#I think that was actually Tolkien speaking

[maul-of-shame]

Elrondriel/Galrond Theory time Again:

Okay hear me out-

*Puts on Clown wig and makeup*

I'm kinda sure they won't bring back Celeborn and Celebrian. Sure this pseud meta may be far-fetched, like Mordor level of far-fetched but hey-

Nothing in LOTR is accidental.

You don't have to read my post to see that some baby steps (and giant ones) towards the Elrond/Galadriel storyline/ship (proposal shots, the white dress, the kiss, everything) have been made but I found something interesting.

Elrond gets his scar following a fight, because of who, generally speaking? Sauron's mess.

I give you the dad:

Gal gets her scar following what? Fight with Sauron again. I give you the mom:

Arwen gets her scars how? Bringing Frodo to her dad and escaping Nazgûls aka Sauron's forces. And I give you the daughter:

I have this theory about Rings of Power and the absence of Celeborn and Celebrian that’s been brewing in my head for a while, and it’s not something I think is a random choice.

In fact, I think it’s a deliberate creative decision by the showrunners that legit shows the direction they’re taking with the series.

I mean come on, have you watched the series????

And those are just a FRACTION of what happens in the series.

For one, the timeline has been so heavily built on in the show that it would be a huge stretch to change or introduce Celeborn and Celebrian in a way that would feel natural. TROP showrunners could’ve easily included these characters, but instead, they chose to introduce original characters in place of them.

And honestly, that says everything to me.

They could have stayed strictly faithful to the established timeline, but instead, they’ve taken a more fluid approach—one where certain details from the books, like Celeborn’s involvement or Celebrian’s story, can be set aside or reimagined.

Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I actually think it’s a smart move.

By not including Celeborn and Celebrian, the show has the chance to give Galadriel and Elrond more space to evolve as characters.

I genuinely thing, they could become parents to Arwen. There’s something about the bond between Galadriel and Elrond that just makes more sense at the center of this narrative. They’re both so tied to the ancient history of Middle-earth, but by not introducing Celeborn, the focus can remain squarely on them. Their relationship, their shared history, their struggles—they can be explored in a way that feels organic without getting bogged down by a third, potentially distracting character.

We know how important Celeborn and Celebrian are in Tolkien’s canon, especially with the tragic story of Celebrian’s capture and her eventual departure. But in Rings of Power, it feels like the timeline has already been set up in a way where they can’t be fully integrated without changing so much. The show is choosing to prioritize Galadriel and Elrond’s relationship instead of trying to fit them in, and I think that makes total sense. It’s not that they won’t ever be mentioned or referenced, but bringing them in as major players would complicate things. And if you ask me, that would take away from the deeper exploration of Galadriel’s fierce independence and Elrond’s more reserved wisdom.

This isn’t just a random decision—ROP has crafted a version of Middle-earth where the focus shifts to these two characters. They’ve clearly built the story around their dynamic, and I think it's intentional that the show has chosen to lean into that rather than risk complicating it with other characters.

Plus, by making this choice, they give themselves more creative freedom to explore the themes and relationships in their own way, without having to tie everything strictly to the old timeline.

In the end, I don’t think Celeborn and Celebrian’s absence in the story is a missed opportunity or an oversight—it’s part of the larger plan. The timeline’s already been altered, and the show is taking that as a chance to dive deeper into the complexities of Galadriel and Elrond, leaving a lot of space for new stories to emerge.

So while it may seem like a bold move, I believe it’s one that makes perfect sense for the world they’re building.

Galadriel and Elrond just make sense.

Now onto the "Galadriel + Elrond = Arwen":

Imagine, for a moment, the beauty of Rings of Power choosing to make Arwen the daughter of both Galadriel and Elrond.

At first glance, it might seem like a bold move, a break from the established canon of LOTR, but when you really think about it, the possibilities here are deeply poetic and rich with layers of meaning.

We know that Arwen, in the books/movies, is a powerful and tragic figure—torn between her immortal elven heritage and her love for Aragorn, a mortal man. Her choice to give up her immortality for love is one of the defining moments in Tolkien's work. But what if her story is shaped not just by the love of Aragorn, but by the very essence of both her parents—Galadriel and Elrond?

In many ways, these two characters embody the full spectrum of Elven experience. Galadriel represents the fierce independence, the history, the wisdom of a queen who’s seen the rise and fall of ages. Elrond, on the other hand, represents the more measured, diplomatic, and deeply compassionate side of Elvenkind—he is a steward, a guide, a father. Together, they bring a balance of strength, grace, and wisdom, each with their own scars and stories.

Now, if Arwen were their daughter, it would be the ultimate blend of these traits.

From Galadriel, Arwen would inherit that unyielding strength—the drive to protect what she loves, the resilience forged in centuries of hardship. Galadriel’s scars—her battles, her moments of weakness, her journey—would echo in Arwen, giving her a wisdom that stretches far beyond her years, an understanding of the world and the sacrifices it demands. But more than that, Arwen would also inherit Galadriel’s haunting beauty, her ethereal presence, that glimmer of starlight that draws others in. Galadriel’s magic, her connection to the light of the Two Trees, could pass to Arwen as well—imbuing her with a quiet, serene power that could light up even the darkest of places.

