alt.fan.tolkien

Posting-Frequency: Monthly (FAQ also posted monthly) Welcome to the Tolkien newsgroups! Our FAQs can be found at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/ Even if you haven't read all of /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord of the Rings/, you are welcome here, but be careful! Spoilers for the stories can be anywhere, even in the subject line of a message. To help you join our community as comfortably as possible, we do ask that you read our Frequently Asked Questions lists before posting. The FAQs discuss proper "netiquette" for participating in discussions here, and also introduce the basics of our most frequent debates (the main Meta-FAQ page lists the most "important" questions in bold). Once again, welcome! We look forward to your participation.

1930 (long before even /The Hobbit/ was published) and the mythology had changed drastically since then. Moreover, Tolkien was never happy with some aspects of the story, in particular with the question of how the Dwarves could invade Doriath despite the Girdle of Melian. The published version was directly inspired by some of Tolkien's drafts of the tale (those which seemed easiest to reconcile with the rest of the story), but was essentially rewritten to be consistent with the rest of the book and to include a few ideas from Tolkien's later writings. That meant some major changes: for example, in Tolkien's own drafts, the Nauglamir did not exist before it was made to hold the Silmaril (out of raw gold from Nargothrond), and Thingol was not slain until the full Dwarvish army attacked. In his comments on "Of the Ruin of Doriath" (an appendix to "The Tale of Years" in /The War of the Jewels/), Christopher Tolkien concludes with the regret that "the undoubted difficulties could have been, and should have been, surmounted without so far overstepping the bounds of the editorial function." Elsewhere in that book, at the end of the section "The Wanderings of Hurin", he speaks of other omissions and alterations, and says, it seems to me now, many years later, to have been an excessive tampering with my father's actual thought and intention: thus raising the question, whether the attempt to make a 'unified' /Silmarillion/ should have been embarked on. Whatever failings /The Silmarillion/ as published may have, I think that most of its readers are grateful to have it, and would assure Christopher Tolkien that his work was worthwhile. He undertook a great task in bringing it to print, and despite his later misgivings I think most would agree that he did an excellent job. ------- 4. Which are "The Two Towers"? Tolkien was never very happy with the title. In Letters #140 and #143 he considers many interpretations of it, each with its own rationale, and even comments that it could be left ambiguous. It seems, however, that he eventually settled on one interpretation. The note at the end of /The Fellowship of the Ring/ in three-volume editions of LotR states that The second part is called /The Two Towers/, since the events recounted in it are dominated by /Orthanc/, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of /Minas Morgul/ that guards the secret entrance to Mordor. According to Wayne Hammond's /J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography/, Tolkien submitted that note a month after his indecision in Letter #143. And a month later, Tolkien submitted an illustration for the dust-jacket of /The Two Towers/; as can be seen in /J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator/ (plate [180]), that illustration shows Minas Morgul and Orthanc as well. It seems clear that this was Tolkien's final decision. ------- 5. Which books /about/ Tolkien are good, and which aren't? A few disclaimers. First, this is a very subjective question, and what follows is largely a matter of individual opinion. This list was gleaned from discussions on the newsgroups and it reflects some level of consensus, but no verdict was unanimous. Second, this list is /very/ incomplete, but there simply isn't space to list all of the excellent scholarship on Tolkien that has been produced. Unfortunately, this means that only books will be included, and I will focus on only the best known of those (and even then, I'm sure some are missing). My apologies to anyone who has been overlooked. With that being said, these are some of the best secondary works about Tolkien, in no particular order. I have included general descriptions for books whose titles do not make their content clear. * /The Complete Guide to Middle-earth/, by Robert Foster. A detailed and very trustworthy glossary of people, places, and things in /The Hobbit/, LotR, and /The Silmarillion/, including page references to the original texts. * /[J.R.R.] Tolkien: A Biography/, by Humphrey Carpenter. (The initials are not part of the title in the USA.) * /The Annotated Hobbit/, by J.R.R. Tolkien, annotated by Douglas A. Anderson. Textual history and general comments (be sure to get the recent second edition). * /J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator/ by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. Pictures by Tolkien and accompanying discussion. * /The Road to Middle-earth/ and /J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century/, by Tom Shippey. Literary analysis and criticism. * /Splintered Light/ and /A Question of Time/, by Verlyn Flieger. Literary analysis and criticism. * /Tolkien's Legendarium/, ed. Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter. Literary analysis and criticism related to the "History of Middle-earth" series (and Tolkien's other works). Some find parts of this book to be a good introduction to that series. * /The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion/, by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. Page by page annotation of LotR with comments of interest to everyone from second-time readers to seasoned experts. Contains material from some previously unpublished letters and essays by Tolkien, as well as summaries of textual history and general observations. A notable book whose status is ambiguous is /The Atlas of Middle-earth/, by Karen Wynn Fonstad. It is the best general Tolkien atlas available, covering the full history of Middle-earth, and in most cases Fonstad has done well in extrapolating detailed topographic maps from Tolkien's texts and rougher originals. However, there are a fair number of minor errors in her research, and it can sometimes be difficult to tell what level of justification exists for each of her maps' details. Finally, what follow are a few books that many Tolkien scholars avoid. All of them can be enjoyable to read when taken on their own, but they are not entirely trustworthy guides to Tolkien's Middle-earth and are generally ignored in scholarly debates. Because I am not comfortable speaking poorly of others' work without justification, I have provided links to further discussion for each of these titles. * /A Tolkien Bestiary/, and other books by David Day. http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/DayBooks.html * /The Tolkien Companion/, by J.E.A. Tyler. http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TylerBook.html * /The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth/, by Ruth Noel. http://www.elvish.org/articles/LRH.html ------- 6. Is Middle-earth Medieval? Tolkien's works draw from quite a few periods of human history, and many aspects of Middle-earth distinctly resemble their real-world counterparts in the Middle Ages. However, there are substantial discrepancies in society and culture that indicate that other periods in history also made large contributions (as one example, in Letter #211 Tolkien compared several significant aspects of the society of Gondor to that of ancient Egypt). The relative influence of Medieval and other periods has been hotly contested in the past, though this has not been a major issue in recent years. ------- 7. Was Tolkien racist? Were his works? A full discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Some people find what they consider to be clear indications of racist attitudes in Tolkien's works. It is certainly possible that they are right: racism is notoriously difficult to recognize accurately, and most people harbor at least some level of racial mistrust. On the other hand, most people who make such accusations seem to do so primarily to stir up controversy and inspire flame wars. In fact, much of the "evidence" presented to demonstrate Tolkien's racism is flawed, and there is reason to believe that Tolkien was less racist than many people of his day. For the sake of diffusing the issue a little, I will mention a few of those mistaken arguments. One occasional charge is that Tolkien was anti-semitic, presumably because he occasionally compared his Dwarves to Jews. Those comparisons seem to focus on history and language, however: in Letter #176 he says, "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue.....". And he seems to have had a very positive view of the Jewish people in general. For example, when discussing the origins of the name "Tolkien" in the final footnote to Letter #325, he says, "It is not Jewish in origin, though I should consider it an honour if it were." He made very similar comments in a draft of a letter (#30) to a publisher in Nazi