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

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't necessarily see Gildor's nonchalance as a plot hole (it's pretty selfish though).  It's just that he has other concerns.

He certainly does. I don't want to hear anything about how wonderful the elves are when Gildor Inglorion is like, "Yeah, you're in trouble, but I'm off to paradise, so whatever!"

Come to think of it, the elves don't exactly fall over themselves to help the Fellowship, do they? Elrond hands out the miruvor like it's liquid gold, and Galadriel lets her people give Aragorn the hardest time when he gets to Lorien, even though: a ) he's betrothed to her granddaughter; and b ) she was told he was freakin' coming! 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

He certainly does. I don't want to hear anything about how wonderful the elves are when Gildor Inglorion is like, "Yeah, you're in trouble, but I'm off to paradise, so whatever!"

Come to think of it, the elves don't exactly fall over themselves to help the Fellowship, do they? Elrond hands out the miruvor like it's liquid gold, and Galadriel lets her people give Aragorn the hardest time when he gets to Lorien, even though: a ) he's betrothed to her granddaughter; and b ) she was told he was freakin' coming! 

Do we know enough about Miruvor to presume it is made by the keg and available in three liter jugs?  Further do we know if it loses potency with use or has dangerous properties if used too frequently?

There are any number of explanations that don't necessarily mean Elrond is a stingy dick.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do we know enough about Miruvor to presume it is made by the keg and available in three liter jugs?  Further do we know if it loses potency with use or has dangerous properties if used too frequently?

There are any number of explanations that don't necessarily mean Elrond is a stingy dick.

Supposedly, miruvor is "the cordial or Rivendell", which means it's a liqueur. Maybe it's dangerous to mortals, but since that's never mentioned I'm not going to take it for granted. Lembas wasn't dangerous to mortals, that's for sure, and Galadriel wisely loaded up the Fellowship with that stuff.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On another note: I was doing some book shopping today, and I saw one of the new posthumous works (The Lay of Aoutrou and Itroun) on sale for NZ $45. $45 for a 508 line poem, padded into a 100 page book. I will be buggered if I am going to let myself be price gouged like that. I realise that this is the sort of book that will only appeal to academics and Tolkien obsessives, but, sorry, that sort of pricing is not on. I refused to buy the Beowulf translation or the Kullervo retelling for the same reason (and only bought The Fall of Arthur because I ended up with a book voucher).

Anyway, I ended up buying a nice meaty paperback compilation of the Icelandic Sagas instead. I think Tolkien would have approved.

[Darth Richard II]

Oh yeah the prices on the posthumous work is just some bullshit. And I buy history books.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Part X of my continuing series:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/of-j-r-r-tolkien-and-status-quos-part-x/

[SeanF]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 6:03 PM, Arakan said:

First of all, great essay @Roose Boltons Pet Leech. It was a joy to read and honestly, you should expand further on it and maybe publish it! The academic quality is tremendous. 

Second, one of the best threads in the literature forum I have read in years! A big thank you to all of you, to those I agree with and to those with whom I disagree. @Jo498 @TrackerNeil @C.T. Phipps @SeanF @Lord Varys

You guys are the reason why it is still worthwhile to have a look into the Westeros forums! 

Now coming to the topic. It is safe to say that Tolkien is one of the most misunderstood authors of the 20th Century and certainly within the fantasy genre. Add to this my feeling that since the PJ movies have been released, they have become the primary gateway for Tolkien and his works for many people, on
a conscious or subconscious level. Which is a shame because notwithstanding the cinematographic beauty of the movies and  the many things PJ got right, ultimately the movies utterly misrepresents many of Tolkien's core themes. 

And of those core themes is CHANGE. I remember till today how I felt when I finished reading LOTR for the first time as a 12 year old. It was a feeling of happiness but also of sadness and melancholy. If there ever was a bittersweet ending then it was the ending of LOTR! 

And why was that so? Because even though our heroes won, the world would never be the same again. And while the final defeat of the mythological evil in the material world once and for all is a good thing, it comes with losses. As a 12 year old boy, I was sad to know that the elves will fade away and with them all the magic in the world. And without them and the dwarves and the Ents and the Istari and the ethereal beauty of places like Lothlorien or Rivendell, the world would become a duller place. The grandeur is gone, both evil and beautiful, and what's left is a mundane world where sooner or later banality will prevail. 
And Tolkien doesn't sugarcoat it. Fundamental change is not only inevitable but also necessary. The magic goes and with it a lot of beautiful things. But they have to go for the sake of humankind. As sad as it is but with the rise of men Middle-Earth is not a place for immortal elves and Istari. Mundane humanity and magic cannot co-exist in the long run. Tolkien was no psychologist but he understood the human nature in a way that almost no one in the sci-fi/fantasy genre comes close. Just imagine for a second a world, our world, where mortal humans live "side-by-side" with beings, who we experience as superior in every way possible and who as icing on the cake are also immortal. Unfair! Inferiority complex! War and genocide! Men cannot suffer such beings (RSB got that one spot on). 