Elrond, as her father, would provide her with a different kind of inheritance. He is a figure of compassion and wisdom, a man who has witnessed loss and war, but who chooses the path of healing. His scars—both physical and emotional— brought a depth of understanding that comes only through great sacrifice. Arwen’s relationship with Elrond could be one of profound tenderness, where she sees in him a kindred spirit: someone who understands the burden of responsibility, the weight of having to choose between duty and love but also that both can be linked without having it be a "bad thing".

It would then be no surprise that Arwen’s love for Aragorn mirrors, in some ways, her parents’ own sacrifices and choices, her parents' love.

But it would also show us a more grounded Arwen, one who has inherited not just beauty, but an understanding of the deeper, quieter moments of life.

But beyond their individual traits, think of the dynamic between Galadriel and Elrond as parents—what it would mean for Arwen to be raised by these two. Galadriel, for all her power, is still a figure of mystery and distance in the movies but TROP brought a new version of her. Fierce, protective and compassionate. While Elrond is the steady hand, the one who keeps things together, the fighter, the one who doesn't hide when choices have to be made and so much more.

Together, they would raise a daughter who is both fierce and compassionate, wise and empathetic, someone who carries the weight of two worlds on her shoulders.

There’s a beauty in this new interpretation of Arwen that is more than just a daughter caught between two powerful legacies. Arwen as the daughter of both Galadriel and Elrond could be the perfect synthesis of their traits. She would carry the fire of Galadriel’s unyielding spirit, but also the quiet wisdom of Elrond’s patient heart.

This Arwen would be someone who embodies both strength and vulnerability, a child of two worlds that are changing, just as she is.

And I think that’s what makes the idea so compelling—because in Rings of Power, the showrunners have this unique opportunity to reshape Arwen’s story too, giving her a deeper connection to the lore and the characters we already love, while still honoring what she represents in Tolkien’s world. By making her the daughter of Galadriel and Elrond, they can give Arwen a more profound and intimate backstory, showing us not just the "princess" of Rivendell, but a daughter forged from the union of two of the most important Elves in Middle-earth.

This would make Arwen’s eventual choice to be with Aragorn not just a personal sacrifice, but a truly heroic act—a continuation of the legacy of her parents, who, in their own ways, also had to choose love over duty, kindness and compassion over rage and vengeance. It would be a nod to the greater themes of Lord of the Rings: love, sacrifice, and the passing of time.

It’s not just about the power of Arwen’s love for Aragorn, but about her understanding that sometimes, you must give up the light of immortality/risk your life to protect what you love, just as her parents have done in their own lives.

Oh, and I know I'm just over here joking around like, “Oh, Elrond, Galadriel, and Arwen all have the same scars? They’re definitely related, right?”XD I mean, it’s a funny thought, but also—nothing in Rings of Power is done by pure accident, and I can’t help but think that these details are purposeful. It’s probably just me reading too much into things, but I can’t shake the feeling that the showrunners are laying some groundwork here.

So yeah, just my theory, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more to it than meets the eye.

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

What's the deal with Sauron and Elrond connection in Season 2?

We all know of Sauron’s obsession with Galadriel, but what about how Elrond kept showing up on his plot in Season 2?

First, we have this interaction with Prince Durin in 2x03; where Annatar/Sauron joins Celebrimbor conversation with Durin and Disa, and they are discussing Elrond. And Durin sees right through him.

I assure you, Herald Elrond said he could think of little else. than helping his Dwarven friends. He speaks of you so fondly. […] Elrond said that you were the wisest of all the Dwarves.

Prince Durin being suspicious of Sauron might be a Easter egg for Tolkien nerds, because Mairon was a Maia of Aulë, and betrayed his Vala to join Melkor/Morgoth. The Dwarves are Children of Aulë, created by Aulë himself as companions (I won’t go into the whole tale in here because it’s beside the point). So having one of them being distrusting of Sauron, and seeing right through his deception can be a nod to that.

Anyway, this is not the last time Elrond will show up in connection with Sauron in Season 2. In 2x05, when attempting to manipulate Celebrimbor into making the Nine for Men, Sauron gives a few examples of Men who rose above darkness (and he must have been screaming internally mentioning every one of them):

Yes. You are right. Of course. Men are capable of great frailty. But when the darkness falls, there are always some who rise forth and shine. Eärendil, Tuor, Beren, son of Barahir.

Eärendil is Elrond’s father, and son of Tuor (Elrond’s grandfather who married Elwing, Lúthien and Beren’s granddaughter). Which means, Sauron is going through all of Elrond’s genealogy in this scene.

And then, Adar, in 2x07, mentions Melian; Elrond’s ancestor. We have both Sauron and Adar bringing up Elrond’s ancestry in Season 2.

In fact, the entire “tent scene” with Adar and Elrond in 2x07 is a direct parallel to Adar and Sauron’s scenes, in Mordor, in 2x01:

Both scenes, start with Adar sitting down in a place of power, and getting up to approach Halbrand/Elrond;

Both Elrond/Halbrand-Sauron meet Adar with the same purpose: “let my people/Galadriel go”. Or "yours will die". In 2x01 this is explicit, in 2x07 it’s the subtext;

Adar rubs the might of his war forces and Orc legions on Elrond and Sauron's faces, and how they can’t possible expect to defeat him;

In both scenes, "Sauron" is mentioned in connection with the Elves and Eregion;

In both scenes, Sauron and Elrond use the Orcs lives as leverage against Adar:

In 2x01, Galadriel is mentioned by Sauron, and in 2x07, she’s actually there, and she’s the prisoner (instead of Sauron) and the “my people” Elrond is actually there to free;

Adar is deceived by Sauron and Elrond in both scenes: swearing fealty (2x01); the pin (2x07).

