Council of Elrond [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

Thorin

01-20-2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Greenwood
I disagree with Thorin on invoking the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales in defending the chapter. A chapter in any book should stand or fall on its own in the context of the book it is in. It should not need to be propped up by other books, least of all works that the author never himself published. I think The Council of Elrond stands quite well on its own with no help from outside.

Aah, Greenwood, if I was a more paranoid man, I would say that you just don't seem to like me and want to disagree with me at on any point just to keep the spirit of the FADs and Weenies alive.

First of all: Apparently, you don't seem to place any merit in any of Tolkien's post-humous works. You seem to neglect that LoTR was just a drop in the history of ME, not a finished copy, or the be-all and end-all of Tolkien's work. LoTR does not even scratch the surface of the events of ME. It is a part of ME just like Silmarillion. All of the material that became LoTR had it's beginnings in The Silmarillion and all other of Tolkien's works. All the support, added meaning and extra information that could not possible have made it into a published LoTR copy should not be thrown out or not considered along side LoTR as ME gospel. To say otherwise is to negate the grand scope of Tolkien's ME. Blatent contradictions between the two, maybe you have a point...But stop throwing the baby out with the bath water because Tolkien wasn't around to publish his own works that he created long before LoTR came into existence....

Secondly: I never said anything about COE being "propped up" by SIL or UT, nor the need to "invoke" them either. What I was saying is that when you read other things that shed some light on events briefly mentioned in LoTR, it can become more meaningful and part of a story you know well rather than just something you are reading about from a distance..I for one didn't find the COE boring either, and yes, it can stand on it's own, but let me point out a few things on how Sil and UT make events in LoTR and The Hobbit more meaningful...By reading Sil and UT you get a better idea of:

1) The story of Gil-Galad and Luthien
2) The history of the first overthrow of Sauron and who Elendil and Isildur really are and how they came to ME
3) The history of Aragorn and who exactly the Numenoreans are that the Rangers come from.
4) Who Gandalf really is
5) Extra information on Thorin :) , and Gandalf's meeting
6) Who exactly Cirdan the Shipwright is
7) Who exactly Galadriel is and her history
8) Who Morgoth is
9) How Sauron came to be in such power
10) Why the elves sail to the west (Which a newbie to Tolkien could not understand)
11) The relationship between Gondor and Rohan
12) Feanor and the palantiri

And so on, and so on, and so on.....All these events are touched upon and will leave the new reader thinking, "Alright, let's skip this little poem about this Gil-Galad and get on with the interesting stuff" But when they read Sil and UT they see these LoTR tid-bits in a new and more meaningful light...Some of these things are included in the COE.

Kuduk

01-20-2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by StriderX
I just finished reading the council of Elrond, and I found that rather boring. That is the first boring chapter in the Fellowship of the Ring. I was just wondering if anyone else found this kinda boring. I mean it gave a lot of good information, maybe because it was too long had something to do with it. I dont know, what do you guys think?

I don't think it was boring, but I do agree that it represents a definite change of pace in the book. I think this was intentional on JRRT's part. As others have said, I think he wanted to use this breather to fill in more background and flesh out some things that had been touched on earlier. Also, I feel the chapter is important in setting up Frodo's decision to take the Ring and the Council's decision to send it to Mordor. I get the sense that JRRT was anxious to have readers believe that the Ring had to go to Mordor and that Frodo was the one to take it. This chapter presents his arguments for why that must be. The chapter also represents JRRT's clear intention to everyone that LotR should not be taken as just another child's fairy tale (like The Hobbit), but should be viewed as an 'historical' epic suitable for adult readers.

And besides, they do spend 2 months in Rivendell, one-third of the time period over which Frodo's journey from the Shire to Mt. Doom takes place. If nothing else, the 'Council of Elrond' gives you that sense they spent a really long time in Rivendell.;)

EverEve

01-20-2002, 11:54 PM

alrite i have to agree with striderx on this one. it was kinda boring, but it really was important...........even if it was loooong

Greenwood

01-21-2002, 12:38 AM

Aah, Greenwood, if I was a more paranoid man, I would say that you just don't seem to like me and want to disagree with me at on any point just to keep the spirit of the FADs and Weenies alive.

Thorin

We have actually agreed sometimes, though I will admit not often. :)

In fact, I agree with you on the importance of the Council of Elrond chapter and I agree with you that it is not boring. Where we disagreed was when you seemed to be telling StriderX that to enjoy and understand the Council of Elrond chapter he/she had to read The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. I contend that any novel should be able to stand on its own without help from later publications, be it Tolkien or any other author's work. I believe LOTR does stand on its own and brilliantly. StriderX finds the COE chapter boring, and evidently a few others do also. That is their opinion. You and I disagree with their opinion and agree with each others, in this instance.

