Slashdot Mirror

Denethor, Steward of Gondor was set to burn himself and his son, Faramir, on a funeral pyre. While Pippin ran to get help from Gandalf, Beregond, a Guard of Gondor, prevented Denethor's servants (killed 1, wounded 2 I believe) from giving him a torch to set himself and his son ablaze. When Gandalf arrived, he pulled Faramir from the pile of oil-soaked wood. Denethor then revealed a palantir, grabbed a torch and set himself afire. The palantir would then only show two aged, burning hands to anyone who would use it.

Denethor, Steward of Gondor was set to burn himself and his son, Faramir, on a funeral pyre. While Pippin ran to get help from Gandalf, Beregond, a Guard of Gondor, prevented Denethor's servants (killed 1, wounded 2 I believe) from giving him a torch to set himself and his son ablaze. When Gandalf arrived, he pulled Faramir from the pile of oil-soaked wood. Denethor then revealed a palantir, grabbed a torch and set himself afire. The palantir would then only show two aged, burning hands to anyone who would use it.

Denethor, Steward of Gondor was set to burn himself and his son, Faramir, on a funeral pyre. While Pippin ran to get help from Gandalf, Beregond, a Guard of Gondor, prevented Denethor's servants (killed 1, wounded 2 I believe) from giving him a torch to set himself and his son ablaze. When Gandalf arrived, he pulled Faramir from the pile of oil-soaked wood. Denethor then revealed a palantir, grabbed a torch and set himself afire. The palantir would then only show two aged, burning hands to anyone who would use it.

I notice people asking about who commands the Eagles, where Trolls came from, and so on.

Just go here: Encyclopedia of Arda

So unless they're wrong (I'm far from any copy of the book at the moment), Elijah did indeed play a 50 year old hobbit in LoTR (though he would've been in his 30's at the time of the great party).

Gandalf is not a man -- he is istari, an immortal Maya (sort of a "lesser god"). He came to Middle Earth a few thousand years before the action of LOTR takes place and he was already old back then, considering he's been around in one shape or the other since the creation of Arda. :)

See more here: Encyclopedia of Arda

Damn... Did I just fail the geek outing test?

FWIW, here's an excellent discourse on just who Tom Bombadil really is:

The Riddle of Tom Bombadil

Short answer: there's no definitive evidence for any conclusion, although the discussion of some of the possibilities is interesting (Maiar, Valar, Eru Illuvatar...).

You can also reference the entry in the encyclopedia of arda, found here:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?http://ww w.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

It's spelled Uruk-Hai.

I know this has been covered, but Boromir (of Company of the Ring a.k.a The Nine Walkers fame) was the brother of Faramir, and the son of Denethor II. See here

These was another fellow with the name Boromir from Gondor, but he was the son of Steward Denethor I. Neither Boromir's became king of Gondor--they were of the line of Stewards since the last of the kingly line was killed. See the The Encyclopedia of Arda

I know this has been covered, but Boromir (of Company of the Ring a.k.a The Nine Walkers fame) was the brother of Faramir, and the son of Denethor II. See here

These was another fellow with the name Boromir from Gondor, but he was the son of Steward Denethor I. Neither Boromir's became king of Gondor--they were of the line of Stewards since the last of the kingly line was killed. See the The Encyclopedia of Arda

According to this site:

"The relative motions of the two stars mean that Proxima and the Sun are actually getting closer together at a rate of about 16,000 m/s."

Steuard Jensen has a differing opinion. Both Hargrove's and Jensen's essays are referenced in the The Encyclopedia of Arda entry.

From William D. B. Loos' essay:

As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought.

He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well) (most of the other individuals in The Lord of the Rings with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards, and Balrogs did in fact turn out to be Maiar).

He was IlÃvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this interpretation quite firmly.

T.A. Shippey (in The Road to Middle-earth) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself....

For the ill-informed conspiracy theorists out there, you might wish to read this.

And for those of you who say that public schools aren't turning out good work, you may wish to visit a less meticulous analysis (author unknown) from DPS.

