Yes, and all three—conception, crucifixion and New Year’s Day—were connected.
And as Gandalf says to Frodo in Book Six, Chapter IV (The Return of the King, “The Field of Cormallen”): “But in Gondor the New Year will always now begin upon the twenty-fifth of March when Sauron fell, and when you were brought out of the fire to the King.”
I don't recall seeing any of the animated film back in the 70s, but Mrs BF and I did listen to the whole of the radio adaptation in 1981. I think I still have the full set of cassettes, which I bought after the series ended.
Voices only, of course, but IIRC Michael Hordern was an excellent Gandalf, with Ian Holm as Frodo (he played Bilbo in the Jackson films), John le Mesurier as Bilbo, Bill Nighy as Sam, and Robert Stephens as Aragorn.
Anyone else remember the radio version? Necessarily foreshortened, but IMHO very well done anyway.
I have the CD edition of the radio version.
It is still my favourite version. I much prefer its version of "truthsayer" Faramir to that of the film and his interaction with Frodo and Sam and at the falls.
Not surprisingly, the next person we get a quote from about owning (or rejecting) the Ring is Isildur, the next ringbearer.
Isildur (3441 S.A.) »
This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother. Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?
He's already pitching himself as the rightful possessor of the Ring and casting it in what are, to him, familiar terms. As king of the realms in exile he states his right to the Ring in the same terms as his right to rule his realm; by right of inheritance ("weregild for my father, and my brother") and deed ("Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?"). Given that the Ring is Tolkien's metaphor for ruling and command it is not surprising Isildur uses familiar (to him) conventions for staking his claim as the rightful holder of the Ring.
We have also another statement from Isidur about the Ring, this one in written form as the Scroll of Isidur.
Isildur (~2 T.A.) »
The Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these matters grow dim.
It was hot when I first took it, hot as a glede, and my hand was scorched, so that I doubt if ever again I shall be free of the pain of it. Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth to shrink, though it loseth neither its beauty nor its shape. Already the writing upon it, which was as clear as red flame, fadeth and is now only barely to be read. It is fashioned in the elven-script of Eregion, for they have no letters in Mordor for such subtle work; but the language is unknown to me. I deem it to be a tongue of the Black Land, since it is foul and uncouth. What evil it saith I do not know; but I trace here a copy of it, lest it fade beyond recall. The Ring misseth, maybe, the heat of Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed; and maybe were the gold made hot again, the writing would be refreshed. But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain.
It seems from this that Isildur regards the Ring not as a source of power directly in and of itself but as an "heirloom" that demonstrates his right to rule, similar to the shards of Narsil. We have examples of such things from real-life monarchies, which derive some of their ascribed legitimacy from the possession of ancient artifacts. (e.g. the Stone of Scone, Edward the Confessor's sapphire) Isildur is obviously aware that the Ring still has some magical abilities after being separated from Sauron since he uses it to turn invisible in an attempt to escape the Gladden Fields, but it seems likely to me that he regards this as a strange quirk and not its primary value.
Sméagol (2463 T.A.) »
Give us that, Déagol, my love. Because it's my birthday, my love, and I wants it.
Déagol (2463 T.A.) »
I found this, and I'm going to keep it.
These statements are fairly simple, given how brief they are. Déagol is very much coming from a "finders keepers" perspective. He has a right to the Ring because he found it. If there is any deeper philosophy here it's simply that possession is nine points of the law, or whatever the proto-Stoor equivalent proverb might be.
Sméagol approaches this from an appetitive perspective. His claim on the Ring is simply that he wants it more, and he'll use any useful contrivance to satisfy that want. He plays on whatever affection Déagol might have for him and his own birthday to claim that the Ring should be his. When this doesn't work he resorts to force, demonstrating that satisfying his own wants is more important to him than the obeying the proscription against murder.
I think Smeagol is a bit less calculating than you're allowing. That is, I think he's trying to rationalise to himself as much as to Deagol why he should have the ring. We find out in the course of the story that part of him is capable of genuine affection even if that isn't enough to resist the presence of the ring.
I think Smeagol is a bit less calculating than you're allowing. That is, I think he's trying to rationalise to himself as much as to Deagol why he should have the ring.
I’d agree, and I think this is a place where Tolkien is emphasizing the power of the ring to corrupt those who possess it. Sméagol/Gollum thinks he possesses the ring, when actually it possesses him.
Bilbo Baggins (July 7, 2941) »
What have I got in my pocket?
