After being a Lord of the Rings fan for many years, I was absolutely shocked when I read the appendices and discovered that while Tolkien portrays the stories as being in English, they are done so only for our benefit. The description he gave about how the term "Hobbit" came from "Holbytla", similar to "Hole builder" only works in English. In Westron, Hobbits are called "Kuduk" coming from "Kûd-dûkan". In fact, Tolkien styles the origin of the stories as a collection of old texts that he found and translated into English. The very same texts that Bilbo and Frodo wrote. I found that amazing.
Yes! It's especially fun because many of the character's names are also "translated" into more English-sounding names with the same meanings and/or evoking similar vibes in English. A fun example is Merry, whose full english name is Meriadoc Brandybuck. But in Westron, the language the Hobbits would've spoken themselves, his real name is described as _Kalimac Brandagamba._ Kalimac is shortened to Kali, which means something like "happy," .... or "merry." It's a literal translation. Another is Pippin. The name "Peregrin" in English is derived from the latin word "peregrinus," a Latin word meaning "pilgrim." But in Westron, he's called _Razanur,_ derived from the words "raza" (stranger) and "razan" (foreigh), evoking the same meaning. The name Samwise Gamgee in Westron is _Banazir Galbasi,_ with "Banazir" meaning something like "simple" or "half-wise." Likewise, "Samwise" is a modernization of the ancient English _samwis,_ which means the very same thing.
@@InGrindWeCrust2010 I guess the connotation is with being enterprising. Pilgrim may be the literal root, but it is also meant to be read as traveller/wanderer.
Something I love about the deeper lore of Middle Earth is that Morgoth didn't originally want to destroy or corrupt anything. He just wanted to genuinely create stuff from nothing like Eru did, and got mad that he couldn't. Hence that great quote from Eru about "Even in my possible defeat I will have won because you are proving my own creations to be great by using them to your own ends"
The issue is that wanting to do that IS itself an extremely grave sin, for it is the desire to be God, a refusal to accept or worship Him as Creator. In fact, it's about the most serious sin possible.
@@CantusTropus I understand Tolkien and you by the way you describe Morgoth`s intent. I am in agreement with you basically 99%. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I was born and Baptised Catholic, and by 11 I refused to go to church, religion class, basically figured out that organized Religion is just as real as Middle Earth. You may disagree. vMorgoth is Satan. He wants his own theme in the Music of the Ainur. Eru shuts him down. Thus he begins his fall. And after he can`t get the power he craves he goes berserk basically. Aule in his own way rebels by making the Dwarves before all other beings . Yet he is humble and he bows and asks if he must destroy them, and takes up his hammer, and Eru sees that the Dwarves cower and already have a free will. They must wait until the Firstborn are come. I also always found it odd that both Sauron and Saruman were Maiar of Aule. I think I lost my thread of thought!! LOL Take care. And please dont think I do not believe in God. I do and ask him for guidance every day. Just not in a Church. On a similar topic, my Grandfather was to go to Seminar and become a priest but then WWII broke and he became a Marine. He was at Guadalcanal, and I believe Tarawa as well. He came home and that dream vanished . I cannot imagine the horrors he saw there.
@@CantusTropus Anybody who wants to be worshipped is an arrogant twat, God or not. Put yourself in the shoes of someone that just created something and is right now looking at their creation in front of them and pondering the question "so, am I gonna tell them to worship me or not?" and you'll get it. I don't wanna be worshipped, even if there were thousands that wanted I would say "no, go home". Because I'm not an insecure idiot, and neither is God. The top people at the medieval catholic church that made up this crap were egomaniacal and insecure and you seem to believe all their crap. Lying is easy, and these people had a control agenda make no mistake. In their minds the church was never about saving your soul, it was all about business - making money and gaining more power, country after country. Secure people do not seek control over others. Besides this worship thing conflicts with God loves you. You can't love someone you actively want to worship you. Don't spend the rest of your life believing in such an idiot God. God is way better than what the church told people (by inserting its made up bullshit passages in certain parts of the Bible, modifying other passages and outright deleting a good chunk like Jesus' life. Most of his life is missing I wonder why, it's not like he had anything more to teach us right - that was sarcasm).
You glanced over something in the council.Bilbo was the one who at first was saying that since he was responsible for finding the ring, it was up to him to destroy it. This to me is crucial as it is what compells Frodo our of care for Bilbo, his father figure to break the silence and find his courage.
Some one probably mentioned this: in translations we use accents as cultural short cuts. The Scottish accent is used through out adaptions, translations, and Shakespeare as a cultural short hand for being a warrior (it is why romans speak Posh english, and the Spartans speak in a Scottish brogue). I believe that is why dwarves sound scottish in the common adaptation
I am constantly amused by the fact that Romans always have an "English" accent in the movies. Wouldn't Italian be more appropriate? But in the modern era, we equate "Empire" with England. So... Cheers!😅😂🤣
And in the English translation I have of the roughly half known to survive of Menander's farce "The Shield", when one of Chaereas' friends takes on the guise of a foreign physician*, the translator gave the supposed foreigner a Scottish accent. * The plan was to take a miserly uncle down a few pegs by staging his brother's death to trick the miser into an embarrassing overreach.
The moment Frodo says he will take the Ring gives me chills every time. Doesn't matter if I'm reading the book or watching the movies, it's just such a powerful moment.
@@wrightsong This is what proves Tolkien's point about the virtue of showing pity, rather than hatred. In Fellowship, when Gandalf tells Frodo they are being followed by Gollum, Frodo wonders why they don't just kill him. Gandalf explains that he should not be killed, but pitied, because one never knows what depths they themselves might fall to and so should not be so quick to judge others, and that Gollum has some role to play. In the end, Frodo choosing to take the ring for himself is what reveals that role - if Frodo had not shown pity and spared Gollum, then Gollum wouldn't have been around to force the ring away from Frodo and fall with it into Mt Doom. Tolkien has said that the original kernel of an idea for the entire story was that he wanted to make that point about pity.
I don't like that it's not strictly Frodo's own choice in the book. It diminishes all his suffering and heroics if it's not through his own choice.... less of a hero and more a slave to fate.
@@SA80TAGE He is a hero precisely because he fulfills the (fatal) fate to bear the ring to doom. While it is almost certainly Eru's urging that is that voice in his head, the description of someone else speaking through him while he only longs to stay put is more a literary device to describe the act of being brave. Brave people are not brave because they never have doubts, they are brave because they do what they must despite them. It is not like Frodo is possessed here and only used as a mouthpiece, he just really doesn't want to die but knows that he has to for the fate of the world. Thus he fights it and it feels like an out-of-body experience ultimately because of the vast inner turmoil.
The fact Sauron tortured or at least spoke to Gollum face to face is quite possible, probable even. I would imagine Sauron would want to be sure he knew everything Gollum knew. After all it was Gollum who knew most about the rings whereabouts and Sauron would not want to risk not finding out everything.
When I read the book, I always just assumed that he did see him in person. I thought it was implied by what he said. I didn't even realize there was any question of that.
Gollum also mentions Sauron has four fingers on his hand, which is another point that he saw him face to face, unless that fact is common knowledge to most people in-universe
"Invented mythology" really is a better term than fantasy (high or otherwise) to describe Tolkien's books, especially The Silmarillion. Thanks for pointing that out.
@@mikesnyder3317 “Low fantasy” is where fantastic elements insert themselves into the “reality” of the story-Peter Pan starts & ends in Victorian London, the Borrowers live in the wainscoting of Edwardian townhouses in Bedfordshire, and (arguably) the Barsoom science fiction stories of Burroughs. They are attached to the real world but they’re not a part of the real world. High fantasy is what Tolkien referred to as “subcreation”. Lloyd Alexander (of the Chronicles of Prydain series) literally invented the term “high fantasy” to differentiate between typical fantasy stories like the Oz books or Pinocchio and the more epic narratives of Tolkien and William Morris. I know that the gaming community has adopted the term to describe “realistic” daily life in a world populated with wizards, monsters, and demigods, but that’s a definition for cooperative storytelling, not fiction. That’s not just a different genre, but a different medium altogether. The terms do not travel.
Another reason that the Arkenstone cannot be a Silmaril (at least to me) is that it was never recognize as such by the elves. At it's discovery, and though it's subsequent history, there were still in Middle Earth many elves (Galadriel in particular for the elves, plus Saruman, Gandalf, etc.) who had lived before the destruction of the Two Trees and had seen the Silmarils before Morgoth stole them. The idea that a Silmaril could re-surface and be unrecognized by these Elves (and most other elves) is to me absurd.
If Bilbo popped up in the elvenking's camp and was like "hey, here's a Silmaril," he would have given Thranduil a heart attack. The dude would NOT have been willing to trade it back to the dwarves in exchange for a share of the treasure too.
@@ianwestc Thranduil’s body literally burns away in the fire of his surprise, and his spirit is sent to Mandos. Feanor: “How did you end up here?” Thranduil: “I beheld a Silmaril, and such was my shock that my spirit fled my body.”
I could easily see the magma/lava that eventually cooled to where the dwarves of the lonely mountain dug it up warped the gem, and then they cut it, making it far less than what it once was. But that is to stretch to fit the silmaril into the role
I usually feel that taking the same characters and same objects and making all your stories revolve around them is truly limiting. Having the Arkenstone be a Silmaril just makes the world feel smaller and less interesting, because there are fewer things of consequence. It was a really bad decision to make all nine of the mainline Star Wars movies revolve around Skywalkers and Tattoine, etcetc, the "oh I know that name!" and "oh we've been here before" gives a momentary rush, but after that, those decisions really degrade your wider universe. Not only does the Arkenstone being a Silmaril not make much sense, but it would really hurt both stories. It's not the decision Tolkien made, and fans are the better for it.
In terms of whether or not Tolkein is fantasy, he definitely re-defined the fantasy genre. These days, authors either write something inspired by tolkein's style, inspired by something that was inspired by tolkein's style, or if you want to get really different and break the mold, then you will write something that's inspired by tolkien's methodology and actually do the work to make your own historically inspired invented mythology.
This is a very, very good list. About Gollum and Sauron: In “The Unifinished Tales”, part 3, chapter IV, there’s a text by Tolkien explaining how Sauron, after torturing and questioning Gollum, lets him go because he senses something indomitable in him, and has Gollum tracked because he expected Gollum to lead him to the Ring. But his spies loses him. There follows something I’ll quote: “Now Sauron had never paid heed to the ‘halflings’, even if he had heard of them, and he did not yet know where their lands lay. From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what he knew he falsified. Ultimately indomitable he was, except by death, as Sauron guessed, both from his hafling nature, and from a cause which Sauron did not fully comprehend, being himself consumed by lust for the Ring. Then he became filled with a hatred of Sauron even greater than his terror, seeing in him truly his greatest enemy and rival. Thus it was that he dared to pretend that he believed that the land of the Halflings was near to the places where he had once dwelt beside the banks of the Gladden.” Since finding the Ring was paramount to Sauron, it makes sense that Sauron was personally involved in the questioning and torture of Gollum. It also story-wise makes Gollum a direct link between Frodo and Sauron. I suppose that Gollum also called Sauron “Master”, grovelled, begged and made promises, all the while keeping his true intentions locked away deep inside. There’s something interesting about Gollum being caught between Frodo and Sauron: Two poles, both using Gollum to their own ends, both being his competitors regarding the Ring, and therefore paths to his ruin, but being opposites regarding their methods and objectives.
Here a small fun fact: In the german version Tolkien made the choice to NOT name elves Elfen (like the translation would be) but Elben (while Tolkien didn't translate the book himself, he was in contact with the translator; originally he wanted Alb but there was already an author who did this out of the same reasons about a century earlier who chose Elb). He did this to further differentiate them in name too from the elves from e.g. Peter Pan.
The same thing happened in the Sebian translation of the book: Vilenjak, vila(pl. vilenjaci, vile) is the word that denotes fairies as we know them from mythologies and fairytales, but the translator used new and unusual variation of the word- Vilovnjak, Vilovnjaci to stay true to the Tolkien's way of writing. Just brilliant! Also, the translation of the ring poem is nothing short of a masterpiece!
Tolkien wrote his books specifically for the English people's, who cares what people translate it to, it was written in English for the English people, sort of like how Muslims claim their qu,ran can only be understood if you can read Aramaic. It's the same thing, who cares about German or any other translation when we have the true word's of Tolkien himself?
@@markbritton6798 how you missed the part that Tolkien worked with a German translator is beyond me. Just goes to show how your gatekeeping is stupid and narrow-minded.
The one about the Undying Lands is indeed bittersweet. I wasn't really sure about the specifics on that one, but I think it's more poignant and beautiful that Frodo and Bilbo earned the privileged to be able to heal in peace before passing on. Just as beautiful and heartbreaking as Gandalf accomplished his mission and is now leaving the world in the hands of men to set up a new age. It's might seem sad, but it's not tragic. Everything has to end and that is not a bad thing.
LOTR isn't fantasy. It's the history of an alternate universe. Tolkien had a secret window into it and rather than just being amused he decided to share it with everyone. Edit: I'm pretty fed up with all the people who think I'm serious. Whoosh
It could simply be viewed as that, for Tolkien portrayed it that way. But...for all the modern fantasy works that come after it, as more or less the children of LotR, Tolkien's work can rightly also be described as proto-fantasy. I was lucky enough to come upon Tolkien's works and Dungeons & Dragons at about the same time, in the 1970s, and spending a lifetime of reading fantasy and roleplaying has shown just how integral Tolkien's creations are to the modern fantasy genre--whether novels, movies, tabletop games, or videogames.
There is a lot of "Meme magic" at hand here too which exposes realworld parallels. ° Saruman was a traitor. ° One of his titles "Saruman of many colors" and he brought Orcs in ° The "Rainbow croud" (of many colors) is bringing people into Europe who will never be good and always do damage until they are gone again
@@FreedomAndPeaceOnly Um, no. Tolkien made it clear he wasn't racist or against multi-ethnicity or immigrants: 1. Human-elf couples were rare, but always special and revered. 2. The Rohirrim were welcomed into Gondorian territory, and even given their land. 3. Hobbits were deeded their land in what was once Arnor by King Elessar. 4. Theoden's wife was Gondorian. 5. Faramir and Eowyn renewed that bond. 6. The supposed 'lesser' humans (Rohirrim) were shown to be more passionate and vital, compared to the staid, set-in-their-ways Gondorians, who were descended from Numenorians. 7. Elves were welcomed into Ithilien. 8. Dwarves were welcomed into the Glittering Caves. 9. Tolkien himself rejected anti-semitism loudly in a letter to Nazis who sought to use his writing as pro-Aryan prior to WW2. Trying a weak connection between Saruman of Many Colors and "the rainbow crowd" just makes you look ignorant and hateful. The Fellowship was a multi-racial group, after all.
@@rikk319 He also states very clearly that he was no fan of allegory. The Lord of The Rings is a story that means itself. He is not making allusions to world war 2, racism or any politics. He is telling a story.
For me, I definitely understand how the Undying Lands would be a perfect place for the Ringbearers to heal. In my own life, after experiencing traumatic events, my biggest desire was always for life to just pause for a bit. For time to freeze and everything to stop changing for a while, so that I could have my chance to breathe and process what I had gone through before getting back on the ladder - before having to confront the consequences of whatever had just happened. I expect it was, as with much of his work, heavily influenced by his traumatic experiences in the First World War, and the desire for respite from the terrors of a rapidly changing and increasingly violent world. For Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, who had lived through such traumatic events as the War of the Ring, or the held the malice of Sauron around their neck for so long, I can imagine a time in an unchanging land of eternal peace, surrounded by music and laughter and light, would have been the most perfect healing they could have ever wished for - a spiritual cleansing. A refuge from the world, and a peace that their own minds would have been unable to provide. I think it's just beautiful.
@@hurricanebubbles likely Elven, and that would mean that Samwise would be reunited with Frodo for a few Hobbit years before passing on, but that they would probably never see Legolas and Gimli.
This is what I love so much about Tolkiens work. I doubt I wouldve ever fully understood what those undying lands represented contextually for the ringbearers, but through your personal expierence its shed a better light on his stories, which I think is so beautiful that it took real emotion and expierence to fully get that. Thank you for sharing your perspective I thought it was very enligtening.
From what I understood, Frodo, Bilbo and the others didn't die after a short time in Valinor, because they stayed in Tor Elessea, an island near it. They lived "for a limited time", limited in the literal sense of the word: they didn't become immortal, but they could decide when to die, after a short or long length of time. So it is possible that they got to see each others again.
Actually, while I didn't know much of the undying lands, the explanation for why Bilbo and Frodo go there is because they have become immortal, in the sense that they will not naturally die, but can be killed, and find their world a poor fit, longing for the simplicity but never being able to return and there was no place else for them. That's why they go there and why they are able to meet the others later
@@Durakken You do not become immortal, simply by entering the Undying Lands. That is just not how that works. The reason as to why Frodo, Sam and Bilbo were allowed to go to Valinor, was due to them having beared the One Ring, and especially Frodo, having suffered greatly. They, in time, would eventually die like every mortal and whose spirits would eventually escape the circles of the world.
