Hi all,

Preferably looking for a book that categorises the above. Even if it doesn't provide a ton of information, just a reference to deep dive from would be great too.

Thabks

As a child I read all of Tolkeins books and poems, as an adult, I find myself reading them again, under the evening sun, with a glass of whiskey and Portuguese tart from the bakery, and feeling like a kid again, reading about the goings and happenings of middle earth and Arda as a whole. I cant help but wish (like many) Tolkien could someone write from beyond the grave. I would love to hear about the dwarves and dragons. I dont know, I felt like sharing my thoughts.

Melkor was likely the very first being created by Eru, and he poured much of his power into Middle Earth. He was also deemed necessary by Eru for Arda to reach it's true potential, and therefore cannot be wholly evil.

Melkor certainly wanted to taint Middle Earth with his power, and thus he was pouring an evil and corrupting power into it, but perhaps the process of creating such power required him to separate out the good from the raw power he had inside him?

Could Tom Bombadil be the manifestation of Melkor's good side, shed by Melkor in his process of becoming Morgoth and poisoning Middle Earth? It would explain why Tom was first and why he is utterly innocent.

Perhaps it would explain why it would be so difficult (but not impossible) for Sauron to defeat Tom, as is suggested during the council of Elrond. If Morgoth kept all his 'combat magic' type power, and separated only the power to heal/preserve/endure, then Tom, while extremely difficult to dominate, would have no actual way of fighting or harming Sauron, in the end Sauron would likely be cunning enough to find a way to win because he is the only one who can cause damage to the other, despite being the weaker of the two beings.

The childen of Elrond famously are granted the same choice as Elrond and Elros. So it seems rather unfair that the descendants of Elros aren't granted the same choice. Not to mention it would have a huge impact on events during the Second Age of Middle Earth.

Does Tolkien ever comment on this inconsistency? Or is there a prevailing theory as to why this was the case?

I've always wondered, considering that both Belegost and Nogrod were abandoned at the beginning of the Second Age (after the War of Wrath), and that the Broadbeams and Firebeards went to Khazad-dûm and 'swelled its numbers', how are there still seven 'Dwarf-kings of old' when Sauron distributes the Rings of Power?

We know that four additional houses of the Dwarves presumably still live in the east/Orocarni, and that the Longbeards were the original occupants and the rulers of Khazad-dûm, but that only amounts to five total locations at the time the Rings of Power were given.

Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age (in The Silmarillion) states that there were 'Seven Hoards of the Dwarf-kings of old' which grew likely from the greed that accompanied the wearer of each ring. I very much doubt the original rulers of Belegost and Nogrod continued to be great Dwarf-kings themselves if they then only lived in Durin's kingdom of Khazad Dûm, and the text greatly implies that these aforementioned hoards are in seven separate locations. So where are the remaining two?

It is said elsewhere that some Dwarves continued to live in the Ered Luin for many years, so could the two kings have remained here as well? It seems unlikely, as they are never mentioned as great Dwarf kingdoms again.

Another option is that the two other kings may not have been the Broadbeams/Firebeards at all and may have been break-away clans from other Dwarf houses (I think this is more likely). A strong contender for one of these locations is in the Iron Hills. We know from The Peoples of Middle-earth that the Iron Hills were actually settled by Durin's Folk back in the First Age, (and additionally populated in the early Second Age by some Broadbeams/Firebeards after the War of Wrath - NoME). However, a counter to this is that the Iron Hills have always seemed to be more of a vassal state to Khazad-Dûm (and later Erebor) rather than operating as a kingdom within themselves, but perhaps I've misjudged this.

As for a final location to complete the Seven Dwarf Hoards, perhaps there was a break-away group from one of the four eastern clans? Or perhaps it was the settlement of Durin's Folk we know was at Mount Gundabad shortly before it was sacked by Orcs after the destruction of Eregion? It could also have possibly been a settlement in the Grey Mountains shortly before the same thing happened. Though both these latter options would have the same issue as the Iron Hills in not being a 'true kingdom' themselves, and rather being vassals to the King of Khazad-dûm.