This is the end of LOTR. 

And this is the part why Tolkien will still be remembered as THE grandmaster of fantasy when my grandchildren will read the books for the first time. Others come and go, and for a while they outshine Tolkien but ultimately all of them become footnotes and Tolkien still prevails. GRRM and ASOIAF is a good example IMO but this is for another post. 

 

EDIT

what PJ's movie utterly got wrong: Sauron and Saruman are not genocidal maniacs. They want to establish their own order, their own system. This means war and subjugation but not Holocaust of the human race. The movies get this utterly wrong, I guess PJ thought he had to dumb Tolkien down and to turn the ring war and its goals up to eleven. Because stupid cinema goers don't understand nothing between black and white. The movie theme of genocide is not badly executed but THIS IS NOT TOLKIEN!

Thanks for your kind words.

IMHO, Tolkien's attitude towards change is more Whiggish than ultra-conservative.  One can admire the past, and regret the need for change, while still seeing it as inevitable.

Your last point is correct.  Morgoth is a genocidal maniac, who wants to destroy the world.  Sauron and Saruman wish to rule the world.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sean,

No, Morgoth also wants to rule.  Where are you getting that Morgoth is a genocidal maniac?  If anything that's Ungoliant.

[The Marquis de Leech]

41 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sean,

No, Morgoth also wants to rule.  Where are you getting that Morgoth is a genocidal maniac?  If anything that's Ungoliant.

http://users.bestweb.net/~jfgm/valaquenta/MorgothSauron.htm

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction. Elves, and still more Men, he despised because of their ‘weakness’: that is their lack of physical force, or power over ‘matter’; but he was also afraid of them. He was aware, at any rate originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not ‘annihilate’** them: that is, destroy their being; but their physical ‘life’, and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind the only thing that was worth considering.† Or he became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy them and rid Arda of them altogether. Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men

[The Marquis de Leech]

Speaking of Dark Lords:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/of-j-r-r-tolkien-and-status-quos-part-xi/

[The Marquis de Leech]

And the follow-up:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/of-j-r-r-tolkien-and-status-quos-part-xii/

[Darth Richard II]

I demand you and trackerneil appear on lip sync battle.

[The Marquis de Leech]

50 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I demand you and trackerneil appear on lip sync battle.

Hey, I'm eternally grateful to TrackerNeil for providing so much material to write about.

In writing these instalments on Sauron, I have also discovered the Angbang crackfic pairing exists, and I am laughing like a maniac as a result (yes, there are people out there who write Morgoth/Sauron* porn. As hilarious as it is disturbing). 

*Or, more accurately, Melkor/Mairon. Silmarillion slash tends to be more sophisticated than LOTR slash.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Hey, I'm eternally grateful to TrackerNeil for providing so much material to write about.

In writing these instalments on Sauron, I have also discovered the Angbang crackfic pairing exists, and I am laughing like a maniac as a result (yes, there are people out there who write Morgoth/Sauron* porn. As hilarious as it is disturbing). 

*Or, more accurately, Melkor/Mairon. Silmarillion slash tends to be more sophisticated than LOTR slash.

There is an entire cottage industry on the internet dedicated to pornographic "reinterpretations" of the stories of Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling, GRRM, Frozen, My Little Pony, etc.

[SeanF]

23 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Speaking of Dark Lords:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/of-j-r-r-tolkien-and-status-quos-part-xi/

Sauron really goes to work on those who have offended him.  Note how the Witch King doesn't threaten Eowyn with death, but rather, transportation to the "Houses of Lamentation" which sound a good deal worse than the average dungeon or torture chamber. Without knowing full details, I imagine it's some kind of method of trapping a person's spirit in torment.

 I've sometimes wondered if the reference to Celebrian getting a "poisoned wound" refers to wounding her with a Morgul-knife, similar to Frodo.  Converting her into a wraith bound into Sauron's service would be a delightful revenge on her family, as far as Sauron is  concerned.

Regarding the barrow-wight's chant, perhaps Sauron thinks he will be in a position to judge the souls of men, after death.

