Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
Durin's Folk II
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

batik
Tol Eressea


Feb 20 2009, 4:29am

Post #26 of 50 (648 views)
Shortcut
OK [In reply to] Can't Post

so the way in which the author develops characters with some mention of the (possible) influence his relationships with others may come into play;
or his use of alliteration noting influences of past/present writings;
or his descriptions of settings and the role his surroundings as a child may have played in this part of his writing

Any or none of the above could be called Tolkien Studies?
(can you see I am one who learns through examples?)


batik
Tol Eressea


Feb 20 2009, 4:57am

Post #27 of 50 (622 views)
Shortcut
Alright....comes back to that *knowing* idea... [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose this may be a reason for speculation and the UUT...somethings are known, others are left open to interpretation. Lots of 'why' and 'how' related issues that, for me, are worth exploring. The geography, family trees, recorded actions, and so on are all very interesting but somewhat less open to speculation. There's where the knowledge plays a big role.Other components of the story are less set in ink, so to speak, and really rouse my curiosity.


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 20 2009, 5:13am

Post #28 of 50 (638 views)
Shortcut
Impact [In reply to] Can't Post

  
Good grief, ANOTHER lost post!


(This post was edited by Tolkien Forever on Feb 20 2009, 5:13am)


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 20 2009, 7:50am

Post #29 of 50 (629 views)
Shortcut
Being An Historian..... [In reply to] Can't Post

I tend to look at Middle-earth from an historical viewpoint: black & white......

(that certainly is not overly realistic as it's fiction, I know)

If I dig, I always stick to what I can see in texts as opposed to what NEB is railing against in his essay where folks go off on a combination of fact & unfounded speculation run wild.

On the metaphorical end, I just don't buy alot of the relative things I read & hear.......

But, that's always prefaced by "I feel" or "I believe". Wink


sador
Half-elven

Feb 20 2009, 10:23am

Post #30 of 50 (748 views)
Shortcut
When I was a newbie [In reply to] Can't Post

There was a fascinating discussion, about the "who raided the inn at Bree?" question, which I think shows the difference between 'Tolkien Studies' and 'Middle-earth studies'.
It went back and forth on two different threads. I'll link to one post in each, but both are worth reading in full.
The question is well-known - was the inn raided by Black Riders, or it was an inside job by Ferny and some other locals?
On the one hand, we have Aragorn's assurance that the Riders won't attack the inn; on the other the entry in 'The Tale of Years' which implies the attack was quite the same as the attack on Crickhollow.
From what came up in the discussion (which I can't check, never having read HoME), in the drafts around 1940 Tolkien intended it to be an inside job, but fifteen years later assumed it were the Riders.

See this post, by NEB. (You might be amused by the absolute sentence: "no, squire is right" - but two posts earlier he did call in 'a theory' and said 'to me, that makes the most sense'). His solution was that Tolkien changed his mind after he wrote and revised the chapter, but possibly before he composed the appendices. A clear case of "Tolkien studies".
On the other hand, my take was different: I suggested explaining away Aragorn's words, and even brought a reason to belive he was simply wrong (his words later in Isengard) - which was never actually answered by anyone.
Note that my argument was not denying the theory NEB favoured, but merely that he offered no proof; unlike what squire implied in a previous post, it was the "Middle-earth studies" approach promoted ambiguity! Where NEB saw the juxtaposition of the raid on Crickhollow as a deliberate attempt of Tolkien to mislead the readers, I saw it as keeping the reader in the dark, without offering him any clear-cut answer. I think that's one of the best points in Tolkien's world; in fact, I'd rather offer three UUTs than one.

