Jump to content

Tolkien 2.0


The Marquis de Leech

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I agree. Tolkien's monarchies were fairly stable affairs, to the point that Al-Pharazon taking his cousin's place via marriage was considered to be extraordinarily noteworthy.

Still, that kind of forced marriage/rape and usurpation wasn't seen as all that problematic, most likely because it involved a woman. Once Pharazôn was king he was the king. And people stood with him, even the Faithful, until Sauron began to persecute and sacrifice them.

Quote

The Stewards ruled Gondor with seemingly little challenge until Aragorn made his claim toward their position and that was helpfully resolved by Faramir bowing out from challenging him. That's another area where things end surprisingly cleanly.

That wasn't all that much of a conflict at all. Faramir did want to hand the crown to Aragorn, he did not insist to remain king in all but name as all the stewards had been.

Quote

I'd argue your point, however, with rebels, though given the nature of conflicting loyalty is the reason for Gondor and Arnor's existence as they were nations in rebellion due to their refusal to follow Al-Pharazon into Satanism as well as war on Heaven. They don't attempt to topple Al-Pharazon. yes, but the simple fact is that's a bit like stating Australia and The United States didn't atempt to invade London. They were far off colonies and Al-Pharazon is the most powerful human monarch in all of history.

That comparison makes little sense. The Faithful were part of Númenor itself, especially the Lords Andunie. They were even closely related to the royal family, with Tar-Palantír's mother being one of the Faithful. I'm aware that they wouldn't have won a civil war. But that's not the point, the point is that they never even tried anything directly. Something like an assassination or a coup d'etat.

Tolkien is very clear that the king cannot demand that you worship Melkor and the Outer Darkness or accept Sauron as some kind of evil high-priest. However, he also makes it clear that you also don't have the right to turn against your king. Else the Faithful could easily enough have tried to (or successfully) assassinate(d) Ar-Pharazôn. Ar-Zimraphel wouldn't have been as worse as Pharazôn, and considering that the royal couple didn't have any children we know of, killing Pharazôn could easily enough have saved Númenor. Especially if it was done before Sauron had effectively seized power.

Technically Amandil or Elendil could have inherited the scepter in such a scenario, assuming there were no closer relations to the royal family we don't know of.

Quote

Bard, notably, also seizes power from the Master but once we get to the point of arguing, "But he's not REALLY Bard's liege" we've reached the point of how various rebellions justify themselves in history.

We don't need to discuss a children's book here, do we?

28 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Small problem: Ar-Pharazon was both incredibly popular and incredibly powerful, meaning the Faithful were in no position to overthrow him. The most they could do is flee to Middle-earth (which the regime doesn't mind), or basically do their thing under cover. Rather like the Catholic Church in England up until the early nineteenth century.

Sure, but I only brought that up to illustrate that the subjects of Tolkien's kings usually behave like proper little subjects and don't rebel. The king is the king, ruling by the divine right of kings, and nobody even thinks about overthrowing him.

Only very evil creatures like Melkor (who tries forever unsuccessfully to usurp the place of the Elder King) or Sauron try to do that. No Elda would ever challenge the fact that Ingwe is their king until the day the world ends, nor was there ever any confusion about the kingship of the Finwe, or Elwe and Olwe. Even Feanor did not lose his kingship, not even when he turned against his own people. Maedhros later willingly gave up his claim to the kingship to heal the rift between his own followers and the (much larger) host of Fingolfin but that was something he did of his own free will, not because Fingolfin had any right to claim it.

The kingship of individual kings like Turgon, Fingon, Thingol, Thranduil etc. is pretty much rock solid. There are smaller kingless domains among the Edain in the First Age where things are less ordered and more primitive, etc. but wherever there are kings the kings are in charge.

