#that John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

[lumi-waxes-poetic]

Some Tolkien affirmations to help you along when the darkness seems too much and everything seems lost

"The world may be grim, but there's always hope. Even in the darkest of days, there may be one bright star to guide you."

—Elrond

"It is not despair, but only the handing on of a torch."

—Aragorn

"The greatest good returns at last to those who share it freely."

—Gandalf

"It is not by sorrow and by suffering that we grow. It is by the choice we make when faced with sorrow and suffering."

—Fëanor

"The world is changed because I am in it."

—Bilbo Baggins

bonus round (Tolkien never actually wrote this — Peter Jackson did — but it's a good fucking line and Tolkien would have 100% agreed with it):

“Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."

— Gandalf

[hacked-wtsdz]

Every time I read or watch Lord of the Rings I can’t help but think about how Tolkien had survived one of the bloodiest, most cruel, most dirtiest and darkest wars in human history, came back and wrote this:

“The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater.”

And this:

"'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.

'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'"

And this:

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

And this:

“Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."

And this:

“True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.”

And clearly they were all written partly because he survived the war, because of what he’d seen and done and learned. But at the same time the unwillingness to lose faith, the courage and strength that this man had to believe in these things after going through hell! It makes the nihilists look so cheap, so uninteresting! People who’ve went through concentration camps and wars believe in humanity anyway, isn’t that proof that hope and love exist? And many, many, many of them did not return or returned broken and cruel and traumatised to the point when no faith in others was possible for them, and nobody can blame them. But there were many who refused to lose faith and hope. They have seen some of the worst that life has to offer and came back believing that we shouldn’t be eager to deal out death in judgement and should love only that which the sword defends.

No matter how many people say that humanity is horrible and undeserving of love, and life is dark and worthless, and love doesn’t exist I remember this and have hope anyway. Because there were people who have actually had all reason to believe in the worst and still believed in the good, so the good must be real. The good is real, even despite the evil, and we must trust in it.

[cosynopsis]

literally my favorite moment in the book. eight-year-old me read and cried. I won’t finish it, but I like this fragment

[juliaaugust]

Smaug the Terrible

[sleeplessant]

Hey Tolkien people and history buffs of Tumblr, I'm in need of your assistance. Does anybody know if there was an actual historical inspiration (or many) to the narrow, no rails, stone bridge of Khazad-dûm?

For context, I'm trying to use it as an example in my theoretical physics dissertation on the dynamics of pedestrians moving in a single line, but I've already met with some resistance from advisors with No Taste. All my google searches have conducted to analyses of the effectiveness of the Khazad-dûm scene in the book & movie, instead of an analysis of the actual "physical" bridge.

I know I could use other modern examples from construction scaffolds or bus and plane boarding/exiting schemes for single-line movement, but that's boring. Uninspired. Everyone does it. What I want is a badass illustration from The Lord of the Rings, and a JRR Tolkien quote on my very theoretical, so abstract that is basically useless, physics dissertation.

A physicist calls for aid.

[drsunshines]

Did a watercolor portrait of Tolkien :3

[uwmspeccoll]

Tolkien's Fantastical Realms

David Day's A Tolkien Bestiary, published by Ballantine Books in New York in 1979, is an alphabetical guide to the various creatures, races, deities, and flora found in J.R.R. Tolkien's fantastical realms of Middle-earth and the Undying Lands. The book identifies 129 distinct races in detail and explains their physical characteristics, languages, behavior, and cultures. More than just a guide, the book is a key that unlocks the door to Tolkien's works, enhancing the accessibility to his mythical creatures and elaborating on their significance in his vast world.

The book contains more than one hundred black-and-white illustrations and thirty-six full-color paintings. It features illustrations by eleven different fantasy artists, both well-established and emerging artists. The Tolkien Gateway website notes, however, that:

The book has been accused of containing extrapolations and thus deviating from Tolkien's writings. For example, there is a reference to "Kraken" referring to the Watcher in the Water, but the word does not appear as a species in Tolkien's works. While fans have argued that the book is less reliable as a Tolkien reference than similar works by Robert Foster and J.E.A. Tyler, many are fond of its illustrations.

