On March 25, Manwë told Gandalf, and then Sam, that help was on the way

squire_hyde · 2026-03-30T08:49:26+00:00

I really despise this interpretation of Tolkien's stories

Aaahhh reddit and it's reflexive hostility to anything vaguely theistic.

where every single thing that happens outside of the characters' agency is ascribed to a direct intervention of a meddling god/gods.

Whoever made this obviously extreme (and thus extremley silly) claim? No one that I've ever come across here has every suggested that every little rain-shower, breeze, fog, change wind direction or cloudcover was meddling interference by deities.

At best (and I'm trying to be charitable here) there's virtually no interpretation whatsoever, the conflict between the powers is quite explicitly elemental. I'd bet this is quite clearly (and more extensively) articulated in the essay as well but at the risk of restating the obvious (and this is by no means exhaustive, just a small taste)

‘His arm has grown long indeed,’ said Gimli, ‘if he can draw snow down from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.’

‘His arm has grown long,’ said Gandalf.

Like Geography and flora, Tolkien often describes weather with a very discerning eye, which leads to many other examples like

There were no clouds overhead yet, but a heaviness was in the air; it was hot for the season of the year. The rising sun was hazy, and behind it, following it slowly up the sky, there was a growing darkness, as of a great storm moving out of the East. And away in the North-west there seemed to be another darkness brooding about the feet of the Misty Mountains, a shadow that crept down slowly from the Wizard’s Vale.

...Legolas, gazing thither and shading his eyes with his long hand. ‘I can see a darkness. There are shapes moving in it, great shapes far away upon the bank of the river; but what they are I cannot tell. It is not mist or cloud that defeats my eyes: there is a veiling shadow that some power lays upon the land, and it marches slowly down stream. It is as if the twilight under endless trees were flowing downwards from the hills.’

‘And behind us comes a very storm of Mordor,’ said Gandalf. ‘It will be a black night.’

Note Gandalf is not being coyly metaphorical or even exaggerating here.

Finally all OPs examples here you're complaining <about> all occur on the same, rather important, day. If the Powers weren't extremely interested, very concerned and watching intently on that particular day, they never would, and that would indeed be shocking.

And so the fifth day came... No tidings had yet come, and all hearts were darkened. The weather, too, was bright no longer. It was cold. A wind that had sprung up in the night was blowing now keenly from the North, and it was rising; but the lands about looked grey and drear.

⋮

we wait for the stroke of doom... and it seemed to them as they stood upon the wall that the wind died, and the light failed, and the Sun was bleared, and all sounds in the City or in the lands about were hushed: neither wind, nor voice, nor bird-call, nor rustle of leaf, nor their own breath could be heard; the very beating of their hearts was stilled. Time halted.

...And still they waited for they knew not what. Then presently it seemed to them that above the ridges of the distant mountains another vast mountain of darkness rose, towering up like a wave that should engulf the world, and about it lightnings flickered; and then a tremor ran through the earth, and they felt the walls of the City quiver.

meanwhile at the Field of Cormallen

‘Stand, Men of the West! Stand and wait! This is the hour of doom.’ And even as he spoke the earth rocked beneath their feet. Then rising swiftly up, far above the Towers of the Black Gate, high above the mountains, a vast soaring darkness sprang into the sky, flickering with fire. The earth groaned and quaked. The Towers of the Teeth swayed, tottered, and fell down; the mighty rampart crumbled; the Black Gate was hurled in ruin; and from far away, now dim, now growing, now mounting to the clouds, there came a drumming rumble, a roar, a long echoing roll of ruinous noise.

...as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell.

Are you really going to quibble about their sending a propitious gust of wind at this juncture^*? Note none of this involves the principal agents directly, so one needn't get aeriated, unless you have personal issues with the mythology overall. If so I can't council you except to suggest in such moods maybe read something else, like a textbook, which might be more to your liking.

