#Tolkien metaphysics

[eri-pl]

Elves and curses, Men and oaths

The Silm says that the Men have "a strange power to shape their fate", to choose their own path partially independent of the Music.

So: Aragorn's ghost army. I'm sure I've said it somewhere before, but the only way to explain them existing is to say "the race of Men has such a high degree of power over their fates that they can swear oaths that bind them strong enough to somewhat meddle with their Gift". (Somewhat, not to completely break it, but "somewhat" it's still a lot.)

And... The Nazgul. I'm sure they did swear fealty to Sauron . And whatever-happened-between-Men-and-Morgoth. I think this too involved swearing something, even if the Tale of Adanel is not proper canon.

Ar-Pharazon and his army being hibernated under the mountains feels like it may (and, in terms of a satysfying narrative, should) be a case of it. For example: they made an oath to fight the enemy that deprived them of their immortality. This would fit perfectly with the whole concept. And with the pride of Númenor, it makes sense that they would swear it.

TBH this mechanism could even give us the "Turin will fight in the last battle", if we go with the more reasonable version where he doesn't go brrrr out of Ea, but kind of waits here. I still don't like this concept, but it can work.

Oh, and the part where Beren is able to actually wait for Lúthien in the Halls. He swore to wait for her, at least in some versions of the text it's there.

The Elves don't have this power, and the only time we see Elves swearing oaths, the effects are internal. They make decisions and have emotional compulsions based on the oath but there's no clearly supernatural effect. And yes, they don't get thrown into Everlasting Darkness just because they demanded it, that's apparently a strictly human privilege, if at all. Feanor failed in his revenge and it's canonically in the Halls, so that's a data point.

(Yes, marriage. But still, it's not an oath bigger than death, like it is for Men.)

I think it may be the other way around with being cursed.

Eol - a normal elf, even though related to him, and savvy in dark lore - curses Maeglin to die like him, and it happens, in quite a big coincidence.

TBH I have to go look for more cases of Elves getting cursed. Thingol? He does get into trouble on his own then but it is quite out-of-character for an old, wise elf who has already worked through his racial biases.

Turin - a Man - gets cursed by Morgoth, the most powerful evil of all, and yet, Morgoth has to do all the curse-related stuff manually (well, draconally but you get the point) and cannot reach Turin behind the Girdle and sure, Turin does get into trouble by himself, but that's pretty in-character for him and his childhood trauma.

I need more data, but I think it would make sense if Elves were easier to curse.

[majokko120]

Eucatastrophe

Eucatastrophe has to be something that not only overcomes the story-problem, but also something that overcomes the world; the real world. The reason why this has to be that way is the definition provided by Tolkien how the Eucatastrophe unfolding in the story actually is a light breaking in from outside, from reality, but this light has the power to not only rock the world of the story, but it is also a light that overcomes the life-problem, in reality.

Meaning, that which overcomes the story-problem also overcomes the world. This means that which overcomes the story-problem is based on Christian Truth. To further extrapolate this onto structure: The story-problem has to be a problem that is inherent to the world, (think fallen nature, fallen man and the consequences) and its solution has to be inherently Christian (not from this world).

Just like Christ was hated by, but overcame the world. It is this glorious victory, against all odds, accomplishing the impossible, that defines an Eucatastrophe. Sometimes this 'impossible' can be an act of forgiveness, a change of heart, mercy, recognition and acceptance, courage instead of apathetic defeatism, friendship where hatred dwelled, or heroic self-sacrifice where cowardly egotism reigned.

If we know the character of both, Effect/Solution (the Eucatastrophe) and Cause/Problem (the Story-Problem) we can infer, derive, and abduct (reverse) in order to arrive at a functional pair of problem and solution, in line with Tolkien's description of Eucatastrophe.

Someone lying, someone stealing, someone aiming to kill someone out of jealousy, blind hatred based on hurt pride; that's the fallen world. And the solution has to be something not from this world, but it overcomes this world, even though, according to the logic of this world, it shouldn't be able to do that; that's Eucatastrophe. That's the Light of Christ breaking not only into the world of the story, but by doing so also reminding us of its world-overcoming power in the real world, outside the story. This gives the moment of Eucatastrophe not only a brilliant dramatic force, but the uttermost relevance for reality.

[thegreatzombieartisan]

Part 1

While much ada is made of the Catholic influences in Tolkien’s works, comparatively little notice is paid to the ancient Egyptian origins and inspirations, such as when he likens it to Numenor's architectural and technological progress.

Through Dr. Joann Fletcher's docuseries of an ancient Egypt, I learned that Isis, the goddess of Life and Magic, is also associated with alchemy, the philosophy and proto-science based on transformation of Spirit or Matter.

In fact, alchemists often guarded their most important knowledge under Isis’s name: Secret Fire. Now as a medievalist who also studied the classical Egypt-Greco-Roman world, Tolkien no doubt knew about alchemy. Combined that with his famously deliberate approach toward name choice, it is not by chance that Illuvatar's Power of Creation - the Secret Fire - is linked to the alchemical process.

