Off Topic: A furor in Italy

Hello,

I normally only lurk, but I've been asked to help spread the word, so
I am spreading. I received an email this morning with a disturbing
topic. An apparently well-known Italian journalist reporting from
Cannes has associated Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings with Nazism.
Her views are not universally shared. And though it may seem to some
that Italian Tolkien fans could deal with this, for reasons not made
clear to me, I was included in a distribution asking for general
support from fans world wide.

After giving the matter some thought, I posted the following to
Xenite.Org's Middle-earth mailing list a short while ago. I'm
reposting this to a number of mailing lists and forums I participate
in or lurk on.

Okay,

I have read the email and I have looked at the Web sites and I have
come to the realization that...I don't read Italian. I honestly have
no idea of what to do about this. Is it worth generating a huge
furor over? Maybe. I'm not sure that blasting Natalia Aspesi for
calling Tolkien's book "A little bit Naziskin" is the answer.

Her original article is posted here:

http://www.repubblica.it/quotidiano/repubblica/20010511/spettacoli/60a
spesi2.html

Will flooding the Web with outrage garner a retraction? I have no
idea. How big are these guys who have taken up Tolkien's cause? I
have no idea.

Still, much as I'm tempted to sit on the whole thing, I really don't
have the right to decide for the rest of you whether to launch the
ships of war or not. And maybe all the other big Tolkien fan sites
have been contacted anyway.

I try to read a translation of the Aspesi article. Unfortunately,
online translators don't do a very good job.

···

From: "Robert Bernocchi" <r.bernocchi@caltanet.it>
Subject: The Lord of the Rings is a nazi book???
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:13:09 +0200

Today (11/5/2001) the very important italian newspaper La Repubblica
published an article from the Cannes Film Festival by big Italian
journalist Natalia Aspesi who insulted: 1) the memory of J.R.R.
Tolkien 2) his best literary work The Lord of the Rings 3) the huge
mass of fans who, in each part of the Earth, love this book since its
first edition in 1956.

Writing about the LOTR Cannes Day Natalia Aspesi used these words:
&this fantasy saga, A LITTLE BIT NAZISKIN, written by the English
philologist J.R. Talkien (you read it right, she wrote J.R. Talkien,
N.d.R.) whose book, for his celtic mythology passion, will be used in
the formigonbossiane schools (Formigoni and Bossi are two
conservative Italian politicians who want, especially Bossi, to
separate Lombardia country from the rest of Italian nation. Bossi is
a friend of Austrian politician filo-nazist Haider, N.d.R.) as basis
text . We suppose that Natalia Aspesi didn t read the book. The
article is full of other mistakes as Jan McKellen instead of Ian
McKellen and wickednesses as describing Liv Tyler as fat and LOTR
fans as a sort of maniac, psychopathic persons who will go crazy if
the costumes of the movie won t be the same described in the three
books. She attacks also the New Line budget strategy. Can you imagine
anything more offensive?

For now we are the only journalists who took position against Aspesi
words on our LOTR Italian site
(http://www.caltanet.it/frm/cinema/home.html?../../html_pag/spettacolo
/cinema/eventi/signoreanelli_indice.htm) with an article of our
director Francesco Alò. Aspesi is one of the biggest Italian
journalist and La Repubblica is the second Italian newspaper for
readers and sales.

If you want to protest with us, please publish this mail and invite
your readers to send their opinion at our dedicated e-mail address
tolkien@caltanet.it. We will collect all the letters and we ll write
to La Repubblica . Please join us.

Robert Bernocchi, web journalist

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:

Hello,

I normally only lurk, but I've been asked to help spread the word,

so

I am spreading. I received an email this morning with a disturbing
topic. An apparently well-known Italian journalist reporting from
Cannes has associated Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings with

Nazism.

Tolkien Online has posted a translation at:
http://www3.tolkienonline.com/docs/2565.html

She is apparently calling all Tolkien fans Nazi Skinheads.

greetings.

I read from the latest message down, so forgive me if
it appears that i'm jumping into this if someone else
has already answered it ....

> I am spreading. I received an email this morning
with a disturbing
> topic. An apparently well-known Italian
journalist reporting from
> Cannes has associated Tolkien and The Lord of the
Rings with Nazism.

point number
1) not everything that everyone say is always true. Or
should be believed.
2) Tolkien was VERY CLEAR that the LoRT was NOT based
on WWII. He even gave out an alternate ending if he
has based it on WWII. Tolkien served as a british
trooper in WWI. I didn't read this bio in bree9, but I
think he lost two of his best mates (out of three) to
the germans in that war. And his health was shattered.
He is unlikely to have any great desire to follow
Germany after that.
3) actually I think he disliked the french (I think
after his treatment when he once worked over there),
and he didn't say what he felt about the germans.
4) Tolkien has often be accused of racism. And IMO
thats one of the milder critisms of nazism. Since both
tolkien and nazism have both been accused of racism,
it doesn't take any great intelligence to say that are
the same. Yeah sure. Its like 'I see a cow on the
farm. That cow is brown. And cows I see are brown. So
all cows in the world are brown'. I don't think so.
5) To the answer 'was tolkien associated with nazism',
I would clearly say no. I can't even imagine how you
could prove it to an thinking person.
6) to the answer 'was tolkien racist ?', I would say
'that depends on what you mean'. For nazism, some
races (like the jews) were inferior to ourselves. For
tolkien, some races (like the noldor or the high men)
were racially superior to ourselves.
7) tolkien's love of the hobbit's lifestyle and
independants is one of the best reasons to reject the
nazi-lort link (actually I don't know what the nazi
belief system is, so i'm on shaky ground here). But I
don't think adolf would have wanted germany to be like
the shire.

And in tolkien's defense, he wasn't the only one who
felt that some people were blessed by God for what
nation they were from. The key difference was that
tolkien didn't put anyone down. Even the orcs were the
victims of someone else.

I don't think the LoTR can be linked with nazism. And
I certainly don't think they makes everyone who reads
it nazi skinheads.

I think the term is 'any news is good news'. And he is
doing it since the world is looking at cannes, and the
movie is about to come out soon.

Ignore him.

thanks
din

p.s I don't know about you, but I like tolkien and I'm
not a nazi skinhead. So the bloke is what the aussies
say 'full of it'.

···

Tolkien Online has posted a translation at:
http://www3.tolkienonline.com/docs/2565.html

She is apparently calling all Tolkien fans Nazi
Skinheads.

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

7) tolkien's love of the hobbit's lifestyle and
independants is one of the best reasons to reject the
nazi-lort link (actually I don't know what the nazi
belief system is, so i'm on shaky ground here). But I
don't think adolf would have wanted germany to be like
the shire.

Sharkey (Saruman) metaphorically got the trains running on time but was then killed by his follower. = Mussolini, perhaps.

In fact, if we want to, we can extend the parallels a lot further, eg Sauron = Hitler, Nazgul = Goering, Goebbels, etc. How about the Ring as the atom bomb (whichever side has it can win). Maybe in Tolkien's alternate ending, Gandalf or Denethor did take up the Ring & use it to defeat Sauron.

Of course, all of this makes out LOTR as an anti-Nazi book. If I wished, I'm sure I could draw up parallels with any conflict in history. Hmm, maybe it's just a good book with a well thought out background and not propaganda, after all.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In fact, if we want to, we can extend the parallels a lot further, eg
Sauron = Hitler, Nazgul = Goering, Goebbels, etc. How about the Ring
as the atom bomb (whichever side has it can win). Maybe in Tolkien's
alternate ending, Gandalf or Denethor did take up the Ring & use it to
defeat Sauron.
Of course, all of this makes out LOTR as an anti-Nazi book. If I
wished, I'm sure I could draw up parallels with any conflict in
history. Hmm, maybe it's just a good book with a well thought out
background and not propaganda, after all.

