I would have thought all that lifted when Sauron went, as all his power seemed to crumble or evaporate when the Ring was destroyed. Mordor would have been a mess, but not an irredeemable one.
It would take some time, though.
Minas Ithil in Morgul-vale shall be utterly destroyed, and though it may in time to come be made clean, no man may dwell there for many long years.
That was Aragorn's post-war decree on Minas Morgul. My guess is that Minas Morgul and the area around Barad-dûr would be like the Chernobyls of Middle-earth.
I would have thought all that lifted when Sauron went, as all his power seemed to crumble or evaporate when the Ring was destroyed. Mordor would have been a mess, but not an irredeemable one.
It would take some time, though.
Minas Ithil in Morgul-vale shall be utterly destroyed, and though it may in time to come be made clean, no man may dwell there for many long years.
That was Aragorn's post-war decree on Minas Morgul. My guess is that Minas Morgul and the area around Barad-dûr would be like the Chernobyls of Middle-earth.
Yes, that's probably about right. The other parts of Mordor - even the mountains to west and north - were still alive, so to speak...but many effects of Sauron's evil would take a while to pass away.
I would have thought all that lifted when Sauron went, as all his power seemed to crumble or evaporate when the Ring was destroyed. Mordor would have been a mess, but not an irredeemable one.
Mordor proper might (ironically) have taken less time to recover than Morgul Vale. Mordor had some fairly ordinary vegetation (albeit bushes with exceptionally vicious thorns). Morgul Vale had been deliberately warped and had meadows full of cursed flowers. The soil was probably cursed as well. All part of Sauron's revenge on Isildur, no doubt.
It's the bogs full of dead beings that would be one of the most problematic things, I think. But worth a journey back to the now-abandoned Lorien to get some more of Galadriel's garden dust (she can't have taken it all with her) and mallorn seeds. The reclamation of Mordor would certainly take years, but could be very worthwhile in the end.
(Until the developers move in and start building houses on it)
I wonder if Elessar, and the subsequent rulers of Gondor, simply left Mordor to the aforementioned former slaves of Sauron (Orcs? Easterlings? Men of Rhun?), having plenty of other things to do.
There seems to have been enough room in Gondor itself, and in Arnor for that matter, if people (Men, mostly, I suppose) multiplied, and wanted more space. It's hard to think of the rulers of Gondor trying to deport incomers to remote parts.
Maybe the Dead Marshes became just marshes, once Sauron's power had been withdrawn?
I wonder if Elessar, and the subsequent rulers of Gondor, simply left Mordor to the aforementioned former slaves of Sauron (Orcs? Easterlings? Men of Rhun?), having plenty of other things to do.
Probably. Most of Mordor seems pretty arid and inhospitable, even the parts away from Gorgoroth. My guess is that much more effort would have been put into reclaiming and re-populating Ithilien, which is more fertile and much more accessible.
There seems to have been enough room in Gondor itself, and in Arnor for that matter, if people (Men, mostly, I suppose) multiplied, and wanted more space. It's hard to think of the rulers of Gondor trying to deport incomers to remote parts.
Almost certainly not, at least during Elessar's fairly lengthy reign. Gondor seems to have had long-term manpower issues, and Arnor seems to be severely depopulated. The kingdom of Rohan exists where it does because the former Gondorian province of Calenardhon was mostly depopulated and thus made an ideal gift for Eorl the Young and his people.
That's a fascinating report - thanks @Jengie Jon - and shows that there is hope...
That's one way of looking at it. Another perspective is that industrialized humanity is worse for wildlife than nuclear radiation. A similar lesson could be learned from the Korean DMZ, which seems to prove that industrialized humanity is worse for wildlife than land mines. This would probably be fairly close to Tolkien's own views on industrialization.
There's a group that makes a point of visiting Tolkien's grave (on the anniversary I think) and having speeches. The last time I saw a clip of it there was someone singing very seriously in a falsetto in Elvish, and I couldn't help thinking that Tolkien would probably have hated this.
He'd probably have preferred drinking songs in the Eagle and Child...
Mind you, Tolkien allowed himself to be recorded, singing and speaking Elvish, so maybe he wouldn't mind others taking his invention seriously (but not too seriously... ).
