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

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Your post got eaten, Roose.

I was trying to reset the pesky quote function. Sorry.

[Lord Varys]

15 hours ago, Slurktan said:

That is not how the Dunedain age.  Once they reach the age of 35-40 they stop aging until literally a couple years before they die then they rapidly age (unless they choose to surrender their life right before they hit hat point, like Aragorn does. He never "grows old" and is in his prime physical health until he chooses to die).  Denethor should have looked and felt pretty much exactly as healthy and strong as Boromir and Faramir.  He only didn't because of the strain of using the Palantir.  Gandalf specifically comments on it.

That is true in theory but since Ecthelion II died at the age of 98 then Denethor II was about nine years away from his own natural death (assuming he wasn't given an additional boost like Aragorn was). In addition, Aragorn is the first Dúnadan in centuries or millennia who has sufficient strength of character to die of his own free will. That is completely uncommon for the Dúnedain of his day and age. When exactly Denethor's naturally aging process would have begun, but if we assume he would have died at the age of 96-97 I'd say he could very have begun to age in his early 90s, right?

If you check 'The Line of Elros' you will see that the Númenórean kings tended to live quite a few years after they handed the scepter to their successors and in the times they refused to die of their own free will the time of their senility could cover a few years. This would be in line with my assumption that Denethor II would have been really an old man rather quickly.

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I agree, and I'd argue that Nerdanel, for all her influence over Feanor, is still a traditional female character. She has little power of her own, and the important deeds that are done are not hers but her husband's. That's pretty standard stuff for female characters.

All of Tolkien's female characters are traditional in that sense. Even Lúthien is just Beren's sidekick. A rather powerful sidekick, true, but he is the guy with the mission and an agenda while she only helps him accomplish his goal rather than having a goal of her own. Not to mention that he is calling the shots about what they are doing - just as I think Thingol and Celeborn did in their relationships (in Celeborn's case at least once Galadriel had overcome her Nerwen-phase).

And speaking about Nerwen - Tolkien making a big deal out of the fact that Galadriel is a 'man-maiden' also shows his view in that matter explicitly. Men are naturally active and commanding and an Elven mother naturally gives her daughter the name 'Nerwen' when she perceives that this girl is going to behave in a way that's improper for a girl in this society.

If the gender roles weren't essentially defined with the woman as the complimentary/secondary gender then Galadriel's name would have been pretty different, one imagines. Something like 'strong woman' or 'restless spirit' or something like that. Instead we get 'man-maiden'.

9 hours ago, Jo498 said:

Actually, I do not expect a book like LotR to give anything even close to "a full picture of the human condition". It is most certainly not comparable in this respect to one of the great realist societal/social novels of the 19th century most of which focus on romance, marriage and adultery, so one needs interesting female characters.

Well, I'd say that for a novel it is genre it still accomplishes a lot in touching on various subjects. You are right, that romanticism and erotic don't make it in there, but it really addresses large topics like destiny, sacrifice, coming of age, environmentalism, death, friendship, war, betrayal, mercy, etc.

And if we assume that Tolkien didn't really intend to write genre fiction (or invent the fantasy genre) then we should assume he consciously or unconsciously put stuff into this story that greatly mattered to him. I mean, he was neither a professional writer forced to make money with his work nor under any obligation to write such a large 'Hobbit sequel'. He just did.

The conclusion you can draw from that in regards to women not showing up is that women didn't matter to him all that much as characters who are interesting or worthy enough to fit into such a story. Especially considering that he was making the rules. I'm not sure if he was ever asked about why there were no women in 'The Hobbit' and only so few in LotR.

Quote

I think of LotR more as an heroic epic or an adventure tale, it is certainly neither realistic nor societal, and I don't miss Frodo's gf anymore than I miss Ishmael's, Jim Hawkins' or Allen Quartermain's brides or wives. (Sam has Rosie and I guess the younger hobbits are considered so young by hobbit standards that being without a fiancée is to be taken as normal - Bertie Wooster also tried to get rid of his accidental fiancées ASAP.)

With that you go a step too far down, I think. LotR is no cheap adventure story, it is covering more than that. People are fighting against Evil Incarnate and trying to save the world itself. Women would be affected by that just as much as men are.

