# Tolkien



## AlexanderKira

(I'm really not quite sure where this goes.)

Tolkien...many call him the master of fantasy. He who created the genre, he who was so original. I have to disagree. I cannot stand to read The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, etc. I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs. It shows no reason other than that their evil, the same of the other evil creatures..they're just evil. Sauromon and Sauron(However you spell them) both have the same sounding name, and are both evil. That's hardly creative. The fact that a race, Elves, could be perfect in every way irks me. Everyone has their flaws, ohhh but not elves. 

The giant eagles are only supposed to help in dire times of need, for the good of the world, then why not carry Frodo over the volcano and have him drop the ring? If they're only supposed to come in dire need of all mankind, then why pick Frodo and Sam up at the base of the volcano after they destroy the ring? They don't help mankind after that, people would be fine if they died.

The Ghost Army can hit people, but people can't hit the ghost army? If the Ghost army was waiting for the king, couldn't they just kill the orcs and sauron and find the king in peace? Since obviously nothing can stop them? 

These are just things that bother me, I hate how people always, ALWAYS, compare other writers to Tolkien(Unless they deserve it, PAOLINI). This sounds a lot like a hate thread, but I am just voicing my opinion.


----------



## Devor

Hello AlexanderKira.

This is the research forum, so did you have a question that you wanted help with?


----------



## AlexanderKira

If you look at the very first words I put, and I quote "I'm not quite sure where this goes".


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

It should go in the "Novels & Stories" forum of the "Fantasy Media" forum section.


----------



## Kelise

Moved the posts.

Personally, I haven't been able to read Tolkien. 

Harry Potter is something people also often compare books to, and that series has just as many inconsistencies, if not more. It's still an enjoyable read and it's the favourite of many despite these mistakes/problems/issues. So maybe it's just a mark of how fantastic both series actually are, that they can be loved by so many, change/develop the genre so far, inspire millions of people and so on, despite these issues.

And a reminder to please keep an eye on spelling and grammar. Thank you.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I love Tolkien and HP.  I love the stories and if you don't give credit to Tolkien as being the godfatather of fantasy then who do you give it to?


----------



## AlexanderKira

The true godfather of fantasy? I believe there is none. Without Tolkien, fantasy would have still flourished. People will always have imagination, Tolkien just did it first. People still would have done it. I think C.S. Lewis actually wrote "The Chronicles of Narnia" before "The Lord of the Rings", but I'm not sure.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I think that a lot of credit has to be given to both of those men.  Without them, fantasy might very well have evolved, but it would certainly be greatly changed.  Their fingerprints are all over the modern fantasy genre, so they had to be doing something right.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

I believe Tolkien started Lord of the Rings a few years before C.S. Lewis started The Chronicles of Narnia, but the latter was published earlier, though the Hobbit was published earlier than that. At least, according to Wikipedia.

The Lord of the Rings is certainly dated; it's hard to compare it to more contemporary works because we are all slaves to context. The genre was primitive, but without those earlier steps in fantasy writing history, the genre certainly wouldn't be as it is today. That is why he is so respected as the father (or godfather, grand-father, et cetera) of modern fantasy, and that's essentially all that the term means - that he helped dictate the course of modern fantasy. And he did.

And you are right, perhaps 'people still would have done it', but why don't we say that about great philosophers or scientists? Someone else would have realised that there was a force called gravity if Newton didn't, or someone else would have told us that E=MC^2 if Einstein didn't, or someone else would have proposed evolution if Darwin didn't. True, but someone else didn't and these guys did.

Sure, the whole idea of good versus evil, dark lords, and perfect elves is a bit straight-forward and cliche by todays standards, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure that if he was alive now, his writing would be entirely different, but that goes without saying.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Thank you Johnny for saying what I was trying to say with an eloquence I couldn't manage.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> Thank you Johnny for saying what I was trying to say with an eloquence I couldn't manage.



I think you hit on the most important point anyway. Fantasy wouldn't be the same without Tolkien, end of, and he deserves respect just because of that.


----------



## mirrorrorrim

AlexanderKira said:


> (I'm really not quite sure where this goes.)
> 
> Tolkien...many call him the master of fantasy. He who created the genre, he who was so original. I have to disagree. I cannot stand to read The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, etc. I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs. It shows no reason other than that their evil, the same of the other evil creatures..they're just evil. Sauromon and Sauron(However you spell them) both have the same sounding name, and are both evil. That's hardly creative. The fact that a race, Elves, could be perfect in every way irks me. Everyone has their flaws, ohhh but not elves.
> 
> The giant eagles are only supposed to help in dire times of need, for the good of the world, then why not carry Frodo over the volcano and have him drop the ring? If they're only supposed to come in dire need of all mankind, then why pick Frodo and Sam up at the base of the volcano after they destroy the ring? They don't help mankind after that, people would be fine if they died.
> 
> The Ghost Army can hit people, but people can't hit the ghost army? If the Ghost army was waiting for the king, couldn't they just kill the orcs and sauron and find the king in peace? Since obviously nothing can stop them?
> 
> These are just things that bother me, I hate how people always, ALWAYS, compare other writers to Tolkien(Unless they deserve it, PAOLINI). This sounds a lot like a hate thread, but I am just voicing my opinion.



I'm sorry to do this, but I have to disagree. I hope you'll forgive me. 

You point out that one of Tolkien's races, the Orcs, is unoriginal because they're pure evil, and another, the elves, is unoriginal because they're completely perfect. In pointing out the flaws of some of his races, I feel you're missing an important point–before Tolkien, there _weren't_ different races of creatures, other than the ones we have in real life. So, every author who uses imagined races deserves to be compared to Tolkien, because the concept originated with him. This comparison would be fitting for any sort of race that an author might create. It becomes even more appropriate, however, when (as is the case with almost every single fantasy author since Tolkien) they use the exact same races Tolkien invented. Prior to Tolkein, there were no "elves." The proper spelling was "elfs," and they bore little, if any resemblance to the characters Tolkien envisioned. The same is true of dwarves, orcs, and, while you might call them halflings today, hobbits.

I feel by criticizing the details, you miss story's true genius.

Since Tolkien (and Lewis, who, while not the grandfather of fantasy, is definitely a great-uncle), what author, before Rowling, was there that _every_ fantasy author has borrowed heavily from? I cannot think of one.

I agree with you that Tolkien's works weren't perfect. If they were, then there wouldn't be anything for all the rest of us to write! Since him, though, fantasy writing has been an evolution of what he started, slow and gradual. Tolkien's work was entirely revolutionary, and it's because of that that so many of us afford him such great respect.

At least, that's how I feel. It's just my personal opinion. Again, sorry to disagree.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> So, every author who uses imagined races deserves to be compared to Tolkien, because the concept originated with him.



I do see your point, but the concept for these creatures didn't originate with Tolkien, and I don't agree that his races had little to no resemblance to the elves, dwarves, and orcs (as goblins or trolls, or something similar) of Norse mythology. On the contrary, I think their roots are obvious. 

But yes, he deserves the credit for being the first to use them in the way he did, and for setting the standard for fantasy.


----------



## Steerpike

Tolkien was a fan of Lord Dunsany, who also used mythical or fictional races (before Tolkien did).


----------



## mirrorrorrim

Johnny Cosmo said:


> I do see your point, but the concept for these creatures didn't originate with Tolkien, and I don't agree that his races had little to no resemblance to the elves, dwarves, and orcs (as goblins or trolls, or something similar) of Norse mythology. On the contrary, I think their roots are obvious.
> 
> But yes, he deserves the credit for being the first to use them in the way he did, and for setting the standard for fantasy.



I'm not very familiar with Norse mythology, so thank you for correcting me. I know all (or most) of his terms spring from such mythology, but I was under the impression that he altered them substantially in bringing them into his world. Elfs, in particular, I thought were little mischievous little creatures, not the grand, wise, and proud race Tolkien created. But, as I said, I'm not super-familiar with Norse myths, so I may be mistaken.



Steerpike said:


> Tolkien was a fan of Lord Dunsany, who also used mythical or fictional races (before Tolkien did).



Wow, looks like I was way off base with everything in my first post! I guess I should do my research a little better... Or a LOT better. I'm very sorry about that.

*goes off to learn more about Lord Dunsany and Norse mythology*


----------



## Steerpike

I hear the thing about the eagles flying the Hobbits to Mount Doom with the ring. Of course, it is a fictional world, but my recollection is that Sauron would have seen them coming miles and miles away and could have devoted all of his powers to stopping them and acquiring the ring. Part of the reason things worked out is Sauron was unable to concentrate all of his efforts on the ring, and in fact often did not know exactly where it was. Thus the attempt to stay secret and hidden all the way to the mountain. Flying in on eagles, they might as well have carried a huge, lit banner saying "Here we come! And guess what we have!"


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Steerpike said:


> I hear the thing about the eagles flying the Hobbits to Mount Doom with the ring. Of course, it is a fictional world, but my recollection is that Sauron would have seen them coming miles and miles away and could have devoted all of his powers to stopping them and acquiring the ring. Part of the reason things worked out is Sauron was unable to concentrate all of his efforts on the ring, and in fact often did not know exactly where it was. Thus the attempt to stay secret and hidden all the way to the mountain. Flying in on eagles, they might as well have carried a huge, lit banner saying "Here we come! And guess what we have!"



Personally, if I was Sauron, I would have had a bunch of trolls, orcs, and probably a nazgul standing outside the only damn opening to the only place in the world where the ring could be destroyed.  Still, you can nitpick any story, why not just enjoy it?


----------



## mirrorrorrim

Looks like I was wrong about even the elves. According to Wikipedia, Norse mythology had the LjÃ³sÃ¡lfar, which are essentially light elves, and which are very, very similar to Tolkien's treatment of elves in his story (interestingly, they also had DÃ¶kkÃ¡lfar, who were dark elves). It seems the impish elves of later mythologies were a corrupt derivation of these original beings.

I guess I gave Tolkien way too much credit for originality.

Again, my deepest apologies.

*slinks out of thread in shame*


----------



## Telcontar

I regard Tolkien as the father of 'modern' fantasy because the vast majority of what we get these days has his imprint on it. DnD, countless movies, books, and games, all have some element that you can trace to Tolkien. Did Tolkien come up with it all? Of course not - as has been said in this thread and others, he drew upon those who came before, both other authors and mythology. As does everyone.

The difference is that he did it better. 

Also, to the premise that Tolkien's elves are perfect and without flaws - we see many examples of arrogance, selfishness, impulsive acts, etc etc. They have plenty of flaws. The elves we see a lot of tend to be pretty awesome, but we're seeing the best of the bunch.


----------



## Phoenix

I'm going to clear up the C.S Lewis thing real quick. Lewis and Tolkien met in a book club in college. Now Lewis might have gone on to be an author if he hadn't of met Tolkien, but he might not have been a Christian author. Which he is the most known for. 

 Now about Tolkien. If he hadn't of written the Lord of the Rings, what would of happened? Someone else would have created something original. Fantasy might not have been the same as it is today. So what? The point is Tolkien did write it. So, he deserves the credit.

  As for the Elves didn't they refuse to fight with the Humans? (Well most of them) Instead choosing to sail away on ships? Is that not a flaw?


----------



## Steerpike

Elder the Dwarf said:


> Personally, if I was Sauron, I would have had a bunch of trolls, orcs, and probably a nazgul standing outside the only damn opening to the only place in the world where the ring could be destroyed.  Still, you can nitpick any story, why not just enjoy it?



Yeah, me too. Maybe it didn't occur to him that anyone would try to destroy it as opposed to taking its power for themselves. Seems like a good safeguard though.


----------



## Xarxium

Haha, Tolkien is alright in my opinion. I mean I don't really like the story, but he did help the major movement of fantasy. For that we should be thankful.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Xarxium said:


> Haha, Tolkien is alright in my opinion. I mean I don't really like the story, but he did help the major movement of fantasy. For that we should be thankful.



Really?  I personally love the stories.  What's with all the hate guys?


----------



## Phoenix

His style today is not appreciated because we view it on today's works. If we viewed it when written it's BLOODY brilliant. I think its great (except when they went to the log cabin, shivers). I would have liked more though if I was there when it was first written.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

It's Citizen Kane Syndrome. Back in college, I watched _Citizen Kane_ for the first time. And I was totally underwhelmed. I didn't get why it was such a great movie. I watched it again a year or two later, and still didn't get it.

