#tolkien discussion

[remusjohnslupin]

@elerrinacrownedwithstars: Your responses are very interesting, and responding to them under another post (with a character limit) is difficult, so I thought I would make a separate post about it to convey my thoughts more thoroughly. I hope you don't mind ❤️ Please don't feel like you have to answer or anything. Following up on your previous message:

Of course, it’s possible I’m wrong, as this is only the impression I’ve gathered from some posts. And yeah, the writers of this show are laughably bad at their job but it doesn’t dismiss the idea that this is their attempt of ‘nuance’. Tolkien is fairly clear about how orcs are his idea of “what if Satan made people”, but even so, it’s notable - and he seemed to realise this too - that it had some problems within his cosmogony. In my bubble, I see discourse about how describing an entire race evil is problematic and I can’t say that I don’t see where they come from. But on the other hand, you’re right to point out that Tolkien wasn’t writing an allegory, and fantasy worlds are allowed to work differently than real worlds. After all, Tolkien is also clear that his Elves and Men can be at the different points of the spectrum of good and evil, whether they are Valinorean or Númenorean etc.

If I can backtrack a little to our previous messages, everything you said earlier about J.R.R Tolkien's observations about war and human nature are 100% accurate. I hope it did not seem like I brushed off your point. However, I would like to underline that just because he uses the word 'orc' or 'orcish' to describe the horrors of war, does not mean that he is directly referencing Orcs™ in his books.

I genuinely think if people are insisting Orcs™ have to be nuanced, otherwise it's racist... that's WILD. Because the point is, orcs are, as you so creatively put in, 'What if Satan made people.' They are not of any particular race like we understand. Any differential groups they might have between them is based on who 'bred' them, so to speak, and where. Unlike humans, they have no cultural and historical differences as we understand it. To copy/paste my previous point directly:

"Tolkien famously HATED allegory and never assigned any of his races to real-life ones. I mean, if there are people out there who think portraying orcs as purely evil is racist, then THEY must have a real-life race/ethnicity in mind when they think of orcs. Which says a lot about THEM, not Tolkien himself or those of us who rightly point out the butchering of the lore and poor writing in the show."

So no, I will never, ever see or agree with the idea that the discourse about orcs and race have validity. Like, no. If I start writing my story and create this bright green, goo-like race of blobs who are all evil and their entire agenda is to latch on to humans and feed on them.... and someone just came out and said that was also problematic and racist... how does it make sense?

You know what, this is Tumblr, so someone actually WOULD say that. Nevermind.

But that's what Orcs™ are. They are an extension of the evil (Morgoth) that marred the world even when it was first formed. Nothing more, nothing less.

In your last point, I think you inadvertently addressed part of the problem. This whole discourse about how pure fantasy evil existing is somehow offensive stems from the strange need to make everything relatable. I sincerely believe that people who think this way (including the writers of the Rings of Power) actually have a disdain for the fantasy genre, whether they recognise it or not.

"What if orcs were misunderstood?" ... "What if Galadriel was a cut-out cliche warrior?" .... "What if elven rings were also actually evil because power corrupts anyway even if they are wielded by super wise beings and those Rings were untouched by Sauron?"

They think they are being sophisticated doing these things. And I have no doubt there is some unnecessary political pandering there, too. But instead of elevating the characters and the show, they are hollowing out all the meaning behind Tolkien's themes.

Making orcs misunderstood essentially destroys how Tolkien showed the Marring of the World was permanent and would not be Healed until Dagor Dagorath.

Making Galadriel a copy-paste generic warrior who goes on adventures cheapened her character so much, I can't even. Sauron (when he was Annatar) did not go near Galadriel's kingdom because he was 92837647289% sure that she would recognise him on sight. Because she is probably THE most perceptive elf. She is also described as one of the kindest people alive, sooner moved to pity than anger. But they made her a vengeful asshole on a quest to find Sauron when he was THREE FEET AWAY from her face. But that's empowering because sHE hAS A SworD nOW!

I could go on, and on, and on...

The whole 'sympathetic orcs' debacle, along with the entirety of the Rings of Power, is what you get when you put a few idiots together, have them read Tolkiengateway, and ask 'Okay, so how would YOU write the story?'

As opposed to:

"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren’t going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that. In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves.” — Peter Jackson

[eloquentsisyphianturmoil]

The concept of Jesus in the Silmarillion

Tolkien did not intentionally lace his work with any allegory, but as a catholic mind relevant themes undeniably underpin his work.

It can be argued that the feanorians stand the place of a conceptual Jesus (being god incarnate, sent to die for our sins).

