Why Tolkien is not coddling his readers, why Tolkien is awesome

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Tolkien's Hell is akin to Lewis' in the fact that Hell is really just a dark and gloomy place versus torturing people forever.

Yeah, sorry, I got sidetracked into theological angst.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how Numenor and later Gondor works. Not the least being that you think the Stewards are going to rock the boat by attempting to claim the kingship via bloodline when they HAVE rulership by politcal reality. As Stewards, they may be related to the Royal Family but are not necessarily the closest of kin to the throne. As Stewards, though, they have Royal Power through their Stewardship.

There is no textual confirmation that they are related to the royal line nor is there any hint that there are other powerful Gondarian nobles who are. The Princes of Dol Amroth are special because of their Elven heritage which is not royal at all. All the other Gondorian lords who show don't seem to have the standing to ever oppose the House of Húrin.

And I'm actually arguing on the basis of the text - Boromir actually expressing the wish that his father should be king with Denethor chiding him in a way that suggests that this is not going to happen in ten thousand years because their line simply isn't royal. The Stewards are not portrayed as people who were happy with the status they had. Ruling as Steward is well and good but it is very different from ruling as King.

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'm fairly sure that Tolkien was of the mind that Gondor's survivors are mostly all related to the survivors of Numenor with plenty of them having intermarried elsewhere. While Aragorn is the direct heir of Isildur, the female line has probably spread throughout Gondor's peoples as well as second sons and third sons. It's part of Gondor's theme they're very high blooded but it doesn't mean much now given the class divisions are not as fluid with so few survivors.

That is unsupported conjecture. Mind you, I'm with you that there were a lot of cadet branches of the royal line throughout the millennia but I'd maintain that all of them died out. There were a lot of wars, the Great Plague, the Kin-strife. Hell, some cousins of Eärnil and Eärnur could easily enough have died when the Nazgûl took Minas Ithil.

Not to mention that earlier on more royal descendants than we know might have moved to Umbar in the wake of the Kin-strife. They might have still been out there when the royal line ended in Gondor.

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

As for divine approval, Gandalf is not recognized as a divine authority by Denthor with the majority of kings viewing him with a bit of suspicion and annoyance--White or Gray. Certainly, the Eagles are just another race of Middle Earth in TLOTR even if Tolkien debated making then more.

Who cares what the people think? If Gandalf wanted to show Denethor and the people of Gondor who he truly was he could have done so. And he would have done so most certainly had Denethor lived and dared to interfere with his plans.

I suggest you reread the Song of the Eagle. The bird says that the king has come again and would be living among his people all the days of their life. How could he have known that if he wasn't one of Manwe's messengers?

Don't confuse the eagles of 'The Hobbit' with the ones showing up in TLotR. Those are different birds.

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think it's also important to take the context of the Stewardship versus Royalty as a matter of political custom versus reality. Yes, they're technically subordinate to a monarch but it's not a matter of someone simply showing up to claim the throne (albeit that might have made things a bit more realistic). Denethor's line could have certainly claimed the throne but they'd be undermining their own claim to power as they'd lose their position as stewards to become usurpers and invite any other Gondorian line to challenge them for it.

Not sure why that is. They could have ruled as Stewards and Kings both, never allowing another family to amass as much power as they had when the royal line ended.

2 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Faramir's statement about "childless lords musing on heraldry" is meant to reflect the fact the Gondorians are obsessed with lineage even though it's largely become meaningless. The Gondorians are no longer pure Numeorneans and the Rohan have arguably interbred with them enough they probably have as much of the ancient blood as anyone. It's a dig at people clinging too much on past glories versus building new ones.

There is no hint that the Kings of Gondor ever took wives from the ranks of lesser men aside from the Kin-strife incident. They would have chosen most of their wives from the Dúnedain nobility of Gondor (and perhaps more often than not from the royal line of Arnor, at least in the early days). But the people of Gondor weren't all Dúnedain from the start so the Dúnedain would have intermarried quite often with people who had non-Dúnedain ancestors, at least on one side of the family.

