The Marquis de Leech Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 On 05/11/2016 at 4:32 AM, Lord Varys said: That is 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. (It might just be a cultural thing, but I'd have thought the distinction between working-class gardeners and middle-class grocers would have been clear-cut: if you run a business, you're not working-class. And curiously, grocer is the choice of abuse in The Hobbit for timid middle-class - the Dwarves aren't accusing Bilbo of being a tradesman!). Anyway, the Shire maintains a quite obvious class system - the upper-class Brandybucks and Tooks (Pippin is the Bertie Wooster of Middle-earth), the solid middle-class Bagginses (that respectability thing is code for smug middle-class; Bilbo's on the upper rung of it via his Took mother), and the working-class Gamgees. Between Sam's heroics (and electoral success) and the portrayal of the snobby/aspirational middle-class Sackville-Bagginses (Otho and Lobelia could fit into an episode of Keeping Up Appearances), I think we can discern where Tolkien's own sympathies lie. The Shire is not a utopia, and is not supposed to be. Quote 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. Yet if Bilbo had killed Gollum eighty years before (or Frodo or Sam had elected to kill him during the Quest), Sauron would have won. Tolkien is very well aware that mercy can result in backfires (Morgoth, Sauron, and Saruman), but that doesn't change the fact that mercy is a good thing, in and of itself. Mercy in Middle-earth is not consequentialist. Quote 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. My point is that without the War of the Ring, and Aragorn's deeds therein, he would never have become King. He'd have been laughed out of Minas Tirith. Quote 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. The implication is that Aragorn's long service makes him a highly competent military commander (and if he's been hanging out in Harad, he probably understands their thought processes, and thus is better able to negotiate peace. Aragorn's apparent perfections aren't some innate talent). Quote 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. Alternatively, all the nobles have some royal blood in them by that point, and in the interests of stability, it's better to leave the Stewards alone in their caretaker position. Quote 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. The Eagle and White Tree are a consequence of Aragorn leading his people to victory. Divine symbolism didn't make Aragorn King, unless you think the same symbols would have come out if Aragorn had claimed the throne half a century earlier? Quote 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. Which implies that Aragorn's ancestors should have claimed the throne centuries earlier. Or tried to recreate Arnor or Arthedain at the very least. As it is, no-one declares Aragorn King until he actually is. (Also, where does this leave Maedhros renouncing the High Kingship of the Noldor for the entire House of Feanor? Unalloyed legitimitism doesn't seem to fly in Middle-earth). Quote 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. "In Gondor... heritage is reckoned through the sons only." (Appendix A). Arvedui points out that women could reign in Numenor, and Gondor ignores him. (Had Gondor really wanted to, they could have pointed out that the female inheritance in Numenor was a later innovation brought on by necessity, and that the original law envisaged male-line only. After all, the separation of the Lords of Andunie from the Royal House of Numenor was brought about by this very question). Quote 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. Oh come on. This falls under the "shit happens" side of things. Just like the initial fall of Minas Ithil under Isildur, the disaster of the Gladden Fields, the Great Plague, the Wainriders, and the Kin-Strife. Quote 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. The dispute between Arvedui and Gondor is clearly portrayed as a messy political dispute, with both sides appealing to precedents. The dispute only ends under Aragorn because of the facts on the ground. And again - could Celebrimbor have challenged Gil-galad's High-Kingship in the Second Age, based off legitimist principles that meant he was the senior descendent of Finwe in Middle-earth? Based off the text, it seems unlikely. Quote 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? The Appendix points out the likes of Narmacil I - decadent and childless - who foisted day-to-day ruling (and the continuance of the dynasty) onto his nephew. Quote 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). I'm saying that had Aragorn turned up in Minas Tirith, aged 20, and said "here's Narsil. I'm the Heir of Isildur. Oh, and Elrond says I can marry his hot daughter if I become King - what do you say?" he'd have been laughed out of town. Aragorn's abilities - in war and peace - have been built up over a lifetime. He's no Robb Stark. Quote 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. Hold