Rings of Power: Positive vs Negative

[Elthir]

I'm open to Olórin appearing in Middle-earth before the Third Age (see "Galadriel stuff" in Unfinished Tales, for example), but I (based on Tolkien-published Appendix B), believe Gandalf and the other Wizards arrived Third Age.

🐾

 

[Ent]

OK if you want to go 'tit for tat' here, I'll expose yours, then again be done, because it's clear you are intractable, @Radaghast

Harfoots: Clearly they WERE called Harfoots, and were the most numerous of the Hobbits, as Tolkien said so. True, he never called them 'proto-hobbits' because he didn't deal with the ancestral hobbits.. he did not write of the earlier ages..!! This doesnt' mean there weren't 'proto-hobbits'. Of COURSE there were proto-hobbits.

Istari: You quote" "When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth. It was afterwards said that they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.". Where in the world does this say they weren't in Middle-earth earlier? OH. It doesn't. It simply makes a statement about this particular arival..! Also it speaks of "all' the Istari as distinct from any of the individual Maiar of whom the Istari were composed. Where does Tolkien say any one of them was never in Middle-earth before?

You say "There's nothing open-ended about the quote above. And Gandalf's fondness for hobbit-folk needn't have begun in the Second Age.". The statement you refer to, which I believe is the one you quoted above, is TOTALLY open ended. It does not prove your case they, or any one of them, weren't there in the 2nd age, so your point is moot. And of COURSE Gandalf's fondness 'needn't have' started then. But it COULD have. Which of us is the more speculative here? Oh... we are both speculating entirely. You speculate against RoP. I speculate, not for it, but for possibilities because there is no 'closure' to the events having happend.

Yes, the show disregards some of what Tolkien wrote. But Tolkien himself said he left things open for the imaginations of others.
THAT'S CALLED INVENTION. So you bet I'll continue to say "Tolkien didn't close the door on that..! It's possible."

Where Tolkien DID close a door, I'll say that as well.

One can use the "Tolkien never said..." reasoning to try to justify any kind of insert or invention. That doesn't mean it will hold up or be any good

You're absolutely correct here. One CAN use the "Tolkien didn't say it..." argument.
And RoP does much of that, in addition to slaying much of what Tolkien DID write.
And, it will 'hold up' if it hasn't been written about, because it hasn't been written about. It will only NOT hold up, if there is some conflicting clear point to make it invalid.
You're also correct it may not be any good.
But that does not preclude the inventor's ability to invent it.

If we want to argue, we need to argue from a point of realism, and logic.

I'm happy to deal with what is possible, even what is plausible.

But there are many who just will not or can not deal with what they PERCEIVE to be 'what should be'... which is nothing other than 'their own invention from their own perspective' in most cases. Just the same as 'the other invention' against which they rail as though 'it just can't be so.' Problem is... "oh yes it can."

I am not so stuck on my own invention I refuse to allow for anyone elses.

Where Tolkien speaks, I will speak equally. Where Tolkien is silent, I will allow. I don't have to decide whether it's "OK". It is INHERENTLY Ok. I just have to decide whether I personally like it or not... and that's pure opinion.

 

[Ent]

Remember, Gandalf wasn't supposed to show up until the 3rd age due to Sauron's power, so him showing up in the 2nd age makes no sense.

Another assumption.

He and the Istari DID show up to oppose him by helping the people. Where is it written by Tolkien no one did so before? Or those Maia never visited M-e before?

See my responses to @Radaghast above. We assume much, in our efforts to shut down other people's creativity. But we do not base it on 'fact' but rather on our own predefined universe and perceptions. Tolkien did no such thing, but left room for the imagination of others.

May we be as magnanimous.

We may not like it.... but we can only choose to exclude it for our own selves and our own world. Not for the rest of the world.

 

[JackTorrance]

Another assumption.

He and the Istari DID show up to oppose him by helping the people. Where is it written by Tolkien no one did so before? Or those Maia never visited M-e before?

See my responses to @Radaghast above. We assume much, in our efforts to shut down other people's creativity. But we do not base it on 'fact' but rather on our own predefined universe and perceptions. Tolkien did no such thing, but left room for the imagination of others.

May we be as magnanimous.

We may not like it.... but we can only choose to exclude it for our own selves and our own world. Not for the rest of the world.

Yeah, your right. I once did read Lord of the Rings, but I have a bad memory, and it was so long ago, (maybe around 1994?) that I cannot recount the events of it. Regardless, I look through the appendices to see Gandalf's legacy.

