A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / George R. R. Martin v. J.R.R. Tolkien

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Aug 16th 3:04 PM
Okay, this may be a weak topic and an unfair comparison, but dammit, we need new topics.

I love AGOT and ACOK. Some of the best stuff I've read since, well, Lord of the Rings. But to me, Tolkien is still the Master.

The comparison is difficult because the books are so different in tone. Martin clearly has edged towards realism, with characters that are very human and naturally flawed. The dialogue is superb, and I think his character development is superior to Tolkien's.

Tolkien's approach is more mythic and classically Romantic. I still get chills rereading "The Ride of the Rohirrim", or Sam and Frodo's fateful trek into Mordor. For once, the real heroes weren't wizards, or warriors, or thieves, or kings. They had no extraordinary powers of any kind. They were almost quintessentially ordinary except for the strength of their characters and innate goodness. So, my vote goes to Tolkien.

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Aug 16th 3:19 PM
No dispute from me, Jeff.

Ser Benjen
User ID: 1195644 Aug 16th 4:04 PM
Interesting that you should bring that up. I just finished reading LotR and the Silmarillion again (and a few Lost and Unfinished tales too).

Tolkien's work was the work of a lifetime. He created an entire cosmology for Arda, from before the world began to the beginning of the Fourth Age, and had very specific details on what happened all the way through. He created entire languages for that world. The Lord of the Rings grew out of ideas he had brewing for decades. The development of that world has so much depth...I could go on and on.

Tolkein gets my vote.

PS GRRM said that Gandalf should have stayed dead. Do you agree?

Carol
User ID: 9405543 Aug 16th 6:05 PM
Not a full-fledged vote for GRRM but one argument on his side: GRRM's character development is sooo much better than Tolkien's. Almost all of Tolkien's characters are sterotypical place-holders. We know far more about the history and motivation of even lesser characters in ASoIaF than we know about Aragorn. And forget the women in Tolkien. I did, actually, because we know nothing at all about them.

Moreta
User ID: 9565813 Aug 17th 0:51 AM
I'm not so sure, Carol. I still remember the majestic Galadriel. I've not read the Lord of the Rings since I was ten (I do have the books) but I remember it fondly. When I read The Hobbit for the first time, I was so spellbound that I polished it off in three hours. Tolkien has that mystical quality as Jeff said.

On the other side, GRRM can write spellbinding scenes. I've virtually memorized The Tower of Joy scene without trying. He has varied character development than Tolkien though.

I was happy when Gandalf came back :)

Tartan
User ID: 0276214 Aug 17th 6:09 AM
There has never been anyone who has a created a world with more depth and pure "sense of wonder" than Tolkien. He is the master.

Keri Stevenson Aug 17th 8:58 AM
Yes, the comparison _is_ a little unfair :).

I think part of the difference between Tolkien's and Martin's books lies (beyond what people have already said) in what race was meant to be the "dominant" one. Until the end of _The Lord of the Rings_, Man was only one race of many in Tolkien's world, and it was the elves who had fought Sauron and Morgoth and made a difference in the world just by existing. _The Silmarillion_ is basically about elves. I think Tolkein handled this well, better than some authors- all right, many- with nonhuman races.

In Westeros, humans have been dominant for at least three centuries (or more than eight thousand years if you want to count from the driving back of the Others, or only two centuries if you want to count from the death of the last dragon). Human civilization has had a chance to develop on its own, not in the shadow of another race. I think this accounts for part of GRRM's realism. It is closer to what we would think of as "real." Tolkien's world has a reality all its own, one that is harder for us to relate to.

That said...

I think Tolkein will always be the better _writer_ in my mind, just because I love that style of dreams and myth, and because _The Hobbit_ was the first fantasy book I read, letting me know that such a thing as a genre existed. But for certain _aspects_ of writing, GRRM is better, or at least easier to understand.