As I've said before, my question about Aragorn's words in Isengard was not answered. I suppose it wasn't deemed a weighty enough objection to disprove the Ferny theory. Fair enough - but why?
Probably, a doubt expressed by Aragorn a twenty-nine chapters later should not reflect on the reliability of what he said in 'Strider'. In Bree, he was the wise stranger, telling the hobbits and the readers about the Riders. Both hobbits and readers have to make up their mind whether to trust him - but if we do, his information must assumed to be correct; Tolkien would never have let him reveal such critical information, only to tell us later "um, well, you know - I was pulling your leg. Strider simply didn't know that much". (By the way, I had a similar argument with squire some time ago whether we should trust Galadriel's assertion that Sauron doesn;t know where Nenya is. Can't find it at the moment)
In Isengard, Aragorn is one of the three hunters, guessing answers to his little riddles. Once Merry mentioned the Southrener at Bree, Aragorn chimed in with his own doubts about him and Saruman. Does this undermine (only partially, I admit) Strider's words at Bree? At the most, it is an 'oops' thing on Tolkien's side. No big deal.
So as Tolkien changed his mind (which can't be denied), we assume he did it after writing LotR and before writing the appendices. And as we are supposed to take Aragorn's word here, it's possible Tolkien slipped later. Happens to the best of us.
That seems to be the "Tolkien studies approach".

Assuming mine is the "Middle-earth studies approach", I make quite a different assumption. The author is not supposed to make such mistakes - but the characters are. I see no problem in assuming that the greatest of the Wise make mistakes, especially if that minimises the mistakes Tolkien made. And while his mind might have changed between the drafts and the book (as it did in so many things) - the appendices were written after the book was finished, so should be seen (when possible) as another layer, rather than a different view.

In a way the first approach is actually more local in its focus; once you allow for inconsistencies, you can easily answer a question based on the information at hand. If the impression gained somewhere else contradicts the impression gained by reading the text at hand, than you solve it by: 1) A simple solution. 2) Assuming the other place is wrong, as it mentions in passing something without completely considering its ramifications. 3) Perhaps there might be a deliberate ambiguity.

The second approach is more global: assuming a complete world, then two bits of information should not have any intrinsically different weight (although this could be allowed, if one adds the conceit of different accounts of a far History, which Tolkien sometimes played with). So contradictions should be reconciled.
This is were UUTs come from. Labeling them as such includes a tacit admission that there is no simple solution, and that Tolkien himself either erred through omission or deliberately left us in the dark. But they should be reconciled - and personally, I often reconcile them by taking down a peg a statement, which at first reading sounds authoritive (like Dain's words in this week's thread no. 4).

As this is an imaginary world, the second approach cannot be 'true'. And it is clearly less sceintific.
But the same accusations can be leveled against both approaches - shallowness in taking an easy way out, which both inventing 'bridghe storys' or blithely assuming the author changed his mind could be; and narrow-mindness, in assuming one's guesses are true and building too high on them (which you seem to feel Martinez does), or in smugly feeling superior to other readers and the author himself.

I try to be aware of both approaches. But I find the second more fun.

"Dwarves' tongues run on when speaking if their handiwork, they say." - Gloin


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 20 2009, 6:26pm

Post #31 of 50 (612 views)
Shortcut
A Couple Thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

I think you are pretty much on...

I must say I never thought anything but the Black Riders did the attack at Bree.....

Never crossed my mind as a reader in all these years. Blush


I think, whatever approach one takes, I agree that when I am searching, I too am liable to come up with 2,3,4 UUT's or rhetorical questions as opposed to one answer that I will just run with and defend with all my heart.

And, btw, who in their right mind would feel 'smugly superior to the author himself'?


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Feb 20 2009, 6:54pm

Post #32 of 50 (620 views)
Shortcut
Bury ye Rose-buds while ye may. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
By the way, I had a similar argument with squire some time ago whether we should trust Galadriel's assertion that Sauron doesn't know where Nenya is. Can't find it at the moment.


Here it is.

You've given me a lot to think about -- too much to answer just now! I'll respond to just one point:


Quote
On the other hand, my take was different: I suggested explaining away Aragorn's words, and even brought a reason to belive he was simply wrong (his words later in Isengard) -- which was never actually answered by anyone.


Sorry not to have addressed that point in my response to you, more than a year ago! But I don't see how Strider's doubt expressed in "Flotsam and Jetsam", about just exactly who the Southerner in Bree was working for, undermines his expectation in Bree, based on his knowledge of the Black Riders operate, that they would "drive" some "wretches" to the actual break-in rather than attack themselves.