Apparently, you don't seem to place any merit in any of Tolkien's post-humous works.

I am afraid you have never really understood my position in this matter. I agree with you that The Silmarillion and later books make fascinating reading for a Tolkien enthusiast. I think someone not already fascinated by the world of Middle Earth would be bored to tears.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are finished works that can and do stand by themselves. The fact that millions of people have read them without reading the later books testifies to that. I have also said that since these two works are finished works, published, and revised by Tolkien himself, the books published after his death are secondary to them and cannot be used to dispute material that is clear in The Hobbit and LOTR. Yes, there are lots of things that are expanded on and explained fully in The Silmarillion and later books that are only hinted at in LOTR and for that material you of course use those books. Some people like to treat Middle Earth as a real place and pour through The Silmarillion and the rest as some sort of factual history of a real world. (I am not trying to say they have lost touch with reality, just that it is part of their fun to treat Middle Earth as real.) I love LOTR and its world of Middle Earth also. Tolkien did something there that few, if any others, have ever done. He created an alternate world, complete with its own creation story and thousands of years of history. I find The Silmarillion and all the posthumously published books fascinating because they let us see how Tolkien did it. Particularly the later volumes in the History of Middle Earth let us "watch" Tolkien at work as he fashions his great creation. This is something that is available to the general public for few, if any, other great authors.

So, no, I am not trying to "throw the baby out with the bath water" as you say. However, I do treat The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as being very different things than all of Tolkien's posthumously published works. The first two are finished works. The rest are not. They are Tolkien's working notebooks. They are fascinating in their own right, but they are not the same as the first two. Evidently Tolkien originally hoped to include much of The Silmarillion material as additional appendices at the end of LOTR, but clearly he did not intend them to be narrative books like LOTR, at least not in the form that they have been published in. I wish Tolkien could have lived another decade or more and turned some of this material into finished works, but that is something we will never have.

Snaga

01-21-2002, 02:04 AM

StriderX

Welcome!

I understand what you're talking about, and I think that maybe once a long time ago when I first read LotR that might have been one of the less interesting chapters.

What you find is that the book doesn't always go at the same pace. Particularly at the start of each 'book' (i.e. there are 2 in FotR, 2 in Two Towers etc) the pace slows, and they pause and take stock. I remember finding the first 100 pages quite hard work. You know... OK he's having a party, yes and... yes and... yes he's having a party and... Ok and now he's gone and Frodo's got the ring and... yes... 17 bloody years later, the adventure finally happens!

But in all that time, you are suddenly totally aware of how important this is and what it means to everyone, and how Frodo's feeling. So when the action kicks off you really feel the change of pace!

The other thing is like everyone else has said, LotR is the sort of book that you definitely can't take everything in first go. That's why so many of us are still so into it years later, after having re-read it many times. (Or alternatively, we're very sad! hmm...):)

Legolam

01-21-2002, 12:08 PM

I have to admit that, after the first time I read LOTR, for the next few times I just skipped over that chapter because it was too long and boring.

But, after reading some stuff on this forum, I realised that I didn't know that much outside of the actual journey to Mt Doom (I haven't read the Sil or UT yet) so I went back over the chapter and got a lot of information out of it.

But I did find it way too long in the beginning! :D

Bucky

01-21-2002, 09:38 PM

I must say I agree with Greenwood's last assesment. For me, anyhow.

Tolkien touched on this subject in one of the later forwards when he talked about the promised appenixes:

"I wish none had been promised. Botanists want more information on plants, flowers & trees, linguists on the various languages, historians on the political & military structure of Gondor...." (paraphrese).

I look at the books from an historical viewpoint.

I've read them about 25 times I guess. I am just about to start The Two Towers, if I can get it from my daughter, who's also reading it......

For alot of those 25 readings, there are certain 'favorite chapters' I look forward to.
I was actually thinking of starting a post on the subject, so I'll save the whole list for there.

But, suffice to say, 'The Council of Elrond' is always one of the high points for me.

I think there was so much information on the history of the ring that needed to be laid out that Tolkien divided it into 2 chapters, TCOE & 'The Shadow of the Past'.
In there, Gandalf tells Frodo, concerning The Last Alliance, "Maybe someday you will hear the tale told in full by one who knows it best".
That's just what Elrond does in TCOE.

I bet those 2 chapters are purposely seperated so that the first time reader (who writes a book to be read 25 times?) won't be overwhelmed by 75 pages of ME historical background information.

