In Olmer's Honor: Take Tolkien at Face Value - or is there 'Something Else'

[Valandil]

Olmer, a new member here at Entmoot, has a different slant on Tolkien's work than most of us seem to. This has become apparent in his posts in the first two threads of the LOTR book discussion, and in the 'Why Merry and Pippin' thread. In the latter, we had the following dialogue:

First... when I figured out where he was coming from:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Valandil
Olmer, it's become quite apparent (from this thread and the chapter discussion threads underway) that you either have a different take on the story than most of us, or that you have a twisted sense of humor - and just enjoy stringing us along. Either one of those is OK... though you'll certainly find that many will disagree with you. I hope that will never make you feel unwelcome or that any will get overtly hostile in their frustration as they respond to you.

As I see it (assuming the former is true - a 'different take') - correct me if I'm wrong - your 'interpretation' or 'application' of the story is to not take what Tolkien writes at face value. Is that so? So that, for instance - even when he depicts Gandalf and the Elves as benevolent to all... you see them as more self-serving... and just making use of the other 'free peoples' to help them achieve their own ends? That the perceived benevolence was just because the source writings were of hobbit origin and that they 'bought into' what Gandalf and the Elves were selling?

I guess it can come off as a rather 'cynical' view, but it may indeed be an acceptable way to interpret the story. I rather doubt it was what Tolkien had in mind... but hey, to each his own, right? And - I guess the cynicism fits right into our world as it is today. Also - it helps fill in certain parts of the story - to see Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear. Still, as I say, I disagree... but still welcome your opinions and insights - and look forward to further discussion on the various matters that will arise from our differing viewpoints.

So... welcome still, you-with-whom-many-of-us-disagree (there must be an Entish word for that)!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then... his response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Olmer
No, I'm quite serious.
Of course many will disagree with me and probably will label as "cynic", but I don't care as long as my opponents could express their point of view logically and with quotes to back up. I think this way allowed us to learn more about Tolkien work( not mention to make you read each sentence in the book more carefully and not just once. )
I began just like an ordinary Tolkien's fan (and I still am) till on one forum I read posting which was implying that, as you say, "Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear". It was very logical and seemed to me undermined all my believes. It was so contradictory , so questionable that I wanted to find inconsistency in his postulates... I felt like an advocate who is trying to prove that his client was falsely accused.
Instead I found a new dimension of the book, a new meanings in the very sentences of Professor's work. A whole new world... in which previous J.R.R.T.contradictions seems not so adverse and loose pieces were falling in place.
And this is when I really got hooked on Tolkien .

You got me right to the tee. My point of view is as the whole story seen by dwarf or Gondorian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So - I thought it would be nice to have this thread to discuss the whole THEORY involved, while we discuss the application, as appropriate to different parts of the story, in the various threads. This thread is intended to give us a basis of understanding of where Olmer - and others who may agree with him - are coming from when they make the statements they make.

Olmer... like to take it away and expound further?

OR

Anyone else... reactions to this way of viewing Tolkien?

[brownjenkins]

while it sounds a bit like a "conspiracy theory"... i enjoy new points of view... especially ones that tend to throw what people call common knowledge out the window ;)

i also think that a great book, much like life, is in many ways what it appears to be... if a conceptualization is valid enough for you (and you're not just plain nuts :p ), it is "true" for you for all practical intents and purposes... irregardless of what the author or others think

that said, i'd need a pretty good argument to change my mind

[The Gaffer]

I welcome this. It's exactly what's needed to inject another dimension into what could otherwise be a "wasn't it cool when they did X?" type discussion. Pity I haven't been on much to follow it.

As for the specifics of the theory, there are a few clues throughout the corpus that, even though hobbits are in the foreground, the back-story is very much elf-centric.

JRRT even puts it into words for himself, for example using Denethor to vocalise these sorts of views. Only the most blinkered reader (or simple-minded screenplay adaptor ;-)) could fail to see the sense of Denethor's point of view from his own standpoint.

What sets the likes of Gandalf and Elrond aside from major players like Saruman and Denethor is their true lack of pride. In ME, this is the real sin, the one for which, for example, Galadriel was being punished.

[hectorberlioz]

This could be a great discussion.
I can definitely see Olmer's way of thinking o this subject, and I wont deny that I agree with soem aspects of it.
Unforunately, I dont haev much time for the moot at this particular moment, but I will try to get back to this thread when I can.

[Olmer]

It was a good idea, Valandil , to get me out of my woods into limelight and ask me to speak out. Kind of challenging move... ;)
But you are right. All my future posts, probably, would be taken, say, with great resistance, unless at least basic informations coud be given for better understanding of my point of view.

The theory, which I stand for, originally not mine (I just broadened it out with quotes and further researches) and it's quite mind-boggling .
There I'll layout the basic of the THEORY.
Later we coud discuss and argue on each point. Feel free to point on its weak sides and inconcistencies. But, please, don't make your argument "...because Tolkien wrote so..." Explain why you came to such conclusion and give some quotes to back up.


The whole story about the danger of the Ring to Middle- earth is based on Gandalf's heresay, backed up by elves (Denethor seems does not think so, neither does Sauron). Seem the Ring had quite different and not so earth-shattering abilities.
Then, as Dances with the Eagles smartly pointed out in "Merry and Pippin" topic, what if the destruction of the Ring was not a main goal, but just a consequence of other plan?

Let take a boarder look on whole political picture of Middle-earth. It's rather peaceful: military conflict with Sauron just smoldering, from time to time giving a small flares. This calm suits both sides: Sauron could pretend that he is searching for the Ring, elves could unhurriedly continue their departing trying to stretch or slow down the time till the ultimate need to flee.
But how they could stop the time and keep all things unchanged? By wielding the Three Rings, the existence of which is very much depends on the existence of The Ring. So, a whole political play of the Elves got directed just to STALL Sauron long enough for a peacefull and unhurried emigration.
They have two plans for the Ring. Plan A - preservance: it was working for quite while, till Sauron found out that the Ring is not in Elves posession and boldly went on forcing them to use it. And here came plan B - the destruction of the Ring and the loss of its protection, and therefore, instead , making a powerful protector for remaining elves by putting on the throne of the neighborhood kingdom the king, which would be loyal to the Elves.

But who will risk their lifes for the sake of elves well-being?
Nobody.
Unless the Quest will bring them to complete realization of its greatness.
And here comes the story of The Ring of Power and destruction of all Free People on Middle earth.

Any Questions?

:D

[brownjenkins]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

i don't know where to begin ;)

[The Gaffer]

I take it all back.

Wasn't it cool when the entire evil and ugly conspiracy exploded with a big noise?

[Valandil]

Oi vey... Who started this thread anyway?!?? *looks* Oh! :o Have I created a monster?

Heehee... well, at least we'll have an idea where Olmer is coming from with his posts. :p

Olmer, you haven't won me over yet! Not ready to make specific quotes, but I'll start with the following comments: I don't know anything about JRRT saying anything in line with what you suggest EVER... which seems to me something he would do, if he had this as a 'hidden meaning'... oh, with his view of 'applicability' - he might well support your right to find these wild ideas IN his work, but he might just as well discount it as 'rubbish' too! He strikes me consistently as one who would seek to glorify the good, true and noble.

One wonders if searches for such 'ulterior motives' come from a jaded background - like might come from surviving the gloom and shadow of communist Eastern Europe.

Now - please don't take even THAT wrong - and I hesitate to write what I have because I want you to feel free to fully express yourself - but it seems SO off-base. Surely, you can relate if you once felt as most of the rest of us do?

Frankly though, I don't see quotes from the books that reinforce what you're saying. For one - I don't see why the Elves would have bothered with this scheme at all... why not just go quietly off to the West and leave Middle-earth to suffer under Sauron's yoke?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Valandil
Oi vey... What's 'oi vey'? :confused:

I agree with Valandil.

The elves were, perhaps, as noble as it seems. They, after all, a race that didn't like pain and suffering, no matter to whom. I don't think they would 'trick' the men of Middle Earth, only because they wanted to stay some more time in their precious lands.

[Count Comfect]

One problem I see with this idea is that if Denethor seems does not think so, neither does Sauron about the Ring being so dangerous, why is it that all who have it (Frodo, Gollum, Isildur) have huge negative reactions to it? And that it betrays them? Also, neither Denethor, who shows other madnesses, nor Sauron seems to me quite a reliable source.
In addition, the statement that It's rather peaceful: military conflict with Sauron just smoldering, from time to time giving a small flares is not quite accurate. Sauron is preparing a huge assault against Gondor before he knows that the Ring has been found: think about the timeline here, the huge armies he has at his disposal don't get organized in the amount of time available. Clearly, the peace isn't lasting anyway. The only reason Gondor has been at peace is that Sauron was busy.
Still, regardless of whether I agree with you, interesting to have a totally new opinion (to me at least) represented.