Germany who asked about his race, and in Letter #29 he introduced that draft and told his publisher, "I should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." Another seemingly prejudiced statement comes in Letter #210, where Tolkien describes the Orcs as "degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types". At first glance this looks blatantly racist, but the qualifier "to Europeans" casts it in a very different light: Tolkien explicitly recognized that different cultures have different standards of beauty, and that his impressions did not reflect any underlying superiority. Moreover, he made it clear that the Orcs were not in any sense actual "Mongol-types", but "degraded and repulsive versions" of humanoid stock. (Nevertheless, his comment certainly falls short of modern standards of sensitivity.) Many point to the "hierarchy" of the various groups of humans in the books as clear evidence of cultural elitism or racism, but they seem to forget that most of the Numenoreans (the "highest" humans) fell into deepest evil and were destroyed by God, while the Woses (the "Wild Men" of Druadan forest, who certainly would not represent "civilized" Europeans) were among the most wise and resistant to evil of all peoples (as well as having a complex culture and many skills other Men lacked), to take two of many examples. Finally, a few people have mistaken the symbolic conflict between "darkness" and "light" in the books for a conflict between "black" and "white", which they then interpret racially (which is already a stretch). They seem to overlook the ghastly white corpse-light of Minas Morgul, the White Hand of Saruman, and Isildur's black Stone of Erech, to name a few exceptions. As for specific claims that Tolkien linked skin color to good and evil, there are simply too many exceptions for that to hold up. Light skinned characters who did evil things include Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Boromir, Denethor, and the Numenoreans as mentioned above. And it is notable that Tolkien described Forlong's people of Gondor and even the men of Bree as "swarthy", the same term he used for example of the Southrons who were ambushed by Faramir (though to be fair, he may have imagined different degrees of "swarthiness" for those groups). For that matter, Sam's flash of empathy for the fallen Southron he saw during the ambush indicates that many of Sauron's soldiers were likely unwilling slaves, not evil at heart. In short, while there are racially "suspicious" elements to be found in Tolkien's writings if one hunts for them, closer examination typically reveals the attitude behind them to be benign. That doesn't mean that he was perfect, but it certainly doesn't seem that he should be condemned for intolerance. ------- 8. Are there electronic versions of Tolkien's books? At long last, authorized electronic editions of several of Tolkien's books are available: at this time, they include /The Hobbit/, /The Lord of the Rings/, and /The Children of Hurin/. Links to purchase these editions can be found in the Tolkien section of the HarperCollins website: http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/11538/index.aspx There are of course limitations on these texts. All of the formats currently available (there are quite a few) are protected by various types of "Digital Rights Management" software to limit printing and copying, so you should make sure your hardware is compatible before buying. ------- 9. Where can I report copyright violations that I observe? If you find an unauthorized copy of any of Tolkien's works on the Internet, you may want to take some action to support the rights of the Tolkien Estate. It is generally best to begin with a polite request that the texts be taken offline, and only if that fails to take more drastic action such as contacting the hosting Internet service provider. If all else fails, you can send a brief letter to the Estate's legal representative informing her of the situation, although this should be considered a last resort: Mrs. Cathleen Blackburn Manches & Co. 3 Worcester Street Oxford OX1 2PZ U.K. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ III.B. STORY INTERNAL QUESTIONS: CREATURES AND CHARACTERS 1. Did Balrogs have wings? [Conrad Dunkerson has written a much more detailed essay on this question as part of his "The Truth About Balrogs" series, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html. That page also includes links to other discussions of the issue.] Debates on this topic have been frequent and intense, in part because people unknowingly interpret the question in very different ways. Most participants in these debates agree on the following: * The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, or if you prefer, a "shadow" shaped like wings. * Those "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but rather of some sort of "dark emanation" or "palpable darkness". Many of the most intense arguments seem to have resulted from different uses of the word "wing". In this consensus statement, the (quoted) word "wing" is used only as a convenient symbol for the feature of the Balrog under discussion, without reference to any standard definition. In particular, the statement does not specify whether the "palpable darkness" always had a winglike shape. So what are the different definitions that people use? The Oxford English Dictionary divides its relevant definitions of the word "wing" into two groups. Group I includes definitions that for the most part refer to physical parts of a creature's body. For example, #1.a. is "Each of the organs of flight of any flying animal" (but broadened to include cases where similar organs are not used for flight, such as penguins' wings and even "the enlarged fins of flying fishes"). Group II includes definitions relating primarily to a thing's shape or position. For example, #5. is "An appliance or appendage resembling or analagous to a wing in form or function", including #5.a. "An artificial apparatus attached to the human arms or shoulders" and #5.d.(a) "one of the planes of an aeroplane". Even broader, #6 is "A lateral part or appendage: in various connexions." With a "Group II" definition of "wing", the question "Do Balrogs have wings?" is more or less trivial: Tolkien's description clearly fits (at least at the time described in the quotes below), as does the consensus statement above. With a "Group I" definition of "wing", the question is more interesting and the answer less obvious: it depends on the specific definition, and even then not everyone will agree. The consensus statement above was not reached quickly, and even with a "Group I" definition some newcomers believe that a simple "yes" or "no" is clear from the description of the Balrog in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum". The debates generally begin as follows: * "Pro-wingers" point out that when the Balrog steps onto the Bridge, "its wings were spread from wall to wall". * "No-wingers" point out that the word "wings" was first used in the phrase "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings", and deduce that the word "wings" refers to the "shadow" itself rather than to a part of the Balrog's solid central body. (The "shadow" was seen when the Balrog first appeared: "it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form", and it is likely the "cloud" in the phrase "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it".) * "Pro-wingers" claim that as the Balrog came closer to the Fellowship its uncertain appearance became clearer, so what first looked like a "shadow" or "cloud" and later "like wings" was finally recognized as "wings" once the Balrog was nearby. "No-wingers" do not agree with this interpretation. Progress beyond this point is difficult, but again, most of those on both sides of the debate agree with the consensus statement. One substantial remaining point of disagreement is whether the "wings" always had a winglike shape (supported in part by Tolkien's use of the direct phrase "its wings") or if their form was variable (supported in part by the "cloud" description), and there is no firm evidence known for either position. ------- 2. Could Balrogs fly? [Conrad Dunkerson has written a much more detailed essay on this question as part of his "The Truth About Balrogs" series, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html. That page also includes links to other discussions of the issue.] There is considerable disagreement on this point. Most agree that the Moria passage does not provide convincing evidence for or against Balrogs' ability to fly. (For example, while the Balrog does not fly out of the chasm, it may not have had enough room to use its wings, or its highest priority may have been the destruction of a rival Maia in its domain.) Most also agree that as Maiar, Balrogs could conceivably be able to fly even if they had no wings, or that they could have had wings but remained flightless. Still, the two issues are certainly related to some degree. A number of facts have been taken as indirect evidence that Balrogs could not fly (e.g. they never flew over the mountains to discover Gondolin; at least two died falling from cliffs), but counterarguments have always been found (the eagles defended Gondolin; the Balrogs fell only after great injuries). Clearer evidence comes from "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin" in /Unfinished Tales/, when Voronwe says, "as yet no servant of the Enemy has dared to fly into the high airs". Even if Voronwe's information was complete, however, this still leaves room for Balrogs to be able to fly at low altitudes. The only known place where Tolkien may have made a direct statement on Balrogs' ability to fly can be found in "The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)" in /Morgoth's Ring/: Far beneath the halls of Angband... the Balrogs lurked still.... Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire. Some believe that this passage clearly describes Balrogs flying, others believe it just uses imagery of flight to indicate speed, and still others believe it to be ambiguous. ------- 3. What was Tom Bombadil? [This supplements question V.G.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] [I have written a much more detailed analysis of this question; it is on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html] Theories on Bombadil's nature abound. Many people believe that Tom was a Maia: if we assume he is one of the types of entities we know of from the Silmarillion, this seems to be the best fit. (A closely related suggestion is that Tom was an Ainu who never took a place in the usual hierarchy of Arda). Other popular views make Tom a nature spirit of a kind never explicitly described, either one of many, or the incarnation of Arda itself. These theories are inspired by comments at the Council of Elrond and in /Letters/. Many other possibilities still arise regularly (for example, that he is some particular Vala or even Eru himself), but there are fairly strong arguments against them. (For example, Tolkien said in several Letters that Eru did not physically inhabit Middle-earth.) Some people argue that Tolkien intentionally left Bombadil an enigma even to himself, and that therefore any attempt to find out what he was is doomed to fail. A truly satisfying explanation of Bombadil's nature would explain Goldberry as well. ------- 4. Did Elves have pointed ears? [This supplements question V.C.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] [Conrad Dunkerson has written a more detailed discussion of this question, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Ears.html.] There is no known text in which Tolkien makes a final, unambiguous statement about the shape of Elvish ears. Those who argue in favor of pointed ears generally cite a remark which seems to support that position found in the "Etymologies" (part of /The Lost Road/). That document was written in the period immediately before the composition of LotR and revised sporadically while LotR was being written, so it is unclear to what extent it should be treated as a canonical source. Those who argue against pointed ears focus on Tolkien's statements that Elves and humans were sufficiently similar that they could be mistaken for each other. There is no consensus on this issue. ------- 5. Did Elves have beards? Most of Tolkien's writings imply that Elves were generally beardless. This is stated clearly in a note written late in Tolkien's life which is summarized in the section "Amroth and Nimrodel" in "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in /Unfinished Tales/. In the note, there is a discussion of the Elvish strain in Men, as to its being observable in the beardlessness of those who were so descended (it was a characteristic of all Elves to be beardless). At first glance, this would seem to settle the issue. However, this ignores a crucial exception. In "The Grey Havens", when Cirdan the Shipwright greets Frodo and the Elves, we read "Very tall he was, and his beard was long". This canonical evidence makes it clear that some Elves do have beards. A very incomplete explanation of this apparent discrepancy appears in a note associated with "The Shibboleth of Feanor" which was published in the journal /Vinyar Tengwar/ #41, which reads Elves did not have beards until they entered their third cycle of life. Nerdanel's father was exceptional, being only early in his second. (Nerdanel was Feanor's wife.) No other mention of Elvish "cycles of life" is known. Even without a full understanding, however, this helps to reconcile these statements: Cirdan was one of the oldest Elves in Middle-earth and could easily be in his "third cycle of life", and humans descended from Elves might never live long enough to reach the bearded state. ------- 6. What happened to Elves after they died? [This updates question V.D.1 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] A great deal of information on this topic can be found in /Morgoth's Ring/ (HoMe X). Tolkien's latest thoughts on the issue can be found in "Note 3" to the "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" and in the Appendix to that text. In brief, when Elves died, they were summoned to Mandos. Once the Valar deemed them to be ready, they could (if they wished) be directly re-embodied (with the aid of the Valar) in a body identical to the one they had lost. Tolkien clearly abandoned the idea that the Elves could be re-born as children. "Note 3" says that Elven spirits "could refuse the summons [to Mandos], but this would imply that they were in some way tainted". Details of such refusals are not given in the text above, but are discussed in an earlier essay: "Laws and Customs among the Eldar", part of "The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)" in /Morgoth's Ring/. Those who refused "then had little power to resist the counter-summons of Morgoth." The reason for this "counter-summons" is not explained, nor is it clear what became of them after Morgoth's defeat, but the text mentions that some of the living sought to speak with the "Unbodied" or even to control them, and that "Such practices are of Morgoth; and the necromancers are of the host of Sauron his servant." ------- 7. Was Glorfindel of Rivendell the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin? [This updates question V.D.2 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] Yes. With the publication of /The Peoples of Middle-earth/, certainty has become possible: the first essays in the section "Last Writings" of that book discuss Glorfindel and his history. Those texts make it very clear that after his death in the flight from Gondolin, Glorfindel was re-embodied in Aman (see question III.B.6) and was later sent back to Middle-earth as an aid or an emissary. Tolkien seems to have been uncertain as to whether he returned in the Second Age by way of Numenor or in the Third Age as a companion of Gandalf. ------- 8. Who was Gil-galad's father? /The Silmarillion/ states many times that Gil-galad was the son of Fingon, son of Fingolfin. However, in /The Peoples of Middle-earth/ (in comments on the essay "The Shibboleth of Feanor"), Christopher Tolkien explains that this was an editorial error due to the complexity of the source material: "Gil-galad as the son of Fingon... was an ephemeral idea." Tolkien changed his mind about Gil-galad's ancestry several times, but it seems that his latest decision was to make Gil-galad the son of Orodreth, son of Angrod, son of Finarfin (making him the brother of Finduilas and nephew of Finrod). Christopher says that "There can be no doubt that this was my father's last word on the subject", but that because the change was never incorporated into other texts, "it was obviously impossible to introduce it into the published /Silmarillion/. It would nonetheless have been very much better to have left Gil-galad's parentage obscure." Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it is at least clear that /The Silmarillion/ is not entirely trustworthy here. ------- 9. Did Dwarf women have beards? [This updates question V.D.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] Yes. The most canonical evidence for this comes in Appendix A, where it is said of Dwarf women that They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart. It seems that (male) Dwarves in Middle-earth all have beards: among other evidence, as Bilbo sets out on his adventure in /The Hobbit/, we read that "His only comfort was that he couldn't be mistaken for a dwarf, as he had no beard." Given that, the quote above must imply that Dwarf women were bearded as well. However, we do not need to rely on such implications: Tolkien answered this question explicitly in other texts. In /The War of the Jewels/ ("The Later /Quenta Silmarillion/: Of the Naugrim and the Edain", written ~1951), Tolkien wrote that no Man nor Elf has ever seen a beardless Dwarf - unless he were shaven in mockery, and would then be more like to die of shame... For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike... In /The Peoples of Middle-earth/, Christopher Tolkien says that a similar statement was present in an earlier draft of Appendix A as well. As these statements are entirely in agreement with the canonical evidence cited above, the conclusion that Dwarf women had beards seems inescapable. ------- 10. Was there "telepathy" in Middle-earth? Although it is not emphasized in the books, direct communication of thought from mind to mind was certainly part of Middle-earth. This is stated directly in the chapter "Many Partings" of LotR, when