#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.

[spookyjarchivist]

while i do have a soft spot for “hobbits age slower than humans so 33 for them is our physical 18” i rlly dont think that’s how it is bc they get to about the same age as humans before death by old age, i also really dont think we appreciate enough a few things about what this means narratively and thematically

tolkien really said no child soldiers, no 20-something year old soldiers, they’re not really adults yet, they barely know anything of the world we’re sending them to die for it and that’s not okay, not when there are other options

he also addresses this with the hobbits specifically, frodo and bilbo are 50 when they go on their journeys, FIFTY, and we can see that they handle them differently than the others. while bilbo changes afterwards, it’s not in a coming of age like we would see if 50 really was the equivalent of ~27, he just accepts a part of himself he’s been suppressing for years, for him it’s accepting that getting older and being an adult doesn’t restrict you from the excitement and opportunities of youth. similarly frodo doesn’t change much either outside of his ptsd, all of his change is trauma, not maturity

now sam and merry are both past the age of majority, but they still grow into themselves in a way bilbo and frodo do not, they mature

but pippin, sweet beautiful pippin grows the most out of all of them. he’s the most childish, always running after his cousins and you can tell he’s not even 30, this is HIS coming of age story, before this journey he’s known nothing of true responsibilities, but by the end he’s ready for when he eventually has to take over as thain of the shire

and i think that this is a really beautiful way of saying something that has started to get really popular in the last few years

instead of being terrified of that big 30, we should be excited for it, we should embrace it wholeheartedly, because it’s the time when we’ve finally started ironing out the last of the kinks in being an adult, we’re growing into our responsibilities and and we can start learning how to cultivate that balance of responsibility and excitement and FUN that makes life living instead of surviving

[musingsinmiddleearth]

On the matter of the victimhood of Sauron the Deceiver my most ardent disagreer, @jainaandjacensolo, has hinted at some possible foundational differences of belief on whether or not a being such as Sauron (who has indisputably done evil with forethought and ill intent) is at all worthy of any kind of redemption in canon context. What do you think?

In the event more than one reasoning feels applicable please choose the one that is most agreeable to you. Elaborations and discourse very welcome in reblogs and comments.

[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.

[eri-pl]

@edennill @erendur @warrioreowynofrohan @and-the-times-we-had and everyone else interested if any:

Elrond, Elros, the whole choice thing. Also Tuor. Especially him. Ok maybe not especially because his whole thing is "source: I heard it on a song", so can be kind of ignored. How do they work in terms of falen-ness?

Discuss. While I go to sleep. 🤣

Good night, friends. (Seriously that's an insane question and I'll try to approach it tomorrow)

[glorfindel-of-imladris]

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

[edennill]

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.

[ichabodjane]

Don't a bunch of humans die when Oromë shows up bc they're like "oh no, it's the big scary god that has been kidnapping us this whole time"?

Also just makes me think about the fact that the Valar found the elves and were like "omg plz come live with us and be safe forever" and later found humans and...did not extend the same offer. And for the most part did not go to Middle Earth to help them out. Despite humans arguably being in more danger???

You know with the amount of times men are compared to melkor, I wouldn't mind an au where melkor storms off and lands on middle earth and is the first valar to encounter men. I think he would have really liked men for their constant development and need to improve and be better than their ancestors 🤔

But Melkor was the first Valar to encounter men! Thats why men have it so fuckin' bad, and why there were men within Morgoth's armies, the first men were absolutely plagued by that awful guy. Morgoth doesn't really care about the ideals of self improvement, he likes to dominate people and believes he has the right to do it, hence the everything that happens.

[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

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Consistent Lore? What's that?

How does destroying Adrien's amok work since it's two rings instead of one? It's actually impossible to know because the rules around separated akumas/amoks are all over the place.

Allow me to explain by going through how no two episodes treat this issue with the same logic.

Mega Leech

In this episode, Mayor Bourgeois gets akumatized and is given a leech sentimonster who makes him into a bunch of miniclones. In order to defeat him, they have to destroy every clone

Ladybug: The akumas and the amoks must have multiplied at the same time as the Malediktators, capturing just one doesn't solve the problem.

To defeat him, they have Polymouse clone herself. She then goes around destroying the Malediktator clones one at a time, releasing parts of the akuma/amok

(Polymouse slices his sash in half. They both leave Max's ear. Other Polymouse clones do the same to the Malediktator clones in Kim, Rose, Juleka's ears. Akumas and amoks get released from the sashes and Mini-Malediktators detransform into Mini-Mayor Bourgeois clones.)

The lore according to this episode: breaking part of an amok/akuma will release part of the feather/butterfly. But to truly destory the thing, you have to destroy all of the parts and you don't need to do it at the same time or in any special order.

Multiplication

In this episode, Tomoe is akumatized into Ikari Gozen and makes clones of herself via the mouse. Then this happens:

Cat Noir: We’re gonna have to break all twelve swords? Ladybug: No. It should only take one. She made identical copies of herself.

The lore according to this episode: if an akuma/amok's object is broken up, then you just have to destroy one part of the object and the feather/butterfly will be released. You do not need to destroy every part.