They are not looking for some treasure on an island or are trying to kill some whale. Jim Hawkins easily enough could have had a romance in 'Treasure Island', though, if you think of it (and, you know, Ishmael might have had a boyfriend). But in 'Moby Dick' the very setting makes it unlikely that women show up. I mean, were there any women on a whaler in the 19th century?

'The Hobbit' originally was a story Tolkien invented for his sons. I see little fault in him writing an adventure stories for boys. But he had a daughter, too.

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Thatcher was middle-class; Sam is working class. And Sam's position as Mayor was as the one elected official in The Shire - unlike Merry and Pippin, whose eventual positions were hereditary.

Everything I know about Thatcher comes from 'The Iron Lady' and there her father is depicted as a grocer. Granted, that's not exactly working class but unless the British have various classes above the Middle Class I'd not really count such a family among them. 

In any case, the example was just to point out the difference between the Hobbit aristocracy like the Tooks, Baggins, and their peers, and the lower classes. The Gamgee's are gardeners and thus not all that much different from grocers if we assume that they might also produce and sell foods they plant in their garden. They are just not rich, nor is the entire Shire going to come to their birthday parties.

Quote

At the beginning of the story, Frodo thinks Gollum deserves death. He Learns Better. The possibility for Orkish redemption is theoretically there (c.f. the Wise's stance that Orcs fall under the Law, and are not to be killed if they surrender).

But this isn't really addressed in the story as far as I recall, right? I mean, theoretically Christian doctrine should also allow the Devil to recant his evil deeds and ask for (and be granted) God's mercy, right? But this is an academic question because if it actually happened right now Christianity would be redundant. 

Tolkien sort of maintains that paradox in his work by paying lip service to the possibility of everybody regretting his sins but in truth things like that don't happen. The likes of Melkor, Sauron, and Saruman only get worse over time, they don't get better.

Quote

• Sixty years looking after ungrateful hobbits (and Men - see Aragorn castigate Butterbur as a Fat Man in Bree. Believe it or not, Aragorn isn't perfect).
• Service under a pseudonym in Gondor against Umbar - which would have been leverage for a claim to the throne if he were so inclined.
• Wandering the wilds, even into the Southern Hemisphere, thereby getting an understanding of the world.
• Assisting the Ring Quest.
• Helping save Rohan at Helm's Deep.
• Taking out the Corsairs again.
• Pelennor Fields.

Yeah, he earned it.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what that has to do with kingship. If some British nobleman does his duty for queen and country he is not suddenly entitled to be king, right? The problem with your take is that it is never addressed or clarified that Aragorn earned the right to claim the throne of Gondor because he was such a great warrior and hero. He just does. We are never given a good reason why he is successful in this aside from the fact that he is Isildur's heir. The people don't cry 'Aragorn for king! The Hero of the Pelennor for king!' or something of that sort.

And pretty much nobody in the stories addresses or even knows about Aragorn's exploits in his youth. Faramir and Imrahil clearly have no clue about that, or have they? I don't remember this stuff being brought up in relation to Aragorn taking the throne.

Quote

Except that Appendix A says everyone feared another Kin-Strife, so it was best to leave things alone.

Okay, but we can reasonably be sure that the Stewards were pretty much in charge another five centuries later, right. I mean, come on, the Kin-strife should be a non-issue around 2500 or so when there are obviously no descendants of the royal line around.

Quote

Regardless of what Isildur planned, he got taken out at Gladden Fields. At that point, Valandil was Heir of Isildur in Arnor, and Meneldil was Heir of Anarion in Gondor. That was how the Gondorian nobility (from Earnil to Denethor) understood it - their view was that Isildur relinquished the South - and no-one in the North tries to press the issue until Arvedui gets desperate.

Well, and that was a wrong point of view. Aragorn is the chosen king of (the) god(s), if you will. It is subtle and all but if you can read the signs (i.e. know the Silmarillion) you realize that an eagle heralding the Return of the King and the length of his reign as well as Gandalf the White crowning that king and later finding a seedling of the White Tree is pretty ham-fisted insofar as divine providence and a divine right to rule is concerned.

Hell, Aragorn even fits the ridiculous English trope of the king having healing hands, commanding his subjects to be healed and stuff. He demonstrates this quite often in the story.

Quote

Of course, Arnor also got split into three sub-realms, and even the King of Arthedain had his claim contested when he tried to reunify the North. The line of Isildur are unquestionably the poor relations, vis-a-vis Gondor, thus Denethor's "last of a ragged house" line.

