Tolkien 4.0 (A dark and hungry sea lion arises)

[Slurktan]

On 7/26/2021 at 10:46 AM, Lord Varys said:

With Elrond the issue really is that the guy has the most prestigious bloodline of all the Elves and Men in Middle-earth. It is really odd that the Elves of Lindon, say, didn't choose him as their king rather than Gil-galad. If I had to choose between the son of Eärendil and the son of obscure and unimpressive Orodreth I knew who I'd pick. Even more so in light of the fact that the Men helping to overthrow Morgoth chose Elrond's twin brother Elros as their king.

That said - one can speculate why Elrond wouldn't want to be a king. But Tolkien should have explained that. Because it is odd.

Few things, 1. Gil-galad was king of Hithlum before Gondolin even fell, he was King over the surviving Elves at the mouths of Sirion when Tuor and Idril fled there already.  2. Elves are martial in that period and Gil-galad is a noted warrior.  Elrond is not. 3. Are Elros and Elrond described as being identical twins? Even if so it's pretty easy to see why Elros was made king and Elrond was not.  Elros by appearance is a man made better by his elven blood to other men.  Elrond by appearance is an elf made worse by his mannish blood to other elves.

[Ran]

59 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

Elrond by appearance is an elf made worse by his mannish blood to other elves.

I agree with the general thrust of what you say, re: Gil-Galad as High King, but not this specific point. Elrond chose to be an Elf rather than a mortal human, and by all signs his powers were as good as most any other elven lord or lady in Middle-earth by the Third Age, with the exception of Galadriel and the reincarnated Glorfindel who (per Tolkien in HoME) was nearly equal to the Maiar.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ran

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

Few things, 1. Gil-galad was king of Hithlum before Gondolin even fell, he was King over the surviving Elves at the mouths of Sirion when Tuor and Idril fled there already.  2. Elves are martial in that period and Gil-galad is a noted warrior.  Elrond is not. 3. Are Elros and Elrond described as being identical twins? Even if so it's pretty easy to see why Elros was made king and Elrond was not.  Elros by appearance is a man made better by his elven blood to other men.  Elrond by appearance is an elf made worse by his mannish blood to other elves.

Gil-galad was never the King of Hithlum. That was Fingolfin and then Fingon. Even if we went with version where Gil-galad is Fingon's son - which we shouldn't - then Fingon would have sent his son away to the mouths of Sirion before his own death, meaning Gil-galad never succeeded to his father's kingship.

When and how exactly Gil-galad would have gotten to the mouths of Sirion as Orodreth's son - which is the final version - is completely unclear. Even so, Gil-galad being some king at some place before Turgon's death wouldn't really affect the issue of the High Kingship. There is little indication that Gil-galad was a good warrior back in the FA. If he was such a great warrior, why did his father send him away?

I'd expect Elrond and Elros were identical twins but we don't know. The point here is that Eärendil would have been the king of the surviving Elves of Gondolin and since Turgon was the last High King of the Noldor Eärendil and after him his sons would have had claims to both kingships. They would have continued to rule the surviving Elves of Gondolin as well as having a claim to the High Kingship of all the Noldor. Who was Gil-galad to presume to rule over Eärendil and Elwing and their children who are of the noblest blood in all of Middle-earth?

As I said, in the end Elrond is the son of a literal heavenly star, the guy who convinced the Valar to take up arms against Morgoth and who slew Ancalagon the Black. Compared to that ancestry Gil-galad is about as impressive as his father Orodreth. Which begs the question why Elrond never was a king in his own right - even if we were to pretend we 'know' he couldn't be High King of the Noldor because he was descended from Turgon through the female line.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

I agree with the general thrust of what you say, re: Gil-Galad as High King, but not this specific point. Elrond chose to be an Elf rather than a mortal human, and by all signs his powers were as good as most any other elven lord or lady in Middle-earth with the exception of Galadriel and the reincarnated Glorfindel who (per Tolkien in HoME) was nearly equal to the Maiar.

The fallacy in this context is to imagine or pretend that the Half-elven were in any way 'changing on a fundamental level' just because they were given the right to choose their fate. All they were given was the right to choose among which people they would be counted, not what gifts and powers and insights would come with their bloodline. All that they would keep regardless whether they were immortal or not. Elrond didn't change as a person when he decided to be counted among the Eldar, just as Elros didn't change when he made his choice. We have to imagine Elros as being as gifted as Elrond - the sole difference being that Elros was no longer immortal. Vice versa, Lúthien wouldn't have lost all her powers when her talk with Mandos resulted in her choosing to share Beren's fate. She would have just been a mortal Lúthien.