The Hobbits get their Shire as a gift from the king's hands in the end, never mind the fact that they had been virtually (and quite literally) independent for over a thousand years. That's more or less the same as Elizabeth II now finally granting independence to the colonies of New England...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Aside from the Kin-strife in Gondor and its long aftermath (Castamir's descendants in Umbar) I'm not sure it was all that murderous. There are at least no hints in that direction. The only other larger conflict I can thing was the fragmentation of Arnor, but we don't know whether this was triggered by a conflict within the royal family or rather by the fact that the Dúnedain weren't all that populous up in the North, possibly leading to a lot of discontent in the regions of the kingdom where the Dúnedain culture wasn't all that strong. 

We know that the Dúnedain continued to play a major role in Cardolan until the destruction of Amon Sûl, but how long the line of Isildur continued to rule in Rhudaur after the split is completely unclear if I remember correctly.

What we know about the succession struggles among the Númenóreans indicates that they seldom got really violent, not even in the final days.

And the general view also is that treason is treason and rebellion rebellion. You don't do that. The Faithful had no choice but to accept the kings. Tolkien doesn't like his heroes to be rebels and traitors. Even when Sauron effectively takes the reins of the government the king remains the king. All the Faithful can do is try to save their own asses, but the idea that they could actually topple or depose the king is unthinkable.

I wonder if Ar-Pharazon's takeover was bloodless, or violent, and whether it was followed by a purge of Tar Palantir's supporters.  I suppose the fact that Amandil and Ar-Pharazon were friends for a time suggests there must still have been some degree of tolerance between the Faithful and the majority of Numenoreans, prior to Sauron's rise to power. For that matter, I wonder what the relationship was like between Ar-Pharazon and Gil-Galad.  Presumably, they must at least have been still nominally allies against Sauron.  There are so many blanks in Middle Earth's history that I'd like to see filled in.

Edit;  I really don't know if those Numenorean colonies which subsequently became Gondor and Arnor were still under Ar-Pharazon's control, by the time that he was openly worshipping Melkor.  The loyalty of the populations there must have been close to breaking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, that kind of forced marriage/rape and usurpation wasn't seen as all that problematic, most likely because it involved a woman. Once Pharazôn was king he was the king. And people stood with him, even the Faithful, until Sauron began to persecute and sacrifice them.

That wasn't all that much of a conflict at all. Faramir did want to hand the crown to Aragorn, he did not insist to remain king in all but name as all the stewards had been.

That comparison makes little sense. The Faithful were part of Númenor itself, especially the Lords Andunie. They were even closely related to the royal family, with Tar-Palantír's mother being one of the Faithful. I'm aware that they wouldn't have won a civil war. But that's not the point, the point is that they never even tried anything directly. Something like an assassination or a coup d'etat.

Tolkien is very clear that the king cannot demand that you worship Melkor and the Outer Darkness or accept Sauron as some kind of evil high-priest. However, he also makes it clear that you also don't have the right to turn against your king. Else the Faithful could easily enough have tried to (or successfully) assassinate(d) Ar-Pharazôn. Ar-Zimraphel wouldn't have been as worse as Pharazôn, and considering that the royal couple didn't have any children we know of, killing Pharazôn could easily enough have saved Númenor. Especially if it was done before Sauron had effectively seized power.

Technically Amandil or Elendil could have inherited the scepter in such a scenario, assuming there were no closer relations to the royal family we don't know of.

We don't need to discuss a children's book here, do we?

Sure, but I only brought that up to illustrate that the subjects of Tolkien's kings usually behave like proper little subjects and don't rebel. The king is the king, ruling by the divine right of kings, and nobody even thinks about overthrowing him.

Only very evil creatures like Melkor (who tries forever unsuccessfully to usurp the place of the Elder King) or Sauron try to do that. No Elda would ever challenge the fact that Ingwe is their king until the day the world ends, nor was there ever any confusion about the kingship of the Finwe, or Elwe and Olwe. Even Feanor did not lose his kingship, not even when he turned against his own people. Maedhros later willingly gave up his claim to the kingship to heal the rift between his own followers and the (much larger) host of Fingolfin but that was something he did of his own free will, not because Fingolfin had any right to claim it.