Bilbo's first verbal statement about the Ring is one of curiosity, a personal musing that very conveniently got mistaken for a riddle by Gollum. This captures the spirit of Bilbo as a hobbit having an adventure in the wider world and encountering all kinds of new things, or at least things that are new to him.
As @LatchKeyKidnotes, Bilbo also takes a "finders keepers" attitude towards the Ring, even after he deduces it was the former property of Gollum. This is unsurprising since he's the designated burglar on a treasure-hunting quest. Acquiring things others may think of as their own property is more or less his job description. We see Bilbo trying to live up to these professional expectations in his earlier attempt to pick the pocket of William the troll.
Bilbo does eventually tell his dwarven companions a doctored version of his encounter with Gollum, altered to better establish his own right to the Ring. The Watsonian explanation for this is that this prevarication was that the Ring's insidious influence was already corrupting the normally honest Bilbo. The Doylist answer is that Tolkien felt the need to revise Riddles in the Dark to better fit with the story he wanted to tell in Lord of the Rings.
I find some of the comments from people who reject the Ring even more interesting. Galadriel, for example (after terrorising Frodo and Sam with a vision of what she would be like if she took the ring), says:
'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'
Aragorn does something similar: he scares the hobbits by pointing out that if he was a servant of the Enemy he could just take the Ring by force, and then asserts his own identity:
'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.'
So the Ring takes away your free will, but it also changes your personality and you lose your identity. And once you have it, it's very difficult to give it up: only Bilbo and Sam are able to do it.
“Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!” he said. “How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.”
The movies’ plot change on this point was terrible.
Bilbo Baggins (September 22, 3001) »
It is mine, I tell you. My own. My precious. Yes, my precious. . . . Even if Gollum said the same once. It's not his now, but mine. And I shall keep it, I say.
Sixty years later Bilbo was quite possessive of the Ring, and it took all the wisdom and patience Gandalf could muster to convince him to leave the Ring behind.
There were a lot of thing I didn't like about the films on first watch, but on watching the "making of" DVDs I made my peace with them. There are aspects where I think the changes were unnecessary, but most are at least understandable in the context, and I can respect that the decisions were largely conscientious and come from a place of respect for the source material. The changes to Faramir irked me, but I get the point Peter Jackson makes (which is similar to the one he makes about Tom Bombadil) about the films needing to build up the menace of the ring and not undercut it with characters who can (apparently) easily resist it. What works on the page has to be smoothed out a bit to work in film, even with 9 hours to play with.
I quite liked the films, but Denethor was all wrong. Jackson should have cast Sean Connery as Denethor when he turned him down for Gandalf. That would have been awesome.
I agree Faramir was not well-portrayed either. On the other hand Sean Bean made an excellent Boromir.
Bilbo Baggins (September 22, 3001) »
It is mine, I tell you. My own. My precious. Yes, my precious. . . . Even if Gollum said the same once. It's not his now, but mine. And I shall keep it, I say.
Sixty years later Bilbo was quite possessive of the Ring, and it took all the wisdom and patience Gandalf could muster to convince him to leave the Ring behind.
But to Tolkien, the important thing seems to be not the wisdom and patience that was needed, but that Bilbo actually relinquished the Ring. The day after Bilbo does that, Gandalf says to Frodo:
A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care—and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so, he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside.
And from there, Tolkien (through Gandalf) introduces the idea that in Bilbo picking up the Ring, which had abandoned Gollum in order to return to its Master,
there was something else at work, beyond the design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were also meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.
They did Faramir wrong in the movies. They screwed up his character, and the dude they cast isn't handsome enough.
I still liked the movies, though, and I'll find out today how well they hold up for me - I'm seeing them as a triple feature at a local theater.
Oooo, I wish I could tag along (whether you want me to or not).
I liked them overall—there were things they did really well as well as things they totally flubbed. Some of the changes I can understand and not argue with from a book-to-movie story-telling standpoint. A change can deviate from the books but still be consistent with themes and core aspects of the story the books tell.
I think the changes to Faramir, though, were a major failure.
But to Tolkien, the important thing seems to be not the wisdom and patience that was needed, but that Bilbo actually relinquished the Ring. The day after Bilbo does that, Gandalf says to Frodo:
A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care—and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so, he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside.
Gandalf is being somewhat parsimonious with the truth here. When he says this he is wearing a Ring of Power himself that had been voluntarily given to him by Círdan. I suppose it could be argued that the three Elven rings are of a different character than the other Rings of Power and don't have as great a hold on the minds of their bearers. Getting bogged down in the technical details of ring lore was beside the point Gandalf is trying to make so I can see why he avoided getting rhetorically sidetracked.