Celeborn, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond lingered before parting: ...they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro. Another example is the voice Frodo hears in his mind on Amon Hen, saying, "Take off the Ring!", which was that of Gandalf as he "sat in a high place, and... strove with the Dark Tower" ("The White Rider"). ("The Black Gate is Closed" confirms that this was Gandalf, when it suggests that Frodo felt Gandalf's thought on him, "as he had upon Amon Hen".) Tolkien discusses the details of this "telepathy" at length in the essay "/Osanwe-kenta/: Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", which was published in the journal /Vinyar Tengwar/ #39 (available from http://www.elvish.org/). It seems that all minds had this ability, but that it was "dimmed" whenever it passed through a physical body. Elves could therefore use it more easily than humans, as their wills had greater control over their bodies. The essay contains many more fascinating details, but there is not space even to summarize them here. ------- 11. Did Sauron have a physical form during /The Lord of the Rings/? There is strong evidence that Sauron did have a humanoid physical body at the time of LotR. In "The Black Gate is Closed" we read, "'He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand, but they are enough', said Gollum shuddering." Gollum was tortured in Barad-dur, and this statement sounds as if it comes from personal experience. Some have objected that Gollum's memory of his torture might not be accurate for various reasons, but this is still the only fully "canonical" evidence on either side of the issue, so it should be taken seriously. It need not be taken alone, however. Tolkien makes multiple unambiguous statements that Sauron did have a physical form during the LotR era in /Letters/. For example, he describes Sauron's use of a humanoid shape in Letter #200: It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. ... After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Numenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit...) Because it took time for Sauron to "re-build" after his body was slain by Gil-galad and Elendil, it is clear that it was more than just a "vision". As there is no suggestion that Sauron was ever "slain" between that time and the destruction of the Ring (he was merely "driven out" of Dol Guldur), this re-built body presumably still existed during LotR. Another clear statement can be found near the end of Letter #246, where Tolkien discusses the possibility of a direct confrontation between Sauron and a Ring-wielder at the time of LotR (he considers both Aragorn and Gandalf). He says, in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. ... The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. No statements by Tolkien conflicting with these descriptions are known. Some have objected that the many references to the "Eye" of Sauron must refer to his physical shape. However, Tolkien used that term even when referring to the period before the war of the Last Alliance, when it is well known that Sauron had a physical form: for example, the Akallabeth says that after Sauron "came back to Middle-earth and to Mordor... the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." So what does "the Eye" refer to if not Sauron's physical form? Frodo's perception of it is described in "The Passage of the Marshes": But far more he was troubled by the Eye: so he called it to himself. ... The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable. A very similar comment about Morgoth appears in Text X of the "Myths

Culture and peace for every one today and always! Cordially yours, The Bible says there EXIST only one way to heaven! JESUS said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes unto the heavenly Father, but by me" John, 14:6 Nobody else can save you. Trust JESUS today! That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the L-rd Yehoshua, and shalt believe within your heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead, then thou shalt be saved." Romans 10: 9 You must do the Following: Put your faith to work and pray right now in your heart and soul. Admit you are a sinner. See Romans 310 Be willing to turn from sin (repent) See Acts 17:30 Believe that JESUS died for you, was buried and rose from the dead. See Romans 10-: 9-10 Through prayer, invite JESUS into your life to become your personal Savior. See Romans 10:13 What to pray? Or what to say to the HEAVENLY FATHER in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST in Prayer...? Do the following and ASK HIM to GIVE YOU, RIGHT NOW, the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT (GIFTS of the SPIRIT THAT ARE FREE FOR YOU TO RECEIVE according to the SCRIPTURES as YOU TURNED AWAY FROM YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST TO CLEANSE YOU WITH HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD THE SINS of YOUR SOUL and LIFE) and HE will listen to you AND DO IT: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, rich or poor, small or great, wise or not-- just the same, the Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses them who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:9-13 Dear GOD, I am a sinner and in need of forgiveness. I believe that the L-rd JESUS shed His PRECIOUS BLOOD and died for my sin. I am willing to turn from sin. I now invite JESUS to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior. If you said the above PRAYER, then YOU ACCEPTED Jesus Christ as your ONLY WAY to HEAVEN and your PERSONAL SAVIOR FOR ETERNITY? Did you receive Jesus Christ as your LORD and Savior TODAY? YES ? Or, NO ? Date / / YES ? Or, NO ? If you trusted JESUS as your Savior, you have just begun a wonderful new life with Him. Now: Read your Bible every day to get to know JESUS CHRIST better. Talk to GOD in prayer in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST everyday. Be baptized in water submersion and in the power of the Holy Spirit of God, worship, fellowship, and serve with other Messianic Jews and gentile believers as well in a Temple where JESUS is preached and the Bible is the final authority. Tell others about JESUS. Now, a reminder, do not forget to pray for me; please include me in your prayers for me and my love ones, for your prayers are very important in heaven. You do not have any idea how important your prayers are in Heaven; Jesus suffered, anguished, prayed, cried, shed His Precious Blood and Died on the Cross of Golgotha for your prayers to be heard in Heaven in the Holy of Holiest. That is CORRECT. The Holy Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and all the Holy Angels hear your prayers in Heaven in the Holy of Holiest too. I most add that THERE is a GREAT FESTIVITY with GOD and all the HOLY ANGELS in HEAVEN when you do the SINNERS PRAYER and SPEAK to GOD in the NAME of HIS WONDERFUL King Messiah and HOLY SON, JESUS CHRIST. Thank you. http://www.supercadenacristiana.com/index.php http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/ambassador/free-audio-bible-download http://radioalerta.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsYA-M0r-w4&playnext=1&list=PLEF344CEAC8A8F474&feature=results main http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw5qBHyVtoQ&list=PLjMWsAQ3-rfnNnBq-wn0ATM5vaHi9HA3Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZKtwRuutnY&list=PL3C9EC193E2A7CB7B http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOVdjxtnsH8&h d=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7kj1Wx5ffs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMsXK66XmUs&list=RD5eb99aA3Jsk&index=5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1khhFySfO-s&list=PL54B204D72BF2799A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTpaVXvSbZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpKllW86iG

In alt.fan.tolkien Carlos wrote: > On 2020-10-08, Your Name wrote: >> >> From ComingSoon.net ... >> >> >> The Lord of the Rings Finally Getting the 4K Treatment this December! > > Great news! > > I wonder how it will affect to the perception of visual effects, though. > The LoTR trilogy has aged pretty well because most of the tricks were > optical and not CGI, but I remember watching the blu-ray a few years ago > and noticing many more of the tricks. > > Did anybody else experience this? > > Carlos May all attempts to film TLotR be utterly forgotten, and the very idea of presuming to do so be wiped from the minds of mankind! -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Posting-Frequency: Monthly (FAQ also posted monthly) Welcome to the Tolkien newsgroups! Our FAQs can be found at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/ Even if you haven't read all of /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord of the Rings/, you are welcome here, but be careful! Spoilers for the stories can be anywhere, even in the subject line of a message. To help you join our community as comfortably as possible, we do ask that you read our Frequently Asked Questions lists before posting. The FAQs discuss proper "netiquette" for participating in discussions here, and also introduce the basics of our most frequent debates (the main Meta-FAQ page lists the most "important" questions in bold). Once again, welcome! We look forward to your participation.