Not to mention the fact it kills off Glorfindel a few hundred years before he saves Frodo in Lord of the Rings

Yeah, that confused me, too. Different elf, same name. Check this out: Glorfindel

[er...sorry...reposted 'cause I wrongly thought slash would automagically linkify a bare URL. And then I had to wait 2 minutes to correct it. Almost not worth the trouble. So I hope you appreciate it. :) (yes, I'm killing time waiting for the timer to time out).]

Yes, the Silmarillion is an excellent book, but definitely hard to read. I've only read it a couple times, and the last time I tried to take it one story at a time, which made it a little easier to digest.

The other books published by his son, Christopher, have also been very interesting, though much harder to digest, and probably should be taken in publication order. In decreasing order of "accessibilty," there's probably "Unfinished Tales" (sort of an addendum to the Silmarillion), "The Book of Lost Tales" (parts 1 and 2), which covers some of the same material as Silmarillion (as well as some additional tales) but from a slightly different viewpoint, and with a bit more of a narrative frame around it, then "The Lays of Beleriand," which is basically two unfinished versions of stories in the Silmarallion presented in alliterative verse (think Beowulf).

After that, they get much more specific to individual stories and detailed as to drafts, notes, unfinished bits, etc.

However, I did find one very interesting tidbit recently while looking up information on Saruman. Tolkien toyed with the idea (I believe expressed in a letter but never expanded upon) that "Saruman might actually *be* the Balrog of Moria." Basically, Balrogs and the Istari (wizards), as well as Sauron, are all Maiar (sort of a demi-god, or higher-level angel), and can take any form they choose. So it's entirely possible that Saruman could have manifested himself as a Balrog. However, Tolkien never actually followed up on this idea.

Anyway, what's best about the Silmarillion is that it ties everything together. Ever wonder what Elrond's story is? Who Galadriel is? (she's pretty much the oldest Elf there, actually). Where Shelob came from? A while back, I started trying to outline the entire history of Middle Earth, from the Two Trees to RoTK, and it was amazing to see how many threads all came back together.

A great way to "browse" through the entire Middle Earth history is The Encyclopedia of Arda. Lots of details there, in a very well-produced hyperlinked setting.

The only real resource we have to answer this question is in The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel. Christopher Tolkien dates the notes he gives here at 1972, the year before his father's death.

These notes clear up one question immediately: at the time of the writing of The Lord of the Rings, Glorfindel of Rivendell was not conceived as the same character as Glorfindel of Gondolin. Tolkien says, 'Its use [i.e. the name 'Glorfindel'] in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends ... which escaped reconsideration in the final published form...'.

Tolkien was far from happy with this state of affairs, however, and it seems that he intended to reconcile the problem by uniting the two strands of the story. In summary, the notes tell us that Glorfindel's spirit returned to the Halls of Waiting, but was after a time re-embodied by the Valar. He then returned to Middle-earth (either in the mid-Second Age, or as a companion of the Istari in the Third). For the full story of his return, refer to The Peoples of Middle-earth.

... Alioth is another name for Epsilon Ursae Majoris.