Sure, but those are secondary thing. Cloth-of-gold and a sparkling crown doesn't make a king. Or rather: A true king can be ragged and dirty all day long. But he remains the king.

Quote

Arvedui was descended from Isildur and Anarion too. Didn't help him. Earnil and Earnur were male-line. Gondor explicitly doesn't do inheritance through females.

That is no nowhere stated explicitly if my memory serves (I mean the fact that only males through the male line can inherit the throne of Gondor). In fact, it seems that Ondoher's sister-son Minohtar was also considered a claimant to the throne despite being descended from a woman. The fact that he died alongside the king and his sons made that moot but it is confirmation that succession through the female line possible. Eärnil is indeed a descendant through the male line.

Quote

Divine punishment in what form? Eru and the Valar don't intervene in struggles between humans.

Well, you can see the victory of the Witch-king over Arthedain and the loss of Minas Ithil and the eventual end of the royal line of Gondor as divine punishment. Providence allowed the kingdoms to reunite but the people involved fucked it up and had to pay the price for it.

Quote

Rather like putting a distant hillbilly descendant of Romulus Augustus on the throne of the Byzantine Empire.

I'd maintain that Tolkien's concept of royalty - at least where Aragorn and the Dúnedain are concerned - is pretty rigid. The true heir should be the king, and it matters not whether he is rich or poor. In that sense we are not talking about a realistic setting where one royal dynasty replaces another, we are talking about an ideal kingship, basically.

Quote

It's clear from the Appendices that nobility marrying late (if at all) was a big problem for Gondor. That and giving themselves over to luxury and elegant ancestral tombs.

I have to say that Faramir's claim in the text is directly at odds with what we know about the kings. We don't learn anything about kings dying childless because they failed to marry or produce children. Ondoher and his sons died valiantly in battle, and there is no hint that some distant cousin had to take the throne because the main branch died out prior to the incident.

There still could have been a decadence among the late Kings of Gondor, I'm not challenging that. But the burial customs didn't really change when the Stewards took over, or did they?

Quote

You are saying that Aragorn's blood matters more than his deeds. I am saying that deeds matter - having the blood and breeding (c.f. Thorin) does not make one a good leader.

I don't think we have such a strong difference there. I say Aragorn's deeds are basically an expression of his divine kingship. You say he became king because of his deeds. I'd say that he was created as a character to be the ideal king rather than being some guy who developed into the ideal king throughout the story (or won the crown because of his deeds).

Quote

From the Later Quenta Silmarillion (HOME X):

Seldom were the hand and mind of Feanor at rest. While still in early youth Feanor wedded Nerdanel, a maiden of the Noldor; at which many wondered, for she was not among the fairest of her people. But she was strong, and free of mind, and filled with the desire of knowledge. In her youth she loved to wander far from the dwellings of the Noldor, either beside the long shores of the Sea or in the hills; and thus she and Feanor had met and were companions in many journeys. Her father, Mahtan, was a great smith, and among those of the Noldor most dear to the heart of Aule. Of Mahtan Nerdanel learned much of crafts that women of the Noldor seldom used: the making of things of metal and stone. She made images, some of the Valar in their forms visible, and many others of men and women of the Eldar, and these were so like that their friends, if they knew not her art, would speak to them; but many things she wrought also of her own thought in shapes strong and strange but beautiful. She also was firm of will, but she was slower and more patient than Feanor, desiring to understand minds rather than to master them. When in company with others she would often sit still listening to their words, and watching their gestures and the movements of their faces. Her mood she bequeathed in part to some of her sons, but not to all. Seven sons she bore to Feanor, and it is not recorded in the histories of old that any others of the Eldar had so many children. With her wisdom at first she restrained Feanor when the fire of his heart burned too hot; but his later deeds grieved her and they became estranged.

This got edited down in the published Silmarillion. In contrast to Fingolfin's spouse, that's hardly "nothing".

In comparison, sure. But we are comparing pretty much non-existing characters with characters that feature in a paragraph. Lets spin it another way - truly relevant characters (like Feanor, Finwe, Beren, Turgon, Eärendil, Thingol, etc.) get a wife. That is part of them being flashed out a little bit more, and giving them an unusual/exotic/interesting wife makes them more interesting. But the wives in question aren't really important for the plot. They are just there as extras in the background.