People have been searching for parallels ever since the book was
first released, and there are even books written about this topic.
Tolkien clearly stated that his world and writings were only fiction
and did not contain any intentional metaphores or parallels to RL
events or people, but that all readers will read the book in
different ways and find their own parallels. On the other hand, he
has of course been affected by the wars and politics during his
childhood and adult years, and like all authors the inspiration must
in part have come from these experiences, even though his imagination
was incredibly vivid.

/Pontus Gustavsson

Quite true that JRRT disavowed any intentional parallels with the modern
world or its players, but also quite true that the struggle between good and
evil is so archetypal that broad parallels are inevitably going to appear
regardless of his intention. The brief glimpses into the mind & heart of
darkness -- whether the banality of evil (Snaga and Gorbag), or the
corruption of free will (Grima, Saruman, the Nazgul, even Sauron the Maia),
or even the incomprehensible original evil (Shelob and her 'mother') -- are
all pretty fundamental archetypes. The Bavarian corporal, not to mention
Uncle Joe, pretty clearly fit into the first and second categories, after
which it's just a matter of coincidence and unhappy accident (or fate and
will, if you prefer) that they gained the power to do large evil instead of
the petty variety we see every day from people like them.

I think, though, that the "furor" in question is probably fueled much more
by the other plentiful evidence that JRRT was a man of his times and his
upbringing. Adopt for a moment today's perspective of political
correctness, and then review the LOTR's treatment of "sallow-faced" and
"slant-eyed" orcs and half-orcs, the primitive and quick-to-evil "lesser"
men of the south who ride the elephantine Mumakil and are "black-skinned"
"red-tongued" and "white-eyed", and the characterization of all the best of
humanity (and the First Born) as tall, light-complexioned, and fine-featured
types who inhabit the "northwest of Middle Earth, east of the Sea". Some
will inevitably call that world-view Eurocentric or racist, and you know
what, they may be right! JRRT was a South Africa-born Englishman of his
time, and quite probably believed in the moral superiority of his own race
and culture (just as he was enamored of the English country life). So what?
So did most great figures of our millenia-old civilizations, both East and
West, North and South, notwithstanding the "modern" sensibilities of
tiresome, guilt-ridden, self-hating and Western culture-hating thought
police of the decaying West. Such tiresome people should just be left
alone, you can't talk sense to them.

If we must mount counter-demonstrations, let the signs read: "Lighten Up,
It's Just a Story" and let it go at that.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Pontus Gustavsson <pontus@gustavsson.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Off Topic: A furor in Italy

> In fact, if we want to, we can extend the parallels a lot further, eg
> Sauron = Hitler, Nazgul = Goering, Goebbels, etc. How about the Ring
> as the atom bomb (whichever side has it can win). Maybe in Tolkien's
> alternate ending, Gandalf or Denethor did take up the Ring & use it to
> defeat Sauron.
> Of course, all of this makes out LOTR as an anti-Nazi book. If I
> wished, I'm sure I could draw up parallels with any conflict in
> history. Hmm, maybe it's just a good book with a well thought out
> background and not propaganda, after all.

People have been searching for parallels ever since the book was
first released, and there are even books written about this topic.
Tolkien clearly stated that his world and writings were only fiction
and did not contain any intentional metaphores or parallels to RL
events or people, but that all readers will read the book in
different ways and find their own parallels. On the other hand, he
has of course been affected by the wars and politics during his
childhood and adult years, and like all authors the inspiration must
in part have come from these experiences, even though his imagination
was incredibly vivid.

/Pontus Gustavsson

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Quite true that JRRT disavowed any intentional parallels with the modern
world or its players, but also quite true that the struggle between good

and

evil is so archetypal that broad parallels are inevitably going to appear
regardless of his intention. The brief glimpses into the mind & heart of
darkness -- whether the banality of evil (Snaga and Gorbag), or the
corruption of free will (Grima, Saruman, the Nazgul, even Sauron the

Maia),

or even the incomprehensible original evil (Shelob and her 'mother') --

are

all pretty fundamental archetypes. The Bavarian corporal, not to mention
Uncle Joe, pretty clearly fit into the first and second categories, after
which it's just a matter of coincidence and unhappy accident (or fate and
will, if you prefer) that they gained the power to do large evil instead

of

the petty variety we see every day from people like them.

I think, though, that the "furor" in question is probably fueled much more
by the other plentiful evidence that JRRT was a man of his times and his
upbringing. Adopt for a moment today's perspective of political
correctness, and then review the LOTR's treatment of "sallow-faced" and
"slant-eyed" orcs and half-orcs, the primitive and quick-to-evil "lesser"
men of the south who ride the elephantine Mumakil and are "black-skinned"
"red-tongued" and "white-eyed", and the characterization of all the best

of

humanity (and the First Born) as tall, light-complexioned, and

fine-featured

types who inhabit the "northwest of Middle Earth, east of the Sea". Some
will inevitably call that world-view Eurocentric or racist, and you know
what, they may be right! JRRT was a South Africa-born Englishman of his
time, and quite probably believed in the moral superiority of his own race
and culture (just as he was enamored of the English country life). So

what?

So did most great figures of our millenia-old civilizations, both East and
West, North and South, notwithstanding the "modern" sensibilities of
tiresome, guilt-ridden, self-hating and Western culture-hating thought
police of the decaying West. Such tiresome people should just be left
alone, you can't talk sense to them.

If we must mount counter-demonstrations, let the signs read: "Lighten Up,
It's Just a Story" and let it go at that.

RD: the Aspesi woman is probably just another journo looking for a
SENSATIONAL story. She might have more credibility if she could spell
Tolkien's name correctly.

Richard.

From: Pontus Gustavsson <pontus@gustavsson.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Off Topic: A furor in Italy

> > In fact, if we want to, we can extend the parallels a lot further, eg
> > Sauron = Hitler, Nazgul = Goering, Goebbels, etc. How about the Ring
> > as the atom bomb (whichever side has it can win). Maybe in Tolkien's
> > alternate ending, Gandalf or Denethor did take up the Ring & use it to
> > defeat Sauron.
> > Of course, all of this makes out LOTR as an anti-Nazi book. If I
> > wished, I'm sure I could draw up parallels with any conflict in
> > history. Hmm, maybe it's just a good book with a well thought out
> > background and not propaganda, after all.
>
> People have been searching for parallels ever since the book was
> first released, and there are even books written about this topic.
> Tolkien clearly stated that his world and writings were only fiction
> and did not contain any intentional metaphores or parallels to RL
> events or people, but that all readers will read the book in
> different ways and find their own parallels. On the other hand, he
> has of course been affected by the wars and politics during his
> childhood and adult years, and like all authors the inspiration must
> in part have come from these experiences, even though his imagination
> was incredibly vivid.
>
> /Pontus Gustavsson
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
> To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
> http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. W. Tallen" <btallen@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Osheena" <osheena@worldnet.att.net>; "Wiesinger (h)"
<wiesingers@erols.com>; "Chasko, Rock" <RChasko@lvr.state.nm.us>; "Allene
Edwards" <allene_e@bellsouth.net>; <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Off Topic: A furor in Italy

----- Original Message -----
>
>

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "G. W. Tallen" <btallen@w...> wrote:

I think, though, that the "furor" in question is probably fueled

much more

by the other plentiful evidence that JRRT was a man of his times

and his

upbringing.

Tolkien was a man believed in tolerance and condemned racism.

Adopt for a moment today's perspective of political
correctness, and then review the LOTR's treatment of "sallow-faced"

and

"slant-eyed" orcs and half-orcs,

Only the Uruk-hai of Isengard are described as slant-eyed. Of
course, Tolkien pointed out in his criticism of the Morton Grady
Zimmerman script that Orcs were "degraded and repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types".

the primitive and quick-to-evil "lesser"
men of the south who ride the elephantine Mumakil and are "black-

skinned"

"red-tongued" and "white-eyed"

Only Tolkien's troll-men, a fantasy race of giant, black-skinned
humanoids, are described in this fashion. And there is nothing in
the book which states or implies that they or any other race
were "quick-to-evil". Most of the evil men in Tolkien are, in fact,
Numenoreans.

and the characterization of all the best of
humanity (and the First Born) as tall, light-complexioned, and fine-

featured

types who inhabit the "northwest of Middle Earth, east of the Sea".

