|
Octy posted:Is there anything about what might happen to Orcs when they die?
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
El Seven posted:I'm fairly certain that nothing specific was mentioned, however, my personal view (based on nothing, really) is that since orcs are sort-of-Elves, they go to the Halls of Mandos for a nice rehabilitation before getting released into the Undying Lands to rejoin the other Elves, thus finally completing the Great Journey began in the First Age. Very little is known about the Orcs. This is mainly because the books are written from the "good guys" perspective, so you can bet that things said about the evil characters, like orcs, goblins, trolls and dark lords, suffer slightly from unreliable narrator syndrome. As far as orcs being former elves, this is how it is explained in the Silmarillion, but how much of that is truth will never be known since the Silmarillion is basically the Elf bible and the creation of the orcs occurred before the elves even knew how to write. We don't even know if there are orc females or children. We know that they can be bred, and that Uruk Hai were Orcs bred with men. How they are bred is unknown as well, and the way it was shown in the films was entirely Peter Jackson's interpretation as Tolkien never went into much detail as to how orcs are born, bred and raised. Tolkien did this on purpose, of course, as the book was meant to be read from the perspective of the good guys, so the demonizing of the orcs as unnatural beings of pure evil was the view of them we got as readers. Had we gotten a book from Sauron's or the orc's perspective, the story would have likely been very different. The side that wins the war always gets to write the history from their pov though. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
There are a few "from the villain's perspective" works about Middle-earth, aren't there? Lord knows there are enough Grendel books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Any opinions on the new Hobbit trailer? The final scene really pissed me off - Smaug never met Bilbo when visible, in the original  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Any opinions on the new Hobbit trailer? The final scene really pissed me off - Smaug never met Bilbo when visible, in the original It's a real shame Jackson wasn't allowed to make that bridge movie he originally wanted, we might have gotten a Hobbit adaption that wasn't action-movied up to hell and back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 17:24
|
|
Data Graham posted:There are a few "from the villain's perspective" works about Middle-earth, aren't there? Lord knows there are enough Grendel books. There's a fanfic floating around, called Morlindale, which is somewhat more limited as a revision. There was also a Russian sequel/revision, The Last Ringbearer, which has a English translation freely available with the permission of the author and presents a more thematically oriented revision and commentary. Of course, neither really presents Mordor as villainous, but Tolkien's conception of evil makes it far too banal/joyless a thing for a faithful reproduction of Sauron to be anything other than tedious. Now, that being said, I'm not aware of anything that attempts to produce a Hegelian synthesis of the two notions, the natural point to go forward, but that's a level of nerdiness rarely achieved even in the world of fanfiction.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
I finally finished the LOTR books.' I'd say Two Towers => Return of the King >>> Fellowship. Fellowship is really held down, in my view, because of everything pr-Council of Elrond. I think Frodo and Saruman were my favorite characters. The movies really did a disservice to the latter as it only got the superficial aspects of his character right. He had more depth than his fellow Maiar Sauon and his fall to evil and then finally his actual fall when he died were both very tragic and I can easily empathize with him. To repent and admit you're wrong is hard to do even when you're just arguing with a person on the internet so I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to admit he was wrong in such a major way to Gandalf. I seriously hope the general interpretation that he wandered Middle-earth as a powerless spirit like Sauron is wrong. His crimes were far less than any of the other Dark Lords and they were all forgiven at one point or another. He also only turned to evil due to his desire to combat Sauron and then finally when Sauron mindfucked him through the Stone of Orthanc. Speaking of levels of evil though, I have always hated Feanor and found him the most despicable villain in all of Arda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
You read the Silmarillion before LotR? That's an unusual path to take. But cool! Fëanor is a hell of a character. On balance you have to regard him as a villain and everything he and his family does as catastrophic, but then again without him/them there'd be no heroism and no tragedy to relate to on the protagonistic side either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Saruman was always a proud prick even before Sauron corrupted him. He was jealous of Gandalf and his whole character is kind of setup to be the proud self important rear end in a top hat who falls to evil in large part because of his character flaws. Not saying he's the worst villain in the books or something or deserves a fate worse than others, but I don't really agree with him as the sympathetic character you're casting him as