But to Tolkien, the important thing seems to be not the wisdom and patience that was needed, but that Bilbo actually relinquished the Ring. The day after Bilbo does that, Gandalf says to Frodo:
A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to someone else’s care—and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so, he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside.
Gandalf is being somewhat parsimonious with the truth here. When he says this he is wearing a Ring of Power himself that had been voluntarily given to him by Círdan. I suppose it could be argued that the three Elven rings are of a different character than the other Rings of Power and don't have as great a hold on the minds of their bearers.
I think Tolkien does indeed suggest that; the point is made that Sauron never touched the Elven Rings and that those Rings were not about domination. At the Council he says
The Three were not made by Sauron, nor did he ever touch them. But of them it is not permitted to speak. So much only in this hour of doubt I may now say. They are not idle. But they were not made as weapons of war or conquest: that is not their power. Those who made them did not desire strength or domination or hoarded wealth, but understanding, making, and healing, to preserve all things unstained. These things the Elves of Middle-earth have in some measure gained, though with sorrow. But all that has been wrought by those who wield the Three will turn to their undoing, and their minds and hearts will become revealed to Sauron, if he regains the One. It would be better if the Three had never been. That is his purpose.
So presumably the Elven Rings were therefore not as corrupt, or corrupting, as the other Rings of Power. Tolkien certainly doesn’t portray Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf or Círdan as having been corrupted by or under the power of the Elven Rings.
So perhaps not so much parsimonious as, as you say, more focused on making a point to Frodo so not wanting to get rhetorically sidetracked with details that might confuse Frodo.
Or, perhaps Gandalf was abiding by some agreement made with Galadriel and Elrond, as Elrond says it is “not permitted to speak” about what happened to the Three Rings.
Frodo Baggins (September 23, 3001) »
The ring! Has he left me that? I wonder why. Still, it may be useful.
Frodo's first words upon learning he is the new possessor of Bilbo's ring has some similarities to Bilbo's. He doesn't have to wonder what it is, but he does wonder why Bilbo has left it behind for him. There's also a bit of pragmatism in his musings about how "it may be useful". Gandalf, of course, immediately tries to discourage Frodo from making use of the Ring.
There were a lot of thing I didn't like about the films on first watch, but on watching the "making of" DVDs I made my peace with them. There are aspects where I think the changes were unnecessary, but most are at least understandable in the context, and I can respect that the decisions were largely conscientious and come from a place of respect for the source material. The changes to Faramir irked me, but I get the point Peter Jackson makes (which is similar to the one he makes about Tom Bombadil) about the films needing to build up the menace of the ring and not undercut it with characters who can (apparently) easily resist it. What works on the page has to be smoothed out a bit to work in film, even with 9 hours to play with.
However that can't be used as an excuse to cover each and every decision that was made. It is possible that mistakes were made, and people may believe so and say so. The response cannot be merely, "Hey things are different in movies than in books."
There were a lot of thing I didn't like about the films on first watch, but on watching the "making of" DVDs I made my peace with them. There are aspects where I think the changes were unnecessary, but most are at least understandable in the context, and I can respect that the decisions were largely conscientious and come from a place of respect for the source material. The changes to Faramir irked me, but I get the point Peter Jackson makes (which is similar to the one he makes about Tom Bombadil) about the films needing to build up the menace of the ring and not undercut it with characters who can (apparently) easily resist it. What works on the page has to be smoothed out a bit to work in film, even with 9 hours to play with.
However that can't be used as an excuse to cover each and every decision that was made. It is possible that mistakes were made, and people may believe so and say so. The response cannot be merely, "Hey things are different in movies than in books."
Sure. I think that the skulls pouring out when Aragorn went through the paths of the dead was unnecessary and inappropriate, for example.
@Arethosemyfeet: Aragorn points his torch toward a side alcove just inside the entry and there are a bunch of skulls piled on the floor there; they don't move. The text has something creepier, IMO -- the skeleton of a warrior who appears to have died clawing at a closed stone door..
@Arethosemyfeet: Aragorn points his torch toward a side alcove just inside the entry and there are a bunch of skulls piled on the floor there; they don't move. The text has something creepier, IMO -- the skeleton of a warrior who appears to have died clawing at a closed stone door..