[hectorberlioz]

hmmm...very interesting view you have there Olmer...but Tolkien, as educated as he was, surely wasnt after creating a huge 'behind it all' meaning to the story.
Overall, I think he meant the story to be about the weak rising to greatness, despite some inabilities. And it was also about friendship, and not giving up hope through despairing times.
Tolkien was in WWI, and I'm sure he put alot of his thoughts and so on into LotR.

[Bombadillo]

I'm very glad you are so understanding and expectant of people's disagreements, Olmer. I want to preface anyway by saying that I respect your theory, am really intrigued by its depth, and am impressed that you are so devoted to the story's interperetation.

However, Tolkien hated the allegory, so I don't believe this "adverse" meaning was intentional.
I'm trying to look for a backup statement or something, but I really think it's as simple as that. :)

Also, a certain quote from Tolkien is coming to mind, but I forget the exact words. He says that he is essentially a hobbit, partially because he loves fancy waistcoats, and even dares to wear them. To me, this is an example of how 'face-value' Tolkien is.

Of course, if you understand that your idea wasn't his, I have no problem with your interperetation, as no individual's interperation can be right or wrong. (Do you admit it!? :evil: )Yours is just all the more interesting for its wierdness. Plus, it's new to me, so I'm really impressed that you've looked so far into it.

I'd say "welcome to the moot, BTW, Olmer" but I think this thread is the biggest welcome a newbie has ever gotten. :D


Originally posted by Valandil
Oi vey- he might well support your right to find these wild ideas IN his work, but he might just as well discount it as 'rubbish' too! He strikes me consistently as one who would seek to glorify the good, true and noble. Yes, that is how he strikes me also. I think that if he thought of someone (Gandalf & the Elves) as noble, he'd dwell on that nobility with a certain admiration of his own that is consequently shared with his readers. Again, this is very 'face-value' of him.


Originally posted by Valandil
Also - it helps fill in certain parts of the story - to see Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear. Are you implying that Gandalf was seeking glory? If so, I strongly disagree. But won't go into details now because I don't feel like it, and I'll wait for you to confirm this first too.

[GrayMouser]

I have to go with the consensus here- but you could probably get some cool fan-fiction out of it;)

It's similar to what Ursula K. LeGuin did in going back to Earthsea in her later books and taking another look at it from a much darker point of view.

[Anglorfin]

About the whole Elves looking down on other peoples of Middle Earth, that is easy to see. A good and simple case would be Thingol. It's also not hard to imagine why the Elves wouldn't want the Ring destroyed. It is a great irony that the only thing preserving their last remaining strongholds in Middle Earth is the one thing linked to the greatest evil of that time.

And so, upon the realization that the Ring was being actively hunted by Sauron, Elrond foresaw that there was no alternative to finally destroying it. The only discrepancy here would be the fact that Cirdan and Elrond had urged Isildur to destroy it years earlier after the Last Alliance. But Elrond and Cirdan are only two Elves. many others could have thought differently and would have liked the Ring to remain intact.

But in this case it was really a lose-lose situation for the Elves. So in the end they had to cut their losses and move out of ME anyway. Which they would have done if Sauron ever did get the Ring.

[azalea]

Well, unless I'm totally wrong, just because their rings were rendered useless didn't mean they had to leave -- it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged, right? So although it wouldn't necessarily be cause for celebration, I think the elves of course would have wanted Sauron and the Ring destroyed. They knew it had to be done. That's not to say they wouldn't have acted in their own best interest, but also I think they were honest in their dealings (I mean those in the Third Age :) ). I think Elrond and Galadriel were better than your average elf, and would help to do the right thing anyway.

PS: On the original topic -- plan A assumes that the elves knew where the Ring was -- and they didn't until Gandalf figured it out. (I mean if you're saying they were "using" the Hobbits to keep the Ring at their peril, so that the elves could continue as they had been -- which is what I'm hearing you say. Before that, it wouldn't have mattered. It was only when Sauron was known to be active again and seeking it that it became a crucial issue again).

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by azalea
Well, unless I'm totally wrong, just because their rings were rendered useless didn't mean they had to leave -- it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged, right?
The way I read it is that only when the Ring had been destroyed (and they had lost all that they had created, or preserved, with the Three) could they return to Valinor.

[brownjenkins]

i always got the feeling that many of the elves wanted to leave after the death and destruction resulting from the last alliance... but the rings allowed them to build havens in middle earth that resembled valinor enough to prolong their desire to remain

i think that after earendil's voyage any elf could choose to go west if they so wished... even galadriel... she had just not lost that feeling of independence yet, and wished to rule her own land as long as she could

[Olmer]

Thanks for the welcoming words , everyone!

I was hesitant to reply on this subject because I was not sure if I can handle this can of worms, which I was about to open..:confused: A squall of inquiries combined with shortage of free time could be very taxing and my responses could be quite delayed.
Nevertheless, you would say, I asked for it! Oi vay!..but where to go now poor...me?:(

I don't expect to win anybody, nor to believe in my postulates, at least not that fast. I, myself, didn't change my perception on Tolkien work overnight and I'm still " digging in"...

Just keep in mind, that "One who examines his beliefs, not an unbeliever."

Valandil I don't know anything about JRRT saying anything in line with what you suggest EVER....
hectorberlioz ...but Tolkien, as educated as he was, surely wasn’t after creating a huge 'behind it all' meaning to the story.
Bombadillo However, Tolkien hated the allegory, so I don't believe this "adverse" meaning was intentional


Seems to me that in all replies I see one major point: is it possible that Tolkien, as genius as he was , could write the book with deeper, inner meaning with " huge 'behind it all' meaning" ?
I would say, why not?
What makes his book to accept as more than just a fantasy is how absolutely, undeniably true it feels, like we had a glimpse of the long forgotten time, the time so distant that its history became a myth.
But could we with absolute certainty say that this is the history , which Tolkien acquired in unexplained way?
No. But also we can’t say with absolute certainty that the book is not based on historical facts derived from old manuscripts and ancient myths.

So, why everybody rushing forward to say that the book does not have a historical basis, repeating one after another with solid assurance: He did not mean THAT!
Why ?
Because EVERYBODY is saying so.
If, sometimes, we have difficulties to clarify our own true intentions, how can we be sure about somebody's real meanings?
Where such assurance came from?
It came from the surface impression of his work and the reason that Tolkien didn't broadcast it publicly.
But who would take him seriously after such announcement, "as educated as he was " he knew that it spells "death" of his impeccable reputation and respectable professorship?
He had a hard time from the publisher on acceptance of his books, who refused even to endorse the author . On "The Hobbit" dust-jacket the publisher made himself clear that he had nothing to do with strange professor and even more strange stories of his, writing this :"Professor Tolkien - BUT NOT HIS PUBLISHERS - still remain to be convinced that anybody will want to read his most delightful history..." About his book "The Lord of the Rings" Rayner Unwin (whose words on acceptance Tolkien's books for publication was crucial) doubtfully said :"Quite honestly I don't know who is expected to read this..."
His opinion put the most cherished by Tolkien work "The Silmarillion" into the Great Limbo and away from readers on many years, sorry to say.

Who would want to be ostracized even more?
But you can't make the great writer to be completely silent about it , and he makes a tentative suggestions that he had the “ SOURCES long before in mind “; that his books don't have ALLEGORY (why not? a Christian novel depicting victory of Good over Evil in such unrestless time would be more readily accepted.); that he prefers HISTORY (who wants to read such unpopular subject?), which he "recorded", specifically highlighting that fact; that the book, like any history work, does not have INNER MORAL (another downgrading of the book), but the history and ITS APPLICABILITY could be VARIED and "though the dates given are often conjectural,... they DESERVE ATTENTION" . All this, among other tidbits scattered through all professor's writing, is unpersuasively giving an implication that behind the whole story is something bigger than just an author's fantasy.

OK, just for the sake of argument let's agree on the real history base .
Then the next question will be: the source.

Could it be that at some period of time he met a mysterious stranger who told him the real story of which came to us in pieces and bits , bearing striking resemblance, in myth and legends of different cultures?
Could it be somebody like that mystifying "tramp" in rags, which he met at the church, who was not begging? "He had a brown beard , and a curiously 'clean' face, with blue eyes." When Tolkien offered him some change, "he took it with grave kindness and thanked courteously"(Let.#89).
Is it too wild to assume that it could be the one of still remaining on Earth Firstborn? Exiting and... preposterous.
Agree, absurd, but it's some beauty in such insinuation...

Then comes another suggestion, which seems quite reliable: the manuscripts and old books.
As a linguistic specialist of more than 18 modern and ancient languages Tolkien had free access to the library of the oldest college in Europe, where on the endless shelves was tucked in a lot of books from previous centuries, some of them had not been touched since its arrival. This kind of books had a pulling attraction for Tolkien and he was spending hours “ getting filthy amongst dusty books”.
What if amongst this books he discovered a few stacks of old papers written on unknown before language and he started to work on translation just to find out that it‘s some kind of joke: the whole cryptic text , that is not so recent, but not exactly anciently old for a public announcement, suggests that it is a copy of some kind lost red book, written by some unknown to scientists race, which Tolkien named as “hobbits”.
He couldn’t use it as scientific discovery, but he could incorporate some acquired in translation knowledge as a canvas for his stories.
This way you can easily explain all inconsistencies, mixed up names and events, because they are nothing else but a logical conclusions made by him from this or that interpretations of translated facts.

