Jump to content

The J.R.R Tolkien Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

So it's a kind of "Super-Annotated Hobbit"?

Right now I've started with The Silmarillion.

Has any composer ever tried to adapt the music of the Ainur?

There was this short movie I saw some nearly 20 years ago and have asked about repeatedly on this board, but nobody else seems to know it. It's not actually related to the Sil or anything Tolkien, but what I remember still played out like a sort of metaphorical interpretation of that chapter. And it was based on music - it portrayed an orchestra, where a soloist becomes increasingly independent, resulting in a sort of musical battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, is the Lord of the Eagles the same as Gwaihir the Windlord from LOTR?

Oh, yes. At least that's the viewpoint of pretty much every Tolkien "encyclopedia" you'll find on the market.

Has any composer ever tried to adapt the music of the Ainur?

No, but I'll tell you: whenever I've read that section in the past, my mind's been filled with the music of György Ligeti, that piece used in 2001: A Space Odyssey to represent the monolith. I think the music of the Ainur would be more awesome than beautiful--if you understand what I mean by that--and would probably sound chaotic and wild to mortal ears. Just my interpretation of an artistic passage, of course.

- Uni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, is the Lord of the Eagles the same as Gwaihir the Windlord from LOTR?

Oh, yes. At least that's the viewpoint of pretty much every Tolkien "encyclopedia" you'll find on the market.

I think it is quite obvious that Tolkien found small ways of connecting the two novels and the appearance of the Great Eagles was one of them, Gwaihîr being none other than the Lord of the Eagles from the Hobbit. I think I made an immediate connection when I read the Lord of the Rings first and the Hobbit after that.

Has any composer ever tried to adapt the music of the Ainur?

No, but I'll tell you: whenever I've read that section in the past, my mind's been filled with the music of György Ligeti, that piece used in 2001: A Space Odyssey to represent the monolith. I think the music of the Ainur would be more awesome than beautiful--if you understand what I mean by that--and would probably sound chaotic and wild to mortal ears. Just my interpretation of an artistic passage, of course.

- Uni

My vision of the music is somewhere between truly heavenly and awe-inspiring and chaotic and wild and alien to mortal ear. The creation of the world through music is such a powerful image that one wonders what kind of music it would require. In Tolkien's description it begins in harmony that then through Melkor's selfish intervetion grows chaotic only to be twice corrected by Eru. What a grand idea for a composition it would make and somehow nearly overwhelming in its primordial nature and scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, is the Lord of the Eagles the same as Gwaihir the Windlord from LOTR?

Oh, yes. At least that's the viewpoint of pretty much every Tolkien "encyclopedia" you'll find on the market.

I think it is quite obvious that Tolkien found small ways of connecting the two novels and the appearance of the Great Eagles was one of them, Gwaihîr being none other than the Lord of the Eagles from the Hobbit. I think I made an immediate connection when I read the Lord of the Rings first and the Hobbit after that.

The problem with this connection is that while it may seem obvious, the text is not consistent. In fact, a LITERAL reading explicitly contradicts the idea. When Gandalf commissions Gwaihir to fly into Mordor and rescue Frodo and Sam, he states, "Twice you have borne me..." and "Thrice shall pay for all." The two previous incidents are Gandalf's rescue from Orthanc in FOTR, and his rescue from the peak of Zirakzigil after his rebirth. The number would have been higher, taking into account "The Hobbit." There are also other minor dissonances between the two characters, such as the crown. Perhaps Tolkien may have revised or explained away such discrepancies in time, given the opportunity. But he did not ... and in the absence of clearly knowing his intentions, the Tolkien estate has not interpreted this as an "error."

From Rateliff's personal announcement:

"Not long after the book was first published I sent in a little new material (which had arrived just a little too late for inclusion) in case there was ever a reprint, so I hope this Addendum can now be included."

Dammit -- now I have to have it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, is the Lord of the Eagles the same as Gwaihir the Windlord from LOTR?

Oh, yes. At least that's the viewpoint of pretty much every Tolkien "encyclopedia" you'll find on the market.

