Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

203
Ah, excellent research Foe Hammer ;)

I also think the Balrog had wings. Look at the 1st quote that Turgon got "and its wings were spread from wall to wall" That's a pretty convincing line.
Olorin1 raised a good point though previously. The Balrogs could have been similar to Dragons in terms of what abilities they possessed. Take Glaurung for example, greatest of the Uruloki, he was a fire breather, but could not fly. Perhaps then, there were Balrogs that could fly, and some that could not. What we can be almost certain of though, is that the one which Gandalf bested, could fly, unless it just had wings that were not functional...

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

204
I'm also in the "Balrogs do have wings" camp, but I don't believe comparing them to dragons is a very good idea. I say this because I noticed an error in Olorin's analysis of the topic (forgive me, friend.)

The Balrogs were not given their shapes by Morgoth, they were trapped in that shape simply because they lost their ability to assume any other. Like Morgoth, Balrogs were Ainur though lesser: Morgoth was a Vala, and the Balrogs were Maiar. This much has been established here. Yet, Tolkien was very clear in saying that just like Morgoth, the Balrogs became trapped in vile and hideous forms which outwardly reflected the evil and corruption that consumed them from within. Morgoth's fana, or body, became that of the Dark Lord and he could not change it, and the Valaraukar (Demons of Might - Balrogs) became the demonic creatures that the movie captured quite effectively (to my opinion.) Among themselves, the Balrogs may have had some individually distinguishing features, and perhaps this may have extended to some having wings and others not, but it is still wrong to compare them to dragons. Why?

Quite simply, dragons were a creation of Morgoth, whereas the Balrogs were most certainly not. The Balrogs, like Sauron, followed the Dark Lord out of choice, but he did not make them or give them form.

Dragons, on the other hand, were a creation of Morgoth's twisted breeding pits, and Glaurung, while not quite the first of his species, became the base model for all others that followed. In the case of dragons, a form of twisted evolution can be applied in the sense that we later have dragons with wings, those of Ancalagon's brood, who could nevertheless trace their roots to Glaurung and his land-bound kin. Such was not the case with the Balrogs who were unique Maia spirits and whose forms were not a result of evolution or breeding, but rather one of moral choice.

Because there doesn't seem to be any reason why the Balrogs would be distinctively different from one another (at least Tolkien never indicated so,) and due to their low numbers (5-7,) it is unlikely any of them varied in form in something as major as not having wings.
Last edited by Valkrist on Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Spelling

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

213
Gandalf the White wrote:Heyas all...this Thread I guess it to discuss anything from Middle-Earth(Valinor even!).
Alternate happenings, "What if's", Anything! :D
We have Threads for certain things...but they die out because all has been said, but not this one. Let's keep this one going, keep changing the "topic".

However...what shall we discuss first? :confused2

I thought the whole purpose of this thread was to discuss what ifs and alternate endings.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

219
Most of you have touched on the obvious answer: Sauron would achieve complete and unopposed dominion over all of Middle-earth simply because there would be no one left to contend against him. Yes, he had been stopped once, but the War of the Ring was a pale shadow of the vast armies of the Last Alliance, not to mention the fact that Sauron was going to win even without the Ring, and did not only because the Ring was destroyed. It was made clear several times that they could not have won by force of arms. With the Ring in his possession, he would have made short work of any remaining opposition, moving quickly to crush what's left of Gondor and Rohan, and then Lorien until nothing was left.

As for the question of whether he would eventually assail Valinor, that would be an absolute no. Sauron may have been many things, but stupid was not one of them. His goal was to enslave Middle-earth to his will, not attack the Undying Lands and invite his own certain destruction (or exile.) A single Maia, even with his Ring, would be no contest for the combined might of the Valar, not to mention the fact that he would be going at it alone, because since the bending of the seas, there would have been no way for him to take his armies to Valinor.

Sauron had a history of running from superior forces and of picking his battles when he had clear superiority. In this case, he never would have that advantage, and thus he would be content to rule over Middle-earth undisturbed

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

220
Gilgalad-2490 wrote:Good point I don't think they would intervene in the fate of middle-earth once more.....maybe someone disagrees?
I firmly believe they would not interfere again, unless strictly ordered by Eru himself.