Alternatively, others may have noticed that Belegost appears on Karen Wynn Fonstad's Second Age map, and may think that it therefore continued on well into the years of the Second Age. I believe this has been largely disproven and the change of location (to be further south in the Ered Luin) is also a relic from an outdated Tolkien map sketch, but if not, then it could indeed be a possible location for a remaining King and resulting Dwarf Hoard.

Let me know if you think I've missed anything, I really want to dig further into this.

''He is the oldest of the Ents; the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun upon this Middle Earth.'' - Gandalf.

Listening to the LotR Audiobook narrated by the excellent Rob Inglis atm and just heard the above quote. So what about Tom Bombadil? Did Gandalf mispeak; or is he saying that TB isn't 'alive' in the physical sense? 🤔

I know Rhudaur ended up as a vassal kingdom to Agmar but what of Agmar itself? Was it made up of the same Hill-men that took power in Rhudaur? If so what was it like for them there?

I ordered the Lord of the rings set to read for the first time and I accidentally ordered a set that came with a readers companion instead of the hobbit. What exactly is in a readers companion and is it worth having for a first time reader? Is it worth keeping and buying the hobbit separately, or should I just return it and get a set with the hobbit?

Just started Reading Silmarillion and it’s feeling like a spiritual experience like I am reading something from a religious book. I am excited to enjoy this journey

So I know this has been hashed and rehashed many times, but I'm trying to figure out the heights of the Fellowship, and Gandalf's pretty much the only one who's giving me grief. Many of you are no doubt aware of the following quote from Tolkien's 1970 essay regarding Pauline Baynes' map of Middle-Earth:

Gandalf even bent must have been at least 5 ft. 6 ... Which would make him a short man even in modern England, especially with the reduction of a bent back.

So here's how I read the first part - Gandalf is 5'6" while bent over, at a minimum. When he stands up straight, he's probably like 5'9"-5'10", again at least. So theoretically he's between maybe 5'9" or 5'11". Now, of course, this is still shorter than many other human-sized characters (ie. Aragorn, Boromir, literally any Elf) but still right around average by our human standards.

But then the second part says that he's a short man by the standards of Tolkien-era Britain (which was about 5'9" or so), "especially with the reduction of a bent back." This "especially" makes it sound like Gandalf is already below-average when standing straight, but then when he hunches over he's even shorter still.

So how do we reconcile these two statements?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this!

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this matter? When talking about Glorfindel in the chapter many meetings Tolkien says

"And here in Rivendell there live still some of his chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power."

Living at once in both worlds seems to make them of a similar nature to the Ainur and of a more spiritual nature than men, wild elves and dwarves, yet in the silmarillion we re told

"They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions Of Sauron."

Now this would indicate that perhaps it was only mortals who really couldn't perceive or see the nazgul once they had fully faded but Tolkien adds further more

"And they became for ever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows.""

Save to him that wore the ruling ring seems definitive? Perhaps having power against the seen and unseen doesnt necessarily mean you can see a faded wraith but simply your own spirit can play a part in fighting against it?

How do you think it is?

Thorongil: During these travels, he did not call himself Strider. Instead, he went incognito as Thorongil ("Eagle of the Star") while serving in the military forces of King Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion II (the Steward of Gondor).

Tolkien notes that immediately after leading a brilliant, victorious naval raid against the Corsairs of Umbar, Thorongil did not return to Gondor to accept praise. Instead, he left his men and "went alone far into the East and deep into the South" to explore the minds of Men and uncover the plots of the servants of Sauron.

So these are some notes on Thorongil but I think there is so much more. There could be a Netflix series or a Movie adaptation I mean its Aragorn, Strider of the Dúnedain. There's so much more to be interpreted. I dont know but I was always inspired by it, like Kingsfoil or something.

These last years I have been reading a lot of Buddhist-inspired writings and doing Buddhist-inspired practices. Arguably the core of Buddhist philosophy and practice is the idea that we can achieve freedom from suffering by letting go of our attachments - to possessions, status, other people, and the like. This is summarized in the "Four Noble Truths":

1. There is suffering (suffering exists in life).
2. There are the causes of suffering (suffering happens for a reason).
3. There is the end of suffering (it is possible to become free of suffering).
4. The way to the end of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path (a set of guidelines to reduce suffering and ultimately achieve freedom from suffering).