[Olmer]

But Talkien himself has another version of the source of acquired information, of which he could tell only to very close people.
In his letters to his son he tells that he has kind like divine inspiration, like “sudden vision or perhaps apperception which at once turned itself into pictorial form in my mind” and “all of the sudden I realized what it was: the very thing that I have been trying to write about and explain”.
Quite often he had the sudden clarities or brainstorms:" I remember saying aloud with absolute conviction :"But of course!...that's how things really do work!" But I could not reproduce any arguments that had led to this, though the sensation was the same as having been convinced by REASON (if without reasoning)
Or he was getting a premonition feeling on the stories he was writing. While finishing "The Hobbit" he "had suddenly in a fairly strong measure the "eucatastrophic" emotion at Bilbo's exclamation:" The Eagles!The Eagles are coming!", which is later brought him to the last "LOTR" chapters about Frodo and Sam.
On his writing of the book he comments that it "seems to write itself once I get going, as if the truth comes out of them, only imperfectly glimpsed in preliminary sketch" and in the process it sometimes " getting quite out of hand... and progress towards quite unforeseen goals" and the appearance of new unplanned characters, such like Faramir.:"A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I didn't invent him) but there he came walking into the woods.. and he is holding up the 'catastrophe' by a lot of stuff about history of Gondor..."
Or "take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called "Treebeard" was written of more or less as it stands, with an effect on myself almost like reading someone else's work".
And, as he admitted himself, his progress on the stories depended a lot on such inspirations and when "foresight had failed" he could seat "absolutely dry" waiting for ideas to come, sometimes as long as 3 years.
Does all of this suggest that in some way he had a sudden divine revelations of the things of which he was not aware before?
Yes, it does! At least from my point of view.

And he is not the only one who had such unique abilities.
Mozart was writing down the draft of his musical inspirations without any corrections, describing that they are rising in his mind like a dreams, quite independent of his will.
Russian chemist D. Mendeleyev saw his famous Periodic Table of chemical elements in his dream.
Coleridge said that he composed "Kubla Khan" while sleeping.
Goethe wrote many of his best poems in condition close to somnambulism.
Einstein disclosed in his letters that , while conceiving his theory of relativity, his thoughts was coming to him as an undefined images, not as the formulas.
And the list could go on...

Seems many of people, whom we call genius, have had some help from 'beyond'.
Are we talking about ESP, some paranormal things , which quite often brings a smirk and doubtful look on people faces?
Not exactly, but we shouldn't discard this idea either. If German, Russian and American governments was (and still probably do) shelling out millions to support the studies of such phenomena, than it IS something in it.

Just a point to ponder: We know that DNA is a complete "blueprint" of organism's construction and function.But in early 1980's biologists came to astounding discovery that in the human cells is being used only 3% of the whole DNA information. If we are using only 3% of our genotype , then imagine how vast our genetic pool and how unlimited our potentials!

But we are talking here about an inspiration, a sudden clarity, the visions. What it has to do with DNA?
Let's see...

While being in college Tolkien became aware of the feeling of predestination, that by fate he preordained to achieve or to begin something great," to kindle a new light, or rekindle an old light in the world", and his friends encouraged him to devote his time to writing.
But his career as writer actually began due to recurrent through his adulthood nightmares (a huge wave comes on the land). In spite of his countless attempts to understand and overcome that dream by making rhymes and funny stories about it, he continued to wake up gasping , as if he had drowning.
The dreams subsided only after he wrote the long Great flood story, which became a background for LOTR .
Later on, when he found out that one of his sons also had the same nightmares, he came to believe that this is a real memory of a real flood transferred to him from ancestors who lived a few millenniums earlier and he somehow getting an access to this glimpses of the Old World. This is how he describes his writing: "I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happens' came through."
So, through his subconscious mind he was tapping in some kind of storage of information.
But where is a perfect place for accumulation and storage of unlimited data?
Right! In DNA, and this, my friends, already is a scientific fact.

Now we came to logical conclusion, which is based on all given information, that any great writer, composer or artist, even sometime an ordinary person, under certain tune in of their brainwaves enters an immaterial world of collected ideas and information , as genuine as they were really exist.
And then the author might find in his creations more, than he could or wanted to tell.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Olmer
Now we came to logical conclusion, which is based on all given information, that any great writer, composer or artist, even sometime an ordinary person, under certain tune in of their brainwaves enters an immaterial world of collected ideas and information , as genuine as they were really exist.
And then the author might find in his creations more, than he could or wanted to tell.

interesting... i enjoy existentialist thinking from time to time, and would be a hypocite to just come out and say "you're out of your mind" (though you very well may be ;) )

the only thing i would add is that this "mystical inspiration" does not have to come from an external force... or even be transmitted from one being to another, as one envisions esp... or encapsulated in DNA... there may be a basic chaotic foundation within our neurosystem which allows for pure imagining that doesn't necessarily depend upon an actual or mythical past (even though tolkien admittedly called upon many of these things when he wrote his stories)

i prefer not to automatically attribute intelligence to the miraculous, if you know what i mean

i would like to hear more about the specific LoTR theory though, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle

[hectorberlioz]

Olmer, that is one of the most incredible reads I've had in while:D

[Olmer]

azalea...it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged,
And this is the main reason of all their troubles - they WANTED to have things unchanged, this is why they were leaving for Valinor and this was a major function of the rings - preservance.
.azalea...plan A assumes that the elves knew where the Ring was -- and they didn't until Gandalf figured it out.
They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.
AnglorfinIt is a great irony that the only thing preserving their last remaining strongholds in Middle Earth is the one thing linked to the greatest evil of that time.

Glad that your analytical mind can see the broader picture of the history of Elves and Men. But I don't agree on the greatest evil . Sauron was depicted as evil figure, all right. But he was allowed by Eru to be as a stopover on the Elves ideas to change, or better to unchange the World. Andthey, by doing this, budged into the area which is strictly God's Department.
AnglorfinThe only discrepancy here would be the fact that Cirdan and Elrond had urged Isildur to destroy it years earlier after the Last Alliance.

It is a LOT of discrepancy in the whole story of Isildur owning the Ring and his death. But this is Elrond's heresay, because no other witnesses could come forward.
GrayMouserIt's similar to what Ursula K. LeGuin did in going back to Earthsea in her later books and taking another look at it from a much darker point of view.

That is the point!
Nothing in the world is as White and Black. Much of the matters located in the Gray area, where the same facts can be interpreted in another way. It is always an another side of the coin.
Bombadillo..if he thought of someone (Gandalf & the Elves) as noble, he'd dwell on that nobility with a certain admiration of his own that is consequently shared with his readers.

Yes he admired the Elves , as noble and great, as they were, they had the same as men shortcomings: such as pride and boldness, absence of compassion even to their own kind and also is being headstrong and self-conceited . Look into "The Sill".
Bombadillo Are you implying that Gandalf was seeking glory?
I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.
Count Comfect...Denethor, who shows other madnesses, nor Sauron seems to me quite a reliable source.
.
Denethor was very smart, powerful and VERY respected man even in his late madness, not a marasmatic of PJ invention.
Sauron as a maker of the Ring is more than reliable source.
Count ComfectClearly, the peace isn't lasting anyway.
I was never saying that it will be lasting peace. This is the reason why Elves were fleeing from ME.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Olmer


They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.



:)
That's okay, we're not in the confines of chapters in this thread, which is outside of the project. Go ahead and back yourself up on this (when you have time, of course).






I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.



But blunders don't equal deception, underhandedness, or acting out of greed/self-interest. Honest mistakes are different than intentionally "using" someone. What other priorities does Gandalf have, in your opinion?

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
Seems to me that in all replies I see one major point: is it possible that Tolkien, as genius as he was , could write the book with deeper, inner meaning with " huge 'behind it all' meaning" ?
I would say, why not?

Heya Olmer,

Thanks for taking the time for these 3 responses and opening this up for discussion. Nice job.

Here's the first place I would disagree with you. I don't think anyone here would say that TOlkien's work does not have a "deeper, inner meaning", certainly not those you are citing. The question is whether the "deeper, inner meaning" you are presenting can be supported by a reading of the texts. We must also answer the question of what authority if any to place on the author's own interpretations and understanding of his work. Most of us here would probably put a great deal of store by what Tolkien says, and it is apparent that you have a different take on that. So the real question is not whether there is more meaning than the plot, but what that meaning is.



But could we with absolute certainty say that this is the history , which Tolkien acquired in unexplained way?
No. But also we can?t say with absolute certainty that the book is not based on historical facts derived from old manuscripts and ancient myths.

