Searching for Glorfindel

[lilhobo]

do you realise that Glorfindel is actually Arwen, the cross-dressing little precious elven princess everyone has been crying foul about.

Heck this whole book is about crossdressers from Glorfindel/Arwen, to Eowyn

the next thing you know is that Galadriel is actually Treebeard :eek:

and elrond is actually the entwive all this time

[PRH]

Harad,

you make a strong argument. well done.

[lilhobo]

no fool, you made a strong arguments for giving away condoms to the orc folks..........imagine if the orc womenfolks had been given condoms, there wouldnt be swarms of orcs hanging from the Moria ceilings, and mating with infedils called humans....

and we would also have less harad-hais running around the forum mass debating everything :D

[PRH]

about everything

[Bucky]

Perhaps this isn't the place for this, but.....

I don't get this bit that the Glorfindel who was in Gondolin has to be the same Glorfindel that goes to help Frodo & Company get to Rivendell.

Can't 2 Elves have the same name, or did I miss some law by Tolkien there?
Aren't there 2 Gildors? The one Frodo meets in The Woody End, & the one who helps Turin after he accidently slays Beleg?

As for Glorfindel having some mighty powers he was sent back from Mandos with, nonsense.
Gandalf plainly states that 'those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm have great power over both the seen & the unseen".

GLorfindel doesn't display any traits that aren't common to all High Elves.

[chrome_rocknave]

Originally posted by Harad
So finally, what is the fascination with the G-man. If JRRT didnt take him seriously, why should we?

If JRRT didn't take him seriously, he wouldn't have written him into his books.... I think Glorfindel was there to represent the fact that instead of two inexperienced Hobbits from the Shire, Elrond could have sent a mighty warrior High Elf instead. But he didn't because obviously Merry and Pippin had a part to play out before the end. Which goes back to the ever famous movie line "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."

[lilhobo]

well like duuuuuuuuurrrr,

the mistook merry and pippin for the ring bearers, and thats why sauron concentrated on the west instead of fortifying his on land

and thats why 2 hobbits was able to sneak into mordor unnoticed :D

[chrome_rocknave]

Well I wouldn't say that the things you listed above were problems with Glorfindel's character. They were just part of his character...well except the afro thing :rolleyes:

[markrob]

I'll bet you, and this is a guess and opinion, that if PJ had the benefit of seeing this outpouring of concern, whether good or bad, he would agree that some of his "INTERPRETATIONS" are too bold and could have been dealt with differently. But you know what they say about hindsight dont you? Its the movie we got and its pretty damn good. Guess we will have to live with it or without it. Without it means dont talk about ever again and definitely dont go see it or forthcoming ones.

[lilhobo]

harad. that afro is melting your brain cells , take it off man :D

[lilhobo]

thats Mister M*r*n to you little boy :D

[Phredo]

With respect to Elrond not sending Glorfindel on the quest:

Surely Elrond was weighing the odds of the quest succeeding, and of having to do a last ditch defense of Rivendell if Sauron regained the ring, a defense for which an afro-powered elven heavyweight like Glorfindel might be better suited than the secret penetration of Mordor.

Or maybe JRRT just didn't like Glordindel as much as we do...

Cheers,
Phredo

[chrome_rocknave]

I think that the reason Elrond didn't send Glorfindel was in fact because he needed some strong Elves to defend Rivendell. Also, why do you think its a phoney story about Glorfindel being in those two stories? I mean couldn't the guy have been both?

[chrome_rocknave]

Yes but war was brewing on the edge of Mirkwood and Rivendell could have been attacked before the ring was destroyed. Elrond wouldn't leave his home guarded with only weak Elves. He probably needed Glorfindel to help out at the homefront. Besides that, maybe Legolas was a better archer than Glorfindel...? Also, the Fellowship already had 9 companions and there wasn't really any room for Glorfindel---or maybe he just didn't want to go?

[chrome_rocknave]

No, I don't think Glorfindel was afraid. However, this wasn't really any business of the Elves. This was man's problem so man had to deal with it. Maybe Glorfindel also felt this way and didn't think he should try to solve someone else's problem.

[chrome_rocknave]

Rephrasing-----

Isildur didn't destroy the ring....obviously... So that placed the blame on "man". Therefore, it was man's job to destroy the ring. Yes, I'm sure that the Elves were deeply concerned over the quest of the ringbearer but it wasn't their part to destroy it.

[TheJospeh]

Harad, I can lay aside all your concerns.

It is stated directly in "the Lord of the Rings" that the Quest will never suceed by might. Even if there were a host of Glorfindels to send they could not single-handedly storm the gates of Mordor. Stealth was their only hope and bringing along an Elf Lord tends to attract attention. That's the reason Elrond gives.

Glorfindel of Gondolin is not necessarily Glorfindel of Rinvedell. Tolkien had considered the matter for quite awhile after publication--that's just the kind of attention to detail you get from this guy--and never came to a decision as to whether to two were the same or not. He didn't see a problem with it being possible it was just never decided.

Glorfindel was basically the fist of Rivendell. After Elrond faught in the Last Alliance of Elves and Man he rarely waged war directly himself. Glorfindel normally led the forces. Read the appendices and there is actually a story of Glorfindel confronting the Nazgul Lord. Just so you know, the Nazgul Lord runs home to daddy as fast as he ever can. :) Ever consider why Elrond didn't ride out against the Nine to help Frodo? Chances are quite possible that he couldn't. I paraphrase Boromir, "It is said the strength of Elrond is not found in arms but in wisdom."

Hope this clears up your problems but if not let me know.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Kuduk]

Harad,

You may some excellent points, but may I offer this analysis regarding Elrond's decision not to send Glorfindel.

I think he in fact would have very much liked to have sent someone like Glorfindel, since he had other plans for Merry and Pippin. But he also believed that the success of the mission depended on keeping the number of the party as small as possible. Plus, Gandalf, Merry, and Pippin essentially twist his arm and Elrond relents, perhaps sensing like Gandalf did with Gollum's role that Merry and Pippin may have important roles to play by the end (though he knows not what exactly why or how).

Judging from your several previous postings, Harad, you seem to be one tough and shrewd customer, so I will offer several quotes from the LotR to backup my statements.

First, that Elrond felt it was very important to keep the numbers small:

In FOTR, Book 2, Ch.3, Elrond says,
The number must be few, since your hope is in speed and secrecy. Had I a host of Elves in armour of the Elder Days, it would avail little, save to arouse the power of Mordor.

That Elrond would have preferred someone like Glorfindel to go:

Same chapter, a few lines later he says,
There remain two more to be found. These I will consider. Of my household I may find some that it seems good to me to send.

In his ensuing exchange with Merry, Pippin, & Gandalf, Elrond essentially has his arm twisted:
(Gandalf says) '...Even if you chose for us an elf lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him.'
'You speak gravely,' said Elrond, 'but I am in doubt. The Shire, I forbode, is not free now from peril; and these two I had thought to send back there as messengers.... In any case, I judge that the younger of these two, Peregrin Took, should remain. My heart is against his going.'
'Then, Master Elrond, you will have to lock me in prison, or send me home tied in a sack,' said Pippin. 'For otherwise, I shall follow the company.
'Let it be so then. You shall go,' said Elrond, and he sighed.


The fact that Elrond sighs suggests that he might have agreed with you, Harad, and would have chosen Glorfindel for the company if he could have things his own way. But it really isn't Elrond who makes the decision.

Anyway, I agree that while Glorfindel would have been nice to have in the movie, he really wasn't a top priority.

[Elfarmari]

I could be completely wrong on this, and I don't have the passage in front ofme, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that if an elf died, they could, after a time 'come back' to life. I think this tied in with elves usually not marrying again if their spouse died, because if their spouse then came back to life, they would find eachother again. Does anyone else remember seeing this? I think it was in the Simarillion, but I'm not positive. IF this was true, then I guess Glorfindel wasn't all that special in coming back from the dead.

[TheJospeh]

When an Elf Lord walks about he is seen. An Elf draws attention but not nearly as much as an Elf Lord. Mordor and the Elves can sense each other when they are about. In the Marshes of the Dead had Glorfindel been there the Nazgul passing overhead would have known enemies were there. That is one example. The only reason the Quest suceeded was because Sauron didn't consider his enemies might try and destroy the ring.

True Glorfindel didn't get any "kills" but he did drive the Nazgul away twice. I would say being a significant factor in the winning of a war AND protecting the ring from capture are two important deeds.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[TheJospeh]

The bridge! The bridge! You've forgotten the bridge. He cleared the bridge for them. Without that the Ford wouldn't even have entered into it.

The Nazgul sensed Frodo with the Ring at a much closer distance than he detected Gildor and the other Elves approaching. Apparently it's not that way at all.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[TheJospeh]

I'm saying he sense Frodo with the ring far closer than he sensed Gildor. In other words--that I concede I should have used in the beginning--the Nazgul can sense an Elf farther away than the ring.

Yeah, maybe they could IF the brothers rode out together and managed to find Aragorn and the Hobbits on the other side of the bridge before the Nazgul found them. Glorfindel did it alone and furthermore chased the Nazgul far away. They fled before him a great distance. They didn't flee that far from Aragorn.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Bucky]

Before I read it here, the thought that those 2 Glorfindels were the same Elf NEVER crossed my mind....
In 25 years of reading Tolkien.