Grond

01-21-2002, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Greenwood
So, no, I am not trying to "throw the baby out with the bath water" as you say. However, I do treat The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as being very different things than all of Tolkien's posthumously published works. The first two are finished works. The rest are not. They are Tolkien's working notebooks. They are fascinating in their own right, but they are not the same as the first two. Evidently Tolkien originally hoped to include much of The Silmarillion material as additional appendices at the end of LOTR, but clearly he did not intend them to be narrative books like LOTR, at least not in the form that they have been published in. I wish Tolkien could have lived another decade or more and turned some of this material into finished works, but that is something we will never have. Alas, I must disagree with you Greenwood as far as The Sil is concerned. You state that "the rest are not", which is not correct. In reading the Letters of JRRT it is apparent that the Sil was finished and ready to publish in 1953-1954 and the author was attempting to get Harper to publish the whole package as one big release. The Sil would come out first with LotR to follow. Harper balked due to the very narrative nature of The Sil and would do the one but not the other. Hence, we ended up with the Fotr and TT in 1954 and RotK in 1955 and no Sil.

All Christopher did to the Sil was to make the decision to include not only the Quenta Silmarillion but the Ainulindale and Valaquenta, Akallabeth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age. I'm not sure how JRRT originally had it packaged but surely CT did. Something everyone fails to realize is how actively involved CT was in the background. It was CT who drew many of the maps and his father bounced ideas off of him.

I will concede Greenwood that UT and HoMe are much less definitive as they are, as you state, mostly notes and incomplete or inconsistent writings. I have found multiple accounts of the origin of Orcs, for example. CT states what he felt his father's definative position was on the subject (and I would feel that CT would know) but it doesn't carry the same weight as a book written and published before the author's death. My only complaint about The Sil is that the author didn't have a chance to review and revise it himself; otherwise, I hold it as sacrosanct as either The Hobbit or LotR.

Just my two bits.

Greenwood

01-22-2002, 02:23 AM

In reading the Letters of JRRT it is apparent that the Sil was finished and ready to publish in 1953-1954 and the author was attempting to get Harper to publish the whole package as one big release. The Sil would come out first with LotR to follow. ....... All Christopher did to the Sil was to make the decision to include not only the Quenta Silmarillion but the Ainulindale and Valaquenta, Akallabeth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age.

Grond

Once again, I think our positions are not as far apart as you seem to think. When I refer to The Silmarillion, I am referring to the published book, about one third of which is not the Quenta Silmarillion, as you point out.

My only complaint about The Sil is that the author didn't have a chance to review and revise it himself

This is exactly my point about all the posthumously published books. I do not think that Christopher Tolkien made things up, but JRR himself never had a chance to make any changes and/or corrections that he may have considered. If the Quenta Silmarillion was ready for publication in 1953-1954, is the version that was published in 1977 that version or a revised version? If it is the unpublished version of the early-1950s then that means it does not reflect twenty more years of thought about his creation by the author. That you can find "multiple accounts of the origin of Orcs, for example" further validates my point. Clearly, JRR Tolkien's views were constantly evolving and this is why I place his posthumously published work in a different category than works published by him during his lifetime. Obviously, at some level you feel the same or you would not need the first clause in the following sentence: "My only complaint about The Sil is that the author didn't have a chance to review and revise it himself; otherwise, I hold it as sacrosanct as either The Hobbit or LotR."

Thorin

01-22-2002, 02:35 AM

Do you mean to tell me, that from the 18 years from publication until Tolkien's death, when he himself says in LoTR forward that he turned his mind to the Elder days after publishing LoTR, that Tolkien wouldn't have made his writings like Sil jive with LoTR if he wanted everyone to judge ME by it? I find that a little hard to believe...I highly doubt that in all the time, Tolkien wouldn't have fined tuned Sil for publishing without any kinks and to be used as a definitive source for crediblility considering ME, and that Christopher Tolkien would not really have a good idea of what ideas Tolkien was still changing and formulating?

Sorry, post humous publication or not, that doesn't seem logical....

Also keep in mind that the HoME series distinctly has "Edited by Christopher Tolkien" on it. Sil and UT do not. Hence, I am led to believe, that though compiled, what is published in those two books is exactly how Tolkien intended it to be, especially considering the fact that Tolkien went back to working on them AFTER LoTR...Christopher Tolkien would have told us otherwise (as he has told it in all his comments in the HoME series of books).

Mormegil

01-22-2002, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Thorin
Also keep in mind that the HoME series distinctly has "Edited by Christopher Tolkien" on it. Sil and UT do not.

Thorin,

My copy of The Silmarillion, (Harper Collins 1999 paperback edition), quite clearly has:
"Edited By Christopher Tolkien", on the front of it.

As does my copy of Unfinished Tales (Harper Collins 1998 Paperback edition).

lilhobo

01-22-2002, 02:53 AM

thats the problem with posthumous publications.....it would be easy money for Christopher Tolkien to leave only his father's name on the works, and many publishers would prefer the "straight from the horses mouth" spiel to selel the books

Eonwe

01-22-2002, 04:38 AM

sorry I gotta get in on this...