@argon2423 I didn't say they went to the undying lands and became immortal. If I had, I probably should rewatch the video where it explicitly says that does not happen. What I was pointing at is that ring barers have their lives extended. Hobbits, from what I remember, have very short lives, but smeagol has been alive for hundreds if not thousands of years. Likewise, Bilbo is, at the very least, aging much slower than normal, leaving us to conclude that while not immortal, ring baring Hobbits live very long lives
I think you made the issue with the two towers sound more simple then it was, Tolkien himself wasn't sure which two towers he meant, he changed his mind a few times. There wasn't a definitive answer. I can't express how happy I was the see my notification for this video. Miss your videos.
True. But there is a good case to be made for Minas Morgul. www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50166/j_r_r_tolkien/1588/the_two_towers#:~:text=II%20refer%20to%20Orthanc%20and,of%20Saruman%2C%20and%20Cirith%20Ungol.
Correct. Right at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, it is written: "The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by Orthanc, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of Minas Morgul that guards the secret entrance to Mordor." However in a 1954 letter that Tolkien wrote to his publisher, he told him: "I am not at all happy about the title The Two Towers. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol. II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading." So yeah, there are five different towers that The Two Towers could possibly be referring to. Confusing. Thanks to Saelind for the info.
@@tolkienuntangled Far be it from me to dismiss the Professor for nitpicking. . . but Minas Morgul and the Tower of Cirith Ungol are close by enough, and united enough in their purpose, in my view to be considered part of the same fortress/tower system, like, say, Narchost and Carchost. They both guard the pass of Cirith Ungol and their garrisons even engage in joint operations to that end, though Minas Morgul also guards a rather easier nearby pass through the Mountains of Shadow. Also, if we were supposed to consider the Tower of Cirith Ungol on its own, it really ought to have been given a fully Sindarin name :P
@@zimmerwald1915 Your last paragraph demonstrates your depth of knowledge. It does however omit the paramount truth that JRRT passed well before he could bring definitive completion to not just this particularity of his mythos but sadly, to so much of magnum opus. Logical Fallacy.
Huh, I didn't know that, that Tolkien himself wasn't entirely sure which two towers he himself was referring to. It's entirely possible that the name of the book came from his editor, too, as the LotR was originally just one massive manuscript, later broken into three, which I'm sure you know. For myself, I've legit always thot that "The Two Towers" being referred to were the towers of Barad Dur & Orthanc. Since the second book is where the whole Saruman part of the story takes off, & rly Orthanc became to Sauron a projection of his power deep into Middle Earth, & the two towers - & by extension their masters - were linked by their Palantiri, making them essentially a unified front against the good races organizing, etc. Just look at the chaos he (Saruman) wrought in Rohan & Edoras. Anyway, this comment got too long, but I'm gonna leave it. Cheers.
Good video but I think another common misconception people have is that “pipe weed” is basically marijuana, when the appendix makes it pretty clear that it’s more like tobacco. Edit: To further rain on everyone’s parade, even if it was marijuana, whatever strain they were smoking must have been SUPER WEAK. We never see the Hobbits cough after inhaling and their eyes never get bloodshot.
Yeah, one of the few forgivable things from Jackson. The fact is, for past 20 or so years, pot is more acceptable on screen than tobacco. Unless it's rare or ironic, smoking a cigarette is a good way to get an "R" rating. Plus, in the States, pot is mostly legal (minus the dumb Federal law against it).
@@wilhufftarkin8543 It's the way they classify the substance. The Feds rate marijuana the same way as they rate heroin (highest danger), so it's treated that way. By the FEDS. Meanwhile, about 40 States or so treat it as mostly medicine (which it basically is). The USA needs to decide if the United States IS, or ARE, if you get me. State laws vs. Fed laws is bonkers and I certainly can't justify it.
Here’s one train of thought I enjoy as a fan of languages: A well know name of a river in Tolkien’s works River Running or “Running River”, translated into Norwegian: Rennende Elf. Put a few centuries on that it would probably become something like Rennendelf or perhaps even Rinnendelf. Perhaps morphing to Rivendel? Tolkien must have had quite some enjoyment with his knowledge of language.
@@john.premosethis actually relates to the fact that Rivendell is an English translation of the "original" Westron text. Rivendell's Westron name is Karningul which roughly translates to "deep valley" which is the same as the Sindarin name Imladris.
I haven't read the books, but my favourite moments of Gimli's in the films is when he comes across as experienced and urbane. _"Give me your name, horse master, and i shall give you mine."_ There are only a few moments like these, but to me they convey a greater sense of wisdom than any other cast member.
Thank you for this. I had forgotten that Elrond hadn't summoned any of the Council, and it's nice to hear someone sticking up for the dwarves. Some of them (including Gimli) were richly emotional, but Legolas was actually much more likely to provide comic relief than Gimli and the hobbits most likely of all. I end up kind of torn on that issue. On one hand, it is enjoyable within the movies, on the other, the film-makers are kind of poking the same fun at the dwarves as Tolkien shows the sylvan elves doing. Which really annoyed the dwarves because they *did* take themselves so seriously.
i think the bickering in the Peter Jackson's council were a great way to show the malevole influence of the ring (because IT IS dificult to show how an object could be evil by itself). thanks for the video!
I think it was probably the best way to put it to screen without spending an absurd amount of time explaining everything. The films really streamline a lot of the lore, they could have made an entire trilogy explaining the lore of the world which would need to be explained for audiences to understand how a ring is evil. They never really get into maiar or illuvitar or anything of that nature in the films, as interesting as all of the stuff is, it's not really relevant to the story being told. Those of us who already know the lore will find the story far more interesting because we know why things are happening, but most people just wanted to watch some movies and they were still given enough information to make it enjoyable.
Little correction - Rumpelstiltskin is NOT a dwarf. Nor is he any kind of humanoid. He is a Schrat, a sort of... Germanic nature spirit. Think Kodamas from japanese folklore, or Leshen from slavic. Usually these are actually spirits that inhabit a constructed totem, rather than having their own body - that's also why Rumpelstiltskin can tear himself apart in the end of the story, he's literally a spirit inhabiting a wooden doll.
That puts a whole new spin on why he wanted the Princess’s first-born child after helping her spin straw into gold for a third time. Maybe to obtain a body to possess? Yeesh! 😬
Very interesting. That would explain his name, "Rumplestiltskin", which literally means "little rattle stilt", a stilt being a post or pole that provides support for a structure. So in the original, unwritten story, he likely began as a protective family totem (sort of like a domestic version of a "Palladium" or graven image...similar to the palladium of Pallas Athena). A bundle of sticks fashioned into a small humanoid-shaped figure, that became possessed by a trickster spirit, became noisome, and attempt to trick the mortals into providing him a suitable body to possess.
My two favorite misconceptions: 1. Isildur didn't defeat Sauron by cutting the Ring from his hand (as in the film). Gil-galad and Elendil first defeated Sauron in direct physical combat (both perishing in the act), *whereafter* Isildur cut the Ring from his hand as weregild for their deaths. Tolkien is very vague about the account, so I can understand the difficulty of portraying it in the film. But it's unfortunate that a lot of this kind of sheer epicness of the ancient past of Middle-Earth is lost in adaptation. The further you go back in ME history, the more incredible the feats of its participants. 2. The Common Tongue isn't English This one is obvious if you stop and think about it, but the vast majority of people just don't think about it. If this is a story in the ancient past of our world, clearly modern English can not possibly be the same as the Common Tongue of ME. So, technically what we are reading as The Lord of the Rings is a translation. (Some of the tidbits of actual Common Tongue words that Tolkien revealed are really strange, too. Very interesting.)
2 is actually up for serious debate. Texts in Sindarin, and Anudanic tend to at least have they're original structure and vocabulary provided in their portrayals, Westron doesn't have any of that. It lacks grammar, or a script, and was so underdeveloped Tolkien literally just gave up and inscribed Balin's Tomb in Moria by directly translating English into Cirth Runes
On the note of number 2. There's far more to it, you'll notice that Tolkien says first that they will grow 'weary' sooner. This is the same word that Tolkien uses when describing Elves in Middle Earth. Tolkien is very particular with his words, and there's a meaning there. A mortal will find that all the other creatures hardly change over his life span. This is because the Undying Lands are static, they do not change. Elves, designed with their immortality in mind, do excellently in the Undying Lands, where things don't change. They grow 'weary' in Middle Earth because of how rapidly things change. Even long-lived Numenorean Kings were too short for them, and caused immense stress on those elves familiar with them. The first time that a man died among Elves they were confused, and incredibly hurt as they didn't understand what it meant. Similarly, mortals can't live in the Undying Lands without growing weary of nothing changing. The land is not meant for them, and they are to move beyond Arda. They need change to exist. This is also why mortals were not allowed in the Undying Lands. For while looking upon it would make a mortal always long to return, living there would cause Man to destroy it just for the sake of change. Though it is important to note that while the Ringbearers go to the undying lands, it doesn't tell how long it would take for their spirits to heal. Bilbo described himself as feeling stretched thin. This is because the ring does the same thing it did to the Ringwraiths, it bound his spirit to the world. The ringwraiths have no physical form, and must inhabit their robes because they are naught but spirit now, forcibly bound to remain in Arda despite being called to venture beyond as is the 'Doom' of Man. Who knows how long it would take for their spirits to be healed enough of the damage caused by the Ring for them to move on as they are supposed to.
this is basically the only mortal/immortal dichotomy ive seen that seemed like both sides were kinda good tbh. i get that not joining with eru or whatever probably sucks but immortals have eternity to learn how to cope with it and enjoy living. and dying and being mortal does suck but at least you get to, idk merge with god or something. usually one option is very clearly much better than the other but in this i could see how both an elf and a human could envy each other.
@@maxsync183 "One option is very clearly better than the other" : Well, depending on whether you think as an elf or as a man, you could have your entire country sunken if you plan to get the other option
I love so many little things in your video .. the dramatic way you count the numbers, how you get so into side topics, and the great art you find. 11 outa 10 .. another great video I watched start to finish and even re-watched sections
I think they ruin the minds interpretations of stories that are conjured in the mind, i had to read the silmarillion a few times over time before i really started to get interested after which i read everything i could get by tolkien, & their not as all knowing as comments suggest they are. good luck with the re runs but re read the books, instead of watching what is heresay after all
Really appreciate your treatment of Luthien. She is perhaps the preeminent being in all of Middle Earth history, being the blending of the most noble Elf blood and Maia through her father and mother and rivaling the likes of Feanor or any of the Maiar in both power and beauty. And she ultimately shared the fate of Men. She alone can represent all of Illuvatar's creation in a single person. She had less raw power than the Valar (of course). But she was probably more powerful than any Elf that ever lived and on par with any Maia. With the help of a wolf hound, she defeated Sauron and cursed him and cast him out of his fortress and took control of his island and cleansed it, and she faced Morgoth directly within his throne room in Angband, and wove a song spell to put Morgoth and his whole host of dark captains to sleep. Most Elves and Numenoreans that came after her lived in awe of her and revered her. Her choice to "become" mortal likely caused a collective "WTF - how did she do that?" from all wise beings of Middle Earth. It was her setting the precedent that presumably opened the door for her direct decedents to do the same.
I love luthiens story- it hurts to know that more people wont ever get to know her,, but definitely on a more important level i think the movie/tv series industry needs to stop throwing out fake crap and start actually respecting Tolkiens work. The hobbit trilogy and rings of power were a laughing stock
It wasnt her pure power or spell tho. Morgoth would have crushed her easily but he was stunned by her beauty. He immediately started desiring her and started daydreaming about breaking and defiling her. During that she struck with her spell at distracted dark master. Her beauty was desribed as her most deadly weapon. How did she defeat Sauron though? I cant remember that other than fact that she cleansed his werewolf island/tower. I remeber Finrod Felagund losing to Sauron in duel of spell and song. I remeber that mighty dog Huan helping her a lot but I cant remember her duel with Sauron
Also when she wore Silmaril on her neck, not one of Sons of Feanor dared to claim the said Silmaril. Only when she died, Sons of Feanor moved against others to possess that Silmaril. They were afraid to try and kill Beren and Luthien knowing that it would be against Iluvatar's will. And their accursed Oath depended on the will of Iluvatar to be fulfilled.
Well they sorta did. They showed that the connection was made and that Sauron saw Pippen. Might not have specifically sais they saw each other. But it did happen.
This was amazing, thank you! I'm the Tolkien nerd in my house and when I told my boys about the origin of the Dwarves and how they were tied to Middle Earth because of their origin and only the kindness of Iluvitar gave them real life but no one knows their fate... well, they cried. Also the fate of mortals in the undying lands - but death is referred to as "the gift of Iluvitar", so...get comfortable with mystery. I see Tolkien as Philosophy more than Mythology but that is just me. :)
I would like to defend the use of "cousin" in the case of Sméagol and Déagol: typically is assumed to be first cousins, but second cousins, third cousins etc. can all be covered under the umbrella "cousin". As you say in the video, since they are from a supersmall community everybody there is related, so calling somebody that is not direct family a cousin would probably be valid.
This was my thought. If you're going to go as far as to say they were probably related, simply by nature of the enmeshed and sheltered community they most likely lived in, then cousins is the most likely relationship, simply because it's going to be the one that the highest number of the population shared. Of course there's also the likelihood of being related in more than one way, but cousin is the one you're going to fall back on.
Tolkien often referred to LotR as a "romance": "Here is a small consignment of 'The Ring': the last two chapters that have been written, and the end of the Fourth Book of that great Romance,..." Letter 91 "Evidently I have managed to make the horror really horrible, and that is a great comfort; for every romance that takes things seriously must have a warp of fear and horror, if however remotely or representatively it is to resemble reality, and not be the merest escapism." Letter 109 "I sometimes conceive and write other things than verses or romance!" Letter 113 "My work has escaped from my control, and I have produced a monster: an immensely long, complex, rather bitter, and very terrifying romance, quite unfit for children (if fit for anybody); and it is not really a sequel to _The Hobbit,_ but to _The Silmarillion."_ Letter 124 "They wanted a sequel. But I wanted heroic legends and high romance. The result was _The Lord of the Rings."_ Letter 257 "My work is _not_ a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature." Letter 329 et.al.
Yes, absolutely. Although it’s important to remember that Tolkien used the word romance in the medieval literature sense, not what we think of today, with a meet cute and a happily ever after. Gawain and the Green Knight was a romance, for instance. Classically, they were full of heroes on quests doing chivalrous things and defeating evil. Which pretty much sums up Frodo trekking to Mt Doom and destroying the One Ring and thereby Sauron.
Just so you know, 'Established Titles'is a (legal) scam. They cannot grant legitimate titles and they do not transfer ownership of any land. The small print on their website does admit this, which is what keeps it legal. However, you are buying precisely nothing - save your money and pretend for free.
I just want to take a moment to appreciate the best rant on calendars I have ever heard. I'm totally converted and am one hundred percent behind you on this.
As far as the Elves being "unemotional", that is definitely not borne out in the writings. However, being immortal they did have a certain detachment or perspective not commonly found in mortal species. As Legolas comments in Fangorn, "This place is old, I feel young here as I have not felt since traveling with you children" (I may have the wording wrong but something to that effect). Which seems odd since both Aragon and Gimili were full adults till one realizes just how old Legolas was compared to either of them. I don't think this line made its way into the movie as in would have seemed very incongruent for Orlando Bloom to say that to Viggo Mortensen and John Rhy-Davies.
I always found the question of the personality of someone who was immortal very interesting. As an older person, I think Tom Bombadil is probably the most realistic role model, since as I age I find that things in general bother me less. It's a kind of "seen it all before" feeling. At the same time, I imagine an immortal person would be more likely to attempt something that would take a long time, since time is no object. For example: Writing world history, scientific (or, in fantasy, magical) research, playing musical instruments ,etc.. This might lead to different personalities, such as a scholar that finds things like emotion a worthless distraction, resulting in them being vulcan-like. Of course, it all depends how memory works. Human memory is poor even over our brief lifespans, so what would the memory of an immortal be like? Imagine if they only had about the same mental capacity as a human, so that they've forgotten way more things than they currently know.
A very interesting thought/question. I recently reread the Silmarillion and it struck me how, for thousands of years, most elves have about as much impulse control and emotional regulation as a human teenager. Which reminds me of a Terry Prachett quote which says that the problem with immortality is; that to be perpetual/immortal means you can't change, and if you can't change, you can't learn. - Obviously this is not directly applicable here, but it makes me wonder if that's why elves seem to take so long to emotionally mature, and why Elrond seems hardly more that middle-aged and only the very oldest we meet, like Galadriel, are not bothered by most petty things anymore as you describe above?
Great as always! I was loudly saying yes when you mentioned the emotionless elf trope. It's so annoying! Elves are supposed to be silly and joyfully and sentimental and ethereal. Like a ray of sunshine or a chirping bird or like a sorrowful rain. They are mostly much too wise to be stoic or cold.
The first point we meet the elves in The Hobbit book, they're singing a song about how Bilbo is fat and the dwarves' beards are absolutely ridiculous. So yeah, not that stiff and serious indeed, although the Hobbit was written in a time when his middle earth writing was a bit on the lighter and more whimsical side, something he would certainly reduce.