Elven evil is a big though subtle issue in LoTR (they made the Rings
of Power for purely selfish reasons, and then withheld information
about the Rings from their allies for well over 1500 years). And,
again, the Numenoreans are the most evil race encountered in LoTR.
They tried to take immortality from the Valar.

Your analysis of Tolkien may or may not be intended seriously, but it
is seriously flawed. His South African background certainly had no
impact on his ideas or beliefs. By today's standards he would be
regarded as a very liberal and forward-thinking man. It's only
ignorance of Tolkien's life and beliefs which leads people to claim
that he was "a man of his times" (which statement itself verges on
nonsense, since "his times" included great strides forward in civil
liberties, women's rights, and imperial objectives for his society).

Michael Martinez wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Michael Martinez" <michael@x> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I normally only lurk, but I've been asked to help spread the word,
so
> I am spreading. I received an email this morning with a disturbing
> topic. An apparently well-known Italian journalist reporting from
> Cannes has associated Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings with
Nazism.

Tolkien Online has posted a translation at:
http://www3.tolkienonline.com/docs/2565.html

She is apparently calling all Tolkien fans Nazi Skinheads.

FWIW:
1.) The Cannes Film Festival is not exactly known as a cradle of erudite
literary or historical analysis;
2.) I am given to understand by some Italian friends (who might be
pulling my leg) that 'La Republica' is a very important Italian paper in
the same way that the National Enquirer is a very important American
paper;
3.) The historical evidence available suggests that Tolkein was not a
fan of many things German - except, perhaps, their extraordinary
language.

But I suspect most of our gentle readers knew that.

-ED \1/

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@e...> wrote:

1.) The Cannes Film Festival is not exactly known as a cradle of

erudite

literary or historical analysis;

No, but it does generate a lot of publicity. And I don't think most
people are looking for authoritative statements about history in
their daily lives.

2.) I am given to understand by some Italian friends (who might be
pulling my leg) that 'La Republica' is a very important Italian

paper in

the same way that the National Enquirer is a very important American
paper;

This is interesting. I have to wonder what the other paper that
started all this is. Maybe I got suckered into helping with a
publicity campaign. Most of the reactions I have seen in various
fora to my announcement have been along the lines of, "It ain't
anything to get worked up over."

3.) The historical evidence available suggests that Tolkein was not

a

fan of many things German - except, perhaps, their extraordinary
language.

But I suspect most of our gentle readers knew that.

He also liked their pre-Wagnerian mythologies. :slight_smile:

--- Michael Martinez <michael@xenite.org> wrote: > ---
In mepbmlist@y..., "G. W. Tallen" <btallen@w...>

wrote:
> I think, though, that the "furor" in question is
probably fueled
much more
> by the other plentiful evidence that JRRT was a
man of his times
and his
> upbringing.

Tolkien was a man believed in tolerance and
condemned racism.

while I have great respect for tolkien, I think its
the wrong approach to have different group of men to
be heavily superior than another group of men. I think
the results that we achieve for ourselves depends
heavily on what choices we make in our life
(background plays a second choice, and genes a distant
third).

It middle earth, greatness was applied since someone
is our family tree slept with the elves (with regards
to the people from south gondor). Or someone didn't
sleep outside their class (as aragorn was the last of
the pure bloods). Or that our ancient grandfather many
times removed picked to live as a man.

the superiority of different elven races isn't so easy
to write off. The noldor are said to be superior to
the other elves (vanyar excluded) since they lived
with the gods, and they learnt a few things in their
time. They also suffered radiation from the two trees
and still glow in the dark :slight_smile:

I think elven superiority in terms of wisdom and
knowledge was heavily due to them learning from the
valar.

> Adopt for a moment today's perspective of
political
> correctness, and then review the LOTR's treatment
of "sallow-faced"
and
> "slant-eyed" orcs and half-orcs,

Only the Uruk-hai of Isengard are described as
slant-eyed. Of
course, Tolkien pointed out in his criticism of the
Morton Grady
Zimmerman script that Orcs were "degraded and
repulsive versions of
the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types".

actually I think orcs were corrupted elves, bred in
darkness and basically didn't come from a nice
background. I don't believe tolkien even thought they
could be mistaken for someone from a certain country.

Most of the evil men in
Tolkien are, in fact,
Numenoreans.

not quite. Who attacked helm's deep ? it was the
humans who lived in the area before the riders were
given the area. They were 'upset' they just lost their
home, and they carried a grudge against rohan.

The easterlings were also not numenoreans. its true
that the corsairs were decended from them, and several
of the nazgul were numenorans (i think three ?), but
not all of them were.

Elven evil is a big though subtle issue in LoTR
(they made the Rings
of Power for purely selfish reasons,

they wanted to see if they could. Typical human
reaction today. 'why climb that mountain ? because it
was there' reaction.

and then
withheld information
about the Rings from their allies for well over 1500
years).

I would do the same. They know sauron had spies, and
they couldn't take the risk of him finding out. They
didn't even trust their own people (read up the
reaction when frodo lets slip that lorien has a ring).

And,
again, the Numenoreans are the most evil race
encountered in LoTR.
They tried to take immortality from the Valar.

IMO the more evil race was the orcs. The creatures
from the undying land were pretty evil (that's sauron
and the balrogs), but as a race ... my money is on the
orcs.

And did they try to take immortality from the valar,
or did they want immortality for themselves ? I think
they wanted it for themselves, and since they didn't
feel it would be given to them, they had to rely on
force to get their way.

Your analysis of Tolkien may or may not be intended
seriously, but it
is seriously flawed. His South African background
certainly had no
impact on his ideas or beliefs. By today's
standards he would be
regarded as a very liberal and forward-thinking man.

i agree. IMO losing tolkien was a great blow to
humanity, and i wish he was still around and writing.
But all things comes to a end. I hope that when his
end was near, he took strength from the courage that
his heros has taken when they were dying.

thanks
m

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote:

while I have great respect for tolkien, I think its
the wrong approach to have different group of men to
be heavily superior than another group of men. I think
the results that we achieve for ourselves depends
heavily on what choices we make in our life
(background plays a second choice, and genes a distant
third).

The Numenoreans were given special gifts beyond those of other Men
precisely because of the choices they (or their forefathers) had
made. Tolkien didn't endow them with special abilities to show that
some men are better than others. He did so to create a fantasy race
which could be used to explore the follies of pride, arrogance, and
racism.

Greatness in Middle-earth has nothing to do with one's ancestry, but
only with the choices and actions one makes.

You've missed the whole point of Tolkien's putting the fate of the
world in the hands of Hobbits if you truly believe he was saying
anyone was better than anyone else.

The Elves' allusions to their dark past are pretty obscure, but the
whole nasty history is provided in summary form. Gandalf even points
out that Elves once served the Enemy's purposes. No one in Tolkien
is above reproach (except God). In his letters, he even crictizes
the Valar for withdrawing to Valinor and raising up worldly defenses
there.

> Only the Uruk-hai of Isengard are described as slant-eyed. Of
> course, Tolkien pointed out in his criticism of the Morton Grady
> Zimmerman script that Orcs were "degraded and repulsive versions

of

> the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types".

actually I think orcs were corrupted elves, bred in
darkness and basically didn't come from a nice
background. I don't believe tolkien even thought they
could be mistaken for someone from a certain country.

Tolkien's comment had nothing to do with speculations on the origins
of the Orcs within the mythology. He was explaining what they should
look like (Zimmerman's script had given the Orcs beaks and feathers,
IIRC).