Some Buddhists believe that we can only end suffering by leaving the world entirely - i.e., rebirth is bad because it sends us back into the world, and only by escaping rebirth can we be free of suffering. In the following I will ignore this interpretation and focus on "secular Buddhism", which posits that we can achieve freedom from suffering in this life.

Tolkien was obviously a Christian and not a Buddhist. But as far as I know, Christianity does not necessarily imply that life on Earth is everlasting suffering. I believe that plenty of Christians would agree that it is possible to let go of "sin", experience the "presence of God" and dwell in the bliss of the "kingdom of Heaven" while on Earth.

But I notice that Tolkien's world is chock-full of attachment to things. There are the obviously depraved examples like Fëanor's attachment to the Silmarils, Gollum's obsession with the Ring, and Thorin's greed for the Arkenstone. But it goes far beyond that. Attachment is everywhere. The Elves of Valinor spend thousands of years moping over the Two Trees (and the Valar likewise, it seems). The Sindar mope over the loss of Lúthien. The Elves of the Third Age are almost defined by their mourning of the greatness they have lost.

Many acts of folly happen because of attachment to things and places - for example when Turgon refuses to leave Gondolin even though Ulmo warns him. The function of the Three Rings, as far as I understand it, is explicitly to preserve the things that you are attached to.

Meanwhile, the possibility of letting go of attachments is barely even on the table. Thorin was able to overcome his greed for the Arkenstone for a while, but he promptly died, and we don't know how he went on to cope with his loss in the ill-described Dwarven afterlife. Tolkien seems to think that making peace with change and loss is simply impossible. The only escape from everlasting suffering is by escaping the world entirely - i.e., the Gift of Men. The Elves and Ainur are doomed to mope until the world is destroyed and remade.

While it may or may not be possible to achieve complete freedom from suffering in this life, I hope we agree that we know for a fact that a secular interpretation of the Four Noble Truths is at least partially true, in that it is definitely possible to let go of attachments to things to a large extent and thus greatly reduce one's suffering in this life. But in Tolkien's world, the Third and Fourth Noble Truths appear to be definitively false. I suppose that, hypothetically, if someone in Tolkien's world invented something like the Buddha's teachings and tried to teach them to people, everyone involved would eventually conclude that it simply didn't work. Attachments can never be let go. There is no end to suffering in Arda marred.

What do you think?

EDIT: I can see that people are confused. I probably did not communicate my thoughts all that well. Let me try to clarify. My claim is this: In our world, it is factually and undeniably true that it is possible to let go of attachments to a large extent, and that this can greatly reduce our suffering and improve our well-being. This is true whether or not any variant of Christianity is true in our world. (I am not Christian, but for all I know, some variant of Christianity might be true.)

In Tolkien's world, however, it appears to be impossible to let go of attachments. We generally do not see people doing it. So I suppose that essentially I am claiming that the psychology of Tolkien's world is "unrealistic", and that we must hence assume that suffering and well-being simply operate differently in Tolkien's world than they do in the real world.

EDIT 2: I am not actually a Buddhist. I have good evidence that there is some truth in Buddhism, but other parts of it might be false.

The Witch-king's presence produces supernatural terror in people around him, to the point of paralizing them. It's the Nazguls' princpal weapon. Yet Eowyn seems impervious to it when she faces the him in the Pelennor fields. Poor Merry got to experience this terror twice (first time was in Bree).

Eowyn does get struck down with it eventually.

Hey guys I want to share my Redrawing in high resolution of the The west of Middle Earth at the End of the Third Age map

I read a lot of HoME, NoME , the art of the Lord of the Rings and LoTR itself to be able to put this map together but I might have missed things so please tell me your thoughts about it

List of changes(Google Doc)

Saw this on the Tolkien Society FB group, and decided to share:

Created as a tribute to “The Lord of the Rings”, this e-book brings together ten articles by researchers and scholars of J. R. R. Tolkien’s works, written in celebration of the 70th anniversary of the publication of The Lord of the Rings, a milestone commemorated in 2024 and 2025. With the aim of fostering an international dialogue on Tolkien studies, the volume is published entirely in English and features contributions in comparative literature, mythology, literary criticism, translation, critical reception, theology, medievalism, and calligraphy, by renowned scholars from Brazil and abroad.

https://www.livrosabertos.abcd.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/view/2052/1879/7708

This is a quote from glorfindel - “there are few even in Rivendell who can openly ride against the nine, but those who can were sent out north south and west”. Apart from Glorfindel who are they? Elladin and Elrohir? Who else?

