Tolkien general thread

[Briananderson1138]

Well actually, if Orcs look like savage Mongol hordes, then elves should look like really hot Asian people, but that would make Aragorn look like a libertarian.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Above all else, Peter Jackson's fantastic piece of cinema holds true to the core moral concepts of Tolkien's story, and for that alone the trilogy should be considered worthwhile.

Jackson spent a ton of effort and time on the movies, and he should be praised for that. He went nuts on details that could easily have been dismissed (Edoras took 11 months to build for 8 days of filming).

The main pushback was seeing how good they were (book fans were absolutely sure it was going to be so bad that the Rings of Power would look good, mind you) that the relatively few missteps shown so much brighter.

It still stands up 20 years later.

 

[Hugbox Kommissar]

The main pushback was seeing how good they were (book fans were absolutely sure it was going to be so bad that the Rings of Power would look good, mind you) that the relatively few missteps shown so much brighter.

It still stands up 20 years later.

Absolutely. The fact that they were able to translate Tolkien's ideas and themes to film so well is what makes the clunky parts stand out. If it's all shit then the scenes like Legolas shield surfing or Frodo sending Sam away at Cirith Ungol wouldn't even register.

 

[Slap47]

From TheTolkienist

I am pretty sure this is literally just an in-joke rather than an advertisement for orgies.

 

[skykiii]

Jackson spent a ton of effort and time on the movies, and he should be praised for that. He went nuts on details that could easily have been dismissed (Edoras took 11 months to build for 8 days of filming).

The main pushback was seeing how good they were (book fans were absolutely sure it was going to be so bad that the Rings of Power would look good, mind you) that the relatively few missteps shown so much brighter.

It still stands up 20 years later.

Yeah I'm gonna be honest, I spent years hating these movies and thinking they basically made Tolkien a joke.

Nowadays though, the worst thing I can say about them is that they have some silly bits and that their existence led to everything else that shits on Tolken--things like Rings of Power or the Gollum game.

If it had been able to stop at just three movies (heck, possibly six movies, as a part of me actually kind of enjoys the Hobbit trilogy in a "so bad they're good" way) I would not be bitching now.

 

[Felis Meanis]

“Come, Mr. Frodo!' he cried. 'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you.”

Strawberries and cream is an awesome combination, by the way.

At any rate, this is just one of the many dialogues of The Lord of the Rings that has profound meaning in its ostensible "simple" nature.
Samwise Gamgee knows he's not up to the task of carrying the One Ring — that he's not destined for that particular mission — but he knows what he can carry: his fellow man, i.e. Frodo.
For all the complaints of how "simple" and "straightforward" the story of The Lord of the Rings supposedly is, and of how superficial its characters apparently are, moments like this in the story belies its complexity, and the underlying spirit of our fellow man.

 

[AeroGavin Rossdale]

For all the complaints of how "simple" and "straightforward" the story of The Lord of the Rings supposedly is, and of how superficial its characters apparently are, moments like this in the story belies its complexity, and the underlying spirit of our fellow man.

Sam's devotion to Frodo (and the steadfastness of the hobbits in general) being inspired by the appreciation and love Tolkien felt for the bat boys and enlisted Tommies under him during the war never fails to get to me. Tolkien saw the absolute worst of humanity at the Somme and somehow turned it into a story of love and hope while never shying away from the horror of war. It's an amazing testament to his character.

 

[Pokemon Conquistador]

I've found an interesting channel by a Tolkien enthusiast who recreated the settings of LOTR using Tolkien's original drawings:

https://www.youtube.com/@PlacesofMiddleEarth/videos

It's odd. When you think of High Fantasy, you think of fabulous flights of fancy, architecture too wondrous to be made by human hands. But Tolkien thought of his settings as being very grounded in the real world. His version of Minas Morgul doesn't look like Satan's summer home, like it does in the Jackson movies. It simply looks like a crumbling old fort, more ominous due to its isolation, embodiment of decay, and silence.

 

[Cat Funt]

I'm re-reading LOTR for the 3rd time, last time was like 20 years ago, and I had no idea how based Tolkien was. In the first chapter somebody says they don't like queer folk from Buckland (I think several times they say they don't like queer folk.), later on they throw some faggots on the fire, and at the Prancing Pony Butterbur says he'll bar the windows to keep the black people out. Currently @ Weathertop. What a great book.