 

[Ent]

Whew. I sense I became a wee bit irritated. Sorry.

 

[Radaghast]

Harfoots: Clearly they WERE called Harfoots, and were the most numerous of the Hobbits, as Tolkien said so. True, he never called them 'proto-hobbits' because he didn't deal with the ancestral hobbits.. he did not write of the earlier ages..!! This doesnt' mean there weren't 'proto-hobbits'. Of COURSE there were proto-hobbits.

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, Harfoots weren't called Harfoots. I'm saying Harfoots weren't proto-hobbits. The proto-hobbits were the ones that split into the three different distinct subsets. As it says in the Prologue, "Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides." It doesn't say the Harfoots split into Harfoots, etc.

Istari: You quote" "When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth. It was afterwards said that they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.". Where in the world does this say they weren't in Middle-earth earlier? OH. It doesn't. It simply makes a statement about this particular arival..! Also it speaks of "all' the Istari as distinct from any of the individual Maiar of whom the Istari were composed. Where does Tolkien say any one of them was never in Middle-earth before?

You say "There's nothing open-ended about the quote above. And Gandalf's fondness for hobbit-folk needn't have begun in the Second Age.". The statement you refer to, which I believe is the one you quoted above, is TOTALLY open ended. It does not prove your case they, or any one of them, weren't there in the 2nd age, so your point is moot.

And there is nothing to say that he/they was/were there in the Second Age. His inclusion there is based on nothing. It's an invention. It is not a gap that needed filling and has never before been seen as one nor asked to be filled. It merely asks "What if Gandalf were there in the Second Age. Hm... Let's find out [in the worst way possible]". That is not the same as a gap.

And of COURSE Gandalf's fondness 'needn't have' started then. But it COULD have. Which of us is the more speculative here? Oh... we are both speculating entirely. You speculate against RoP. I speculate, not for it, but for possibilities because there is no 'closure' to the events having happend.

Of course, it could have, if Gandalf was, for certain, in the Second Age, if there were a textual basis for it. But that is just "fan" fiction imagining. It doesn't come anywhere from the text. To come straight to the point, Gandalf is there because he's a popular character. There is no other reason.

Yes, the show disregards some of what Tolkien wrote. But Tolkien himself said he left things open for the imaginations of others.
THAT'S CALLED INVENTION. So you bet I'll continue to say "Tolkien didn't close the door on that..! It's possible."

Some of what Tolkien wrote? And I know it's invention. I used the word multiple times myself. That is not an argument as I think their inventions are terrible.

Where Tolkien DID close a door, I'll say that as well.

You're absolutely correct here. One CAN use the "Tolkien didn't say it..." argument.
And RoP does much of that, in addition to slaying much of what Tolkien DID write.
And, it will 'hold up' if it hasn't been written about, because it hasn't been written about. It will only NOT hold up, if there is some conflicting clear point to make it invalid.

There are many conflicting points, as I've mentioned. If the show "slays" (to use your own word) much of what Tolkien wrote, why does it even merit any defense? You seem stuck on Gandalf being in the 2nd Age because, to you, there is nothing to say he wasn't there. But Gandalf's arrival to Middle-earth via a great, honking meteor would be pretty significant. The Valar sending Gandalf to Middle-earth at all in the Second Age would be pretty significant. Tolkien simply neglected to mention it. Except Tolkien made a point to say their arrival occurred about 1,000 years into the Third Age. He made a point of writing something that he probably didn't expect general readers would ever see (the section on the Istari in Unfinished Tales, in which he'd also have neglected to mention anything about Gandalf having already been to M-E). Yet, somehow his not saying they didn't arrive is somehow justification to say they could have arrived at some point before that. I'm sorry, that is specious reasoning to me. Incidentally, it does say in Unfinished Tales that they first appeared in M-E in the Third Age. I know ROP can't use UT but it nevertheless supports the point that Tolkien never left it open that any of the Istari came to M-E in the SA. It doesn't fill a gap and it doesn't answer a question anyone asked. It's just there in an attempt to attract viewers, just as having Galadriel in it (and portray her a a Girl Boss and sending her thither and yon). That is not a good enough reason, especially if the end result is so controversial (to put it kindly).

Where Tolkien speaks, I will speak equally. Where Tolkien is silent, I will allow. I don't have to decide whether it's "OK". It is INHERENTLY Ok. I just have to decide whether I personally like it or not... and that's pure opinion.