>Most of the evil men in Tolkien are, in fact,
> Numenoreans.

not quite. Who attacked helm's deep ? it was the
humans who lived in the area before the riders were
given the area. They were 'upset' they just lost their
home, and they carried a grudge against rohan.

A few thousand Dunlendings who have been lied to hardly constitute
evil men, and their assault on Helm's Deep pales next to Numenor's
assault on Valinor.

You've missed the whole point of my statement completely. The
Numenoreans CHOSE to be evil. Most other men did not make that
choice. They were conquered, enslaved, or born into societies
dominated by Sauron.

> Elven evil is a big though subtle issue in LoTR
> (they made the Rings of Power for purely selfish reasons,

they wanted to see if they could. Typical human
reaction today. 'why climb that mountain ? because it
was there' reaction.

No, they wanted to halt change in Middle-earth so that they wouldn't
have to leave it. That is only vaguely implied in LoTR itself. You
have to read Tolkien's letters to get the full explanation.

But the fact that the Elves made the Rings of Power is very clearly
spelled out in the book. Had they not made the Rings of Power, there
would have been no War of the Ring, there would have been no Lord of
the Rings.

> and then withheld information about the Rings from their allies

for well over 1500

> years).

I would do the same. They know sauron had spies, and
they couldn't take the risk of him finding out. They
didn't even trust their own people (read up the
reaction when frodo lets slip that lorien has a ring).

Neither of us can speak for Tolkien or his characters on this issue,
but I did tackle some of the possible motivations the Elves had
in "Shhh! It's a secret Ring!" in my January 19 article at Suite101:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/58090

Sauron already knew about the Rings of Power. He had helped to make
most of them. The Elves certainly didn't want Sauron to find the
Three which had been hidden, so naturally they didn't reveal who had
them. But my point was that the Elves never told the Numenoreans
about the true causes for the War of the Elves and Sauron. The
Numenoreans showed up and saved the day out of friendship for the
Eldar. But they were drawn into a war between two sides which were
not either wholly good. The Elves were more good than Sauron, but
the Elves had still committed a very evil plan.

Gandalf said that the Valar would not have accepted the One Ring had
it been sent over Sea. I suspect they wouldn't have accepted any
working Ring of Power had its keeper tried to take over Sea.

And did they try to take immortality from the valar,
or did they want immortality for themselves ? I think
they wanted it for themselves, and since they didn't
feel it would be given to them, they had to rely on
force to get their way.

Of course the Numenoreans wanted immortality for themseleves. That
is why they tried to take it from the Valar. The Orcs didn't set up
temples to Melkor and sacrifice people to him. The Orcs didn't
invade Aman and demand immortality. The Orcs didn't even come close
to equalling the evil of the Numenoreans.

Tolkien's history of the Numenoreans is very tragic. It deals with
the most fallen part of Mankind. There are ironies scattered
throughout the history of Numenor and its successor kingdoms.

The Numenoreans were given special gifts beyond those of other Men
precisely because of the choices they (or their forefathers) had
made. Tolkien didn't endow them with special abilities to show that
some men are better than others. He did so to create a fantasy race
which could be used to explore the follies of pride, arrogance, and
racism.

Greatness in Middle-earth has nothing to do with one's ancestry, but
only with the choices and actions one makes.

Oh please. Ancestry, in such cultures, has much to do with greatness. It
defines what choices one has. No Dunlending, nor Breelander, nor even
Rohirrim, no matter how noble, brave, or intelligent, could have ridden the
Paths of the Dead, or been granted command of the last host of the West, or
ascended to the Kingship of Gondor. You had to have the blood. None but
the descendants of Elros, with the strengths and knowledge granted to them,
could have contemplated an assault upon Valinor. In this myth, as in life,
great men faced great choices, but when they chose well and you honor them
for it, don't forget the ancestry that placed them there.

You've missed the whole point of Tolkien's putting the fate of the
world in the hands of Hobbits if you truly believe he was saying
anyone was better than anyone else.

Indeed. It always starts somewhere, and sometimes, even in heirachical
societies, it starts with the humble. Without the hobbits this would have
been an interesting but ultimately shallow piece of work.

However, many people are, individually and sometimes collectively, "better"
than others, usually as a consequence of the choices they make, in the
context of their lives and times. Why is this such an awful concept? In
Middle Earth terms, many tribes of man faced the same choices as the Edain,
and most failed of the test. Does this make them, in a collective sense,
"lesser"? Damn right. And Tolkien knew it. If your modern sensibility
can't handle the distinction, too bad. Maybe you can blame it on the
schools.

> > Tolkien pointed out in his criticism of the Morton Grady
> > Zimmerman script that Orcs were "degraded and repulsive versions
of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types".
>
> actually I think orcs were corrupted elves, bred in
> darkness and basically didn't come from a nice
> background. I don't believe tolkien even thought they
> could be mistaken for someone from a certain country.

Tolkien's comment had nothing to do with speculations on the origins
of the Orcs within the mythology. He was explaining what they should
look like (Zimmerman's script had given the Orcs beaks and feathers,
IIRC).

Yes of course. My point is that this corrupted, evil race was VISUALIZED as
a mixture of Neanderthal (intriguing thought) and Mongolian in appearance.
Very effective visually, but have you asked any Asian readers what they
think of this? And before you turn all sanctimonious on me, and preach
again about how "liberal" and "tolerant" JRRT was, please Get My Point: It
doesn't matter! His imagery is potent and effective for me and for most of
his intended audience. He was a man of his times, and probably lost little
sleep over the thought that his image of goblins might cause offense to
Orientals. Big deal.

>
> >Most of the evil men in Tolkien are, in fact,
> > Numenoreans.
>
> not quite. Who attacked helm's deep ? it was the
> humans who lived in the area before the riders were
> given the area. They were 'upset' they just lost their
> home, and they carried a grudge against rohan.

A few thousand Dunlendings who have been lied to hardly constitute
evil men, and their assault on Helm's Deep pales next to Numenor's
assault on Valinor.

You've missed the whole point of my statement completely. The
Numenoreans CHOSE to be evil. Most other men did not make that
choice. They were conquered, enslaved, or born into societies
dominated by Sauron.

"...born into..." ?? This sounds awfully like an apology for the evil deeds
of Southrons and Easterlings because of their -- ancestry?? I thought it
was a matter of choice? I'm so confused. Oh, I get it -- it's like
affirmative action. We must help our (equal) brothers, because they
certainly couldn't make it on their own. Condescending double standard.

Neither of us can speak for Tolkien or his characters on this issue,
but >

You certainly try. But I've no doubt Missed the Whole Point, Completely.
:slight_smile:

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Martinez <michael@xenite.org>

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "G. W. Tallen" <btallen@w...> wrote:

From: Michael Martinez <michael@x...>
> Greatness in Middle-earth has nothing to do with one's ancestry,

but

> only with the choices and actions one makes.

Oh please. Ancestry, in such cultures, has much to do with

greatness. It

defines what choices one has.

By that reasoning, Sam could never have become great. Nor, in fact,
cold Beor, or Hador, or Haleth. None of those characters had
any "great" ancestors.

In fact, Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe (and Olwe) were all the first kings
of the Elves. What did they inherit from their ancestors to justify
their "greatness"?

Who rode the Paths of the Dead had nothing to do with "greatness".
That was simply the destiny Aragorn inherited from Isildur. It
didn't make him great, noble, better, higher, superior, or anything
else with respect to anyone else.

And as for contemplating an assault on Valinor, that idea came from
Sauron in the first place. It had nothing to do with who was a
descendant of whom.

However, many people are, individually and sometimes

collectively, "better"

than others, usually as a consequence of the choices they make, in

the

context of their lives and times.

Whatever you believe, that wasn't Tolkien's belief, and he certainly
wasn't writing anything like that. His stories constantly have
the "lower" people saving the day (hence it is Beren, a man bereft of
property, kin, and lordship who recovers a Silmaril, instead of the
Kings of the Noldor) or righting wrongs (Earendil, a Half-elf, speaks
on behalf of Elves and Men and wins a pardon from the Valar for the
rebellious Noldor).