I theorize the Flame Imperishable is an Elvish concept for Illuvatar's Power of Creation while the Secret Fire is that of Men. And more is revealed through this.

The Flame Imperishable is first seen in the Ainulindalë, the Music of the Ainur. Since legendarium is shown through the accounts of loremasters, and not in a third-person omniscient pov, positionality must be considered.

The Ainulindalë is authored by Noldorin loremaster Rumil. Furthermore, Bilbo Baggins, it is implied, along with the rest of the Silmarillion, into Westron, the language of Men.

... [Ilúvatar said]: Eä! Let these things Be! And I will send forth into the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the World, and the World shall Be; and those of you that will may go down into it.’ (The Silmarillion, "Ainulindalë")

The Valaquenta, the following section, opens with a title and statement signifying Bilbo, or at least, a non-Elven translator.

Account of the Valar and Maiar according to the lore of the Eldar

Next is a short summary of the Ainulindalë with new information. Firstly, "Ilúvatar" is the Elvish name for whom Men call The One. Secondly, without any further explanation, "Flame Imperishable" is replaced with the "Secret Fire".

Therefore Ilúvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Eä. (The Silmarillion, "Valaquenta")

Both the Flame Imperishable and Secret Fire show Illuvatar's Power of Creation performing a similar function: being sent to the heart of the World. Yet notice the differences in translation:

Following the same subject-predicate order as the "Flame Imperishable", shouldn't "Secret Fire" be in fact "Fire Secret"?

"Imperishable" and "Secret" are not synonymous translations.

When Melkor seeks the Flame Imperishable, it's written predicate-subject - that is, Imperishable Flame.

Secret Fire is only capitalized when directly referencing Ilúvatar.

Why the Name Distinction?

The Silmarillion translator, seemingly upon reflection, decided that Men - the intended audience - would best understand the Flame Imperishable as the Secret Fire. This modification is introduced at beginning of the Valaquenta and henceforth "Flame Imperishable" is retired. It beggars the question: what reason would Men not grasp an Elvish concept? Well, what's the difference between the two Races? Immortality, most obviously, but also sub-creative power of which both are sourced, as all things, from Ilúvatar.

Recall the hobbits speaking of "Elf-magic" in Lothlorien:

... [Galadriel] said, turning to Sam. ‘For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean...But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel.’ (Fellowship of the Ring, "The Mirror of the Galadriel")

To the Elves, sub-creative power is simply part of who they are. No more magic than a bird's flight. Yet for Men, who lack this gift, the workings of Elf magia, as Tolkien called it, it is a wonder that can only be achieved, theoretically, through alchemy.

But how does the Secret Fire reconcile this wonder?

After chasing the Google search rabbithole, I stumbled upon a intriguing book called The SECRET FIRE: An Alchemical Study by E. J. Langford Garstin.

To summarize, it showcases alchemical process - called the Art - across different ancient Western religions including the cult of Isis and Egyptian deity, Ra, creator of Egypt. Here's an excerpt that's uncannily similar to the description of the Flame Imperishable/Secret Fire:

There is above the Celestial Fire an Incorruptible Flame, always sparkling; the Spring of Life, the Fountain of all Being, the Original of all things!... It encompasseth the Heavens. And there goeth forth from It a little Spark, which maketh all the Fire of the Sun, of the Moon and of the Stars.

"Incorruptible Flame", the "little Spark" that "goeth" and creates the universe. Sound familiar?

Therefore Ilúvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Eä. (The Silmarillion, "Valaquenta")

Many questions are raised, more than I can think of right now.

Firstly, how would Bilbo become knowledgeable about alchemy?

What really is the alchemical process and how does it matter to the Creation of Eä? How can we, as readers, use it better understand Tolkien's work?

Also it makes wonder about Tolkien’s personal beliefs around religion. Look out for Part 2. Thank you for reading. I hope you found it valuable. I appreciate all tagged reblogs and likes. Got feedback? Please comment or DM.

[eri-pl]

Ooooh. :) What an interesting topic to think of. (disclaimer: that is all purely for intellectual fun and not expected to fit with any real-world theology or anything also may contain peanuts.)

I am slightly surprised with your take on the Ainur (the accents, not the content) but yes, the fact that they existed before time makes it somewhat weird when you look at it too closely, but,... idk. Let's handweave it.

Maeglin is blamed on the Doom of the Noldor? I forgot that, that's interesting.

Yes, the non-Noldor, and early Noldor were not perfect, also, Miriel died and Finwë get this really strange for Elves thing when he fell in love again, and this was before the whole thing. "In some ways" is the key here, I agree. Like... they are not all-fallen-as-a-race but many of them seem kinda fallen. I think it's another case of Tolkien trying to do many things at various times and those things not working well together.

Also, you could say that the Dark Elves fell when they refused to go to Valinor, maybe? That would fix a lot. The Vanyar do seem non-fallen, unless you hc them to be jerks. And you could also blame the Teleri for waiting. This still leaves the pre-exile Noldor as an open question. But they do work with Melkor after his release….

