 (2044 views)
Shortcut

Fair enough. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I do resist the idea that because we read about the story-element of the Red Book, therefore The Lord of the Rings, as written and published by Tolkien, is meant to be read and understood as that book in translation, etc. throughout the story.

Agreed, that would be much too simplistic an interpretation of what Tolkien tells us. In fact, almost nothing of my argument would make sense if we took that approach - it depends very much on the idea that many voices contributed to the story, and that the story may have (must have) evolved after it left the hands of its primary sources.

In Reply To

...let me say that I analyze Tolkien's process not because I don't think he meant what he wrote, especially after he re-wrote it, several times. It's because he seems often to have discovered what he meant, after he wrote it. His process of writing by discovery means that he often took early ideas and repurposed them in retrospect.

A nice point, and it certainly does validate the approach of looking at Tolkien's creative processes. I have sometimes thought how very much his method of taking a scene or a character and "repurposing" them is almost exactly what happens in the evolution of true legends. A striking image from the tale of Tristan and Isolde, for example (the sleeping lovers discovered with a sword placed between them), also turns up with a different meaning in the story of Lancelot and Guinevere.

In Reply To

Finally, I think the discussion between Frodo and Sam on the edge of Mordor, about the nature of the story they find themselves in (and also other such remarks by Merry and Pippin, etc.) is way too self-conscious to be considered support for the Red Book idea.

I agree that it's too self-conscious to fit with the idea that LotR is the Red Book, the simplistic approach that, as I mentioned above, is not my approach. However, the way it almost breaks the fourth wall as the hobbits discuss being in their own story certainly draws attention to the possibility of thinking of this as more than just a straightforward, omniscient-narrator tale. This is where Tolkien seems to be most clearly hinting that there's more to this tale than meets the eye - narrative points of view really matter, and there's a fundamental unreliability in any single account.

In Reply To

Once Frodo becomes Tolkien, we're back in Oxford with a don who deeply cares about story and its paradoxes, not with a Westron-writing hobbit from some primeval European culture of seven thousand years earlier.

Indeed, the story has now turned completely into the layered tale with its multiple meanings and points of view that I'm arguing for!

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

squire
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 7:26pm

Post #123 of 161 (2054 views)
Shortcut

Faith in Christ, and the ennoblement of the noble [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think Tolkien would have written the kind of books he wrote, whether or not his mother had died the way she did. He projected onto her the qualities of Christ, whom he adored. His worldview was defiantly Catholic and medievalist, before she died, which already marked him as different from most Englishmen. Add to her death his being fostered by a Catholic priest, and his ability to idealize the humble and realize the integrity of faith becomes too deeply rooted to ascribe to a single tragedy. What is remarkable is rather that he was able to rise above his Catholicism, and express these concepts literarily in the populist way that you observe, without writing mere tracts.

I disgree that Aragorn "comes across as normal". Rather, he comes across as human, which some readers do seem to miss. But he is way, way above average. He is both a leader and a hero, and we believe in him not because he's normal like us, but because we know that if we met him, we'd honor him as a hero and follow him as a leader. The ennoblement of the humble was Tolkien's theme expressed through the adventures of Frodo and the other hobbits. His other theme, less publicized because less politically correct (I dare say) is the ennoblement of the noble, like Aragorn, in the best old-Tory tradition. Merry and Pippin express this theme in this memorable but underemphasized passage:

Pippin remained behind. 'Was there ever any one like him?' he said. 'Except Gandalf, of course. I think they must be related. ... let's be easy for a bit. Dear me! We Tooks and Brandybucks, we can't live long on the heights.' 'No,' said Merry. 'I can't. Not yet, at any rate. But at least, Pippin, we can now see them, and honour them. It is best to love first what you are fitted to love, I suppose: you must start somewhere and have some roots, and the soil of the Shire is deep. Still there are things deeper and higher; and not a gaffer could tend his garden in what he calls peace but for them, whether he knows about them or not. I am glad that I know about them, a little.

sador
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 7:28pm

Post #124 of 161 (2059 views)
Shortcut

I tend to agree with the 'hobbit-lens' rather than 'hobbit-author' distinction you make [In reply to]	Can't Post

But this really must be done thoroughly. I think both FarFromHome and you are generalising on your impressions, rather than analysing and judging whether the passages a hobbit couldn't write are local exceptions, or prove that there is no rule.
As I said earlier in this thread, this requires a lot of work. I still toy with the hope to find the time to do it properly - but where and when?