Recall that it took a great deal of time and persuasion before they came to Beleriand in the War of the Wrath, and at that point they had Morgoth to contend with, whom they accepted partial responsibility for as one of their own.

However, the minds of the Valar were ever drawn to the Firstborn (elves,) and once most of them have left Middle-earth by the Third Age, the Valar are little concerned with what happens in the middle lands. The sending of the Istari seems little more than a token gesture to aid the Secondborn (men) against Sauron. Furthermore, the Istari were severly hampered by physical restrictions and forbidden to use their power openly. This alone should tell anyone that after the Numenor fiasco, the Valar were not inclined to be very helpful and would rather continue to isolate and distance themselves from the world of men. Don't forget that their role was merely that of caretakers of the world itself, and that the development of its peoples was largely outside of their jurisdiction. They even argued about bringing the elves to Valinor originally because that might interfere with Eru's plans.

Anyhow, I think that if the Istari had failed and Sauron won, Middle-earth would have became a dark and forlorn place, reft of hope until the end of days when the world was remade. The Valar would interfere no more.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

221
Valkrist wrote:I'm also in the "Balrogs do have wings" camp, but I don't believe comparing them to dragons is a very good idea. I say this because I noticed an error in Olorin's analysis of the topic (forgive me, friend.)

I was hazy on that as I wrote it, but I thought, if I'm wrong, Val will catch it. ;)
Valkrist wrote:As for the question of whether he would eventually assail Valinor, that would be an absolute no. Sauron may have been many things, but stupid was not one of them.

Now there I have to disagree a bit. Yes, Sauron was generally pretty clever in working situations to his advantage, knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, and so forth, but there were at least 2 instances where he was absolutely bone-headed. One was in creating the Ring. He couldn't conceive of the possibility of ever losing the Ring, so he blithely poured the greater part of his power into it. The other instance was that once the Ring was found by someone else, it didn't occur to him that they would try to destroy it. In those mental lapses, he enabled his own destruction.

Or, as the Encyclopedia of Fantasy puts it, "Dark Lords are often surprisingly stupid," and it goes on to give Sauron as an example.

Of course, none of this contradicts your main point--he was not so full of himself as to think he'd stand a chance against the Valar. For that matter, he even backed down when confronted by the King of Numenor, Ar-Pharazon, who was merely a mortal man (with a huge navy).
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

222
I do agree with you assessment of Sauron's two errors in judgment, but I don't really hold them against him as bone-headed moves for the following reasons:

- In the case of creating the One Ring, yes... it may seem in retrospect that it was a very foolhardy thing to do, but the benefit of hindsight is always 20-20. Had Sauron's original plan worked as he had intended, he would not only have enslaved the kings of men, but also of the dwarves. The nine rings worked admirably in that through them it facilitated his complete dominion of the lands to the East and South by enslaving their leaders to his will. With the dwarves, while he did not achieve control of them, he nevertheless brought the Seven Houses to ruin and folly by virtue of the lusty greed awakened in them. By the end of the Third Age, the dwarven peoples were a mere shadow of their former selves, insular and too few to render aid to the humans. In short, his concept of the Ruling Ring was actually quite a clever one and much woe would have befallen Middle-earth far earlier had he not lost it. In fact, the elves were very quick to recognize the enormous threat that the Ring posed, and thus you have the Last Alliance. Lastly, Sauron's own innate power was vastly enhanced by the creation of the Ring. Tolkien stated that though Sauron poured all of his power into it, he was made greater than before by virtue of that act. In Valinor he had been originally a servant of Aulë, and his skill in crafting was surpassed only by his original master. The Ring was a calculated gamble for Sauron, yes, but one I'm sure he knew full well what he stood to gain from if he succeeded.

- The second case is also e xp lained well by Tolkien and many fail to realize this. The nature of evil is very one-sided and its greatest shortcoming is its inability to understand the nature of good. Sauron was limited by his very essence and could not conceive that the other side could possibly think of destroying an object of tremendous power that granted control over others. Because he could only think as evil does, the only possible choice of action that he could foresee was the one that he himself would follow: to seize the Ring and use it. I wouldn't call him bone-headed in this case, but merely limited in his capacity to comprehend thought processes radically different from his own.

