PDA

View Full Version : Books J.R.R tolkiens Lord of the rings



r@v3n
11th September 2004, 02:56 PM
Okay, well there were plenty of these threads on the old GUA. Since they've remodeled and all that stuff, I might as well create a new one. With this thread people can do the following:
Ask question pertaining to LOTR or other Tolkien books
Give their interpretation of LOTR (we all know there are thousands of them)
Post what they thought of LOTR
and quiz other members on LOTR
If any mods don't like this thread or anything then they can close it.

R@v3n

whirlwind
11th September 2004, 03:00 PM
Well seen as you didnt really start of the thread that well ill try...

SPOILER HERE

whats your opinion on Sam and Frodo, personally i find that at the end of the book frodo seems to get all the attention, but its really Sam who has carried the burdens, and got him there. He would have been stopped along time before shelobs lair, if it hadnt been for sam, so all hail sam, undoubtubly the greatest charactor in LOTR's!

r@v3n
11th September 2004, 03:09 PM
I completely agree with you in the fact that Sam was overlooked and overshadowed by Frodo. if it wasn't for Sam's quick thinking at Shelob's Lair by grabbing the ring then the end would be completely different.

Morridini
11th September 2004, 03:20 PM
Yeah i allways thought of Sam as the real hero. It would alkl have been for nothing if it weren't for Sam.

r@v3n
11th September 2004, 06:46 PM
After I read LOTR the first two times I thought of something. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon history and King Arthur is an English legend. In my opinion, Aragorn and Gandalf seem to parallel King Arthur and Merlin. Aragorn and King Arthur were both destined to be king. Arargorn and Arthur both had a sword made just for them. Both had to unite the men of middle-earth/England against an enemy.
Gandalf and Merlin were both wizards. Both were advisors to kings. Both were seemingly ageless even though they were old men.
Tell me if you have noticed this or if I'm just reading to much into it.

violentlazy
11th September 2004, 07:02 PM
i noticed that connection to. gandalf is ageless isnt he? its been a while since i read the books.

and i agree with the opinion on sam, hes the hero in the third book

Squidi
11th September 2004, 07:44 PM
After I read LOTR the first two times I thought of something. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon history and King Arthur is an English legend. In my opinion, Aragorn and Gandalf seem to parallel King Arthur and Merlin. Aragorn and King Arthur were both destined to be king. Arargorn and Arthur both had a sword made just for them. Both had to unite the men of middle-earth/England against an enemy.
Gandalf and Merlin were both wizards. Both were advisors to kings. Both were seemingly ageless even though they were old men.
Tell me if you have noticed this or if I'm just reading to much into it.

Yes, I've noticed this too. And also Aragorn has his party, the Fellowship, and so does Arthur with his Knights of the Round Table. They both have special swords. There are many! similaraties.

Uurion
11th September 2004, 09:42 PM
Well hold on there.....Aragorn doesn't have his party...FRODO has his party....the fellowship was made to support frodo....and yes Gandalf is ageless; he is a Maia. the heirarchy of middle-earth religion is:

Eru (Illuvatar-the one-highest god) and created from his singing:
The Valar (in due order (Male): Manwe, Ulmo, Aule, Orome, Mandos, Lorien, and Tulkas
(Female: Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, Este, Vaire, Vana, and Nessa----Melkor was once a Valar; before he became evil and known as Morgoth.) The Valar are the greatest among the Ainur
the Ainur (the Holy Ones-the offspring of Eru's thoughts)
And then Servants to the Ainur: Maia (Gandalf, Saruman, Radaghast, and the two wizards that passed into the west and were 'never known in middle-earth again'.

And im not so sure about samwise...The Lord of the Rings is an epic, so even if he wasn't there, Aragorn would've still prevailed...somehow...and besides the reason why Frodo was hailed and all that was he was passing into the west(Dying as far as i can gather) and sam was not....so Frodo had the next 20 minutes to be praised, whereas Samwise had the rest of his life....and oviously he was praised....he went on to become mayor of the shire and all that.....so its only natural to praise the dying man first.....anyways my favorite war was definently the war of the Silmaril....Feanor you B******....:)

Marushia
11th September 2004, 11:37 PM
I actually think the reason for that is to portray the fact that Sam is more of a silent, often underappreciated, but very real type of hero. If you were to compare him with the other members of the Fellowship: Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, etc. They all had powers or skills whereas Sam was just an ordinary guy, yet without him, the whole world would have been destroyed.

The point being that yeah, all the action and fantasy is cool, but in the end, it's just that: fantasy. Whereas, there are real people, like Sam, who actually do make a difference in the world.


After I read LOTR the first two times I thought of something. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon history and King Arthur is an English legend. In my opinion, Aragorn and Gandalf seem to parallel King Arthur and Merlin. Aragorn and King Arthur were both destined to be king. Arargorn and Arthur both had a sword made just for them. Both had to unite the men of middle-earth/England against an enemy.
Gandalf and Merlin were both wizards. Both were advisors to kings. Both were seemingly ageless even though they were old men.
Tell me if you have noticed this or if I'm just reading to much into it.

Actually, Tolkien did much more than research Arthur. One of the oldest texts he helped to translate was Beowulf, a classic Viking novel. It's very good, I had to read it in Lit class as well as King Arthur. Both are very good.

Anyway, Tolkien wrote many essays on Beowulf and actually based a lot of his work from it. The dragon, Smaug, from the Hobbit can be compared with the dragon at the end of Beowulf and creatures like the Balrogs and trolls with Grendel and his mother.

Also, the elven language is derived from a version of Germanic Old-English combined with, I believe, French, and the Dwarven Runes are taken from old Norse runes.

whirlwind
12th September 2004, 07:28 AM
i noticed that connection to. gandalf is ageless isnt he? its been a while since i read the books.

and i agree with the opinion on sam, hes the hero in the third book


He isnt ageless. but he does have a ring, so he wont die till he reliquishes it

DaunTed
12th September 2004, 01:21 PM
Right, kewl, LOTR's thread, Yeah i liked the booksm or what ive read of them, Im currently about half way through the return of the king and loving amost every page. I like lotr's because its generally an original story, It has cool characters all of which have their moments (aragorn is coolest), Its not just fight gore fight gore, Theres also tence moments, adventure, romance, emotion and all round everything for everyone.

I think this book shows that i am Adventurous and stuff cos i like most fantasy books but this most of all ^.^

So yeah thats about it...

Q: Who is Quickbeam?

Rep points for who gets the answer right

r@v3n
12th September 2004, 01:23 PM
Quickbeam is one of the youngets Ents. He had a personal grudge against Saruman for destroying his part of the forest. He was called Quickbeam because he answered an elder ent before it had even finished it's question.

Loco_Loco
12th September 2004, 01:28 PM
Tom Bombadil! (sp?) I loved him, he rocked in the book, and I was upset that they totaly missed him out in the film, but it was very clever to miss out that bit as it had no relevance to the rest of the film, but it would have been interesting for someone to hmake a version of LOTR with tom in it! :D

DaunTed
12th September 2004, 01:28 PM
Wootie, that was absolutly correct, ill raise it more if you answer this:

Q: Who guards the hobbits when they are take captive in the two towers by Faramir and his rangers?

Thats harder

EDIT: Loco, stop stealing my thunder man, you arnt at all as huggable as me...I was the huggable member before you had baby teeth, What is it with mad posting noobs and trying to steal peoples ideas? First violentlazy saying hes the Spam Kign when LT3 was, and now you!! I was the first huggable member even on the old GUA...So..Stop it now!! lol

Loco_Loco
12th September 2004, 02:06 PM
I am sorry Deep_Thought, I never knew, sorry *runs (very fast) and changes his member name thing* sorry!

ps: Sorry
pps: I can't answer that question, it is really hard! Grr!

Doctor Rock
12th September 2004, 04:30 PM
After I read LOTR the first two times I thought of something. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon history and King Arthur is an English legend. In my opinion, Aragorn and Gandalf seem to parallel King Arthur and Merlin. Aragorn and King Arthur were both destined to be king. Arargorn and Arthur both had a sword made just for them. Both had to unite the men of middle-earth/England against an enemy.
Gandalf and Merlin were both wizards. Both were advisors to kings. Both were seemingly ageless even though they were old men.
Tell me if you have noticed this or if I'm just reading to much into it.

