#whereas tolkien doesn't

[thelonelybrilliance]

too often I think we view a "Story" as a "Lecture" (often aided and abetted by authors who conflate the two). I'm not sure exactly how to put this but I observe it in so many classics--not to mention modern works. It seems there will be endless intepretations of what the author of a work is trying to "Teach" us instead of considering what story they are telling us. (And yes, perhaps some of this is coming to mind because I just completed Tolkien's translation of Beowulf and his commentaries, in which he objected to certain moralistic emendations to the original text by other authors, even those closely contemporaneous to the mysterious "author" of Beowulf).

Now, I think there is a lot to learn from a good Story, but not always (not often) because the author is setting out "Lessons." For example, there are many things to "learn" from Pride and Prejudice, and I would say that some of the areas covered are right & wrong, manners & rudeness, human whims and inconsistencies (to quote Lizzy herself). But the "Story" (despite it being the genesis of many romantic "Tropes") is really about the individual characters that Austen created for that story and that story alone. You can't, and shouldn't, necessarily relate to them exactly, or be able to trace a pattern of Proper Conduct from following or opposing their examples as if they were how-to guides for romance, wealth, decorum, life. They are also, if we separate ourselves from our familiarity with the text, not predictable. Darcy proposed to Elizabeth the second time, not becuase it was the right thing to do, or the only thing to do (indeed, Elizabeth thinks he won't because "men don't"). Darcy proposed again because he was Darcy--and he, Darcy, loved Elizabeth. Likewise, we watch Elizabeth react to her circumstances with both good and bad choices, but the point is not that each choice was prescribed to make a moral stand, or teach us how to act in our own lifes. Rather, her choices made sense for her character, the character we've been shown living and breathing on the page. Just becaues we've derived tropes, patterns, and even moral lessons from a great work like P&P doesn't mean there is such rigidity and unformity in the text. It's a great work in part because it does not follow one single formula.

As a contrast, one of my greatest frustrations with Little Women is how often it feels that Alcott is fighting her story by shoe-horning in moral lessons that she feels it is necessary for the audience to derive. She even explicitly breaks the fourth wall (if you want to call it that) to deliver the occasional lecture to her reader on how to behave. When the girls make mistakes in adolescence or adulthood, the lens is almost always pulled back so that the author can show how they erred, and spell out how they will be punished for their missteps. Personally, I find this approach to have a detrimental effect on art. While I believe that art can and should assist in the formation of our characters, if it is hamstrung from the start by its many Morals and Lessons, it will ultimately fail to inspire me.

[max1461]

Other people want the world as a whole to "mean something" or "be about something" and I just don't. That's so terribly constricting, so suffocating. I'm much more inclined to positive nihilism.

I'm reading about LotR lore lately, and I really like LotR, but all the Christianity in it distresses me. Why must the world be governed by Eru Ilúvatar's infallible and undefeatable master plan? Doesn't that take out all the stakes? More importantly: part of what I like about LotR is its valorization of the small and the ordinary, as represented in the hobbits but also in, you know, Tolkien's proclivity to spend more time talking about potatoes than he needs to, and whatnot. There's a valorization of the small over the grandiose. It's like, finding dignity in the ordinary or something, that feels like a big part of Tolkien's project, and I'm deeply sympathetic to that. But then he has to go and add, you know, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator and omnimalevolent enemy (Melkor, not Sauron) and like...

First of all I hate the combination of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, it just doesn't work in any kind of narrative, it doesn't work in Christianity either, it's just *so* having your cake and eating it too. Like, Christianity itself has something of a "valorization of the small" going on but it also fails there, because (people have already said all these things) Jesus isn't actually just some guy, he's actually god the all-powerful and infallible lord of the universe! And he doesn't even really suffer or debase himself except temporarily, he ascends to heaven in the end, whereas sinners are sent to hell to suffer permanently for their imperfections. And "the meek will inherit the earth" by submitting to God and doing everything he says!

Not really valorizing the small there IMO.

Anyway Christianity doesn't succeed at this but the thing about Tolkien is he gets so close. When he says stuff (this is from one of his letters apparently, I quoted it the other day) like

It had been Sauron’s virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction… it was the creatures of the earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate.

I'm like, yeah! I'm with you bro! But then there's the whole thing about, well, Eru Ilúvatar's creation was perfect until Melkor's discordant singing marred it, and now it's imperfect and that's the source of all evil, but it's also fine because Eru's vision is bound to win out in the end, it's like... you're undercutting your whole thing! Eru is doing what Sauron wants to do, it's just that he's winning at it. Maybe the point is that Eru permits free will, or something, while Sauron doesn't. But this still seems weak in light of the whole "Melkor as the origin of imperfection" thing. You can't valorize the small and the ordinary without being comfortable with imperfection. You can't make a story where imperfection is Inherently Evil, as it seems to quite literally be in Tolkien's cosmology, and have it land for me as a critique of lust for power. Like. What do people even want to do with power except Eliminate All The Imperfections? Obviously some just want to enrich themselves, but I think Tolkien's opposition to power-seeking plainly runs a lot deeper than just opposition to self-interested power-seeking, which is

what I like about it, and

why this incongruity is so frustrating.

Anyway, there's that Scott Alexander post, Heuristics that Almost Always Work. I agree with the thesis of the post as such, but there's this line in it that perfectly articulates the reason rationalism tends to alienate me:

The Futurist He comments on the latest breathless press releases from tech companies. This will change everything! say the press releases. “No it won’t”, he comments. This is the greatest invention ever to exist! say the press releases. “It’s a scam,” he says. Whatever upheaval is predicted, he denies it. Soon we’ll all have flying cars! “Our cars will remain earthbound as always”. Soon we’ll all use cryptocurrency! “We’ll continue using dollars and Visa cards, just like before.” We’re collapsing into dictatorship! “No, we’ll be the same boring oligarchic pseudo-democracy we are now” A new utopian age of citizen governance will flourish. “You’re drunk, go back to bed.” When all the Brier scores are calculated and all the Bayes points added up, he is the best futurist of all. Everyone else occasionally gets bamboozled by some scam or hype train, but he never does. His heuristic is truly superb. But - say it with me - he could be profitably replaced with a rock. “NOTHING EVER CHANGES OR IS INTERESTING”, says the rock, in letters chiseled into its surface. Why hire a squishy drooling human being, when this beautiful glittering rock is right there?

