Okay, so the Prologue is more of interest now than before. I wholeheartedly agree with those who said earlier that it should have been stuck at the back as an Epilogue instead of at the front.
Interesting that no one really knows where hobbits originally came from. I like that. Also like the fact that they have six meals a day. No wonder the hobbits in LOTR were always thinking about food, even in the direst of circumstances.
I'm surprised by the number of small spoilers that were in the Prologue. By "small", I mean information that would not necessarily spoil the story for me, but that I would have preferred to find out on my own by reading the story as it unfolded.
Cool to see casual mention of places and names with which I am now familiar, like The Prancing Pony which "has been kept by the family of Butterbur from time beyond record".
I still find the note on the Shire records pretty dull, though of more interest now than before. Again, I was surprised at the spoilers contained therein, such as the fact that Merry and Pippin do indeed survive, and info about what they did in their later years.
Replies: 143 comments
Hi! Am I the first?
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 02 07:01 AM EST
I just had a look at the prologue to be able to make some comments. I think the prologue shows us Tolkien the Historian of Middle-Earth rather than Tolkien the Story Teller. I think it's characteristic of him that he cares about every detail of his world.
I like the idea of Merry writing about herblore and especially about pipe-weed. I think there a sentence "In memoriam of Theoden, King of Rohan" on the front page of his book.
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 02 07:23 AM EST
Yeah, the prologue may have been more effective as an epilogue or as the first appendix (with a note at the beginning saying: "if you'd like to know more about hobbits and their history go to yada-yada). But in fairness to Tolkien, after the success of The Hobbit, he had hoped to publish The Silmarillion. Indeed, he had written quite a bit of it and submitted it to Unwin and Stanley to read. Instead, they asked for a "hobbit-sequel." Perhaps Tolkien was still in historian/Silmarillion-mode when he decided to include background info on the hobbits in LOTR.
Does anyone know when he actually wrote or included the Prologue? I'm sure there's a note of it somewhere in the The Histories.
Posted by mcdowalj (bickillon) @ 2001 Jul 02 09:25 AM EST
I re-read the Prologue section on the Shire records for the first time in years a few weeks back and I found it fascinating. Again, it added some nice depth to the book and to the characters of Merry and Pippin. I really like the idea that they will both come back from their adventures so interested in the history of Middle-Earth that major library collections will develop both in Bucklebury and Tuckborough. Also love the idea of Merry becoming quite a scholar and writer himself in his later years, writing about history, science and linguistics, researching among the Elves in Rivendell, etc., and that Pippin takes such an interest in collecting the history of Gondor and of earlier Ages of Middle-Earth. I also like finding out what happens to the Red Book after Frodo passes it onto Sam.
Anyway, though I need to go back and read the rest of the Prologue again (because I haven't in years), I found re-visiting that section particularly interesting.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 02 09:49 AM EST
I'm afraid I just can't agree that the prologue would work better as an epilogue. I know everyone has different tastes and different ideas about this, but for me, the prologue absolutely whetted my appetite for the rest of the book. It was just so intrigueing. It really set the tone as "a discovered history" instead of "a made up story". I remember thinking, "well, this is different than anything I've read before." And I wanted to find out more about all of the things that were hinted at in that prologue.
Posted by Tom @ 2001 Jul 02 10:18 AM EST
I read the Prologue the first time I read the trilogy, and have not re-read it since (& have not re-read it for my rereading this summer). Tolkien's poking fun at academic/historical writing is my theory. He does have a wonderful sense of humor and sense of social satire (evidenced in A Long-Expected Party)
Posted by constance @ 2001 Jul 02 10:43 AM EST
Just last night I read the earliest version of the Prologue. I'm reading C.Tolkien's "History of the Lord of the Rings", which previously I'd sworn I wouldn't read. Due to my insatiable appetite for everything by Tolkien, I'm now enjoying it. Anyway, the first version of the Prologue was originally written while Tolkien was still revising Book One and hadn't written or even clearly planned out much more. It was only a short Foreword: just 5 pages in length, nicely readable, and charming. A lot of it wound up buried in the much longer version that he eventually wrote much later. (How much later? Don't know, but I guess I'll find out later in HOLR series.) Maybe it's too bad he made it longer, because the first version seems sufficient to me. A quote from the openning of the original Forward follows:
"This book is largely concerned with hobbits, and it is possible to find out from it what they are (or were), and whether they are worth hearing about or not. But finding out things as you trudge along a road or plod through a story is rather tiring, even when it is (as ocasionally happens) interesting or exciting. Those who wish to have things clear from the beginning will find some useful information in the brief account of Mr Bilbo Baggins' great Adventure, which led to the even more difficult and dangerous adventures recorded in this book....But one story may well be all that readers have time or taste for. So I will put down some items of useful information here."
I think the book needed some sort of "frame", the lack of one is a big problem for The Silmarillion (see my post at the Sil Background board). But it does seem that the scholar in JRRT did get carried away sometimes!
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 02 11:19 AM EST
Turumarth: I had a feeling Tolkien did the Prologue while he was writing the beginning of LOTR, but I wasn't sure. Good quote.
Posted by mcdowalj (bickillon) @ 2001 Jul 02 11:25 AM EST
I think that the Prologue is great, but its positioning still doesn't seem like the greatest strategic move. What Tolkien is giving us is not a fresher course in hobbits. He's presenting a document that was written by one of them, which in itself tells a lot about hobbits as a people. Its anything but vital to the story, but it adds enormous depth, and is just another element of the "complete world" he was creating in ME. The finished Prologue is something I don't think of as being by Tolkien (anymore than a letter written in a novel is by the author - its by the character writing it), and its sort of a "take it or leave it" device.
Posted by Nathan @ 2001 Jul 02 11:39 AM EST
Turumarth said:
"Just last night I read the earliest version of the Prologue. I'm reading C.Tolkien's "History of the Lord of the Rings", which previously I'd sworn I wouldn't read. Due to my insatiable appetite for everything by Tolkien, I'm now enjoying it."
I've read several of the volumes of "The History of Middle Earth" and mostly found them fascinating, especially the ones dealing with the development of LOTR. But I was lead into them by Christopher Tolkien himself. In 1987, in honor of the 50th Anniversary edition of the *Hobbit*, Christopher was Guest of Honor at Mythcon (the annual conference of the Mythopoeic Society -- http://www.mythsoc.org/mythsoc.html). The conference was held at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where many of the Tolkien manuscripts are held, and it was one of the highlight weekends of my life.
Christopher Tolkien himself gave two long talks that I recall, one on the Hobbit and one on LOTR, and signed books for hours. By the way, he has one of the most amazing speaking voices I have ever heard. He pointed out that the material he was beginning to publish was from a resource probably unique in the history of literature. His father NEVER threw anything anyway. Christopher was in the process of digging through literally an entire garage filled completely with boxes of manuscripts -- and that didn't count the immense amount of material that had already been donated to Marquette. He himself was staggered at the complexity of the task ahead of him. There is probably no other great book in English which can have the process of creation so thoroughly examined as LOTR. Most will read these volumes out of curiosity about their favorite book; but they could also be read as a long study on the nature and process of creativity itself. Not only were the different drafts kept, but Tolkien often made important marginal notes and re-writing right on the page. Everything was handwritten, no typing. With the advent of computers and revising as you type, it is likely we will never again see this kind of detail from another author.
The most amazing moment of Christopher Tolkien's talk was his recreation of the moment when (in his judgment) his father's sequel to the *Hobbit* changed from being another children's book to the more adult reflection of his past histories of Middle earth, already written but unpublished. I won't attempt to give the entire story here -- you can find it in one of those Histories -- but essentially the hobbits (under different names) have left the Shire to begin their adventures when a mysterious rider begins to follow them. It turns out to be Gandalf, but in the manuscript, Tolkien stops composing suddenly and darkly scrawls "No! Black Rider!" At that point he completely restarted the book with the darker tones and echoes of long history that we see today. I'll tell you, chills ran up my spine hearing this, as I am sure also happened to Christopher when he saw this page in that mound of material.
Overall, it is often fascinating to see what was left out and why and to read Christopher's comments as to what was going on his father's life as he was working on each section. These do not replace the masterpiece itself, of course, but many will find them deeply interesting.
Posted by Steve from Indiana @ 2001 Jul 02 01:44 PM EST
Whew--I'm back from nine days in Santa Fe, NM. Saw a few things that made me mindful of what Tolkien and Gimli say about being wounded by by beauty... can't quote the dwarf exactly, but I think he says "I have taken my most grievous wound in this parting, even if I go straight from here to the throne of the Dark Lord himself."
I thought I would chime in and say that I really like the Prologue exactly where it is, and I wouldn't think of embarking on a reading of LOTR without it. I think I said a little more about it in Chapter IV of my thesis, but I feel reading it is an important rite of transition between earth and Middle Earth and prepares the reader to enter ME in the right frame of mind in many subtle ways.
I suppose it is a shame if it deters casual readers from reading on. On the other hand, I don't believe that every book (movie, etc.) has to be pared down to conform to notions of what will be most accessible to the greatest masses of people. If the prologue hadn't been an important part of JRRT's artistic vision for the work I doubt it would have survived the editorial process.
BTW, I also really enjoy the early parts of the Silmarillion (especially the Ainurlindale, which is just beautiful) and wouldn't think of skipping ahead in it, either.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 02 01:55 PM EST
Debbie said "Interesting that no one really knows where hobbits originally came from."
As a geneticist, I like to think Tolkien kind of knew where Hobbit's came from. They diverged from Men perhaps 1000 years earlier. Gollum was among the father of the father of the Stoors (a kind of Hobbit). I think Gandalf said that. He lived on the banks of Anduin, near Rohan. The men of Rohan called the Hobbit's Holbytla I believe.
So 1000 years ago, some shorter "Men" of Rohan or thereabout headed off on thier own to avoid the ridicule of the "big people". Short humans tended to hung out with other short humans, and evolutionary divergence did the rest. Eventually they had there own town, then a whole countryside.
Posted by Arthur @ 2001 Jul 02 11:23 PM EST
I've just re-read the Prologue, and found it very interesting! I had only read it once before, on my first read, and I remember that it seemed very long. This time through though, I really enjoyed it. As to whether or not the Prologue should really have been an appendix, I think not, except for 'A Note on Shire Records'. That seems like it should go at the end, as it mentions Bilbo's book, Celeborn, Elrond, Pippin, Merry, Aragorn, and generally gives a (very) small history of what happens after Frodo has gone off to the Grey Havens.
I love the 'mathom house'! I remember liking it first time through, too. Was also amused by the reference that if any hobbit stooped for a stone, you had better run for cover! Instantly thought of Sam throwing that apple at Bill Ferny. :-)
Glad you are back, Debbie!
Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 03 01:48 AM EST
A thousand years earlier, the men of Rohan weren't living in Rohan, but somewhere further north. At that time the hobbits were already hobbits, different from other men.
I suspect they came out of the east in the second age, just as elves and other men had before them, but since the hobbits didn't keep records we'll never know.
Posted by Robert @ 2001 Jul 03 03:40 AM EST
Hi, Debbie.
I like the Prologue where it is. First readers don’t remember the spoilers as they don’t know those are spoilers :o) but they can find out a lot about Middle Earth, especially about hobbits. But I agree that there are some parts of the Prologue that are a little dry :o) - my friend’s reading LotR for the first time right now and he said he wanted to skip the Prologue but he didn’t in the end (thanks to me :)) - BTW he enjoys the adventure so much now that he is not able to interrupt reading in the middle of a chapter :o)))))
I think JRRT intended to do the Prologue like this. After you’ve finished reading you go back automatically to the beginning thinking “what the hell was it in that Prologue?” and it could make you read the whole story again. A small perpetuum mobile :o)
I agree with E. Gamgee: "As to whether or not the Prologue should really have been an appendix, I think not, except for 'A Note on Shire Records'"
Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 03 04:05 AM EST
Well, it's one of the advantages of books over movies that you are free to skip whatever you want. So you can leave the prologue where it is, people who want to get the story started quickly can leave it and people who like a slow start can read it.
I agree with Debbie that the only part of the prologue which is necessary to understand the story is the summary of the hobbit. There's only one chapter for which you need more background information, and that's the "Scouring of the Shire". I remember looking up the prologue constantly when I read this.