@Arethosemyfeet: Aragorn points his torch toward a side alcove just inside the entry and there are a bunch of skulls piled on the floor there; they don't move. The text has something creepier, IMO -- the skeleton of a warrior who appears to have died clawing at a closed stone door..
@Arethosemyfeet: Aragorn points his torch toward a side alcove just inside the entry and there are a bunch of skulls piled on the floor there; they don't move. The text has something creepier, IMO -- the skeleton of a warrior who appears to have died clawing at a closed stone door..
Presumably the remains of Baldor, son of Brego. According to the appendices at the feast where Brego dedicated the newly constructed Meduseld "his son Baldor vowed that he would tread 'the Paths of the Dead' and did not return." That was about 450 years before Aragorn would successfully take the Paths of the Dead.
I have to say that the Rohirrim probably dodged an arrow with that one. Brego's second son, Aldor, became king after him and spent most of his very long reign finishing up the consolidation of the kingdom of Rohan. Given Baldor's apparent tendency to do stupid shit like like take rash oaths and then never back down from them there's no telling what kind of impulsive messes he would have gotten the still young kingdom into had he succeeded to the throne.
Gandalf (April 13, 3018) »
No! With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.
This is one of the set-piece refusals to take the Ring that almost everyone remembers. (The other is Galadriel's, which we'll get to in a bit.) This gives us some insight into Gandalf's character and he seems to have 'gamed out' the likeliest path by which the One Ring would corrupt him; pity for others and the desire for the strength to do good.
For those who are interested in counterfactual theorizing the Nerd of the Rings YouTube channel has plotted out what he considers the likely outcome would be if Gandalf did take the Ruling Ring. A lot of care is taken with this alternative history fantasy, plotting out where other characters are and what would likely happen given a single, if significant, point of departure. It's quite plausible and enjoyable if you've got twenty minutes to spare. I particularly appreciated the flag in the upper left corner that designated the narrative being presented as either "Canon" or "Theory".
Wow, I just saw this movie Sunday, and completely blanked this bit from memory. I agree, not a good choice.
Is it possible that scene is from the extended version/director's cut (it’s been long enough for me that I don’t remember) and what you saw Sunday was the original theatrical release?
Wow, I just saw this movie Sunday, and completely blanked this bit from memory. I agree, not a good choice.
Is it possible that scene is from the extended version/director's cut (it’s been long enough for me that I don’t remember) and what you saw Sunday was the original theatrical release?
Peter Jackson's background before adapting Lord of the Rings was in horror films. Sometimes this serves him well, like his interpretation of the Nazgûl. Other times, like that scene, not so much.
Saruman (July 10, 3018) »
And why not, Gandalf? Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?
Again we get a statement about wanting the Ring that also does a good job of illustrating the character of the speaker. In this case Saruman the technocrat believes that power should be in the hands of the wise (i.e. him) to direct things in the way that their wisdom indicates is best. As is the case with Saruman elsewhere in the books, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is.
Aragorn (September 29, 3018) »
I am afraid my only answer to you, Sam Gamgee, is this. If I had killed the real Strider I could kill you. And I should have killed you already without so much talk. If I was after the Ring, I could have it – NOW!
But I am the real Strider, fortunately. I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.
Aragorn's rejection of the Ring comes as part of an assertion of identity, trying to prove to four suspicious hobbits that he is the real Strider referred to in Gandalf's letter. That's a nice bit of parallelism because his identity as a descendant of Isildur (undisclosed at this time to either the hobbits or the reader) ties back to why the Ring still exists at all.
Frodo Baggins (October 25, 3018)
I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way.
Frodo is a lot more tentative and less curious when he claims the Ring at the end of the Council of Elrond than he was when he first inherited it. He's likely less curious because the whole history of the Ring has just been explained to him in exhaustive detail. He also makes no comment on its potential usefulness this time, understanding better what using it means (and that possession also comes with a "Nazgûl will probably kill you" clause). So this claiming of the ring is a mix of courage and humility.
Well yes indeed he has just barely recovered from being attacked by the Nazgul, stabbed with a Morgul knife and nearly being turned into a mini-wraith, all because of being in possession of the Ring and putting it on at Weathertop.
What I like is that Gandalf supports Pippin and Merry as Frodo's companions in preference to Glorfindel who was if I recall correctly at the fall of Gondolin and took out a Balrog. It's rather as if Elrond were putting together an all-time cricket eleven to play against Sauron's team for the fate of the world, and suggests that maybe they could include Don Bradman and Gary Sobers, who happen to be available, and Pippin and Merry say "But no, we want to be in the team because we're his friends" and Gandalf says "OK I think we should go with that..."