on - you're saying that Luthien takes a backseat to Beren? The story is basically Tolkien's extended love letter to Edith. Quote 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. As I said, it's implication. Nine-tenths of the Noldor join Feanor's rebellion - yet not his own wife. Yes, she gets less space time than Feanor, et al (though her personality is probably as well fleshed-out as, say, Turgon, and certainly more than Gil-galad or Eru-forbid, Ingwe). But ultimately, fatally flawed characters are more interesting in a narrative than strong, sane characters: complaining about the Oath of Feanor not being the Oath of Nerdanel is really tantamount to complaining "how dare Tolkien write sensible women, rather than obsessive sociopathic maniacs!" Of course, if Nerdanel had been a Queen Beruthiel figure, you'd be complaining about that as a negative portrayal. Quote 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. The "spiritually draining" aspect of Elvish pregnancy is Tolkien trying to explain why an immortal people don't out-breed everyone else. I'd also point out that Laws and Customs has bread-making as the only truly "female" role (cooking food is otherwise a generally masculine activity among the Noldor). Quote 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). Oh come on. There is vanishingly little in the way of Elven social depiction in-story. What little we have is in Laws and Customs, which emphasises general equality of the sexes: In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal — unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a ner can think or do, or others with which only a nis is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 The quote function on this board is the work of Morgoth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: The quote function on this board is the work of Morgoth. No, Stanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 49 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: No, Stanek. OK, but surely Stanek is a work of Morgoth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: OK, but surely Stanek is a work of Morgoth? Dude, not cool. Apologize to Morgoth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Dude, not cool. Apologize to Morgoth. I will do, the next time I see a red BMW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tracker, How long did they have? How long does it take to make? That, again, ignores that having large quantities may have adverse effects. Maybe, shmaybe. I say drink it all and let Varda sort it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: (It might just be a cultural thing, but I'd have thought the distinction between working-class gardeners and middle-class grocers would have been clear-cut: if you run a business, you're not working-class. And curiously, grocer is the choice of abuse in The Hobbit for timid middle-class - the Dwarves aren't accusing Bilbo of being a tradesman!). Am fine with that. Went back to check a little bit on Maggie and it turns out her father run two grocery stores and was Mayor of her hometown. That is middle-class, all right. 6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Anyway, the Shire maintains a quite obvious class system - the upper-class Brandybucks and Tooks (Pippin is the Bertie Wooster of Middle-earth), the solid middle-class Bagginses (that respectability thing is code for smug middle-class; Bilbo's on the upper rung of it via his Took mother), and the working-class Gamgees. The Brandybucks are pretty much ruling class but they are also looked down upon because they do not live in the Shire. Quote Yet if Bilbo had killed Gollum eighty years before (or Frodo or Sam had elected to kill him during the Quest), Sauron would have won. Tolkien is very well aware that mercy can result in backfires (Morgoth, Sauron, and Saruman), but that doesn't change the fact that mercy is a good thing, in and of itself. Mercy in Middle-earth is not consequentialist. If Eru wanted Sauron to fail and end his reign in Middle-earth (and if god is the master of history then we should assume that this is the case) then he could have arranged the destruction of the Ring some other way. For instance, Sam could have thrown Frodo and the Ring into the fire, or Frodo himself could have slipped in a similar fashion as Gollum did. 