I just had another look at chapter one of book one and thought: That's great! What do you need a prologue for when you have a first chapter like this for an exposition?
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 03 05:21 AM EST
Debbie, a belated congrats for finishing and a thank you for all the posting. (The Army's kept me busy the past few days so I haven't been able to check until now :) ).
Allison, thanks for coordinating all this chaos. I'm glad we find Sam's strength to be the same. Still, every time I read LotR I find Merry more and more fascinating. Deb's ahead of me on this, I think.
At any rate, thanks again, and good reading.
Posted by Christopher @ 2001 Jul 03 10:11 AM EST
On not knowing where the hobbits came from--I think this is a reference to the fact that Tolkien was as surprised as anyone else to find hobbits (and wizards, for that matter) living in Middle Earth. Long before The Hobbit or LOTR were written he had developed much of the history of the First and Second Ages of Middle Earth which later turned into The Silmarillion. There was no account of hobbits or wizards in this history. Later, when he developed The Hobbit for his children (initially without any thought of publication), it made sense to set the story loosely in the world he had developed. Later, when the book took off, he had to sort out when in the history of Middle Earth the events of The Hobbit took place and account for the sudden adn strange "appearance" of hobbits and wizards in the land near the end of the Third Age.
I think he did rather well.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 03 11:22 AM EST
I am glad to see you revisit the prologue. I think you will enjoy the Council of Elrond even more.
I also wanted to ask if you have plans to read through the apendix?
Posted by NEIL @ 2001 Jul 03 01:26 PM EST
I know with my own writing, there comes a point when "it is what it is," and while I can imagine ways in which it might, perhaps, be bettered, I can no longer make changes. I've fallen in love with it, and that it is that. It's rather like falling in love with a person: in the early stages you can visualize them with, say, a shorter nose. But once you have "fallen,' you'd defend that nose as is, to the death!
I suspect it was that way for Tolkien and LOTR. Arguements could be made that the Prologue might be better shorter, or in another place. But in his mind, and heart, it had achieved an organic unity that could no longer be disturbed. In fact he says as much in the Forward; something about "being under no obligation to re-write" it.
Loving the book the way I do, I can't contemplate changes either, except in the one flaw he pointed out himself: it should be longer!
Posted by Paul Mendenhall @ 2001 Jul 03 03:54 PM EST
Have any of you visited thelandofshadow.com? It has some awesome illustrations of the "bad" creatures in the LOTR. Also, have any of you listened to the LOTR tapes by Robert Inglis? After you have read the books the first time, I think it is more enjoyable to listen to them, the songs and land descriptions go by much faster that way.
Posted by greg @ 2001 Jul 03 05:08 PM EST
greg-are the Robert Inglis tapes the ones done by Recorded Books Inc.? If they are, I have heard them. Actually, they are my preferred choice when I read/listen to LOTR. I like listening better than reading. I did read the books the first time through though.
SPOILERS I love the way Inglis does Gollum. Even though it's the darkest part of the whole book, I crack up laughing every time Gollum falls in the Cracks of Doom crying My Preciouuuuussssss!!!!!!
SPOILERS OFF
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 03 09:39 PM EST
yeah. the tapes are from Recorded Books. I got them from the library
Posted by greg @ 2001 Jul 03 09:44 PM EST
I get them from my library too. I wish they had the Sil audio tapes.
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 04 12:08 AM EST
I'm glad Debbie has had some time away. I am just back after an extended fourth visit to Hogwarts and thought I'd have hundreds of postings to read.
I think that the Prologue should have been part of the Appendices. I personally know at least 4 people who have been put off reading LOTR totally by having to wade through all the bumf about Hobbit habits. They expected the book to be written in the same dry style!
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 04 12:14 AM EST
Does Debbie, or even Allison have plans to see the movie?
I just downloaded the second trailer, I think I'm still shaking. So far everything looks so real, and Gollum hisses 'my preciousssss' I think I had a heart attack. Anyway, it's not really related to this trail of comments but I recently moved across the country and don't have anyone else to share my enthusiasm about LOTR or the upcoming movie so I just had to say something somewhere before I burst :)
Posted by Dawn Victoria @ 2001 Jul 04 01:39 PM EST
Hi everybody,
It's nice to get back to a new comment from Debbie. I've been on vacation for 5 days and I have been worried about missing something. It has taken awhile but I'm caught up.
I like the prologue, it helps us to get the impression that this is the Red Book. The story is told from hobbits point of view so it helps to get to know about hobbits before we start. Also, it is very hobbit like to explain all about thier father's father's and thier cousins to the 9th degree. So even though the prologue is a bit wordy, it fits very well. IMHO
As a side note, I was talking to a friend who reads alot and convinced her to read Tho Hobbit (she did) and now she has started Fellowship of the Ring. It is great telling her about the story (without spoilers of course), it's like haveing another "Debbie". I have told her about this site and I hope she gets to check it out.
She was wondering about why there was so much hobbit history in the prologue. I just told her to keep reading and that she will have a greater appreciation for it before long. It's cool that she has been to New Zealand and has seen some of the sites that will be part of the movies.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 04 02:50 PM EST
Dawn,
I think that this whole reading of LOTR by Debbie is so that she could read it before going to the movie. I think that Debbie and Allison will see the movie right when it comes out.
I know how you feel about having someone to voice your enthusiasm. Before I found this site I had a hard time talking about LOTR to my friends.
Glad you like the trailer, I downloaded it when it was first released about a month or so ago. I have seen it hundreds of times and it still gets the blood going.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 04 02:57 PM EST
Dawn Victoria: Oh, I think I might see the LOTR movie once or twice or thirty times when it finally gets here on December 19 :). Yeah, like most Tolkien fans, all roads lead to the debut of that movie for me this year.
I loved the trailer, too! I continue to have a lot of faith that Peter Jackson is going to do a great job with these movies. My favorite line in the trailer is still, "No one knows it's here, do they?... Do they, Gandalf?". Still wish I could see it in the theatre on the big screen, but no such luck yet despite the number of movies I've seen.
And if you want to talk Tolkien, we're always just a key stroke away :).
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 04 05:34 PM EST
Wow, just got back from vacation and the site has gotten a lot longer! Glad to see that Deb is finished and liked the books.
2 things...
I am amazed (and a little startled, really) to see how much more discussion there is regarding the Hobbits that there is re the other major characters. I love the Hobbits, each and every one ('specially Sam, that seems to be a theme here) but I have always considered Gandalf to be my favorite character. Was crushed totally on my first read when the Balrog got him, and was elated when he was returned and improved! Anyone else out there have other favorites other than the Hobbits? Galadriel? Strider? etc.
Secondly, how different would the movies turn out if Peter Jackson had been able to read these posts before filming anything? A lot of really deep insight (both seemingly correct and not!) have been related here. I think a few ideas / theories/ opinions have been real eye openers. Any thoughts?
Posted by RChris @ 2001 Jul 04 05:57 PM EST
RChris: I noticed that, too, that the hobbits have gotten major play here over all the other characters in the story. I know I'm as responsible for that as anybody here and the hobbits have always been my favorite characters in LOTR. Again, as has been expressed here before, it looks like Tolkien created them that way, the reader was meant to identify with them most, see the story through their eyes.
The nice thing about these boards, though, is that everyone has had a chance to talk about and explore their favorite characters and I found I've especially gotten a lot more insight into Aragorn, Faramir and Eowyn here than I've ever taken the time to consider before. I've especially warmed to Aragorn in the last several months- he's my favorite non-hobbit character.
(light dawns on Allison) Hey, did someone say awhile back that Gandalf is actually a Maiar?? Whoa, now that I'm halfway through The Silmarillion, that actually makes sense to me and intrigues me. Where do I go to read more history/background on the Wizards?
The two characters that haven't shown up much in these discussions that rather surprised me were Legolas and Gimli. One thing it makes me realize is that even though my imagination was caught by their unlikely friendship, we really aren't given a lot of in-depth background into where they came from or what really makes them tick as individuals. Though they are still two non-hobbit characters that I like a lot.
And even as I read The Sil I find myself identifying a lot more strongly with the Elves in LOTR- Galadriel, Elrond, Cirdan, etc.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 04 06:24 PM EST
There's a chapter with information about the Istari (Wizards) in Tolkien's Unfinished Tales.
Posted by Giirov @ 2001 Jul 04 08:41 PM EST
Allison - That's my fave line too from the trailer, gave me shivers when I first heard it.
Posted by talierin @ 2001 Jul 04 09:03 PM EST
Giirov: I think it's going to be a very Tolkien summer for me. After I'm finished re-reading The Sil and The Hobbit, I think I'll be in search of The Lost Tales next.
Talierin: Of course, my other fav trailer line is, "Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough.".
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 04 09:32 PM EST
I loved that line too! That whole trailer was great! That line made me like Viggo Mortenson a little better as Aragorn, and of course Elijah Wood as Frodo. It looks like the movies are going to have soe great lines in them. Maybe after the movies come out my best friend will stop telling me all The Mummy Returns lines, which I haven't seen yet.
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 04 10:42 PM EST
RChris, there was a great deal of discussion of Gandalf (strangely enough) under the post for "The Scouring of the Shire". I don't know if you had a chance to go through these. Be forewarned though: there are at least 236 posts for this chapter.
A lot of the posts concerning Gandalf have to do with his knowledge of the Ring and the motivations for his actions in the period of history covered by The Hobbit and LOTR.
Posted by Brian @ 2001 Jul 04 11:19 PM EST
RChris, there was a great deal of discussion of Gandalf (strangely enough) under the post for "The Scouring of the Shire". I don't know if you had a chance to go through these. Be forewarned though: there are at least 236 posts for this chapter.
A lot of the posts concerning Gandalf have to do with his knowledge of the Ring and the motivations for his actions in the period of history covered by The Hobbit and LOTR.
Posted by Brian @ 2001 Jul 04 11:23 PM EST
I can't wait for the movie to come out! I'll have to see it at least twice. The first to see the movie and second to recognise where each scene was shot. I've seen just about all of our beautiful country and it will be fun to place each part of the film.
We actually drove past the set a couple of times when they were filming. Once at Minas Tirith, (the quarry up the road from us), and another time past Queen Elizabeth Park where we could see a lot of horses in the background and closer to the road, a "dead oliphaunt".
Because of the International Dateline I think it will be shown here first and thousands of Wellingtonians know someone who acted in it or who worked on the production staff. I know at least three myself. And my husband, (who has never even read the book), actually got to walk through the set for the Minas Tirith throne room. (I considered this to be grossly unfair but no matter how hard I tried to wangle it I coudn't get to see it myelf.) :-(
We are all counting down to the big day :-D
BTW the mayor of Wellington actually proposed a sign by the airport saying "Welcome to Middle Earth" but he couldn't it get passed by the council!
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 05 12:11 AM EST
Allison: The clue that Gandalf is a Maia is in the name Olorin. You may recall that Faramir tells Frodo and Sam that one of Gandalf's names is Olorin "in my youth in the West that is forgotten".
Now that you're reading the Sil, have another look at "Of the Maiar" in the Valaquenta. I found it quite startling myself.
Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jul 05 08:52 AM EST
(as Allison goes scrambling for the appropriate passages in both LOTR and The Sil)
Robert: Gandalf as Maia! Wow, that really is fascinating! Thanks for the references. Are the other wizards Maia, too? Is Saruman a Maia?
I know I should be keeping these questions for The Sil discussion, but I can't resist! And talking about the wizards like Gandalf and Saruman is clearly LOTR talk, right? Of course right :).
Oh, I better go out this week and buy The Lost Tales so I can read about the wizards on my own... Meeting all you folks is costing me a -lot- of money :). It's all Debbie's fault...
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 05 09:31 AM EST
Yes, Allison, all the wizards are Maia.
Posted by J'nae Rae Campbell @ 2001 Jul 05 10:06 AM EST
I have always been interested in where Gandalf has been before and what he has been up to. I hope this is not a spoiler but I just love that Olorin was the wisest of the maia and he learned pitty in Valinor. It also is said that he would often apear amonge the elves as one of them, to steer them in the right direction with some good sugestions. It also says that in later days he was a friend to men and elves and other inhabitants of M.E. That referes to when he is in Gandalf (wizard) form, I think.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 05 10:22 AM EST
J'Nae: Then here's my next question. If all wizards are Maia, is Saruman truly dead or is it just that body that was destroyed?