Of course, I stopped after Unfinished Tales, which I found very interesting & informative. Although as one who tends to look at Middle Earth in terms of definite, unchangable history, I found things like 'versions A,B,C & D' of the Black Riders coming to the Shire very disconcerting......

I bought 'The Book of Lost Tales' Part I & found it unreadable (for me), and quit paying attention to Christopher Tolkien's publications after that. I was surprised to see those later books like 'The Return of the Shadow' & 'Morgoth's Ring'.
Are they more developed than Lost Tales? Is there any useful information there? A cohesive story?
Where (as in what volume) do these books start dealing with TLTR?

[Bucky]

>>>>You have to read the CT material (especially the later stuff) with a different
mindset. Not so much to enjoy a story, but almost as if you were doing research.

Sorry, that's the only way I know to establish a 'cut & paste'. I know you guys here use a different notation (lines), but I'm a computer idiot.

Anyhow, it sounds like, as a 'historian' of Middle Earth, I should at least read the ones pertaining to TLTR.

[Greenwood]

Please comment, if you will, on my thesis (original post, aside from the "funny" comments) that Glorfindel was a weak JRRT character,

I would characterize him as a minor character in the overall scheme of a three volume epic and hence an obvious target for removal or replacement when someone is trying to streamline. He works fine in the book, but in a movie which has to be presented in a tight time frame (2 - 3 hours) you usually don't introduce a powerful character and then toss him away after a scene or two. Novels have that luxury, movies don't.

As for TheJoseph, he does what Greymantle and ReadWryt often do. He makes declarations of what he says is in LOTR but almost never gives any direct quotes from the text to support them.

Sorry, that's the only way I know to establish a 'cut & paste'. I know you guys here use a different notation (lines), but I'm a computer idiot.

Bucky

It took me a while to figure it out also. After you press the "post reply" button and are taken to a special screen for composing your reply there are a number of buttons above the window where you type your message. One of them says Quote. Clicking on that opens another wiindow into which you can paste thinks you cut from the messages. If you scroll down your main window you will see a listing labeled "Topic Review" with the messages on the thread listed, newest first, that you can cut and paste from.

[aragil]

Funny thing about Bakshi- somebody on these boards recently posted that Bakshi had never read the book when he signed on to do the movie. I just watched Bakshi this weekend, and there was a point where I realized that he did not really understand the history behind LotR, he just copied a lot of the lines out of the book. Sort of a false sense of remaining true to the books. I don't think that he saw Glorifindel as superfluous, I don't think he really saw any difference between Glorifindel and Legolas. Remember, Bakshi didn't include Eomer or Faramir either, so I don't think his omission of Glorifindel was due to any great insight into the works of Tolkien.
Why did PJ replace Glorifindel? Well, the logical reason would be to increase the role of Arwen. She does have some of the same character traits- Frodo sees her glowing in the movie, much as he sees Glorifindel glow in the books (both at their first meeting, and at the ford). She is also an Elf of the house of Elrond, and has a history with Aragorn, granted it was very different from Glorifindel's history with Aragorn. From this point of view, I could say that Glorifindel had more in common with Arwen than the other characters that were in the movie. So maybe PJ saw this as an easy amalgamation of characters. I don't think that Glorifindel was a weak Tolkien character, at least no more so than Elladan and Elrohir (of course, if rumors on this board are correct, then PJ amalgamated them with Arwen, too).

ps. No, I don't think Glorifindel had a brown afro, either. He's described as having blonde hair both in FotR and in Silmarillion.

[markrob]

Agagil,

That is a great analysis of ole Glory pants. And the more I think about it, the Bakishi version did kinda suck. I felt like I was stoned watching it the way they did the anamation. Again in complete agreement with your post. :cool:

[Matiage]

I do not understand. Isn't Art Garfunkel an elf?

[lilhobo]

harad, i dont think you understand the LORT AT ALL.....i think you should go read the book again, rather than keep on preaching here :D

maybe i should use a serious smilie to get ya attention :( Glorfindel wasnt weak!!!! BUT JRR wasnt looking for Externally "strong" characters... Gandalf continuously said something like "where the wise fail, the weak will succeed".........GET THE IDEA???

weak characters ie untested in deeds: ALL the hobbits, Aragorn in exile, boromir, Gimli legolas what have they done ??? ZIppo

[Greenwood]

Greenwood: That's why I call him "weak." JRRT wrote a novel, and did precisely what you said-- tossed the Glorfindel character, powerful in all the things that are important in the JRRT world, out after a scene or two.

Harad

In terms of this discussion the word "weak" carries more connotations and baggage than I am willing to bring in to it. He is a minor character, just as Bombadill is a minor character, in the context of the whole story and thus also a candidate for removal.

As for replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, it seems to me that the people who hate it like to choose whatever particular reason they feel they can detest the most or that they think they can hurl the largest insults about and say: "That's the reason Jackson did it. It is terrible." I think there were a number of reasons (IMO) that combined.

1) As said, Glorfindel was a minor character. This makes him "vulnerable" to removal. Replacing him with someone else does not affect the overall plot line. You don't have to cast another part and you reduce risk of confusion to viewers unfamiliar with the book who may already be having trouble with all the strange names and tall elves, etc. This is merely simplifying matters, not "dumbing down" as the ultra-purists like to thunder.

2) You introduce Arwen earlier to viewers who have not read Tolkien and make her a stronger character who does more than sit around Rivendell looking pretty. For viewers unfamiliar with the books it makes her more of an equal with Aragorn so that come the end of the story they are not saying: "Who the hell is this babe who comes in and claims Aragorn?"

3) Finally, the reason the ultra-purists like to scream about the most. You introduce a second strong female character into a movie that otherwise would have only one, Galadriel. As long as it does no violence to the storyline or the spirit of Tolkien's books, I do not have a major problem with this. At least half your potential audience is female. Times have changed since the books were written. I do not think Tolkien was the male chauvinist that some readers seem to think he was. He wrote at a time when there were not a lot of strong female characters in adventure stories, yet he created Galadriel, Luthien Tinuviel and Eowyn. Saying it is not what Tolkien wrote is true, but the question is: does it really violate the spirit of what Tolkien wrote? I don't think so. As I have said before, do the ultra-purists think Shakespeare's plays should be performed with male actors in the female roles? That is the way they were done when they were written. If I remember correctly there was an immensely successful all black version of Hello, Dolly on Broadway. I don't recall cries of blasphemy. Some of Shakespeare's plays have been done in modern dress and reviewed quite favorably. The science fiction movie Forbidden Planet is a modernized version of The Tempest. As fas as I can tell the ol' Bard has survived unscathed.

In a lot of these arguments it seems to me people are forgetting a couple of important things. First, it is a work of fiction, people! Tolkien can have the characters do whatever he wants. Second, Tolkien seems to have a real fondness for reusing characters he has already created elsewhere. Sort of like having old friends drop by. Thus old Bombadill and Glorfindel put in their brief appearances.

Finally, also seems to me that LOTR was evolving as Tolkien wrote it. Tolkien says something along these lines in his Foreward, saying the story has grown up since the Hobbit. The whole chapter in Bombadill's house always seemed to me too reminiscent of Bilbo and the dwarves in Beorn's house in The Hobbit, the Old Forest too reminiscent of Mirkwood and the attack of the wargs before the Fellowship goes into Moria too similar to the wolf attack in The Hobbit. Tolkien did The Hobbit and LOTR at least partly for his children. They were small children when he did The Hobbit and they were grown when he did LOTR. LOTR started out as a sort of grown up version of The Hobbit and grew beyond anything Tolkien first expected. At least that is my opinion.

[lilhobo]

aye harad me boy, you finally see the light!!!!

Hulk Hogan as Tom bombadil as opting outa nufing boy !!!! :D

[Kuduk]

Originally posted by Harad
Grond, Aragil, Greenwood and other "researchers"

Please comment, if you will, on my thesis (original post, aside from the "funny" comments) that Glorfindel was a weak JRRT character, something that both people making the movie picked up, and therefore invited out of their movies (although probably for less "erudite" reasons than I list).

Thanks

Harad, I'm not presuming that you include me among that erudite group, however, I feel compelled to give my comments.

I agree with Greenwood's reasoning regarding Glorfindel as a minor character vulnerable to exclusion for an adaptation to film or any other medium, however, as far as saying that Tolkien considered Glorfindel an unimportant character is another matter altogether (and another forum topic, of course).

Of course at a certain level, as Greenwood said, whether Tolkien was right to include Glorfindel in the book is a non-issue since as the author he has the right to include whomever he wants in whatever way he wants. However, I would suggest Glorfindel's presence in LotR is not as arbitrary as it may seem.