 

[Yak-130 Mitten]

I'm re-reading LOTR for the 3rd time, last time was like 20 years ago, and I had no idea how based Tolkien was. In the first chapter somebody says they don't like queer folk from Buckland (I think several times they say they don't like queer folk.), later on they throw some faggots on the fire, and at the Prancing Pony Butterbur says he'll bar the windows to keep the black people out. Currently @ Weathertop. What a great book.

Queer meant something else in 1930s than it does now.

 

[Cat Funt]

Queer meant something else in 1930s than it does now.

Yep. Still did in the 50's when JRR T. wrote it. But it has aged well.

 

[Desu Mountain]

Queer meant something else in 1930s than it does now.

If libshits can re-define the past, so can we, so now Hobbits hate queers, and burn faggots, and they bar windows to keep niggers out.

 

[skykiii]

I'm re-reading the Silmarillion now.

I always have a problem with the earlier chapters where it focuses on the various gods and demigods, mostly because... I don't know if they're "abstract" or what but a part of my mind keeps wondering "how does that work?"

Like if the Valar are essentially immortal, then how can Melkor be weakened or defeated in a fight? And what's the scale of these battles? Are they supposed to be giants, or human sized, or is it like mountains and oceans coming to life and clashing against each other?

This leads to one thing I keep meaning to do but somehow never have the time or the money... apparently in the last "History of Middle-earth" books there's an alternative version of the Silmarillion, which was based on later drafts (and thus is probably what the published Silmarillion should have been). I'm wondering if it makes more sense of this stuff.

 

[Another Random]

Morgoth was defeated because he was evil.

More specifically, Morgoth kept on using his own essence to 'cast magic', in order to take over Arda. He was spreading it all over everything, but it came with the cost of making him increasingly weaker, to the point where a mere mortal [compared to him] could just stab him and he wouldn't heal. And he was only driven to do such a self-destructive action because he was evil.

So yeah, he was defeated because he was evil.

 

[draggs]

Like if the Valar are essentially immortal, then how can Melkor be weakened or defeated in a fight?

Immortal isn't the same as limitless power or invulnerable. What @Another Random said

And what's the scale of these battles? Are they supposed to be giants, or human sized, or is it like mountains and oceans coming to life and clashing against each other?

All of the above from what is said in the Silmarillion

 

[MerriedxReldnahc]

Gàidhlig Hobbit translation just dropped, math fucking fhèiiiiiiin

https://www.evertype.com/books/hobbit-gd.html

Tolkien apparently wasn't big on Irish Gaelic, and called it "mushy", he probably felt the same about Gàidhlig and its occasional mouthful-of-peanut butter noises, lol

 

[skykiii]

I'm re-reading LOTR for the 3rd time, last time was like 20 years ago, and I had no idea how based Tolkien was. In the first chapter somebody says they don't like queer folk from Buckland (I think several times they say they don't like queer folk.), later on they throw some faggots on the fire, and at the Prancing Pony Butterbur says he'll bar the windows to keep the black people out. Currently @ Weathertop. What a great book.

Gonna be honest, I really have a distaste for Tolkien being pulled into the modern culture war nonsense. It's hard to explain but the best I can do is imagine you had a sapling from one of the Two Trees of Valinor and the discussion about whether or not to plant it was "well this might encourage MAGAts." Like, something like that should just be a thing separate from, and above, our modern day retard politics.

Immortal isn't the same as limitless power or invulnerable. What @Another Random said

All of the above from what is said in the Silmarillion

It's just hard to wrap my mind around, but I guess this works. Again I wonder if it would make more sense after reading the last two or three History of Middle-earth books, as part of me has always wondered if the reason the early chapters are kind of confusing is because they weren't finalized by JRR but rather by his son Christopher with assistance from Guy Gavriel Kay, and maybe they didn't quite "get" it either.

(Although, if I read the Silmarillion as basically "the Bible for Elves," maybe I could headcanon that it was constructed from various ancient traditions like the actual Bible was, which is the usual explanation for the weirdness in parts of that book).

Still, this kind of stuff is also what makes the Silmarillion fascinating reading. I'm sad stuff like this isn't made anymore.