But we can, at least with as absolute a certainty as we can say that say Margaret Atwoods _A Handmaid's Tale_ is not history. How? We can reconstruct the entire growth of the story in Tolkien's own hand writing. We have his papers and his drawings. and can go to the Bodleian or to Marquette or Wheaton and see them. It is unlikely that Tolkien discovered an otherwise unknown manuscript that no one else had catalogued before and that between Tolkien's death and the opening of his will this manuscript, which outside of the LoTR Tokien never spoke of, should utter;u dosa[[ear without a trace, without anyone else having seen it, without its translator, a philologist extraordinaire, having brought attention to the artefact and its linguistic features. We also know that various parts of the story as Tolkien composed it were read to the Inklings and the C. S. Lewis saw other bits, as had C. Tolkien. And both mention at vraious points that suggestions were made in the story details (hardly to be given the time of day if this is a translation of a mss) and that such a point was as far as Tolkien had written. Finally we have no evidence that LoTR is based on a specific history or specific document outside of Tolkien's imagination. Thus, we can say with all but absolute certainty that it is not based on old manuscripts and ancient myths, at least in the way I think you mean it.

This isn't to say that ancient myths and manuscripts didn't influence Tolkien--not at all, and quite the contrary. But there is no reason to suppose that it is a direct and singular influence.

So, why everybody rushing forward to say that the book does not have a historical basis, repeating one after another with solid assurance: He did not mean THAT!
Why ?

Lack of Evidence, simple as that, and silence from the author.

Where such assurance came from?
It came from the surface impression of his work and the reason that Tolkien didn't broadcast it publicly.
But who would take him seriously after such announcement, "as educated as he was " he knew that it spells "death" of his impeccable reputation and respectable professorship?

What in particular would spell death? If he had a manuscript or manuscripts of the Red Book for instance, all he has to do is produce the manuscript, create a facsimile of it, make an edition, and then call his work an adaptation. Ta Da. No academic, career ending moments. As a scholar who worked on manuscripts and with manucripts daily, I suggest that if there were manuscripts behind LoTR that this is the first thing that would have occurred to Tolkien, followed by a grammar of Elvish and Westron and efforts made to tie them into the ancestors of our present languages.

He had a hard time from the publisher on acceptance of his books, who refused even to endorse the author

Huh? The Hobbit was enthusiastically received, and the LoTR was requested before it was written (more on Hobbits). They rejected the Simarillian, true, but let's face it, that isn't nearly as interesting. Most of us wouldn't have read it without LoTR, I can't think of anyone who would read the tales of the Sim and then move into the Hobbit and LoTR, if they even finished the Sim. But I don't think this claim holds water.

I have some problem with the quotes below. The first one you say is on the cover of the Hobbit? Which edition? And why would a publisher in the business of selling books put a disclaimer that they had no idea who would read the Hobbit, the book they're trying to sell? I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin...I can't find it right now but I thought his statement in this regard was in reference to the Sim, not to LoTR. Can anyone confirm these quotes and their context?

Who would want to be ostracized even more?

Huh? How can you claim that the publishers ostracized Tolkien? They published the Hobbit, requested him to write more about hobbits and published LoTR when Tolkien finally finished it. I think that rejecting the Sim hardly constitutes "ostracization".

other tidbits scattered through all professor's writing, is unpersuasively giving an implication that behind the whole story is something bigger than just an author's fantasy.

Of course there is, LANGUAGE. And why would you assume that history is unpopular? From what I see, history is alive and well--whether we look at movies, at books, at television channels devoted to history...its alive and very well. Tolkien professionally also avoided the allegorical texts in his field and went for the more historical texts, although as he wrote to CT, who had read a paper on an historical subject, the thing that thrilled him in the paper was the comments on the roots of attilla, little father.

The story you relate would make great fan fiction, but how is ol' Tolkien going to keep all this secret from his family? Wouldn't they have noted a strange elf or two? And the Bodleian is well catalogued, find the manuscript.

Forkbeard[

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
But Talkien himself has another version of the source of acquired information, of which he could tell only to very close people.
In his letters to his son he tells that he has kind like divine .
Does all of this suggest that in some way he had a sudden divine revelations of the things of which he was not aware before?
Yes, it does! At least from my point of view.

But Olmer, many writers speak of these kind of experiences while writing, Tolkien is not unique in this respect. By that then every book fits your argument. And I don't mean just a few great artists, I mean even students in creative writing classes have breaktrhoughs in their writing that they describe in very similar terms to Tollers. Seems to be a part of the creative process.


FB

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
And this is the main reason of all their troubles - they WANTED to have things unchanged, this is why they were leaving for Valinor and this was a major function of the rings - preservance.
.
They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.

Glad that your analytical mind can see the broader picture of the history of Elves and Men. But I don't agree on the greatest evil . Sauron was depicted as evil figure, all right. But he was allowed by Eru to be as a stopover on the Elves ideas to change, or better to unchange the World. Andthey, by doing this, budged into the area which is strictly God's Department.

It is a LOT of discrepancy in the whole story of Isildur owning the Ring and his death. But this is Elrond's heresay, because no other witnesses could come forward.

That is the point!
Nothing in the world is as White and Black. Much of the matters located in the Gray area, where the same facts can be interpreted in another way. It is always an another side of the coin.

Yes he admired the Elves , as noble and great, as they were, they had the same as men shortcomings: such as pride and boldness, absence of compassion even to their own kind and also is being headstrong and self-conceited . Look into "The Sill".

I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.

Denethor was very smart, powerful and VERY respected man even in his late madness, not a marasmatic of PJ invention.
Sauron as a maker of the Ring is more than reliable source.

I was never saying that it will be lasting peace. This is the reason why Elves were fleeing from ME.

Just a few issues:

a) I'm not convinced that the Elven motivation in Middle Earth was preservation of the past, I think this was more a result.

b) the Elves knew the whereabouts of the Ring all those millenia? Where do you get that from?

c) so you're saying that Sauron was really Eru's agent against those rebellious Elves, who are the real evil?

FB

[azalea]

Originally posted by Forkbeard



I have some problem with the quotes below. The first one you say is on the cover of the Hobbit? Which edition? And why would a publisher in the business of selling books put a disclaimer that they had no idea who would read the Hobbit, the book they're trying to sell? I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin...I can't find it right now but I thought his statement in this regard was in reference to the Sim, not to LoTR. Can anyone confirm these quotes and their context?

[

I think he's attributing the given quote (edit: the quote is the publisher's, I meant the one sentiment is being attributed to the publisher, when in fact it means T.) to the publisher, when in fact it was Tolkien himself who was humbly suggesting that he couldn't believe anyone would be interested in reading his stories. The quote is worded in such a way as to be confusing, perhaps moreso to non-native English speakers.

The quote being "Professor Tolkien, but NOT his publishers, remains to be convinced..." IOW it is not his publishers that need convincing, they already know the book is good for public consumption. The quote means Tolkien remains to be convinced of that.

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by azalea
I think he's attributing the given quote (edit: the quote is the publisher's, I meant the one sentiment is being attributed to the publisher, when in fact it means T.) to the publisher, when in fact it was Tolkien himself who was humbly suggesting that he couldn't believe anyone would be interested in reading his stories. The quote is worded in such a way as to be confusing, perhaps moreso to non-native English speakers.

The quote being "Professor Tolkien, but NOT his publishers, remains to be convinced..." IOW it is not his publishers that need convincing, they already know the book is good for public consumption. The quote means Tolkien remains to be convinced of that.

Thanks Azalea, that helps. But it just illustrates my point: I do not see how this quote establishes Olmer's contention that Tolkien and his works were ostracized, particularly if it indeed was Tolkien himself who questioned who would read his books.

Gratefully,

Forkbeard

[Count Comfect]

A couple points, some new, some rehashing of points I don't think are adequately emphasized:
Bombadillo - Tolkien hated allegory
He really did. And that makes it very unlikely that he would write the entire series of all those books and unpublished manuscripts with some hidden meaning (i.e. allegorical meaning) inside.
Also, Denethor is respected, yes, but he does try to burn himself and his son alive, as well as taking the Palantir with him to death (those are in Tolkien, not PJ) and that certainly does not seem so balanced in the head to me.
Oh, and Sauron/Thu certainly seems evil in the Sill, which is written omnisciently (not from hobbit POV like LOTR and the Hobbit), so the evil of Sauron (and the need to destroy him/the Ring) seems objective, not subjective.

[Olmer]

brownjenkins
..."mystical inspiration" does not have to come from an external forcebeing to another, as one envisions there may be a basic chaotic foundation within our neurosystem which allows for pure imagining that doesn't necessarily depend upon an actual or mythical past ...