By the time of the War of the Ring there is little difference between the likes of the Rohirrim and the average Gondorian. And it is mentioned that in Denethor/Faramir and Aragorn the Númenórean blood comes to the fore one last time, presumably because Eru/the Valar want it that way.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LV,

You seem to be positing the interesting idea that "if the subcreation has an omnipotent deity, so long as the deity exists, all actions within that subcreation must be credited to the omnipotent deity".  I don't buy that.  If the deity is truly "omnipotent" the deity can choose to allow its creations free will.  Therefore, not everything that happens within that deity's demesne is always on the deity.

That is not what I'm positing. I'm saying Eru has a special interest in some things, mainly the big picture. He clearly wants Melkor stop messing with his creation at some point, and he also wants Sauron out of the way, too.

My focus on the Aragorn thing comes from Tolkien's outline of the mythology in letter #131 where he reveals that the two destined unions between elves and men happen because of Eru's plan, basically. The blood of Melian, Lúthien, and Idril ennobles a very specific royal bloodline of man. The line of the Númenórean kings. And Eru had a plan for those that much is clear. They were given Númenor and Elendil and his sons were allowed to survive the divine punishment, etc. In TLotR he clearly wants them to return and then to allow them to continue governing the good portion of humanity. How long that's going to work (or how it fits in with prehistory I don't know). But I guess Noah would have been one of Aragorn's distant descendants with the main branch of them suffering a similar fate as Ar-Pharazôn during the flood.

This all fits very well with Catholic doctrine by the way. God is the lord/master of history (being German I'm not sure how you English say it, it is 'Herr der Geschichte' in German). That means that god basically gets what he wants despite the fact that human beings are (supposedly) free. And as Eru says to Melkor in the beginning nobody can change the Music (i.e. history) against his will.

The other point is that divine providence/the Holy Ghost, etc. is leading or advising the believer all the time anyway. That kind of thing can be seen in Tolkien's works all the time although it is often so subtle that you don't have to see it through those glasses. But Tolkien himself most likely would.

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

A prophecy is a statement of what will happen, not what can happen. Glorfindel's prophecy didn't mean that the Witch-King couldn't be killed by a man, but rather that he wouldn't. Saying "no, no. We can't even try to revive Arthedain because that would break the Seer's words" changes a prediction into a law - which it clearly isn't. 

I completely agree with you there. I just offered an explanation that could explain why they never even tried. But I assume that Elrond had even more to do with that than Malbeth. The idea that the Chieftains went along with such things isn't far-fetched, though, since Elrond said Aragorn pretty early on who receive the hand of his daughter in marriage - and he didn't do anything to accomplish that goal. He certainly could have tried to rebuild at least Arnor, couldn't he?

[The Grey Wolf]

15 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Text

Actually, there were three childless kings of Gondor. Tarannon Falastur, Narmacil I, and Earnur.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, The Grey Wolf said:

Actually, there were three childless kings of Gondor. Tarannon Falastur, Narmacil I, and Earnur.

There were a lot of kings of Gondor. Well so many ill just take your word for it.

[The Grey Wolf]

4 hours ago, Wrl6199 said:

There were a lot of kings of Gondor. Well so many ill just take your word for it.

There were 36 known kings of Gondor to be specific, all of whom I really wish we had more information on.

[SeanF]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 1:59 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

Tolkien's Hell is akin to Lewis' in the fact that Hell is really just a dark and gloomy place versus torturing people forever.

Hell in The Great Divorce is basically Blackpool when it's raining in the afternoon.

[SeanF]

Lord Varys

It's hard to see how the nobility of Gondor could not claim some royal ancestry.  Nobility can almost always trace their ancestry back to a younger  royal son or daughter at some point.  There wasn't much in the way of other royalty that the Kings of Gondor could marry (and there's no evidence they practised dynastic incest like the Targaryens).

IIRC, Mardil the Steward took over not because there were no relatives of the Kings, but because there were no relatives whose claim was so strong that it would be uncontested.  In all likelihood, Earnur would have had third and fourth cousins.