That being said, if there is one action for which I do fault Sauron's superior intellect it's in him coming forth during the Last Alliance to confront Gil-galad and Elendil personally. Granted he destroyed them both and his presence was needed if Mordor was to turn the losing tide of the battle, but he took an awful risk and Isildur took advantage of it. I think in this instance he allowed his arrogance to override his common sense and placed himself in jeopardy with disastrous results. He should have just cut his losses that day and retreated into the East as he always did before. With the Ring still his, it would not have been long before he could return at the head of an even bigger army and wiped out the survivors of the Last Alliance for good, thereby achieving his goal 3000 years earlier.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

223
Valkrist wrote:That being said, if there is one action for which I do fault Sauron's superior intellect it's in him coming forth during the Last Alliance to confront Gil-galad and Elendil personally.

That's one I hadn't thought about. It's another case of Tolkien e xp laining things so well that I tend not to second-guess them.

But it raises another interesting question. The forces of the Last Alliance had laid siege to the Dark Tower. The reason Tolkien gave for Sauron's emergence was along the lines of, "the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth." My interpretation of that is that the siege was so airtight and unbreakable that Sauron finally had to emerge to deal with it. If the siege was so tight, how then did Sauron get from the Dark Tower to the slopes of Orodruin, where the final confrontation took place? I always imagined that Sauron suddenly burst forth in a blast of power that scattered the soldiers near the gate and skedaddled across Gorgoroth to Orodruin, where he could maximize the power of the Ring. The other option is that the Mouth pokes his head out and says, "my Master will take your challenge at such and such place at such and such time, and you guarantee him safe passage to the appointed place." I think we know which version PJ would have chosen to film, had he incorporated that part of the story!
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

225
I guess you didn't fully understand Olorin's point... the siege was at Barad-dur, but Sauron came forth to fight at Mt. Doom. There is a considerable amount of distance between the two that not even all the armies of the Last Alliance could fill. The question Tolkien left for us is what exactly transpired between the siege being broken, and that final confrontation on the slopes of the volcano? Either Sauron somehow 'flew' to Mt. Doom and rallied his troops there for a last stand, or he was not inside Barad-dur to begin with, thereby rendering a seven-year siege kinda useless.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

226
The thought of Sauron peering over some hill or ridge at Barad-dur surrounded, alternately snickering up his sleeve at the Alliance's stupidity then fuming that he's missing his favorite TV shows for 7 years is pretty amusing. Not that I think that Valkrist was serious when he suggested that Sauron was anywhere but in the tower, but it's pretty clear from Tolkien that he was, in fact, at home, since he had to "come forth" to break the siege.

But the really interesting thought harks back to Val's earlier comment, that Sauron would have been better off beating a hasty retreat once he broke through the siege. Why didn't he?

We can probably assume it wasn't from an overabundance of honor. Tolkien's baddies are never overly burdened by a sense of honor, that I can recall. If any consideration even remotely resembling honor were involved, it would have been simply to avoid humiliation. Particularly, if Gil-galad and Elendil challenged Sauron to come forth and duel, for him to come out then flee would be awfully hard to live down. I suspect that, like his inability to conceive of losing the Ring or it being destroyed, he was incapable of conceiving that a Man and an Elf could defeat him. Big egos can really be your undoing.

Another question: how exactly was Sauron defeated? Tolkien relates that he killed Gil-galad, then Elendil, but he himself was overthrown. I always took that to mean that he was knocked unconscious or physically incapacitated somehow. Then Isildur grabbed the broken sword and cut off his finger.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

229
Olorin1 wrote: Particularly, if Gil-galad and Elendil challenged Sauron to come forth and duel, for him to come out then flee would be awfully hard to live down. I suspect that, like his inability to conceive of losing the Ring or it being destroyed, he was incapable of conceiving that a Man and an Elf could defeat him. Big egos can really be your undoing.
I don't think a big ego would have been Sauron's demise if they had challenged him to a duel. It would have been well founded, as he would have defeated them both. Only the mightiest of the Firstborn could best Balrogs in combat, so a Noldorin King and a Numernorean King would have been no match for Morgoth's greatest servant. It would have been interesting if they had indeed proposed a dual, just as Fingolfin did with Morgoth, as they would have fallen, and what then...?

