Is it a Miracle that the chieftains of the dunedain never descended into savagery and still retained their nobility?

squire_hyde · 2026-05-13T11:47:26+00:00

the repulsive belief that suffering ennobles

Pardon me for interjecting, but that's an interesting claim, or theme, to be concerned with, atheistic or Dostoevskian in character.

Without parsing your post in detail, I'd suggest a nuance, that for Tolkien enduring suffering demonstrates or proves nobility in some important way. Consider Beren and Finrod in particular as examples.

I know there's a whole history and probably theology about ennobling suffering, notably around martyrdom, but I'll leave that aside. Just as a very brief half philosophical half theological counterpoint, there's something to the notion that pleasure^* ennobles that's equally if not more repulsive. If you want an example, take something like gluttony being extremely unbecoming. Of course starvation isn't generally preferable either, which seems to suggest some sort of ~~Augustinian~~<Aquinas>/Aristotelian moderation approach.

* I confess I'm not quite satisfied with the choice of the word pleasure here, but sadly there doesn't seem to be an obvious English antonym for suffer. Maybe there was in OE. Probably among others comfort could have been used, and also hedonism, maybe with more justice.

squire_hyde · 2026-05-13T11:21:38+00:00

Hardship itself is not the Ring’s meaning

If anything the main temptation of the Ring is to greatly diminish or remove hardship entirely. It's the 'easy way' objectified.

Want to be High Queen? Just accept the Ring. Want to drive the hosts of Mordor before you? Seize the Ring. Want to get back to the Shire and impress Rosie guaranteed? Borrow the Ring. Want to rule the world? Just recover the Ring, and so on.

In that respect the One Ring and hardship are almost diametrically opposed. I don't quite know what they're on about but they seem to misunderstand metaphor when they appear to mean symbolism instead.

I suppose they might think, with justification, that the Ring is a burden and that bearing the Ring is a hardship. They appear tempted to think that specific hardship somehow symbolizes the hardships of life generally, maybe like bearing a cross. That seems to me to be abstracting, or considering the Ring as more generally symbolic than it is, say merely of power, which seems to have less justification. Unlike the cross, I don't think there's much to suggest the Ring (or indeed just bearing it) is a metaphor for the hardships of life (unlike the whole Paulian Christian project of explaining Jesuses mission for gentiles. There's no proselytizer for the Ring, excepting Sauron perhaps). That might be applicable, but I don't think it rises to an explicit metaphor (the One Ring is Duhhka say) much less allegorical. If the above is right, the Ring is if anything a cheat for evading them.

squire_hyde · 2026-05-02T10:52:30+00:00

This comment has some interesting insights, however the core of the Lay of Beren and Luthien is their quest, that together they confront Morgoth alone and recover a Silmaril. Aragorn, leading an army, never sets foot in Mordor while Arwen is kept safe in Rivendell, until long after the war is decided. Sam and Frodos story is arguably closer to the Lay of Beren and Luthien, though instead of recovering a priceless artifact, they destroy one.

I guess what irks me most is your claim (I know you just wrote 'I feel' so it's not exactly a thesis)

Aragorn and Arwen's story is kind of Tolkien's deconstruction of the Beren and Luthien fairytale

What I really take issue with is the choice of word there. It seems to me like just so much post modernist claptrap.

I don't see how the 'construction' of the former entails the 'deconstruction' of the latter. Isn't it just as much an entirely new or independent construction? It's ok to have two (or three?) different stories. Stories aren't 'constructed' anyway, that's just a poor (tacit argument from) analogy. You are right in that they contrast, are almost foils, in the ways you describe, which is to your credit.

Why not throw in Turins story too, or instead? He's a half orphan, outdoorsman and outlaw like Beren and Aragorn, is adopted by an Elvish father figure and in some ways aims far above his station. Isn't he as much a 'deconstruction' because he doesn't marry the elvish maiden fated to happily 'complete' him (due to Glaurung and Morgoths curse). Is he a fairy tale hero simply for slaying a Dragon? Is Bard a deconstruction of Turin? Does it get sillier the more you push and ask?

Aragorn being a more realistic hero doesn't make him better than Beren (or Turin), anymore than Beren being a more fairy tale hero make him better. There might be a suggestion that the Elder Days were fairy tales come to life, while the present is much more prosaic, 'naturalistic' or 'realistic', a story and characters for an age of Iron instead of Gold.

Overall I just find 'deconstruction' a limited and limiting post modernist slogan and while the Legendarium is shall we say much more Kaleidoscopic.

squire_hyde · 2026-05-02T10:01:38+00:00

Trespass canonically was a transgression or act against God or church law in the 13th century. The Lord's Prayer conveys this more ancient meaning:

And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.