Death threats coming full circle between 2x01 and 2x07, with Sauron and Elrond:

Adar (2x01): You will tell me everything you think you know of this sorcerer now. Or I will spill the words from your throat.

Adar (2x07): The Ring for Galadriel's life. What is it to be? Elrond (2x07): Ask me on the field, when the neck with a blade against it is yours.

What's the backstory?

Back in 1x08, Sauron/Halbrand also spent weeks with Elrond in Eregion, since he was also there the entire time, overseeing the work alongside Galadriel; since this was the task Gil-galad appointed to him.

Elrond is the one who finds Galadriel in the Glanduin river, after she rejects Sauron’s offer and he flees.

And despite Galadriel keeping Halbrand’s true identity under wraps, and not revealing what truly happened, Elrond is the one who puts two and two together, and realizes Halbrand is not the King of the Southlands, and tricked them.

Season 2

However, only in 2x01, Elrond is made aware that Halbrand was, in fact, Sauron, when Galadriel herself reveals it to him and Gil-galad.

And Elrond is furious, because he absolutely trusted Galadriel, and that trust is now broken. Galadriel did allowed the Three rings of power to be forged, even though she knew that Sauron has been at Eregion all along.

Adding this to fact that Galadriel was so obsessed in finding Sauron in Season 1, and even talked about this with Elrond himself in 1x01, when he advises her to return to Valinor and find healing there:

During Season 2, Elrond is also the one who sees right through the rings of power, and understands they might be a ploy on Sauron’s masterplan. And he’s absolutely right. Because we know, from Tolkien legendarium, the Three are connected to Sauron’s power, and become mere pieces of jewelry when the One Ring gets destroyed on the Third Age, losing all of its magical properties. “Rings of Power” build upon this, and had Sauron himself at Eregion, handling the mithril (and probably infusing it with his intention to heal Middle-earth from Morgoth’s corruption, which is his goal).

In Season 2, Elrond is, clearly, Sauron’s greatest opponent in his rings of power plot concerning the Elves. Until he, too, gets deceived, because we know from Tolkien’s letters, these rings are not “wholly good” and the Elves are in the wrong by using them.

Anyway, Elrond not only attempts to have the rings destroyed (wrecking Sauron’s plan), but he also keeps antagonizing Galadriel by her wearing Nenya, perhaps in the hope she might take it off, or see the ring as evil. And Sauron is aware of all of this.

And can this be the reason why Elrond also seems to be on Sauron’s mind? Indeed, but there also might be another reason on top of this.

@love-and-doom shared one of their theories with me, and I think it makes sense, and explains a lot. According to them, Sauron might blame Elrond for his failure in bringing Galadriel to his side in 1x08.

Galadriel herself confessed to Celebrimbor, in 2x07, that she wanted to take Sauron’s offer and that she wanted what he offered her (be Queen of Middle-earth with Sauron as her king). And, maybe, had not Elrond show up, Sauron might have succeeded. What this theory implies is that Sauron show Galadriel the vision of her drowning in the Sundering Seas (the moment when he saved her), but we don’t know how this vision was supposed to end from Sauron POV because Elrond shows up and Sauron has to flee.

Sauron clearly has the background check on Elrond (as we’ve seen in 2x05), and is aware he is a thorn on his side. This might also be another Easter egg because of Sauron vs. Melian during the First Age; and not only Melian herself but Melian’s daughter (Lúthien), too, who was responsible for Sauron’s greatest and most spectacular defeat.

Then, we also have other parallels between these two characters:

Sauron and Elrond in connection with white horses:

Sauron's illusion in 2x06:

Elrond mourns his horse, 2x07:

Elrond and Sauron (+ Galadriel) with the same face wound (Elrond in 2x07; and Sauron and Galadriel in 2x08):

I saw several fans making the comparison of these wounds with Arwen’s in “Fellowship of the Ring”, because it’s on the same side and very similar, indeed.

However, I’m not sure what is this suppose to mean: Elrond is Arwen's father, and Galadriel is her grandmother, yes, but what does Sauron have to do with it?

Then, Elrond is the one who picks up Nenya (the ring Sauron wanted), and uses it to heal Galadriel, in 2x08:

He also returns Nenya to Galadriel, as a nod to their scene in 2x04; when Galadriel gives it to him for safe keeping, and he reluctantly agrees. Now he returns the ring in good will, to symbolize the end of their feud, and how Elrond now trusts the Three:

I’m curious to see if this dynamic will continue to play out in Season 3, and I wonder what all of this means.