...i prefer not to automatically attribute intelligence to the miraculous, ...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.(Hamlet. Shakespeare.)
The intelligence itself is a miracle. Over millions of species existing on the Earth only one evolved to develop high intelligence, and to compare with time of planet Earth existence , if we will count it as 365 days, it took only 4 minutes before the end of the year.
So a human race is still too young to presume that they already know how the Universe work. Any way, the things, what we call now 'a miracles' in future could be very well considered as natural human abilities.
Count Comfect
..it very unlikely that he would write the entire series of all those books and unpublished manuscripts with some hidden meaning (i.e. allegorical meaning) inside.
J.R.R.T didn't like allegories, all right, and pointed out that it is nothing allegorical in all his work , but still, if "the better and more closely woven story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it", because "Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth".And when the Truth reveals itself, as I said, then the author might find in his creations more, than he wanted to tell.
The novel "Don Quixote" which considered by esteemed literators as the symbol of romanticism, for example, was written by Cervantes just as a parody on chivalry.
Count Comfect
Also, Denethor is respected, yes, but he does try to burn himself and his son alive, as well as taking the Palantir with him to death (those are in Tolkien, not PJ) and that certainly does not seem so balanced in the head to me.
Denethor, the man of true Numenorian blood, proud and wise, took in deadly earnest his enormous responsibilities to rule the diminishing in power kingdom of Gondor , and, as a man of strong will and high honor, he demanded the same dedication to the cause from everyone, including his sons. .
Up to the day when Faramir was brought to the White Tower he was at the command of his army, sane and sound.
Even Sauron couldn't overcome his strength of mind, only a despair of loosing his last son weakened his iron will and allowed the Dark Lord to break his mind.
..Sauron certainly seems evil in the Sill, which is written omnisciently (not from hobbit POV like LOTR and the Hobbit), so the evil of Sauron seems objective, not subjective.

Yes, he was evil, but have not been cast away in nothingness like Melkor.
Seems God had other plans for him.


Forkbeard
But there is no reason to suppose that it is a direct and singular influence.
It is unlikely that Tolkien discovered an otherwise unknown manuscript that no one else had catalogued before

..but how is ol' Tolkien going to keep all this secret from his family? Wouldn't they have noted a strange elf or two?

And ...the Bodleian is well catalogued, find the manuscript.

... we have no evidence that LoTR is based on a specific history or specific document outside of Tolkien's imagination.

Thank you for taking your time to "pull apart" my hypotheses. I see you are really trying to point on weak spots of the offered theory.

First of it, may I direct your attention to such aspect in my posts that I have NEVER stated that the direct and singular influence came exactly from an Elf or lost manuscript.
I just presented the way of my thoughts, suggesting a few possibilities, as unusual as they are, and disregarding them on the course. No need for you to prove that they are "wild', I KNOW it, just thought it would be interesting for some people to look from "another angle".

BTW, librariy's books (even Bodleian) can be well catalogued, but not necessary all of them studied. It is still a lot of papers and documents in the libraries vaults, which require a full time workers just to sort it out and cataloque, and I am not talking about studies.
And also, the luck of evidence doesn't necessarily prove that the subject not exist.
I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin
I purposely didn't put the # of letters in all quotes , they are basically from "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" book, in order to make you read more of the book while looking for specific quote. The book worth of the time to spend on it.
But I assure that all quotes was taken exactly as they were printed in the book.
Just to ease your headache in the letters #109and #127 the fuller R. Unwin's reviews on the book

And why would you assume that history is unpopular?
Considering that prevailed amount of book readers prefer to read novels, fiction and detectives.
....many writers speak of these kind of experiences while writing, Tolkien is not unique in this respect. By that then every book fits your argument. And I don't mean just a few great artists, I mean even students in creative writing classes have breakthroughs in their writing that they describe in very similar terms to Tollers. Seems to be a part of the creative process.
So? This is what I'm saying. He is not the only one in having such experiences while creating. I think almost everyone can give an account of the sudden breakthroughs or foresights.

Every book wouldn't fit my argument, but books of genius people usually have much deeper depth , more dimensional and therefore contain much more information for attentive reader.

...who are the real evil?
You still don't know that Evil doesn't' t exist in pure form?

azalea Thanks for correcting my perception on the quote

[Count Comfect]

Denethor, the man of true Numenorian blood, proud and wise, took his enormous responsibilities to rule the diminishing in power kingdom of Gondor in deadly earnest, and as a man of strong will and high honor he demanded the same dedication to the cause from everyone, including his sons
Also a jealous man... his grudge against Gandalf and elves can be dated all the way back to his youth, when Thorondir was his father's favorite and a friend of Gandalf and the elves. He is biased against them.

Also remember, Eru does not involve himself highly in ME after the creation... so the fact that Sauron was allowed to live does not mean Eru ("God") necessarily had a plan for him. It just means he wasn't key enough to destroy utterly. And he is evil, utterly, no question, so destroying him doesn't have to be some sort of self-serving plot.

EDIT: And in Tolkien, evil does exist in pure form: that's Sauron and Melkor for you. Very clearly expressed in the Sill.

Oh, and about Allegory/Story, my argument would be that your interpretation is entirely Allegory, meaning that Tolkien didn't intend it. It may be interpretable from the text (which I would still dispute) but it isn't Tolkien's interpretation, that's all.

Oh, and on a totally different point, Don Quixote is still regarded as the classic parody of chivalry ;)

Thanks for answering all this stuff we're throwing at you. :D

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Count Comfect
Also a jealous man... his grudge against Gandalf and elves can be dated all the way back to his youth...

And in Tolkien, evil does exist in pure form: that's Sauron and Melkor for you. Very clearly expressed in the Sill.

It may be interpretable from the text (which I would still dispute) but it isn't Tolkien's interpretation, that's all.

Oh, and on a totally different point, Don Quixote is still regarded as the classic parody of chivalry ;)


Denethor was not jealous.He was smart and perseptive, can put two and two together to find real meaning behind seemingly innocent events. He did not trust elves, seeing them as self-serving and ignorant to other ME's inhabitants need and suspected (quite rightfully) them and Gandalf to be involved in some shady intrigue against the Men. And after all his perseption was proved to be true:Gandalf WAS planning a coupe to put an elve's marionette at the head of the dominion which is bordering with theirs realm.

Evil NEVER exist in pure form.Remember A road to hell paved by good notions?;) It's quite true to Tolkien's stories. Let me remind you that Tolkien did not depict Melkor and Sauron as born to be evil. They turned into evil because they wanted express themselves, dared to be different and therefore became outcasts, but their notions from the beginning was benign.

What "allegorical " you see in my interpretation? I agree, it might be very well not what Tolkien meant to tell and the another dimension in his book turned out quite independedly. But then again, as genius as he was, he might weave it in the story's canvas just for the heck of it. As he was writing to his son Christopher, it is not the story, which mostly exites a reader, but an untold glimpses of another stories behind it, which fuels your imagination.

"Don Quixote it IS regarded as the classic parody on chivalry, but ALSO as symbol of romanticism.;)

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Olmer
Denethor was not jealous.He was smart and perseptive, can put two and two together to find real meaning behind seemingly innocent events. He did not trust elves, seeing them as self-serving and ignorant to other ME's inhabitants need and suspected (quite rightfully) them and Gandalf to be involved in some shady intrigue against the Men. And after all his perseption was proved to be true:Gandalf WAS planning a coupe to put an elve's marionette at the head of the dominion which is bordering with theirs realm. Denethor was jealous of Aragorn. He was also wise and far-sighted. He got insane after Boromir died and after he saw in the Palantir Sauron's army - he was desparate and therefore I don't think I'd trust his word.
Who's the elf's marionette? Aragorn? :confused: How is he an elf marionette?
Denethor disliked Gandalf because he suspected them to have a conspirasy to have Thorongil (back then) instead of him rule Gondor. But that's ridiculous, and as you can see he was wrong - because back then Aragorn had no plans to come to Gondor to be a leader.

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
He got insane after Boromir died and after he saw in the Palantir Sauron's army - he was desparate and therefore I don't think I'd trust his word.

This what happened when you did not read carefully. ;)
Read about the last council before Faramir went to defend Osgiliath.
..."we should not lightly abandon the outer defence...the Enemy must pay dearly for the crossing of the River"...
..".I will not yeld the River and the Pelennor unfought..."
Does he sounds like the man who is loosing his marbles?
He was deeply depressed by Boromir's death, but was still sane and sound till the last two days of his life.

Who's the elf's marionette? Aragorn? :confused: How is he an elf marionette?
Because he was brought up in the loyalty to the Elves. Remember, that exept Rangers , united under Aragorn's leadership , nobody around didn't feel too much love for the Elves.
Rohirrim, for example, considered them as evil, clearly afraid and dislike them, saying:"Let them go where they belong, into the dark places, and never return. The time are evil enough".LOTR, book V, ch.II

Denethor disliked Gandalf because he suspected them to have a conspirasy to have Thorongil (back then) instead of him rule Gondor.
You said it yourself!:) There WAS a conspiracy, othervise Gandalf wouldn't be instructing Pippin to keep his mouth shut, and Denethor's suspicions was right on the target.
... back then Aragorn had no plans to come to Gondor to be a leader.
At that time Aragorn already was trying to prove himself to be worthy the honor of Arwen's hand, because Elrond clearly let him know that with her great lineage she worth to be wife of the King, but not a dirty-nosed ranger.