Elves are tied to Arda, they are maybe more like the natural world, maybe their fall is very gradual, fuzzy... Men are more all-or-nothing than elves, I would assume. The Elves are connected to Arda, they are sort of grounded, maybe their corruption and the corruption of Arda is not fully separable. Yes, we're probably getting to stuff that normally would be a heresy, but idk it's a fantasy book and maybe we can see it as a metaphor for something.

Yes, Men are… Men. And hobbits are Men, but smol. And yes, the Shire is Tolkien's nostalgia wish-fulfillment land in a way.

The Dwarves are, I would say, not fully integrated in the narrative as a metaphysically-on-human-level race. They started off as monsters, like Orcs, and evolved among Tolkien's drafts and ended up a little unfinished. Other seemingly-posessing-souls creatures (Ents, Eagles if you don't see them as Maiar,..) are even more unintegrated.

I don't think I have a good explanation of the Dwarves, but also, with them we are working so far outside any framework we know…

I don't have much new thoughts to add, I'm sorry. It's just… What we are doing, what Tolkien tried to do is just jumping so much above out heads. (But also so interesting.)

OK, let me propose something: the Dwarves have both the "problem" of Men (die) and the "problem" of Elves (while alive, they're attuned to Arda). They just get un-attuned when they die. Somehow. Because Aulë made them in a way that was… well, he tried. I like Aulë.

So the Men are, in a way the only unfallen (except that they fell) race: they are the only ones that are not corrupted by the marring of Arda, because they are not connected to it so strongly, like they have a kind of filter? So… OK, we're getting to a place where I need to put my hc on a shelf to even be able to discuss that close enough to what Tolkien wrote or suggested. So I will not go into the details. Anyway the outcome is that they are fallen too, but they are fallen in a different way. From the inside.

And it seems the exiled Noldor may have this too? I'm not fully buying it tbh. But maybe that was Tolkien's intent about them. So they would be breaking both from the outside and from the inside. But they do not die. So, you are probably right, it's not the same thing.

Anyway, the marring is one thing and the fact that the Valar aren't working perfectlly either… it may be the result of the marring, it may be just the result of them being ...whatever to call it. But they do make mistakes, to mention the biggest: the whole Dwarves situation. I think this also has an impact on the state of the world.

The world is falling apart (just slowly) and the Men (and only them) would not be falling apart with it, except they do, just for a different reason. This makes no sense on many levels, probably, but makes some sense to me as a way to read the Silm. It fits with the theme of diminishing and fading and all that.

In which I puzzle over metaphysical implications as regards the peoples inhabiting Arda

fyi, a certain familiarity with the (predominantly Christian, I think) concept of fallenness/unfallenness is assumed, although it turns out that it doesn't necessarily work here. Feel free to ask for clarifications

So. I'm once again wracking my head as I try to make sense of what I shall call: 'metaphysical states' of elves, men and others, because the subject is emphasised and lampshaded a lot in the books, and I can't force it all to make sense when taken together.

Ainur are a specific case and I should really leave them aside for now. They certainly can fall — and, unlike angels, change their mind, apparently (which goes both ways) — although they do seem to be more all-or-nothing than everyone else. Still, I think as long as one doesn't go into the implications of time and what its existence or nonexistence changes, they're almost straightforward. But then you have:

Elves. The 'Fall of the Noldor' is very strongly emphasised as a metaphysical fall from grace and further evils, even ones unconnected with the matter of the Silmarils themselves, are blamed on it later (Maeglin!) So far so good. Except. Non-Noldor are also liable to behave in ways that are not exemplary in the slightest, and it doesn't seem to signify a cesura in the same way — and the Noldor in Valinor were able to commit acts that perhaps weren't as heinous as what we call crimes, but weren't good either. Getting into rancid fights with your brother isn't much in comparison, but these are not the actions of unfallen people.

And on the other hand, authorial quote (paraphrased): "Elves in some ways represent Man in an unfallen state". And I'm inclined to agree: they aren't subject to death (except they may be killed, so doesn't this already break down?), and there is something very poignant in the image of their artistry, "extempt from earthly limitations". But they do not lose it, not in any easily tangible way. We can argue that evil diminishes creativity and it's probably true, but there is no hard line anyone passes. And this is again lampshaded in-world with the Númenoreans ("If we die because of some darkness that lay on us before, than why don't the Noldor?").

Which brings us to Men. The existence of a direct cause-effect relationship between fallenness and mortality in Arda cannot be ascertained (Even taking into account a Catholic framework, I feel that logically it need not be the same relationship as the Biblical one since, in contrast with the Garden of Eden, the world was already marred when humans appeared). While I consider the Tale of Adanel to be Gondorian in origin, I can also see the possibility that whatever Men did back then, beyond memory (or in other words "we purposefully forgot") was just that much worse than Alqualondë and the Oath. In any case, Man is very straightforwardly Fallen.

Hobbits. The rules for Halflings are presumably the same as for Men, which is certainly notable, given that they seem to be the least inclined to evil of all incarnates. Not perfect, not by a long shot, but unknowing of wars and violence. A pastoral image, only in-world it's true.