Bolding in the final paragraph mine.

"Nothing ever happens or is interesting". Really? Is that what the skeptical futurist is saying? Certainly he's saying "nothing ever happens", that I'll grant. But he's not saying "nothing is ever interesting". You added that, Scott, because to be interested you need something Big to happen. You are not filled with love for the small and ordinary, it is just wasted time and wasted space to you.

I do not particularly like the Big, at least not most of the time. I like the small quite a lot. And, contrary to their names, I think most of the world is small. The world is made of lots of small things, not a couple big things. And I often feel that the small is the only thing that's actually real, the big tends to be illusory. As a small creature it is other small things that affect me most and matter most to me, it is my small dealings with other small creatures that are subjectively the biggest. And the various grand narratives of history, if they exist, only affect me in a diffuse and nonspecific way and are in all their specifics born out in small things.

I am very much a partisan of ordinary things, ordinary dealings, of our daily lives and our individual relationships and perhaps ephemeral but deeply felt emotions as the actual source of value in the world, from which Big things insofar as they matter at all derive their importance. And, aesthetically I suppose, I am also a defender of the inherent dignity of small things and cast-aside things (a different but closely related category). And there are close connections between the small and the vast (which is not the same as Big), and. Well, take my uquiz. But anyway.

[torchwood-99]

The playing around with gendered narratives we see in Faramir and Eowyn's relationship fascinates me. I've already dwelled on how they almost swap roles in the virtues they possess, the plot points of their stories, and the dramatic climaxes of their arcs, but Tolkien really goes one step further with writing Faramir in a manner that is usually reserved for women, by turning him into "the love interest" after he meets Eowyn.

Before meeting Eowyn, one of Faramir's driving conflicts and dynamics is that with his father. It's a complex and difficult relationship based on love and antipathy, and it ends in the most devastating manner. Some significance is given to how Faramir will respond to the death of his father, as Gandalf gives instructions for him to be told soon his father is dead, but to wait a while before telling him how.

We never see Faramir's reaction to either piece of news. This crucial development is forgotten, without even a line expressing how he found out, or what he felt when he did.

After meeting Eowyn, Faramir character, his arc, his interiority, develops around her.

We see him try to get through to her, to make a connection with her, he fears the world ending because he doesn't want to lose her after finding her, he rejoices in the world being saved by kissing her brow. It all hinges on her. His happiness is complete when she gives him her love. His love was always on offer, the choice for them to be together hinged on her.

In contrast, Eowyn's pre-battle conflicts and dynamics carry on after meeting Faramir. Her despair, her feelings for Aragorn, her mourning Theoden, her need to find a cause for hope and a reason to keep on living now the war is done and death in battle is beyond her. Her friendship with Merry, her loyalty to Rohan; she has Faramir wait for her to return, because first she has duties to do in her home country. Faramir is a new thread in her narrative, and a significant one, but all the earlier threads in her narrative carry through, whereas it feels a bit like some of Faramir's narrative threads were snipped once Eowyn had entered the frame.

Now, we do know that factually Faramir was rebuilding Gondor, and that he became Steward and Prince of Ithilien afterwards, but we don't follow his thoughts and feelings and his struggles as he takes on this new role. As a person, as an individual, he has multiple purposes and priorities. He is still Faramir, who still loves his country and has dreams for how it will grow after the war. He doesn't lose his personhood. But as a character, his story is about Eowyn, and whether or not he gets her. It began with him meeting Eowyn. It followed him reaching out to Eowyn. It ended in Eowyn saying yes.

When Faramir takes a moment to talk about his future, when we get a personal, emotional look at how Faramir views his role and his ambitions, he makes it all about her. He will marry Eowyn, if she wills it. They will go to Ithilien and plant a garden there, if she wills it. And if they do, everything will be wonderful, if she is there.

Contrast to Eowyn talking about her future with Faramir, it's also all about her. How her mindset has changed, how her priorities have shifted, how she no longer wishes to die but wishes to heal, how she has finally found hope at last. The most Faramir gets in this speech is a coy little reference as to how Eowyn no longer wishes to be queen.

Their troth plighting centres Eowyn as well. Eomer justifies holding it at Theoden's funeral because of how much Theoden loved her. He says that the Steward asked for her hand and she granted it, "full willing". The troth plighting scene ends in a reconciliation between Aragorn and Eowyn. Faramir stays in Rohan for a while to be with Eowyn, and the last we see of Eowyn, it's in a scene focussing on her warriors at arms bond with Merry.

Eowyn and Faramir's stories, after the Battle of Pelennor, becomes Eowyn and Faramir's story. It's about them falling in love and coming together. However, in this story, it's not the bloke who is the Hero, and the woman who is the Love Interest. Here, Eowyn is the Hero, with multiple narrative threads and dynamics that need to be resolved, and Faramir is the Love Interest, whose narrative is entirely wrapped in whether or not he gets the girl.

[deus-sema]

My dear Haladriels/Saurondriels,

I understand that we all here are very passionate about this ship of ours. But, as responsible and law abiding citizens of whichever country each of us belongs to, it is also our duty to weed out the bad apples in our midst who besmirch the good name of our community within the fandom.

Unlike the rest of us sensible and well meaning souls who know how to ship in a proper and decent manner, these notorious shippers have crossed all limits when it comes to delusion and their audacity knows no bounds. In the name of all that is good and just, they need to be called out.

Here are those individuals. If you come across them anywhere do NOT engage. They are beyond saving. Just block/report and move on. If it were upto me, I would have them jailed and locked away from civilized society but alas.

(1) Lost Cause #1

This guy is unbelievable for he comes up with the most outlandish headcanons about Sauron and Galadriel. He romanticizes the hell out of them and spends the entire day writing fluffy AUs where they end up happily ever after and have five kids or angsty ones where they pine for each other. Tch tch. I bet he doesn't know or understand anything about the books or the characters and is simply projecting onto Galadriel and trying to live his fantasy of fixing Sauron through her. It's okay if he wants to do that but then he starts acting like it's canon and it gets annoying. Someone please tell him Galadriel and Sauron aren't star crossed lovers.