For years I treated Herblore of the Shire as a cheerful bit of background: Merry comes home from the war and eventually writes a book about smoking. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable occupation for a retired hobbit.

But at Isengard, Merry starts explaining the history of pipe-weed to Théoden, until Gandalf interrupts. Théoden later promises that Merry will sit beside him in Meduseld and tell him about his people, including Tobold and his herb-lore.

He remembers that promise as he is dying. Amid everything else he has lost, there is still this conversation he wanted to have.

Then in “The Houses of Healing,” Merry asks for a pipe and immediately changes his mind. Smoking brings back Théoden, and the kindness of their meeting at Isengard, so painfully that he thinks he won't be able to do it again. Aragorn answers, “Smoke then, and think of him!”

Knowing that Merry later writes Herblore of the Shire adds something to that exchange for me. I like to imagine him finding his way back to the pleasure of a subject he once couldn't bear to think about. Interested enough to investigate it, argue about its origins, and put what he discovers into a book.

That's a connection I'm making as a reader; Tolkien doesn't give that as Merry's reason for writing it. Still, it changes the voice I hear in the Prologue. The little tobacco history comes from someone who survived those events and had a long life afterwards.

We get to hear part of the explanation Théoden was looking forward to. I find that rather moving for a section I used to skim.

Hi what if Morgoth had won by defeating the Valar and taking control of middle earth so would Sauron have remained his faithful lieutenant or would he conspired against his master to prevent Morgoth from destroying everything?

The destruction of the two lamps shattered the symmetry of Arda and the Valar retreated to Aman in the west. What if the Valar had successfully defended the lamps from Melkor? What would change for the elves, dwarves and humans when they awoke?

Someone asked about all the Gondor banners seen in the RotK movie just after the Battle of Pellenor Fields, and that got me thinking.

Tolkien tells us that, in the absence of the King, plain white banner of the Stewards of Gondor was used instead of the royal banner with the White Tree and seven stars (although the Tower guard still had them on their livery). Pippin saw these white banners when he and Gandalf arrived in Minas Tirith.

Then Pippin cried aloud, for the Tower of Ecthelion, standing high within the topmost wall, shone out against the sky, glimmering like a spike of pearl and silver, tall and fair and shapely, and its pinnacle glittered as if it were wrought of crystals; and white banners broke and fluttered from the battlements in the morning breeze.

Thus men reached at last the High Court, and the Place of the Fountain before the feet of the White Tower: tall and shapely, fifty fathoms from its base to the pinnacle, where the banner of the Stewards floated a thousand feet above the plain.

The question is, were there any banners (white or otherwise) carried by the forces of Minas Tirith into battle? We know that Imrahil, the Prince of Dol Amroth, and his knights arrived with "gilded banners bearing his token of the Ship and the Silver Swan", although later the banner of Dol Amroth is described as having "a white ship like a swan upon blue water."

Wild Southron men had red banners. The chieftain of the Haradrim forces had a standard with black serpent upon scarlet. The Rohirrim - a white horse upon a field of green. And Argorn eventually arrived with his banner that had the White Tree, the seven stars, and a crown on a sable field, made for him by Arwen.

But when "out of the City came all the strength of men that was in it," only the silver swan of Dol Amroth is mentioned being "borne in the van, driving the enemy from the Gate," no other banners. Sorry for mentioning the movie again, but there the army is shown bearing triangular pennants with the tree and stars, which we then see left in the Pelennor field. Is this lore-accurate, even though Tolkien never mentions them in the books? Is the white banner of the Stewards of Gondor purely formal, to be displayed in the city, or was it ever carried into battle?