[TrackerNeil]

On 11/8/2016 at 7:24 AM, Lord Varys said:

I did not criticize Tolkien's take on mercy. I find it that he doesn't really have any gray characters. Melkor-Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Gríma are/become evil, and even the likes of Feanor, Denethor, and Boromir are failures. Tolkien has different levels of corruption in his story. Denethor isn't Saruman, and Feanor isn't Sauron. But there they are doomed all the same. Mandos made it pretty clear that Feanor is going to be spend a very long time in his house.

To me, a "gray character" is one who doesn't always support the protagonists and their goals, and/or who has understandable objectives even if he/she sometimes makes choices that are morally questionable. In the Tolkienverse, I think Feanor and Denethor qualify, but I can't think of anyone else who does. Galadriel was tempted to take the Ring for herself, as was Faramir, but after a moment of weakness either of them turns it down flat. (Gandalf and Elrond never even seem to give the Ring a second glance.) The villains--Saruman, Grima--are never presented as relatable nor are they shown to have any goals most would consider respectable. 

Ser Scot and I went back and forth about this, and to clarify what I'm saying I'll give examples of gray characters who appear elsewhere. I think Magneto from the first X-men movie is a gray character. He does some stuff that's morally indefensible but has motivations that are eminently understandable and even justifiable to an extent. Admiral Cain from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is another gray character; she's got some pretty hefty sins on her bill, but she also has some insights that Adama lacks. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

To me, a "gray character" is one who doesn't always support the protagonists and their goals, and/or who has understandable objectives even if he/she sometimes makes choices that are morally questionable. In the Tolkienverse, I think Feanor and Denethor qualify, but I can't think of anyone else who does.

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Boromir? Gollum? Turin? Maedhros? Mim? Thingol?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Lord Varys

It's hard to see how the nobility of Gondor could not claim some royal ancestry.  Nobility can almost always trace their ancestry back to a younger  royal son or daughter at some point.  There wasn't much in the way of other royalty that the Kings of Gondor could marry (and there's no evidence they practised dynastic incest like the Targaryens).

Nobility does not have to have royal origins. The kings could just ennoble some regular people, or Gondorian and Arnorian nobility could be essentially Númenórean in origin. One can assume that most of the people who traveled to Middle-earth aboard the seven ships of Elendil gained prominence in the kingdoms they helped to found. But there is no need to believe all or even many of them had to be related to Elendil and his sons. After all, what cousins they might have had could have stood with Sauron and Ar-Pharazôn.

I do not doubt that there were a lot of male cadet branches founded over the centuries yet they could all have died out, especially if a lot of people died during the Great Plague.

We know the Númenórean kings did (usually) not marry first cousins but they did marry second cousins, suggesting that a similar thing was practiced in both Arnor and Gondor. The whole fixation on the purity of blood in Gondor in the later years makes it actually pretty likely that first cousin marriage became a thing, too, but there is no evidence for that (because we don't know anything about any queen of Gondor aside from Queen Berúthiel - who, I think, might have been a descendant of the Line of Elros from Umbar; all we know for sure is that she was a Black Númenórean).

Quote

IIRC, Mardil the Steward took over not because there were no relatives of the Kings, but because there were no relatives whose claim was so strong that it would be uncontested.  In all likelihood, Earnur would have had third and fourth cousins.

That is true, but there is no confirmation that the House of Húrin was descended from the kings, nor is there any hint that descendants of Anárion still lived in Gondor when Aragorn became king.

I've just reread the relevant sections in Appendix A and we have a great decline of the royal line house during the Kin-strife (when a lot of people are killed who are closely related to the royal house) and thereafter when a lot of relatives of the kings had fallen under suspicion and fled to Umbar to join the rebels there. Others 'renounced their lineage and [took] wives not of Númenórean blood' (which implies that such people were considered to be unfit to inherit due to a morganatic marriage).

After Eärnur's disappearance 'no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow'. Due to the memory of the Kin-strife people refused to choose a king from whatever distant kin of the kings still remained.

But it is quite clear that Mardil the Steward wasn't one such - he is seen as a ruler in the king's name rather than a replacement king. If he had been one of those distant royal relations that could possibly make a claim (most likely some distant descendants of some old king through the female line) it wouldn't have make much sense to allow him to rule in the king's name because then the Steward could use the power of his office to eventually make himself king.