(2) Lost Cause #2

Then there this dude who is legit dangerous. The first one was just an ignorant soul who romanticizes them whereas this one sexualizes the ship. Can you believe it?! He sexualizes the Lady Of Light and the Dark Lord. His fics are all porn and no plot. His fanart is blasphemous NSFW. He also prefers the ship when it involves dead dove, non con, stalking and obsession, all of which are supposed to be unhealthy, dangerous and illegal. I'm worried about his well being. If you ask me, like the other guy, he is projecting onto Galadriel too but instead of fixing the sexy bad boy, he wants to make Sauron worse. He,too, understands nothing about the books.

(3) Lost Cause #3

Last, but not the least, there is this guy who is.............hopeless. The other two shippers can still be rehabilitated with some time and effort but stay the fuck away from this one. He doesn't believe Sauron and Galadriel don't end up together. Those two live in AUs but for him, his AU is canon. He fully expects Sauron and Galadriel to ride off to the sunset together and won't let anyone stand in his way. Be it Amazon or the Tolkien Estate. As we waste time on social media, he is devising a means to travel back in time, hold Tolkien at gunpoint and force him to make Saurondriel endgame in the books.

Now, remember everyone. We are NOT like these shippers. We are good shipperses. Nice shipperses who stay in our lane. Sweet shipperses.

[rey-jake-therapist]

headcanon: when galadriel talked about celeborn to theo back in season 1 she was actually trying to compartmentalize her worries/grief about halbrand

His name was the first one she screamed after she woke up and she even repeated after it

In my head she was holding on her husband's memory because she had already dealt with the grief of losting him so it was safe to evoke him whereas she needed to stay sane and calm about halbrand

tl;dr when galadriel remembered celeborn in season 1 she was trying to keep her feelings for halbrand in the back seat in fear that they would overwhelm her because she had a mission to accomplish so even in the only time he was mentioned it wasn't about him at all That's how important he is for her lol

she is so over him that can be detached from their shared past

I mean Theo asked her who else she lost in the war so I think her bringing up Celeborn at last made very much sense. The writers probably realized that the Tolkien audience would wonder about him, they HAD to say something about him ! 😂 the moment was also well chosen : everyone who looked at the previous episode with their eyes and not with their butt had seen that the moment that Galadriel and Halbrand shared on that log was deeply romantic, and could have even led to a kiss if they hadn't been interrupted (a classical romantic trope.... S1 Haladriel has all of them 😌).

Mentioning her husband and making the point across that Galadriel considered him "lost" (dead) was necessary at this point, for Galadriel to not look like a cheater. Not that it worked, if we refer to the number of people still clutching their pearls over a law they invented, where Elves love only once in their life and can never, ever catch feelings for anyone else than their spouse, even when said spouse is dead...

The way Galadriel talked about Celeborn always seemed off to me. I know it's assumed that they lived for hundred of years together before he disappeared, because of the books, but the show doesn't follow the book!lore. If they lived together for so long, why would she bring up the day they met ? Why not saying something about where they lived, about their life together, about how united they were ? Why is it the only time she talked about him ? Why doesn't she seem to miss him at all ?

Seriously, the way she talked about him it sounded like they had met and gotten married, then a few weeks later Celeborn left for war and never came back. I know his "fans" firmly believe that he'll make a heroic return in season 3 and that Galadriel will jump in his arms crying of happiness, and that we'll suddenly all stop shipping Haladriel* bc we'll be overwhelmed by their precious love but.... If it's really the showrunners' intention, they have a very strange way of showing it ���

Anywayyyyy I know it wasn't the subject of your ask, sorry..... This episode was very much Galadriel keeping everything inside. She really believed that Halbrand died, she also realized she had brought all these soldiers to their death, and she was completely heartbroken over it. But having to take care of a teenager who had presumably lost everything as well, she just held it all back. She had to. I think mentioning the memory of a past where she was happy, and where things just happened as they were meant to (being spotted dancing by a handsome and nice he-Elf, falling in love, getting married with him, etc.), gave her some sense of peace she terribly needed in that moment.

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

I know there are modern aus of Tolkien works, but what I think should be explored more is modern headcanon/sequels. Because of the elven reincarnation bit and how Valinor is kind of a hybrid between a real and spiritual place, whereas Middle Earth is a prehistoric version of our world, there's room for headcanons where elves visit the modern world. Doesn't need to be an au so much as a much later sequel fic.

I think it would be bittersweet. They'd hate the pollution and environmental destruction but be fascinated by technical advances.

[marta-bee]

This story from @eilinelsghost really and truly blew me away. I don't want to say too much for risk of spoiling it (for he that breaks a thing to see how it works, etc. etc.), but by way of summary, it involves Finarfin and Finrod being reunited after Finrod's death and re-incarnation, and it is every bit as intense as a fic would need to be to do that moment really, really well.

I mean: damn.

Aside from that, I think it's pretty well known in these parts that my two big fandoms are Tolkien and Sherlock Holmes. What I've maybe made less obvious is I relate to these fandoms in pretty different ways, and this fic helped me understand why.

Tolkien is the one fandom I've ever really felt driven to write for, though I don't read it much these days. Whereas Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock especially, I love to read but feel so little drive to actually write in. And I think it's because with Sherlock, there are these great fun characters and so many people still writing in this really accessible, relaxing writing style. Also, canon really did do quite a few of us Johnlockers horribly wrong. Slipping back into that world is like slipping into a warm bath at the end of a long day. But there's not this metaphysical grist the way there is with the Silmarillion especially, and the way my brain works, there's nothing to work out the same way.

And writing is hard. It takes me months often as not, and while I love being on the other side of a good story-telling, the getting-there process is quite grueling. Even the wordcrafting, the turns-of-phrase, I really love writing a character that demands that and whose character demands it. Mycroft, maybe. Denethor, certainly. But more and more, with Sherlock stories, the kind of stories I feel like I should be writing there just don't seem to spring naturally from the canon.

