Does Lord of the Rings lack moral ambiguity?

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Boromir knew the Ring was evil, but genuinely thought that the Ends Justify the Means, specifically that using the Ring would perform the Good of saving his homeland from Sauron. It's the same reasoning that people use to justify the use of the Atomic Bomb against Japan. Boromir is only wrong because we're reading a text written by a devout Catholic.

Denethor knew he wasn't King. He just (arguably correctly) thought that the Heir of Isildur had no claim to Gondor, based off precedent. He also (not without reason) thought that Gondor was doomed... again, his fault being that he does not Believe. Denethor is arguably what happens if you put an intelligent, modern politician into that sort of setting... it's wrong in the context of Tolkien's Objective Morality, but entirely understandable, especially if you don't subscribe to that form of morality.

As an aside, I doubt if it's possible to wage war successfully without applying consequentialist ethics.  I've just been reading about Operation Pedestal, the convoy to relieve Malta in 1942, and the commanders constantly had to decide whether this  or that ship was worth saving, if it but the whole convoy at risk, and captains of ships that were hit had to seal of parts of the ship, knowing they were condemning crew members to awful deaths.  And, this is just a very small example/

[C.T. Phipps]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As an aside, I doubt if it's possible to wage war successfully without applying consequentialist ethics.  I've just been reading about Operation Pedestal, the convoy to relieve Malta in 1942, and the commanders constantly had to decide whether this  or that ship was worth saving, if it but the whole convoy at risk, and captains of ships that were hit had to seal of parts of the ship, knowing they were condemning crew members to awful deaths.  And, this is just a very small example/

I'd argue that outside of philosophy, most people don't believe in a binary between the two but a scale. If a man signs up for WW2 to fight the Nazis, that doesn't mean that he won't view the costs (moral or otherwise) of doing so in the pursuit of defeating them as unjustified in the larger moral motivation even if the costs are beyond practical benefit.

Indeed, I'd argue very often people use consequentialist ethics in the pursuit of intentionalist goals.

[C.T. Phipps]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't view Denethor as evil at all, even if he gave way to despair at the end.  I think he's pretty much what I would be like as Steward of Gondor (albeit, I might lack his competence). I would certainly want to use the Ring. even knowing its dangers, because I'd be weighing up a present, imminent, very grave danger, against the risks of corruption hundreds of years into the future.  

Just as if I faced the same predicament as Galadriel, and was freely offered the Ring, I'd have taken it.

Part of why the One Ring works so well as a metaphor for institutional power is also the fact its inherently self-defeating. As Ta-Nehisi Coates said, "You can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

The One Ring is inherently corrupting and evil so that any attempt to use it like it's a morally neutral object will destroy you, no matter how powerful your will is unless you are Gandalf (and that is as much his moral perfection as well as his status as an Arda of a sort akin to Sauron). Boromir's sin with the Ring is the fact he's IGNORANT and his plan is STUPID as much as it is unethical.

The only thing using the One Ring against Sauron will accomplish is to get it into the Dark Lord's hands faster.

I admit, though, I always wondered how close Saruman came to replicating the One Ring to make himself akin to Sauron, though. I think it wasn't very close because Saruman misread the fact that it was a product of Sauron at all. Sauron farmed out the work to Celebrimbor and probably couldn't have made it without him as we see with his lesser rings.

Saruman has a Ring by the time of LOTOR but all indications are it isn't even the equal of the lesser rings and certainly doesn't protect him from Gandalf's retribution.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Part of why the One Ring works so well as a metaphor for institutional power is also the fact its inherently self-defeating. As Ta-Nehisi Coates said, "You can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

The One Ring is inherently corrupting and evil so that any attempt to use it like it's a morally neutral object will destroy you, no matter how powerful your will is unless you are Gandalf (and that is as much his moral perfection as well as his status as an Arda of a sort akin to Sauron). Boromir's sin with the Ring is the fact he's IGNORANT and his plan is STUPID as much as it is unethical.

The only thing using the One Ring against Sauron will accomplish is to get it into the Dark Lord's hands faster.

I admit, though, I always wondered how close Saruman came to replicating the One Ring to make himself akin to Sauron, though. I think it wasn't very close because Saruman misread the fact that it was a product of Sauron at all. Sauron farmed out the work to Celebrimbor and probably couldn't have made it without him as we see with his lesser rings.

Saruman has a Ring by the time of LOTOR but all indications are it isn't even the equal of the lesser rings and certainly doesn't protect him from Gandalf's retribution.

I'm not sure that's correct.  Sauron himself was worried (according to Gandalf) that the Ring could be used effectively against him.   I'd say the danger is not so much that Sauron will get the Ring, as that eventually, you will become Sauron.

[C.T. Phipps]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure that's correct.  Sauron himself was worried (according to Gandalf) that the Ring could be used effectively against him.   I'd say the danger is not so much that Sauron will get the Ring, as that eventually, you will become Sauron.

I think that is an interpretation with a lot of asterisks. The Ring has a will of its own and abandoned Gollum after all.

While there are beings who could wield it in such a way as to be a weapon against Sauron like Saruman, Gandalf, and Galadriel--that would make TWO Dark Lords--I'd argue Boromir and the Gondorians are on such a lesser pedestal that it wouldn't even be a contest.

Denethor is certainly better than his son at the possibility but he's nowhere near the above.

Which is to say the "able to use the Ring at its full power and prevent it from immediately dominating or betraying you" is a rare cast of characters to begin with. For the majority of people, it would just get removed and handed over to Sauron.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

So if Pope Pius XII had written to Harry Truman, telling him not to use the Bomb against Japan, Truman would have been obliged to care?

Pius XII actually approved of the use of atomic bombs, so he would have never written such a letter.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Boromir was the next-in-line to being the most powerful man in the world, and he knew that this was a powerful weapon... why wouldn't he think that the correct course of action is to bring that item home to his father, regardless of what these Elves and Wizards think?

Because he should have also known who those elves and wizards were and what they knew about the nature of the world he was living in. Elrond was the son of Eärendil and the twin of the first king of Númenor, after all.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

On Denethor: Yes, Gandalf is a metaphysical angel, and Denethor might even have known that. Except that Saruman and Sauron are metaphysical angels too... why should he listen to Gandalf, and not them? Gandalf was even around for Arvedui... if Gondor had rejected Isildur's line then, why not reject it now? Denethor has only his own experience and knowledge to work with, and so far as he knows, the gods (or God) have not interfered in human affairs since Numenor sank.

I'd say that we don't know that Gandalf the Grey was *there*, in Goldor, when Arvedui was presenting his claim. And we have to assume the Istari in general kept a low profile back in those days, or else it is rather weird that a lot of shitty stuff happened. That is a kind of internal problem with the Istari being there since c. 1000 TA. They really appear to have done pretty much nothing for nearly 2000 years to actually influence events directly or indirectly.

But presumably Arvedui wasn't surrounded with as many magical signs and portents as Aragorn. But Arvedui's attempt to reunite the Dúnedain kingdoms still goes back directly to one of the prophecies of Malbeth, meaning this was a serious prophetic/magical issue where the supernatural powers actually tried to shape the future. It looks as if Sauron could have been vanquished a millennium earlier if Arvedui had restored the kingdoms and had set up things so the Ring could have been destroyed at a time when Sauron was still relatively weak.

Sauron isn't really an angel anymore, he is viewed very much as a devil or demon incarnate. That's how he looks, and that's how he behaves and people interpret his views. Say, for instance, when they talk about Sauron's touch never soiling the Three Rings. Such metaphors imply that Sauron's very touch - or interaction with him - is viewed as toxic on a metaphysical level.

Denethor is quite aware of the nature of the two power blocs. He knows the West and what it stands for metaphysically is good, and the followers of Sauron are evil.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Third Age Sauron genuinely thought the Valar had abandoned interest in Middle-earth, and in a physical world where Aman has been removed to another plane of existence, why should men (even educated men like Denethor) think any differently? The existence of the Valar, much less Eru, was not something scientifically demonstrable to an inhabitant of Third Age Middle-earth, with even the circumstances of Numenor's Downfall being a matter of Received Tradition, older to them than Christianity is to us, and passed down by potentially biased sources.

There is no indication that anyone dismisses their own lore in this manner. We are not talking religious texts here which aren't independently corroborated, we are talking about the world physically changing and the largest armada of the known world as well as a pretty big island being destroyed by the wrath of god himself.

We are also talking about where magic and angels and demons are things you can encounter when leave your house. This is not a world where scientific skepticism is a rational option. Quite the contrary, actually. Meaning holding them to the same or similar standards as you would real people and not people living in fantasy world where myths are real really doesn't make much sense.

And I think you are mistaken about Sauron there. Sauron thought the Valar abandoned Middle-earth after the War of Wrath. That's why he got cocky again and thought he could run the show now. His interpretation of the Istari in the TA was that the Valar were trying to 'recolonize' Middle-earth which he now viewed as his sphere of influence.