If that makes sense...:)

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Aug 17th 8:59 AM
Gee guys, can't we get anybody to disagree?

Carol, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about character development. I think that stories generally are either character-driven or story driven. Not that both can't occur at the same time, but usually we're more interested in one than the other. In LOTR, I think it was the story and the world that mattered most. "Will Middle Earth be saved?" In ASOIAF, it seems as though it is the fate of the characters that attracts us more so than the fate of Westeros. "What will happen with Tyrion, Danys, Bran, etc?"

As for Gandalf returning, I think it was a good move. Tolkien really had compelling reasons and justification for doing that. Strictly speaking, Gandalf was a minor deity and not human at all. As I remember, he and Sauron were both of the same "race". LOTR really was a story of the conflict between good and evil, and Gandalf's reincarnation and replacement of Saruman added the spectre of some "good" force assisting the "good" people of Middle Earth. I thought it worked.

Also, since Tolkien was, in many ways, the "first" fantasy master, the cliche of the reincarnated character really was not a cliche at all. It certainly was a complete (and wonderful) surprise to me. But when GRRM's very minor criticism of Tolkien reincarnating Gandalf is applied to Jordan. . . .

BTW, I thought I saw some GRRM comment where he referred to Tolkien as the "Master". Makes me like the guy even more. Not only is he a great writer, but he recognizes other great writes as well. Unlike Jordan, who I think has taken one or two potshots at Tolkien.

Carol
User ID: 9405543 Aug 17th 5:39 PM
I think what we're doing here is akin to comparing Mozart with the Beatles. All I said, if you will, is that the Beatles write better lyrics.

Ser Benjen
User ID: 1195644 Aug 18th 7:12 AM
That's a good point Carol. I also think steroetypes don't really apply to Tolkien because his influence created alot of the sterotypes in the genre.

Daniel R. Baker
User ID: 1425064 Aug 18th 8:59 AM
Ser Benjen: I agree with you fully about "stereotypes." Anyone who virtually single-handedly creates an entire genre is going to have his scenes and characters copied to the point of stereotype by subsequent authors. There's no avoiding it.

Carol
User ID: 3438284 Aug 18th 12:36 PM
You're right, of course. They weren't stereotypes when Tolkien did them. It was all the writers who came later and tried to emulate Tolkien that made them into stereotypes. Maybe that's why we really don't miss the characterizations -- we were so awestruck with these new character types.

Dirjj
User ID: 9990163 Aug 18th 2:32 PM
Well, I'm the Tolkien master. I've read just about everything of his. The Fall of Gondolin in Book of Lost Tales II was really moving. It gave great insite that the Silmarillian couldn't. But alas, I do have many problems with Tolkien that everyone seems to lambast Jordan for. For instance, he has character that are supposed to be awesome, yet in my opinion, they really contributed nothing to the stories, unless it was something unmentioned behind the scenes.

Galadriel - What the hell did she do? She was supposed to be one of the leaders of the Nolder rebellion, but she didn't do anything but look pretty in Menegroth for 500 years, then she was at Eregion for a while before Curfinwe and his caste chucked her and Celeborn out. Then what, she hid in Lothlorien. Nuff said there.

Elrond - He's supposed to be the most powerful Elf left in Middle-Earth. The only living decendent of Finwe, Elwe (Thingol) and Hador Lorindol. He and his brother Elros are listed on the family trees of all the great Elven and Human houses, and what did he do?

So you see, sometimes it is ok to be Jordanian.

But, all in all, Tolkien is still the master.

ab

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Aug 18th 3:44 PM
Hrm ... Galadriel and Elrond did plenty. The problem is, they did the main of it in the thousands of years that take place before LotR.

As to what they did in LotR? Elrond saved Frodo's life a couple of times, he gave wise council, and he helped put together the company of the Walkers. _And_ he was man (or elf, rather) enough to be able to give up his daughter to mortal death when the time came.