Another intriguing side issue (IMHO) concerns the country (was it still some sort of separate state?) of Dunland, which is mentioned several times in LOTR.
The Tolkien Gateway has some information, including a map:
I'm tempted to set my next small model railway diorama in this mysterious and enigmatic place...one of them already serves part of Buckland, in the Shire...
He'd probably have preferred drinking songs in the Eagle and Child...
Mind you, Tolkien allowed himself to be recorded, singing and speaking Elvish, so maybe he wouldn't mind others taking his invention seriously (but not too seriously... ).
Unsurprising. Everyone sings in Middle-earth. Elves sing (can't stop 'em). Hobbits sing. Lovelorn Dúnedain rangers sing sad songs about Lúthien Tinúviel. Dwarves not only sing, they often bring musical instruments with them to provide accompaniment when they break into thirteen-part harmonies at Unexpected Parties. Orcs and barrow wights sing. Even Sauron sings, though he's mostly given it up since the First Age. Middle-earth is practically musical theatre, where any dramatic moment may be punctuated by the characters breaking into song.
The aforementioned friend included mention of Fumble Junction, a preserved steam railway in the Southfumbling.
In my version, the Shire has only just begun with railways...the line south from Brandywine Bridge to Hays End is now open, and worked by a small 042 tender locomotive with an uncanny resemblance to the Liverpool & Manchester's Lion of 1838...
He'd probably have preferred drinking songs in the Eagle and Child...
Mind you, Tolkien allowed himself to be recorded, singing and speaking Elvish, so maybe he wouldn't mind others taking his invention seriously (but not too seriously... ).
Unsurprising. Everyone sings in Middle-earth. Elves sing (can't stop 'em). Hobbits sing. Lovelorn Dúnedain rangers sing sad songs about Lúthien Tinúviel. Dwarves not only sing, they often bring musical instruments with them to provide accompaniment when they break into thirteen-part harmonies at Unexpected Parties. Orcs and barrow wights sing. Even Sauron sings, though he's mostly given it up since the First Age. Middle-earth is practically musical theatre, where any dramatic moment may be punctuated by the characters breaking into song.
Well it was Eru Ilúvatar who started the singing...
Not so much any more, with our unending supply of entertainment options, but the expectation that each member of an assembled party will take their turn to sing a song or tell a story to entertain the group is incredibly normal over the whole range of time before the modern mass entertainment era.
And as Thorin Oakenshield said on his deathbed: “If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.” I think that was definitely Tolkien’s view.
I'm tempted to set my next small model railway diorama in this mysterious and enigmatic place...one of them already serves part of Buckland, in the Shire...
Unsurprising. Everyone sings in Middle-earth. Elves sing (can't stop 'em). Hobbits sing. Lovelorn Dúnedain rangers sing sad songs about Lúthien Tinúviel. Dwarves not only sing, they often bring musical instruments with them to provide accompaniment when they break into thirteen-part harmonies at Unexpected Parties. Orcs and barrow wights sing. Even Sauron sings, though he's mostly given it up since the First Age. Middle-earth is practically musical theatre, where any dramatic moment may be punctuated by the characters breaking into song.
You know, you could well be on to something there. Middle Earth: The Musical would certainly be much more fun than playing up the horror aspect in the films as they did in the films. A bit of Elven singing, the Fellowship of the Nine doing a dance routine on Weathertop in and around the stones, Shelob doing a poignant solo about how nobody loves her, and Gollum's now-famous song:
"All I want is a ring somewhere
Far away from the Elvish air...
Lots of coals making lots of heat
Lots of fisssssh for me to eat
O wouldn't it be loverly!"
He'd probably have preferred drinking songs in the Eagle and Child...
Last time I was in Oxford the Eagle and Child was closed, possibly for good. Haven't heard any more positive news lately.
The previous deal fell through IIRC. It's now been bought and is expected to reopen, but as they say, it's been left empty for 4 years and needs some attention so nobody knows quite when.
The relationship between Frodo and Sam is based on that between a British WW1 officer and his "batman" or personal assistant. Tolkien rhapsodized to some length about the courage and loyalty of the batmen, and how often they were vastly superior to the officers they served. It's a part of his lionizing of the common people of the English countryside.