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

This is the best thing in the entire world. I love how much Tolkien loved trees and how fiercely he defended them. Here is a transcript:

Beautiful place because trees are loved From Prof. J.R.R. TOLKIEN SIR—with reference to your leader of June 29, I feel that it is unfair to use my name as an adjective qualifying “gloom,” especially in a context dealing with trees. In all my works I take the part of trees as against all their enemies. Lothlorien is beautiful because there the trees were loved; elsewhere forests are represented as awakening to consciousness of themselves. The Old Forest was hostile to two-legged creatures because of the memory of many injuries. Fangorn Forest was old and beautiful, but at the time of the story tense with hostility because it was threatened by a machine-loving enemy. Mirkwood had fallen under the domination of a Power that hated all living things, but it was restored to beauty and became Greenwood the Great before the end of the story. It would be unfair to compare the Forestry Commission with Sauron because, as you observe, it is capable of repentance; but nothing it has done that is stupid compares with the destruction, torture and murder of trees perpetrated by private individuals and minor official bodies. The savage sound of the electric saw is never silent wherever trees are still found growing. J.R.R. TOLKIEN Merton College, Oxford

Need y’all to know that in the 1970’s a letter to the editor was published in Daily Telegraph where the author offhandedly used the phrase “Tolkien-like gloom” to describe an area with barren trees and JRRT himself wrote back an incensed rebuttal at the use of his name in a context that suggested anything negative about trees.

[scribefindegil]

As much as I adore conlangs, I really like how the Imperial Radch books handle language. The book is entirely in English but you're constantly aware that you're reading a "translation," both of the Radchaai language Breq speaks as default, and also the various other languages she encounters. We don't hear the words but we hear her fretting about terms of address (the beloathed gendering on Nilt) and concepts that do or don't translate (Awn switching out of Radchaai when she needs a language where "citizen," "civilized," and "Radchaai person" aren't all the same word) and noting people's registers and accents. The snatches of lyrics we hear don't scan or rhyme--even, and this is what sells it to me, the real-world songs with English lyrics, which get the same "literal translation" style as everything else--because we aren't hearing the actual words, we're hearing Breq's understanding of what they mean. I think it's a cool way to acknowledge linguistic complexity and some of the difficulties of multilingual/multicultural communication, which of course becomes a larger theme when we get to the plot with the Presgar Translators.

[vamprlestat]

the ride of the rohirrim and the battle of the pelennor fields might be my favorite chapters in the entire lord of the rings trilogy.

what gets me is that fine line between hope and despair that’s present throughout the book, but now THE moment is here. they can try to make a stand now and hope for a win or surrender to sauron because there’s no hope.

the rohirrim finally arriving to gondor to find it under siege by an army that far surpasses their own in numbers??

but then a change in the air, a wind! a reminder that the sun is rising beyond the darkness that clouds the sky

théoden riding to battle and being compared to oromë and the armies of mordor cowering before him????

suddenly a new shadow falls upon them and theoden falls. but one of his soldiers still stands beside him: éowyn, who rode to battle because she’d rather die than live in the role that was enforced upon her. éowyn who has nothing to lose and would not sit and do nothing while her loved ones, her countrymen, fought for their future. and she stands against the witch king and laughs in his face!!!!!!! it reawakens the hope in merry’s heart and makes the witch king falter in fear. and so is glorfindel’s profecy fulfilled

the rohirrim, in their pain mourning for their king and éowyn, ride again. and where their song was joyous before, now they call to death. this is their darkest hour and éomer, in his fury, is almost overwhelmed by the enemy. things seem even more dire when more reinforcements for sauron’s army are seen sailing the anduin to gondor

hope is renewed again when they realize the ships carry elendil’s symbol. aragorn carrying the banner made by arwen. aragorn, who is also called estel, which means hope. this feels like a culmination of the little slivers of hope these characters could still feel in the face of a hopeless situation.

again, it’s that very fine line. they could give up, because victory seems impossible. but they keep going because they have to try even in the face of utter defeat. the next excerpt is from chapter 4, but it sums it all up

[heyclickadee]

So, my family is rewatching Rings of Power, and since I’m the one in the family that read The Silmarillion (like a masochist), I’m the one who keeps getting asked all the questions.

[inklings-sprint]

Alright, so I think I have a plan now for what the Inklings Sprints Brainstorming week will sort of look like. As always there might be changes later once we’re closer to the actual dates, but as it is now, over the last week and maybe a half of September I’ll host the brainstorming week. Which will mostly consist of me posting questions/thoughts/prompts over the week which will mostly be set throughout the day. Then I’ll have a few set times throughout the week/week and a half for a more active brainstorming session for anyone who wants to actively throw some ideas more or less. (Discord people feel free to copy any ideas to share to the discord if you’re interested in them.)

Below is a calendar and a very quick view of some time zones in relation to me (which is highlighted in blue). I know that I’m missing time zones and so I would always double check to make sure that the timing makes sense to you.

Just a reminder that the big brainstorming week push is going to start on Monday.

Liveblogging sessions on Sunday Sept. 22 at 8am, Tuesday Sept. 24 at 6:30pm, Thursday Sept. 26 at 8pm, Saturday Sept. 28 at 7am and maybe one at 5:30pm, Sunday Sept. 29 at 8am, maybe 11am, and maybe 10pm, Monday Sept. 30 at 8am, and maybe 8pm.

Those times I will be sharing my actual planning thoughts in a desperate attempt to have something beyond vibes for Team Chesterton and Team Lewis.

Throughout the rest of the week I will share other thoughts and prompts to try and spark some brainstorming ideas.

