Tolkien general thread

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

I think part of Tolkien's defense of LotR as not allegory was in part, to contrast it with the work his his good friend. The Chronicles of Narnia, while good in their own right, are just a different beast compared to The Lord of the Rings. Given their friendship, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a way to separate the easy comparisons and to not have to address the Catholic roots in his mythos.

Sometimes mysteries are good, even in a fictional universe.

 

[Zorgulon]

Anyone else play LOTR Return to Moria?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

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?"

It's a legendarium that draws on Catholic thought and norse mythology (especially the long defeat). It's actually quite "video-game" in a way, because the angels/whatever keep dying and being "sent back" or waiting in Valinor, etc, etc. Once you take the idea that a rational soul can't be destroyed (from Plato, say) then remove the material and make the dividing line more fluid, it can come together.

My problem is always keeping the names straight, and who is who.

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.

Tolkien didn't like people saying LOTR was an allegory, something that even Lewis was wont to do (his books around the time are straight-up just allegory). Tolkien didn't HATE allegory, he just thought it a bit heavy handed, and not the best form of literary art.

I think part of Tolkien's defense of LotR as not allegory was in part, to contrast it with the work his his good friend.

Tolkien was writing something "deeper" than allegory, and was a bit annoyed that reviewers kept calling it such. It was dismissive, he felt.

He had no problem writing allegory (something Lewis jokingly said, "you don't like it because you can't write it") - check out Leaf by Niggle. It's a powerful allegory, and sets out to be such. It's also quite relevant to Tolkien and his legendarium, clearly.

And read On Fairy Stories for more of a philosophical look at fiction of the type Tolkien wrote.

 

[skykiii]

Anyone else play LOTR Return to Moria?

Never heard of it.

......

So another thing about Silmarillion that amuses me is this: Morgoth is described as having armies of balrogs, who the elves and even humans of the time apparently do fight and defeat. So like... Gandalf, you need to explain yourself and your statement that the people in the Fellowship couldn't help you.

(Actually, I say that, but its perfectly obvious what the problem is: the fight was on a narrow bridge and thus forced to be mano-a-mano. The elves and men of the First Age likely weren't fighting under such a handicap. Still I couldn't help thinking of this Spoony skit).

EDIT: Also Sauron has many titles... including Lord ofWerewolves! I had a chuckle at that, and found myself wondering in that case why he never used werewolves later on. Maybe he lost that power by the Third Age. Or maybe "Werewolf" means something different in Middle-earth.

 

[Zorgulon]

https://www.returntomoria.com/

Highly recommend it for any Tolkien fan!

 

[Farmholio]

So another thing about Silmarillion that amuses me is this: Morgoth is described as having armies of balrogs, who the elves and even humans of the time apparently do fight and defeat. So like... Gandalf, you need to explain yourself and your statement that the people in the Fellowship couldn't help you.

(Actually, I say that, but its perfectly obvious what the problem is: the fight was on a narrow bridge and thus forced to be mano-a-mano. The elves and men of the First Age likely weren't fighting under such a handicap. Still I couldn't help thinking of this Spoony skit).

EDIT: Also Sauron has many titles... including Lord ofWerewolves! I had a chuckle at that, and found myself wondering in that case why he never used werewolves later on. Maybe he lost that power by the Third Age. Or maybe "Werewolf" means something different in Middle-earth.

Also generally speaking everyone including elves, men, and the servants of the Enemy, were stronger in body and spirit in the earlier times. Aragorn is not really a peer in ability to his forefathers before the sinking of Westernesse. Furthermore it's doubtful all balrogs are equal in might. Perhaps this last evil dwelling beneath Moria was one of the stronger ones. Furtherfurthermore, it could simply be that Gandalf was protecting the others, knowing that some of them may die fighting such a creature, and also knowing they would be all too willing to do so. The last thing Gandalf would want is for Aragorn to fall at this stage of the Quest, before he's been tested and before he's returned to Minas Tirith and contended with the task of his birthright.

Sauron was indeed known as a shapeshifter and liked to take the shape of a werewolf, among many other things. The race of werewolves that Sauron commanded (presumably bred under the direction of Morgoth) probably evolved into the wargs we see in LOTR. Similar to how Shelob and other giant spiders are descended from Ungoliant. Like all wicked things, the wargs are subject to the will of Sauron to some degree, although he may not directly control all his minions at any one time. He mostly commands the way his master did: through fear. Although the wargs that attacked the Rohirrim were under the command of the White Hand, I think we can assume Sauron's ranks probably contained some warg riders, even if they weren't mentioned specifically. Who's to say whom the wargs served before they became attached to Saruman? Before Saruman there was only one dark lord in Middle Earth.