Quote

Woah. I'm not suggesting that Feanor was simply after a pretty face. I'm noting that the Noldorin Elves themselves considered the marriage an interesting choice - "at which many wondered, for she was not among the fairest of her people." That's Elvish judgement at work, not mine.

(In fact, apart from The Book of Lost Tales, with Salgant the heavy and squat, Nerdanel is the closest Tolkien comes to describing an ugly Elf).

Okay, I did not want to imply that you share such a view. I just found it revealing in regards to Tolkien's own preferences that you would cite Nerdanel as an example for a relevant and well-developed female character.

Quote

That's twisting my words. I cited Nerdanel's six pregnancies as impressive because of how spiritually draining an Elvish pregnancy is supposed to be (supposedly why they have so few children, even when they are in the mood). This implies Nerdanel has a fair amount of stamina (as does Feanor himself, of course. The implication is that Feanor and Nerdanel have the healthiest libido of any Elven couple ever).

Sure, but it is Tolkien who made Elves a people who usually don't have many children. It is he who made having children difficult for women and thus the idea that women should best be mothers and take care of the children is doubly reinforced. What makes Nerdanel great is that she could bear her husband seven sons.

And if you take the immortality thing into consideration the life of the average elven woman looks pretty bleak. I mean, there is no indication that many of them could do anything of importance. Did they take care of their husbands and children and the chores for millennia? There is some mentioning of poets and artists among the Vanyar and Noldor but there is no hint that a female scholar of the rank of Rúmil, Feanor, or Pengolodh existed. Even Nerdanel isn't called a smith herself. Her father is one. And it is explicitly stated that the female Noldor usually didn't practice the arts the male Noldor were famed for (which most likely means they didn't nothing of importance at all).

[TrackerNeil]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

All of Tolkien's female characters are traditional in that sense. Even Lúthien is just Beren's sidekick. A rather powerful sidekick, true, but he is the guy with the mission and an agenda while she only helps him accomplish his goal rather than having a goal of her own. Not to mention that he is calling the shots about what they are doing - just as I think Thingol and Celeborn did in their relationships (in Celeborn's case at least once Galadriel had overcome her Nerwen-phase).

And speaking about Nerwen - Tolkien making a big deal out of the fact that Galadriel is a 'man-maiden' also shows his view in that matter explicitly. Men are naturally active and commanding and an Elven mother naturally gives her daughter the name 'Nerwen' when she perceives that this girl is going to behave in a way that's improper for a girl in this society.

Yes, and this touches upon the reason that discussions of "strong female characters" annoys me. A female character is strong not because she can kill people; she's strong if she has her own goals, separate from those of the men around her, that she pursues. Nerdanel may be skilled and whatever, but The Silmarillion is not about the Oath of Nerdanel but the Oath of Feanor. He's the catalyst for the action, and not his wife.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, and this touches upon the reason that discussions of "strong female characters" annoys me. A female character is strong not because she can kill people; she's strong if she has her own goals, separate from those of the men around her, that she pursues. Nerdanel may be skilled and whatever, but The Silmarillion is not about the Oath of Nerdanel but the Oath of Feanor. He's the catalyst for the action, and not his wife.

Galadriel is a very strong female Character.  Eowyn is a strong female character.

[TrackerNeil]

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Galadriel is a very strong female Character.  Eowyn is a strong female character.

I'm not sure I agree, at least in terms of LotR. What does Galadriel do, other than nurture the Fellowship of the Ring? 

Eowyn is a tougher case. At first she advocates for her rights and, by implication, the rights of other women, and that's great. Then, however, she meekly submits to the traditional role of wife and mother. (I was so disappointed by the resolution, even way back when.) So I'll give Eowyn half credit.

[David Selig]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Galadriel is a very strong female Character.  Eowyn is a strong female character.

Don't forget Shelob, she is strong too.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, David Selig said:

Don't forget Shelob, she is strong too.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hey, Shelob has an agenda--eating things--and although Sauron counts her as an asset, she doesn't care about him or his stupid ring. She totally qualifies.

[C.T. Phipps]

Galadriel is the ruler of her own kingdom. That strikes me as strong.