But if you think about the fact that Sauron actually experienced divine wrath when Eru destroyed Númenor (and possibly changed the nature of the world) then it is actually pretty weird that he should think that the Valar could not get Eru to destroy, say, Middle-earth if they got as pissed with Sauron as they got with Ar-Pharazôn. After all, Eru didn't just destroy the armada, he also destroyed Númenor. Something like that could happen again.

Sauron is a rather weird/stupid character if he thinks the powers who destroyed Númenor could not just do away with him and his armies in a similar manner. I get it that the character is written in a way where 'evil' means you are also stupid, but it is hard to swallow this as a reader if the evil character in question actually experienced the full power of the divine wrath first hand. And Sauron did that at Númenor.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Or to put it another way: if there's doubt in 2021 about the Resurrection of Jesus, why should Denethor, or Boromir, or anyone else simply accept that Numenor's Downfall over 3000 years earlier was Divine Wrath, or that the gods (or God) take any continued interest in human affairs? Or that they aren't simply malevolent bastards, as Sauron's example would seem to suggest? Three thousand years after the defeat of Morgoth, the (much longer-lived) Numenoreans are cheerfully worshipping Melkor.

Because neither Denethor nor his son are stupid to that point. They are still good folks, they do accept that the traditions of the West aren't lies.

The Númenóreans who turned satanists are also kind of weird and very hard to swallow since it is quite weird to assume that they should be as stupid as to worship the very guy their ancestor Eärendil helped to vanquish - for which the loyal men were rewarded with the island of Númenor. They really turn their own history on its head ... and 3000 years aren't *that* long a time for folks as long-lived as the Númenoreans. Although it seems that Sauron at least partially tricked them by using the name Melkor for the god guy, which may no longer have been known to all the Númenóreans as Morgoth's true name.

The TA guys know about the Akallabêth, though. Elendil himself allegedly wrote that text - meaning his voice is telling us that Eru Ilúvatar was the one destroying Númenor. They know that Eru Ilúvatar is real and did punish their ancestors for their sins. They cannot really view the conflict going on as a conflict between warring deities as, perhaps, the men of the FA might have viewed things.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The culpability of Frodo's choice is voided by circumstances. It is impossible to Do Good in those situations, even with all the will in the world (again, Fallen World). But, as Tolkien himself says, Frodo failed. His will failed. He could not do what he set out to do, instead he claimed the Ring, and was only saved by Gollum's intervention.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a fallen world in that context. It is about whether something is possible or not. And there would be things that are impossible for all sorts of people even in a perfect world. Destroying the Ring is impossible for Frodo but, one assumes, not for Aule or Manwe. They should be able to smite the thing. If they could do it but failed to do so then it makes sense to view it as a failure. But Frodo never had a choice. He never had a choice in the matter because he could never possibly destroy the Ring.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Even if you happen to believe in a Higher Power, you can't very well predict what it will do in any given situation. That's the point of eucatastrophe - you can't rely on them, and Gandalf himself had no idea he would be sent back.

Nobody said anything about predicting exactly what god's going to do ... but if you know your history of Arda then you know that Er Ilúvatar is not going to let the bad guys win. That's already the core lesson in the Ainulindale, after all, and its truth is reflected throughout the history of Arda as it unfolded.

I mean, I, personally, would gladly fight and die for the good cause against Sauron even against impossible odds. Because I would know that Eru Ilúvatar himself had destroyed the largest armada in the world. The good guys can win even if things look very dire. Doesn't mean our side is going to served victory on a platter ... as the history of the FA shows, say. But ultimately, the bad guys are going to lose.

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

A total victory for Sauron wouldn't force the Valar (let alone Eru) to do anything. They didn't intervene during the Second Age to stop Mordor, and only took action when Aman itself was under attack. The Divine Intervention to save Frodo was only because Frodo (and Sam, and Bilbo) had put the pieces in place first. Gandalf himself thinks that a Sauron victory would be final - he doesn't say "Don't worry, guys. Even if Sauron gets the Ring back, Valinor will bail us out.". And if Gandalf thinks this, why is it unreasonable to think for Saruman to think it too? 

Gandalf never says what Eru is going to do if Sauron were to win ... presumably, because he, Gandalf, knew/very much believed that Sauron wouldn't win because his, Gandalf's, plan to destroy the Ring would work. It is also kind of a stretch that Eru wouldn't have reassured Gandalf that everything was going according to plan when he sent him back. Gandalf never talks about this, of course. But even if Sauron or his forces had actually killed Gandalf the White - assuming they could have - then there is no reason not to believe that Eru would have sent Gandalf back yet again, this time imbued with the power of a Vala. It is clear that the divine plan didn't call for the good powers to publicly display their powers but rather work in mysterious ways ... but if push had come to shove - like when Pharazôn invaded Aman - the good guys would have been forced to show their true powers.

The problem with Saruman is that he must know who he is and who he is working for ... and what those people are about. But he behaves as if he doesn't even understand who and what he is.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

1.  You can predict He will ultimately save the world, but you can't know His will.  Perhaps it is God's will that Sauron should win, at this point in time.

That would be a weird interpretation in light of how things had gone so far. But, of course, it is a possibility ... but knowing god is real and good should be enough for you to not lose hope in the Denethor way. Much less turn against the Valar and god in the Saruman way.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

2. Would things have turned out any better had Arvedui been accepted?  That's not at all clear.  Arthedain was on its last legs, regardless.

As per Malbeth's prophecy things would have turned out better ... and that guy also prophesied Aragorn walking the Paths of the Dead, meaning I'd trust his judgment.

My impression is that if Arvedui had reunited the kingdoms his son or grandson could have been Aragorn, basically. The king who oversaw the destruction of the Ring and the final defeat of Sauron. When the Dúnedain went against the divine will there a new plan had to be made which took much longer and involved much more grief and unncessary suffering.

If you want, you can imagine that things got so dire that Gandalf had to show his hand and go to Dol Guldur to scare away Sauron for the time being, so that Gollum could find the Ring and Eru could set up his Hobbit plan.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

3.  Denethor's arguments againt Aragorn are entirely reasonable ones.  If you were President of France, would you step down because someone rolled up claiming to be the heir of Clovis?   Why should he accept the truth of what Gandalf is saying even if he knows Gandalf is an angel, and not just a powerful mage?

Denethor isn't President of France. He is the Steward of Gondor who explicitly told his sons that neither he nor his sons could be kings even if 10,000 years passed in Gondor. Denethor and his stewardly predecessors aren't the *real* rulers of Gondor. They do not wear crowns, they do not sit on the throne, and they do not have the right to bar the rightful king to take his place. They just oversee the kingdom in the absence of the king.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

4. In this case, I think it's more a case of the reader knowing more than the characters.  Denethor knows that he is a steward, not a king, but he actually doesn't have any knowledge that would lead him to reasonably conclude he should step down for Aragorn. Isildur's heirs never reigned in Gondor.  Objectively speaking (within this universe) it is the will of God that Aragorn should be king, but why should Denethor believe this?

Well, as things stand, we can expect that Denethor - if he hadn't given in to despair and heresy - would have understood that the divine powers wanted Aragorn to be the king simply by witnessing the signs and portents proving all that. By Aragorn showing up to save the day on the Pelennor, by Aragorn's magical hands healing Faramir and Éowyn, by the fall of Sauron, by the eagle of Manwe giving his proclamation, by the year of peace and plenty following the downfall of Sauron, etc.

It is not that anyone demanded that Denethor yield to Aragorn before Sauron was defeated, no? The divine will clearly was that this happen after Sauron is defeated.

6 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It's actually even possible to argue that the Red Book of Westmarch is a biased historical source, trying to claim divine mandate for Aragorn.

If you were doing that, you can just as well claim that Sauron, in truth, was just an Orc-chieftain and not some magical angelic being. We cannot reinterpret the novel to mean something it doesn't mean - or rather: if we do that, nobody has to take us seriously...

5 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'm inclined to argue that Tolkien would argue neither Denethor or Gandalf are arguing from a position of morality but from practicality, which is kind of hilarious given the nature of this discussion. Gandalf is not attempting to place Aragorn on the throne of Gondor as a matter of divine mandate and never actually forwards that argument (when he most certainly could). Certainly, he leaves the matter of Gondor's reign unaffected for centuries.

I think here you overlook that Gandalf the White - Gandalf with a new mandate from Eru Ilúvatar himself - comes to Gondor to talk to Denethor. He no longer is Gandalf the Grey working as part of the Istari order whose mandate was given to him by Manwe.

Gandalf's core mission is to see to it that Sauron is vanquished - restoring the true king is lesser priority, but one he and the powers he stands for will see to after Sauron is dealt with. And that's what they are doing.