[Count Comfect]

If I am following your logic, the fact that Aragorn likes the elves and is their friend ipso facto makes him a "marionette" - by the same logic, Pippin becomes Denethor's marionette at the end, and Merry is Eomer and Theoden's.
What's this about people not liking elves? The friendship between Gondor and the elves goes back centuries. The Rohirrim came from the North and lack that link.
Gandalf tells Pippin to keep his mouth shut because Denethor will THINK that Gandalf is plotting if he hears anything.
By the way, Aragorn is unquestionably the heir, so it isn't exactly usurpation ;) Earnur (can't remember if its him) explicitly recalled the kinship of the two houses of Arnor and Gondor when he took the throne.
Denethor most certainly was jealous of Thorongil and Gandalf. Everyone loved Thorongil more (Denethor's dad included) and he hated that.
I see Allegory because it is not the author's interpretation - that would be my definition of it.
And those who would categorize Don Quixote as a romance are those who consider Shakespeare Baroque... fools. :D

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Count Comfect
- by the same logic, Pippin becomes Denethor's marionette at the end, and Merry is Eomer and Theoden's.
There is a big difference between person, who can be manipulated, and person , who can be ordered.
Merry and Pippin was just servants.
The friendship between Gondor and the elves goes back centuries.

Wrong. The friendship between ARNOR and the elves was going back for centuries. Gondor have never been too chummy with them.
Gandalf tells Pippin to keep his mouth shut because Denethor will THINK that Gandalf is plotting if he hears anything.
You said it yourself!
Gandalf was PLOTTING against Denethor, but didn't want him to know or to guess about it.
Denethor most certainly was jealous of Thorongil and Gandalf. Everyone loved Thorongil more (Denethor's dad included) and he hated that.
Could you back up with a quote, which at least suggest that he was jealous and full of hate?
Then again it's just your interpretation and not an author's.
Why do you think that yours interpretation is better than mine?
I, at least, can back up each of my statements with quotes of the text, which was written by Tolkien himself, and can describe the way, how I came to logical conclusion based on the facts given by the author.

I see Allegory because it is not the author's interpretation - that would be my definition of it.

Whatever...As Tolkien said, if you are looking for it, you certainly will find it.

[Count Comfect]

I still hold that Aragorn is no puppet... I see no shred of evidence of any type that he is manipulated by the elves.
About the friendship of Gondor and the Elves - the elves of Rivendell ride out to the aid of Eärnur in his battle against the Witch-King, and they are clearly acting as allies.
Denethor is a suspicious man - especially of Gandalf, for "there was little love between Denethor and Gandalf (Appendix A) as early as Denethor's youth. So Gandalf doesn't want him to be any more suspicious than he would normally be, so naturally any talk of Aragorn would be a bad idea, and Pippin, the fool of a took can't see that without guidance.
Now, now, I didn't say Denethor was "full of" hatred, just that he disliked being #2. He was ever placed second to the stranger in the hearts of men and the esteem of his father (Appendix A). He believed that he [Thorongil] and Mithrandir designed to supplant him [Denethor] (Appendix A). If that doesn't sound like a suspicious, jealous man, I don't know what does. Although I suppose I might not know what does.

That help your issue with my lack of quotes? I do most of my mooting at school, which means I do not have a copy of the books sitting by at all times, making it hard to quote very often.

Very interesting discussion, thanks again for raising it.

[Olmer]

Count Comfect
I still hold that Aragorn is no puppet... .
You are absolutely right! He is the most awesome figure.
Brought up by the Elves and in loyalty to the Elves, and being in complete dependency from Elrond, he not only DID NOT become an elves-puppet (in spite of intended plan), but what’s more he acquired an extraordinary authority among the Firstborn.
About the friendship of Gondor and the Elves - the elves of Rivendell ride out to the aid of Eärnur in his battle against the Witch-King, and they are clearly acting as allies.
Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril .

Denethor is a suspicious man - especially of Gandalf, for "there was little love between Denethor and Gandalf (Appendix A) as early as Denethor's youth. So Gandalf doesn't want him to be any more suspicious than he would normally be, so naturally any talk of Aragorn would be a bad idea, and Pippin, the fool of a took can't see that without guidance.
Now, now, I didn't say Denethor was "full of" hatred, just that he disliked being #2. He was ever placed second to the stranger in the hearts of men and the esteem of his father (Appendix A). He believed that he [Thorongil] and Mithrandir designed to supplant him [Denethor] (Appendix A
That help your issue with my lack of quotes? I do most of my mooting at school, which means I do not have a copy of the books sitting by at all times, making it hard to quote very often..


Let’s put it this way, Denethor was not suspicious, but apprehensive, and his believes that Mithrandir schemed to supplant him turned to be not baseless.
As about being jealous, now I see that you were right.

Quotes will be a great help in discussion. You see, all my logical presumption of the theory , which I’m advocating here, based solely on Tolkien’s text and in discussion , if I’m getting wrong in my deductions, I would be more convinced not by replies of popular believes that “Tolkien didn’t mean so”, but by support of exact quote of what Tolkien wrote himself.
Very interesting discussion, thanks again for raising it
You are welcome, and then again the pleasure is mine.:) I would never see the weak points if people wouldn’t try to show to me, which makes me work harder to adjust the theory to the surfacing facts and details.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Olmer
.
You are absolutely right! He is the most awesome figure.
Brought up by the Elves and in loyalty to the Elves, and being in complete dependency from Elrond, he not only DID NOT become an elves-puppet (in spite of intended plan), but what’s more he acquired an extraordinary authority among the Firstborn.Do you really think Aragorn was planned to be a puppet by the elves? It just sounds wrong to me - they after all did not have any reason for that, did they? What would they get from ruling Gondor? :confused:
And there's no quote, as you said to CC, that would support your statement.



Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril. So you expected the elves to send warriors from the north, from Lindon and Rivendell (which weren't many) to Gondor to help it in battles? I think they'd get to Gondor only after the battle ends.




Let’s put it this way, Denethor was not suspicious, but apprehensive, and his believes that Mithrandir schemed to supplant him turned to be not baseless.
As about being jealous, now I see that you were right.[/B] Well, it wasn't a scheme first of all. Aragorn wasn't sure he should demand to be a King even in the War of the Ring time, and Gandalf had nothing to do with it, too.
But if Denethor knew who is Aragorn (heir of Isildor) then he should've let him be the King - and be 2nd in Gondor like it was in old times.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril .
Glorfindel came perfectly well in time to destroy the entire army of Angmar. I wouldn't call that "later than was needed."

[Valandil]

Bump!

Just to... 'kick up a little dust'! ;)

[Attalus]

Troublemaker. :D Nope, there is nothing else. Tolkien is to be taken at face value. No conspiracy between Gandalf, Elrond, and the Orcs.

[Nurvingiel]

For those of us that came in late, what exactly are you suggesting Olmer? Are you suggesting Gandalf and the Elves are evil or just self-serving? IMO the plan to destroy the Ring was for the good of all Middle-earth, but you hinted that this was a byproduct of some larger plan (or something).
What do you think of the Eagles?

[Attalus]

Hm, just read the entire thread. Not convinced at all. First thing that pops out, I highly disagree that Denethor was not insane at the time of the siege of Gondor, just because he had the military situation in mind. He reminds me more of Hitler in the bunker, deploying forces that should be husbanded on the useless defence of the Pelennor. Also, just because Denethor and the Rohirrim distrusted Gandalf and the Elves, I find no evidence that any others did. Imrahil was honored for his Elvish ancestry. Aragorn was no puppet, either, or he would have laid off of Arwen. I am still waiting for evidence that the Elves knew where the Ring lay (hidden in Gollum's cave and then in the Shire) until Gandalf solved the riddle. Highly agree that The Hobbit and the LotR were popular from the word go, despite JRRT's misgivings. Lord, don't I remember the paperback publication of the pirated Ace edition in the 60's and the subsequent excitement.

[Forkbeard]

Hm, just read the entire thread. Not convinced at all. First thing that pops out, I highly disagree that Denethor was not insane at the time of the siege of Gondor, just because he had the military situation in mind. He reminds me more of Hitler in the bunker, deploying forces that should be husbanded on the useless defence of the Pelennor. Also, just because Denethor and the Rohirrim distrusted Gandalf and the Elves, I find no evidence that any others did. Imrahil was honored for his Elvish ancestry. Aragorn was no puppet, either, or he would have laid off of Arwen. I am still waiting for evidence that the Elves knew where the Ring lay (hidden in Gollum's cave and then in the Shire) until Gandalf solved the riddle. Highly agree that The Hobbit and the LotR were popular from the word go, despite JRRT's misgivings. Lord, don't I remember the paperback publication of the pirated Ace edition in the 60's and the subsequent excitement.


I can't find the quote at the moment, but G. K. Chesterton once said something along the lines that what makes one "crazy" is overindulgence or overemphasis on ONE thing--other than that intense focus, the person is as sane as anyone else.

