|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 10 2014, 4:16am
Post #101 of 117
(738 views)
Shortcut
|
I came back to this point, I hope you don't mind.
Elves lack even a hint of a revelation of their fate, even though they lived in Valinor, contrasting Men who never lived there, but heard from Eru directly.
That's an excellent point!
(I am betraying a bit of bias here, as I made this point myself in Voronwe's discussion. But I still think it important.)
I thought more about it, and I had a thought, utterly unsupported by the text, but it resonated deeply with me.
Eru was not to be found in the perfect land of Valinor, where you would expect the Divine to be found. The truth for the end of hope was not found there either. Eru decided to speak to Men when they were in Beleriand and alone. They did not know who he was, but they trusted him, until Morgoth helped ruin it.
To me, it seemed to parallel my faith. I don't think the Divine is often found in the big, flashy, mainstream religion. (By religion I mean the organised system, NOT the belief itself. I am mainly speaking of my own 'religion' here, so I do not seek to demean it, or anyone.) Not that it cannot be found, just that it is harder. A lot of times there is a big show, lots of trappings, and panels of experts, but I don't feel closer to my God. Sure there is excitement, and I am genuinely excited (or should be) about my faith, but how much of it is adrenaline, and how much spiritual? What do I actually gain or learn?
I loved the fact that Eru was out there with the common man. You didn't need a special ticket for Círdan's Charters, or a Valinorian passport to hear from, and be close to, the Divine. Men got the message from Eru himself, not the Valar ,as was the case with the Elves, and thus, Men knew what was expected of them. If that makes them more culpable, only the rule maker, Eru, knows.
Even after their ,mostly, wholesale rebellion, Men were not totally written off. They still had what they knew, and the Elves to teach them. Divine grace was also present, so the whole issue just makes me more hopeful for benevolance of the final fate of the Children of Eru. (A term that encompasses the three kindreds, Ainu, Elves, and Men, but that is a whole other topic...)
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 10 2014, 4:19am)
|
|
|
Mikah
Lorien
Jan 11 2014, 5:28pm
Post #102 of 117
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This is an important concept...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And your point is well made. I know that I thought about it for a bit. As far as our shared relationships with our Creator goes, I am in complete agreement with you. Jesus was not at all impressed with religion, he sought relationship. I know that the times that I have felt his presence the most has not been in a huge mega-church, where the main topic of conversation seems to be "growing the church." Jesus' problem was not with those broken in spirit and morality, so much as it was with the religious leaders of his time. It seems that the closer you are to religion and it's trappings, the further you are from God. At least this has been my experience.
It seems kind of strange but the times that I have felt closest to him has been in my brokenness. I think about my husband's last deployment and his disability as a result of that deployment. It was a terrible time, to say the least...but I have never felt his presence more. I believe my husband would say the same.
Knowing all of this, it would stand to reason that Eru would be out there with the common man. We tend to seek God, in this case Eru, when we need him. And I can not imagine that one would need him so much in Valinor.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 11 2014, 5:29pm
Post #103 of 117
(724 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Following your example Rem, I too have a delayed musing...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was theorizing that the enrichment of Gandalf was Eru's direct counterstrike against Sauron - who I think in JRRT's mind was so inherently dangerous; the closest to Absolute Evil. It is a direct action of Eru into the drama; in the LOTR world we have that one instance, but in the Sil world we have another - the destruction of Numenor.
I begin to muse: is that another example of Eru intervening primarily against Sauron, versus primarily against Men? It does not negate the loss of many human lives, but does it change the complexion of that event? Hope lost within the land entirely - so hope (in the form of divine intervention) had to come from Outside?