The graceful curve of handle of the Big Dipper (the Plough in Great Britain), among the most famed of celestial sights, represents the tail of Ursa Major, the Greater Bear. Third star in from the end, "Alioth" relates not to a bear, but to a "black horse," the name corrupted from the original and mis- assigned to the naked-eye companion of Mizar, which took on the vaguely similar name "Alcor." Bayer's rough rule of assigning Greek-letter names more or less in order of brightness is quite violated here, as the Bear's bright stars are named from west to east, hence "Epsilon" for Ursa Major's brightest (bright second magnitude, 1.77) star, indeed for the 31st brightest star in the whole sky. A white class A (A0) star with a measured temperature of 9400 Kelvin, Alioth shines at us from a distance of 81 light years with a luminosity 108 times that of the Sun, from which we derive a diameter of four times solar and a mass close to triple that of the Sun. Large and luminous for its class, Alioth is probably ageing, and is nearing the end of its main sequence hydrogen-fusing lifetime. Of greater significance, Alioth is the brightest of the "peculiar A (Ap) stars," magnetic stars in which a variety of chemical elements are either depleted or enhanced, and in addition appear to change with great regularity as the star rotates. "Chemically peculiar" behavior in class A and B stars generally comes not from creation of elements, but from their separation in the relatively thin stellar atmospheres, some falling downward within the star's gravitational field, others lofted upward as a result of an outward push by radiation. Here, they are also apparently related to the Alioth's magnetic field. Alioth is classed as an "Alpha Canum Venaticorum" star (after the prototype, Cor Caroli). Its magnetic field -- and the chemical composition -- change from our perspective during the star's 5.1-day stellar rotation period. Some elements are highly concentrated into distinct regions that swing in and out of sight as the star spins. For example, the abundance of oxygen is 100,000 times greater near the magnetic equator than near the magnetic poles (which are displaced from the rotational equator and poles); chromium behaves similarly. Heavier elements, such as the rare earth europium, also display strong variations. Though visually the brightest of the peculiar A stars, Alioth is also noted for having one of the weakest magnetic fields among its class, only about 100 times that of the Earth, 15 times weaker than that observed for Cor Caroli.

Wow, a millenia old flame war.... :-)

Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith

(I'd link to The Encyclopedia of Arda, but their servers have been bitchslapped since The Two Towers came out, and their site is slower than hell.)

There's no doubt about it. LotR, when the final chapter closes next year, will be one of the greatest success storys in Cinema history. Period. Apart from the garunteed fame at becoming "The Trilogy that was 'impossible' to make" and made in astounding style (ain't technology grand?), it stands as one of the greatest box office triumphs of all time.

The three LotR films were made simultaniously, then post-produced in the year prior to each film's release. The total cost, in the end, will probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million. Remember years ago when Kevin Costner spent $100 million on Lemonworld? We all know how that turned out. It was considered crazy to give a movie that kind of price tag. Now, here we have three movies at that cost each.

And Peter Jackson hit a god-damned out of the park grand slam. Fellowship's worldwide take since it's release? Over $800 million. Say what you will about film companies and what they do with their money. But $800 million? That paid for all three movies, enough to make three MORE movies, with room to make at least one more (two if they held it to the $100 million average as closely as possible).

One movie did that.

Now, here we are, not even a week into Two Tower's first run. What the hell is this one going to make? By alot of accounts (including my own), Towers is better then Fellowship in many respects. The story becomes darker, and there's plenty more action. And that, scarily enough, will get bigger in Return of the King with the Battle of Pelennor Fields.

Now translate that into dollars. If TTT hits even half of FotR, it will be a box office haul and a half. Plus, you have RotK comingnext year. Fellowship said "hello", TTT said "look at me", and RotK will say "find out how this whole mess ends."

The math is simple. The result? Bucks. What they do with said bucks is questionable, yes. But they made out like bandits. And it's not over yet. The movie they said could never be made has been made, and it's laughing all the way to box office history...

And hey, all you LotR fans. Got a link for ya. Check out The Encyclopedia of Arda. If this site had the , boy could we have fun!

There's no doubt about it. LotR, when the final chapter closes next year, will be one of the greatest success storys in Cinema history. Period. Apart from the garunteed fame at becoming "The Trilogy that was 'impossible' to make" and made in astounding style (ain't technology grand?), it stands as one of the greatest box office triumphs of all time.

The three LotR films were made simultaniously, then post-produced in the year prior to each film's release. The total cost, in the end, will probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million. Remember years ago when Kevin Costner spent $100 million on Lemonworld? We all know how that turned out. It was considered crazy to give a movie that kind of price tag. Now, here we have three movies at that cost each.

And Peter Jackson hit a god-damned out of the park grand slam. Fellowship's worldwide take since it's release? Over $800 million. Say what you will about film companies and what they do with their money. But $800 million? That paid for all three movies, enough to make three MORE movies, with room to make at least one more (two if they held it to the $100 million average as closely as possible).