By the way the point of this reference is that Denethor can be quite insane or going insane and still be quite a capable commander planning for the defence of the city.

[Olmer]

I can't find the quote at the moment, but G. K. Chesterton once said something along the lines that what makes one "crazy" is overindulgence or overemphasis on ONE thing--other than that intense focus, the person is as sane as anyone else.
Pardon my French, but this is an absurd remark , which is you can't expect from an educated person such as Chesterton. Probably the exact quote sounds different.
But any way, you ,of all people, should know that exactly unorthodox thinking and "overemphasis in ONE thing" has been ans IS a lead to many astonishing discoveries in science, this is a main force of human progress in civilization.
Honestly, I did not expect especially you to advocate against creative thinking , labeling people, who are daring to think not like a major population, crazy. :(


To Attalus It clearly shows in the text that Gandalf knew about the ring origin right "from the first" time he saw it in Bilbo's hands, and if Gandalf knew, so the Elves too.
When Gandalf "figured out" the Ring (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=10788)

[Nurvingiel]

Well I think you might have a legitimate point Olmer, convince me! Your point doesn't seem to be centred on one thing anyway. :)

Okay, it's unlikely that I will be conviced. But I really want to hear your point of view, because it sounds interesting.

[Forkbeard]

Pardon my French, but this is a stupidiest remark which you can't expect from educated person such as Chesterton. Probably the exact quote sounds different. But any way, you ,as an educator, should know that exactly unorthodox thinking and "overemphasis in ONE thing" has been ans IS a lead to many astonishing discoveries in science, this is a main force of human progress in civilization.
Honestly, I did not expect you, of all people, to advocate against creative thinking , labeling people, who are daring to think not like "a herd", crazy. :(



Olmer,

In the interest of good discussion I'll iterate my comments in a more succinct and less combative manner:

1) I believe that you have either overread or significantly misunderstood my comment
2) you attribute to me conclusions which I would not draw or state and can not be logically dervied from my statement
3) I certainly do not see how "overemphasis on one thing" can be read as a rejection of either thinking in unorthodox manners or to creativity. ONe can emphasize one thing within "the herd" as you put quite as easily as one can do the same (or not) by thinking unconventionally or being creative.
4) I also fail to see how the statement, whether I have understood Chesterton or not although after making such a charge I invite you to demonstrate that I have, can be said to be "absurd."

Further comments:

ure, some scientific discoveries have been discovered by "overemphasis on one thing", but many more have been found by sheer accident, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi showed that a good deal of scientific creativity (and sometimes other kinds) occurs not by concentration on one thing, but by knowledge, awareness, intimacy with many things and being able to make connections between disparate things.

Further, artistic creativity has frequently been equated with a kind of madness/insanity, most of a benign nature, but insantiy nonetheless. Seems to me that such a conception goes hand in hand with Iwhat I said, rather than making it diametrically opposed as your reading does.

FB

[Attalus]

To Attalus It clearly shows in the text that Gandalf knew about the ring origin right "from the first" time he saw it in Bilbo's hands, and if Gandalf knew, so the Elves too.
When Gandalf "figured out" the Ring (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=10788)As the posters that follow you make quite clear, Gandalf knew at once that the Ring was a magic ring, but the much-discussed lesser Rings evidently had this power too, at leat some of them. Gandalf did not suspect that Bilbo's Ring was the One until he discovered that it gave long life, quite obviously something not apparent at the time of the finding, and he did not know that Gollum's life was unnaturally pronged at that time, either. I'll quote later, but am pressed for time.

[Nurvingiel]

I'm still not convinced Gandalf knew Gollum's ring was the One Ring right away, despite this quote from the other thread:
The Grey Wizard identified the ring at once and in conversation with Frodo he accidentally not once reveals this knowledge .
This is his the most undisguised "slippage": "I wondered often how Gollum came by a GREAT RING, as plainly it was - THAT at least was CLEAR FROM THE FIRST"(LOTR, bookI, chapter II).
Is - "THAT at least was CLEAR FROM THE FIRST" part of what Gandalf says too?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think it says somewhere that Gandalfs says he should have known what it was earlier and done somethin about it.

[Valandil]

Troublemaker. :D

That was NOT my intent, but it seems that may become the result. I bumped it in the interests of stretching our minds and discussing a whole different approach to viewing Tolkien's work.

OK everyone: The idea is to discuss the ideas. You may disagree with someone, you may STRONGLY disagree with someone, but you may NOT insult persons or their positions (the word "stupid" qualifies as an insult, in either case... it IS flaming!). Most of what you who disagree with one another say can be said just as clearly without tacking on a snide comment of any sort. Please keep all comments respectful. Write as if you're talking face-to-face with friends you disagree with - but with whom you wish to remain friends.

I'll add this. Olmer's ideas ARE a bit off-beat, to the rest of my experience. However, he knows his stuff, and he presents his view of things well. He hasn't changed my mind about a single thing, but I DO think he should be as free as anyone else to express and share his ideas here.

MOST of our discussion has been very good along these lines. Most of you are saying very intelligent, very well thought-out things. I'd say 99%. However, the 1% that goes beyond bounds is what can really destroy the harmony here.

[EDIT: and this goes for both sides in this discussion... for now I will not edit any previous posts so that each of you can reconsider your own words and be a bit self-policing... so edit you own posts if you feel you need to do better to comply with the standards outlined. I will not play favorites in this and I will not allow further flaming]

Remember too - if we all agreed about everything, there really wouldn't be anything to talk about, now would there? :)

OK?

[Attalus]

'When did I first begin to guess?' he mused, searching back in memory. 'Let me see - it was in the year that the White Council drove the dark power from Mirkwood, just before the Battle of the Five Armies that Bilbo found his ring. A shadow fell on my heart then, though I did not yet know what I feared. That is the Finding. Gandalf says clearly that he did not know.
I wondered often how Gollum came by a Great Ring, as plainly it was. That was clear from the first. By 'the first,' he means the early days, when he found time to think about the Ring. What else could it be? Perhaps one of the Seven, as they were not all accounted for. It was Dwarf country, after all.
'Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had "won" it, and I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth out of him, I saw at once that he was trying to put his claim on the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with his "birthday present". The lies were too much alike for my comfort. Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work on its keeper at once. That was the first real warning I had that all was not well.' Italics mine. He had, of course, already met Gollum and talked to him.
I told Bilbo often that such rings were better left unused.'This indicates to me that this process took place over many years. In any case, if Gandalf really knew that Bilbo's ring was the One, would he have left it in the Shire, where anyone could get in and steal it, as the Riders found out, eventually. It would have been wildly irresponsible, and that is not a word that I associate with Gandalf.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

And if he had known about it sooner then he would have urged Bilbo to leave the Shire just as he urged Frodo to.

[Olmer]

Olmer,
1) I believe that you have either overread or significantly misunderstood my comment
FB
I have to admit that I misunderstood you . You did not mention in what context you are giving such remark, and since we
are gathering here because we all are sharing one intence focus on Tolkien's work, "overemphasising on ONE thing" :p , it gave an impression of the suggestion that all Mooters are "crackheads", and indeed I jumped on conclusion.

Peace?
IMO the plan to destroy the Ring was for the good of all Middle-earth, but you hinted that this was a byproduct of some larger plan (or something).
First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.
He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)
Second of it, the Ring has been designed and done to fight the Elves and only the Elves. Now,the idea to make the Ruling Rings, which could subject the owners of them to the power of the Giver, had been offered to the Elves by Sauron, but they, seems, did not reject it , and began a laborous production of the Rings of Power.
By the way, they did not give the rings to Sauron, all of them they kept it to themselves, probably, intending to hand them out according to their own plans, bring the owners of the Ring under theirs subjection. Such division of the power worried Sauron and he made the One to keep control over overzelaous "embalmers" of the Middle-earth.
The elves got in the trap made by themselves.They understood that since the surface of the ring , their attempt to STALL the time long enought to get them out of the ME would be in danger.They need the ring to get lost again, or at the very least destroyed,so Sauron woun't be able to manipulate them. But who will risk their life for the sake of the Elves well-being? Nobody, unless the purpose of this destruction of the ring will be a self-sacrifing quest to remove a threat for all folk of the ME.
And here comes the story about Sauron trying to cover ME with darkness with the help of the Ring.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.
I don't agree. Why attack Gondor, Erebor, Dale if he hated only the elves. Maybe Gondor gave him headache but what had Erebor done to him?

[Valandil]

Olmer - you're confusing me. Previously, I THOUGHT I had a handle on where you were coming from... and while I disagreed completely with your line of thinking, at least I could see some logic and consistency. I mean, if the view seemed a bit 'twisted' from my perspective, at least it seemed 'consistently twisted'. :p ;) (that IS meant in a good way)

However - with some of your last few posts, you've lost me. I don't see the same consistency between them and some of the things I recall from your other posts.