Then I read this gem and got a glimpse of what I was yearning for. It's the archaic language, I think, and the way that other-ness just really, really serves the theme I think the author is aiming for. It's gloriously told on its own, but it's also not (to borrow a line from Hitchhiker's Guide) not just some guys, you know? It's almost like Finrod and Finarfin are characters almost (but not quite) elevated to archetypes so we can play around with what it means to be reembodied in Arda Marred, in a way a philosophical treatise never quite could.

Doesn't mean the story itself doesn't pack a punch. This is plunge the dagger in and twist it around while you're in there why don't you? level angst, and I do mean that as the best compliment.

As I said: damn.

To the extent I'm in a place to make New Year's resolutions, I'd say this makes me want to reread the Silm and maybe write some Tolkien fic of my own again. That wanting is the highest compliment I can muster. Whether I can actually do that is an open question (I'm both tired and very busy with RL), but the desire is real.

Seriously, Silmarillion fans, if you've gotten this far and are still reading me please go and read the thing. For a oneshot especially, it packed an utterly ridiculous amount of wallop.

Sherlockians, don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. But sometimes, game just has to take a moment to recognize game.

[saurongorthaur9]

Do you think sauron will be pleased with modern earth with all the machines?

Modern earth would be his paradise and he'd probably be a top class engineer if he was reincarnated here.

Oh yes, I think Sauron would absolutely love the innovation and technology and machinery.

There is however a seeming contradiction, or a complication perhaps, to Sauron that I've always been curious about. And that is this. In the Second Age, Sauron (as Annatar) pitches his vision as making Middle-earth as perfect and beautiful as Valinor (nay, even greater than Valinor). He describes this absolute utopia and I think he really means it (leaving out the one teeny tiny detail that he's going to rule everything of course). It fits with what Tolkien says of Sauron that he loves beauty, order, and perfection above all else.

But then you have Sauron from LOTR and the late Third Age, who seems to have lost that vision of a utopian paradise, in as much as we see of his goals. Like Saruman, he is associated with destructive industry and the ravaging of nature. Mordor itself is a wasteland, and the land around Mordor is becoming polluted likewise. This doesn't seem to fit with Sauron's original vision of a Middle-earth more fair than Valinor or his obsession with beauty and perfection.

My personal headcanon is that Sauron's preference is to rule a beautiful paradise, but he'll sacrifice that for his ultimate goal to just rule. Second Age Sauron is still relatively young and idealistic, whereas the Sauron of LOTR has become so jaded and filled with anger and hatred that he's willing to ruin Middle-earth if it means that's what it takes to finally rule it.

But I think in his truest self, Sauron would love innovation paired with efforts to keep the world also beautiful.

All that to say, back to your question, that I think Sauron would love the innovation but a part of him (however deeply buried) would be sad to see the ruin we've wrought on nature.

I'm actually going to be exploring this in the later parts of Gorthauro Estel, my Sauron redemption story, seeing what a healed Sauron would be like, who still loves technology and innovation but who also cares about the wellbeing of the world and genuinely wants the preservation of nature's beauty.

That was a very long rambling response to your fairly straightforward question, but those are my thoughts. Thanks for the ask!

[crownedwithstars]

Galadriel in the Rings of Power, part 4: A savvy politician or a silly brash youth?

This post is the continuation of my analysis of Galadriel as she is portrayed in the Amazon series The Rings of Power - and why I think it is so very bad. Part 1 focused on the the portrayal of her being a warrior, and the many problems it creates for her character and possibly even for LOTR, whereas part 2 argued that what is supposed to be war trauma is actually just an awful personality. Part 3 focuses on the ways ROP undermines Galadriel's story as a woman, wife, and mother.

Part 1 x Part 2 x Part 3

This post will discuss the various ways Galadriel's portrayal in ROP is wrong when comparing the mental qualities she expresses in canon and in the show, the depiction of her age, and whether she is well cast in the show.

I will post my arguments in a few different posts, because that should make the whole much more readable. I will use the tags #anti rop and #anti rings of power for the benefit of those who may want to filter my posts.

If you like Amazon Rings of Power, I have no issue with that; I only take issue with how a character I've loved for over a decade is portrayed in this show.

6. ROP!Galadriel does not have the mental capacity and abilities she should have.

In Tolkien's versions of Galadriel's story, she is consistently portrayed as an individual of high intellect and wisdom, matching even the loremasters of her people. She is insightful and astute, seeing into the hearts of people around her, and recognising evil even under a fair form. She is collected and resilient after great ordeals and suffering. She never is persuaded to follow or even like Fëanor, and when Sauron comes to Eregion as Annatar, she knows him immediately for what he is. She learns to check her ambition and when she's offered the rule of Lothlórien, she won't become a queen after King Amroth, but assumes more of a regent's role as the Lady of the Wood. Galadriel is also a strong and wise leader, respected by her subordinates and other Elven communities, which implies great diplomatic skill. As I have argued before, it is striking that she, a Noldo and blood-relation of Kinslayers, is revered among the Elves of MIddle-earth. It's hard to believe this would be possible if she did not build and maintain a connection with them throughout the First and Second Ages. When the Istari arrive in Middle-earth, she rightly recognises Gandalf as the greatest of them. She travels through Khazad-dûm with her daughter, and does so while her husband Celeborn refuses the journey due to his prejudices for Dwarves, thus showing her tolerance and ability to deal with the other peoples of Middle-earth. She makes allies among the peoples of Middle-earth, is the instigator of the White Council and even invokes love in the heart of Gimli the dwarf, who has every reason to be mistrustful of her. Specifically, it is her eloquence and respect for his culture that wins him over. She is one of the very few noble Noldorin Elves to survive the First Age and endure until the end of the Third. 

I don't find any of these qualities in ROP!Galadriel. The most glaring difference is how blind and gullible she is to Sauron/Halbrand's deceptions - a direct contradiction of how canonically Galadriel immediately saw through his disguise and was his enemy from the start. ROP!Galadriel doesn't seem particularly intelligent, what with jumping out of a ship and trying to swim across an ocean, and spending centuries fruitlessly hunting Sauron. And as I argued in the part 3, it doesn't seem like she ever had a very good plan of how to bring down Sauron, if she ever found him - unless her intention always was to self-destruct by Sauron.