I had never noticed it but now that you mention it it could be true, I know that alot of characters were based on real-life-people, Like Sarman, he's based on Hitler, and even enviremnts, like that place called "the mashes" or something(probably spelled wrong, that place wheer Frodo, Sam and Gollum have to go trhough) is based on war-zone wheer Tolkien used to be

r@v3n
12th September 2004, 07:15 PM
Deep_Thought, would it be Mablung and Damrod? If it is...whew...I had to actually pull out my one volume edition to answer it.

Uurion
12th September 2004, 10:27 PM
alright whoever said that Gandalf isnt ageless really needs to READ lotr. Gandalf is a MAIA. MAIA aren't exactly ageless as you wouldnt think but they cannot die as far as i can put together. They are just kinda reincarnated...and that would be why gandalf returned after the balrog smoted his a**. And the stuff about 'your task is not yet complete'....That is refering to Gandalfs vow to stand against the shadow till it falls. ALL Wizards (In middle-earth) are REQUIRED to take the oath. thats what the book means when it says Radagast the Brown ignored his oath to pursue his own happiness, and also when it says that Saruman forsoke his oath. And another strange thing about the oath, they are only supposed to fight the shadow indirectly, by aiding man, elf, dwarf, or hobbit that would stand against it. As far as i can gather it is 'frowned upon' to actually combat the shadow ones self. But anyways Gandalf was immortal.

Marushia
12th September 2004, 11:05 PM
And another strange thing about the oath, they are only supposed to fight the shadow indirectly, by aiding man, elf, dwarf, or hobbit that would stand against it. As far as i can gather it is 'frowned upon' to actually combat the shadow ones self. But anyways Gandalf was immortal.

That actually reminds me of the Fantastic Four episode with the Silver Surfer and Galactus. That one wierd guy warnd them about Galactus and helped them fight but was forbidden from actually fighting himself. Wierd how things get used and re-used.

Anyways, can you imagine how much simplier the war would have been if Saruman allied with the Fellowship and the people of Middle Earth? Even after he had been defeated, could you imagine how much help he might have given? Well, that's just a thought. The story is still great as it is.

I actually liked The Hobbit better than LOTR. It was a nice, simple, but wonderful and enjoyable story.

Uurion
12th September 2004, 11:33 PM
Eehhh Saruman was the White Wizard but wasn't that powerful really. The only reason he caused such hell for the good guys was cause he invented the Uruk-Hai strain. A personal army will make anyone strong. I like Elves, but they were portrayed mighty shadily in this book; "Oh Sauron is rising again? Well sorry but we were just leaving Middle-earth for all eternity..."And another thing...was Haldir in the books as well? I like him in the movies....Yeah he was huh? His brothers were Orophin and .....yep there it goes, right away from my tongue....(Cant remember 2nd brothers name) They were the lord of rivendells sons (Cant remember his name either; i am scatterbrained at the moment.) And where exactly were the dwarves throughout the books...you'd think they coulda helped save the world....lol

maulkat
13th September 2004, 12:25 AM
I have read LOTR three times so far and have loved them everytime. I think Gandalf is "immortal", until his task is complete, then he can "die". I have read the Silmarillion once and that was a very difficult book for me to get through. The Hobbit was nice and easy. I have also read about half of the first book of lost tales.
I agree Tom Bombadill should have been in the movie, but you can't have everything when the epic is so large. The other part that should have been included was the scouring of the Shire. That, IMO, was an important part. Over all though, PJ did a wonderful job on the movies and I don't have much to complain about.

Uurion
13th September 2004, 12:38 AM
they couldnt have put the scouring of the Shire in the movie...that would have pushed the final scene (Frodo and Samwise in Orodruin; mt. Doom to far back in the movie. It would be like cutting short the important part just to show a small happening. And besides i prefer to keep somethings out of the movie adaptions, that way theres still a reason to read the book. One thing i would like to know is in the movie they call Golum a hobbit, but in the book the only thing they ever call him is a River Folk...is he in fact a hobbit? And also i wanted to let you all know that if you go to a site called ardalambion (Youll have to find the website) You can take online courses to learn Quenya....thats how i learned Quenya...although i am horribly rusty at it...anyways, that whole site is dedicated to JRR Tolkiens langueges (I know i didnt spell that right). It has stuff there about orcish and the black speech, sindarin and even Entish...as far as i know the only language you can take lessons for is quenya though....if you cant find the site PM me...i have the text files of the lessons around somewhere...

Spirited
13th September 2004, 03:12 AM
is he in fact a hobbit?

I seem to remember that in addition to being a river folk, Gandalf described him as a creature not too dissimilar from a hobbit, but I can't remember exactly. Anyway, I think the point was that Gollum used to be a carefree creature like Bilbo and Frodo untill he saw the ring.

Spirited

DaunTed
13th September 2004, 01:00 PM
Ok, yeah thats right R@v3n but i cant raise is more >.< but yeah either is correct...

heres another...

Q: *racks brains to think up new questions*....*long pause*....What is Grima Wormtoungs father called?

r@v3n
13th September 2004, 09:32 PM
*flips through the pages of Lord of the Rings*
ummm...ah ha. Grima Wormtongue's father was Galmod Wormtongue.

DaunTed
14th September 2004, 10:18 AM
no...close, its Galmont, very close...acctually depends, are you from Teh UK/US or like hlland or somewhere cos it coudl vary....ill wait to rais your commitment fo a while first before you answer me this...

EDIT: i stand corrected...Thats totally correct. :rr:

ArchedEdge
14th September 2004, 01:06 PM
they couldnt have put the scouring of the Shire in the movie...that would have pushed the final scene (Frodo and Samwise in Orodruin; mt. Doom to far back in the movie. It would be like cutting short the important part just to show a small happening. And besides i prefer to keep somethings out of the movie adaptions, that way theres still a reason to read the book. One thing i would like to know is in the movie they call Golum a hobbit, but in the book the only thing they ever call him is a River Folk...is he in fact a hobbit? And also i wanted to let you all know that if you go to a site called ardalambion (Youll have to find the website) You can take online courses to learn Quenya....thats how i learned Quenya...although i am horribly rusty at it...anyways, that whole site is dedicated to JRR Tolkiens langueges (I know i didnt spell that right). It has stuff there about orcish and the black speech, sindarin and even Entish...as far as i know the only language you can take lessons for is quenya though....if you cant find the site PM me...i have the text files of the lessons around somewhere...

I believe that the scouring of the shire is in the extended version of the third film, and comes before the last scene.

My brothers friend speaks quenya as well as orcish methinks, i'd love to learn it, only languages aren't exactly my forte.

I've read the trilogy several times now, but i never read the simarillion, i read the first page and got bored. Though i may go back and read it.

DaunTed
14th September 2004, 01:23 PM
you cant learn something like orcish, its not a real language, they dont speak it internationally, thus its not real. And what he has learnt is probably some sort of...made up stuff or something on the net

Q: What is the elvish name for the Mountains of Shadow?

r@v3n
14th September 2004, 03:35 PM
Q: What is the elvish name for the Mountains of Shadow?
The elvish name for the Mountains of Shadow is Ephel Duath.

And, Deep_Thought, it is somewhat possible to speak Orkish. There was a site that had all the languages that Tolkien created along with the roots and history of the languages. Orkish and the Black Language was one of them. It's not so much its own language as it is a massacring of other languages. I had at one time tried to learn Sindarin, but I'm not too great at languages but I still have the text. Its about 80 pages of how to speak the language along with a dictionary of basic words and the history of the language.
Tolkien was a genius when it came to writing languages. He was so adept at it that one could take any of his languages and further the vocabulary by studying the roots of said language.

Morrigan
14th September 2004, 03:56 PM
Sam, is the real life hero you see. Just goes to show you you don't have to be that super thin super hero to be great! :P

Marushia
14th September 2004, 06:43 PM
I think we all know that.


I seem to remember that in addition to being a river folk, Gandalf described him as a creature not too dissimilar from a hobbit, but I can't remember exactly. Anyway, I think the point was that Gollum used to be a carefree creature like Bilbo and Frodo untill he saw the ring.

