Áramandë Amaniel
Almalaurië o Mandos
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2022
- Messages
- 3,363
The Hobbits share in the Fate of the Edain, and the Gift of Men.(Hobbits being human, technically).
They ARE Human, or a branch of it, per Tolkien Letter 131:
Well, that's how I feel about it. Their romance in the movies was forced and unconvincing. I saw no reason why those two were into each other, other then looks, and the script saying so."You know, you convinced me, your feelings for this young hottie dwarf whom you've met couple of times and who made a dirty joke to you when you've first met - that was totes true love, no doubt about it!"
I know Tolkien later wanted to revise the Orcs origin, but I strongly prefer sticking to the Elves-version of the Legendarium, just for the sake of story integrity. Human origin of Orcs demands major changes in the timeline, which didn't happen, AFAIK (Orcs clearly existed before Men awoke in the Silmarillion), so utilising it necessarily leads to contradictions, I believe.
I think it was more about what the other person represented. Kili was a chance for Tauriel to engage with something outside of her own realm when they had become increasingly isolated (per the movie, at least). Tauriel represented timeless beauty and someone Kili could engage with by himself, apart from his peers. Tauriel took him seriously when the others, perhaps, did not because of his age. Regardless of sex, it's also flattering to have someone find you interesting and attractive. It's the start of most relationships. Towards the end I think they also felt the longing of possilbiity and Tauriel had to mourn the loss of ALL of that possibility as their relationship was cut off at its very beginning.Well, that's how I feel about it. Their romance in the movies was forced and unconvincing. I saw no reason why those two were into each other, other then looks, and the script saying so.
I as well. Making them twisted men doesn't seem to line up with them being at the first battle of Belerian and the Dagor nuin Giliath. Still, I always assumed the orcs were mortal and how could Morgoth desecrate them such that they'd lose immortality. But, perhaps that's how they all seemed to breed so fast; they didn't die.I know Tolkien later wanted to revise the Orcs origin, but I strongly prefer sticking to the Elves-version of the Legendarium, just for the sake of story integrity. Human origin of Orcs demands major changes in the timeline, which didn't happen, AFAIK (Orcs clearly existed before Men awoke in the Silmarillion), so utilising it necessarily leads to contradictions, I believe.
So here's a question for you - and you all.
Did the Dwarves come 'after the firstborn' but BEFORE the followers? (Man).
OR did the Dwarves come before both.
My current conclusion, just so you know given what I've found, is that Dwarves came between Elves and Men.
Only the "Elves" were the "Firstborn". The Men were the "followers."
I will re-locate the other text that somewhat cinched for me that the Dwarves came between them and provide it later.
(I'm sure you've all already thought of this, but thought I'd just put it out there to see how far off I may be.)
(And I believe All are called the "Children of Eru" - certainly the Elves and Men - but also the Dwarves, because Aule could not 'give them life'. Eru did that.)
Surely there's at least a dozen other threads on this as well by now too.. I've just not taken this topic up yet for further digging.
I think that the Dwarves were made first but then put to sleep to wait for the other children ti come first. Below are the relevant passages that I could find in the Silmarillion:So here's a question for you - and you all.
Did the Dwarves come 'after the firstborn' but BEFORE the followers? (Man).
OR did the Dwarves come before both.
My current conclusion, just so you know given what I've found, is that Dwarves came between Elves and Men.
Only the "Elves" were the "Firstborn". The Men were the "followers."
I will re-locate the other text that somewhat cinched for me that the Dwarves came between them and provide it later.
(I'm sure you've all already thought of this, but thought I'd just put it out there to see how far off I may be.)
(And I believe All are called the "Children of Eru" - certainly the Elves and Men - but also the Dwarves, because Aule could not 'give them life'. Eru did that.)
Surely there's at least a dozen other threads on this as well by now too.. I've just not taken this topic up yet for further digging.
It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aulë in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aulë desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Ilúvatar. And Aulë made the Dwarves even as they still are, because the forms of the Children who were to come were unclear to his mind, and because the power of Melkor was yet over the Earth; and he wished therefore that they should be strong and unyielding. But fearing that the other Valar might blame his work, he wrought in secret: and he made first the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves in a hall under the mountains in Middle-earth.
...
But Ilúvatar spoke again and said: ‘Even as I gave being to the thoughts of the Ainur at the beginning of the World, so now I have taken up thy desire and given to it a place therein; but in no other way will I amend thy handiwork, and as thou hast made it, so shall it be. But I will not suffer this: that these should come before the Firstborn of my design, nor that thy impatience should be rewarded. They shall sleep now in the darkness under stone, and shall not come forth until the Firstborn have awakened upon Earth; and until that time thou and they shall wait, though long it seem. But when the time comes I will awaken them, and they shall be to thee as children; and often strife shall arise between thine and mine, the children of my adoption and the children of my choice.’
Then Aulë took the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves, and laid them to rest in farsundered places; and he returned to Valinor, and waited while the long years
lengthened.
I think that the Dwarves were made first but then put to sleep to wait for the other children ti come first. Below are the relevant passages that I could find in the Silmarillion:
Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding your question. In The People's of Middle Earth, there's this passage:Oh this is absolutely certain. Sorry about the word "come before" used above - that was misleading.
They were "made" before either of Eru's children came.
They were even the first to 'have life' in a sense, as Eru made them 'have a life of their own' before his Children came - but then put them to sleep to wait, as you (and the text) say.
But the current question is:
Did they then "awaken" AFTER the Elves but BEFORE the Men, or did they awaken after both the Elves and the Men.
My contention is they were 'awakened' After the Elves, but before the Men - between the two of Eru's "children's" coming.
The references to the legends of the origin of the Dwarves of the kin known as Longbeards (Khuzdul Sigin-tarag, translated by Quenya Andafangar, Sindarin Anfangrim) and their renowned later 'mansions' in Khazad-dum (Moria) are too brief to make the linguistic situation clear. The 'deeps of time' do not refer (of course) to geological time - of which only the Eldar had legends, derived and transmuted from such information as their loremasters had received from the Valar. They refer to legends of the Ages of Awakening and the arising of the Speaking Peoples: first the Elves, second the Dwarves (as they claimed), and third Men.
No need. A poorly crafted question deserves a response consistent with what it asks, rather than what it intends..!! 😁Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding your question.
I'm curious: in what way does he use it incorrectly?Between you and me, here and there I find a little fault with Tolkien himself as well... especially in his complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the word "confusticate(ed)", used 3 times, and never correctly. Talk about 'unconscionable' - especially for a philologist and language master/teacher.
I'm curious: in what way does he use it incorrectly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?