I think it is quite obvious that Tolkien found small ways of connecting the two novels and the appearance of the Great Eagles was one of them, Gwaihîr being none other than the Lord of the Eagles from the Hobbit. I think I made an immediate connection when I read the Lord of the Rings first and the Hobbit after that.

The problem with this connection is that while it may seem obvious, the text is not consistent. In fact, a LITERAL reading explicitly contradicts the idea. When Gandalf commissions Gwaihir to fly into Mordor and rescue Frodo and Sam, he states, "Twice you have borne me..." and "Thrice shall pay for all." The two previous incidents are Gandalf's rescue from Orthanc in FOTR, and his rescue from the peak of Zirakzigil after his rebirth. The number would have been higher, taking into account "The Hobbit." There are also other minor dissonances between the two characters, such as the crown. Perhaps Tolkien may have revised or explained away such discrepancies in time, given the opportunity. But he did not ... and in the absence of clearly knowing his intentions, the Tolkien estate has not interpreted this as an "error."

Yes it is very true that the literal reading most certainly contradicts the connection. To me despite these discrepancies Gwaihir and Lord of the Eagles have always been the one and the same. Perhaps I have not been reading the novel with too literal interpretation in mind but drawn conclusions of the stories and connected these ideas about the eagles together through that association. But regarding Tolkien "Even Homer nods" sometimes. With the great evolving histories of Middle-Earth our "Homer" did not once but quite often nod and had to revise his work which after his passing had to be interpreted by his son Christopher.

While Tolkien revised his texts to uniform the worlds of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings such small stylistic discrepancies were certainly left in the text. Also I see that these discrepancies are not "errors" as such but more of retaining a certain style and certain mood of each piece despite tying them together. In the Hobbit the crowning of an eagle with gold sounds very appropriate for the tone of the story but in Lord of the Rings such fairy story stylings are not part of the narrative. Gandalf's line about carrying him twice and finally thrice would certainly be robbed of its poetry if Tolkien would use some odd number instead of the number 3 which is dramatic and "magical". Tolkien is a puzzle of both meticulous detail and random vagueness in whose writing behind the next gloriously described hill can be a nearly uncharted corner of the world phrased in the most meager terms because he did not think it to be that important, thought it better left vague or it was self explanatory to him. But it is true that there is never a direct reference in Tolkien's writing that the Lord of the Eagles and Gwaihir are the one and the same.

So Stefan in conclusion: If you want to be literal in your literary interpretation then these two eagles are not the same or at least they are not confirmed the same.

On the other hand if you like to make your own interpretation based on the connection in your own mind, then they well might be one and the same eagle. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on appearances described in The Hobbit: None of the Dwarves in LOTR seem to have coloured beards. I expect Tolkien would have omitted those in his "adult" rewrite of TH, but he didn't change things like these in his revisions of the existing text.

But with all these massive revisions (never big chunks, aside from Riddles in the Dark, but bits and pieces virtually everywhere), I wonder if Tolkien really would have miscounted like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Frisian as in the cows? :P

BTW retrieving the gwaihir argument...

The hobbit eagle could be the predecessor of gwaihir in the line of lords of the wind/eagles...

The eagle could be old at the time of the hobbit, and his son get the crown...

just a thought... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has never been absolutely clear if the eagle in The Hobbit is the same one as Gwaihir the Windlord.

In ROTK Gandalf said that Gwaihir had carried him twice before while it should have been three or four times if Gwaihir and the Lord of the Eagles had been the same bird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure you are not over thinking this Great Eagles business a bit Manuel? ;)

I love parsing the meanings and details of the story but pin pointing the relative levels of fantasy and realism Tolkien imbued his avian creatures has never before crossed my mind.

To me Gwaihîr is still the same Lord of the Eagles from the Hobbit.

Oh and Stefan do you think Gandalf might be only counting Gwaihîr's "avian wizard deliveries during the story of LotR" and not all of them in history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one of the great mysteries of Tolkien's universe.