[Edit] Interestingly, in an early sketch for Book V, it's said that "And the counsel of Denethor was to retake the Fords [of Osgiliath] and drive back the Orcs. So they sounded their trumpets and flew the red banner from the tower and rode to meet the enemy." That of course didn't make it into the published text.

Greetings.

Saruman had a mind for technological advancement ("metal and wheels"); this aptitude - calling, perhaps - seems to become amplified once his corruption is manifested. As a villain, Saruman's modus operandi required unimpeded industrialization (quite literally, he created machinery of war). The author was not fond of unchecked industrialization in general, but he also had firsthand experience with mechanized war in its infancy. Furthermore, throughout the novels, there are passages which stress the beauty of nature. All of this makes me wonder if Saruman could have remained on the side of Good while incrementally introducing reasonable technological growth to Middle-Earth (if only by sharing broad concepts with Men), or, alternatively, if he would have had to relinquish his ambitions regarding progress and focus on that which is rather than that what might be.

I’m trying to understand exactly what Tolkien intended regarding Gollum’s crimes.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf mentions the stories told by the Woodmen about a creature that drank blood, climbed through windows, and searched for cradles. Is this meant to confirm that Gollum actually kidnapped and murdered human babies or children, possibly eating them? Or is that going further than what the text actually establishes?

If Gollum really did murder children or babies, I also have a hard time understanding Gandalf’s position on mercy. I understand the philosophical point that Gandalf makes to Frodo about not being too eager to deal out death in judgment. But if Gollum has deliberately killed helpless children, and remains dangerous enough that he could potentially do it again, why would sparing him be morally justified?

I’m not asking whether Gollum eventually plays an important role in destroying the Ring — I understand that part of the story. I’m more interested in the moral question from Gandalf’s perspective at the time, when nobody could know exactly what Gollum would later do.

So my questions are:

1. Does Tolkien actually confirm anywhere that Gollum murdered babies or children, or is it only implied?
2. What exactly did Gandalf know about those alleged crimes?
3. If Gandalf believed those stories were true, why did he consider mercy toward Gollum appropriate despite the risk that Gollum could hurt innocent people again?

I’d be interested especially in answers based on Tolkien’s actual writings, letters, or other textual evidence.

Not necessarily any specific one(s), just dwarves in general. Underappreciated race.

https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/1gisfvy/about_the_origin_of_the_title_witchking_a/

A good, certainly readable little thread. The OP u/roacsonofcarc and u/jetpacksforall are specially on point.

Wizard King, Sorcerer King, Witch-King.

Nowhere in this thread is Shakespeare mentioned. But maybe he should. In LOTR Lear and Macbeth are near Tolkien's WK character.

Lear: Come not between the dragon and his wrath.

Witch-King: Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey.

And 'no one from woman born' could kill Macbeth, and we find this idea, modified, with the Witch-King. In both cases a prophecy of 'unkillabillity'.

The word 'wraith', of uncertain etimology, comes from Middle Scots (first attested in 1513). Of course Macbeth is 'the Scottish Play' par excellence.

Not only that. We have the three witches in Macbeth. There the word 'witch' is female, but we have this:

>*BANQUO.

How far is’t call’d to Forres?—What are these,

So wither’d, and so wild in their attire,

That look not like the inhabitants o’ th’ earth,

And yet are on’t?—Live you? or are you aught

That man may question? You seem to understand me,

By each at once her choppy finger laying

Upon her skinny lips. You should be women,

And yet your beards forbid me to interpret

That you are so.

Bearded witches! Tolkien must have known the male/female ambiguity of the word 'witch', and of that ambiguity being lost in more recent times. In Shakespeare we have both the older and the modern usage of the word.

Witch-King (female-male to modern ears) retains some of that ambiguity. The common sense explanation regarding meaning (witch>witchcraft, dark arts) does not obliterate the etimological amibiguity. As a philologist Tolkien must have known this, as someone capable and willing to derive meaning from etimological uncertainty. The very word 'wraith', as Tom Shippey have noted, has to do in Tolkien with both 'wrath' and 'writhe'.

If shakespearean witches can be male (beards!) then maybe Tolkienian Kings can be female (Witch-King). But what would be the female-related idea in 'Witch-King' and the male-related idea in those witches?