I believe JRRT included Glorfindel as a way to emphasize the epic nature of the coming struggle to Frodo (and by way of Frodo, to his readers). Let me start with a key passage (my apologies to the moderators for taking up Forum space with this). Let's go to Book two, Ch. 1. Frodo has just woken up in Rivendell after recovering from his wound, and he has lots of questions for Gandalf...
'...Is Rivendell safe?'
'Yes, at present, until all else is conquered. The Elves may fear the Dark Lord, and they may fly before him, but never again will they listen to him or serve him. And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.'
'I thought that I saw a white figure that shone and did not grow dim like the others. Was that Glorfindel then?'
'Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn. He is an Elf-lord of a house of princes. Indeed there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of Mordor, for a while: and elsewhere other powers still dwell. There is power, too, of another kind in the Shire. But all such places will soon become islands under siege, if things go on as they are going. The Dark Lord is putting forth all his strength.'
I think this passage is just another nail in Frodo's mental 'coffin' that he is the one who has to go to Mordor. Of course, I can't read an author's mind (let alone a dead author's mind), but I think JRRT was anxious to have his readers believe that only Frodo could remain the Ringbearer (and that Frodo believed that too). I think Glorfindel is one of many 'devices' that JRRT uses in LotR to hammer that point home so that when Frodo finally says to the Council, "I will take the Ring," it will seem to make sense. Having achieved his point, JRRT can now make Glorfindel disappear (my conjecture, of course).

Some of you may ask, why 'disappear' him then? Why not keep him for the Fellowship? Well, I think to answer that you must also ask, why is Legolas in the Fellowship? We all know that Legolas is the son of Thranduil, King of the Elves of Northern Mirkwood. He is there to remind us of the breadth of this 'coalition,' for he not only represents Elves, but also the Elves of Mirkwood, and that Gondor is not the only venue where the War of the Ring is being fought. Thranduil has already been attacked by Sauron's forces. By allowing his son to play a role in destroying the Ring reminds us all of Thranduil's stake.

And from a political standpoint, why should Elrond choose Glorfindel over Legolas? Glorfindel is a member of Rivendell. He doesn't need Rivendell's support (after all, Elrond is Rivendell). While Thranduil may be willing to help Rivendell, he may not be as willing to go along and continue expending his strength siphoning off Sauron's armies so that Gondor can have an easier time of it. By sending Legolas south with the Ring, Elrond reminds Thranduil that Gondor's fate is also his own fate.

So why not send them both? (After all, there are two Men.) But then there would be only one Dwarf. Not very politically correct if you wanted Gloin and the other Dwarves to feel they had an equal stake here too. And what purpose would a second Dwarf serve in the story other than to keep the math even?

So there you have it, my thoughts and very sore fingers. (Whew, I'm going to go take a break)

BTW, I apologize to everyone about the length here, but Harad sets very high standards (I'm referring to the 97.4% that Greenwood got).;)

Thanks.

[Bucky]

>>>weak characters ie untested in deeds: ALL the hobbits, Aragorn in exile, boromir,
Gimli legolas what have they done ??? ZIppo

Aragorn untested in deeds??????????????
Aragorn had done ZIppo?

What was he doing for the past 60 years before The Fellowship was formed?

Playing checkers with Elrond in Rivendell?

Let's see:

He captured Gollum near Mordor.

He said he treaded in Morgul Vale. How many others had since Sauron, or even the Nazgul had returned?

He was Thorondor in Gondor where he led a raid on Umbar.

He'd spent time in Rohan too.

BTW, seems to me I recall Boromir was one of 4 who threw the bridge in Osgiliath down & prevented the Enemy from crossing when The Black Captain came forth.
It was also said he was chosen over his brother to go to Rivendell because he was older AND hardier.
Faramir said he was the best warrior in Gondor (in contests of arms).

[Bucky]

Harad, I don't think it was the weaker angle that made Tolkien chose Legolas over Glorfindel, although it may have played a part, and I tend to agree with the point as I think about it.

But, it also fits into the overall 'Big Picture' that the High Elves were removing themselves from Middle Earth & had become less concerned with the affairs of Middle Earth, especially in any agressive way.
Most of what they did do was more of a forced reaction than any inititive of their own.....

[TheJospeh]

If the more potent argument of the need for stealth doesn't sway you, consider this: Glorfindel didn't really want to go. He was an elf. A High Elf more importantly. If Middle-Earth falls it isn't the end for him. He gets to head back to Valinor. Legolas has never been to Valinor and the desire to go there never awakened within him until he travelled the Paths of the Dead.

The quest started with little hope and continued on without hope. Frodo and Sam--the brave existentialists that they are--often refer to the hopelessness of their quest. There was no reason for Glorfindel to go necessarily.

I personally don't buy that. I find the perfectly logical explanation that no Elf Lord could wander about Mordor without Sauron knowing very reasonable.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[TheJospeh]

I would say the rings would be a bigger boon in the Fellowship than not. Galadriel used hers to hide from Sauron even as she learned what was in his mind concerning the Elves. However, that is beside the point.

I have never seen any evidence suggesting they could hide their "light" from Sauron when he is in close proximity. However, even if he could he still might have stayed to protect Rivendell. If the ring gets destroyed but Rivendell is laid waste too then I don't think the Elves would be all that thrilled.

Furthermore, consider this scenario. Glorfindel goes with the Fellowship. Beats up on everyone who opposes him--whether the Balrog takes Gandalf down or not is no matter--and eventually they wind up at Orthanc. Saruman sees an Elf-Lord. The Fellowship never broke up because the Orcish attack force was destroyed by Glorfindel. When the Nazgul arrives to ask why Saruman isn't answering the Palantir, Saruman tells him the whole story. Mordor gets seald up tighter than fort knox. The one thing they wanted to avoid, Mordor being sealed and thus making their quest impossible, occurs. Everyone tells Glorfindel, "way to go, not so tough now are ya!"

Secrecy and not sparking the enemy's fear was essential for the sucess of the quest. It even mentions that in the novel. If Sauron hadn't emptied Mordor to fight then Frodo and Sam would never have suceeded.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[markrob]

Joe,

What are you smoking over there? You have got to send me some of that stuff. I believe you have stumbled upon some of the Southfarthing's finest. If ole farmer Maggot catches you, you are in some deep doodoo. Bilbo would be proud. :cool:

[TheJospeh]

...that Elrond created the Fellowship with the intent of avoiding people who would put Sauron on the the defensive or even on the offensive. He wanted people who could stay under the radar and when they were seen wouldn't make much of a difference to Sauron until it was too late. Hobbits can easily be disguised as children but once you look an Elf Lord in the face you know what you are looking at. If Glorfindel, Elrohir, Elladan, Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn and Treebeard comprised the fellowship it would have been much more likely to fail. The big names as someone in the novel puts it, "Are worth more than a thousand troops." They are very distracting and have a way of keeping the eye one them. If Sauron had of discovered Elf clothes or a Wizard's staff in that tunnel then Mordor would have become a battle ground and Mount Doom would have been surrounded in Orcs and Nazgul. Hobbits are just worthless, in the over-proud mind of Sauron.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Greenwood]

As long as we are playing the game of getting in Elrond's head let's try this one on for size. How about Elrond is considering the possibility that Frodo is killed along the way and another member of the company has to become the Ringbearer as happens briefly with Sam. Now you have to consider the possible effects of the Ring on the new Ringbearer. Any of the three hobbits? No problem, just sort of a Frodo transplant. Gimli? A dwarve with no apparent powers of his own except for stout legs and heart and an axe. Legolas? He is an elf, but we are never given any indications of any special powers in him except his ability with a bow. Boromir? Well we already know he is in danger, but he is just a man, relatively high born but still a man. Aragorn? Much more of a danger here, but he seems to be fairly adamant about not wanting the Ring; if he were forced to take it well his ancestor Isildur doesn't seem to have done much with it. Gandalf? He has already shown his "fear" of taking the Ring and so would probably never accept it. Glorfindel, if he is along? Well we have been told about his inner strengths and abilities, etc. Perhaps we have an instant Sauron wannabe or replacement. Bad news!!

Personally, I think Tolkien was just writing a great adventure and could do whatever he pleased. :)

[TheJospeh]

Can you imagine that?! HAHA! Imagine if you added Lobeila to that list? She's be running around hitting a retarded Dwarf with her umbrella!


Well, I think Elrdon found a happy medium between awe-inspiring in the way they whup-ass and completely incompetent.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[aragil]

Joe, before you go off too much more on how Sauron and his Nazgul could 'sense' High Elves, I'd like to remind you that the two points of evidence for this are:
1) Gildor Inglorion and a party of High Elves singing Elbereth, which alerted the Nazgul in the Shire. I think that Glorfindel could have foregone any singing for the sake of the fellowship.
2) Glorfindel coming out in full fury (revealed as it were, implying that he had been hiding it up until that point), waiving a sword and a flaming branch to drive the Nazgul into the ford. As long as Glorfindel could avoid these sorts of outbursts, I'm sure he wouldn't have 'endangered the mission' (to borrow from Lucas).
What other instances are there of High Elves being revealed to the Sauron? If it was so hard for the High Elves to hide, why weren't they wiped out? Did Sauron not mind the fact that they were roaming around Middle-Earth, driving his most powerful servants before them? Had he, in a moment of crisis, forgotten the grudges he bore against Finrod, Celebrimbor, and Gil-Galad? Somehow I doubt that any High Elves survived in the third age without knowing how to keep 'under the radar'.
As for your scenario, since we are dealing with speculative fiction I think it is just as easy to argue that Glorfindel would have helped the Fellowship's success. He could have aided Gandalf in Moria ('This enemy is beyond any of you. Well, not YOU, Glorfindel.'), he certainly could have helped to keep Boromir from attacking Frodo. Gandalf and Glorfindel could have caught Gollum and forced him into revealing the stair, and they would have kicked the **** out of Shelob, disappearing before the orc patrol could find them. Would Sauron have thought that there was an Elf Lord come to Mordor to destroy the ring? No- his own Orcs told him that there was an Elf Lord in the tower of Cirith Ungol, and Sauron assumed that it was a spy. There would have been no need to detour to Rohan, no revelation to Saruman (just a reckoning after the defeat of Sauron), and the whole tale would have been much less interesting. This is like that 'Could Eagles have flown in to Mordor and dropped the Ring into the Cracks of Doom' thread in the book forum. Why didn't Tolkien have them do it? The same reason Isildur didn't drop it in when he had the chance- makes for a boring trilogy.