Um, I remember reading that he lived in a part of Hobbiton and killed his best friend for the ring who was some rich guy, also a hobbit. I think he was actually a Hobbit.

r@v3n
14th September 2004, 07:46 PM
I don't remember ever reading that Gollum/Smeagol lived in Hobbiton. I think we only learned that he was of a race similar to Hobbits, but lived beside the river. That was the deciding factor that made most people think that Smeagol was not a hobbit because hobbits don't like water.
Smeagol had killed Deagol for the ring and then was banished from his family. The ring slowly corrupted him over time and he soon had his own story of how he got the ring (birthday present) and had convinced himself that that story was the true one.

whirlwind
15th September 2004, 10:10 AM
Just a point, this is more like spam and chat, the occasional question is ok, but this is not the place for a quiz!

Legendary
15th September 2004, 01:28 PM
I believe that the scouring of the shire is in the extended version of the third film, and comes before the last scene.

Actually, Peter JAckson never filmed the scouring of the shire. He just never liked that part of the book, and also thought it would be anti-climatic especially since it happens after the ring is destroyed.

whirlwind
16th September 2004, 09:54 AM
Actually, Peter JAckson never filmed the scouring of the shire. He just never liked that part of the book, and also thought it would be anti-climatic especially since it happens after the ring is destroyed.


That is because peter Jackson's sole aim seemed to be spoiling the book, when he released the film, or at least this is how it appeared...

for example, when asking people about the favourite parts of the lord of the rings many chose the earlier parts, the time that the hobbits spent with farmer maggott, and the time with Tom Bombadil, but both of these were missed out of the film!

Why?

That is what we all have to ask Peter JAckson, he tore the best pages out of the book, and replaced them, with something for far less inspiring, and inferior!

Teh whirlwind

DaunTed
16th September 2004, 09:59 AM
Gosh raven you know everything about LOTR's!! lol, even little things like that >.<

Well i dont think that even if a web site has all these languages on it. People dont generally converse in orcish in the world. You dont see people at major conferences having a quick chat in orcish, or the black language

Maybe it is possible to learn orcish which JRR made up, but it still isnt worldly used and isnt a national language....

Demordeth
16th September 2004, 10:52 AM
The movie could never ever compare to the book. That'd be generally impossible, and though I do think the movies were shot with entertainment in the back of Jackson's head, they were too subjective. Pieces had to be cut since all movies would have taken four or five hours. And some things that, according to Peter Jackson weren't relevant to the storyline, were cut out. Too bad.

ArchedEdge
16th September 2004, 12:04 PM
Tom Bombadil and other parts were cut out, but not because he didn't like them. I think it was just cos it wouldn't really fit in. He wanted to create a suspense filled action packed movie. Adding Tom Bombadil into it with all his songs and personality would have been the opposite.

But the books will always be better than the movies, unless they make a whole movie with every single chapter included and no-cut outs.

JRR wrote his first language when he was 11.
And a question, i was told that Gandalf was actually a angel and that he'd been sent to help destroy Sauron. Is this true?

Legendary
16th September 2004, 02:33 PM
No. Gandalf was one of 5 wizards sent from Valinor to Middle-earth, each on missions against evil. But in a metaphorical kind of way, i guess you could say hes an angel.

r@v3n
16th September 2004, 07:29 PM
well Deep_Thought, I usually keep my LOTR book close at hand for when I hear questions about the trilogy. It is rather sad that I don't have a life, so I just sit here in front of the computer getting a tan from the screen. Either I'm on GUA, I'm writing, in schoo, or reading. Oh well, these quizes really help stretch my mind a bit. Anyway, I have a question for anyone who chooses to answer it and I'll raise their reputation points.
When riding through the trees around Helm's Deep (or the hurons) what did Legolas and Gimli agree to do once the War of the Ring was over?

Uurion
16th September 2004, 11:30 PM
Didn't Legolas tell gimli that he would take him to his woodland realm, and didnt gimli tell him he would show him the halls of the dwarves? or something like that?

Trivia (Reward rep points): Who in the silmarillion 'took pride in her ability to speak swiftly'?

Ok i did tell you TRIVIA IS FOR SPAM AND CHAT! KEEP IT THERE, or i will warn you next time!

whirlwind
17th September 2004, 10:05 AM
No. Gandalf was one of 5 wizards sent from Valinor to Middle-earth, each on missions against evil. But in a metaphorical kind of way, i guess you could say hes an angel.


hmm thats in interesting way of putting it, i must say i have never thought of it that way! I can't see how he cold be an angel, because there doesnt seem to be a god creature in middle earth, but its certinally some way of putting it!

Legendary
17th September 2004, 01:56 PM
WEll there are kind of god creatures of Middl-Earth. EVer heard of Eru and The valinor?

Morridini
17th September 2004, 02:10 PM
I can't see how he cold be an angel, because there doesnt seem to be a god creature in middle earth

If u ever read Silmarillion u will find out that they have a God and he is named Iluvator (not sure on spelling).

Legendary
17th September 2004, 02:19 PM
There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar

Eru/Iluvatar/the One in turn created the Ainur, of which some became the Valinor. THe valinor created middle-earth. I guess you could call Eru/Iluvatar and the Valinor the gods of middle earth.

r@v3n
17th September 2004, 10:49 PM
Actually...you would call Eru and the Valinor gods of middle-earth. They are worshipped by different races. The elves worship Eru as do the humans, but the dwarves worship their creator. If you think about it, the gods of middle-earth somewhat border Christianity. Eru is God himself, Manwe and Melkor are similar to Michael and Lucifer. Melkor was the strongest of the Valinor, but fell from grace just like Lucifer.

maulkat
17th September 2004, 11:51 PM
I took me three months last year to read that book. It was worth the effort though and I would like to read it again sometime.

DaunTed
18th September 2004, 08:12 AM
grrr i hope raven doesnt get this >.<

Q - In which book does Boromir actually die...?

Its not hard...but i dont know

Legendary
18th September 2004, 08:22 AM
in the very beginning of the Two Towers, Aragorn finds boromir dead.

DaunTed
18th September 2004, 11:08 AM
wooo hooo, someone other than Raven...Rep Points for you!!

And Aragorn doesnt find him dead, Boromir gives him that little emotional speech, then he dies... But yeah, you were right XD

whirlwind
18th September 2004, 11:38 AM
Ermm i did say no quizzes in this thread! So warning Deep_thought ....

lets start the thread of again.....

what is your opinion of the lotr films in comparison to the books?

Legendary
18th September 2004, 12:40 PM
Well, i would have really like to see some parts of the book kept in the film (Tom Bombadil, farmer maggot, and some other stuff), but i think Peter Jackson did the best job on the films anyone could have done. THey were already long as they were (all about 3 hours...) so he couldn't really fit in any more. They were great, but no film can really capture the greatness of the books.

Yesteryears
19th September 2004, 01:15 AM
After I read LOTR the first two times I thought of something. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon history and King Arthur is an English legend. In my opinion, Aragorn and Gandalf seem to parallel King Arthur and Merlin. Aragorn and King Arthur were both destined to be king. Arargorn and Arthur both had a sword made just for them. Both had to unite the men of middle-earth/England against an enemy.
Gandalf and Merlin were both wizards. Both were advisors to kings. Both were seemingly ageless even though they were old men.
Tell me if you have noticed this or if I'm just reading to much into it.

Yes, you are reading to much into that.

Some corrections: The story about King Arthur is not an anglo-saxon myth, it is a celtic myth known as the "mattier de bretange" or "The mattter of Brittain".

Tolkien himself despiced the celtic mythology, and did not know very much about it, or cared about it.

whirlwind
19th September 2004, 06:00 AM
Well, i would have really like to see some parts of the book kept in the film (Tom Bombadil, farmer maggot, and some other stuff), but i think Peter Jackson did the best job on the films anyone could have done. THey were already long as they were (all about 3 hours...) so he couldn't really fit in any more. They were great, but no film can really capture the greatness of the books.


I agree with that, but imo they should have made 6 films, splitting the books into the books that they contain ... Felowship has book 1 & 2 two towers 3&4 .. etc... if they did that i think that they would be able to put some better parts into the films, that were in the books.

You also have to realise, that they put in things that wernt needed as well that wernt in the books, like in the two towers, where faramir becomes lustfull for the ring, that wasnt in the book, and wasn't required!