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. Quote My point is that without the War of the Ring, and Aragorn's deeds therein, he would never have become King. He'd have been laughed out of Minas Tirith. And my point is it that this is a completely unrealistic scenario that Aragorn (or any of the Chieftains) would have done something like that. They knew Malbeth's prophecy. They accepted that it did not fall to them to rebuild the Kingdoms. God would show them when the time was right, basically. Quote Alternatively, all the nobles have some royal blood in them by that point, and in the interests of stability, it's better to leave the Stewards alone in their caretaker position. If that was the case then Denethor and Boromir would also be of the line of Anárion and Elendil. They would have had the right to claim the throne themselves. The idea that Gondorian nobility is descended from Anárion in various degrees doesn't make much sense. It is much more likely that a lot of the cadet branches of the royal line were extinguished during the many wars, especially the Kin-strife, and later the Great Plague. If the late kings truly didn't have all that many children then there might have been no daughters to marry into some other noble family. If the House of Húrin had royal blood itself the Stewards could eventually have claimed the throne once they were in power. But then, Tolkien really drops the ball there by making first cousin marriages unlawful in Númenor. Where the hell did all the wives of the Kings of Arnor and Gondor come from if not from cadet branches of the royal family? Especially if marrying foreign nobility was considered a huge sin as the Kin-strife demonstrates. Quote The Eagle and White Tree are a consequence of Aragorn leading his people to victory. Divine symbolism didn't make Aragorn King, unless you think the same symbols would have come out if Aragorn had claimed the throne half a century earlier? Aragorn didn't lead his people to victory. The Ring was destroyed and Sauron disappeared. And Aragorn was proclaimed king by the eagle before he himself even made a bid for the throne (you will remember that he refuses to enter Minas Tirith and postpones the discussion of any claims he is not making right now until after the Sauron issue is resolved). Aragorn is proclaimed king by the messenger of the Elder King before he himself lays claim to the throne. Gandalf even mentions the Valar when he crowns Aragorn. It is pretty clear who made Aragorn king and in whose name he is ruling. And do you really think Gandalf or Eru couldn't have made a Joffrey-like guy king if they wanted to? Or a man as martial as Aerys I Targaryen? Quote Which implies that Aragorn's ancestors should have claimed the throne centuries earlier. Or tried to recreate Arnor or Arthedain at the very least. As it is, no-one declares Aragorn King until he actually is. Again, as I've said, there is an explanation for this. There is Malbeth's prophecy which most likely was confirmed/reinforced by Elrond (and the Istari) who took in the heirs of Isildur after Arvedui's end. Quote (Also, where does this leave Maedhros renouncing the High Kingship of the Noldor for the entire House of Feanor? Unalloyed legitimitism doesn't seem to fly in Middle-earth). That is another topic. In my opinion the whole Noldorin High-kingship thing is just a dysfunctional concept. There is only one King of the Noldor - Finwe. Finwe's sons aren't his heirs because Finwe is not supposed to die. And even after his death he is eventually going to return from Mandos. Is he then going to a retired king? Most likely not. In that sense the other kings are only just acting in the name of the real king who isn't with them right now. This does not affect Noldor being kings in new realms in Middle-earth they founded. I know that Finwe never returned from Mandos because Míriel eventually decided that she wanted to live again but that's another matter. If Ingwe or Elwe had a mortal accident then they would eventually return to take up their crown again. The High-kingship is sort of a thing that is created in Middle-earth to have some sort of a nominal head of all the Noldor princes. The High-king has little real power anyway. The Eldar only have one real king, anyway. Ingwe, who most likely is either the first elf to awaken or the son of that guy. But I'm inclined to believe Ingwe is Imin because if he wasn't then the first elf to awaken would have been one of the poor guys who would be captured by Melkor's servants - we know that all the Vanyar decided to go to Aman and that means that Imin would not then not arrived there if he had been killed or captured by Melkor's creatures. Quote "In Gondor... heritage is reckoned through the sons only." (Appendix A). Arvedui points out that women could reign in Numenor, and Gondor ignores him. That leaves it sort of ambiguous - does this mean that only the sons of kings can inherit or also the sons of the sisters of kings? Arvedui was claiming the throne of Gondor on behalf of his wife, Fíriel. Technically that would have meant that Gondor would have a Queen Regnant, Fíriel, and they were rejecting that notion. Had Arvedui tried to claim the throne of Gondor in the name of his own son it might have worked. Quote (Had Gondor really wanted to, they could have pointed out that the female inheritance in Numenor was a later innovation brought on by necessity, and that the original law envisaged male-line only. After all, the separation of the Lords of Andunie from the Royal House of Numenor was brought about by this very question). Well, one assumes that both Gondor and Arnor followed the old tradition considering that Aldarion only changed the succession for the Kings of