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:You read the Silmarillion before LotR? That's an unusual path to take. But cool! I just like the sheer vastness of the scale in The Silmarillion. The stuff before and during the First Age was of cosmic significance and a lot more captivated than the relatively mundane events of LOTR. Plus, like I said, the beginning of Fellowship was just so boring to me. Levitate posted:Saruman was always a proud prick even before Sauron corrupted him. He was jealous of Gandalf and his whole character is kind of setup to be the proud self important rear end in a top hat who falls to evil in large part because of his character flaws. Not saying he's the worst villain in the books or something or deserves a fate worse than others, but I don't really agree with him as the sympathetic character you're casting him as Well who you find sympathetic is largely in the eye of the beholder wouldn't you say? Take Maeglin from The Silmarillion for example. The narrative paints a very ugly picture of him - "the only Elf who ever served Morgoth" and all that - but the dude was ruled by a tyrannical father who tried to murder him. He then turned to evil only because he was tortured by Melkor. THe great hero Hurin was not in much better shape after Melkor was through with him and he did not possess the vices Maeglin did. Yes, Maeglin was envious and yes he wanted his cousin but like Saruman,these things alone did not make him evil. Outside forces worked on both of them and made them fall to the dark side. Saruman in particular did legitimately work towards the downfall of Sauron and the only way he thought this possible was through the Ring. Gandalf's gambit with Frodo had a 1/100000000 chance of working. The fact is, no being on Middle-earth could even throw the Ring in Mt. Doom The Ring was too strong and would have stopped anyone from destroying it. And so Saruman took what seemed the only viable option - master the Ring and you master Sauron and remove his threat forever. Let me put it in another light. A lot of the heroes in LOTR and The Silmarillion, especially the Elves in the former, are unrelatable. They are paragons of virtue and beauty and wisdom and blah blah blah. I naturally favor a character with flaws that I can relate to. I understand envy and pride very well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
I'm also a little confused as to where you say Saruman was redeemed and admitted he was wrong to Gandalf. In my recollection he was unrepentant right up to the end; he was defiant at the window of Orthanc, he was bitter and wretched wandering in the wilderness with Wormtongue, and he was a snide rear end in a top hat when Frodo kicked him out of Bag End. Only once he's actually been killed and is gazing into the West as a wisp of "I done hosed up y'all" shaped smoke does he give any inkling of repentance, much good though it does him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
I don't think I ever said he was redeemed. But he did consider repenting to Gandalf in "The Voice of Saruman." But listen, Saruman, for the last time! Will you not come down? Isengard has proved less strong than your hope and fancy made it. So may other things in which you still have trust. Would it not be well to leave it for a while? To turn to new things, perhaps? Think well, Saruman! Will you not come down? ' A shadow passed over Saruman's face; then it went deathly white. Before he could conceal it, they saw through the mask the anguish of a mind in doubt, loathing to stay and dreading to leave its refuge. For a second he hesitated, and no one breathed. Then he spoke, and his voice was shrill and cold. Pride and hate were conquering him. Have you not ever had a heated argument with someone wherein you were proven wrong but your pride kept you from admitting so? Flaming on the internet has always struck me as really stupid because the person you're arguing with will argue ten times as long as he would have done normally if his ego feels threatened. If you call him a retard or a fool then he will refuse to yield because yielding is tantamount to admitting you are right and that he is a retard and a fool. Saruman's mistakes are immeasurably bigger than any internet debate. As such the courage to admit his folly is also immeasurably bigger. He was never the bravest fellow around and at the last second he choked and couldn't go through with it. He was a mental wreck by "The Scouring of the Shire" but he still showed some pity to Frodo and all he had endured. Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. 'You have grown, Halfling,' he said. 'Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. you have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell.” Saruman was not a being of malice and enmity like Morgoth or Sauron. He was just...weak and pitiable in that weakness. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:He was a mental wreck by "The Scouring of the Shire" but he still showed some pity to Frodo and all he had endured. Of course, Saruman then tried to stab Frodo right after that.  Saruman does strike me as a sort of character who, like you noted, is kind of a shriveled up mess. Possibly as a result of all his deceit and backhandedness, but at the end he does come across as a washed up celebrity or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:There are a few "from the villain's perspective" works about Middle-earth, aren't there? Lord knows there are enough Grendel books. I like Sauron's Blog, even if it's incomplete. http://www.sauronsblog.com/?page_id=29
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I think there is no more of an eternal divide than that between those who think the Fellowship is slow and boring against those that think the Fellowship is the finest example of English prose fantasy ever written and the highlight of all JRRt's work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
What always gets me is how gradually the tone of the dialogue ramps up its archaic texture until by the climax of RotK it's all "lo, forsooth" and nobody notices when it started.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:What always gets me is how gradually the tone of the dialogue ramps up its archaic texture until by the climax of RotK it's all "lo, forsooth" and nobody notices when it started. This is deliberate, though, what with the viewpoints travelling from pintsize bumpkinland to (the remains of) the grandiose old high fantasy kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Though according to the appendices, the Shire dialect of Westron is the one that sounds highbrow. I could have made something of my life, but instead, I remember things like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
I just rewatched the extended Fellowship with a friend who's never read the Silmarillion, and he was flabbergasted to learn that Gandalf is in possession of one of the rings of power for the entirety of the trilogy. I also got to point out some of Thorin's Company to him in Fellowship (that the tomb the fellowship visits in Moria belongs to Balin, which is explicitly stated but he never made the connection... and that Gloin was present at the council at Rivendell). Feels good being a nerd, man.