Then I found out that the movie had been revolutionary _when it came out_. Welles had practically invented a whole slew of cinematic tricks and tools while making that movie. Those tools were all then used and adapted by thousands of other filmmakers over the intervening years. By the time I saw _Kane_, I'd seen all those tricks used a thousand times in other movies. So then I saw _Kane_ and didn't get why it was such a big deal.

Same thing with Tolkien: If you've been exposed to all the tropes and idioms that Tolkien made a routine part of the genre, then reading LOTR may be underwhelming. That said, I think Tolkien did an excellent job at building a vast world that felt real, even if his prose is stiff and his characters are a bit hands-off.


----------



## Ghost

That's a great way to put it, Benjamin Claybourne.


----------



## Ravana

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, me too. Maybe it didn't occur to him that anyone would try to destroy it as opposed to taking its power for themselves. Seems like a good safeguard though.



Exactly. That's said in about as many words, as I recall, by Gandalf, in talking the council into make the attempt in the first place. Sauron has a huge blind spot there. As well as another, if more justified one, in thinking that nobody would be able to get into Mordor: why waste troops he needs elsewhere in guarding a location that nobody can get to, and which is of no value whatsoever for anything _other_ than destroying that one trinket… which of course no one would ever do anyway? Considering how difficult it was to prove him wrong–having to go through a path he believed the outside world had forgotten about, to avoid the only two gates into his realm, both of which were considered impassible even by those who had solid info on them, then making it past a monster that wasn't worth his trouble to destroy even if it was eating his orcs from time to time–it isn't hard to see what he might have been thinking. And of course nobody would have attempted even _that_ crazy stunt without bringing along sufficient force to make the attempt plausible, which he would easily have noticed. And then they'd still have to cross a fairly heavily-patrolled land to reach the mountain. And so on. 

My problem with the eagles isn't that they weren't used to fly into Mordor. Mine is much more basic–that Tolkien used them as a _deus ex machina_ in not just one but _two_ stories, to turn the tide of battles at the end. What chutzpah. Okay, yeah, from a writer's point of view, I can see how it creates a nice "echo" from the first story to the second, not an unusual storytelling technique in the mythic materials Tolkien was borrowing from and deliberately trying himself to echo… but I wouldn't have done it either time, personally, and definitely not both. As for why they went on to rescue Frodo and Sam: Gandalf asked them to. Nicely. Apparently they had nothing else on their schedules at that moment. I'd hardly call that a major plot problem, in any event: better questions would be why they showed up at either battle in the first place.

Tolkien didn't invent the elves, but he did reinvent them, as well as reintroducing them as an almost-human quasi-magical race, which they'd long since stopped being in English writing. And they were far from flawless–or even all "good"–though this comes out far more in the _Silmarillion_, which you definitely shouldn't bother reading if you didn't like _LoTR_. 

The orcs certainly get the short end of the stick in terms of portrayal. I'd add "…but I'm sure they loved their mommies," except that I'm not: I'm not even sure they _have_ mommies. Seriously. (We never see female orcs–nor dwarves, for that matter, though the extensive "X son of Y" references imply they reproduce somehow or other. Orcs could be cloned for all the evidence internal to _the Hobbit_ and _LoTR_… though he did apparently verify, at least in private correspondence, that both had females and reproduced normally.) I was more troubled about other details of their ecology–little things such as "what did they eat?" Given the description of Mordor, it seems they would have had to be major importers of food… though given the description of Mordor, it never seems likely they enjoyed good trade relations with anybody.

The Dead Men of Dunharrow don't actually kill, or even touch, _anybody_ in the book. They terrify the corsairs into abandoning their ships. It's Peter Jackson who made them capable of affecting the living, not Tolkien, so in that at least I think you have to absolve him. As for why they were still there after all that time: they swore their oath to the last person who was king–Isildur; as far as they, or just about anyone else, knew, there _was_ no king to release them, nor ever would be. Presumably, they may also have been bound to the proximity of their burial, a fairly common trait for ghosts, and couldn't get out and about until they received a legitimate curse-related command. 

As for the resemblance of names between Saruman and Sauron… meh. Name enough characters, and eventually some of the names have to start sounding alike. In Tolkien's languages, these have entirely different derivations. Granted, they _were_ his languages, and he could have changed either of them: he's never been accused of not being heavy-handed with his "evil" identifications–though he's hardly unique there. (I believe C. S. Lewis' name came up earlier…?) I'd've been far more bothered if one of them had been named "Gandorg," to be an opposite of Gandalf.

Find me a story that's flawless, and I will be forever grateful. (As well as insanely jealous of whoever wrote it.) No, this isn't one. In this, though, I have to disagree with you: there's no evidence whatsoever that "fantasy would have still flourished" without Tolkien. I can't imagine it would have died out… but if you think fantasy was remotely as popular before Tolkien as after him, you need to do some more historical reading. In fact, I'm not entirely sure you could find any _other_ genre in which a single work played a more pivotal role in its fortunes. So, yeah, like him or not, he _was_ that important–even if it was only because he was in the right place at the right time. I'm one of those who happen to believe it was a lot more than just that. You're certainly entitled to a different opinion, as far as quality or enjoyability goes; as far as being _the_ pivotal historical figure in the formation of the genre as it stands today goes… not so much.


----------



## fcbkid15

I myself love Tolkien. The movies are great and fun to watch, and I like the books. Now other's have stated here before that they aren't perfect, which I agree with. But than again, like Ravanna posted before, no stories are perfect. Every story has some plot holes, or at least inconcistenties. Even if they are small, the book still isn't perfect. 

The eagle thing has been going around for awhile, and the answer is obvious, if you actually listen to what people say or understand stuff in the movie. The all seeing eye, Sarumon, will see them. He has nine nazgul at his command, on the back of flying dragons. So he'll see them and send the nazgul up there, and while the fight in the skies goes on, he will send every troop he has to guard the entrance to Mt. Doom. 

The name of Sarumon and Sauron sound very similar, and they are both evil, I understand this. But think about when Tolkien wrote this. Back in like the fifties? Forties? I dunno, but when he did, the names would have been very odd and different. Especially in fantasy.

On to him being the father of fantasy, I agree with this statement. He didn't invent fantasy, but his books where the first in the fantasy genre. I know there were folk tales and mythological tales and what not before him, but I mean books like Dragonlance, Icewyndale, Harry Potter, those are all fantasy novels. Tolkien's were the first in that kind of genre. He heavily influenced fantasy. In most books you could probably find some kind of connection between them and LotR. Even if Elves existed before his books, he was the first to use them in the fantasy genre and define them. In most fantasy books elves are archers, tall, pointy ears, and flawless. Tolkien came up with these traits for elves. Several books have influences from Tolkien. I mean, Dumbledore is very close to Gandalf. In Dragonlance, Tanis is almost an exact copy of Aragorn. Now none of these things are bad, one writer can always take some ideas from other writers. I'm not complaining about any of this. As the quote say, "Good writers borrow, great writers steal." 

Now I do also agree that without Tolkien, we still would have had the fantasy genre flourish over time. Some other creative thinker would have come up with ideas and write them down. But than the fantasy genre would probably be very different than it is now.


----------



## myrddin173

In my opinion there is no point in theorizing what the fantasy genre would have been like without Tolkien, because there is no way to actually know.  Anything we say is a guess.  I like Tolkien, he isn't my favorite, but he is fairly close.  Likewise the Lord of the Rings is certainly not the best work of fantasy, but it is one of the greats.  Not because of its quality but its impact.

Also the Nazgul do not ride dragons, they ride fellbeasts.  Dragons are way cooler, and shinier...


----------



## Amanita

Well, almost all popular fantasy books have some consistency issues somewhere, and to me, this isn't the thing that matters most. In Lord of the Rings it has hardly bothered me at all. (HP is much worse with all those random magical things turning up to make Harry life either harder or save it.) A dangerous but anticlimatic journey back from Mordor just wouldn't have worked very well, therefore I think there could be worse than the eagle option.

I like Lord of the Rings even though it's not my favourite fantasy series. (I'm not sure what that is at the moment anyway, however.) Some parts of it are really impressive in my opinion. Tolkien managed to make many of the things work for me, which fail in later (derivative) works. Such as the dangerous country of evil, the ominous names, the beautiful elvish places and the struggle against absolute evil. I believe, perhaps that's naive, that this is because to him, these were part of a heart-felt story he wanted to write for the sake of writing it, while many others use these things "because fantasy has to have them" or because they believe it'll sell better.
I also liked the hints at more and bigger stories in the background and for me, the amount of so called "info-dumping" was right as well, even though I'm much more tolerant of this than many others.
I really should reread the books.


----------



## Telcontar

myrddin173 said:


> Not because of its quality but its impact.



But, also because of its quality... 



			
				Amanita said:
			
		

> the struggle against absolute evil



I don't really see this as particularly simplistic when taken with a view to the entire world. Sauron isn't evil for evil's sake like a bad movie character - he's evil because he desires domination and control over everything. That isn't implausible. Hell, we see that in the real world all the time. His 'country' is evil because he _does_ have complete domination over it, to a far greater extent than is possible in the real world.

Likewise, the orcs are not some genuine, natural society - not even in the way that the elves and the men are (whose creator, Illuvatar, is explicitly said to be real, which means the idea of a 'natural' society is less applicable, but oh well). Orcs were created from Elves with every intent of making an evil, vicious little creature good for causing trouble and sacrificing en masse. They aren't people, they're glorified attack dogs.


----------



## Edgemaker

AlexanderKira said:


> (I'm really not quite sure where this goes.)
> 
> Tolkien...many call him the master of fantasy. He who created the genre, he who was so original. I have to disagree. I cannot stand to read The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, etc. I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs. It shows no reason other than that their evil, the same of the other evil creatures..they're just evil. Sauromon and Sauron(However you spell them) both have the same sounding name, and are both evil. That's hardly creative. The fact that a race, Elves, could be perfect in every way irks me. Everyone has their flaws, ohhh but not elves.
> 
> The giant eagles are only supposed to help in dire times of need, for the good of the world, then why not carry Frodo over the volcano and have him drop the ring? If they're only supposed to come in dire need of all mankind, then why pick Frodo and Sam up at the base of the volcano after they destroy the ring? They don't help mankind after that, people would be fine if they died.
> 
> The Ghost Army can hit people, but people can't hit the ghost army? If the Ghost army was waiting for the king, couldn't they just kill the orcs and sauron and find the king in peace? Since obviously nothing can stop them?
> 
> These are just things that bother me, I hate how people always, ALWAYS, compare other writers to Tolkien(Unless they deserve it, PAOLINI). This sounds a lot like a hate thread, but I am just voicing my opinion.




Yes Tolkien is the Father of Modern Fantasy Literature. Compared to _the Princess and the Goblin_, era. The orcs are those who are pure evil, because they have been twisted by the Lies of Sauron. Sauron is the ultimate evil, and his infection grows, there is no evil that is not partially good in the orcs. That is why the character of Golloum is such an amazing character he is Evil, but he is showing traits of Good and there are some times when there is a glimmer of Good, in him, but it is faint at best. As to the similarity to the names, I dunno but Tolkien went into alot of the work in the names, and the words of the language. For instance the name "Theoden" means KING in the Old English. So when in the books, movies they say "Hail Theoden King!" They are saying "Hail KING KING." which is an amazing literary Item in itself that Tolkien used to an amazing scale. 

Giant Eagles versus Wraiths on Wings........nuff said. seriously though just for the sake of a good argument, I would think that Sauron from his tower in the sky would have seen the eagles coming and sent his wraiths, or would have blasted them with fire or something. 

The Ghost Army, you got to admit was a pretty original use at the time, I am not aware of anyone who has used a ghost army to destroy an overwhelming foe. but I have not read as much Fantasy to be called an expert, so i dunno. Ummmm also the ghost army is MAGIC! and secondly they are wanting to be released from their misery, thus they want to be over and done with. 
And it says in the book that Gandalf himself when he was sent back was prevented from challenging Sauron himself but not his servants. I think Gandalf could have taken out Sauron, but Tolkien decreed that it was not to be so, He wanted an epic battle to be drawn to the line where it was a final stand and a final roll of the dice, winner take all.


----------



## myrddin173

Edgemaker said:


> I think Gandalf could have taken out Sauron, but Tolkien decreed that it was not to be so, He wanted an epic battle to be drawn to the line where it was a final stand and a final roll of the dice, winner take all.



Oh he most definitely could have.  They are both of the same order of beings, but Gandalf was by far the wiser.  He was supposed to be the leader of the Istari but he didn't want to come to Middle-earth so Saruman got the job.  While yes Tolkien did decree it to be so, internally it also makes sense.  It was coming to the Time of Man and in order for it to actually arrive it was Men that had to defeat the Evil.