"about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing."
!!! Never mind, I think I've answered my own question by re-reading that passage in light of some of the insights I have now! I've never realized before just how dramatic and poignant that passage is!
It may take me the next ten years to totally assimulate all the connections I'm already starting to see between LOTR and The Sil. My next trip through LOTR is going to be amazing, like new. I think like Debbie and John just discovered it was the right time in their lives to read LOTR, I'm discovering it's just the right time in mine to read "The Silmarillion".
So, thanks to everyone here who encouraged me to do that!
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 05 11:55 AM EST
If you've read the Hobbit and want to know more about what Gandalf has been up to I recommend Unfinished Tales. I haven't sifted through the whole thing yet but I did read a part of it that details what Gandalf was up to while he was missing from the company in the Hobbit. It's quite interesting and it makes the whole story of The Hobbit more interesting to me. I'm still trying to get the courage to read Silmarillion again. Spoiler ahead
I try reading it every few months and I can make it all the way to the point where the ships of the Teleri get burned, the wailing of the Teleri being heard throughout Valinor, makes me cry every time, and I just can't make it past that part, maybe I'll try again with everyone else.....
Posted by Dawn Victoria @ 2001 Jul 05 12:06 PM EST
I'm sitting at work, kinda bored, and all I keep doing is replaying the trailer for the movie. 'My Preciousssss' gives me shivers still, even after the 25th time watching it. And I do agree with Allison about the line 'No one knows it's here, do they.... Do they Gandalf' The way Elijah Wood says 'Gandalf' I'm thoroughly convinced they did an excellent casting job. I was worried when I saw pics of Lorien from the movie, but then I saw snowflakes in the scene with Galadriel and I remembered that the Fellowship did enter Lorien in the winter so I guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm too excited about the movie, I think I'm going to die of suspense before December comes around.
Posted by Dawn Victoria @ 2001 Jul 05 12:15 PM EST
Only twice, Silmarien??? You're only going twice? I intend to be there first day, first show with one of my tolkien t-shirt on and my one ring around my neck and my sister in another of shirts with her ring on. And then after that I might just go see it again on the first day, and again the next day, and the next......
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 05 12:48 PM EST
Allison, you keep saying you are going out to buy "The Book of Lost Tales," but the two posters who mentioned the section on Wizards were talking about "Unfinished Tales." Both are Tolkien titles edited by his son Christopher and you may want to buy them both eventually. But "Unfinished Tales" is the one you want NOW.
Posted by Steve from Indiana @ 2001 Jul 05 01:27 PM EST
I got "The Book of Lost tales", Vol. 1 & 2 earlier this year. Everyone has been talking about "Unfinished Tales", so.... I am awaiting my copy of U.T. that I bought on E-Bay. Can't wait.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 05 01:44 PM EST
Allison: I loved the trailer line "Not nearly frightened enough" too. I went scurrying back to Bree to see how authentic it is, and found something like: "You fear these Black Riders, but you do not yet fear them enough." Close enough for director's license! I'm counting the days...
Posted by Karen @ 2001 Jul 05 02:51 PM EST
I like Elijah Wood's line delivery in the trailer, "...do they, Gandalf?" It makes me nervous, though, that, in that scene at least, PJ has made Bag End look very creepy like a haunted house or something. In my mind, Bag End (in those days) was always a cozy place, in contrast to those far off places Gandalf talks about. It is Gandalf's words that make Frodo shiver as they sit by the fire, and Frodo approaches his terrible choice.
I'm intrigued that the film is going to explore the vagabond, "Strider" side of Aragorn, which is really never how I pictured him, even at the first meeting in The Prancing Pony. I worry that Viggo Mortensen won't be able to carry the scenes that call for stern, mature, leader Aragorn as well as the early scenes.
And my favorite character from LOTR is Théoden.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 05 04:03 PM EST
The essay on the istari (wizards) in Unfinished Tales was intended to be just one entry in the LoTR's index. It runs to 16 pages. One of the footnotes summarises the tale of Queen Beruthiel and her cats, who Aragorn mentioned in Moria.
The Silmarillion chapter 'of the rings of power' started out as one of Elrond's speeches at his council.
Tolkien wrote a lot of background for LotR, explaining who Gandalf was, and all half the other mysteries. Most of them have turned up in the posthumous works.
Posted by Robert @ 2001 Jul 05 04:13 PM EST
Going back to the topic concerning the origins of hobbits, I found this quote on the web. I found it interesting in the extreme. I believe Arthur was right on the money.
"In a very lengthy letter to Milton Waldman which Humphrey Carpenter suggests was written late in 1951, Tolkien says this about Hobbits:
'In the middle of this [the Third] Age hobbits appear. Their origin is unknown (even to themselves) † for they escaped the notice of the great, or the civilised peoples with records, and kept none themselves, save oral traditions, until they had migrated from the borders of Mirkwood, fleeing from the Shadow, and wandered westward, coming into contact with the last remnants of the Kingdom of Arnor.
†"The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) -- hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk....'"
Posted by Galenas @ 2001 Jul 05 04:32 PM EST
Ah, so Tolkien agrees with me! I feel much better. Humans and Hobbits are both branches of the same race. Evolution is happening even in Tolkiens universe, and that's not the only example!
Orcs, Goblins etc., are an evolutionary divergence from Elves! I guess you would call them a branch of the firstborn. I was quite shocked reading in the Silmarillion how Melkor seduced the darkest and vilest of the elves. He fed them who knows what and bred them in his dark holes as slaves, soldiers etc, until they became the foul creatures we know them as today. Could we conclude that the Trolls are the product of similar mistreatment of Ents?
Posted by Arthur @ 2001 Jul 05 06:34 PM EST
"... do they, Gandalf?" is my favorite line in the trailer, too!! I also love Borimir with "The weapon of the Enemy is a gift. Let us use it against him!" And Aragorn "You cannot wield it! None of us can!" And of course "Not nearly frightened enough." :-)
I read on TORN that the creepy Bag End was possibly a dream sequence where Frodo is remembering Gandalf's warning to keep the ring secret and safe. (?) Anyway, that made me feel a bit better about that!
My favorite non-hobbit characters are Éowyn (and Faramir, of course), and Legolas and Gimli. I love those two!!
Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 05 10:24 PM EST
Talierin: Of course I meant twice on the FIRST DAY :-D
I think I'll probably see the movie more times than I've read the book - 32 times and counting.
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 06 12:01 AM EST
I believe it says somewhere that the Trolls were bred in mockery of the Ents. How, it doesn't say.
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 06 02:49 AM EST
On the subject of the Istari, I've long wondered about their lives on Aman. I'm looking forward to people's thoughts on this in the Sil forum.
Allison, there were several Maiar wandering Middle Earth in the Third Age. One of them nearly did Gandalf in, and another nearly did everyone in. I don't mean to be cryptic, I want you to make the links yourself. As you've already found, there are some amazing revelations to be found in The Silmarillion.
As for Saruman's ultimate fate, he was a Maia and therefore not susceptible to death. How then did his "spirit" dissolve into nothing? Perhaps that part of him which was a Maia of Valinor was lost. But he, like Sauron, cannot be completely destroyed.
Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jul 06 09:00 AM EST
Robert: That's what I'm finding- that even without telling any serious spoilers for The Sil even having the wider context of The Sil is giving astonishing nuance to even the smallest passages in LOTR (I promised myself not to read LOTR again 'til I've finished The Sil, but somehow LOTR keeps "accidentally" falling open by my computer here, anyway :)).
Case in point:
Found myself glancing through the Lothlorien chapters in LOTR yesterday and when I read Galadriel's farewell song to the Fellowship I was suddenly so moved I cried. I've read that song a hundred times and it's beautiful, but it never touched me like that before. This was the line that did it:
"Now, lost, lost to those from the East is Valimar! Farewell! Maybe thou shalt find Valimar. Maybe even thou shalt find it. Farewell!"
And it's not just the sad longing of the Elves that's beautiful, it's Galadriel's affection and empathy for the Fellowship, for races beyond her own, her wish that they find Valimar, too, that really moved me. And the bittersweet realization that as the Fellowship moves away we know who among them will find Valimar, and who will be offered Valimar and who will never seek it.
It just really got to me.
And, yup, I'm already making those connections to the other Maiar and I'm intrigued. It suggests questions that makes me want to read the rest of The Sil even faster :).
Silmarien: It so amuses me that some people can keep track of how many times they've read LOTR! :) The actual number of times I've read the book now is lost in the mists of time.
Steve: I fear I'm doomed to buy The Unfinished Tales -and- The Lost Tales...
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 06 10:56 AM EST
Sigh. Another young life swallowed up by the mad perfectionist Professor. What gets me is that it wasn't his JOB to be a writer. He had a lifetime appointment at Oxford, his needs were quite well provided for, thank you, he did not write for food or for fame or to please publishers and their deadlines (much less to finance some luxurious lifestyle in which he had no interest whatever). It was a lifelong labor of love, dedicated in service of Middle Earth (which someone tried to tell me a while back doesn't exist).
My current literary excitement is that the English publishers just released the fourth Harry Potter book in paperback yesterday, prompting me to hastily revisit books one through three. Not the same experience as reading LOTR and The Silmarillion, but very, very good nonetheless.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 06 12:26 PM EST
Kevin: Soon as I get over this current bout of Tolkien reading obsession (heh), I plan to return to the Harry Potter books, too, as I want to read them all again before the movie comes out in November. I just love them.
Was amused by an American friend of mine on another message board today. She's a great believer that the Harry Potter books should only be read in the British originals (the Canadian versions are identical to the British versions, too, yay) and she won't read the changed American versions of the books. As a result she was trying to sleep on a long bus trip yesterday with a British version of the fourth Harry Potter book in her lap and she says it was next to impossible because people kept coming up to her and offering ridiculous amounts of money for her book thinking she'd found the fifth book :).
I fear we won't really see the fifth book 'til at least the summer of 2002, sigh...
And now I'm off to buy more Tolkien books...
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 06 01:09 PM EST
Sigh, am I right in assuming The Unfinished Tales is only in hardcover at this point? I went looking in 5-6 bookstores today for the book in paperback before it dawned on me that maybe the paperback doesn't even exist. I fear a $40 hardcover is too rich for my blood, though...
I did find "On Fairie Stories", though, so that's good.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 06 06:20 PM EST
I don't think that can be right. Unfinished Tales was first published more than 15 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. I just checked Amazon and they have copies of the paperback.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 06 07:19 PM EST
Ah! Thanks, Kevin, good to know. I'll keep looking and if I have no luck I'll order one on-line.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 06 09:42 PM EST
Allison,
I've never seen a paperback edition of UT, but just search for it here...
http://www.powells.com
right away it'll show you some -very- affordable copies. This site is my GOD! 8-)>
Posted by Nathan @ 2001 Jul 06 09:55 PM EST
I have in my hands a paperback of Unfinished Tales (makes it hard to type) published in 1983 by Unwin Australia. It must surely still be available in paperback. With the films coming up, there must be publishing houses all over the world running off new editions of EVERYTHING Tolkien.
And yes, Allison, since reading The Silmarillion, I've always found Galadriel's farewell absolutely heart-wrenching. And when you manage to get Unfinished Tales, you'll read some very interesting things about her that make her situation even sadder. But, of course, in a beautiful, bittersweet way.
Posted by Robert Jones @ 2001 Jul 07 09:03 AM EST
I was just curious if you would do kind of a wrap up of the books as a whole- like who's your favorite character- what's your favorite scene, poem, moment, quote, etc...
Posted by brittney @ 2001 Jul 08 02:42 PM EST
EVERYONE READ THIS!!!!:
Great idea Brittney!!! I think everyone should do this, not just Debbie. Here's my favorite scenes, people, etc.:
SPOILERS
Favorite Characters: Faramir and Éowyn
Favorite Scenes/moments: The entire wall scene between Faramir and Éowyn, the part when the Riders of Rohan show up at the battle, and when Éomer sees the Standard of Gondor unfurled on the Corsairs of Umbar's ships. (Last two make me cry every time I read them)
Favorite poem: The Song of Galadriel:
I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew;
I sang of wind, and wind there came and in the branches blew; etc.