Truly. We won't ever know. Until Christopher Tolkien in need of quick petty change will write a whole 250 page book about it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, Tolkien could have made it clear when he made changes to The Hobbit (Riddles In The Dark and stuff), by giving the Lord of the Eagles a name. Yet, it didn't...

Tolkien? IT?

Are you sure you are not over thinking this Great Eagles business a bit Manuel? ;)

I love parsing the meanings and details of the story but pin pointing the relative levels of fantasy and realism Tolkien imbued his avian creatures has never before crossed my mind.

If they even sport crowns they must have some king of civilization. Hence the royal lineage.

:lol:

Damn he never wrote a book telling the sotry of the eagles alone. I would have bought it...alone :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the preface of the Unfinished Tale of the Great Eagles - Tale Finished:

Pondering long on my father's mysterious world and this particular conundrum I suddenly remembered that my coat pocket had very little loose change in it. So I took out his papers and shuffled them a bit and lo and behold here is a collection of jottings mentioning the Great Eagles, our avian friends in a tight spot, as I like to call them. I hope you enjoy this 10 page story draft and 300 page commentary as much as I loved compiling it (took me, say, 10 minutes). I also hope you paid amply for this book. Ta, ta, yours in a hurry, Christopher Tolkien, grumpy gate keeper of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this an tintin made me change avatar.

:P are there any drawings on Meneldor?

I pictured him as a giant falcon, being the swiftest of the eagle folk. Though it is not an eagle..

bah theya re all eagles...

Look a genealogical tree!

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/thorondor.html

:ROTFLMAO:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

To is Tolkien's 120th birthday! In honour of this special occaison, I'll be listening to Shore's music in the Complete Recordings. I'll probably start re-reading the books today as well.

To the Professor and the world he conjured for our minds to feast upon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

They're making a film about that?

Difficult thing to do. Tolkien comes out to me as a boring and antiquated fellow with an cool taste in languages. I don't know about Lewis, but I wonder, in a more secularized Europe, what impression would make in todays audience this whole "atheist to Christian" thing.

I love that they want to show the Great War and the worlds imagined by the authors directly, it's a what I would do. Just put some Quenya in the film!

Look a genealogical tree!

http://www.glyphweb..../thorondor.html

: ROTFLMAO:

lol at the genealogical tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

We have a Tolkien thread? :o Why am I only hearing of this now?!

And I've sadly only been to 2 places on that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I never expected there to be Tolkien fans serious enough to start a Tolkien thread here! People already get accused of being serious fanboys for enjoying the films! I didn't know if JWFan could handle Tolkien discussions before accused of geekiness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...wow...that was stupid of me...

Uhm, I've been to Merton College and the Lauterbrunnen Valley in Switzerland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to Cremers out on me, then I'll have to spend hours digging for photos, but no guarantees on the paper label. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is that what I need to do so people know I'm real ? Pics with "Ren" on it?

And I think it's official. When something is to be proven we have to Cremer it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

just noticed that Tolkien used an anacronistic description in An Unexpected Party. he describes the firework version of Smaug, that Gandalf sets of at the party. "The dragon passed like an express train."

unlike in The Hobbit, Tolkien avoids using anacronism in the main text of LOTR. i wonder if this was an oversight, or done on purpose to connect the early chapters to the style and prose of The Hobbit. Certainly LOTR started out as 'just' a sequel to that book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shire itself is a sort of anachronistic setting in that it has the feel of a mid-19th century England countryside rather than being part of the more ancient Medieval outside world. I think the opening of the Lord of the Rings is certainly written on purpose with a bit of anachronistic whimsy, linking it to the Hobbit, starting off innocently enought before the darker turn in the plot and also presenting subtly the sense of isolation from the rest of the world. The Shire is a sort of unique microcosm of its own, guarded and defended unbeknownst to the Hobbits, who live in a bubble of blissful ignorance of the events beyond their borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Tolkien went out of his way to emphasize the isolated nature of The Shire. How the Shire keeps to its self with consistency, how it's just different from the Middle-Earth that surrounds it. It couldn't be touched by the comings and goings of the world.

Which is what makes The Scouring of the Shire all the more significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.