[keets-writing-corner]

makes me think a lot about something one of my college professors said

"Write about what you love and people will love what you write"

And that's what tolkien did. How we feel about what we're writing is reflected in it. If you're writing about something you don't care about, that's going to show to the reader and consequently they might not end up caring about it either. But if you write about something you're passionate about, where it's clear you're having a blast writing it, then chances are your readers will have a lot more fun reading it too

One of the things that’s really struck me while rereading the Lord of the Rings–knowing much more about Tolkien than I did the last time I read it–is how individual a story it is.

We tend to think of it as a genre story now, I think–because it’s so good, and so unprecedented, that Tolkien accidentally inspired a whole new fantasy culture, which is kind of hilarious. Wanting to “write like Tolkien,” I think, is generally seen as “writing an Epic Fantasy Universe with invented races and geography and history and languages, world-saving quests and dragons and kings.” But… But…

Here’s the thing. I don’t think those elements are at all what make The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings so good. Because I’m realizing, as I did not realize when I was a kid, that Tolkien didn’t use those elements because they’re somehow inherently better than other things. He used them purely because they were what he liked and what he knew.

The Shire exists because he was an Englishman who partially grew up in, and loved, the British countryside, and Hobbits are born out of his very English, very traditionalist values. Tom Bombadil was one of his kids’ toys that he had already invented stories about and then incorporated into Middle-Earth. He wrote about elves and dwarves because he knew elves and dwarves from the old literature/mythology that he’d made his career. The Rohirrim are an expression of the ancient cultures he studied. There are a half-dozen invented languages in Middle-Earth because he was a linguist. The themes of war and loss and corruption were important to him, and were things he knew intimately, because of the point in history during which he lived; and all the morality of the stories, the grace and humility and hope-in-despair, was an expression of his Catholic faith. 

J. R. R. Tolkien created an incredible, beautiful, unparalleled world not specifically by writing about elves and dwarves and linguistics, but by embracing all of his strengths and loves and all the things he best understood, and writing about them with all of his skill and talent. The fact that those things happened to be elves and dwarves and linguistics is what makes Middle-Earth Middle-Earth; but it is not what makes Middle-Earth good.

What makes it good is that every element that went into it was an element J. R. R. Tolkien knew and loved and understood. He brought it out of his scholarship and hobbies and life experience and ideals, and he wrote the story no one else could have written… And did it so well that other people have been trying to write it ever since.

So… I think, if we really want to write like Tolkien (as I do), we shouldn’t specifically be trying to write like linguists, or historical experts, or veterans, or or or… We should try to write like people who’ve gathered all their favorite and most important things together, and are playing with the stuff those things are made of just for the joy of it. We need to write like ourselves.

[suzannahnatters]

all RIGHT:

Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT

(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)

This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.

If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.

By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).

Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)

So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies

FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.

What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.

Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.

SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life

When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.

For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.

So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.

Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.

I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!

[copperbadge]

TIL "guy", as in "this guy", is an English cognate of the Italian proper name Guido. They have the same origin, which in Old French became Gui and led to Guy in English, and in Germanic became Wido and led to Guido in Italian.

But Italians don't use Guido as a general address the way we would say "hey, guys" in English and that is actually, literally because of Guy Fawkes. Effigies of Fawkes burned on Guy Fawkes Day were known as "guys", which then solely in English began to be applied to unusual or frightful characters of any kind and eventually to just, you know, guys.

And we can trace "guy" back from Guy Fawkes to Gui to the proto-germanic widuz, which it appears means "wood" in the sense both of "that desk is made of wood" and "till Birnam Wood come to Dunsinane".

(Which, as we all know, is a phrase that infuriated JRR Tolkien so much he invented a race of walking, talking trees in defiance of Shakespeare.)

Which means that if you are really intent on a non-gendered substitute for "guys", I think "what up my ents" is perfectly acceptable, linguistically speaking. Brunch with the guys? Entmoot. He's a good guy? No, they're a real ent.

So have fun with that, ents.

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

Someone asked me to expand a little on a topic that was buried down in a big chain of reblogs, so I'm doing that here--it's about the use of the archaic "thee", "thou", "thy", etc. in LOTR and what it tells you about characters’ feelings for one another. (I am NOT an expert on this, so it's just what I've picked up over time!)

Like many (most?) modern English speakers, I grew up thinking of those old forms of 2nd person address as being extra formal. I think that's because my main exposure to them was in the Bible ("thou shall not...") and why wouldn't god, speaking as the ultimate authority, be using the most formal, official voice? But it turns out that for a huge chunk of the history of the English language, "thee," "thou," and "thy" were actually the informal/casual alternatives to the formal "you", “your”, “yours”. Like tú v. usted in Spanish!

With that in mind, Tolkien was very intentional about when he peppered in a "thee" or a "thou" in his dialogue. It only happens a handful of times. Most of those are when a jerk is trying to make clear that someone else is beneath them by treating them informally. Denethor "thou"s Gandalf when he’s pissed at him. The Witch King calls Éowyn "thee" to cut her down verbally before he cuts her down physically. And the Mouth of Sauron calls Aragorn and Gandalf "thou" as a way to show them that he has the upper hand. (Big oops by all 3 of these guys!)