And the Verse of the Rings
Favorite quote: The one about Faramir's and Éowyn's hair blowing out in the wind and mingling raven and gold, and the bit about the Shadow passing and oh, the rest of that whole scene and the entire book.
Favorite language: Sindarin
SPOILERS OFF
That's about all the favorite things catagories I can think of right now, what are some of yours?
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 08 08:52 PM EST
I have a question/suggestion regarding spoilers and the Silmarillion. Since the Sil is not a novel, but more of a "history/reference" work, do we really need to be so concerned about spoilers. It's like discussing a book on WWII, but fearing to mention who won so as not to spoil it for someone who hasn't read it. Quite honestly, the fear of mentioning the specific "Maiar" in earlier posts completely stifled what might have been a very interesting discussion. I see this as the equivalent of not discussing Bilbo for fear that this will give away the fact that he survives the "Hobbit". Just my two farthings worth.
Posted by Jeff B @ 2001 Jul 09 07:45 PM EST
Where is Debbie?
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 10 10:01 AM EST
Where is Debbie?
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 10 10:01 AM EST
For Jeff B.:
I think some distinction should be made between the "Quenta Silmarillion" on one hand and the Ainulindale and Valaquenta on the other. I agree that the contents of the Ainulindale and especially the Valaquenta should be freely discussable because they aren't really stories with surprise plot twists. Who is and isn't a Maia shouldn't be considered a spoiler. However, the events in the Quenta Silmarillion are stories and I regret every time I read them that I already know how they'll end. I think preserving the first-time wonder for people is something we should strive for very strongly.
Posted by Greg @ 2001 Jul 10 10:16 AM EST
Big Mike: Deb is up north with her nieces. She'll be out of cyber range until at least the end of the week.
Spoilers in The Sil: As someone who just finished The Sil, I'd say there's great potential in this book for spoilers. It's one of the reasons I'm glad I just went ahead and read it now rather than waiting for the discussions. Making your own connections between The Sil and LOTR is half the fun, plus there is enough narrative in the book that you want to find out yourself what happens to the various characters in the history. As some people have said, even the chapter titles are somewhat disappointing in some cases for giving away what's going to happen in some chapters, but being a history rather than a novel one can't really complain about that (much :)). Spoilers will be trickier, because they aren't quite as cut and dry as in LOTR, but they are certainly there.
Question: Was The Sil well into the works when Tolkien published "The Hobbit"? I'm reading The Hobbit again now after many years and, again, I'm very impressed by how much of The Silmarillion history was in place even in this early book. I know Tolkien went back and re-wrote Bilbo and Gollum's riddle chapter to make it work better with LOTR, but it just really strikes me how much of the history of Middle-Earth Tolkien had worked out even at this early stage.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 10 11:01 AM EST
Allison: The Sil was definitely well into the works when the Hobbit was published. Most of JRRT's imaginative efforts were actually put into the First Age before writing LotR, with the Hobbit being a mere interlude. The HoME series covers this: The Book of Lost Tales (I & II) are the earliest forms of the legends of the First Age that later became the content for the Silmarillion. The Lays of Beleriand (HoME III) are some of the legends in poetic form (I don't recall the specifics of the metre). All those were written before the Hobbit. I think the Quenta, the Ambarkanta and the Annals (HoME IV) was pre Hobbit material also.
As I understand it, the Hobbit was not actually "set" in ME as JRRT envisioned it at the time. There are some common threads (Elrond, dwarves, elves) but not much else. When Allen & Unwin requested a sequel to the Hobbit, Tolkien wanted to actually give them the Silmarillion (part V of HoME is the version he had ready for publishing at that time in 1937), but they weren't interested in it. The LotR became the link between the Hobbit and the Sil, placing the events of the Hobbit into ME kind of as an after thought. I believe that the stylistic change in the writing of LotR (from the almost childish opening chapters similar to the Hobbit to the almost overbearing epic style of the RotK that is similar to the Sil) reflects that evolution.
JRRT's project with CS Lewis in the late '30s to write a time travel story (associated with Lewis' space travel story) led him to create the events of the Second Age (Numenor, the Last Alliance) which eventually provided a convenient vehicle for the Rings of Power to be introduced, and thus thickening the plot for LotR along with the infamous rewrite of Riddles in the Dark.
Now that you're done with the Sil I'd recommend reading Unfinished Tales and then embarking on the highly challenging (but very rewarding) HoME series. You'll never see any of LotR, Hobbit or Sil in the same light after that 8-).
Lindo
Posted by Lindo @ 2001 Jul 10 12:07 PM EST
I agree with you, Lindo, but think it's important to mention that JRRT developed The Silmarillion material originally as a hobby, without serious thought of publication. He started working on it as a teenager and took his sweet time about it. For that matter, The Hobbit started off as a diversion for himself and his kids, which explains why at first it wasn't that important whether or not it was in Middle Earth, when it took place, or that neither hobbits nor wizards had ever been envisioned for Middle Earth before. It was after The Hobbit was published and a success that it became important to start tying things together. So The Silmarillion was, in a sense, the first book the Professor ever started working on, and he was still working on it when he died.
On spoilers: I'm sure it is possible to have Silmarillion spoilers, especially regarding specific stories and the arc of specific characters, like Fingolfin (I can just say Fingolfin, Finarfin, and Felagund all day long). But it would not be a spoiler to say that when all is said and done, you're going to wind up with the status quo that exists at the beginning of The Hobbit. Just like it's not a spoiler for the Star Wars prequels to say that when all is said and done, Palpatine will be Emporer, Anakin will be Darth Vader, and the Jedi will be toast.
I think of The Silmarillion as a tragedy on an almost impossibly grandiose scale. There's no mystery about how tragedy will end. It's how you get there.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 10 05:37 PM EST
Talierin: My favorite scene is when Théoden wakes up, sends away Wormtongue, and decides to lead his army into battle. Others that spring to mind are meeting Treebeard, departing Lórien, and meeting Bombadil. My favorite poem is actually "Roads go ever ever on" from The Hobbit (new verses spring up in The Lord of the Rings). My favorite language is Khuzdul (dwarvish).
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 10 05:48 PM EST
I forgot my favorite quote!!! Well, I'm not sure I have just one of those. But the quote that I used in my senior yearbook on graduation from college is this (I know I'm going to mangle it somehow):
"And so," said the wizard, turning to Frodo, "the decision lies with you. But I will always help you. I will help you bear this burden, as long as it is yours to bear. But we must do something, soon. The Enemy is moving."
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 10 05:57 PM EST
I am rereading The Sil again after about 15 years, before our chapter by chapter discussions start and I'm surprised by how much I'd forgotten. I think spoilers rules should apply.
BTW one of my favorite scenes in the book is in RotK in the Houses of Healing when Aragorn is teasing Merry.
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 10 11:53 PM EST
About Sil/Hobbit/LOTR: Though Randel Helms made a few mistakes in his two books on JRRT, Tolkien’s World, and Tolkien and the Silmarils, for me he made one really important and illuminating observation. He said that The Hobbit was basically like The Silmarillion writ small, while the LOTR was pretty much like The Hobbit writ large.(Pause to think about it.) He also of course explained what he meant by this. I will not, but I do believe he was right, at least from a certain viewpoint. I think it is fascinating to ponder the many parallels of theme and event among the three works, as well as the great contrasts in style and mode of production.
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 11 05:48 AM EST
My favorite scene: Gimli defending Galadriel's honor the first time he meets Eomer, and his offering to teach him gentle speech under the loving ministrations of a dwarven axe.
Favorite character: Smeagol/Gollum (He is certainly the most complex)
Favorite location: Bywater.
Posted by Tulkas @ 2001 Jul 11 01:46 PM EST
Oh, that's what I was forgetting, my favorite location. That would be Ithilien.
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 11 02:12 PM EST
Moria.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 11 03:49 PM EST
Favorite characters: Frodo and Sam
Favorite scene: Sam looking at the star over Mordor.
(which I have decided, in my mind anyway, is not Earendil, it's just simply and profoundly a plain ol' star :))
Runners up: any scene in Lothlorien, Eowyn and Merry battling the Witch-King, the end of the quest on Mount Doom, the Grey Havens.
Favorite location: Lothlorien
Favorite quote- Too numerous to mention, but here's my newest favorite quote:
"Farewell! Maybe thou shalt find Valimar. Maybe even thou shalt find it. Farewell!"
Quote always guaranteed to make me laugh:
"Well, be off with you!" said Rosie. "If you've been looking after Mr. Frodo all this while, what d'you want to leave him for, as soon as things look dangerous?"
Favorite poem: Almost anything by the Elves- the tribute to Elbereth by the Elves in The Shire, Galadriel's poems in Lothlorien, Legolas' "To The Sea" poem. Also Sam's poem in the tower, which fits so nicely with my favorite scene above.
And am I right in assuming above that "HoME- Volume 3" contains some of the lengthy epic poems that are constantly referred to in The Sil with the indication that they are only being told in part and in prose form there?
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 11 03:52 PM EST
Favorite Characters: Frodo, Sam, and Éowyn (Runners up: Legolas & Gimli, Merry & Pippin, Gandalf, Faramir, Aragorn, Treebeard, Rosie-- okay, everybody else.)
Favorite animal characters: Shadowfax and Bill the Pony :-)
Favorite Parts: Éowyn and Merry on the Pelenor fields, Éowyn and Faramir in the houses of healing, the scouring of the shire, all the parts with Sam in them (and the rest of the book!).
Favorite location: Hmmmmm. Minas Tirith or The Golden Hall in Edoras
(A) Favorie quote: "'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
"Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'"
Quote that makes me laugh: 'Then in the name of the king, go and find some old man of less lore and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!'
Favorite poem: Hmmmmm. I really like the one about the winds that Aragorn and Legolas sing for Borimir. And the one that Sam sings in the tower.
Posted by E. Gamgee @ 2001 Jul 11 04:57 PM EST
My favorite quotes that makes me laugh: "Stew the rabbits!" squealed Gollum in dismay.
"No!" said Gollum. "Smeagol is not pleased. And Smeagol doesn't like smelly leaves....."
"....Smeagol won't grub for roots and carrotses and--taters. What's taters, precious, eh, what's taters?"
Something about these lines just cracks me up.
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 11 05:18 PM EST
Favorite scene: Frodo meeting Strider in the Prancing Pony without knowing who he is.
Favorite characters: Faramir, Gandalf, Aragorn as long as he is Strider. (I don't like him that much as king.)
Favorite quote:
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door. You step into the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to. Do you realize that this is the very path that goes through Mirkwood, and that if you let it, it will sweep you to the Lonely Mountain or even further and to worse places."
(Book 1, Chapter 3, page 87 in the Unwin Paperback Edition)
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 11 05:53 PM EST
Allison: Yes you are right; HOME volume III is called The Lays of Beleriand. It has two very long poems and several shorter one in it. The two longer ones are, first, The Lay of the Children of Húrin recounting the story of Túrin written in the style and alliterating metre of Beowulf and , second, The Lay of Leithian telling the story of Beren and Lúthien in rhyming couplets, a bit like Chaucer. Both poems are thousands of lines long and contain a hefty helping of archaic vocabulary. The one about Túrin can be pretty difficult reading for most people: it’s written in the same style as all the Rohirric poetry in LOTR. I must confess that The Lays of Beleriand is by far my personal favourite in the HOME series. (Sil spoiler-- The part in The Lay of the Children of Húrin telling of Túrin’s is seperateion from his mother Morwen really makes me choke up when I read it. Once I read it out loud to my 70 year old mother and I had to fight off tears to be able to keep on reading. The quotation in my signature at “Talking Tolkien” is from this lay, and refers to Túrin’s time living in Doriath.--Sil spoiler off).
About Sam’s star, I am curious to know why you now think it is not Eärendil. I know it doesn’t really say, and so there may not be a “right” answer, but I really think that’s what Tolkien meant. After all, we are told that the light captured by Galadriel in her Phial was indeed of Eärendil’s star, which by the way “is” the planet Venus, the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. The constellation of Orion, BTW, is known in Middle-earth as “The Swordsman of the Sky”, and represents Túrin. (Just a non-spoiler tidbit from HOME volume X there!)