We also see that with Arwen. She is still an Elven woman of great age, knowledge, and power even after she has decided to wed Aragorn.

As Dior shows, the kind of chauvism quite a few people show here isn't something that's actually in the books: The royal bloodline is the crucial factor in deciding who is a king, not whether you are an Elf or a Man. Dior was the son of two mortals and still he was still Thingol's successor - and Thingol was as much a High King as the Noldorin High Kings considering he was the King of Beleriand.

Originally, the Sindar of Doriath were pretty haughty, but that changes with Beren and then later Túrin.

[Ran]

The choice is one related to their spirits, whether they are Elven or Human, and the spiritual power of Elves over Men is clear enough. We can see from Elladan and Elrohir, who also have to make the choice, are in fact not as inherently powerful as Legolas despite their august lineages: they feel fear in the Path of the Dead while Legolas does not, they cannot make out the Nazgûl in flight while Legolas can, and presumably they cannot see the unbent world as Legolas apparently can. These are not due to biological differences but to inherent spiritual power -- theirs is "clouded" in some aspects by their descent from Man, at least until such time as they make their choice. 

Absolutely no one loses all of their power when they choose to be mortal, of course.  But there's no evidence that Elrond is any less an Elf than Galadriel once he made his choice. He wields one of the Three, he has a gift of foresight, he's able to communicate with mind-speech as only other powerful Elves and angelic spirits can, etc.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ran

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

The choice is one related to their spirits, whether they are Elven or Human, and the spiritual power of Elves over Men is clear enough. We can see from Elladan and Elrohir, who also have to make the choice, are in fact not as inherently powerful as Legolas despite their august lineages: they feel fear in the Path of the Dead while Legolas does not, they cannot make out the Nazgûl in flight while Legolas can, and presumably they cannot see the unbent world as Legolas apparently can. These are not due to biological differences but to inherent spiritual power -- theirs is "clouded" in some aspects by their descent from Man, at least until such time as they make their choice.

I'm not sure whether we can say that their lack in spirtual power - if we want to call it that - is due to their status as Half-elven. It is kind of weird, though, that Legolas should have deeper insights than the sons of Celebrían and Elrond. That said, though, we unfortunately don't know anything about Legolas' past or his spiritual powers. Perhaps he is Legolas Greenleaf of Gondolin, after all ;-)? That guy certainly would have deeper insights than Elrond's sons. Even if he wasn't, he could still be very old, being born in the FA or even before the first rise of the sun. We have no clue, really. The fact that his grandfather only died on the Dagorlad doesn't mean Legolas couldn't have been born thousands of years before that.

An alternative explanation could be the late birth of Elladan and Elrohir, the fading already affecting the Elves of the TA or their lack of experience in these matters (Elrond's sons never faced any Dark Lords in the past).

That said, the entire choice thing of the children of Elrond is a completely different animal than the choices of the original Peredhil, i.e. Eärendil, Elwing, and their children. They are part of the divine plan to defeat Morgoth and the pass the blood of the Valar and the Eldar to the line of mortal kings. Eärendil and Elwing a big parts of Eru's plans for the end of the FA. Their fate is shaped by Eru himself.

The whole TA stuff is different from that. The fate of Elrond's children weirdly enough hinges on his continued presence in Middle-earth. They seem to be pretty much his chattel. If they go with him they will be Elves, if they stay behind they (eventually) become mortal. This is just weird and has nothing to do with the choice Lúthien was given by Mandos, Eärendil and Elwing by Manwe, and Elrond and Elros by Eonwe speaking for Manwe. Nobody told them that their status was dependent in any way on their parents.

The original Peredhil could make choices for themselves and henceforth their unborn children were bound by the fate of their parents - like the descendants of Elros Tar-Minyatur were. Or are we to believe that his children would have been counted among the Elves had they left their father and joined Elrond in Middle-earth or Eärendil and Elwing in Aman?

Tolkien could have tackled that whole issue properly if he had Gandalf act as Manwe's or Eru's representive, exerting the authority to grant Elrond's children the right to choose. But that kind of thing never happens in the book, so it is very odd that they have a choice at all.

People rarely realize this is a big issue, since it feels as if it should make sense that Elves can shed their immortality to marry mortals ... but that actually isn't the case. Only very special people are given that privilege.