The kingship of individual kings like Turgon, Fingon, Thingol, Thranduil etc. is pretty much rock solid. There are smaller kingless domains among the Edain in the First Age where things are less ordered and more primitive, etc. but wherever there are kings the kings are in charge.

1. The usurpation has nothing to do with Miriel being a woman - we are talking a realm where female rulers are perfectly normal. In this case, you've got a precedent six hundred years earlier, where the male consort ruled in the name of his wife - and then seized power when she died, over the head of his own son. He presumably got away with this because he was already de facto ruler to start with, and because the son could hardly launch civil war against his own father (especially when the son knew he was going to inherit when Dad died). Basically dirty palace intrigue.

In the case of Miriel, depending on which version of the story you run with, either Pharazon straight-out seduced her with his not inconsiderable charms, or he basically launched a palace coup, secure in the knowledge that he was far more popular than she was. Again, palace intrigue.

As for there being no assassination attempt on Pharazon - I'd hypothesise two reasons. Firstly, Pharazon doesn't have any children. If you know your faction is going to get the throne back eventually, you can afford to wait things out. Secondly, a failed assassination attempt on Pharazon (or even a successful one) would see a pogrom against the Faithful. Note that even during the Sauron era, Pharazon was hardly pulling an Aerys on his opponents (Amandil gets to keep his title) - a violent rebellion would change that.

2. Melkor isn't trying to usurp Manwe. He wants to destroy creation because it isn't his. Nor does Sauron want to usurp anyone in the sense of wanting a crown - he just wants everyone (kings or otherwise) to do as he says.

BTW, for an example of a (de facto) Elvish usurpation, see Orodreth, who suffers it twice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I wonder if Ar-Pharazon's takeover was bloodless, or violent, and whether it was followed by a purge of Tar Palantir's supporters.

I started writing a lengthy fanfic about this once. Incidentally, it's from Pharazon's point of view, with Tar-Palantir having done his own share of paranoid purging over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeanF,

What was to become Gondor was under Faithful control.  It is specifically mentioned several times that Pelargir is the main haven for the faithful and how the King's Men stay away from there and use Umbar and havens further south.  Presumably Arnor is the same way in that in order to get there you need to go through the Elves which the King's Men weren't doing.  (Tharbad wasn't a major center until after the advent of the two Kingdoms)

span data-node-flag="true">

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

SeanF,

What was to become Gondor was under Faithful control.  It is specifically mentioned several times that Pelargir is the main haven for the faithful and how the King's Men stay away from there and use Umbar and havens further south.  Presumably Arnor is the same way in that in order to get there you need to go through the Elves which the King's Men weren't doing.  (Tharbad wasn't a major center until after the advent of the two Kingdoms)

span data-node-flag="true">

Indeed, although I don't know if the Faithful there had repudiated Ar Pharazon's authority by the time of the Downfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Still, that kind of forced marriage/rape and usurpation wasn't seen as all that problematic, most likely because it involved a woman. Once Pharazôn was king he was the king. And people stood with him, even the Faithful, until Sauron began to persecute and sacrifice them.

No. Then double no. Not in Tolkien's text, certainly where its infamous.

Quote

That wasn't all that much of a conflict at all. Faramir did want to hand the crown to Aragorn, he did not insist to remain king in all but name as all the stewards had been.

Yes, that was unrealistic and tidy.

Re: The Faithful and Assassination

That is a ludicrous leap of logic. "They do not believe in assassinating people=unquestioned authority." Especially as they immigrate to found realms which do NOT follow Ar-Pharazon's authority and do not participate in his ill-advised military expedition like the rest of Numenor but become separatists.

I'm also confused at your argument which seems circular. "The kings word is law except for all the times kings are foolish and awful with the text showing they're idiots." Also, all the times Tolkien has his heroes go against them like, oh, Bilbo and Thorin or BEREN AND LUTHIEN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is a long history of rebellion and usurpsion in the history of Gondor.