Númenor and the Kings of Númenor did not exactly found Gondor and Arnor. The Lords of Andunie did. Quote Oh come on. This falls under the "shit happens" side of things. Just like the initial fall of Minas Ithil under Isildur, the disaster of the Gladden Fields, the Great Plague, the Wainriders, and the Kin-Strife. Well, you can see it that way, of course. But then, I guess this doesn't apply to the end of Númenor, or does it? Not to mention that a lot of these things were arranged by Sauron, anyway. Keep in mind that the devil more often than not is a sort of plague unleashed on god's sinful children - either to tempt or to punish them. Quote The dispute between Arvedui and Gondor is clearly portrayed as a messy political dispute, with both sides appealing to precedents. The dispute only ends under Aragorn because of the facts on the ground. Or you can say that there was a proper solution back then - one most likely supported by the Istari and the Valar - and one that was stupid. And the Gondorians chose the stupid one. Quote And again - could Celebrimbor have challenged Gil-galad's High-Kingship in the Second Age, based off legitimist principles that meant he was the senior descendent of Finwe in Middle-earth? Based off the text, it seems unlikely. That's a different question. I'd say he would have failed if he had tried. And if he had tried he would have revealed his corruption. But then, he threw Galadriel and Celeborn out of Eregion, the realm they founded and ruled, not Celebrimbor (at least in one version) so this kind of thing certainly is possible. Celegorm and Curufin did a similar back in Nargothrond. Quote The Appendix points out the likes of Narmacil I - decadent and childless - who foisted day-to-day ruling (and the continuance of the dynasty) onto his nephew. Thanks, no longer remembered that. But that's just one childless king. A succession like Ondoher > Eärnil does happen only once in Gondorian history. Quote Aragorn's abilities - in war and peace - have been built up over a lifetime. He's no Robb Stark. I don't think that this comes across in the book. If Aragorn's abilities had made him king he would have been the supreme commander, not Gandalf. He would have slain the Witch-king (or some other great enemy leader). Aragorn demonstrates his abilities to the gang but not really to the general public. Éomer certainly was as a great a general on the Pelennor, was he not? Quote Hold on - you're saying that Luthien takes a backseat to Beren? The story is basically Tolkien's extended love letter to Edith. Sure. It is Beren's story, not Lúthien's. Lúthien is just the price Beren wins. He buys the right to fuck her from her father with a Simaril, does he not? Lúthien only acts as Beren's sidekick throughout the entire story. Yes, he would have failed without her but she did not want to go to Angband. Beren called the shots and repeatedly decides what they do, more often than not (trying to) reject(ing) Lúthien's help. Quote As I said, it's implication. Nine-tenths of the Noldor join Feanor's rebellion - yet not his own wife. Yes, she gets less space time than Feanor, et al (though her personality is probably as well fleshed-out as, say, Turgon, and certainly more than Gil-galad or Eru-forbid, Ingwe). But ultimately, fatally flawed characters are more interesting in a narrative than strong, sane characters: complaining about the Oath of Feanor not being the Oath of Nerdanel is really tantamount to complaining "how dare Tolkien write sensible women, rather than obsessive sociopathic maniacs!" Of course, if Nerdanel had been a Queen Beruthiel figure, you'd be complaining about that as a negative portrayal. Well, pretty much all the Noldor women did not join Feanor's stupid rebellion. His own half-sisters (Fingolfin's and Finarfin's full sisters) stayed back as did - as far as I recall right now - the wives of Fingolfin, Finarfin, Feanor, Curufin (and presumably also the wives of the other sons of Feanor who were married), Angrod, and the lover of Finrod. The only Noldor women that went into exile were Elenwe, Turgon's wife who died in the ice, Galadriel, and Aredhel. That's it. By the way, I don't think Queen Berúthiel is a very flashed out character. And no, I'd not complain if there were more sinister women in the story. We have Melkor, Sauron, Saruman, Gollum, Gothmog (if that guy is a character), Glaurung, Gríma, Smaug, the Witch-king, etc. as male villains. The only female villains in the story are Ungoliant and Shelob. And I'm not sure that they count as 'women'. Quote The "spiritually draining" aspect of Elvish pregnancy is Tolkien trying to explain why an immortal people don't out-breed everyone else. Well, he could have done that some other way. Quote I'd also point out that Laws and Customs has bread-making as the only truly "female" role (cooking food is otherwise a generally masculine activity among the Noldor). I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek there. We don't see that much of elven women in the stories. That's the point. Quote Oh come on. There is vanishingly little in the way of Elven social depiction in-story. What little we have is in Laws and Customs, which emphasises general equality of the sexes: In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal — unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a ner can think or do, or others with which only a nis is concerned. It is fine that he says as much. But he never portrays his characters reflecting this theoretical concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 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. Ruling in the name of a lineage which is powerless is not without historical precedent even when it's done by relatives. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 4 minutes 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. Ruling in the name of a lineage which is powerless is not without historical precedent even when it's done by relatives. Didn't Charles Martel's Family start out as Stewards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Didn't Charles Martel's Family start out as Stewards? Hell, the Stuart royal dynasty's name is Steward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 RBPL's post at the top of this page could almost qualify as art. Anyways, I used to read LOTR every 2-3 years but this thread has made me realize how long it's been since I last picked it up. Cheers for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 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. 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. It's one of those fun little ironies that Aragorn is the purest remaining blood but also a guy who lives in the woods and who looks as foul as Sauron looked fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 5 minutes 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. This depends on how much omniscience coincides with omnipotence. If you 'allow' free will that you know in advance leads to a holocaust, it's a fairly academic distinction. Moreover, it's motivation always escapes me; free will given amongst equals is considered 'good', but is letting a toddler run across the freeway? That's the equivalent. I just don't get what God gets out of it beyond fulfilling a very human need for unconditional affirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, James Arryn said: This depends on how much omniscience coincides with omnipotence. If you 'allow' free will that you know in advance leads to a holocaust, it's a fairly academic distinction. Moreover, it's motivation always escapes me; free will given amongst equals is considered 'good', but is letting a toddler run across the freeway? That's the equivalent. I just don't get what God gets out of it beyond fulfilling a very human need for unconditional affirmation. James, That's because we have no idea what God is about. Creating little robots that have limited options and always do "good" as we define it isn't terribly interesting. Creating entities that have the ability to create on their own and the freedom to do dark deeds and see where they choose to go with that freedom is a more interesting experiment assuming God is experimenting with his creations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: James, That's because we have no idea what God is about. Creating little robots that have limited options and always do "good" as we define it isn't terribly interesting. Creating entities that have the ability to create on their own and the freedom to do dark deeds and see where they choose to go with that freedom is a more interesting experiment assuming God is experimenting with his creations. Right, if we're an experiment about whose downside (billions in eternal torment plus ~ human suffering) is of no account to God, I guess I can dig it. Doesn't jibe with the movie posters, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 To avoid another screw-up with the quotes, I'll just make a quick point before replying more fully later: I think you are misreading the role of prophecy in Middle-earth. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 36 minutes 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. Honestly, you don't need Christianity to have fate as a concept since the Norse were all about that. Providence doesn't NEED to intervene in Norse Fate. Because what will happen will happen and no one, not even Odin can do a damn thing about it. It's also a point that Gandalf is the only agent of GodTM in the setting but has to run ragged to achieve his results. Everything else is human's doing. It's just it's ALSO God's will because that's how Providence works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Right, if we're an experiment about whose downside (billions in eternal torment plus ~ human suffering) is of no account to God, I guess I can dig it. Doesn't jibe with the movie posters, though. Tolkien's Hell is akin to Lewis' in the fact that Hell is really just a dark and gloomy place versus torturing people forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.