This has bothered me for some time: /what/ was Turin's first sorrow again? After Turin left home for Doriath and was parted from Morwen, the text of /CoH/ says, "This was the first of the sorrows of Turin." (/CoH/ p. 75, or /UT/ p. 73 for the corresponding passage in the /Narn/.) But how can that be true? Lalaith had already died at that point! Obviously the death in childhood of his beloved little sister was a huge sorrow for him. One possibility is that this was simply a traditional phrase which was copied from earlier versions of the story. In fact, there is something like it in the tale of "Turambar and the Foaloke": on p. 72 of /BoLT 2/ we read, "Very bitter indeed was that sundering, and for long Turin wept and would not leave his mother, and this was the first of the many sorrows that befell him in life." But in that case, it should still have been edited out once the character of Lalaith was introduced. On the other hand, maybe it means "the first of the sorrows of Turin *which was caused by Morgoth's curse*". I don't know, what do people think?

1930 (long before even /The Hobbit/ was published) and the mythology had changed drastically since then. Moreover, Tolkien was never happy with some aspects of the story, in particular with the question of how the Dwarves could invade Doriath despite the Girdle of Melian. The published version was directly inspired by some of Tolkien's drafts of the tale (those which seemed easiest to reconcile with the rest of the story), but was essentially rewritten to be consistent with the rest of the book and to include a few ideas from Tolkien's later writings. That meant some major changes: for example, in Tolkien's own drafts, the Nauglamir did not exist before it was made to hold the Silmaril (out of raw gold from Nargothrond), and Thingol was not slain until the full Dwarvish army attacked. In his comments on "Of the Ruin of Doriath" (an appendix to "The Tale of Years" in /The War of the Jewels/), Christopher Tolkien concludes with the regret that "the undoubted difficulties could have been, and should have been, surmounted without so far overstepping the bounds of the editorial function." Elsewhere in that book, at the end of the section "The Wanderings of Hurin", he speaks of other omissions and alterations, and says, it seems to me now, many years later, to have been an excessive tampering with my father's actual thought and intention: thus raising the question, whether the attempt to make a 'unified' /Silmarillion/ should have been embarked on. Whatever failings /The Silmarillion/ as published may have, I think that most of its readers are grateful to have it, and would assure Christopher Tolkien that his work was worthwhile. He undertook a great task in bringing it to print, and despite his later misgivings I think most would agree that he did an excellent job. ------- 4. Which are "The Two Towers"? Tolkien was never very happy with the title. In Letters #140 and #143 he considers many interpretations of it, each with its own rationale, and even comments that it could be left ambiguous. It seems, however, that he eventually settled on one interpretation. The note at the end of /The Fellowship of the Ring/ in three-volume editions of LotR states that The second part is called /The Two Towers/, since the events recounted in it are dominated by /Orthanc/, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of /Minas Morgul/ that guards the secret entrance to Mordor. According to Wayne Hammond's /J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography/, Tolkien submitted that note a month after his indecision in Letter #143. And a month later, Tolkien submitted an illustration for the dust-jacket of /The Two Towers/; as can be seen in /J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator/ (plate [180]), that illustration shows Minas Morgul and Orthanc as well. It seems clear that this was Tolkien's final decision. ------- 5. Which books /about/ Tolkien are good, and which aren't? A few disclaimers. First, this is a very subjective question, and what follows is largely a matter of individual opinion. This list was gleaned from discussions on the newsgroups and it reflects some level of consensus, but no verdict was unanimous. Second, this list is /very/ incomplete, but there simply isn't space to list all of the excellent scholarship on Tolkien that has been produced. Unfortunately, this means that only books will be included, and I will focus on only the best known of those (and even then, I'm sure some are missing). My apologies to anyone who has been overlooked. With that being said, these are some of the best secondary works about Tolkien, in no particular order. I have included general descriptions for books whose titles do not make their content clear. * /The Complete Guide to Middle-earth/, by Robert Foster. A detailed and very trustworthy glossary of people, places, and things in /The Hobbit/, LotR, and /The Silmarillion/, including page references to the original texts. * /[J.R.R.] Tolkien: A Biography/, by Humphrey Carpenter. (The initials are not part of the title in the USA.) * /The Annotated Hobbit/, by J.R.R. Tolkien, annotated by Douglas A. Anderson. Textual history and general comments (be sure to get the recent second edition). * /J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator/ by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. Pictures by Tolkien and accompanying discussion. * /The Road to Middle-earth/ and /J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century/, by Tom Shippey. Literary analysis and criticism. * /Splintered Light/ and /A Question of Time/, by Verlyn Flieger. Literary analysis and criticism. * /Tolkien's Legendarium/, ed. Verlyn Flieger and Carl F. Hostetter. Literary analysis and criticism related to the "History of Middle-earth" series (and Tolkien's other works). Some find parts of this book to be a good introduction to that series. * /The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion/, by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull. Page by page annotation of LotR with comments of interest to everyone from second-time readers to seasoned experts. Contains material from some previously unpublished letters and essays by Tolkien, as well as summaries of textual history and general observations. A notable book whose status is ambiguous is /The Atlas of Middle-earth/, by Karen Wynn Fonstad. It is the best general Tolkien atlas available, covering the full history of Middle-earth, and in most cases Fonstad has done well in extrapolating detailed topographic maps from Tolkien's texts and rougher originals. However, there are a fair number of minor errors in her research, and it can sometimes be difficult to tell what level of justification exists for each of her maps' details. Finally, what follow are a few books that many Tolkien scholars avoid. All of them can be enjoyable to read when taken on their own, but they are not entirely trustworthy guides to Tolkien's Middle-earth and are generally ignored in scholarly debates. Because I am not comfortable speaking poorly of others' work without justification, I have provided links to further discussion for each of these titles. * /A Tolkien Bestiary/, and other books by David Day. http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/DayBooks.html * /The Tolkien Companion/, by J.E.A. Tyler. http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TylerBook.html * /The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth/, by Ruth Noel. http://www.elvish.org/articles/LRH.html ------- 6. Is Middle-earth Medieval? Tolkien's works draw from quite a few periods of human history, and many aspects of Middle-earth distinctly resemble their real-world counterparts in the Middle Ages. However, there are substantial discrepancies in society and culture that indicate that other periods in history also made large contributions (as one example, in Letter #211 Tolkien compared several significant aspects of the society of Gondor to that of ancient Egypt). The relative influence of Medieval and other periods has been hotly contested in the past, though this has not been a major issue in recent years. ------- 7. Was Tolkien racist? Were his works? A full discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Some people find what they consider to be clear indications of racist attitudes in Tolkien's works. It is certainly possible that they are right: racism is notoriously difficult to recognize accurately, and most people harbor at least some level of racial mistrust. On the other hand, most people who make such accusations seem to do so primarily to stir up controversy and inspire flame wars. In fact, much of the "evidence" presented to demonstrate Tolkien's racism is flawed, and there is reason to believe that Tolkien was less racist than many people of his day. For the sake of diffusing the issue a little, I will mention a few of those mistaken arguments. One occasional charge is that Tolkien was anti-semitic, presumably because he occasionally compared his Dwarves to Jews. Those comparisons