Crocoduel

In this episode, the akumatized object is a vinyl record that gets broken during the akumatization process.

As the akuma lands on the vinyl, the disc breaks in two, causing Anarka and Jagged to fall on the ground, now possessed by the akuma.

Which apparently means that you need to reassemble the record before you can destroy it.

(Purple Tigress joins Ladybug by Liberty and together, they break the broken halves of the vinyl, only with no akuma emerging from it.) Ladybug: Where's the akuma? ... Purple Tigress: The akuma entered these objects before they were torn and separated. Ladybug: Oh! (She uses her Lucky Vision, eyeing the tape roll and the broken pieces of the akumatized vinyl that she and Purple Tigress are holding, and Purple Tigress herself.) We broke them separately, so we should actually join them together to break them together again!

The lore according to this episode: if an akuma/amok's object is broken up, then you must gather all of the parts together, reform them into their original shape, and destroy them in a single act to release the feather/butterfly.

Gang of Secrets

This is a minor one, but I wanted to add it to the list because it's in the same vein and it's weird. In this episode, we see five people akumatized via one bracelet. Alya breaks free of the akuma, but the other four girls stay akumatized until the bracelet is broken. Once it's broken, they're all freed at once.

Every other instance of a person rejecting an akuma will see their rejection release the akuma.

The lore according to this episode: ???????????????????????

--------------------

@rainbow18 This is what I was trying to lay out in the comments for this post, but the character limit makes it messy, so I decided to just make a post instead because you kind of need to see it all laid out to get why I say the rules for the rings could be literally anything. Canon retcons how split up akumas/amoks work every time the concept comes up.

Destroying one of Adrien's rings could doom him or it could release only part of his feather or it could mean nothing because you have to put the rings into the form they were in when the amok was created in order to destroy it. Pick whichever one you like best or make up your own lore because who needs consistency and logic?

[cantsayidont]

Something that bugs me a little about the reactions to LORD OF THE RINGS is the way that fans pointedly overlook the sometimes uneasy class politics that are involved in the relationship between Frodo and Sam.

This is in no way denying that it's a homoerotic relationship, which is something that comes through vividly even in the weird, truncated Rankin-Bass RETURN OF THE KING animated adaptation from 1980. However, it's important to understand that until the last few pages of the novel, Sam is literally Frodo's servant.

Tolkien is quick to stress, as stories from class-conscious societies often do, that Sam is happy and eager to serve Frodo, and willingly does so even when there's nothing in it for him, but the story emphasizes throughout that Sam is not the social equal of Frodo, Merry, Pippin, or Bilbo. When Sam calls Frodo "Master," it's not a D/S thing; Sam is Frodo's household employee (and in a sense his batman, which Tolkien said was the inspiration for their interactions), having essentially inherited that role from his father, who was Bilbo's employee. When, in the final chapter, Frodo tells Sam to marry Rosie Cotton and movie her into Bag End, he isn't proposing a menage à trois, he is offering to hire Rosie so that Sam can combine his marriage with his full-time duties. It isn't until Frodo tells Sam, on the way to the Grey Havens, that he has made Sam his heir that Sam becomes Frodo's social equal and the master of Bag End rather than the head of its staff. (Tolkien implies elsewhere that this caused Sam some legal trouble, since there was no indication that Frodo was dead or permanently gone — and if Merry and Pippin hadn't been there to witness Frodo's departure, people would have wondered if Sam did away with his master to try to steal his estate.)

Moreover, Tolkien expressly links Sam's perseverance, loyalty, and ability to resist the power of the Ring to his knowing his place. Toward the beginning, Sam's father recalls telling him:

‘Elves and Dragons! I says to him. Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you. Don’t go getting mixed up in the business of your betters, or you’ll land in trouble too big for you, I says to him. And I might say it to others,’ he added with a look at the stranger and the miller.

Later (in "The Tower of Cirith Ungol"), Sam is tempted by the Ring, which shows him wild fantasies of his overthrowing Sauron and building a garden in the vale of Gorgoroth. However:

In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.

The word "free" is doing a lot of work here, since Sam is, back in the safety of Hobbiton, quite literally a hand for others to command; he tends Frodo's garden, not his own. But the point is that he recognizes his humble, inferior position in society and accepts it "freely," and that that choice gives Sam what Gandalf might have called the strength and good purpose to heroically resist a temptation that more noble and lordly types like Boromir could not.

My point is not that Sam doesn't love Frodo, which obviously he does, or the reverse, which the narrative makes plain. However, if you are not so reflexively comforted by classist fantasies of this kind, it's hard not to periodically stop and wonder, "Is this sexual harassment?"

[caenith]

But now the rumour ran among the scattered Elves of Beleriand that Dior Thingol’s heir wore the Nauglamír, and they said: ‘A Silmaril of Fëanor burns again in the woods of Doriath’; and the oath of the sons of Fëanor was waked again from sleep. For while Lúthien wore the Necklace of the Dwarves no Elf would dare to assail her;

Feanor: dies while Naruto-running towards Angband

The Feanorians: this girl is scary :<