Yes you are right, a film can never be as good as a book :)

maulkat
20th September 2004, 12:44 AM
Concerning "creative liberties", there are two, I do not agree with. Both of them are in the Two Towers. The first one when Elves are added to the Battle of Helm's Deep. The other is at the end when Faramir falls to the power of the ring.
The Battle Of Helm's Deep involved Men (as a race) ONLY. To have the Elves added in there made it seem as if Men could not do it with out help.
When Faramir fell prey to the power of the Ring, it made him weak in my eyes. He is such a strong person and it belittled him for falling for it.
Those are the only two parts I have a problem with. Does anybody else agree with me? Over all though, the movies were fantastic.

Legendary
20th September 2004, 06:54 PM
yeah but peter jackson couldn't show the elves in mirkwood fighting of orcs and the battle of helm's deep. It would taketoo long. he had to combine the two somehow. anyways, it did seem like the men couldn't do it themselves. For example, legolas says "THree hundred... against ten thousand?!?! THey are all going to die!"
That confirms that the men have no chance unless they have help. do you really think the three hundred would last a whole night against ten thousand? no. thats why the elves came in.

Faramir: i actually kind of liked it. it made more obvious the fact of how powerful the ring was, and how anybody could fall prey to it. at least he didn't take it from frodo. he still let frodo go in the end. something which boromir didn't suceed at doing. faramir is still strong in my eyes.

maulkat
21st September 2004, 12:42 AM
I do not remember any Elves fighting Orcs in Mirkwood. Where did that happen? Yes, true, Faramir did let Sam and Frodo go, but he still was not as strong as he was on the book. IMHO. That might just be me though.

whirlwind
21st September 2004, 10:36 AM
I do not remember any Elves fighting Orcs in Mirkwood. Where did that happen? Yes, true, Faramir did let Sam and Frodo go, but he still was not as strong as he was on the book. IMHO. That might just be me though.


I agree, i think peter jackson made several flase charactor portrayals, and this was the biggest one he made, Faramir was except maybe Gandalf himself, the strongest, and purest charactor in the entire book!

DrUNk PaNDa
21st September 2004, 11:33 AM
movie vs the books...

IMO:

movies were good they did their best to portray the book and most of the important stuff.... they did leave out quite of bit of stuff that would help explain some of the little things that really dont make sense if u havent read the books. however, i do feel that the extended versions of the movies are waaaaaaaaay better. makes the movies more full and beautiful. as for the books if you like the movies, and dont like to read.... READ THE BOOKS!!!

Nesuke
21st September 2004, 02:12 PM
whats your opinion on Sam and Frodo, personally i find that at the end of the book frodo seems to get all the attention, but its really Sam who has carried the burdens, and got him there. He would have been stopped along time before shelobs lair, if it hadnt been for sam, so all hail sam, undoubtubly the greatest charactor in LOTR's!

I disagree entirely with your interpretation for Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gangee. They in turn did themselves favours. Sam was mentally the weak one, he was scared and frightened, even so that an aged elf-friend could turn Frodo against him. Frodo had kept his mind set on the job, he kept him determined to impress and provide. On the other hand, Sam was physically stronger. He was embraced by the rings power, which showed a mental weakness, but also shows how the ring brings out his physical side when he defeats the southernly tower. But if kept for long, he would of been mentally disrupted by the messages sent through. So remember that Frodo also helped, and he was the brave young baggins that mentally held through this incredible journey of terror, fear and also excitment.

maulkat
22nd September 2004, 12:39 AM
At the end though, Frodo too fell for the power of the Ring. If Gollum did not bite his finger off and fall into the lava, the ring would not have been destroyed. Even Frodo was not immune after all. Sam may not have been as bright as some of the others, he was able to realize what he was feeling from the ring, was not real. He said "no" to it and gave it back to Frodo.

Nesuke
22nd September 2004, 02:55 AM
Exactly, because he knew he wouldnt be able to withstand the ring's power. But Frodo was the chosen ring bearer, he was the one who had been chosen to take the punishment. And in fact, it was fate that Frodo were to come through the journey as it said in the prophecy.

Have you read the Silmarrilion? If not, I highly advise you to, and then you will fully understand the emotions which are raising from the books.

whirlwind
22nd September 2004, 10:09 AM
I disagree entirely with your interpretation for Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gangee. They in turn did themselves favours. Sam was mentally the weak one, he was scared and frightened, even so that an aged elf-friend could turn Frodo against him. Frodo had kept his mind set on the job, he kept him determined to impress and provide. On the other hand, Sam was physically stronger. He was embraced by the rings power, which showed a mental weakness, but also shows how the ring brings out his physical side when he defeats the southernly tower. But if kept for long, he would of been mentally disrupted by the messages sent through. So remember that Frodo also helped, and he was the brave young baggins that mentally held through this incredible journey of terror, fear and also excitment.


I think you are totally wrong also, i am afraid.
If Sam had not been there, Frodo would have died before reaching the Dead Marshes, several times, Sam carried Frodo for miles and miles. Frodo had the strength of will and the charactor to carry the entire book for pages and pages, where without him it would have just been another fantasy/adventure story! To say that Frodo was the strong minded one, and Sam was a mere weak minded gardner is Rubbish!


On another point that i wished to post on LOTR, i think that J.R.R Tolkien, is a magnificent story teller, but is also a fansastic philosiphor and Theologean, and he base's much of the charactor, and mindset, despite senario differences of Gandalf very much on him self, very wise very clear thinking, and very admirable, this would make Gandalf my favourite charactor for this reason!

Whirlwind

Yesteryears
22nd September 2004, 12:39 PM
Well, regarding Samwise and Frodo, and who of them being a hero (the hero?) you must take some issues into consideration.

1) Frodo was given the task of taking the ring to Mount Doom. not Sam.
2) Frodo was probably very well aware of the dangers that trip would consist of, for instance that the chance of him and Sam getting back alive where zero.
3) Frodo had worn the ring for many years, and was under it's influence in a much deeper level than Sam was.
4) Sam, bless his soul, had no idéa at all of what to come, or the risks of the task at hand.

I must admit that Sam did a couple of heroic things, but he did them out of need (or danger), not out of heroiscism or unselfishness. All Sam did was to tend to Frodo so Frodo could carry on. Without Frodo, Sam would loose the only way for him to return back to the Shire in one piece. And Sam's prime goal was to keep Frodo alive, not saving the world.

Frodo on the other hand, did what he did, not in order to survive in the long run, but in order to free Middle Earth from the last remainings of Morgoth's evil.

And that, my friends, is way more heroic than doing deeds out of need or fear, or out of friendship.


POST 2:




Actually, Tolkien did much more than research Arthur. One of the oldest texts he helped to translate was Beowulf, a classic Viking novel. It's very good, I had to read it in Lit class as well as King Arthur. Both are very good.

Anyway, Tolkien wrote many essays on Beowulf and actually based a lot of his work from it. The dragon, Smaug, from the Hobbit can be compared with the dragon at the end of Beowulf and creatures like the Balrogs and trolls with Grendel and his mother.

Also, the elven language is derived from a version of Germanic Old-English combined with, I believe, French, and the Dwarven Runes are taken from old Norse runes.

Some more corrections: Tolkien wrote ONE (1) essay on Beowulf and said that the connection between Beowulf and LOTR was that they both where texts, and nothing more than that. I know there are a lot of ppl out there trying to connect Beowulf with both LOTR and Silmarillion, but Tolkien himslef didn't see that connection. But there are some obvious connections between the original texts of Bilbo and Beowulf. But Bilbo was never written as a part of Arda, or even connected in any way to The Silmarillion. It was when Tolkien started to write the sequal to Bilbo that it occourd to him that Bilbo indeed was a part of Arda.

When it comes to the languages, the different elvish languages is NOT based on Old English or French. I am not an expert on Tolkiens laguages, but I know that the Finnish epos Kalevala inspired Tolkien to create the elvish languages, so Finnish is the main source. And I belive the grammar for at least one of the languages comes from spannish, while Khûzdul (the language of the dwarves) comes from old Hebrew.

The language of Rohirrim comes from old english though.

And Tolkien did NOT research anything from the "matier de Bretange" (the legends of King Arthur). Tolkien was studying, and teaching, languages, not history, myth or religion.