She has no wisdom whatsoever, doesn't see her own faults and doesn't try to check herself. She is a princess of Noldor and in her youth witnessed all the tensions and rivalries at her grandfather's court, but still she has no skill in politics, diplomacy or negotiation. She lets herself be manipulated by Gil-galad, stepping on the ship that sails for Valinor and only jumps out at the point when there is no way she could possibly swim back to Middle-earth (only to be saved by idiot plot). She is antagonising against potential allies. She waltzes into the court of Númenor, yells platitudes at the regent, makes arrogant demands and gets herself thrown in jail - which she gets out of not by eloquence and persuasion, but by aggression and violence. The only reason Míriel seems to help her is because Míriel's own foreboding, not because Galadriel's diplomatic skill. She is a blunt weapon of no artistry or subtlety. She is rude even when her circumstances require tact and caution, and continues to act in a coarse way even though the Númenóreans' prejudices against Elves are already causing tensions and the smart thing to do would be to show discretion and courtesy. For her community, she is a problem to be dealt with, not a great asset and ally. She has no personal dignity and people around have no respect for her. And why would they? She is not nice even to her so called friends and mostly she is bothered to care about people around her when they can somehow serve her vengeance. Pride is maybe the only thing ROP!Galadriel has in common with her canon counterpart, but it's combined with an already awful personality and no redeeming qualities.

7. Depiction of Galadriel's age is nonsensical.

This argument has not just to do with Galadriel, but is linked with the show's larger problems with portraying Elves and the compression of time - although it is telling that it's the female character that gets this treatment, not one of the male Elves. However, this is another discussion altogether and I will cover it in the final part of my analysis.

According to Tolkien's lore, Elves reach maturity at the age of a hundred years. Galadriel at the end of the Second Age is already thousands of years old. At this point in canon, she has been married for an age and has a grown daughter. She is one of the oldest and most powerful elves of Middle-earth, and is senior to Gil-galad and Celebrimbor. 

Although ROP still maintains that Galadriel was born in Valinor during the years of the Trees and is thus exactly as old as in canon, you would not guess it from the way she presents herself. She is so brash and immature in her behaviour that Elendil, a mortal who can't even comprehend the ages she has lived, actually says she reminds him of his children (is this some convoluted way of saying that only parenthood will bring out one's full potential?). Meanwhile, Gil-galad and Celebrimbor, who are both her junior, are portrayed as older and more mature. In canon, Galadriel is wise already as a young elf and her wisdom grows only greater during her long life, but ROP!Galadriel has absolutely no wisdom and despite her great age, acts like a hot-headed teenager. It seems the show wants to portray her as "young Galadriel", never mind the fact that this character cannot in any way be considered young at the end of the Second Age. Heck, it would be a reach even if the show began at the start of SA.

8. Galadriel is not well cast

I will admit that this argument is partly a matter of taste, but there is also a more objective observation to be made: Galadriel is described as a very tall woman, as tall as most male Elves. She is also an athlete in her youth, and also physically strong. Combining this with her high intellect, her ability to read the hearts and minds of others, and heritage as a High Elf who saw the light of the Trees, Galadriel should be played by a tall, imposing and striking woman. 

The actress Amazon cast in the role does not have these qualities. She is diminutive and does not stand out in any scene as an ancient and powerful Elf. The weight of the role would be humongous for anyone after Cate Blanchett's widely beloved portrayal, and it is certainly not helpful that the show creators have made some very controversial choices about the character.

On a more subjective note, in my opinion the actress is not particularly good in the role. Most of the time, she has only two expressions, sullenness and angry sneer. Her delivery is not very good or convincing. But maybe this is not the actress' fault: the problems could stem from the script and direction, which are at times laughably bad. I don't know of the actress' previous work - I'm under the impression that she is a new face in the business and ROP is her first major role - so it may be also a question of experience.

Also we should cast tall women in more roles. 

&&&&&&

The next and the final part will attempt to tie in my arguments and also point out some problems with the show that are not necessarily about Galadriel, but affect nonetheless the way she's portrayed in the show.

[aipilosse]

What are your thoughts about why and how Sauron followed and continued to serve Melkor/Morgoth? I get that Tolkien said that he admired how Melkor was uber powerful and could effect his designs quickly and easily (initially). But Sauron is also described as being a logical control freak who hates wasteful friction but loves organization and logistics? Whereas Morgoth especially seemed like, well, the king and ultimate arbiter of “wasteful friction”. He destroyed stuff just for the sake of destroying stuff. He poured his own power into the world to make it decay and eventually destroy itself. So he sorta wasted himself and the world together? I don’t know if I’m explaining this well or not but I wonder what Sauron thought of his master when he was no longer so powerful (we know he at least didn’t betray him and continued to be loyal.) At the least, he must have been hella frustrated with him at times.

I think it all began to break down after Morgoth's duel with Fingolfin.

That was the last time in those wars that he passed the doors of his stronghold, and it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for though his might was greatest of all things in this world, alone of the Valar he knew fear. But he could not now deny the challenge before the face of his captains; for the rocks rang with the shrill music of Fingolfin’s horn, and his voice came keen and clear down into the depths of Angband; and Fingolfin named Morgoth craven, and lord of slaves.

The Dagor Bragollach had just happened, breaking the siege, destroying the realms of the Noldor. It was the result of careful planning, creating awesome monsters, and using environmental destruction to incredible effect. And then Morgoth can barely squish one noisy little Elf-Lord!

I think up to that point Sauron thought that Morgoth's strategy of imbuing Arda with his power was smart, impressive even. Maybe it was not yet evident how that weakened his own being and resulted in processes Morgoth could no longer control.

Also, yes Sauron doesn't betray Morgoth, but after the Bragollach he held Tol Sirion turning it into Tol-in-Gaurhoth. You have to wonder if one or both of them thought it would be better if there was a little separation between them. And Sauron is certainly loyal to Morgoth in the Leithian, but then he suffers a defeat that is much more humiliating that getting poked in the foot by a small yet angry elf.

I personally am now on board with the theory that after his defeat at the hands of Lúthien and Huan, Sauron never returns to Morgoth. I think he stayed in Taur-nu-Fuin, licking his wounds, haunting up the place, maybe meeting Shelob's mom and trying out some spider pets, but I don't think he went back to Angband nor coordinated with Morgoth after that.