One movie did that.

Now, here we are, not even a week into Two Tower's first run. What the hell is this one going to make? By alot of accounts (including my own), Towers is better then Fellowship in many respects. The story becomes darker, and there's plenty more action. And that, scarily enough, will get bigger in Return of the King with the Battle of Pelennor Fields.

Now translate that into dollars. If TTT hits even half of FotR, it will be a box office haul and a half. Plus, you have RotK comingnext year. Fellowship said "hello", TTT said "look at me", and RotK will say "find out how this whole mess ends."

The math is simple. The result? Bucks. What they do with said bucks is questionable, yes. But they made out like bandits. And it's not over yet. The movie they said could never be made has been made, and it's laughing all the way to box office history...

And hey, all you LotR fans. Got a link for ya. Check out The Encyclopedia of Arda. If this site had the , boy could we have fun!

"...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."

The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Encyclopedia of Arda's entry on Balrogs.

more Arda entries on the subject

from greenboks

some geocities site

I probably would agree that they don't have wings, but Tolkien wasn't grumpy about it...as I recalled when the topic was brought up he told people to read the books and make their own decisions. Tolkien was very adament that one person's understanding of creatures in the book was different from other's, and one wasn't better than the other (which is probably why he had an aversion to making a movie of the books...).

Reading through the threads, I get the idea that you definitely dislike Peter Jackson and you definitely dislike the movies. Well...here's an option: DON'T WATCH THEM! IGNORE THEM! If you go and watch the movies and then expound upon them at length at a website (pro or con), you're still promoting them. If you're some sort of tolkien purist that believes the movies are evil and hacks, then stop promoting them.

Personally, I loved the movie (and I can deal with almost every change that was made from the books). If you go watch the movie, don't take the book with you. Remember...it isn't Tolkien making the movies, and these aren't the books put on screen. These are movies (not books) based upon the story by JRR Tolkien. Jackson has no obligation to stay true to the book (other than his own fanhood), his only obligation is to make a great movie. And, if the academy awards and the turnouts are any sort of clues, then he did a great job.

My advice: go watch the movies and check your books at the door...you won't be needing them. The movies aren't a supplement to the books, they are entirely different and you can't enjoy them if you nitpick over every detail. Movies are supposed to be entertainment...

Oh..I can't forget to shamelessly promote my review of the movie at my website.

"...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."

The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Encyclopedia of Arda's entry on Balrogs.

more Arda entries on the subject

from greenboks

some geocities site

I probably would agree that they don't have wings, but Tolkien wasn't grumpy about it...as I recalled when the topic was brought up he told people to read the books and make their own decisions. Tolkien was very adament that one person's understanding of creatures in the book was different from other's, and one wasn't better than the other (which is probably why he had an aversion to making a movie of the books...).

Reading through the threads, I get the idea that you definitely dislike Peter Jackson and you definitely dislike the movies. Well...here's an option: DON'T WATCH THEM! IGNORE THEM! If you go and watch the movies and then expound upon them at length at a website (pro or con), you're still promoting them. If you're some sort of tolkien purist that believes the movies are evil and hacks, then stop promoting them.

Personally, I loved the movie (and I can deal with almost every change that was made from the books). If you go watch the movie, don't take the book with you. Remember...it isn't Tolkien making the movies, and these aren't the books put on screen. These are movies (not books) based upon the story by JRR Tolkien. Jackson has no obligation to stay true to the book (other than his own fanhood), his only obligation is to make a great movie. And, if the academy awards and the turnouts are any sort of clues, then he did a great job.

My advice: go watch the movies and check your books at the door...you won't be needing them. The movies aren't a supplement to the books, they are entirely different and you can't enjoy them if you nitpick over every detail. Movies are supposed to be entertainment...

Oh..I can't forget to shamelessly promote my review of the movie at my website.