Harad, I still don't buy the 'Glorfindel was a weak literary character' thesis. He was introduced (in the trilogy) as a friend of Aragorn, and he is last mentioned in the trilogy as attending his friend's wedding (unless he's mentioned in The Grey Havens, I can't remember). I believe that those events bracket Glorfindel within the novel, and tell us a good bit about his character (more than we know about Tom, Fatty, Butterbur, or Imrahil). What motives we have for him seem to indicate that fighting off the Dark Lord and seeing Aragorn take the throne would have been very much in his interest. Unfortunately the good professor did not create 10 Nazgul, which would have meant that even with the intrusion, I mean inclusion of Merry and Pippin, the Fellowship would have had room for Glorfindel. Why not? Well I think your 'Glorfindel would have made it too easy' thesis is on the mark.

[TheJospeh]

A very astute post. You raise an excellent point.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[aragil]

Originally posted by Harad
Note that Elrond could have stuck with 9 in the Fellowship by switching G for Legolas.

Elrond was trying to get the support of the environmentalists (read: Wood Elves) so that he could stay at the head of his own council. He was still thinking about sending Glorfindel, when Gandalf reminded him that he needed to secure the 'little person' vote. Having the Hobbits only hold 2 of the 9 positions would have been seen as under-representing them, and hence a discriminatory act. Sadly, Elrond bowed to the pressure. However, his spinelesness in this matter was well noted, and I'm relatively sure that nobody has heard of a 'Council of Elrond- the Aman edition'.

[Kuduk]

I go away for a break and come back to find much has... er, happened.

Harad, thank you for your thank you!

Regarding Glorfindel's suitability for the trek, as long as we're still playing "What was Elrond thinking?" let me restate that I believe Elrond would have had no problem sending Glorfindel and keeping the mission 'stealthy' (and I've stated my reasons and quotes earlier in this thread). And that (based on those earlier quotes I gave), perhaps even JRRT himself thought so too, but it would have been problematic from a plot construction standpoint. Hence, JRRT has Elrond only reluctantly agreeing to include Merry and Pippin after Gandalf makes a direct statement against Glorfindel's inclusion (please see my earlier post for the exact quote).

Now as to why Legolas over Glorfindel: I agree with Harad that Legolas suited JRRT much more for plot and character construction purposes. As Harad states, it would have upset the power balance among the Fellowship (& I don't mean actual physical or magical power, but from a story and character standpoint) . For example, it would have been much more difficult to make the developing elf-dwarf friendship credible with Glorfindel in Legolas' place. It would also have diminished the trauma of Gandalf's apparent loss in Moria. It would have made Aragorn's sudden trial of leadership at Amon Hen less 'trying.' And there are plenty of other examples as some of you have listed. So I think JRRT whether he intended to or no comes up with an ingenious solution to 'do away' with Glorfindel. He has Elrond make a specific declaration that Legolas will not only go, but also go 'for the Elves.' He then makes Elrond say that he will consider two of his own for the remaining spots (suggesting, at least initially, that he was not overly concerned with political balance and correctness). JRRT then has Merry and Pippin virtually have a tantrum, with Gandalf leaning hard on Elrond to leave out the Rivendell folk, specifically singling out Glorfindel (maybe he was reading Elrond's mind too). Elrond finally agrees, but sighs, perhaps thinking that by openly giving the Elf spot to Legolas earlier, he had boxed Glorfindel out. But of course, with his quick, wise mind he probably quickly calculated that maybe it was all for the best since, for example, it would help keep the representation of the races more balanced which would help him from a strategic and political standpoint.

Now let me turn to this posting:
Originally posted by TheJospeh
...that Elrond created the Fellowship with the intent of avoiding people who would put Sauron on the the defensive or even on the offensive. He wanted people who could stay under the radar and when they were seen wouldn't make much of a difference to Sauron until it was too late. Hobbits can easily be disguised as children but once you look an Elf Lord in the face you know what you are looking at. If Glorfindel, Elrohir, Elladan, Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn and Treebeard comprised the fellowship it would have been much more likely to fail. The big names as someone in the novel puts it, "Are worth more than a thousand troops." They are very distracting and have a way of keeping the eye one them. If Sauron had of discovered Elf clothes or a Wizard's staff in that tunnel then Mordor would have become a battle ground and Mount Doom would have been surrounded in Orcs and Nazgul. Hobbits are just worthless, in the over-proud mind of Sauron.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

Before I start, let me ask in all genuine curiosity, is it The Joseph or TheJospeh? I'm not asking this to be a wiseguy, I just want to make sure I get the name right in the future.

Anyway, let me address one point:
...Elrond created the Fellowship with the intent of avoiding people who would put Sauron on the the defensive or even on the offensive. He wanted people who could stay under the radar and when they were seen wouldn't make much of a difference to Sauron until it was too late.

I don't believe Elrond was too concerned with Sauron's reaction to the specific individuals in the Fellowship. In fact, I think Sauron would not have been surprised to see Glorfindel since Sauron was the type of guy who understood the language of force. Didn't the Men need Elves when he was vanquished before? Why not this time and why not strong ones? Glorfindel, and especially Glorfindel alone, would not have provoked Sauron. He would have expected it.

The only being in ME at this time who can spook Sauron is the heir of the man who took his Ring. As far as Sauron knows, Gondor has no king and Arnor is nothing more than a ragtag group of Dunedain whose leader (for all Sauron knows and hopes) may or may not be a king. He is probably hoping it ain't so and that the leader of the Dunedain ('Strider') is nothing more than a backwoods version of Denethor.

As far as putting Sauron on the offensive goes, I believe that the Wise think this is their only hope: To get Sauron to strike before he feels ready. The longer the delay, the stronger Sauron grows (hence Denethor's insurmountable despair because he knows from his palantir that with each passing day, Sauron is only accruing more troops and there doesn't seem to be a limit). The West's only hope is to get Sauron to strike early rather than on his own time schedule. Striking early may still be enough to overwhelm the good guys, but there's not much choice. Besides, by forcing Sauron to fight, it siphons off his attention from the Ring search.

Not only do the Wise understand this, but so does Aragorn. I think this is why he decides to reveal his true identity to Sauron via the Orthanc stone at the beginning of RotK. He knows that the thought of Isildur's true heir returning to Gondor and leading the defenses will unsettle Sauron. Aragorn's hope is that if the Ring is still out of Sauron's possession, then Sauron will trick himself into thinking that the Ring either has or is about to fall into the hands of Isildur's heir. He will then try to strike before Aragorn has a chance to use the Ring most effectively against Sauron's forces.

Hence, the reason for the Ring going south. It's meant to make Sauron think that the Ring is headed to nowhere other than Gondor (remember Sauron understands force very well and where is the force of the West concentrated for whom the Ring would be most effective but in Gondor, therefore he won't be surprised to find the Ring heading South (and I think Elrond and Gandalf know this too)). But Gondor is only a feint. Instead of sending it to Gondor, the Wise plan to have the Ring take a left hook at Amon Hen and (with a lot of hope and luck), hit Sauron where it really hurts in Mt. Doom.

I don't know if JRRT himself really thought all this, but it sure is fun guessing!

Of course, once again, I've gone over my not-so-well self-imposed word limit. If any of you want quotes for my assertions, I will be happy to look for them, but you will need to give me a few days. Besides I'm really pooped, so... this is the END. I am going. I am leaving NOW. GOOD-BYE!

>poof!<

[Tar-Palantir]

There's one part of this discussion regarding Glorfindel that I'd like to address and that's the assertion that Glorfindel is "too big" for the Company. What about Gandalf? He's a Maia and a little higher up on the power scale than Glorfindel. I understand that Galndalf could "veil" himself; Galadriel says that she can not always tell where he is (or, something to that effect - I'll humbly accept any corrections :) ), but she also knows when he's not there. And Gandalf did some things on their way that would announce to anyone that it was him - the fight with the wolves, lighting his wand in the snow, fighting the Balrog.....So, what would Sauron think about Gandalf being in the Company either with or wothout Glorfindel also along for the ride? I think of it as more of a literary convenience - Tolkien wanted Nine, he wanted to include all four Hobbits, Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli, and an Elf. What Elf? Well.......