Seems like somebody is confusing Vulcans (Star Trek space elves) with Tolkien Elves huh? I actually didn't notice that. I can imagine that the Wood Elves might be the fun-loving ones, and the Noldor being more taciturn because they'd committed a horrible sin just so that they could become the top of the races Sauron and Morgath were determined to destroy. And they were shown over and over again that fighting this was futile, at least against Morgath.
In terms of elven emotion, we must not forget the elven king and queen in Shakespeare's "a Midsummer Night's Dream", tvtropes has an extensive page about "The Fair Folk" in various stories and traditions, yet somehow fail to mention famed musical theater stories such as "Swan Lake" and "Elves Hill".
I think that "the emotionless elf" trope mostly stems from the race of Noldorin elves, who were proud and haughty. With good reason, too. They rebelled against the Valar, fought Morgoth, established the mightiest realms in Middle Earth and created the most beautiful and magical objects, including the Silmarils and the RIngs of Power.
I really enjoyed how you explained the differences in motivation between Morgoth and Sauron. Just because they had a master/squire relationship, does not mean they had the same motivations. I’ve always thought of the two in DND terms (oversimplified of course): Morgoth is Chaotic Evil Sauron is Lawful Evil
A great example of this is how Galadriel's attempt to appeal to Sauron was ultimately pointless: he saw no difference between saving the world and what he intended to do with it.
One idea I've had, regarding the Arkenstone/Silmaril connection, is if the Arkenstone is somehow a "rough draft" as it were, of the actual Silmarils. Only reason behind the idea is from the rings, as the elves made some lesser rings first as "essays in the craft" (AKA, they needed to grind their rings of power smithing skill until they could unlock the perk to craft the Great Rings), and it made me think that the Arkenstone could be a similar idea.
Number 2 had really strong meaning to me. Specifically the image of Legolas helping the very old Gimli. It reminds me of the deeply bittersweet sorrow of watching a pet you'd loved and raised their whole life grow old and die while you are left to care for them in their growing frailty and ultimately, to carry on without them.
@johnbraithwaite863 maybe 4th or 5th cousins. But this is probably a society where the only choice for a spouse is a relative. Deagol definitely looks inbred.
With all the frustration I've felt in the last year or so as a self-confessed Tolkien purist, finding this video and this channel with its unerring celebration of the accurate minutiae of the original work has been a great joy. Thank you!
one thing i noticed with Tolkien, if u miss 1 page you could miss so much, info on the weapons made by elves & dwarves, i have noticed some chapters have the most interesting data, for eg we hear of weapons made by Telchar the dwarf smith & improved upon by the elves such as Narsil & the helms & masks one of which is Turins, but miss that page you'll be confused later, a clue you say? "Children of Hurin! be sure to read every page!
I think in polish language we have some beautiful months names. April - Kwiecień - (Month) of Blossoms July - Lipiec - (Month) of Lime September - Wrzesień - (Month) of Heather November - Listopad - Falling Leaves
Polish month name of July / Lipiec actually stands for the Linden Tree (Lipa), not Lime. Also December (Grudzień) implies chunks of ice or frozen mud (grudy). And June (Czerwiec) is an insect name for a nasty little critter, Polish Cochineal, which had once been used to produce crimson dye. "Czerw" literally means Maggot or Grub. August (Sierpień) implies the summer harvest season. "Sierp" means Sickle, obviously used for cutting & collecting crops.
@@volbla well that's the "new" way of naming months in Japan, the traditional names were explanatory like in the Polish case. Mutsuki (睦月) / January Kisaragi (如月) / February Yayoi (弥生) / March Uzuki (卯月) / April Satsuki (皐月) / May Minazuki (水無月) / June Fumizuki (文月) / July Hazuki (葉月) / August Nagatsuki (長月) / September Kannazuki (神無月) / October Shimotsuki / November (霜月) Shiwasu (師走) / December Since the old calendar were based on lunar (like most old calendars) it doesn't exactly match up with the time of todays months.
Always find it funny when it's mentioned that in english culture before Tolkien, elves were just little people or Santa's friends, while up here in Iceland, we've always had Tolkienesque Elves, called Huldufólk. When I first read Tolkien, I just immediately found the elves really familiar because they felt just right out of the Icelandic folklore I grew up with.
My first copy of LOTR was a single paperback, 1076 pages long, and was the 14th impression published in 1974. It is by far the most satisfying way to read the work, having the whole story in one's hand throughout. I still have the copy, I just wish I could still read from it, but alas, it is now falling apart from frequent use! I am now obliged to read three separate books, as though they were three individual stories!
You can imagine my chagrin when, after hearing good things about Tolkien and checking The Fellowship of the Ring out of our local library only to realize at the end that it was the first part of a trilogy and the subsequent books were not in the catalog. I had to buy the unauthorized paperbacks to finish the story.
One thing I’ll note is that while it’s entirely up to interpretation, I’m of the opinion that the Ring was the one that compelled Frodo to take the quest to Mordor, seeing a halfling as the most likely to fail, especially one that has already been in possession of the Ring for a prolonged time. Thematically, it fits well with evil being self destructive, and the tendency for beings of power either overlooking or underestimating the smaller things. Also, the idea of Ilúvatar intervening to that degree robs the characters of their agency. I’m not denying that this was Ilúvatar’s grand plan, but I don’t believe He was micromanaging characters and events down to an individual level to achieve His goal. “Why fear the consequences of failure if God Himself has ordained that they succeed” is my point of view. I’ll also admit to ascribing to Death of the Author, and having a significantly different outlook on religion than Tolkien. I’m not saying another interpretation is wrong, or trying to change anyone’s mind on their own interpretation, but I do want to take the opportunity to respectfully state my own interpretation, wether it had been the author’s intent or not. And of course, I still have respect for Tolkien’s intent, even where my interpretations are in direct conflict with it. Literature, like all art, is inevitably subject to the interpretations and biases of the audience. It’s a testament to Tolkien that his works are flexible enough to support as many different interpretations as they do.
I fully agree with you. I prefer an interpretation that does not lean on the idea of a sort of Divine Design. I respect that the idea may have brought comfort to Tolkien; but it's not a concept that works for me. I therefore find the story more powerful when it's forefronting the characters' agency, like Frodo's decision (?) to take the Ring to Mordor. Or even, the point made clear that Bilbo's long-ago moment of mercy, in deciding against killing Gollum, would ultimately be instrumental to the Ring's doom. I understand the objection to the way the movie portrays (and thus cements in many viewers' minds) the idea of Elrond calling the council, rather than the idea that these folks are all there by chance, or fate. As with so many other things, I think it's a change made more for the clarity of film storytelling than anything else. (Which, I know some people object to; some more strongly than others!) Yes, the films could have established separate reasons for Gloin and Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir to be there; but I can understand why they streamlined it. I do think it does good to remind folks that it's done quite differently in the books, though.
@@gryphonvert Admittedly, the way Tolkien handled the assembly of the Council, only Boromir seems to’ve made the journey as a response to intervention from a higher power. Gloin and Gimli were in Rivendell to visit Bilbo, whom they have a strong relationship with, and Legolas was there to report the escape of Gollum, which was important information, so while higher powers may have intervened with the timing to produce the results, it was done in a much more subtle way. While I can understand why the film’s Council felt underwhelming, I also understand the necessity of condensing all of the reasons for why the characters were present to a simple invitation in the movies, and think the reason for it should be stressed. As The Hobbit hadn’t had a film at that point, introducing Gloin would’ve taken away screen time from more important events as well as violating the rule of “show don’t tell” to have actually justified why a character the audience has not met would travel unfriendly roads to see Bilbo, all when Gloin doesn’t make a reappearance. Legolas’ trip to bring the news of Gollum’s escape would’ve required establishment that Gollum had been caught and held in Mirkwood, as well as Barad-dûr, which also would’ve taken time away from more direct elements, when Mirkwood doesn’t appear at all in the trilogy. But I do wish that Aragorn had been the one to give the hobbits the Barrow Blades, explaining that the Dunedain had made them to combat the Witch King specifically, because the way the movies handled the Witch King’s defeat implies that Merry and Éowyn won on the sole merits of not being adult human males, instead of having a weapon that anyone can just pick up, but takes an extraordinary amount of courage to use against its intended foe. “No man can kill him” has a very different meaning than “not by the hand of man shall he fall.” If no *man* can kill him, I’ll just train an army of feral badgers.
I agree. I also think Iluvatar being that much involved would make limiting the power of the Istari pointless. If the idea was to make the Istari a helping hand for the free peoples to ultimately help themselves, then Iluvatar's far-reaching intervention would not only undermine the Council's agency but also that of all of Middle-Earth. But the purpose of Iluvatar's and the Ainurs' song is to create a world where the Flame Imperishable, free will, can triumph over the evil discord of Melkor. And that only works if the Supreme Being lets his creations enough "room to breathe".
While I really like the idea of a higher power having more presence in the story, I prefer Frodo's offer to take the ring in the movie over the way it was described in this video - I agree with you about the characters being robbed of their agency, and also, I really love that line (and decision) as a character moment for Frodo. It's clearly a gargantuan task, and he even expresses that he wishes it wasn't his burden later on (in the movie at least), but his understanding of just how important it is that the ring gets to Mordor is perfectly highlighted by him speaking up, and especially speaking over characters that have chosen to argue instead of think rationally. It ties in perfectly to the theme of the movies, that it's up to small, simple hobbits to save Middle Earth because of how much of a danger corruption is - there are so many things, like the hobbits defying expectations, Aragorn redeeming his bloodline by accepting his place among men while fighting for Middle Earth, Legolas and Gimli putting aside their prejudice to join forces and eventually becoming friends, that make unity one of the biggest themes in the movies, and it all relies on the characters choosing to do what they know they have to, even if the decisions are hard ones, or ones they didn't expect to make. Frodo's decision is the first of these that hits me every time I watch. And when I say "in the movies", it's because I haven't read the books, these points could very well be just as significant in the books.
It's very clear in the book. The Ring knows Frodo can't destroy it (as Gandalf had encouraged him to throw it in the fireplace, so he tried his hardest and put it in his pocket). When Frodo accepts the burden he's surprised by his own willingness, as though another voice is working through him. He does want to help, and The Ring seizes the opportunity to get closer to its master. When he sat on the high throne at Amon Hen while wearing the Ring, he looked toward Mordor and despite his personal aversions he felt his thoughts twist into 'Verily I come, I come to you' until another voice (Gandalf from afar) compelled him to take it off. Then at the end when Gollum attacks Frodo on the path up Mount Doom, Sam saw with othersight Frodo as a white figure with a wheel of flame on his chest. From the wheel came the curse (paraphrasing) 'Touch me again and be cast you yourself into the fire'. Later, The Ring's power compelled Gollum to fall in, but he happened to be holding it. Evil destroys itself.
Just love the fact that as you started to mention that not all elves are outright cheerful, I felt everyone watching the video somehow exclaiming as one voice, "Faenor" for some reason xD
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the work NOT being a trilogy. I was fortunate enough to be loaned the paperback edition which was in one fat volume by a colleague in university. She recommended it and once I got used to the 1st chapter ( and caught hook line and sinker by the 2nd - Shadow of the Past ) I read it in every spare moment and finished it in about a fortnight. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life, up to that point and I then went out and bought the hard back edition which was, alas, in 3 volumes. I agree that the division into three, although a practical help at the time of publishing, is not the best way to present it nowadays. Tolkien's divisions are obviously better all round.
Agreed. I have a big ol' "omnibus" version, and it's so much better to smoothly go on to the next part of the story instead of having to open up a whole new book; because it really doesn't feel like three separate books.
45:30 thank you for mentioning that tolkien had immense knowledge of both anglo-saxon, celtic and old norse. he also based one of his languages on finnish, as far as i remember, because it was his favorite language in the real world and as such he drew a lot of inspiration from the Kalevala. (finnish mythology) with the dwarves and their names they are very obviously with reference to norse mythology.
53:00 - You know, by complete coincidence, when I first read The Lord of the Rings (after seeing the first movie), it was in a one-volume edition, and that's how I most strongly remember it. It wasn't on purpose, it was just because that was what the school library happened to have on hand. But it really did help my first experience with it. I remember reading the separate volumes later and thinking, "Wait, Fellowship ends THERE?" and I had this whooooaaaa moment where I finally really understood Tolkien's correction of the "trilogy" label in the foreword. LotR really does make a lot more structural sense when taken as a singular novel.
Thanks for a wonderful episode of Tolkien Untangled. When you got to the part about the Arkenstone I was laughing (while I was painting furniture, which isn't good!) because it basically described my experience with that theory: 1) After reading it for the first time, "Wow! That is so cool! The Arkenstone is a Simaril. I never thought of that!"; 2) Wakes up in the middle of the night thinking, "Wait a minute, does that make sense? What about blah, blah, blah and yada, yada, yada in The Silmarillion?"; 3) Gets up the next day, pulls The Silmarillion off the shelf, flips pages, reads and whispers, "Damn it ... that would have been awesome." I also want to comment on the Shire Reckoning Calendar. When you first started in with the "Tolkien did it better schtick" I gave you a bit of an eye roll. As much as I respect the Professor's work, and I do consider myself a fan, I refuse to genuflect at the "alter of Tolkien". While no one has accomplished what he has with world building, he was hardly perfect as a storyteller (I mean, the list is long). But after listening to what you had to say about his calendar, I think I agree with you! Tolkien's calendar is way better than ours and someone should get going on that "act of tyranny". Just saying. Additionally, I have learned a lot from your analysis of Sauron's character. I find myself thinking about it more frequently than I care to admit. I'm not disagreeing with your analysis at all; it makes Sauron so much more interesting than my limited understanding of him over the last 30 years. But how do you reconcile your analysis with this line from The Silmarillion: “In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself.”? And finally, I agree with you, Fëanor wasn't a psychopath ... he was a narcissist.
The Arkenstone is most definately not a silmaril Jeez some of you will believe anything, read the silmarillion & a host of other storys that describe them & its obvious. The silmarils shine with the light of the trees of the valar. its like comparing a torch with a 1000 watt sodium lamp
Ever since I first read LOTR around forty years ago I've held the opinion that even though it's fiction it's HISTORY. There's something about it that just rings true and I can't quite put my finger on why. Perhaps it's because it's not the stereotypical 'happy ending'. So much that was great was lost to defeat Morgoth and Sauron. Sure, good won, but at such a terrible cost that the world will be forever less than it was. I had a similar feeling briefly during one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies when Jack Sparrow said "The world is the same size, there's just less in it."
This sounds more like valuing of the quality of the fantasy, than it being history, unless I'm misunderstanding. I would also suggest lotr displays the stereotypical happy ending more than a lot of modern fantasy who approach it less as an epic, and more as a 'realistic' or even cynical story.
Yes, I've been binging on Tolkien videos lately, just clicking on whatever comes up in the feed, and Tolkien Untangled has the most interesting, in depth, and scholarly videos.
I would like to believe that Elrond gave his twin brother a hard time for his choice to be mortal. As loving brothers can jest with each other about even the worst of situations, it might have been in Elronds humor to refer to Elros as “old man” or something.
When you talked about how Frodo would be dead by the time Sam got to the Undying lands I think that is untrue. When you read that a mortal sailing there would last only a half a year at most, they may be referring to how long a year is in the language of the Elves that live there which you noted would be something like 144 of our years. In that case sure, a mortal might only live a half of that Elf year (77 years) but that doesn’t speed them to their death, it is all subjective to the language used and not relative to what part of the world they are in. Therefore Sam should still be able to see Frodo assuming Frodos life expectancy didn’t diminish after his journey with the ring.
Yeah, I kinda refuse to believe that one. No way would Tolkien be that cruel, as to split them up forever by mercy killing them. The 77 year thing makes more sense to me too. As another comment pointed out, he says mortals would become weary, like how he said the Elves did in Middle Earth. I take these two things together as him saying that they could live longer (and potentially forever), but that eventually they would grow tired of it and welcome death.
As always - EXCELLENT! I always wanted to get clarification on Sauron's corporeal form during the period of the Lord of the Rings (particularly since the movies and animated versions portray him only as a lidless fire-eye evil spirit), However, when Gollum confirms to Frodo that "he" only has 9 fingers, obviously Gollum saw the physicalform of Sauron. I think it is best that Professor Tolkien kept the physical description of Sauron at this time vague since it stirs in our imagination his physically frightening appearance after the fall of Numenor, AND his powerful maia spirit that can pierce through his land (like the evil version on the Girdle of Melian). Thank you again for your thoroughly enlightening podcast. ❤️💗💙💛
Great video! I do feel the need to point out that Sauron isn't actually reduced to just his eponymous Eye in the films either - when Aragorn challenges him at the Palantir, you can see Sauron's actual physical body clutching his own palantir for a moment, within the pupil of the Great Eye, right before he shows the vision of Arwen's death.
Generally, movie depiction wasn't really set in stone. Like, one time it seems that "lighhouse" eye is Sauron, the other you hear about deleting scene of Aragorn vs Sauron fight....
It gives Middle-Earth a serious level of depth, because words and names therefore have an etymology - part of the history that Tolkien built around his languages. The world feels lived-in and real.