The other times are the opposite--it's when someone starts to use the informal/casual form as a way to show their feeling of affection for someone else. Galadriel goes with the formal "you" all through the company's days in Lórien, but by the time they leave she has really taken them to heart. So when she sends them a message via Gandalf early in the Two Towers, she uses "thee" and "thou" in her words to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli because now they're valued friends and allies. And--this is the big one, folks, that was already alluded to in my previous post--Éowyn starts aggressively "thou"ing Aragorn when she is begging him to take her along as he prepares to ride out of Dunharrow. She is very intentionally trying to communicate her feelings to him in her choice of pronoun--an "I wouldn't be calling you "thee" if I didn't love you" kind of thing. And he is just as intentionally using "you" in every single one of his responses in order to gently establish a boundary with her without having to state outright that he doesn't reciprocate her feelings. It's not until much later when her engagement to Faramir is announced that Aragorn finally busts out "I have wished thee joy ever since I first saw thee". Because now it is safe to acknowledge a relationship of closeness and familiarity with her without the risk that it will be misinterpreted. He absolutely wants to have that close, familiar relationship, but he saved it for when he knew she could accept it on his terms without getting hurt.

So, you know, like all things language-based...Tolkien made very purposeful decisions in his word choices down to a bonkers level of detail. I didn’t know about this pronoun thing until I was a whole ass adult, but that’s the joy of dealing with Tolkien. I still discover new things like this almost every time I re-read.

[gallusrostromegalus]

So, Bleach has an interesting language phenomenon that gets glossed over in favor of moving the plot along (a perfectly reasonable authorial decision), but I think has world building potential:

The Karakura kids and Shinigami all speak Japanese- they have Japanese names (even Chad), and call their Zanpakuto and flashy attacks Japanese names.

The arrancar have a variety of name origins, but all live in Las Noches, and call their special attacks and military rankings Spanish names, so it's reasonable to assume they're all speaking Spanish.

The Quincy again have a variety of names but are VERY German, with German weapons, ranks, techniques etc.

...but everyone can trash talk everyone else without a language barrier. How's that work?

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to Creating Your Own Language

When writer's set out to world-build, language has a huge role in creating new cultures and lending a sense of realism to your efforts. A world and people just feel more real when language is involved. As the old Irish proverb says "tír gan teanga, tír gan anam”. A country without a language, is a country without a soul. So how can we create one?

Do Your Homework

First things off, you should start by studying languages. Nobody is asking you to get fluent but it's important to understand the basic mechanics of language. You will start to see certain tricks to language, how verbs are conjugated and how gender effects certain words. It will be easier to make up your own when you know these tricks. For example, in Irish one doesn't scold but "gives out to" - "a thabhairt amach". In German, numbers are arranged differently to the English with the smallest digit arranged before the tens for example 21 - Einsundzwanzig. By immersing yourself in an array of different languages (I recommend finding ones close to how you want your language to sound), you can gain the tools necessary for creating a believable language.

Keep it Simple

Nobody expects you to pull a Tolkien or channel the powers of David J. Peterson (hail bisa vala). You're not writing a dictionary of your con-lang. You will probably use only a handful of words in your story. Don't over complicate things. A reader will not be fluent in your con-lang and if they have to continually search for the meaning of words they will likely loose patience.

Start Small

When you're learning a language, you always start with the basics. You do the exact same when writing one. Start with introductions, the names of simple objects, simple verbs (to be, to do, to have for example) and most importantly your pronouns (you will use these more than any other word, which is why I always start with them). Simple everyday phrases should always be taken care of first. Build your foundation and work your way up, this is a marathon not a race.

Music to the Ears

If your creating a new language, you're more than likely doing it phonetically. Sound is important to language and especially a con-lang because you want to trick your reader into thinking of a real language when reading the words on the page. I suggest sitting down and actually speak your words aloud, get the feel of them on the tongue to work out the spelling. Spellings shouldn't be too complicated, as I said before the readers aren't fluent and you want to make it easier for them to try it out themselves.

Also when you're creating the con-lang, it's important to figure out how it sounds to an unsuspecting ear. If a character is walking down a street and hears a conversation in a strange language, they will likely describe to the reader what it sounds like. It might be guttural or soft, it might be bursque or flowery. It's always interesting to compare how different languages flow in the ear.

Writing in Your Language

Now that you've written your language and created some words, you will want to incoperate them into your story. The way most writers do this is by italicising them. As a reader, I generally prefer authors not to go too overboard with their con-lang. Swathes of con-lang words might intrigue a reader but it can leave them confused as well. It is better to feed con-lang to your readers bit by bit. In most published works writer's tend to use words here and there but there are few whole sentences. For example in A Game Of Thrones by George RR Martin, has actually only a handful of short sentences in Dothraki despite the language being prevalent throughout the book. Daenerys Targaryen pronounces that "Khalakka dothrae mr’anha!"/"A prince rides inside me!" and it's one of the only sentence we actually see in actual Dothraki.

There's also nothing stopping you from just saying a language has been spoken. If you're not comfortable writing out the words, then don't make yourself. A simple dialogue tag can do the trick just fine.

Know your Words

I do recommend keeping an actual record of your words. Make a dictionary if you want or a simple list of words you need. This is one of the most entertaining aspects of world building, have fun with it, go mad if you like. Also here's a short list of questions you can ask yourself about language in general which might help your juices flow.