Greenwood says:

"I have also said that since these two works are finished works, published, and revised by Tolkien himself, the books published after his death are secondary to them and cannot be used to dispute material that is clear in The Hobbit and LOTR."

So let me understand things. We take LoTR and the Hobbit to be more definitive than the SIL or HoME etc...

When Gandalf says pop-gun, Balin says Bravo, Biblo writes about staying in inns all the way out to very near Rivendell, Bilbo talks about all the queer aspects of dragons (including how they boast, their sense of smell, their way of keeping one eye open, their knowledge of the fair price of everything but not really a knowledge of quality, how Smaug is stupid enough to ignore the hole in his armor) I am supposed to take these statements as more in line with what Tolkien really felt like vs. reading UT the Palantiri, reading HoME regarding Erendis, reading the conversation between Glaurung and Turin, etc? I mean, putting the Hobbit ahead of some of the writing in the Sil, and in UT especially concerning what is definitively from Tolkien in most/all cases?

Am I missing something? At least in published scientific work (which I admit may not be applicable at all) the most recent description is the one used, whether it is a letter, a published paper, a published accepted paper, etc.

I personally feel that calling only the Hobbit and LoTR definitive may be correct, but does not necessarily describe best practice in finding out the whole story on a particular subject. Saying that ME had guns because Gandalf describes them in the Hobbit is definitive?

And don't state its Bilbo's artistic license that causes the strangeness in the book, if Balin knows some French, well does he or not?

I don't think it is as clearly cut as you say Greenwood.

respectfully! Eonwe:)

Greenwood

01-22-2002, 05:27 AM

Thorin

I have the first printing of the first edition of the American edition (1977) of The Silmarillion in my hand as I type this. On the title page, directly below the title, in the middle of the page, in large letters it says: edited by CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN [caps in the original].

I would suggest you read the Foreward (by Christopher Tolkien). It is only two and a half pages and not very challenging. In case you cannot lay your hands on a copy I will give some relevant excerpts here.

".... Indeed, although it was not then called The Silmarillion, it was already in being half a century ago; and in battered notebooks extending back to 1917 can still be read the earliest versions, often hastily penciled, of the central stories of the mythology. But it was never published (though some indications of its content could be gleaned from The Lord of the Rings), and throughout my father's long life he never abandoned it, nor ceased even in his last years to work on it. In all that time The Silmarillion, considered simply as a large narrative structure, underwent relatively little radical change; it became long ago a fixed tradition, and background to later writings. But it was far indeed from being a fixed text, and did not remain unchanged even in certain fundamental ideas concerning the nature of the world it portrays; while the same legends came to be retold in longer and shorter forms, and in different styles. As the years passed the changes and variants, both in detail and in larger perspectives, became so complex, so pervasive, and so many-layered that a final and definitive version seemed unattainable. [emphasis added]...... "

Christopher Tolkien continues:

"On my father's death it fell to me to try to bring the work into publishable form. It became clear to me that to attempt to present, within the covers of a single book, the diversity of the materials -- to show The Silmarillion as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century -- would in fact lead only to confusion and the submerging of what is essential. I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent narrative. [emphasis added] ..... "

Christopher Tolkien continues:

" A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost. [emphasis added] ......"

Moving on to Unfinished Tales, which also lists Christopher Tolkien on the title page as editor, we have the following opening paragraphs of the Introduction by C. Tolkien:

"The problems that confront one given responsibility for the writings of a dead author are hard to resolve. Some persons in this position may elect to make no material whatsoever available for publication, save perhaps for work that was in a virtually finished state at the time of the author's death. In the case of the unpublished writings of J. R. R. Tolkien this might seem at first sight the proper course; since he himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book to appear without much further refinement. [emphasis added]

"On the other hand, the nature and scope of his invention seems to me to place even his abandoned stories in a peculiar position. That The Silmarillion should remain unknown was for me out of the question, despite its disordered state, and despite my father's known if very largely unfulfilled intentions for its transformation; and in that case I presumed, after long hesitation, to present the work not in the form of an historical study, a complex of divergent texts interlinked by commentary, but as a completed and cohesive entity." [emphasis added]

Thus, Thorin, whether you find it hard to believe or not, it is quite clear that all of Tolkien's posthumously published works are indeed partly Christopher Tolkien's work since he, as he said produced The Silmarillion by "selecting and arranging in such a way as seemed to me to produce" the best narrative. They can in no way be placed on an equal footing with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Please stop telling me that I am wrong when I point out basic principles of literary research which are backed up by the author's son's own words.

Grond

To return to your earlier post, as you can see, even The Quenta Silmarillion published in The Silmarillion volume cannot be considered a definitive JRR Tolkien text since by Christopher Tolkien's own admission it was "selected and arranged" by him.

Greenwood

01-22-2002, 05:53 AM

Eonwe

We were both typing things at the same time. Please see my post above with excerpts from Christopher Tolkien's introductions to both The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.