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

Join us Feb. 16-22 for Durin's Folk.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


Cyberia
The Shire

Feb 22 2009, 9:25am

Post #33 of 50 (602 views)
Shortcut
Dragons were loyal to Morgoth exclusively [In reply to] Can't Post

 
It was always my understanding that the Dragons were loyal to Morgoth exclusively, and when he was removed from the world, they became self-independent, but still nasty. Since they were derived from animals, they were not necessarily driven by evil anymore, but were still tainted. They became selfish, hoarding but fiercely independent and active creatures. This is evidenced by the fact that Bilbo had a conversation with Smaug, but the Balrog did not have a conversation with anyone.

The Balrogs were lost, forlorn and leaderless. They fled to the dark places, retreated from the world and basically gnashed their teeth and cursed the world in futility, like any demon cast-down.

Sauron was greater than any Balrog, the greatest of Morgoths servants, and still loyal to Morgoth. So, the Balrog of Moria might have followed Sauron, although I am not sure that this pledge of allegiance had actually occurred by the time Gandalf discovered the Balrog.

Nevertheless, I think the Dragons were permanently divorced from Sauron.


sador
Half-elven

Feb 22 2009, 10:12am

Post #34 of 50 (601 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for the link (as usual) [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as Aragorn's doubts are concerned - if I remember correctly, the claim was that Ferny and the Southrener, working for Sauron, broke into the Hobbits' bedrooms. If Aragorn has later doubts about the Southrener's working with the Riders (despite his hiding at Ferny's, out of which was the Riders' rendevous with their informant in Bree) - he seems not to accept that theory, at least not with hindsight.
And once we discard that - what are we left with? Either Ferny and his chum house-breaking for Saruman (but then why inform the Riders?), or with some other wretches in Bree doing that - but apart of Ferny and old Harry at the West-gate, nobody in Bree joins the ruffians when the village was attacked (as Butterbur says in 'Homeward Bound').
And again, it's no proof; just an indication.

Actually, according to squire (in that thread you posted the link to), Tolkien's idea of the extent of Saruman's treachery was embryonic at the most at this stage, and he had absolutely no idea yet that the Southrener was an agent of a different villain. One could say (as squire himself wrote there, about the very scene we are discussing) that it is Tolkien who is deciding the Southrener was Saruman's agent, and wondering whether to keep his connection to the Riders as well (hinted in the two accounts in The Hunt for the Ring); and also that when Gandalf says earlier to Theoden: "Who knows how far has his treachery gone?" he is speaking for Tolkien himself, and his doubts how to develope Saruman's character.

Isn't that interesting? That seems to leave us with five stages:

1) First drafts. Tolkien envisions the Riders as recruiting mercenaries to beak into the inn.

2) Writing the present version of Book I. For some reason, Tolkien prefers to leave the reader in the dark. He makes the employing of Ferny less likely to succeed (after all, Butterbur and his men are on guard, and even if they have a wink - they should hear housebreakers!), and throws a red herring in the attack on Crickhollow - while having Strider (a far more formidable and wise guide than Trotter could ever be) reassure Frodo the Riders will not attack. It's probable his view on how the attack actually happened hasn't changed - but as written, it is a mystery, open to interpretation.

3) As Saruman's role as a double-traitor, and the extent of his involvement in the Shire, develope - Tolkien finds himself re-thinking about the events at Bree. He decides the Southrener (and probably Ferny) were actually Saruman's men. He's not yet sure how this influences the actual raid on Bree.

4) Final revisions before published FotR. Whatever Tolkien thinks is the more likely option at this time, he sees no reason to change the way he wrote chapters 10-11. As written, it is a mystery which could be solved either way. Assuming (as Curious often does, and I for one agree) that he does relish this kind of ambiguities, he was likely to be pretty happy tp leave ot this way.

5) Around 1955, Tolkien seems to have finally decided that the attack was by the Riders themselves. Probably before, when he wrote The Tale of Years - which implies the attacks on Bree and Crickhollow were similar and simultanous - but even that's not sure. But when he wrote the account you've cited in that earlier discussion - he seems to have made up his mind.

Well, then what's the final verdict?
I suppose it's still a matter of approach!

From the "Tolkien studies" prespective, it appears that you are right. It is likely that when Tolkien wrote this chapter, he did have in mind some wretched Breelanders as the actual housebreakers. There seems to have been no reason for him to change his mind yet, and Strider's words both before and after the raid imply he thought that was the story (of course, he might have only been trying to reassure the hobbits). Later, these chapters were not changed - so if Tolkien changed his mind, good for him; but that needn't change our reading!