On another note - I do not think the hobbits' remarks about how their images in future books was so modern. Roman history seems to be full of people who were concerned with their future images - and the way they reflect on their progeny. Even Greeks were, if we can trust Homer - see for instance Hector's challange to the Greek commanders in chapter 7 of the Iliad, which managed to gain him the duel with Aias.

"So Mr Frodo is his first and second cousin, once removed either way, as the saying is...
...Mr Bilbo has learned him his letters - meaning no harm, mark you...
...there's going to be presents, mark you, presents for all - this very month as is."
Mark the Gaffer's words!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 2 2009, 11:03pm

Post #125 of 161 (2035 views)
Shortcut

Very interesting point! [In reply to]	Can't Post

I'll have to mull this over, but I agree that Aragorn's story makes me feel more uncomfortable than Frodo's. I just wish Aragorn were noble purely on merit, and not because of his bloodlines. But that would undercut the whole idea that some men are noble born. In which case, what right would Aragorn have to be king? It works within the rules of Tolkien's fantasy, but it touches a sore spot of mine in the real world.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 4:23am

Post #126 of 161 (2072 views)
Shortcut

Matter of degree and opportunity [In reply to]	Can't Post

Aragorn becomes all of those things you list through long trials that demand that he choose between being his best or his worst. He furthermore has Elrond, Gandalf, and other fine people to train him from infancy. But any number of people could become him, or something like him, under the right circumstances, because their innate decency would steer them to harder and harder right choices until they could accomplish something truly amazing. That's what Sam Gamgee's all about, except we get to see more of the process going on with him. I have friends who are potentially him--and no doubt so do you.

My contention is that we are all potentially heroes, and all potentially villains. Fantasies outline the process for us, in a stylized fashion, of becoming what we admire. But heroes are real. If Mrs. Tolkien had never developed diabetes, her potential for heroism might never have been put to the test, and she might have lived a long and ordinary life. Instead she led a short and courageous one, martyred for freedom of conscience.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 4:34am

Post #127 of 161 (2082 views)
Shortcut

Normalcy [In reply to]	Can't Post

Perhaps we really agree on Aragorn. It is just that I have a different concept of "normal"--which is to say, a very flexible state which can be stretched to an astonishing degree. One can change one's IQ, one's personality, one's moral fiber, one's talents--all manner of things which people treat as though static. Aragorn is not an idealized statue taken out of the Perfection Closet to be paraded about for admiration. He's a human being. And when we read about such a human being, we should not see him as some unattainable entity beyond our ken, but as an example, a goal that we can set for ourselves. That's the whole purpose of heroes in myths and legends: to inspire us.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 11:23am

Post #128 of 161 (2064 views)
Shortcut

He also has divine and elven blood. [In reply to]	Can't Post

He's the direct descendant in an unbroken line from Elendil and Isildur. And he's a throwback to the "sea-kings of old." He has the hands of a healer, and can free the Shadow Host. No one else can do these things. He's literally and figuratively a giant among men, let alone among hobbits. Next to him, we are all hobbits, and the notion of a hobbit -- even a hobbit like Frodo or Sam -- marrying Arwen is flatly ridiculous.

As you note, at best we can hope to be like Sam or Frodo. That's no small matter -- after all, Aragorn gives them honor. But we have as much chance of being another Aragorn as we do of being another Gandalf, or another Bombadil, or another Manwe. We can honor him, and learn from him, and even hope to win honor from him, but we can never be him, and shouldn't try.

That actually makes me more comfortable with Aragorn. If I don't think of him as entirely human, then I am more comfortable with his majestic bloodlines. And the way Tolkien sets it up, we might have a miniscule bit of Aragorn's blood in us, and Arwen's too. Then again, we are likely to have more orcish than elvish blood running in our veins. Half-orcs and half-elves represent the worst and best of human nature, but Aragorn has no orc in him, and much more than a normal share of elf, plus some Maia. Like the most ancient Greek heroes, he is descended from gods, and was born to be a hero.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 11:32am

Post #129 of 161 (2060 views)
Shortcut

Heroes may inspire us, but [In reply to]	Can't Post

in the original myths, they were by definition half divine:

"A hero, in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, the offspring of a mortal and a deity, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion."