5 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

He's forwarding Aragorn as King of Gondor for the reasons that Aragorn is an individual that Sauron is wary of (fears might be too great a statement), Aragorn is a military genius, and doesn't have the same crippling pride that Denethor has. Aragorn also brings in alliances be they ghosts, Men of the North, elves, and other things. Gandalf is choosing to forward him as King because he's the best man for the job and his bloodline is just the justification he's using.

That is pretty much wrong. Aragorn is no 'military genius'. Gandalf is the one leading the campaign against Sauron, not Aragorn. Gandalf made the plan to defeat Sauron, not Aragorn. Aragorn is very supportive of Gandalf and his plans, not the other way around.

Aragorn's own deeds mostly revolve around him revealing and demonstating that he is the magical rightful king - that's what his power over the plantíri shows, and it is the same with the Paths of the Dead. He fulfills a prophecy only the rightful king can fulfill. This also helps to defeat Sauron, of course.

5 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Even then, Gandalf isn't 100% behind the coup plot that Denethor accuses him of because of the same practical reasons that you'd find in A Song of Ice and Fire. Denethor is not a fool. Far from it. Indeed, if you were to scour the realms of men for people who are as close to the superhumanly capable Numenorans of legend then Denethor is probably right behind Aragorn. Arguably even he's TOO much of one because he has the whole "Greatness in Ability comes with Great Flaws" thing they had going. He's far better as an ally than an enemy and they reluctantly do work together as much as they can until events render it impossible.

Aragorn is plan A but just barely because Denethor has done about as good a job as humanly possible before it becomes necessary to replace him. Which is that his isolationist tendencies and the fact the situation IS hopeless in terms of logistics are what drive him to suicide.

Denethor remains part of the good guys until he abandons his post, gives in to despair, kills himself and tries to murder his son. That's when he turns villain and, presumably, ends up burning in hell for all time (as might be indicated by the image of his burning hands forever etched into the Anor stone).

His reluctance to step down for Aragorn is certainly a flaw, too - but this alone certainly doesn't make him a villain or irrevocably evil. If he had refused to recognize the divine will after the fall of Sauron, trying to violently oppose Aragorn, he may have become a villain, too. Although then he would have likely been dealt with as quickly as Saruman was dealt with in the end. But as things stand they would have most likely just pushed aside the old man quickly enough, forcing him to retire somewhere. Nobody would have stood with Denethor against Aragorn after the Field of Cormallen.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Aragorn had to earn his place, even if it is God's will that he rule. If he were a person like Viserys, he'd just be laughed at.

The issue is that the figure of the rightful king in literature is also competent. Reality is different - there the rightful king mostly is just some guy who isn't particularly competent. With Tolkien's world literally being a world governed by a divine music, one should imagine that Aragorn being as great a guy as he is clearly isn't something that's an accident of history or genetics but a crucial part of the divine plan.

Just as his love and eventual marriage to Arwen is.

[Clueless Northman]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course you can rationally predict that god will save the day in a world where a good god exists. That's not that hard. It is rather irrational in a world like Tolkien's to not expect god to save the day because he exists and he cares and he interacts with the physical world.

he knows what his masters and Eru Ilúvatar can do when their hand is forced. And a total victory of Sauron would force their hand yet again.

That's your mistake. The Valar were quite clear they would never again intervene directly in Middle-Earth - except by sending a handful of deliberately weakened underlings -, even if Sauron won. That's why they let Iluvatar wreck Numenor. If the Istari failed, there would be no stopping Sauron until he came to assault Valinor. What wasn't expected by many was the "hand of fate" pushing Gollum over the edge in Mount Doom.

 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 just pointed out that Tolkien saying there are significant differences between the two Dark Lords doesn't make this evident or even recognizable in LotR. In fact, I'd argue that outside the theoretical texts and speculations about Sauron and Morgoth there is actually no real difference in how the two Dark Lords are presented in the actual narrative texts - and that would include the non-theoretical Silmarillion texts.

Indeed, but that's because in both cases we're dealing with Dark Lords trying to take over the world, and never with Dark Lords actually ruling over the whole of Arda. Tolkien's comments help us to imagine their ultimate goals - world conquest is just the first mandatory step. The same way, we basically know how Stalin and Stalinist goons would rule, because we've seen it for decades; we don't really know how Hitler and Nazi goons would've ruled, and how bad the body count would've been, because like Morgoth and Sauron, they've been thankfully stopped before.

 

10 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It's actually even possible to argue that the Red Book of Westmarch is a biased historical source, trying to claim divine mandate for Aragorn.

Isn't there an article that argues from this point of view, in the old Tolkien Sarcasm Crackpot Page?

 

8 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'd argue that outside of philosophy, most people don't believe in a binary between the two but a scale. If a man signs up for WW2 to fight the Nazis, that doesn't mean that he won't view the costs (moral or otherwise) of doing so in the pursuit of defeating them as unjustified in the larger moral motivation even if the costs are beyond practical benefit.

Indeed, I'd argue very often people use consequentialist ethics in the pursuit of intentionalist goals.

Or, basically, you have to be realistic about these things. Higher principles are what guide you when you choose your goals; opportunism and pragmatism are what guide you to achieve them. Some ends are so important they can justify most means, but most ends are of such a low importance they barely justify a few very limited means.

[C.T. Phipps]

I should note that while Tolkien is heavily influenced by Catholicism, it is not 100% accurate. here is no Hell in Tolkien's world, just the Halls of Mandos. Melkor is imprisoned in the Timeless Void that there's no indication is also the resting place of evil humans. They go beyond Arda to another place after judgement by Mandos. Denethor commits suicide as well in a fit of grief but he is unaware that his son is not dead and it would be wrong to assume he is attempting to commit murder.

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

That's your mistake. The Valar were quite clear they would never again intervene directly in Middle-Earth - except by sending a handful of deliberately weakened underlings -, even if Sauron won. That's why they let Iluvatar wreck Numenor. If the Istari failed, there would be no stopping Sauron until he came to assault Valinor. What wasn't expected by many was the "hand of fate" pushing Gollum over the edge in Mount Doom.

Where exactly are the Valar 'clear' about what they would do if all the world outside of Valinor would be dominated by Sauron and his thugs? We have very scarce notes about the background of the mission of the Istari ... but there is no indication that the Istari project was all they intended to do. It was a different approach to things, an attempt to empower the peoples of Middle-earth to rise up against and defeat Sauron without there being a need for a powerful host from Valinor.

But this doesn't mean such a powerful host wouldn't have been something they would have assembled if Sauron had defeated the Istari and conquered the entire world.

You have to keep in mind that Manwe is the king of Arda. He is the viceregent of Ilúvatar charged with keeping that particular corner of creation safe. He cannot allow Morgoth or Sauron to enslave all the children of Eru outside Valinor.

And neither would Eru himself.

In fact, if you interpret the Music of the Ainur then something like that cannot possibly happen. Neither Morgoth nor Sauron could ever win because the Music didn't include such a scenario. Sauron never had a chance and neither did Melkor.

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Indeed, but that's because in both cases we're dealing with Dark Lords trying to take over the world, and never with Dark Lords actually ruling over the whole of Arda. Tolkien's comments help us to imagine their ultimate goals - world conquest is just the first mandatory step. The same way, we basically know how Stalin and Stalinist goons would rule, because we've seen it for decades; we don't really know how Hitler and Nazi goons would've ruled, and how bad the body count would've been, because like Morgoth and Sauron, they've been thankfully stopped before.

Well, what we can draw from Sauron converting the Númenóreans to 'Melkorism' is that Sauron's ultimate goal wasn't to set himself up as a Dark Lord Eternal but rather gain sufficient power to bring about the return of his master so that he can do whatever the hell he wants to do. Morgoth's eventual return is foretold, and one can assume that Sauron knew about that.

The idea that Sauron is a better administrator than Sauron or a kind of 'bureaucrat of evil' in comparison to Morgoth is just not really visible in the books. Morgoth ran a much bigger show than Sauron ever did, and there is no indication that Sauron's power machine ran more smoothly than Morgoth's. Sauron wasn't even used by Morgoth much as an administrator back in the FA. He had him take a tower and oversee certain campaigns, whereas the inner workings of Angband were overseen by whoever was there.

And if you look at Sauron in detail he is just a lesser version of Morgoth aping him in every step of his career. Morgoth made a Ring of sorts with Beleriand, Sauron did the same with his Ring. Morgoth seduced and corrupted his fellow Ainur and many elves and Sauron did the same on smaller scale. Morgoth caused the original fall of man back in the east, Sauron caused the fall of Númenor - which was a tiny fraction of mankind. Morgoth corrupted Feanor and poisoned the peace of the Blessed Realm, Sauron brought deceit and poison to Eregion. Morgoth corrupted and recruited Sauron, Sauron corrupted and recruited Saruman. And so on and so forth.

