|
euphronius posted:Aragorn is the only one with the right to summon the Dead men of dunharrow which is a big deal. I wouldn't say he is replaceable. Yeah I think the latter bit is especially important. Without Aragorn there is no hope for any political order in Eriador going forward. The rangers, or those few of them that survived the Pelennor, would be leaderless and far from home. The elves of Rivendell and Lindon are on their way out. That essentially makes the Thain the most important political figure west of the Misty Mountains! Even as Tolkien writes it, it's a little difficult to see how Aragorn reestablished a north-kingdom. One shudders to think how it could have been done without him.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but that's like the king of England saying "hey, make me king of France." Sure there was some overlap a thousand years ago so there is a technical claim, but really? Well, in the real world the situation never arose because the equivalent to the Steward of Gondor (mayor of the palace, or something) would have barely waited a decade before crowning himself as king, never mind him and his descendants keeping up the charade for centuries. That's if he didn't depose the last king himself, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
He rebuilds Annuminas . Also the Dwarves retake Moria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Kassad posted:Well, in the real world the situation never arose because the equivalent to the Steward of Gondor (mayor of the palace, or something) would have barely waited a decade before crowning himself as king, never mind him and his descendants keeping up the charade for centuries. That's if he didn't depose the last king himself, too. Let me amend my analogy: Technically speaking, there are several currently living heirs.to the French throne, most of whom would therefore also have arguable claims to the British throne, arguably older claims than that if the House of Windsor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
skasion posted:Yeah I think the latter bit is especially important. Without Aragorn there is no hope for any political order in Eriador going forward. The rangers, or those few of them that survived the Pelennor, would be leaderless and far from home. The elves of Rivendell and Lindon are on their way out. That essentially makes the Thain the most important political figure west of the Misty Mountains! Even as Tolkien writes it, it's a little difficult to see how Aragorn reestablished a north-kingdom. One shudders to think how it could have been done without him. None of this matters to Gandalf. Once he's defeated Sauron and Saruman using the armies of Rohan and Gondor he's won the game and goes home. It's not like everyone lives in peace following the crowning, either. Aragorn's life is spent fighting wars of vengeance/subjugation in the lands in the South, that fell under Sauron's sway. No Northern Kingdom is re-established. The Shire goes on as its own thing, only there's technically a King who leaves them be. The Bree-lands are likely similar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
And in the books the ghosts aren't really a big deal. They scared some pirates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:He gets made a prince by Aragon doesn't he? Yes, but that happens after he and Eowyn netflix and chill, so she didn't catch the eye of a prince, she caught the eye of a captain who later was raised to princehood. Details!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
sassassin posted:No Northern Kingdom is re-established. The Shire goes on as its own thing, only there's technically a King who leaves them be. The Bree-lands are likely similar. Comedy option: the Hobbits become the leading power in the area (not a very big bar to clear...). There's no king to restore the peace, they've been hardened by what happened during Saruman's takeover and the Scouring and there are people like Merry and Pippin with actual fighting experience. Cue Hobbits: Total War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Arnor was reestablished and the capital was rebuilt
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