Galadriel? Without her, the haven of Lothlorien would never have existed. Without her, the meeting between Gimli and Celeborn could have gone disastrously. Most importantly though, she wins the inner fight -- she refuses the ring, accepts what fate is dealt her ... and wins her reward.

Just about every character that shows up in LotR serves an important role either plot wise or in the entire theme and meaning of it, from the least (Ted Sandyman, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Beregond, etc.) to the greatest (no need to name them all.)

Jordan's parade of characters is nothing like Tolkien's, I think. His is just the constant adding of more and more sub-plots, requiring more and more characters. It's a shame, really. He started out okay.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Aug 18th 3:58 PM
Galadriel also led the forces of Lorien against Dol Guldor, using some undefined magic to whip the badguys. It was only referenced in passing in Return of the King (after the dropping of the Ring), but it was there nevertheless.

But the lack of action generally by the elves in LOTR was a conscious point by Tolkien, I think. Part of the theme of the book was that the time of the elves was all but over and it was now the age of men. The defeat of Sauron by the Last Alliance at the end of the Second Age was really the last major action of the elves in Middle earth.

To buttress Markus' well-stated point, the Sackville-Bagginses may not have been important, but Tolkien never pretended they were and never really spent much time on them. Jordan, on the other hand, introduces minor characters that he treats as important even though they're not.

The purpose the Sackville-Bagginses did serve was as a point of contrast between the ordinariness of life in the Shire and the events of the War of the Ring. Without the day-to-day boring, peaceful existence of the Shire, the momentous events ending the Third Age wouldn't seem as grand.

Daniel R. Baker
User ID: 1425064 Aug 18th 4:03 PM
Galadriel would be justified by that beautiful, haunting song alone: "I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold / And leaves of gold there grew . . ."

I love Martin, and I confess to being a fan of Jordan's also, but *nobody* could write songs like Tolkien.

Professor Dirjj
User ID: 0094674 Aug 19th 0:32 AM
I only recall Elrond maybe saving Frodo once, and that was just from the sickness he got by a Nazgul knife on Amon Sul (Weathertop). Glorfindel saved him at the falls. As for Galadriel leading forces against Dol Gulder, I believe that Celeborn led the forces (could be mistaken) of Lothlorien from the South, The Woodman from the East, the Sylvan Elves under Thranduil from the North, and the Beornings from the west. Nevertheless, Dol Guldor was a shell of whatever it was. There were no Nazgul to lead the Orcs that remained, so there was no real threat from there, the good guys showed up, the bad guys fled. Big Deal.

Now by right, Elrond should have been High King of the Eldar in Middle Earth. Now if that would have come to pass, then I wouldn't quibble about him. Aside from that, all he did in Middle Earth was kiss Ereinen Gil-Galad's ass. Lead a force to relieve Eregion, the got decimated by Angmar, and was besieged in Imladres (Rivendell) until Gil-Galad bailed him out. I don't think he participated in the Great Alliance other than offering his hospitality to the Elven/Human host.

Furthermore, I don't really recall anything of real import happening during the Fellowship's stay in Lorien. Lorien could have been bypassed, and it wouldn't have hurt the story.

Basically, my point in nit-picking these two is that there is only mention in passing of how awesome they are, but then they don't do anything. Just like Tywin's reputation as a great Military mind. Martin hasn't described anything he has done to make us agree with the Assesment of Tywin. We're all pretty intelligent, except for Dredfolk, so why should we take something like this at face value, without any precedent?

Gee, I love this topic. I actually know stuff, and I don't even have to look it up. Sorry for the extremely long post. :-)

ab

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Aug 19th 4:30 AM
It was Elrond who made the flood of the Bruinen which kept the Nazgul from capturing Frodo (Glorfindel's horse wasn't fully accomplishing this). All Gandalf did was make the coming rush of water look like there were white, foamy horses among it.