Have an idea relating to the world of JRR Tolkien that you would like to write about? If so, the Third TORn Amateur Symposium will be running in the Reading Room in March, 2014. We hope to see you there!
|
|
|
Mikah
Lorien
Jan 11 2014, 6:07pm
Post #104 of 117
(722 views)
Shortcut
|
I believe too that Sauron was the epitome of evil in Tolkien's mind. The very frightening thing about Sauron is how cunning he was. Truly the master of deception. Perhaps the destruction of Numenor was a stroke primarily against Sauron. As horrifying as the loss of life was at the destruction of Numenor, it is even more chilling to think what the outcome would have been had Numenor not been destroyed. This is something that I have not much pondered. Hope really did have to come from the outside didn't it? Just about everyone had been corrupted to Sauron's malice. I do not believe that it would have been possible for Elendil and his small host to stand against Sauron for long. I will be curious to read other's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 11 2014, 8:17pm
Post #105 of 117
(717 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This musing of yours brings me back to the Ainulindale, Rem
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When the Third Theme is played by Iluvatar:
"Then again Iluvatar arose, and the Ainur perceive that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand, and behold! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Iluvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern."
This small section, Eru Iluvatar's theme for the Children, strikes me as the sum total of the cycle of humanity at its best in JRRT's works, as well as a statement about Eru's love for the Children: the gentle ripple that is life itself arising in the larger world. Sadness, yet from which arises the greatest beauty. And prevailing over the harsh bray of Vanity and darkness, notes of unquenchable triumph.
He does not combat Melkor with louder, more 'powerful' sounds (as I am sure he could have): like slow and steady winning the race, the song of the Children is slower, beautiful yet splashed with sadness, and seems to lead to inexorable triumph. (Nor does he exhibit "flash" and power, as you point out Rem: he comes quietly to Men, new in the world.)
The theme of the Children - with the love of its creator at its source and crafted to bring them triumph over Discord ... being the direct a result of the discord of Melkor and needing to be 'utterly at variance' with it - created by love, becoming the story of Elves and Men?
Have an idea relating to the world of JRR Tolkien that you would like to write about? If so, the Third TORn Amateur Symposium will be running in the Reading Room in March, 2014. We hope to see you there!
(This post was edited by Brethil on Jan 11 2014, 8:19pm)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 11 2014, 8:32pm
Post #106 of 117
(711 views)
Shortcut
|
...my sense is that Aegnor is off on his own, dedicated to his work. Perhaps thinking of Andreth...since Finrod says 'we are not lordly in this, but pitiful,' I think it means that he knows it has hurt his brother too.
Perhaps Aegnor is trying to bury his pain in work/battle? Maybe he isn't as good dealing with his emotions. Maybe this is The Middle-Earth Therapy Session: part two, for Finrod? How might he have been feeling, having seen so much love and joy turned to pain and bitterness?
....of course a whole Elf like Aegnor would have no choice of fates: only those of the union of Elves and Men would have that choice of fate....I believe the point being that the Gift of Men cannot be taken away from those who are half-Man, it can be given away, but not taken....
I like this!! It makes it all clear. I probably have been seeing death as bereavement (As Andreth must too), but it really is a Gift isn't it?
...I don't think it is about the dialogue - it is from his heart, and it is a wish beyond the Unknown that they be reunited in some way, some day.
This is really well-spoken!! I think of the Professor's words on Beowulf. Critics were overly concerned with the historical value, than the literary value. A story may not be true, but it can be good, and aid us immensely. There is a point where inference from the actual words is damaging to the work. What the author meant can be a lot more powerful than what he actually says. I really do feel a tug on the heartstrings here.
Its a very, very touching ending.
Yes!! It is that bittersweet, perfect ending, and it recalled the tears I had, and still experience on occasion, when I finish The Lord of the Rings:.
'Well I'm back.'
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 11 2014, 9:44pm
Post #107 of 117
(712 views)
Shortcut
|
...my sense is that Aegnor is off on his own, dedicated to his work. Perhaps thinking of Andreth...since Finrod says 'we are not lordly in this, but pitiful,' I think it means that he knows it has hurt his brother too.
Perhaps Aegnor is trying to bury his pain in work/battle? Maybe he isn't as good dealing with his emotions. Maybe this is The Middle-Earth Therapy Session: part two, for Finrod? How might he have been feeling, having seen so much love and joy turned to pain and bitterness?
Yes I get the feeling Aegnor is away with a purpose, but since Finrod is so clear on how much she is on his mind it is to limit his feelings and instead channel his thoughts and energies. Yes - a longer term of what befalls Arwen but without any satisfaction in the union.