And in the Norse myths Tolkien loved, the heroes were often full-blooded gods like Thor and Odin. They might inspire us, but we could never hope to become one of them.

(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 3 2009, 11:32am)

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 12:34pm

Post #130 of 161 (2070 views)
Shortcut

I think it's a bit more complicated. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Aragorn has no orc in him, and much more than a normal share of elf, plus some Maia. Like the most ancient Greek heroes, he is descended from gods, and was born to be a hero.

Aragorn isn't such a shoo-in as a hero as all that. After all, he's the "last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship". Many generations of Men, his forefathers, all with more elf- and Maia-blood than him, died in obscurity. Even Aragorn himself, as Elrond warns him, may still "fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin". He's not superhuman, he really is human.

I believe that it's the hobbit perspective that allows the story to credibly portray Aragorn as such a consummate hero. Their admiration for him knows no bounds, and that helps to sell the idea of such a paragon of fairytale heroism to a potentially skeptical audience. But, as Dreamdeer and others have pointed out over the chapter discussions, there are lots of small details that allow us to see behind the heroic exterior, if we want to, and see the striving, suffering man behind it. Or not, if we prefer to experience the story as pure fairytale.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 4:18pm

Post #131 of 161 (2071 views)
Shortcut

Semi-divine, [In reply to]	Can't Post

long-prophecied heroes strive and suffer too. Superhumans can turn into villains instead of heroes. But they are still superhuman.

The modern-day equivalent would be superheroes, most of whom have superhuman abilities. (Batman and Ironman are exceptions, but they both have unlimited wealth and high-end intelligence.) They are not immune to suffering or temptation. In many ways, they are more vulnerable than ordinary humans, for, as Spiderman learned, with great power comes great responsibility, and great temptations.

As for Aragorn's ancestors dying in obscurity, fame is not the same as virtue. Each of Aragorn's ancestors fulfilled his role with virtue, and the more recent chieftans deliberately remained in hiding until the time was ripe. But they also knew, with the foresight given to their superhuman race, that Aragorn was Estel, the Chosen One, who would either succeed or fail.

How do you think that made Aragorn feel, knowing that forty generations had labored so that he would have this one chance to defeat Sauron? It's the burden of true nobility -- not the flawed nobility of the Primary World, but the true nobility of the philosopher king, who would, if it would do no harm, just as soon remain in Fairie, but gives all that up for the sake of mankind, and puts the burden of the whole world upon his shoulders.

Finally, regarding the hobbit perspective, here again I see the untrustworthy narrator coming into play. If you choose to see the narrator as untrustworthy, then you can attribute all kinds of things to Aragorn that the narrator does not tell us, and I cannot prove that you are wrong. All I can say is that the text reveals only the foibles and struggles and temptations of someone who is superior to all other humans, not the essentially-ordinary nature of an everyman hero like one of the hobbits.

(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 3 2009, 4:22pm)

Darkstone
Immortal

Mar 3 2009, 5:36pm

Post #132 of 161 (2072 views)
Shortcut

Well, at least the female ancestors knew. [In reply to]	Can't Post

But they also knew, with the foresight given to their superhuman race, that Aragorn was Estel, the Chosen One, who would either succeed or fail.

Arador was the grandfather of the King. His son Arathorn sought in marriage Gilraen the Fair, daughter of Dirhael, who was himself a descendant of Aranarth. To this marriage Dirhael was opposed; for Gilraen was young and had not reached the age at which the women of the Dunedain were accustomed to marry.

"Moreover," he said, "Arathorn is a stern man of full age, and will be chieftain sooner than men looked for; yet my heart forebodes that he will be shortlived."

But Ivorwen, his wife, who was also foresighted, answered: "The more need of haste! The days are darkening before the storm, and great things are to come. If these two wed now, hope may be born for our people; but if they delay, it will not come while this age lasts."