And at the same time, my musings bring me to the unexpected conclusion that dwarves are the only notable "generally unfallen" kindred. Which is, in context of everything that regards them, weird — because by their actions, they are very similar to Men. And yet — either the circumstances of their creation make them disadvantaged from the start (which doesn't really make that much sense), or something happened off-screen, or it's the same case as Saeros, or Thingol sending Beren to his death.

Ents? I honestly don't know if we've seen enough of ents to judge, although they seem generally good-inclined? Huorns are a different kettle of fish.

Before I try to explain orcs, it would do well to know what they are exactly.

In other words, I cannot make sense of it all, enough that I've resorted to calling the default state of incarnates in Arda "semi-fallen" (or, as is, "semi-unfallen"). Which is not a thing that makes sense, philosophically speaking — but I can find no better way.

(Although, to be quite honest, the default state of being in Arda (because of the discord?) seems to be significantly different from the unfallen state of Man as described by religious thinkers in some ways, and not all of them regard merely such things as physical marring, so perhaps "semi" isn't the worst way to describe it.)

In any case, if someone has thoughts on the subject, I'm very open to hearing them.

[eri-pl]

So, Gimli

…and Dwarves in general. What do the Dwarves do when they die? The common answers are:

They surely must go out of Arda (because they don't reincarnate)

Their spirits go to Aulë and work with him

Their spirits go to a separate (from both the Elven Halls of Waiting and Men-transfer-point) place in Mandos and... idk, just wait there.

I hereby claim that option 1 cannot be true, unless they have been very strictly adopted into the race of Men, which... is somewhat possible, but doesn't feel like it's a thing. Why? Going-out-of-Arda is a specifically Mannish thing, along with the out-of-Song-ness. Also, they may have originally been different, but [...the whole semi-demi-canon mess that is Tale of Adanel & co].

2 or 3 may be true, but let's continue the discussion of 1. Why do the Dwarves grow old then? I claim: they do grow old because that's how marred material world works, they do grow old just like grass and deer and snakes. Not like Men. It is not as inherent for them to have an allotted time on Arda. It's just a result of the marring.

They aren't driven towards the Outside, if they feel pulled anywhere as their time passes, it's towards Aulë maybe (assuming 2 not 3, at least).

So. Gimli. Do you see what I'm going at?

He landed up in a place where the marring is... not fully absent, but minimal and controlled. And he can be near Aulë while still alive.

So.

So assuming that this logic above makes sense, the clear result is that Gimli is now immortal.

Which

a) is strictly against the canon, but sorry canon, I won't be needing you here, bye!

b) is awesome in the terms of fanfiction writing.

Yea, sure it's sad that his Hobbit friends died (they did, as Hobbits are Men, just smol) and that there are no (living) Dwarves around, but hey. His awesome awesome dad Aulë is there! Also Legolas and Galadriel, and I'm sure many other elves would love to meet him (Celebrimbor, Eol and Maegiln (separately!), Curufin and Caranthir if reembodied, most of the Noldor tbh)

Also, Thingol. The drama. XD Sure, after the Halls he is less racist against the Dwarves, but still. The drama. (Yes, Thingol got reembodied and is not mourning Lúlu forever, fight me).

Also:

c) it makes Aulë happier, and this in itself is a reason to HC it.

[ankh-morporkianpostalworker]

This is a bit of a ramble, but:

I truly believe that Sir Terence David John Pratchett is the greatest fantasy author of the post-Tolkien era. No one has done it as well as he did - prose, characters, tone, plot, themes, humor - he was the master of all of them.

His words danced off the page, from single lines like Death's

"LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?"

To the Vimes Boots Theory or Humans Need Fantasy monologues.

His characters are some of the most richly textured I've ever encountered - Death and Sam Vimes and Moist von Lipwig and Granny Weatherwax, each of them feels like they were given thought and care and used to tell stories that they were uniquely suited to tell.

He controlled tone like a master, from slapstick comedy to serious satire to tense moments where you feel that, just for a second, things might not be okay.

His plots were always believable in the context of the worlds he was telling, and were always engrossing - that the metaphysical adventures of Death and co. felt as natural a fit for Discworld as the starting of the setting's first newspaper, the solving of street crime and unraveling conspiracies and the grand re-opening of a post office is proof enough of that.

He used these plots to explore themes of responsibility, social inequality and duty to a person's community with razor-sharp wit and a deep anger for the injustice of the world around him. He fought the evils of the world with a pen and paper, even as he died. No one will ever do it like he did, but that he did it himself might just be good enough.

He brought comfort and joy and happiness and thought and introspection to millions.

GNU, Terry Pratchett. Mind how you go.

[lesbiansforboromir]

Literally all I've ever wanted out of tolkien adaptations is a moment where characters discuss their metaphysical existence within the given paradigms that the world itself offers and RoP made an orc and an elf argue about it onscreen and the elf came out looking like a bloodthirsty slaughterer, happy to ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to hold onto the idea that she is inherently pure of heart and soul and orcs are all better off dead because the alternative is to realise the only cosmic difference between an orc and an elf is one was tricked by evil and the other was not... And now Galadriel cannot even claim that. !!! !!! I'm supposed to not be insane about that?? I'll be dead in my grave before that happens.