Star Wars has invented languages. Admittedly, they aren't as meaningful as Middle Earths, but Star Wars does have proper languages that have been created
yeah, Star Wars definitely had some original languages, but that's a pretty weird standard for quality in the first place, what invented languages should Harry Potter even have for example? You could design some more concrete languages for some of the "magical creatures" (that already have implied and partially designed languages), but what would that add to a story about the magical humans that mostly speak English anyway?
It's not really described in detail. Sauron could have used a weapon at some point during the long 2-in-1 duel. True, no weapon is described, let alone a mace, and it's rather explicitly stated that Sauron grasped Gil-Galad's head and set him on fire. Hardcore.
@@dominicmarazita8103 No, because Elendil and Gil-Galad are introduced with their weapons specifically named, as are literally every single other character that engages in physical battle. So either Sauron was not armed with a weapon or he's the only person in the whole legendarium to not have a named (or even described) weapon.
Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England, which he thought it sorely lacked. He enumerated various other peoples and countries which had mythologies and mythological beings, such as the Elves of Scandinavia, but thought that England and the English needed their own equivalent.
This annoys me so fucking much. People *love* to grant everything they possibly can to Scandinavia. I can't even begin to express how many times I've seen people, without contention, confidently ascribe something that was common to all Germanic peoples to Scandinavia just because they have a hard on for Scandinavia. To your example, we know, without a doubt that elves existed in English mythology, as it did across the germanic world. To use a basic example: "Aelf" (with the AE being converted to either A or E in modern English) was a common start to many names; such as Aelfraed (Alfred). If elves didn't exist in the culture, how did that happen? Everybody already hates the English, including themselves - you don't need to make shit up to encourage that process
@@tommeakin1732 Or, you know, the vast majority of people aren't experts on ancient Germanic folklore and have only heard of those things in the modern context of Scandinavian mythology.
I started binging your Silmarillion videos a while ago (and was sad when I reached the for now last one^^). My boyfriend at one point asked "why do you do this? You already know all of this from the books". He's mostly right, but theses stories are epic and yes, I could re-read them, but I can as well listen to your awesome videos, see some awesome related fanart, AND do something else like painting :) Thank you so much for your work! Also, I got David Day's encyclopedia as a teenager - and started to put notes in it for everything I found was wrong (meaning not as in the Silmarillion which I had read before) :D Sadly, I could not read ALL of Tolkien's Middle-Earth-related books for some were not available in my language. Now I enjoy listening much more then reading, so thank you again!
I'm a touch concerned about how quickly you went from "Sauron became evil because he desired a more ordered Creation" to "I'm going to take over the world and impose a better calendar"
I once had the Lord of the Rings as a single tome. With the appendices included. Man that was a wonderful thing to hold. Wish i still had it. Not a book to read while lying on your back holding it above you, unless you are wanting a work out for your arms while you read. There were a few of these points that i had wrong. Most notably the facts about the elves not being able to chose a mortal life and what the two towers actually were. I really like these videos. Every time I click on one I learn something new about the stories that are being told or the history of Middle Earth. Keep it up.
Checked the shelves - there was a single-tome HarperCollins (1995) paperback edition of 1100+ pages. It's a workout not just for the arms, but also for the eyes.
Trivial and mostly unrelated observations: The unfinished drawing of Sauron has him in a pose similar to a famous photograph of Aleister Crowley. I also suspect that Gollum was strongly influenced by Crowley, who was an accomplished rock climber. A description of Crowley climbing at Beachy Head is extremely similar to Tolkien's description of Gollum climbing. Lastly, the Eye of Sauron looks awfully similar to The Tower in Crowley's Tarot deck...
If Sméagol and Deagol were relatives….then it seems most likely that they were cousins. They were of similar age, and the choices for a relative would be father, uncle or cousin. Of these, cousin is by far the most likely. We don’t know what “kind” of cousin (1st cousin, 2nd cousin; once removed, twice removed, etc.), but the fact that there are multiple choices for kind of cousin while you can only have a single kind of uncle (a brother of one of your parents) would reinforce this. Deagol was Sméagol’s cousin unless you can show me otherwise.
One note about Scottish dwarves, the vikings did have a lot of influence on Scottish culture and language. To this day a lot of Northern UK have several Nordic names going around, be it for people or places, among other things.
My one criticism of Elrond in the movie trilogy was the fact that he came across as severe. When I read the books for the first time in the early 90's, I always pictured him as being a great deal more jovial.
The more times I read the books (and that's at least once a year) the worse the movie bothers me. I'm disappointed that so many will only know what's portrayed in the movies, including the change in the characters of Elrond, Faramir, and Frodo himself, who doesn't project any strength in the movies in my mind. The change in the Ents is okay, I guess. It's entertaining anyway. But the scene of Gandalf acting as an exorcist for Theoden is another bad move. My daughter only saw the movies and is determined it was sheer and obvious allegory on the part of Tolkien. Sad.
@@mgentles3 I understand what you are saying but I look at it a little differently. I think a very large percentage of the movie watchers would have never read the books. So I’m actually glad these people got at least this exposure to this incredible fantasy world and story in the movies. Now, if I were dictator for a day I would mandate courses for the reading and breaking down of the Hobbit in middle school; LOTR in high school; and The Silmarillion in college.
@@ajalvarez3111 I did actually mean to include the fact that it's better to have the movie exposure to Tolkien than no exposure at all. The comment got long and got away from me. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't be happier that New Line Cinema took a chance and the movies were made. Thanks for the heads up.
@@mgentles3 Totally. I've only read the LotR books three times, but the last time was recently. Although I enjoyed the movies, reading the books makes me yearn to see movies made that stay much closer to the source material. Alas, it is not likely to be made any time soon! I also agree with AJ's comment. I watched the first movie the day it came out, just before Christmas, then I got the book and started reading it just after Christmas. If the movies were never made, I'm not sure if I ever would've read the book.
On the topic of death and mortality. I find it interesting that mortality is referred to both as a doom and as a gift and as you phrase it here, that mortals return to Illúvatar, whereas the Eldar cannot do that really runs home the idea that this could indeed be a gift. Tolkien just created something truly magnificent. I think that bittersweet aspect is what makes middle-earth so deeply moving because it's hope in hopelessness, beauty in decay. That and the fact that he pretty much nails the choice of words and style for ever scene he sets out, be it funny, epic, tragic, moving or mysterious.
About number two: you actually explain the difference of the Valar calendar and the Shire calendar earlier in the video. What Tolkien possibly meant with mortals living shorter lives in Valinor means that in comparison to the eternal beings there. Living only a few seasons would, in Valinor, mean decades of time in Shire. Thus creatures with a lot longer lifespans would not seem to age as the mortals did, but the mortals would still live their full lives, and it is possible that Sam and Frodo would meet each other once more, but would both be very old by the time.
I always took that as more metaphorical as well! Or, yes, referring to the longer "year" reckoning of the elves. (But yes, I'd always understood that a mortal sailing to the Undying Lands did not mean the mortal would become "undying" or immortal. Only that in the Undying Lands they would find a peace in their remaining days that they would not be able to find in Middle Earth. As Dave says so very, very well -- all of Tolkien's work is suffused with a bittersweet quality.)
I thought all the characters (barring perhaps Legolas) who sailed to 'the undying lands' actually went to Tol Eressea, the island set apart from Valinor. If I'm correct, it would be nice to hear more from you about that island, its origin and the reason of its making, and the inhabitants as well.
@@mgentles3 yes well, you realy need to read The Silmarillion a lot of times before you start to get the conections.and remember who and what... al those races and sub races of elves, dwarfs and humans.. ( and i'm not even talking about al the names and surnames of them all...) 🤣🤣
Marvelous! Especially the clarity regarding Tolkien's 'mythology' differentiated from 'fantasy'. I thoroughly enjoyed this. I was deeply impressed by your grasp and appreciation for Tolkien's calendar brilliance. Tolkien is a mountain full of mines and mysteries that never seem to run out of rich gems and golden treasure.
While Tolkien was a genius and magnificent writer (my favourite), his Shire calendar is just the Old English calendar used before the adoption of the Julian one. All the months are practically the same (Solmath = Solmónaþ, meaning soil/wet month) and the holidays (Lithe and Yule) are from Old English as well. He didn't invent it.
They so missed Bilbo volunteering to take the Ring, in The Council of Elrond. It should have been in The Fellowship. And Gloin smiling from his deep respect for Bilbo.
I really enjoy the education you supply. It allows me to better understand the richness of Tolkeins work. Thank you for all your hard work and diligence...💯
Great video and one that is certainly needed, especially for people who have only watched the movies. Your points about the elvish and dwarvish characteristics was spot on. It somewhat irritated me how in Jackson's "Hobbit" movies the dwarves were depicted as rowdy party-animals while the elves were shown as stiff and humorless (you saw this especially while Bilbo and Co. were at Rivendell) when in book almost the opposite is the case. Tolkien wrote in "The Hobbit" that dwarves often consider elves to be frivolous and foolish and get annoyed with their often carefree outlook on life (and at how elves often tease dwarves about their beards). In addition to the misconception of Deagol and Smeagol being canonically cousins, another common misconception is that Frodo is Bilbo's nephew when he is actually Bilbo's first cousin once removed on his mother's side and his second cousin once removed on his father's side.
re - Sauron potentially regrowing his finger I think it's the Quenta Silmarillion that talks about the Valar (and the Maiar) and how they are easily able to switch between having a physical body (Hroa), or discarding it and moving about as a spirit (fea). It goes on to say, however, that the longer they maintain and use a Hroa, the less able they are to change it or to (easily) discard it.
You seem to have better memory than me: Isn't there a mention in the Silmarillion of Sauron that goes along the lines of: "And thereafter he could never take form again" after he lost The Ring?
@@spacehootle309 If I recall correctly, that line/ those lines say that he could never again take on a form that was fair, or pleasing to look at. It was only after the destruction of the One Ring at the end of the 3rd Age, that Sauron entirely lost the ability to take on any physical forms.
@@Raz.C exactly, before the downfall of Numenor, Sauron was able to assume any form, fair or fell. It is thus that he assumed the form of Annatar and tricked both the Elves (Quenti) and Ar-Pharazon and Numenoreans. When Iluvatar destroyed Numenor and moved Valinor from Middle Earth, it was thought he perished, but it was only his body and he was for a while unnable to take a physical form but later he had one. A big man, black as night and terrible.
Fall of Numenor. Sauron was caught in the drowning and lost his physical body. Tolkien says that he was never again after that able to take a pleasing form, like the one he had used as "Annatar"("Lord of Gifts") to dupe the Elves of Eregion to help him forge the Rings of Power.@@spacehootle309
About them being cousins, I feel like it stands to reason since its said stoor hobbits were matriarchal / clan based, so anyone he knew would likely be a cousin
If 'little more than a half-year' is measured in Valian year, that would account for 72 years. That would just barely work out for Frodo and Sam meeting again.
I very much liked your last point. I often have to explain to my fellow nerds that modern fantasy is not so much tolkienesque as D&D-esque, and a distinctly American genre.
I absolutely love your Silmarillion series! Awesome stuff. This was a real eyeopener on things I've never put much thought on. I didn't think anything could be more interesting than the Silmarillion series, but this is up there with the best of those. :) When I think of a "modern fantasy setting" I actually imagine the DragonLance setting, as it was the books I read at the age when you are very susceptible for new impressions. I read LOTR maybe a year later or so (don't exactly remember, I mean.. we're talking mid 80'es here! :D ). That me and so many other still in the year 2023 are talking about and make content on Tolkiens LOTR is a testimony if nothing else in how great his creation is! Thanks for all the videos you make, they are great and I enjoy them immensely!
I'm in for the Shire calendar! Living in equator really doesn't change anything much, really, sun shining all year long, day and night pretty munch are the same length, greenery never changes, plants growing forever. So, Shire calendar will make everything less complicated.
I was really surprised when you classified Rumpelstilzchen as a dwarf... he is a Kobold, a sort of mischievous to evil little critter... the benevolent side of a Kobold is Pumuckl. I loved this video and was quite astonished over the different calendars being so accurate... thanks for giving me another reason to admire the Professor
There are people who are going to misinterpret his works by going off by inaccurate information. Thus, channels like yours bring to light the truth of the matter.
This is such a good video, I can definitely feel a sort of passion when he explains the themes of the entire series when the assignment was just to explain simple misconception
I could not agree with you more that Tokins’ works are perfect examples of True Mythology. They reflect every aspect of Joseph Campbell‘s Works, who I believe unlocks every facet of mythologies across cultures, across time, across different points of view, across patriarchies and matriarchies, and more. Tolkien,in my opinion, was the first person to come to realize a Full Mythology. Full of nearly every aspect of Human Mythology, which Joseph Campbell was able to clarify and codify, decades Later, in many many books. So brilliant insight as always‼️
![The History of Morgoth [COMPILATION] | Tolkien Explained](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ktet64d9O-c/mqdefault.jpg)
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
After being a Lord of the Rings fan for many years, I was absolutely shocked when I read the appendices and discovered that while Tolkien portrays the stories as being in English, they are done so only for our benefit.
The description he gave about how the term "Hobbit" came from "Holbytla", similar to "Hole builder" only works in English. In Westron, Hobbits are called "Kuduk" coming from "Kûd-dûkan".
In fact, Tolkien styles the origin of the stories as a collection of old texts that he found and translated into English. The very same texts that Bilbo and Frodo wrote. I found that amazing.
I liked that as well. Adds to the realism. As if it really is a transcribed ancient body of work.
Yes! It's especially fun because many of the character's names are also "translated" into more English-sounding names with the same meanings and/or evoking similar vibes in English. A fun example is Merry, whose full english name is Meriadoc Brandybuck. But in Westron, the language the Hobbits would've spoken themselves, his real name is described as _Kalimac Brandagamba._ Kalimac is shortened to Kali, which means something like "happy," .... or "merry." It's a literal translation.
Another is Pippin. The name "Peregrin" in English is derived from the latin word "peregrinus," a Latin word meaning "pilgrim." But in Westron, he's called _Razanur,_ derived from the words "raza" (stranger) and "razan" (foreigh), evoking the same meaning.
The name Samwise Gamgee in Westron is _Banazir Galbasi,_ with "Banazir" meaning something like "simple" or "half-wise." Likewise, "Samwise" is a modernization of the ancient English _samwis,_ which means the very same thing.
@@itsjudemydudeThat's awesome! Why was Pippin called stranger/foreign? Weren't they all from the Shire since forever?
@@InGrindWeCrust2010 I guess the connotation is with being enterprising. Pilgrim may be the literal root, but it is also meant to be read as traveller/wanderer.
Tolkien really was a wanker.
Something I love about the deeper lore of Middle Earth is that Morgoth didn't originally want to destroy or corrupt anything. He just wanted to genuinely create stuff from nothing like Eru did, and got mad that he couldn't. Hence that great quote from Eru about "Even in my possible defeat I will have won because you are proving my own creations to be great by using them to your own ends"
The issue is that wanting to do that IS itself an extremely grave sin, for it is the desire to be God, a refusal to accept or worship Him as Creator. In fact, it's about the most serious sin possible.
@@CantusTropus I understand Tolkien and you by the way you describe Morgoth`s intent. I am in agreement with you basically 99%. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I was born and Baptised Catholic, and by 11 I refused to go to church, religion class, basically figured out that organized Religion is just as real as Middle Earth. You may disagree. vMorgoth is Satan. He wants his own theme in the Music of the Ainur. Eru shuts him down. Thus he begins his fall. And after he can`t get the power he craves he goes berserk basically. Aule in his own way rebels by making the Dwarves before all other beings . Yet he is humble and he bows and asks if he must destroy them, and takes up his hammer, and Eru sees that the Dwarves cower and already have a free will. They must wait until the Firstborn are come. I also always found it odd that both Sauron and Saruman were Maiar of Aule. I think I lost my thread of thought!! LOL Take care. And please dont think I do not believe in God. I do and ask him for guidance every day. Just not in a Church. On a similar topic, my Grandfather was to go to Seminar and become a priest but then WWII broke and he became a Marine. He was at Guadalcanal, and I believe Tarawa as well. He came home and that dream vanished . I cannot imagine the horrors he saw there.
Yeah, but the reason he wanted to create, was so he could in turn dominate and rule over his creations lol
They call Eru "the flame eternal" for a reason...that line was fire and morgoth is literally: forevermad
@@CantusTropus Anybody who wants to be worshipped is an arrogant twat, God or not. Put yourself in the shoes of someone that just created something and is right now looking at their creation in front of them and pondering the question "so, am I gonna tell them to worship me or not?" and you'll get it.
I don't wanna be worshipped, even if there were thousands that wanted I would say "no, go home". Because I'm not an insecure idiot, and neither is God. The top people at the medieval catholic church that made up this crap were egomaniacal and insecure and you seem to believe all their crap. Lying is easy, and these people had a control agenda make no mistake. In their minds the church was never about saving your soul, it was all about business - making money and gaining more power, country after country. Secure people do not seek control over others. Besides this worship thing conflicts with God loves you. You can't love someone you actively want to worship you. Don't spend the rest of your life believing in such an idiot God. God is way better than what the church told people (by inserting its made up bullshit passages in certain parts of the Bible, modifying other passages and outright deleting a good chunk like Jesus' life. Most of his life is missing I wonder why, it's not like he had anything more to teach us right - that was sarcasm).