The next time we see him, he's asking Eonwe for forgiveness, groveling, and at that point abjuring his deeds under Morgoth. Which I don't think Morgoth would say was especially loyal! I think from that point onward, Sauron is definitely in it for himself, using past connections with Morgoth for his own gain, but not holding any particular loyalty to him.

Thanks for the question!!

[science-fiction-is-real]

I'm sorry, my Tolkien girlies, but we do need to actually acknowledge that Tolkein's books are actually and actively racist.

Like. It's racist. Ok.

The idea that some races of people are inherently bad.

The constant framing of "the west" as a good and free and fair world that needs constant defence from invasion of corruption from the south and the east.

The idea that populations who align with your geopolitical enemies are purely doing so either because they themselves are evil or because they are brainwashed and lack capacity for free thought and agency.

It is actually racist. And Tolkein didn't really have any excuses for it.

Many people try to defend Tolkein as an anti racist because of a letter he wrote to a Nazi rejecting antisemitism and the notion of an Aryan race. But not buying into Nazi race science is an extremely low bar, and doesn't excuse all of the race science nonsense that actually exists in the book.

For example, I have just gotten done reading the chapter "The Council of Elrond" where the characters openly discuss how the men of Numenor literally had more pure and superior genetics which blessed their descendants with long life, but how this lifespan had decreased over time due to their descendants mixing with "lesser" men. In this chapter we also listen to Boromir go on a racist tirade about Gondor being attacked by savagery from the east. Not just that Gondor is having border disputes with a geopolitical enemy. No. The people attacking Gondor are eastern savages who will corrupt the whole world if they manage to take ground.

And Jesus Christ. Obviously it is ok if you enjoy Tolkein's books. There are positive themes in the books as well, sometimes even liberatory themes too. I don't think liking Tolkein's work despite his clear racism has the same ethical baggage, as say, liking the work of JK Rowling despite her transphobia. As Rowling is actively campaigning against trans rights at this moment and you are actively helping that process when you give her money, whereas Tolkein is obviously dead.

I don't know. As a Tolkein fan myself, I'm not sure how to wrestle with this moral complexity.

But also you really really need to not allow your enjoyment of a work to get in the way of understanding its reactionary themes and elements. You need to be able to analyze media as it is or you will passively absorb its propagandistic effects uncritically. (And all art is propaganda by the way.)

This does actually have real life implications. How many self-described liberals gleefully reblogged memes comparing Russian soldiers to orcs when discussing the Ukraine war? People who swore up and down that they were good progressives and anti racists, and that they actually hated colonialism which was why they were supporting Ukraine in the first place. But still they very uncritically, without a second thought, described the foot soldiers of America's geopolitical enemies as Orcs, savagely attacking the good and pure Western country as they invaded from the East?

My good friend, do you not understand that when Tolkein wrote about Orcs, he projecting his own orientalist anxieties about those very same Russian people? Do you not see how cold war anxiety and the specter of eastern communism may have influenced Tolkein's depiction of western nations in his world as good and free and noble while the East was corrupted and brainwashed? My friend, you are doing a racism. You are doing the same racism that Tolkein did, for the same reasons, against the same people.

The fact that "Lord of the Rings" is racist is interesting. It helps us see the text more clearly as a work of British literature, as a work of the early - mid 20th century. It helps us see it in the light of the world wars that Tolkein survived, the Red Scare paranoia of the era, and the complex geopolitical moment of the time and place where he wrote LOTR.

And if we ignore the negative elements in a text we enjoy, we also are depriving ourselves of a more rich and interesting understanding of the text. We intellectually stunt ourselves when we say "no, not my face, he can't be problematic," and close ourselves off to seeing the full spectrum of color contained within a work.

It also makes it interesting to observe how people all over the world, including many people of color and people from colonized and poor countries, have enjoyed the work and engaged with it.

I am literally arguing that you will enjoy the literature more if you acknowledge and attempt to understand even the morally repugnant elements of it.

I am a Tolkein fan. I love LOTR and the Hobbit. And I will continue to read these books and draw fan art and participate in the fandom. Maybe that makes me a bad person, or maybe that just makes me a chick with a hobby. But please for the love of Christ. Can we stop ignoring the big racist Oliphant in the room?

[frodothefair]

Frodo and Rosie?

So, someone on Ao3 brought up the notion that I could've written Flowers of Mordor also as an OT3, perhaps involving Rosie instead of Marigold. Of course, it wasn't a suggestion or concrit, just an observation, and I said that the way I imagined Rosie, I could not see her with Frodo in any romantic or sexual way -- they are simply not right for each other.

But then, ever since I have been thinking... why not Rosie and Frodo? Granted, this would be a case of heartbreak rather than an OT3, because poly in any capacity is not my cup of tea, but hear me out...

To begin with, here's my view of Rosie, based on what little we know of her in canon:

She's assertive, direct, and has a sharp wit. She basically got Sam to marry her by giving him a tongue-in-cheek ultimatum.

She is feisty and brave, even contrary. When her mother warned her there are "ruffians about," she still broke into song.

She probably brims with endless energy. Having thirteen children, you pretty much have to be that sort of person.

She has several brothers, and no sisters. Every woman I know who has grown up in this environment is not necessarily more masculine, but more self-assured and independent.

She has no known (direct) trauma from the Scouring -- that is, she wasn't in the Lockholes, wasn't kidnapped or violated. If she had trauma like that, Tolkien probably would have mentioned it. Though that's not to say that she was not deeply affected.

In fact, as a result of all of the above, in FoM I've conceptualized Rosie as a bit of a firecracker. She is a natural leader, loves to be the center of attention, and is fiercely protective of her friends. She knows what she wants, and she often gets it. We first "meet" her standing in the middle of the kitchen, telling a "hilarious" story and waving a ladle around as a prop. Sam may even be a little bit afraid of her, and swears that she can read his mind. She is also a little bit manipulative with Marigold, but not in a bad way -- she simply knows which emotional strings to pull. In good time, she will have her own emotional reckoning and her own vulnerable moments, but I won't spoil those yet.