 

[Desu Mountain]

So another thing about Silmarillion that amuses me is this: Morgoth is described as having armies of balrogs,

Not really. You're thinking of The Book of Lost Tales. The Silmarillion is rather vague about the number of dragons and balrogs attacking Gondolin, only saying that there were balrogs riding on the backs of dragons. The Fall of Gondolin section of the Silmarillion is a very abridged version of the story, probably because Tolkien did not have time to modernize it and adapt it to the Lord of the Rings canon before he died and thus Christopher had to gut it to make it fit into the published Silmarillion.

 

[skykiii]

Not really. You're thinking of The Book of Lost Tales.

Impossible, I've never read Book of Lost Tales.

Gondolin is also not the only chapter that mentions Morgoth having lots of balrogs. "Of the Coming of Men Into the West" and "The Ruin of Beleriand" (I think that's what the chapter was called) both bring it up as well.

 

[McMitch]

So another thing about Silmarillion that amuses me is this: Morgoth is described as having armies of balrogs, who the elves and even humans of the time apparently do fight and defeat. So like... Gandalf, you need to explain yourself and your statement that the people in the Fellowship couldn't help you.

(Actually, I say that, but its perfectly obvious what the problem is: the fight was on a narrow bridge and thus forced to be mano-a-mano. The elves and men of the First Age likely weren't fighting under such a handicap. Still I couldn't help thinking of this Spoony skit).

The armies of Balrogs were definitely from Forgotten Tales, and Tolkien was pretty adamant later on that there were fewer than ten Balrogs ever. The reason Gandalf struggled so much against Durin's Bane (as the bridge being narrow worked in the Fellowship's favor) was that Balrogs were Maiar, just like Gandalf and Sauron, making them beings of the same order of power as the latter two. Gandalf was even under a handicap, as his full strength was limited by the charge of his mission in Middle Earth, a restriction not placed on Sauron or the Balrogs.

EDIT: Also Sauron has many titles... including Lord ofWerewolves! I had a chuckle at that, and found myself wondering in that case why he never used werewolves later on. Maybe he lost that power by the Third Age. Or maybe "Werewolf" means something different in Middle-earth.

Sauron was indeed known as a shapeshifter and liked to take the shape of a werewolf, among many other things.

Sauron lost his ability to shapeshift after losing his war with the Elves and Numenoreans.

 

[skykiii]

Sauron lost his ability to shapeshift after losing his war with the Elves and Numenoreans.

Ummm... he didn't "lose" to Numenor. Illuvatar freaking nuked Numenor because Sauron had corrupted it so badly.

 

[Desu Mountain]

Ummm... he didn't "lose" to Numenor. Illuvatar freaking nuked Numenor because Sauron had corrupted it so badly.

Well, he did first lose to them and get captured. The corruption occurred during his captivity.

 

[McMitch]

Ummm... he didn't "lose" to Numenor. Illuvatar freaking nuked Numenor because Sauron had corrupted it so badly.

It still counts as losing the war.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

I have seen people accuse him and Lewis of being misogynist. Tbh I'm really only looking at it from a "of the time" perspective. But then you have Galadriel and Eowyn and (film!Arwen). We do not speak of the abomination that is The Hobbit.

Also one of the main villains in Narnia is female so.....how....I fail to see how they are misogynist.

Iirc wasn't Tolkien a @Friend of Dorothy Parker too?

 

[skykiii]

I have seen people accuse him and Lewis of being misogynist. Tbh I'm really only looking at it from a "of the time" perspective. But then you have Galadriel and Eowyn and (film!Arwen). We do not speak of the abomination that is The Hobbit.

Also one of the main villains in Narnia is female so.....how....I fail to see how they are misogynist.

Iirc wasn't Tolkien a @Friend of Dorothy Parker too?

People who accuse Tolkien of being a misogynist are just stupid, worse than brain-damaged dogs. A lot of that is coming from just that Lord of the Rings doesn't have a lot of notable women... but LOTR is one book. Silmarillion is chock-full of important women.

Saying Tolkien hated women is like saying Popeye hates spinach.