Míriel’s prolonged gestation may be viewed as the working of Eru, thus Fëanáro’s birth likened to the birth of Jesus.

Of more relevance is Jesus’ self-sacrifice and the antagonisation of the feanorians. Fëanáro is responsible for the return of the Noldor to middle earth (the fullfilling of Eru’s plan). The crucial progression of the first and second ages, and many of the greatest acts therein, are direct or indirect reactions to Fëanáro’s choices.

The entirety of the tragedy of the first age can be likewise blamed on Fëanáro, and it is this that echoes Jesus’ dying for our sins. The Noldor* are given a clean slate because of the feanorians’ actions.

Attention may also be drawn to the isolation of Fëanáro’s house. He is fundamentally cloven from the house of Finwë with Míriel’s death— as close to permanence as the Eldar may come— and Finwë’s second marriage. His people are all killed during the first age (given Maitimo released his people from service after Sirion**, some may have later pledged allegiance to other lords. But thence they would not be counted Feanorian). Thus the physical effect of Fëanáro’s line all but disappears, as with Jesus.

*‘the dispossessed shall ye be’: after the time of Maitimo’s abdication, the feanorians can be viewed as apart from the Noldor. In later years to say ‘Noldor’ and even ‘house of Finwë’ is to refer only to those of Finwë’s second marriage.

**This is purely speculation. It is mentioned many of their people turned against the sons of Fëanáro at this time, thus it seems unlikely that they had any trust for obligation and released their people. Those who remained would be loyalists.

P.S. of Tyelperinquar: he is the sole noted descendant of Fëanáro’s house. His existence can be argued rather as a plot device than a true allegorical existence, necessary as a smith of sufficient skill to craft elven rings without Annatar’s help, allowing the action of the third age. He can thus be counted as belonging more to the latter histories than the former.

[tathrin]

Hey, so do you ever stop to think about how the premise of Lord of the Rings being an in-universe book written by some of the characters who lived through that story means that they decided what parts and perspectives to use to tell that story...?

And when our authors weren't there to experience the events themselves, they have to rely on what they're told about them by the characters who were there, right...?

Okay so stop and think about the Glittering Caves.

We never actually go to the caves in the narrative. Tolkien LOVES describing nature and natural beauty, but we don't actually see the caves described "by him" the way we do other places. Obviously Gimli's words are Tolkien's, yes; but we only see the caves filtered through his words about them, after the fact.

When Gimli and Éomer and the other Rohirrim take refuge there, the narrative doesn't follow them. Obviously from a narrative standpoint this is to keep the focus narrow, and not to interrupt the battle-sequence with a long ode to the beauty of the caves, and to create tension in the reader who doesn't know if these characters are okay or not. Which all makes sense!

But think about it in terms of the book that was written in Middle-earth by the folk living there. Why DON'T we get to have a direct experience of those caves? Gimli obviously related several other parts of the story that none of the Hobbits were there to witness to them, and which were written into the books as Direct Events Happening In The Narrative (think of the Paths of the Dead scene, for one of the more visceral moments!). So why not the Glittering Caves?

Was it because they wanted to keep that narrative focus and tension, and so they didn't include his perspective on that part of the battle? Perhaps, that's certainly a possibility to consider.

But also consider: when we do hear about the Glittering Caves, what we hear is Gimli telling Legolas about the Glittering Caves. THAT is the part of that event that is considered of importance to include in the book: not Gimli's actual experience when he was in them, but rather the part where he relates that experience TO Legolas.

And I kind of just THOUGHT about that today.

And went HUH.

[nycteris-g]

You want examples of anti-Manicheanism in Tolkien?

Take Maedhros - he who performed "deeds of surpassing valor" and stood against the darkness and armies of Morgoth for centuries. He who swore a blasphemous oath, condemning himself to damnation. He who murdered his kin not once, not twice, but four times. And he who, finally holding the very object that symbolized his damnation, realizes the futility of all the evil he committed and throws himself into the fire.

Is he bad? Is he good? He swore a blasphemous oath - by Tolkien's standards, that alone would make him 'bad.' And then, of course, there are, you know, the murders. But is he absolutely evil? Born to be a murderous thing? Beyond any redemption or pity? How can someone who so fearlessly resisted The Evil be an entirely lost case? Can absolute evil even recognize the horror of its own deeds?

Tolkien, far more insightful than those who try to divide humankind into simple categories of good and bad, masterfully depicted the complexity of human nature (the Children of Ilúvatar). Humanity is not inherently evil, nor is it doomed to fall - yet it does, and still holds the potential to rise again: to see, to believe, to choose to do good.