Now, a person like Rosie is perfect as a wife of a pillar of the community, which is what Sam eventually becomes, but can a person like Rosie be with Frodo? Maybe, especially pre-quest Frodo who is more active, but pre-quest Rosie, who is a farmer's daughter, would not have been remotely in the running as a match for Frodo until the War of the Ring (much like WWI) erased many a social boundary.

But more than that, I ultimately felt that Frodo is too head-in-the-clouds, too nerdy and too weird for Rosie. Unlike Marigold, Rosie probably has little interest in books or faraway places. She is more prosaic and maybe altogether "too much" with her love of the spotlight, whereas Frodo, especially post-quest, needs plenty of time to rest to think and feel things that others have no idea about. Marigold, being more introverted and a deep thinker, and also traumatized in her own way, is the delicate flower whose company he needs.

Anyway. Let's say all of the above is true.

And yet, just because two people don't seem to "work" on paper doesn't mean that they can't fall in love, against all odds and logic.

So hear me out...

What if... what IF Rosie marries Sam, and then they move into Bag End, and slowly, ever so slowly as she takes care of Frodo, and listens to his tale, she gains an understanding and a compassion for him that she never thought possible? What if his trauma and courage win her fiery heart, and pity turns to devotion, and then to more, and then Rosie realizes one day, with horror, that she married the wrong hobbit?

And then there's more... Perhaps... Perhaps Frodo could easily feel the same, and succumb to the Florence Nightingale effect, but on account of his illness, he would feel unable to be a partner to anyone, and would be forced to reject her. And then Sam, upon guessing, or perhaps finding out for a fact, would volunteer to step aside, and Frodo would refuse to accept it.

And then what if... what if THIS is the real reason Frodo leaves for Valinor?!

Wouldn't that be trippy??????!!

@konartiste @emmanuellececchi

[thegreatzombieartisan]

Luthien: “Mere Maiden”

Luthien the "mere maiden"... as infuriating as Tolkien's description of her was, he's closer to the truth than Luthien as an OP Mary Sue. Because Luthien isn't OP. She's the underdog in all her battles and encounters and she doesn't always initially win...

“Mere” can mean, at best, “pure and simple”. At worst, “mere” is a derogatory “nothing more than”. While “mere maiden” seems as if Tolkien is diminishing Luthien due to gender, context is key.

The Silmarillion is written in a fairytale style. And while Luthien maybe the fair daughter of an Elvenking and Maia, within the Middle Earth theater with Morgoth, until she rescues Beren, she has no other recorded feats. She is a mere maiden. But that’s what makes her story legendary.

*

Deeper Metaphysical Dive: “Mere Maiden” as Marian Humbleness

Tolkien's heroines are partly inspired by the Virgin Mary whom he deeply admired. Knowing this, it’s clear that Luthien and Morgoth parallel the cosmic dynamic between Mary and Satan.

In the Book of Genesis, God punishes Satan in serpent form for tempting Eve into eating the forbidden fruit.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

In essence, the descendants of Eve will ultimately defeat Satan. Mary is a humble, poorJesus Christ, the Savior, enters the world through Mary — highlighting how God often works through the seemingly insignificant to achieve great things.

Morgoth is the second most powerful being in existence. Luthien is just the sire of an uppity Elvenking. He is pure spirit whereas she is flesh. Yet this mere maiden was able to dupe him in his own halls and steal a precious Silmaril!

Morgoth raged at his humiliation and defeat by Luthien — just as Satan did toward Mary. These “mere maidens” can create life whereas the princes of darkness could not.

Far from being the underdog, humility and “weakness” gave Luthien the advantage over Morgoth.

Everything is a gift from Illuvatar. Morgoth abuses his creative powers, whereas Luthien uses her to will the good of others.

[torchwood-99]

Just thinking about Theoden's attitude towards Theodred and Eowyn. His total non-reaction to Theodred's death, and his near indifference to Eowyn that lasts almost until his dying moments.

I don't know if that is how Tolkien meant to portray him. Maybe we are meant to conclude for ourselves that there were moments between Theoden and Eowyn that actually supported Theoden as a loving figure towards her. Perhaps we are meant to infer that Theoden doesn't show any grief for Theodred's death because it hurts him too much. After all, the Red Book is a retelling written by in-universe characters, it makes sense they'd miss stuff and leave stuff out.

Basically, we're told Theoden was a kind old man, that he loved Eowyn, and he presumably loved Theodred, and using that knowledge we just have to fill in the gaps.

I expect that this is how we're meant to view Theoden, as a loving father, wracked by grief and guilt, and we just don't see much of it because we only see short glimpses of Theoden.

However, if we don't want to fill in the gaps, if we don't want to create content to redeem Theoden as a father to Theodred and Eowyn, we can probably find in-universe reasons that would explain why he would be so lacking in his affections towards them, when he is so kind and affectionate to other characters, especially Theodred.

We know that when Theodred died, he and Theoden were in major disagreement and seemed somewhat estranged, thanks in large to Grima's manipulations. However, this was also the case for Eomer and Theoden, and when Theoden is cured he and Eomer reconcile, yet nothing is said of Theoden losing his son and suffering, neither by Theoden or the narrative.

Now, in Anglo-Saxon cultures, "Mothers' brothers" and "sisters'-sons" had a special relationship, partly because the uncle knew for certain the nephew was his blood, which a father wasn't always sure of with his son. This would explain why Theoden seems to prefer Eomer over his own son.

Secondary, Theodred was Theoden's heir. If all went according to plan, Theodred was the one who would supplant Theoden and take his throne. However Theoden loved his son, his son was also a walking reminder of his own mortality.

As Theodred grew stronger and Theoden grew weaker, Theoden might have felt this all the more keenly. Theodred was the future, the one his people turned to more and more as a source of hope and strength.

For that, Theoden kept Theodred at arm's length, pushing him further away the closer Theodred got to assuming the kingship. Watching Theodred, seeing his strength, his prowess, Theoden couldn't help but be reminded

Eowyn Theoden needed a less active reason to not be entirely interested. She was just a girl after all. She had her place, she had her role. It was waiting on Theoden, serving Theoden, serving who Theoden told her to serve. She (seemingly) slotted neatly into place and wasn't expected to do anything else, be anything else. Whereas Theoden would have required a reason to push Theodred away, to feel less than total affection for him, with Eowyn it was the reverse. She was just Eowyn.