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 11 06:31 PM EST
Please read "Túrin’s separation" for whatever gibberish I typed in its place above.Thanks.
Posted by turumarth @ 2001 Jul 11 06:40 PM EST
Turumarth:
Heh, as Allison defiantly flies in the face of what is likely very popular Tolkien sentiment.
Why I feel Sam's star isn't Earendil. To be honest, I don't quite know why I decided that and I'm working on figuring it out :). It was a purely emotional response to the idea rather than an opinion that I came to through any kind of literary analysis.
To begin with, I truly expected after writing that opinion above that I'd have had a half dozen serious Tolkien sages swoop down on me to tell me that according to HoME- Volume 7, pg. 154 that Tolkien did intend that star to be Earendil or that in Tolkien's 76th letter to C. S. Lewis that indeed he said that star was Earendil, at which point the discussion would have been over, so it's interesting to me, that based on your response, that doesn't seem to be the case :). It is a Sil/LOTR connection left totally open to speculation and I can understand why a lot of Tolkien readers would be quite taken with the idea. It makes perfect sense that Sam's star could be Earendil- I've just chosen not to have it so unless some long-lost manuscript of Tolkien's tells me otherwise :).
So, I had to ask myself why I didn't care for that connection on a basic emotional level when it makes sense within literary context. While reading The Sil last week and since then I've made all kinds of amazing connections between it and LOTR that have just opened up the mythology of LOTR hugely for me- Gandalf battling the Balrog, Galadriel's farewell to the Fellowship, Saruman's death scene, Sam using the Phial of Galadriel to defeat Shelob, the departure at the Grey Havens, on and on, just moments that become epic seen through the lens of The Sil and it was just wonderful and heady to have that happen.
But then I got to my favorite scene in LOTR, Sam and the star, and the theory that the star is Earendil, and something in me rebelled. Being that all the other Sil/LOTR connections totally delighted me, it rather surprised me I wasn't ready to entertain that theory, too, but I didn't want to. I think the main reason is because I had finally found the one moment in LOTR that I -didn't- want opened up into epic myth, I like it just the way I've always perceived it, Sam's connection to nature, finding hope in a random star, it's all very elemental. And what touches me so much about the scene is that it's achingly intimate and profoundly simple, something that changes for me if it's put in a more epic context- the simpler it stays, the more moving it becomes. It's also a moment so many of us can identify with, looking up at the stars and feeling bigger than the universe and totally insignificant at the same time. It's a very pure feeling, very mysterious and, again, identifying that moment more clearly with the Earendil myth takes away some of that sense of mystery and awe for me.
Also, I've never really considered the scene in astronomical terms before, I never saw the light of the star getting through to Sam because it was the biggest or brightest star in the sky (which would logically make it Earendil) and I don't see a direct connection between Sam's star and the starlight caught in the Phial of Galadriel. Again, that would probably take away from the passage for me. I like the idea that it was just one simple star among millions of others which manages just at that moment to shine through the darkness of Mordor and give Sam hope. Not a special star or a mythic star or a Silmaril. Just a star.
And I still find I like that idea very much.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 12 10:22 PM EST
Allison: I have always thought the star Sam saw must be Earendil but have decided I like your idea of simplicity more. Its much more Samlike somehow. :-)
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 13 12:18 AM EST
Wow, Allison, thanks for a very interesting response on Sam's star that was obviously both deeply thought and felt. I'll stick with my own interpretation for now, but I really respect yours. I don’t think there’s only one possible answer. That’s one of the things I really love about Tolkien.
I'm sorry if you feared what response you would get on this point. You mentioned before something about feeling intimidated by the so-called Sil sages. I certainly know what it's like to feel intimidated, and I often feel so in regard to technical things. Lindo has pointed out that I can't even sign my name consistently! Truth be told, I can barely use a computer even for basic things, and I'm not too proud of that.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the quotations I sometimes put up are not necessarily meant to end discussion, but rather to stimulate it. Other times specific questions are posed about "Where does it say etc.." I know that many people haven't had the opportunity or the time to buy/read HOME and the Letters, so I try to post relevant quotes so that I can share what I've found as food for thought. I don't pretend to know always how to interpret what I read, and so I often prefer to post the original words rather than comment in my own. I believe Tolkien intentionally left many open ends and loose threads, and for me that is one of the richest aspects of exploring Tolkien's work. Someone once said that a fully illuminated room is an unlivable room, we need the shadowy corners. I like that. The more I have studied the HOME series and Tolkien's letters, the less determined a place Middle-earth has become. JRRT contradicted himself often. For me the really important thing about Tolkien's work is that it reveals the workings of a loving heart and mind. And in response I love Middle-earth, and the man who imagined it. It's a felt thing, though I frequently don’t get that feeling into my words.
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 13 02:55 AM EST
Strange, I was off more than a week and only (:o)) 90 new posts here. And where is Debbie??? OK, I'm going to read all your posts in the meantime.
Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 13 03:19 AM EST
Allison,
I like very much your feeling with regard to Sam's star. When I posted about the star being Earendil, I had a slight hesitation that I couldn't quite put into words, that it almost might be nicer if it wasn't, but I wasn't quite sure why. Your post explains it exactly.
By the way, it wasn't specifically the brightness that made the connection to Earendil for me, it was that it appeared in the western sky near the setting sun, exactly as Venus will do, as the "Evenstar". I still choose to believe that Tolkien had this in mind, and I like that it connects to Sam's "we're in that tale still!", but yes, it's certainly open to interpretation, and yours has a definite prosaic beauty.
Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 13 03:55 AM EST
Talierin + Allison + everybody:
I *L*O*V*E* the trailer!!! I love Frodo’s line “No one knows it’s here, do they?... Do they, Gandalf?” And “My pricccciousssss...” is jussssst excccciting! I shiver even now while I write this!
My friend does not have a computer so I invited her to come for a visit and see the trailer. She said “no, I don’t want to see it, I would cry, I know it, I wouldn’t be able to wait until December....” - but then she came. It was fun watching her watching the trailer. She stared at the display almost with her mouth open and eyes shining, almost breathless :o) I think the first words impressed both her and me most: “The legend tells of a ring created by an ancient evil....”
I can’t wait until December! What shall I do?????
I‘m going to see the film 10 times at least, I’m sure!
Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 13 04:15 AM EST
Allison: Unfinished Tales in paperback are here available:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rossnbrg/worksbyt.htm
My favourite hobbit: Sam
Favourite non-hobbit character: Faramir. Gandalf and Boromir follow next. I like Elrond very much too, I’m looking forward to learn more about him in Sil. and I’m looking forward to see him in the film (I LOVE his voice from the trailer :o))))
Favourite female: Eowyn
Favourite heartbreaking moment: Sam finding Frodo in orc’s tower
Favourite “creeps” scene: “Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in somecourtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, reckingnothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky farabove the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns,horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns ofthe North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.“
Favourite poems/songs: Lament for Boromir, all walking songs, Lament for the Rohirrim, Gollum’s Song.
Favourite quote: I can’t chose any :o) I like the one that Susanna put down, about stepping into the road that might lead you anywhere...
Favourite locations: Rohan plains, Fangorn.
Favourite bad guy: Gollum, my Preciousssss...!
Favourite animal: Bill the pony
BTW, concerning Sam’s star: I connect it with Venus a little, but not with Earendil, too. I have no reason for it, it just came to my mind :o)
Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 13 09:15 AM EST
Allison -
Beautifully thought out sentiments about Sam's star. My feelings exactly...
Posted by Tom @ 2001 Jul 13 11:21 AM EST
For myself, I don't necessarily feel that the star being Earendil would detract from the emotional simplicity of the moment with Sam.... remember, the hobbits are just as ignorant about the history of the Silmarillion as the reader is, and they make emotional and intuitive connections to Middle Earth's grand history unconsciously. Gandalf's many-thousand year history doesn't prevent them from relating to him as a sweet but crotchety old man, and even after he reveals himself somewhat with the White Rider business, the Hobbits can find intimacy with him based on their appreciation of the Now without being overawed. Finding God in the small things.
But I wouldn't dream of detracting from the validity of Allison's interpretation.
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 13 11:22 AM EST
It is amazing to see how diverse the list of "favorites" is. Seems that everybody has their own interpretation of what is "cool", which points out just how much "cool" stuff there is!
My list:
Character: Gandalf
Scene: The part in between "A Long Expected Party" and "Well- I'm back"!!!:) OK, if forced, I can break it down a bit: The bridge in Moria, the river rising up to swamp the Nazgul outside of Rivendell, Helm's Deep and Gandalf facing down the Witch King at the Gates of Minas Tirith.
Quotes: (I am stunned that these aren't posted yet)
"I shall take the ring - though I do not know the way"
"The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."
"I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and if by life or by death I can save you, I will."
Favorite female character: Rosie Cotton
Favorite poem: Sam's Troll gnawing on a shinbone (just because we find out a bit more about Sam here!)
Makes me shiver: The paragraph where Sam becomes a "creature of steel and stone that neither hardship nor misery nor endless barren miles could subdue" (sic)
Funniest moment: Gollum dropped the fish to the floor. "Don't want fish"
Coolest location: Faramir's "hideout"
Coolest character that doesn't get the recognition he deserves: Faramir, Farmer Maggot (tie)
I could go on, and on! Does anybody want to go for a list of least favorite things and people?
Posted by RChris @ 2001 Jul 13 11:52 AM EST
Oh my god you guys, reading the quotes everyone has put up.....
I'm at work and I'm sitting here biting back tears as I read this. I think I'm going to read LoTR over the weekend, I've read Ainalinule already so I'm prepared for that, but reading all the quotes I'm suddenly remembering how much I miss LoTR and how much I need to read it again. I also need to download that trailer again, need to hear Frodo say 'Gandalf' with the perfect accent, need to hear Gollum hiss 'My Precioussss'.... anyway, think I'm going to Lordoftherings.net right now....
Posted by Dawn Victoria @ 2001 Jul 13 12:11 PM EST
Katerina, that was my best friend's expression when I first showed her the first theater trailer. Her jaw didn't close for a half-hour!
RChris-Least favorite things? What least favorite things? I love the whole book!!!
Posted by Talierin @ 2001 Jul 13 12:39 PM EST
Silmarien: The simplicity of the star being more Sam-like. A similar thought occurred to me yesterday, that I may like the simplicity of the star giving hope to Sam for much the same reason Frodo and Sam are my favorite characters- that two of the simplest beings in the story, pretty much chosen at random to complete their quest become the hope for Middle-Earth.
Turumarth: I hope you took my Sil sage comments above, quoting Tolkien's 45th letter to C. S. Lewis and all, in the teasing tone in which they were intended! I -love- the insight and quotes about Tolkien that I get here beyond my reading experience and I've come to count on the Sil sages to answer the questions I ask or at least provide response to them to give me more to think about :). And I fear I may be well on my way to becoming a Sil sage myself...- I suspect I'll have read all the HoME books in the next year or so. I'm waiting for my copy of "Unfinished Tales" in the mail. I came to this board a LOTR fan and I am leaving here a Tolkien fan, which makes me think sometimes I've gone through as complete a transformation as Debbie.
My cyber skill is only limited myself and I -do- sometimes feel more intimidated by the cyber sages here than the Sil sages! :) (I really didn't need to know I've posted over here more than 250 times, Lindo :) - makes me feel I should be trying to regain my life again! Though it's still so much fun and enlightening to post here and the people are so cool... can't resist...) But it's fun to see the cyber folk abroad here, too, because they provide such a different perspective on the story than an artsy like me does. Have you noticed that over in Reid's posts? He's focussing in on things that never would have occurred to me (eleventy-one :)) and I think part of the reason is his engineering, scientific frame of mind. It makes his reports very interesting for me to read.
And your love of Middle-Earth is coming through better than you might think, Turumarth. I've been struck by it in comments you have made- your love of the "The Lay of The Children of Hurin" above, your thoughts on Sam as a father in the Sil board. It's the one thing I find most extraordinary about these boards- the real love for this literature that comes through in everybody's posts.