You glanced over something in the council.Bilbo was the one who at first was saying that since he was responsible for finding the ring, it was up to him to destroy it. This to me is crucial as it is what compells Frodo our of care for Bilbo, his father figure to break the silence and find his courage.
👍
Some one probably mentioned this: in translations we use accents as cultural short cuts. The Scottish accent is used through out adaptions, translations, and Shakespeare as a cultural short hand for being a warrior (it is why romans speak Posh english, and the Spartans speak in a Scottish brogue).
I believe that is why dwarves sound scottish in the common adaptation
Also, dwarves are awesome. So is the Scottish intonation. The two go together REALLY well.
@@filthycasual8187 The films really did a lot for the representation of New Zealand *and* Scotland it seems.
What are you talking about. Star wars has Huttanes, basic galactic, and many alien with ancient languages
I am constantly amused by the fact that Romans always have an "English" accent in the movies.
Wouldn't Italian be more appropriate?
But in the modern era, we equate "Empire" with England. So...
Cheers!😅😂🤣
And in the English translation I have of the roughly half known to survive of Menander's farce "The Shield", when one of Chaereas' friends takes on the guise of a foreign physician*, the translator gave the supposed foreigner a Scottish accent.
* The plan was to take a miserly uncle down a few pegs by staging his brother's death to trick the miser into an embarrassing overreach.
The moment Frodo says he will take the Ring gives me chills every time. Doesn't matter if I'm reading the book or watching the movies, it's just such a powerful moment.
There's many chill/heart wrenching and warming moments in the film even after 15 rewatches. it truly is a masterpiece
What about when he decides to take the ring for himself?
@@wrightsong This is what proves Tolkien's point about the virtue of showing pity, rather than hatred. In Fellowship, when Gandalf tells Frodo they are being followed by Gollum, Frodo wonders why they don't just kill him. Gandalf explains that he should not be killed, but pitied, because one never knows what depths they themselves might fall to and so should not be so quick to judge others, and that Gollum has some role to play. In the end, Frodo choosing to take the ring for himself is what reveals that role - if Frodo had not shown pity and spared Gollum, then Gollum wouldn't have been around to force the ring away from Frodo and fall with it into Mt Doom. Tolkien has said that the original kernel of an idea for the entire story was that he wanted to make that point about pity.
I don't like that it's not strictly Frodo's own choice in the book. It diminishes all his suffering and heroics if it's not through his own choice.... less of a hero and more a slave to fate.
@@SA80TAGE He is a hero precisely because he fulfills the (fatal) fate to bear the ring to doom. While it is almost certainly Eru's urging that is that voice in his head, the description of someone else speaking through him while he only longs to stay put is more a literary device to describe the act of being brave. Brave people are not brave because they never have doubts, they are brave because they do what they must despite them. It is not like Frodo is possessed here and only used as a mouthpiece, he just really doesn't want to die but knows that he has to for the fate of the world. Thus he fights it and it feels like an out-of-body experience ultimately because of the vast inner turmoil.
The fact Sauron tortured or at least spoke to Gollum face to face is quite possible, probable even. I would imagine Sauron would want to be sure he knew everything Gollum knew. After all it was Gollum who knew most about the rings whereabouts and Sauron would not want to risk not finding out everything.
Nor would he want messages going back and forth. He wouldn't want to risk the information getting out to anyone else or being misinterpreted
Plus, I'm sure Sauron would personally want to inflict punishment on the person who had been hiding his ring for hundreds of years
When I read the book, I always just assumed that he did see him in person. I thought it was implied by what he said. I didn't even realize there was any question of that.
Gollum also mentions Sauron has four fingers on his hand, which is another point that he saw him face to face, unless that fact is common knowledge to most people in-universe
@@Chibispore right, that exact point is mentioned in this video lol did u comment before getting to that part or did u just miss it lol
"Invented mythology" really is a better term than fantasy (high or otherwise) to describe Tolkien's books, especially The Silmarillion. Thanks for pointing that out.
Tolkien was low fantasy. Like categorically. By definition. The low doesn't signify the quality of the story.
No he wasn’t?
@@mikesnyder3317 He is quite literally the father of modern high fantasy what are you talking about.
I wouldn't say it's more appropriate, it's more like prerequisite. Part of high fantasy is usually an invented mythology.
@@mikesnyder3317 “Low fantasy” is where fantastic elements insert themselves into the “reality” of the story-Peter Pan starts & ends in Victorian London, the Borrowers live in the wainscoting of Edwardian townhouses in Bedfordshire, and (arguably) the Barsoom science fiction stories of Burroughs. They are attached to the real world but they’re not a part of the real world.
High fantasy is what Tolkien referred to as “subcreation”. Lloyd Alexander (of the Chronicles of Prydain series) literally invented the term “high fantasy” to differentiate between typical fantasy stories like the Oz books or Pinocchio and the more epic narratives of Tolkien and William Morris.
I know that the gaming community has adopted the term to describe “realistic” daily life in a world populated with wizards, monsters, and demigods, but that’s a definition for cooperative storytelling, not fiction. That’s not just a different genre, but a different medium altogether. The terms do not travel.
Another reason that the Arkenstone cannot be a Silmaril (at least to me) is that it was never recognize as such by the elves. At it's discovery, and though it's subsequent history, there were still in Middle Earth many elves (Galadriel in particular for the elves, plus Saruman, Gandalf, etc.) who had lived before the destruction of the Two Trees and had seen the Silmarils before Morgoth stole them. The idea that a Silmaril could re-surface and be unrecognized by these Elves (and most other elves) is to me absurd.
If Bilbo popped up in the elvenking's camp and was like "hey, here's a Silmaril," he would have given Thranduil a heart attack. The dude would NOT have been willing to trade it back to the dwarves in exchange for a share of the treasure too.
@@ianwestc Thranduil’s body literally burns away in the fire of his surprise, and his spirit is sent to Mandos.
Feanor: “How did you end up here?”
Thranduil: “I beheld a Silmaril, and such was my shock that my spirit fled my body.”
I could easily see the magma/lava that eventually cooled to where the dwarves of the lonely mountain dug it up warped the gem, and then they cut it, making it far less than what it once was.
But that is to stretch to fit the silmaril into the role
I usually feel that taking the same characters and same objects and making all your stories revolve around them is truly limiting. Having the Arkenstone be a Silmaril just makes the world feel smaller and less interesting, because there are fewer things of consequence.
It was a really bad decision to make all nine of the mainline Star Wars movies revolve around Skywalkers and Tattoine, etcetc, the "oh I know that name!" and "oh we've been here before" gives a momentary rush, but after that, those decisions really degrade your wider universe.
Not only does the Arkenstone being a Silmaril not make much sense, but it would really hurt both stories. It's not the decision Tolkien made, and fans are the better for it.
Morgoth stole more Jewels than the Silmarils...I've always liked to think the Arkenstone was one of them
In terms of whether or not Tolkein is fantasy, he definitely re-defined the fantasy genre. These days, authors either write something inspired by tolkein's style, inspired by something that was inspired by tolkein's style, or if you want to get really different and break the mold, then you will write something that's inspired by tolkien's methodology and actually do the work to make your own historically inspired invented mythology.
This is a very, very good list. About Gollum and Sauron: In “The Unifinished Tales”, part 3, chapter IV, there’s a text by Tolkien explaining how Sauron, after torturing and questioning Gollum, lets him go because he senses something indomitable in him, and has Gollum tracked because he expected Gollum to lead him to the Ring. But his spies loses him. There follows something I’ll quote: “Now Sauron had never paid heed to the ‘halflings’, even if he had heard of them, and he did not yet know where their lands lay. From Gollum, even under pain, he could not get any clear account, both because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because what he knew he falsified. Ultimately indomitable he was, except by death, as Sauron guessed, both from his hafling nature, and from a cause which Sauron did not fully comprehend, being himself consumed by lust for the Ring. Then he became filled with a hatred of Sauron even greater than his terror, seeing in him truly his greatest enemy and rival. Thus it was that he dared to pretend that he believed that the land of the Halflings was near to the places where he had once dwelt beside the banks of the Gladden.” Since finding the Ring was paramount to Sauron, it makes sense that Sauron was personally involved in the questioning and torture of Gollum. It also story-wise makes Gollum a direct link between Frodo and Sauron. I suppose that Gollum also called Sauron “Master”, grovelled, begged and made promises, all the while keeping his true intentions locked away deep inside. There’s something interesting about Gollum being caught between Frodo and Sauron: Two poles, both using Gollum to their own ends, both being his competitors regarding the Ring, and therefore paths to his ruin, but being opposites regarding their methods and objectives.
Here a small fun fact: In the german version Tolkien made the choice to NOT name elves Elfen (like the translation would be) but Elben (while Tolkien didn't translate the book himself, he was in contact with the translator; originally he wanted Alb but there was already an author who did this out of the same reasons about a century earlier who chose Elb). He did this to further differentiate them in name too from the elves from e.g. Peter Pan.
The same thing happened in the Sebian translation of the book: Vilenjak, vila(pl. vilenjaci, vile) is the word that denotes fairies as we know them from mythologies and fairytales, but the translator used new and unusual variation of the word- Vilovnjak, Vilovnjaci to stay true to the Tolkien's way of writing. Just brilliant! Also, the translation of the ring poem is nothing short of a masterpiece!
Funny, in dutch it would have the same meaning as in german but they just kept the transaltion litteral
The first versions of his books got "corrected" by the publisher and things like "Elven" were changed to "Elfin"- this drove him mad.
Tolkien wrote his books specifically for the English people's, who cares what people translate it to, it was written in English for the English people, sort of like how Muslims claim their qu,ran can only be understood if you can read Aramaic. It's the same thing, who cares about German or any other translation when we have the true word's of Tolkien himself?
@@markbritton6798 how you missed the part that Tolkien worked with a German translator is beyond me.
Just goes to show how your gatekeeping is stupid and narrow-minded.
The one about the Undying Lands is indeed bittersweet. I wasn't really sure about the specifics on that one, but I think it's more poignant and beautiful that Frodo and Bilbo earned the privileged to be able to heal in peace before passing on. Just as beautiful and heartbreaking as Gandalf accomplished his mission and is now leaving the world in the hands of men to set up a new age. It's might seem sad, but it's not tragic. Everything has to end and that is not a bad thing.
LOTR isn't fantasy. It's the history of an alternate universe. Tolkien had a secret window into it and rather than just being amused he decided to share it with everyone.
Edit: I'm pretty fed up with all the people who think I'm serious. Whoosh
It could simply be viewed as that, for Tolkien portrayed it that way. But...for all the modern fantasy works that come after it, as more or less the children of LotR, Tolkien's work can rightly also be described as proto-fantasy.
I was lucky enough to come upon Tolkien's works and Dungeons & Dragons at about the same time, in the 1970s, and spending a lifetime of reading fantasy and roleplaying has shown just how integral Tolkien's creations are to the modern fantasy genre--whether novels, movies, tabletop games, or videogames.
There is a lot of "Meme magic" at hand here too which exposes realworld parallels.
° Saruman was a traitor.
° One of his titles "Saruman of many colors" and he brought Orcs in
° The "Rainbow croud" (of many colors) is bringing people into Europe who will never be good and always do damage until they are gone again
@@FreedomAndPeaceOnly Um, no. Tolkien made it clear he wasn't racist or against multi-ethnicity or immigrants:
1. Human-elf couples were rare, but always special and revered.
2. The Rohirrim were welcomed into Gondorian territory, and even given their land.
3. Hobbits were deeded their land in what was once Arnor by King Elessar.
4. Theoden's wife was Gondorian.
5. Faramir and Eowyn renewed that bond.
6. The supposed 'lesser' humans (Rohirrim) were shown to be more passionate and vital, compared to the staid, set-in-their-ways Gondorians, who were descended from Numenorians.
7. Elves were welcomed into Ithilien.
8. Dwarves were welcomed into the Glittering Caves.
9. Tolkien himself rejected anti-semitism loudly in a letter to Nazis who sought to use his writing as pro-Aryan prior to WW2.
Trying a weak connection between Saruman of Many Colors and "the rainbow crowd" just makes you look ignorant and hateful. The Fellowship was a multi-racial group, after all.
As
@@rikk319 He also states very clearly that he was no fan of allegory. The Lord of The Rings is a story that means itself. He is not making allusions to world war 2, racism or any politics. He is telling a story.
For me, I definitely understand how the Undying Lands would be a perfect place for the Ringbearers to heal. In my own life, after experiencing traumatic events, my biggest desire was always for life to just pause for a bit. For time to freeze and everything to stop changing for a while, so that I could have my chance to breathe and process what I had gone through before getting back on the ladder - before having to confront the consequences of whatever had just happened. I expect it was, as with much of his work, heavily influenced by his traumatic experiences in the First World War, and the desire for respite from the terrors of a rapidly changing and increasingly violent world.
For Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, who had lived through such traumatic events as the War of the Ring, or the held the malice of Sauron around their neck for so long, I can imagine a time in an unchanging land of eternal peace, surrounded by music and laughter and light, would have been the most perfect healing they could have ever wished for - a spiritual cleansing. A refuge from the world, and a peace that their own minds would have been unable to provide. I think it's just beautiful.
My question though, is would the half year be a Hobbit year or an Elven year? Cuz an Elven year as even said here is a ridiculous amount longer.
@@hurricanebubbles likely Elven, and that would mean that Samwise would be reunited with Frodo for a few Hobbit years before passing on, but that they would probably never see Legolas and Gimli.
This is what I love so much about Tolkiens work. I doubt I wouldve ever fully understood what those undying lands represented contextually for the ringbearers, but through your personal expierence its shed a better light on his stories, which I think is so beautiful that it took real emotion and expierence to fully get that. Thank you for sharing your perspective I thought it was very enligtening.
@@hurricanebubbles It wouldn't make any sense to go there to heal just to immediately die months later.
From what I understood, Frodo, Bilbo and the others didn't die after a short time in Valinor, because they stayed in Tor Elessea, an island near it. They lived "for a limited time", limited in the literal sense of the word: they didn't become immortal, but they could decide when to die, after a short or long length of time. So it is possible that they got to see each others again.
Yes, and Tolkien’s unpublished epilogue implies that Samwise will see Frodo again. I disagree with that part of this video.
Tol Eressëa, not Tor Elessea.
Actually, while I didn't know much of the undying lands, the explanation for why Bilbo and Frodo go there is because they have become immortal, in the sense that they will not naturally die, but can be killed, and find their world a poor fit, longing for the simplicity but never being able to return and there was no place else for them. That's why they go there and why they are able to meet the others later
@@Durakken You do not become immortal, simply by entering the Undying Lands. That is just not how that works. The reason as to why Frodo, Sam and Bilbo were allowed to go to Valinor, was due to them having beared the One Ring, and especially Frodo, having suffered greatly. They, in time, would eventually die like every mortal and whose spirits would eventually escape the circles of the world.
@argon2423 I didn't say they went to the undying lands and became immortal. If I had, I probably should rewatch the video where it explicitly says that does not happen.
What I was pointing at is that ring barers have their lives extended. Hobbits, from what I remember, have very short lives, but smeagol has been alive for hundreds if not thousands of years. Likewise, Bilbo is, at the very least, aging much slower than normal, leaving us to conclude that while not immortal, ring baring Hobbits live very long lives
I think you made the issue with the two towers sound more simple then it was, Tolkien himself wasn't sure which two towers he meant, he changed his mind a few times. There wasn't a definitive answer.
I can't express how happy I was the see my notification for this video. Miss your videos.
True. But there is a good case to be made for Minas Morgul.
www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50166/j_r_r_tolkien/1588/the_two_towers#:~:text=II%20refer%20to%20Orthanc%20and,of%20Saruman%2C%20and%20Cirith%20Ungol.
Correct. Right at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, it is written: "The second part is called The Two Towers,
since the events recounted in it are dominated by Orthanc,
the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of Minas Morgul
that guards the secret entrance to Mordor."
However in a 1954 letter that Tolkien wrote to his publisher, he told him: "I am not at all happy about the title The Two Towers. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol. II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading."
So yeah, there are five different towers that The Two Towers could possibly be referring to. Confusing.
Thanks to Saelind for the info.
@@tolkienuntangled Far be it from me to dismiss the Professor for nitpicking. . . but Minas Morgul and the Tower of Cirith Ungol are close by enough, and united enough in their purpose, in my view to be considered part of the same fortress/tower system, like, say, Narchost and Carchost. They both guard the pass of Cirith Ungol and their garrisons even engage in joint operations to that end, though Minas Morgul also guards a rather easier nearby pass through the Mountains of Shadow.
Also, if we were supposed to consider the Tower of Cirith Ungol on its own, it really ought to have been given a fully Sindarin name :P
@@zimmerwald1915 Your last paragraph demonstrates your depth of knowledge.
It does however omit the paramount truth that JRRT passed well before he could bring definitive completion to not just this particularity of his mythos but sadly, to so much of magnum opus.
Logical Fallacy.