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

Absolutely no one loses all of their power when they choose to be mortal, of course.  But there's no evidence that Elrond is any less an Elf than Galadriel once he made his choice. He wields one of the Three, he has a gift of foresight, he's able to communicate with mind-speech as only other powerful Elves and angelic spirits can, etc.

I'd say that Elrond is more of an Elf than even Galadriel due to his special lineage. He is descended from the greatest heroes of Elves and Men combined, and unlike Galadriel he is the great-great-grandson of a Maia. He also is descended from two Vanyar woman - Indis, like Galadriel, and Turgon's wife Elenwe.

Galadriel has the advantage of age and direct interaction with and instruction by the Valar and all that, but if we are considering natural gifts then Elrond should actually surpass her.

But to get back to the original issue: I think the main/only reason why Elrond isn't a king is because he wasn't introduced as such in the Hobbit. Tolkien still very much retconned Elrond as a character when he wrote his Hobbit sequel (in the Hobbit it isn't even clear whether Elrond is an Eld - most likely not), but he didn't turn him into a king.

[Slurktan]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I agree with the general thrust of what you say, re: Gil-Galad as High King, but not this specific point. Elrond chose to be an Elf rather than a mortal human, and by all signs his powers were as good as most any other elven lord or lady in Middle-earth by the Third Age, with the exception of Galadriel and the reincarnated Glorfindel who (per Tolkien in HoME) was nearly equal to the Maiar.

 

I wasn't saying that as an actual quantifiable powers or what not but as to how Elves would have reacted.  Elves are racists repeatedly in the legendarium, why would that change? Would the rank and file have accepted a mongrel half breed?

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Gil-galad was never the King of Hithlum. That was Fingolfin and then Fingon. Even if we went with version where Gil-galad is Fingon's son - which we shouldn't - then Fingon would have sent his son away to the mouths of Sirion before his own death, meaning Gil-galad never succeeded to his father's kingship.

When and how exactly Gil-galad would have gotten to the mouths of Sirion as Orodreth's son - which is the final version - is completely unclear. Even so, Gil-galad being some king at some place before Turgon's death wouldn't really affect the issue of the High Kingship. There is little indication that Gil-galad was a good warrior back in the FA. If he was such a great warrior, why did his father send him away?

Why shouldn't we? I mean he is named King of Hithlum (even though Hithlum is essentially destroyed) in the Silmarillion.  But regardless let's go with the Orodreth version.  He was there longer than Tuor and Idril.  He was King of those people who then became the people of Lindon. You posed the question earlier to which I responded of why Gil-galad was chosen over Elrond as King of Lindon, not High King. Do not change the goalposts. 

As for High King, since it obviously wasn't Galadriel then it must be oldest male descendant of Finwë who isn't from the self-dispossessed house of Fëanor. Boom Gil-galad.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Slurktan said:

I wasn't saying that as an actual quantifiable powers or what not but as to how Elves would have reacted.  Elves are racists repeatedly in the legendarium, why would that change? Would the rank and file have accepted a mongrel half breed?

Yes, they would. That you would use such words to describe a character like Elrond - even if you only think this is how the Eldar at the end of the FA would have viewed the son of Eärendil - tells more about you than the characters in the book.

Folks looked down on Men before Beren and Tuor and Túrin ... afterwards they no longer, especially not the people who had Men and Half-elven as their rulers. Which is the case for the Sindar of Doriath after Thingol's death and then later of Dior's death as well as the survivors of Gondolin.

While he was still around Tuor would have been the de facto leader of the survivors of Gondolin.

1 hour ago, Slurktan said:

Why shouldn't we? I mean he is named King of Hithlum (even though Hithlum is essentially destroyed) in the Silmarillion.  But regardless let's go with the Orodreth version.  He was there longer than Tuor and Idril.  He was King of those people who then became the people of Lindon. You posed the question earlier to which I responded of why Gil-galad was chosen over Elrond as King of Lindon, not High King. Do not change the goalposts. 

The kingdom of Lindon was only established in the first year of the SA as per appendix B, so that Gil-galad was the king of another smaller people before the War of Wrath shouldn't play much of a role in this context. Keep in mind that Lindon wasn't a Noldor kingdom as such - like Gondolin and Nargothrond before it was a king ruled by a Noldo king with a mixed population - and considering that Lindon was the last remnant of Ossiriand one should assume that there were also Nandor among the people there. If folks choosing Gil-galad as their king were obsessed with the nobility of bloodlines Elrond would have trumped Gil-galad most definitely. He was the son of an obscure Noldo king and himself a half-Sinda due to his nameless Sinda mother.