I believe that the Glorfindel who took out a Balrog died at the fall of Gondolin. The easiest explanation is that two elves had the same name, a phenomenon not uncommon in human societies. That said, Gandalf says that LotR Glorfindel has dwelt in the Blessed Realms who presumably came over with the other Noldor so he is a pretty impressive figure anyway.
I believe that the Glorfindel who took out a Balrog died at the fall of Gondolin. The easiest explanation is that two elves had the same name, a phenomenon not uncommon in human societies. That said, Gandalf says that LotR Glorfindel has dwelt in the Blessed Realms who presumably came over with the other Noldor so he is a pretty impressive figure anyway.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
Mrs RR comments that a gentleman should never take out a balrog in polite company.
Tangent alert: I was a great LOR fan as a student back in the 1960s, but equally enjoyed 'Bored of the Rings' of fond memory. BBC's more recent 'Elvenquest'on Radio 4 was also great fun.
In contrast, I found the films unwatchable abominations.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
And as I recall, reincarnation isn’t really what Tolkien speculated/described for Glorfindel. I think he described it as re-embodiment—that he died and his spirit went to the Halls of Mandos, that the Valar rewarded his valor by restoring his body and allowing him to dwell in Valinor, and Manwë later sent him to Middle Earth to take part in the fight against Sauron.
Well yes indeed he has just barely recovered from being attacked by the Nazgul, stabbed with a Morgul knife and nearly being turned into a mini-wraith, all because of being in possession of the Ring and putting it on at Weathertop.
What I like is that Gandalf supports Pippin and Merry as Frodo's companions in preference to Glorfindel who was if I recall correctly at the fall of Gondolin and took out a Balrog. It's rather as if Elrond were putting together an all-time cricket eleven to play against Sauron's team for the fate of the world, and suggests that maybe they could include Don Bradman and Gary Sobers, who happen to be available, and Pippin and Merry say "But no, we want to be in the team because we're his friends" and Gandalf says "OK I think we should go with that..."
The more practical reason is that Glorfindel shows up to those who can see into the unseen world like a beacon. A mission relying primarily on stealth is probably wise to exclude him for that reason. If the fellowship included someone who was constantly sending out "massively powerful First Age Noldor right here" signals it might have impeded their progress somewhat.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
And as I recall, reincarnation isn’t really what Tolkien speculated/described for Glorfindel. I think he described it as re-embodiment—that he died and his spirit went to the Halls of Mandos, that the Valar rewarded his valor by restoring his body and allowing him to dwell in Valinor, and Manwë later sent him to Middle Earth to take part in the fight against Sauron.
Tolkien didn't just speculate about this for Glorfindel. He canonically* stated that his elves were small "i" immortal. A significant enough physical trauma could "kill" them temporarily, but they were granted new bodies in Valinor after a purgatorial time in the Halls of Mandos. The amount of time spent in Mandos' care was proportional to the amount of sin the elf in question has to work off. What's interesting is that Glorfindel seems to be the only elf to return from Valinor to Middle-earth. In some of his later writings Tolkien revised his earlier assertion that five Istari came to Middle-earth around the year 1000 of the Third Age. The later revision held that only three Istari (Saruman, Gandalf, and Radagast) came to Middle-earth in that year, and the the two blue wizards came to to Middle-earth in the Second Age, when Sauron was first stirring again, and that Glorfindel accompanied them. This keeps the number three in both cases, which was numerologically significant to Tolkien for obvious reasons.
Tolkien also claimed that elves don't "recycle" names if they can help it, which would require an explanation for how the Glorfindel that died at the fall of Gondolin can be back in Middle-earth in the Third Age.
* As far as anything not published in his lifetime can be considered "canon".
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
I think that's a bit strong. The various themes of the Silmarillion will not be destroyed by one elf reincarnating. I also think Tolkien did end up saying they were the same guy, as per Christopher.
Does that mean that Glorfindel was particularly virtuous and therefore emerged from Mandos in double-quick time? (Like Finrod Felagund who is said to "walk beside his father Finarfin in Valinor" which I find strangely moving)
Does that mean that Glorfindel was particularly virtuous and therefore emerged from Mandos in double-quick time? (Like Finrod Felagund who is said to "walk beside his father Finarfin in Valinor" which I find strangely moving)
Yes. He died defending others, including the infant Eärendil, at the cost of his own life. The fact that elves know they're going to be re-embodied may change that calculus a little, but it still counts as quite the selfless act.
