You're absolutely correct here. One CAN use the "Tolkien didn't say it..." argument.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
Another assumption.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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."
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 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.
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?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.
I have a point, too:has a point?
Actually, it proves one of Ent's greatest points, so...will you ever accept that maybe Ent has a point?
The main contradiction on hobbits, harfoots... whatever you call them is their actions, and behavior.
Well, I think Tolkien pretty clearly said that Istari arrived in 3rd age at M.E.
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.
People change over time.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...
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.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 this point from your next post, really? Yes he did say the Istari arrived in M-e in AD 1000.
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.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.
An intriguing thought, but I decided to give it one last effort.ahhh screw it @Ent lock the thread now.
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).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.
Yeah, well one thing is for certain: THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO ISENGARD!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!
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?