Millions fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think there is no more of an eternal divide than that between those who think the Fellowship is slow and boring against those that think the Fellowship is the finest example of English prose fantasy ever written and the highlight of all JRRt's work. The part of the Fellowship where Frodo and Sam are walking through the Shire is my favourite of all Tolkien's work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
I think one reason Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest feel a bit out of place is that they seem more based on English/ Celtic folklore rather than Germanic or Norse like the rest of the world. Bombadil himself has a lot of similarities with Puck in Kipling's "Puck of Pook's Hill" - he wears odd, brightly coloured clothing, appears playful and talks in rhyme a lot, but has immense power and knowledge. Also both characters refer to themselves as being the oldest thing in the land, and talk about how they have watched all the other races arrive and they will watch them leave because they are an intrinsic part of the land. The Old Forest is unfriendly to outsiders, but not necessarily 'evil' in the same way as Morgoth or Sauron, which parallels the way the land of Faerie is often depicted as dangerous to humans because it is so alien. From this perspective the Bombadil episode works quite well as a way of showing the hobbits' transition out of the Shire and into a land of myth and legend, via their own local folklore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Well, also because they literally are leftovers from old bedtime stories he used to tell Christopher, that he stuck into the Middle-earth universe just to get a chuckle out of the kid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think there is no more of an eternal divide than that between those who think the Fellowship is slow and boring against those that think the Fellowship is the finest example of English prose fantasy ever written and the highlight of all JRRt's work. I love the Fellowship in general, the first half (Ring Sets Out) just as equally as the second (Ring Goes South). I might be weird, but I revel in the landscape descriptions and the languid peace of the Shire. And then part 2 is a fantastic adventure story, probably the highlight of LOTR, before all the warfare starts up in TTT and ROTK. Data Graham posted:What always gets me is how gradually the tone of the dialogue ramps up its archaic texture until by the climax of RotK it's all "lo, forsooth" and nobody notices when it started. As this sort of stuff increases, that's when I begin to enjoy it less. Give me more of the fun, light tone of A Long-Expected Party. concerned mom posted:The part of the Fellowship where Frodo and Sam are walking through the Shire is my favourite of all Tolkien's work. 
Hedrigall fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
I really need a super lightweight version of Fellowship to take with me while backpacking, that would be awesome
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
So you can read about Nazgűl from the comfort of your cold tent in the trackless wild, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:So you can read about Nazgűl from the comfort of your cold tent in the trackless wild, huh? So I can read about companionship and epic adventure while I'm experiencing the thrill of the untamed wilderness 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
It annoys me when Game of Thrones fans call Lord of the Rings "cliched" in comparison to George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. One guy on IMDB was even saying that GRRM's books are more detailed than Tolkien's. I disagree. Tolkien's books were far more detailed, almost obsessively so. Tolkien was a much better world builder than GRRM. GRRM's strength is mainly in his characterization. Still, I wouldn't say he's better at writing characters than Tolkien was. He just approaches it differently. One of the common complaints you hear about Tolkien's characters is how one dimensional they are, and people compare them unfavorably to GRRM's morally complex characters. It's true GRRM is very good at writing morally complex characters, and they are more realistic than Tolkien's characters. But GRRM is writing a very different kind of story. LOTR was written as a history or bard's tale from the point of view of the hobbits. A Song of Ice of Fire is written as a series of novels that enters the minds of a great many characters on all sides of the conflict. Aside from a few chapters where we see the action unfold from Gimli's perspective, LOTR is written entirely from a the Hobbits' perspective. And the Silmarillion is written from the perspective of an Elven historian. That's why the bad guys in Tolkien's books are pretty much all seen as inhuman monsters. That's how the elves and hobbits saw the orcs and trolls and necromancers they had to battle. GRRM's writing is written in a much more modern style that focuses more on what the characters are thinking and feeling. It's not supposed to be an ancient historical record or bard song. The cliches in Tolkien's books are ancient ones and are used consciously to keep it within that form. He was trying to create an English mythology that resembled in style the ancient Norse mythologies and fairy tales. The cliches in GRRM's books are more post-modern and draw more inspiration from 20th Century novels than they do ancient mythologies and historical documents. It's pretty clear that, aside from the fact that they both wrote a series sprawlingly epic fantasy books, JRRT and GRRM are nothing alike ... well they both have RR in their name. What's up with that anyway? Just a strange coincidence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I really need a super lightweight version of Fellowship to take with me while backpacking, that would be awesome Kindle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Kindle? I did just get the whole LoTR on kindle recently but I was trying to get my pack down to low weight and didn't want to bust up my kindle either on the trip. iphone kindle app works well though...only problem is keeping the battery usage manageable And yeah, people calling LoTR cliched are pretty ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Tolkien was an innovator, and the majority of people who imitate him have no conception of what makes his works so deep and meaningful. Take his linguistic and literary scholarship, for instance. Tolkien's landmark 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters And The Critics" turned Beowulf criticism on its head, completely altering the pervading academic perception of the poem. If you don't mind your English dry, you can read it here: http://www.english.uga.edu/~jdmevans/Personal/JRRT1936.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Pretty funny how in just the first couple of pages he bends over backwards several times to avoid splitting infinitives, but then leaves a sentence with a flagrantly dangling preposition ("that I have referred to").