And where he is not silent, the showrunners have gleefully gone against whatever he wrote. This is not limited to the matter of Gandalf, as I've tried to indicate in the post above. As you yourself say, they have slain much of what Tolkien wrote, yet you feel compelled to defend them on this one point because, evidently, you feel that is a tenable invention by the showrunners. How does the show hold up for you as a whole? What does this invention do for what Tolkien wrote? Do you honestly feel it was lacking without it? Did you ever honestly feel Tolkien left the matter open before ROP?

 

[Ent]

I'm done. One must realize when one faces an impossible dream.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

 

[JackTorrance]

@Radaghast will you ever accept that maybe Ent has a point?

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

has a point?

I have a point, too:

 

[Ent]

will you ever accept that maybe Ent has a point?

Actually, it proves one of Ent's greatest points, so...
We must learn to extract what is good from what appears to be bad.
Oops... seems like that's pretty much the same point.

But the biggest point... we can bang our heads against reality all we want to, but the only thing going to give in the end is the head. Reality IS.... suck it up and move on.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Help me with this one please... the Harfoots are one of the 3 main branches of Hobbits, and the most numerous.
Clearly they're still existing in the 'wandering days' before the migration... I need help understanding how they are being seen as a 'contradiction' ??

The main contradiction on hobbits, harfoots... whatever you call them is their actions, and behavior.
In the books it is clearly said Gandalf becomes mostly fond of Hobbits when he witnessed a great winter, and witnessed how hobbits were willing to die for each other with no second thought.
And in the series we have "take their wheels, and leave them behind"!
...God almighty...

It's not only a contradiction... it's disrespecting lore...

The second contradiction, about that behavior (leave them behind) is not in contrast to the book, but very common sense.
ANY tribe that acts in a way, that will coldly leave their members in their needs, is doomed.
It's contradictory to how tribes works at the first place.

As to the Istari being abroad in the 2nd age, there's nothing in Tolkien's writing saying they weren't... that's an assumption. It depends on what is done with our 'visiting Gandalf'.

Well, I think Tolkien pretty clearly said that Istari arrived in 3rd age at M.E.
Sure, as an maia's they were in Valinor before that time, and amongs elves that were in Valinor.

Don't get me wrong, I am personally not bothered if they place Gandalf (or any Istari) on the second age.
It might be a good idea, if done well.
But so far, series failed to show us, why they brought Istari in the second age....I don't see any point so far... actually I see.. it's like: "Look - Hey.. we also have Gandalf like PJ movies"!

 

[JackTorrance]

Their logic could be summed up as: "HEY GUYS! PETER JACKSON MADE FINANCIAL SUCCESS WITH HIS TRILOGY, MAYBE IF WE PUT GANDALF IN OUR SHOW, WE CAN GROW TO HIS SAME HEIGHTS!"

 

[Ent]

In the books it is clearly said Gandalf becomes mostly fond of Hobbits when he witnessed a great winter, and witnessed how hobbits were willing to die for each other with no second thought.

If I can find this, and it distinctly references his fondness for hobbits becoming an item at that time, I'll certainly take it into consideration. I've not seen/found it yet in my (admittedly few) readings.

And in the series we have "take their wheels, and leave them behind"!
...God almighty...

It's not only a contradiction... it's disrespecting lore...

People change over time.

The second contradiction, about that behavior (leave them behind) is not in contrast to the book, but very common sense.
ANY tribe that acts in a way, that will coldly leave their members in their needs, is doomed.
It's contradictory to how tribes works at the first place.

If we look at the very real political current and historical periods in the world we see every society leaving its people behind, letting them starve in the streets, killing them when they don't agree with the current powers, etc. Not to get political, but goodness.

Indeed the situations of the hobbits were very different as shown in RoP than they are in the comfortable Shire so much time later. Naturally there would be very differente mindsets. Today we change our mindset based on a whim and current talking heads.

Well, I think Tolkien pretty clearly said that Istari arrived in 3rd age at M.E.
Sure, as an maia's they were in Valinor before that time, and amongs elves that were in Valinor.

As to this point from your next post, really? Yes he did say the Istari arrived in M-e in AD 1000.

But there were countless Maia and 'spirits from afar' in M-e from the time they first inhabited the Ents and others of the olvar and kelvar.

And they didn't necessarly 'come once and have to stay'.

As to this: "But so far, series failed to show us, why they brought Istari in the second age....I don't see any point so far ..." that's precisely the point.

First, the "istari' weren't brought in the second age... Gandalf has come. (His manner of coming is really ludicrous to me by the way.)
He's a Maia. LATER in the 3rd age, he's "one of the Istari." Perhaps a specific segment within the Maiar. We don't know if or what the diffrerence is, or when it came about. We do know Gandalf is of the Maiar, and when he comes in the TA, he's "one of the Istari."