[queerofthedagger]

i want to say someone fucking warn a finrod girly but frankly nothing could have prepared me 🫡

[musingsinmiddleearth]

"A grief but lulled to sleep lies between the princes of the Noldor." Wow. Sounds like a lot of traumatic anger and stress really bottled up in that war to the north. Did we ever think of maybe giving them a break before sending them off to make desperate war on Morgoth? No? We just enabled them at every opportunity? Okay then. Sounds like we should take some accountability for that... oh we'll blame Fëanor for that? I guess that works. He did lead them all to the kinslaying... something the rest of us Noldor definitely had no part in enabling or aiding or abetting. I'm sure it was entirely and exclusively Fëanor and his sons that made that happen.

[anghraine]

It feels extremely silly that only today did I realize that pantry and panadería are slightly similar-sounding for a reason >_>

(The English word pantry is one of the many, many common modern English words derived from Anglo-French: in this case, panetrie, from Old French paneterie, "bread room" ... Spanish panadería also has a complex etymology, but all are related to Latin panis, "bread.")

[the-fab-fox]

Love Chronicles of Narnia or don't but I think we can ALL agree that this line is one of the hardest and g.o.a.t.iest to ever come out of Children's/YA fiction:

"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written." - Aslan

Like hot damn, Aslan. YASSS, QUEEN—I mean King. *bows respectfully*

Got any others to share? I'd love to see more! Perhaps get some good reading material to add to my list!

Please take a moment to read the note below the cut if the thing you are about to reply or reblog is anything religious in nature.

[Note: this post is a fun post about the books. DO NOT get into any religious debates or it will be deleted. I myself am a wiccan and have 15 gods who patron me ATM. You can find inspiration and happiness and meaning and enjoyment in things even if they weren't created specifically for you. Yes, it's a Christian allegory and quite frankly, the best IMHO. But if C.S. Lewis, a devout atheist-turned-Christian, and J.R.R. Tolkien, a passionate Catholic could be friends during the time of Lewis's atheism—a friendship based on truth of self and respect and understanding that two different beliefs can co-exist respectfully within the same space if allowed to do so—then people can enjoy books with certain religious themes and beliefs and not be compelled to change their beliefs because of it. Like if if happens and that's best for them, great. But we have our own agency. A book is not going to force me to change who I am. I decide what to take from the content. Not the other way around. Also Edmund is an amazing character and I'll hear no heresy about him. That is all.]

[silvantransthranduiltrash]

Faramir, elf enthusiest: so, Legolas! I have some questions about elven culture if i can ask them!

Legolas, silvan (dark elf), has a vague idea of how the noldor/sindar (light elf) realms in middle earth function but not really that knowledgeable about it, which is presumably what faramir does know. Also, certified little shit: sure, lay it on me.

——————————————————————-

Idk, i hink it’s be funny if faramir was fanboying about being able to ask an actual elven prince about elven things, only for legolas to have like 5% knowledge of the elven realms under noldor/sindar rule, which is what faramir has learned about. And then deciding to mess with him anyway.

Don’t worry, legolas eventually tells the truth and offers faramir volumes worth of knowledge about the silvan and avari elves that have faramir vibrating with excitement.

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

i don't think "war crimes are fictional my annoyance is real" is the point when it comes to thingol hate. it's fairly rare that i see stances on thingol that are "i dislike/hate him because he acts like a jerk at times and that reminds me of unpleasant irritating individuals i know irl." and when i do see that, it's like, fair enough, he can be an asshole when he wants to be. his method of telling beren to fuck off was extreme and it was petty; he could have just said "absolutely not, get out." and he absolutely is a smothering overprotective father sometimes, who very much chose to lock his daughter up. no matter if he believed he was doing it for her safety, imprisoning her is an inexcusable violation of her autonomy.

but here's the thing: i don't see that many people who hate on thingol doing so for "the war crimes are fictional, my annoyance is real" reasons. if they did that they would call him out for things he actually does in canon, for being an unpleasant dick at times and a helicopter parent -- while still knowing that from an objective moral standpoint, those things do not make him as vile as mass murderers, attempted rapists, evil overlords, and all the other types of villains you can find in the silm. but that's not what i see from most thingol hate. what i see from most thingol hate is, on the contrary, based in things that canon makes no indication of, and said things are used to make him look like a worse person, morally speaking, than he is canonically. "he's racist against the noldor," "he turned refugees away," "he was a xenophobic isolationist through and through who never let anyone into doriath," "aredhel's situation with eol is his fault," "he would have disowned luthien if she had just eloped with beren without coming to him first," "he would have let celegorm marry luthien against her will," "he owed the union of maedhros his allegiance and unreasonably abandoned the noldor by not sending forces to help," "the feanorians made every effort to be diplomatic and humble to him but he's a bigot so he snubbed them at every turn which led to them resorting to violence," etc. etc. etc. -- all in all blaming him for every last thing that ever went sour in the first age. making up lies about how a character did x and y bad action as a reason for why you dislike them isn't "the war crimes are fictional, my annoyance is real," it's "i already hate this character and i want to justify my hate." i understand disliking characters because their unpleasant behavior is more mundane, so to speak, and therefore hits closer to home -- i do it too -- but from what i've seen? that is not fandom's attitude towards thingol. fandom's attitude towards thingol is accusing him of things that he literally never does to make him far more villainous that he is in the source material