[astronicht]

Hi I hope this isn't presumptuous, but so, that post you made about Tolkien making the lads leave their weapons outside the hall and CS Lewis thinking the hall was gonna get burned down by a lady who also wanted to kill herself... what's the historical precedent for that? Is there a trope in medieval lit where people like... do that? I ask because uh. I am obsessed with Children of Hurin and there's a scene where that like, happens. And I'm obsessed with that scene, and would love to know if there's like, cultural/mythic context that would enrich my knowledge!

OH BOY, sorry I'm getting to this late, it's been uhhh a summer, but one, this is a very good question!! And two, yes there is absolutely precedent, particularly in early medieval literature, and high medieval literature set in the early medieval (circa 500-1100 AD) past. I'll let someone else debate how often people actually historically locked their enemies into a hall and burned them, but especially in Old Norse literature (and if Fellowship felt like it leaned a little more on Old English literature, Two Towers, where Eowyn appears, felt a little more Old Norse) this is common. Off the top of my head, you've got many Icelandic family feuds ending in burning the whole family in their hall, like Njal's Saga (Old Norse), Attila the Hun dramas (yeah he's a big guy in the burning halls circuit, but actually not in the way you might expect) like his cameos in Volsung Saga (Old Norse) and Nibelungelied (Middle High German), and my vague recollection of a few Irish and Welsh versions that no search engine is giving up for me right now.

This, predictably, got long and slightly off topic.

Disclaimer: As usual, I should say I come from an Old English-centric background, and Old English literature is actually notable among all its neighbors for not burning down too many halls. Second disclaimer, all links are not proper citations, they just go to wiki.

Hall-burning in literature is, to my understanding, part of the concerns of a few early medieval cultures in which revenge is not only expected but in many cases legally reinforced and codified, and one in which conflicts could spiral to engulf -- figuratively, or literally and in flames -- entire families. Many medieval Icelandic sagas are focused on this exact type of destruction of whole families or friendship/community units. Most relevant of these to Eowyn, Two Towers, and the vibes of Edoras (since alas I am only partway into RotK and can't speak to Children of Hurin yet!) is Volsung Saga, which is set on the Continent, not Iceland, and actually has to do with Attila the Hun. As mentioned before, an incredible amount of stuff turns out to have to do with Attila. We will come back to him!

So, on the particular post you're talking about, a few people iirc have replied pointing out that the hall in TT is clearly supposed to be based on a hall from Old English literature, namely the hall in Beowulf, which famously did not actually get burnt down. And that's all true! I was not posting with much nuance; I was mostly having a joke at the expense of CS Lewis. However, I was also referencing a very very common trope in Old Norse/early medieval stories, and I personally think JRR was as well (AND I think Beowulf was also very consciously referencing the exact same motif anyway) (no one has to agree with me, a tumblr blog, on any of these points).

The thing about the hall when our heroes approach is that the scariest damn thing in that hall is Eowyn. Certainly not every hall-burning story requires a woman with no other recourse to set the fire (in fact, the "warrior band approaches unknown hall which might have a grudge against them" is a trope that can get you killed in a pretty homosocial environment, as I guess Aragorn at least was aware, being a big reader). Still, the presence of a woman who is swiftly running out of options does fit what I'd consider one of the or perhaps The best known version of the early medieval burning hall trope: Gudrun, who shows up in at least a dozen different texts in both the Scandinavian and the German language traditions, including Volsung Saga, a text which itself often gets paraded around as the basis of lotr (which I'm sure it is, in that JRR appears to have simply and very fairly based lotr on every piece of early medieval vernacular literature I can think of).

In a portion of Gudrun's story (which of course changes a bit in each retelling), after her first marriage she is unhappily married to Atli, who is none other than our main man Attila the Hun. After Attila kills her brothers for reasons (in one version, her father), seeing no other way to take the necessary revenge and no other way out, she kills the two sons she had by him, serves them to Attila for dinner, has Attila killed, and then sets fire to the hall with everyone in it. After this, she attempts to drown herself.

The self-destruction of this act is a really important beat, and has only gotten more-so as a comparison to Eowyn the further I've read into RotK (currently, I'm at the houses of healing after merry and eowyn take on the witch king). It's a lot clearer in the book than the films, for me, that Eowyn going off to battle was not so a straightforward empowering and/or freeing move, despite allowing her some agency, but more the one path she saw as available to her with which to die with honor (which was pretty much exactly what Gudrun was facing as well). Like Gudrun, whose first husband was a great hero but has died, Eowyn's romantic choice is a hero who is presumed dead (sorry Aragorn they did Not believe in your ghost skills). In fact, in some versions Gudrun does put on armor and fight with her brothers before they're killed. She kills Attila with her own hand, with the help of another man who needs to avenge a blood feud against Attila.

So while Eowyn didn't get forced into marriage to Attila Wormtongue (with apologies to both historical Attila and that one historical skald also called Wormtongue who was reportedly hot) and burn the whole place down, she's still trapped, and like Gudrun chooses destruction alongside her household.

Reading her arc feels so much like watching Tolkien write a fix-it for Gudrun. What if she got this one little chance, and this one other little chance, and this one more -- tiny little shifts in the narrative that allow her to get out, and not through fire, and not through death.