From the "Middle-earth studies" prespective, it seems the other way around. Given Saruman's treachery, the Riders recent history (as told in The Hunt for the Ring), and Gandalf being only a day's travel behind (which we never know if the Riders were aware of) - it makes far more sense for the Riders to attack themselves. And actually, even Tolkien himself came around to seeing it this way! QED.

From the average reader's perspective - we have a delicious mystery, which could work either way. We do not know quite how to solve it - neither way seems to completely work, as every good mystery should; and either way leaves you chilly - Riders who can silently break into a guarded inn are terrifying fellows - and so are Riders who could turn a couple of local toughs, who never did anything worse than spying and possibly a bit of stealing, into the Bill Sikes type of murderous housebreakers.

Personally, I like the third possibilty best. But the first two show very nicely both the difference between the two approaches, and how each could enhance and enrich the other.

"Dwarves' tongues run on when speaking if their handiwork, they say." - Gloin


(This post was edited by sador on Feb 22 2009, 10:19am)


sador
Half-elven

Feb 22 2009, 10:27am

Post #35 of 50 (594 views)
Shortcut
I like that! [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not think you are accepting my suggestion of Sauron's connection with the dragons as fact (as squire seemed to 'accuse' us), only seeing how far it could be taken. In a way, it seems to be more of your UUT based on my simple hypothesis, who shouldn't deserve the distinction of being called a 'theory'Cool.

But having said all that, I really like your idea. And in a way. this seems to be the greatest compliment one could pay to another's theories - trying to see how far they could go, and if they fit in the 'grand scheme' of Tolkien's world. So I must really thank you!

"Dwarves' tongues run on when speaking if their handiwork, they say." - Gloin


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 22 2009, 6:44pm

Post #36 of 50 (593 views)
Shortcut
Can Balrogs Talk? [In reply to] Can't Post


It was always my understanding that the Dragons were loyal to Morgoth exclusively, and when he was removed from the world, they became self-independent, but still nasty. Since they were derived from animals, they were not necessarily driven by evil anymore, but were still tainted.


Well, they were a specific perverted species of evil much as the Orcs or Trolls were....

Therefore just as Orcs & Trolls remained evil after Morgoth, we must assume Dragons certainly did too since they too were corrupted beings to begin with.

They became selfish, hoarding but fiercely independent and active creatures. This is evidenced by the fact that Bilbo had a conversation with Smaug, but the Balrog did not have a conversation with anyone.

I don't think this proves a thing.....
There isn't one recorded conversation with a Balrog ever.


The Balrogs were lost, forlorn and leaderless. They fled to the dark places, retreated from the world and basically gnashed their teeth and cursed the world in futility, like any demon cast-down.

There's only evidence that one Balrog survived the Breaking of Thangorodrim & he seemed quite happy to remain in Moria without checking out the wide world outside, where the Host of the West might still be gathered.

Sauron was greater than any Balrog, the greatest of Morgoths servants, and still loyal to Morgoth.

No question. All Maiar are not created equal......

So, the Balrog of Moria might have followed Sauron, although I am not sure that this pledge of allegiance had actually occurred by the time Gandalf discovered the Balrog.

If the Wise didn't know Durin's Bane was a Balrog, how would Sauron?

Nevertheless, I think the Dragons were permanently divorced from Sauron.

Agreed, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to a dargon in obeying Sauron as opposed to acting on it's own like Smaug did.



Dreamdeer
Valinor


Feb 22 2009, 7:36pm

Post #37 of 50 (584 views)
Shortcut
You're welcome! [In reply to] Can't Post

And in fact my intention was indeed that the idea of Sauron influencing the dragons needn't be discarded on the grounds that they behaved in a way that he wouldn't want. Not saying that I held it as "proven", just that it could work.