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 5:42pm

Post #133 of 161 (2045 views)
Shortcut

I can't see anything [In reply to]	Can't Post

in your description of superheroes that doesn't apply equally to just plain regular heroes. Indeed, I think superheroes are interesting simply because they are projections of the best of humanity, not a class apart.

I like your descriptions of Aragorn's burden, but I don't see anything there that doesn't reflect real, human experience, portrayed in a high-heroic style. If Aragorn strives and suffers to achieve his superhuman feats, why do you call him superhuman rather than human? Is it because he's presented with few flaws? Do you read that as meaning he has no flaws, rather than that he overcomes them? If he strives and suffers to overcome fear, or doubt, or the desire to remain with his beloved, then I'd say he's human, not superhuman.

In Reply To

If you choose to see the narrator as untrustworthy, then you can attribute all kinds of things to Aragorn that the narrator does not tell us, and I cannot prove that you are wrong.

To the extent I see the narration as untrustworthy, all it means is that I'm prepared to look below the surface, at the details in the text that add a layer of ambiguity, in this case to the grandly heroic surface impression of Aragorn. The moments when he gets testy, or worries that he's made mistakes, or sits with his head bent to his knees before he leaves Rivendell. Those are the temptations of Aragorn, and without them he'd be a lesser character.

By suggesting that the narrator has a particular point of view and is not "omniscient", I'm not claiming that that makes it all right to just make stuff up. Everything has to come through the narrator, but you can imagine that perhaps the narrator doesn't always understand everything he sees. All I want to do is look at the many small, hidden details that can enrich the characters, and other aspects of the story, if you look for them. I think Tolkien writes a grand, fairytale story of magic and superheroism on one level, but often adds a wealth of small details on another level that allows us to glimpse the humanity and reality that lies behind those fairytale conventions.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 5:43pm

Post #134 of 161 (2041 views)
Shortcut

Spiderman comes across as human too. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Spiderman has human emotions, human failings, human temptations -- and superhuman abilities. I would say that Aragorn has some abilities that are, at the end of the Third Age, shared with no other human. At the very least, he has the hands of a healer, special foresight, the right to lead the Shadow Host, and the right to use the palantiri. He also seems to have a very strong aura, sometimes seen as a flame above his head, which gives him a strong presence in the spirit plane (i.e. when facing Nazgul, Sauron, or the Shadow Host). And he has no fear when facing the Nazgul, although Boromir and Faramir may share that ability to some extent.

I think I'm more comfortable with Aragorn as superhuman, closer in kind to Gandalf or Elrond than to the hobbits, than with Aragorn as merely human, inheriting his crown like any Primary World aristocrat. If I'm going to follow a True King with unlimited power over a universal empire, he had better be more than human. I would want lots of checks on the power of any merely human king.

Indeed, at the end of LotR, isn't Aragorn given everything the Ring ever promised to anyone? Is there any power more grandiose than the power given to Aragorn? I suppose the only checks upon that power are the Higher Powers, who were the ultimate checks upon Ar-Pharazon's power. Claiming the Ring was wrong not because absolute power is wrong -- in Tolkien's world, one priest-king is actually worthy of such power, as a steward for Manwe, who in turn is a steward for Eru -- but because the Ring was not subservient to the Higher Powers.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 5:45pm

Post #135 of 161 (2033 views)
Shortcut

Dirhael is male.// [In reply to]	Can't Post

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 5:49pm

Post #136 of 161 (2037 views)
Shortcut

Nice point about the Ring [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Claiming the Ring was wrong not because absolute power is wrong -- in Tolkien's world, one priest-king is actually worthy of such power, as a steward for Manwe, who in turn is a steward for Eru -- but because the Ring was not subservient to the Higher Powers.

The Ring is a usurper of power that rightly belongs to Eru's steward on earth, the rightful King.

But the divine right of Kings is a human, real-world tradition. You don't need to be superhuman for that.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 5:50pm

Post #137 of 161 (2038 views)
Shortcut

Is Gandalf human, then, by your definition? [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think he might be just as human as Aragorn -- and just as superhuman, as well.

squire
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 5:51pm

Post #138 of 161 (2040 views)
Shortcut

Aragorn as Elessar does not receive the Power of the Ring [In reply to]	Can't Post

The Ring compels obedience to its wearer, even against its victims' wills. Aragorn receives obedience because he is lawfully owed it by rank, and because he himself is worthy of it. Aragorn has no slaves in the Fourth Age; the Ring makes slaves of all who come within its power.