This is really well-spoken!! I think of the Professor's words on Beowulf. Critics were overly concerned with the historical value, than the literary value. A story may not be true, but it can be good, and aid us immensely. There is a point where inference from the actual words is damaging to the work. What the author meant can be a lot more powerful than what he actually says. I really do feel a tug on the heartstrings here. Magpie and I got to discussing just this idea Rem, here in this thread:
discussing the idea of how the stories affect us
Its a very, very touching ending. Yes!! It is that bittersweet, perfect ending, and it recalled the tears I had, and still experience on occasion, when I finish The Lord of the Rings:.
'Well I'm back.' Yes. Its simplicity reminds me of Bilbo too, 'Tea is at four: but any of you are welcome at any time!' Then he turned away. After the goodbyes he has just said, its quiet is so telling.
Have an idea relating to the world of JRR Tolkien that you would like to write about? If so, the Third TORn Amateur Symposium will be running in the Reading Room in March, 2014. We hope to see you there!
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 13 2014, 2:16pm
Post #109 of 117
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For one thing, I hope to complete this...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Do you agree with the Omnipotent portrait of Eru?
Once again, this question is logically a fallacy. Once I accept Tolkien's universe as envisioned by him, I must accept the Omnipotent portrait.
Or maybe you are asking about the Real World, and whether I have something along the lines of Finrod's faith in God? (the answer is yes, btw)
How would we term Estel and Amdir today?
I know the Hebrew terms, but I'm not sure of the English ones. Do you mean "hope" and "faith"? But this faith has a deeper meaning, of trust.
Andreth wants to believe, but she can't.
Is this because of all the lore she has? Is the confusion of the rumors of Men clouding her mind?
I'm not quite sure she can't. One doesn't convert immediately.
But yes, she can't shake of the set of beliefs she has been brought up with.
Or is Finrod then the voice of the undefeatable optimist, and happy and cheerful for no reason?
He might appear to be one.
I must point out, that Andreth was not brought up on the tale of Adanel; she has heard it, but is not sure whether to credit it. She probably didn't; but it tallies so well with Finrod's words - she might be reluctant to admit that after all, perhaps the House of Hador were right and that of Beor wrong.
Who do you think we are supposed to believe? Who are you more drawn to?
I think I've answered that above.
This is a nice logical dilemma here, what do you think of it? It illustrates fallacious reasoning quite well.
Andreth is undoubtedly caught in an error here.
What do you think of the proved error? Does it weaken her in your eyes?
Not quite. It just shows her less of a sophist; but beliefs reside in one heart rather than brains.
This reads to me like the questions that I Thessalonians 4 answers for Christians.
Is it intentionally similar?
For sure.
Why haven't we heard of this new group before? They seem to think they have the answers. Why wouldn't Andreth bring them up sooner? Was it because she was so dismissive of them?
Yes.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2014, 1:53am
Post #110 of 117
(689 views)
Shortcut
|
Once again, this question is logically a fallacy. Once I accept Tolkien's universe as envisioned by him, I must accept the Omnipotent portrait...
Just asking what you think is true, in context of Middle-Earth.
I know the Hebrew terms, but I'm not sure of the English ones. Do you mean "hope" and "faith"? But this faith has a deeper meaning, of trust.
The two Elvish words are combined into one 'Hope'. I wanted to know if anyone would illustrate the difference and help try to define them.
I must point out, that Andreth was not brought up on the tale of Adanel; she has heard it, but is not sure whether to credit it. She probably didn't; but it tallies so well with Finrod's words - she might be reluctant to admit that after all, perhaps the House of Hador were right and that of Beor wrong.
Well, that is one thought I never had! She did have two contrary thoughts in her mind. She may have been conflicted before this!! Good thoughts!
Note: Most of my questions are aimed to stimulate discussion. They do not all represent my opinions, but are intended to provoke answers and opinions to be expressed. I believe that once one starts asking the right questions, one is halfway to the right answer.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Jan 14 2014, 2:11am
Post #111 of 117
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
Note: Most of my questions are aimed to stimulate discussion. They do not all represent my opinions, but are intended to provoke answers and opinions to be expressed. I believe that once one starts asking the right questions, one is halfway to the right answer.