sassassin posted:And in the books the ghosts aren't really a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Arnor was reestablished and the capital was rebuilt This much is clear, but Tolkien doesn't really say whether it was a functional state or more of a northern vacation spot for the King. The north kingdom doesn't ever seem to have been very populous or well founded: it doesn't seem to have had any major population centers besides Annuminas and later Fornost, which is more a fortification than a town (contrast Gondor with its major city and two large heartland castle towns, as well as the major port cities of Pelargir and Umbar and another fortified town at Dol Amroth). The fact that Annuminas was abandoned either before or at the same time as the partition of Arnor suggests that the kingdom, or certainly the successor principalities, had no especial use for it; possibly its construction was never more than a boondoggle on Elendil's part. e: now that I dig at it I see Tolkien alludes to Rohirric settlers in Enedwaith during the fourth age, which does hint at a larger effort to revitalize and repopulate Eriador under the King. skasion fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Probably he would've been worried about encroachment from Erebor, so resettling those lands quickly would've been a priority. Declaring the reestablishment of Arnor is a strong move, regardless of the substance. Both the Thain and the Mayor of the Shire, and all the Dunedain, acknowledge King Elessar. The people of Bree seemed to have been distrustful of the Dunedain generally, but the Dunedain and the militia that Merry and Pippin raised were the only military powers in Arnor aside from goblins after the elves left, so they can loving like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
skasion posted:This much is clear, but Tolkien doesn't really say whether it was a functional state or more of a northern vacation spot for the King. The north kingdom doesn't ever seem to have been very populous or well founded: it doesn't seem to have had any major population centers besides Annuminas and later Fornost, which is more a fortification than a town (contrast Gondor with its major city and two large heartland castle towns, as well as the major port cities of Pelargir and Umbar and another fortified town at Dol Amroth). The fact that Annuminas was abandoned either before or at the same time as the partition of Arnor suggests that the kingdom, or certainly the successor principalities, had no especial use for it; possibly its construction was never more than a boondoggle on Elendil's part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
skasion posted:This much is clear, but Tolkien doesn't really say whether it was a functional state or more of a northern vacation spot for the King.  I mean I guess no one knows for sure, bur rebuilding a capital is pretty good evidence a state was also rebuilt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I don't remember where I read it but supposedly Tolkien was setting all this in a post-plague era, which is why you have such sparsely populated once-settled and civilized now returned to nature feel about the lands they travel through. There was a very severe plague around the seventeenth century of the third age, which devastated the lands east of the misty mountains and wiped out the Dunedain of Cardolan, but doesn't seem to have affected Rhudaur (then ruled by Angmar, which makes sense since the plague was probably sent forth by Sauron) or Arthedain (furthest from the plague's source). This definitely brought about serious mortality in Eriador, as did the continuing wars between Arthedain and Angmar. So the road to Rivendell explicitly passes through depopulated country that has not held much but ruins for centuries. That said, it also seems to me like Tolkien never intended for the north kingdom to have major population centers to the same extent as the south, it's got a harsher climate and terrain, mostly forested with not much coastline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I don't remember where I read it but supposedly Tolkien was setting all this in a post-plague era, which is why you have such sparsely populated once-settled and civilized now returned to nature feel about the lands they travel through. There was a big plague, but it happened like 1500 years before LotR. However, things are very slow in lotr, and there's not much growth. I think the stronger force at play in regards to depopulation is war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I don't remember where I read it but supposedly Tolkien was setting all this in a post-plague era, which is why you have such sparsely populated once-settled and civilized now returned to nature feel about the lands they travel through. I do imagine there were probably some more towns like Bree throughout the wilds. To a great extent the hobbits and their buddies took the most godforsaken routes they could, because that way they only had to worry about bird spies and so forth, as opposed to "detained by an agent of Sauron in a town on a pretense; held until the Nazgul show up or until they are slain trying to escape."