Aside from the Kin-strife and its aftermath? Can you point me to any of that?

I don't recall any of that. By the way, if anybody cares about my( possibly outdated) thoughts on the chronology of the SA and TA you can read those here in the chapter on 'The Tale of Years'.

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I wonder if Ar-Pharazon's takeover was bloodless, or violent, and whether it was followed by a purge of Tar Palantir's supporters.  I suppose the fact that Amandil and Ar-Pharazon were friends for a time suggests there must still have been some degree of tolerance between the Faithful and the majority of Numenoreans, prior to Sauron's rise to power.

If my memory serves then there is a discrepancy in the time line between this friendship thing and the age of Amandil and Pharazôn respectively. According to the dates we have they are about a hundred years or more apart, if I'm not mistaken. One can salvage this idea either by assuming Amandil was some sort of early mentor for Pharazôn or by considering it a mistake, making Elendil and Pharazôn friends instead.

In general, the Faithful and the King's Party were only in disagreement over the ban of the Valar, their approach to the Eldar of Eressea, and the faith in and worship of Ilúvatar. It wasn't that big of deal. The Faithful shared the fear of the death all Númenóreans developed, and whether they were generally kinder to and more patient with 'lesser men' we do not know. Somehow I doubt that.

Quote

For that matter, I wonder what the relationship was like between Ar-Pharazon and Gil-Galad.  Presumably, they must at least have been still nominally allies against Sauron.  There are so many blanks in Middle Earth's history that I'd like to see filled in.

There is no reason to believe Pharazôn cared about Gil-galad in any way. Keep in mind that the Númenóreans established great colonies in the South of Middle-earth. The main port of King's Party was Umbar. This was also the place where Ar-Pharazôn subdued Sauron. The Kings of Númenor did not look north.

The Faithful still had relations with the Eldar of Middle-earth. Their main port was Pelargir, and this is also why Gondor was (sort of) an Númenórean colony prior to the end, unlike Arnor. The only Dúnedain going to Arnor would have been the people from Elendil's ships. Eriador was Gil-galad's realm prior to the arrival of Elendil, with whatever men living there being men from Middle-earth.

Back when the relations between Gil-galad and the Númenóreans were still good things might have been different, but back then the Númenóreans weren't establishing any permanent colonies.

Quote

Edit;  I really don't know if those Numenorean colonies which subsequently became Gondor and Arnor were still under Ar-Pharazon's control, by the time that he was openly worshipping Melkor.  The loyalty of the populations there must have been close to breaking point.

See above. Arnor wasn't such a colony. And down in the land that would become Gondor only Pelargir existed. Osgiliath, Minas Anor, Minas Ithil, and the Orthanc (and Osgiliath, Fornost, and the Amon Sûl in Arnor) were all built only after Elendil's arrival.

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

1. The usurpation has nothing to do with Miriel being a woman - we are talking a realm where female rulers are perfectly normal. In this case, you've got a precedent six hundred years earlier, where the male consort ruled in the name of his wife - and then seized power when she died, over the head of his own son. He presumably got away with this because he was already de facto ruler to start with, and because the son could hardly launch civil war against his own father (especially when the son knew he was going to inherit when Dad died). Basically dirty palace intrigue.

I know that, but there are hints that Tolkien, well, considered this whole Ruling Queen thing 'unnatural' or at least wrong (which is why there was no Ruling Queen in the Dúnedain kingdoms in Middle-earth - the Lords of Andunie didn't care about this modern nonsense). None of the Ruling Queens is portrayed as either particularly sympathetic or competent. Ancalime seems to have been a weirdo who pursued an irresponsible policy in regard to Middle-earth, Telperien had a lust for power, clinging both to the scepter and her life, and Vanimelde was a wastrel who let her husband rule (who then, as you pointed out, usurped the place of his own son).