My assumption on why Legolas was chosen to go "instead" of Glorfindel was that Elrond and Gandalf (read: Tolkien) would find it easier to cement a relationship between the Elves and Dwarfs seeing as Legolas and Gimli were more or less "equals" (not "ordinary" since both were of "royal" houses).

A couple of questions:

1) What do you think Gandalf's plan would have been had he survived to the point of the breaking of the Fellowship?
2) Did Gandalf somehow "know" that he had to "die"? Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously? He always seemed a little too eager to go to Moria to me (in the book - that was one thing that did bother me in the movie. Why make that change in Gandlaf?)

Oh, one other thing. Someone posted that Glorfindel would have wiped out the orcs at Amon Hen. I don't know that I buy that. He wasn't Rambo, for Eru's sake! :)

[Tar-Palantir]

Harad

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gandalf (in the book) and Aragorn had a running argument about which way to get across the mountains. Doesn't Frodo overhear them talking about "a dark and secret way" at some point before they try the pass? Gandalf's the one advocating going through Moria and Arargorn's choice is the pass. In the movie, you can tell that Gandalf most definitely does not want to try the Mines. Maybe I'm trying to have it both ways - in my last post I said that he was too eager to go to Moria (in the book) and maybe the movie was trying to say that Gandalf knew what was waiting for him (the Balrog).

As for the knowing-he's-gonna-be-reborn theory, I was just throwing it out there. It could have also been that Gandalf wanted to get out of sight for a while. But he had to know a Balrog was there somewhere......

I'm with you that Gandalf would probably have gone with Frodo, but could they have remained as inconspicuous with him as without him? Of course, I guess he could have activated his cloaking device :)

[Cian]

Tolkien writes of Gandalf:

"For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defense of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to "the Rules": for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was in vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up hope of personal sucess." Letters

[Cian]

Gandalf says that Aragorn was against the Moria way until the pass over the Mountains was tried. Aragorn has an evil memory of the place.

Aragorn also said: "You followed my lead almost to disaster in the snow ..." then says he will follow Gandalf, but warns Gandalf too.

I think willing :) The italics are as published in Letters.

[TheJospeh]

All mythology tells us that the key or system to life is sacrifice. People need Messiahs to guide them but the only way their guidance--in most cases--will sucessfully be followed is if they die to force their followers into re-evaluating life.

Gandalf is a lot like a guy the Christians really like. Name of Jebus if Homer Simpson has it right. And, of course, Jesus is a lot like Heracles (Hercules to you, I would imagine) and he is like other Messiah archetypes throughout mythology.

[Bucky]

Boy, this developing into a rather interesting thread......
As I'm new here, I don't know if this is the norm or the exception.

First on the Christ/Gandalf comparison:

Undoubtably Tolkien was inspired in some of his accounts by the bible.
I don't know if he was a bible believing Christian (i.e. Born Again) like his buddy CS Lewis, but the inspiration is there.

Check out his story of creation. Melkor is obviously based on Lucifer.

With Gandalf, a created being, he comes from the 'spirit' world in the form of a weak man, 'forbidden to display himself informs of majesty', to help others save Middle Earth from Evil domination.
Jesus is the Creator come to earth in the form of a humble man, empowered by His submission to God's will, born to sacrifice Himself to save others from evil domination.


Now, back to the Legolas vs Glorfindel arguement:

1. >>>I find the perfectly logical explanation that no Elf Lord
could wander about Mordor without Sauron knowing very reasonable.

Not I.
The orcs thought Sam with the ring was an Elf Lord. Sauron wasn't able to turn on the 'radar' to detect it was or wasn't an 'Elf Lord'. He sent trackers after them.
And, if Frodo could wander around Mordor for 2 weeks with the ring & Sauron didn't notice THAT, I doubt he'd notice Glorfindel.

2. I think Elrond states that "Legolas & Gimli are willing to go as far as the passes in the mountains" as it's on their way home. That's why Legolas is chosen.

3. I think Glorfindel would make friends with Gimli as easily or easier than Legolas.
Why? Isn't Glorfindel of the Noldor? Or more likely, half Noldor & half Vanyar with the blonde hair ala Galadriel?
The Noldor befriended Dwarves more than any other Elves, as they had the connection in jewels, forging, mining, etc.
Legolas, isn't his origins with the Dark Elves in Doriath (I could be wrong there)? We know what happened there.
And his old man, the Elvenking in The Hobbit, was certainly no big fan of Dwarves.....

[TheJospeh]

Christ sacrificed himself to purge everyone of the original sin thereby saving the world. Gandalf sacrificed himself to aid the ring being destroyed which certainly embodies original sin don't you think? The fact that Christ came to sacfrifice himself and Gandalf MAY not have done so is merely literary semantics.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[lilhobo]

are you kidding me, this thread show that you people have no idea what the book is all about... now i aint saying i am a professor of literature or nuthing :D

Firstly, this book isnt so much about Good vs Evil, as it is about how "the little people" can aspire to greatness !!! "even when the wise are proven wrong" (paraphrasing gandalf)

i personally had the feeling from the book that Gandlaf sacrificed himself in Moria (where do u think Lucas got his Obewan kenobi scene against Vader from??)

so from the above arguement, i dont believe that JRR even considered Glorfindel in LORT.......that just defeats the theme of the book, "where the wise failed, the lesser will succeed"

as to Frodo wandering around mordor for so long??? well when Orthanc and merry's appearance in the palantir occur , Sauron is occupied elsewhere

[lilhobo]

personally i think Gandalf did sacrifice himself so that the fellowship can succeed since he knew his presence will be detected (a la Luke skywalker in the ship as the tried to pass off the fake pass on their way to the moon)

secondly, once again the "lesser folks" are thrust upon the leading roles and in trial and tribulation they may have greatness

if you think this is all BS, well complain to JRR :D

[TheJospeh]

A complex novel can have many different themes interwoven into the narrative. Good vs. Evil is one of them as is the small may suceed where the big fail. Another theme is Tolkien's pseudo anti-technological advancement ideas. Consider who uses machines: Saruman and Sauron. The good guys use so "terrible machinery."

Also, I would point out that not only does mythology (Christian mythology is after all based on earlier mythology) inspire Tolkien's history of middle-earth for the good gusy but for the evil guys, as well. The death and return of both Sauron and Melkor occurs. Of course, you have to twist your mind to an evil perspective to see them as Chirst figures but...well there it is.

And all Hero's from comic books to fantasy novels use the Messiah archetype. Sometimes you just have to interpret the death and rebirth. It isn't always literal. Kal-el doesn't die but his former identity does and he is reborn as *bum bum bum buuuum* Superman!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[lilhobo]

harad. gandalf sacrificed himself, so the movie portrayal of gandalf fearing the moria path and saruman tell the audience of their knowledge of the fire beast is wrong (this is more sacriledge then the Arwen Scene)

how many people will sacrifice themselves for others, so dont belittle it

[lilhobo]

btw, the fellowship was all Gandalf's chosing , elrond was weak as!!!

[lilhobo]

also, what seems obvious to me :D

but ask yourselves why JRR made up a new race called the HOBBITS, "small" folks with sturdy hearts and will, that Gandalf was so fond of.......

it may have amused his children to have little people in the HOBBIT with Bilbo, but it gave him a theme for the LOTR

[lilhobo]

btw, Boromir was totally ravaged by JRR, that even Faramir his own brother didnt trust him, even telling frodo that Boromir had a stick up his @ss regarding his father not being made king balh blah blah

[TheJospeh]

...they would only disagree to whatever specifics the archetype was caged in. Joseph Campbell lets us realize that the myths of all cultures have the same basic roots. It's similar to Jung's idea of a basic human consciousness, his archetypes. In fact, the only deviations from the Campbell's formula come for specific reasons. In a primal culture that subsists on the edge of life and death the last stage of the "Hero Journey" might be dropped: the part where he comes home and shares his wisdom with his society.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[TheJospeh]

I completely agree. The specifics are VERY important, though recognizing the archetype behind them is just as important.

Yes, it is a testament to the arrogance of man. We all think we've recreated the world. However, in difference to America, they have modified moreso than any other culture in history, as far as I know. It's still the same old system deep down but the Americans have made a lot of advancements. Keep in mind, I'm not saying those advancements are good...in fact, I think they're bad but you have to give Uncle Sam credit where credit is do. America seems only now to be getting stuck in an unimaginative system of thought. Maybe after World War I. However, that's still two centuries of some pretty nifty work. You almost have to admire them. :))


Sincerely,
The Joseph

[lilhobo]

wtf??? two m*r*ns in mutual agreement while wallowing in pure BS???

if you think the Americans havent invented a thing in the last century and only steals other people's invention as their own then i too agree

BUT i aint no m*r*n :D

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by TheJospeh
...they would only disagree to whatever specifics the archetype was caged in. Joseph Campbell lets us realize that the myths of all cultures have the same basic roots. It's similar to Jung's idea of a basic human consciousness, his archetypes. In fact, the only deviations from the Campbell's formula come for specific reasons. In a primal culture that subsists on the edge of life and death the last stage of the "Hero Journey" might be dropped: the part where he comes home and shares his wisdom with his society.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

That's why I believe that describing charcters in novels as "Christ-like" (or Buddah-like...or any other kind of "like") is getting so basic as to make the point moot - unless it's an allegory (sorry to use the "a" word :) ).