[eri-pl]

@erendur, @peasant-player twas your idea.

I'm not sure if I should tag anyone else (it has Finrod, but it is half a joke, and you'll read it anyway, so—)

-------------- (no proper cut, we knit like Men)

Finrod stepped back and looked at the relief, wondering how angry Andreth would be seeing her face in the line of his other friends, carved in his messy style. (How angry she will be)

Edrahil stood in the door. "My lord, you have a guest."

Strange. In the long years after their reembodiment, the captain learned to simply let the guests in when Finrod was not very busy. And now he waited, tense. Did one of the Valar come to visit?

There was only one way to see. "Let them in."

Edrahil left and after a while returned with— How?— The hair as dark as shadows of the evening. Eyes grey as starlit sky. Not a Vala, but—

Finrod blinked for a moment, until he regained some clarity of thought. "You must be my nephew-in-law. Or one of his sons, maybe? Celebrian has told me a lot about you all, but I'm afraid I'm not up to speed with the recent news—"

The guest bowed. "I am indeed Elrond. My sons have not sailed with me." Why was there sorrow in his voice? Was there a conflict in the family?

Finrod put away the chisel and turned to face Elrond properly. The relief could wait. "Come in, I am beyond glad to meet you."

"I bring an invitation to Tol Eressea and a gift from—" Elrond's voice faltered "—my son-in-law, who carries a gift from you, and from my daughter, who made this."

Finrod ignored for now the scroll and opened a package of beautifully woved linen, uncovering another fabric. It was thick and knitted, at first it seemed like a rug, but no, it had sleeves. Shorter than a tunic, it was a kind of Mannish garnment, but made with more artistry than he would expect from the Secondborn. Deep green, light, but warm and soft.

He unfolded the garnment and there was a pattern on it, knitted in lime, brown, and gold—actual gold thread—a familiar pattern of two snakes and a wreath of flowers.

What was the meaning of it?

The ring, obviously— but it made no sense, Elrond's son in law would be an Elf— would he?— the grief in Elrond's voice— the Mannish style of it all— and Lúthien— and they were all heirs of Earendil, they could—

Oh.

"I see," said Finrod softly. "Thank you. I— I see. Would you like a hug, a discussion, or simply to move to another topic and leave you be?"

"A hug—" Elrond's voice broke. "—would be a good start."

Finrod embraced him tightly, his new nephew's head against his chest, and held for long.

Elronds hair, just like Lúthien's, inexplicably smelled of flowers.

[glorfindel-of-imladris]

"Why are you always bringing Glorfindel and Erestor together, it makes no sense" yeah, well, the gamers are doing it, too 💁🏻‍♀️

[eloquentsisyphianturmoil]

I do think that any fan who believes Tolkien intended readers to view characters as deserving of death, instead of simply meeting death as a consequence of their actions (or that one state-sanctioned execution), is fundamentally missing the ideology conveyed in ‘Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.’

[edennill-archived]

The entire discussion was completely tangential to this but I partly misread a post as a joke to the effect that "Well, the people actually responsible for all the deaths in [game] are the devs", and tbh as a statement this is quite relevant to my main fandom.

I will write about it more at length one day, but to be concise — I do not think we can discuss questions such as "Why didn't the Valar do more?" and ignore the very doylist reason that if you've decided to have the spiritual embodiment of evil wage very physical war upon your heroes, you do have to come up with an excuse for why the spiritual embodiment of Good (I'm simplifying the moral pattern a bit here, but I don't want to discuss fictional theology at length right now and ultimately it all boils down to the same in this context) doesn't equally physically solve the problem for them — in order to even have a story.

As far as such excuses go, "the collateral damage — which the antagonist is the only one with approximately minus hundred reasons to care about — would be too high" is not a very poor one, but most of the surrounding discussion scrupulously avoids admitting why it even needs to exist.

[spinnenpfote6]

I need someone to discuss with me WHAT exactly hobbits are, if they can breed with humans and when the species first showed up AND how different they'd genetically be from humans

Ya get it