But, of course, ultimately Sauron is a follower of Melkor, not a ruler himself. He lacks his master's vision and he may not even really understand Melkor's issues with Eru. And he definitely doesn't have the power to even try to destroy the world or corrupt all the children of Ilúvatar. He certainly may believe that the point of Melkor's plans is to rule over the world. After all, that is kind of how it looks like. But we don't really know that.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I should note that while Tolkien is heavily influenced by Catholicism, it is not 100% accurate. here is no Hell in Tolkien's world, just the Halls of Mandos. Melkor is imprisoned in the Timeless Void that there's no indication is also the resting place of evil humans. They go beyond Arda to another place after judgement by Mandos. Denethor commits suicide as well in a fit of grief but he is unaware that his son is not dead and it would be wrong to assume he is attempting to commit murder.

The entire setting of Tolkien's legendarium has little to do with Christianity, especially when you look at the plot and cast, basically (elves, for instance). Especially this weirdo idea of incarnated demon kings governing the mortal world as if they were Persian god-kings or something like that is something you cannot really bring into accord with Christianity. The devil is chained in hell and while demons might roam the lands they do not rule countries or pretend to be gods.

That said, the morality is very much Christian as are the various falls starting with Melkor's fall and through the ages. But even with all that, the original Melko while also a Luciferian figure also has some aspects from Loki. They all get more and more christianized without the setting of the the Valar as pagan gods living in literal houses in a literal city never being properly changed.

And for what it's worth, the final concept of Morgoth's ultimate fate doesn't seem to include him being thrown into the void but rather Mandos executing him. He will have to wait until the Last Battle before he will regain sufficient strength to take form again. The void idea is something from the earlier versions of the Silmarillion where creation only included the earth and not the entire universe outside the confines of Arda.

Denethor is aware that Faramir is still alive but he doesn't care because he expects him to die anyway. But killing a dying person is still murder, especially if the dying person in question doesn't want to be kill by you (or die at all).

[Clueless Northman]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Morgoth made a Ring of sorts with Beleriand, Sauron did the same with his Ring.

Not merely Beleriand. When arriving first to Arda, Morgoth basically tried to corrupt most parts if not all of it, and imbued his own power and essence into all of Arda, which means the world is corrupted and fallen, not the pure dreamed world anymore, and will require a special kind of redemption. On the other hand, this massively weakened Melkor, so it most probably is the only reason why he could actually be beaten, specially in the War of Wrath, when top Valar actually stayed home and let their underlings do the busywork. Similarly, there's no way any Noldo would wound him and withstand him in battle, like happened with a handful of them, had Morgoth not been considerably weaker than the mightiest of Valar was supposed to be.

[C.T. Phipps]

I think Sauron's desire to emulate Melkor is somewhat overstated:

https://middleearthreflections.com/2018/06/17/on-saurons-motives/

We know that Sauron “did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it” (Morgoth’s Ring, p. 396), so in order to achieve this, he made the One Ring. He, unlike Morgoth, never wanted to level the world to the absolute nil, but aimed at controlling the minds and wills of others, with his special target being the Evles. So as to to achieve his aim, he put a considerable amount of his own will and power into the One Ring. It was essentially “One ring to rule them all / One ring to find them /One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them“. It contained the powers of the lesser Rings of Power, so Sauron could “could see the thoughts of all those that used the lesser rings, could govern all that they did, and in the end could utterly enslave them“ (Letters, № 131). However, he did not manage to trick the Elves, whom he most hated and desired to enslave, as they hid their Rings when they perceived Sauron’s intentions and never used them while he was in possession of the One.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

Not merely Beleriand. When arriving first to Arda, Morgoth basically tried to corrupt most parts if not all of it, and imbued his own power and essence into all of Arda, which means the world is corrupted and fallen, not the pure dreamed world anymore, and will require a special kind of redemption. On the other hand, this massively weakened Melkor, so it most probably is the only reason why he could actually be beaten, specially in the War of Wrath, when top Valar actually stayed home and let their underlings do the busywork. Similarly, there's no way any Noldo would wound him and withstand him in battle, like happened with a handful of them, had Morgoth not been considerably weaker than the mightiest of Valar was supposed to be.

Oh, yes, I know all that. But in the end Beleriand was the Ring the host of the Valar under Eonwe destroyed so Morgoth could be defeated and killed.

There is more of his substance in the rest of Arda, even in Aman, and that will only be dealt with, presumably, after the Last Battle. Its presence in Arda Marred ensures Morgoth will return for the Last Battle, though.

The reason why I cited that parallel is that Sauron repeated the folly of his master by creating a Ring of his own - and instrument/artifact containing too much of his own substance which allowed others to effectively destroy him. Something they couldn't have done before he created said artifact.

49 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think Sauron's desire to emulate Melkor is somewhat overstated:

https://middleearthreflections.com/2018/06/17/on-saurons-motives/

We know that Sauron “did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it” (Morgoth’s Ring, p. 396), so in order to achieve this, he made the One Ring. He, unlike Morgoth, never wanted to level the world to the absolute nil, but aimed at controlling the minds and wills of others, with his special target being the Evles. So as to to achieve his aim, he put a considerable amount of his own will and power into the One Ring. It was essentially “One ring to rule them all / One ring to find them /One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them“. It contained the powers of the lesser Rings of Power, so Sauron could “could see the thoughts of all those that used the lesser rings, could govern all that they did, and in the end could utterly enslave them“ (Letters, № 131). However, he did not manage to trick the Elves, whom he most hated and desired to enslave, as they hid their Rings when they perceived Sauron’s intentions and never used them while he was in possession of the One.

I must say that Tolkien's own very late portrayal or re-interpretation of Melkor as this absolute nihilist is very hard to reconcile with the actual legendarium as written, especially the Ainulindale - a text with very few substantial changes throughout the writing process.

For one, there is the simple fact that Melkor does not refuse to participate in the Music nor attempt to destroy it utterly. He and his followers are still making music, after all, even if it no longer fits with the kind of music the other guys are making. And while he introduces themes that do not fit with Ilúvatar's design he never tries to stop the Music as such - which would a more adequate way to portray a divine creature who wants to destroy creation. He wants his themes, his music to triumph over Eru's themes and his instruments ... but the result of that wouldn't have been 'no creation' or 'no world' but rather a world in which Melkor's will would rule supreme (assuming Ilúvatar would have allowed such a creation to come into existence).

Instead, it is clear from the start that Melkor wants to dominate the Music and subsequently also the things created by the Music. He does not want to destroy them.

More importantly, the way the Ainulindale ends doesn't really imply Melkor's deeds during the Music turned him into a abominable devil-like monster. Eru still approves of Melkor's meddling during the first theme, and even during the second theme he isn't really all that pissed. Melkor's noise during the third theme is somewhat extreme, but the rebuke at the end is pretty mild. To Eru the entire thing seems to be more a training exercise for gods-in-training, something one could summarize in the statement: 'Melkor, you have made a mistake there, but you will learn that I'm right and you are wrong. And when things are over and we will all be doing the Second Music you will understand everything.'

This isn't the kind of lesson you give to a guy who basically wants to destroy everything you created.

Instead, the way the character of Melkor is presented in the actual Silmarillion texts is a guy who wants to make Arda and the children of Ilúvatar his own. He doesn't want to destroy them. And I really don't think the concept of the Music of the Ainur allows for Melkor to become a creature that has effectively nothing to do with the guy he was while he was during the Music.

In part, I think, this is a discrepancy that crept into the texts because Melko as first imagined during the Lost Tales was more trickster than devil. He wasn't irredeemable. But that changed overtime while the Ainulindale pretty much remained the same.

Insofar as the destruction of the Ring is concerned:

Depending how you want to interpret things you can even make a case that Frodo succeeded at his task and destroyed the Ring without realizing it. Because Frodo effectively uses the Ring to destroy the Ring when he curses Gollum after he lays hands on shortly before they enter the Sammath Naur. This is what Frodo as the master of Ring pronounces:

Quote

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

‘Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.’

The crouching shape backed away, terror in its blinking eyes, and yet at the same time insatiable desire.

Gollum does touch Frodo again, and subsequently he is thrown into the Fire of Doom. It just so happens that the Ring goes down into the Fire of Doom, too. Frodo doesn't speak as Frodo to Gollum there, he speaks as the Lord of the Rings, basically, as the wearer of the One Ring who gets closer and closer to master the power of the thing to the point he, a mere mortal, can do it. And it seems he is powerful enough to make the kind of proclamations he makes there.

Thus the destruction of the Ring doesn't have to be read as a divine intervention or an eucatastrophe. It can also be read as Frodo involuntarily exploiting a loophole within the whole lore of the Rings of Power.

As for why you can read Frodo not making the choice to destroy the Ring but having no choice at all that's something, I think, Shippey pointed out years ago when discussing this passage:

Quote

‘I have come,’ he said. ‘But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!’