Bucky's right about Glorfindel making friends just as easily with Gimli as Legolas. So (and I mentioned this on another thread, but it got ignored in all the mud-slinging), Elrond's precious Nine Walkers was gonna become Seven after getting over (or under) the mountains - for all he knew. Or was it all he knew? Was he banking on the fact that Legolas and Gimli would stay with the Company? I think so, and I believe Legolas and/or Gimli say so right before leaving Imladris. But I contend that Legolas was chosen by Tolkien/Elrond/Gandalf
because his homeys were known not to be too friendly to dwarfs. It offered the perfect background for Tolkien to talk about the differences between Elves and Dwarfs - which they do throughout the book.

Anyway, sorry for the disjointed nature of this post - phones been ringing off the hook :(

[Phredo]

lilhobo

Now you've done it :)

Re: "ask yourselves why JRR made up a new race called the HOBBITS"

My own view is that the Shire is clearly a metaphor for England, specifically the romanticised "English Countryside" of pre world War I. The war of the Ring, on some level, represents the First World War, a devastating, horrific war in which Tolkien himself fought, with undoubtedly far reaching impact on his thinking for the rest of his life.

The "Scouring of the Shire", as well as the destruction of the power of the Elven Rings and subsequent departure of Elrond, Galadriel, et al mark this tale as seriously different from the typical "they all lived happily ever after" fairy story. After a confilict such as the War of the Ring (or World war I), the world changes dramatically, even when the "good side" wins. Things cannot go back to the way they were, that is the awful heritage of tremendous evil. This, IMHO, is a tremendously important theme of LOTR, since tales of good triumphing over evil (or little guys over big guys) are a dime a dozen in the history of world literature.

England , almost as much as Germany, was economically drained by WWI, and never fully recovered. By the time Tolkien was refining and publishing LOTR, the Empire was pretty much gone, the economy was still shambolic, and every day life for the average Oxford don (and Englishman/woman :) ) had changed for ever, relative to pre-WWI life.

The anti-technology theme arises from this same war experience IMHO. WWI was the first war in which technology (U-boats, machine guns, tanks, gas, aircraft) decided the victors of each engagement, at the price of horrific devastation of the soldiers. Single day battlefield tolls in the 10's of thousands are utterly unbelievable in todays world, where the media goes into a frenzy over each US or western fatality in the Gulf, Bosnia, or Afghanistan.

With respect to the movie, I've heard talk that the "Scouring of the Shire" is not in. I'm sure there was a preview scene of this when Frodo gazed in Galadriel's mirror (instead of Sam), but we'll have to wait until 2004 I guess to know fir sure.

IMHO, if the scouring, and the departure of the Elves is downplayed or modified in order to play to the "happy ending" crowd, that will be a significant dis-service in the name of commercialism.

Sorry for the length of this, :(
Phredo

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Harad
Tar-Pal,

You are not ignored.
I agree with all except



which I would shorten to "Tolkien" since Elrond/Gandalf would have no reason to introduce disharmony in the Company to later forge harmony. The Fellowship was on the hairy edge of success and failure--why add a seemingly negative element (in comparison with Glorfindel)?

Thanks Harad - I didn't mean I was ignored on this thread. It was another and I happened to post right when things were, er...."heating up". I'm sure you know what I mean. :)

Now, as to your comment on the hairiness (as it were ;) ) of the Company, both Gandalf and Elrond knew how Thranduil's people had treated Thorin and company almost 80 years before. In fact, Gloin mentioned it at the Council. So they had to see that there was a chance of discord between the two. I think that's why a younger Dwarf was more desirable - he would tend to be more flexible in his views. And maybe a younger Elf, too.

Oh, and another thing. If Gimli (and Legolas) were "willing to go as far as the passes" of the mountains, where was Gloin? He was at the Council. How did he get home? He must have left before the Company set out. So Gimli was never just going with them as far as the mountains. Otherwise, he would have gone home with dear old dad. Don't you think?

And back to Glorfindel ("finally", say all the other posters here, "he gets back to the subject of this thread"), as we've gone through the reasons that he didn't go.......we haven't settled on a reason he didn't go. He could have gone, but then Legolas couldn't . In other words, it seems it was more important to Tolkien to have Legolas as part of the company than Glorfindel.

Clear as mud? :rolleyes:

[lilhobo]

clear as mud?? clear as mud???

glorfindel didnt go coz tolkien didnt want him to go!!! PERIOD...he was a bad assed elf in the mold of Conan the barbarian and would have stuffed up the theme of the book

GET IT??

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by lilhobo
clear as mud?? clear as mud???

glorfindel didnt go coz tolkien didnt want him to go!!! PERIOD...he was a bad assed elf in the mold of Conan the barbarian and would have stuffed up the theme of the book

GET IT??

Get what? That Arnold Swarzenegger should have played glorfindel had he been in the movie?

[TheJospeh]

Tolkien didn't consider the Shire to be England. It was heavily based on England, however. The Shire is more a representation of an ideal way of life. Tolkien was English and therefore probably thought England was pretty perfect but the book is more a tale about an imaginary Utopia then a pro-England pamphlet.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Tar-Palantir]

Originally posted by Harad
Tar-pal,

Some is getting thru but I'm not sure if its muddy or if my (mem)brain is getting glazed over.

Yes about the youth of Gimli and Legolas. However, Bucky above one page makes the excellent point that Glorfindel being a Noldur (I think?) is intrinsically more compatible with Dwarfs and if Elrond wanted to have a well-oiled machine for the Fellowship, then Glorfindel gets a nod over Legolas (the touchy relations between the Woodelves and Dwarfs).

Absolutely true that Tolkien had to have Legolas rather than Glorfindel. My thesis, 7 pages above, is that Glorfindel was out-of-place in the story. Logically, not story-wise, Elrond should have chosen Glorfindel. In the movie vs. book thread in the other forum I make the radical suggestion (glad the knee-jerk purists are gone, arent you?) that Arwen was a better character storywise than Glorfindel because she didnt have to be "ignored" by her "creator", PJ, whereas Glorfindel had to be ignored by his creator, JRRT (after Rivendell).

I doubt it's your brain, my friend...a lot of times I think as I'm writing instead of doing what most would do - think it all out before hand. (and some would say that I don't think at all)

I agree with both you and Bucky that logically Glorfindel should have gone - logically as far as you've taken it. My point is that Tolkien wanted to explore the touchy relations. And if Elrond had any (more) fear about the success of the company being endangered because of those touchy relations, then he wouldn't have sent Legolas. How could he justify it? So there must have been an alterior motive. Could have been that he wanted Glorfindel around in case things got dicey in Rivendell (I don't like that one, though). Maybe he wanted to cement a bond between "Wood and Mountain" knowing that, if Aragorn (and his little girl) won through, Aragorn would need both to help rebuild the Reunited Kingdom.

(you do realize, don't you, that we've probably taken this much farther than Tolkien ever did? :) )

[Phredo]

TheJoseph

Re: "The book is more a tale about an imaginary Utopia then a pro-England pamphlet."

I wasn't suggesting it was a propoganda piece :)

The theme I attempted to lay out was the inevitable corruption or destruction of a "Utopian" world, despite the apparent triumph of good over evil. As you say, Tolkien being English built his Utopia on an English model.

Cheers,
Phredo

[Tar-Palantir]

Harad

Ok, so what have we got? Tolkien himself said in "On Fairy Stories" that in a secondary world there must be an internal logic (I'm shooting from the hip on this, so don't beat me up too bad). What's Elrond's logic for not sending Glorfindel?

I agree with you about putting Arwen in Glorfindel's place in the movie. However, I would rather have seen Frodo alone at the Ford.

[Tar-Palantir]

Very well done Harad! What did Grond think of your verse? By the way, I thought sure he'd be in on this discussion about Glorfindel. Of course, it is on the movie forum, so maybe some of the Tolkien scholars haven't bothered to check (present company excluded).

[Bucky]

>>>Also any "hero" could be given the definition of "sacrificing" himself. The
comparison with Jesus is not compelling.

Actually, I was contasting the differences as well as the similarities.
It wasn't meant to be a compelling arguement to prove that's where Tolkien got his inspiration. Just that there is some similarities.


And now, I think it absurd to think Gandalf purposely 'sacrificed' himself to help the Fellowship suceed by weakening them.

I guess he had it planned all along that the Balrog would pull him down with the whip?

He said "Fly, you fools", not "Last one in's a rotten egg".
If he did it on purpose, he could've just jumped in the fissure or let a wolf eat him the night before they entered Moria.....

[QueenBeruthiel]

As a new member to the forum, I have been reading the discussion regarding the character of Glorfindel in this thread with interest. And I have to disagree with Harad that G is an insignificant or weak character. Despite his limited role in the action of LOTR, G is not an unimportant character, and there are several points to keep in mind when considering him:

*when meeting the Company just after the Bridge, G states that "there are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the nine: but such as there was Elrond sent out" therefore, G is not an insignificant weakling elf, but one with power against the Nine.