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

231
Maybe that is why the book is vague... so people can draw their own conclusion. if you think about it, the 2 scenerios, to me, give complete different aspect to the story.

1st - Sauron was dazed or stunned. this gives me the image of the last alliance pushing forward with a vengeance and sauron had no hope and was going to be defeated.

2nd - Like the movie - Isildur just picking up the broken hilt of narsil and slicing the ring off as Isildur himself was on the ground. This to me, was either a lucky shot, or fluke. Isildur picked up the hilt and swung and cut the ring off.. OR Isildur was planning it all along and wanted Sauron to advance on him and had the whole thing thought through.

Sauron being defeated like in #1 or a fluke/last ditch effort by Isildur, like #2 gives 2 complete aspects of the moment to me.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

233
I do honestly wonder how much of Isildur's attack was premeditated vs. fluke.

Obviously the leaders of the Last Alliance knew the foremost reason they were making war upon Sauron: his growing power due to the One Ring. Certainly Elendil and Gil-galad knew of this, and likely Isildur and Anarion. Seeing his father just killed, still grieving over the death of his brother, and in the fearsome presence of the Lord of the Rings himself, would Isildur have the presence of mind to make a calculated strike aimed at severing the ring finger? Or was that simply the luckiest blow to land in all the history of Middle-earth?

A question for the ages, this one.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

234
It is a very interesting question...


but when i watch the movie, if i was Elrond telling Isildur to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom and Isildur didnt... I woulda done something... the fate of middle earth really rested on that moment... Elrond shoulda shot isildur with an arrow in the head and let the ring and isildur fall into the fires. it may sound harsh, but one man coulda been the reason for the destruction of middle earth (i know it couldnt have been that way, or the movie woulda been like 3 minutes long :) )
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

238
All joking aside, and though I agree Elrond should have been a little more forceful in his demand that Isildur be rid of the Ring, let's consider a few factors here:

- I don' think it was in Elrond's character to do much more than strongly suggest to Isildur that he throw the Ring away before some grief comes to him. He certainly would not commit an act so heinous as to murder him on the spot, no matter what his convictions on the issue.

- Elrond had no way of knowing the future. He knew what the Ring was and what evil it carried inside of it, but no one could have guessed at this time that Sauron was not truly dead and that he would come back a thousand years later to hunt down Isildur's descendants for his Ring. To attack Isildur on speculation alone would be even more wrong than the first scenario.

- The two armies had just lost their respective leaders and were no doubt a little stunned by all that had happened. To have Isildur and Elrond go up to the Sammath Naur, and then have Elrond come back alone would have touched off another war, this one between the two former allies. What was Elrond supposed to tell the humans? "Sorry, your new king slipped on a rock and fell into the fires." ?!?!? I don't think so...

- Elendil and Anarion are dead. Elrond no doubt had to consider that without Isildur, the men of Numenor would be leaderless. After a major war, stability is required. Granted Isildur did die shortly thereafter and the heirs of the two brothers had to take charge in Arnor and Gondor, but again, Elrond had no way of knowing this.

As it stands, what Elrond did (or did not do,) in the book (and movie,) was the only thing he could have logically and realistically done and I don't fault him for that. As I said before, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

239
PS. To Bladecollector's comment that Elrond seemed harsher than the other elves: this is an erroneous perception encouraged by the interpretation of the character as shown in the movie. Book Elrond is far gentler and soft-spoken. He certainly was no pushover and was a warrior in his own right, but any elf that would remain in Middle-earth for over 6000 years in a healing house, granting refuge and help to his people, is not the character of a man that would push another being into the fire or put an arrow into his back.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

240
I stand corrected on Elrond harshness.

I know hindsight is 20/20 and he did know KNOW what would happen, but Elrond did know the evil in the ring and how Isildur was effected from the time he cut it of Saurons finger to the fires of Mount Doom. (the same thing would the happen to Frodo). Heck, If Elrond took the ring from Isildur to destroy it, he may have wanted to keep it.... I dont mean to seem like i am blaming Elrond, he was just the only other person there at the time.