Glorfindel's death seems to involve a kind of spiritual initiation that pops up from time to time in Tolkien's books. He faced a demonic foe, endured torment, and was brought up out of that into a new life by a great eagle. We see similar events playing out for Gandalf and Frodo. One could argue that Mædros was similarly initiated, but that he was too weighed down by the Oath of Fëanor for the transformation to do him much good.
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
According to Wikipedia this is something that Tolkien speculated about but never actually committed himself to. Given that there are no other instances of elves reincarnating and being sent back to Middle Earth I think it can't be regarded as proper canon. I think it makes a bit of a nonsense of the themes of the Silmarillion if it happened.
And as I recall, reincarnation isn’t really what Tolkien speculated/described for Glorfindel. I think he described it as re-embodiment—that he died and his spirit went to the Halls of Mandos, that the Valar rewarded his valor by restoring his body and allowing him to dwell in Valinor, and Manwë later sent him to Middle Earth to take part in the fight against Sauron.
Tolkien didn't just speculate about this for Glorfindel. He canonically* stated that his elves were small "i" immortal. A significant enough physical trauma could "kill" them temporarily, but they were granted new bodies in Valinor after a purgatorial time in the Halls of Mandos. The amount of time spent in Mandos' care was proportional to the amount of sin the elf in question has to work off.
Can you point to where Tolkien said all Elves who had died (I seem to recall at least one or two who died of grief) or been killed were eventually re-embodied?
Comments
And New Year's Day in medieval Europe
Which is why, by the way, Christmas is celebrated on December 25.
And as Gandalf says to Frodo in Book Six, Chapter IV (The Return of the King, “The Field of Cormallen”): “But in Gondor the New Year will always now begin upon the twenty-fifth of March when Sauron fell, and when you were brought out of the fire to the King.”
And Tolkien also specifically notes December 25th as the day the Fellowship set out from Rivendell.
And, in a round about way (via the Julian-Gregorian conversion) still the start of the tax year in the UK.
I have the CD edition of the radio version.
It is still my favourite version. I much prefer its version of "truthsayer" Faramir to that of the film and his interaction with Frodo and Sam and at the falls.
He's already pitching himself as the rightful possessor of the Ring and casting it in what are, to him, familiar terms. As king of the realms in exile he states his right to the Ring in the same terms as his right to rule his realm; by right of inheritance ("weregild for my father, and my brother") and deed ("Was it not I that dealt the Enemy his death-blow?"). Given that the Ring is Tolkien's metaphor for ruling and command it is not surprising Isildur uses familiar (to him) conventions for staking his claim as the rightful holder of the Ring.
We have also another statement from Isidur about the Ring, this one in written form as the Scroll of Isidur.
It seems from this that Isildur regards the Ring not as a source of power directly in and of itself but as an "heirloom" that demonstrates his right to rule, similar to the shards of Narsil. We have examples of such things from real-life monarchies, which derive some of their ascribed legitimacy from the possession of ancient artifacts. (e.g. the Stone of Scone, Edward the Confessor's sapphire) Isildur is obviously aware that the Ring still has some magical abilities after being separated from Sauron since he uses it to turn invisible in an attempt to escape the Gladden Fields, but it seems likely to me that he regards this as a strange quirk and not its primary value.
These statements are fairly simple, given how brief they are. Déagol is very much coming from a "finders keepers" perspective. He has a right to the Ring because he found it. If there is any deeper philosophy here it's simply that possession is nine points of the law, or whatever the proto-Stoor equivalent proverb might be.
Sméagol approaches this from an appetitive perspective. His claim on the Ring is simply that he wants it more, and he'll use any useful contrivance to satisfy that want. He plays on whatever affection Déagol might have for him and his own birthday to claim that the Ring should be his. When this doesn't work he resorts to force, demonstrating that satisfying his own wants is more important to him than the obeying the proscription against murder.
The text suggests that the ring itself plays a role in the changes of ownership.
Bilbo's first verbal statement about the Ring is one of curiosity, a personal musing that very conveniently got mistaken for a riddle by Gollum. This captures the spirit of Bilbo as a hobbit having an adventure in the wider world and encountering all kinds of new things, or at least things that are new to him.
As @LatchKeyKid notes, Bilbo also takes a "finders keepers" attitude towards the Ring, even after he deduces it was the former property of Gollum. This is unsurprising since he's the designated burglar on a treasure-hunting quest. Acquiring things others may think of as their own property is more or less his job description. We see Bilbo trying to live up to these professional expectations in his earlier attempt to pick the pocket of William the troll.