Although I am no Tolkien expert, I would surmise that since the nine became wraiths (neither living nor dead) that the rings they wore went with them into the shadow world and are therefore unremovable from their 'bodies'. So I guess technically they were 'there' but for all practical purposes they play no role in the story other than how the nine became wraiths.

As for the dwarven rings, I remember reading somewhere that when Sauron was a rising power, the orcs drove many of them out of their mountain homes and in the process, some were lost (melted by dragon fire, IIRC). Of those that weren't lost, they were probably dropped into one of the mountain cracks like we see in Moria. Whether I am correct or not, I know that Gandalf seemed to dismiss the idea that they were of any use during the events of LOTR.

On an interesting and somewhat connected sidenote, the three were originally possessed by Galadriel, Elrond and the shipwright (Cirdain?). We learn from Tolkien that the shipwright gave the fire ring (Narnya?) to Gandalf to aid him in his fight against Sauron. Frodo perceived Galadriel's ring when the fellowship was in Lothlorien (because he possessed the one ring). Why did he not perceive Elrond's when in Rivendell or Gandalf's during the march south? Clearly I need to revisit the Encyclopedia of Arda again!

Actually, there is a plot. There are five parts.

Ainulindale, the music of the Ainur. It began with Eru, the One, whom the Elves call Iluvatar. His thoughts became the Ainur, the most mighty of whom were called the Valar (the others were Maiar). As Iluvatar created and shaped Arda, the world, Melkor, mightiest of the Valar, tried to shape the world in his image, to achieve dominance. He rebelled against Iluvatar and was from then on known as Morgoth.

Valaquenta. Mostly an enumeration of the fourteen Valar (after his fall, Melkor was not counted among them), and the most important of the Maiar, such as Sauron and the Balrogs.

Quenta Silmarillion. Something about two lamps being destroyed by Morgoth and the Sun and Moon being created to replace them. The First Age starts with the creation of the Sun and ends with Morgoth's final defeat by the Valar. There's some stuff about Silmarils in there, too.

Akallabeth. As a reward for their service to the Valar, the men who fought with them (the Dunedain, "men of the west") were given a great island which they called Numenor. They built a great empire, but were deceived by Sauron, who told them that if they defeated the Valar and took possession of their forbidden land, Valinor, that they too would become immortal. The last king of Numenor, Ar-Pharazon, tried this, and the Valar called upon Iluvatar to reshape the world. Numenor sunk into the sea (though a few escaped), and Valinor was removed from the plane of the world.

Of The Rings of Power and the Third Age. Sauron forges the twenty rings of power. The Last Alliance of men and elves defeats him, ending the Second Age. Isildur refuses to destroy the ring; he is killed by the orcs and it is lost. It passes to Gollum, and that's where LOTR begins.

This is from a quick skimming of The Encyclopedia of Arda. See, when "Gil-galad" or "Morgoth" are mentioned, I can look them up and find out what the heck he's talking about.

If someone has actually read the Silmarillion, feel free to correct me. I'm leaving out quite a bit and possible screwing other stuff up. (For instance, the dwarves were first-created after the Ainur, but the elves awoke first.)

--grendel drago

Just for the record, the word you're looking for is Palantír.

Relevant quote is from Gandalf, in LotR I 2 The Shadow of the Past: "I guess they were of hobbit-kind, akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors". Gollum's only about 600 years old; not old enough to be merely "hobbit-like" instead of "hobbit".

Page numbers would be silly; everyone has a different edition.

And here's the supporting evidence: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

Anyway, some pretty interesting info on the aforementioned scene with Gollum can be found here.

As far as inconsistencies are concerned, I think we should remember when talking about Tolkien that he always concerned himself to be a historian, telling the tale of the War of the Ring, and earlier, The Hobbit. There are several points in LotR that when Tolkien was questioned on, he was "uncertain" as to what exactly, was going on, until he took some time to do more "research." Example: it was unclear for a long time whether the Glorfindel that helps Aragorn and the hobbits at the end of Book I, in The Fellowship of the Ring, was indeed the same Glorfindel that fled the fall of the City of Gondolin in the First Age. Tolkien's notes (those published after his death in The History of Middle-earth) seemed to indicate that he had decided the characters were one and the same. However, it is certain he conceived of the characters separately, and he simply accidentally reused the name.