Sometimes I even surprise myself with the answer to a question! 
Have an idea relating to the world of JRR Tolkien that you would like to write about? If so, the Third TORn Amateur Symposium will be running in the Reading Room in April, 2014. We hope to see you there!
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 14 2014, 3:01pm
Post #112 of 117
(687 views)
Shortcut
|
Because I am in a rush now.
What do you think of this vision of hope that has so suddenly broken into the picture?
Well yes, it is very Christian; although one might argue that the Exodus could also have been a case of Eru intervening in the world directly, rather than being physically incarnated.
But this is sophism on my side; this is clearly supposed to be an old prophecy about Chrisitnity.
Whether it contradicts Tolkien's dislike of too explicit mapping of Christianity to fiction - well yes; but at this point he was older, and thought otherwise.
How does this indirect proof influence your thoughts? Do you think it compelling, or otherwise?
It is more compelling psychologically than convincing logically. One could argue the Valar simply want to cement their worldly power in a more subtle way - like the Pope can wash beggar's feet as a sign of humility, but the Papacy still stands accused by many of imperialism, and so on.
What are your thoughts on them?
I am not sure I understand it myself.
More abstraction!! What do you think of it?
More Chrisitnaity.
I mean, a couple of millenia have passed since the world was supposedly saved.
This seems to anticipate the case of Middle-Earth, post-Morgoth, pretty well. Does it take into account Sauron?
Not quite. Sauron is another Evil Lord, a lesser incarnation of Morgoth (at least to people's minds).
This seems to speak of the post-Sauron evil.
Gandalf strayed out of Arda, and was sent back, was he part of the hope, whose source is beyond Arda?
I would be reluctant to say so. After all, Gandalf was a Maia, and could be sent back by the Valar, I think (even if this would require a longer term of recuperation).
My pet theory was that in the assault on Dol Guldur, using direct power to oppose Sauron's, Gandalf and Saruman did overstep their mandate. This knowledge might have led Saruman to his ruin; but Gandalf remained uncorrupted by this one occasion, and later sacrificed himself, surrendering to Eru's judgment. He was vindicated, and sent back.
Is the kind of divine grace, of the type given to Frodo and Sam, the real deciding factor, the real independent hope? Or is this outside help still to come nearer the End?
In middle-earth, there is no way of knowing what the author intended.
(Quite like the Real World, isn't it?)
A nice sentiment. How much do you think is true?
Well, this is what Tolkien does here!
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 16 2014, 4:05pm
Post #113 of 117
(680 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, this should have been a longer post.
In fact it was longer ystreday, when for some stupid reason all I wrote went down the cyberdrain.
I'll just repost several points:
1. Andreth
I am not sure whether to like this revelation about her emotional distress. For one thing, it make Finrod look like a cat playing with a mouse, doesn't it? He could debate with her as much as he liked, having this winning card up his sleeve.
It is true, though, that Finrod seems to be winning the logical part of the debate; and that Andreth was so stubborn in her rejection of his words because of some emotional blockade. I understand (and share) the urge to attribute others failing to see the beauty and truth of one's own beliefs to some personal disorder of theirs; but is Tolkien fair here?
1. Andreth
I am not sure whether to like this revelation about her emotional distress. For one thing, it make Finrod look like a cat playing with a mouse, doesn't it? He could debate with her as much as he liked, having this winning card up his sleeve.
It is true, though, that Finrod seems to be winning the logical part of the debate; and that Andreth was so stubborn in her rejection of his words because of some emotional blockade. I understand (and share) the urge to attribute others failing to see the beauty and truth of one's own beliefs to some personal disorder of theirs; but is Tolkien fair here?
1. Andreth
I am not sure whether to like this revelation about her emotional distress. For one thing, it make Finrod look like a cat playing with a mouse, doesn't it? He could debate with her as much as he liked, having this winning card up his sleeve.
It is true, though, that Finrod seems to be winning the logical part of the debate; and that Andreth was so stubborn in her rejection of his words because of some emotional blockade. I understand (and share) the urge to attribute others failing to see the beauty and truth of one's own beliefs to some personal disorder of theirs; but is Tolkien fair here?