The other best example I can think of in fiction is Lord Peter Wimsey and his "man" Bunter, who had indeed been Lord Peter's batman in the war. Like Frodo and Sam, their relationship is very close, they trust each other absolutely, have saved each other's lives ... but it is not a relationship of equals, rather one where the class barrier is always firmly in place. Lord Peter would die for Bunter without a second thought but would never call him (or expect to be called) by his first name, nor consider having Bunter as best man at his wedding.
I think it's something of a bygone idea now (perhaps rightly so) -- that relationships, even friendships, can be deep and intense but still remain within a rigid social class structure where everyone knows his or her place. It made sense to the writers who wrote about it because they had lived in a world where that social hierarchy was normal, but it feels odd and jarring to modern readers, and we question the power dynamics in ways that neither the original writers nor their characters probably would have done.
This reminds me randomly of a story a historian once told me about a member of the English landed gentry and their butler.
The story is that the butler went to fight at Waterloo and his former employer lovingly kept as skull on his desk which he assured visitors was his former butler.
Many questions are unanswerable from this story, however the master/butler and solder/batman relationship was pretty weird.
Many questions are unanswerable from this story, however the master/butler and solder/batman relationship was pretty weird.
I'm missing how it's weird per se here, though I suppose it's weird to many people in our society now. I mean, people kept skulls around back in the day as a memento mori.
Apologies, I should have perhaps kept this thought to myself. For me I've always felt that Tolkein provoked both love and hate and sometimes reflected for me the worst aspects of being British.
Happy to talk another time about memento mori but perhaps this isn't the time or place.
Sorry to digress, but it occurs to me that talk about a b(B)atman in WW1 must conjure up an odd image to the younger generation. ('Take that, Fritz!' KERPOW).
The relationship between Frodo and Sam is based on that between a British WW1 officer and his "batman" or personal assistant. Tolkien rhapsodized to some length about the courage and loyalty of the batmen, and how often they were vastly superior to the officers they served. It's a part of his lionizing of the common people of the English countryside.
The other best example I can think of in fiction is Lord Peter Wimsey and his "man" Bunter, who had indeed been Lord Peter's batman in the war. Like Frodo and Sam, their relationship is very close, they trust each other absolutely, have saved each other's lives ... but it is not a relationship of equals, rather one where the class barrier is always firmly in place. Lord Peter would die for Bunter without a second thought but would never call him (or expect to be called) by his first name, nor consider having Bunter as best man at his wedding.
I think it's something of a bygone idea now (perhaps rightly so) -- that relationships, even friendships, can be deep and intense but still remain within a rigid social class structure where everyone knows his or her place. It made sense to the writers who wrote about it because they had lived in a world where that social hierarchy was normal, but it feels odd and jarring to modern readers, and we question the power dynamics in ways that neither the original writers nor their characters probably would have done.
The relationship between Frodo and Sam is based on that between a British WW1 officer and his "batman" or personal assistant. Tolkien rhapsodized to some length about the courage and loyalty of the batmen, and how often they were vastly superior to the officers they served. It's a part of his lionizing of the common people of the English countryside.
The other best example I can think of in fiction is Lord Peter Wimsey and his "man" Bunter, who had indeed been Lord Peter's batman in the war. Like Frodo and Sam, their relationship is very close, they trust each other absolutely, have saved each other's lives ... but it is not a relationship of equals, rather one where the class barrier is always firmly in place. Lord Peter would die for Bunter without a second thought but would never call him (or expect to be called) by his first name, nor consider having Bunter as best man at his wedding.
I think it's something of a bygone idea now (perhaps rightly so) -- that relationships, even friendships, can be deep and intense but still remain within a rigid social class structure where everyone knows his or her place. It made sense to the writers who wrote about it because they had lived in a world where that social hierarchy was normal, but it feels odd and jarring to modern readers, and we question the power dynamics in ways that neither the original writers nor their characters probably would have done.
Reminds me of The Fast Show.
I don't think I quite understand the reference - could you unpack it a bit, please? Enquiring minds need to know...
I see that the branch line to Hays End (for the Old Forest) has not yet been added...and the main line through the Shire to Brandywine Bridge will eventually be extended to Bree.