The phrasing there implies that Frodo no longer can make this choice ... and we, the readers, knew he couldn't even make that choice back in Bag End because he also failed to throw the Ring into the fire back then.

[C.T. Phipps]

Well, Melkor goes ten kinds of nuts over the course of actions. He wants to dominate the music at first and create his own music separate from Eru. Eru says that such is impossible and anything Melkor creates is something that will be added to the music and made all the greater for it, which drives Melkor up the wall and insane because he wants his own separate creations not to be part of the whole of others. The more vile he gets, the weaker he gets as well.

He really just becomes a guy trying to **** up the world for its own sake murdering the trees and hanging around with Ungoliant.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Pius XII actually approved of the use of atomic bombs, so he would have never written such a letter.

Because he should have also known who those elves and wizards were and what they knew about the nature of the world he was living in. Elrond was the son of Eärendil and the twin of the first king of Númenor, after all.

I'd say that we don't know that Gandalf the Grey was *there*, in Goldor, when Arvedui was presenting his claim. And we have to assume the Istari in general kept a low profile back in those days, or else it is rather weird that a lot of shitty stuff happened. That is a kind of internal problem with the Istari being there since c. 1000 TA. They really appear to have done pretty much nothing for nearly 2000 years to actually influence events directly or indirectly.

But presumably Arvedui wasn't surrounded with as many magical signs and portents as Aragorn. But Arvedui's attempt to reunite the Dúnedain kingdoms still goes back directly to one of the prophecies of Malbeth, meaning this was a serious prophetic/magical issue where the supernatural powers actually tried to shape the future. It looks as if Sauron could have been vanquished a millennium earlier if Arvedui had restored the kingdoms and had set up things so the Ring could have been destroyed at a time when Sauron was still relatively weak.

Sauron isn't really an angel anymore, he is viewed very much as a devil or demon incarnate. That's how he looks, and that's how he behaves and people interpret his views. Say, for instance, when they talk about Sauron's touch never soiling the Three Rings. Such metaphors imply that Sauron's very touch - or interaction with him - is viewed as toxic on a metaphysical level.

Denethor is quite aware of the nature of the two power blocs. He knows the West and what it stands for metaphysically is good, and the followers of Sauron are evil.

There is no indication that anyone dismisses their own lore in this manner. We are not talking religious texts here which aren't independently corroborated, we are talking about the world physically changing and the largest armada of the known world as well as a pretty big island being destroyed by the wrath of god himself.

We are also talking about where magic and angels and demons are things you can encounter when leave your house. This is not a world where scientific skepticism is a rational option. Quite the contrary, actually. Meaning holding them to the same or similar standards as you would real people and not people living in fantasy world where myths are real really doesn't make much sense.

And I think you are mistaken about Sauron there. Sauron thought the Valar abandoned Middle-earth after the War of Wrath. That's why he got cocky again and thought he could run the show now. His interpretation of the Istari in the TA was that the Valar were trying to 'recolonize' Middle-earth which he now viewed as his sphere of influence.

But if you think about the fact that Sauron actually experienced divine wrath when Eru destroyed Númenor (and possibly changed the nature of the world) then it is actually pretty weird that he should think that the Valar could not get Eru to destroy, say, Middle-earth if they got as pissed with Sauron as they got with Ar-Pharazôn. After all, Eru didn't just destroy the armada, he also destroyed Númenor. Something like that could happen again.

Sauron is a rather weird/stupid character if he thinks the powers who destroyed Númenor could not just do away with him and his armies in a similar manner. I get it that the character is written in a way where 'evil' means you are also stupid, but it is hard to swallow this as a reader if the evil character in question actually experienced the full power of the divine wrath first hand. And Sauron did that at Númenor.

Because neither Denethor nor his son are stupid to that point. They are still good folks, they do accept that the traditions of the West aren't lies.

The Númenóreans who turned satanists are also kind of weird and very hard to swallow since it is quite weird to assume that they should be as stupid as to worship the very guy their ancestor Eärendil helped to vanquish - for which the loyal men were rewarded with the island of Númenor. They really turn their own history on its head ... and 3000 years aren't *that* long a time for folks as long-lived as the Númenoreans. Although it seems that Sauron at least partially tricked them by using the name Melkor for the god guy, which may no longer have been known to all the Númenóreans as Morgoth's true name.

The TA guys know about the Akallabêth, though. Elendil himself allegedly wrote that text - meaning his voice is telling us that Eru Ilúvatar was the one destroying Númenor. They know that Eru Ilúvatar is real and did punish their ancestors for their sins. They cannot really view the conflict going on as a conflict between warring deities as, perhaps, the men of the FA might have viewed things.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a fallen world in that context. It is about whether something is possible or not. And there would be things that are impossible for all sorts of people even in a perfect world. Destroying the Ring is impossible for Frodo but, one assumes, not for Aule or Manwe. They should be able to smite the thing. If they could do it but failed to do so then it makes sense to view it as a failure. But Frodo never had a choice. He never had a choice in the matter because he could never possibly destroy the Ring.

Nobody said anything about predicting exactly what god's going to do ... but if you know your history of Arda then you know that Er Ilúvatar is not going to let the bad guys win. That's already the core lesson in the Ainulindale, after all, and its truth is reflected throughout the history of Arda as it unfolded.

I mean, I, personally, would gladly fight and die for the good cause against Sauron even against impossible odds. Because I would know that Eru Ilúvatar himself had destroyed the largest armada in the world. The good guys can win even if things look very dire. Doesn't mean our side is going to served victory on a platter ... as the history of the FA shows, say. But ultimately, the bad guys are going to lose.

Gandalf never says what Eru is going to do if Sauron were to win ... presumably, because he, Gandalf, knew/very much believed that Sauron wouldn't win because his, Gandalf's, plan to destroy the Ring would work. It is also kind of a stretch that Eru wouldn't have reassured Gandalf that everything was going according to plan when he sent him back. Gandalf never talks about this, of course. But even if Sauron or his forces had actually killed Gandalf the White - assuming they could have - then there is no reason not to believe that Eru would have sent Gandalf back yet again, this time imbued with the power of a Vala. It is clear that the divine plan didn't call for the good powers to publicly display their powers but rather work in mysterious ways ... but if push had come to shove - like when Pharazôn invaded Aman - the good guys would have been forced to show their true powers.

The problem with Saruman is that he must know who he is and who he is working for ... and what those people are about. But he behaves as if he doesn't even understand who and what he is.

That would be a weird interpretation in light of how things had gone so far. But, of course, it is a possibility ... but knowing god is real and good should be enough for you to not lose hope in the Denethor way. Much less turn against the Valar and god in the Saruman way.

As per Malbeth's prophecy things would have turned out better ... and that guy also prophesied Aragorn walking the Paths of the Dead, meaning I'd trust his judgment.

My impression is that if Arvedui had reunited the kingdoms his son or grandson could have been Aragorn, basically. The king who oversaw the destruction of the Ring and the final defeat of Sauron. When the Dúnedain went against the divine will there a new plan had to be made which took much longer and involved much more grief and unncessary suffering.

If you want, you can imagine that things got so dire that Gandalf had to show his hand and go to Dol Guldur to scare away Sauron for the time being, so that Gollum could find the Ring and Eru could set up his Hobbit plan.

Denethor isn't President of France. He is the Steward of Gondor who explicitly told his sons that neither he nor his sons could be kings even if 10,000 years passed in Gondor. Denethor and his stewardly predecessors aren't the *real* rulers of Gondor. They do not wear crowns, they do not sit on the throne, and they do not have the right to bar the rightful king to take his place. They just oversee the kingdom in the absence of the king.

Well, as things stand, we can expect that Denethor - if he hadn't given in to despair and heresy - would have understood that the divine powers wanted Aragorn to be the king simply by witnessing the signs and portents proving all that. By Aragorn showing up to save the day on the Pelennor, by Aragorn's magical hands healing Faramir and Éowyn, by the fall of Sauron, by the eagle of Manwe giving his proclamation, by the year of peace and plenty following the downfall of Sauron, etc.

It is not that anyone demanded that Denethor yield to Aragorn before Sauron was defeated, no? The divine will clearly was that this happen after Sauron is defeated.

If you were doing that, you can just as well claim that Sauron, in truth, was just an Orc-chieftain and not some magical angelic being. We cannot reinterpret the novel to mean something it doesn't mean - or rather: if we do that, nobody has to take us seriously...

I think here you overlook that Gandalf the White - Gandalf with a new mandate from Eru Ilúvatar himself - comes to Gondor to talk to Denethor. He no longer is Gandalf the Grey working as part of the Istari order whose mandate was given to him by Manwe.

Gandalf's core mission is to see to it that Sauron is vanquished - restoring the true king is lesser priority, but one he and the powers he stands for will see to after Sauron is dealt with. And that's what they are doing.