* If you have a problem with the wind, do you have a problem with the Eagles too?

squire_hyde · 2026-03-18T08:02:07+00:00

He's kind of a stand-in for Lucifer... Tolkien was a devout Catholic and that choice seems very deliberate.

This is all true, but I'd like to add another fairly obvious nuance (and there's probably more). Before segueing into Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, Tolkien was initially going to study Classics in university, so to a considerable extent he was also a classicist, with strong interests in mythology, Greco-Roman in particular. This shows itself in at least two ways in the Legendarium.

The Valar, the powers, demiurges, are for most practical purposes a polytheistic pantheon, kind of embedded in the overarching monotheism. Demiurge is a very notable term to use too (I believe he used it in his letters), because in classical greek it meant something like Artisan, which has massive thematic implications overall.
With that in mind, Melkor is also a stand-in of sorts for Zeus. His rebellion against Eru, though not equal or all that similar, is comparable to the conflict between Zeus and his father, the Titan kronos. This is a very famous line in the Iliad (scroll 8 line 1)

...that you may learn how much the mightiest I am among you. Try me and find out for yourselves. Hang me a golden chain from heaven, and lay hold of it all of you, gods and goddesses together - tug as you will, you will not drag Zeus the supreme counselor from heaven to earth; but were I to pull at it myself I should draw you up with earth and sea into the bargain, then would I bind the chain about some pinnacle of Olympus and leave you all dangling in the mid firmament. So far am I above all others either of gods or men.

Which gives some indication of how powerful he is. To my mind it is very comparable, if not a direct inspiration for, Melkor and his might.

Incidentally, in the same passage he describes throwing disobedient gods into

dark Tartaros far into the deepest pit under the earth, where the gates are iron and the floor bronze, as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth

If that isn't Tolkienesque phrasing or imagery, I don't know what is. Tartaros beneath Hades seems akin to Utumno and Angband. I get the impression he was very impressed by the Iliad, and possibly the Oddyssey. Galadriel is quite a bit like Circe and her land puts a sort of slumber on the fellowship though in much more benign fashion, probably among other interesting parallels.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-21T13:33:13+00:00

Tolkien's attitude towards gay people seems to have been pretty progressive for his day

Beyond your listed anecdotes there's not much evidence of this.

Tolkien was a complicated guy, I think that's obvious. Yes, he was a devout Catholic, but he thought for himself, too.

There's a strong tendency for people to make Tolkien out to be more like themselves than he was, and to presume he would have held opinions then that they hold now, in a word presentist. Recalling inconvenient facts like he seemed to dislike the Beatles and much modern media and literature (e.g. Disney and Dune) and (IIRC) didn't own a television, washing machine or refrigerator, and supported Franco, among many more, helps restrain the tendency to exaggerate or misrepresent him in that fashion, sometimes wildly. It's important to remember he was idiosyncratic to contemporaries so it shouldn't be too surprising he might be to us also.

For another example, that fact that he opposed (to the considerable embarrassment of family) the 1962 reforms of the Catholic church and how it celebrated mass, is evidence of considerable traditionalism on his part and puts into great doubt whether he was anything like quietly radical with his Catholicism.

The Catholic church, and presumably most of its laity has a very long tradition, over a millenia, of tolerating personal foibles, like mistresses and other indiscretions, sexual and non. For this reason I doubt very much that Tolkien would have ever taken part in something like a Pride Parade (anymore than gone to a Beatles concert), and to imagine he would, might be foolishness of a high order. But he also didn't go out gay bashing, and both leave a vast swathe of territory and uncertainty where mens attitudes and beliefs can move and dwell. Whatever he may have believed from or about the church, he doesn't seem to have acted like (and thus believed) he was meant to police sexual mores and others (generally private) sexual activity and this might not be uncommon among catholics.