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

To me, a "gray character" is one who doesn't always support the protagonists and their goals, and/or who has understandable objectives even if he/she sometimes makes choices that are morally questionable.

That is a pretty good definition. At least for a setting where there are actual heroes. In such a works a gray character could very well be also a protagonist.

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In the Tolkienverse, I think Feanor and Denethor qualify, but I can't think of anyone else who does.

If you judge Feanor and Denethor by their motivations and desires I'd agree to you up to a point. But in the end they do things that Tolkien would consider to be evil (and the reader is supposed to follow his judgment there). This would be the Kinslaying in Feanor's case (and in addition the burning of the ships at Losgar) as well as Denethor's attempt to murder his son and his decision to kill himself.

This doesn't make them as bad as Melkor-Morgoth or Sauron (or even Saruman) but they are most definitely crossed a line they should not have crossed.

11 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Ser Scot and I went back and forth about this, and to clarify what I'm saying I'll give examples of gray characters who appear elsewhere. I think Magneto from the first X-men movie is a gray character. He does some stuff that's morally indefensible but has motivations that are eminently understandable and even justifiable to an extent. Admiral Cain from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is another gray character; she's got some pretty hefty sins on her bill, but she also has some insights that Adama lacks. 

I'd agree with you on Magneto but I definitely don't agree with you on Cain. Magneto is a Holocaust survivor championing the cause of a minority who might suffer the same fate as his parents and other family members did if he (and his allies) fail. Not to mention the whole point of the whole Mutant gene thing laying the groundwork for the development of a new human (sub-)species. 

Cain mostly focuses on revenge and preservation of her own ship and power. Becoming a vampire living off other human survivors is deplorable. The setting of that series makes the survival of the human species the most important focus, not revenge on the enemy or a continuation of the war.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Boromir? Gollum? Turin? Maedhros? Mim? Thingol?

Lobelia's ambitions are too petty for me to call her gray (you have to actually have some notable evil in you), and Gollum is so warped by the Ring I think he counts as clinically insane. Boromir never does evil except under the influence of the Ring, and even then immediately repents, so in my book that doesn't count either.

On the others I'd need to refresh my memory on their stories, but you might have a point on them. I don't feel like going back to The Silmarillion, so I'll yield on them.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Cain mostly focuses on revenge and preservation of her own ship and power. Becoming a vampire living off other human survivors is deplorable. The setting of that series makes the survival of the human species the most important focus, not revenge on the enemy or a continuation of the war.

Cain is in many ways a villain, yet she has some dead-on insights about the shortcomings of Adama's command style. Adama is too close to his officers, and it does prevent him from seeing their weaknesses. How many times did people disobey him without consequence? He does ignore the hierarchy whenever it pleases him; for example, when Tyrol and Helo are in the dock for murder, Adama calls for an independent tribunal to judge them. Cain replies, "You mean like that tribunal you disbanded when it reached a conclusion you didn't like? And as I recall, Chief Tyrol was on trial there as well." He substitutes his own moral code for adherence to duty, and rebelled at different times against Roslin, Cain and Zarek--in fact, the only leader he obeys is the actual Cylon sympathizer. 

While Cain makes some deplorable choices, she's arguably a better officer than Adama.

(I don't want to derail the conversation to Adama vs. Cain, but if anyone wants to open a new thread I'll gladly join in.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Cain's criticism of Adama was spot on even if she was a sociopath.

[Jasta11]

One thing that did annoy me with LOTR is the Elf overuse and overpraise, especially in Fellowship to be fair. Elves are the fairest, the most gifted healers, the wisest advisors. the most knowledgeable scholars, live oh so long, make the best stuff, so on and so forth. And if a human is cooler than the rest, well, obviously it's because they have elven blood. Doesn't help that so much of the backstory is about them, too.

It's not for no reason that most modern fantasy (games at least) have elves be jerks. I just don't think the idea of a race that's basically there to be the most beautiful, long-lived and the best at almost everything is ultimately interesting, whatever Tolkin says about how their immortality is a curse because it makes them melancholic sometimes.