That is pretty much wrong. Aragorn is no 'military genius'. Gandalf is the one leading the campaign against Sauron, not Aragorn. Gandalf made the plan to defeat Sauron, not Aragorn. Aragorn is very supportive of Gandalf and his plans, not the other way around.

Aragorn's own deeds mostly revolve around him revealing and demonstating that he is the magical rightful king - that's what his power over the plantíri shows, and it is the same with the Paths of the Dead. He fulfills a prophecy only the rightful king can fulfill. This also helps to defeat Sauron, of course.

Denethor remains part of the good guys until he abandons his post, gives in to despair, kills himself and tries to murder his son. That's when he turns villain and, presumably, ends up burning in hell for all time (as might be indicated by the image of his burning hands forever etched into the Anor stone).

His reluctance to step down for Aragorn is certainly a flaw, too - but this alone certainly doesn't make him a villain or irrevocably evil. If he had refused to recognize the divine will after the fall of Sauron, trying to violently oppose Aragorn, he may have become a villain, too. Although then he would have likely been dealt with as quickly as Saruman was dealt with in the end. But as things stand they would have most likely just pushed aside the old man quickly enough, forcing him to retire somewhere. Nobody would have stood with Denethor against Aragorn after the Field of Cormallen.

The issue is that the figure of the rightful king in literature is also competent. Reality is different - there the rightful king mostly is just some guy who isn't particularly competent. With Tolkien's world literally being a world governed by a divine music, one should imagine that Aragorn being as great a guy as he is clearly isn't something that's an accident of history or genetics but a crucial part of the divine plan.

Just as his love and eventual marriage to Arwen is.

• No idea where you got the notion of a pro-nuclear Pope. Pius XII famously described the horrors of prospective nuclear war: "Entire cities, even the largest and richest in history and art, annihilated; a black blanket of death over the pulverised matter, covering countless victims with limbs burnt, twisted, scattered, while others groan in spasms of agony.”
• Boromir (not exactly a coward) explicitly fears the Elves of Lothlorien. Why should we expect him to simply kowtow to these strange beings, and curious old men? It'd be like asking our 2021 political leaders to kowtow to religious leaders.
• Gandalf would almost certainly have been around Arthedain at that point, it being where the action was (honestly, does Tolkien need to spell out everything for you?).
• All the magical portents in the world don't make a blind bit of difference if you don't, you know, actually win a war. You have still yet to answer the question of what would have happened to 20 year old Aragorn pushing his claim on Minas Tirith (or Arathorn, or any other Chieftains).
• So Denethor is supposed to have intricate knowledge of events from thousands of years ago, and yet wouldn't know that Sauron once had a Fair Form? Not to mention that Denethor has seen Saruman in action... why should he think Gandalf's underlying motives aren't as political and worldly as the other wizard's?
• No evidence of scepticism? Between the general fear of Elves, the dismissal of Athelas as a mere weed, lore only surviving as old rhymes and sayings, and the politicised, cynical leadership, I'd say that your average inhabitant of Middle-earth is rather more worldly than you give them credit for. Magic is strange and mysterious (c.f. Sam Gamgee's request to Galadriel), not a matter for the everyday.
• Sauron had literally conquered Middle-earth in the Second Age, and the Valar did nothing (for good reason, of course. Destroying Middle-earth rather screws with their mandate to care for the Children of Iluvatar). Neither Sauron nor anyone else (including Gandalf) had any reason to expect an active intervention.
• Sauron is most certainly not stupid. Just incredibly cynical. 
•  Scepticism is not a matter of stupidity. These are powerful lords, operating within a worldly paradigm.
• It is possible to decide that your ancestors were mistaken.
• Because no-one writing over three millennia ago could possibly err as to the causes of anything?
• Frodo set out to destroy the Ring. He couldn't destroy the Ring. That's a failure. It's also a Fallen World because no-one (however well-meaning) can entirely resist Evil... which is the bloody point of Frodo's failure. It would not have been the same book if Frodo had simply tossed the thing into the volcano.
• Good grief. Way to actually reduce Frodo's pain and sacrifice to nothing. No-one - even the Valar - know the entire plan of Eru, while simply shrugging and saying "He'll intervene in time" begs the question of bothering with the Quest at all. Believing in Providence is not the same thing as expecting God to fix all your problems.  

Honestly, your habit of engaging with the text in deliberate bad faith, and then ascribing the detected "flaws" to the author (or a caricature thereof) is getting outright tiresome. If The Lord of the Rings were indeed what you think it is, then it would not be a book worth reading. Eru only knows why you bother with such a contemptuous piece of literature as the one you present us with.

[Lord Varys]

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• No idea where you got the notion of a pro-nuclear Pope. Pius XII famously described the horrors of prospective nuclear war: "Entire cities, even the largest and richest in history and art, annihilated; a black blanket of death over the pulverised matter, covering countless victims with limbs burnt, twisted, scattered, while others groan in spasms of agony.”

Pius XII and his bishops did defend German re-militarization in the 1950s as well as the use of the atomic bomb against the USSR. Whatever else they also said doesn't change their cynical political take on the matter.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Boromir (not exactly a coward) explicitly fears the Elves of Lothlorien. Why should we expect him to simply kowtow to these strange beings, and curious old men? It'd be like asking our 2021 political leaders to kowtow to religious leaders.

Our political leaders also kowtow to religious leaders who aren't literal angels of the lord. But you make a dishonest comparison there. Boromir asked Elrond of Rivendell and his people for advice. Nobody ever said he was trusting the witch of Lothlórien or her wild and strange elven-folk. And then, nobody said that Boromir was as learned as his father or brother. We all do know that he wasn't much interested in stuff like that.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Gandalf would almost certainly have been around Arthedain at that point, it being where the action was (honestly, does Tolkien need to spell out everything for you?).

Sorry, that's just speculation on your part. We have no idea where the hell Gandalf was at that point, so don't pretend that we know. We know he never went east, but we know he did go south so he could have been in Harad at that time for all we know.

For what it's worth, an earlier version of the appendices had Saruman's return from the east and him settling at Isengard around 2000 TA, but he changed that to the established later date, presumably because he felt it made no sense to have the Istari there when the kings and stewards fucked things up as hard as they did, so better keep them out of the thing entirely.

This would also make some sense considering that Gondor was very strong for most of the TA, and consequently the mission of the Istari would have been more about stopping Sauron from influencing the men in the east and south than them fearing the Dúnedain would falter.

In light of how little Gandalf and Saruman are mentioned in the ToY or Appendix A chances are that we are to assume they did very little to intervene directly in worldly affairs. And we know Gandalf was closest to the Eldar whereas Saruman was closest to men. With Saruman being in the east for a long time, one imagines that the Istari didn't interfere with the inner workings of the Dúnedain kingdoms at all, at least not until the third millennium, i.e. after the downfall of the kings, the Watchful Peace, etc.

And the first known meeting of the White Council was only after the end of the Watchful Peace. I guess we can imagine that Saruman spent some time in Gondor between 2463 and 2759 TA, before he decided to take possession of Isengard.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• All the magical portents in the world don't make a blind bit of difference if you don't, you know, actually win a war. You have still yet to answer the question of what would have happened to 20 year old Aragorn pushing his claim on Minas Tirith (or Arathorn, or any other Chieftains).

That is an irrelevant hypothetical scenario. I do not care about the question whether Aragorn could have been king in a different setting but rather how his actual ascension to kingship is portrayed in the book as published.

The general point being, though, is that the divine powers could have made any chieftain of the Dúnedain king if that had been there and Manwe/Eru's plan.

But that wasn't the divine plan. The divine plan after Arvedui's failure was to restore the Dúnedain kingdoms only after the defeat of Sauron. If the plan had involved the restoration of the kingdoms before the defeat of Sauron then that would have happened. We have our ideal steward in Cirion back in the day - if the heir of Isildur had shown up during his tenure chances are very good that he would have been accepted as king. But that's not something the good guys in charge wanted to pull.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• So Denethor is supposed to have intricate knowledge of events from thousands of years ago, and yet wouldn't know that Sauron once had a Fair Form? Not to mention that Denethor has seen Saruman in action... why should he think Gandalf's underlying motives aren't as political and worldly as the other wizard's?

I'm not sure Denethor ever 'saw' Saruman in action. The guy didn't leave Isengard for decades as far as we know, most notably since the last meeting of the White Council. Denethor was a rather young fellow back then. I'd be very surprised if ever met with Saruman, personally. Of course, they could have conferred via the palantíri, but I don't think I'd describe something like that as 'seeing him in action'.

Does Denethor truly not know that Sauron once had a fair form? I don't recall that.

But things are pretty simple in this rather simplistic world. There are supernatural agents at work here. Divine beings some of which are good and others who are bad. There is no reason to go as low as to give Denethor the benefit of the doubt that Gandalf supporting Aragorn's bid for the throne is a bad thing. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, after all.