P.S.  Before anyone says it was Hobbits that defeated the Evil, Hobbits are technically an offshoot of Man...


----------



## Steerpike

Gandalf and Saruman were Maiar, as was Sauron. But I do not believe that either of them could have defeated Sauron. In Tolkien's own letters, Tolkien apparently says that Sauron was of a 'far higher order' than the Maiar like Saruman and Gandalf who came to Middle Earth later.

There is nothing in the stories themselves that lead me to believe that either of those wizards could have bested him. I don't think it would even have been a close fight.


----------



## myrddin173

I am unfamiliar with that quote...

I still think Gandalf could have won, especially if he had possession of the Ring.  But then again it wouldn't really be winning if he became just as Evil as Sauron.  Also the Istari were under orders from Manwe to not interfere, only advise.


----------



## Sheilawisz

You know, if Middle Earth had electricity Sauron would have installed a luminous sign at the volcano: "please destroy the ring here!!" with an arrow pointing at the entrance and everything =) Really, I have always wondered why the entrance to the only place of the world where the ring could be destroyed was not heavily guarded by orcs, trolls and nazguls!!

Tolkien was a great storyteller, his works are classic literature and he practically created the style and definition of modern fantasy, but I hate when people say that he was "father of fantasy" or things like that, like he was the father of human imagination... I am happy that my own fantasy stories are something quite different to so many other series that have been influenced by Tolkien so much

The thing about the giant eagles taking Frodo to drop the ring into the volcano would have certainly worked =)


----------



## Steerpike

Sheilawisz said:


> The thing about the giant eagles taking Frodo to drop the ring into the volcano would have certainly worked =)



I don't think so. We talk about that in the tread about plot holes, I think the chit-chat forums. There are good reasons why that would have been foolish.


----------



## Steerpike

myrddin173 said:


> I still think Gandalf could have won, especially if he had possession of the Ring.



With the ring, I think so. I think Galadriel maybe as well, if she had the ring. But without it I don't think so  Fun to debate, though. Like which superheroes would win.


----------



## myrddin173

Sheilawisz said:


> Really, I have always wondered why the entrance to the only place of the world where the ring could be destroyed was not heavily guarded by orcs, trolls and nazguls!!



First off Nazgul is like fish, it is its own plural

The reason it wasn't guarded was because it never occurred to Sauron that someone would want to destroy the Ring.  It is incredibly seductive, even the Hobbits who show the most resistance to its powers are not immune, just remember just what happened at the crack of doom, Frodo didn't want to destroy it.  Also until shortly before the Ring's destruction the lands surrounding Orodruin were filled with orcs.  Then Aragorn drew them out.

P.S.  This may just be me being over-obsessive but, the world of the Lord of the Rings is no "Middle Earth" its "Middle-earth"...


----------



## Sheilawisz

I still think that Sauron should have been a little more careful about the volcano, you know, make sure that EVEN if someone would want to destroy the ring despite its powers, they could not do that because the entrance itself would be guarded by something or maybe just blocked by a boulder =) I don't understand the "super evil" characters in stories really, they have a tendency to be defeated in the end because of little things like that!!

The thing about the eagles would have worked because they could have distracted Sauron long enough to fly into Mordor and drop the ring, just like they do in that video of How it should have Ended

Sorry about the Nazgul plural thing, I only read the first book of The Lord of the Rings so I don't know all the words =)


----------



## Steerpike

Sheilawisz said:


> The thing about the eagles would have worked because they could have distracted Sauron long enough to fly into Mordor and drop the ring, just like they do in that video of How it should have Ended



I don't think that would work either. Sauron was tuned to the ring. If they started flying in, I think he would have immediately sensed them coming. It would be a much more dangerous approach and much more risky, with the fate of the world at stake. Who knows if the eagles would even have done it. Of course, it is a fictional work, but it is fun to speculate.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Well, if Sauron was so connected to the ring... how come he did not realize that Frodo and Sam had walked into Mordor and were heading to the volcano to destroy it?? After all, Sauron was distracted by Aragorn and Frodo's path was cleared, so they could have distracted Sauron for the eagles to fly in and that would have been much quicker =)

That would have ruined the story, but like you said, it's fun to speculate a little...


----------



## Ravana

Sheilawisz said:


> I still think that Sauron should have been a little more careful about the volcano, you know, make sure that EVEN if someone would want to destroy the ring despite its powers, they could not do that because the entrance itself would be guarded by something or maybe just blocked by a boulder =) I don't understand the "super evil" characters in stories really, they have a tendency to be defeated in the end because of little things like that!!



A blind spot is a blind spot. It never occurs to you to cover something you never even think of. No one can think of everything… and I highly doubt Sauron was the sort of person to surround himself with good advisers who might point out such little details.  (Nor, as I previously mentioned, was getting to Mount Doom exactly a "little" thing.) Would you have been happier if he'd been defeated because of some _big_ thing? Say, if the only thing he was vulnerable to was silver weapons–but Mordor was a major silver exporter because it liked the cash? It's usually the little things that get you: the big ones, you _do_ think of, and prepare for. 

(I might have been inclined to plug up the entrance with a rock, too… then again, if there's no reason for anyone except you to go there anyway–which, apparently, he does from time to time, since there's a well-maintained path up the mountain from his front door at Barad-Dur–why go to the bother of putting a door in?)

The eagles _couldn't_ actually "drop" the ring into the mountain: while the volcano is described as "fuming," it also was clearly not actively bubbling away… passages such as "There was a brief red flame that flickered under the clouds and died away" make it reasonably plain that exposed lava in the caldera was very much an intermittent thing. Imagine what would have happened if they'd tried to fly it in, only to discover that at the time of their arrival there wasn't any place _to_ drop it? That would have made for a shorter story, too, no doubt.…

No, the Ring had to go to the place where it was made: in a cave in the _side_ of the mountain. Which means that even if they could fly into Mordor (through the smoke, which was rather conveniently cleared by the north wind the eagles rode in on after the Ring was destroyed), they'd still have to locate the crack, find a place to land and off-load passengers (it's implied that they did not land when picking Frodo and Sam up, but simply snagged them off the rocks), etc.

It's less accurate, I think, to say that Sauron was attuned to the Ring _per se_ than to say he was attuned to someone _using_ it. Which is why the Ringbearer was constantly cautioned to avoid doing so. Proximity seems to be a factor as well, along with physical barriers: he spends close to five centuries within a few hundred miles of the Ring without ever locating Gollum beneath the Misty Mountains. I imagine his ability to sense it would have made it trivial for him to locate it in that warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant ended up.  By comparison, at the very end, when Frodo puts on the Ring–the first time it gets worn since they entered Mordor–and claims it for his own, Sauron becomes instantly aware of this… and of how badly he'd screwed up, because he also knows _exactly_ where the Ring is. If he'd had more than about two minutes to react, who knows how things would have turned out? The Nazgul he'd recalled were within sight of the mountain as Sauron's power crumbled: Sam sees them crash and burn at the end.

Saying the eagles could have "distracted" Sauron is, I suspect, simply incorrect. If he'd seen a bunch of eagles flying into his realm, he would have either slapped them aside as a triviality, or he would have focused his full attention on them to discover why they were engaging in such uncharacteristic behavior–and his _full_ attention is never focused on anything until that very last moment in Mount Doom: it's entirely possible that he could have found the Ring at any moment after it passed into Mordor simply by giving serious consideration to the possibility it was there to be found. If it turned out the eagles had the Ring with them, he would have noted this and reacted accordingly; if they did not, he would have wondered why they were there–with a distraction being about the only reasonable explanation, at which point he would have realized he _was_ being distracted and started looking for what it was he was being distracted _from_. (Along with slapping the eagles aside as a triviality.) In other words, such an obvious distraction would have been worse than no distraction. 

The reason the action _outside_ Mordor works as a distraction is because Sauron doesn't _realize_ it is. (Which is pretty much required for a distraction to work under any circumstances, the only exception being one you're forced to react to even if you realize that's what it is… which in turn requires that the distraction be able to itself turn the tables on you if you don't.) He has, at that point, suffered a series of surprises and reverses: Saruman's treachery and defeat, the death of the Lord of the Nazgul, the military defeats in Gondor, the revelation of a new King armed with the sword that had cut the Ring off his hand ages ago forged anew. Momentum is going the way of his enemies, contrary to what he had believed them capable of; in such circumstances, it is reasonable–in his lights–to assume that Aragorn's army represents a genuine challenge to his power, in spite of its apparent weakness. And the most serious challenge to his power–and to him the most obvious, if not the only possible way for that army to win–would be if _they had the Ring with them_. Which is exactly what he believes. (This is far and away the easiest kind of distraction to pull off: one which confirms what your opponent is inclined to believe anyway.)

Yes, speculation is fun to engage in–as well as worthwhile. It helps you focus on what the author did right as well as wrong, see the things that may have been behind what is written but which never get stated… which can only serve to benefit your own writing in the long run.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Ravana said:


> No, the Ring had to go to the place where it was made: in a cave in the _side_ of the mountain.



Hm, that'd be a way for a little heat to escape from the mountain. I suppose you could call that *ahem* a small thermal exhaust port.


----------



## Ravana

Steerpike said:


> Gandalf and Saruman were Maiar, as was Sauron. But I do not believe that either of them could have defeated Sauron. In Tolkien's own letters, Tolkien apparently says that Sauron was of a 'far higher order' than the Maiar like Saruman and Gandalf who came to Middle Earth later.



Right. In fact, this is pretty easy to answer: the balrogs are Maiar as well. (Which makes their original name–Valaraukar–a bit confusing, as that would suggest they ought to be Valar. But Tolkien is quite clear about them being Maiar. As well as Sauron outranking them.) Since Gandalf barely managed to defeat one–technically, he didn't: it was a draw–it's a fair bet that he'd be turned into wizard squishies if he'd tried taking Sauron on heads up. Also, since Gandalf apparently returns more powerful after his death, there appear to be considerable limits on how much of their original might the Istari retained, whereas there were no obvious ones on Sauron. So I'd have to say Saruman couldn't have pulled it off, either. (Of course, my single biggest gripe about the trilogy is just how much of a wimp Saruman _is_, once it comes down to it.)

_With_ the Ring, Gandalf (or, presumably, Saruman) probably would have won: he and Elrond both imply as much when they refuse to take it. I'd have to say it's a stone-cold certainty Galadriel would have been able to win–she clearly believes she could, given her reaction to being offered it. On the other hand, she's also no less than ten thousand years old, possibly the oldest elf in Middle-Earth other than (maybe) Cirdan; is one of the few remaining who had personally met the Valar in their own digs–no small thing: Glorfindel is another, and he was willing to charge all nine Nazgul accompanied only by three hobbits and a guy with a broken sword; she was trained by yet another Maia after she'd returned from Valinor… and is the only wearer of one of the Three with the chutzpah to reveal her ring before the end of the story. (Or, as I put it in another thread: "But she's Galadriel.")


----------



## Sheilawisz

Ravana, thanks for that detailed explanation of Middle-Earth matters =) I have read only the first book of The Lord of the Rings, so I do not really know all the details of that world and everything about the story... Anyway my answer is yes, I would have liked Sauron to be defeated because of some BIG thing instead of a little mistake like not sealing the cavern with a boulder!! I hate the entire super-evil-dark-lord-that-must-be-defeated concept, which is why it is not seen at all in my own Fantasy stories


----------



## myrddin173

Ravana said:


> _With_ the Ring, Gandalf (or, presumably, Saruman) probably would have won: he and Elrond both imply as much when they refuse to take it. I'd have to say it's a stone-cold certainty Galadriel would have been able to win—she clearly believes she could, given her reaction to being offered it. On the other hand, she's also no less than ten thousand years old, possibly the oldest elf in Middle-Earth other than (maybe) Cirdan; is one of the few remaining who had personally met the Valar in their own digs—no small thing: Glorfindel is another, and he was willing to charge all nine Nazgul accompanied only by three hobbits and a guy with a broken sword; she was trained by yet another Maia after she'd returned from Valinor… and is the only wearer of one of the Three with the chutzpah to reveal her ring before the end of the story. (Or, as I put it in another thread: "But she's Galadriel.")



I think this is what I was trying to say.  Oh and I am 95% sure Cirdan is older, he is the only elf to reach the third phase of life, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Ravana

Don't know about phases; don't recall having ever seen a reference to them. I've never seen any mention of Cirdan's parentage, which suggests that he's one of the first born (which is why I had him pegged as older). He shows up fairly early on as the lord of one group that never crossed into the west, but it isn't said whether or not he was their original leader. 