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

For the person in my messages who asked for tips on tackling the Silmarillion and then suggested that I put them in a post — here they are! This is just my personal opinion, and others have weighed in on this topic before. But in case it’s helpful:

1. Be kind to yourself about this task! There’s a reason lots of people find the Silm challenging, and if you do, too, that’s no judgment of you.

2. IMHO, the first few chapters are the hardest, so try not to let them intimidate you out of the whole thing. It starts off with this very formal, archaic tone, and the early chapters take on some very abstract, metaphysical ideas. But you get used to the tone, and the story comes down out of the clouds to something more grounded and closer to a traditional (but still mythological-style) narrative. (Note “hardest” does not mean “bad” — I love those chapters!)

3. Realistically, you are not going to remember every name, place, and detail, so have a plan for that. Everything’s got a thousand names and Tolkien doesn’t always do a good job telegraphing what info is significant and will come back later vs what will literally only ever be mentioned once in passing. So expect to take some notes or spend time flipping back to earlier chapters or to the index or just googling as needed to remind yourself exactly who that angry elf is and why it’s a big deal that his own magical dog wants nothing to do with him now.

4. Find someone to read along/discuss with you. Talking about it helps you retain the info better, puzzle out stuff you found confusing, and stoke your interest by letting you dive deep into characters or themes or ideas that are especially amazing (Gwindor my beloved!). You can read along with someone in real life, someone here (hi!) or with a podcast or YouTube series, of which there are a bunch that go through the book chapter by chapter in an accessible way. (If anyone wants recs for this purpose, just LMK!)

5. Embrace that the story is nuanced and complex, which means your reaction can be the same. If you read it and find yourself wondering, “I’m not sure how to feel about [cursed human X] doing [morally objectionable thing Y]” or “I don’t understand where [spider-shaped creature of darkness Z] came from and how she got so incredibly cool powerful?” — that doesn’t mean you read it wrong! There is room for interpretation, and a lot of questions raised by the book don’t actually have obvious answers. (Questions like, is evil ever justified? Can redemption be earned and how? What do we owe to others even at a cost to ourselves? Big stuff!)

6. DNF it if you want! There’s no rule that says you have to read the Silm to be a Tolkien fan, and you don’t have to suffer through something you find unpleasant just to earn some Tolkien Points. I think it’s a gorgeous book that feeds my need to wrestle with big Life Questions while giving me some indelible characters that will always stay with me, but you don’t have to think that. Art is subjective, and there are plenty of other ways to enjoy Tolkien if the Silm turns out not to be your thing.

[erulasse23]

Frodo & PTSD: Definition of Trauma

As a quick introduction, I recently finished a Lord of the Rings trilogy re-read and as an adult with a psychology background, I am endlessly fascinated with Tolkien’s portrayal of trauma and its affects through Frodo in particular. This is going to be multiple parts, but I want to start with a definition of trauma and what Frodo might have found traumatic about his journey.

A simple google search suggests the following definition of trauma: “A deeply distressing or overwhelming experience that can have lasting negative effects on a person’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being.” Some deeper research highlights certain elements of the causes and effects of trauma.

- Trauma is defined by the way our brains process an experience as highly threatening or dangerous, such that it overwhelms our ability to cope. In this sense, trauma is highly subjective.

- Trauma can be one event, or repeated exposure to stressors.

- Trauma literally re-wires our brain. A prolonged or severe stress response (fight or flight) has significant physical impact on our bodies including our nervous system, hormones, cardiovascular system, etc. PTSD occurs when these systems do not go back to normal after the threat is gone, and we lose the ability to successfully regulate our attention and emotions.

What is unique about Frodo, compared to the rest of the Fellowship, is that he carried the Ring and experienced both its pressures and the presence of the Eye for an extended time. The Eye, referring to Sauron’s metaphysical presence and attention, is described in terms of a threat. Carrying the Ring feels like there is a monster around the corner at every turn, waiting in suspense for a jump scare, constantly being chased and barely staying out of reach. In short, it’s a prolonged, acute stress response happening inside Frodo’s brain for months, exhausting his physical and emotional resources.

Other research about trauma indicates that experiences which significantly alter our self-perception (ideas about who and how we are) are significantly more difficult to process and move past. Frodo giving in to the Ring and claiming it in the end certainly had a huge impact on his self-image. You can see this in how he treats Saruman and the ruffians in ‘The Scouring of the Shire’. Compared to the other hobbits, even kind Sam, Frodo is much more forgiving and empathetic. I believe that is because he identifies with these “bad guys” now. His experience changed him in a way that not even Sam’s did, who was with him to the end.