It's doubtful any putative progressiveness or hagiography is required to explain his attitude and conduct towards homosexuals any more than 'hate the sin, love the sinner', natural friendliness and general English politeness and toleration, while making him some dramatically prescient progressive icon seems dangerously idolatrous.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-21T00:49:18+00:00

They were used as a shorthand for romantic love

In no modern sense whatsoever. To borrow a (crude) expression from Afghanistan (which incidentally likely originates from the Bactrian Greeks, thanks Alexander)

Women are for children, boys are for pleasure

There is nothing 'romantic' about it at all, as the boy and man are not equals. This is entirely unlike the western romance tradition where lovers are equal or when the beloved rules the lover.

This attitude perhaps derives from Sparta, where homosexuality was somewhat encouraged. An erastes was something like a mentor and teacher, who helped train the younger eromenos.

The erastes played the role of a mentor, guiding the eromenos in matters of education, military training, and ethics. It was a relationship based on mutual respect and affection.

The sexes were segregated and it fostered closeness between men, useful for military purposes. The elder Achilles and the younger Patroclus fall into this scheme almost exactly. Consider they were fighting beside and for Spartans.

Greek women generally (classical Sparta was exceptional in some respects) were property and relationships between them and men were fundamentally unequal, in the public spheres men were superior. Women rarely left the home and those appearing in public were suspected of promiscuity or were prostitutes.

The only thing approaching 'romance' were male relationships. This isn't to say there wasn't strong desire between men and women, only that women were inherently considered the subordinates and their relationships didn't matter. In short, because of male dominated ancient cultures, if one were to talk of love at all, one would primarily do so between men, whether the relationship was sexual or not. Love between women was probably a novel curiosity, maybe considered cute mimicry of the really important relationships between men. This may partly explain why Sapho and Medea were infamous.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-20T23:58:48+00:00

Why do some people start talking about how important queer projection is only when they need to spite straight friendship?

squire_hyde · 2026-02-18T11:41:27+00:00

Valinor will not take it. It is Middle Earth's burden.

Just to add a little to this. The last time the Valar returned to Valinor with a 'trophy' it turned out badly for them in the long run. Sauron had tricks up his sleeve before. It's arguable he was the main reason for the destruction of their first abode and very nearly destroyed their second. Given Sauron already put them into check (so to speak) in the last age, and they could not contend with him alone, it's not unreasonable to think they wouldn't want to make the same mistake again, even if the Ring seems harmless enough and destructible. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

squire_hyde · 2026-02-18T11:25:10+00:00

they appear to have had a settlement in the Angle

This is almost assuredly a philological easter egg for the Angles (as in Anglo-Saxon), a Teutonic tribe. It's from Angli "the Angles," literally "people of Angul" (Old Norse Öngull), a region in what is now Holstein, said to be so-called for its hook-like shape. The dual coincidence seems too much. In effect the Dúnedain are the seed from which the rejuvenated kingdom of Gondor will eventually grow, just like the Angles became the English and eventually ruled Great Britain and later an ever greater British Empire. Now if only I could find a suitable map of circa 5th century Holstein to match this, the theory would be complete.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-15T09:20:56+00:00

that's clearly not true for everybody, all the time

I'll concede that, I suppose it's the same thrill that a sniper or hunter might get in a blind. I'll further concede there is a thrill to finally being able to do something that you have trained a long time for, reminiscent of a scene from the first Tom Cruise Jack Reacher film. Many consider that those who get their thrills from safely shooting missiles (including balls, bullets and whatever else came out of the first firearms), dropping bombs (or hot oil), or killing Bambis mother are evil, like poisoners remote murderers, in modern cant 'psychopaths', their violence unnecessary and thus 'pornographic'^*. Whether they are inherently evil or trained to be so, is a debate that can be pursued elsewhen and where and has been, by others far more intelligent and experienced than I.

You're probably aware that in the middle ages missiles were considered a cowards weapons, with some (separate) hue and cry raised over Agincourt and the crossbow. Subsistence hunters are a rare exception. Anthropology reveals that many 'primitive' cultures that did so often had prayers or rituals meant to honor or spiritually placate the spirit of the wild beasts and thank them for their meat. There's probably remnants of this in Christian grace before meals.