Galadriel is third generation (which doesn't mean a lot, since for elves, a generation could be anything from a couple decades to a couple epochs). There's no mention of precisely when she was born, but she was present in Valinor, so she has to be around ten thousand (there's some indication she was born after the elves had reached Valinor, though this doesn't seem completely clear; if correct, this would put her maximum age at c. 10,650). If my main source is correct as to when the elves first arose–11,362 years before the War of the Ring–Cirdan beats her by at least seven hundred years or so. 

Speaking of which… a site you might be interested in checking out, if you haven't seen it before:

The Encyclopedia of Arda

Seems pretty reliable, even if one might wish a couple entries had greater detail.

-

I'm no fan of "super-ultimate-dark-lord" types either: with ya there. On the other hand, if you prefer to see them beat by big things, you can always read _The Silmarillion_: Sauron's original boss, Morgoth (aka Melkor), was beaten by main force… of the gods. Which is _also_ not something I'm terribly fond of.… 

You take whatever win you can get. If you find a weakness in your enemy you can take advantage of, you'll probably be inclined to use it, even if you might have obtained victory by other means. The biggest reason dark lords are so uninteresting is because something like that is usually the _only_ way they can be beaten–no climactic battles, grand strategies, or other similarly nifty stuff. You _can't_ fight them, directly at least… which usually makes them boring.

Still, I'd argue that sneaking into the enemy's impregnable fortress-realm, crossing twenty leagues of hostile territory, evading constant surveillance and outmaneuvering all his minions isn't exactly "small"… even if the final act was no bigger than, say, sliding a dagger into his back. Not having the Crack of Doom guarded is roughly equivalent to not having his bedchamber guarded–no, I don't know if he slept or not: the point is he probably would have considered posting guards outside his bedchamber just as pointless. (Or _inside_ it: why neglect _that_ added layer of protection?) I highly doubt he was worried about an assassin trying to knife him, even though it had already been established he could be harmed by at least some weapons (he lost the Ring when he lost the finger it was on). He might have even welcomed the attempt. And it probably would have been just as dissatisfying if that's how he _was_ taken down.

Or… Tolkien could have left out the One Ring altogether, had the story end in a draw–essentially what would have happened if he'd left things as they stood after the battle at Minas Tirith–and set up a sequel. I think we can all be thankful he didn't do that, at least. 

Keep in mind something that was mentioned earlier, too: most of the "quest-to-save-the-world-from-the-dark-lord" stories you've seen were written after this, and in imitation of it. If all the other stories you'd read ended with the heroes triumphant because of their swords, their spells and their virtue, this would probably have seemed an incredibly clever and refreshing variation. For that matter, if none of the other stories you'd read ever included a "dark lord," even that might have seemed clever.


----------



## myrddin173

Ravana said:


> Don't know about phases; don't recall having ever seen a reference to them. I've never seen any mention of Cirdan's parentage, which suggests that he's one of the first born (which is why I had him pegged as older). He shows up fairly early on as the lord of one group that never crossed into the west, but it isn't said whether or not he was their original leader.
> 
> Galadriel is third generation (which doesn't mean a lot, since for elves, a generation could be anything from a couple decades to a couple epochs). There's no mention of precisely when she was born, but she was present in Valinor, so she has to be around ten thousand (there's some indication she was born after the elves had reached Valinor, though this doesn't seem completely clear; if correct, this would put her maximum age at c. 10,650). If my main source is correct as to when the elves first arose–11,362 years before the War of the Ring–Cirdan beats her by at least seven hundred years or so.
> 
> Speaking of which… a site you might be interested in checking out, if you haven't seen it before:
> 
> The Encyclopedia of Arda
> 
> Seems pretty reliable, even if one might wish a couple entries had greater detail.
> 
> _Snip... cut._
> 
> Or… Tolkien could have left out the One Ring altogether, had the story end in a draw–essentially what would have happened if he'd left things as they stood after the battle at Minas Tirith–and set up a sequel. I think we can all be thankful he didn't do that, at least.



Something I know, that Ravana doesn't?  Oh no! It's a sign of the Apocalypse... Fly you fools!!!

Thing about phases is actually not very well known.  If you look at Cirdan's description in the Grey Havens chapter it mentions that he has a beard and someone asked him why since elves don't have facial hair.  His reply was that he was in the third stage of his life.  Also now that I think about it Cirdan was alive during the great migration and the Sundering of the Elves so yah I think he is one of the firstborn.  

No, not the accursed Encyclopedia of Arda! must resist reading articles and not doing work...

Originally Tolkien was planning on writing a sequel with the Witch-King as the big baddy, but quickly canned the idea.


----------



## Xanados

Johnny Cosmo said:


> I do see your point, but the concept for these creatures didn't originate with Tolkien, and I don't agree that his races had little to no resemblance to the elves, dwarves, and orcs (as goblins or trolls, or something similar) of Norse mythology. On the contrary, I think their roots are obvious.
> 
> But yes, he deserves the credit for being the first to use them in the way he did, and for setting the standard for fantasy.


I'm glad that someone brought it up. I really am. I can't stand people who suggest that Tolkien imagined such races we view now as the standard in this genre.

Have any of you not read The Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson? I have a copy right beside me. 
"Written in Iceland a century after the close of the Viking Age, it tells ancient stories of the Norse creation epic and recounts the battles that follow as gods, giants, dwarves and elves struggle for survival."


----------



## Ravana

myrddin173 said:


> Originally Tolkien was planning on writing a sequel with the Witch-King as the big baddy, but quickly canned the idea.



Before or after he offed him in front of Minas Tirith? 

I see the beard; don't see anyone make mention of it. Perhaps that's an edition issue? Dunno. Thought I'd seen references to beards on one or two other elves somewhere, too, but I can't seem to locate any offhand. (Though, of course, since you don't normally end a description with "…and he didn't have a beard," they could be all over the place, for all we know. Or not.)

And the day I can't learn something new is the day I pack it in. Though I honestly doubt that will ever be much of a worry.


----------



## Ravana

Xanados said:


> Have any of you not read The Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson?



Yeah, well, nobody reads the classics any more, eh? Sturluson, Spenser, Ferdowsi, Ovid, Hesiod, Virgil, Valmiki, ChrÃ©tien de Troyes, LÃ¶nnrot, all those guys named Anonymous.… 

Oh, well: what can ya do? I mean, look at all the people here who haven't even read Tolkien.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Ravana said:


> Still, I'd argue that sneaking into the enemy's impregnable fortress-realm, crossing twenty leagues of hostile territory, evading constant surveillance and outmaneuvering all his minions isn't exactly "small"


What Frodo and Sam did was remarkable, as well as Aragorn and the others, especially considering that they do not have magical powers!! That was certainly not something small...

I don't know what it's like in the book, but in the movies when the riders of Rohan arrive at the final battle and they see Sauron's army, Eowyn says "Courage, Merry, courage!!" and that moment touched my heart, it's so inspiring =) Anyway, everything would have been for nothing if Sauron had just thought about putting a boulder at the entrance to the cavern!!

That's what annoys me about characters like Sauron, Voldemort and the White Witch...


----------



## DameiThiessen

Perhaps many others have already said this, but I'll give it a shot.

Tolkien, by far, was not the first or only fantasy writer of his kind. Lewis gave us Narnia, Baum gave us Oz, and James gave us Shangri-la. Before that we still has stories of Atlantis, Lilliput, and Utopia. And of course there's piles of mythology and folklore before that. But Tolkien defined High Fantasy. His stories are not about human beings finding a magical world and trying to help people within it and then get back home like so many others were. He was one of the first to actually create a seperate magical realm (with no connection to our's) and set all of his characters within it, rather than have someone from this world cross over and explore. It is a completely different place, much of which is unfamiliar. And that is what made him so different and original.
Nowadays it isn't uncommon to have a book or a movie introduce us to a new universe and the things within it. But back then this was still fairly unfamiliar.

The elements of his stories were among the first of his kind. They were based on folklore and mythology and previous works, yes, but were highly original all the same. So you can't really call them a clichÃ©, because they were what came first. Everything after it is a clichÃ©. ;P


----------



## myrddin173

DameiThiessen said:


> He was one of the first to actually create a seperate magical realm (with no connection to our's) and set all of his characters within it, rather than have someone from this world cross over and explore. It is a completely different place, much of which is unfamiliar.



I wouldn't say it was completely separate.  Middle-earth was supposed to be a pre-history/mythology of Britain.


----------



## DameiThiessen

myrddin173 said:


> I wouldn't say it was completely separate.  Middle-earth was supposed to be a pre-history/mythology of Britain.


But you understand what I mean, don't you? It wasn't about someone from the 1930s travelling to Middle Earth, where readers from the 1930s are familiar with the nature of at least one character and the history of the place they're from. All of it takes place in the fictional world of Middle Earth, which he created himself.


----------



## Ravana

Or, to put what DameiThiessen said another way: Tolkien invented "world-building" as a pursuit _separate_ from the writing of the story itself. And did it so well we're still all playing catch-up. 

-

Sheilawisz: Actually, in the book, Eowyn doesn't say a thing to Merry at that point. 

What _is_ in the book is dramatic enough it _still_ sends tingles up my spine after reading it for the twenty-somethingth time. I know–because it just did it again last night. And it's not like I don't know exactly what's going to happen by now.…


----------



## Sheilawisz

Ravana, that part of the movie touched me because I was already feeling very inspired by Merry: I mean, as a Hobbit he was so small and not as strong as the Rohan riders, but still he wanted to fight, to do his part to protect his country and his people... They wanted to leave him behind but Eowyn takes him with her, and then they arrive at the battlefield and they see such a huge and awful army... "Courage, Merry, courage!!" That's my favourite part of the entire movie series =)


----------



## Wormtongue

Tolkien may be the creator of the genre, but he was not the first of the genre that I read.  I believe Dragonriders of Pern* was the first fantasy I read.  And I read countless other fantasy and sci-fi novels before I read LOTR.

I say that to say this:  I feel I had a good feel for the genre when I first read LOTR.  I found it a bit purple, and dense, but still excellent adventure.  

I could not read The Silmarillion.  Way too dense for my taste.  Reading it was too much work.  lol

*I know there is disagreement about what genre Dragonriders properly belongs to, but it's got dragons and that's fantasy to me.  Although in the end it turned pure sci-fi...


----------



## JamesTFHS

Hello i am a die hard lord of the rings fan and have been studying the novels for several years. I understand why you have a hard time reading the novels, the way in which Tolkien writes his works is difficult for americans because that is not a way in which we talk or even write now. I believe it is called some sort of king charles dialect but i am not sure. 

First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil. Though the other beings view elves as perfect the gods that created them do not. The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else. So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear. 

I am not going to talk about the evil part cause it is very simple with most of the villains. The eagles are far older then sauron and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them and they dont give a **** about anyone but gandalf really. Though they dont say it they pretty much only show up at the black gate to save gandalf's ass at the end of the books/movies. Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it. Sauron is a pussy in all honesty. And i am sure if all of middle-earth were like burning and being destroyed the eagles would just pick up gandalf and fly back to the undying lands and say **** you to everyone. They are too old to give a shit. 

The ghost thing doesnt make much sense but that kinda has always been the rules with spirits. and i dont think they really wanted aragorn to save them. i think in the book they would have rather been left alone. again probably dont give a **** about anything.

Tolkien viewed it as a pre history/mythology of england because england does not have one of their own. All fairy tales we view as english really are french and viking really. Tolkien also more of called it a secondary world or fairie realm.


----------



## Xanados

JamesTFHS said:


> Hello i am a die hard lord of the rings fan and have been studying the novels for several years. I understand why you have a hard time reading the novels, the way in which Tolkien writes his works is difficult for americans because that is not a way in which we talk or even write now. I believe it is called some sort of king charles dialect but i am not sure.
> 
> First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil. Though the other beings view elves as perfect the gods that created them do not. The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else. So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.
> 
> I am not going to talk about the evil part cause it is very simple with most of the villains. The eagles are far older then sauron and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them and they dont give a **** about anyone but gandalf really. Though they dont say it they pretty much only show up at the black gate to save gandalf's ass at the end of the books/movies. Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it. Sauron is a pussy in all honesty. And i am sure if all of middle-earth were like burning and being destroyed the eagles would just pick up gandalf and fly back to the undying lands and say **** you to everyone. They are too old to give a shit.
> 
> The ghost thing doesnt make much sense but that kinda has always been the rules with spirits. and i dont think they really wanted aragorn to save them. i think in the book they would have rather been left alone. again probably dont give a **** about anything.