I believe that enough was known about the ring that it should have been destroyed at any cost.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

241
It certainly is debatable. I don't think anyone knew much about the true nature of the One Ring itself except Celebrimbor and Sauron, and neither one was around any longer to give advice. Also, consider that Isildur had only been in the possession of the Ring for a few minutes, or an hour at most. With the exception of Smeagol's murder of Deagol, the Ring was not known to act THAT quickly upon a person, certainly not one of the moral fibre of a man like Isildur. I think the movie exaggerated things a little bit in this respect, trying to impress upon the audience that the Ring was uber-bad, and setting us up for the corrupting power of the Ring throughout the trilogy. Furthermore, there was no precedent for Elrond to guess at this since there had been no previous holders of the Ring up to this point except for Sauron himself.

Lastly, though the movie only shows Elrond and Isildur there, the books tell us otherwise. Cirdan was also mentioned by Tolkien as being present at Mt.Doom when council was taken as to what to do with the Ring, and likely there were others nearby also. Instead of acting like some creepy evil dude like he does in the movie with his sidelong glance and sneer at Elrond, Isildur claims the Ring as weregild, or blood-debt for the slaying of his father and brother. Surely the Ring was already beginning to exert some influence upon him, but with this claim to owed honour and lack of knowledge on whether Sauron had survived, the others could do little but comply to Isildur's claim, he being now the de facto leader of the Last Alliance.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

242
I do have to agree. The movie does show Isildur as being corrupted rather quickly. He may have been unjustly shown as corrupt, only being in possession of the ring for a short time, he may have had honest intentions for the ring. he may have thought the ring gave power to the weilder... good and bad.The time it takes for the ring to take control of the person probably depends on the person... Frodo had the ring for months... Gollum for decades... i dont know how long for sure Bilbo had it.

One thing i am not quite clear on... maybe someone can clearify. OK... at the beginning of the movie, Bilbo has the ring. Gandalf gives the ring to Frodo for safe keeping and leaves for, i believe 10 years and then returns (for non-book readers, a "10 years later" subtitle woulda been nice :) .. shoot date subtitles woulda been cool, to put everything in perspective, time wise)... ok enough sidetracking.... what were the Ringwraiths doing during all this time, it seemed that when Gandalf came back, they were coming with a Vengeance. Was Sauron watching Gandalf and letting him to the footwork without Gandalf knowing. Did Gandalf tell Sarumon about the ring and then Sarumon told Sauron were it was at?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

243
BladeCollector wrote:I do have to agree. The movie does show Isildur as being corrupted rather quickly.

One of the little things that irk me about the movies (and yes, I realize things have to be simplified for movies, but let's not start that discussion again) is how certain characters are made so much less than they were in the books. Isildur is a prime example. In the book, he is a good and honorable man, who has ONE MOMENT of weakness and bad judgment, yet is revered as one of the fathers of the Dunedain millennia later. One of the Argonath pillars is supposed to be Isildur! In the movie, he comes off rather vain and cowardly, not so much from the scene where he elects to keep the Ring, but from the scene where he loses it, riding along rather smugly till he's jumped by the Orcs, then putting on the Ring and splitting. Truly, his biggest responsibility there is to get the Ring out of harm's way, and that's what he tries to do, but if you haven't read the books, it just looks cowardly. This is compounded by how he's remembered later in the conversation between Aragorn and Arwen...remembered only for his weakness. Oh well, at least PJ did the character one favor by having Hugo Weaving voice Isildur's one line, that "no" in the Sammath Naur. Apparently the actor who played Isildur had a high-pitched, whiney voice. It would have been the last straw if Isildur had sounded like Peewee Herman!

BladeCollector wrote: One thing i am not quite clear on... maybe someone can clearify. OK... at the beginning of the movie, Bilbo has the ring. Gandalf gives the ring to Frodo for safe keeping and leaves for, i believe 10 years and then returns (for non-book readers, a "10 years later" subtitle woulda been nice :) .. shoot date subtitles woulda been cool, to put everything in perspective, time wise)... ok enough sidetracking.... what were the Ringwraiths doing during all this time, it seemed that when Gandalf came back, they were coming with a Vengeance. Was Sauron watching Gandalf and letting him to the footwork without Gandalf knowing. Did Gandalf tell Sarumon about the ring and then Sarumon told Sauron were it was at?