Faramir points out that even "willing slaves" are slaves all the same, if they have no choice about their service, and he will have nothing to do with it. In saying this, he is explaining his rejection of the Ring's temptation. Aragorn similarly rejects the Ring and its mode of operation, from the very beginning of his quest for power.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 5:54pm

Post #139 of 161 (2036 views)
Shortcut

Except [In reply to]	Can't Post

that in the Primary World, as I think Tolkien well knew, no human king is actually worthy of absolute power. Divine right is a real-world tradition, but the difference between reality and fantasy is stark.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 6:02pm

Post #140 of 161 (2037 views)
Shortcut

That line can be fuzzy. [In reply to]	Can't Post

When King Elessar sits in judgment over Beregond, he has the authority to execute him. Perhaps Beregond could go to his execution defiant, whereas the Ring could compel him to give up his defiance. But Aragorn doesn't just advise his subjects the way Gandalf did -- Aragorn rules, and there is no human check upon his rule.

Arguably, if King Elessar became an evil tyrant (arguably he is already a good tyrant), and lost the favor of the Higher Powers, his subjects could, with divine approval, revolt. But that's a tricky matter to judge, let alone execute, and woe to the subject who judges incorrectly, or judges correctly but executes incorrectly.

Darkstone
Immortal

Mar 3 2009, 6:09pm

Post #141 of 161 (2040 views)
Shortcut

I know. [In reply to]	Can't Post

And if he'd had his way Gilraen would not have married Arathorn II and thus there would have been no Hope.

It took a female's (Ivorwen) vision to guide things right.

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 6:15pm

Post #142 of 161 (2031 views)
Shortcut

Yes. // [In reply to]	Can't Post

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

FarFromHome
Valinor

Mar 3 2009, 6:23pm

Post #143 of 161 (2061 views)
Shortcut

Agreed. [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Divine right is a real-world tradition, but the difference between reality and fantasy is stark.

The whole idea of the divine right of Kings is a fantasy, though, isn't it? Yet it's one of the beliefs that people lived by for many centuries. For those people it wasn't fantasy, but reality. Tolkien is taking us into such a world.

Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song

(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Mar 3 2009, 6:25pm)

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 6:48pm

Post #144 of 161 (2037 views)
Shortcut

I don't think so. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Tolkien is not taking us into the historical past, but into a fantasy, a mythological past, in which divine right works the way it was supposed to work. As Tolkien was well aware, the historical reality was very different from the mythological fantasy.

Now, it may be that Tolkien is taking us into a historical fantasy or mythology, attempting to give us a flavor of myths which at one time were commonplace. But that's very different from taking us into history.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 6:56pm

Post #145 of 161 (2049 views)
Shortcut

I see your point. Although [In reply to]	Can't Post

Dirhael's foresight was correct, and he did concede the point to Ivorwen in the end. The story just proves a point Tolkien makes many times, i.e., that decisions can be just as hard with limited foresight as without -- perhaps harder. And only Eru has unlimited foresight. Another example is the argument between Gandalf and Aragorn about whether to enter Moria. Again, both have correct foresight about what will happen, but still they argue.

The hard part for Dirhael was sacrificing his daughter's future, and much of her happiness. The hard part for Aragorn was sacrificing Gandalf, which seemed like folly.

(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 3 2009, 7:03pm)

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 7:00pm

Post #146 of 161 (2029 views)
Shortcut

That explains alot. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Apparently we were using different definitions of the world "human."

squire
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 7:12pm

Post #147 of 161 (2039 views)
Shortcut

Well, he is a King, for gods' sake. [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think you are pushing the envelope with talk of him being a "good tyrant" and having "absolute power". You make him out to be positively sinister, because he "doesn't just advise his subjects"!