POST 3:


I had never noticed it but now that you mention it it could be true, I know that alot of characters were based on real-life-people, Like Sarman, he's based on Hitler, and even enviremnts, like that place called "the mashes" or something(probably spelled wrong, that place wheer Frodo, Sam and Gollum have to go trhough) is based on war-zone wheer Tolkien used to be


Corrections again: Tolkien didn't intend to write an allegory. Many ppl read it as an allegory of the second world war, which is plain stupid.

The beginning of the books was starting in 1916, 20 years before WW2.

And Tolkien himself was very upset when ppl thought his work was an allegory.

POST 4:

...and before any of you says "what do you think you are, a Tolkien expert or what???"; well I am. Not on the languages though.

OK, please try to post only one post at a time, i have merged all your posts together, under the headers post1 through 4!

Thanks :-) I will keep that in mind next time!

Nesuke
22nd September 2004, 01:58 PM
Yes alot of Tolkien's work derives from various Norse and Viking tales, but thats not to say he is a genius in his own right. He constructed this whole story and world within his head. It wasnt planned, it wasnt put on paper until he had thought it up entirely.

Yesteryears
23rd September 2004, 12:19 AM
Yes alot of Tolkien's work derives from various Norse and Viking tales, but thats not to say he is a genius in his own right. He constructed this whole story and world within his head. It wasnt planned, it wasnt put on paper until he had thought it up entirely.


Well, not necessarily.

Tolkien had two primary goals when he wrote Silmarillion, and later on, LOTR. Bilbo is not taken into concideration here, since that book originally was not intendet to be a part of Arda (tolkiens world) at all and had to be revised a couple of times by Tolkien himself to fit in better (but it still doesn't fit in perfect).

Anyway, the primary goals for Tolkien was A) to create a world where the elvish languages he had developed could exist. and B) to create an ENGLISH (not Brittish!!!) mythology, since there was non before. His main source of inspiration was indeed not the old icelandic sagas (or "viking tales" as they often are refferd to) but instead the Finnish national epos "Kalevala".

Yes, Tolkien has used elements from the old icelandic sagas, but mainly the name of the dwarves. He also used Old English for the names of Rohirrim. But all that was done so we cold get a nice "home sweet home" feeling of the work. The names of the hobbits was also Old English, since their laguage was related to that of the Rohirrim. But all the Hobbits names were translated to old English. Meriadoc was a translation for Kalimac for instans, in order to get the nickname "Merry" as a short form of the name (which should have been "Kali" instead).

So most of the elements we recognise is there for us to recognise, there are other meanings laying behind them as well, and the reason we recognise them is because Tolkien liked us to "feel at home" when we read the books.

So what Tolkien has doen is to take a very small portion of the western europe "common" mythology (except the celtic one) and he used that as a spice in his work. The overall story is not related to any myth known to Tolkien (but there are simularities between elfs and figures in the Hindi mythology, and between the creation of Arda and old Persian myth, but I doubt Tolkien knew anything about that) so his work in his own, and not "stolen" or even "lent" from someone else.

What Tolkien has done is to create a mythology for England. And that is unique and can't be compared with anything else.

And the story was indeed not finsihed, or in his head, when he started to write it. On the contrary, there are many different versions of all texts in the Silmarillion. And LOTR was not even meant to be a part of Arda when he started to write the sequel to Bilbo, but it developed in that way, which caused Tolkien a lot of work in order to re-write Bilbo to get it to fit more easily into the world of Arda.

Tolkien himself called this process "subcreation" and he reffered to himself as the "subcreator" of Arda.

Nedjes
23rd September 2004, 10:13 PM
Very in depth book. I love how he wrote it with such an incredible history behind everything. YOu could find the most obscure place or person in the LoTR, & look it up in any of the books his son Christopher compiled from notes & find an incredibly in depth history behind it. Amazing!
Personally, I did like the story of Beren (hopefully I have the name correct.) It can be found in the Silmarilion. Beren eventually removes a Silmaril from the crown of Morgoth in order to win the hand of an elvish princess. The king, (crap..can't remember names right now, but bare with me) had given him this thought impossible quest due to his protest of their marriage. Also gives some history behind the ring that Aragorn bears with him (the two serpents.)
The languages & texts are also amazing! He definetly put a great deal of thought into it.
There was one comparison that I found quite interesting between tolkien's description of the Hobbits, & the rabit from Alice in Wonderland. Both are described as short, dwelling in their underground homes, large furry feat, similiar vest & clothing, & of course the infamous pocket watch! There are more similarities, but it is late for me, & you can figure out the rest!

-=Tolkien R0xx0rz=-

added:
"1) Frodo was given the task of taking the ring to Mount Doom. not Sam.
2) Frodo was probably very well aware of the dangers that trip would consist of, for instance that the chance of him and Sam getting back alive where zero.
3) Frodo had worn the ring for many years, and was under it's influence in a much deeper level than Sam was.
4) Sam, bless his soul, had no idéa at all of what to come, or the risks of the task at hand."

1.) Agreed! Just being burden with the weight of the ring alone is a burden no one else could take. It is said that dwarves were resistant to the rings of power, but of the one they may have harder times. He is a hero alone for bearing the one ring!
2.) I would say frodo had an idea of what exactly he would face, due to all of the tales Bilbo would tell, but to say he knew exactly what he was getting into I would argue. He was concidered an adventerous hobbit, being a Baggins & taken under the protective wing of Bilbo, but he is a hobbit none the less, & their knowledge of outside the shire is very little, even with Bilbo's tales.
3.) Last I recalled, Frodo didn't bear the ring for years, as the journy didn't even take 2 years. Bilbo had the ring for quite some time, but Frodo was fairly quickly sent off on his adventure to have the ring for any great deal of time.
4.) Sam did follow Frodo quite blindly, but without his devotion to Frodo Baggins, it can be said that the ring would have never been destroyed. Frodo may have been burdened by the ring, but Sam took it upon himself to be burden by frodo & his quest.

I say in the end, yes Frodo is the greater hero, for he has endured the greater pains, however, Sam is nonetheless one of the greatest heros!
That is another reason why I love Tolkien's works, no single individual can really be called the only hero. It is through a bit of a group effort that they accomplished their goals.

Yesteryears
23rd September 2004, 11:18 PM
Frodo had the ring for a long time. Not as long as Gollum, not even as long as Bilbo, but a long time anyway. He got the ring when he was 33, and the Ring was destroyed when he was 51, which gives him 18 years under the influence of the ring.

maulkat
24th September 2004, 12:58 AM
Frodo had the ring in his possesstion for along time, but he did not use it or wear it. I don't think he even thought about it until Gandalf came and confirmed that it was the One Ring. I might be wrong though.

Yesteryears
24th September 2004, 01:38 AM
No, he used the ring on several occasions, to avoid the Sackville-Baggins for instans. Read the first two chapters of "Fellowship of the ring", it is there. But you are right that he did not use it very often. But on the other hand, neither did he use it often on his trip to Mount Doom either, but he still was under the influence of it.


Perhaps the ring made a bond between itself and it's "owner", a bond that did not stop to exist if the "owner" removed the ring? But that is only my own speculation, the litterature gives us very little help on how the ring worked, or even what powers it had.

And Boromir was tempted by the ring, without even touching it once. Obviously, the ring could affect ppl around it, without hem using the ring at all. And Frodo had slept under the same roof as the ring for more than 15 years, when he started his journey.


And when we are disussing the world of JRR Tolkien, what are your personal thought of what kind of creature Tom Bombadill is? I know there is no clear answer to that question, but it could be fun to exchange theories!

whirlwind
24th September 2004, 02:00 PM
No, he used the ring on several occasions, to avoid the Sackville-Baggins for instans. Read the first two chapters of "Fellowship of the ring", it is there. But you are right that he did not use it very often. But on the other hand, neither did he use it often on his trip to Mount Doom either, but he still was under the influence of it.


Perhaps the ring made a bond between itself and it's "owner", a bond that did not stop to exist if the "owner" removed the ring? But that is only my own speculation, the litterature gives us very little help on how the ring worked, or even what powers it had.

And Boromir was tempted by the ring, without even touching it once. Obviously, the ring could affect ppl around it, without hem using the ring at all. And Frodo had slept under the same roof as the ring for more than 15 years, when he started his journey.


And when we are disussing the world of JRR Tolkien, what are your personal thought of what kind of creature Tom Bombadill is? I know there is no clear answer to that question, but it could be fun to exchange theories!