I am a professional scientiist and though research rules are similar the rules are not exactly the same because of the inherent differences in what is being studied. Even in science you go back to primary sources, not secondary sources. In science you are presumably trying to uncover some sort of objective fact or something that is reproducible by other workers. In dealing with a literary creation like the world of Middle Earth, there are no objective facts. Things are whatever JRR Tolkien said they were, and he was free to change his mind about any of it. Once an author dies, his published work in a sense becomes set in stone. You can perhaps find through unpublished writings, letters, notes, etc. that perhaps his thoughts about something he had already written were changing (for example the origin of orcs), but since he never had a chance to incorporate those changes into a later edition of a published work, they are of interest, but the published work remains the primary source. About the only exception to this would be if the author had completed work on a new edition prior to his death and this was published posthumously. This is not the case for any of Tolkien's works. As I have said repeatedly, Tolkien's posthumously published work are fascinating for a Tolkien fan and a literary scholar because they allow us to learn more about Tolkien's invented world of Middle Earth and to get a glimpse of the writer at work, but they are not equivalent to works he published in his own lifetime. It is a straight forward concept and I cannot fathom why some people cannot seem to grasp it. I am not denigrating the posthumously published work in any way. I am merely pointing out the irrefutable fact that it is different from material published during the author's lifetime, that he had the opportunity to approve, and that the posthumous material cannot be treated in the same way.

Greenwood

01-22-2002, 06:38 AM

Nevertheless, let us not put our heads in the sand. Other material, when it sheds light on unrelated topics, or deepens our understanding of related topics is fair game for consideration. Only in the very narrow instance of direct contradiction should it be discounted.

Squeeky

Absolutely!! I could not agree more. The problem is that this is an ongoing debate with Thorin that go back over a number of threads and a number of weeks now. It started be cause he and some other self-proclaimed purists kept trying to claim that opinions by "Tolkien scholars" in secondary material and things in Tolkien's posthumously published works could be used to prove their interpretations when those interpretations went against Tolkien's clear meaning in LOTR. (See for example: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146 or http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1911 )

As far as scientific research is concerned, it is quite rare to go back to the first sources for cutting edge work. Scientific work is presumed to build upon former work so that the latest document is ideally the culmination of all prior work, along that thread, and is the most authoritative.

Once again, absolutely. You would not need to go back to Darwin's Origin of the Species in a modern paper about natural selection (unless you were involved in a history of science study). However, you would not rely solely on a review paper and that summarized someone else's work that your research was directly following on; you would go back to the original paper and subsequent papers by that researcher that were relevant. In my own field of ornithology there is currently a magnificent multi-volume work in progress on the birds of the world. It is a wonderful reference with an extensive bibliography. If I were writing a paper on some aspect of the physiology of a certain bird I might use this reference work to look up specific references on the topic at hand, but I would be expected to go to those original references, read and cite them in my work, and not just rely on this second party reference work.

lilhobo

01-22-2002, 07:19 AM

i dont think u should agree with squeeky :D :D :D

squeeky = HARAD??? ;)

Eonwe

01-22-2002, 04:38 PM

I would agree with the squeeky = Harad thing, except, I don't think Harad would pick a name like squeeky (sorry squeeky) He would pick something like ********

Brown Ribbon

01-22-2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Grond

All Christopher did to the Sil was to make the decision to include not only the Quenta Silmarillion but the Ainulindale and Valaquenta, Akallabeth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age. I'm not sure how JRRT originally had it packaged but surely CT did. Something everyone fails to realize is how actively involved CT was in the background. It was CT who drew many of the maps and his father bounced ideas off of him.

.

Grond.
I'm 90, though not 100 percent sure on this, but Christopher Tolkien wrote the chapter 'Of the Ruin of Doriath' in the Sil.
Not all of the Sil I would class as canon.

I am mystified as to why people would class the Council of Elrond as boring. For me it is a great chapter, the battleground for the war of the Ring islaidout here. We get a sense of how hopeless the situation is, how the Ring will divide Elves, Men and Dwarves and how even the wise see know clear way to victory.

Brown Ribbon

01-22-2002, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Eonwe
sorry I gotta get in on this...

Greenwood says:

"I have also said that since these two works are finished works, published, and revised by Tolkien himself, the books published after his death are secondary to them and cannot be used to dispute material that is clear in The Hobbit and LOTR."

So let me understand things. We take LoTR and the Hobbit to be more definitive than the SIL or HoME etc...