Eärendil and Elwing brought their own people to the mouths of Sirion, and they ruled them, not Gil-galad.

1 hour ago, Slurktan said:

As for High King, since it obviously wasn't Galadriel then it must be oldest male descendant of Finwë who isn't from the self-dispossessed house of Fëanor. Boom Gil-galad.

We have no clue why Gil-galad got that titular kingship, and we cannot pretend that we know how this worked. If Maedhros and Fingolfin could settle this in a talk then Gil-galad's kingship could have been the result of a similar compromise. After all, we have no idea how that happened. We can also not pretend that those descendants of Feanor who survived Maedhros (Maglor, Celebrimbor) would agree that Maedhros handing the High Kingship to Fingolfin bound them. And as it happens, Maedhros only died after the War of Wrath.

We don't even know if Gil-galad was the oldest male descendant of Finwe. Gildor Ingolorion is also of the House of Finrod, and while the Finrod mentioned there most likely is Finarfin (who was originally known as Finrod) Finrod Felagund was known as Inglor Felagund at the time, meaning Gil-galad would have had a cousin from the elder line. In fact, Gil-galad and Gildor may have been brothers.

[Slurktan]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, they would. That you would use such words to describe a character like Elrond - even if you only think this is how the Eldar at the end of the FA would have viewed the son of Eärendil - tells more about you than the characters in the book.

Folks looked down on Men before Beren and Tuor and Túrin ... afterwards they no longer, especially not the people who had Men and Half-elven as their rulers. Which is the case for the Sindar of Doriath after Thingol's death and then later of Dior's death as well as the survivors of Gondolin.

The fact that you would try to personally insult me because I very obviously jokingly used words racist elves might have used to describe Elrond says more about you actually.  And none of it good.

Your second part is based on what exactly from the text? Because there are plenty of instances of elves being racists.

Your stuff about Gildor is simple conjecture and so can be readily dismissed. I know exactly what Lindon was made from and you seem to be forgetting parts of its makeup specifically that there were two sides to it bot Sindar/Lindar, and Noldo.  Not to mention you are not mentioning other places where its people come from.  But hey that's you.  If it doesn't serve your argument leave it out am I right?

Another point on why give the High Kingship to Gil-galad rather than Elrond - Celebrimbor.  Galadriel is no Queen (or even the lady of Lorien and has been ousted as leader of Eregion) but still is given a ring of power.  Elrond not being King but as according to you being super powerful wise son of Earendil should get one too right?  Nope.  Gil-galad gets two.  Celebrimbor obviously thought two people were significantly better than another.  Why?

 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Slurktan

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Your second part is based on what exactly from the text? Because there are plenty of instances of elves being racists.

The very fact that Dior - who must be seen as a mortal, being conceived and born after Lúthien's wish was granted - was the King of Doriath. Just as Tuor and Eärendil effectively became Turgon's heirs after Tuor married Idril. The Elves to not have ruling queens, so Idril's mortal husband would have ruled Gondolin if Turgon had died.

5 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Your stuff about Gildor is simple conjecture and so can be readily dismissed.

Well, the idea that Gil-galad was the only candidate for the High Kingship is conjecture, too, considering we have no explanation as to why Gil-galad became High King.

5 hours ago, Slurktan said:

I know exactly what Lindon was made from and you seem to be forgetting parts of its makeup specifically that there were two sides to it bot Sindar/Lindar, and Noldo.  Not to mention you are not mentioning other places where its people come from.  But hey that's you.  If it doesn't serve your argument leave it out am I right?

The core point just is that Gil-galad being the guy in charge on Balar and stuff before the War of Wrath doesn't mean he is entitled to the crown of the newly founded Kingdom of Lindon. The Númenóreans also chose a king in Elros around that time ... something similar would have happened with that new Elven kingdom. And there is just no explanation in the text as to why Gil-galad had to be that guy.

5 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Another point on why give the High Kingship to Gil-galad rather than Elrond - Celebrimbor.  Galadriel is no Queen (or even the lady of Lorien and has been ousted as leader of Eregion) but still is given a ring of power.  Elrond not being King but as according to you being super powerful wise son of Earendil should get one too right?  Nope.  Gil-galad gets two.  Celebrimbor obviously thought two people were significantly better than another.  Why?

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Celebrimbor parted with the Three nearly 2,000 years after the foundation of Lindon. At that time Gil-galad obviously was the most powerful Elven king in the vicinity. Celebrimbor parted with the Three because he wanted to protect them from Sauron, not because he wanted two of them go to the rightful High King.