Where does one get that he should have been the High King? Gil-Galad was the proper one given the lines we see. That Elrond decided not to try and take up the role after Gil-Galad's death ... I believe his reasons are explained (in Unfinished Tales, maybe.) It never struck me as odd, in any case. He actually fought in the Great Alliance -- I believe he refers to himself as having been banner bearer to Gil-Galad when the Alliance cornered Sauron.

The stay in Lorien ... uh, orcs following after the Walkers would have caused serious troubles if the elves there hadn't helped. The stay led to them getting Galadriel's and Celeborn's council, gives them time to rest, leads to them recieving the cloaks, rope, cloak pins, boats and lembas that served them so well through the rest of the books (e.g., the cloaks help Frodo and Sam a number of times in Mordor, the rope as well, and the cloak pin that Pippin had let him put Aragon and co. on the right track to find him .. .and though they didn't, they _did_ find Gandalf again in the area, the boats that speed their travel and allow Frodo and Sam to go their separate way, the lembas that let the Walkers chase after the orcs.)

Most importantly, though, what Galadriel does -- refuse the ring -- is a great moral moment of the series. The conflict, in its way, sets the breadth and tone and style of what will be coming in the future. In some ways, it rather mirrors Boromir's failure to refuse the ring. Hrm .. oh, yeah, and then there's the Mirror, which is pretty important in setting some things up, and the final gift to Samwise which leads to the final happiness of the Shire.

That's important. I don't see how Lorien could be skipped. In all truth, I'm mighty worried at Peter Jackson apparently cutting Lorien out (mostly -- he is keeping Galadriel and the Mirror in.)

So .. I think I've shown a sufficiency of them doing things in LotR. The elves in the late Third Age are, by and large, figures of wisdom and not action. They've spent the previous thousands of years doing all the action they need. It's because of Elrond that Rivendell exists, and in the Second Age he was all over the place fighting. To an elf, the S.A. is a stone's throw away. It's because of Galadriel that Lorien exists, and that Eregion became what it was (in more than one way.) So ... yeah, they're awesome, and I don't need to see it.

And yeah, I believe Tywin is a military genius. He's shown enough ability. He hasn't done all too well because of circumstances, but when fears of his prowess were raised ... well, why would I disbelieve it? His strategy of sitting in Harrenhal was sound enough, save he misguessed what would happen. He smashed Roose Bolton in GoT fairly well, and of course his quick ability to mobilize and turn south to join the Tyrells ... some luck, maybe, but it's the sort of luck you make.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Aug 19th 8:24 AM
Professor Dirjj, my choice of words about Galadriel leading the elves of Lorien in battle was poor. You are correct, it was Celeborn. But it was also mentioned that it took the magic of Galadril to actually remove the taint from Dol Guldor and destroy it. So, she sort of purified Mirkwood, which in itself is a pretty big thing.

Otherwise, I'll just "me-too" Ran's comments. I do think he's correct about Elrond's role as standard bearer and about Gil-galad being the rightful High King. As for why elrond didn't retake the mantle of High King, well, what High Elves were left to become King of? The elves of Lorien were grey elves, not high elves. The ranks of the high elves were decimated at the battle with Sauron, and most of the survivors went West. The only remaining high elves (other than Galadriel herself) would have been Elrond's little band in Rivendell. Not much of a kingdom.

I agree that its fun to discuss Tolkien cause I've read LOTR, Hobbit, and the Silmarillion about 40 times each. Haven't read any unfinished tales, though. Are they worth it?

Ran
User ID: 0283314 Aug 19th 9:15 AM
Unfinished Tales is a mixture of stories, fragments, etc. that Tolkien wrote (as the title sort of implies.) There are a couple of fairly full-fledged stories (in particular, the Numenorean story of Aldarion and Erendis and the Battles of the Fords of Isen.) There's quite a lot about all sorts of things -- information on the Nazgul (including a story-form recounting of just what the Nazgul were up to throughout the books), Palantiri, the Five Wizards, Galadriel and Celeborn, the story of Nimrodel, the Pukel-men, etc., etc.