Denethor behaves like a stupid child when he accuses Gandalf of being power-hungry and a puppetmaster. He isn't. He does have an agenda, but that is clearly not the agenda to rule the world by ruling men in power.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• No evidence of scepticism? Between the general fear of Elves, the dismissal of Athelas as a mere weed, lore only surviving as old rhymes and sayings, and the politicised, cynical leadership, I'd say that your average inhabitant of Middle-earth is rather more worldly than you give them credit for. Magic is strange and mysterious (c.f. Sam Gamgee's request to Galadriel), not a matter for the everyday.

I'm sorry, but it is simple-minded like Ioreth who remember the truth about athelas ... and, frankly, comparing the average Gondorian to the likes of Sam Gamgee is a joke. Not all Gondorians are scholars, but the denizens of Minas Tirith and the stewards and their family should be well educated, especially about the history of their own country. They don't have to be all elf-friends and the like, but you don't have to love Galadriel to understand who Sauron is and who the Istari are.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Sauron had literally conquered Middle-earth in the Second Age, and the Valar did nothing (for good reason, of course. Destroying Middle-earth rather screws with their mandate to care for the Children of Iluvatar). Neither Sauron nor anyone else (including Gandalf) had any reason to expect an active intervention.

Well, there is a rather glaring contradiction there in the sense that it is apparently okay to destroy Númenor to stop Pharazôn (even though that was not necessary) but it isn't okay to destroy Middle-earth (or some portions thereof) to get rid of Sauron. And the very idea that you would have to destroy large portions of Middle-earth to get rid of a simple Maia is also somewhat weird. The Valar could just manifest at Barad-dûr and take out the guy there. He wouldn't be a match for them. And Eru himself could just destroy Sauron's body and drag his spirit wherever he wanted.

But I actually don't see a contradiction there. If I had to guess at the divine plan then Eru intended for the Númenóreans to take care of Sauron. They had the strength and the means. Even when their kings failed and they allowed themselves to be corrupted by Sauron the few remaining Faithful could still put down Sauron for the time being with the help of the remaining Eldar. And that they did. And perhaps it was grander still than it had been if a powerful Númenórean king had done it?

There was no need for a divine intervention there. Unlike, say, if Sauron had won the War of the Ring. Then Sauron would have been unstoppable by conventional means.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Sauron is most certainly not stupid. Just incredibly cynical. 

He is stupid in the sense that he is evil and doesn't understand how good people think. Tolkien's villains are all stupid in this sense. Gandalf basically outmaneuvers Sauron because Sauron's imagination is severely limited. He can only think as a Dark Lord, he cannot put himself into Gandalf's shoes and think what he would do if he were in Gandalf's position.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

•  Scepticism is not a matter of stupidity. These are powerful lords, operating within a worldly paradigm.

It just doesn't make sense to think or behave like you think Denethor did in a world of magic. There is nothing worldly about the kingdom of Gondor resisting an immortal demon king they call 'the Dark Lord'.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Because no-one writing over three millennia ago could possibly err as to the causes of anything?

Are you trying to tell me it makes sense to assume that the father of Faramir - who supposedly resembles Faramir in a lot of ways - actually believed the origin story of the Dúnedain kingdoms was a myth?

That just makes no sense in the context of this story. It is nowhere implied that this is the case, nor does it make sense. I mean, why not just also believe Sauron does not exist, or is just a name used by some mortal Orc-chieftain? Unlike Aragorn who shows up and proves that he is Isildur's heir whose coming has been prophesied nobody actually meets with Sauron directly.

Nobody actually doubts the mythological past or the metaphysical nature of the world they live in.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Frodo set out to destroy the Ring. He couldn't destroy the Ring. That's a failure. It's also a Fallen World because no-one (however well-meaning) can entirely resist Evil... which is the bloody point of Frodo's failure. It would not have been the same book if Frodo had simply tossed the thing into the volcano.

That isn't true. I think we have good evidence that Manwe is immune to evil, considering Tolkien is of the opinion the guy doesn't even understand what evil is ... and thus has to believe Melkor when he says he has changed his ways.

Frodo's 'failure' has nothing to do with evil. It has to do with destroying the Ring being an impossible task. Nobody wearing the Ring can destroy it ... unless, perhaps, somebody who is more powerful than Sauron. Frodo didn't have to be overwhelmed by the Ring's evil power to prevent him from trying to destroy it ... he could try to do it back in Bag End at time when he hadn't even worn the Ring.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

• Good grief. Way to actually reduce Frodo's pain and sacrifice to nothing. No-one - even the Valar - know the entire plan of Eru, while simply shrugging and saying "He'll intervene in time" begs the question of bothering with the Quest at all. Believing in Providence is not the same thing as expecting God to fix all your problems.  

Well, you came up with all those hypotheticals. If we assume there is room for those (which I actually doubt since this is story written by a god who made it clear to his devil in the very beginning that nobody can change the Music story against his will) then Eru would have found a way to get rid of Sauron even if Sauron had regained his Ring and/or won his war.

It is also quite clear that Sauron's downfall was inevitable if you think about the setting of the Legendarium being a mythical past of our own world ... which means the era of the evil demon kings will end. That's as inevitable as the fading of the elves.

And I think you have to really think about it what it means that Gandalf returned as Gandalf the White. He was resurrected by Eru and got a new mandate from him. We don't know how far his authority extended, but he clearly did not double-check with Manwe before reprimanding Saruman. It seems he did that because it was mission Eru himself gave to him. My personal guess is that within the framework of the story - and assuming Eru wanted to end the Third Age of the world with the destruction of Sauron - that if it were possible that Frodo's quest would fail (which I think it wasn't because it was the divine plan) - then Gandalf would have dealt with Sauron, possibly by Eru Ilúvatar somehow acting through Gandalf.

50 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Honestly, your habit of engaging with the text in deliberate bad faith, and then ascribing the detected "flaws" to the author (or a caricature thereof) is getting outright tiresome. If The Lord of the Rings were indeed what you think it is, then it would not be a book worth reading. Eru only knows why you bother with such a contemptuous piece of literature as the one you present us with.

Well, I don't think Tolkien's works are particularly deep in the department of complex moral problems. It is quite clear and not very subtle what's right and what's wrong - or who is good or who is bad when they are introduced. You can speculate and invent arguments as to why certain characters have a right to their moral dilemmas - and I actually understand that it is fun to do that with Denethor (I did that myself in the past) - but that doesn't change the fact that most of them know what the right thing is.

And this moral simplicity makes the book only morally simplistic, not necessarily bad. People do like to read simple stuff. It can be fun to know who is good and who is bad and there to be little to no ambiguity in that department.

The strength of Tolkien lies is different fields.

[C.T. Phipps]

Re: Denethor

I think it should be noted that the Gondorians do not have an especially pious regard to the Valar or Maia (assuming they even know the Istari are of their ranks). The Gondorians still view Numenor with a great deal of awe and regard with the view that they were a greater age of superior people that deserve to rule all other lesser races of men. I remind you that they have this attitude despite the fact that God literally sent the Flood equivalent to destroy their civilization.

They even revere Al-Pharazon despite the fact the dude was a incestuous Satanist because they refuse to acknowledge his "defeat" of Sauron was just the latter playing the Long GameTM.

In simple terms, Denethor believes that he has no reason to listen to Gandalf as a moral authority superior to him because he is the ruler of Gondor and wizards are not people who are to be given any special regard. The funny thing is he's not WRONG. The Istari are impressive beings and very wise but they are corruptible, far from omniscient, and pursuing agendas that aren't always beneficial to their parties involved. Faramir has the attitude of jumping when Gandalf asks him too and that is a good thing to do but Denethor is mostly right about his agenda: he is going to attempt to replace the House of Stewards. Denethor has also done about as good a job as any person could have done.

I disagree with the idea that Gandalf is primarily dictating the military policy of the armies as well or that Aragorn's military genius is not what saves the day. Gandalf isn't the man who leads the Naval relief of Gondor with the added benefit of ghosts. That's all on Aragorn who, weirdly, is probably a better Admiral than general but, well, victory is what matters not how you get it.

Denethor's issue is his pigheadedness, yes, but there's not actually that much that Gandalf can bring to the table as the entirety of the plan is, "Delay and distract Sauron in hopes the Ring is destroyed because otherwise we are boned."

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Re: Denethor

I think it should be noted that the Gondorians do not have an especially pious regard to the Valar or Maia (assuming they even know the Istari are of their ranks). The Gondorians still view Numenor with a great deal of awe and regard with the view that they were a greater age of superior people that deserve to rule all other lesser races of men. I remind you that they have this attitude despite the fact that God literally sent the Flood equivalent to destroy their civilization.