The other event which causes a PTSD-like response in Frodo (which I’ll get into in another post) is being stabbed by a Nazgûl on Weathertop. Why does this affect him just as much as the Ring and Sauron’s destruction? There are two reasons. One, the Nazgûl have a certain power over despair. We see this later in the Black Breath and particularly Merry and Eowyn’s wounds (which they recover from, perhaps unlike Frodo, but that’s another post too). Two, as soon as Frodo is revived, before he even is tended to by Elrond, he “bitterly regretted his foolishness, and reproached himself for weakness of will” in putting on the Ring. His self-image again plays a large part in his difficulty healing even after Elrond removes the splinter that was left in his shoulder.

In ‘Homeward Bound’ Frodo says to Gandalf, “The wound aches, and the memory of darkness is heavy on me… Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden.”

Part Two | Part Three

[neyafromfrance95]

i got quite a few anons in my askbox today screaming how it's "confirmed" (it isn't) that it is elrond or celeborn kiss and how happy they are that sauron x galadriel shippers are going to be "purged" from the tolkien space... i ofc simply blocked those anons bc i don't need that toxicity but,

it confirms what i've been saying - the incelbros demanding celeborn+celebrian, constantly bringing them up, spreading false leaks about elrond/galadriel kiss, are doing all of that bc sauron x galadriel makes their blood boil.

and i guess it's bc they have this tradwife mother fantasy of galadriel and they hate that she is serving the armour-core. but again, it's so funny to me that in the eyes of the incel fanboys, sauron x galadriel are some sort of wokest feministest ship ever. or maybe they just hate seeing the heroines having ambitions AND desires. and romances that are catered to women.

sauron isn't just a sexy hot villain, he is the villain who offers galadriel to be a queen and wants to give her power, and becomes a pathetically obsessed simp for her.

i guess the incels don't like such dynamics. they prefer the male characters to be the stoic heroes and their love interests to be these docile waifus and for them to have the most puritan normative relationship.

they don't like it that sauron encourages galadriel to be more ambitious and powerful. they like it when the heroes humble the heroines.

they don't like it when romances serve the matched freaks and overarching metaphysical motifs and metaphors either. they accept romance only when it's simple and catering to the incel fantasy.

[ardafanonarch]

maybe a silly one: thoughts on crablor?

Crab-Lore

For those who have yet to encounter him, “Crablor” is a portmanteau of “Crab” and “Maglor”, i.e., the crab Maglor became after his many ages of wandering the shores in pain and regret. Crablor is fanon. It was born here.

As @faustandfurious wrote in that very post there is no canon about Maglor’s eventual fate. (You can read about the various ways Maglor ended, or didn’t, here).

But the idea of Elven crabification in general does have some basis in canon!

In his writings on Elven fading in Morgoth’s Ring, Tolkien talks about the fëa (spirit) consuming the hröa (body):

As ages passed the dominance of their fëar ever increased, 'consuming' their bodies (as has been noted). The end of this process is their 'fading', as Men have called it; for the body becomes at last, as it were, a mere memory held by the fëa; and that end has already been achieved in many regions of Middle-earth, so that the Elves are indeed deathless and may not be destroyed or changed. The History of Middle-earth Vol. 10: Morgoth’s Ring, The Later Quenta Silmarillion, ‘Laws B’ (p. 219)

This was not, however, Tolkien’s last thought on the matter. In a marginal note on the entry for hröa published in the linguistic journal Parmasan Eldalamberon (Vol. 12), Tolkien revisits the metaphysical implications of Elven fading:

What of a hröa that resists fading? It is not then consumed by the fëa, but compressed by the process of containing it; by which it will in time be overcome, though at great expense to the strength of the fëa, for this at last takes possession of the changed hröa as its ‘casement’.

What?

This note Tolkien clearly did not intend to be seen or interpreted by anyone but himself, and its meaning is rather opaque. What he seems to be describing, however, is a slow process of shrinking and shapeshifting, from body to “casement”, in cases where a hröa resists fading.

Casement as in… shell? As in… exoskeleton? Elves who resist fading become crabs?

Okay, so that probably wasn’t what Tolkien meant, but I can find nothing to contradict it. Let us assume, for our amusement, that the hröa - casement transformation is, or can be, into a crab.

The next question is: Might Maglor have resisted fading?

If one imagines his fate in the published Silmarillion as self-punitive (a reading supported by the alternate versions in which he does in fact commit suicide like Maedhros), it would makes sense that he might resist fading as a sort of release from his punishment. Or perhaps the metaphysics of the Oath had some interference in his ability to fade in the usual fashion.

In which case, Maglor may very well have been one of the Elves who became a crab. Or something like it.

ETA: Happy April Fool's.

[centrally-unplanned]

Time for a pet peeve take response - let me capture our target below:

[Unpopular Fantasy Opinion Take:] The fantasy genre by-and-large took the wrong takeaway from Tolkien, and has been generally spiraling since as a result. They took his surface-level aesthetics and fantastical elements, and left his engagement with real, historical texts, his philology & his moral seriosity. In a different timeline, subsequent authors would have adopted Tolkien's erudite love of language and mythology and applied it to other cultures & mythologies - not just superficially, but by engaging with the great Chinese novels or the Shahnameh like he did with Beowulf. Even when you *do* see more recent novels "inspired by" other cultures, they are very blatantly just taking the (degraded distillate of the) Western, Tolkien-esque tradition and coating it in a thin veneer of Chinese or Mesoamerican lore.