Your words 'failed to show us...' and 'don't see any point so far...' hit the nail with the head...!
It's called Cinema. Or Story. Or Tale. We don't know the end before the beginning. We get to wait and see... and that, hopefully, with excitement. If we already knew, what would be the point?

If RoP fails to generate excitement, some folks will go away.
If RoP generates excitement, some folks will stay.

The bottom line is, RoP IS. And, RoP is just what it is. It isn't something else. It can't be made into something else. It can't go away... it has been released. The clock cannot be turned back.

Trust me: "I wish it had not happened in my time."
"But that is not given me to decide. All I can decide is what to do with the time that is given to me."

My problem is - (and this is truly my problem... I should really not foist it off on anyone else) - I hate to see people so wrapped up in something negatively they just can't let it go, to the point where it seems they insist everyone see it the same way they do.

Am I, in some ways, trying to do the same thing? Probably so.
But negativity is so destructive, and at the same time so attractive... (it's more powerful than gravity)... it does real, physical harm to people over time.

And trust me... there are some who are SO negative against RoP they are hurting not only themselves, but the people around them they are attracting into the same mindset.

Do I think we should all 'support' RoP or only talk positively about it? Not at all.

But this is the Tolkien Forum where we come to Learn About Tolkien, and talk about tolkein related things.

So maybe we can get SPECIFIC about things RoP, discuss them IN RELATION to Tolkien's works specifically, share what's good, bad or indifferent and how it mibht be handled differently, and do something MEANINGFUL with our conversations other than just rant at the fact that RoP exists, stinks, 'everybody' hates it, it serves no purpose, and other things not consistent with the environment this Forum exists for.

Just a thought... and of course, seemingly, my own, alone.

 

[JackTorrance]

ahhh screw it @Ent lock the thread now.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

negativity is so destructive, and at the same time so attractive... (it's more powerful than gravity)... it does real, physical harm to people over time.

This is very true. When I watched the LOTR movies for years, before I became a deep lore nerd, I was content. They were (and still are) my favorite movies. However, after discovering how many differences the movies took from canon, I found myself dissatisfied and would mentally rant about it. It was easy to dive into that mindset and look at everything 'done wrong'. Removing myself from it and looking again with the eyes I had before was/is much more difficult. I must admit the canon disparity had at times made me lose my joy about it, so I have actively chosen to look at the positives and enjoy it for what it is on its own. The same I suppose can be said about all things, really.

 

[Ent]

ahhh screw it @Ent lock the thread now.

An intriguing thought, but I decided to give it one last effort.
You see... I thought for a second I might have seen a small crack in @d4rk3lf 's armor.
If this can be used as a 'learning event', there could be hope.

If we can just show 'for every thing said, there is a counterpoint to be made' to the point where people begin to see there IS NO ABSOLUTE in spite of opinions to the contrary, we may make a few more open minded people eligible and available for discourse rather than debate. A better world can result.

Bear with me... I'm a very old sot ingrained in my ways too... with a certain amount of experience on which I (unfortunately) set my hopes. (Yes, usually ending up disappointed as a result.)

"We can but try."

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

This is very true. When I watched the LOTR movies for years, before I became a deep lore nerd, I was content. They were (and still are) my favorite movies. However, after discovering how many differences the movies took from canon, I found myself dissatisfied and would mentally rant about it. It was easy to dive into that mindset and look at everything 'done wrong'. Removing myself from it and looking again with the eyes I had before was/is much more difficult. I must admit the canon disparity had at times made me lose my joy about it, so I have chosen to look at the positives and enjoy it for what it is on its own. The same I suppose can be said about all things, really.

I agree the movies are way off from the books. Nothing, I think, will ever replace the books and the original story, but the movies are still definitely a fun watch, for me at least. PJ was far from perfect (is any director) with his movies, but I think he did a decent job of making a fantasy series of movies, whether you consider it canon lotr or not (which I don't, since again there are so many changes from the books).

 

[JackTorrance]

I agree the movies are way off from the books. Nothing, I think, will ever replace the books and the original story, but the movies are still definitely a fun watch, for me at least. PJ was far from perfect (is any director) with his movies, but I think he did a decent job of making a fantasy series of movies, whether you consider it canon lotr or not (which I don't, since again there are so many changes from the books).

Yeah, well one thing is for certain: THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO ISENGARD!

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Yeah, well one thing is for certain: THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO ISENGARD!