Also, if you think about Celebrimbor then one should imagine him as a guy who wanted to set himself as the new overlord of the Elves. If Sauron hadn't forged the One Ring, Celebrimbor would have likely never parted with any of the Three, wearing them all himself and turning his realm of Eregion into an eternal Elven paradise, forcing Gil-galad and the others to beg his aid when they and their realms started to fade. It isn't made explicit, but the implication is that Celebrimbor wore the Three himself when he heard Sauron's voice when he completed the One.

I'm not arguing that Elrond has to be a king, by the way. But when I wonder that he never was a king my explanations wouldn't be stuff like 'he was a filthy half-elf unworthy of an Elven crown' but rather that he refused such an honor because he was more interested in pursuing a career as a scholar.

But the idea that Gil-galad's modest ancestry would have trumped Elrond's impeccable bloodline and the semi-divine status of his father Eärendil in a discussion about who was worthy to rule over the Eldar of Middle-earth is very far-fetched, in my opinion.

[Ser Drewy]

A preview from the Nature of Middle Earth has been released and there's some pages on GoogleBooks 

[Lord Varys]

That is all very interesting stuff.

[Ran]

I realize this is late, but looking over the argument again, I see that one obvious point has been missed: Gil-Galad became High King shortly after news arrived of the fall of Gondolin and the death of Turgon... approximately 20 years before the birth of Elrond.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

I realize this is late, but looking over the argument again, I see that one obvious point has been missed: Gil-Galad became High King shortly after news arrived of the fall of Gondolin and the death of Turgon... approximately 20 years before the birth of Elrond.

Oh, that is an argument which can be used against Elrond as High King - assuming this isn't an honor that can be reclaimed by a more worthy descendant of Finwe who is born later - but the original point is that it is strange that both Eärendil wasn't an Elven king (as Turgon's grandson the king of the survivors of Gondolin and, as such, also the High King of the Noldor).

After all, as I said repeatedly: If Dior can rule Doriath as king of all places as Thingol's grandson through the female line, then Eärendil could do the same for the Gondolindrim.

The point about Elrond was more about the question why Elrond, despite his most royal bloodline, never became a king in the SA. This is odd in light of the fact that his brother did become a king because he was descended from Eärendil and Elwing.

That he couldn't really be High King after Gil-galad had taken or been granted that honor is clear, especially since they were close friends. And my own answer was that Tolkien never imagined the Elrond from the Hobbit as a king (the legendarium Elrond he invented around the same time he did envision as the first King of Númenor).

A much better way for Christopher to sort this would have been to have Eärendil as the High King and Elwing as his queen since they ruled the surviving Elves and Men at the Sirion anyway. Eärendil seems to have been much closer to Círdan, too, who helped him build his ship, etc.

Gil-galad could have only received this honor after Eärendil and Elwing disappeared and their children fell into Maglor's hands and were considered lost to Feanorians. And as I said - while Maglor cared for the twins, he wouldn't have wanted them to become powerful rulers.

It could have also worked if Gil-galad had only become High King after the end of the War of Wrath when many Eldar left Middle-earth and he was, for whatever reason, chosen to lead them.

As to the new material:

A great tidbit I found is Tolkien going through the issue of Ingwe, Finwe and Elwe and their birth status. He doesn't reach a final verdict, but wants them to be second or third generation Elves because Finwe only has Feanor in Aman and Elwe also has (at least) one brother.

But their are imagined as the descendants of the original chieftains of the Elves who passed on their authority in the fashion of the later Númenóreans kings to their descendants - not because death approached, but also because they liked to do that after some time had passed and they wanted to pursue different interests (I guess this would also be a good explanation as to why Elrond never wanted to be a king). Their youth and sense of adventure would have been what caused them to accompany Orome which, in turn, increased their standing with their peers after their return and turned them into the natural leaders of the Great Journey.

He also wants the original folks to be nearly all Avari because they were very much focused on the life of Arda where they lived it and had no intention of leaving. I think this causes a problem for Imin - the first Elf and original head of the tribe that would become the Vanyar - since it is said in TWotJ - if I remember correctly - that none of the people of Imin became Avari.

It is also rather interesting that Tolkien apparently intended for Sauron to be the original corrupter of Men, acting in Melkor's stead during the latter's imprisonment in Valinor. This would greatly increase Sauron's importance in the history of Middle-earth and fits rather nicely with his later rule over the Men of Middle-earth.

Man, just read the Table of Contents. This thing is something I wanted to read for a long, long time. I almost feel seventeen again!