They even revere Al-Pharazon despite the fact the dude was a incestuous Satanist because they refuse to acknowledge his "defeat" of Sauron was just the latter playing the Long GameTM.

What's our source for them revering Ar-Pharazôn? I never got that impression. They seem to revere Númenor for what it once was, not for what it became. And they view themselves and their culture as the last legitimate remnant of Númenor.

You are right that the LotR never bothers to actually have the people who must know who and what the Istari are treat or talk about them in a proper manner, but I think that's part of the problem when you turn the funny wizard from a children's book into an literal angel of the lord in the sequel to the children's book.

I'd also say that Pharazôn actually defeated Sauron. He had the upper hand. Of course, Sauron yielded before there were big battles Sauron could only have lost, but that's still a defeat. Sauron could turn his disadvantage into an advantage when Pharazôn decided to take him to Númenor rather than, you know, just execute him. If Elendil and Gil-galad could kill Sauron, so could have Pharazôn and his soldiers. Even more so considering the fact that the Númenórean kings seem to have had more powerful magical weapons than Elendil. The Kings of Númenor wielded Aranrúth, the sword of Thingol, after all.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

In simple terms, Denethor believes that he has no reason to listen to Gandalf as a moral authority superior to him because he is the ruler of Gondor and wizards are not people who are to be given any special regard. The funny thing is he's not WRONG. The Istari are impressive beings and very wise but they are corruptible, far from omniscient, and pursuing agendas that aren't always beneficial to their parties involved. Faramir has the attitude of jumping when Gandalf asks him too and that is a good thing to do but Denethor is mostly right about his agenda: he is going to attempt to replace the House of Stewards. Denethor has also done about as good a job as any person could have done.

Denethor doesn't really understand his job, nor that the heir of Isildur is destined to play a larger role than the stewards in the final defeat of Sauron. He should have realized that. Everybody else did. Denethor himself knew he could never be king himself, but he refused to accept that there was a rightful king out there, a man very much his superior.

And in the very end Denethor basically does the same kind of blasphemy as Melkor-Morgoth if you interpret him as a nihilist. Denethor demands that everything either goes his way or everything goes to hell. If you think about Gandalf's last question to Denethor in religious terms you have an angel of the lord giving a sinner a last chance to repent and do the right thing and he willingly and deliberately chooses damnation.

In a sense, Denethor is more a descendant of Ar-Pharazôn and the evil kings than of Elendil and the Faithful. They, too, thought they were entitled to more than Eru and the Valar granted them, and that led to their downfall.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I disagree with the idea that Gandalf is primarily dictating the military policy of the armies as well or that Aragorn's military genius is not what saves the day. Gandalf isn't the man who leads the Naval relief of Gondor with the added benefit of ghosts. That's all on Aragorn who, weirdly, is probably a better Admiral than general but, well, victory is what matters not how you get it.

Gandalf is the chosen leader of the Western alliance against Sauron after the Pelennor. Aragorn just continues to command the contingent of his rangers. And Aragorn isn't a military genius, he just makes the best of the intel his crystal ball gave him. You don't have to be a genius to realize that somebody has to stop the corsairs after you find out what they are planning to do.

Aragorn certainly plays a considerable role in the victory on the Pelennor Fields. But that wasn't a decisive victory, nor was Aragorn the only crucial player there on the side of the good guys. After the Denethor crisis is resolved, Gandalf realizes he is no longer needed on the battlefield ... but do we really believe Mordor could have won without the Witch-king if Gandalf had decided to unleash his full power on the battlefield?

One assumes he would have done that if Aragorn and his forces hadn't shown up ... or had been delayed.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Denethor's issue is his pigheadedness, yes, but there's not actually that much that Gandalf can bring to the table as the entirety of the plan is, "Delay and distract Sauron in hopes the Ring is destroyed because otherwise we are boned."

It is a little bit more than that, and Denethor should have realized that. Gandalf makes it perfectly clear to educated folks who and what he is when he talks to Denethor. He seems to phrase it in a manner that Pippin wouldn't understand that he was literally god's messenger, but how else can you interpret a paragraph like this?

Quote

‘Unless the king should come again?’ said Gandalf. ‘Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this: the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?’

Gandalf is Eru Ilúvatar's steward in Middle-earth at this point.

[C.T. Phipps]

Frankly, I feel that dramatically overstates the acts of Denethor who was a father suffering great grief driven to suicide to compare him to a literal Satan worshiper who invaded Heaven.

[Clueless Northman]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Gandalf is Eru Ilúvatar's steward in Middle-earth at this point.

We know this because of the other writings, outside LOTR proper. It's not that obvious in the book - Appendices excepted of course. I merely read the novel and not the appencides, and it's only when browsing Unfinished Tales (before diving into the Silm) that I learned of Gandalf's true nature.

In Middle-Earth, Cirdan knew at once who they were because he lived right where they landed. Other than that, the White Council knew, and eventually Aragorn. But considering the Istari's mission, they weren't supposed to talk about it to every people they met. Heck, considering the limitations that were put upon them, I think even the Istari themselves had fuzzy memories of some of their Maia life and of their true nature. Bottom-line: what actually would prove that Arvedui or Denethor had any idea of who Gandalf actually was? One could easily consider the wizards to be powerful cranky crazy old humans. Them being Maiar wasn't common knowledge at all - Sauron probably felt it soon enough, but lesser beings wouldn't have a clue.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Frankly, I feel that dramatically overstates the acts of Denethor who was a father suffering great grief driven to suicide to compare him to a literal Satan worshiper who invaded Heaven.

Of course there is a massive difference in degree, but at the core we are talking about the same concept: my way or the highway. Melkor's highway are his attempts to twist and destroy creation itself, Denethor's highway is suicide.

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

We know this because of the other writings, outside LOTR proper. It's not that obvious in the book - Appendices excepted of course. I merely read the novel and not the appencides, and it's only when browsing Unfinished Tales (before diving into the Silm) that I learned of Gandalf's true nature.

That is quite correct, and on a meta-level I usually argue that Tolkien completely failed to establish that Gandalf the White was actually Eru's messenger and instrument because that is not something even the attentive and invested reader can draw from Gandalf's brief story of his death and resurrection. If you careful read the novel and the appendices you might, perhaps, conclude that Gandalf was sent back by the Elder King - as some folks writing letters to Tolkien did - but the idea that god himself did that isn't something you can figure out. Eru is barely mentioned in LotR save for one opaque reference in the appendices unless I'm misremembering.

Gandalf's true nature as some kind of immortal supernatural being akin to Sauron is part of the LotR appendices, though.

1 hour ago, Clueless Northman said:

In Middle-Earth, Cirdan knew at once who they were because he lived right where they landed. Other than that, the White Council knew, and eventually Aragorn. But considering the Istari's mission, they weren't supposed to talk about it to every people they met. Heck, considering the limitations that were put upon them, I think even the Istari themselves had fuzzy memories of some of their Maia life and of their true nature. Bottom-line: what actually would prove that Arvedui or Denethor had any idea of who Gandalf actually was? One could easily consider the wizards to be powerful cranky crazy old humans. Them being Maiar wasn't common knowledge at all - Sauron probably felt it soon enough, but lesser beings wouldn't have a clue.

Denethor definitely must have known what kind of being Gandalf was. He must have known that he wasn't an elf, and men do not exactly live more that 2,000 years. The perceptive Númenóreans must have figured out what the Istari were a long time ago. That is something both the kings of Gondor and the kings of Arthedain must have known.

They wouldn't have necessarily known when they came nor the details of their mission, but that isn't necessary to figure out that a being pretending to be an old man isn't *actually* an old man.

And, yes, it is clear that the previous life of the Istari back in Aman was something they didn't really remember all that well. They were angels incarnated in old human bodies who had to deal and experiences the frailties of human life. That, presumably, is why Gandalf knows fear, gets cranky at times, etc. even after his return as Gandalf the White.

This is also the only explanation we have for Saruman becoming as stupid as he became, doing the things he did. Still, though, it is very hard to swallow that Saruman mocks the elves and Gandalf for returning/going to Valinor - it is his original home, too, after all, and even if he has only the faintest recollection of his time in Valinor he must still remember that he arrived at Mithlond in a ship from the West.

With Denethor we have also to assume that he knew about Gandalf's fall and his subsequent return. He prides himself that he is so omniscient so he must have had knowledge about that, too. And considering he knew Gandalf the Grey he must also have understood that Gandalf the White was a different kind of animal there.

I didn't say that Denethor must have correctly figured out whose steward Gandalf was ... but even if he only realized that Gandalf was the steward of the Elder King Manwe this should have given him pause. I mean, Gandalf is basically dropping a bomb there. He basically tells him 'You, mortal man, might care for this Gondor of yours, but I, Gandalf the White, care for Middle-earth itself, and I'm acting as the steward of the highest authority. Cross me at your own peril.'