What makes one great in Tolkien is simply the choices one makes, the
actions one pursues. The only case of any being starting out "great"
or "superior" resulted in his decline into self-diminishment.
Sauron's attempt to make himself greater than he had been ultimately
resulted in his becoming a weak and impotent shadow of his former
self.

> Tolkien's comment had nothing to do with speculations on the

origins

> of the Orcs within the mythology. He was explaining what they

should

> look like (Zimmerman's script had given the Orcs beaks and

feathers,

> IIRC).

Yes of course. My point is that this corrupted, evil race was

VISUALIZED as

a mixture of Neanderthal (intriguing thought) and Mongolian in

appearance.

Neanderthal? There is nothing Neanderthalic about the Orcs. Tolkien
certainly never made any such comparison. Nor are they described in
any way similar to Neanderthals, who were massively built compared to
modern humans.

And, no, I haven't asked any Asian readers what they think of
Tolkien's use of an exaggerated Asian physicality to depict minor
evil characters in his stories.

And before you turn all sanctimonious on me,

Try and keep the flames to a minimum.

and preach again about how "liberal" and "tolerant" JRRT was,

please Get My Point: It

doesn't matter! His imagery is potent and effective for me and for

most of

his intended audience. He was a man of his times, and probably

lost little

sleep over the thought that his image of goblins might cause

offense to Orientals. Big deal.

You still have no idea of what you're talking about.
Tolkien's "times" were no different from ours.

Orientals have less reason to take offense at Tolkien's stories than
northern Europeans do. Afterall, he blows the stereotypes that so
many northern Europeans have espoused right out of the water. It's
the blond-haired Numenroeans who screwed mankind, and it's the
mystical Elves who screwed everyone.

> A few thousand Dunlendings who have been lied to hardly constitute
> evil men, and their assault on Helm's Deep pales next to Numenor's
> assault on Valinor.
>
> You've missed the whole point of my statement completely. The
> Numenoreans CHOSE to be evil. Most other men did not make that
> choice. They were conquered, enslaved, or born into societies
> dominated by Sauron.

"...born into..." ?? This sounds awfully like an apology for the

evil deeds

of Southrons and Easterlings because of their -- ancestry??

That dog won't hunt. Since Tolkien showed readers that Sauron's
servants were seldom "evil", this whole "Dunlendings and Haradrim are
evil" nonsense just doesn't wash.

> Neither of us can speak for Tolkien or his characters on this

issue,

> but >

You certainly try. But I've no doubt Missed the Whole Point,

Completely.

Thank you for setting me straight on my intentions. I'll try not to
make the mistake of thinking I know what I am doing better than you
in the future.

Okay?

···

----- Original Message -----

I'm not going to respond to any more of his nonsense. I've found
that people who turn a discussion into a commentary on the other
person's motives will quickly crank up the heat and then blame the
other person for starting the problem.

G.W., I doubt you'll take my advice, but if you feel compelled to
attack the other person's character, that is a pretty good sign you
have nothing worth saying. Try not to reword what other people say,
and not to attribute intents and motives to them they don't possess,
and you'll make more friends.

>

Oh please. Ancestry, in such cultures, has much to
do with greatness. It
defines what choices one has. No Dunlending, nor
Breelander, nor even
Rohirrim, no matter how noble, brave, or
intelligent, could have ridden the
Paths of the Dead, or been granted command of the
last host of the West, or
ascended to the Kingship of Gondor.

<that's what the problem is. I suggest you look up on
the defination of racism>

You had to have
the blood. None but
the descendants of Elros, with the strengths and
knowledge granted to them,
could have contemplated an assault upon Valinor. In
this myth, as in life,
great men faced great choices, but when they chose
well and you honor them
for it, don't forget the ancestry that placed them
there.

I assume you left out the :slight_smile:

>
> You've missed the whole point of Tolkien's putting
the fate of the
> world in the hands of Hobbits if you truly believe
he was saying
> anyone was better than anyone else.

It wasn't the hobbits who saved the world. It was
frodo. And Frodo wasn't a normal hobbit. While tolkien
showed that the hobbits lifestyle could be considered
superior to the other races lifestyle (based on
personal happiness), it would be a boring world is
only the hobbits lived there.

Indeed. It always starts somewhere, and sometimes,
even in heirachical
societies, it starts with the humble. Without the
hobbits this would have
been an interesting but ultimately shallow piece of
work.

I've read a few old sci-fi books which deal with super
weapons, massive ships, dangerous enemies, great
heros. etc. etc. These heros were not humble, and they
were great reads.

> schools.

> Tolkien's comment had nothing to do with
speculations on the origins
> of the Orcs within the mythology. He was
explaining what they should
> look like (Zimmerman's script had given the Orcs
beaks and feathers,
> IIRC).

I missed that point. And tolkien would have been
'upset' with the beaks and feathers. They were NOT
birds, he was very clear that the orcs were corrupted
elves.

>
> A few thousand Dunlendings who have been lied to
hardly constitute
> evil men, and their assault on Helm's Deep pales
next to Numenor's
> assault on Valinor.

I thought we were talking about the Lord of the Rings,
and tolkien ?

If we changed our topic to cover the entire time-span,
then its a toss up over the easterlings or the
numenoreans.

It true that the numenoreans did great deed AND great
evil, but it was the easterlings who betrayed the good
guys in the battle of unnumbered tears. Changing sides
decided the war - any guesses on who won :).

And the easterlings kept on working with Morgoth, and
then sauron down the ages.

So what's worse - one group of people who do great
good and great evil, or another group of people who
did one great evil and lots of little evil acts.

hard call. And in the easterlings defenses, they
didn't think they were the evil ones.

thanks
m

p.s am i the only one who is getting lost ? I must
stop replying since i've got other things to do than
write essays on this.

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote:

Tolkien's comment had nothing to do with speculations on the origins
of the Orcs within the mythology. He was explaining what they

should

look like (Zimmerman's script had given the Orcs beaks and feathers,
IIRC).

I missed that point. And tolkien would have been
'upset' with the beaks and feathers. They were NOT
birds, he was very clear that the orcs were corrupted
elves.

I didn't cite the full passage to begin with. If you were relying
upon what I posted for your comment, you're not at fault, I am. I
certainly didn't intend to set you up. It's hard to tell who has the
Letters and who doesn't.

A few thousand Dunlendings who have been lied to hardly constitute
evil men, and their assault on Helm's Deep pales next to Numenor's
assault on Valinor.

I thought we were talking about the Lord of the Rings,
and tolkien ?

Absolutely. The Dunlendings are not evil. They are hateful and
vengeful, but then, they had a 500-year-old grievance: they had been
driven from their lands by the Rohirrim. Gondor may not have had any
problem with giving the land to Eorl and his army, but the
inhabitants sure did.

So, does that resentment make them evil?

If we changed our topic to cover the entire time-span,
then its a toss up over the easterlings or the
numenoreans.

How so? The first Easterlings mentioned in LoTR's histories are just
looking for new lands. By the time Sauron shows up, Gondor has
become imperialistic and expansionistic. By the time the histories
indicate that Sauron is actively using the Easterlings, the
Gondorians have already started down the path toward the Kin-strife.

It true that the numenoreans did great deed AND great
evil, but it was the easterlings who betrayed the good
guys in the battle of unnumbered tears. Changing sides
decided the war - any guesses on who won :).

Slow down, here. That isn't from LoTR, it's from The Silmarillion.
And though the Folk of Ulfang did betray the Noldor, the Folk of Bor
remained faithful and they paid the ultimate price: they were wiped
out. Not all Easterlings were evil, just as not all Numenoreans were
evil.

And the easterlings kept on working with Morgoth, and
then sauron down the ages.