I thought he kept it locked up for many years before gandalf turned up. Despite that you could already tell he loved the ring, when Gandalf put it in the fire he got very worked up...
"My Ring! My Ring, U'll Melt it.."
Etc....

Yesteryears
24th September 2004, 04:45 PM
No, he did actually use it from time to time - that's how Merry discovered it, Frodo became invisible once when he didn't want to meet Lobelia, and Merry saw it happen (Frodo was completly unaware of that though).


Here is another thing: A list of all books Tolkien has been involved in:

Lord of the Rings:
The Hobbit: or, There and Back Again (1937)
The Fellowship of the Ring (1954)
The Two Towers (1954)
The Return of the King (1955)
The Lord of the Rings (omnibus) (1968)

History of Middle-Earth:
The Book of Lost Tales 1 (1983)
The Book of Lost Tales 2 (1984)
The Lays of Beleriand (1985)
The Shaping of Middle-earth (1986)
The Lost Road and Other Writings (1987)
The Return of the Shadow (1988)
The Treason of Isengard (1989)
The War of the Ring (1990)
Sauron Defeated (1992)
Morgoth´s Ring (1993)
The War of the Jewels (1994)
The Peoples of Middle-earth (1996)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1925)
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1981)
The Father Christmas Letters (1977)
The Monsters and the Critics: The Essays of J.R.R. Tolkien (1991)
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (1962)
Farmer Giles of Ham and the Adventures of Tom Bombadil (1975)
The Silmarillion (1977)
Unfinished Tales of Númenor and of Middle-earth (1980)
The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm´s Son (1953)
Smith of Wootton Major (seems as if I have misplaced my copy of the book, anyone who knows the publishing year?)
The Lost Road and Other Writings: Language and Legend before ´The Lord of the Rings´ (1987)
Poems by J.R.R. Tolkien (poems) (1993)
Tales from the Perilous Realm (1993)
Roverandom (1998)

Out of those books, the following are considering Arda, Tolkiens fictive world:

The Hobbit: or, There and Back Again (1937)
The Fellowship of the Ring (1954)
The Two Towers (1954)
The Return of the King (1955)
The Book of Lost Tales 1 (1983)
The Book of Lost Tales 2 (1984)
The Lays of Beleriand (1985)
The Shaping of Middle-earth (1986)
The Lost Road and Other Writings (1987)
The Return of the Shadow (1988)
The Treason of Isengard (1989)
The War of the Ring (1990)
Sauron Defeated (1992)
Morgoth´s Ring (1993)
The War of the Jewels (1994)
The Peoples of Middle-earth (1996)
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1981)
The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (1962)
The Silmarillion (1977)
Unfinished Tales of Númenor and of Middle-earth (1980)
The Lost Road and Other Writings: Language and Legend before ´The Lord of the Rings´ (1987)
Tales from the Perilous Realm (1993)

So, there is a lot of books to read, and a lot of stuff to learn!

DaveA
26th September 2004, 11:22 AM
Anyone interested in the roots of Tolkiens creative processes, besides his own amazing mind, might find the book by Norman Cantor, Reinventing the Middle Ages, to be a fascinating read. http://www.greenmanreview.com/book/book_cantor_inventing.html
This book explores the modern interpretations of a historic time and how those interpretations shaped our current conception of a time past. Sorta like how when we think of ancient egypt we may conjure images from Hollywood to supplement our knowledge of mummies and hieroglyphic records.

My feeling about the bond between the Ring and the RingBearers is that it exuded Power. Power isn't something we can measure by our relatively limited mathematical based Science, but it's something that CAN be felt. Power, as I reckon it, is focused Energy. Focusing it is not something much explored as a Human endeavor, at least not in the sense that the Ring's Power might be discerned, so we may feel less comfortable with the idea or term.

It might be said that the power of the Ring had an addictive quality to it, or rather that the Ringbearers exhibited addictive behavior, though I dislike placing such restrictive definitions on any individual, much less a fictional one of such reknown as Bilbo or Frodo, but certainly Gollum was as bad as any nasty junkie I've ever run into on the streets! Okay, worse...

Why would power be "addictive"? Anyone who's ever felt Power over others, knows this answer. Anyone who's fallen from Power or Favor, knows this answer.
Why would it, in the sense of the Ring, eventually gall a spirit even as low as Smeagol's, so that the bearer would prefer not wearing the Ring?
Perhaps we find the answer in the texts, wherein Gollum dreams of being King Gollum with all manner of shiny tasty fisheses served to him at his beck and call. And no nasty orceses. No fine Stoor lasses either, but let's not go there. But he doesn't have the stature or nature to create a Kingdom. Sauron or one of the greats, like Saruman, or even Theoden, had the ambition to use the Power to rule and control. As Gandalf said near the end of the Return of the King, Great power was needed to wield the Power of the Ring, and it's power would take time to fully understand. (sic)

Yesteryears
26th September 2004, 01:18 PM
I fully agree on your view of power as being "addictive". But I think that's not the only reason the ring and its bearer forms a sort of "symbiosis".

The ring was not an entirly dead object, it had a will of it's own.

When Annatar (Saurons name at the time of the forging of the Great Rings) created the One, he put a lot of his personal power as a maia into it. It weakend him a bit, but it also granted him power over the other rings. And when he had the One on him, he was as powerfull as ever, if not even more powerfull (there could be a possibility of the One "tapping" power from the other rings, and passing that on to Sauron, speculation, yes, but good such!)

So the addiction to the One was not just power, the ring itself wanted to be used, and wanted to rule the world, with or without Sauron. But it wanted to get back to Sauron in first hand, if that possibility existed. Therefor betraid it Isildur, and later on Gollum, to find better bearers. And it even revolted against Frodo, in Mount Doom, in order to save it's own life.

DaveA
27th September 2004, 11:25 AM
The ring was not an entirly dead object, it had a will of it's own.

a possibility of the One "tapping" power from the other rings



The feeling I've always had was that Sauron and the Ring were calling to each other, the power in the ring being native to Sauron it belonged with him and was trying in a way beyond human scope to fathom perhaps, to get back to it's native source.
The Ring's power was not raw pure power, since otherwise those like Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel or even Aragorn, would have opted to use the power. Instead it was a power that was utterly evil at it's base.

Makes me wonder about what Tolkien was saying about the nature of power, the inponderable type of power that goes beyond elected official power or power that is created by submission by others.

Yesteryears
27th September 2004, 12:50 PM
Of course the One and Sauron called to each other. The ring was created by the power that Sauron dismissed oín order to create the One. So you could say that the ring and Sauron was of the same origin, or even of the same entity.

When it comes to Tolkiens thought of power, I will return with a good answer, as soon as I have consulted the more than 5000 pages of texts I now must look into... :-)

A very interesting thought, this.

whirlwind
28th September 2004, 10:10 AM
Of course the One and Sauron called to each other. The ring was created by the power that Sauron dismissed oín order to create the One. So you could say that the ring and Sauron was of the same origin, or even of the same entity.

When it comes to Tolkiens thought of power, I will return with a good answer, as soon as I have consulted the more than 5000 pages of texts I now must look into... :-)

A very interesting thought, this.

I think that you could go even futher on that thing, and say that the ring is SAuron, i mean if its his power.... all it is is his power in steel... without this ring he was worthless to a degree... so id say he and the ring were one!

DaveA
28th September 2004, 03:59 PM
in LOR Tolkein makes it clear that the Ring contains much of Sauron's native power. Yet it's clear that he is still something to contend with, "worthless" being perhaps a bit less than the people of Gondor would've rated his power. Indeed the great powers of the Age, Sarumen, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Aragorn, Denethor, Cirdan, Celeborn, were all still less powerful, perhaps even put together, than Sauron in his Diminishment. Gandalf retorts to Sarumen upon his entrapment, that he wouldn't be such an easy fly to swat, but he knew that his boast was empty.

In LOR the enchanted feel of Lothlorien is an example of Evlish power, perhaps the power of Galadriel's ring. The harnessing of Fire by Gandalf during his battle with the Balrog was another example of Elvish power. ELrond's clear and pure preservation of Lore and the 'vibe' of the Rivendell may have been the example of the Elvish power that Elrond wielded.
The rings of the Dwarves were used to make wealth and create great works using minerals and jewels. It seems that the rings were powerful focus points for the User's native power, but also contained their own power in themselves.