We can be pretty sure that Tar-Palantír's male heir (if he had had a son) wouldn't have been pushed aside as easily as Pharazôn pushed aside Zimraphel. He certainly wouldn't have married such a man. And in that sense it doesn't really matter whether Pharazôn raped or seduced his royal cousin. He married her against Númenórean law, got away with it, and made himself king. And his wife (eventually) resented and gave in to all that, just as Aredhel let herself be raped and dominated by Eol (until her own son by that man explained to her that this wasn't the correct way of doing things).

Quote

In the case of Miriel, depending on which version of the story you run with, either Pharazon straight-out seduced her with his not inconsiderable charms, or he basically launched a palace coup, secure in the knowledge that he was far more popular than she was. Again, palace intrigue.

Palace intrigue isn't the proper way to describe either this or the reign of Tar-Anducal. Things wouldn't have gone the way they did if the usurpers hadn't had a lot of popular support. 

Quote

As for there being no assassination attempt on Pharazon - I'd hypothesise two reasons. Firstly, Pharazon doesn't have any children. If you know your faction is going to get the throne back eventually, you can afford to wait things out. Secondly, a failed assassination attempt on Pharazon (or even a successful one) would see a pogrom against the Faithful. Note that even during the Sauron era, Pharazon was hardly pulling an Aerys on his opponents (Amandil gets to keep his title) - a violent rebellion would change that.

We are conflating things there. There were the real Faithful and then there were the Lords of Andunie who were essentially only secret Faithful. The open Faithful wouldn't have been all that popular under Ar-Pharazôn and the predecessors of Tar-Palantír.

But the point isn't 'why there was no rebellion/assassination' but why the author didn't use that concept at all, not even when it becomes clear that Sauron and Pharazôn are going to ruin Númenor.

Quote

2. Melkor isn't trying to usurp Manwe. He wants to destroy creation because it isn't his. Nor does Sauron want to usurp anyone in the sense of wanting a crown - he just wants everyone (kings or otherwise) to do as he says.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. But quite honestly, we don't really know what exactly Melkor wants. But we do know that he brags that he is the Elder King, not Manwe, and that Arda is his, not the Valar's. That is common theme in his story.

Sauron calls himself 'Lord of the Earth' in the SA, making it quite clear that he seems himself as, well, the Lord of the Earth. In fact, it is Sauron's claim to rule over Men and the Earth than causes Pharazôn to challenge him. As King of Númenor he saw himself as the supreme ruler of the Earth.

Quote

BTW, for an example of a (de facto) Elvish usurpation, see Orodreth, who suffers it twice. 

Orodreth is a very special case.

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I started writing a lengthy fanfic about this once. Incidentally, it's from Pharazon's point of view, with Tar-Palantir having done his own share of paranoid purging over the years.

That kind of thing would be pretty un-Tolkienesque. A character like Tar-Palantír would have never done any purges.

 

55 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

No. Then double no. Not in Tolkien's text, certainly where its infamous.

What about Aredhel and Eol?

Quote

Yes, that was unrealistic and tidy.

Perhaps. But then, if you write a character a certain way it is not that unrealistic. The unrealistic part is that people believe and care about Aragorn's claims. That Faramir does not really want to rule is not so unbelievable, though.

57 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Re: The Faithful and Assassination

That is a ludicrous leap of logic. "They do not believe in assassinating people=unquestioned authority." Especially as they immigrate to found realms which do NOT follow Ar-Pharazon's authority and do not participate in his ill-advised military expedition like the rest of Numenor but become separatists.

They don't want to escape Pharazôn and/or Sauron. They cannot run from them. They want to escape the wrath of the Lords of the West. And they never reject the authority of Ar-Pharazôn, either. He does not force them to go to war with him, after all.

57 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'm also confused at your argument which seems circular. "The kings word is law except for all the times kings are foolish and awful with the text showing they're idiots." Also, all the times Tolkien has his heroes go against them like, oh, Bilbo and Thorin or BEREN AND LUTHIEN.