No, Sauron did not regain control over Morgoth's evil Easterlings
right away. In fact, he controlled less of Middle-earth in the
Second Age than he did at the end of the Third Age.

So what's worse - one group of people who do great
good and great evil, or another group of people who
did one great evil and lots of little evil acts.

The Edain of Beleriand did not equal the courage and faithfulness of
the Folk of Bor. The closest the Edain came to making that kind of
sacrifice was Hurin and Huor's last stand in the Fens of Serech. But
their wives and children still survived.

hard call. And in the easterlings defenses, they
didn't think they were the evil ones.

Most of the Easterlings in the Third Age probably were not evil by
anyone's standards. The scene where Sam looks at the dead Southron
makes it very clear that there is room for doubt about the intentions
of the common warriors who have been brought to fight Gondor by
Sauron and his captains and subject-kings.

And if we're looking for symbolic resonances of evil, then the Lord
of the Nazgul was a Numenorean. Khamul the Black Easterling was
apparently not evil enough to be number 1. His nickname, "the Black
Easterling", also implies that not all Easterlings were evil.

sorry all.

I've been reading from top-down, so i don't know if
I've replied to this already.

but I couldn't help it.

The Numenoreans were given special gifts beyond
those of other Men
precisely because of the choices they (or their
forefathers) had
made. Tolkien didn't endow them with special
abilities to show that
some men are better than others.

what a load of crap. Lets see what they built compared
to what the riders build. Then we see who had the
ability.

He did so to

create a fantasy race
which could be used to explore the follies of pride,
arrogance, and
racism.

I'll go with pride and arrogance without a doubt.

>
The Elves' allusions to their dark past are pretty
obscure,

no it wasn't. The elven kinslaying was recorded and
told (and repeated a few times). The fact that the
noldor language wasn't used as the official language
of the elves was a badge of shame that the elven king
in middle earth placed on the noldor - guess who
forgot his name :frowning:

but the

whole nasty history is provided in summary form.
Gandalf even points
out that Elves once served the Enemy's purposes.

points it out ? He was EXTREMELY BLUNT when he had
morgorth laugh as the antics of some of the noldor.
Tolkien has the sons of feanor do some pretty evil
deeds.

No
one in Tolkien
is above reproach (except God).

I disagree. The gods in valarinor did some pretty
stupid things, ie releasing morgorth comes to mind,
letting sauron go free after morgorth loses comes
seconds. They also said 'OOPS' when they taught the
elves how to make swords.

In his letters, he
even crictizes
the Valar for withdrawing to Valinor and raising up
worldly defenses
there.

yeap. I forgot about that one.

> > Elven evil is a big though subtle issue in LoTR
> > (they made the Rings of Power for purely selfish
reasons,
>
> they wanted to see if they could. Typical human
> reaction today. 'why climb that mountain ? because
it
> was there' reaction.

No, they wanted to halt change in Middle-earth so
that they wouldn't
have to leave it.

I disagree. Only the three elven rings had that
ability. They made a lot more rings. I think the
elves loved nature, and they wouldn't have loved to
see trees grow and then die. Not to mention the
different effects of the seasons on the land. If they
didn't want change, they would hold the seasons in
place, but they didn't.

And a small point. Some of the elves were banned from
returning (as they were not given permission to
leave). I think the maker of the elven rings (who was
the grandson of feanor) was born in middle earth, and
thus wasn't under the ban from going back.

But the fact that the Elves made the Rings of Power
is very clearly
spelled out in the book.

where ? And which book.

Had they not made the
Rings of Power, there
would have been no War of the Ring, there would have
been no Lord of
the Rings.

NO !!!!!! Sauron was a badie before the rings were
made, and he was a badie after the rings were made.

I shudder to say this, but have you read the earlier
books that talk about the first age ? If you had, then
you would know that Sauron had been making trouble for
a long time.

Sauron used the rings to improve his abilities so he
became much worse. But even without the ring he wasn't
a nice person, and would have continued the war with
the elves.

>
> I would do the same. They know sauron had spies,
and
> they couldn't take the risk of him finding out.
They
> didn't even trust their own people (read up the
> reaction when frodo lets slip that lorien has a
ring).

Neither of us can speak for Tolkien or his
characters on this issue,
but I did tackle some of the possible motivations
the Elves had
in "Shhh! It's a secret Ring!" in my January 19
article at Suite101:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/58090

never been there, never plan to be there. What does it
say ?

Sauron already knew about the Rings of Power. He
had helped to make
most of them.

yeap. I think most people who read tolkien would know
that.

The Elves certainly didn't want
Sauron to find the
Three which had been hidden, so naturally they
didn't reveal who had
them.

yeap again.

But my point was that the Elves never told
the Numenoreans
about the true causes for the War of the Elves and
Sauron.

??? The war of the elves and sauron was a continuation
of the First Age war by morgorth against the elves. In
this war saruon was one of the main henchmen of
morgorth. The numenoreans (before they became the
numenoreans) joined the war on the elven side. After
morgoth was defeated, Sauron went in hiding. Later on
he appears to continue the fight (I think tolkien said
that morgoth's influence was still around). I think
sauron fought since he wanted to rule (same reason why
morgoth come to middle earth).

While the Noldor came over was a different reason :slight_smile:

The
Numenoreans showed up and saved the day out of
friendship for the
Eldar.

Which time are you talking about ? They appears a few
times to save the day. The main time was when they
'captured' sauron. Another time was the last alliange.

But they were drawn into a war between two
sides which were
not either wholly good. The Elves were more good
than Sauron, but
the Elves had still committed a very evil plan.

What evil plan ?? And I think the elves were (in the
vast majority) good. They might not care much about
the humans, but that doesn't make them evil. And they
did help out the humans every now and then (like when
Galadrial helped the original men from rohan reach
Gondor in time).

Gandalf said that the Valar would not have accepted
the One Ring had
it been sent over Sea. I suspect they wouldn't have
accepted any
working Ring of Power had its keeper tried to take
over Sea.

I agree. The lesser rings were evil since saruon
helped make them, and the Valar had seen enough evil
and corruption in the first age. They would have tried
very hard to stop any more evil influence entering
their lands.

but the elven rings were not made with sauron's help,
and they were not evil. But since the elves used the
knowledge that Sauron had given him, they were still
linked to the one-ring.

It hard to say would the valar reject someone like
elrond going to the undying lands when his ring was
still around, but I would admit you are correct. At
this stage the valar would say 'your problem'.

>

Of course the Numenoreans wanted immortality for
themseleves. That
is why they tried to take it from the Valar.

wanted immortality for themselves, and taking it from
the valar are not the same thing.

I think if you read the books, that the numenoreans
were told that it was living on the undying lands that
granted immortality (which was a lie). So just going
there would have been enough.

The
Orcs didn't set up
temples to Melkor and sacrifice people to him.

??? They treated morgorth as a god. They would have
done that if morgorth asked them. The books were
written from the good people's point of view, and not
many of them were able to go into morgoth's place to
see if the orcs had temples.

I think they would have temples, and old orcs were not
allowed to retire with a generous payout.

:slight_smile:

The
Orcs didn't
invade Aman and demand immortality.

if they could, they would. And I forgot what the
humans did when they landed on the undying lands. I do
remember they died very quickly. But they might have
said something.

The Orcs didn't
even come close
to equalling the evil of the Numenoreans.

Count the number of dead elves and humans that the
orcs racked up, check the number of dead elves and
humans that the numeroneans did, and I think the orcs
win by a long way. The people who were sacrifice
people to morgorth were prisoners who were punished. I
think the worship by the numenorean king to morgorth
was done in secret.

Tolkien's history of the Numenoreans is very tragic.

yeap. It was you who said 'pride and arrogance'

i hope this is the last time I have to reply. But I
sometimes feel the need to remind people of the truth

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

Din, you're responding to points I've made about The Lord of the
Rings by referring to The Silmarillion. For my sanity's sake, I'm
excising many of your counterpoints, not to make you look wrong, but
to keep this simple.