 

[Farmholio]

Just because there were no women in the Fellowship of the Ring (a party of characters that existed for one half of one third of the story) doesn't mean there are no important female characters. Eowyn and Galadriel are of immense importance, not to mention ability. Tolkien consistently portrays women to be important but also as equally capable as men, even in traditionally masculine matters such as war and leadership. It's to the point that chuddites would rather accuse him of being a simp, not a misogynist. I wouldn't say anyone calling LOTR misogynist is stupid... It would be more accurate to say anyone discerning misogyny in the works of Tolkien is suffering from hallucinations. Or, as usual, they're lying to act as a political agitator. There is literally no good faith basis to assess any degree of misogyny in the text. You could only make the much softer accusation that it perhaps tacitly endorses what modern feminists consider to be oppressive cultural norms about sex roles in society. And that also requires a lot of contortion. You'd really have to be a radical to get any mileage out of that.

Put plain and simple, neither Tolkien nor his works hold women to be inferior in any way whatsoever.

 

[skykiii]

Put plain and simple, neither Tolkien nor his works hold women to be inferior in any way whatsoever.

Hell, the tale of Beren and Luthien (at least the Silmarillion's version of it, I can't speak to the separately-published version) is borderline female empowerment with how Luthien does most of the heavy lifting--effectively rescuing herself from house arrest, taking down Sauron in order to save Beren from Sauron's dungeons, and then putting Morgoth under a sleep spell so that Beren can retrieve one of the Silmarils.

And then earlier in the book we have Thingol and Melian, with Melian's power being the thing that prevents Thingol's kingdom from being invaded.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

"Tolkien is misogynistic" usually stems from a superficial reading of the LotR and saying "why is Arwen just a prize" and somehow ignoring everything else that happens in the story.

The Hobbit simply doesn't have many characters at all, and so you could more possibly label it; but a misogynist would excel at writing something that makes you hate women (and agree with him).

Nowadays you could probably get him labelled such because he clearly believes women and men have different roles and are different - which is heresy. Eowyn's whole tragic story is a continued tale of being denied what she wants, and what would be a woman's role, and then denied even that glory. But even in the story it's obvious that everyone, even Aragon, has great respect for her and her actions.

But if you want to talk it in depth - Celeborn is basically a nonentity in his own land, having few lines and little part to play in the story.

The proof that Tolkien isn't a misogynist isn't found in Beren and Luthien - it's found in Rosie Cotton, who bosses around his self-insert - Sam.

 

[skykiii]

"Tolkien is misogynistic" usually stems from a superficial reading of the LotR and saying "why is Arwen just a prize" and somehow ignoring everything else that happens in the story.

I've always had another theory: much like the "Lovecraft is racist" statements (although those at least have a degree of truth), what's actually going on is that lesser authors and artists know they can't compete with Tolkien in terms of sheer quality, so they instead try to attack him from another angle.

The whole idea is convince large swathes of the population they will be infected with wrongthink for reading the guy. And now that those parts of the population have no basis for comparison, the critic's own shitty fanfic-tier story will seem like a glorious achievement.

Its the same as when people go after anime for misogyny or whatever, then turn around and astroturf western-made equivalents that are nowhere near as good, but are now all you've got because you've cut yourself off from the more satisfying alternative.

 

[Hugbox Kommissar]

"Tolkien is misogynistic" usually stems from a superficial reading of the LotR and saying "why is Arwen just a prize" and somehow ignoring everything else that happens in the story.

The Hobbit simply doesn't have many characters at all, and so you could more possibly label it; but a misogynist would excel at writing something that makes you hate women (and agree with him).

Nowadays you could probably get him labelled such because he clearly believes women and men have different roles and are different - which is heresy. Eowyn's whole tragic story is a continued tale of being denied what she wants, and what would be a woman's role, and then denied even that glory. But even in the story it's obvious that everyone, even Aragon, has great respect for her and her actions.

But if you want to talk it in depth - Celeborn is basically a nonentity in his own land, having few lines and little part to play in the story.

The proof that Tolkien isn't a misogynist isn't found in Beren and Luthien - it's found in Rosie Cotton, who bosses around his self-insert - Sam.

Tolkien isn't a misogynist because of Arwen and Eowyn, he's a misogynist because the Chaddest race in Middle Earth keep their women  barefoot bearded and pregnant in the kitchen and don't let them go out on adventures.

 

[Farmholio]

Tolkien isn't a misogynist because of Arwen and Eowyn, he's a misogynist because the Chaddest race in Middle Earth keep their women  barefoot bearded and pregnant in the kitchen and don't let them go out on adventures.