Anyway, this got away from me. I hope it added some context to the Children of Hurin arson case! Thanks for the ask

[anghraine]

I know this has been noticed before, but Glorfindel delivering a prophecy about the Witch-king's destruction does not mean that Glorfindel is laying down the law about the Witch-king's vulnerability. Glorfindel in no way has that ability. He's struck by foresight about how the Witch-king will eventually fall and knows it won't be by the hand of "man." This doesn't mean any non-man/Man on the battlefield could have done it, or that Merry or Éowyn have some special "not a man" powers or abilities vs the Witch-king, but that Glorfindel prophetically knows the person/people who are going to end up doing it will not be men in any sense.

The ambiguity of Glorfindel's use of "man" here works really well for the English text, I'd say. In Tolkien's usage especially, "man" can mean "the species of humanity" or "adult male person," allowing for Glorfindel's prophecy to refer to Merry or Éowyn or both, but definitely not to Eärnur (an adult male and a human, however special).

BUT ALSO to be a pedantic nerd (when am I not?):

In-story the direct context of Glorfindel's prophecy is Glorfindel trying to convince Eärnur of Gondor not to pursue the Witch-king in Gondor's campaign against Angmar after the destruction of Arthedain. Glorfindel held him back at the time by telling him that he wasn't destined to defeat the Witch-king. But Glorfindel is a High Elf out of Valinor and Eärnur is a Númenórean prince of Gondor. Even by the end of the age, it's still very likely that a conversation between two such people would be in Sindarin or Quenya, and this interaction happens long before then.

This matters because, while the man/Man ambiguity works really well on a literary/meta level in English with what ends up happening, in the world of the story it wouldn't have been delivered in a language that actually contains that ambiguity (even Common may not, for all we know, but is unlikely to have been used here anyway). So, for instance, if Glorfindel was speaking to Eärnur in Quenya, he would have likely used either nér (adult male) or atan (human being), depending on which he actually meant.

From everything I've read of Tolkien's thoughts on the defeat of the Witch-king, I personally think it's likely that the prophecy would have referred to Éowyn rather than Merry, instrumental as he was.

But weirdly, this actually makes a lot of sense for the characters as well, IMO. Given how extremely unusual it appears to be for women of any species to be in direct combat in the regions where the Nazgûl are mainly active in the Third Age, it fits the Witch-king's overconfidence if he understood it to refer to gender and regarded himself as no more likely to be slain by a male Elf or dwarf or wizard than by Eärnur. And that would also fit with the uncertainty that strikes him when Éowyn declares that she's a woman.

So, in-story, I think the prophecy actually is about her and, more broadly, about gender.

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

No, “Evil” doesn’t “loves only Itself” in Tolkien lore

One quote in particular that gets thrown around a lot when discussing Sauron x Galadriel is “evil loves only itself” because Charlie Vickers mentioned it in one of his interviews. The “Rings of Power” fandom atributes this to Tolkien. But is it really?

This quote is not from Tolkien. Nor Charlie ever said it was, he refers the correct author on his interview, so I don’t know why folks keep taking his words out of context.

He [Sauron] offers to make her [Galadriel] his queen. Is that a marriage proposal?

That’s something I thought about a lot, but I don’t think so. W.H. Auden wrote an essay on Tolkien, and he said something along the lines of, “Evil loves only itself.” [“Evil, defiantly chosen, can no longer imagine anything but itself.”] So I think in his pitch to Galadriel, it cannot mean that he loves her or that there’s any kind of romantic relationship. There should be no ambiguity around the fact that Sauron is evil — he’s terrible, and he’s using Galadriel to enhance his power.

Now, what Charlie is doing here is trolling. Because he knows Tolkien letters, and has studied them as preparation for his role as Sauron. This fact is mentioned in this very interview: you once mentioned that you found useful things in Tolkien’s letters, although you didn’t specify which ones.

And so, Charlie is perfectly aware that “evil loves only itself” was written by W.H. Auden on his essay about the nature of Good and Evil, when reviewing “Return of the Ring”, in 1956. And he’s also perfectly aware that Tolkien didn’t subscribe to this way of thinking, at all.

Tolkien Letter 183 is the reply to Auden’s essay and his wild takes of “evil loves only itself”. In this letter, Tolkien not only disagrees with Auden’s views of his work, but denies them, entirely:

There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the right and the wrong in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called right and wrong, or good and evil, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict.

A judge must assign right and wrong according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and Justify its cause throughout. (I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right', that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)

Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side.

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.

This is Tolkien, very eloquently, telling Auden to f*ck off with his basic and narrow views of Good vs. Evil, because he’s misunderstanding what Tolkien actually wrote on his books. And this was a grievance Tolkien, himself, had:

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right.

Tolkien Letter 154

Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-a-Flag-to-Pretoria spirit, and willfully distort what I say in my tale. I have not that spirit, and it does not appear in the story.

Notes on Letter 183 (still about Auden’s essay)

Charlie is very much aware of Tolkien response, and he knows that, in Tolkien legendarium, evil can love and it doesn’t make any less evil, because Tolkien doesn’t deal with absolute evil in his world, nor is Sauron pure evil; as I already talked about in this post.

Why did Charlie say these things, then? Probably to avoid spoiling the story of the show, where Sauron is in love with Galadriel.