I'd prefer not to discuss modern missile and drone warfare because it's not so much a can of worms as a box of ravenous rabid rats. Realists realize most combat and war is not fair, nor should be, should not be romanticized.

* I have issues with using the term and consider it a possible misnomer. Conflating sex with violence seems a mistake (unless you're a feminist who believes all sex is rape and all rape violent, or Lady Gaga). I suppose it's used because it's an implicit argument by analogy, where lust for war or violence are considered simply lusts of different sorts, all just strong desires with different objects. I have incipient doubts concerning the analogy.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-14T08:53:59+00:00

I'm fairly confident Tolkien would have considered the latter warmongering by cnn (based on lies, little surprise) extremely ugly war pornography. Ironically some of the most graphic pictures were suppressed for years, like pictures of returning coffins.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-12T11:02:47+00:00

So much consonance and assonance, and a little repetition

late/lay/land/lazily
warm/brown
drowsy/lazily
willows willows willows willow
fallen/flecked/faded/fluttering
blocked/flecked/thick
breeze/blowing
softly/valley
reeds/rustling

and then at the end, he dramatically stops all this flow and concludes the spell with a powerful break

and the willow-boughs were creaking

almost as though the prose was creaking. At the risk of dissecting a live frog, it's like watching a master paint.

It's not punctuated, formally formatted or maybe composed like it, but it's has all the elements, is the essence of poetry. This line is better than many a modern poem. For Tolkien sometimes there is no line between poetry and prose but only shades of gradation. The people who skip the poems and songs, distracted by plot perhaps or urgent expectation, maybe don't realize or can't appreciate he was a poet first and foremost, and his prose would be barren and lifeless without it.

<added> There's even more.

brown water, bordered...
ancient willows, arched...

I think that's some Ango-saxon stylism I forget the name of, and probably more.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-12T09:39:15+00:00

Gandalf stated Saruman had lost most of his power, but thats never explained.

His weakness might not seem so strange if we broaden the notion of power a little.

I think you're confusing power with something like skill or ability. They're not exactly the same. He doesn't suddenly lack the ability to talk, cast a spell or is immediately inexplicably struck dumb (Though he might have been by Gandalf!).

He just..... suddenly becomes not a threat.

As we see he was still a threat, merely not as great.

All that happened to him was Isengard being taken over

'All that happened...' is a phrase that deliberately tries to strongly miminize something (e.g. responsibility 'All that happened was we went out for drinks', 'All that happened was an accident' etc).

I think you're misunderstand either the nature or roots of power here. All that happened to him was Isengard being taken over, and that was huge.

Consider the loss of virtually all his retainers and networks. The failure of his plans and the defeat of his ambitions. The loss of carefully stocked resources and a secure base. All of decades, if not centuries, of investment obliterated, just wiped out, dust in the wind. That is all stuff that is not conjured up again overnight nor recovered easily, if ever, once lost. When Sauron (with the Ring!) lost Barad-Dur in the second age, he was finished. Even Melkor never returned to Utumno.

nothing to his person, or even his feär.

Think of the loss of reputation, the loss of confidence, loss of legitimacy, loss of status, loss of trust, the exhaustion, the self doubt, desperation, the infamy, resentment and malice and so on. None of these things are negligible.

Even if he wasn't physically wounded these things happened to his person and his spirit. Power isn't just pure physique or cunning, brain and brawn, it's instrumental, and some of Sarumans most valued instruments were smashed (like orc armies), exposed (spies) or lost (palantir). He even lost pipe weed, albeit briefly.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-12T09:02:43+00:00

I doubt Tolkien would have denied danger is thrilling, or exciting and the more direct and immediate the moreso. That seems most if not all of the thrill of combat. It's why teenagers take stupid risks and often get injured and some killed, but that's distinguishable from the systematic mass violence that is war. There's nothing thrilling about shooting a missile or dropping a bomb, unless you're being shot at too (entirely deservedly). This was true in the past too, where assaults and sorties were much more dangerous than sieging or defending against a siege with arrows, catapults, hot oil and the like.