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:They are a big deal in terms of Aragorn's legitimacy claims, though. Is it really? Would anyone have objected to his taking the crown on the grounds of his not waking up some forgotten ghosts in the hills? It's an important moment in resolving Aragorn's personal baggage (he's lived his whole life being told he has to redeem a long legacy of Men's failures) but it's not crucial to his gaining the throne (except in scaring some pirates).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Didn't the pirates have reinforcements on them Not to that part in my recent reread
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Is it really? Would anyone have objected to his taking the crown on the grounds of his not waking up some forgotten ghosts in the hills? euphronius posted:Didn't the pirates have reinforcements on them
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Right so cutting off reinforcements with spectral beings sworn only to the heir of isildur is a big deal. Especially after Denethor II roasted himself
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Right so cutting off reinforcements with spectral beings sworn only to the heir of isildur is a big deal. I see no reason why all those soldiers he brought to Pelennor couldn't have stolen the ships themselves. Laziness? Boromir would've whipped them into shape had he been around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I see no reason why all those soldiers he brought to Pelennor couldn't have stolen the ships themselves. Laziness?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I see no reason why all those soldiers he brought to Pelennor couldn't have stolen the ships themselves. Laziness? I doubt they wiped out everyone in Umbar but they certainly kept those guys from helping out Big Daddy S.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
The corsair ships were parked on the river leading up to Minas Tirith, the paths of the dead didn't transport Aragorn & co. all the way down to Umbar. The soldiers and sailors he picks up are locals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Aragorn doesn't attack Umbar directly until years later in his wars of vengeance with Eomer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Aragorn doesn't attack Umbar directly until years later in his wars of vengeance with Eomer. Didn't he attack Ulnar decades before the War of the Ring, while under a pseudonym working for the Steward of Gondor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Didn't he attack Ulnar decades before the War of the Ring, while under a pseudonym working for the Steward of Gondor? Yeah. He made a major raid there, burned the fleet, and killed the Captain of Umbar. Of course if he hadn't they would have made a much more serious threat in the War of the Ring, but even knowing what he knew at the time it was a sound idea. Essentially the conquest or at least containment of Umbar is a necessity for the long-term survival of Gondor. If it is hostile it's a constant threat to Pelargir and the southern fiefs. If it can control the sea it can control Anduin and essentially reduce Gondor to Minas Tirith and Anorien. It's also probably somewhat important to Elessar's personal role as king of all the Dunedain that he control it, since it's a Numenorean colonial port originally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
It also gave him a chance to understand the inner workings of Him for, since he had to figure out some way to become king if he was ever to get hitched.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
The history of Gondor is a history of subjugation of the southern coastlands. It's interesting that the primary reason Tolkien gives for most of the "evil" men joining "the enemy" is essentially revenge (hillmen of Dunland etc.) They have legitimate grievances and no reason to believe their lot would improve had they sided with the "good" side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
sassassin posted:The history of Gondor is a history of subjugation of the southern coastlands. Yeah basically. Numenoreans are of colonial origin and have never lost the sense of supremacy and (at best) the West Man's Burden that goes with it. Aborigines like the Dunlendings/Bree-men and the Druedain are on a certain level portrayed more sympathetically than the half-human westerners. That said, the southerners aren't wholly innocent of this either: the Umbarites ARE Numenoreans and share their ideology of manifest destiny, they're just on the satanic end of the Numenorean religious schism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
There aren't many Black Numenoreans left by the time of LotR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
In that Tolkien Professor podcast, about 45 minutes into Episode 8 there's an interesting tangent he goes off on with regard to pity, in the "pity stayed his hand" context. "Pity gets a bad rap in today's world", he says. Like, the whole idea of feeling pity for someone who is experiencing hardships you're not experiencing is kind of a foreign concept nowadays, in part because we have a more egalitarian society in which the concept we'd have in mind would be more like empathy or compassion. There is hardly anything left of the idea that someone of a "higher" station would empathize genuinely with someone of a "lower" one; and if we tried, the recipient of the pity would feel offended rather than validated. I was thinking the last time I heard "pity" earnestly used in that sort of context was in that first-season Simpsons episode where Homer's coworker tells him sorrowfully "I pity you", and Homer takes offense at it. "What? Why?" I know that habitually when I try to empathize with people I naturally try not to lead off with phrases like "Oh, yeah, I've been right where you are" or "Man that sucks, I'd hate to be you right now"—like a blind listener told him on the podcast, nobody who's in that position wants to hear that poo poo. They want someone to just be compassionate, maybe offer help. Not to try to put themselves on the same level, or to "condescend" (another term that the professor said is one that used to have a much more innocuous meaning in the past, when society was more striated). I don't know—just found it interesting, and potentially a good jumping-off point for a pretty in-depth analysis of how society has changed, and in some cases not for the better, since the concepts of social class that were common in Tolkien's time became obsolete in our speech and thought patterns. Though the main reason I felt like typing this up was that as I was listening to that segment, I was walking up the steps from Penn Station onto 7th Avenue, and there was a homeless guy sleeping on the stairs halfway up, and just as the prof waxed on about pity and compassion, I looked down and noticed that someone had bought a wrapped breakfast sandwich at the bakery right there and left it there for the guy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Good post data graham . The podcast is baller imho. I just listened to episodes 20 and 21 which iirc deal entirely with the conversation in crickhollow and how Sam is a big time player. I highly recommend I think 21 where a listener writes in with an alternative reading of the genesis of Sams complicity with the conspiracy ( fraught with classism ) that the professor must admit may be better than his own. But also you say class is not in our language which is true but it does exists which causes imho lots of problems in American society as we day to day come into the reality of a class segregated world and for whatever reason our language can't cope. Oh well. The thing that fascinates me about the Tolkien universe tho is that some classism is objectively true. Aragorn is better than everyone else. It's a fact. It's weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:
Many years ago, as I was commuting into midtown not far from there, I emerged from the train, ready to head up to Lex, and dead in the middle of the platform and all of us trying to walk out, a woman in business attire hiked up her skirt, squatted down and started pissing. Nothing about her appearance made her seem mentally ill, aged or anything other than a relatively affluent young professional. She just seemed to say "gently caress it, I'm taking a piss right goddman now." It made a large yellow puddle that began to drain down onto the area with the tracks. It was very surprising, even in NYC. eta: I used to read LOTR and the Silmarillion about once a year or so; the podcast sounds like a fitting addition to that kind of crazy. Look forward to trying it out. Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Been really enjoying the podcast but the MMO field trips are cracking my poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
I skip the mmo field trips hahahah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Tolkien's Middle-Earth Legendarium: Come for the elf dicks, stay for the random piss stories
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I skip the mmo field trips hahahah. Yeah this. Episodes are already super long without spending 35 minutes at the end listening to some poo poo about LOTRO
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
I feel like the piss story, ah, strayed somewhat from the point I was trying to make  Anyway, aside from the field trips if there's one real annoyance I have with the podcast it's that there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it. No thesis he's trying to prove. I keep expecting him to say "Now this scene is interesting because it proves the following thing about Tolkien's worldview or contributes to the following broader picture of Middle-earth"; but he doesn't really do that. He's diving super deep into every line of dialogue not to analyze its broader meaning, but to tease out the minutest details. It's like the opposite of analysis, it's like pure appreciation. Which I guess is fine; I suppose I would be equally annoyed if he had an axe to grind and a grand overarching thesis that he was trying to convince us of about how Tolkien thought about War or about how the Ring is a metaphor for this or that. Lord knows that sort of thing pisses me off a lot more most days. But even so, in my post up there I found myself typing the word interesting twice, and both times I hated myself for it, because it's just such an uninteresting thing to say. A scene or a bit of dialogue has to be worth breaking down to the molecular level for some reason other than its being interesting, right? And while he certainly does a good job mining every sentence for its last vestige of textual meaning, he hardly ever connects it to anything larger or more meaningful, like to indicate what it reveals about Tolkien's mind or about the context in which he's writing or anything, except occasionally to note "Hey, this alludes back to this other similar line that Bilbo said". I keep waiting for him to talk about how transgressive and iconoclastic LotR was at the time of writing—a reluctant timid protagonist instead of a mythic semi-divine hero, trying to get rid of a talisman of power instead of seeking it out, tropes of Edwardian aristocracy turned on their heads by being cast as the pretensions of a sheltered class of silly naifs. I wanted him to point out the things that struck me when I first read it, like the pains he took to point out how old Bilbo is and how long-lives hobbits are (fifty, to a kid, sounds like a ridiculous age to think about a guy just starting to become grown-up) and how Gandalf was ancient-looking in The Hobbit timeframe and now, 80 years later, looks only marginally older. Wow! That blew my mind as a kid; to me, either you had people who aged normally or you had demigods who were immortal and never-changing, you didn't get things like old wizards who were apparently thousands of years old and still kept getting older. These were all new inventions as far as I could tell, and they certainly are archetypical. But the professor hardly touches on those sorts of broader observations, and it kind of irks me. But then I guess that's what Christopher Tolkien and John Rateliff are for, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:45
|
|