My personal opinion is that Sauron could not command dragons, but could manipulate them. And one should never underestimate the power of a manipulator.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Feb 22 2009, 7:42pm

Post #38 of 50 (591 views)
Shortcut
Even corrupted beings have hope. [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien's writings do not assume that corrupted beings have no hope. in "Farmer Giles of Ham", the dragon Chrysophylax isn't entirely a bad sort; he keeps his promises and deserves a little mercy now and then. And the troll in "Perry the Winkle" is a vegetarian who regrets how the bad reputation of other trolls stick to him, when all he wants to do is pass on his recipe for cramsome bread.

Even fallen maiar can be redeemed. One of the chief maiar in Ulmo's service followed Morgoth for awhile and then repented.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 22 2009, 8:35pm

Post #39 of 50 (582 views)
Shortcut
But.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Those first two stories are not Middle-earth - I guess with Farmer Giles that opens a can of worms in the aspect of continuation of the 'world' as Tolkien does write something about that concerning dragons in one of his Letters....

However, as far as Middle-eath goes, I certainly don't see the corrupted beings as having any other natural disposession other than towards 'evil', do you?

Are there any examples at all in Middle-earth of anything but evil Orcs, Trolls, dragons?

I certainly can't think of any.

As for Osse, he was not a perverted form of life taken by Melkor and changed, but a rational being making his own choice - big difference.


Cyberia
The Shire

Feb 22 2009, 11:35pm

Post #40 of 50 (577 views)
Shortcut
Sauron knew [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, they were a specific perverted species of evil much as the Orcs or Trolls were....

Therefore just as Orcs & Trolls remained evil after Morgoth, we must assume Dragons certainly did too since they too were corrupted beings to begin with.

Orcs and Trolls are a good example! What happened to them after the fall of Morgoth or Sauron? They lost their will and direction and purpose. Dragons did not. Morgoth did his job almost too well in creating Dragons, they almost seem to have their own soul.



I don't think this proves a thing.....
There isn't one recorded conversation with a Balrog ever.

It proves Dragons were not slaves to evil, whereas Balrogs still were. Dragons found their own purpose.



There's only evidence that one Balrog survived the Breaking of Thangorodrim & he seemed quite happy to remain in Moria without checking out the wide world outside, where the Host of the West might still be gathered.

The Sil mentions a "few" Balrogs escaped in at least two places, I believe. But, yes, we've only ever found one of them.



If the Wise didn't know Durin's Bane was a Balrog, how would Sauron?

Oh, Sauron knew. He knew. His Orcs inhabited Moria and would have told him, as well as being able to sense the presence of a Balrog either directly or indirectly through the Orcs. The question is then weather he had bent the Balrog to his service (yet) or had allowed it to continue there because it served his purpose the same way Shelob did.



Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 23 2009, 3:50am

Post #41 of 50 (583 views)
Shortcut
Don't Think So [In reply to] Can't Post

Orcs and Trolls are a good example! What happened to them after the fall of Morgoth or Sauron? They lost their will and direction and purpose. Dragons did not. Morgoth did his job almost too well in creating Dragons, they almost seem to have their own soul.


I said Morgoth, Not Morgoth or Sauron......

Orcs & Trolls certainly remained bent on evil, although certainly not with a single driven purpose or in the vast numerical amounts they had had under Morgoth or each time Sauron arose in the following Ages.



It proves Dragons were not slaves to evil, whereas Balrogs still were. Dragons found their own purpose.

I really cannot see how having a conversation versus not having a conversation proves your point.


The Sil mentions a "few" Balrogs escaped in at least two places, I believe. But, yes, we've only ever found one of them.

'Some few Balrogs'.....

Being in The Silmarillion, this cannot be taken as canon since Christopher Tolkien reworded (even slightly) much of it.....

Besides, it may not be a literal interpretation since exactly one Balrog had been found in 6400 years. 'Some few' may indeed mean one and just be poetic license; putting it in a way that sounds better.
Remember, if the Red Book had been written after the Second Age ended, the passage would've read 'All the Balrogs were well nigh destroyed', period.


Oh, Sauron knew. He knew. His Orcs inhabited Moria and would have told him,

I would not be so sure...


It took Sauron 499 years to even begin to 'people Moria with his creatures' to start with. That means he may not have even know Moria was abandonded and/or it took him 499 years to execute occupying it - meaning it was not so easy to get back & forth across Anduin with information and/or personel.......