The relationship between Frodo and Sam is based on that between a British WW1 officer and his "batman" or personal assistant. Tolkien rhapsodized to some length about the courage and loyalty of the batmen, and how often they were vastly superior to the officers they served. It's a part of his lionizing of the common people of the English countryside.
The other best example I can think of in fiction is Lord Peter Wimsey and his "man" Bunter, who had indeed been Lord Peter's batman in the war. Like Frodo and Sam, their relationship is very close, they trust each other absolutely, have saved each other's lives ... but it is not a relationship of equals, rather one where the class barrier is always firmly in place. Lord Peter would die for Bunter without a second thought but would never call him (or expect to be called) by his first name, nor consider having Bunter as best man at his wedding.
I think it's something of a bygone idea now (perhaps rightly so) -- that relationships, even friendships, can be deep and intense but still remain within a rigid social class structure where everyone knows his or her place. It made sense to the writers who wrote about it because they had lived in a world where that social hierarchy was normal, but it feels odd and jarring to modern readers, and we question the power dynamics in ways that neither the original writers nor their characters probably would have done.
Reminds me of The Fast Show.
I don't think I quite understand the reference - could you unpack it a bit, please? Enquiring minds need to know...
It’s a reference to Ted and Ralph a case of class-divided unrequited love in a comedy sketch show…
Sorry to digress, but it occurs to me that talk about a b(B)atman in WW1 must conjure up an odd image to the younger generation. ('Take that, Fritz!' KERPOW).
How much younger, LOL? I mean, the character dates to 1939 and fought the Axis in a movie serial in 1943.
And the TV show with the KERPOWs started in 1966, 57 years ago (!) :O so I’m thinking that anyone who knows what a batman is but not Batman… would have to be much older than I’m thinking is alive now…
Apologies, I should have perhaps kept this thought to myself. For me I've always felt that Tolkein provoked both love and hate and sometimes reflected for me the worst aspects of being British.
Regarding worst aspects of being British, different tastes/philosophies, I suppose…
The relationship between Frodo and Sam is based on that between a British WW1 officer and his "batman" or personal assistant. Tolkien rhapsodized to some length about the courage and loyalty of the batmen, and how often they were vastly superior to the officers they served. It's a part of his lionizing of the common people of the English countryside.
The other best example I can think of in fiction is Lord Peter Wimsey and his "man" Bunter, who had indeed been Lord Peter's batman in the war. Like Frodo and Sam, their relationship is very close, they trust each other absolutely, have saved each other's lives ... but it is not a relationship of equals, rather one where the class barrier is always firmly in place. Lord Peter would die for Bunter without a second thought but would never call him (or expect to be called) by his first name, nor consider having Bunter as best man at his wedding.
I think it's something of a bygone idea now (perhaps rightly so) -- that relationships, even friendships, can be deep and intense but still remain within a rigid social class structure where everyone knows his or her place. It made sense to the writers who wrote about it because they had lived in a world where that social hierarchy was normal, but it feels odd and jarring to modern readers, and we question the power dynamics in ways that neither the original writers nor their characters probably would have done.
Reminds me of The Fast Show.
I don't think I quite understand the reference - could you unpack it a bit, please? Enquiring minds need to know...
It’s a reference to Ted and Ralph a case of class-divided unrequited love in a comedy sketch show…
Sorry to digress, but it occurs to me that talk about a b(B)atman in WW1 must conjure up an odd image to the younger generation. ('Take that, Fritz!' KERPOW).
How much younger, LOL? I mean, the character dates to 1939 and fought the Axis in a movie serial in 1943.
And the TV show with the KERPOWs started in 1966, 57 years ago (!) :O so I’m thinking that anyone who knows what a batman is but not Batman… would have to be much older than I’m thinking is alive now…
Many questions are unanswerable from this story, however the master/butler and solder/batman relationship was pretty weird.
I'm missing how it's weird per se here, though I suppose it's weird to many people in our society now. I mean, people kept skulls around back in the day as a memento mori.
Surely the weirdness would be in how he obtained his former butler's skull, in condition to be put on display??
I was thinking of Wimsey and batman Bunter, and got carried away. You are all a bit too literal-minded for me.
FWIW, I thought it was a very fair comparison.