When Gandalf says pop-gun, Balin says Bravo, Biblo writes about staying in inns all the way out to very near Rivendell, Bilbo talks about all the queer aspects of dragons (including how they boast, their sense of smell, their way of keeping one eye open, their knowledge of the fair price of everything but not really a knowledge of quality, how Smaug is stupid enough to ignore the hole in his armor) I am supposed to take these statements as more in line with what Tolkien really felt like vs. reading UT the Palantiri, reading HoME regarding Erendis, reading the conversation between Glaurung and Turin, etc? I mean, putting the Hobbit ahead of some of the writing in the Sil, and in UT especially concerning what is definitively from Tolkien in most/all cases?

Am I missing something? At least in published scientific work (which I admit may not be applicable at all) the most recent description is the one used, whether it is a letter, a published paper, a published accepted paper, etc.

I personally feel that calling only the Hobbit and LoTR definitive may be correct, but does not necessarily describe best practice in finding out the whole story on a particular subject. Saying that ME had guns because Gandalf describes them in the Hobbit is definitive?

And don't state its Bilbo's artistic license that causes the strangeness in the book, if Balin knows some French, well does he or not?

I don't think it is as clearly cut as you say Greenwood.

respectfully! Eonwe:)

I always imagined that Bilbo COULD have stayed in inns until not too far off Rivendell. I forget the exact quote, but it was something about inns becoming 'less frequent and welcoming', as secrecy was not an issue for the Dwarves, they could have drunk in Bree, Archet, over as far as The Forsaken Inn, halfway from Bree to Rivendell.
I also see nothing in the profile of Glaurung to necessarily contradict Bilbo's description of Smaug.

Eonwe

01-22-2002, 06:41 PM

Hi Brown Ribbon!

"I also see nothing in the profile of Glaurung to necessarily contradict Bilbo's description of Smaug"

Um I would beg to differ, and would be glad to offer comparisons?? :)

Snaga

01-22-2002, 08:19 PM

I think a Comparitive Dragon Studies thread sounds great Eonwe - go for it!

On the CoE chapter, we shouldn't forget that many (most?) first time readers read LotR as an action adventure. Lets not forget that LotR is multi-layered which is why it draws people in so much. Given this, it is not surprising if some people find it a slow chapter. But once you read it again, these chapters really come into their own.

By contrast, the Hobbit can really only be read as a childrens amusement, with just glimpses of the wider world of Middle Earth peeping through. As a result, the pace is kept far more even all the way through. There are really no 'scene setting' passages, beyond the Unexpected Party.:)

WackerBacker

01-22-2002, 10:31 PM

It's just a story, as epic and detailed as it is. Who cares if there's some discrepancies in four different books written over the span of an adult lifetime? Take Chris's paraphrased advice and get over it and just read the books.

Grond

01-22-2002, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by WackerBacker
It's just a story, as epic and detailed as it is. Who cares if there's some discrepancies in four different books written over the span of an adult lifetime? Take Chris's paraphrased advice and get over it and just read the books. Hail and well met WackerBacker. Your point is well taken but our problem is when discussing the deeper aspects of the works, these inconsistencies will drive you crazy. We who have long studied Tolkien lore are not satisfied to merely read the works. We want to study and learn the works. Call us fanatics or lunatics but a prime example is the debate we are currently having in another thread on the Uruk-hai. Were they merely Great Orcs or something more with more Human genes cloned in? That makes for lively discussion. Like it or no.

Eonwe

01-23-2002, 12:25 AM

Thanks Greenwood. I understand where you are coming from.

By the way, I don't consider myself a NPW. Can I be a NSNPW?

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 05:37 AM

NSNPW?

new-style NPW?
non-specific NPW?
non-speaking NPW?
neo-Stalinist NPW?
nit-slaying NPW?
near-semi NPW?

??? :confused: :)

Grond

01-23-2002, 05:57 AM

I think Eonwe is referring to a not so nit picking weenie which I also consider myself to be.:) ;)

Eonwe

01-23-2002, 06:02 AM

very good! a buttered-scone for Grond (sorry all out of bmws)

Brown Ribbon

01-23-2002, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Eonwe
Hi Brown Ribbon!

"I also see nothing in the profile of Glaurung to necessarily contradict Bilbo's description of Smaug"

Um I would beg to differ, and would be glad to offer comparisons?? :)

Deffo!
The only thing I can find (and I had a glance at Of Turin Turmbar last night) that is necessarily contradictory is the fact that Smaug is a little thick.
I am only basing this on Sil versus Hobbit...

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 07:16 PM

I think Eonwe is referring to a not so nit picking weenie which I also consider myself to be.

Grond

Thank you. Clearly I was floundering at a loss. Gotta get more sleep.

Walter

For the most part I agree with you fully. Of course Tolkien's work published during his lifetime represents a snapshot of his thinking at that time, and of course he was free to change that snapshot in later editions, as he did. The point, however, is that he had the opportunity to at least tacitly, if not explicitly approve that it was a true snapshot, by approving its publication. He had no such opportunity for The Simarillion and later published works which represent his son's "edited" snapshot.