The sense of the book is that he is a traditional king. As such, he rules his kingdom. There are laws, such as the one that Beregond broke, that the King must follow with only justifiable exceptions. There is a council representing other noble powers and houses, which Aragorn will presumably consult. And there is the usual recognition of privileges, stations, and duties that are the province of others, as Faramir shows us when he lectures Eowyn about not going over the head of the Warden in the area of his expertise. As King, Aragorn makes the laws - there is no legislature - but the laws he makes are based on consultation with other wise men, are clearly just, and he respects and obeys existing laws that are not his own. I don't see why these factors don't constitute various "human checks" upon his rule, even if the U.S. Constitution isn't applicable here.

Such a King has a lot of power, but not absolute power. And Aragorn is not one who would either abuse it or forswear it (say, by offering "advice" rather than law) - the latter is as serious a dereliction as the former, in Tolkien's world. Obviously, this monarchy is fantastical, as we've often discussed, but it is within the realm of the human imagination. Since we have leaders, we fantasize about having perfect leaders. Thus I don't see any kind of "fuzzy" line between Aragorn's power, and his use of it, and the way that Saruman, the Witch-king, and Sauron operate. In Middle-earth the line between voluntary obedience and compulsory obedience to the sovereign is very distinct, and well symbolized by the One Ring. That clear distinction is what makes it all an enjoyable fantasy, rather than a dreary and realistic political science tract.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2009, 7:31pm

Post #148 of 161 (2036 views)
Shortcut

No, not sinister at all. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Aristotle writes at length about how to be a good tyrant, and gives specific examples. Many kings have had absolute power; some have been judged good (at least by those who survived to write the histories), some average, many bad. In the end, most nations have determined that unchecked power is not worth the risk, although in times of crisis there is a tendency to become impatient with checks on that power.

At times even democratic leaders ignore such checks in the name of necessity, as for example when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Roosevelt increased the executive power a great deal in a time of crisis with public consent, then he tried to pack the Supreme Court, and found himself firmly rebuffed.

The sense of the book, as I see it, is that Aragorn is anything but a traditional king. Aragorn is the One True King, modeled more on Christ than any real-world king.

Tolkien makes the point repeatedly that laws are not as important as morals. Aragorn is not just a king, but a priest-king, and the successor to Gandalf as Steward of Middle-earth, the representative of Manwe in Middle-earth. If Aragorn determines that a mere human law conflicts with divine will, is anyone going to stand in his way? Certainly not any court of law, and as you note no legislature. Even Denethor could overrule the will of his council, and Aragorn has more authority than Denethor.

Fortunately, Aragorn does respect the rule of law, but that is Aragorn choosing to check his own power, not an outside check from some human authority. Aragorn is the legislator, the executive, and the judge. If he doesn't check himself, no human authority can check him.

It is true that Aragorn's oaths of office bind him, as does Manwe's will. I never said that Aragorn's authority is unchecked, I said it was unchecked by any human agency. It is the source of Aragorn's authority (Manwe vs. the Ring) that is the key distinction, not the amount of authority he is given.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 4 2009, 2:04am

Post #149 of 161 (2017 views)
Shortcut

Philosopher-King [In reply to]	Can't Post

I like your invocation of Plato's philosopher-King: the idea that the best leader is the one who doesn't actually want to lead. That puts Aragorn's diffidence to accept the throne in a different light, not a flaw as some have seen it (and therefore wholly attributable to Peter Jackson's imagination, though the text is against them there) but rather a sign of virtue. It would also tie in to Tolkien's distaste for democracy as putting office solely in the hands of those who want it very much indeed. (Still those of us who prefer democracy fear those who like their birthright all too well without feeling any corresponding responsibility, which has happened often enough. But that's just me.)

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 4 2009, 2:10am

Post #150 of 161 (2018 views)
Shortcut

Good points--important distinction! // [In reply to]	Can't Post

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 4 2009, 2:19am

Post #151 of 161 (3322 views)
Shortcut

Police [In reply to]	Can't Post

In most countries, a police officer has the right to kill someone if, in his on-the-spot judgment that person poses too much danger to other citizens and the officer can see no other way to restrain him in time. Yet this does not make him a tyrant. For one thing, every time he exercises that authority, he must later answer in an inquest as to whether he did the right thing.