Two answers here....

Book answer. Bilbo leaves the Ring for Frodo and departs. Gandalf departs soon thereafter and is gone for 17 years. During those 17 years, Gandalf visits Minas Tirith and learns of the Ring inscription, and Aragorn captures Gollum, and they learn that he's been tortured for information in Mordor. Gandalf returns to the Shire and advises Frodo to set off on his journey, then is summoned to Isengard by Saruman. Gandalf never tells Saruman about the Ring, because he doesn't trust Saruman. Saruman imprisons Gandalf, hoping he'll break down and reveal info about the Ring. Sometime around the time that Gandalf is captive at Isengard (read Unfinished Tales for slightly differing versions of this account), the Nazgul come to Saruman seeking directions to the Shire. They already know the Ring has been in the Shire, because that information was tortured from Gollum. The Nazgul arrive in the Shire and question Gaffer Gamgee about the whereabouts of "Baggins," which Frodo overhears just as he's leaving.

Movie answer. Bilbo leaves the Ring for Frodo and departs. Gandalf departs soon thereafter and is gone an indeterminate amount of time. He visits Minas Tirith and learns of the Ring inscription. Gollum is tortured for information in Mordor. The Nazgul set out for the Shire. Gandalf returns to the Shire and sets Frodo off on his journey, then goes to Isengard to consult with Saruman. Gandalf tells Saruman about the Ring and that it's in the Shire. Saruman imprisons Gandalf apparently to keep him from obstructing Sauron from regaining the Ring. The Nazgul arrive in the Shire and encounter the Hobbits on their journey.

So neither book nor movie suggest it is necessary for Saruman to pass information about the Ring to Sauron, as Sauron already knows that the Ring is in a land called "Shire." It is simply a matter of the Nazgul finding it. You really ought to read the chapter called "The Hunt for the Ring" in "Unfinished Tales." There are a few slightly differing versions of it, so they may not totally agree on sequence of events and so forth, but a fascinating read nonetheless. In one of them, the Nazgul capture Wormtongue and nearly frighten him to death (are you reading this, Grima? ;) )!

But getting back to the earlier comments about why Elrond didn't just hurl Isildur into the Fire (picture Darth Vader with Emperor Palpatine lifted over his head...), beyond the very good, logical, inside-the-story answers that Valkrist gave, there's also the fact that it would have gone against the grain of Tolkien's concept of the complete passivity of the Elves in the Third Age. The Elves have become like a scaled-down version of the Valar, not wanting to take direct action, but rather to withdraw and fade into the background and be forgotten.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

246
Anduril33 wrote:also, im not sure what they are called, the unfinished tales? by christopher tolkien, its that 4 or five book series of books that e xp lain im guessing the backround of the books and even some alterante ideas tolkien scrapted or whatnot. if anyone has these, could you tell me if they are worth getting the whole collection, and if the info it gives about the books is worth it? i think there is a book in there called the "war of the Ring" and "the return of the shadow". a little review of these books would be nice.

also, to start a new topic, what IS the "return of the Shadow"? i heard it was a supposed sequel to LOTR's, is this true? if so, what has been said about it, and why did tolkien scrap it? this would be a great topic to start if anyone knows anything about this.

"Unfinished Tales" was published c. 1980 by Christopher Tolkien. It's a single volume that contains variant, longer, and/or "outtake" stories about Middle-earth, with lucid, thoughtful editorial commentary by CJRT. For anyone with more than just a passing interest in Tolkien, I highly recommend it.

"The History of Middle Earth" is a twelve-volume series published by CJRT over a span of time from the early 80s to the late 90s. It contains essentially every sequence of words ever written by JRRT and not published elsewhere. Eight of the twelve volumes deal primarily with topics covered in the published Silmarillion. Four of the volumes are subtitled "The History of The Lord of The Rings" and comprise early versions of it. "The Return of the Shadow" was essentially a working title for "The Fellowship of the Ring," as it covers the earliest part of the story. Like "Unfinished Tales," the "History" series (all 12 volumes) is heavily commented by editor CJRT.