Katerina: Welcome back! I asked Deb at dinner last night if she still plans to read the Appendices. She said "yes". She didn't say when :).
Kevin: I find your thoughts on Sam's star being Earendil very valid and I did find myself considering those ideas, too, the idea that there can be simplicity in grandeur, that having Sam's star be Earendil need not change that fundamentally. I gave it some thought and then decided I wanted Sam's star to be a plain ol' star, anyway :). Again, I can only echo what you and other people have said here, how it's fascinating to see how various people interpret the same passage- the discussion about Merry turning away from Pippin in the palantir chapter comes back to mind.
I don't agree with you, though, that Sam wouldn't know the story of Earendil, I'm quite sure he knows that story forwards and back as he looks at that star, being raised on Bilbo's Elven tales as he was. Bilbo, Frodo and Sam at least seem quite well-versed in the Elven tales from "The Silmarillion", they make reference to those stories throughout LOTR, even if they can't appreciate the grandeur of it all (and, as you say, half the charm of the hobbits is that they wouldn't be particularly impressed by it all even if they could appreciate it :)) or completely understand their role within those continuing tales. In fact I find myself glad Sam doesn't end up making reference to Earendil -himself- during that passage, because it leaves me with the interpretation of the moment I like best :).
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 13 01:18 PM EST
I like the idea that Sam's star is Earendil. It brings the Sil. full circle for me.
Sil Spoiler
It's like Earendil is helping Sam & Frodo to save Middle Earth, just like he did. Earendil gave up ME forever to save it for everybody else, he wouldn't want all the lands to be covered in a 2nd darkness.
Sil Spoiler off
I like your thoughts though too, Allison. The idea that it's a plain old star for a plain old hobbit fits well.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 13 02:33 PM EST
I'll try to pin point some of my favorite parts.....
Favorite Character: Aragorn, Gandalf and elves as a whole
Favorite place: Heneth Anun (Faramir's water fall)
I just skimmed over that part and one part that I really like is when Faramir is questioning Frodo and Frodo handles himself very well. Then Sam comes running in and gets mad at Faramir. The image of a Mad hobbit scolding a big warrior like Faramir is great.
I also like when Gandalf faces off with the Witch King and when he embarasses the Mouth of Sauron.
And I love it when Aragorn proclaims his liniage...I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, heir if Isildur....This is the sword that was broken.
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 13 03:04 PM EST
They stood on a wet floor of polished stone, the doorstep, as it were,
of a rough-hewn gate of rock opening dark behind them. But in front a thin
veil of water was hung, so near that Frodo could have put an outstretched
arm into it. It faced westward. The level shafts of the setting sun behind
beat upon it, and the red light was broken into many flickering beams of
ever-changing colour. It was as if they stood at the window of some
elven-tower, curtained with threaded jewels of silver and gold, and ruby,
sapphire and amethyst, all kindled with an unconsuming fire.
'At least by good chance we came at the right hour to reward you for
your patience,' said Faramir. `This is the Window of the Sunset, Henneth
Annûn, fairest of all the falls of Ithilien, land of many fountains. Few
strangers have ever seen it. But there is no kingly hall behind to match it.
Enter now and see!
Posted by Big Mike @ 2001 Jul 13 03:09 PM EST
Allison, I like your take on the "star" sequence very much. It feels right to me.
Favorites? I don't feel like typing for three hours, so I will just name a few things that leap to mind. Bearing in mind, please, that these could change by tomorrow.
Major characters: Merry, Gandalf, Gollum.
Minor characters: Beregond, Ioreth.
Scenes: The entire Battle of the Pellenor Fields.
Sam watching Frodo sleep in Ithilien.
Sam singing "In Western Lands."
Lobelia braining the "ruffian" with her umbrella.
The Grey Havens.
Quotes: "Many that live deserve death. And many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"
"I will take the ring, though I do not know the way."
"...and passed into a realm where pain and delight flow together, and tears are the very wine of blessedness."
On another topic, I just re-read The Hobbit for the first time in many years. I was so surprised by it! I remembered, of course, that it was very different from LOTR, but I was thinking it was far more childish than it is. I don't know very many children that would be able to appreciate it. I am amazed to recall that I was reading it at age eight! What a bright child I must have been! LOL.
The only part that struck me as conspicuously juvenile compared to LOTR was the portrayal of the Elves, especially their songs, which made me cringe.
I was also very surprised by how Bilbo is portrayed. He is very one-dimensional for most of the book, and rather unappealing, it seemed to me. Like a rough-draft of a hobbit, rather than a fully fleshed-out person.
The only scene that really touched me was the death of __, which is surprising, considering what an unpleasant fellow he is through most of the story. Scenes of death-bed reconciliation always get to me though, having been through one.
I also really like the way Tolkien pulls all the characters and plot-threads together at the Battle of Five Armies. I had forgotten that even Beorn makes an appearance!
I was also surprised at the extent to which The Hobbit lays the foundations for LOTR. It is hard to believe Tolkien didn't have the next story in mind when he wrote it! The references to the Necromancer, the bit of background on Elrond, quotes like "They have seldom heard of the King..." Amazing.
I was startled to see he refers to Valinor as "Faerie!"
And I found myself tearing-up a bit at the end, maybe because of the way it presages the end of LOTR.
Has anyone else read it lately?
Posted by Paul Mendenhall @ 2001 Jul 13 03:35 PM EST
Paul Mendenhall:
I've read both LotR and Hobbit this spring. I was surprised by many things of the Hobbit but even more things surprised me about LotR. I felt as if I'd skipped many parts in the Two Towers and as if I'd never read RotK before! :o) That was only my 3rd read and after almost 7 years so that was probably the reason. But it was a strange experience for me: I read my favourite book - a book that I'd read already twice - and there were moments when I had absolutely no idea what would follow!
Allison: All right, I have to ask you to explain me something that I really don’t understand and that makes me wonder. You wrote about Harry Potter books - that there is British and American version. My question is: WHY??????? Do those American guys think that children wouldn’t be able to understand British English, or what??? In Czech there could be several translations of one foreign book so I can chose a translation of Hamlet from 1955 or 1994, for example. But English and Czech are two different languages. What is the reason for making an American version of a book originally written in English? I remember you or someone else mentioned (in the previous chapter, I think) that there is a difference in the title, like “sorcerer” instead of the original “philosopher” but now I understand that the whole book is somehow altered… That’s a real mystery to me, indeed.
Posted by Katerina Str. @ 2001 Jul 13 04:19 PM EST
Paul: I read the Hobbit at age twelve and loved it. I cried at the death of __ it's one of the rare book-scenes that made me cry.
I liked __ more than Bilbo through the whole book, but that was perhaps because of my girlish ideas of manlihood. Perhaps as well some sense for tragedy.
A funny thought came to me some weeks ago: Though the Hobbit is certainly written for younger people than LotR GOOD and BAD are not as easy distinguishable as in LotR. The orcs are really BAD, but the dwarves are not just GOOD, and as far as I remember, not even Bilbo is thoroughly good.
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 13 04:39 PM EST
Katerina: I too remember finding many things in my second and third read through LotR which I hadn't noticed before. I think it's because I had really got hooked the first time and read very quickly in order to know how it was going to end.
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 13 04:52 PM EST
Paul: Me, I finished reading "The Hobbit" last night. It was the first time I'd read it in almost twenty years. And what most surprised me is how much I really, really enjoyed it this time through, a lot of the same feelings you had. It's the first time I got a true sense that The Sil, LOTR and The Hobbit are really three parts of the same whole, they all feed back and forth into each other in intriguing ways. Being that I originally read "The Hobbit" after reading LOTR as a teen, I'd never really gotten over seeing "The Hobbit" as somewhat disappointing compared to LOTR, which is probably why it took me so long to go back and re-read it. Heh, and being that I was going back to read it this time after the grandeur of "The Silmarillion" I expected that feeling of disappointment to be even worse.
But, interestingly, it was quite the opposite. Because with the background of The Sil I found "The Hobbit" remarkably complex within the simplicity of the story (hmmm, I seem to be staying with a theme here this week...). I understood better than ever Bilbo's part within the whole saga and I found myself coming away from the book liking the character more than ever. I liked the gentle development of Bilbo's character in "The Hobbit", the war of his Tookish and Baggins' nature, his struggle to deal with huge dangers and moral issues way beyond his previous realm of experience- as you say, the story is surprisingly sophisticated for a children's book! (though the best children's books often are that way- Narnia, Harry Potter, etc.)
(Hmmm, better put a HOBBIT SPOILERS warning on this part, though I have tried to keep it vague)
There were other things I'd forgotten, too, the characterization of Balin and how that adds to the poignancy of the discoveries in Moria in LOTR, the wisdom of Bard and the king of the Wood Elves (makes me wish we'd seen more of the Wood Elves beyond Legolas in LOTR, that his background had been explored more) and Beorn, fascinating character, I had almost forgotten about him completely (Who the heck is he and where does he go? Is he Maia, too? Is he some kind of forerunner to Tom Bombadil?).
(HOBBIT SPOILERS done)
And I had the same reaction to the ending last night that you did, it made me very melancholy, couldn't help but pick up the parallels to LOTR. It made me wish that Frodo, too, had had a "there and back again" adventure, that he'd got to spend another sixty years of peace and prosperity in The Shire like Bilbo did. But LOTR is a very different book...
But with this reading "The Hobbit" really did come into its own with me.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 13 05:16 PM EST
Paul: Yes, I re-read The Hobbit recently as part of my big reading and re-reading of everything Tolkien (still ongoing). I decided to go through it in (mostly) chronological order within the story, so I started with the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the LotR Appendices, then The Hobbit, then LotR (and lots of other stuff in between of course).
I had many of the same reactions: I was definitely expecting to get more out of LotR after being better-versed in the pre-history, but I really wasn't expecting the same for The Hobbit, but there it was! I especially got a shock when Elrond revealed the lineage of Gandalf's sword! The moral ambiguity of the dwarf "heroes" (and the elves and the men all lusting after the treasure) was also interesting. Although it turns out that Gandalf had benificient motives in setting this in motion and getting rid of the dragon, the dwarves themselves weren't trying to fight "evil" or rid middle-earth of a dragon, they just wanted their ancestral wealth back.
If anyone else is planning to re-read The Hobbit soon, but not for the first time, I'd recommend first reading "The Quest of Erebor" in Unfinished Tales.
Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 13 05:17 PM EST
Allison: This is the second time in as many days (I think) that we've posted similar thoughts within a minute of each other. ;-)
Thanks for your thoughts on The Hobbit as well - now I have to go back and re-read more about Balin; I didn't get as much of a sense for him, probably because I'd forgotten at that time that he was the one who led the doomed mission to Moria.
Minor Hobbit+Sil spoiler:
In case you hadn't made the connection, the king of the wood elves was Thranduil, father of Legolas; he lived in Menegroth in Doriath under Thingol, and so had his halls built along the same lines (but not as grand). In fact, Tolkien re-used pictures he'd drawn of Menegroth, with its gates facing the River Esgalduin, in envisioning the Elvenking's halls. So, Thranduil was actually Sindarin, not Sylvan, and Legolas is at least half-Sindarin (we don't know about his mother, but if she were Sylvan, it would allow him to have blonde hair in the movie, so I'm imagining that for now!).
More of a Hobbit spoiler:
Regarding Beorn, I seem to remember Tolkien mentioning somewhere that he was a Man, but a sorceror, who came by his powers that way. More moral ambiguity, I think, since in later stories only "evil" men practice such arts. He's not a supernatural creature, and has a long but human-scale lifetime and descendants and such in the usual way, unlike Tom Bombadil.
End spoilers.
I'm glad you've got Unfinished Tales coming; you're definitely going to enjoy it!
Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 13 05:34 PM EST
Katerina: British and American publications of the Harry Potter books.
It is utterly beyond me why the American publishers felt it was necessary to "re-write" Harry Potter to make it more assessible to American kids. As far as I can see, they are the only English-speaking country who felt the need to do that, luckily all the Canadian editions of the Harry Potter books are identical to the British versions, right down to the covers.