You can have a different opinion of the king but no hero in Tolkien's legendarium ever challenges the claim of a king to be the king. Beren and Lúthien defy Thingol on the whole marriage issue, but they are not challenging his kingship. Just as Idril and Tuor are not rebelling against Turgon by preparing for the worst, etc.

Tolkien's kings are all, by and far, good kings, kings who are accepted as such by their people without questioning. It is a happy marriage, so to speak, the way things are supposed to be. But even if it a bad marriage you can't get out of it. You have to suffer it, as proper spouses are supposed to. That is why the Faithful cannot be the Faithful if they were actually rebelling against the king, never mind the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Orodreth is a very special case.

An inconvenient case for your argument, perhaps?

Let's look at this another way: as far as we know, there were no assassination attempts on Tar-Palantir from the King's Men, and while his Dad wanted to deny him the throne, he didn't. Nor did Pharazon pull a Ramsay Bolton, and plan to get Miriel with a child, then kill her once the heir was born. Why didn't the (more nasty and more numerous) King's Men kill Inziladun and his daughter? Do the baddies respect authority too?

There's also some serious question-begging here. Does the fact that only the IRA ever tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher mean that Margaret Thatcher was only truly hated by the IRA? Does the lack of attempts on recent US Presidents mean that they are universally loved? Fact is, real-life assassination attempts are rarely done by professionals (you can't accurately guess the consequences) or as part of a wider conspiracy. They tend to be done by lone nutters.

As for Melkor and Sauron - usurping Manwe would imply that Melkor wanted to take Manwe's place. Which he didn't - it would have been far too confining with regards to his overall goals. Sauron didn't overthrow Kings under him, he tried to become their de facto God. That doesn't fit with the standard meaning of usurpation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

An inconvenient case for your argument, perhaps?

No, because Orodreth is a character that was sort of absorbed into nothingness by the way the story developed. He was important once and then eventually not so much anymore.

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Let's look at this another way: as far as we know, there were no assassination attempts on Tar-Palantir from the King's Men, and while his Dad wanted to deny him the throne, he didn't. Nor did Pharazon pull a Ramsay Bolton, and plan to get Miriel with a child, then kill her once the heir was born. Why didn't the (more nasty and more numerous) King's Men kill Inziladun and his daughter? Do the baddies respect authority too?

Yeah, they do. In never said they wouldn't. They also continued to enter the royal names into the official documents in Quenya. They were superstitious and not willing to completely break with tradition. Nobody ever doubted that. And nobody ever said anything that things were murderous among the royal family in the days of Ar-Gimilzôr. He persecuted the Faithful, but there is no hint that he actually killed them. He punished them when they were meeting with the Elves from Eressea, and he forced them to move east, but that seems to have been all the persecution during that time, based on the false assumption that the Elves from Eressea were spies of the Valar.

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

There's also some serious question-begging here. Does the fact that only the IRA ever tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher mean that Margaret Thatcher was only truly hated by the IRA? Does the lack of attempts on recent US Presidents mean that they are universally loved? Fact is, real-life assassination attempts are rarely done by professionals (you can't accurately guess the consequences) or as part of a wider conspiracy. They tend to be done by lone nutters.

Well, this is Tolkien we are speaking about here, not the real world. His good guys don't assassinate people.

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

As for Melkor and Sauron - usurping Manwe would imply that Melkor wanted to take Manwe's place. Which he didn't - it would have been far too confining with regards to his overall goals. Sauron didn't overthrow Kings under him, he tried to become their de facto God. That doesn't fit with the standard meaning of usurpation.

Melkor wanted to be king in Manwe's place. He also wanted Arda to be literally his, and rule over it in a much more complete way than Manwe ever ruled over Arda as the Elder King, but that doesn't change the fact that Melkor wanted to be king in Manwe's place. 