2. Pity
I like the distinction between two kinds of pity, but am less impressed with it than you seem to be. For one thing, I was hoping for some connection between them and the two types of hope; and for another, pity is a major theme in LotR - beginning with Gandalf's turning of Frodo's words in The Shadow of the Past, carrying on with Frodo and Sam's mercy to Gollum, and culminating in Faramir's expressed pity to Frodo, and his talk with Eowyn in The Steward and the King. There is much to discuss about Theoden and Denethor in this respect, and Treebeard as well.
3. Intermarriage
Well, the first marraige of a Man to an Elf Tolkien wrote about was Tuor and Idril (in The Book of Lost Tales, Beren was a gnome); so conceptually, Andgrod and Andreth were not off-limits. In the Middle-earth timeline, both of these unions were still in the future, of course - but why was it less conceivable than Thingol and Melian?
However, Finrod's suggestion regarding the fate of an aging Andreth is very touching, and interesting; why are Luthien and Idril different? Are male elves unwilling to sacrifice as much as they were? Or is the partner's beauty and vigour so much more important to a male than to a female? Was Tolkien writing from the experience of the age creeping upon him and Edith, slowly but inexorably?
This calls to mind CuriousG's observation regarding Faramir and Eowyn; to which I must add by quoting the relevant passage:
And Eowyn looked at Faramir long and steadily; and Faramir said: 'Do not scorn pity that is the gift of a gentle heart, Eowyn! But I do not offer you my pity. For you are a lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten; and you are a lady beautiful, I deem, beyond even the words of the elven-tongue to tell. And I love you. Once I pitied your sorrow. But now, were you sorrowless, without fear or any lack, were you the blissful Queen of Gondor, still I would love you. Eowyn, do you not love me?'
Then the heart of Eowyn changed, or else at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun shone on her.
'I stand in Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun, ' she said; 'and behold! the Shadow has departed! I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.' And again she looked at Faramir. 'No longer do I desire to be a queen,' she said.
Then Faramir laughed merrily. 'That is well,' he said; 'for I am not a king. Yet I will wed with the White Lady of Rohan, if it be her will. And if she will, then let us cross the River and in happier days let us dwell in fair Ithilien and there make a garden. All things will grow with joy there, if the White Lady comes.'
'Then must I leave my own people, man of Gondor?' she said. 'And would you have your proud folk say of you: "There goes a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North! Was there no woman of the race of Numenor to choose?'"
'I would,' said Faramir. And he took her in his arms and kissed her under the sunlit sky, and he cared not that they stood high upon the walls in the sight of many...
Did you ever notice how rapidly, from being the superior one Eowyn realises she is the lesser of the two? Beutiful!
On a side-note, I did not answer your thread regarding Faramir. I must say that I disagree with your interpretation of the movie's portrayal of him. And I say that even though he is my favourite character. There is no time to enlarge of that - but if you are interested, I wrote my thoughts about him here.
4. Finrod's parting-shot
I am not sure about this; but it is, in a way, an attempt to cling to Men and their fate. In one of his letters, Tolkien wrote that the human stories of the elves must be concerned with the "escape from deathlessness". Is this the first example?
(by the way, my earlier comment regarding puritan's meant Bunyan and The Pilgrim's Progress, with it's strong emphasis on Men being mere visitors in this world, on the way to a better place)
.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 16 2014, 8:31pm
Post #114 of 117
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Andreth
I am not sure whether to like this revelation about her emotional distress. For one thing, it make Finrod look like a cat playing with a mouse, doesn't it? He could debate with her as much as he liked, having this winning card up his sleeve.
It is true, though, that Finrod seems to be winning the logical part of the debate; and that Andreth was so stubborn in her rejection of his words because of some emotional blockade. I understand (and share) the urge to attribute others failing to see the beauty and truth of one's own beliefs to some personal disorder of theirs; but is Tolkien fair here?