Huh, I didn't know that, that Tolkien himself wasn't entirely sure which two towers he himself was referring to. It's entirely possible that the name of the book came from his editor, too, as the LotR was originally just one massive manuscript, later broken into three, which I'm sure you know.
For myself, I've legit always thot that "The Two Towers" being referred to were the towers of Barad Dur & Orthanc. Since the second book is where the whole Saruman part of the story takes off, & rly Orthanc became to Sauron a projection of his power deep into Middle Earth, & the two towers - & by extension their masters - were linked by their Palantiri, making them essentially a unified front against the good races organizing, etc. Just look at the chaos he (Saruman) wrought in Rohan & Edoras.
Anyway, this comment got too long, but I'm gonna leave it. Cheers.
Good video but I think another common misconception people have is that “pipe weed” is basically marijuana, when the appendix makes it pretty clear that it’s more like tobacco.
Edit: To further rain on everyone’s parade, even if it was marijuana, whatever strain they were smoking must have been SUPER WEAK. We never see the Hobbits cough after inhaling and their eyes never get bloodshot.
Let a man dream
Yeah, one of the few forgivable things from Jackson. The fact is, for past 20 or so years, pot is more acceptable on screen than tobacco. Unless it's rare or ironic, smoking a cigarette is a good way to get an "R" rating. Plus, in the States, pot is mostly legal (minus the dumb Federal law against it).
It's literally called weed for short in the movies. It's funnier this way.
@@classiclife7204 How can something be legal in individual states if there is a federal law against it? Im not from the US, so sorry for my ignorance.
@@wilhufftarkin8543 It's the way they classify the substance. The Feds rate marijuana the same way as they rate heroin (highest danger), so it's treated that way. By the FEDS. Meanwhile, about 40 States or so treat it as mostly medicine (which it basically is). The USA needs to decide if the United States IS, or ARE, if you get me. State laws vs. Fed laws is bonkers and I certainly can't justify it.
Here’s one train of thought I enjoy as a fan of languages: A well know name of a river in Tolkien’s works River Running or “Running River”, translated into Norwegian: Rennende Elf. Put a few centuries on that it would probably become something like Rennendelf or perhaps even Rinnendelf. Perhaps morphing to Rivendel? Tolkien must have had quite some enjoyment with his knowledge of language.
What's Rivendell translated to in the books?
In Danish its "Kløvedal" which is a lovely translation: The dale that was cloven / riven...
@@Emanon...yes I believe Rivendel means exactly what it sounds like: a riven dale.
@@john.premose haha. That makes sense 😁
Its "elv" not elf. So it fits even better :)
@@john.premosethis actually relates to the fact that Rivendell is an English translation of the "original" Westron text. Rivendell's Westron name is Karningul which roughly translates to "deep valley" which is the same as the Sindarin name Imladris.
Pippin: Hey can we stop and celebrate Christmas?
Aragorn: We already did that.
Pippin: We’ve had one yes, but what about 2nd Christmas?
That's easy, just convert from Protestant/Catholic to Eastern Orthodox and back again every year. 🙂
What about camper's Christmas?
The Netherlands has December 5, 6, 24, and 25 as christmas holidays.
@@BenjaminBrienen Wrong first 2 days are for the birthday of sinterklaas nothing to do with Christmas
Only 5 dec is sinterklaas.. the 6th has no meaning
I haven't read the books, but my favourite moments of Gimli's in the films is when he comes across as experienced and urbane.
_"Give me your name, horse master, and i shall give you mine."_
There are only a few moments like these, but to me they convey a greater sense of wisdom than any other cast member.
i hate you movie only people smh
This is the type of content I'm happy to spend hours watching. Keep being awesome.
Thank you for this. I had forgotten that Elrond hadn't summoned any of the Council, and it's nice to hear someone sticking up for the dwarves. Some of them (including Gimli) were richly emotional, but Legolas was actually much more likely to provide comic relief than Gimli and the hobbits most likely of all. I end up kind of torn on that issue. On one hand, it is enjoyable within the movies, on the other, the film-makers are kind of poking the same fun at the dwarves as Tolkien shows the sylvan elves doing. Which really annoyed the dwarves because they *did* take themselves so seriously.
i think the bickering in the Peter Jackson's council were a great way to show the malevole influence of the ring (because IT IS dificult to show how an object could be evil by itself).
thanks for the video!
I think it was probably the best way to put it to screen without spending an absurd amount of time explaining everything. The films really streamline a lot of the lore, they could have made an entire trilogy explaining the lore of the world which would need to be explained for audiences to understand how a ring is evil.
They never really get into maiar or illuvitar or anything of that nature in the films, as interesting as all of the stuff is, it's not really relevant to the story being told. Those of us who already know the lore will find the story far more interesting because we know why things are happening, but most people just wanted to watch some movies and they were still given enough information to make it enjoyable.
That is how I took it as well.
There's some bickering in the book. Aragorn and Boromir essentially have a "bro-off" trying to establish who is more badass.
@@dmgroberts5471 And we know who wins that "bro-off"... Samwise, because Samwise is the best bro😂
The determination of Frodo choosing to do the right thing is far more interesting and humanitarian than “It’s God’s will”
Little correction - Rumpelstiltskin is NOT a dwarf. Nor is he any kind of humanoid.
He is a Schrat, a sort of... Germanic nature spirit. Think Kodamas from japanese folklore, or Leshen from slavic. Usually these are actually spirits that inhabit a constructed totem, rather than having their own body - that's also why Rumpelstiltskin can tear himself apart in the end of the story, he's literally a spirit inhabiting a wooden doll.
Woah. Thank you. You just blew my mind.
That puts a whole new spin on why he wanted the Princess’s first-born child after helping her spin straw into gold for a third time. Maybe to obtain a body to possess? Yeesh! 😬
thats funny because afaik the mages in this lore are all half-gods and not just folklore stuff
Very interesting. That would explain his name, "Rumplestiltskin", which literally means "little rattle stilt", a stilt being a post or pole that provides support for a structure. So in the original, unwritten story, he likely began as a protective family totem (sort of like a domestic version of a "Palladium" or graven image...similar to the palladium of Pallas Athena). A bundle of sticks fashioned into a small humanoid-shaped figure, that became possessed by a trickster spirit, became noisome, and attempt to trick the mortals into providing him a suitable body to possess.
actually, Rumpelstiltskin plays minecraft on his channel "Dream."
My two favorite misconceptions:
1. Isildur didn't defeat Sauron by cutting the Ring from his hand (as in the film). Gil-galad and Elendil first defeated Sauron in direct physical combat (both perishing in the act), *whereafter* Isildur cut the Ring from his hand as weregild for their deaths. Tolkien is very vague about the account, so I can understand the difficulty of portraying it in the film. But it's unfortunate that a lot of this kind of sheer epicness of the ancient past of Middle-Earth is lost in adaptation. The further you go back in ME history, the more incredible the feats of its participants.
2. The Common Tongue isn't English
This one is obvious if you stop and think about it, but the vast majority of people just don't think about it. If this is a story in the ancient past of our world, clearly modern English can not possibly be the same as the Common Tongue of ME. So, technically what we are reading as The Lord of the Rings is a translation. (Some of the tidbits of actual Common Tongue words that Tolkien revealed are really strange, too. Very interesting.)
2 is actually up for serious debate. Texts in Sindarin, and Anudanic tend to at least have they're original structure and vocabulary provided in their portrayals, Westron doesn't have any of that. It lacks grammar, or a script, and was so underdeveloped Tolkien literally just gave up and inscribed Balin's Tomb in Moria by directly translating English into Cirth Runes
I always thought that the common tongue was supposed to be a metaphor for English, but not literal English
On the note of number 2. There's far more to it, you'll notice that Tolkien says first that they will grow 'weary' sooner. This is the same word that Tolkien uses when describing Elves in Middle Earth. Tolkien is very particular with his words, and there's a meaning there. A mortal will find that all the other creatures hardly change over his life span. This is because the Undying Lands are static, they do not change. Elves, designed with their immortality in mind, do excellently in the Undying Lands, where things don't change. They grow 'weary' in Middle Earth because of how rapidly things change. Even long-lived Numenorean Kings were too short for them, and caused immense stress on those elves familiar with them. The first time that a man died among Elves they were confused, and incredibly hurt as they didn't understand what it meant.
Similarly, mortals can't live in the Undying Lands without growing weary of nothing changing. The land is not meant for them, and they are to move beyond Arda. They need change to exist. This is also why mortals were not allowed in the Undying Lands. For while looking upon it would make a mortal always long to return, living there would cause Man to destroy it just for the sake of change.
Though it is important to note that while the Ringbearers go to the undying lands, it doesn't tell how long it would take for their spirits to heal. Bilbo described himself as feeling stretched thin. This is because the ring does the same thing it did to the Ringwraiths, it bound his spirit to the world. The ringwraiths have no physical form, and must inhabit their robes because they are naught but spirit now, forcibly bound to remain in Arda despite being called to venture beyond as is the 'Doom' of Man. Who knows how long it would take for their spirits to be healed enough of the damage caused by the Ring for them to move on as they are supposed to.
this is basically the only mortal/immortal dichotomy ive seen that seemed like both sides were kinda good tbh. i get that not joining with eru or whatever probably sucks but immortals have eternity to learn how to cope with it and enjoy living. and dying and being mortal does suck but at least you get to, idk merge with god or something. usually one option is very clearly much better than the other but in this i could see how both an elf and a human could envy each other.
@angelspawn9138 Indeed, as it really is a gift.
@@maxsync183 "One option is very clearly better than the other" : Well, depending on whether you think as an elf or as a man, you could have your entire country sunken if you plan to get the other option
@angelspawn9138 Gift, no quotation marks.
Cool, can someone show me the way to the undying lands? Things change far too quickly in this world. Please and thank you
I love so many little things in your video .. the dramatic way you count the numbers, how you get so into side topics, and the great art you find. 11 outa 10 .. another great video I watched start to finish and even re-watched sections
I think they ruin the minds interpretations of stories that are conjured in the mind, i had to read the silmarillion a few times over time before i really started to get interested after which i read everything i could get by tolkien, & their not as all knowing as comments suggest they are. good luck with the re runs but re read the books, instead of watching what is heresay after all
Really appreciate your treatment of Luthien. She is perhaps the preeminent being in all of Middle Earth history, being the blending of the most noble Elf blood and Maia through her father and mother and rivaling the likes of Feanor or any of the Maiar in both power and beauty. And she ultimately shared the fate of Men. She alone can represent all of Illuvatar's creation in a single person. She had less raw power than the Valar (of course). But she was probably more powerful than any Elf that ever lived and on par with any Maia. With the help of a wolf hound, she defeated Sauron and cursed him and cast him out of his fortress and took control of his island and cleansed it, and she faced Morgoth directly within his throne room in Angband, and wove a song spell to put Morgoth and his whole host of dark captains to sleep. Most Elves and Numenoreans that came after her lived in awe of her and revered her.
Her choice to "become" mortal likely caused a collective "WTF - how did she do that?" from all wise beings of Middle Earth. It was her setting the precedent that presumably opened the door for her direct decedents to do the same.
I love luthiens story- it hurts to know that more people wont ever get to know her,, but definitely on a more important level i think the movie/tv series industry needs to stop throwing out fake crap and start actually respecting Tolkiens work. The hobbit trilogy and rings of power were a laughing stock
It wasnt her pure power or spell tho.
Morgoth would have crushed her easily but he was stunned by her beauty. He immediately started desiring her and started daydreaming about breaking and defiling her.
During that she struck with her spell at distracted dark master.
Her beauty was desribed as her most deadly weapon.
How did she defeat Sauron though? I cant remember that other than fact that she cleansed his werewolf island/tower. I remeber Finrod Felagund losing to Sauron in duel of spell and song.
I remeber that mighty dog Huan helping her a lot but I cant remember her duel with Sauron
Also when she wore Silmaril on her neck, not one of Sons of Feanor dared to claim the said Silmaril. Only when she died, Sons of Feanor moved against others to possess that Silmaril. They were afraid to try and kill Beren and Luthien knowing that it would be against Iluvatar's will. And their accursed Oath depended on the will of Iluvatar to be fulfilled.
Pippin accidentally facetiming Sauron is one of those details that I wish they had shown in the movie
It is?
Well they sorta did. They showed that the connection was made and that Sauron saw Pippen. Might not have specifically sais they saw each other. But it did happen.
😂
I agree, and also Aragorn’s confrontation with Sauron felt too fleeting in the film.
Yeah his funny faces at Sauron are there lol.
This was amazing, thank you! I'm the Tolkien nerd in my house and when I told my boys about the origin of the Dwarves and how they were tied to Middle Earth because of their origin and only the kindness of Iluvitar gave them real life but no one knows their fate... well, they cried. Also the fate of mortals in the undying lands - but death is referred to as "the gift of Iluvitar", so...get comfortable with mystery. I see Tolkien as Philosophy more than Mythology but that is just me. :)
I would like to defend the use of "cousin" in the case of Sméagol and Déagol: typically is assumed to be first cousins, but second cousins, third cousins etc. can all be covered under the umbrella "cousin". As you say in the video, since they are from a supersmall community everybody there is related, so calling somebody that is not direct family a cousin would probably be valid.
This was my thought. If you're going to go as far as to say they were probably related, simply by nature of the enmeshed and sheltered community they most likely lived in, then cousins is the most likely relationship, simply because it's going to be the one that the highest number of the population shared. Of course there's also the likelihood of being related in more than one way, but cousin is the one you're going to fall back on.
Tolkien often referred to LotR as a "romance":
"Here is a small consignment of 'The Ring': the last two chapters that have been written, and the end of the Fourth Book of that great Romance,..."
Letter 91
"Evidently I have managed to make the horror really horrible, and that is a great comfort; for every romance that takes things seriously must have a warp of fear and horror, if however remotely or representatively it is to resemble reality, and not be the merest escapism."
Letter 109
"I sometimes conceive and write other things than verses or romance!"
Letter 113
"My work has escaped from my control, and I have produced a monster: an immensely long, complex, rather bitter, and very terrifying romance, quite unfit for children (if fit for anybody); and it is not really a sequel to _The Hobbit,_ but to _The Silmarillion."_
Letter 124
"They wanted a sequel. But I wanted heroic legends and high romance. The result was _The Lord of the Rings."_
Letter 257
"My work is _not_ a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature."
Letter 329
et.al.
Yes, absolutely. Although it’s important to remember that Tolkien used the word romance in the medieval literature sense, not what we think of today, with a meet cute and a happily ever after. Gawain and the Green Knight was a romance, for instance. Classically, they were full of heroes on quests doing chivalrous things and defeating evil. Which pretty much sums up Frodo trekking to Mt Doom and destroying the One Ring and thereby Sauron.
@Dawn Davidson Thank you cuz I was gonna say tlotr is not a romance haha
Just so you know, 'Established Titles'is a (legal) scam. They cannot grant legitimate titles and they do not transfer ownership of any land. The small print on their website does admit this, which is what keeps it legal. However, you are buying precisely nothing - save your money and pretend for free.
I just want to take a moment to appreciate the best rant on calendars I have ever heard. I'm totally converted and am one hundred percent behind you on this.
Wonderfully done. Your understanding of Tolkein and his "invented mythology" is so deep and respectful. 🙏
As far as the Elves being "unemotional", that is definitely not borne out in the writings. However, being immortal they did have a certain detachment or perspective not commonly found in mortal species. As Legolas comments in Fangorn, "This place is old, I feel young here as I have not felt since traveling with you children" (I may have the wording wrong but something to that effect). Which seems odd since both Aragon and Gimili were full adults till one realizes just how old Legolas was compared to either of them. I don't think this line made its way into the movie as in would have seemed very incongruent for Orlando Bloom to say that to Viggo Mortensen and John Rhy-Davies.
The line sort of made it into the film, but it's just Legolas saying "This forest is old...very old. Full of memory, and anger."
@@DariusOfPersia kinda falls flat compared to the original unfortunately
@@strawbbtarte Yeah, it does
Maybe the ears fooled some people. I also once ran across a bad Legomance fic that had Legolas going into a condition not unlike pon farr!
I always found the question of the personality of someone who was immortal very interesting. As an older person, I think Tom Bombadil is probably the most realistic role model, since as I age I find that things in general bother me less. It's a kind of "seen it all before" feeling. At the same time, I imagine an immortal person would be more likely to attempt something that would take a long time, since time is no object. For example: Writing world history, scientific (or, in fantasy, magical) research, playing musical instruments ,etc.. This might lead to different personalities, such as a scholar that finds things like emotion a worthless distraction, resulting in them being vulcan-like. Of course, it all depends how memory works. Human memory is poor even over our brief lifespans, so what would the memory of an immortal be like? Imagine if they only had about the same mental capacity as a human, so that they've forgotten way more things than they currently know.
A very interesting thought/question. I recently reread the Silmarillion and it struck me how, for thousands of years, most elves have about as much impulse control and emotional regulation as a human teenager. Which reminds me of a Terry Prachett quote which says that the problem with immortality is; that to be perpetual/immortal means you can't change, and if you can't change, you can't learn. - Obviously this is not directly applicable here, but it makes me wonder if that's why elves seem to take so long to emotionally mature, and why Elrond seems hardly more that middle-aged and only the very oldest we meet, like Galadriel, are not bothered by most petty things anymore as you describe above?