-- Melissa, Special Collections Graduate Intern

[kennymcmann]

i still can't believe someone had the audacity to make a movie about tolkien's life and not include a single thing about c.s. lewis. do these people know that without lewis, tolkien would have never finished the hobbit or lotr? he would have never written the silmarillion without lewis' encouragement. lewis is treebeard, for crying out loud.

at the same time, lewis would have never written the cosmic trilogy without tolkien and the main character of these books is HIGHLY based on tolkien. their friendship was too much part of their lives to just be cut out like that. you can't talk about one without the other. unless you want to talk about a lie.

[anira-naeg]

House of Beor: Part 2

[thefugitivesaint]

Lucy Davey, ''J.R.R. Tolkien'' by Colin Duriez, 2012 Source

[bitwa-lektur-szkolnych]

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien – Hobbit czyli tam i z powrotem

Albert Camus – Dżuma

[aureentuluva70]

I will never forgive Tolkien for chickening out and just straight up writing Daeron out of the tale of Beren and Luthien, and from the rest of the stories of Middleearth for that matter, and for no good reason. There are so, so many other, far more interesting things that Tolkien could have done with Daeron's character, but nope, instead he just writes him out of the story entirely. He could've, like, had Daeron be captured by the enemy and taken to Angband and when Beren and Lùthien go there they find him and bail him out, like cmon dude you can do better than that.

[silmarillion-ways-to-die]

[cosynopsis]

someday I'll learn to finish things

[elvisomar]

Fire and Water by Tim Kirk (1974)

[lumi-waxes-poetic]

I don't think I like Hugo Weaving's Elrond much but I don't know how much of it is actually his fault.

These are thoughts that I have been ruminating over ever since The Fellowship of the Ring dropped when I was a kid.

I don't much like Elrond in these movies.

I think too much of him was sacrificed, and not for any real trade off.

While I feel a lot of this was a consequence of Hugo Weaving's casting, I don't feel blame should be laid at his feet because he doesn't control what the writers for his characters do.

Elrond in the films is constantly frosty, stand-offish, and almost distant. He comes across as a controlling man through his interactions with Arwen, and ruled by his (justifiable) fears of what Sauron is already capable of, and could be capable of again should he be reunited with the Ring. And that's a valid fear to be ruled by, but the movie overemphasizes this at the expense of the rest of Elrond's character.

Elrond is aloof and ethereal and otherworldly, yes. He's among the greatest of all elves, EVER, and so of course he comes across as a bit... weird when met by non-Elves. But he is not paranoid, angry, or controlling.

He fears much, yes. But Elrond also embodies courage because his fear doesn't rule him, it motivates him. He doesn't sit around going "oh nothing can possibly work", or disparage Men and Dwarves because in the books, while he's well familiar with the failings of others, he's also seen them at their best, and is fully aware that, given the history of HIS people (and occasionally his own personal history), he has NO room to stand in judgment of others. He's also a man of HOPE.