Also, Lord Varys, I think you're really reaching for a lot of things. The idea of Eowyn being a traditional female character of any sort in the day the LOTR was published is extremely off-kilter. Also, I think you're really holding onto the "true heir should be King" when I don't think such a concept really is forwarded that much save by the book's title.

After all, why Aragorn and not any of his ancestors if Tolkien really believed that?

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, and this touches upon the reason that discussions of "strong female characters" annoys me. A female character is strong not because she can kill people; she's strong if she has her own goals, separate from those of the men around her, that she pursues. Nerdanel may be skilled and whatever, but The Silmarillion is not about the Oath of Nerdanel but the Oath of Feanor. He's the catalyst for the action, and not his wife.

Yeah, a real character has to be a real person. If he or she doesn't really play a role in the story then he is just a background character or a plot device. The structure of the LotR reduces many characters to such roles - Tom and Goldberry are completely irrelevant. Galadriel fits that role, too, as do other characters or places that just pop up and disappear. But then, that's partially due to the quest character of the story. The main characters of the story clearly are the Hobbits (to various degrees) along with the other members of the fellowship. And there is no woman among those.

4 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm not sure I agree, at least in terms of LotR. What does Galadriel do, other than nurture the Fellowship of the Ring? 

Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man with any difference to the plot. More importantly, the whole Lórien episode could be excised from the novel without any effect on the story. In fact, one can even raise the point that the whole temptation of this unknown Elven woman plot line is confusing the reader considering that we have no clue who this woman is nor why we should care about her.

4 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Eowyn is a tougher case. At first she advocates for her rights and, by implication, the rights of other women, and that's great. Then, however, she meekly submits to the traditional role of wife and mother. (I was so disappointed by the resolution, even way back when.) So I'll give Eowyn half credit.

Unfortunately Éowyn's motivation is caused by desperation. She is basically suicidal, intending to die a glorious death in battle. Her motivation to fight is neither pure nor noble, it is just desperation. Faramir later heals her of that folly. And, arguably, she also seems to good for him. This is not completely bad. But the idea that the shield maiden thing is supposed to be 'cool' doesn't hold much water. On the other hand, she and Merry defeat the Witch-king. That's certainly a good thing. However, we should keep in mind that 'the plan' was that Gandalf take on the Witch-king while Denethor does not blaspheme and try to take his own life as well as the life of his only living son.

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Hey, Shelob has an agenda--eating things--and although Sauron counts her as an asset, she doesn't care about him or his stupid ring. She totally qualifies.

It is sort of funny that the divine/monstrous females in Tolkien's work are much more impressive than his actual female characters. Shelob and Ungoliant definitely are pretty impressive in their own right. And I'd say that in a smaller degree of the some of the Valier - Varda, Yavanna, Nienna certainly give the impression as if they were able to have their own goals. But then, even there is an obvious difference. For instance, Aule does what he wants and creates beings of his own design while Yavanna meekly goes to Manwe to get her Ents to defend the plants.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Galadriel is the ruler of her own kingdom. That strikes me as strong.

Galadriel is the wife of the Lord of Lórien. Neither she nor Celeborn are styled king or queen. Galadriel certainly has the power to be a queen in her own right but Celeborn is the boss in Lórien. He even commands the army. Galadriel controls powerful magics and presumably is the one who keeps the Orcs out with Nenya but it is her husband who is directing her in that thing as well as any other. Just as Melian did always only advise (and perhaps even scold) Thingol but never actually ruled his kingdom.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Also, Lord Varys, I think you're really reaching for a lot of things. The idea of Eowyn being a traditional female character of any sort in the day the LOTR was published is extremely off-kilter. Also, I think you're really holding onto the "true heir should be King" when I don't think such a concept really is forwarded that much save by the book's title.

After all, why Aragorn and not any of his ancestors if Tolkien really believed that?

I'd say that divine providence has interconnected the Return of the King with the downfall of the Lord of the Rings. And Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, and the other Dúnedain of the North knew or suspected as much. Either Sauron would triumph and they would all perish or Sauron would be cast down and Kingdoms of the Dúnedain would be restored.

That is the only reasonable explanation why no Chieftain of the Dúnedain ever made a bid for the throne of Gondor or tried to rebuild the Northern Kingdom.