*G was a significant member of the Council, seated next to Elrond and Gandalf, who spoke often, and provided the answer of destroying the ring

*even Gandalf points to the power of G, "one of the mighty of the Firstborn. He is an elf-lord of a house of princes. Indeed there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of Mordor.."

*the company was chosen for secrecy, not might, which did not require the attention of an elf-lord such as G. Legolas and Gimli, it was stated by Elrond, were prepared to travel "at least to the passes of the Mountains, and maybe beyond" Therefore, it appears that a representative of the elven race was not expected, or believed to be required in the evential quest of Frodo to Mordor.

[PRH]

Harad,

I fully understood what you meant by weak from the beginning. I feel bad for you that so many have misunderstood despite your clear explanations.

Harad's claim is that Glorfindel is weak in a literary sense, not in might. Harad is saying G is too big for the story's britches!

I tend to agree, to a point.

[Gerda Westerhof]

Yes, and I actually miss him in the movie. Bringing Arwen in in this scene also makes Frodo appear weaker than in the book. And that's a pity. But also, it is a hell of an introduction for Aragorn's love!

[Orome]

Wow,

This whole thread has some great points from Glorfindel's inclusion in the company reducing a trilogy to a over the counter pamplet to the secrecy needed to insure success. Thinking about even though either could veil their powers somewhat once either would be noticed Gandalf was about anywhere and everywhere. Glorfindel was found where tail was about to be kicked usually. Good quotes from QueenBeruthiel to remind all what stature he had. Though the point that Arwen's meeting Aragorn the way they did was a good way to introduce Aragorn's sweetie, that the light was seen was the light from having been in Valinor and been around the trees, which Glorfidel had. Arwen? Seeing it in Galadriel works fine, but if the movie was trying to simply convey that some elves had a hidden light inside then I guess that works okay if wanting to not have four movies four hours length each. It would have been nice as one put it that she had not been with Frodo on the horse. The river's being raised was by the power of Elrond and the power in the ring of water he wielded, not like any elf on middle earth could just do something like that at will with a few words. What is sad though is that it did not show how the wraiths would fall back when seeing the hidden light when revealed. That Glorfindel was mighty is without doubt and there is good debate for why he was not included such as Elrond vs. Gandalf and Gandalf mucking up Elrond's plans to send G when including Merry and Pippin. G was a powerful one who may have been willing to go. His inclusion does not get to one which underscores something in the book of note with Bombadil not being included in the movie could not get to. Could Bombadil have squashed Sauron like a teeny weeny bug? Separate debate. He was not willing to is what matters. G was of power willing to use it. Frodo was simple and was willing to use what he had. Bombadil was of power and unwilling to use it to help. It just shows that the greatest of power without care does less to shape the course of history than the simplest of those who give with all their heart. Perhaps that point would have been a little more lost with G's inclusion. Just a thought. The smallest of beings in power can shape so much when they do what they will with what heart they have. So how is greatness or power really measured anyhow?

[Harad]

Welcome Orome,

Originally posted by Orome

Glorfindel was found where tail was about to be kicked usually.

True througout the First and Second Ages. Somewhere along the Third Age after his cameo appearance at the Ford of Bruinen, Glorfindel went emeritus.

Though the point that Arwen's meeting Aragorn the way they did was a good way to introduce Aragorn's sweetie, that the light was seen was the light from having been in Valinor and been around the trees, which Glorfidel had.

PRH led a discussion as to whether Elfs in general glow in the Ring World in the Book. As far as I remember there never was an opportunity to test this since Legolas, for example, never came into sight while Frodo was wearing the Ring. In any case the movie, as you note, did not go into the differences between High Elves and the Lowly Sort.

Arwen's Glow in the movie is a thematic contrast with the "Anti-Glow" of the Nazgul, healing to counteract wounding. Glorfindel's Glow was altogether different.

It would have been nice as one put it that she had not been with Frodo on the horse.

I have always thought that. After seeing it again, I wonder whether the movie helps to emphasize the point that the Morgul Blade wound is quite serious. The book emphasizes how STRONG Frodo is to resist. Superhobbit in fact--he is stabbed, he lingers on the edge of death for several. He then takes a vigorous horse ride, and turns around to forcefully defy some of the scariest Bad Guys in ME. The movie, IMO, affords Frodo many other opporutunities to show his courage. His toughness is probably coming in Mordor.


The river's being raised was by the power of Elrond and the power in the ring of water he wielded, not like any elf on middle earth could just do something like that at will with a few words.

Is the Ring connection to the water explicit in the book? The movie can be interpreted as Arwen releasing the magic of the waters, not necessarily creating it.

Perhaps that point would have been a little more lost with G's inclusion. Just a thought.

True. Its a story point, rather than an internal logic point. Its hard to argue that Glorfindel as a single individual--he was not a "host of elves"--would be a detriment to the Fellowship. I discount that he would shine like a X-mas tree to bad guys. That would have not been a survival characteristic for one of the ultimate survivors.

The smallest of beings in power can shape so much when they do what they will with what heart they have. So how is greatness or power really measured anyhow? [/B]

Certainly a major point of the book. My contention is: either dont introduce Glorfindel, give him another big job to do, or, like Gandalf, put him in the Fellowship.

[Orome]

Hi Harad,

What I wonder if his introduction, in addition to more overall development in middle earth and its history is to emphasize the point it is not always the greatest who make the greatest difference. That Elrond did the political thing with Legolas and Gimli and when wanting to put a couple of other people in that Gandalf specifically wanted Merry and Pippin possibly underscores the point that is really was not by force of might by which the war would ultimately be ended but by the ripples which become tidal waves. Gandalf mostly did not use his power openly but rather used his influence to get others to work to the best of their capacity. Not including Glorfindel possibly underscores the point about it was not the mightiest who would make such a difference. Not having him in the book that point would never have been made in any way just as Bombadil's lack of action is another comparison point. Maybe it is just a plot thing into which we are all reading way too much or maybe it is about not having to be that powerful to make that much of a difference but being willing to make a difference even though you "don't know the way". He was a very good comparison point for that as was Bombadil. This is also a big difference between Gandalf and Sauron in attitude when it comes to understanding the big picture that it is ultimately composed of many small parts. The movie can get less to that notion than the book without the inclusion of Glorfindel and Bombadil as comparison points for that premise, though I liked the movie just the same. I agree that there are some things the movie could have done to show just how resilient Frodo was and what a tremendous burden it all was. To me i the book that more underscores that perseverance and heart bring greater results than sheer power sometimes.

Just a thought on it. OH, and thanks for the warm welcome.

[Harad]

emphasize the point it is not always the greatest who make the greatest difference

No question that is one of the main or THE main point of the book. That is why the Fellowship contains 4 hobbits out of 9.

But the other 5 are:

1. Gandalf: the second most powerful entity on Middle Earth.

2. Aragorn: the Heir to the Throne of Anor and Gondor.

3. Boromir: Son of the Steward of Gondor

4. Legolas: Son of the King of the Woodelves

5. Gimli: Son of Gloin. Hunh?

Anyway, four of the 5 (at least) are Big Strong Important Beings, so substituting Glorfindel for Legolas would not bury that main point we both agree on.

[Orome]

That is an awfully good question lest including Glorfindel in the fellowship would have had it less likely to break up and it was through the partings that so much was ultimately done. That is when the little ones showed forth so much with what they did. Aragorn had a great will to hold people together but the need might not have been there if Glorfindel and Gandalf teamed up on that balrog. Possibly. That is a confusing point you bring up when thinking about how some of the guys were pretty noteworthy in the fellowship. The others could not have kept the fellowship together though when each had tasks in separate places. Glorfindel's not being there actually did very much help with each task being resolved better because rather than the small hands toppling doom as it was they may have relied on mightier hands.

[Harad]

Orome,

You are completely correct. The story would have gone kerflooey with Glorfindel on the Fellowship, but the CoE couldnt have known that the Fellowship had to "fail" to succeed in all those interesting ways. E.g. Was Elrond thinking to himself: With Glorfindel there, then Gandalf wont fall, and Saruman wont capture M&P, etc? JRRT alone knew that, and wrote a great story.

But like Waldo, where was Glorfindel during those perilous times after the CoE? Use him, or lose him.

[Orome]

I think that Elrond wanted Glorfindel but it was only after he relented to Gandalf that the hobbits were included. Who knows what Gandalf foresaw overall and what purpose he actually had some clue about, but I think Elrond did not know either way what would have happened so it probably was Glorifindel that he would have chosen when trying to fill out the fellowship and would have if not submitting to Gandalf's will. I do see his inclusion in the book as a needed comparison point on the use him or lose him part. Tolkien did for the most part lose him as you would have after that comparison was made.

[Vilya Elathelas]

Originally posted by aragil
I don't think that Glorifindel was a weak Tolkien character, at least no more so than Elladan and Elrohir (of course, if rumors on this board are correct, then PJ amalgamated them with Arwen, too).