Bilbo does eventually tell his dwarven companions a doctored version of his encounter with Gollum, altered to better establish his own right to the Ring. The Watsonian explanation for this is that this prevarication was that the Ring's insidious influence was already corrupting the normally honest Bilbo. The Doylist answer is that Tolkien felt the need to revise Riddles in the Dark to better fit with the story he wanted to tell in Lord of the Rings.
'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'
Aragorn does something similar: he scares the hobbits by pointing out that if he was a servant of the Enemy he could just take the Ring by force, and then asserts his own identity:
'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.'
So the Ring takes away your free will, but it also changes your personality and you lose your identity. And once you have it, it's very difficult to give it up: only Bilbo and Sam are able to do it.
Sixty years later Bilbo was quite possessive of the Ring, and it took all the wisdom and patience Gandalf could muster to convince him to leave the Ring behind.
I still liked the movies, though, and I'll find out today how well they hold up for me - I'm seeing them as a triple feature at a local theater.
I agree Faramir was not well-portrayed either. On the other hand Sean Bean made an excellent Boromir.
Oooo, I wish I could tag along (whether you want me to or not).
I liked them overall—there were things they did really well as well as things they totally flubbed. Some of the changes I can understand and not argue with from a book-to-movie story-telling standpoint. A change can deviate from the books but still be consistent with themes and core aspects of the story the books tell.
I think the changes to Faramir, though, were a major failure.
Gandalf is being somewhat parsimonious with the truth here. When he says this he is wearing a Ring of Power himself that had been voluntarily given to him by Círdan. I suppose it could be argued that the three Elven rings are of a different character than the other Rings of Power and don't have as great a hold on the minds of their bearers. Getting bogged down in the technical details of ring lore was beside the point Gandalf is trying to make so I can see why he avoided getting rhetorically sidetracked.
So presumably the Elven Rings were therefore not as corrupt, or corrupting, as the other Rings of Power. Tolkien certainly doesn’t portray Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf or Círdan as having been corrupted by or under the power of the Elven Rings.
So perhaps not so much parsimonious as, as you say, more focused on making a point to Frodo so not wanting to get rhetorically sidetracked with details that might confuse Frodo.
Or, perhaps Gandalf was abiding by some agreement made with Galadriel and Elrond, as Elrond says it is “not permitted to speak” about what happened to the Three Rings.
Frodo's first words upon learning he is the new possessor of Bilbo's ring has some similarities to Bilbo's. He doesn't have to wonder what it is, but he does wonder why Bilbo has left it behind for him. There's also a bit of pragmatism in his musings about how "it may be useful". Gandalf, of course, immediately tries to discourage Frodo from making use of the Ring.
However that can't be used as an excuse to cover each and every decision that was made. It is possible that mistakes were made, and people may believe so and say so. The response cannot be merely, "Hey things are different in movies than in books."
Sure. I think that the skulls pouring out when Aragorn went through the paths of the dead was unnecessary and inappropriate, for example.
Tolkien does eerie/creepy exceptionally well.
I'm talking about this around 3:10 onwards.
https://youtu.be/3UFF1O6ORJY?si=QPTxgZ-vlPf7sH1u
Presumably the remains of Baldor, son of Brego. According to the appendices at the feast where Brego dedicated the newly constructed Meduseld "his son Baldor vowed that he would tread 'the Paths of the Dead' and did not return." That was about 450 years before Aragorn would successfully take the Paths of the Dead.
I have to say that the Rohirrim probably dodged an arrow with that one. Brego's second son, Aldor, became king after him and spent most of his very long reign finishing up the consolidation of the kingdom of Rohan. Given Baldor's apparent tendency to do stupid shit like like take rash oaths and then never back down from them there's no telling what kind of impulsive messes he would have gotten the still young kingdom into had he succeeded to the throne.
Wow, I just saw this movie Sunday, and completely blanked this bit from memory. I agree, not a good choice.
Giving Arwen something to do in the first movie, though, was an excellent choice IMO.
This is one of the set-piece refusals to take the Ring that almost everyone remembers. (The other is Galadriel's, which we'll get to in a bit.) This gives us some insight into Gandalf's character and he seems to have 'gamed out' the likeliest path by which the One Ring would corrupt him; pity for others and the desire for the strength to do good.