While not impossible, it's difficult to imagine Weaving!Elrond saying "The world may be grim, but there's always hope. Even in the darkest of days, there may be one bright star to guide you" with a kind face. Or, "Such is of the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." Or perhaps when in the books he commended Frodo's incredible bravery in choosing to carry the Ring by saying "it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them." Elrond was outright comparing Frodo's bravery and courage to the best heroes his people had ever known! Elrond is regal and willful and a force of nature at times, but he's hopeful. He's kind. He's wise, wiser than almost anyone else. Gandalf considers Elrond his equal in such, if not even more so. Hell, Gandalf regards Elrond the way he once regarded Saruman. That means a LOT! Elrond in the books doesn't really waver in his faith in the Fellowship the way he does in the films. He doesn't judge Men by the failures of Isildur, a man who died thousands of years ago. He doesn't stand in Arwen's way as she decides for herself what she wants (not that this featured heavily in the books at all). He's concerned about Man's possibility to fail, but stands by them as much as he can regardless because he does believe in people and besides that, he gave his word that he would stand by them as much as he could. He mistrusts Thorin's company, but for entirely justifiable reasons as their quest may very well fail and get them, an innocent Hobbit, and Gandalf the fucking Grey killed (and he has no reason to suspect Gandalf might just be able to "nuh-uh" death and come back), and even if it succeeds, they might release a DRAGON (one of the scariest fucking bioweapons Morgoth ever devised during the War of Wrath, more terrifying than even a Balrog and certainly with more capacity for mass destruction) on Middle-Earth, which is far from the pretty racist Elrond we get in the Hobbit films. And said dragon DOES get unleashed and it's basically only by fortune and/or slightly possibly fate that it got brought down at all, so really, the dude was 100% in the right. In the movies, he frankly doesn't want to help Thorin's company first and foremost because they're dwarves, and all his other concerns as stated earlier are just a veneer of reasonableness that he uses to justify it, or as "just another reason" why he should frankly not help them and actually probably have them arrested. Elrond Halfelven in the books is good and kind, compassionate and wise, and we barely see these things in the films! And not for lack of time, because Elrond is really no bigger a player in the main books than he is presented as in the films. In fact, the films ADDED material with Elrond the books did not have, so the idea that these aspects of him were "trimmed for time" is patently ridiculous. Many of his best lines and advice to the heroes in the books are instead given to Gandalf and Galadriel, such as:

Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by the sudden keenness of the glance. "If I understand aright all that I have heard," he said, "I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will."

The films consciously and deliberately rewrote Elrond's character to make him less likable. Why? I can't prove anything, but I strongly suspect Elrond became a victim of his actor's casting.

In the 2000s, Hugo Weaving was known for A Type. Most were familiar with him at the time via his incredible turn as Agent Smith in The Matrix, and this colored the roles he was offered for years. Fellowship of the Ring's production came hot on the heels of The Matrix, and it's likely that this affected the writer's view of how Hugo Weaving's character should behave. Elrond was very probably altered to fit that perception better while still being an overall heroic character. Whatever happened, Elrond in the films became a vaguely racist Asshole Hero who is presented as a controlling and pessimistic man who basically only agrees to the Quest so he can get the Ring as far from Imladris as he can conceivably do so Sauron doesn't have ANOTHER excuse to lay siege to the place while Elrond is trying to pack his tribes onto a bunch of boats so they can Peace Out from Middle Earth forever, and also because he's so terrified and desperate that he'll try anything to destroy Sauron at this point and there's no reason to expect more conventional means to work. I'm frankly pissed off because Rings of Power, which I famously detest for being a stale and banal and fundamentally disappointing piece of shit, somehow managed to do a better job with writing Elrond's essential hope and bravery and optimism than Peter Goddamn Jackson.

In Rings of Power, he DOES get to show that more kind and compassionate side to his character, with some VERY Elrond-esque zingers like "Where there is love, it is never truly dark", "We do not say goodbye. We say namárië. It means more than simply "farewell". It means, "Go towards goodness".", and this lovely exchange:

Elrond: "You have fought long enough, Galadriel. Put up your sword." Galadriel: "Without it, what am I to be?" Elrond: "What you have always been. My friend."

I greatly enjoy the memes that have cropped up around Weaving!Elrond since the film's release 22 years ago (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!), but it saddens me that Elrond's characterization seems to have suffered for having Hugo Weaving, who is a brilliant actor but also one definitely going through an arc of villainous and anti-hero typecasting at the time, play him. There was time enough in the movies to get him right. They made certain of it. Which means every change they made was deliberate, and one of Tolkien's best and most important characters was effectively assassinated for it.