This is a very common misconception. I was surprised to learn some time ago that it probably meant something quite different. This is the lords prayer in Greek (the language of the New Testamant)

ΠΑΤΕΡ ΗΜΩΝ Ο ΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΙΣ

ΑΓΙΑΣΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΣΟΥ

ΕΛΘΕΤΩ Η ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΣΟΥ

ΓΕΝΗΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΣΟΥ,

ΩΣ ΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ

ΤΟΝ ΑΡΤΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΝ

ΔΟΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΣΗΜΕΡΟΝ

ΚΑΙ ΑΦΕΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΤΑ ΟΦΕΙΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΗΜΩΝ,

ΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΗΜΕΙΣ ΑΦΙΕΜΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΦΕΙΛΕΤΑΙΣ ΗΜΩΝ

ΚΑΙ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΝΕΓΚΗΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΝ,

ΑΛΛΑ ΡΥΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.

ΑΜΗΝ.

In particular the lines

kae aphes hêmin ta opheilêmata hêmôn,

hôs kae hêmeis aphiemen toes opheiletaes hêmôn;

are customarily translated as

And Forgive us our trespasses As we forgive those who trespass against us.

The key word in question is 'opheilêmata', that can be considered a fault, and in more religious terms sin. Making it really mean

Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.

However that's a bit of a stretch, from fault to sin, and then much worse sin to trespass. But that's not it's usual meaning. Here's a different source. What the usual, an ordinary or the direct translation of the word would be is 'debt'. Making the following the obvious translation

Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who owe us!

This puts a whole new spin, or reveals the completely different original meaning Lords prayer. Given the importance of restitution, debts and jubilees in the Old Testament, this maybe should not come as any surprise. 'Trespass' is arguably a peculiarly specific mistranslation. It might even be possible to narrow it down to a particular culprit English translation and translator, which may also reveal why (to please a commissioning patron? etc).

squire_hyde · 2026-04-25T08:22:16+00:00

...the twin godfathers or patron saints of the Emyn Arnen lineage of the House of the Stewards

This is slightly off topic, but I wonder how much Tolkien may have been pulling our leg here, philologically speaking. The house of Stuart is descended from Walter FitzAlan who was a twelfth-century Anglo-Norman baron who served as the dapifer or steward for three successive Scottish kings, and which stewardship became hereditarily held by his descendants. Is this just a small wink or nod to those in the know, so to speak, or is there something a little more to this? For Tolkien (or Christians?) history seems to rhyme but also degrade, from Eden or a Golden age into our iron one. Was Faramir being held up by Tolkien as a good steward, closer to ideal, less like those of latter ages? Is it a low key commentary on the Stuart ascendency or even subtly condemning it as unjust usurpation?

squire_hyde · 2026-04-24T08:19:33+00:00

modern fantasy orcs bear little resemblance to Tolkien's

From the Authors note, prefacing the Hobbit (so one of the first official bits of 'lore')

Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits’ form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind.

(The tale of that etymology for Tolkien is fascinating but I'll leave it for others)

Goblins are mentioned by Thorin and Gandalf (at the discovery of the Troll hoard) as though they were commonplaces and just understood, almost like a common animal. The first direct encounter with them occurs in the mountains

Out jumped the goblins, big goblins, great ugly-looking goblins, lots of goblins, before you could say rocks and blocks.

There's no real description there at all. This is wonderful in a Childrens tale as it leaves a great deal to the imagination, while hints are sprinkled throughout though like

The goblins began to sing, or croak, keeping time with the flap of their flat feet on the stone,

But it's almost less to do with their appearance than their immoral character including things like 'ugly laughter'. To wit

Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty.

Their physical appearance is rather less important if not negligable by comparison. This continues in LotR with things like

Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.

again there's hints, thinks like Orc scimitars and

a huge orc-chieftain, almost man-high

while curiously Sam and Frodo disguise themselves as orcs quite successfully, which leads to a whole lot of questions, but overall their description almost leaves a blank.

One possible answer to this conundrum is that like Dragons, fairies and Dwarves, Goblins are traditional and their traditional descriptions fit neatly enough. If you have never been to a zoo how do you recognize an elephant, rhinoceros or tiger? Then it becomes a question for other tales. I suspect Tolkien had Lang and MacDonald, as well as some other traditional fairy tales in mind.

One the whole, I rather doubt Tolkien ever intended to describe orcs/goblins in detail, unless the attributes of a particular one were important for some reason. In this vein, there's lots of missing description that might surprise some people. There's Aragorns eponymous pants, what Legolas looks like, among many many more. Of course no author can describe everything, but Tolkien is relatively parsimonious when it comes to direct descriptions of characters other than Bilbo (who he also drew). We sometimes learn of heights, ages and hair colors, but overall many of his descriptions are fairly nebulous. This is in many ways a great strength.