I do see the possibility in perceiving Finrod as an elitist. He could have pulled this card earlier, but his restraint confirms my suspicion that he is there, not to win an argument, but to genuinely help. I think of the Authors Note that says:
This is not presented as an argument of any cogency for Men in their present situation (or the one in which themselves to be), though it may have some interest for Men who start with similar beliefs or assumptions to those held by the Elvish king Finrod.
It is in fact simply part of the portrayal of the imaginary world of the Silmarillion, and an example of the kind of thing that enquiring minds on either side, the Elvish or the Human, must have said to one another after they became acquainted. We see here the attempts of a generous Elvish mind to fathom the relations of Elves and Men, and the part they were designed to play in what he would have called the Oienkarme Eruo (The One's perpetual production), which might be rendered by 'God's management of the Drama'.
He was there by Authorial intent, to illustrate '...the attempts of a generous Elvish mind to fathom the relations of Elves and Men...' Tolkien says that it is not presented as an argument for cogency, else there would be a clear statement of truth given. I think the intent was to allow the readers to see the different mindsets of an Elf and a Woman.
Finrod may seem high and lordly, and Andreth mean, petty, and ignorant, but are those circumstances really relevant to the matter at hand? The fact is that Finrod was in a better place to understand the broad outline of the Divine plan. He was in Valinor, spoke to the Valar, and lived and learned for thousands years more than any Men. Can we fault him for speaking so clearly and assuredly when he has good reasons to believe himself right?
It is then, I believe, that the Revelation to Men balances the field. Men have heard from Eru directly, a thing no Elf has done. Finrod might have the main outline, but Andreth and Men may have loose, unconnected details, and be struggling to piece them together in a clear framework. This is why I believe the statement of Finrod (that Men may be there to comfort the Elves and vice versa) may be true.
On the whole, the matter is left ambiguous. I know Tolkien had his own notions about what was true, but he could only fit so much into his Legendarium before it became a despised allegory and mere parallel to the Christian worldview. He may have had a private answer to the knotty question, perhaps similar to his personal values, but he left it unanswered, and that allows us to draw our own conclusions without feeling beaten over the head with a moral standard. This is one of the reasons I think his writings appeal to so many. They point to truth (or at least what he believed to be true), but the final decision is left to us, preserving the Free-will that was so important to the whole.
On a side-note, I did not answer your thread regarding Faramir. I must say that I disagree with your interpretation of the movie's portrayal of him. And I say that even though he is my favourite character. There is no time to enlarge of that - but if you are interested, I wrote my thoughts about him here.
That was only my initial response. I was not terribly clear, and I apologise. That was my viewpoint and opinion when I first saw the film. Rest assured, I would not be here if I thought so still. Apologies.
4. Finrod's parting-shot
I am not sure about this; but it is, in a way, an attempt to cling to Men and their fate. In one of his letters, Tolkien wrote that the human stories of the elves must be concerned with the "escape from deathlessness". Is this the first example?
That is an excellent idea, and worthy of thought. It may well be the first chronological instance of Elvish ennui. I do believe that he also said that the Elves did not possess true 'immortality', but 'serial existence', time was extended, but life was not. I really do not think Elves were doomed to live on the same rock forever, any more than they were to stay in Valinor forever.
(by the way, my earlier comment regarding puritan's meant Bunyan and The Pilgrim's Progress, with it's strong emphasis on Men being mere visitors in this world, on the way to a better place)
I understand. I personally believe that there is a 'better place' and I think a lot of people would agree with me. We might disagree on the details, but a hope for a paradise, life-after-death, heaven, etc... is a widespread idea. That may be yet another reason for the broad appeal of Tolkien.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 16 2014, 8:40pm
Post #115 of 117
(674 views)
Shortcut
|
Love your thoughts on Movie vs. Book Faramir. While I may differ in minor points, I love them so much that I thought they warranted their own response.
Book-Faramir is a bit more personable than Book-Aragorn. I felt the connexion of trust that you speak of when I first read the chapter. He seems to be more of the hero, brought down into a lower position so that we can admire, learn from, and emulate him. That is why the Men of Gondor loved and respected him. He was not a distant lord and unreachable leader, it was his morals that were unassailable, not his person. We need ideals to look up to, but we also need the people who will get down into the dirt and show us what to do.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 17 2014, 7:35am
Post #116 of 117
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
That was only my initial response. I was not terribly clear, and I apologise. That was my viewpoint and opinion when I first saw the film. Rest assured, I would not be here if I thought so still. Apologies.