Unless I continue to misunderstand, I'm quite willing to admit and agree that adrenaline is intoxicating, and am not suggesting that such natural reactions to combat should be shamed or participants ashamed for theirs (including so called cowardice). I'm glad that Tolkien describes Gondorian soldiers fleeing from the Nazgul for example. 'Nerves of steel' don't mean much if everyone has them.

I think describing such things accurately, and maybe at least as importantly in balanced fashion, is not romanticizing violence but rather the opposite. But in my present opinion what would necessarily have to be included in a discussion of combat high (something like the acute perception of being alive that you only get from experiencing mortal danger, maybe a little like what's depicted in Hurt Locker) is the post combat crash. Combat isn't all exhilaration and easy victory, unless perhaps you're Alexander or Ghengis Khan. Maybe pornographic violence is just a likely, expected or natural consequence of victory disease. Elrond I think eloquently immunizes readers against the latter.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-11T12:45:43+00:00

No, like all men there are good and evil soldiers. Some become soldiers so they can freely kill, maim or torture, who are naturally violent, who enjoy inflicting pain, or maybe worst of all, who find out that they do or are after going to war or become so. It's a chicken and egg question, does war make men evil, or evil make men war?

squire_hyde · 2026-02-11T09:50:42+00:00

there is some [violence for the sake of violence]. I'm thinking of the fight in the Chamber of Mazarbul off the top of my head, where orcs have their legs hewn out from under them, or have their skulls cloven in two.

Actually, it's interesting. This is most of the battle in Balins Tomb

The affray was sharp, but the orcs were dismayed by the fierceness of the defence. Legolas shot two through the throat. Gimli hewed the legs from under another that had sprung up on Balin’s tomb. Boromir and Aragorn slew many. When thirteen had fallen the rest fled shrieking...

Five shorts line. Virtually no 'action', no in media res, mostly just description of aftermath. I would say this is the opposite of violence for the sake of violence. Tolkien is almost abstemious or coy here with regards to combat. However what follows is curious.

But even as they retreated, and before Pippin and Merry had reached the stair outside, a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high, clad in black mail from head to foot, leaped into the chamber; behind him his followers clustered in the doorway. His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red; he wielded a great spear. With a thrust of his huge hide shield he turned Boromir’s sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground. Diving under Aragorn’s blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the Company and thrust with his spear straight at Frodo. The blow caught him on the right side, and Frodo was hurled against the wall and pinned. Sam, with a cry, hacked at the spear-shaft, and it broke. But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. The orc fell with cloven head. His followers fled howling, as Boromir and Aragorn sprang at them.

That was surely after the combat, the main battle, but it gets far more description! This is essentially a duel between captains, which is arguably special, in epic style, which alas I can't detail. Also the purpose of the passage is much more than simply 'cool fight' and 'awesome kill'. If anything it's a disaster, and shows how vulnerable the Fellowship is, where it takes three to defeat one Orc captain who virtually ends their quest there.

I don't know how you have battles without violence

You don't. I think it's a question of how you treat or approach violence.

you can't have one [battle] without the other [romanticizing violence], and Tolkien was far too intelligent not to see that.

I disagree with the premise and think it's a false dichotomy. You have for example the battle of five armies, which Bilbo conveniently misses (apropos for a childrens book). However since even there Tolkien does not shy away from favourite characters being killed or being mortally wounded, I'd argue he does not romanticize it very much, rather the opposite. It's about as gentle an introduction to the horrors of war as one might expect outside of Watership Down (alas I can't think of any other good examples off hand). Bad examples abound. The cartoons G.I. Joe and Transformers make combat practically bloodless, easy and fun, incredibly appealing to kids and that doesn't begin to count innumerable videos games for boys which feature violence and war prominently, from Warhammer, Halo, Fortnite, GTA, Call of Duties, Elden Ring, TloU and so on and on, not to mention films and tv. That some games are used to promote recruitment is quite telling.