It's a very useful book, both as a reference and just for some of the writing. As I mentioned, Aldarion and Erendis is particularly interesting. It has no real impact on LotR, but it's a look at the Second Age and important events in it.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Jeff User ID: 0227464	Aug 16th 3:04 PM Okay, this may be a weak topic and an unfair comparison, but dammit, we need new topics. I love AGOT and ACOK. Some of the best stuff I've read since, well, Lord of the Rings. But to me, Tolkien is still the Master. The comparison is difficult because the books are so different in tone. Martin clearly has edged towards realism, with characters that are very human and naturally flawed. The dialogue is superb, and I think his character development is superior to Tolkien's. Tolkien's approach is more mythic and classically Romantic. I still get chills rereading "The Ride of the Rohirrim", or Sam and Frodo's fateful trek into Mordor. For once, the real heroes weren't wizards, or warriors, or thieves, or kings. They had no extraordinary powers of any kind. They were almost quintessentially ordinary except for the strength of their characters and innate goodness. So, my vote goes to Tolkien.
Ran User ID: 0283314	Aug 16th 3:19 PM No dispute from me, Jeff.
Ser Benjen User ID: 1195644	Aug 16th 4:04 PM Interesting that you should bring that up. I just finished reading LotR and the Silmarillion again (and a few Lost and Unfinished tales too). Tolkien's work was the work of a lifetime. He created an entire cosmology for Arda, from before the world began to the beginning of the Fourth Age, and had very specific details on what happened all the way through. He created entire languages for that world. The Lord of the Rings grew out of ideas he had brewing for decades. The development of that world has so much depth...I could go on and on. Tolkein gets my vote. PS GRRM said that Gandalf should have stayed dead. Do you agree?
Carol User ID: 9405543	Aug 16th 6:05 PM Not a full-fledged vote for GRRM but one argument on his side: GRRM's character development is sooo much better than Tolkien's. Almost all of Tolkien's characters are sterotypical place-holders. We know far more about the history and motivation of even lesser characters in ASoIaF than we know about Aragorn. And forget the women in Tolkien. I did, actually, because we know nothing at all about them.
Moreta User ID: 9565813	Aug 17th 0:51 AM I'm not so sure, Carol. I still remember the majestic Galadriel. I've not read the Lord of the Rings since I was ten (I do have the books) but I remember it fondly. When I read The Hobbit for the first time, I was so spellbound that I polished it off in three hours. Tolkien has that mystical quality as Jeff said. On the other side, GRRM can write spellbinding scenes. I've virtually memorized The Tower of Joy scene without trying. He has varied character development than Tolkien though. I was happy when Gandalf came back :)
Tartan User ID: 0276214	Aug 17th 6:09 AM There has never been anyone who has a created a world with more depth and pure "sense of wonder" than Tolkien. He is the master.
Keri Stevenson	Aug 17th 8:58 AM Yes, the comparison _is_ a little unfair :). I think part of the difference between Tolkien's and Martin's books lies (beyond what people have already said) in what race was meant to be the "dominant" one. Until the end of _The Lord of the Rings_, Man was only one race of many in Tolkien's world, and it was the elves who had fought Sauron and Morgoth and made a difference in the world just by existing. _The Silmarillion_ is basically about elves. I think Tolkein handled this well, better than some authors- all right, many- with nonhuman races. In Westeros, humans have been dominant for at least three centuries (or more than eight thousand years if you want to count from the driving back of the Others, or only two centuries if you want to count from the death of the last dragon). Human civilization has had a chance to develop on its own, not in the shadow of another race. I think this accounts for part of GRRM's realism. It is closer to what we would think of as "real." Tolkien's world has a reality all its own, one that is harder for us to relate to. That said... I think Tolkein will always be the better _writer_ in my mind, just because I love that style of dreams and myth, and because _The Hobbit_ was the first fantasy book I read, letting me know that such a thing as a genre existed. But for certain _aspects_ of writing, GRRM is better, or at least easier to understand. If that makes sense...:)