I mean, Elrond tells Aragorn in his youth that he can only the King of Gondor and Arnor will marry his daughter. If Aragorn did not know/suspect that the final battle against Sauron would take place in his lifetime one should assume he would have tried to push his claim in any case, Sauron or not. Else he wouldn't have any chance to be with Arwen at all. After all, unlike Sauron and Arwen he didn't have all the time in the world.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LV,

Quote

 

Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man with any difference to the plot. More importantly, the whole Lórien episode could be excised from the novel without any effect on the story. In fact, one can even raise the point that the whole temptation of this unknown Elven woman plot line is confusing the reader considering that we have no clue who this woman is nor why we should care about her.

 

 

Without Lorien we lose tone and moments of quite.  Without Lorien we don't see how the powerful can be powerfully tempted by the Ring in life as opposed to just having Gandalf tell us that in Frodo's Kitchen in the Shire.  

And as for "Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man" isn't that a rather "gender essentialist" position on your part?

[TrackerNeil]

On 11/4/2016 at 5:55 PM, Lord Varys said:

Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man with any difference to the plot. More importantly, the whole Lórien episode could be excised from the novel without any effect on the story. In fact, one can even raise the point that the whole temptation of this unknown Elven woman plot line is confusing the reader considering that we have no clue who this woman is nor why we should care about her.

I hadn't considered this, but I think you're right. All Galadriel does for the company is give them gifts and tell them the future in a way that is totally unhelpful. After all, instead of that vague, "Lay thine ax to the right tree" nonsense, she might have just told Gimli, "Hey, there are Ents to the south, so don't be chopping them. They hate that."

At least Galadriel is more open-handed than Elrond, who has this miracle beverage that he gives out only in 8-ounce portions. If I'd been Elrond, every member of the Fellowship would have had a half-gallon, easy-open jug of miruvor to see them to Mordor.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

You assume it can exist in gallon sized portions.  Or that over using it will cause no problems.

[Castel]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And as for "Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man" isn't that a rather "gender essentialist" position on your part?

Hm? 

But yes, you could easily tempt Gandalf in Frodo's house and consider that example enough.

[C.T. Phipps]

You think the only reason the ruler of a non-Gondorian people never made a bid for the crown of a country where the current rulers were very popular and doing a perfectly adequate job is, "Divine providence"? I think Tolkien had the reason no ancestor of Aragorn ever made the bid was because it would fail spectacularly.

Aragorn would have never gotten the crown unless events had eliminated most of the competition and he'd displayed spectacular competence.

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You assume it can exist in gallon sized portions.  Or that over using it will cause no problems.

Bah...elves live a long time and they can damn well spend some of that brewing magic booze for the bearer of the Ring.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LV,

Without Lorien we lose tone and moments of quite.  

 

I completely agree there. But that's not really the point. I don't think Lórien should be excised from the story, I said it could be done without changing the plot. It is an episode like the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and the Barrow-downs.

Quote

Without Lorien we don't see how the powerful can be powerfully tempted by the Ring in life as opposed to just having Gandalf tell us that in Frodo's Kitchen in the Shire.  
 

We could have gotten them by having such a scene inserted while Frodo was at Rivendell. Have Elrond or Glorfindel be tempted by the One. Galadriel is basically just another Elf.

In addition, I'd add that Galadriel's little temptation does not give us a good picture what being tempted by the One actually means. We never get a good picture how this whole thing is going to work. Tolkien speculates somewhat in a letter how Gandalf or Aragorn would have acted had they taken the Ring but we don't really understand how this thing works as an instrument of power and control.

If you say that the narrative point of the Galadriel is to elaborate on the threat the One poses then I'd say this pretty much fails.

Quote

And as for "Galadriel could easily enough be replaced by a man" isn't that a rather "gender essentialist" position on your part?

Well, if you phrase it that way you are misinterpreting my intention. I was trying to point out that Galadriel is no strong female character because she is pretty much no character at all. She just shows up and disappears.

As a female character Galadriel is also reinforcing the role of her gender by giving in to her fate and going into the West to 'remain Galadriel'. Phrased this way Galadriel is a very small person who should not have dreamed those big dreams she dreamed in her youth at all.

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

You think the only reason the ruler of a non-Gondorian people never made a bid for the crown of a country where the current rulers were very popular and doing a perfectly adequate job is, "Divine providence"? I think Tolkien had the reason no ancestor of Aragorn ever made the bid was because it would fail spectacularly.