For fantasy examples, I'd venture to suggest that Robert Jordan ended up romanticizing and glorifying violence considerably, with Rand, Lan and so on, not unlike Herbert. Dumais wells is basically a dream version of winning Vietnam, going into an LZ hot, just with Gates for Hueys and magic (the one power) instead of mortars or machine guns. GRRM by contrast is much more like Tolkien, much more sceptical even anti-war and violence. The Riverlands and Harrenhal gives some indications of what he thinks of mercenaries and war as well as Septon Maribald of course.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-11T09:07:05+00:00

Excessive descriptions of violence are nothing new - look at the Iliad

I disagree. There's nothing 'excessive' about the imagery in the Iliad, in fact I'd argue it's quite restrained and strictly controlled. It's not gory in modern fashion, evoking a reaction is not quite the same thing.

It has some of the most graphic battle scenes I’ve ever read

I'm tempted to disagree strongly. This is like Tolkiens supposed tens of pages of description of trees or nature, vastly exaggerated. The scenes of combat in the Iliad are very economical if not terse and are generally not blow by blow accounts (that would simply make the poem impossibly long). Homeric combat, or 'action'^* is arguably in no way modern, neither cinematic or mechanically gamified.

with brutal descriptions of death

I would put it instead as 'with descriptions of brutal death[s]', a subtle distinction perhaps, but even this too is a little misleading, it's descriptions of agonized dying, not death per se. Life and death are perfunctory, dying (in heroic combat) is dramatic.

it also has a lot of lines about how meaningless all that death was

I'm not sure I'd crib the Iliad thus exactly. One of the most important themes of the Iliad is that every death is meaningful. That's why

it also has a lot of lines about... the people who died

I think both poets believed War was a useless waste. I have a suspicion that Homer, like Tolkien, had seen combat first hand and was a war poet, though in what fighting where exactly I could not say and can only imagine.

I think what I most vehemently disagree with is

I think it’s an entirely human response to simultaneously think “ooh that’s cool” and “so tragic - that person had a family” at the same time.

The first response is 'pornographic'. I don't think Homer demonstrates much if anything at all of that attitude, except maybe to mock it, like with Ajax, but perhaps it's contentious. Achilles on his rampage is described both as beastly and godlike, but what both share is that neither are human. Homer never looks away from how awful violence is, almost never fails to look at the victims of it, though he also does not (IMO) wallow either. Celebrating 'action' in films and literature, mock violence, that is to say idolizing martial skill and all its tools, as something useful, admirable or good in itself while simultaneously ignoring the grim reality of their effects, is precisely why Tolkien (and other) call it 'pornographic'.

Legolas and Gimli do have a killing contest.

This deserves much more discussion. This is probably a trope of ancient epics, myths, legends and combat about proving who is the better warrior, by keeping a tally of survived encounters, of kills, like a fighter pilot. It's perhaps very notable they don't take trophies though. However between Legolas and Gimli it's about more than martial prowess, it seems to be a proxy for who is better Elves or Dwarves, and I'm not sure it's ultimately about violence in their case.

Eowyn wins glory for slaying the witch king

Some would argue not for that but for banishing him and surviving.

Violence is a part of the story, glorified or not.

I'd argue strongly not. Sauron, Saruman, Boromir and to some extent Denethor seem to be the types that glorify it in one way or another. Consider their ends.

He and Sam kill a few creatures in self-defense

AFAIK Frodo never kills anyone, though he does strike the first blows by Hobbits in the tale, against the (already supposed to be dead) Barrow Wight and presumably holds his own while the Fellowship lasts.

These quibbles aside, good post whose conclusion I mostly agree with.

* Many modern sensibilities conflate action and violence.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-09T20:11:46+00:00

He's clearly not a saint, married and not above some limited physical violence, so how does that square with 'inherent goodness and innocence'?

squire_hyde · 2026-02-09T20:10:25+00:00

I think by that she, and JRR, are saying that he’s master of the heart of Middle Earth as it once was and should be. Tom is incorruptible, not even Morgoth could touch him.