This is not the first time I have seen this specific take, and it is part of a "fallen literature" genre that is always confusing supply & demand, with a hefty bout of selection bias for good measure.

To get the obvious out of the way, the "lessons" people took from Tolkien are entirely what audiences want to read, and were never going to be any other way. Most people don't wanna read hard, heavy books! Even if they want that sometimes, for every one Gravity's Rainbow they are gonna read a dozen Gone Girl's as a palette-cleansing snack, which means by-the-numbers the latter will dominate. Fantasy did not invent the genre of adventure stories and swashbuckling heroes and hot maidens to woo and mystical mumbo-jumbo; people stapling tried-and-true genre tropes onto elves and orcs once they took off was a given. The "shallow" part was the only part that could have changed; a world where the median fantasy novel is dealing with theological issues could never have been.

And to top this all off, no disrespect to Tolkien at all, but like...he isn't that deep? The "moral seriousness" of the Lord of the Rings is very simple - characters are often cartoonishly evil or blatantly good, the conflicts they face are often black and white, and in particular the moral dilemmas faced by characters boil down to tests of courage more than half the time. What Tolkien does have is his own unique interests? Like in Middle Earth the "act of creation", from art to life, is itself a moral undertaking with metaphysical implications. This is super cool - but it is also again very simple, it is barely even discussed in the novels and his ideas can be summarized in a paragraph. This is all good btw! The novels would not benefit from more complicated morality. But modern books are just as complex, and often more so.

Actually just a little aside here - a lot of people do this thing with Tolkien where they mention his letters and drafts like that is canonical story text? Yeah he wrote like an essay about the theological implications of the various orc origin stories, but he didn't publish that, it is nowhere in the Lord of the Rings and is barely in the Silmarillion. Other authors have notes like those; you just don't read them.

And the "other cultures" stuff is particularly egregious - I'm sorry, are we just not reading many modern stories? You think Spinning Silver isn't pulling great threads from Slavic folklore? You think the Chinese Gays in Mo Dao Zu Shi/The Untamed aren't dropping refs to Daoism and the four classics in between their will-they-won't-they necromancy shenanigans? In response this author would, of course, pivot from their bailey of "no one references other traditions" to the motte of "and if they do it is shallow" with no definition of what qualifies as such, nor again any admittance that audiences care way more about getting the gays than the deep cut cultural refs. The fact that the median person in the west prefers their Dungeons & Dragons campaigns in a default Tolkien-esque setting because the point is to have a comfortable backdrop for ease of play of a combat dice game will just not factor into their analysis.

The elephant in the room for all of this is that foundational texts differ, structurally, from modern texts, because they were made in different environments. The Lord of the Rings probably wouldn't sell well today! The prose is wooden, the characters are flat, it throws random lore it never explains at you, Tom Bombadil is just there as a walking momentum-destroying plot hole, etc. People read it because it was a first in a world that didn't have books committing to this level of world-building & detail in a fantasy environment. And as a new genre, things like his crazy level of language building are appealing, it's all so new and different, something cool to dig into.

But imagine picking up your 185th elves-and-orcs sword & sorcery book in 1998 and reading "ah yes Quenya is just one of two alphabets for the Elven tongue and it is inspired by Finnish-Germanic and I write entire poems in it even though I never finished a cohesive dictionary or grammar system but I do have 15 pages of pronunciation notes"?? You would throw at it at a fucking wall, absolutely insufferable. It was cool the first time, and that is why you learn Elvish, just like you learn Klingon. That was never gonna keep as a zeitgeist - instead just popping up here or there as this or that series takes off.

You have to accept that audiences are in the driver's seat on this one - they have infinite stories to choose from, they are absolutely not being dragged along by willful writers. Which means genres will evolve and change over time - and that is fine.

[eri-pl]

I'm having thoughts again.

About how "Men have a strange virtue to shape their fate outside of the Music" and how this is what made it possible for them to do whatever-happenned-with-them-and-Morgoth, and the Elves don't and that's why they never did Morgoth worshipping, because they simply don't have the possibility in them (ok i was not thinking this earlier but it came to my keyboard and ...this sounds like a possible explanation?). and yet.

—and yet. Allegedly (as in: the whole fandom knows it's true) the Elves aren't going to have a worse overall ending than the Men. I mean, Finrod thinks so, so of course it would be true. Yes there is nuance here, but still I say it's not worse even if less glorious.

I am having feelings. Of the "but it is not fair!" kind. And--- yea. I know. I know. Also I am probably having too much feelings about the fandom again.

But anyway this is somewhat weird.

And also also, the elves being unable to fall badly enough (enough for what?) explains a lot.

They are able to make some bad decisions (see: Doom of the Noldor) and maybe even so much that it does interfere with the things mentioned in LaCE (see: Celegorm and/or Maeglin, depending how you read them), but.