My point, then, seems to be that a good strategy for a writer is to claim he's merely interpreting ancient history, from dusty old notes, so no wonder if occasionally a few errors pop up in one's writing.... It worked for Tolkien -- when was the last time you saw anyone criticizing his works on the basis of internal inconsistencies? (not that there are many of them)

Maybe they can start again with a different acronym, since the parent company is called Sun, these might be suitable, from here
K-type
G-type
F-type
A-type
B-type
These being the types of star, starting with the coolest

I'm not sure if we can trust anyone named curunir You don't have a buddy named Gríma, do you? ;-)

Anyhow, I am in complete agreement. In ring-like fashion, seeing all that come to life was obscured by the tears coming to my eyes at seeing it all come to life. I lost my breath, it was that good.

Which version of the DVD to get... or do I get all of them? Bwa ha ha. :-D

Better use the Silmarillion. Names are online here.

The most useful server naming resource on the net is probably The Dictionary of Arda.

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/glorfindel.html

Steve

While Tolkien's mythos may not have a Redeemer to parallel Christianity, redemption is an important part of the story of some of his more interesting characters. Boromir in LoTR and Maedhros in the Silmarillion are good examples, and the idea of penance and an unsucessful search for redemption is seen in Turin Turambar's story in the Unfinished Tales.

I would have liked to make links for the names above, but the Encyclopedia of Arda seems to be down. Nice site, though.

John

Tolkein intentionally kept his real-world religious beliefs out of his Middle-earth works, preferring instead for his heroes to display an intrinsic moral and ethical nature, although his world had its own creation myth (as described in The Silmarillion). Within that mythical construct, Gandalf and the other Istari (the Wise) could indeed be characterized as angels incarnate.

Here is the Middle-earth mythos in a nutshell. There is a central deity named Illuvitar in the language of the elves. From Illuvitar's thought's sprung the Valor, a host of beings who one might consider as demigods or archangels. Through a magical song, Illuvitar and the Valor created the world, and Illuvitar breathed life into the living things there. Illuvitar created Elves and Men, but left them sleeping while he sent the Valor to prepare the world for their awakening. One of the Valor, Melkor (the first Enemy) was jealous of Illuvitar's ability to create life, and sought to undo the work of his fellow Valor.

Where does Gandalf fit into all of this? Ranking just below the Valor, there existed another rank of divine beings known as the Maier (roughly equivalent to the angels of Christian mythology) who served the Valor. Some of these were corrupted by Melkor. Among these corrupted Maier were beings who would come to be known as Balrogs (such as the fire-deamon fought by Gandalf in the Mines of Moria).

Melkor's main lieutenant was a fallen Maier known as Sauron, who became the primary Enemy after the eventual defeat of Melkor. Eventually, to counter Sauron's rising influence in Middle-earth, the Valor dispatched a number of Maier there, made incarnate. The Maier-made-flesh were known as the Istari (the Wise), and included among their ranks Gandalf the Grey (Mithrandir), Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown, and the two Blue Wizards, who are only mentioned in passing.

I'm only hitting the high points here. For the full story, it is well worth reading The Silmarillion, or at least perusing the Encyclopedia of Arda.

Bilbo left middle-Earth at an age of 100 (I think) and he was then the oldes hobbit ever to live.

If you are a Tolkien fan and haven't already seen it, please check out this site.

Since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, if you are a LOTR fan, you absolutely must check out this website. Enjoy!

As a Tolkien fan, I'd like to inquire whether Akalabeth, one of R.G's first games has anything to do with Numenor, the downfallen island kingdom of the Edain.

In the Elvish tongue of Sindarin, Akalabeth means "The Downfallen". It is also a name of a part in the Silmarillion that describes the downfall of Numenor.

As a side note, the name does not come from Arabic (since the L in the definitive particle A(l) not cancelled before K, but Q).