Now that's interesting to think about. I too, am older and now I want to spend a little time considering this question. Thanks.
Great as always!
I was loudly saying yes when you mentioned the emotionless elf trope. It's so annoying! Elves are supposed to be silly and joyfully and sentimental and ethereal. Like a ray of sunshine or a chirping bird or like a sorrowful rain. They are mostly much too wise to be stoic or cold.
The first point we meet the elves in The Hobbit book, they're singing a song about how Bilbo is fat and the dwarves' beards are absolutely ridiculous. So yeah, not that stiff and serious indeed, although the Hobbit was written in a time when his middle earth writing was a bit on the lighter and more whimsical side, something he would certainly reduce.
Seems like somebody is confusing Vulcans (Star Trek space elves) with Tolkien Elves huh? I actually didn't notice that. I can imagine that the Wood Elves might be the fun-loving ones, and the Noldor being more taciturn because they'd committed a horrible sin just so that they could become the top of the races Sauron and Morgath were determined to destroy. And they were shown over and over again that fighting this was futile, at least against Morgath.
In terms of elven emotion, we must not forget the elven king and queen in Shakespeare's "a Midsummer Night's Dream", tvtropes has an extensive page about "The Fair Folk" in various stories and traditions, yet somehow fail to mention famed musical theater stories such as "Swan Lake" and "Elves Hill".
I think that "the emotionless elf" trope mostly stems from the race of Noldorin elves, who were proud and haughty. With good reason, too. They rebelled against the Valar, fought Morgoth, established the mightiest realms in Middle Earth and created the most beautiful and magical objects, including the Silmarils and the RIngs of Power.
I really enjoyed how you explained the differences in motivation between Morgoth and Sauron. Just because they had a master/squire relationship, does not mean they had the same motivations. I’ve always thought of the two in DND terms (oversimplified of course):
Morgoth is Chaotic Evil
Sauron is Lawful Evil
knights have squieres, masters have apprentices
A great example of this is how Galadriel's attempt to appeal to Sauron was ultimately pointless: he saw no difference between saving the world and what he intended to do with it.
I love the way this guy speaks. His accent. His affect. It's wonderful. A perfect match for the content.
One idea I've had, regarding the Arkenstone/Silmaril connection, is if the Arkenstone is somehow a "rough draft" as it were, of the actual Silmarils. Only reason behind the idea is from the rings, as the elves made some lesser rings first as "essays in the craft" (AKA, they needed to grind their rings of power smithing skill until they could unlock the perk to craft the Great Rings), and it made me think that the Arkenstone could be a similar idea.
I'd turn that around. Someone saw a Silmaril and tried to recreate it. Chinese knock-off Silmaril.
Number 2 had really strong meaning to me. Specifically the image of Legolas helping the very old Gimli. It reminds me of the deeply bittersweet sorrow of watching a pet you'd loved and raised their whole life grow old and die while you are left to care for them in their growing frailty and ultimately, to carry on without them.
😢
I love your explanation of the calendar. And I especially love (and agree with) your enthusiasm for the Shire Reckoning! 😍
Num. 9 makes so much sense. Having Gloin and Bilbo rejoin could have been such an impactful interaction!
So Deagol is his cousin...
Yes
@johnbraithwaite863 maybe 4th or 5th cousins. But this is probably a society where the only choice for a spouse is a relative. Deagol definitely looks inbred.
As a lifelong Tolkien fan, I greatly appreciate this perspective and clarification of his original work. Many thanks!
With all the frustration I've felt in the last year or so as a self-confessed Tolkien purist, finding this video and this channel with its unerring celebration of the accurate minutiae of the original work has been a great joy. Thank you!
Cringe
one thing i noticed with Tolkien, if u miss 1 page you could miss so much, info on the weapons made by elves & dwarves, i have noticed some chapters have the most interesting data, for eg we hear of weapons made by Telchar the dwarf smith & improved upon by the elves such as Narsil & the helms & masks one of which is Turins, but miss that page you'll be confused later, a clue you say? "Children of Hurin! be sure to read every page!
I think in polish language we have some beautiful months names.
April - Kwiecień - (Month) of Blossoms
July - Lipiec - (Month) of Lime
September - Wrzesień - (Month) of Heather
November - Listopad - Falling Leaves
meanwhile our November is Marras, which is a really old word for Death and/or To Die.
so its just the month of death.
Polish month name of July / Lipiec actually stands for the Linden Tree (Lipa), not Lime.
Also December (Grudzień) implies chunks of ice or frozen mud (grudy).
And June (Czerwiec) is an insect name for a nasty little critter, Polish Cochineal, which had once been used to produce crimson dye. "Czerw" literally means Maggot or Grub.
August (Sierpień) implies the summer harvest season. "Sierp" means Sickle, obviously used for cutting & collecting crops.
That's quite a contrast to japanese which literally just enumerates the months of the year. "First month", "second month", etc...
@@volbla well that's the "new" way of naming months in Japan, the traditional names were explanatory like in the Polish case.
Mutsuki (睦月) / January
Kisaragi (如月) / February
Yayoi (弥生) / March
Uzuki (卯月) / April
Satsuki (皐月) / May
Minazuki (水無月) / June
Fumizuki (文月) / July
Hazuki (葉月) / August
Nagatsuki (長月) / September
Kannazuki (神無月) / October
Shimotsuki / November (霜月)
Shiwasu (師走) / December
Since the old calendar were based on lunar (like most old calendars) it doesn't exactly match up with the time of todays months.
Always find it funny when it's mentioned that in english culture before Tolkien, elves were just little people or Santa's friends, while up here in Iceland, we've always had Tolkienesque Elves, called Huldufólk. When I first read Tolkien, I just immediately found the elves really familiar because they felt just right out of the Icelandic folklore I grew up with.
My first copy of LOTR was a single paperback, 1076 pages long, and was the 14th impression published in 1974. It is by far the most satisfying way to read the work, having the whole story in one's hand throughout. I still have the copy, I just wish I could still read from it, but alas, it is now falling apart from frequent use! I am now obliged to read three separate books, as though they were three individual stories!
You can imagine my chagrin when, after hearing good things about Tolkien and checking The Fellowship of the Ring out of our local library only to realize at the end that it was the first part of a trilogy and the subsequent books were not in the catalog. I had to buy the unauthorized paperbacks to finish the story.
0:39 - what did you said about my mother?!
One thing I’ll note is that while it’s entirely up to interpretation, I’m of the opinion that the Ring was the one that compelled Frodo to take the quest to Mordor, seeing a halfling as the most likely to fail, especially one that has already been in possession of the Ring for a prolonged time.
Thematically, it fits well with evil being self destructive, and the tendency for beings of power either overlooking or underestimating the smaller things.
Also, the idea of Ilúvatar intervening to that degree robs the characters of their agency. I’m not denying that this was Ilúvatar’s grand plan, but I don’t believe He was micromanaging characters and events down to an individual level to achieve His goal. “Why fear the consequences of failure if God Himself has ordained that they succeed” is my point of view.
I’ll also admit to ascribing to Death of the Author, and having a significantly different outlook on religion than Tolkien. I’m not saying another interpretation is wrong, or trying to change anyone’s mind on their own interpretation, but I do want to take the opportunity to respectfully state my own interpretation, wether it had been the author’s intent or not. And of course, I still have respect for Tolkien’s intent, even where my interpretations are in direct conflict with it. Literature, like all art, is inevitably subject to the interpretations and biases of the audience. It’s a testament to Tolkien that his works are flexible enough to support as many different interpretations as they do.
I fully agree with you. I prefer an interpretation that does not lean on the idea of a sort of Divine Design. I respect that the idea may have brought comfort to Tolkien; but it's not a concept that works for me. I therefore find the story more powerful when it's forefronting the characters' agency, like Frodo's decision (?) to take the Ring to Mordor. Or even, the point made clear that Bilbo's long-ago moment of mercy, in deciding against killing Gollum, would ultimately be instrumental to the Ring's doom.
I understand the objection to the way the movie portrays (and thus cements in many viewers' minds) the idea of Elrond calling the council, rather than the idea that these folks are all there by chance, or fate. As with so many other things, I think it's a change made more for the clarity of film storytelling than anything else. (Which, I know some people object to; some more strongly than others!) Yes, the films could have established separate reasons for Gloin and Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir to be there; but I can understand why they streamlined it. I do think it does good to remind folks that it's done quite differently in the books, though.
@@gryphonvert Admittedly, the way Tolkien handled the assembly of the Council, only Boromir seems to’ve made the journey as a response to intervention from a higher power. Gloin and Gimli were in Rivendell to visit Bilbo, whom they have a strong relationship with, and Legolas was there to report the escape of Gollum, which was important information, so while higher powers may have intervened with the timing to produce the results, it was done in a much more subtle way.
While I can understand why the film’s Council felt underwhelming, I also understand the necessity of condensing all of the reasons for why the characters were present to a simple invitation in the movies, and think the reason for it should be stressed. As The Hobbit hadn’t had a film at that point, introducing Gloin would’ve taken away screen time from more important events as well as violating the rule of “show don’t tell” to have actually justified why a character the audience has not met would travel unfriendly roads to see Bilbo, all when Gloin doesn’t make a reappearance. Legolas’ trip to bring the news of Gollum’s escape would’ve required establishment that Gollum had been caught and held in Mirkwood, as well as Barad-dûr, which also would’ve taken time away from more direct elements, when Mirkwood doesn’t appear at all in the trilogy.
But I do wish that Aragorn had been the one to give the hobbits the Barrow Blades, explaining that the Dunedain had made them to combat the Witch King specifically, because the way the movies handled the Witch King’s defeat implies that Merry and Éowyn won on the sole merits of not being adult human males, instead of having a weapon that anyone can just pick up, but takes an extraordinary amount of courage to use against its intended foe.
“No man can kill him” has a very different meaning than “not by the hand of man shall he fall.”
If no *man* can kill him, I’ll just train an army of feral badgers.
I agree. I also think Iluvatar being that much involved would make limiting the power of the Istari pointless. If the idea was to make the Istari a helping hand for the free peoples to ultimately help themselves, then Iluvatar's far-reaching intervention would not only undermine the Council's agency but also that of all of Middle-Earth.
But the purpose of Iluvatar's and the Ainurs' song is to create a world where the Flame Imperishable, free will, can triumph over the evil discord of Melkor. And that only works if the Supreme Being lets his creations enough "room to breathe".
While I really like the idea of a higher power having more presence in the story, I prefer Frodo's offer to take the ring in the movie over the way it was described in this video - I agree with you about the characters being robbed of their agency, and also, I really love that line (and decision) as a character moment for Frodo. It's clearly a gargantuan task, and he even expresses that he wishes it wasn't his burden later on (in the movie at least), but his understanding of just how important it is that the ring gets to Mordor is perfectly highlighted by him speaking up, and especially speaking over characters that have chosen to argue instead of think rationally.
It ties in perfectly to the theme of the movies, that it's up to small, simple hobbits to save Middle Earth because of how much of a danger corruption is - there are so many things, like the hobbits defying expectations, Aragorn redeeming his bloodline by accepting his place among men while fighting for Middle Earth, Legolas and Gimli putting aside their prejudice to join forces and eventually becoming friends, that make unity one of the biggest themes in the movies, and it all relies on the characters choosing to do what they know they have to, even if the decisions are hard ones, or ones they didn't expect to make. Frodo's decision is the first of these that hits me every time I watch.
And when I say "in the movies", it's because I haven't read the books, these points could very well be just as significant in the books.
It's very clear in the book. The Ring knows Frodo can't destroy it (as Gandalf had encouraged him to throw it in the fireplace, so he tried his hardest and put it in his pocket). When Frodo accepts the burden he's surprised by his own willingness, as though another voice is working through him. He does want to help, and The Ring seizes the opportunity to get closer to its master. When he sat on the high throne at Amon Hen while wearing the Ring, he looked toward Mordor and despite his personal aversions he felt his thoughts twist into 'Verily I come, I come to you' until another voice (Gandalf from afar) compelled him to take it off. Then at the end when Gollum attacks Frodo on the path up Mount Doom, Sam saw with othersight Frodo as a white figure with a wheel of flame on his chest. From the wheel came the curse (paraphrasing) 'Touch me again and be cast you yourself into the fire'. Later, The Ring's power compelled Gollum to fall in, but he happened to be holding it. Evil destroys itself.
Just love the fact that as you started to mention that not all elves are outright cheerful, I felt everyone watching the video somehow exclaiming as one voice, "Faenor" for some reason xD
I believe Feanor's rare 'positive' moods distinctly leaned more towards maniacal.
Add Eol to the list
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the work NOT being a trilogy. I was fortunate enough to be loaned the paperback edition which was in one fat volume by a colleague in university. She recommended it and once I got used to the 1st chapter ( and caught hook line and sinker by the 2nd - Shadow of the Past ) I read it in every spare moment and finished it in about a fortnight. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life, up to that point and I then went out and bought the hard back edition which was, alas, in 3 volumes. I agree that the division into three, although a practical help at the time of publishing, is not the best way to present it nowadays. Tolkien's divisions are obviously better all round.
Agreed. I have a big ol' "omnibus" version, and it's so much better to smoothly go on to the next part of the story instead of having to open up a whole new book; because it really doesn't feel like three separate books.
45:30 thank you for mentioning that tolkien had immense knowledge of both anglo-saxon, celtic and old norse. he also based one of his languages on finnish, as far as i remember, because it was his favorite language in the real world and as such he drew a lot of inspiration from the Kalevala. (finnish mythology)
with the dwarves and their names they are very obviously with reference to norse mythology.
53:00 - You know, by complete coincidence, when I first read The Lord of the Rings (after seeing the first movie), it was in a one-volume edition, and that's how I most strongly remember it. It wasn't on purpose, it was just because that was what the school library happened to have on hand. But it really did help my first experience with it. I remember reading the separate volumes later and thinking, "Wait, Fellowship ends THERE?" and I had this whooooaaaa moment where I finally really understood Tolkien's correction of the "trilogy" label in the foreword. LotR really does make a lot more structural sense when taken as a singular novel.
Thanks for a wonderful episode of Tolkien Untangled. When you got to the part about the Arkenstone I was laughing (while I was painting furniture, which isn't good!) because it basically described my experience with that theory: 1) After reading it for the first time, "Wow! That is so cool! The Arkenstone is a Simaril. I never thought of that!"; 2) Wakes up in the middle of the night thinking, "Wait a minute, does that make sense? What about blah, blah, blah and yada, yada, yada in The Silmarillion?"; 3) Gets up the next day, pulls The Silmarillion off the shelf, flips pages, reads and whispers, "Damn it ... that would have been awesome."
I also want to comment on the Shire Reckoning Calendar. When you first started in with the "Tolkien did it better schtick" I gave you a bit of an eye roll. As much as I respect the Professor's work, and I do consider myself a fan, I refuse to genuflect at the "alter of Tolkien". While no one has accomplished what he has with world building, he was hardly perfect as a storyteller (I mean, the list is long). But after listening to what you had to say about his calendar, I think I agree with you! Tolkien's calendar is way better than ours and someone should get going on that "act of tyranny". Just saying.
Additionally, I have learned a lot from your analysis of Sauron's character. I find myself thinking about it more frequently than I care to admit. I'm not disagreeing with your analysis at all; it makes Sauron so much more interesting than my limited understanding of him over the last 30 years. But how do you reconcile your analysis with this line from The Silmarillion: “In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself.”?
And finally, I agree with you, Fëanor wasn't a psychopath ... he was a narcissist.
The Arkenstone is most definately not a silmaril Jeez some of you will believe anything, read the silmarillion & a host of other storys that describe them & its obvious. The silmarils shine with the light of the trees of the valar. its like comparing a torch with a 1000 watt sodium lamp
Ever since I first read LOTR around forty years ago I've held the opinion that even though it's fiction it's HISTORY. There's something about it that just rings true and I can't quite put my finger on why. Perhaps it's because it's not the stereotypical 'happy ending'. So much that was great was lost to defeat Morgoth and Sauron. Sure, good won, but at such a terrible cost that the world will be forever less than it was.
I had a similar feeling briefly during one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies when Jack Sparrow said "The world is the same size, there's just less in it."
What if it really is based on historical events?
"The world is still the same, there's just... less in it" is actually a perfect résumé of events in the Third Age.
This sounds more like valuing of the quality of the fantasy, than it being history, unless I'm misunderstanding. I would also suggest lotr displays the stereotypical happy ending more than a lot of modern fantasy who approach it less as an epic, and more as a 'realistic' or even cynical story.
This is a top tier Tolkien channel! If you keep pumping out these long form videos, I'll keep watching. Thank you for the excellent content
Yes, I've been binging on Tolkien videos lately, just clicking on whatever comes up in the feed, and Tolkien Untangled has the most interesting, in depth, and scholarly videos.
I would like to believe that Elrond gave his twin brother a hard time for his choice to be mortal. As loving brothers can jest with each other about even the worst of situations, it might have been in Elronds humor to refer to Elros as “old man” or something.