There are two discussions between us: I'm talking about the story
being told strictly in The Lord of the Rings and you seem to be
talking about the greater story which includes The Silmarillion and
possibly other books. They are not the same thing.

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote:

> The Numenoreans were given special gifts beyond those of other

Men

> precisely because of the choices they (or their forefathers) had
> made. Tolkien didn't endow them with special abilities to show

that

> some men are better than others.

what a load of crap. Lets see what they built compared
to what the riders build. Then we see who had the
ability.

LOL!

Nope. What a given civilization builds has nothing to do
with "race". The Northmen were from the same "race" as the
Numenoreans. The only differences between them were that those of
the Edain who went to Numenor were given longer lives and greater
stature. Both gifts were retracted throughout the Third Age
(the "diminishment of the Dunedain" Tolkien refers to every now and
then).

> He did so to create a fantasy race which could be used to explore
> the follies of pride, arrogance, and racism.

I'll go with pride and arrogance without a doubt.

The Kin-strife occurred for one reason and one reason only: racism.

In fact, Aragorn is a bit racist when he meets Frodo. He learns over
the ensuing weeks that Hobbits are indeed made of sterner stuff than
they look to be.

And, of course, a lot of people focus on the Elf-Dwarf thing as an
example of racism, although it's never explained in The Lord of the
Rings (in fact, we can't be entirely sure it's ever explained at all,
although a passage in The Peoples of Middle-earth may be the
explanation).

> The Elves' allusions to their dark past are pretty
> obscure,

no it wasn't. The elven kinslaying was recorded and
told (and repeated a few times).

You seem to be compressing The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion
into one storyline, and I have been referring only to The Lord of the
Rings, except where it appears to me you are talking about The
Silmarillion.

There is NO mention in LoTR of the Kinslayings. And the issues
concerning the Rings of Power are really only made clear in Tolkien's
letters.

> No, they wanted to halt change in Middle-earth so
> that they wouldn't have to leave it.

I disagree. Only the three elven rings had that
ability.

No. All the Rings had that ability. You might want to check out my
essay at Suite101, "Connections: The Lore of the Rings":

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/43808

There I quote Tolkien from Letter 131:

"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or
slowing of decay (i.e., 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the
preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance -- this is
more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural
powers of a possessor -- thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily
corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had
other powers, more directly derived from Sauron ('the Necromancer':
so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and presage on the
pages of The Hobbit): such as rendering invisible the material body,
and making things of the invisible world visible.

"The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful
rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the
preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility...."

So, that is straight from Tolkien himself. Like I said, you have to
read the Letters to understand the full score on the Rings of Power.

> Had they not made the Rings of Power, there
> would have been no War of the Ring, there would have
> been no Lord of the Rings.

NO !!!!!! Sauron was a badie before the rings were
made, and he was a badie after the rings were made.

Yes, but had the Elves of Eregion not made the Rings of Power, there
would have been no Rings of Power. Hence, Sauron would not have been
the Lord of the Rings (something more than he was as merely Sauron),
and there would have been no wars fought over the Rings of Power.

I shudder to say this, but have you read the earlier
books that talk about the first age ? If you had, then
you would know that Sauron had been making trouble for
a long time.

Yes, but I've only been talking about The Lord of the Rings. :slight_smile:

> Neither of us can speak for Tolkien or his
> characters on this issue, but I did tackle some of the possible
> motivations the Elves had in "Shhh! It's a secret Ring!" in my
> January 19 article at Suite101:
>
> http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/58090

never been there, never plan to be there. What does it
say ?

Far too much for me to quote here. Which is why I suggested you
check it out. This off topic thread already seems to threaten to
overwhelm the discussions that this list was intended for. I didn't
want to do that.

> But my point was that the Elves never told
> the Numenoreans about the true causes for the War of the Elves and
> Sauron.

??? The war of the elves and sauron was a continuation
of the First Age war by morgorth against the elves.

No, the War of the Elves and Sauron was strictly fought over the
Rings of Power. Although there is very little "canonical" history
concerning the war, a fairly lengthy account was published in
Unfinished Tales. There are some problems with that account (mainly
the fact that Tolkien rejected the entire essay which contained it).

> The Numenoreans showed up and saved the day out of
> friendship for the
> Eldar.

Which time are you talking about ? They appears a few
times to save the day. The main time was when they
'captured' sauron. Another time was the last alliange.

I was only speaking of the War of the Elves and Sauron. And Ar-
Pharazon "captured" Sauron for his own personal pride (and because
Sauron wanted to be taken to Numenor, according to Tolkien). Ar-
Pharazon had no love for the Elves and in fact had nothing to do with
them.

> But they were drawn into a war between two
> sides which were not either wholly good. The Elves were more good
> than Sauron, but the Elves had still committed a very evil plan.

What evil plan ??

The Elves made the Rings of Power to halt change or decay in Middle-
earth. They were trying to delay or prevent their inevitable fading,
when they would become disembodied wraiths. Tolkien explained these
matters in some of his letters (cited in the "Connections" essay).

Yes, the Elves were generally "good", but they were capable of
committing great evil, and did engage in it. And creating the Rings
of Power was a morally wrong action.

but the elven rings were not made with sauron's help,

All but three of the Rings were made with Sauron's help. All the
Rings were made for the Elves' benefit.

> Of course the Numenoreans wanted immortality for
> themseleves. That is why they tried to take it from the Valar.

wanted immortality for themselves, and taking it from
the valar are not the same thing.

Immortality could not be taken from the Valar, who couldn't grant it,
either willingly or under duress. But the point was that the
Numenoreans who invaded Aman committed greater sins than the Orcs.

> The Orcs didn't even come close to equalling the evil of the
> Numenoreans.

Count the number of dead elves and humans that the
orcs racked up, check the number of dead elves and
humans that the numeroneans did, and I think the orcs
win by a long way...

How do you figure that? The Numenoreans began conquering Middle-
earth around SA 1800 and they kept going strong for about 1400
years. A LOT of men most likely died in those centuries.

And then the Kings Men, who remained faithful to Sauron during the
War of the Last Alliance, most likely took a few Elven lives.

And during the Third Age the Black Numenoreans fought against Gondor,
if not against the Elves.

... The people who were sacrifice
people to morgorth were prisoners who were punished. I
think the worship by the numenorean king to morgorth
was done in secret.

"Akallabeth" says that Sauron seduced the Kings Men into sacrificing
members of the Faithful, and that he himself killed many of them in
the temple in Armenelos.

--- Michael Martinez <michael@xenite.org> wrote: >
Din, you're responding to points I've made about The

Lord of the
Rings by referring to The Silmarillion. For my
sanity's sake, I'm
excising many of your counterpoints, not to make you
look wrong, but
to keep this simple.

your not the only one who is confused.

Someone talked about who did the main baddies in the
book. I disagreed, and point out a few battles were
the main baddies were not the ones in question, ie
helm's deep and the main battle at minas tirith.
That's loTR.

Then they ventured off into the other books by talking
about landing on the undying lands, and the human
sacrifice. I pointed out that they scope of the debate
had been widen, and I widen my debate to include the
new rules.

But I wasn't the first to venture outside the LoTR.

There are two discussions between us:

and they are ? I'm getting lost.

I'm talking
about the story
being told strictly in The Lord of the Rings and you
seem to be
talking about the greater story which includes The
Silmarillion and
possibly other books. They are not the same thing.

We agree. This is good.

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote:
> > The Numenoreans were given special gifts beyond
those of other
Men
> > precisely because of the choices they (or their
forefathers) had
> > made. Tolkien didn't endow them with special
abilities to show
that
> > some men are better than others.

that wasn't me. I replied to that.

>
> what a load of crap. Lets see what they built
compared
> to what the riders build. Then we see who had the
> ability.