Bunter is, like Sam, brave, loyal, and resourceful, and Frodo, like Wimsey, has moments when that sort of person is just what he needs.
Yes, I thought Lord Peter / Bunter was a good comparison for Frodo / Sam. I'm not entirely a fan of Jill Paton Walsh's continuations/sequels to Sayers's work, but she makes an interesting effort, in The Attenbury Emeralds, to contrast the relationship between Lord Peter (then the Duke of Denver) and Bunter: a devoted life-long friendship that is also clearly a relationship between master and servant - and that between Lord Peter's sons and Bunter's son, who have grown up together, and somewhat incongruously attend Eton together.
I've read one of Jill Paton Walsh's sequels (Thrones, Dominations), but wasn't really taken with it - though I couldn't explain exactly why this should be so...
Maybe I'll try one of the others - they seem to be available freely on eBay and the like.
Yes, I thought Lord Peter / Bunter was a good comparison for Frodo / Sam. I'm not entirely a fan of Jill Paton Walsh's continuations/sequels to Sayers's work, but she makes an interesting effort, in The Attenbury Emeralds, to contrast the relationship between Lord Peter (then the Duke of Denver) and Bunter: a devoted life-long friendship that is also clearly a relationship between master and servant - and that between Lord Peter's sons and Bunter's son, who have grown up together, and somewhat incongruously attend Eton together.
I feel the same way -- not a huge fan of the continuation books, but I did find the way in which Paton Walsh tried to explore what the relationships between the two families in the second generation in a post-WW2 world, would look like.
Of course, to bring it back to Tolkein, we don't get the benefit of seeing or being able to imagine that in Frodo's and Sam's case, as Frodo remains childless -- and there's no reason to believe that post-LotR there would have been as much upheaval to the class system of the Shire as there was in post-WW2 England!
Yes, I thought Lord Peter / Bunter was a good comparison for Frodo / Sam. I'm not entirely a fan of Jill Paton Walsh's continuations/sequels to Sayers's work, but she makes an interesting effort, in The Attenbury Emeralds, to contrast the relationship between Lord Peter (then the Duke of Denver) and Bunter: a devoted life-long friendship that is also clearly a relationship between master and servant - and that between Lord Peter's sons and Bunter's son, who have grown up together, and somewhat incongruously attend Eton together.
I feel the same way -- not a huge fan of the continuation books, but I did find the way in which Paton Walsh tried to explore what the relationships between the two families in the second generation in a post-WW2 world, would look like.
Of course, to bring it back to Tolkein, we don't get the benefit of seeing or being able to imagine that in Frodo's and Sam's case, as Frodo remains childless -- and there's no reason to believe that post-LotR there would have been as much upheaval to the class system of the Shire as there was in post-WW2 England!
We get to see a bit of Sam Gamgee's family life in an epilogue to the Lord of the Rings that Tolkien worked on but ultimately abandoned as not being a good closing to the tale. It takes place about seventeen years after the destruction of the year and is primarily a discussion between Sam and his oldest child Elanor. It is not mentioned in the text of this epilogue, but according to the Appendices Sam is two years into his second term as Mayor of the Shire, so we know that the basic underlying political structures of the Shire are still in place.
Thanks for that link @Crœsos - a delightful little glimpse of post-War Of The Ring life in the Shire, even if Tolkien decided not to include it in the body of the story.
There are some details given in Appendix B of The Return of the King, in which we learn that Sam serves as Mayor of the Shire for seven terms, that the hobbit society seemingly spreads and flourishes following rather the pattern that it had in prior days, and that Sam is rumored to have gone over the Sea after Rose's death. There's a strong implication that hobbit society continued in much the same way for several generations at least, with the "Red Book" remaining in the care of Sam's descendants.
I think the Officer-Batman relationship might be a development from the Knight-Squire relationship of former times. The squire's class was not simple if my reading of Rosemary Sutcliffe is right.
Thanks for that link @Crœsos - a delightful little glimpse of post-War Of The Ring life in the Shire, even if Tolkien decided not to include it in the body of the story.
I think we have to conclude that this tale is canonical even if it didn't appear in this form in the works published in Tolkien's lifetime. There's a brief summary of the events of the epilogue in Appendix B: The Tale of Years.