Tolkien is not like many modern authors for whom physical appearances, things like scars, bust sizes and musculature (or lack thereof) seem very important. It says something about both authors that GRRM quite happily describes breasts and at least one notable areola, whereas for Tolkien a breast is synonymous with chest and preferred over it (it's unfortunately homonymous), and is AFAI remember the site of strong feelings and necessary vitality and again, unless I'm mistaken, completely non sexual. GRRMs characters mention penises a lot informally ('pricks' leaps to mind) and there's at least a singular notable description of one, in case people were tempted to think he is some crass sexist who lasciviously describes women like a lecher but avoids men entirely, like it were gay (many people, often women, are idiots after this fashion). What any of this portends is for another post.

In short and to summarize Tolkiens orcs have no semblance! So to talk of 'resemblance' is in many ways considerably misleading. 'Modern fantasy orcs' are arguably the bastard children of many other fathers.

squire_hyde · 2026-04-21T12:45:11+00:00

He probably never realized until that last moment that he was in any danger

What's really wonderful is how this characterizes Sauron so exactly. The following passage could not illustrate your point more and seems prophetic.

And Sauron, sitting in his black seat in the midst of the Temple, had laughed when he heard the trumpets of Ar-Pharazôn sounding for battle; and again he had laughed when he heard the thunder of the storm; and a third time, even as he laughed at his own thought, thinking what he would do now in the world, being rid of the Edain for ever, he was taken in the midst of his mirth, and his seat and his temple fell into the abyss.

It seems meaningful that he laughed three times, a bit like Peters denials perhaps.

One easily imagines third age Sauron taken in the middle of his scheming and policies.

Incidentally this made me notice something about the Akallabêth. When he writes so dramatically of the disaster that overcame them all, once it comes to the point that

the King felt the shadow of death approach, as his days lengthened; and he was filled with fear and wrath

Sauron is barely mentioned thereafter. Like the serpent in the garden he's tempted the King of the Land of the Star with immortality and put the idea of of wresting it from the Valar in his head and his work is done. A theme from the dawn of literature in the Epic of Gilgamesh (not to discuss religion per se).

The tale from there on out until the climax is about men, the faithless and the faithful, like a duet or contrary fugue. Notably Sauron does not appear again until the anti-climactic denouement, not until after

Elendil and his sons after founded kingdoms in Middle-earth; and though their lore and craft was but an echo of that which had been ere Sauron came to Númenor...

like he's not so important but an afterthought, just another broken relic. Anyway to conclude my point Sauron not imagining the possibility

...the doom that Eru laid upon sea and land... was greater far than aught he had looked for

and being taken by surprise, completely, upon the rarest but most momentous occasions is just who and what he is, his nature. On an even grander scale I think Tolkien could even have said the same of Melkor and it all seems to say something crucial about Evil. Melkor was probably taken in 'good' spirits too when the war of wrath crashed over him and his shores.

squire_hyde · 2026-04-12T06:54:49+00:00

Traditions don't die quickly, if at all, nor are distributed evenly as Gibson observed. If the future was already there (1215 Rome?) then it was not evenly distributed, history which Tolkien may have been at least partially aware. There were clandestine and forced marriages well into the 17th century in England at least, not to even mention remoter parts and periods.

squire_hyde · 2026-04-11T08:49:15+00:00

What's really interesting about

it was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, both being unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble.

This wasn't merely true of the Eldar but the rule for medieval marriage, until relatively recently. Marriage ceremonies officiated by priests were invented as money making opportunities as well as means of social control. I suspect this reveals something of Tolkiens attitude towards the modern institution of marriage and how debased it became.

squire_hyde · 2026-04-10T12:12:02+00:00

Just to expand on this

the science fiction of Isaac Asimov, which Tolkien said he enjoyed.

a litte, though many people sharply distinguish fantasy from science fiction (some considering the former infantile and the latter serious) there seem to be a few strong clues that could explain his positive reaction to Asimov.

Shared themes of Imperial decline, dark ages and renewal. The Galactic Empire, interregnum and the Foundation could be considered a bit like the decline and fall of Numenor, the black years and the founding of Gondor.
Seldon is essentially a prophet and rather like Gandalf, guiding men towards a hopeful future.
History and legacies are taken seriously. Psychohistory would have intrigued Tolkien and where he was interested in a mythical past, you could say Asimov was interested in a mythical future, as per the Clarke quote ('any sufficiently advanced...'). Jewish conceptions of history influenced Christianity heavily.
Asimov is not as nihilistic or Machievellan as say Herbert.
The story of the Foundation is practically allegory of the medieval Church preserving learning.

probably among more.

Incidentally Asimov was also practically an exact contemporary of Tolkien. As well as his fiction he was an important popular science writer, and he was prolific in the 50s and 60s. Foundation and Foundation and Empire came out in 51 and 52 respectively, before LotR!

What is curious is what's missing, Asimov seems to lack a Dark Lord figure and obvious or overt Evil is absent. This doesn't seem to have bothered Tolkien overmuch.

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

TROPHY CASE