WHAT?!?!?! BUt Elladan and Elrohir are two of my FAVES!!! They CAN'T get rid of THEM!!! :( :eek: :mad:

[Orome]

Yep Vilya,

They are some pretty cool characters. Not so much of the glory did they get but they were always loyal and deligent when needed. Support characters like that are so important sometimes. On that use them or lose them thing being said with regard to Glorfindel in this thread I think actually it worked out way cool in a way the way it all turned out. On another thread at the site someone pointed out that in one of the companion readers there is good evidence that Glorfindel was in fact the same Glorfindel of Gondolin who fell when simultaneuosly slaying and being slain by a balrog and that for his valliant service and not being in the kinslaying he was sent back. Can't just lose someone that noteworthy who was released from the halls of Mandos and give no mention of them. The part which is really great by having his inclusion in the part of the book is that by not being among the fellowship his old friend from the West Olorin himself fell in Moria in the same way that Glorfindel fell and that Gandalf himself was sent back.

That gives two old friends some rather unusual comparison notes I bet! How many others can say, "Oh, yeah, I know exactly what you mean!" on something like that? Not too many I would think. Anyhow, it is perhaps ironic that one of the people Gandalf vetoed Elrond about sending opting for the hobbits instead is the one who had the same thing happen to him before which would ultimately happen to Gandalf and the one who along with Gandalf could have prevented such a similar fate. This is assuming the evidence presented on another thread that the two Glorfindels are indeed the same but the evidence was quite good. I like the irony involved though and such characters should never be lost because support characters so important as those help give the fullness and character to the book along with noble types such as Elladan and Elrohir that end up being the strongest of friends during the strongest of need regardless of glory for themselves. The characters who play seemingly minor roles are really of so much importance in ways they add to the whole or in the points they have to make, another part of the richness in all the writings.

[Harad]

Originally posted by Orome

Glorfindel was in fact the same Glorfindel of Gondolin who fell when simultaneuosly slaying and being slain by a balrog and that for his valliant service and not being in the kinslaying he was sent back.

That "backstory" is something "we Tolkien scholars" know, but is never mentioned in LOTR. All we know is that this kick-butt Elf that just terrorized the Nazgul, and has some great heritage according to Elrond, is left off of the Fellowship, and for what? To never be heard from again, throughout the LOTR.

Why? Not because JRRT couldnt have written a good story with Glorfindel, but that story would have been "The Silmarillion" not "LOTR."

[Orome]

Still, what do you think of the irony about Gandalf falling in the same way as Glorfindel because it was he who probably overruled Glorfindel's inclusion in the fellowship in lieu of Pippin and Merry? That kind of irony is not in LOTR itself but can be derived from the whole of the works. Definitely a subtle point which the movie can't get to. Poor ol' Glorfindel had to miss out on yet another movie appearance. Time restraints happen. Oh, just had to through in the last part because I guess this is in the movie forum afterall.

[Harad]

Orome:

I know where your coming from, looking at the big "picture."

I had a problem with Glorfindel being on the sidelines before the movie existed. Then when both movies left him out, I began thinking about his character (not personally) but as a literary creation, and decided that he was not left out of the movies, simply because he was a "minor" character in the book, but also because the filmmakers either explicitly or implicitly agreed with my assessment that he did not belong, in a larger sense than just a minor character. Other minor characters: Butterbar, Proudfoot, Celeborn, get their minute of screen time. But Glorfindel raises more problems than can be answered in a movie (or in a book IMO).

The Arwen character, precisely because she has a later role, even if it is as simple as being Queen of Gondor, requires less explanation. For Glorfindel, movie audiences would want the answer to the question that I had when I read the book: What happened to him?

[lilhobo]

if Glorfindel was the same as the one in the first or second age, then why wasnt he given one of the rings??? why wasnt he the one to establish one of the elven stronghold in ME????

lets all face it Glorfindel was a mistake the JRR couldnt correct in time for the publication of LOTR

[Orome]

I think you are right that Glorfindel's inclusion would raise so many questions as to leave some positively confused if that is what you are saying. A movie could not get to him enough so maybe not including him removed many logistical problems. A possible solution to that is by including about a 30 second snip which has Galdalf's explantion about Glorfindel and the power within him given to Frodo in the book. Now that would have been a cool lead in for Galadriel in the movie when the same type of light was seen coming from her. The average movie goer would not have had to read the book to understand whatever Glorfindel had within him so does Galadriel and the explanation Galdalf gave would have people assume it was for the same reason. I think that actually would have added intrigue to the movie in a way which would be more entralling than confusing. So there may have been a way to include him and have it add to Galadriel later rather than simply having him seem like a major power vanishing, though the elves were kind of doing that into the west every day. To me what happened to him in the book is the point was made it was not might or power which would win the war and the point being made, the hobbits take center stage. To me, it all worked out in a way. How it was done in the movie did at least have Arwen make her offer regarding Frodo (can't remember her exact words but something to the fact of him taking her place) which is what he did when he left in her spot on the ship. So I guess one loss was balanced in some sort of way.

Oh, and about why wasn't he one who established one of the elven strongholds, those who were in power were still in the lines of the elvish royalty. Look at the Havens, Rivendell, and Lothlorien and the people who were the rulers there and they were directly descended from the kings and queens before them. I don't think he was a mistake Tolkien could not fix. Just not one who had his place and took it.

[Harad]

In the book, one is still left explaining what the mighty Glorfindel did between the Council of Elrond and the end of the War. He may have had a place, but the place was sitting on the sidelines when the great events of the Third Age occured.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
In the book, one is still left explaining what the mighty Glorfindel did between the Council of Elrond and the end of the War. He may have had a place, but the place was sitting on the sidelines when the great events of the Third Age occured.

Keep in mind, Harad that most of the elves (with the exception of Thranduil's people defending their land) were very non-involved in the war of the Ring...The war could have been more in favor of the allies with the combined power of Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, Glorfindel and most of the elves of ME fighting Sauron's forces (especially that sword-wielding, spell casting, great-healer, "if if you want him come and claim him" wraith-challenging warrior, Arwen)...Galadriel and Elrond made it quite plain that their involvement would not matter...It was about Frodo destroying the ring. Blaming Tolkien because he brought such a poweful character like Glorfindel in is not really fair considering the rest of the elves did not play a part in "the great events".

Legolas explained why the elves were not coming to help fight in Helm's Deep because they had war in their own country. Maybe Glorfindel's power is needed in Rivendell.

[Harad]

Originally posted by Thorin

Keep in mind, Harad that most of the elves (with the exception of Thranduil's people defending their land) were very non-involved in the war of the Ring... Maybe Glorfindel's power is needed in Rivendell.

In all of LOTR, only two Elves takes "offensive" actions, Glorfindel at the Ford of Bruinen and Legolas continually after the CoE. When it came to making a choice for the Fellowship, either of those would have been appropriate. Legolas was chosen because he was an appropriate Third Age Elf. Glorfindel was an inappropriate First Age Elf. This is despite the fact that the First Age Elf would have given the Fellowship a better chance for success, based upon his assets. His "liabilities" are flailing rationales: he would try to lead, he would grab the Ring, he would glow in the dark.

In the aftermath of the story we are told that King Brand and Dain accomplished X and Rivendell was besieged etc. Is Glorfindel even mentioned afer the CoE? I dont think so. He may as well not have existed. If he was going to be "non-involved" he should have been "non-involved" from the beginning. Since he was clearly involved, that is not a good excuse for his "disappearence."

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
If he was going to be "non-involved" he should have been "non-involved" from the beginning. Since he was clearly involved, that is not a good excuse for his "disappearence."

What about Haldir, Celeborn, Gildor, Cirdan? They are mentioned and have done some things, but they do not play an important part in the war...I fail to see why you have such a beef with Glorfindel. So what if he showed some power at the Fords? They're elves for crying out loud...everyone knows that they are mysterious, magical and powerful. It's not like he single handedly stole the show and rescued Frodo from the clutches of the wraiths and put on the ring, and guided the fellowship along their journey.

He met them as a good guide from Rivendell would, he took the opportunity to get Frodo on his horse as any person would, and scared the ringwraith's horses....Well, that just about makes him the saviour of ME doesn't it? What ever power he has doesn't play a part in the War of the Ring, just like the power of Elrond or Galadriel. The average reader couldn't care less what power Glor has or argue that his power makes him ineligible to play a part in LoTR. And many characters show up and do things that don't play a part later...So what? What's the big deal?

[Harad]

You yourself pointed out that the Elves were not "involved." True of all those you mentioned, except for G. Later he is dismissed as a possible Fellowship member, for cheesy (?) reasons.

And G is more special than all the other Elves (except perhaps the 3).

1. He came back East from the House of Pancakes..er...Mandos

2. He killed himself a Balrog, when he was only three.

3. He terrorized the Nazgul.

All three reasons make him a right stand out.

[Vilya Elathelas]

Originally posted by Harad


In all of LOTR, only two Elves takes "offensive" actions, Glorfindel at the Ford of Bruinen and Legolas continually after the CoE.

Elladan and Elrohir fought in the Host of the West!!! They're ELVES TOO!!!!!:p :mad: :)

Ok, 3/4 elves, but THEY ARE STILL COUNTED AS ELDAR!!!!

[Harad]

You are correct, Elf-friend. Now doesnt that make Glorfindel look even worse by comparison?