Do you remember Malbeth the Seer's prophecy? That laid out the criteria that have to met to reestablish the Dúnedain kings. Aragorn is a pious man - he knows what Eru, the Valar, and Gandalf expect of him. He demonstrates this when dies of his own free will.

Nothing in the text suggests that the earlier Stewards were as arrogant pricks as Denethor II turned out to be. If a Chieftain of the Dúnedain had presented himself to a man like Cirion he could very well have been given the crown. The idea that the Chieftains between Arvedui and Aragorn did expect something like that to happen makes little sense in light of the fact that they held on to their identity, heirlooms, and ultimate goal. I mean, come on - if your ancestor had been a king a thousand years ago you wouldn't neither know nor care about this fact today.

Quote

Aragorn would have never gotten the crown unless events had eliminated most of the competition and he'd displayed spectacular competence.

I'm pretty sure Gandalf would have removed the man from his post had he lived. Especially after the man tried to murder his own son. Gandalf the White wasn't Gandalf the Grey. The man returned to Middle-earth as god's own messenger. He had more than considerable authority to set things right. You see this when he deals with Théoden and Saruman the way he did. Who in Gondor would have opposed Gandalf if the man had visibly revealed who and what he was (and who had sent him)?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Bah...elves live a long time and they can damn well spend some of that brewing magic booze for the bearer of the Ring.

Tracker,

How long did they have?  How long does it take to make?  That, again, ignores that having large quantities may have adverse effects.

[C.T. Phipps]

I don't think that one has to be an arrogant prick to believe the entitlement of lineage necessitates one having the right of kingship. Tolkien's Middle Earth isn't as nasty as the real Middle Ages but it's also (or perhaps because of) somewhat anachronistically enlightened in other areas. Aragorn takes up the Kingship when it's needed most to oppose Sauron and there is a need for strong leadership by someone who is already an established military genius as well as a leader of men with ties to Rohan as well as the North.

Piety aside, Aragorn is the best man for the job. Ironically, though, I think Denethor probably was every bit as qualified as Aragorn if not physically up to the task.

Tolkien said something akin to, "Sauron was surprised by the proping of Denethor's defenses as they were far better than he expected"?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I don't think that one has to be an arrogant prick to believe the entitlement of lineage necessitates one having the right of kingship.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Tolkien's Middle Earth isn't as nasty as the real Middle Ages but it's also (or perhaps because of) somewhat anachronistically enlightened in other areas. Aragorn takes up the Kingship when it's needed most to oppose Sauron and there is a need for strong leadership by someone who is already an established military genius as well as a leader of men with ties to Rohan as well as the North.

Well, that's not really the case. Aragorn is only crowned after Sauron has been defeated. Prior to that he isn't the king. And the supreme commander of the forces of the West is Gandalf the White, not Aragorn.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Piety aside, Aragorn is the best man for the job. Ironically, though, I think Denethor probably was every bit as qualified as Aragorn if not physically up to the task.

Tolkien said something akin to, "Sauron was surprised by the proping of Denethor's defenses as they were far better than he expected"?

Sure, Denethor was not all that bad. Just as Frodo was not all that bad bad for the task to get the Ring to the Sammath Naur. Yet he still failed. Just as Denethor failed. He did not have the strength to confront Sauron using the palantír. Aragorn did. And he did so because he is the king, basically. That is the major difference.

Denethor was supposed to accept Aragorn as his king and help the gang so that the Ring could be destroyed. And on that front he failed spectacularly. He did not allow Sauron to master him but he allowed him to break his spirit and give in to desperation. His certainly better than Saruman but not all that much. He was willing to murder his own son, take his own life, and let his people die.

If you think about the whole eucatastrophe thing and if you go along with Tolkien's own take that Eru arranged it so that Gollum would slip and the Ring be destroyed (the only way the Ring could be destroyed was by accident, really) then Denethor failed even more because he obviously failed to believe that Eru Ilúvatar could or would save his people if they just did their best. And that would be pretty close to blasphemy if you ask me.

[C.T. Phipps]

I'm sorry, I typoed that.

Basically, I was saying that Aragorn's ancestors were probably smart enough to realize they couldn't get away with just showing up at Gondor and trying to claim the throne. If they did, there would have been Civil War in all likelihood and they'd probably lose. After which, any claim of the line of Isildur would be broken.