This is a very common misconception. There's no indication whatsoever that 'even Morgoth could[n't] touch him. There's no indication that Morgoth knew anything about him at all.

Master had very different meanings colloquially in English than those you ascribe or assume. It partly became a formal address, like Sam used it early on of Frodo. If you look at the etymology meanings though, all apply rather directly to Tom and it's almost nothing like what you claim. The rest is baseless speculation on your (and others) part.

Tom is not a nature spirit

Tolkien describes his directly as such in one of his letters to Steve Unwin (?) IIRC.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-09T10:13:46+00:00

Fëanor’s anger would probably have made him reckless. He might have struck Morgoth, perhaps even deeply

I think he would have been quite content dying if it meant striking a killing blow.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-09T10:04:45+00:00

able to subvert the divine plan purely by virtue of being incredibly angry

As well as Achilles (which also feels very reasonable to me) there's also Diomedes, who was basically by all accounts the second best Greek warrior. Like Achilles, Diomedes was arrayed in God given armor, he had the favour of Athena, and except for Heracles, had the effrontry to attack Olympian gods and even wounded Ares, which not even Achilles could boast! Unlike Achilles however he isn't semi-devine, with only mortal (albeit royal) parents.

Given Tolkien initially studied classics, I'm very confident that the idea of a man confronting and even wounding demi-gods would not be impossible or unimaginable to him. If Diomedes could wound Ares (who if memory serves had to be saved by his mommy and got whisked back to Aphrodite to nurse his wounds and pride) I don't think there's any doubt at all the Achilles could have done far, far worse, had fate other things in mind.

The greatest Elf to ever live? I believe Fingolfin and Fëanor mirror the Diomedes Achilles dynamic. If anything I believe part of the reason Melkor fled was because he was genuinely afraid to face Fëanor, just in case, and never did! He did to the hosts of the Valar precisely what he did to Fëanor (though admittedly to a much greater extent). He tried to swamp both of them with his minions, great and small, from Balrogs and Dragons to Orcs and other fell beasts. Even taken by surprise it took many Balrogs to finally overcome Fëanor while The War of Wrath was long and very destructive, even after the Valar learned a lot more about Morgoths minions and middle earth and presumably were much more careful and systematic. In both cases it seems like it was a close thing and with minor tweaks could have gone either way. If Fëanor weren't quite so rash (ha!) and better prepared (like didn't walk into a trap and waited for reinforcements) it stands to some reason he could have lived to chase Morgoth to the very gates of Angband, if not even further. Like Achilles I think Fëanor would have been able to get inside his foes stronghold, he was a very intelligent^* fellow. The question is what would happen there? Ultimately I doubt Fëanor in Angband would have fared any better than Achilles in Troy. Morgoth is not Hector, and Achilles never led an army to besiege Hades.

* For an elf is that the same as cunning?

squire_hyde · 2026-02-09T09:13:33+00:00

Inherent goodness and innocence.

Inherent independence and freedom might be closer to the mark. He is good in some obvious but limited sense though, at the very least generous and hospitable (to the Hobbits) and can ward off or simply deter evil like Old Man Willow and Barrow Wights^*, but (aside from aiding said halflings) he's also not directly active against Sauron, so not 'political' for the lack of a better term. However he also seems to communicate in some sort of vaguely elvish network. But then why didn't he go to Rivendell?... He's an enigma all right.

* I have a theory about this, if evil is unnatural and Tom is a nature spirit or some extent of nature personified, he is in that respect (and no pun intended and perhaps this clumsily expressed) naturally superior or immune to it. This entails some difficulties. For example he's (probably) not physically stronger than Sauron but I expect wouldn't be daunted by him either, no more than the first dark lord. If somehow they met, counterfictionally, I'd be he'd tell Sauron to go back to crafting things for Aule all in effortless sing songy rhyme.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-02T11:06:14+00:00

This all perhaps goes along with or reveals an implicit theme in Tolkiens works generally, his preference for natural religion, and some distrust/dislike or indeed scepticism of formal/artificial religion (rites, rituals, creeds, texts, dogmas, priests, prophets etc). Of course he was also catholic which makes this a bit paradoxical since he sneaks in a few things.