I do not know if you are familiar with the great American photographer Eliot Porter. His photograhs, most in black-and-white, are magnificent. He did not stop however, with taking the picture in the field and then printing it. He did considerable darkroom work (he worked before the advent of PhotoShop and other such computer photo retouching programs) to get just the light balance and cropping and shades of light and shadow, etc., he wanted before publishing his pictures or showing them publicly. If I were to take one of Eliot Porter's photo negatives put it in a computer photo processing program and modify it, even if I was working from notes made by Porter about what his thoughts were about how he was thinking the final print should be, the print that resulted would still not be as definitive as if Porter himself made the changes. The print would be my idea of what Porter wanted. That, as best as I can express it right now, is how I see the difference between Tolkien's work published in his lifetime and the posthumously published work. Yes it is all JRR Tolkien at some level, but the posthumous material is at least partly not his, but his son's view of his father's ideas, and is in a form that JRR himself never approved for public view. No one can claim to have perfect knowledge and understanding of a another person's thoughts, no matter how close they may be to each other. Tolkien's habit of constant revision makes the job that much more impossible. I am not saying as others have claimed that I am arguing that the posthumously published material should be ignored, just that we always remember the limitations involved.

Grond

01-23-2002, 07:56 PM

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 09:40 PM

Greenwood, what you are saying is if the author says Smaug was the last of the great worms of Middle-earth in the Hobbit and that is not contradicted by the text of LotR; then, the author amplifying his thoughts in HoMe or UT or Sil by saying that more existed in the Withered Hearth would not be substantiated.

Grond

Yes. In the world of Middle Earth found in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, there would indeed be no more great worms.

If Tolkien had not rewritten the Riddle Game in later editions of The Hobbit we would be left with an irreconcilable difference between The Hobbit and LOTR. He did, however, make the change. If there are differences between The Hobbit and LOTR and the posthumously published works, they are indeed at this point in time irreconcilable, because only the author can make any necessary changes definitive, not an editor, even if the editor is the author's son. (Unless the son/editor can produce documentation showing the author had delegated such authority to said editor -- I know of no such declaration in Tolkien's case.) I guess you can say that I hold Tolkien's published words in greater "reverence" than even the most fanatic purist or NPW. It is one of the reasons I resent others putting words in Tolkien's mouth. (Please note, Grond, I do not say or believe that you have ever done this.)

Grond

01-23-2002, 10:02 PM

Just wait a while Greenwood and I may. The author is dead and some viewpoints expressed are so far from what I perceive to be the intent of JRRT, that one day this will happen.;)

Greenwood

01-23-2002, 10:43 PM

Wouldn't it be sad if the world had not seen the Sil, UT and HoME?

Walter

ABSOLUTELY!! As a Tolkien fan I find them fascinating and wonderful. As someone who engages in research professionally and has an intense interest (nonprofessionally) in many aspects of history and the development and history of ideas in various fields related to my interests, I find The Silmarillion and the rest even more fascinating because of the glimpses they gives us of Tolkien's mind at work. I dearly wish he had gotten more of them into the same kind of exciting and wonderful story The Hobbit and LOTR are, but alas it was not to be. I just think that people should always be aware that there is a difference between material he published and posthumously published work.

If you are at all interested in photography, particularly landscape and nature photography I urge you to try to get a look at some of Eliot Porter's work. I believe you are in Austria, but I expect a major library there might have some of his books of photographs.

cortezthekiller

01-24-2002, 04:19 PM

I can't comment on the Simarillion, HoME, etc. because I've yet to read those. Though I'm planning on reading Sil as soon as I finish this time through LOTR. As for the Council of Elrond, the first time I read LOTR I was in middle school. I found this chapter a painful challenge of endurance to get through. I was into the whole adventure thing, I guess at that age I didn't care too much about the "why", I just wanted to watch it all unfold. For some perspective, I also remember completely skipping over every single song and poem in the story.

I re-read LOTR in high school, and lo-and behold, the Council and Many Meetings chapters captivated me, almost like sitting around a campfire sharing stories and legends with Gandalf, Elrond, and the guys. More importantly, it really helped flesh out the adventure story, that I so love.

Now, I am reading LOTR all the way through for the third time at the ripe young age of 30. But in the many years between I have always picked up my battered paperbacks of LOTR to read bits and pieces (chapters) that I've always loved. The Council of Elrond is one of the ones I always comeback to most often. It gives such a beautiful look into the depth of JRR Tolkien's creation, Middle Earth.

One movie comment, sorry. I've personally come to the conclusion that Peter Jackson's vision of LOTR is much like my vision from the first time through. A good adventure story, "why bother with the details?" I liked the movie just like I liked the books my first time through, but boy wouldn't it have been nice to hear some of those songs and poems? And get that feeling like your sitting around the campfire trading tales with Gandalf and Elrond?