I think it's insulting to American kids and even more insulting to J.K. Rowling (can you imagine Tolkien or C. S. Lewis having allowed that in their day?) and I think American fans of the series should be demanding that they be given Books 5, 6 and 7 identical to the original versions. A friend of mine who's made more of a study of this issue than I have says there are changes in all four of the HP books that have been released already and that the title of Book 1 is only the most blatant example. Being that I've only read the British/Canadian version I don't know the changes that are in the American versions, but she says there are changes in sentence structure and that the very foundation of the foreshadowing in the books is altered as a result (she's written an e-mail column on this issue recently, it's a major crusade of hers- I'm going to forward you a copy). Even living in California, she insists on going out of her way to get British versions of the books for her nieces and nephews.
-My- crusade here in Canada, of course, is the hope that the usual American influence on our movie distribution doesn't bring us "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" this November :). I'm crossing my fingers really hard we do get an original British print of the movie here- it's my understanding there will be slight editing changes between the British and American movies. It gave me hope that the HP trailer I saw in front of "A.I." did say "Philosopher's Stone", but there were different posters in the lobby that said -both- "Philosopher's Stone" and "Sorceror's Stone". Hmmm... I guess we'll see.
I'm going to forward you Seanan's column.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 13 05:46 PM EST
I'd appreciate seeing a copy of that article, too.
I adore The Hobbit, and have read it a few more times than LOTR, mostly because it requires less of an investment in time. If you notice, though, the level of complexity in the story (as well as the pacing and tone) changes radically the moment the Hobbits arrive at Lonely Mountain. Most of the moral force of the story and my favorite Bilbo moments come after that point, although you have to give it up for the scene where he calls the spiders "Attercop."
Posted by Kevin @ 2001 Jul 13 06:08 PM EST
One more thought and then I'm off to see "Final Fantasy":
Big Mike: Nice parallel connection between Earendil and Frodo above! I like that a lot.
OK, two thoughts:
Olorin: And thank you for the background on Thranduil. I was pretty sure that he was Legolas' father and I've read a bunch about the "blonde hair" controversy without really understanding it (heck, I was raised on the Hildebrandt paintings, I've -always- seen Legolas as blonde whether it's correct or not :)), but all the rest of those connections were new to me.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 13 06:19 PM EST
This place is absolutely cooking with posts today! It's amazing! I wish I could list my LOTR favourites, but I'm not sure what my LOTR favourites are! Every time I read Tolkien my view expands. And this board has REALLY expanded my view. But on the slight chance that anyone is interested in reading some of my overall favourite Tolkien quotes (beware, oodles of spoilers) you could check out the piece I contributed a couple of months ago to the Special Guest section of TORN's Green Books. It's called "Tolkien's Greatest Sleepers." But besides spoilers, beware of my usual typos and spelling errors. You can find the piece at
http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/040101_02.html
(Note: to really get where I'm coming from, you should read "Tolkien's Greatest Hits" by GreenBooks's Quickbeam first.)
It's cool how people are picking up on the interconnections of all three of Sil/Hob/LOTR. Some of the references in the Hobbit were added later, however, after LOTR was completed. Tolkien revised The Hobbit quite a bit. Each and every change is documented in "The Annotated Hobbit," which also reprints many illustrations from different editions and translations. I HOPE THEY REISSUE THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT! I don't have it and have to check it out of the public library, which I've done several times already.
I can't resist a few more thoughts on Eärendil:
SIL/LOST TALES SPOILER COMING!
After having read the long version of "The Fall of Gondolin" you can get a good sense for Eärendil when he was a child and his relationship with his human father Túor. He doesn't seem so high and mighty then. It kind of brings him down to earth! And considering him as a figure, in a certain way I think that in spite of the fact that he flies higher than anyone else (literally), he also represents a kind of humility. He as a "half-breed" Elf/Man accomplishes what no pure-blooded Elf could. The origin of the the name and person of Eärendil is fascinating. Tolkien didn't invent the name. He lifted it(only the spelling has been changed to protect the innocent) from an Old English poem. There the name seems to refer to the Morning Star as a symbol either of Christ or of St. John the Baptist (Christ being symbolised by the Sun in that case).
SIL/LOST TALES SPOILER OFF...
Anyway, whichever star Sam's was, the important thing to me is that it shows that there at a dark moment the Gardener of Bag End had a little epiphany, if you will. He realised in his own way that no matter how horrible evil may be, THE GOOD remains forever untouched.
I believe that.
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 13 08:10 PM EST
Allison: I'm as well interested in that article by your friend concerning the differences between British and American Harry Potter.
It's really an insult not trusting American children to cope with a foreign book - a foreign culture - even if it's only British and not anything really exotic.
Thanks!
Posted by Susanna @ 2001 Jul 14 02:56 AM EST
Allison: Please would I be able to see that article too? I have now read all 4 books and I am now nearly as much a fan of the H.Potter books as I am LotR. (Well almost, not quite. :-D) Have you seen the cast list to the movie? I'm looking forward to that as much as FOTR.
You said Debbie was going to read the appendices "some time". Has she not read Aragorn & Arwen's story yet? Please urge her to do so, as she is still missing a big piece of the puzzle if she hasn't.
Posted by Silmarien @ 2001 Jul 14 07:26 AM EST
Susanna: I think I might agree about the foreign culture bit (although I haven't seen the list of changes yet). Although I, as an adult, would certainly prefer to read the original British version, it might have been a big factor in the books' success with kids that it was made less foreign. For example, I've suspected that one of the reasons Peter Pan isn't as widely read as it could be, given the popularity of the story, is that kids have a hard time identifying with its "foreignness" (not the Neverland part, the upper class British "home" part).
Still, I think "Sorceror's Stone" for "Philospher's Stone", if that is typical of the changes, is completely unnecessary! Were they afraid to touch too closely on "real" alchemy and magic, or did they just not get it? (The philosopher's stone, in alchemy, is that substance that can bring about transmutation of base metals into gold, which is really a metaphor for inner transmutation of base man, unenlightened, into a fully realized, conscious, enlightened being, in harmony with himself and the universe.)
Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 14 10:54 AM EST
Funny, when I was younger one of the joys of reading things like Narnia and Sherlock Holmes and King Arthur and Robin Hood and Dickens and Tolkien and Wonderland and Peter Pan (which I loved as a kid and still do) was, because they came from English tradition, they -did- feel exotic and strange, steeped in an ancient lore totally intriguing to a kid living in a young country like Canada that doesn't have that same depth of history. And just for the fact that coming from another country people did live differently and used language differently, it was fascinating to me. And Harry Potter fits into that same tradition.
England was always a kind of magical place to me growing up because it had produced all this magnificent legend and lore that just fed my imagination like crazy and enriched me so much (yeah, all my English friends laugh at me when I say such things because they fight the crowds and pollution in London everyday, they're not thinking about Oliver Twist and The Artful Dodger :)). I was given the opportunity to go to England for the first time last year when Deb, Jodi and I guested at a filk convention near London and it was just a highlight of my life. And you can bet when I finally got to London among the first things I did was make a pilgrimage to 221B Baker Street and tracked down the house where Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist. And if I'd known of any Tolkien sites, I would have gone there, too :). My deepest literary roots from my earliest memories are in England.
I guess the point of all this is that I don't think kids should be under-estimated in being able to absorb what is beyond their cultural experience and reading style, they shouldn't be coddled, it's counter-productive. Goodness knows Canadian kids aren't having any trouble reading the original Harry Potter books and they're as wild for them as the American kids. I've just never understood the need to make any changes to those books at all, it doesn't seem right to me.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 02:10 PM EST
Regarding the American versions of
British works, it doesn't only
affect kids' books. I've recently
started reading the Terry Pratchet
books on the Discworld, and it's
very frustrating to see changes
like substituting dollars for
pounds or pence. I have to save my
book-shopping for Canadian websites
or when I get back for visits to
get all those nice u's in my words.
Though these may be minor changes, it takes a little something away
from the work, IMHO.
Posted by Stefan @ 2001 Jul 14 03:49 PM EST
Regarding several comments on how much *The Hobbit* hints at events in *The Lord of the Rings* and *The Silmarillion: and especially Paul Mendenhall's comment: "It is hard to believe Tolkien didn't have the next story in mind when he wrote it! The references to the Necromancer, the bit of background on Elrond, quotes like "They have seldom heard of the King..."
Amazing."
The orginal edition of *the Hobbit* in fact did NOT contain many of those quotes. The section on the Necromancer and much on the finding of the Ring were added in a revised edition of *The Hobbit* in the 60's while Tolkien was also revising the LOTR for copyright protection (entirely too long a story to tell here today).
At that point Tolkien re-read *The Hobbit* himself and thought that some things needed to be subtracted (especially some overly childish author interjections that he himself cringed at) and added, to enhance the connection with LOTR and its mythos.
A good reference for this is *The Annotated Hobbit*, edited by Douglas Anderson.
Posted by Steve from Indiana @ 2001 Jul 14 03:49 PM EST
Tolkien revised LOTR and The Hobbit in the 60's for copyright protection? I'd be interested in at least the condensed version of that story.
Also, Olorin (and others in the know), speaking of The Hobbit, I find myself still interested in the topic of Beorn.
*Hobbit spoilers*
Based on what you said above, Beorn is human and is essentially a mortal sorceror with skin-changer ability. You suggest that there have been other mortal sorcerors in Middle-Earth, but mostly associated with evil. I don't recall any other such characters, mortals with almost wizard-like powers, are they mentioned in LOTR? In The Sil? Is it a learned sorcery then? Hmm, but there again I just went back and the book suggests that Beorn's connection to bears and the wild had always existed, so I assume his descendants would inherit the skin-changing ability from him and it isn't a learned sorcery.
*Hobbit spoilers off*
Quite the interesting character and also interesting that he (and any descendants that he may have) don't show up in LOTR at all. Is there anymore about him in The Annotated Hobbit?
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 06:48 PM EST
Oh! Turumarth! I also wanted to say that I went over and checked out your article and it looks cool, but like you said, it also looks like it has plenty of spoilers for Tolkien books I plan to read in the very near future :), so I'm going to go back and read your quotes later.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 09:39 PM EST
I don't understnad why all the elves in the movie have long hair. is that in the books? I don't know. I just think it is kind of odd. Is the sil. discussion going to be like Debbie's where Allison posts something and we all respond or is it going to be a "real-time" discussion?
Posted by Boncho @ 2001 Jul 14 11:13 PM EST
Hi Boncho: No, I don't intend to write chapterly reports for the Sil discussions like Deb did for the LOTR discussions. I just expect it to be a free-ranging discussion on each chapter once I open each thread. I find I already have observations about the first discussion chapter (which I'll be setting up in The Sil board within the hour), but I plan to include my comments in context to what other people are saying. I just find it less pressure that way :). I figure that way different people can step up to the fore in each chapter or a handful of people may step forward early and stay there for the rest of the chapters. I'm sure one of the most interesting things about those discussions for me will be to see how those dynamics work out.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 14 11:36 PM EST
In response to Allison's question about other mortal sorcerors, I have a few comments.
The Chief Nazgul, the Witch-King of Angmar, was supposed to be sorceror. This is why he is called the "Witch"-King, in fact.
Others are said to be human sorcerors, such as the Black Numenorean known as the Mouth of Sauron, in "The Black Gate Opens".
I quote "And he entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery..."
Others of the Nazgul are believed to have been sorcerors as well. Such sorcery could be a combination of technology and/or access to dark spiritual power. It is hard to say: the metaphysics of magic, so to speak, is not easy to pin down.
Posted by brian @ 2001 Jul 15 01:19 AM EST
Allison: Beorn's descendants do show up in LotR, in brief mentions, but there's no indication about his descendants' powers:
Book II, Chapter 1: "Frodo learned that Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, was now the lord of many sturdy men...."
Book III, Chapter 2: Aragorn describing the Rohirrim: "... their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and with the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan."
In Appendix B, in the paragraphs just after March 25, 3019: "all the wide forest between was given to the Beornings and the Woodmen."
I found the reference to Beorn as a magician; in _Letters_, #144. He describes that Beorn was dead by the time of LotR, due to having a normal human lifetime: "Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man." (This seems to imply that one could be a skin-changer without being a magician, but he doesn't elaborate.)
brian covered the sorcerers well; pretty much any time you hear of people (men or elves) learning the "black arts" of Sauron, or other similar terms, I think we can be pretty sure that includes sorcery of some sort.