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Aug 17th 8:59 AM Gee guys, can't we get anybody to disagree? Carol, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about character development. I think that stories generally are either character-driven or story driven. Not that both can't occur at the same time, but usually we're more interested in one than the other. In LOTR, I think it was the story and the world that mattered most. "Will Middle Earth be saved?" In ASOIAF, it seems as though it is the fate of the characters that attracts us more so than the fate of Westeros. "What will happen with Tyrion, Danys, Bran, etc?" As for Gandalf returning, I think it was a good move. Tolkien really had compelling reasons and justification for doing that. Strictly speaking, Gandalf was a minor deity and not human at all. As I remember, he and Sauron were both of the same "race". LOTR really was a story of the conflict between good and evil, and Gandalf's reincarnation and replacement of Saruman added the spectre of some "good" force assisting the "good" people of Middle Earth. I thought it worked. Also, since Tolkien was, in many ways, the "first" fantasy master, the cliche of the reincarnated character really was not a cliche at all. It certainly was a complete (and wonderful) surprise to me. But when GRRM's very minor criticism of Tolkien reincarnating Gandalf is applied to Jordan. . . . BTW, I thought I saw some GRRM comment where he referred to Tolkien as the "Master". Makes me like the guy even more. Not only is he a great writer, but he recognizes other great writes as well. Unlike Jordan, who I think has taken one or two potshots at Tolkien.
Carol User ID: 9405543	Aug 17th 5:39 PM I think what we're doing here is akin to comparing Mozart with the Beatles. All I said, if you will, is that the Beatles write better lyrics.
Ser Benjen User ID: 1195644	Aug 18th 7:12 AM That's a good point Carol. I also think steroetypes don't really apply to Tolkien because his influence created alot of the sterotypes in the genre.
Daniel R. Baker User ID: 1425064	Aug 18th 8:59 AM Ser Benjen: I agree with you fully about "stereotypes." Anyone who virtually single-handedly creates an entire genre is going to have his scenes and characters copied to the point of stereotype by subsequent authors. There's no avoiding it.
Carol User ID: 3438284	Aug 18th 12:36 PM You're right, of course. They weren't stereotypes when Tolkien did them. It was all the writers who came later and tried to emulate Tolkien that made them into stereotypes. Maybe that's why we really don't miss the characterizations -- we were so awestruck with these new character types.
Dirjj User ID: 9990163	Aug 18th 2:32 PM Well, I'm the Tolkien master. I've read just about everything of his. The Fall of Gondolin in Book of Lost Tales II was really moving. It gave great insite that the Silmarillian couldn't. But alas, I do have many problems with Tolkien that everyone seems to lambast Jordan for. For instance, he has character that are supposed to be awesome, yet in my opinion, they really contributed nothing to the stories, unless it was something unmentioned behind the scenes. Galadriel - What the hell did she do? She was supposed to be one of the leaders of the Nolder rebellion, but she didn't do anything but look pretty in Menegroth for 500 years, then she was at Eregion for a while before Curfinwe and his caste chucked her and Celeborn out. Then what, she hid in Lothlorien. Nuff said there. Elrond - He's supposed to be the most powerful Elf left in Middle-Earth. The only living decendent of Finwe, Elwe (Thingol) and Hador Lorindol. He and his brother Elros are listed on the family trees of all the great Elven and Human houses, and what did he do? So you see, sometimes it is ok to be Jordanian. But, all in all, Tolkien is still the master. ab