When you talked about how Frodo would be dead by the time Sam got to the Undying lands I think that is untrue. When you read that a mortal sailing there would last only a half a year at most, they may be referring to how long a year is in the language of the Elves that live there which you noted would be something like 144 of our years. In that case sure, a mortal might only live a half of that Elf year (77 years) but that doesn’t speed them to their death, it is all subjective to the language used and not relative to what part of the world they are in. Therefore Sam should still be able to see Frodo assuming Frodos life expectancy didn’t diminish after his journey with the ring.
Yeah, I kinda refuse to believe that one. No way would Tolkien be that cruel, as to split them up forever by mercy killing them.
The 77 year thing makes more sense to me too.
As another comment pointed out, he says mortals would become weary, like how he said the Elves did in Middle Earth. I take these two things together as him saying that they could live longer (and potentially forever), but that eventually they would grow tired of it and welcome death.
Also Bilbo and Frodo are no longer ordinary mortals. They are ring bearers
As always - EXCELLENT! I always wanted to get clarification on Sauron's corporeal form during the period of the Lord of the Rings (particularly since the movies and animated versions portray him only as a lidless fire-eye evil spirit), However, when Gollum confirms to Frodo that "he" only has 9 fingers, obviously Gollum saw the physicalform of Sauron. I think it is best that Professor Tolkien kept the physical description of Sauron at this time vague since it stirs in our imagination his physically frightening appearance after the fall of Numenor, AND his powerful maia spirit that can pierce through his land (like the evil version on the Girdle of Melian).
Thank you again for your thoroughly enlightening podcast. ❤️💗💙💛
Great video! I do feel the need to point out that Sauron isn't actually reduced to just his eponymous Eye in the films either - when Aragorn challenges him at the Palantir, you can see Sauron's actual physical body clutching his own palantir for a moment, within the pupil of the Great Eye, right before he shows the vision of Arwen's death.
Generally, movie depiction wasn't really set in stone.
Like, one time it seems that "lighhouse" eye is Sauron, the other you hear about deleting scene of Aragorn vs Sauron fight....
Some of your very best work, massively entertaining well spoken and thought out to an epic level. Thank you so much for doing this!! I appreciate you!
Thank you!
The fact that Tolkien invented a language for this world alone, puts it leaps and bounds ahead of Star Wars and Harry Potter.
it's the other way around. He invented a world history for his already created languages.
It gives Middle-Earth a serious level of depth, because words and names therefore have an etymology - part of the history that Tolkien built around his languages. The world feels lived-in and real.
Star Wars has invented languages. Admittedly, they aren't as meaningful as Middle Earths, but Star Wars does have proper languages that have been created
yeah, Star Wars definitely had some original languages, but that's a pretty weird standard for quality in the first place, what invented languages should Harry Potter even have for example? You could design some more concrete languages for some of the "magical creatures" (that already have implied and partially designed languages), but what would that add to a story about the magical humans that mostly speak English anyway?
@@PixelOverloadHP did create a language it’s called British English
#11- Sauron did not wield a mace. He met Elendil and Gil-Galad on the slopes of Orodruin to fight unarmed and killed them both by hand.
Yeah, the mace thing was Morgoth's jam. Grond!
It's not really described in detail. Sauron could have used a weapon at some point during the long 2-in-1 duel. True, no weapon is described, let alone a mace, and it's rather explicitly stated that Sauron grasped Gil-Galad's head and set him on fire. Hardcore.
@@Dyrnwynn And then the 7’ 11” human knocked his ass to the ground and his son cut off his finger.
@@Dyrnwynn Not in detail, it just says he "wrestled" with Gil-Galad and Elendil.
@@dominicmarazita8103 No, because Elendil and Gil-Galad are introduced with their weapons specifically named, as are literally every single other character that engages in physical battle. So either Sauron was not armed with a weapon or he's the only person in the whole legendarium to not have a named (or even described) weapon.
Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England, which he thought it sorely lacked. He enumerated various other peoples and countries which had mythologies and mythological beings, such as the Elves of Scandinavia, but thought that England and the English needed their own equivalent.
He was also fascinated by Finnish mythology. Just compare the story of Kullervo and Turin. Or how singing is used in story telling.
This annoys me so fucking much. People *love* to grant everything they possibly can to Scandinavia. I can't even begin to express how many times I've seen people, without contention, confidently ascribe something that was common to all Germanic peoples to Scandinavia just because they have a hard on for Scandinavia.
To your example, we know, without a doubt that elves existed in English mythology, as it did across the germanic world. To use a basic example: "Aelf" (with the AE being converted to either A or E in modern English) was a common start to many names; such as Aelfraed (Alfred). If elves didn't exist in the culture, how did that happen?
Everybody already hates the English, including themselves - you don't need to make shit up to encourage that process
@@tommeakin1732 Based Reply
@@tommeakin1732
Or, you know, the vast majority of people aren't experts on ancient Germanic folklore and have only heard of those things in the modern context of Scandinavian mythology.
Well said that man!
I started binging your Silmarillion videos a while ago (and was sad when I reached the for now last one^^). My boyfriend at one point asked "why do you do this? You already know all of this from the books". He's mostly right, but theses stories are epic and yes, I could re-read them, but I can as well listen to your awesome videos, see some awesome related fanart, AND do something else like painting :) Thank you so much for your work!
Also, I got David Day's encyclopedia as a teenager - and started to put notes in it for everything I found was wrong (meaning not as in the Silmarillion which I had read before) :D Sadly, I could not read ALL of Tolkien's Middle-Earth-related books for some were not available in my language. Now I enjoy listening much more then reading, so thank you again!
I'm a touch concerned about how quickly you went from "Sauron became evil because he desired a more ordered Creation" to "I'm going to take over the world and impose a better calendar"
Sauron:"oh my god, Frodo! We have something in common! We both only have nine finger! High five!"
Frodo:"you mean four?"
Sauron:"yes"
My copy of lotr is the long book with six sections to it- pretty cool to imagine I’m reading it how Tolkien intended!
Same here!
Same. One single volume with 6 "books" within it
Great video. As a devoted fan, I knew most of these, but I did learn some things, and you are my favorite Tolkien scholar!
I once had the Lord of the Rings as a single tome. With the appendices included. Man that was a wonderful thing to hold. Wish i still had it. Not a book to read while lying on your back holding it above you, unless you are wanting a work out for your arms while you read.
There were a few of these points that i had wrong. Most notably the facts about the elves not being able to chose a mortal life and what the two towers actually were. I really like these videos. Every time I click on one I learn something new about the stories that are being told or the history of Middle Earth. Keep it up.
Thanks!
I have that book. It’s bound in red with gold foil lettering and includes a fold-out map of Middle Earth.😊
Checked the shelves - there was a single-tome HarperCollins (1995) paperback edition of 1100+ pages. It's a workout not just for the arms, but also for the eyes.
Trivial and mostly unrelated observations: The unfinished drawing of Sauron has him in a pose similar to a famous photograph of Aleister Crowley. I also suspect that Gollum was strongly influenced by Crowley, who was an accomplished rock climber. A description of Crowley climbing at Beachy Head is extremely similar to Tolkien's description of Gollum climbing. Lastly, the Eye of Sauron looks awfully similar to The Tower in Crowley's Tarot deck...
If Sméagol and Deagol were relatives….then it seems most likely that they were cousins.
They were of similar age, and the choices for a relative would be father, uncle or cousin. Of these, cousin is by far the most likely.
We don’t know what “kind” of cousin (1st cousin, 2nd cousin; once removed, twice removed, etc.), but the fact that there are multiple choices for kind of cousin while you can only have a single kind of uncle (a brother of one of your parents) would reinforce this.
Deagol was Sméagol’s cousin unless you can show me otherwise.
One note about Scottish dwarves, the vikings did have a lot of influence on Scottish culture and language. To this day a lot of Northern UK have several Nordic names going around, be it for people or places, among other things.
Didn't Norway own scotland in 1300s or something
Great video!! I really appreciate all of your in-depth, well researched findings!
My one criticism of Elrond in the movie trilogy was the fact that he came across as severe. When I read the books for the first time in the early 90's, I always pictured him as being a great deal more jovial.
The more times I read the books (and that's at least once a year) the worse the movie bothers me. I'm disappointed that so many will only know what's portrayed in the movies, including the change in the characters of Elrond, Faramir, and Frodo himself, who doesn't project any strength in the movies in my mind. The change in the Ents is okay, I guess. It's entertaining anyway. But the scene of Gandalf acting as an exorcist for Theoden is another bad move. My daughter only saw the movies and is determined it was sheer and obvious allegory on the part of Tolkien. Sad.
@@mgentles3 I understand what you are saying but I look at it a little differently. I think a very large percentage of the movie watchers would have never read the books. So I’m actually glad these people got at least this exposure to this incredible fantasy world and story in the movies.
Now, if I were dictator for a day I would mandate courses for the reading and breaking down of the Hobbit in middle school; LOTR in high school; and The Silmarillion in college.
@@ajalvarez3111 I did actually mean to include the fact that it's better to have the movie exposure to Tolkien than no exposure at all. The comment got long and got away from me. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't be happier that New Line Cinema took a chance and the movies were made. Thanks for the heads up.
@@mgentles3 Totally. I've only read the LotR books three times, but the last time was recently. Although I enjoyed the movies, reading the books makes me yearn to see movies made that stay much closer to the source material. Alas, it is not likely to be made any time soon!
I also agree with AJ's comment. I watched the first movie the day it came out, just before Christmas, then I got the book and started reading it just after Christmas. If the movies were never made, I'm not sure if I ever would've read the book.
Those movies butchered Elrond.
On the topic of death and mortality. I find it interesting that mortality is referred to both as a doom and as a gift and as you phrase it here, that mortals return to Illúvatar, whereas the Eldar cannot do that really runs home the idea that this could indeed be a gift.
Tolkien just created something truly magnificent. I think that bittersweet aspect is what makes middle-earth so deeply moving because it's hope in hopelessness, beauty in decay. That and the fact that he pretty much nails the choice of words and style for ever scene he sets out, be it funny, epic, tragic, moving or mysterious.
About number two: you actually explain the difference of the Valar calendar and the Shire calendar earlier in the video. What Tolkien possibly meant with mortals living shorter lives in Valinor means that in comparison to the eternal beings there. Living only a few seasons would, in Valinor, mean decades of time in Shire. Thus creatures with a lot longer lifespans would not seem to age as the mortals did, but the mortals would still live their full lives, and it is possible that Sam and Frodo would meet each other once more, but would both be very old by the time.
I always took that as more metaphorical as well! Or, yes, referring to the longer "year" reckoning of the elves. (But yes, I'd always understood that a mortal sailing to the Undying Lands did not mean the mortal would become "undying" or immortal. Only that in the Undying Lands they would find a peace in their remaining days that they would not be able to find in Middle Earth. As Dave says so very, very well -- all of Tolkien's work is suffused with a bittersweet quality.)
I thought all the characters (barring perhaps Legolas) who sailed to 'the undying lands' actually went to Tol Eressea, the island set apart from Valinor. If I'm correct, it would be nice to hear more from you about that island, its origin and the reason of its making, and the inhabitants as well.
Yes
Just read the Silmarillion, there is a whole part about Tol Eressea..
@@peterang6912 Yes, I've read it several times, though my retention stinks.
@@mgentles3 yes well, you realy need to read The Silmarillion a lot of times before you start to get the conections.and remember who and what... al those races and sub races of elves, dwarfs and humans.. ( and i'm not even talking about al the names and surnames of them all...) 🤣🤣
IIRC, it was the island that Úlmo used to transport some of the elves to Valinor. It was then anchored in that spot and remained there ever after.
Marvelous! Especially the clarity regarding Tolkien's 'mythology' differentiated from 'fantasy'. I thoroughly enjoyed this. I was deeply impressed by your grasp and appreciation for Tolkien's calendar brilliance. Tolkien is a mountain full of mines and mysteries that never seem to run out of rich gems and golden treasure.
While Tolkien was a genius and magnificent writer (my favourite), his Shire calendar is just the Old English calendar used before the adoption of the Julian one.
All the months are practically the same (Solmath = Solmónaþ, meaning soil/wet month) and the holidays (Lithe and Yule) are from Old English as well. He didn't invent it.
They so missed Bilbo volunteering to take the Ring, in The Council of Elrond. It should have been in The Fellowship. And Gloin smiling from his deep respect for Bilbo.
Tolkien just casually making a calendar that works better than our actual Calendar might just be the most Tolkien thing I've ever heard.
I really enjoy the education you supply. It allows me to better understand the richness of Tolkeins work. Thank you for all your hard work and diligence...💯
Great video and one that is certainly needed, especially for people who have only watched the movies. Your points about the elvish and dwarvish characteristics was spot on. It somewhat irritated me how in Jackson's "Hobbit" movies the dwarves were depicted as rowdy party-animals while the elves were shown as stiff and humorless (you saw this especially while Bilbo and Co. were at Rivendell) when in book almost the opposite is the case. Tolkien wrote in "The Hobbit" that dwarves often consider elves to be frivolous and foolish and get annoyed with their often carefree outlook on life (and at how elves often tease dwarves about their beards).
In addition to the misconception of Deagol and Smeagol being canonically cousins, another common misconception is that Frodo is Bilbo's nephew when he is actually Bilbo's first cousin once removed on his mother's side and his second cousin once removed on his father's side.
re - Sauron potentially regrowing his finger
I think it's the Quenta Silmarillion that talks about the Valar (and the Maiar) and how they are easily able to switch between having a physical body (Hroa), or discarding it and moving about as a spirit (fea). It goes on to say, however, that the longer they maintain and use a Hroa, the less able they are to change it or to (easily) discard it.
You seem to have better memory than me: Isn't there a mention in the Silmarillion of Sauron that goes along the lines of: "And thereafter he could never take form again" after he lost The Ring?
@@spacehootle309
If I recall correctly, that line/ those lines say that he could never again take on a form that was fair, or pleasing to look at. It was only after the destruction of the One Ring at the end of the 3rd Age, that Sauron entirely lost the ability to take on any physical forms.
@@Raz.C exactly, before the downfall of Numenor, Sauron was able to assume any form, fair or fell. It is thus that he assumed the form of Annatar and tricked both the Elves (Quenti) and Ar-Pharazon and Numenoreans. When Iluvatar destroyed Numenor and moved Valinor from Middle Earth, it was thought he perished, but it was only his body and he was for a while unnable to take a physical form but later he had one. A big man, black as night and terrible.
Fall of Numenor. Sauron was caught in the drowning and lost his physical body. Tolkien says that he was never again after that able to take a pleasing form, like the one he had used as "Annatar"("Lord of Gifts") to dupe the Elves of Eregion to help him forge the Rings of Power.@@spacehootle309
I feel like I say this in my head every second or third video of yours, but… This is my favorite video of yours to date.
About them being cousins, I feel like it stands to reason since its said stoor hobbits were matriarchal / clan based, so anyone he knew would likely be a cousin
If 'little more than a half-year' is measured in Valian year, that would account for 72 years. That would just barely work out for Frodo and Sam meeting again.
I very much liked your last point. I often have to explain to my fellow nerds that modern fantasy is not so much tolkienesque as D&D-esque, and a distinctly American genre.
Very much worth the wait, 🌈 Dave!!! I think we should definitely adopt Tolkien’s calendar now too!! 😄
This was one of the best Tolkien related videos I've seen.
Wow, thanks!
I absolutely love your Silmarillion series! Awesome stuff.
This was a real eyeopener on things I've never put much thought on. I didn't think anything could be more interesting than the Silmarillion series, but this is up there with the best of those. :)
When I think of a "modern fantasy setting" I actually imagine the DragonLance setting, as it was the books I read at the age when you are very susceptible for new impressions. I read LOTR maybe a year later or so (don't exactly remember, I mean.. we're talking mid 80'es here! :D ).
That me and so many other still in the year 2023 are talking about and make content on Tolkiens LOTR is a testimony if nothing else in how great his creation is!
Thanks for all the videos you make, they are great and I enjoy them immensely!
I'm in for the Shire calendar! Living in equator really doesn't change anything much, really, sun shining all year long, day and night pretty munch are the same length, greenery never changes, plants growing forever. So, Shire calendar will make everything less complicated.
You're videos are just so wonderful. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and insights.
I was really surprised when you classified Rumpelstilzchen as a dwarf... he is a Kobold, a sort of mischievous to evil little critter... the benevolent side of a Kobold is Pumuckl.
I loved this video and was quite astonished over the different calendars being so accurate... thanks for giving me another reason to admire the Professor
There are people who are going to misinterpret his works by going off by inaccurate information. Thus, channels like yours bring to light the truth of the matter.
This is such a good video, I can definitely feel a sort of passion when he explains the themes of the entire series when the assignment was just to explain simple misconception
I could not agree with you more that Tokins’ works are perfect examples of True Mythology. They reflect every aspect of Joseph Campbell‘s Works, who I believe unlocks every facet of mythologies across cultures, across time, across different points of view, across patriarchies and matriarchies, and more. Tolkien,in my opinion, was the first person to come to realize a Full Mythology. Full of nearly every aspect of Human Mythology, which Joseph Campbell was able to clarify and codify, decades Later, in many many books. So brilliant insight as always‼️