Posted by Olorin @ 2001 Jul 15 03:04 AM EST
I have an unusual idea on the possible history of Beorn. I think he could be decended from Luthien. Dior had three children, Elwing and two brothers ( I forget the brothers names right now). One of Feanors sons kidnapped the brothers and left them in the forest to die. The sil says that no tale tells of their fate, but it does not say if they died or not. If they survived, then choose to be joined to the fate of men, they could have started the race of the Beornings.
The Beornings would be children of Luthien without the Noldorian blood that came from Tuor. The shapeshifting could be explained as an inherited maian trait. Beorn could be an accidental mixing of ancient blood like Faramir.
There are some interesting proofs for this. The name Beorn is suggestive of Beren. Beorn's vegatarian lifestyle and close association with nature are like those of Beren. The shapeshifting ability, Luthien and Elwing both had it, seems to be a trait of the Mair. The area Beorn lives in is close to the area that Beren and Luthien moved to after their return from the halls of Mandos.
Anyone else like this idea
Posted by Tempus @ 2001 Jul 15 02:56 PM EST
Tempus,
That's a very interesting idea about Beorn, but I don't think it flies. Eluréd and Elurín were left to starve in the forest by the servants of Celegorm; Maedhros repented of this and searched for them, but they were never found. I'm not sure of their ages, but they are referred to as Dior's young sons. The likelihood therefore is that they did starve.
Also bear in mind that if one of them did somehow manage to survive that surely some mention would have been made of it. I think that "of the fate of Eluréd and Elurín no tale tells" is the equivalent of "missing in action" in a war, or "missing" after a plane wreck at sea. The only reason the victims are listed among the dead is that their bodies have not been found and identified. The importance of descent from Luthien (and thus from Thingol and Melian) is such that it's very unlikely any one else in the family would be forgotten. Elwing is therefore the only likely survivor from Dior's family.
Also the area that Luthien and Beren returned to after their stay in the Halls of Mandos was in Ossiriand (Lindon), i.e., West of the Blue Mountains. Part of that area did survive after the War of Wrath, though there is no reason to suppose that Beren's grandchildren would have ended up there. The attack on Dior took place at Menegroth, which is quite some distance away. Anyhow Beorn lived East of the Misty Mountains, that is to say two entire mountain ranges (and all of Eriador) away from Tol Galen, where Beren and Luthien lived. Hundreds of miles lie between these locations.
Posted by David @ 2001 Jul 15 03:48 PM EST
I'm a little late on this discussion, but here are a few of my favorites...
Hobbit: Sam, naturally. Of course I love all of them.
Other characters: Gandalf, Faramir, Gimli, Treebeard
Greatest creation: Gollum, who is unique in all literature
Favorite places: The Argonath, just because they are so grand and imposing. I think of Abu Simbel in Egypt for comparison.
Hennéth Annún: What a wonderful place!
Cerrin Amroth: I want to feel what the trees feel!
Kheled-Zâram: The essence of Dwarfdom
Favorite chapter: The Window on the West. I love the exchange between Faramir, Frodo and Sam.
Other favorites (other than the entire book): The Riders of Rohan, The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields, The Grey Havens
Favorite quotations:
"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another thing among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."
"The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of sport, as you might say. But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have just been landed in them, usually--their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect that they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn't. And if they had, we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on--and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end."
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety."
Favorite poems:
Lament for Boromir, Lament of the Rohirrim, Song of the Mounds of Mundburg, Treebeard's Song. (I like elegiac verse.)
Posted by David @ 2001 Jul 15 04:18 PM EST
Came across a fascinating article in the literature section of today's Toronto Star newspaper. Again, it was about the influence American publishers can have on their editions of British books. It seems this is a much more common phenomenon than I had realized, the article indicates it happens constantly. Ian Rankin, who writes detective stories, is quoted as saying that in his latest novel the American publisher insisted he add one more chapter to his book to spell out implications in characters and tie up loose ends that he doesn't do in the British edition. Here's an interesting quote by a British literary agent:
"American publishers assume their readers are very literal-minded and orthodox. It's the attitude that there should be no loose ends. Well, I think the British rather like loose ends. We like things to be untidy and suggestive and peculiar and unsettling in a way they absolutely don't."
Ian Rankin says of his recent book:
"There was a very open ending, in which Rebus (the detective) walked into a room with some incrimidating evidence that he's about to present to a senior politician. That's the end of the book in the UK. In the US edition, he comes out and tells the readers what went on in the office."
Kaye's "The Far Pavilions" had it's ending re-written for the American audience, too. "The original ending was ambiguous: When the two lovers finally got together, the question was would they make it in the middle of a battle. The American editor wanted it changed so they would have a good chance.".
They finish the article by saying, though, that the American publishers are not always the worst offenders. Rankin finishes:
"It was when my first book was translated into Welsh. The publisher asked me how I felt about changing all the Scots names names to Welsh names to make it easier for Welsh readers, although the book would still be set in Edinburgh. I know the book exists, but i haven't seen it. Funnily enough, my Japanese translator doesn't have any problem at all with Scots names."
:)
A very interesting article.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 15 08:22 PM EST
David: For me there's no reason to assume that the children of Dior both died in infancy. This in one of the geat open-ended things that the Professor was so often putting into the "histories." Legend is full of stories of humans beings adopted and raised by animals. Think of the story of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, raised by a she-wolf. Mightn't one or both of Dior's children have been adopted by a bear? Of course you are quite right in pointing out that Ossiriand was in Lindon. The distance in space and time gives their possible descendants ample time to migrate. I think Tolkien somewhere says that the Northmen of Middle-earth (the Bardings, Beornings, and ancestors of the Rohirrim) were in fact related to the Edain. Can anyone find the references to that?
Olórin: I think the letter of Tolkien's you site means something like "although a skin-changer and [therefore] no doubt a bit of a magician..."
Posted by Turumarth @ 2001 Jul 15 08:32 PM EST
brian: Thanks for your LOTR references to human sorcerors, that makes perfect sense.
You say, "Such sorcery could be a combination of technology and/or access to dark spiritual power. It is hard to say: the metaphysics of magic, so to speak, is not easy to pin down." True enough, though I still find myself interested in the idea, where does the source of this mortal sorcery come from? Could any mortal in LOTR have learned to use it? Can it only be tapped into for evil purposes? Is it meddling in affairs mortals aren't meant to meddle in (which is why it can only lead to evil ends)?
I'm intrigued by your use of the word "technology" above. Within Middle-Earth would some technology be seen as a form of magic? And I'm troubled by what I'm sensing of Tolkien's entire distrust of technology. Again, if technology is a source of magic, can it only be used for evil? I'm becoming increasingly interested in the role technology plays in the stories of Middle-Earth and how Tolkien portrays it for evil or good. Next time I read through LOTR I'm going to keep a close eye on that theme. I'm quite sure the Sil discussions will get into the issue, too, and I'm looking forward to that.
Olorin: Thanks for your LOTR Beorn references! Wow, they're right there in plain sight, aren't they? :) I probably would have caught them the next time I went through LOTR. Heh! Celeborn and Thranduil give the forest in-between to the Beornings after the War of the Rings. Very cool.
Posted by Allison @ 2001 Jul 15 08:45 PM EST
Allison asked: "Tolkien revised LOTR and The Hobbit in the 60's for copyright protection? I'd be interested in at least the condensed version of that story."
I have been reading various versions of this story for years. I don't know whether the total of my story is completely accurate, but I think I'm pretty close. It is most well-informed by my attendance at a science fiction convention in Chicago many years ago, at which Lin Carter and Ian and Betty Ballantine were guests. At a gathering that weekend, they explained their roles in this unusual story.
Some important background. The Ballantines had founded Ace Books in the 1950's, completely changing the nature of paperback books. When they retired (or were bought out), Lin Carter became the head of Ace's SF and fantasy books. The Ballantines went on to found Ballantine Books, perhaps the most influential paperback publisher of the 1960's and 1970's -- certainly the most influential publisher of fantasy ever. Carter himself later worked for the Ballantines as editor of the beautiful and influential Adult Fantasy series of the 1970's.
Houghton Mifflin bought the American hardcover rights to the Lord of the Rings from Allen and Unwin Publishers in Britain in 1954. When they published the three volumes from 1954-56, very few copies were available, but Carter was one of the buyers. As he became the Ace editor, he wanted to obtain the paperback rights, since he knew these could be big sellers. But H-M refused to discuss the paperback rights with him, and refused to offer the paperbacks rights to anyone -- which Carter thought was exceedingly peculiar. He had noticed that the Houghton Mifflin edition had NO copyright notice, even stranger. This meant that anyone could legally publish the Lord of the Rings in the United States without copyright violation. (I have seen the first American edition and indeed there was no copyright notice. While today's American copyright law provides more protection to creators of text, in the 1960's if the copyright notification was left off the book, there WAS no copyright protection.)
But WHY did the book have no copyright notice? No publisher would accidentally make such a mistake. Eventually Carter discovered that Houghton Mifflin couldn't sell the paperback rights to anyone because they had no such rights or ANY copyright at all. In 1954 another provision of the copyright law was really a tariff law to protect American printers. If you published a book which was physically printed overseas, you could import no more than 2,499 copies. Any further copies must be printed in the United States. If 2,500 or more copies were imported, you lost your copyright protection. Apparently someone at H-M, assuming the book would be no more than a modest success, imported 3,000 copies of Volume 1 which were printed by Allen and Unwin's printers (more were imported of the later volumes as it appeared more sales would be indicated). (I may have the numbers slightly wrong here, but the principle is correct.)
H-M simply blew it and by their own carelessness published a book with no American copyright protection. Frustrated by his attempts to interact either with Houghton Mifflin or with Allen and Unwin, Carter finally decided that Ace would publish a paperback edition of the Lord of the Rings in early 1965. It was perfectly legal to do so. Carter even put royalty payments for Tolkien in escrow, even though he had no legal obligation to do so. He felt he had no moral obligation to pay Tolkien's *publishers,* who had caused the problem, but he felt it was important to pay the author (he was an author himself).
The Ace edition was a sensation on college campuses and elsewhere. My first copy of the Fellowship of the Ring was the Ace edition. Tolkien's publishers were very upset to be cut out of the paperback profits and strongly encouraged Tolkien to give them a "revised" edition of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien said he would, but then frustrated the publishers by insisting on revising The Hobbit first to make it more consistent with LOTR. Then that took longer than expected, so he went back to LOTR. An unrevised edition of the Hobbit was released by Ballantine in August, 1965 to take advantage of the trilogy's popularity. Then the Revised "Authorized" Ballantine edition of LOTR was released in December, 1965. A revised edition of the Hobbit was finally released in February, 1966. (I might have a couple of details wrong here; since I am not checking every single source on them.)
After a lot of yelling back and forth and the bizarre sight of two best-selling paperback editions of the same modern work available at the same time, Ace allowed their edition to go out of print. I believe they sold about 200,000 copies, a very big seller for the time. The "revised" version is now the standard. Ace paid Tolkien his royalties and Tolkien became very rich very quickly.
At the convention, Carter and the Ballantines were still friends and the Ballantines were supportive of Carter's version of events. Carter was unapologetic, feeling he acted legally and honorably every step of the way. He attempted to follow protocol and was rebuffed, so he followed the law instead. He insists -- and I believe him -- that if he had not brought out the Ace edition of the LOTR, there NEVER would have been a paperback edition and the book would never have become the publishing sensation of the 20th Century that it did. Over the years, Carter and Ace Books have been unfairly vilified for this episode. Tolkien huffed and puffed a lot about people stealing his work; but in fact EVERYONE profited from the Ace edition. Tolkien was paid handsomely for it and didn't have to split the money with anyone else. Ballantine, Allen and Unwin, and Houghton Mifflin have each made multiple millions of dollars and pounds from these books that they never would have if Carter had not taken the bull by the horns. Tolkien would have been a curiosity known to a few perceptive readers instead of the "author of the century." And the entire fantasy publishing and movie boom that occurred in the remaining part of t