Ran User ID: 0283314	Aug 18th 3:44 PM Hrm ... Galadriel and Elrond did plenty. The problem is, they did the main of it in the thousands of years that take place before LotR. As to what they did in LotR? Elrond saved Frodo's life a couple of times, he gave wise council, and he helped put together the company of the Walkers. _And_ he was man (or elf, rather) enough to be able to give up his daughter to mortal death when the time came. Galadriel? Without her, the haven of Lothlorien would never have existed. Without her, the meeting between Gimli and Celeborn could have gone disastrously. Most importantly though, she wins the inner fight -- she refuses the ring, accepts what fate is dealt her ... and wins her reward. Just about every character that shows up in LotR serves an important role either plot wise or in the entire theme and meaning of it, from the least (Ted Sandyman, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Beregond, etc.) to the greatest (no need to name them all.) Jordan's parade of characters is nothing like Tolkien's, I think. His is just the constant adding of more and more sub-plots, requiring more and more characters. It's a shame, really. He started out okay.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Aug 18th 3:58 PM Galadriel also led the forces of Lorien against Dol Guldor, using some undefined magic to whip the badguys. It was only referenced in passing in Return of the King (after the dropping of the Ring), but it was there nevertheless. But the lack of action generally by the elves in LOTR was a conscious point by Tolkien, I think. Part of the theme of the book was that the time of the elves was all but over and it was now the age of men. The defeat of Sauron by the Last Alliance at the end of the Second Age was really the last major action of the elves in Middle earth. To buttress Markus' well-stated point, the Sackville-Bagginses may not have been important, but Tolkien never pretended they were and never really spent much time on them. Jordan, on the other hand, introduces minor characters that he treats as important even though they're not. The purpose the Sackville-Bagginses did serve was as a point of contrast between the ordinariness of life in the Shire and the events of the War of the Ring. Without the day-to-day boring, peaceful existence of the Shire, the momentous events ending the Third Age wouldn't seem as grand.
Daniel R. Baker User ID: 1425064	Aug 18th 4:03 PM Galadriel would be justified by that beautiful, haunting song alone: "I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold / And leaves of gold there grew . . ." I love Martin, and I confess to being a fan of Jordan's also, but nobody could write songs like Tolkien.
Professor Dirjj User ID: 0094674	Aug 19th 0:32 AM I only recall Elrond maybe saving Frodo once, and that was just from the sickness he got by a Nazgul knife on Amon Sul (Weathertop). Glorfindel saved him at the falls. As for Galadriel leading forces against Dol Gulder, I believe that Celeborn led the forces (could be mistaken) of Lothlorien from the South, The Woodman from the East, the Sylvan Elves under Thranduil from the North, and the Beornings from the west. Nevertheless, Dol Guldor was a shell of whatever it was. There were no Nazgul to lead the Orcs that remained, so there was no real threat from there, the good guys showed up, the bad guys fled. Big Deal. Now by right, Elrond should have been High King of the Eldar in Middle Earth. Now if that would have come to pass, then I wouldn't quibble about him. Aside from that, all he did in Middle Earth was kiss Ereinen Gil-Galad's ass. Lead a force to relieve Eregion, the got decimated by Angmar, and was besieged in Imladres (Rivendell) until Gil-Galad bailed him out. I don't think he participated in the Great Alliance other than offering his hospitality to the Elven/Human host. Furthermore, I don't really recall anything of real import happening during the Fellowship's stay in Lorien. Lorien could have been bypassed, and it wouldn't have hurt the story. Basically, my point in nit-picking these two is that there is only mention in passing of how awesome they are, but then they don't do anything. Just like Tywin's reputation as a great Military mind. Martin hasn't described anything he has done to make us agree with the Assesment of Tywin. We're all pretty intelligent, except for Dredfolk, so why should we take something like this at face value, without any precedent? Gee, I love this topic. I actually know stuff, and I don't even have to look it up. Sorry for the extremely long post. :-) ab