But I really don't think the Oath of Feanor could work as intended, unless there was some explicit exception (as in: Fefe can do a thing in a Mannish way because he's so special; see: Lulu but she was the positive version). And it would definitely work (as in: things like that have worked, yes, i know not fully the same but similar enough for me) for Men.

And... hmmpf. Not fair. I mean, yes, but also the Elves are getting things both ways, that's how it feels— I'm not sure if I'm wrong in the logic of it, or just wrong in trying to apply too much scrutiny to Tolkien's worldbuilding — again — even though I know I cannot expect perfect coherence from a secondary world and Tolkien did better than any other writer anyway.

OK maybe the Elves do have the possibility, maybe they just didn't.

But there still is the thing about the oath of Feanor and can it work and why not. And also... I can see why Tolkien writes the oath as much less of a problem than whatever-Men-did, but to me it does feel similar… And I could argue with solid arguments that it's just one step below. So.

And I don't have a problem with Fefe being immortal; I'm not doing the Atanamir arguement here.

But the Men are much more problematic (in behaviors) than the Feanorians, even Celegorm, which clearly shows that yes, Men can mess themselves up much more (see: the initial quote).

Also I feel like the Men are inherently more interconnected than the Elves. I need to think more about it, because it gets strangely unpredictable on the edge, when Men connect to Elves and start meddling with their fates too (see: Beren, Tuor, but also the whole Athrabeth situation however much you want to read into it) and it's ... it seems like they can only meddle with them in positive ways. Often sad, but positive in the end. The Men cannot break the Elves (in the way the early Men broke themselves and the whole species), or at least their ability to interfere with the Elves in negative ways is much much lesser than in positive ways. (Elu Thingol would disagree but his opinion is invalid.)

And... well, that's great but kind of out-of-the-blue.

OK maybe not maybe this counts as foreshadowed, in the part of Ainulindale where Melkor gets told off and that he can't make something really actually problematic in the end.

Maybe that's a case of this.

Anyway, I need to think more about Elves:Men and the sibling dynamics. The Men are the younger sibling yes, but in a way they are both the bad younger sibling from some stories and the good younger sibling from fairy tales.

Maybe this whole things is just TLDR: Men are chaotic and wildcard-y? Huh. A very simple summary for such a long and rambly post.

[tolkienpinupcalendar]

Sluttiest Tolkien Character: Round 4

Sauron (Silmarillion) vs Sauron.gif (The Hobbit)

art by @ylieke

Propaganda under the cut ↓

Sauron (Silmarillion):

multiple flirty court twink phases in different courts….and let’s knot forget his werewolf phase

Annatar isn’t called “stupid sexy sauron” for nothing!!!!

is described literally as having "seduced" two men to do his bidding (ar-pharazon and celebrimbor) and was seduced in turn by morgoth. he's being passed around middle earth.

i mean. come on.

He was seduced by the mightiest vala and, after his sugar daddy ended up in jail, he decided to seduce his way into power. He destroyed and entire civilization and made God™ change the geography of the world just by seducing one guy, who ended up "infatuated by him" (Tolkien's words, not mine). How can anyone compete with that? 

Come on, it’s Mairon. Sexiest Maia on Middle-Earth and described as beautiful and seductive more times then Luthien herself. 

He’s a seducer! He has seduced so many people throughout the series

Sauron.gif (The Hobbit):

I mean lets be real. Whose mind has Sauron.gif not penetrated. Gollum, Bilbo, Azog, Thrain, Bolg, Gandalf, AND EVEN Galadriel. He wants to get you on a metaphysical plane. Not just the physical realm.

[eri-pl]

Yea, that's a logical point. Personally I'm rarely attached to definitions of words, even emotionally-charged words, so I'll try to consistently use your definition throughout this post thread, for sake of simplicity.

Anyway, even if we call Gandalf a kinslayer, it doesn't change the fact that he did right in the situation.

But this got me thinking about something else:

Do balrogs still count as "kin" for the Maiar, or are they too corrupted?

And if you say "no, no matter the corruption, kin is kin" – where do orcs come from? I mean, sure, some versions have them be animals or made from mud and if you prefer those than it's not relevant...

But if orcs are corrupted elves... and balrog are corrupted Maiar... and we count Gandalf vs balrog as kinslaying...

...so does Gandalf's fight with the balrog make Gandalf a kinslayer? 🤔

[arafinweanappreciation]

so watching fotr with my roommates made me want to reread the book, so I checked out my university library’s 30-year-old, stained, extremely beat up copy when I went to get the two towers movie for us to watch on friday night (bc we’re such party animals) and I came across this while reading the prologue

and my question is: who are “The Authorities” (with a capital A no less)????

Is it the Valar??? I mean they note that these kinds of deals were “held sacred” in the old times. It could be the Valar. It seems like they would preside over metaphysically binding promises. are the Valar holding council over riddle games??? Does Aulë have an Opinion ™️ on “what is in my pocket?” has this debate given Manwë a headache that he as one of the ainur is not supposed to be able to get

I need answers Mr. Professor Tolkien Sir