I suspect that sometimes you're joking around, which most of us like to do. However, when YOU do it, because of the unorthodox nature of some of the things you DO seem to adhere to, it might just cause more confusion to those of us who are trying to 'get' what you're saying. (EDIT: that means - it's hard to tell when you're joking) But I hate to tell you not to joke around... that seems like a 'basic human right' :p

If you get the time, or have some things written up already... could you post some kind of cohesive statement about your interpretations of LOTR (at least those that would be 'at odds' with a more common 'face-value' interpretation)? Something that pulls it all together? That might be easier for us to understand and react to than addressing various issues piecemeal (and was sort of the whole reason I started this thread many months ago). Plus... then you might feel freer to joke around at times and know that people know you're joking. :)

[Attalus]

First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.
He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)
Second of it, the Ring has been designed and done to fight the Elves and only the Elves. Now,the idea to make the Ruling Rings, which could subject the owners of them to the power of the Giver, had been offered to the Elves by Sauron, but they, seems, did not reject it , and began a laborous production of the Rings of Power.
By the way, they did not give the rings to Sauron, all of them they kept it to themselves, probably, intending to hand them out according to their own plans, bring the owners of the Ring under theirs subjection. Such division of the power worried Sauron and he made the One to keep control over overzelaous "embalmers" of the Middle-earth.
The elves got in the trap made by themselves.They understood that since the surface of the ring , their attempt to STALL the time long enought to get them out of the ME would be in danger.They need the ring to get lost again, or at the very least destroyed,so Sauron woun't be able to manipulate them. But who will risk their life for the sake of the Elves well-being? Nobody, unless the purpose of this destruction of the ring will be a self-sacrifing quest to remove a threat for all folk of the ME.
And here comes the story about Sauron trying to cover ME with darkness with the help of the Ring.Sauron DID want to cover all ME with the Second Darkness. What makes you think he would do differently than before? He hated the Dwarves as blackly as he hated Elves, since Durin's folk attacked him in the War of the Last Alliance. The Elves made the Rings of Power for THEMSELVES, not for the subjugation of the wearers. The Corruption of the Seven and the Nine took place after Sauron STOLE the rings and killed their makers. The Elves stayed in ME because they loved it, putting off beyond reason their departure for the Undying Lands. As for 'embalming,' well, I wish they would 'embalm' my town to where it would look(and feel!) like Lothlórien or Imladris.

[Nurvingiel]

He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)
I only read the Sil once, so help me out here. Was that before or after he deceived the Elves, Men, and Dwarves and made a Ring of Power in secret so he could 'rule them all'? ;)

Are you suggesting Sauron was trying to rule all of Middle-earth benevolently? (And yes, he was going for the whole thing.)

:confused:

[azalea]

This is what I think, Valandil: My interpretation is that Olmer is saying that a lot of what is said in LotR and written in the Silm is at best a one sided interpretation by the elves and elf-friends, and at worst propaganda. I see him saying that Sauron was not really as bad a bad guy as he is made out to be, that he didn't REALLY want dominion over all ME, but that is just what the elves say. I see him trying to see things from an omniscient viewpoint rather than filtered through those involved. I also think he is saying that the elves had their agenda, and that Sauron was getting in the way of that agenda. He purports that since the hobbits were so isolated, they could only get info that was one-sided and was filtered through the elves and elf-friends (although I would argue that the dwarves would have provided another viewpoint, this would still kind of support Olmer's beliefs in that when we see elf and dwarf viewpoint of a situation side by side, they are clearly both biased toward each one's own side, thus we could conclude that the elf viewpoint may indeed be biased).
The heart of Olmer's viewpoint, from what I have read, is that the hobbits became unwitting pawns in the elves' plan to get rid of Sauron. That Frodo was "sacrificed" because no elf could accomplish what he did, but that it was ultimately unnecessary due to the fact that the elves had over-hyped Sauron's evil due to their bias against him.
That's kind of what I've seen in a nutshell. I don't know if I have interpreted it correctly, or of others have or have not seen what I did, but I thought I'd write what I read in what he wrote.
I don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but I enjoy the posts, and find it interesting that he holds such a drastically different view of the situations presented in the story/ies.

[Attalus]

That is how I understand it, too. I call it rewriting Tolkien and revisionism to boot. Sauron was evil, and would have ended as nihilistic as Morgoth his master in time. Remember the Barrow-Wight's song about the Dark Lord lifting his dark hand over dead seas and withered land. The only reason Sauron was leaving Harad and Rhun peopled was to provide fodder for his armies.

[Forkbeard]

I have to admit that I misunderstood you . You did not mention in what context you are giving such remark, and since we
are gathering here because we all are sharing one intence focus on Tolkien's work, "overemphasising on ONE thing" :p , it gave an impression of the suggestion that all Mooters are "crackheads", and indeed I jumped on conclusion.


Oh no, then I'd have had to include myself in that characterization, and we all know I have too big an ego to deride myself. But I meant it in reference to Denethor and have edited that post accordingly.

Peace?
Absolutely!

[matthew]

Hmmmmmmm...
Interesting theory. You have a point, Olmer, and that could be kind of a facet of the book.
However... Sauron was about to attack the men and elves etc. The elves would have a really hard time getting out then, so I guess you're saying it was in their interest... Well it was in everyone in middle earth's interest, then so were they ALL in a conspiracy... hmm.... sounds like the plot for a book... oh wait, there's already one...thats why I'm here, oh nevermind. :confused: :confused:
The other thing is the whole opening of the Silmarillion (I don't think anyone takes that seriosly enough). The third and last musical theme ended up kinda sad, but it wasn't like there was anything "unresolved" in it, like a treachery by the elves...
But still, a good point Olmer. ;)

[Olmer]

My interpretation is that Olmer is saying that a lot of what is said in LotR and written in the Silm is at best a one sided interpretation by the elves and elf-friends, and at worst propaganda.
I see him saying that Sauron was not really as bad a bad guy as he is made out to be, that he didn't REALLY want dominion over all ME, but that is just what the elves say. I see him trying to see things from an omniscient viewpoint rather than filtered through those involved. I also think he is saying that the elves had their agenda, and that Sauron was getting in the way of that agenda.
He purports that since the hobbits were so isolated, they could only get info that was one-sided and was filtered through the elves and elf-friends (although I would argue that the dwarves would have provided another viewpoint, this would still kind of support Olmer's beliefs in that when we see elf and dwarf viewpoint of a situation side by side, they are clearly both biased toward each one's own side, thus we could conclude that the elf viewpoint may indeed be biased).
The heart of Olmer's viewpoint, from what I have read, is that the hobbits became unwitting pawns in the elves' plan to get rid of Sauron. That Frodo was "sacrificed" because no elf could accomplish what he did, but that it was ultimately unnecessary due to the fact that the elves had over-hyped Sauron's evil due to their bias against him.
That's kind of what I've seen in a nutshell. I don't know if I have interpreted it correctly, or of others have or have not seen what I did, but I thought I'd write what I read in what he wrote.

azalea, my deep respect for being able with your quick and analytical mind to summorise my long "mambo-jambo" in such compact and simple review. You got it altogether precisely correct, thank you. :) :)
The only reason Sauron was leaving Harad and Rhun peopled was to provide fodder for his armies.
If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire? :evil:
Hmmmmmmm...
Interesting theory. You have a point, Olmer, and that could be kind of a facet of the book.But still, a good point Olmer.

Thanks for not discarding this ideas as "absurd". :)
If Tolkien , while re-reading his book, could quite unexpectedly for himself be amused by finding a new interpretations of the written events (Letter 163), then it quite possible that in his text we can find much more interpretation which could be missed by the author .
I set out on this challenge with notion to amuse myself just in the same way as Tolkien was doing some time ago. As a result, it made me really got hooked on Tolkien. :)

[Forkbeard]

If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire? :evil:



Well, I don't think usurper is quite the term you want. Dictator, perhaps--after all he promised them security from their hated enemies, the Gondorans. ;)

And the Numenoreans, and it seems to me many of the Gondorans afterwards, were not the best and most benign of rulers.

[Olmer]

Well, I don't think usurper is quite the term you want. Dictator, perhaps--after all he promised them security from their hated enemies, the Gondorans. ;)
Agree. A dictator is more suitable for characterization of Sauron's politic.

[Nurvingiel]

If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire? :evil:
Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

What's in letter 163 Olmer? :)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

They also invaded Osgiliath before the Battle of the Pellenor Fields.

[Wayfarer]

Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

Erm... in reference to the Haradram, Gondor had indeed threatened to invade them in the past. In fact, the rulers of Harad were Gondorian expatriots who had been banished as a result of the kinstrife, and who Gondor had gone to some effort to hunt down and exterminate.

[Michael Martinez]

Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

What's in letter 163 Olmer? :)

While I don't necessarily agree with Olmer's arguments, Gondor had once occupied Mordor and the Near Harad (and portions of the Far Harad, by some interpretations of the map).

[Nurvingiel]

Aha. Thanks Michael and Wayfarer. :)