 

[Arakan]

On 19.12.2016 at 3:00 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

http://users.bestweb.net/~jfgm/valaquenta/MorgothSauron.htm

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction. Elves, and still more Men, he despised because of their ‘weakness’: that is their lack of physical force, or power over ‘matter’; but he was also afraid of them. He was aware, at any rate originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not ‘annihilate’** them: that is, destroy their being; but their physical ‘life’, and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind the only thing that was worth considering.† Or he became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy them and rid Arda of them altogether. Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men

With Morgoth I always got the impression that IN THE BEGINNING he wanted to "rule" Arda but under total and absolute authority, including denial of free will for all except himself. When he realized that this simply was not possible he became more and more nihilistic and (self-)destructive. Basically in the end he became a petty "man-child" who was very easy to be provoked (see the whole Hurin business). Actually in the end, all his cruelty notwithstanding, he was a rather pathetic "evil overlord". 

Sauron on the other hand seems to be much smarter and "realistic"/"pragmatic" about achievable goals. He as well wanted to rule but was aware that total domination over Arda was not possible, so he "declared" Middle Earth his "sphere of influence", so to speak, and let the Valar be Valar in Aman. 

Furthermore Sauron knew that he couldn't erradicate the free will of all of Eru's children, at least not absolutely, and thus seems to have been willing to grant a certain autonomy towards his human subjects as long as they didn't question his supreme rule (see Haradrim, Easterlings, Khand, Black Numenorans, Corsars of Umbar). Yes there were the 9 Nazgul. But even so it seems that they were able to operate autonomously, in certain boundaries, see Witchking of Angmar, later Minas Morgul. 

So if I would apply Tolkien to the real world, I would say

- Morgoth resembles Hitler (Götterdämmerung included)

- Sauron more like Stalin

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 hours ago, Arakan said:

Furthermore Sauron knew that he couldn't erradicate the free will of all of Eru's children, at least not absolutely, and thus seems to have been willing to grant a certain autonomy towards his human subjects as long as they didn't question his supreme rule (see Haradrim, Easterlings, Khand, Black Numenorans, Corsars of Umbar). Yes there were the 9 Nazgul. But even so it seems that they were able to operate autonomously, in certain boundaries, see Witchking of Angmar, later Minas Morgul. 

You have actually given me inspiration for my next (non-TrackerNeil-related) essay. The Lord of the Rings might well be the most sophisticated and detailed study of "why follow the Dark Lord"? in the genre.

[Arakan]

6 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You have actually given me inspiration for my next (non-TrackerNeil-related) essay. The Lord of the Rings might well be the most sophisticated and detailed study of "why follow the Dark Lord"? in the genre.

you're welcome mate   

Well poor Sauron, really now . After having read quite a lot of Sci-Fi/Fantasy over the past 25 years, I consider Sauron still the "best" "Dark Lord" out there, with quite a lot of very interesting Machiavellian aspects. But unfortunately in the mainstream conscience he is often considered soooooo cliche evil, basically THE incarnation of the EVIL big bad, and a main reason why so many think of Tolkien's LOTR as a boring black/white fantasy work. 

I "blame" two reasons for this:

1) many of those who read LOTR for the first time were still quite young (in my case: 12) and so simply not able to see the fine nuances 

2) to a lesser extent it's PJ's fault as his Sauron is so one-dimensional and doesn't do the "real" Sauron any justice. 

Why I like Sauron as "Big Bad":

- yes he is a mythological evil manifested in the material world but he still is pragmatic 

- shades of Machiavelli

- not actually evil from his pov. He could make arguments why a rule under Sauron makes sense   e.g. clear interest in modernization and seemingly quite a meritocratic approach (in contrast to stupid aristocracy:)) )

- NOT a lunatic but rational (I hate lunatic evil at least as Big Bad)

- he is smart and thinks longterm (see his Numenor operation)

- he is actually NOT petty (proud yes but not petty in a man-child way)

And anyway LOTR is told from the perspective of the winners and thus might be biased . For example we always read how Sauron threw wave after wave of faceless Haradrim and Easterlings against the free folks of the West but we never get their view...

And anyway, why should a Gondorian farmer care if his overlord is a king from the House of Elendil sitting in distant Osgiliath or Minas Tirith or Sauron sitting on his throne in Barad Dur. The bottom 90% of the population had no say whatsoever anyway...

And yeah, the fact that the Easterlings, Haradrim and Corsairs could launch such a massive offensive against Gondor during the Ring War would imply that their realms were quite wealthy...and this under Sauron . 

Yes, there is the issue of the orcs who really are a pain in the ass in Middle Earth. But Sauron didn't create this weapon race (cool name btw @RSB) but merely continued their use...which speaks for the pragmatism of Sauron. And anyway it's war and wars are ugly and in times of war most would use any weapon if it gives them a tactical/strategical advantage...I mean the Brits didn't leave their machine guns at home just because their opponents had only spears and it was an unfair fight . 

Yes, quite a lot of what I wrote is tongue in cheek but my key massage stands: Sauron is a cool and often not enough appreciated Big Bad. 