seem to focus on history and language, however: in Letter #176 he says, "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue.....". And he seems to have had a very positive view of the Jewish people in general. For example, when discussing the origins of the name "Tolkien" in the final footnote to Letter #325, he says, "It is not Jewish in origin, though I should consider it an honour if it were." He made very similar comments in a draft of a letter (#30) to a publisher in Nazi Germany who asked about his race, and in Letter #29 he introduced that draft and told his publisher, "I should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." Another seemingly prejudiced statement comes in Letter #210, where Tolkien describes the Orcs as "degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types". At first glance this looks blatantly racist, but the qualifier "to Europeans" casts it in a very different light: Tolkien explicitly recognized that different cultures have different standards of beauty, and that his impressions did not reflect any underlying superiority. Moreover, he made it clear that the Orcs were not in any sense actual "Mongol-types", but "degraded and repulsive versions" of humanoid stock. (Nevertheless, his comment certainly falls short of modern standards of sensitivity.) Many point to the "hierarchy" of the various groups of humans in the books as clear evidence of cultural elitism or racism, but they seem to forget that most of the Numenoreans (the "highest" humans) fell into deepest evil and were destroyed by God, while the Woses (the "Wild Men" of Druadan forest, who certainly would not represent "civilized" Europeans) were among the most wise and resistant to evil of all peoples (as well as having a complex culture and many skills other Men lacked), to take two of many examples. Finally, a few people have mistaken the symbolic conflict between "darkness" and "light" in the books for a conflict between "black" and "white", which they then interpret racially (which is already a stretch). They seem to overlook the ghastly white corpse-light of Minas Morgul, the White Hand of Saruman, and Isildur's black Stone of Erech, to name a few exceptions. As for specific claims that Tolkien linked skin color to good and evil, there are simply too many exceptions for that to hold up. Light skinned characters who did evil things include Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Boromir, Denethor, and the Numenoreans as mentioned above. And it is notable that Tolkien described Forlong's people of Gondor and even the men of Bree as "swarthy", the same term he used for example of the Southrons who were ambushed by Faramir (though to be fair, he may have imagined different degrees of "swarthiness" for those groups). For that matter, Sam's flash of empathy for the fallen Southron he saw during the ambush indicates that many of Sauron's soldiers were likely unwilling slaves, not evil at heart. In short, while there are racially "suspicious" elements to be found in Tolkien's writings if one hunts for them, closer examination typically reveals the attitude behind them to be benign. That doesn't mean that he was perfect, but it certainly doesn't seem that he should be condemned for intolerance. ------- 8. Are there electronic versions of Tolkien's books? At long last, authorized electronic editions of several of Tolkien's books are available: at this time, they include /The Hobbit/, /The Lord of the Rings/, and /The Children of Hurin/. Links to purchase these editions can be found in the Tolkien section of the HarperCollins website: http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/11538/index.aspx There are of course limitations on these texts. All of the formats currently available (there are quite a few) are protected by various types of "Digital Rights Management" software to limit printing and copying, so you should make sure your hardware is compatible before buying. ------- 9. Where can I report copyright violations that I observe? If you find an unauthorized copy of any of Tolkien's works on the Internet, you may want to take some action to support the rights of the Tolkien Estate. It is generally best to begin with a polite request that the texts be taken offline, and only if that fails to take more drastic action such as contacting the hosting Internet service provider. If all else fails, you can send a brief letter to the Estate's legal representative informing her of the situation, although this should be considered a last resort: Mrs. Cathleen Blackburn Manches & Co. 3 Worcester Street Oxford OX1 2PZ U.K. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ III.B. STORY INTERNAL QUESTIONS: CREATURES AND CHARACTERS 1. Did Balrogs have wings? [Conrad Dunkerson has written a much more detailed essay on this question as part of his "The Truth About Balrogs" series, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html. That page also includes links to other discussions of the issue.] Debates on this topic have been frequent and intense, in part because people unknowingly interpret the question in very different ways. Most participants in these debates agree on the following: * The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, or if you prefer, a "shadow" shaped like wings. * Those "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but rather of some sort of "dark emanation" or "palpable darkness". Many of the most intense arguments seem to have resulted from different uses of the word "wing". In this consensus statement, the (quoted) word "wing" is used only as a convenient symbol for the feature of the Balrog under discussion, without reference to any standard definition. In particular, the statement does not specify whether the "palpable darkness" always had a winglike shape. So what are the different definitions that people use? The Oxford English Dictionary divides its relevant definitions of the word "wing" into two groups. Group I includes definitions that for the most part refer to physical parts of a creature's body. For example, #1.a. is "Each of the organs of flight of any flying animal" (but broadened to include cases where similar organs are not used for flight, such as penguins' wings and even "the enlarged fins of flying fishes"). Group II includes definitions relating primarily to a thing's shape or position. For example, #5. is "An appliance or appendage resembling or analagous to a wing in form or function", including #5.a. "An artificial apparatus attached to the human arms or shoulders" and #5.d.(a) "one of the planes of an aeroplane". Even broader, #6 is "A lateral part or appendage: in various connexions." With a "Group II" definition of "wing", the question "Do Balrogs have wings?" is more or less trivial: Tolkien's description clearly fits (at least at the time described in the quotes below), as does the consensus statement above. With a "Group I" definition of "wing", the question is more interesting and the answer less obvious: it depends on the specific definition, and even then not everyone will agree. The consensus statement above was not reached quickly, and even with a "Group I" definition some newcomers believe that a simple "yes" or "no" is clear from the description of the Balrog in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum". The debates generally begin as follows: * "Pro-wingers" point out that when the Balrog steps onto the Bridge, "its wings were spread from wall to wall". * "No-wingers" point out that the word "wings" was first used in the phrase "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings", and deduce that the word "wings" refers to the "shadow" itself rather than to a part of the Balrog's solid central body. (The "shadow" was seen when the Balrog first appeared: "it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form", and it is likely the "cloud" in the phrase "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it".) * "Pro-wingers" claim that as the Balrog came closer to the Fellowship its uncertain appearance became clearer, so what first looked like a "shadow" or "cloud" and later "like wings" was finally recognized as "wings" once the Balrog was nearby. "No-wingers" do not agree with this interpretation. Progress beyond this point is difficult, but again, most of those on both sides of the debate agree with the consensus statement. One substantial remaining point of disagreement is whether the "wings" always had a winglike shape (supported in part by Tolkien's use of the direct phrase "its wings") or if their form was variable (supported in part by the "cloud" description), and there is no firm evidence known for either position. ------- 2. Could Balrogs fly? [Conrad Dunkerson has written a much more detailed essay on this question as part of his "The Truth About Balrogs" series, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html. That page also includes links to other discussions of the issue.] There is considerable disagreement on this point. Most agree that the Moria passage does not provide convincing evidence for or against Balrogs' ability to fly. (For example, while the Balrog does not fly out of the chasm, it may not have had enough room to use its wings, or its highest priority may have been the destruction of a rival Maia in its domain.) Most also agree that as Maiar, Balrogs could conceivably be able to fly even if they had no wings, or that they could have had wings but remained flightless. Still, the two issues are certainly related to some degree. A number of facts have been taken as indirect evidence that Balrogs could not fly (e.g. they never flew over the mountains to discover Gondolin; at least two died falling from cliffs), but counterarguments have always been found (the eagles defended Gondolin; the Balrogs fell only after great injuries). Clearer evidence comes from "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin" in /Unfinished Tales/, when Voronwe says, "as yet no servant of the Enemy has dared to fly into the high airs". Even if Voronwe's information was complete, however, this still leaves room for Balrogs to be able to fly at low altitudes. The only known place where Tolkien may have made a direct statement on Balrogs' ability to fly can be found in "The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)" in /Morgoth's Ring/: Far beneath the halls of Angband... the Balrogs lurked still.... Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire. Some believe that this passage clearly describes Balrogs flying, others believe it just uses imagery of flight to indicate speed, and still others believe it to be ambiguous. ------- 3. What was Tom Bombadil? [This supplements question V.G.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] [I have written a much more detailed analysis of this question; it is on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html] Theories on Bombadil's nature abound. Many people believe that Tom was a Maia: if we assume he is one of the types of entities we know of from the Silmarillion, this seems to be the best fit. (A closely related suggestion is that Tom was an Ainu who never took a place in the usual hierarchy of Arda). Other popular views make Tom a nature spirit of a kind never explicitly described, either one of many, or the incarnation of Arda itself. These theories are inspired by comments at the Council of Elrond and in /Letters/. Many other possibilities still arise regularly (for example, that he is some particular Vala or even Eru himself), but there are fairly strong arguments against them. (For example, Tolkien said in several Letters that Eru did not physically inhabit Middle-earth.) Some people argue that Tolkien intentionally left Bombadil an enigma even to himself, and that therefore any attempt to find out what he was is doomed to fail. A truly satisfying explanation of Bombadil's nature would explain Goldberry as well. ------- 4. Did Elves have pointed ears? [This supplements question V.C.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] [Conrad Dunkerson has written a more detailed discussion of this question, on the web at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Ears.html.] There is no known text in which Tolkien makes a final, unambiguous statement about the shape of Elvish ears. Those who argue in favor of pointed ears generally cite a remark which seems to support that position found in the "Etymologies" (part of /The Lost Road/). That document was written in the period immediately before the composition of LotR and revised sporadically while LotR was being written, so it is unclear to what extent it should be treated as a canonical source. Those who argue against pointed ears focus on Tolkien's statements that Elves and humans were sufficiently similar that they could be mistaken for each other. There is no consensus on this issue. ------- 5. Did Elves have beards? Most of Tolkien's writings imply that Elves were generally beardless. This is stated clearly in a note written late in Tolkien's life which is summarized in the section "Amroth and Nimrodel" in "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in /Unfinished Tales/. In the note, there is a discussion of the Elvish strain in Men, as to its being observable in the beardlessness of those who were so descended (it was a characteristic of all Elves to be beardless). At first glance, this would seem to settle the issue. However, this ignores a crucial exception. In "The Grey Havens", when Cirdan the Shipwright greets Frodo and the Elves, we read "Very tall he was, and his beard was long". This canonical evidence makes it clear that some Elves do have beards. A very incomplete explanation of this apparent discrepancy appears in a note associated with "The Shibboleth of Feanor" which was published in the journal /Vinyar Tengwar/ #41, which reads Elves did not have beards until they entered their third cycle of life. Nerdanel's father was exceptional, being only early in his second. (Nerdanel was Feanor's wife.) No other mention of Elvish "cycles of life" is known. Even without a full understanding, however, this helps to reconcile these statements: Cirdan was one of the oldest Elves in Middle-earth and could easily be in his "third cycle of life", and humans descended from Elves might never live long enough to reach the bearded state. ------- 6. What happened to Elves after they died? [This updates question V.D.1 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] A great deal of information on this topic can be found in /Morgoth's Ring/ (HoMe X). Tolkien's latest thoughts on the issue can be found in "Note 3" to the "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" and in the Appendix to that text. In brief, when Elves died, they were summoned to Mandos. Once the Valar deemed them to be ready, they could (if they wished) be directly re-embodied (with the aid of the Valar) in a body identical to the one they had lost. Tolkien clearly abandoned the idea that the Elves could be re-born as children. "Note 3" says that Elven spirits "could refuse the summons [to Mandos], but this would imply that they were in some way tainted". Details of such refusals are not given in the text above, but are discussed in an earlier essay: "Laws and Customs among the Eldar", part of "The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)" in /Morgoth's Ring/. Those who refused "then had little power to resist the counter-summons of Morgoth." The reason for this "counter-summons" is not explained, nor is it clear what became of them after Morgoth's defeat, but the text mentions that some of the living sought to speak with the "Unbodied" or even to control them, and that "Such practices are of Morgoth; and the necromancers are of the host of Sauron his servant." ------- 7. Was Glorfindel of Rivendell the same as Glorfindel of Gondolin? [This updates question V.D.2 of the Tolkien LessFAQ.] Yes. With the publication of /The Peoples of Middle-earth/, certainty has become possible: the first essays in the section "Last Writings" of that book discuss Glorfindel and his history. Those texts make it very clear that after his death in the flight from Gondolin, Glorfindel was re-embodied in Aman (see question III.B.6) and was later sent back to Middle-earth as an aid or an emissary. Tolkien seems to have been uncertain as to whether he returned in the Second Age by way of Numenor or in the Third Age as a companion of Gandalf. ------- 8. Who was Gil-galad's father? /The Silmarillion/ states many times that Gil-galad was the son of Fingon, son of Fingolfin. However, in /The Peoples of Middle-earth/ (in comments on the essay "The Shibboleth of Feanor"), Christopher Tolkien explains that this was an editorial error due to the complexity of the source material: "Gil-galad as the son of Fingon... was an ephemeral idea." Tolkien changed his mind about Gil-galad's ancestry several times, but it seems that his latest decision was to make Gil-galad the son of Orodreth, son of Angrod, son of Finarfin (making him the brother of Finduilas and nephew of Finrod). Christopher says that "There can be no doubt that this was my father's last word on the subject", but that because the change was never incorporated into other texts, "it was obviously impossible to introduce it into the published /Silmarillion/. It would nonetheless have been very much better to have left Gil-galad's parentage obscure." Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it is at least clear that /The Silmarillion/ is not entirely trustworthy here. ------- 9. Did Dwarf women have beards? [This updates question V.D.1 of the Tolkien FAQ.] Yes. The most canonical evidence for this comes in Appendix A, where it is said of Dwarf women that They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart. It seems that (male) Dwarves in Middle-earth all have beards: among other evidence, as Bilbo sets out on his adventure in /The Hobbit/, we read that "His only comfort was that he couldn't be mistaken for a dwarf, as he had no beard." Given that, the quote above must imply that Dwarf women were bearded as well. However, we do not need to rely on such implications: Tolkien answered this question explicitly in other texts. In /The War of the Jewels/ ("The Later /Quenta Silmarillion/: Of the Naugrim and the Edain", written ~1951), Tolkien wrote that no Man nor Elf has ever seen a beardless Dwarf - unless he were shaven in mockery, and would then be more like to die of shame... For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike... In /The Peoples of Middle-earth/, Christopher Tolkien says that a similar statement was present in an earlier draft of Appendix A as well. As these statements are entirely in agreement with the canonical evidence cited above, the conclusion that Dwarf women had beards seems inescapable. ------- 10. Was there "telepathy" in Middle-earth? Although it is not emphasized in the books, direct communication of thought from mind to mind was certainly part of Middle-earth. This is stated directly in the chapter "Many Partings" of LotR, when Celeborn, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond lingered before parting: ...they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro. Another example is the voice Frodo hears in his mind on Amon Hen, saying, "Take off the Ring!", which was that of Gandalf as he "sat in a high place, and... strove with the Dark Tower" ("The White Rider"). ("The Black Gate is Closed" confirms that this was Gandalf, when it suggests that Frodo felt Gandalf's thought on him, "as he had upon Amon Hen".) Tolkien discusses the details of this "telepathy" at length in the essay "/Osanwe-kenta/: Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", which was published in the journal /Vinyar Tengwar/ #39 (available from http://www.elvish.org/). It seems that all minds had this ability, but that it was "dimmed" whenever it passed through a physical body. Elves could therefore use it more easily than humans, as their wills had greater control over their bodies. The essay contains many more fascinating details, but there is not space even to summarize them here. ------- 11. Did Sauron have a physical form during /The Lord of the Rings/? There is strong evidence that Sauron did have a humanoid physical body at the time of LotR. In "The Black Gate is Closed" we read, "'He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand, but they are enough', said Gollum shuddering." Gollum was tortured in Barad-dur, and this statement sounds as if it comes from personal experience. Some have objected that Gollum's memory of his torture might not be accurate for various reasons, but this is still the only fully "canonical" evidence on either side of the issue, so it should be taken seriously. It need not be taken alone, however. Tolkien makes multiple unambiguous statements that Sauron did have a physical form during the LotR era in /Letters/. For example, he describes Sauron's use of a humanoid shape in Letter #200: It is mythologically supposed that when this shape was 'real', that is a physical actuality in the physical world and not a vision transferred from mind to mind, it took some time to build up. It was then destructible like other physical organisms. ... After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Numenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit...) Because it took time for Sauron to "re-build" after his body was slain by Gil-galad and Elendil, it is clear that it was more than just a "vision". As there is no suggestion that Sauron was ever "slain" between that time and the destruction of the Ring (he was merely "driven out" of Dol Guldur), this re-built body presumably still existed during LotR. Another clear statement can be found near the end of Letter #246, where Tolkien discusses the possibility of a direct confrontation between Sauron and a Ring-wielder at the time of LotR (he considers both Aragorn and Gandalf). He says, in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. ... The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. No statements by Tolkien conflicting with these descriptions are known. Some have objected that the many references to the "Eye" of Sauron must refer to his physical shape. However, Tolkien used that term even when referring to the period before the war of the Last Alliance, when it is well known that Sauron had a physical form: for example, the Akallabeth says that after Sauron "came back to Middle-earth and to Mordor... the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure." So what does "the Eye" refer to if not Sauron's physical form? Frodo's perception of it is described in "The Passage of the Marshes": But far more he was troubled by the Eye: so he called it to himself. ... The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable. A very similar comment about Morgoth appears in Text X of the "Myths

You must do the Following: Put your faith to work and pray right now in your heart and soul. Admit you are a sinner. See Romans 310 Be willing to turn from sin (repent) See Acts 17:30 Believe that JESUS died for you, was buried and rose from the dead. See Romans 10-: 9-10 Through prayer, invite JESUS into your life to become your personal Savior. See Romans 10:13 What to pray? Or what to say to the HEAVENLY FATHER in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST in Prayer...? Do the following and ASK HIM to GIVE YOU, RIGHT NOW, the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT (GIFTS of the SPIRIT THAT ARE FREE FOR YOU TO RECEIVE according to the SCRIPTURES as YOU TURNED AWAY FROM YOUR SINS AND ACCEPTED JESUS CHRIST TO CLEANSE YOU WITH HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD THE SINS of YOUR SOUL and LIFE) and HE will listen to you AND DO IT: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, rich or poor, small or great, wise or not-- just the same, the Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses them who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:9-13 Dear GOD, I am a sinner and in need of forgiveness. I believe that the L-rd JESUS shed His PRECIOUS BLOOD and died for my sin. I am willing to turn from sin. I now invite JESUS to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior. If you said the above PRAYER, then YOU ACCEPTED Jesus Christ as your ONLY WAY to HEAVEN and your PERSONAL SAVIOR FOR ETERNITY? Did you receive Jesus Christ as your LORD and Savior TODAY? YES ? Or, NO ? Date / / YES ? Or, NO ? If you trusted JESUS as your Savior, you have just begun a wonderful new life with Him. Now: Read your Bible every day to get to know JESUS CHRIST better. Talk to GOD in prayer in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST everyday. Be baptized in water submersion and in the power of the Holy Spirit of God, worship, fellowship, and serve with other Messianic Jews and gentile believers as well in a Temple where JESUS is preached and the Bible is the final authority. Tell others about JESUS. Now, a reminder, do not forget to pray for me; please include me in your prayers for me and my love ones, for your prayers are very important in heaven. You do not have any idea how important your prayers are in Heaven; Jesus suffered, anguished, prayed, cried, shed His Precious Blood and Died on the Cross of Golgotha for your prayers to be heard in Heaven in the Holy of Holiest. That is CORRECT. The Holy Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and all the Holy Angels hear your prayers in Heaven in the Holy of Holiest too. I most add that THERE is a GREAT FESTIVITY with GOD and all the HOLY ANGELS in HEAVEN when you do the SINNERS PRAYER and SPEAK to GOD in the NAME of HIS WONDERFUL King Messiah and HOLY SON, JESUS CHRIST. Thank you. http://www.supercadenacristiana.com/index.php http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/ambassador/free-audio-bible-download http://radioalerta.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsYA-M0r-w4&playnext=1&list=PLEF344CEAC8A8F474&feature=results main http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw5qBHyVtoQ&list=PLjMWsAQ3-rfnNnBq-wn0ATM5vaHi9HA3Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZKtwRuutnY&list=PL3C9EC193E2A7CB7B http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOVdjxtnsH8&h d=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7kj1Wx5ffs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMsXK66XmUs&list=RD5eb99aA3Jsk&index=5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1khhFySfO-s&list=PL54B204D72BF2799A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTpaVXvSbZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpKllW86iG

On 2020-10-08, Your Name wrote: > > From ComingSoon.net ... > > > The Lord of the Rings Finally Getting the 4K Treatment this December! Great news! I wonder how it will affect to the perception of visual effects, though. The LoTR trilogy has aged pretty well because most of the tricks were optical and not CGI, but I remember watching the blu-ray a few years ago and noticing many more of the tricks. Did anybody else experience this? Carlos -- Computer engineer and entrepreneur from Barcelona Home page: https://cfenollosa.com

On 2020-10-08 20:04:57 +0000, Your Name said: > From ComingSoon.net ... > > Can't wait. -- Bill O'Meally