[The Marquis de Leech]

Question: did the expression "like a thief in the night" enter English with the King James Bible, or was there some earlier biblical translation? It's occurred to me that the expression shows up once in The Lord of the Rings (Boromir), and is a chapter title of The Hobbit. There would be something gloriously ecumenical about Tolkien the Catholic using an expression from the most famous of all English-language Protestant Bibles - and with Tolkien being a language expert, he would have known the origin.

Edited August 21, 2021 by The Marquis de Leech

[dog-days]

The original Greek, according to Wikipedia, is: ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ, hōs kleptēs en nykti

Latin Vulgate: "sicut fur in nocte" 

Wycliffe (late fourteenth century) goes with "as a theef in the niyt". 

Tyndale (early sixteenth century) translates the Greek to "as a thefe in the nyght". 

KJB has "as a thief in the night." 

I don't know Greek, but I think the translation has got to be pretty straightforward - I mean, I'm sure there's a thousand page scholarly dispute about precisely how to translate "kleptes" floating around somewhere because religious scholars have to pass the time somehow, but the early translators all seem to have been happy keeping it simple. 

Bonus translation from William Morgan's Welsh Bible (published in 1588, twenty-three years before the King James Version): fel lleidr yn y nos. 

None of the above really answers your question about when the phrase entered vernacular English: when a phrase is first written down is one thing, when it's recognised and used by people from outside monastic/literate circles is another. Monks and priests would have been reading the Bible in Latin for a thousand years prior to the KJV. Presumably some of that found its way into their native language, and possibly out into the broader community, even if there isn't textual proof of it relating to that particular phrase. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by dog-days

[Clueless Northman]

Greek is indeed literally "like a thief in the night", and there shouldn't be any dispute about the translation. "kleptein" is "thieving". It's as straightforward as you can get in ancient Greek or in the Bible.

Tolkien obviously knowing the origin of the expression and its reference to the Messiah probably had some fun ascribing it to Bilbo

[noemiasmont]

I read too, but I wasn't impressed. After several readings I understood that much of history is incomprehensible and does not have a logical thread of events. Compared to other stories here, I'm really stuck. Here is one of the last readings was Gil-galad where I really found an isory full of understanding plus where I was very impressed by the combination of the real side of history and the fantastic. I think this is one of the most important points of a story. At least for me it is. Moreover, I find many common points between these two entries, and I think that of them two can be made one and perfect.

Edited August 22, 2021 by noemiasmont

[butterweedstrover]

Tolkien can be forgiven for writing his books. He did so as an academic exercise and we can all excuse his enthusiasm. 

What society can't forgive is the influence he has had on fantasy. He set the genre on the trajectory it is today via his despise for romance. 

Tolkien was a medievalist, but he wasn't much of a Christian. If you want to see how Christian morality can be applied to literature read "Paradise Lost". Elsewise ignore Lord of the Rings, that moralizing spiel that has seduced three generations of readers with its aristocratic superiority complex. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Tolkien can be forgiven for writing his books. He did so as an academic exercise and we can all excuse his enthusiasm. 

What society can't forgive is the influence he has had on fantasy. He set the genre on the trajectory it is today via his despise for romance. 

Tolkien was a medievalist, but he wasn't much of a Christian. If you want to see how Christian morality can be applied to literature read "Paradise Lost". Elsewise ignore Lord of the Rings, that moralizing spiel that has seduced three generations of readers with its aristocratic superiority complex. 

 

Tolkien never intented any of his subcreation to be Christian allegory.  As such I don’t understand your criticism here?

[HoodedCrow]

The “ muse” does its thing by tapping into all of your mental functions, conscious or not.

Tolkien was a Catholic, went through W.W. 1, was a professor, belonged to a fading superpower, created his own languages( not as hard as you think), was a product of extreme class differences, with female passivity as the norm and was a whiz on mythology. I’m sure there is a lot more. How could he not reflect this? 

By the way, I love his books, and was inspired to do real world things by it. At least he had Galadriel as powerful, but too effete to live in Middleearth. Eowyn is a Valkyrie type, but she too is gaslit and tamed. Oh, and Arwyn ( who doesn’t seem to be flesh and blood, but that is good for the author)gives up her immortality for Aragorn.) Woot.

I can enjoy books/ movies with anachronisms and different points of view. Tolkien is such a rich read, although there are no perfect books, but the environment of the author always intrudes…how could it not? The contents of your psyche are stirred around and can be focused on paper!