 

 

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Arakan said:

you're welcome mate   

Well poor Sauron, really now . After having read quite a lot of Sci-Fi/Fantasy over the past 25 years, I consider Sauron still the "best" "Dark Lord" out there, with quite a lot of very interesting Machiavellian aspects. But unfortunately in the mainstream conscience he is often considered soooooo cliche evil, basically THE incarnation of the EVIL big bad, and a main reason why so many think of Tolkien's LOTR as a boring black/white fantasy work. 

I "blame" two reasons for this:

1) many of those who read LOTR for the first time were still quite young (in my case: 12) and so simply not able to see the fine nuances 

2) to a lesser extent it's PJ's fault as his Sauron is so one-dimensional and doesn't do the "real" Sauron any justice. 

Why I like Sauron as "Big Bad":

- yes he is a mythological evil manifested in the material world but he still is pragmatic 

- shades of Machiavelli

- not actually evil from his pov. He could make arguments why a rule under Sauron makes sense   e.g. clear interest in modernization and seemingly quite a meritocratic approach (in contrast to stupid aristocracy:)) )

- NOT a lunatic but rational (I hate lunatic evil at least as Big Bad)

- he is smart and thinks longterm (see his Numenor operation)

- he is actually NOT petty (proud yes but not petty in a man-child way)

And anyway LOTR is told from the perspective of the winners and thus might be biased . For example we always read how Sauron threw wave after wave of faceless Haradrim and Easterlings against the free folks of the West but we never get their view...

And anyway, why should a Gondorian farmer care if his overlord is a king from the House of Elendil sitting in distant Osgiliath or Minas Tirith or Sauron sitting on his throne in Barad Dur. The bottom 90% of the population had no say whatsoever anyway...

And yeah, the fact that the Easterlings, Haradrim and Corsairs could launch such a massive offensive against Gondor during the Ring War would imply that their realms were quite wealthy...and this under Sauron . 

Yes, there is the issue of the orcs who really are a pain in the ass in Middle Earth. But Sauron didn't create this weapon race (cool name btw @RSB) but merely continued their use...which speaks for the pragmatism of Sauron. And anyway it's war and wars are ugly and in times of war most would use any weapon if it gives them a tactical/strategical advantage...I mean the Brits didn't leave their machine guns at home just because their opponents had only spears and it was an unfair fight . 

Yes, quite a lot of what I wrote is tongue in cheek but my key massage stands: Sauron is a cool and often not enough appreciated Big Bad. 

 

 

I agree with Screwtape that "to be truly and effectively wicked, a man needs some virtue".  Jadis, in The Magician's Nephew fulfills this well, since despite being a sociopath, who thinks of her subjects as chattels, she possesses plenty of physical courage and charisma, and can be genuinely charming when she puts her mind to it. 

We don't actually get to see much from Sauron's point of view, but no doubt at an earlier point in his life, he would have been similar (based on Tolkien's letters) although by the time of the War of the Ring, he rules pretty much by terror alone.   What we see of Mordor indicates that it's a very brutal totalitarian State.  But, you're right that his goals are more limited, rational, and achievable than those of Morgoth.

 

[Arakan]

21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We don't actually get to see much from Sauron's point of view, but no doubt at an earlier point in his life, he would have been similar (based on Tolkien's letters) although by the time of the War of the Ring, he rules pretty much by terror alone.   What we see of Mordor indicates that it's a very brutal totalitarian State.  But, you're right that his goals are more limited, rational, and achievable than those of Morgoth.

 

Oh I do agree Sauron's rule in Mordor proper could be described as totalitarian. But to play devil's advocate one more time: Mordor was overwhelmingly populated by Orks and no one, not the Hobbits, Elves, dwarves or humans of all factions hold them in high regard or consider their life of much value. 

And actually we have no idea or objective view how Sauron ruled over his human subjects. We do know though that crazy, lunatic Morgoth had quite a "Laisser-faire" approach over his Easterlings in the First Age. The Narn I Chin Hurin gives the impression that the Easterlings under Morgoth could rule relatively autonomous in "inner matters". Of course as long as they were totally loyal towards Morgoth. 

Ockham's razor would tell me now that there is no reason why this should have been different under Sauron, the opposite is the case: 

- Sauron was less paranoid than Morgoth

- Sauron had less power projection capabilities than Morgoth, both in the 2nd and 3rd age (I mean on the height of his power in Middle Earth, Sauron could do nothing but accept a strong Numenorean colonial empire on "his home turf" and he couldn't crush down the Elven realms of Gil-Galad and Oropher). 

A totalitarian approach to rule only works when you do not have to fear significant resistance. Sauron never had this power, his propaganda notwithstanding. 

Again, consider this as devils advocate .