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Juaguocio posted:Tolkien was an innovator, and the majority of people who imitate him have no conception of what makes his works so deep and meaningful. Funny thing about this is that as recently as the 80's, if you looked Tolkien up in The Oxford Guide to English Literature and similar places, he'd be listed for his Beowulf scholarship but not for LotR at all. Just like with Beowulf, it took a surprisingly long time for critics to acknowledge the merits of LotR as a story and as literature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I think plenty of people would not call LoTR literature, but I'm not really sure what the definition of literature really is. It's something you can certainly deconstruct and study, and its impact on the fantasy genre is undeniable, and personally I like the writing and story, but I suspect the subject matter wouldn't meet the literature bar for many people. Not a call I'm going to make...I just enjoy reading it and appreciating the results of all the effort Tolkien put into it
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
If LotR isn't literature, then Beowulf isn't literature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I think plenty of people would not call LoTR literature, but I'm not really sure what the definition of literature really is. The best definition I ever heard for literature is "any (written) work that speaks to the human condition." I'll leave the debate open on LotR, but Tolkien's mythology fits in a very long tradition of English pastoral poetry and prose. Just look at Milton's earlier works such as "Lycidas," and you'll see something thematically similar to the early shire parts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
So, I've seen the movies, and I've read the Hobbit, but I've never read the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. However, because I'm already somewhat familiar with Lord of the Rings through of the movies, I decided I'd read the Silmarillion first, because while I've heard a bit about some of the stories(via references and ultra-Tolkien-fan friends), I know a lot less, and I figure reading the Silmarillion will help me get the most out of Lord of the Rings. Also, I'm weird and love religious and mythology-based texts. Is there any advice or things I should know ahead of time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:If LotR isn't literature, then Beowulf isn't literature. Which is, comically enough and as I'm sure you are aware, exactly the argument that Tolkien made his academic reputation refuting. Before Tolkien Beowulf literally wasn't considered literature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:So, I've seen the movies, and I've read the Hobbit, but I've never read the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. However, because I'm already somewhat familiar with Lord of the Rings through of the movies, I decided I'd read the Silmarillion first, because while I've heard a bit about some of the stories(via references and ultra-Tolkien-fan friends), I know a lot less, and I figure reading the Silmarillion will help me get the most out of Lord of the Rings. Also, I'm weird and love religious and mythology-based texts. Is there any advice or things I should know ahead of time? Listen to the Tolkien Professors podcasts on the Silmarilllion as you read it. It is dense and amazing. euphronius fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:So, I've seen the movies, and I've read the Hobbit, but I've never read the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. However, because I'm already somewhat familiar with Lord of the Rings through of the movies, I decided I'd read the Silmarillion first, because while I've heard a bit about some of the stories(via references and ultra-Tolkien-fan friends), I know a lot less, and I figure reading the Silmarillion will help me get the most out of Lord of the Rings. Also, I'm weird and love religious and mythology-based texts. Is there any advice or things I should know ahead of time? First off, you're making a mistake. Second off, I wish I had made that mistake. Third off, good luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
I found the Silmarillion really fun and enjoyable to read because I was really into the world of middle earth. If you also really dig Tolkien's universe then you will probably enjoy it too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 10:14
|
|