Grond

01-24-2002, 06:58 PM

Cortez.... welcome to the forum. Your post has brought me all the way back to 1973 when first I read the works during a Thanksgiving break from college. It was a 5 day affair, beginning with The Hobbit and ending with The Lord of the Rings. I, too, remember skimming all the details because it was too hard to keep up with all the names and places. The battle scenes were too cool. I struggled throught the first two chapters of FotR and then became enthralled by the Race to Rivendell. The Council was boring... but, Oh My God, Moria and the Balrog..... yada yada yada, but you get the drift. It wasn't until my fourth reading in 1975 that I started to "study" the works and try and make sense of the names and places and history and to actually reference the Appendices.

Well, I've come the long way around to simply confirm your post. The book during the first reading is just a good and exciting adventure. As it is explored over and over again, it can become a history that is so compelling that you take it with you in your heart.

And, yes, you guessed it. I'm a fanatic!!;)

WackerBacker

01-25-2002, 05:55 PM

Thanks for the welcome, Grond. If it's debate you want, this subject is as good as any. Some seem to want definite answers about these things (see the Uruk/Uruk-hai thread) which I think is pointless. This collection of works is fairly neatly layered in its complexity which is what makes it such a good read 4 and 5 (and more) readings later. I'm just starting my 4th (1st in over 15 years) - I'll be back when I'm finished with Fellowship.

Fanatic and lunatic would describe us all at some phase or niche of life.

Brown Ribbon

01-26-2002, 01:25 AM

as a kid I used to read stories that would, at some point, see the heroes taking a break from their travails to eat shepards pie and drink tea in a farmhouse, while the farmer soked the fire and his wife brought them more hunks of fresh bread...

Epic adventures need these kind of chapters, 'inn' chapters as I call them, when the evils of the day are safely barred outdoors, and the hereoes kick back. It's very important for scene setting, and for signifying a change in the plot. The whole quest becomes an awful lot more serious after the Council of Elrond, the threat of the Enemy is far more tangible and menacing.
The quest leaves the Shire, comes into danger, reaches Farmer Maggot, takes stock (another 'inn' chapter), enters the Old Forest, falls into peril, gets to the Prancing Pony (antoher 'Inn' Chapter), take stock, journey into deeper gloom, reach Rivendell, take stock, go into Moria, nearly get wiped out, reach Lothlorien (another 'inn' chapter) take stock......

And so it goes, there are action chapters and there are plot chapters. What I love so about The Council of Elrond, is that this is the great Council of War, the free decide how to fight Sauron and a strategy is born. It also is the first clear indication we get of just how much esteem Gandalf is held in amongst the wise (something to offset our surprise at him being led into a trap by Saruman).

I truly love this chapter and felt it was one of the bits of the movie they glossed over a little too much.

Similar chapters in the next two books would be 'Window on the West', 'Treebeard', 'Minas Tirith', 'Flotsam and Jetsam', 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit', and 'The Last Debate'. There are, of course, more but you get my drift

Tar-Elenion

02-03-2003, 06:06 AM

bump

Nóm

02-07-2003, 02:10 PM

I'm of the opinion that it is up to each reader to read the books in whichever order they like, and to view them however they like, I think this would involve them integrating the various works at their own rate.

It seems that some people want to get to the bottum of what Tolkien's latest ideas were, for me, at this point at least, there is little use in that. I think each tale should stand alone, and does not have to be consistent with others.

I think that what is important is that we enjoy the books, this means a person will take different aproaches than others do.

I like the bit in The Return of the Shadow where it is believed among the hobbits that Bilbo had a wife and rumored that she must have been ugly since he seened to be keeping her hidden.

What is told in The final version of The Lord of the Rings did not happen any more than the silly hobbit rumors about Bilbo's wife did.
Both happend in one man's imagination, were written down and shared with the world. When we read them, they happen in our imagination.

It's just a matter of having different versions of a story, don't we get that all the time in life? Look what we do with it; we can choose to believe one because we like it most, or because we deem the source is most reliable, or we can decide not to take any story as fact, and just take them into consideration, and we can decide to believe parts of the story, but remain open or skeptic about others.

I think that is what all of these tales are, food for the imagination and for analytical thought. I think will automaticly come up with their own beliefs about the history of Middle-earth, and I think that any attempts to come up with a version that best reflects what Tolkien latest ideas were, are guesses and estimates even if they are taking chronology into consideration. It is probably done more often for the enjoyment of the means than the end. We know what Tolkien wrote down and in some cases when. So we know part of what he thought at this or that time.

I do not, and did not upon first reading, find the Council of Elrond boring. The least interesting part for me, is the bulk of the Sam Frodo and Gollum thread.

Lantarion - I enjoy the deeming of the doom too :D