1436 - King Elessar rides north, and dwells for a while by Lake Evendim. He comes to the Brandywine Bridge, and there greets his friends. He gives the Star of the Dúnedain to Master Samwise, and Elanor is made a Maid of Honour to Queen Arwen.
That seems like a capsule summary of the events under discussion in the epilogue.
Comments
It would take some time, though.
That was Aragorn's post-war decree on Minas Morgul. My guess is that Minas Morgul and the area around Barad-dûr would be like the Chernobyls of Middle-earth.
Yes, that's probably about right. The other parts of Mordor - even the mountains to west and north - were still alive, so to speak...but many effects of Sauron's evil would take a while to pass away.
Mordor proper might (ironically) have taken less time to recover than Morgul Vale. Mordor had some fairly ordinary vegetation (albeit bushes with exceptionally vicious thorns). Morgul Vale had been deliberately warped and had meadows full of cursed flowers. The soil was probably cursed as well. All part of Sauron's revenge on Isildur, no doubt.
(Until the developers move in and start building houses on it)
There seems to have been enough room in Gondor itself, and in Arnor for that matter, if people (Men, mostly, I suppose) multiplied, and wanted more space. It's hard to think of the rulers of Gondor trying to deport incomers to remote parts.
Maybe the Dead Marshes became just marshes, once Sauron's power had been withdrawn?
That's a fascinating report - thanks @Jengie Jon - and shows that there is hope...
Probably. Most of Mordor seems pretty arid and inhospitable, even the parts away from Gorgoroth. My guess is that much more effort would have been put into reclaiming and re-populating Ithilien, which is more fertile and much more accessible.
Almost certainly not, at least during Elessar's fairly lengthy reign. Gondor seems to have had long-term manpower issues, and Arnor seems to be severely depopulated. The kingdom of Rohan exists where it does because the former Gondorian province of Calenardhon was mostly depopulated and thus made an ideal gift for Eorl the Young and his people.
That's one way of looking at it. Another perspective is that industrialized humanity is worse for wildlife than nuclear radiation. A similar lesson could be learned from the Korean DMZ, which seems to prove that industrialized humanity is worse for wildlife than land mines. This would probably be fairly close to Tolkien's own views on industrialization.
I thought very highly of it when I was a randy adolescent whose sense of humour revolved chiefly around potty humor and cheap sex gags.
Are you saying your sense of humour has developed?
I have read - and have a copy - of this. It is not especially good, but a laugh. I think it serves to poke the pomposity that some Tolkien fans have.
Mind you, Tolkien allowed himself to be recorded, singing and speaking Elvish, so maybe he wouldn't mind others taking his invention seriously (but not too seriously...
Another intriguing side issue (IMHO) concerns the country (was it still some sort of separate state?) of Dunland, which is mentioned several times in LOTR.
The Tolkien Gateway has some information, including a map:
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dunland
I'm tempted to set my next small model railway diorama in this mysterious and enigmatic place...one of them already serves part of Buckland, in the Shire...
Unsurprising. Everyone sings in Middle-earth. Elves sing (can't stop 'em). Hobbits sing. Lovelorn Dúnedain rangers sing sad songs about Lúthien Tinúviel. Dwarves not only sing, they often bring musical instruments with them to provide accompaniment when they break into thirteen-part harmonies at Unexpected Parties. Orcs and barrow wights sing. Even Sauron sings, though he's mostly given it up since the First Age. Middle-earth is practically musical theatre, where any dramatic moment may be punctuated by the characters breaking into song.
In my version, the Shire has only just begun with railways...the line south from Brandywine Bridge to Hays End is now open, and worked by a small 042 tender locomotive with an uncanny resemblance to the Liverpool & Manchester's Lion of 1838...
Well it was Eru Ilúvatar who started the singing...
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Ilúvatar
I think everyone sings, wherever.
Not so much any more, with our unending supply of entertainment options, but the expectation that each member of an assembled party will take their turn to sing a song or tell a story to entertain the group is incredibly normal over the whole range of time before the modern mass entertainment era.
I've always loved this Tube map of Middle Earth.