You put it so...eloquently, James. I'm not one to complain about cursing, but I feel that the fact you’re overusing it might, well, ruin your image. I have been warned by the Moderators before, but please remember to capitalize that all important personal pronoun, 'I'.
This post is not meant to insult, merely aid in the coherency of your posts.


----------



## myrddin173

JamesTFHS said:


> First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil. Though the other beings view elves as perfect the gods that created them do not. The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else. So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.



Where did you read this, because I am unfamiliar with it.



JamesTFHS said:


> The eagles are far older then sauron and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them and they dont give a **** about anyone but gandalf really. Though they dont say it they pretty much only show up at the black gate to save gandalf's ass at the end of the books/movies.



I really have to disagree with this.  Sauron was a Maiar, the lesser order of the Ainur, and so existed _before_ the world was made.  The Eagles were created afterward by Manwe, to serve as his messengers, likely out of spirits similiar to the Maiar, but not among them.  I don't really understand what you mean by "the blessing of the gods" as Arda, the world Middle-earth is a continent on, only has one god Eru Illuvitar, who is really doesn't intervene.  The only thing I recall him doing is making the World spherical.



JamesTFHS said:


> Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it.



We don't really know what Tom could do because we do not know _what _he is, even Tolkien himself wasn't sure.

Also please try not to double post.


----------



## Ravana

I thought I'd give others the opportunity to respond to this before I did, just to see what everybody else came up with. My turn now. 



JamesTFHS said:


> the way in which Tolkien writes his works is difficult for americans because that is not a way in which we talk or even write now. I believe it is called some sort of king charles dialect



Americans don't have the slightest "difficulty" reading Tolkien–nor would any other native speaker of English. The prose is perfectly lucid and straightforward. It's merely a question of style preferences whether or not someone enjoys his writing. But as for "difficult," it doesn't even hold a candle to, say, Faulkner… who was American.

The style of _LotR_ has been compared to the prose of the King _James_ Bible… but that's only style, not dialect, and the comparison is weak: all you need to do to prove that to yourself is read both side-by-side. A few passages sound similar (especially where lineages start showing up); the majority is perfectly normal English prose.



> First i would like to address the orcs issue. Orcs are the twisted deformed versions of elves. The dark god Melkor kidnapped and tortured thousands of elves till they became the twisted forms of orcs. that is really why they are evil.



According to _The Silmarillion_, yes. He gives other origins in other works and in private correspondence and notes; it seems he never completely settled on one he was comfortable with. That misses the point of the objection about them, though: corrupted or not, they are still (theoretically) sentient beings, and as such ought to be capable of choosing whether or not to be evil. Which is part of the reason Tolkien was never completely happy about the "elf origin," I suspect.



> Though the other beings view elves as perfect



Which "other beings" are you talking about? The dwarves? _Not_. Men? Hardly. Ents? Nope. Orcs, trolls, dragons, balrogs, ringwraiths? Don't act like they do. Hobbits? Not even them: go back and re-read the first couple chapters of _LotR_ to catch the opinions of those hobbits who aren't the story's main characters… and then re-read the rest of the story for examples of elf-friendly hobbits encountering "imperfections" among them. 

If _readers_ perceive elves as "perfect," that's their problem–and their misreading.



> the gods that created them do not.



The _god_ that created them: IlÃºvatar alone was responsible for his Children–both elves and men.



> The elves were originally created to guide the world in its destiny



Not sure where you get this. In _The Silmarillion_, it's mentioned that it's _men_ through whose "operations everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest." While it seems rational that the immortal and more enlightened elves were intended to guide men in this task, I don't see where this is mentioned… and given the normal relations between elves and men, if that was the intention, it was a major non-starter.

I don't think the notion that elves were intended to guide the world can be sustained, however: certainly not from the point of view of the Valar, who went to great pains to invite all the elves to their home, _away_ from the world at large. If guidance was the elves' purpose, then the actions of the gods actually worked against this.



> but the all failed because the cared more about knowledge than anything else.



Nor do I see where they "all" failed; I'd have to say that at a minimum, this can't apply to the elves that remained in Valinor. Nor why caring more about knowledge than anything else would be a problem: that is suggested as an element in the downfall of _some_ of them, but mostly the failures are due to pride–in knowledge or otherwise. Nor do I see where you get the idea that they "all" cared more about knowledge than anything else: most of the ones we encounter in Middle-Earth care more about other things… such as the world around them.



> So the gods view them as fallen beings that are far from perfect. Though i am not sure that Tolkien really makes that clear.



He makes it quite clear that those Noldor who followed FÃ«anor back to Middle-Earth were put under a ban of exile because of his actions (specifically by associating themselves with kinslaying); but this is only one group of elves. Many of the elves who never left Middle-Earth in the first place felt the same way about their kin when they found out.



> The eagles are far older then sauron



Well, no, actually, they aren't. They can't be: Sauron came into being at the same time as all the rest of the Ainur. Only one being is older than Sauron: IlÃºvatar. The eagles are inhabited by lesser spirits sent by the gods, and so are _as_ old as him… not older. At most: it's not completely clear when these arose.



> and have the blessing of the gods so really sauron couldn't do shit to them



Where do you get this impression? Inhabited by divine spirits or not, they're still physical; they can be harmed by anything that could harm anything else in the world. And it's not like they proved all that potent in battle. They were insufficient to turn the tide at the Battle of Five Armies. Nor would they have been enough to turn it before the Morannon: it was the destruction of the Ring that did that. We never see them taking on dragons, or balrogs, or the NazgÃºl (they are stooping to attack when the NazgÃºl are recalled: they never actually get to engage), or anything other than orcs for that matter. In fact, they rarely enter battle directly: that isn't their purpose. They watch, they bring news, they occasionally pick people up out of inconvenient locations. 



> and they dont [care] about anyone but gandalf really.



Well… not so much. In _The Hobbit_, they follow and attack goblin hordes of their own accord. In _Fellowship_, the eagle that rescues Gandalf had been sent by Radagast to bring news to Orthanc–to Gandalf _and_ Saruman. In _The Two Towers_, it's Galadriel who sends the eagle that brings Gandalf back after his resurrection. Which leaves the battle of the Morannon, where, to the best of my knowledge, their presence is not explained… though Gandalf mentions in _The Two Towers_ that he'd asked Gwaihir to keen an eye on things following his rescue. So, presumably, of their own accord again.



> Same goes with tom bombadil. He could probably walk into mordor with the one ring and sauron would be too afraid to stop him from destroying it.



Not even close. It's made quite clear that Bombadil wouldn't have the power to withstand Sauron even on his own turf, let alone away from it–and it's made equally clear he would not be willing to leave his forest in any event. Notwithstanding that he's almost literally older than dirt, he is still of the world: "in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First." 



> Sauron is a pussy in all honesty.



Really? Then why won't any of the other powers of the world take him on heads up?

In Tolkien's universe, nothing and no one is invulnerable: gods greater and lesser, and spirits of all sorts, can be harmed, even by relatively mundane weapons. (Ã‰owyn beheads the Lord of the NazgÃºl with a perfectly normal sword, for example.) Sauron could be harmed by "magical" weapons, at a minimum: he had a finger cut off, after all. He is weaker in _LotR_ than he had been in earlier days, because he'd invested so much of his personal power in the Ring… but that didn't make him so weak that, even during the time he was reforming himself after his first fall, Gandalf (who is also an incarnate Maia, by the way–every bit as "divine" as the eagles) felt constrained to sneak into Dol Guldur (twice) to see if it was really Sauron pulling himself back together. It takes the _combined_ power of the White Council–which includes, at a minimum, Gandalf, Saruman (another Maia), Elrond, Galadriel and CÃ­rdan: whether there were others is left unspecified–to expel him; even then he's said to continue to become stronger after his return to Mordor.

Given that it's repeatedly stated that the only way to defeat Sauron directly would be for one of the powers to take up the Ring and use it against him, I find it difficult to see where you get the notion that he was weak.



> The ghost thing doesnt make much sense but that kinda has always been the rules with spirits. and i dont think they really wanted aragorn to save them. i think in the book they would have rather been left alone



As I already mentioned (and you would know if you read the thread), in the book the ghosts never do anything other than scare people away. What the movie did with them is irrelevant when it comes to analyzing Tolkien. As for wanting to be left alone: all they would have had to do was not respond to Aragorn's summons. He didn't have the power to command them… all he could do was release them from the curse that had bound them by declaring their oath fulfilled. Given that they could have simply ignored him, I'd have to say that they _desperately_ wanted to be "saved."



> i am a die hard lord of the rings fan and have been studying the novels for several years.



Looks like you could stand to do some more work in that department, mate.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I wanted to respond first Ravana, but my Tokienian knowledge is quite limited!! James, that was interesting but Mythic Scribes is rather strict about language use... cursing is fun, however this is really not the place to write like that.

You all are making me curious, maybe I should get all the Tolkien books and read them!!


----------



## Ravana

Well, at least read _Lord of the Rings_. If you get fascinated enough by the world, then read _The Hobbit_ and _The Silmarillion_. Realize that each of these is in a _very_ different style, however… probably the main reason so many readers find them off-putting. 

_The Hobbit_ is written as if someone were telling the story to an audience (complete with frequent "I" and "you"–which gets irritating: just enjoy the story and try to ignore the style). While it is a direct predecessor of _LotR_, it isn't necessary to read it first: the important information gets mentioned in _LotR_ as it becomes relevant, and there's a summary of Bilbo finding the ring in the Prologue (part 4): it's only four pages, so you might as well read it. (The balance of the Prologue can safely be skipped until/unless you decide you want the depth of detail.) 

_The Silmarillion_ is not a finished work, and it's not clear Tolkien ever intended for it to be; his son put it together from the most complete sections dad did write concerning the history of the world prior to _Hobbit/LotR_. It still makes a decent read if you want the backstory, but it's composed mostly of short, marginally-related tales, and reads more like a history or mythology book… which, essentially, is what it is. (Personally, I have no problems with it–probably because I'm one who's been carried away by the world, along with the fact that I read histories all the time anyway–but it seems most readers find it somewhat turgid.)

By the way, even before reading _The Silmarillion_, you should read the hundred-odd pages of Appendices A and B at the end of _LotR_. Much of the material in _The Silmarillion_ is summarized there, as is a considerable amount of "off-camera" information and interaction that helps complete the _LotR_ story. The other appendices are world-building details of greater or lesser interest: E and F, concerning scripts and languages, are the ones fans will find most engrossing (especially since there you get to see Tolkien the linguist and philologist at his finest: clearly _he_ found this part of his world the most engrossing). D–calendars–is interesting primarily due to how it fits into the overall history; C is just hobbit family trees.

If you still want more after _The Silmarillion_, then you can start tracking down the immense amounts of even less-finished fragments, drafts and alternate versions Christopher T. published after his father's death. These can be particularly confusing, in that many are early versions of later-published works, often containing "contradictory" material that Tolkien later changed or abandoned. They're mostly useful only for those who want to see every last detail Tolkien considered using… though they can also be of some value to those interested in seeing how a writer's concepts develop over time.

As for _LotR_ itself: realize that things start picking up considerably once the hobbits actually make it out of the Shire. Just bear with it until then. The end result is more than worth it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Ravana said:


> As for _LotR_ itself: realize that things start picking up considerably once the hobbits actually make it out of the Shire. Just bear with it until then. The end result is more than worth it.



I'd say, once the hobbits make it to the Prancing Pony. I've never liked the Tom Bombadil section. (Actually, I very much enjoyed everything before Bombadil and after; it's TB himself who bores me.)


----------



## Johnny Cosmo

> I'd say, once the hobbits make it to the Prancing Pony. I've never liked the Tom Bombadil section. (Actually, I very much enjoyed everything before Bombadil and after; it's TB himself who bores me.)



I think I agree. Whilst I think he's sort of an interesting character, the whole section seems unnecessary. When the first LotR film came out and the die-hard Lord of the Rings fans were angry at him being excluded, I just couldn't care less.


----------



## Ravana

As far as I know, Bombadil was actually a late addition to _LotR_… something Tolkien wanted to include (having created the character for different purposes), but didn't know where. And, yes, it shows. 

I wouldn't skip the first few chapters on a first read (nor do I imagine anyone else is suggesting doing so); just wanted to make sure anyone who thought it started out slowly knew that it does pick up. After your first time through… yeah, dive back in wherever.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I have read only The Fellowship of the Ring, and for me the book was entertaining, sometimes fun, sometimes a little boring but it has definitely that energy that only Classic Literature can make you feel... Now I want to find the other two books (not The Hobbit, at least not yet!!) and read them too, you have made me curious enough about Tolkien and the world that he created =)


----------



## Spring-Gem

Ravana said:


> _The Silmarillion_ is not a finished work, and it's not clear Tolkien ever intended for it to be; his son put it together from the most complete sections dad did write concerning the history of the world prior to _Hobbit/LotR_.