In Aragorn's case, laws exist that set a frame for his behavior. He could not have executed Beregond for insulting him, for instance. And in fact, in the example given, Aragorn had to struggle to wiggle out of a law that would have mandated Beregond's execution (for doing the right thing!) by "exiling" him to a promotion.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 2:23am

Post #152 of 161 (3317 views)
Shortcut

Where is the inquest [In reply to]	Can't Post

to which Aragorn must answer? If Aragorn struggles to obey the law, it is because he chooses to work within the confines of the law. And no one questions the mercy he shows Beregond. No human agency forces him to obey the letter or the spirit of the law, or questions his ruling.

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 4 2009, 2:28am

Post #153 of 161 (3323 views)
Shortcut

Something subtler [In reply to]	Can't Post

You're right in one sense--that Gondor probably does not have any formal mechanism for questioning the decisions of the King. But there also comes a point when bad decisions weaken one's ability to lead. Time and again people disobey their leaders in Middle-Earth--even some of the good ones--if their orders don't seem to fit the situation.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

squire
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 3:10am

Post #154 of 161 (3337 views)
Shortcut

So what? [In reply to]	Can't Post

You're focusing on the aspect of Aragorn that is modeled on real life: that he is an absolute sovereign, in terms of the theory of kingship. Then you seem to really worry that he must be trusted to be virtuous, because "no human agency" can restrain him from error or misrule. But really, no human agency can prevent any sovereign from doing anything, if the lord can maintain obedience from the military forces of the land that enforce his rulings. The law is, after all, just a social convention, not a physical force. As far as your complaint goes, what "human agency" could stop President Obama from imprisoning the Congress, executing the Supreme Court, abolishing all state governments, and ruling by decree - if the Army would follow his orders? If we were to object that his actions were against the law, or unconstitutional, so that even the Army would balk at such a coup, well, that's what we tell ourselves, isn't it?

But what is the difference between that situation and Gondor as you imagine it? You assume that Aragorn could wantonly break Gondor's customs and laws, and get away with it, because of his status as the True King, or as you put, Priest-King. For that to be so, his Guard and others would have to execute his illegal actions. Yet that actually seems unlikely - as witness his timidity in challenging the rule of the Stewards until popular support for his reign emerged due to his obvious qualifications and heroic deeds. I continue to maintain that real societal restraints on abuse of power exist in Gondor - or as real as they are anywhere else.

Rather than complain that Aragorn has "too much power" so that we are forced to trust in his doubtful virtue, as you seem to do, shouldn't we look at the aspect of his being that is unlike any actual real world sovereign? Perform a thought experiment now. Imagine that:

"Aragorn disobeys the letter or the spirit of the law."

Nope. Maybe you can, but I can't see it. The force of some human agency has nothing to do with it. That's just not who he is, because after all, *whispers* he is fictional. Unlike any king or ruler we can imagine in the real world, he actually does not "choose to work within the confines of the law" - because the alternative is not even a choice for him. He can't help it. He's written that way. You, like Beregond and all the other good folk of Middle-earth, are safer with him than you would be with any political system that has ever existed in the real world, whatever checks and balances it might boast.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 11:14am

Post #155 of 161 (3305 views)
Shortcut

Sure I can imagine it. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Aragorn's clever judgment of Beregond almost certainly disobeys the spirit of that law, if not the letter. The law was intended to punish. Do you think Beregond was punished?

And Tolkien's characters disobey human laws all the time. Eomer, Hama, Beregond, and Faramir all disobey the law, trusting their judgement instead.

Yes, a military coup is a risk in the Primary World. So what? We do not formally grant the president those powers. Aragorn does not need a military coup -- he already rules by decree. He decrees that the land of the Woses is off limits, and the land of the Shire too. He makes the law. He could change the law that Beregond violated. He could change all the laws, and then the only question is whether he would obey the laws that he made. Again, if that happened -- if a fugitive entered the Shire, for example, and he wanted to follow -- all he would have to do is exercise his judgment, and either evade the law, as he did with Beregond, or simply disregard it, as Eomer, Hama, Beregond and Faramir did.