LOL!

nice answer. :slight_smile:

Nope. What a given civilization builds has nothing
to do
with "race".

I think i've wasting my time here. I'm talking racial
ability.

The Northmen were from the same "race"
as the
Numenoreans.

I think we need to classify 'race'. In my opinion
there are three main races of men. High, middle, and
low. The high are numenoreans, the middle are the
riders of rohan or the northmen, and the low are the
woses.

The only differences between them were
that those of
the Edain who went to Numenor were given longer
lives and greater
stature.

So we both accept they had differences ? This is good.

Both gifts were retracted throughout the
Third Age
(the "diminishment of the Dunedain" Tolkien refers
to every now and
then).

The question should be 'why were the gifts retracted'.
And I seem the remember that the lives of my high men
were still longer then the lives of the northmen.

The Kin-strife occurred for one reason and one
reason only: racism.

I completely agree. The king married a corsair women,
the nobles were 'upset'. When the king died, and the
son took up the kingship, the nobles revolted. I think
they felt the bloodline was now polluted, and they
feared the consquences.

The king fled to corsair, but eventually came back. He
proved a wise and good leader. But the lifespan of the
highmen continued to fall towards that of the other
men.

In fact, Aragorn is a bit racist when he meets
Frodo. He learns over
the ensuing weeks that Hobbits are indeed made of
sterner stuff than
they look to be.

we all make mistakes. I think i've made one by
continuing down this far, I'm really confused over
what we are arguing over.

And, of course, a lot of people focus on the
Elf-Dwarf thing as an
example of racism, although it's never explained in
The Lord of the
Rings (in fact, we can't be entirely sure it's ever
explained at all,
although a passage in The Peoples of Middle-earth
may be the
explanation).

It has been explain
a) the dwarves and the elven fought a large battle
against each other in the first age. The dwarves claim
the elves cheated them (and they were right). So they
raised an army and sacked an elven kingdom. The elves
then destroyed the dwarven army on the way back.
b) the dwarves claim that the elves brought morgoth
back with them. The dwarves claim they ruled the land
before the elves said 'mine, mine, and mine'.
c) its claimed by implication that the dwarves fought
on morgoth's side in the last battle. I disagree, and
I feel some dwarves didn't fight on the elven side.
d) The dwarves didn't help the elves as much as they
had been helping the elves (closing moria is an
example - but I think they accepted some elven
refugees in moria for a short time).
e) the elves think the dwarves destroy the beauty of
the land. No idea what the dwarves think of the elves.

But in the LoTR, the elf and dwarve became great
friends.

There is NO mention in LoTR of the Kinslayings.

of course not. The LoTR is a book about the rings. Its
not a book about middle earth. But when you talk about
middle earth, I assume we are talking about the world.
To answer questions on middle earth, and only refer to
the LoRT is (IMO) a really stupid way to prove a
point.

And
the issues
concerning the Rings of Power are really only made
clear in Tolkien's
letters.

Yes. A few people (like me) felt that middle earth was
a lot bigger than the LoTR, so they asked tolkien for
more info.

No. All the Rings had that ability. You might want
to check out my
essay at Suite101, "Connections: The Lore of the
Rings":

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/43808

I don't have the time to look.

There I quote Tolkien from Letter 131:

"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the
prevention or
slowing of decay (i.e., 'change' viewed as a
regrettable thing), the
preservation of what is desired or loved, or its
semblance -- this is
more or less an Elvish motive.

I don't understand who gave the dwarves their rings.
They didn't share the same ideas as the elves.

But also they
enhanced the natural
powers of a possessor -- thus approaching 'magic', a
motive easily
corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And
finally they had
other powers, more directly derived from Sauron
('the Necromancer':
so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and
presage on the
pages of The Hobbit): such as rendering invisible
the material body,
and making things of the invisible world visible.

"The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful
and powerful
rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and
directed to the
preservation of beauty: they did not confer
invisibility...."

So, that is straight from Tolkien himself. Like I
said, you have to
read the Letters to understand the full score on the
Rings of Power.

I agree with that. What's the point ?

And how about I point out where tolkien contradicted
himself ?

Yes, but had the Elves of Eregion not made the Rings
of Power, there
would have been no Rings of Power. Hence, Sauron
would not have been
the Lord of the Rings (something more than he was as
merely Sauron),
and there would have been no wars fought over the
Rings of Power.

sauron would still have fought.

>
Yes, but I've only been talking about The Lord of
the Rings. :slight_smile:

strange. I'm either tearing my hair out, or smiling :slight_smile:

So who started the talk about landing on the undying
lands ?

But i'll admit that once the scope of the debate went
beyond the LoRT book, I referred to the earlier books
to explain my point of view.

Far too much for me to quote here. Which is why I
suggested you
check it out.

no. I have no time. And I'm already number 2 in the
company for net-users - number 1 was a bloke called
'anonymous' :frowning:

My defense was that working from work was also
included in the list.

real big :frowning:

> >
> ??? The war of the elves and sauron was a
continuation
> of the First Age war by morgorth against the
elves.

I have no time to read the rest of this. I've been run
ragged at work, its time to go home, and I'm getting
phone called to hurry up.

bye
din

···

No, the War of the Elves and Sauron was strictly
fought over the
Rings of Power. Although there is very little
"canonical" history
concerning the war, a fairly lengthy account was
published in
Unfinished Tales. There are some problems with that
account (mainly
the fact that Tolkien rejected the entire essay
which contained it).

> > The Numenoreans showed up and saved the day out
of
> > friendship for the
> > Eldar.
>
> Which time are you talking about ? They appears a
few
> times to save the day. The main time was when they
> 'captured' sauron. Another time was the last
alliange.

I was only speaking of the War of the Elves and
Sauron. And Ar-
Pharazon "captured" Sauron for his own personal
pride (and because
Sauron wanted to be taken to Numenor, according to
Tolkien). Ar-
Pharazon had no love for the Elves and in fact had
nothing to do with
them.

> > But they were drawn into a war between two
> > sides which were not either wholly good. The
Elves were more good
> > than Sauron, but the Elves had still committed a
very evil plan.
>
> What evil plan ??

The Elves made the Rings of Power to halt change or
decay in Middle-
earth. They were trying to delay or prevent their
inevitable fading,
when they would become disembodied wraiths. Tolkien
explained these
matters in some of his letters (cited in the
"Connections" essay).

Yes, the Elves were generally "good", but they were
capable of
committing great evil, and did engage in it. And
creating the Rings
of Power was a morally wrong action.

> but the elven rings were not made with sauron's
help,

All but three of the Rings were made with Sauron's
help. All the
Rings were made for the Elves' benefit.

> > Of course the Numenoreans wanted immortality for
> > themseleves. That is why they tried to take it
from the Valar.
>
> wanted immortality for themselves, and taking it
from
> the valar are not the same thing.

Immortality could not be taken from the Valar, who
couldn't grant it,
either willingly or under duress. But the point was
that the
Numenoreans who invaded Aman committed greater sins
than the Orcs.

> > The Orcs didn't even come close to equalling the
evil of the
> > Numenoreans.
>
> Count the number of dead elves and humans that the
> orcs racked up, check the number of dead elves and
> humans that the numeroneans did, and I think the
orcs
> win by a long way...

How do you figure that? The Numenoreans began
conquering Middle-
earth around SA 1800 and they kept going strong for
about 1400
years. A LOT of men most likely died in those
centuries.

And then the Kings Men, who remained faithful to
Sauron during the
War of the Last Alliance, most likely took a few
Elven lives.

And during the Third Age the Black Numenoreans
fought against Gondor,
if not against the Elves.

> ... The people who were sacrifice
> people to morgorth were prisoners who were
punished. I
> think the worship by the numenorean king to
morgorth
> was done in secret.

"Akallabeth" says that Sauron seduced the Kings Men
into sacrificing
members of the Faithful, and that he himself killed
many of them in
the temple in Armenelos.

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin
Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!