I read a Tolkien biography which indicated he very much wanted The Silmarillion published because he felt it was his most important work. When he finished LotR, he tried to get his publisher to agree to publish TS, even though it wasn't finished, but they didn't want to. He pulled LotR and got another publisher, but that one also didn't want to publish TS. Tolkien finally went back to his first publisher and they worked out a deal that included TS. It seems Tolkien was a procrastinator and somewhat disorganized, but also a perfectionist in his writing; he was always tinkering with his world. During the time he was trying to get Silmarillion finished, his wife got sick and eventually died. Tolkien died two years afterward and his son pulled together the final form of Silmarillion from the various drafts.


----------



## Ravana

Yeah, I read that too. Still, perfectionist or not, a decade and a half is a _long_ time to spend revising a manuscript… especially one he apparently considered ready when _LotR_ went to press. And considering its obviously unfinished state, I would have thought that anything he had considered ready to go would have been at least a bit more polished. 

Oh, well: it's still enjoyable.


----------



## JamesTFHS

yeah I'm sorry about the language I was a little hyper at the time I wrote this. When I say 'gods' I mean Valar cause they are very much demi gods. How are elves not perfect? every time you see them the characters go on about how perfect elves are. Granted in The Silmarrillion we get a better explanation of their origins but you cant really use that as at the time no one knew about those origins and some of those are never addressed. Thank you for letting me know about when the Eagles were created I was not entirely sure about that. I highly doubt Orcs would choose to be good do to their twisted and violent nature. Please give me a good example of Sauron not being a pansy. He has never really achieved anything and he also happens to be afraid of everyone in middle-earth not exactly the best quality in an evil overlord. Lithuen Tinuviel parctically(I am dumbing this down) told him to go away and he ran, granted she had a giant wolf at her side but Sauron just ran instead of killing her. 

Oh and never ever question my love, loyalty and knowledge of the lord of the rings. Yeah i dumb down alot of info because after spending days upon days of trying to explain Tolkien's world to various friends and people you realize there is just too much info to go through. What Tolkien created is extremely complex, especially for his time. I saw fit to give some quick explanations especially for the eagles as everyone asks "Why doesn't the eagles just fly them over there?". The fact that it would make the books only 200 or some pages kinda is a weak answer. And I am still sure the eagles dont care one way or another about sauron or the ring as they could actually escape back to Valinor without having to worry about waiting for the boats or having to travel such a massive distance(the elves having to cross middle-earth). some of this is how i took what Tolkien said.


----------



## Ravana

JamesTFHS said:


> How are elves not perfect? every time you see them the characters go on about how perfect elves are.



Clearly we haven't been reading the same books. 
- _The Hobbit_: The first time we encounter elves, they're making fun of the dwarves and Bilbo. The second time they're vanishing on the starving dwarves when approached for food, which they follow up by taking them prisoner, interrogating them and throwing them in a dungeon–a captivity Bilbo manages to free them from because the chief guard and the butler pass out drunk. Nor is the description of "the old quarrel" between these elves and the dwarves exactly flattering–"the elf-king had bargained with them… and had afterwards refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure… though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more.…" Which is what causes them to show up in arms at the doorstep of the Lonely Mountain looking for a cut.
In _Fellowship_:
- Book I, Ch. 1: "_Elves and Dragons_! I says to him. _Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you._"
- Ch. 2: "I don't see what it matters to me or you. Let them sail!"
- Ch. 3: "…to the Elven-smiths [the lesser rings] were but trifles–yet to my mind still dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous."
- Ch. 4: "…it is also said… 'Go not to the Elves for council, for they will say both no and yes.'"
- Ch. 5: "They seem a bit above my likes and dislikes.… It don't seem to matter what I think about them. They are quite different from what I expected–so old and young, and so gay and sad."
Skipping a bit ahead:
- Book II, Ch. 2: "There is no hope left in the Elves…"
- "What of the Three Rings of the Elves? …Are they idle?"
- Ch. 6: "…of that perilous land [Lorien] we have heard in Gondor, and it is said that few come out who once go in; and of that few none have escaped unscathed."
- The elves refuse admittance to the party unless the dwarf is blindfolded–and say they'll shoot him dead if he turns back.
- Ch. 7: "…she held each of them with her eyes.… None save Legolas and Aragorn could long endure her glance."
- "Maybe it was only a test, and she thought to read our thoughts for her own good purpose; but I should have said that she was tempting us, and offering what she pretended to have the power to give. It need not be said that I refused to listen. … I do not feel too sure of this Elvish Lady and her purposes."
- "I wish I had never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic."

That isn't all the instances even from _Fellowship_. Which still leaves two more books of the trilogy, plus _the Silmarillion_. So tell me again how everybody always thinks they're perfect. 

What they are is _different_–often in ways other characters have no frame of reference to cope with. Many seem to be inherently magical, and to affect the perceptions of non-elves in their presence (concerning the passage of time, for instance). No doubt this muddling of perception is partially responsible for people being so impressed by them… but "impressed" does not equal "perfect."



> Please give me a good example of Sauron not being a pansy. He has never really achieved anything and he also happens to be afraid of everyone in middle-earth not exactly the best quality in an evil overlord. Lithuen Tinuviel parctically(I am dumbing this down) told him to go away and he ran, granted she had a giant wolf at her side but Sauron just ran instead of killing her.



So why is this evidence of Sauron being weak, and not LÃºthien being strong? Six pages later she walks into Morgoth's throne room, vanishes before his eyes, and sings him and his entire court to sleep. She's the daughter of another Maia–one of the most powerful ones–and one of the first-born elves. Even then, it takes the combination of LÃºthien's power, that of Huan (a wolfhound, not a wolf–not exactly a hound, either: he was one of OromÃ«'s hunting dogs), and Sauron's hubris in believing that by engaging Huan as a wolf he might fulfill a prophecy, to take Sauron down. And he surrenders–_after_ he's already beaten–because she points out that if he doesn't, he'll lose his physical form and have to "endure the torment of [Morgoth's] scorn" if she tells the dog to go ahead and rip out his throat, which it happens to have in its teeth at that moment. A better question would be why she doesn't do just that. Maybe even in defeat he manages to cloud her mind?

What did Sauron "achieve" to impress reliable witnesses such as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel? Let's see: he's Morgoth's lieutenant from first to last, commanding even balrogs and dragons; he personally takes an elven fortress that had resisted two years' siege; he bests Finrod in magical single combat; he was responsible for the creation of werewolves (and possibly vampires); he creates a new breed of trolls immune to sunlight; he breeds the flying steeds of the NazgÃºl; he manages to repeatedly gull people who ought to know better, including Saruman, the elven smiths who made the Rings and nearly the entire nation of NÃºmenor, along with countless less well-informed people; he manages to control what Saruman and Denethor see through the _palantÃ­ri_; he has a pet volcano he appears capable of making erupt at will. Oh, and he can withstand the heat at its heart well enough he can use it to forge a magic ring capable of dominating most of the other Great Rings and preventing the rest from being wielded openly… a ring which "the Wise" are in _unanimous_ agreement is the _only thing_ that could possibly enable them to defeat him directly. Just sayin'. 

Mostly, though, I'm assuming the author isn't lying when he says Sauron was the most powerful of Melkor's followers, and is the most powerful being in Middle-Earth after his boss is overthrown. It doesn't matter what we _see_ him do: we see plenty that those less than him do.

As I said before: in Tolkien, nothing and no one is invulnerable. Power is a matter of degree, and those degrees are far less in Tolkien than in most fantasy stories. A single, determined hero can contend with divine beings with at least _some_ chance of success. In fact, none ever does succeed, against Melkor/Morgoth or Sauron–not alone. LÃºthien and Huan come closest, and there it's closer to two lesser demigods against one great one whose ego led him to made a colossal blunder. Fingolfin manages to hold his own against Morgoth for a while, but loses. The combination of Gil-galad, Elrond, CÃ­rdan, Elendil, Isildur, and who knows how many others, at least two of whom were armed with named magical weapons, manages to defeat Sauron at the cost of two of their lives and the breaking of both weapons. Three balrogs we know of fall to single combat–against (the original) Glorfindel, against Ecthelion and against Gandalf–but all of those are draws: the good guy dies too. On the other hand, the last great dragon gets dropped by a single well-placed arrow shot, and the Lord of the NazgÃºl by a munchkin and a poorly-interpreted prophecy. (Sort of a poor man's version of the LÃºthien and Huan story.) Saruman gets knifed in the back. Gandalf, who fights the balrog because he has no choice, also ducks arrows and climbs trees to escape wolves. 

As with most leaders, Sauron rarely does anything he can have someone do for him. That isn't necessarily fear: it's prudence, along with the inability to be everywhere at once. It's a recognition that he _does_ have limits; he knows he can be harmed, because he has been before. It's probably also a recognition that when you rule by fear, everyone's going to hate you; that it's easier to command from the center of things; and that there's simply no point in exposing yourself unnecessarily, however slight the risk may seem. That doesn't mean he can't do just as much "harming" right back, in person if necessary… but that's a far cry from being able to snap his fingers and cause Minas Tirith to collapse. Nor does it mean anybody _else_ is any less vulnerable to _him_. In similar vein, five of the NazgÃºl back off from four hobbits and a ranger armed with torches after knifing Frodo, when it seems by rights they ought to have simply overrun them… but why go to _any_ risk, when all they have to do is follow them at that point?

In most cases, it seems that _magical_ power in Tolkien relies heavily on preparation. When left to improvise, even great and powerful wizards come off pretty poorly–to the extent that Gandalf thinks it wise to carry a sword… and to use it. Saruman is completely pathetic when we finally encounter him; yet he was powerful enough to be able to imprison Gandalf without so much as a fight, was the primary supplier of means by which (a weakened) Sauron was expelled from Dol Guldur, and puts together a force that almost defeated Rohan, complete with his own special cross-breed of orcs and either gunpowder or something close enough to it not to matter. The only things we ever _see_ Elrond "do" are unleash a flash flood he's had thousands of years to prepare, and heal Frodo's wound (actually, we don't "see" him do either: we're told he did them). And be wise. Galadriel stares intently at people and puddles. When she has more time, she keeps her realm in eternal summer and invents an early version of the laser. (A fine example of how "different" the elves are: when asked if the cloaks she provides are magical, the elf handing them over responds "I do not know what you mean by that." Their conception of magic _itself_ differs from everyone else's… if they consider anything "magic" at all.)



> Oh and never ever question my… knowledge of the lord of the rings.



I'm willing to grant you two out of three.


----------



## Alexander Knight

Interesting opinion, if somewhat circular.
You said, "I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs." Basically you're saying you don't like Tolkien's cliche use of orcs. So tell me, who else used orcs before Tolkien? None that I'm aware of. He created them and he created them evil. To complain that they're too cliche in the story that invented them isn't logical. They weren't cliche originally, they've become so afterward.
Based on the rest of your post, it sounds to me that you simply don't like the story. That's ok, you can write one of your own where elves are evil, orcs are perfect and giant eagles are just a myth. Then you can share it with us and see if we like it. But you do have to give Tolkien credit for inventing the genre. He was the first one to do it well enough that people flocked to his writing. And the first one to do something successfully is generally considered that things inventor. You don't have to like his writing, but someone compared my writing to the inventor of the genre I'd be flattered.


----------



## Ravana

Actually, the point wasn't Tolkien having his orcs be evil because orcs are evil–it was having a given set of beings be evil because they were of a given species. (One could as easily substitute the word "goblin" for "orc," by the way… especially since that's what he started out calling them. And he hardly invented goblins.) 

The problem is the "all X are Y" approach–it doesn't make the slightest difference what X and Y are. If X are intelligent beings with free will, regardless of what they are, you would expect _some_ of them to not be Y… regardless of what _that_ is. He _does_ have evil elves–and men, and dwarves, and arguably even hobbits (though for the most part the "bad" ones there were merely petty and ignorant). There is some argument to be made that orcs don't have complete freedom of will… but I'm not sure it's strong enough to completely address the criticism. In a world that is otherwise of such wondrous complexity, it seems a bit oversimplified and out of place to have an "evil race."