But just like Theodred would have reminded Theoden of his own infirmity, Eowyn most likely did so too. Eowyn was his nurse, his carer, she tended him during his dotage. She instinctively gives Theoden her arm when he struggles to walk. Once his strength is regained, he doesn't want to be reminded of his frailty, of his total physical dependence on a young girl. He sends her away, he puts her out of his mind.

When he arrives at Dunharrow, he seems marginally more interested in Eowyn, doing the small courtesy of asking how she is, and recognising what everyone else recognises, that she grieves for Aragorn riding to the Paths of the Dead. It's crumbs but it's more than what she got back in Edoras, when Theoden was first healed. Having won a battle, Theoden no longer needs to be quite so defensive about his strength and vitality, and Eowyn having been charged to lead the people means she has assumed the role other than that of dry nurse, so Theoden doesn't have to cringe at her presence.

Theodred meanwhile, who was a walking reminder of Theoden's mortality in life, becomes Theoden's shame and failure in death. As such, Theodred is never allowed back into Theoden's heart. Theodred has to remain forgotten.

[galavant-song-tournament]

Ok so here is my summary of how to be a successful Ringbearer:

First and most obviously: how good a character would be at travelling to and within Mordor without getting caught. The skill here is mostly not going to be fighting but stealth and disguise (Frodo and Sam dress as orcs for a while). Hiding from the Ringwraiths at the start of the story and staying under the radar as they get closer to Mordor - but by then at least Sauron and the Ringwraiths will be distracted by the war. There's also the matter of knowing how to get into Mordor or convincing Gollum to bring them there.

Second: resisting the Ring's temptation. The more powerful you are in your own right, the more it would have to work with to tempt you. Gandalf, for example, says "With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly… I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself… The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength." And then Galadriel saye she would become "a Queen… beautiful and terrible… All shall love me and despair!"

Whereas the ring has less to work on with less powerful / more humble characters like the hobbits. The Ring works more on tempting them into revealing themselves to the Ringwraiths. Frodo struggles not to put it on every time they come near him, but it doesn't give him the idea that he could defeat Sauron and rule Middle Earth in his place. When Sam carries the Ring for a short while, it offers him vast gardens and realms, which he quickly dismisses as ridiculous.

And there's one final wrench in the works (spoilers from here on): even Frodo "failed" in the end. When he reached Mount Doom - where Sauron and the Ring's power are at their strongest - even he was unable to resist claiming the ring for himself and refusing to destroy it. According to Tolkien no one could have chosen to destroy it there. The ring was only destroyed because Gollum stole and then fell into the volcano. So in order to succeed a character must be able to feel pity for / be merciful to Gollum when they catch him following them.

This is awesome, thanks so much!

[bella-rose29]

just finished my binge of all three hobbit movies (again) and I can't stop thinking about writing a fic for lockwood x fem!reader where their relationship is kinda like Kili and Tauriel

(possible spoilers under the cut for both the hobbit and a brief mention of Bridgerton s2)

I don't want either of them to die, obviously (because even though Kili definitely dies and while Tauriel doesn't exist in the books it makes sense that she dies from heartbreak, and I think that's mentioned in lotr? but I can't remember), but mostly I got stuck on the conversation between Tauriel and Thranduil after the battle, and these two lines in particular:

"Why does it hurt so much?"

"Because it was real."

Okay first of all, Thranduil spent the entire trilogy telling Tauriel that she's both not good enough for Legolas (because of hierarchical views of elves) and also that what she feels for Kili isn't real, so for him to say those words has such an impact.

Second, I feel like those two lines are so Lockwood coded and I can't figure out why (they just are).

Maybe it's the fact that he tries to shut himself off to caring about people by not telling them things, because he doesn't want to let anybody close enough to leave him again like with his family.

Maybe it's the fact that Lockwood would absolutely want to know why love had to hurt so damn much, because there's already so much pain in the world so why should something so beautiful end the same way?

I also think that Lockwood would be the sort of person to pull an Anthony Bridgerton and not want to be the cause of that pain, therefore becoming somebody likeable but far away and out of reach. He would absolutely try and limit the amount of pain that he caused others, because he's been through so much himself that he would hate himself if he ever became the reason that they felt the same way he had.

I think there's something to write about the types of race that lockwood and reader would belong to, since Tauriel and Kili are of two races that despise each other (for anyone not familiar with Tolkien's works, when I say race I mean what they are as a species, e.g. elves, dwarves, men, etc.). Lockwood I'm torn about what race he would be. My initial instinct is to class him as an elf, since he has the face and charm for it, but I also think that elves try and avoid anything that will cause them harm (since it will kill them), whereas Lockwood actively throws himself into harm, both physically and emotionally, even if he tries to hide the emotional part (he's often unsuccessful). Similarly elves are wise beyond all others, and while Lockwood definitely has a brain and his wits about him, he can also be stunted by his emotions (just look at what happens when Lucy does anything). That makes me want to place him more in the race of men, since they share attributes with the elves in some ways, but allow emotion to control their lives more freely than elves appear to.

I have no idea if any of that last paragraph made sense (and I would like to make it known that I haven't read the Hobbit in a good few years, and this is based off of what I can remember from that and the films (which are different to the books)), but essentially what I'm trying to say is that Lockwood is either an elf or a human and I can't decide which, and the reader is of a race that despises his (because I think it works better). If they have a sort of star-crossed lovers theme going on, then it makes the impact of those two lines even stronger, because they were never meant to have it in the first place. (I have other thoughts on Romeo and Juliet so don't get me started)

They were born into species that hated each other because of a slight that happened in the past, and loved each other anyway, regardless of the consequences, and I think that there is something beautiful about that.

Say what you want about star-crossed lovers, if it's done correctly, then it's brilliant. Is it done too much? I don't know. But I want to write one anyway because Lockwood in Middle Earth is not something I was aware that I needed until this evening.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk guys (not that I'm entirely sure what the topic was other than lockwood in middle earth).