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

maulkat
6th October 2004, 01:11 AM
Yesteryears, suggested a topic to talk about. Nothing against what is being talked about now of course. I looked up a bit about Tom Bombadill and it is suggested he is a Maia "gone native." He claims to have been alive since the very beginning of the First Age. He calls himself the Eldest. He has a few names from the elves including, the First. So going off this, I feel he is one of the old Gods or one of thier creations.

Snakebite
24th October 2004, 04:49 PM
i havn't read any of the LOTR books


One warning will be submitted for repeated spam throughout the forum, you have not expressed an opinion, just stated a one line fact, this is not acceptable posting! ~` Whirlwind

Mysterio400
30th October 2004, 08:52 PM
Great movies. Even better books. I still like the Hobbit book (and maybe movie) more but LotR is great no the less.

I'm sure this has been posted but just incase. Tolken got much of his ideas from his time in WWI. Also, one of the most famous Gandalf lines

"You shall not pass"

to the Balrog came from a French General who made one of the best (if not the best) French defenses ever.

Silverglade
4th November 2004, 05:50 AM
Tolkien time in WW1 also affected his portrayal of the Hobbits. From the start as young men just enjoying life to their return as grown men who have seen the horrors war can bring.

maulkat
4th November 2004, 11:27 PM
I have a question. Does it state anywhere in any of the books about who originally got the Rings of Power? I know Humans, Elves and Dwarves got them, but what were thier names? Or the names of the rings? The Elven rings got names, I already know that, but what about the other rings?

whirlwind
5th November 2004, 09:38 AM
I have a question. Does it state anywhere in any of the books about who originally got the Rings of Power? I know Humans, Elves and Dwarves got them, but what were thier names? Or the names of the rings? The Elven rings got names, I already know that, but what about the other rings?

Yes it does, in the rhyme at the start:

3 Rings for elven kings under the sky.
5 Rings for dwarven Lords in their halls of stone.
9 Rings for mortal men, doomed to die.
1 ring for the dark lord in mordor where the shadows lie
One ring to rule them all
One ring to find them
ONe ring to bring them all,
and in the darkness BIND THEM!
In the land of mordor where the shadows lie!

I think that is it, but im not sure. That would be it from memory...

Im not sure, but i don't think the other rings had names, though they might of, you would have to read other books to check!

Good ones would be:

The history of middle earth 1-?
The Simalrion

Whirlwind

Folha
5th November 2004, 02:12 PM
I have a question. Does it state anywhere in any of the books about who originally got the Rings of Power? I know Humans, Elves and Dwarves got them, but what were thier names? Or the names of the rings? The Elven rings got names, I already know that, but what about the other rings?

The Nazgul have now The nine human rings
The Three elven rings were from Gandalf (first was it Cirdan), Galadriel en Elrond
The dwarves were just 7 dwarf leaders from every kingdom

hope that helped

maulkat
6th November 2004, 10:31 PM
I did not know the Elven rings were from Gandalf, but I knew the about the nine rings for the humans, which are the Nazgul. I just wondered if in anything Tolkien wrote, did he say the names of the dwarfs and humans that got the rings?

cesar
7th November 2004, 05:24 AM
As far as i know , one of the Humans (that transformed into the Nazgul) was the former king of Angmar (in fact he was the leader of the Nazgul). About Dwarves , he said that every main house of the Dwarves had a ring , including the House of Dúrin of Moria (i don´t remember right now who was the king in that time).

Negative S
8th November 2004, 03:13 PM
Yeah Id like to which of his books yall are reading to get all this stuff. Im about halfway thorugh I think its called forrgotten tales part 1 and non of this rings a bell

r@v3n
8th November 2004, 03:56 PM
Try reading a little bit later in Tolkien's notes. The Forgotten Tales just deals with the creation of Middle-Earth. What they are talking about is in about the Second Age of Middle-Earth.

GekkoPixie
8th November 2004, 05:39 PM
Wow...
Okay, every answer to every question is written clearly in one book: The Silmarillion. I'm... shocked? horrified? that nobody seems even to have heard of it, let alone read it!!!

P.S. GANDALF DOESN'T HAVE A RING, AND NEVER DID! HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GIVING THEM OUT EITHER!
Just wanted to clear that up...

Folha
9th November 2004, 12:39 PM
P.S. GANDALF DOESN'T HAVE A RING, AND NEVER DID! HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GIVING THEM OUT EITHER!
Just wanted to clear that up...

he has one!! He got it from Cirdan (the shipbuilder in Grey Havens). He said that Gandalf is gonna need it more then he.

GekkoPixie
9th November 2004, 12:43 PM
in what book???

maulkat
10th November 2004, 12:29 AM
in what book???

It is in the Silmrlrillion (SP). I think the chapter is called Of the Ring of Power and the Third Age. It is after the actuall main story and is just a small chapter. I have read the Silmarillion once. I found it very difficult to get through. It took me all of last summer and I usually read about a book a week.
I plan to reread the book, but I have alot of stuff on my mind. I did not know that book said the names of the humans and dwarves that got the rings of power. I'll have to reread it soon then, if I missed that.

GekkoPixie
10th November 2004, 04:01 AM
It is in the Silmrlrillion (SP). I think the chapter is called Of the Ring of Power and the Third Age. It is after the actuall main story and is just a small chapter. I have read the Silmarillion once. I found it very difficult to get through. It took me all of last summer and I usually read about a book a week.
I plan to reread the book, but I have alot of stuff on my mind. I did not know that book said the names of the humans and dwarves that got the rings of power. I'll have to reread it soon then, if I missed that.
I'm not sure it states the names of the dwarves, but I know it *hints* at the humans names, if not outright tells you. I'll look up that chapter about Gandalf, and will publicly apologize if I am wrong about the ring.
I have tried on many occasions to "re-read" the Silmarillion, and let me tell you, it's not easy! It's a great epic, but it's drier than the Sahara in Summer!!! o.O' Thankfully, we can't blame Tolkein. His son, however.... :P

cesar
10th November 2004, 07:27 AM
Let me see , in the Silmarillion ,as far as i can remember the names of the people who received the rings are not stated (i mean the Humans and Dwarves) , they only say one of them is the King of Angmar , the others , it seems at least some of them may be of Numenorean origin. About the Dwarves , there´s a reference in the Appendixes to The Lord of The Rings , and as far as i can remember Thráin had a ring and he lost it in Moria , (or better it was stolen) (see The Hobbit).

GekkoPixie
10th November 2004, 08:27 AM
Who had it in the Hobbit? That was Sauron's ring unless you're talking about something else.

cesar
10th November 2004, 12:10 PM
Let me explain: In THe Hobbit , it´s explained that Thráin was the King Under The Mountain when Smaug attacked it and the surviving Dwarves had to abandon it. Thráin, as he was a direct descendant of Dúrin , had one of the seven rings that were given to the Dwarves. Later on , he went to Moria in search of gold and so on , but he was killed by Azog and the ring was stolen (wether it ended up in Sauron´s hands or not , i think it´s not stated or i don´t remember it).
Another question is who where the Dwarves who received the seven rings. I can only guess that one should be the King of the Dwarves of Moria who lived at the time of the making of these rings (a contemporary of Celebrimbor , then) .

Folha
11th November 2004, 02:01 AM
here do you see a site with three Elven rings

http://www.badalijewelry.com/tolkien.htm

The Elves of Eregion made all the rings, except for the One which Sauron forged by himself in Mount Doom.
Elrond used the power of his ring, Vilya, to cause the flood of the river Bruinen when the Nazgul tried to capture Frodo.
* Galadriel used the power of her ring, Nenya, to keep a guard on Lothlorien so that none could enter without her leave.
* Gandalf used the power of his ring, Narya, to kindle the hearts and spirits of the enemies of Sauron to do great deeds.
Cirdan had once Narya (he recieved from Gil Galad) but he turned Narya over to Gandalf as he saw that it would be put to better use:

"Take now this Ring, he said; for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thous shalt rekindle hearts to the valuor of old in a world that grows chill."

maulkat
15th November 2004, 12:12 AM
Where is that quoted from?

cesar
15th November 2004, 10:38 AM
It´s in The Silmarillion , i think.