The aspect of Aragorn's rule that may be unlike the real world, for those of us who are skeptical, is the powerful effect of oaths in Middle-earth, and the involvement of the Higher Powers in the fate of Middle-earth. Aragorn's rule is more like the Pope's than any modern secular sovereign; Aragorn is answerable only to the Higher Powers, but he is most definitely answerable to them.

squire
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 11:40am

Post #156 of 161 (3308 views)
Shortcut

That explains a lot. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Apparently we are using different conceptions of the spirit of the law and the nature of justice. In pardoning Beregond, I believe Aragorn was obeying the spirit of the law that the guard technically broke. You don't. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 2:13pm

Post #157 of 161 (3340 views)
Shortcut

I find your point more persuasive than squire's. [In reply to]	Can't Post

Aragorn's power is limited, to some extent, by the willingness of his subjects to obey, and Tolkien shows that they are not willing to obey bad laws, or good laws that don't apply to particular situations. Nor are they used to strict enforcement by police powers -- instead, everyone is so law-abiding that there are no police. While it is theoretically possible for King Elessar to turn into Ar-Pharazon, in fact it would probably take several generations for that transformation to take place, as indeed it took several long generations for Numenor to turn into a police state. There is no human agency restricting King Elessar's power, but if he pulls a Saruman he risks open rebellion.

Actually, if I were to imagine such a scenario, I would imagine King Elessar, like Alexander the Great, becoming a despot of the Eastern and Southern lands he had conquered, and then attempting to apply that same despotism to the "free states," which were not used to such despotism. Alexander died before he could make that a reality, but later, after several generations, the Romans managed to tame the Greeks. And, judging by what happened in Numenor, it is perhaps inevitable that eventually King Elessar's empire will decay and grow despotic and corrupt, although it may take more than a thousand years.

(This post was edited by Curious on Mar 4 2009, 2:22pm)

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 4 2009, 3:52pm

Post #158 of 161 (3285 views)
Shortcut

Thank you! [In reply to]	Can't Post

I do appreciate your appreciation of my point, honestly! But, er... Blush

I hate to quibble with someone who just agreed with me, but Gondor does indeed have a police force. The Guard, the most elite being Beregond's unit.

As for Alexander, accounts of his later "despotism" only come from the highly propagandized Pseudo-Callisthenes manuscript, which I've always held as suspect for a number of reasons. The only evidence of "despotism" was that he accepted the form of tribute customary in the East: prostration. The Greeks found prostration degrading. He tried to get his Greek officers to do likewise in public, to smooth over the meshing of the two cultures, but they didn't go along with it. (Please note: true despots do not give up when their subjects don't want to do something.) He did not increase the restrictions on anyone's rights. Indeed, he was widely condemned for extending Greek rights to the conquered Persians.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Curious
Half-elven

Mar 4 2009, 6:05pm

Post #159 of 161 (3282 views)
Shortcut

Is the Guard a police force? [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think Beregond might resent such an implication. What makes you think the elite Guard, the best of the best, the proudest of the proud, are mere policemen, patrolling the streets of Minas Tirith? I would consider them the equivalent of Theoden's Royal Guard, i.e. an elite standing armed unit which answers directly to the Steward/King, as opposed to the militia mustered in times of crisis, which makes up the vast majority of the armed forces in both Rohan and Gondor.

As for Alexander, I won't argue the point. Let's say I'll base my fictional evil King Elessar on a fictional despotic Alexander, the one who figured in all the nasty rumors spread by his enemies. My point is that if King Elessar did want to become a despot, he would be best off relocating his power base to the countries used to such governance. In Numenor, it was the military governance of the colonies in Middle-earth that eventually led to despotism in Numenor itself. I could see the same think happening in King Elessar's empire, eventually (i.e., well after his and his son's death).

Dreamdeer
Valinor

Mar 5 2009, 4:32am

Post #160 of 161 (3282 views)
Shortcut

I concede both points... [In reply to]	Can't Post

...to your reasoning and your diplomacy.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!

Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor

Mar 15 2009, 9:15pm

Post #161 of 161 (3535 views)
Shortcut

The best I could come up with [In reply to]	Can't Post

is this map from Johann Jakob Scheuchzer's 1723 Ouresiphoites Helveticus, sive Itinera Alpina per Helvetiae alpinas regiones facta annis (1702-1711) volumes:

.

I know, Switzerland again. =)

(This post was edited by Eowyn of Penns Woods on Mar 15 2009, 9:16pm)

Search for (options)

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net