There were times in the SA when Sauron was effectively worshiped as a living god by the men following him as far as we know, but that never found its way into the titles he used as far as we know. Lord of the Earth means he ruled over the earth as a lord, not a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Tolkien never developed the story,  Celebrimbor may well have overthrown Galadriel in Eregion.

In his essays, @Roose Bolton's Pet Leech,  has shown that in Tolkien's world, the "good guys" are perfectly capable of doing bad things (eg ethnic cleansing of the Dunlendings, hunting the Druedain for sport, even Faithful Numenoreans subjugating "lesser" men).  There's nothing implausible about the idea that there were some nasty struggles for power in Numenor, Gondor, or Rohan (aside from the Kin Strife, or the  revolt against Helm).

I don't think Tolkien would have objected on theological grounds to resistance to a tyrant, given the examples of bad kings being overthrown in the Old Testament.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Although Tolkien never developed the story,  Celebrimbor may well have overthrown Galadriel in Eregion.

But as far as we know Galadriel and Celeborn wouldn't have been the queen and king of Eregion, just its lords or founders.

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In his essays, @Roose Bolton's Pet Leech,  has shown that in Tolkien's world, the "good guys" are perfectly capable of doing bad things (eg ethnic cleansing of the Dunlendings, hunting the Druedain for sport, even Faithful Numenoreans subjugating "lesser" men).  There's nothing implausible about the idea that there were some nasty struggles for power in Numenor, Gondor, or Rohan (aside from the Kin Strife, or the revolt against Helm).

The Rohirrim are never portrayed as ideal good guys, though. And whether it is a bad thing to show 'lesser men' the light of the West is questionable. Not everything the good guys do might be perfect, but on average what they did was better not worse.

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't think Tolkien would have objected on theological grounds to resistance to a tyrant, given the examples of bad kings being overthrown in the Old Testament.

That might be the case in principle but those would then be theological grounds we are never given in the stories. There are no priests and prophets in Tolkien's world who could have justified the deposition of a bad ruler. And there is a reason for that. The Númenórean kings (and the Dúnedain kings in Middle-earth) are essentially priest-kings. They are the one who worship Ilúvatar on the Meneltarma or the Mindolluin, and if they refuse to do that nobody else has the right to step in and usurp their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has anybody taken a look at 'Beren and Lúthien' already? I've ordered it recently but not yet received it and would like to know what text versions are in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Has anybody taken a look at 'Beren and Lúthien' already? I've ordered it recently but not yet received it and would like to know what text versions are in there.

I'm almost done reading it.  If you've read the HoME volumes and the Silmarillion, there is nothing new other than Christopher Tolkien's linking passages (which invariably reference those books) that discuss the evolution of certain thoughts.  Over half of the book is made up of mixing the Ley with the prose versions in roughly chronological order.  Due to the nature of the drafts, there is nowhere near as much of a "unified" feel to the texts as there was in The Children of Húrin, so if you've read the older editions, there isn't really anything here other than all the texts being in one book to appeal to readers.  Well, I guess if you like Alan Lee's illustrations, that might be the only real addition (and no subtractions; the older editions are presented in full, with the Ley being divvied up in chunks in an attempt to keep certain storyline elements together).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had some doubts initially but after reading another review similar to Larry's I decided to buy.

I like having everything in 1 hardcover, 9 Alan Lee illustrations, I've not yet read the Lay of Leithian, and I like how it is cut up to fit chronologically with the prose sections. Seems like a good addition to me. But then I have most HoMe volumes and as such fall into the more in depth kind of fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Re-reading LOTR after many years. Just finished the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and have a question for the more versed fans here:

The witch-king's doom was not to fall by the hand of any man, so Eowyn was fated to destroy him, but isn't it true, if I read that last passage right, that it was really Merry's Barrow-blade that undid the witch-king? That strike destroyed his magic, essentially removing his immortality, allowing Eowyn to finish him off just like any other mortal enemy. Of course, Merry is not a man either, so the prophecy still applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...