(granted, for 397 of those years, Sauron had fled into the East during The Watchful Peace, but you still have 80 years before he fled & 20 after he returned)

Plus passage back & forth across Anduin after occupying Moria would not be that easy even if the Orcs had any reason to go back to Dol Guldur.
As posted during this week on the various 'Durin's Folk' threads, Azog is called 'king' & 'master' of Moria, not the Balrog, & the Balrog stands by watching the Dwarves defeat the Orcs in the Battle of Azanulbizar. That most assuredly does not sound like a leader of Sauron's forces in Moria.
Then, from all accounts inThe Book of Mazarbul, The Balrog is totally absent in the years Balin & Company are in Moria.
It appears the Balrog does exactly what it wants when it wants, with no thought to a larger military strategy like Sauron would have if he commanded it.

as well as being able to sense the presence of a Balrog either directly or indirectly through the Orcs.

You are giving Sauron a power that Tolkien never did.


The question is then weather he had bent the Balrog to his service (yet) or had allowed it to continue there because it served his purpose the same way Shelob did.

Well, I don't think Sauron was in any position to do anything but allow Durin's Bane to stay right there as it wished, serve him or not.....

How would he take a Balrog out without going there himself?







Dreamdeer
Valinor


Feb 23 2009, 2:42pm

Post #42 of 50 (552 views)
Shortcut
Attribution [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien "attributed" the poem, "Perry the Winkle" to Sam Gamgee, making it part of the Middle Earth setting.

We have real life precedents. Pitbulls, Presa Canarios, and some other breeds of dogs were specifically bred to be vicious animals. However, in the right hands they can grow up to be sweet and well-behaved pets, albeit nervous.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Feb 23 2009, 2:47pm

Post #43 of 50 (570 views)
Shortcut
Silmarillion [In reply to] Can't Post

Isn't it a bit extreme to discount the Silmarillion completely just because it has been edited? If our intention is to discern Tolkien's intention, then it's a valid source. Granted, not a perfect one, but what source is?

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 23 2009, 7:18pm

Post #44 of 50 (555 views)
Shortcut
Poem, 'Some Few' [In reply to] Can't Post

I think a poem written by a rustic hobbit within the framework of the story cannot be said to show or not show the Author's intent on the subject of Troll's inherently evil nature, don't you think?

Hobbits, after all, didn't even know for sure what lay beyond their own boundaries.

And I'm not 'discounting the Silmarillion completely', I'm simply saying that in this case we certainly cannot conclude that multiple Balrogs went & hid in the mountains exactly like Durin's Bane did because the Silmarillion says 'some few balrogs that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessable at the roots of the earth'.....

As I already noted, this would've had to have been recorded after Durin's Bane was discovered to be a Balrog & destroyed by Gandalf, not before. Wouldn't it be odd for Frodo/The Elves to write that about other Balrogs when there weren't any others found?
Or, if there were, how strange that each Balrog hid the exact way......

Plus, Tolkien seems to have come up with the idea there were only 7 Balrogs after the fall of Utumno (I'll have to search for that one):

Gothmog, destroyed by Ecthelion in Gondolin
Another destroyed in Gondolin

'The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled'

'Some few'......

How many is 'some few' if 'The Balrogs were destroyed'? Did two or three out of five just disapear off the battlefield and the Host of the West not notice?

One out of five I could see escaping


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Feb 23 2009, 7:58pm

Post #45 of 50 (567 views)
Shortcut
"Perry the Winkle". [In reply to] Can't Post

That poem's applicability is further complicated because it grew from an earlier poem not set in Middle-earth: "The Bumpus", one of the six "Bimble Bay" poems that Tolkien wrote in the early 1930s (I think). The original poem has never been published.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
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.


Dreamdeer
Valinor


Feb 23 2009, 8:46pm

Post #46 of 50 (547 views)
Shortcut
Author's intent [In reply to] Can't Post

In deducing the author's intent, I would tend to go with what he wrote, unless I learn of clear evidence to the contrary. Thus we can question whether or not Galadriel led armies, because Tolkien wrote several conflicting accounts and we cannot tell which one, if any, would have been his final draft. But we cannot question that Frodo is a hobbit, because nothing Tolkien wrote ever contradicted Frodo's hobbitness.