You know, you could well be on to something there. Middle Earth: The Musical would certainly be much more fun than playing up the horror aspect in the films as they did in the films. A bit of Elven singing, the Fellowship of the Nine doing a dance routine on Weathertop in and around the stones, Shelob doing a poignant solo about how nobody loves her, and Gollum's now-famous song:
"All I want is a ring somewhere
Far away from the Elvish air...
Lots of coals making lots of heat
Lots of fisssssh for me to eat
O wouldn't it be loverly!"
Last time I was in Oxford the Eagle and Child was closed, possibly for good. Haven't heard any more positive news lately.
The previous deal fell through IIRC. It's now been bought and is expected to reopen, but as they say, it's been left empty for 4 years and needs some attention so nobody knows quite when.
This reminds me randomly of a story a historian once told me about a member of the English landed gentry and their butler.
The story is that the butler went to fight at Waterloo and his former employer lovingly kept as skull on his desk which he assured visitors was his former butler.
Many questions are unanswerable from this story, however the master/butler and solder/batman relationship was pretty weird.
I'm missing how it's weird per se here, though I suppose it's weird to many people in our society now. I mean, people kept skulls around back in the day as a memento mori.
Happy to talk another time about memento mori but perhaps this isn't the time or place.
Reminds me of The Fast Show.
I don't think I quite understand the reference - could you unpack it a bit, please? Enquiring minds need to know...
I see that the branch line to Hays End (for the Old Forest) has not yet been added...and the main line through the Shire to Brandywine Bridge will eventually be extended to Bree.
It’s a reference to Ted and Ralph a case of class-divided unrequited love in a comedy sketch show…
You can find Ted and Ralph sketches on YouTube.
I vaguely recall watching just a few episodes of The Fast Show, so I'll have a look at YouTube.
How much younger, LOL? I mean, the character dates to 1939 and fought the Axis in a movie serial in 1943.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(serial)
And the TV show with the KERPOWs started in 1966, 57 years ago (!) :O so I’m thinking that anyone who knows what a batman is but not Batman… would have to be much older than I’m thinking is alive now…
Regarding worst aspects of being British, different tastes/philosophies, I suppose…
OMG I must look this up.
FWIW, I thought it was a very fair comparison.
Bunter is, like Sam, brave, loyal, and resourceful, and Frodo, like Wimsey, has moments when that sort of person is just what he needs.
Surely the weirdness would be in how he obtained his former butler's skull, in condition to be put on display??
Yes, I thought Lord Peter / Bunter was a good comparison for Frodo / Sam. I'm not entirely a fan of Jill Paton Walsh's continuations/sequels to Sayers's work, but she makes an interesting effort, in The Attenbury Emeralds, to contrast the relationship between Lord Peter (then the Duke of Denver) and Bunter: a devoted life-long friendship that is also clearly a relationship between master and servant - and that between Lord Peter's sons and Bunter's son, who have grown up together, and somewhat incongruously attend Eton together.
Maybe I'll try one of the others - they seem to be available freely on eBay and the like.
I feel the same way -- not a huge fan of the continuation books, but I did find the way in which Paton Walsh tried to explore what the relationships between the two families in the second generation in a post-WW2 world, would look like.
Of course, to bring it back to Tolkein, we don't get the benefit of seeing or being able to imagine that in Frodo's and Sam's case, as Frodo remains childless -- and there's no reason to believe that post-LotR there would have been as much upheaval to the class system of the Shire as there was in post-WW2 England!
We get to see a bit of Sam Gamgee's family life in an epilogue to the Lord of the Rings that Tolkien worked on but ultimately abandoned as not being a good closing to the tale. It takes place about seventeen years after the destruction of the year and is primarily a discussion between Sam and his oldest child Elanor. It is not mentioned in the text of this epilogue, but according to the Appendices Sam is two years into his second term as Mayor of the Shire, so we know that the basic underlying political structures of the Shire are still in place.
My pleasure. For those who appreciate graphic representation of such stories, professional artist Molly Ostertag rendered this epilogue in comic-style format.
I think we have to conclude that this tale is canonical even if it didn't appear in this form in the works published in Tolkien's lifetime. There's a brief summary of the events of the epilogue in Appendix B: The Tale of Years.
That seems like a capsule summary of the events under discussion in the epilogue.