For those who are interested in counterfactual theorizing the Nerd of the Rings YouTube channel has plotted out what he considers the likely outcome would be if Gandalf did take the Ruling Ring. A lot of care is taken with this alternative history fantasy, plotting out where other characters are and what would likely happen given a single, if significant, point of departure. It's quite plausible and enjoyable if you've got twenty minutes to spare. I particularly appreciated the flag in the upper left corner that designated the narrative being presented as either "Canon" or "Theory".
Peter Jackson's background before adapting Lord of the Rings was in horror films. Sometimes this serves him well, like his interpretation of the Nazgûl. Other times, like that scene, not so much.
Again we get a statement about wanting the Ring that also does a good job of illustrating the character of the speaker. In this case Saruman the technocrat believes that power should be in the hands of the wise (i.e. him) to direct things in the way that their wisdom indicates is best. As is the case with Saruman elsewhere in the books, he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is.
Aragorn's rejection of the Ring comes as part of an assertion of identity, trying to prove to four suspicious hobbits that he is the real Strider referred to in Gandalf's letter. That's a nice bit of parallelism because his identity as a descendant of Isildur (undisclosed at this time to either the hobbits or the reader) ties back to why the Ring still exists at all.
Frodo is a lot more tentative and less curious when he claims the Ring at the end of the Council of Elrond than he was when he first inherited it. He's likely less curious because the whole history of the Ring has just been explained to him in exhaustive detail. He also makes no comment on its potential usefulness this time, understanding better what using it means (and that possession also comes with a "Nazgûl will probably kill you" clause). So this claiming of the ring is a mix of courage and humility.
What I like is that Gandalf supports Pippin and Merry as Frodo's companions in preference to Glorfindel who was if I recall correctly at the fall of Gondolin and took out a Balrog. It's rather as if Elrond were putting together an all-time cricket eleven to play against Sauron's team for the fate of the world, and suggests that maybe they could include Don Bradman and Gary Sobers, who happen to be available, and Pippin and Merry say "But no, we want to be in the team because we're his friends" and Gandalf says "OK I think we should go with that..."
Tolkien says somewhere they are one and the same. Elves who die can be reincarnated and apparently this is what happened here.
Tangent alert: I was a great LOR fan as a student back in the 1960s, but equally enjoyed 'Bored of the Rings' of fond memory. BBC's more recent 'Elvenquest'on Radio 4 was also great fun.
In contrast, I found the films unwatchable abominations.
I really must get out more ......
The more practical reason is that Glorfindel shows up to those who can see into the unseen world like a beacon. A mission relying primarily on stealth is probably wise to exclude him for that reason. If the fellowship included someone who was constantly sending out "massively powerful First Age Noldor right here" signals it might have impeded their progress somewhat.
Tolkien didn't just speculate about this for Glorfindel. He canonically* stated that his elves were small "i" immortal. A significant enough physical trauma could "kill" them temporarily, but they were granted new bodies in Valinor after a purgatorial time in the Halls of Mandos. The amount of time spent in Mandos' care was proportional to the amount of sin the elf in question has to work off. What's interesting is that Glorfindel seems to be the only elf to return from Valinor to Middle-earth. In some of his later writings Tolkien revised his earlier assertion that five Istari came to Middle-earth around the year 1000 of the Third Age. The later revision held that only three Istari (Saruman, Gandalf, and Radagast) came to Middle-earth in that year, and the the two blue wizards came to to Middle-earth in the Second Age, when Sauron was first stirring again, and that Glorfindel accompanied them. This keeps the number three in both cases, which was numerologically significant to Tolkien for obvious reasons.
Tolkien also claimed that elves don't "recycle" names if they can help it, which would require an explanation for how the Glorfindel that died at the fall of Gondolin can be back in Middle-earth in the Third Age.
* As far as anything not published in his lifetime can be considered "canon".
I think that's a bit strong. The various themes of the Silmarillion will not be destroyed by one elf reincarnating. I also think Tolkien did end up saying they were the same guy, as per Christopher.
Yes. He died defending others, including the infant Eärendil, at the cost of his own life. The fact that elves know they're going to be re-embodied may change that calculus a little, but it still counts as quite the selfless act.
Glorfindel's death seems to involve a kind of spiritual initiation that pops up from time to time in Tolkien's books. He faced a demonic foe, endured torment, and was brought up out of that into a new life by a great eagle. We see similar events playing out for Gandalf and Frodo. One could argue that Mædros was similarly initiated, but that he was too weighed down by the Oath of Fëanor for the transformation to do him much good.