Therefore, since Tolkien wrote that "some few" balrogs escaped destruction, I must believe that he really meant "some few" because I don't know of anything he wrote that says, "Only one balrog escaped."

Similarly, since he has written a poem portraying a good troll, and since his latest decision on what to do with the poem was to set it in Middle Earth, I would conclude that he meant to keep the possibility open that a troll could be good--or at least that one could legitimately imagine a good troll. After all, he amended his earlier assessment that orcs were beyond redemption, to beyond redemption "by any means that we know of" because he felt that to describe their evil in overly absolute terms caused theological problems. Perhaps the Perry-the-Winkle poem arose out of those theological issues, showing one good troll as an assertion of free will in a sentient being.

Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Feb 23 2009, 9:43pm

Post #47 of 50 (538 views)
Shortcut
Well.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Why do folks (like me, lol) entitle their post 'Well'?

I guess they can't think of anything better.....

I was thinking of 'The Dog Chasing His Tail'.......

Because that's about where we have gotten.

To my knowledge - I checked HoME volume 10 & 11, there is no passage for the root of this 'some few' sentence that Christopher Tolkien to have used or have based his rewriting on. Perhaps it's in the early versions of The Silm which I do not have.

So, we do not know for sure if this is JRR Tolkien's words or his son's & even if Tolkien wrote it, if it is in accord with the last writings he made on Quenta Silmarillion?

I think I pretty much stated my case about as thoroughly as I could in my previous post; I really can't say much more.


squire
Half-elven


Feb 23 2009, 9:58pm

Post #48 of 50 (552 views)
Shortcut
Well, well.. [In reply to] Can't Post

The originator and master of the phlegmatic post topic "Well..." is Darkstone. For many years he has posted with no other subject line than this.

As we all know, the sense behind it is something like:

Subject: "Well... "

Post: "... sure, go right ahead. See me and raise me, stranger, cause I'm just a pore country boy, don't know nothin' about this here game of poker [>Tolkien]..."



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


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 24 2009, 5:53pm

Post #49 of 50 (535 views)
Shortcut
"And We sent down iron" [In reply to] Can't Post

And We sent down Iron,
In which is material for mighty power,
As well as many benefits for mankind,
That Allah may test who it is that will help,
Unseen, Him and His apostles:
For Allah is Full of Strength,
Exalted in Might,
And able to enforce His Will.
-Surah 57:25, The Holy Qur’an

Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling


1. Do you find it odd that the Dwarves would abandon Erebor after just one generation after putting all the work in to delve the halls?

That’s the nature of boomtowns. I’m sure a few Dwarves stayed behind, so it wasn’t entirely abandoned.


2. Were there always dragons in the Northern wastes since the breaking of Thangorodrim, or had the dragons remained dormant until relatively recently?

You know how it is. You have a particularly cold winter, you have to stay inside, there’s nothing on the palantir, and nine centuries later there’s a dragon baby boom.


If they had always been there, how had there been nothing recorded of their presence for almost 6000 years?

Would-be recorders became food.


3. How many dragons do you think there were the North in the height of their 'revival' in this period of the Third Age? 3 to 5? 6 to 10? 10 to 20? More?

Enough for a viable quidditch league.


4. What exactly is a cold-drake?

A dragon that doesn’t breathe fire, as opposed to a “hot” one that does. (See Farmer Giles of Ham.)


Do 'drakes' in general have wings?

After the First Age, yes.


5. Now that the Rohirrim & the Dwarves of Erebor were gone, why didn't these dragons plunder some of the other kingdoms in the far North, such as the Iron Hills and the Wood Elves?

You just answered your own question: Iron and woods. Iron is said to have properties against Evil. You put an iron knife under your doormat or an iron horseshoe over your doorsill to keep Evil out. And you put an iron fence around the cemetery to keep Evil in. So an entire mountain range full of iron is bound to keep dragons out.

As for the Wood Elves, the almost impenetrable forest canopy would seem to be a pretty good deterrent to flying creatures.

******************************************
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.”



N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Feb 24 2009, 6:17pm

Post #50 of 50 (538 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for noting the "hot dragon" in "Giles". // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
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.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

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

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.