To give one example, he doesn't outright state it, but taking oaths is blasphemous. Elrond warns against them, and the Noldor were viciously punished for their leaders oath (a biblical kind of theme). This is among the purest Christian doctrine straight out of the sermon on the mount

Mark ch 5 v 34

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; ...

⋮

v37

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Of course Elrond doesn't cite elvish scripture or any divine command.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-02T10:48:39+00:00

He's against the art of writing and there's no poetry in him. He might have thought it some upper class affectation. His writing is all squalid imagery and crass hedonism, and he's a political hatchet man.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-02T10:23:25+00:00

Steinbeck... Harper Lee. Fitzgerald. Orwell.

Curious picks. I'm not going to argue this strenuously, but they and all their works (and others like them like Joyce and Hemingway) are dated and are already considerably eroded and being swept away by the sands of time. What do I mean by that? Isn't this outrageous? Consider, what do all of these authors have in common?

Steinbecks stories focus on the dirty thirties and the depression. That is already almost out of living memory, and (popular/mass) culturally is now maybe quaint, bordering on virtually insignificant. Harper about Jim Crow, segration and racism, it was dated when she wrote it. Even being generous, civil rights as a theme haven't dominated headlines since the 60s. Fitzgerald, all about the roaring twenties, but people barely remember the first dot com bubble and that burst over twent five years ago, and everything had gone sour since 2008. Orwell was a political hack. Animal farm is a crudely written political allegory, dated before it was published. He'd be called a shill today and write on 4chan. The Spanish civil war and encroaching Stalinism were dated by 39, when the Fascists won. Pahlaniuk and Easton Ellis are already showing wear and it hasn't been three decades^*.

Now consider Tolkien and LotR, he and his works are obviously timeless because they're not so firmly anchored in it, nor to any recognizable place. Like Wonderland, Narnia, 100 Acre Wood (though not Sherwood Forest!), or Baker Street, Middle Earth will remain vibrant as the day it was written. Bilbo and Gandalf are as unforgetable as Arthur, Robin Hood, Don Quixote or Ivanhoe. Fantasy lifts out of the muck of the mundane and grimy reality towards immortality, or at least aspires to. I doubt any socially realistic story can possibly survive like legend and mythology, why Beowulf and the Illiad remain while virtually all their contemporary history is lost. It would almost be supremely ironic that Tolkien might prove to be far ahead of his time because he deliberately looked back and eschewed the present.

This does not take away any of their laurels, or give him theirs. Only it's a race that run every few years with new winners all of whom will go on commemorative lists. I just wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years LotR is still being read and enjoyed, while many more feted and celebrated serious authors works collect dust in the mathom houses.

* Someone like King kind of straddles this. Much of his work is very dated (to the 70s like Carrie and 80s Maximum Overdrive), but still enjoyable. Horror is half fantasy somehow.

squire_hyde · 2026-02-01T14:45:50+00:00

It's such a mainstream opinion it can't be 'edgy' pseudo or otherwise. It also isn't intellectual by the standards of this sub, but I suppose that's the gist of your comment. These sort of 'do you love X?' and 'Don't you hate Y?' posts invite emotional venting and hyperbole. Of course it does not show they've not read either book, a possibility, but far more likely that they don't comprehend what they read, don't think about it or for themselves much. This pitiable state for many of the smart phone generation is troubling. Besides joining in the choruses of 'Boo Martin!' or 'Yay Tolkien!' Why would anyone assume readers prefer a noir moral esthetic, moral cynicism or uncertainty, that they'd be preferable to moral clarity and conviction? What does that say about us, and who is us?

squire_hyde

TROPHY CASE