----------



## Steerpike

I don't personally have a problem with an evil race in a fantasy world. It is a fantasy setting, and the author creates the rules. In so doing, if she creates a race that is evil by nature, then so be it. There is no reason the race has to be capable of both good and evil. You can frame it in terms of free will or what have you, but there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. In a world where magic works and creatures from the myths and legends of mankind walk the earth, I'm surprised that readers get hung up on this sort of thing. The idea of ents, a balrog, wizards, nazgul, and a power ring from out of legend are accepted, but have a race of being who are all evil and suddenly there's an issue?


----------



## Sheilawisz

I really don't understand why different species in Fantasy worlds are called races instead of species, why is that?? I don't have many different intelligent species in my worlds, all my characters belong to the same species and there is no "evil race/species whatever that causes trouble" in my worlds =)

I do have the Kareltyans, a semi intelligent species that are used by my darklord-like character as pets, but they are quite different to orcs and orc-like races from other Fantasy worlds... Kareltyans are thin, elegant creatures with two legs, a long tail with a venomous sting, two arms with claws, a head similar to that of a Pterodactyl, two horns and the ability to spit a napalm-like liquid and attack with swords.

Kareltyans stand over 16 meters tall, so they are more similar to dragons than to orcs =)

Back to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings now, after reading the Fellowship of the Ring I was quite intrigued by Galadriel and I even wrote a fanfiction about her killing Frodo and Sam, taking the Ring, defeating Sauron and then ruling over middle-earth as a terrible Queen of Darkness...


----------



## Steerpike

Sheilawisz said:


> I really don't understand why different species in Fantasy worlds are called races instead of species, why is that??



This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.


----------



## myrddin173

Sheilawisz said:


> Back to Tolkien and Lord of the Rings now, after reading the Fellowship of the Ring I was quite intrigued by Galadriel and I even wrote a fanfiction about her killing Frodo and Sam, taking the Ring, defeating Sauron and then ruling over middle-earth as a terrible Queen of Darkness...



Instead of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen.  Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn.  Treacherous as the Sea, Stronger than the Foundations of the Earth.  All shall love me and despair...

Is it sad that I have that memorized?



Steerpike said:


> This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.



Yes there are Half-orcs.  As to the whole species/race thing, that's just the way it is.  That's the way Tolkien did it and it has stuck.  Yah it doesn't make sense but this is Fantasy...


----------



## Sheilawisz

Steerpike said:


> This is preserved in fantasy gaming as well. Creatures that are intelligent enough to live in some kind of society, even if loosely organized, are called 'races.' I think one reason they don't call orcs a "species" is because that seems to preclude inter-breeding. There are half-orcs in Tolkien, I think (cross-bred between men and orcs), and certainly other books have things like half-orcs and half-elves. The ability to reproduce is often a defining characteristic of a species, so if you can have interbreeding maybe 'race' works better.


Thanks, Steerpike!! =) Well, now I see that they are called races because they can interbreed... rather strange for me, since I don't have interbreeding of any kind in my worlds!! My most important species is very sadistic and dangerous, a little similar to humans but very different at the same time since they have huge eyes, a long furry tail, pointy ears, claws and other things.

@Myrddin: That is exactly the part that I remember the most, with the only difference that I read the Castilian version!! It's so beautiful =)


----------



## Ravana

Technically, it should be "species," yes. Traditionally, there seems to have been an avoidance of that term, in favor of "race," where it involves intelligent beings (or at least intelligent humanoids). Probably for the same reasons we've never adopted the pronoun "it" as an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun for people. 

I'm fairly certain that Saruman's "half-orcs" were only possible through magic, though I'm not sure this is ever specified. Even if not, however, humans and elves _can_ interbreed in Tolkien… which starts to blur the technical line between different species and members of the same one. 



> Instead of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen. Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea, Stronger than the Foundations of the Earth. All shall love me and despair...



Yeah, but I can't help thinking she still would have been a step up.… 

Is that the movie version? My text has something rather different. In particular, the word "treacherous" doesn't make an appearance, among less important variances. 

The Castilian version would kick ass. Mind posting it? I'd love to see it. (I ran it through Google Translate, and am pretty sure I got a reliable text, if perhaps not as poetic as it could have been. The Catalan one sounds really cool, though; I was surprised it came out so well. Basque, as usual, looks like a train wreck.  )

By the way, there wouldn't be any particular need for her to kill Frodo and Sam–at least not in theory: he offers to give her the Ring. Whether he could actually bring himself to part with it might be another story, of course.


----------



## myrddin173

@Ravana Yes indeed that is the movie version.  I put the trilogy in whenever I'm "cleaning" my room, so I have lost count of how many times I have seen that particular scene.

I don't think it was revealed specifically how they came to be, at least according to here.  The Uruk-hai page also mentions the hybridization of Orcs and Men.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Ravana said:


> The Castilian version would kick ass. Mind posting it? I'd love to see it.


Well, here it is for you Ravana =)

Galadriel riÃ³ de pronto con una risa clara.

      -La Dama Galadriel es quizÃ¡ prudente -dijo-, pero ha encontrado quien la iguale en cortesÃ­a.  Te has vengado gentilmente de la prueba a que sometÃ­ tu corazÃ³n en nuestro primer encuentro.  Comienzas a ver claro.  No niego que mi corazÃ³n ha deseado pedirte lo que ahora me ofreces.  Durante muchos largos aÃ±os me he preguntado quÃ© harÃ­a si el Gran Anillo llegara alguna vez a mis manos, Â¡y mira!, estÃ¡ ahora a mi alcance.  El mal que fue planeado hace ya mucho tiempo sigue actuando de distintos modos, ya sea que Sauron resista o caiga. Â¿No hubiera sido una noble acciÃ³n, que aumentarÃ­a el crÃ©dito del Anillo, si se lo hubiera arrebatado a mi huÃ©sped por la fuerza o el miedo?

      Â»Y ahora al fin llega. Â¡Me darÃ¡s libremente el Anillo!  En el sitio del SeÃ±or Oscuro instalarÃ¡s una Reina. Â¡Y yo no serÃ© oscura sino hermosa y terrible como la MaÃ±ana y la Noche! Â¡Hermosa como el Mar y el Sol y la Nieve en la MontaÃ±a! Â¡Terrible como la Tempestad y el RelÃ¡mpago!  MÃ¡s fuerte que los cimientos de la tierra. Â¡Todos me amarÃ¡n y desesperarÃ¡n!

      Galadriel alzÃ³ la mano y del anillo que llevaba brotÃ³ una luz que la iluminÃ³ a ella sola, dejando todo el resto en la oscuridad.  Se irguiÃ³ ante Frodo y pareciÃ³ que tenÃ­a de pronto una altura inconmensurable y una belleza irresistible, adorable y tremenda.  En seguida dejÃ³ caer la mano, y la luz se extinguiÃ³ y ella riÃ³ de nuevo, y he aquÃ­ que fue otra vez una delgada mujer elfa, vestida sencillamente de blanco, de voz dulce y triste.

      -He pasado la prueba -dijo-.  Me irÃ© empequeÃ±eciendo, marcharÃ© al oeste y continuarÃ© siendo Galadriel.


----------



## Ravana

Â¡Gracias! Yes, very nice. 

Reassuring to know (not that I had any doubt) that this was translated by a real human being. How do I know this? One: it's Tolkien–of course it was; it was translated long before there were commercially-available computers. Two: I ran it through Google Translate–which is actually one of the better machine translators. In case anybody ever wondered why you should _not_ use these…:



> And now at last arrives. I'll freely the Ring! On the site of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I will not be dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and Snow on the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All will love me and despair!



_Most_ of it came out right.… 

Well, the first time through, at least. Then I put the results back in. Then cycled it a few more times just for fun.



> Y ahora llega al Ãºltimo. Voy libremente el Anillo! En el sitio del SeÃ±or Oscuro se pondrÃ¡ en marcha una reina. Y no voy a ser oscura pero hermosa y terrible como la MaÃ±ana y la Noche! Justo como el mar y el sol y la nieve en la montaÃ±a! Terrible como la tempestad y el rayo! MÃ¡s fuerte que los cimientos de la tierra. Todos los que me aman y la desesperaciÃ³n!
> 
> And now comes last. I freely the Ring! On the site of the Dark Lord will launch a queen. And I will not be dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Just as the sea and sun and snow on the mountain! Terrible as the storm and lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All who love me and despair!
> 
> Y ahora viene al final. Yo libremente el Anillo! En el sitio del SeÃ±or Oscuro se lanzarÃ¡ a una reina. Y no voy a ser oscura pero hermosa y terrible como la MaÃ±ana y la Noche! AsÃ­ como el mar y el sol y la nieve en la montaÃ±a! Terrible como la tormenta y un rayo! MÃ¡s fuerte que los cimientos de la tierra. Todos los que me aman y la desesperaciÃ³n!
> 
> And now comes last. Ring me free! On the site of the Dark Lord will launch a queen. And I will not be dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Just as the sea and sun and snow on the mountain! Terrible as the lightning storm! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All who love me and despair!
> 
> And now comes last. Call me free! …
> 
> Y ahora viene al final. Me llama gratis! …



That's where it stopped doing further damage. 

I don't know about anyone else here, but Sheilawisz is probably laughing herself sick at that last one.…  (I'll let her explain if she wants to.)

Maybe I'll try something else next. German, perhaps. Unfortunately, it does some languages better than others–it has astonishingly limited vocabularies in a few of them–so I'll have to stick with the most common ones to get reliable results of any sort. (By "reliable," I mean ones genuinely illustrative of the limits of translation programs, not ones that fail because the program doesn't even have a full basic dictionary.)

P.S. You don't even want to know what it did with "empequeÃ±eciendo."


----------



## Sheilawisz

That was very funny, Ravana!! =) I laughed out loud indeed, this is what happens when you use those translators... they mess everything up because only a human translator can really grasp all the little details that are part of human languages- I have worked as a translator sometimes, but I'm not really good at it!!

When I think in English then my mind is 100% English, and when I think Castilian then English is out of the way =)

The thing about free and gratis that Ravana mentioned is a curiosity between these two languages, a little difficult to explain- in English, Free can have different meanings: Freedom, to be Free, to do something freely and it can also mean when you don't have to pay money for a service or a product, but in Castilian we would say Libertad, ser libre or hacer algo libremente. The word Gratis is used only for those things or services that are free of charge: a free phone call would be "llamada gratis"

Those Castilian paragraphs that Ravana got from the automatic translator are a disaster and very funny to read =)


----------



## Damien

I will give Tolkien credit for bringing the genre to the main stream, but he is by no means the best in the fantasy realm.

I too have problems with some of his plot holes (ex. Eagles not helping at the beginning, but helping at the end)

I will give him credit where credit is due. The Hobbit is a great book ! One of the best that I have ever read, but The Lord of the Rings is very hit and miss. The basic story is there, but there are times in this series that I am VERY aware of how long the journey has been (I never do notice how long  the journey is taking in books like The Stand, or even The Dark Tower series.) I do not believe it is ever a good thing if the reader is conscious of how long the story is taking. I also feel that all of the side stories to the journey of The Ring come across as pointless. None of the other things that happen in the book matter if the ring does not get destroyed. Side stories should complement the main story, and weave seamlessly within the main story that is being told.

I know that it seems very arrogant of me be criticizing the writer that gave us one of the best formula's to writing that there has ever been, especially since I am just an unpublished beginning writer myself, but that is how I have always felt on this matter. Thank you for allowing me to say what I feel on it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Damien said:


> I will give Tolkien credit for bringing the genre to the main stream, but he is by no means the best in the fantasy realm.
> 
> I too have problems with some of his plot holes (ex. Eagles not helping at the beginning, but helping at the end)
> 
> I will give him credit where credit is due. The Hobbit is a great book ! One of the best that I have ever read, but The Lord of the Rings is very hit and miss. The basic story is there, but there are times in this series that I am VERY aware of how long the journey has been (I never do notice how long  the journey is taking in books like The Stand, or even The Dark Tower series.) I do not believe it is ever a good thing if the reader is conscious of how long the story is taking. I also feel that all of the side stories to the journey of The Ring come across as pointless. None of the other things that happen in the book matter if the ring does not get destroyed. Side stories should complement the main story, and weave seamlessly within the main story that is being told.
> 
> I know that it seems very arrogant of me be criticizing the writer that gave us one of the best formula's to writing that there has ever been, especially since I am just an unpublished beginning writer myself, but that is how I have always felt on this matter. Thank you for allowing me to say what I feel on it.