 

[Farmholio]

Morgoth was defeated because he was evil.

More specifically, Morgoth kept on using his own essence to 'cast magic', in order to take over Arda. He was spreading it all over everything, but it came with the cost of making him increasingly weaker, to the point where a mere mortal [compared to him] could just stab him and he wouldn't heal. And he was only driven to do such a self-destructive action because he was evil.

So yeah, he was defeated because he was evil.

Morgoth's corruption of the world is metaphorical for the evil that is present in every facet of creation. It is stated plainly in the text that not a single part of creation still persists in its original form as imagined and intended by the appointed powers. Every single thing in existence is invested with some measure of Morgoth's evil, which as you say by his nature he was driven to spread outwards into everything he saw in order to control it or at least ruin it for everyone else.

As the world's personification of evil, Morgoth is the author of all the problems that have ever happened since the beginning of time. He is always defeated because he is an adversary created for the purpose of challenging and ultimately glorifying the goodness of creation, as alluded to in the Ainulindalë. There is nothing Morgoth ever did, no matter how hateful and vile, and no matter how cunning, that did not ultimately originate in the imagination of Iluvatar, the Creator.

Morgoth is stronger than any other force in the world, which is meant to symbolize the fact that evil must be fought but can never be entirely obliterated, and never by sheer force but only by faith. It also goes to teach the lesson that the virtues of goodness don't include raw power, and that the righteous path isn't righteous because it is practical, but because it is right.

Morgoth is never wholly destroyed (at least not until the very ending of the world) because to destroy evil is to render the beautiful struggle of life meaningless. The existence of evil, and by this term I mean all forms of sin, suffering, and strife, which Morgoth personifies, serves to elucidate forms of good that could not otherwise be conceived of or would otherwise be impossible. This is evoked as a theme repeatedly throughout the entire Silmarillion and also the Lord of the Rings. The way I interpret the text, evil serves an important irreplaceable purpose in the divine beauty of the world. This is the paradox of evil from a Christian perspective, and I'm sure it's how Tolkien saw the world. Evil is not a bug, it's a feature.

Very often Morgoth, and later his lieutenant Sauron, are referred to as the Enemy. Satan means Adversary. This is not a coincidence. One must always combat evil with the understanding that by doing so you can never restore the world to what you would consider to be a state of perfection. The imperfection of the world is a part of the divine plan, and creation is more glorious for its imperfection, not less so. The truest heroes of the Lord of the Rings legendarium always fight evil while maintaining a state of submissiveness to a greater power, and no ambition to go beyond their station. The servants of the Enemy are always beguiled by the promise that they will avail themselves of an opportunity to dominate some aspect of creation, bend it to their whims, and often even with what seems to be a good intention in their heart. To do this is to usurp the authority that lies only with Iluvatar. And fate (the hand of God) always proves this promise to be a lie.

That's my way of looking at Morgoth anyway. Even though the old man expressly denounced allegory as a literary device, I still think he laid plenty of (largely Christian) moral lessons and themes from his own philosophy beneath the surface of the text, whether intentionally or not. He clearly put a lot of thought into the problem of evil. I also know he liked to think of Creation as a story, and that writing fiction was something of a mimicry of God without intent of mockery. Every story needs conflict, and a story with none is no story at all.

 

[skykiii]

Even though the old man expressly denounced allegory as a literary device,

I recently saw a video about this:

She essentially argues that a lot of Tolkien's statements tend to be misunderstood due to us not having (or having forgotten) the context in which they were made, and that Tolkien made lots of statements about allegory. His major statement from the LOTR forward may have been just him being sick of people saying LOTR is an allegory for World War II.

Jess of the Shire also points out though, that the reason that reading may have been so popular was as an easy way to give the book credibility in a time where people were still swimming uphill against a cultural "fantasy is just mindless slop" notion.

 

[mindlessobserver]

What Tolkien meant by Allegory was that he was not writing an allegory about current events or past events. Sauron was not Hitler, the Fellowship of the Rings were not the Allied powers and the Eagles were not a representation of America swooping in at the last second in the World Wars. He was writing something more fundamental that transcended history and spoke to larger meta themes of humanity, creation and God.