Folha
15th November 2004, 11:55 AM
it's from a site, but like they cesar said it was in The Silmarillion
But if you type "Narya" and "Gandalf" in google you can found hunderd of sites from it

Someone
23rd January 2005, 12:02 PM
Well there is a part in the lord of the rings (book) that this guy shows up in the old forest and I find him a quite weird character. The part the hobbits are in his house is also quite strange 'cause the hobbits don't speak, they just eat and drink and feel good in the house, and it really was a very strange part. First I thought that the Tom guy put the hobbits under a spell or something. I don't know who this Tom Bombadil actually is, but i find him one of the more interesting characters in the book (crazy of course, no doubt) 'cause the book didn't tell him what he was, it didn't give much information about the guy.
I know Tolkien also wrote a book about him: 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil'
I'll probably buy and read it, but tell me, who or what is he?
(I hope there are people here on the website who've read the book about Tom Bombadil)

Morridini
23rd January 2005, 12:18 PM
I really loved Tom Bombadil, and one of the hugest flaws in LOTR was that he wasn't in it. Tom Bombadil is after all the strongest creature in Middle-earth, he was the only one who could control the ring besides Sauron. as for the Adventures of Tom Bombadil, its not a book but 15 small poems and we doesn't learn anything more about him.

Someone
23rd January 2005, 12:42 PM
Ok, but the site that sold it told it was a book :S
Their customers will be happy...
But I don't really know if he's that powerfull, I mean powerfull in his forest and such, but not when it comes up to wars. Pitty the book doesn't learn us more about him...
My first opinion was that he was one of the Istari, but his description doesn't really match with one of them.

whirlwind
23rd January 2005, 01:07 PM
*merged Tom Bombadil thread into the existant LOTR thread.*

Someone
23rd January 2005, 01:35 PM
Gandalf is one of the Istari, sent to help the people of Middle Earth, therefore he's ageless. I never knew him to have a ring, altough its possible, but I thought he's immortal because he's one of the Istari.

r@v3n
26th January 2005, 09:06 PM
Gandalf was given a ring of one of the elves. He was ageless from being an Istari, but the ring also gave him some power.

maulkat
3rd February 2005, 01:07 AM
I was rereading some of the posts in this thread a few weeks ago with my uncle and we all made a few errors in who used the ring when Merry and Pippin saw either Frodo or Bilbo use it to avoid a Sacksville-Baggins. We all said it was Frodo and Merry and Pippin saw him use it. My uncle took the book out and it was Bilbo that used to avoid this person.
As for Tom Bombadill, I posted something about him on here earlier and I will find it and post it again.

Someone
4th February 2005, 03:17 PM
Do that. The most confusing character in the whole book needs some background :)
Hey, me, the BA- freak, made my 100st post in the books thread :)

Elentári
4th February 2005, 04:56 PM
Tom Bombadil isn't affected by the Ring, but that doesn't mean that he can control it, just that the Ring can't control him I think. I don't really think he is one of the Maiar (like the Istari are) since he is referred to as being "the oldest" and "fatherless", and there is no mention of any Maia being created first, and the title "fatherless" couldn't really be applied to any Maia in particular - they were all created by Ilúvatar. Dunno what he is then... the first Elf or something?

Negative S
4th February 2005, 07:52 PM
TOm Bombadil...I would have to go on the lines of a Forest Scyon. Cant really say what he is cause he (if I remember correctly) was described as a giant of a man. WEll built and muscular yet agile and kind. He could be considered a...human in some ways but I think I would have to settle with just a Scyon

Someone
5th February 2005, 04:03 AM
No his description wasn't very elvish...
Seems more something like an ent in human form or something like it...

Morridini
5th February 2005, 07:25 AM
We had a similar discussion about Tom in another forum, and some one posted the following. So keep in mind that I haven't written this:


Originally posted by Thingol
Read this to find out who he is.... NOT one of the Maiar...

Was Tom an Elf?
Tom's capering, his wisdom, his great age and his love of song undoubtedly give him a certainly 'Elvish' quality. This possibility though, is easily disproved by the following from The Lord of the Rings:

"'When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already...'"
Tom's own words, from The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


Tom would hardly have said this if he was an Elf himself! This is, incidentally, proof of Tom's great age - the Elves 'passed westward' in the Great Journey some six Ages before he spoke these words.

Was Tom a Maia?
This a very common suggestion, to the extent that it is sometimes treated almost as 'fact'. There is, though, no direct evidence for this - it seems to be based on the idea that since Tom can't be a Vala, and there is no other possibility, he must be a Maia. As we'll see, these are both flawed assumptions - Tom might be a Vala, and there is at least one other possibility.

Though we can't say for certain that Tom wasn't one of the Maiar, there are grave difficulties with this position. The most important of these is that the Ring had no effect on him:

"Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight... There was no sign of Tom disappearing!"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


There were other mighty Maiar in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, especially Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf, and all of these were in some sense under the power of the Ring. Yet Tom is unaffected by its power of invisibility, nor does he feel any desire to keep it (he hands it back to Frodo 'with a smile'). Tolkien himself points out the importance of Tom's immunity. On this topic, he says:

"The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954


Was Tom a Vala?
The last of Tolkien's named races (using the term loosely) that might include Tom is that of the Valar, the Powers of the World. A common argument against this is that we know the names of all the Valar, and Tom isn't among them. This doesn't hold water:

"...[the Valar] have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta


While of Tom himself it is said:

"'[Bombadil] was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk...'"
Elrond, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 2, The Council of Elrond


It isn't inconceivable, then, that Tom is one of the fourteen known Valar, dwelling incognito in Middle-earth. Though we can't be certain, it seems likely that a Vala would be capable of resisting the power of the Ring, and so that difficulty can be set aside. The 'Vala Hypothesis', though, is not without difficulties of its own, with perhaps the most significant being:

"'Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


All of the beings who became Valar existed before Arda was made, so any of them could with justification claim the title 'Eldest'. But Tom says he 'knew the dark under the stars' (that is, he was in the World, not outside it) 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside'. The term 'Dark Lord' is uncertain here - it might apply to either Melkor or Sauron, and both originally came from 'Outside' the World. If he means Melkor, then this is very significant: consider this description of the entry of the Valar into the World, from the original conception of the Silmarillion:

"Now swiftly as they fared, Melko was there before them..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor


'They' here refers to Manwë and Varda, who were explicitly the first Valar to enter Arda apart from Melko (Melkor). In Tolkien's original conception, then (and there is nothing in the published Silmarillion to contradict this) Melkor was the first being from 'Outside' to enter the World, and yet Tom suggests that he was already here when Melkor arrived!

Admittedly Tom may be referring to Sauron, who must have come to Arda after these great ones, but the phrase 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside' seems to make more sense if he means Melkor (that is, he is referring to an event of cosmic significance, and a specific point in the World's history, which isn't the case with Sauron).

This is only one of the objections to the Vala theory. Another, for example, is that characters who we would expect to recognize a Vala living in their midst (especially Gandalf) don't apparently do so.

There are many other arguments to be made both for and against Tom's status as a Vala. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, and some more concrete conclusions, Eugene Hargrove's fascinating essay Who is Tom Bombadil? is strongly recommended.

Was Tom Ilúvatar Himself?
Tom's powers are apparently limitless, at least within his own domain, and this has led a lot of people of suggest that he might be none other than Eru Ilúvatar himself. There are certainly several hints in the text of The Lord of the Rings that this might be the case; he is called 'Master', and 'Eldest', and Goldberry says of him simply;

"'He is.'"
The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil


All of these points might suggest that Tom and Ilúvatar were in some sense the same being. In fact, though, this is one of the very few theories about Tom that we can bring to a definite conclusion. This point is touched on several times in Tolkien's letters, and each time he makes it clear that Tom and Eru should not be confused. Perhaps his most definite statement is this:

"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 181, dated 1956


If there is no embodiment of the One (that is, Eru), then Tom cannot of course be such an embodiment.




Now you read this, what do you think?

So have u gotten any new ideas after reading this?

Next time provide a link, dont just copy huge chuncks of text ~ Whirlwind

Answer to whirlwind: Why should I? This was the best solution, if I had posted a link everyone would have to register to to read it, try thinking first.

Someone
5th February 2005, 07:50 AM
Well that cleared some things up but created other questions too...
I don't think he's Illuvitar because he's some kind of... silly. His dancing, singing and looks don't make him give the impression of being Illuvitar.