The final history volume contains "The New Shadow," a single chapter that Tolkien wrote as the beginning of a sequel to LOTR. He abandoned it because he couldn't envision any role for it other than as a thriller. In his view, Sauron was the last visible incarnation of Evil in the world, and with his passing beyond, a sequel could only deal with the wickedness and corruption of mortals, and he didn't care to tell that story. In any case, the story is set over a hundred years after the death of Aragorn (perhaps even after the death of his son Eldarion--there are some variations on this story too), when some unease begins to fall over Gondor....rumors of young people forming cults, pretending to be Orcs, or something along that line. It's been a few years since I read it.

In any case, I'd recommend the "History" series only to the most hardcore Tolkien fans, who just can't get enough. For me, it's sometimes hard to keep the names and events of the Silmarillion straight in my head, let alone reading 8 volumes of constantly changing versions of it. You get the idea....
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

247
Olorin1 wrote: In one of them, the Nazgul capture Wormtongue and nearly frighten him to death (are you reading this, Grima? ;) )!

why wouldnt I :cheers: Though, I belive you may have the time mistaken. I belive when grima was questioned/tortuerd by the ringwraithes when they arrived after the flooding of isenguard, when the nazgul were looking for gandalf. Am I right, or do I have it mixed up?
-wormtongue
Do you have the maniacs, or the schizophrenics, or the astrophysicists in your family?

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

248
Not to get off track.. I just gotta say this is one of the best threads ever.. Nice conversation and discussion without people getting too argumentative (too bad politicians couldnt discuss like this :) )i try and use smilies to show i am in a good mood.... i dont like when people mistake that i am angry or upset, especially on LOTR topics. when it comes to UC forums... i am more of an "e xp ert" in the sword area... but it is fun to talk about LOTR and all the deeper meanings... its a good, friendly place to learn some new stuff, and learn alternate views on what you currently think... great job:thumbsup: :thumbsup: ... two thumbs up
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

249
Grima Wormtongue wrote:why wouldnt I :cheers: Though, I belive you may have the time mistaken. I belive when grima was questioned/tortuerd by the ringwraithes when they arrived after the flooding of isenguard, when the nazgul were looking for gandalf. Am I right, or do I have it mixed up?
-wormtongue

You are VERY mixed up, friend! ;) The Nazgul encountered Grima when they were on the way to Isengard to talk to Saruman and/or Gandalf. This is early in the main timeline of FOTR. The flooding happened near the end of the TTT timeline, at which time the Nazgul were in or near Mordor, preparing for war.

But, I was a little mixed up on something myself, or rather, had forgotten the details. In some versions of the story, Gollum had misled Sauron into thinking that the Shire lay along the northern Anduin, in the land where he himself ahd once lived, near the Gladden Fields. So the Nazgul made a fruitless sortie up there, that cost them weeks. So essentially, Gollum's lie saved Frodo, because otherwise the Nazgul would have arrived before he left the Shire. They learned where it really lay when they waylaid Grima.

These alternate versions of the story are very interesting, but too difficult to try to lay out in a post like this. Like I've said, it's a very interesting read. One notable little fact from it is that apparently, the Nazgul were no longer wearing their Rings--Sauron had gathered them all up. UT uses the phrase "which he himself now held." LOTR proper uses the more general phrase that Sauron was again gathering all the Rings to his own hand.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Pure Middle-Earth discussion.

250
Olorin1 wrote:You are VERY mixed up, friend! ;) The Nazgul encountered Grima when they were on the way to Isengard to talk to Saruman and/or Gandalf. This is early in the main timeline of FOTR. The flooding happened near the end of the TTT timeline, at which time the Nazgul were in or near Mordor, preparing for war.

LOL, thanks for clearing that up, aswell as wasting a post for saying 'thanks for clearing it up.' If I didnt say it, then Id think you guys think Im being rude, but its just that I find it a waste of a post to say 'thanks', or 'thanks for cleraring it up.' Anyways, thanks again Qlorin1 ;)
-wormtongue
Do you have the maniacs, or the schizophrenics, or the astrophysicists in your family?

Return to “Tolkien”

cron