For one thing, you do not need to like the films to be here. Not at all. Some of our best-respected members thoroughly dislike them. All that is required is a basic decency when writing about the filmmakers - but also about the critics! and a bit of respect towards others who disagree with you.
This is true even regarding the LotR movie-board - although I personally consider someone who constantly hangs around a fan-forum of a ten years old movie, and bashes it, nothing better than a troll. I have seen relatively few movies in my life, and have disliked some, but would never spend my life doing that (even had I loved the source material).
But this is the RR! When discussing one of Tolkien's characters, it is perfectly legitimate to criticise (in a decent way) different interpretations of it, as well as the changes made by Rankin-Bass/Bakshi/Jackson to its actions. Rest assured, you didn't cross any borderline - far from it. There's abslutely nothing to apologise for - save perhaps to yourself, if you did not do justice to your own opinions.
I am not defending the Osgiliath detour in the movie. While I appreciate that it might have been necessary (with the book-version being so unfilmable), I still rue the necessity, and hope it could have been done in a better way.
All I disagree with is the claim that an injustice was done to Faramir's character. Unlike book-Faramir, the movie version knows perfectly well what Isildur's Bane is and what his father wants to do with it (the flimsy pretext he used in the book); he does not know what Gandalf's counsel is; and his crucial information comes from Gollum, rather than Sam; he also knows that the hobbits have both spied on him and lied to him (regarding Gollum, and even Sam's outburst was hardly truthful). All he might know is that Frodo and Sam seem like really good fellows at the bottom - but that is not a reason to let them roam at will, but to conduct them to safety; and the very humanity he shows in his musings regarding the dead Harad soldier shows one might be really a good person but still an enemy. Add to which the fact that he does not take the Ring for himself, but for another (something which in the book only Sam did, and was sorely tempted by it) - he even keeps it out of his own sight, leaving it on Frodo's neck. I contend that in the same circumstance, book-Faramir could not have behaved any honadsomer.
I am still upset by this sequence, but I think it reflects the films' diminishing of Frodo's character, and their terrible take of Denethor's.
But I did dislike the coronation scene, very much. I'm running out of time, but I've explained my problem here (about two thirds down the post).
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 17 2014, 10:03am
Post #117 of 117
(696 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Let's try to finish this off...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What do you think about that? Why not the Dagor Dagorlad as was proposed as the ending elsewhere?
You mean the Dagor Dagorath, of course.
But this is no difficulty; the Athrabeth was supposed to be an appendix; while the Second Prophecy of Mandos was to be included in the Quenta Silmarillion.
So this is not a grounding in Arda-ian philosophy, more of an exploration of the minds of those involved. Was it mainly a narrative then?
It's typical Tolkien, in two minds as to how much of his legendarium is "true" history.
In the light of DOS and the scene with Thranduil’s wound, could this offer an explanation of what Thorin saw? Thranduil had become so detached from ME that he can manipulate his mentally projected appearance? If true, would this come at a cost of extreme ennui and dissatisfaction with the world?
This is a beautiful idea! (And I watched DoS for the first time only this Monday; so had I responded to this thread on the rate I was supposed to, I would be clueless )
Tolkien was considering the advisability of a 'Fall' legend. He wondered if it was too similar, perhaps inevitably so, to the Christian system.
But he did that already with the Numenorean legend. The major problem is the repetition - as Tolkien noted himself in the note regrading the Tale of Adanel and its similarities to the later one. Were Sauron and Melkor conflated? Undoubtly. Who knows which prophecy did the Barrow-wight of Cardolan refer to, and which Dark Lord was to lift his hand "over dead sea and withered land" in his incantation?
Thank you, Rem, for a wonderful discussion! I'll try to answer the appended discussion next week, but I might reply to Ardamire on the UT discussion first. I'm always late nowadays!
|
|
|
|
|
(I do that too Rem!)
[