Nah, it's fine. Tolkien's strength was in creating a vast, consistent, thoroughly developed world that felt like it could be a real place (minus the, er, magic and dragons). His writing style is not what most people consider fluid, and he treats his characters more like pieces on a board than like thinking, feeling people. Which, again, is partly an artifact of the time. (And probably also partly an artifact of Tolkien not actually having written a whole lot of novels.)

This is an example of what I call Classic Syndrome. Something becomes a "classic" for one reason or another (usually because it's revolutionary _for the time_, or happens to square perfectly with the zeitgeist), and then later generations grow up being told it's a great classic. And yet when they go read that "classic," they aren't really impressed, and then the "classics" get a reputation as boring and stodgy and old-fashioned, at least among those who aren't scholars of the form.

The, er, classic example of this is _Citizen Kane_. When it came out, Welles literally revolutionized a lot of filmmaking, inventing numerous techniques for film storytelling -- camera angles and tricks, narrative tricks, etc. (It helped that he told a good story, too.) _Kane_ was hailed as great, and film scholars would always talk about what a great movie it was.

A generation or three passes. In the late 1990s, a college kid taking a film class watches _Citizen Kane_ on the big screen in a film class at UCLA. He doesn't really get it. Yeah, it's a good story, and Kane is a pretty insane dude, but why was this considered such a classic? There's nothing in this movie that isn't anything the kid has seen before in movies a hundred times, not realizing that those filmmaking tools he's seen in so many films were _invented_ by Welles in this film.

The upshot is that _Kane_ doesn't have the emotional resonance for that kid that it did for people who saw it closer to when it came out. He now appreciates it for its historical importance, even if he doesn't particularly enjoy watching it.

_Lord of the Rings_ is similar (although, to be fair, I enjoyed reading _LotR_ a lot more than I enjoyed watching _Kane_). It revolutionized fantasy literature, and so became hailed as a great classic, and some people reading it today end up thinking it's stilted and boring and why is this so great, I've seen orcs and elves and dwarves and dragons a million times...


----------



## mirrorrorrim

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Nah, it's fine. Tolkien's strength was in creating a vast, consistent, thoroughly developed world that felt like it could be a real place (minus the, er, magic and dragons). His writing style is not what most people consider fluid, and he treats his characters more like pieces on a board than like thinking, feeling people. Which, again, is partly an artifact of the time. (And probably also partly an artifact of Tolkien not actually having written a whole lot of novels.)
> 
> This is an example of what I call Classic Syndrome. Something becomes a "classic" for one reason or another (usually because it's revolutionary _for the time_, or happens to square perfectly with the zeitgeist), and then later generations grow up being told it's a great classic. And yet when they go read that "classic," they aren't really impressed, and then the "classics" get a reputation as boring and stodgy and old-fashioned, at least among those who aren't scholars of the form.
> 
> The, er, classic example of this is _Citizen Kane_. When it came out, Welles literally revolutionized a lot of filmmaking, inventing numerous techniques for film storytelling -- camera angles and tricks, narrative tricks, etc. (It helped that he told a good story, too.) _Kane_ was hailed as great, and film scholars would always talk about what a great movie it was.
> 
> A generation or three passes. In the late 1990s, a college kid taking a film class watches _Citizen Kane_ on the big screen in a film class at UCLA. He doesn't really get it. Yeah, it's a good story, and Kane is a pretty insane dude, but why was this considered such a classic? There's nothing in this movie that isn't anything the kid has seen before in movies a hundred times, not realizing that those filmmaking tools he's seen in so many films were _invented_ by Welles in this film.
> 
> The upshot is that _Kane_ doesn't have the emotional resonance for that kid that it did for people who saw it closer to when it came out. He now appreciates it for its historical importance, even if he doesn't particularly enjoy watching it.
> 
> _Lord of the Rings_ is similar (although, to be fair, I enjoyed reading _LotR_ a lot more than I enjoyed watching _Kane_). It revolutionized fantasy literature, and so became hailed as a great classic, and some people reading it today end up thinking it's stilted and boring and why is this so great, I've seen orcs and elves and dwarves and dragons a million times...



I think there's one important difference between Citizen Kane and The Lord of the Rings: The Lord of the Rings has stood the test of over 50 years' time, with its popularity only growing, not just among critics, by among the general population. Admittedly, Peter Jackson put in some effort to modernize the story's presentation, including cutting out unnecessary tangents and tightening the pacing, but the story of his films was still quintessential Tolkien. The fact that all three books became some of the top 100 movies of all time (#51, #60, and #75, according to Box Office Mojo's All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation), nearly 50 years after the books were first written, shows that Tolkien's work transcends his own time in a way few works can. A better comparison might be the works of William Shakespeare, although it's probably still too early to judge (Shakespeare's had 500 years, Tolkien but 50). My guess, though, is that if/when The Lord of the Rings is redone in another twenty years, it'll be just as popular as Jackson's versions are today.

I feel that's a big part of what makes Tolkien (and Shakespeare) truly timeless–there is so much to his work that no matter how many times you reread or retell it, you can always find a new take or angle to make it fresh and applicable to each new generation.

At least, that's my opinion. Sorry to disagree.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

mirrorrorrim said:


> I think there's one important difference between Citizen Kane and The Lord of the Rings: The Lord of the Rings has stood the test of over 50 years' time, with its popularity only growing, not just among critics, by among the general population.



I'm a little confused about why you think we're disagreeing on something. _Citizen Kane_ is routinely named the greatest film of all time. It certainly doesn't have the popular momentum that _LotR_ has had since the Jackson films, but that's hardly surprising; it's a personal drama about a megalomaniac, not an epic fantasy about hobbits.


----------



## mirrorrorrim

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'm a little confused about why you think we're disagreeing on something. _Citizen Kane_ is routinely named the greatest film of all time. It certainly doesn't have the popular momentum that _LotR_ has had since the Jackson films, but that's hardly surprising; it's a personal drama about a megalomaniac, not an epic fantasy about hobbits.



Perhaps I'm just not familiar enough with Citizen Kane. I'm glad we don't disagree, then!


----------



## Alexander Knight

That would depend on how one defines evil. If in society A everybody works together for the benefit of all and in society B everybody works towards their own benefit only, each society would probably consider the other evil because they are so much different than their own. I think the stated argument assumes each being (orc) is evil by nature and thus their should be some good ones in there somewhere. But if the "evil" comes from the creatures' culture being different, that would not be the case. All would be viewed as evil because all would have been brought up with the mindset that the other culture considered evil. 
We can see something similar in the world today. Some Christians consider all Muslims evil, and vice versa. That doesn't' mean that aren't any intelligent people with free will on either side, it's just a cultural difference that isn't being understood.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the original post sounded like it was assuming evil was the nature of each creature and thus free will would produce some that aren't. But if the evil is cultural then the likelihood of there being a "good" one is much reduced.


----------



## gerald.parson

I hate reviving old topics, as this one hasn't seen action in nearly a month. But I have read most of the replies within this topic, and I have lengthy discussions with friends and colleagues alike pertaining to Tolkien. 
I must start with saying that I am a fan, I loved the Hobbit and the Trilogy that followed. I read them all (when i was younger) saw the cartoons, and loved the movies. 
Tolkien is grossly over-rated. As is his writing. He created a story, a decent and entertaining one for sure. But the credit he receives is misplaced. As others have posted, there is a great misconception on what he actually "created" and what he didn't. While he may have invented the word "Hobbit" the creature or race was from another writers body of work, I think he called them Snargs or something like that. You can go down the list of the things featured in LotR and find their origins, and they are not from Tolkien. Wargs, Orks, Trolls, all of them. 
  I don't have an issue with this at all. And I can't blame Tolkien for other people not being aware of this. But I think my issue is when someone else uses these creatures and they are accused or labeled as a Tolkien knock-off. Or when Tolkien is dubbed the father or fantasy or modern fantasy. I think Tolkien was a very smart man, and well versed on mythology and lure of other cultures, and read many books from his time and before his time, and borrowed heavily from these resources.


----------



## myrddin173

gerald.parson said:


> Tolkien is grossly over-rated. As is his writing. He created a story, a decent and entertaining one for sure. But the credit he receives is misplaced. As others have posted, there is a great misconception on what he actually "created" and what he didn't. While he may have invented the word "Hobbit" the creature or race was from another writers body of work, I think he called them Snargs or something like that. You can go down the list of the things featured in LotR and find their origins, and they are not from Tolkien. Wargs, Orks, Trolls, all of them.
> I don't have an issue with this at all. And I can't blame Tolkien for other people not being aware of this. But I think my issue is when someone else uses these creatures and they are accused or labeled as a Tolkien knock-off. Or when Tolkien is dubbed the father or fantasy or modern fantasy. I think Tolkien was a very smart man, and well versed on mythology and lure of other cultures, and read many books from his time and before his time, and borrowed heavily from these resources.



Tolkien is rightly called the "Father of Modern Fantasy" because of the undeniable impact he had on the genre.  He is not the best, but he _was_ the first.  Also they are not called "Tolkien-clones" if they just use the same races, those races have become standards of the genre.  Any reader of fantasy worth his, or her, salt knows Tolkien didn't "create" those races but he did put his own spin on them, _making_ them his.  Just as any fantasy writer worth his, or her, salt puts _their_ own spin on them.  Could you also give some more information on this "Snarg" business?

Oh and by the way, its *not* a trilogy.:stomp:


----------



## gerald.parson

LotR is considered a trilogy, doesnt matter how you want to slice it. It is sold as one, marketed as one, so there for it is one. And thats why I refer to it as one. I know you are debating this because of the "intended structure" but that really is a moot point.

 I guess Stephanie Myers can be called the mother of modern fantasy romance. 
Your obviously a fan, which is cool cause so am I. I really am. You just have the opinion I once had and many still do, he did have an impact, no doubt. But he isn't "the father of modern fantasy" why? because of sales?


----------



## gerald.parson

Tolkien's concept of hobbits, in turn, seems to have been inspired by Edward Wyke Smith's 1927 children's book The Marvellous Land of Snergs, and by Sinclair Lewis's 1922 novel Babbitt. Via Wikipedia

http://img-greenbooks.theonering.net/turgon/images/t0700_mother.jpg thats from the snerg book. look familiar? 

The further points of similarity with The Hobbit come in when Gorbo, Sylvia and Joe get lost in the Twisted Trees, which will remind Tolkien-readers of Bilbo and his party getting lost in Mirkwood. 

‘[The Snergs] are great on feasts, which they have in the open air at long tables joined end on and following the turns of the street. This is necessary because nearly everybody is invited–that is to say, commanded to come, because the King gives the feasts, though each person has to bring his share of food and drink and put it in the general stock. Of late years the procedure has changed owing to the number of invitations that had to be sent; the commands are now understood and only invitations to stay away are sent to the people who are not wanted on the particular occasion. They are sometimes hard up for a reason for a feast, and then the Master of the Household, whose job it is, has to hunt for a reason, such as its being somebody’s birthday. Once they had a feast because it was nobody’s birthday that day.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

gerald.parson said:


> LotR is considered a trilogy, doesnt matter how you want to slice it. It is sold as one, marketed as one, so there for it is one. And thats why I refer to it as one. I know you are debating this because of the "intended structure" but that really is a moot point.



Tolkien considered _LotR_ to be a single novel. It was split into three volumes for marketing reasons, which was the publisher's decision, not Tolkien's. Structurally it's six "books," but it's one long continuous story. So in practical terms, it was a trilogy, but these days you can just as easily find a single-volume trade paperback (that's how I read it in 1999). It's sort of a moot point. It's a trilogy if you have three books; it's not a trilogy if you only have one.



> You just have the opinion I once had and many still do, he did have an impact, no doubt. But he isn't "the father of modern fantasy" why? because of sales?



The typical reason given is that after _Lord of the Rings_, one observes a marked change in fantasy literature, much of which quite clearly uses _LotR_ as its inspiration. It was an extremely influential novel. You can deny that fact, I suppose, but I don't know why you would.

Nobody's insisting that you must like _LotR_, but to claim that it wasn't highly influential flies in the face of the evidence.


----------



## gerald.parson

Im not bashing Tolkien, I like him, and LotR. I stated that in my first post. But I stand by my position. If anything I would say Lord Dunsany is worthy of that titled seeing how he was one of Tolkiens greatest influence and many others. Tolkiens been propped up by modern era marketing. I give him credit, but I am not going to take away credit from those before him. C.S. Lewis, Fritz Leiber, Dunsany, Tolkien. If anything it should be the "fathers" of modern fantasy. 
 I guess what I am saying is we dont go around saying Sylvania is the father of electricity simply because they have sold the most light bulbs.


----------

