Characters From Tolkien - David Day

[Thorin]

Does anybody else have this book? I am finding it very useful and enlightening. Some people will knock some of his findings because it is not Tolkien and things said do not necessarily reflect Tolkien (i.e. His belief that the Uruk-hai were created by Sauron and further enhanced by Saruman has caused quite a controversy on this forum a few months ago)

What I especially like about this book is the detailed map of the ENTIRE lands spoken about in all Tolkien's books on ME. It has the detailed map of Valinor and shows where and how it was tied to ME (The Helecaraxe where the Noldor trekked after their rebellion). It shows Beleriand (including the far north where Angband was and the far south which the map in Silmarillion does not show) and regular ME is also included. It shows Utumno (Which, I never knew is in the far east of ME beyond the land of Rhun. Also in the far east is Cuivenen where the elves first awoke and then traveled west from. It shows the forests of Harad way below the map we have in LoTR. It shows EVERYTHING! It is so enlightening and cool. All the maps are tied together and spread out over two pages.

Very informative.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Thorin
i.e. His belief that the Uruk-hai were created by Sauron and further enhanced by Saruman has caused quite a controversy on this forum a few months ago

Ah, the true litmus test of any good Middle-Earth resource. Oh well, if it makes Mr. Day happy, he is in the esteemed company of Foster, the Encyclopedia of Arda, and (notably) Christopher Tolkien. Unfortunately, all these people are of course wrong on this issue.

Thorin, I'm really rather surprised- a lot of the stuff you're listing here wasn't elaborated on by the good professor, which means Mr. Day's maps are to some extent conjectural. It might not actually be at odds with what Tolkien wrote, but one could say the Day was 'inventing' stuff. I won't fault him for it though, and I'm glad to hear you liked it.

ps. I haven't heard of it, and it hasn't been showing up on any bookshelves in my town.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by aragil
Oh well, if it makes Mr. Day happy, he is in the esteemed company of Foster, the Encyclopedia of Arda, and (notably) Christopher Tolkien. Unfortunately, all these people are of course wrong on this issue.

Not that I really care or that I want to really bring the debate back in a raging fire, but what exactly is your support other than your esteemable interpretation of Tolkien's disjointed, unpublished works which are ambiguous at best on many points and contradictory at worst, that makes you come to the conclusion that such published researchers including the definitive interpreter of Tolkien's works, Christopher Tolkien are quite wrong on the issue? That comes off as a little arrogant if you don't mind me saying...

Originally posted by aragil

A lot of the stuff you're listing here wasn't elaborated on by the good professor, which means Mr. Day's maps are to some extent conjectural. It might not actually be at odds with what Tolkien wrote, but one could say the Day was 'inventing' stuff. I won't fault him for it though, and I'm glad to hear you liked it.

I am not aware from where or how Day came to the conclusions of geographical areas except for a a study of these areas explained by Tolkien in conjunction of other areas...I'm sure that exact geographical locations are used with some liberty, but nothing is out of the ordinary with anything Tolkien has written that I have read or seen.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Thorin
Not that I really care or that I want to really bring the debate back in a raging fire, but what exactly is your support other than your esteemable interpretation of Tolkien's disjointed, unpublished works which are ambiguous at best on many points and contradictory at worst, that makes you come to the conclusion that such published researchers including the definitive interpreter of Tolkien's works, Christopher Tolkien are quite wrong on the issue? That comes off as a little arrogant if you don't mind me saying...

As if my esteemable interpretation wasn't enough? Actually, interpretation is basically all it boils down to. By any linguistic analysis Uruk-hai should translate as 'Uruk-folk', as some would say the anglicized plural of Uruk, and so Uruks and Uruk-hai would be the same things. However, looking at the context in which Tolkien used the words it sure seems to me that Uruk-hai refers to creatures which could tolerate the sun and were the result of orc-human crossing, in other words it only applies to Saruman's troops. If you like the linguistic analysis, you'll go with Uruks and Uruk-hai being the same. If you prefer context, you'll go with them being different.

As for the book (I'm really not trying to argue), I was just surprised that he put Utumno in the far east, or that he put forests in Harad. It was my impression that Harad was mostly desert, although if it is analogous to Africa then I guess it should also have rainforest/jungle. But really, I could have sworn Utumno was not in the East.

[Edhel-dûr]

I´m agree with aragil.The terms Uruk-hai and Uruks are the same.Uruk-hai means "race of orcs".They were orcs with special qualities which diferences them from the common orcs,to wich they called "sanaga"(slaves).

The Uruk-hai were used by Saruman as part of his elite forces of assault.
But we must remembar that they were a creation of Sauron and not of Saruman.Saruman created the(i´m not sure of the term in english XD) the Half-orcs or Semi-orcs wich were the result of mixing orcs with humans(probably Dunlendings).

Greetings.

[aragil]

Edhel-dûr: Here's the link to the Uruks vs. Uruk-hai debate.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146

I guess you could call it a comprehensive examination of each of the uses of Uruk, Uruks, and Uruk-hai in the whole of The Lord of the Rings. I think the best summary is what I've said earlier- if you go from the linguistic angle then Uruk-hai and Uruks is equivalent. If you go from the context in which they are used, then the terms are different. No need to hijack Thorin's thread, but I'm not sure I agree with your stance on the issue, as I think that the Uruk-hai were the human/orc hybrids of Saruman, and that they were quite seperate from any invention of Sauron's.

[Edhel-dûr]

Mmm,well,i´m sure about both terms are the same XD.

In letters,78 :

"Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker.."

He first refers to the Uruk-hai,and after he says Uruks.This means that both terms are the same don´t you think?

Even Robert Foster in his book "Complete Guide to Middle Earth" asumes its equivalence: Uruk-hai = Uruks = Great Orcs.

In the Appendix is stated that the Uruks make his first aparition in the year 2475,when Saruman still didn´t have troops,so the conclusion is that the Uruks(Uruk-hai XD) were breed by Sauron.

In Myths Transformed,it is said that Saruman learned to mix Men with Orcs,creating the Half-orcs(Semi-orcs,i´m not sure of the term in english).I´m not telling that Saruman had Uruk-hai in his forces,i just say that is not his invention,but of Sauron.

Maybe you have the reason and in the context they are diferent terms,but i don´t refer to the context but the meaning XD.

Do you understand me?

Greetings.

[aragil]

Casi

But we really shouldn't use this thread. Remember there is one dedicated to this topic at
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2146

I think I address those letters there.