And yes, I know that the Silmarillion and The Hobbit portray Elves very differently. It's part of why I actually like the former so much. But in LOTR they're just kinda boring IMO.

[C.T. Phipps]

Tolkien loved elves the way teenaged girls love vampires.

[Darth Richard II]

Heh, the reason I hate elves and love dwarves so much is because I read The Hobbit and such a young age. Well that and the fact im a short hairy guy.

[The Marquis de Leech]

38 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Tolkien loved elves the way teenaged girls love vampires.

(Though Beren and Luthien beats Twilight).

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

One thing that did annoy me with LOTR is the Elf overuse and overpraise, especially in Fellowship to be fair. Elves are the fairest, the most gifted healers, the wisest advisors. the most knowledgeable scholars, live oh so long, make the best stuff, so on and so forth. And if a human is cooler than the rest, well, obviously it's because they have elven blood. Doesn't help that so much of the backstory is about them, too.

LOTR is written from the hobbits' point of view - it's looking at Elves from the outside.

I mean, objectively, Gildor is a completely irresponsible idiot - he knows the Ringwraiths are pursuing Frodo, yet does he accompany the hobbits to Rivendell? Nope, he leaves them to their feet, and prances off to the Grey Havens. 

[Andorion]

If looked at critically, only Elrond comes of as ok among the Elves. He conducted a sober and realistic assessment of the dangers they faced and offered sound advice. Other elves... not so much. 

Gildor and Co. were irresponsible. 

Galadriel came within a hair of taking the ring

Legolas did great in his individual capacity, but the Elves of Mirkwood didn't exactly come through the Hobbit with a great record. 

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

One thing that did annoy me with LOTR is the Elf overuse and overpraise, especially in Fellowship to be fair. Elves are the fairest, the most gifted healers, the wisest advisors. the most knowledgeable scholars, live oh so long, make the best stuff, so on and so forth. And if a human is cooler than the rest, well, obviously it's because they have elven blood. Doesn't help that so much of the backstory is about them, too.

It's not for no reason that most modern fantasy (games at least) have elves be jerks. I just don't think the idea of a race that's basically there to be the most beautiful, long-lived and the best at almost everything is ultimately interesting, whatever Tolkin says about how their immortality is a curse because it makes them melancholic sometimes.

And yes, I know that the Silmarillion and The Hobbit portray Elves very differently. It's part of why I actually like the former so much. But in LOTR they're just kinda boring IMO.

Oh my gosh this is so right. The elves are all like, "Oh, I'll live forever and never get sick and never grow old, how can I stand this torment?" Mary, please.

[Jo498]

Elf overuse in LotR? They are all minor characters and only three are a little developed, of which Legolas is fairly boring, Elrond only acts as a wise advisor, Galadriel has a very episodic role. I don't agree that the repose in Lothlorien could have been cut but it is not all that important in the long run of the story. I agree that the elves can appear as pricks but they are really only on the margins of the story and it is made clear that there are few of them and fading. (The elves of Mirkwood do not really fit the picture and should probably discounted for an assessment of Tolkien's elves.)

A "grey" character may well turn to be seen as evil in the end (or be "redeemed"), but still be ambiguous for most of a narrative.  Most so-called "grey" characters in either classics or more recent "fantasy" are actually not grey to the end or if one looks more closely. (Obviously, what looks "grey" to someone can also be clearly evil for someone else with a different moral stance. A sympathetically drawn murderer like Highsmith's Ripley is not really grey at all. He is clearly evil according to any human law or moral stance. But the way he gets involved somehow against his intentions tends to let the reader sympathize with him.)

I'd certainly agree that Feanor and Denethor can count as grey despite having failed/turned evil in the final judgement of the author, or in Feanor's case with the kinslaying at the latest, although his "original sin" was loving his handiwork more than the good of his fellow creatures. Also Thorin in the Hobbit.

Agree that Gollum is mostly too insane although I think that the insanity, the Deagol-Smeagol-schizoism is handled very well and in some lucid episodes he may count as genuinely conflicted.