Ran User ID: 0283314	Aug 19th 4:30 AM It was Elrond who made the flood of the Bruinen which kept the Nazgul from capturing Frodo (Glorfindel's horse wasn't fully accomplishing this). All Gandalf did was make the coming rush of water look like there were white, foamy horses among it. Where does one get that he should have been the High King? Gil-Galad was the proper one given the lines we see. That Elrond decided not to try and take up the role after Gil-Galad's death ... I believe his reasons are explained (in Unfinished Tales, maybe.) It never struck me as odd, in any case. He actually fought in the Great Alliance -- I believe he refers to himself as having been banner bearer to Gil-Galad when the Alliance cornered Sauron. The stay in Lorien ... uh, orcs following after the Walkers would have caused serious troubles if the elves there hadn't helped. The stay led to them getting Galadriel's and Celeborn's council, gives them time to rest, leads to them recieving the cloaks, rope, cloak pins, boats and lembas that served them so well through the rest of the books (e.g., the cloaks help Frodo and Sam a number of times in Mordor, the rope as well, and the cloak pin that Pippin had let him put Aragon and co. on the right track to find him .. .and though they didn't, they _did_ find Gandalf again in the area, the boats that speed their travel and allow Frodo and Sam to go their separate way, the lembas that let the Walkers chase after the orcs.) Most importantly, though, what Galadriel does -- refuse the ring -- is a great moral moment of the series. The conflict, in its way, sets the breadth and tone and style of what will be coming in the future. In some ways, it rather mirrors Boromir's failure to refuse the ring. Hrm .. oh, yeah, and then there's the Mirror, which is pretty important in setting some things up, and the final gift to Samwise which leads to the final happiness of the Shire. That's important. I don't see how Lorien could be skipped. In all truth, I'm mighty worried at Peter Jackson apparently cutting Lorien out (mostly -- he is keeping Galadriel and the Mirror in.) So .. I think I've shown a sufficiency of them doing things in LotR. The elves in the late Third Age are, by and large, figures of wisdom and not action. They've spent the previous thousands of years doing all the action they need. It's because of Elrond that Rivendell exists, and in the Second Age he was all over the place fighting. To an elf, the S.A. is a stone's throw away. It's because of Galadriel that Lorien exists, and that Eregion became what it was (in more than one way.) So ... yeah, they're awesome, and I don't need to see it. And yeah, I believe Tywin is a military genius. He's shown enough ability. He hasn't done all too well because of circumstances, but when fears of his prowess were raised ... well, why would I disbelieve it? His strategy of sitting in Harrenhal was sound enough, save he misguessed what would happen. He smashed Roose Bolton in GoT fairly well, and of course his quick ability to mobilize and turn south to join the Tyrells ... some luck, maybe, but it's the sort of luck you make.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Aug 19th 8:24 AM Professor Dirjj, my choice of words about Galadriel leading the elves of Lorien in battle was poor. You are correct, it was Celeborn. But it was also mentioned that it took the magic of Galadril to actually remove the taint from Dol Guldor and destroy it. So, she sort of purified Mirkwood, which in itself is a pretty big thing. Otherwise, I'll just "me-too" Ran's comments. I do think he's correct about Elrond's role as standard bearer and about Gil-galad being the rightful High King. As for why elrond didn't retake the mantle of High King, well, what High Elves were left to become King of? The elves of Lorien were grey elves, not high elves. The ranks of the high elves were decimated at the battle with Sauron, and most of the survivors went West. The only remaining high elves (other than Galadriel herself) would have been Elrond's little band in Rivendell. Not much of a kingdom. I agree that its fun to discuss Tolkien cause I've read LOTR, Hobbit, and the Silmarillion about 40 times each. Haven't read any unfinished tales, though. Are they worth it?
Ran User ID: 0283314	Aug 19th 9:15 AM Unfinished Tales is a mixture of stories, fragments, etc. that Tolkien wrote (as the title sort of implies.) There are a couple of fairly full-fledged stories (in particular, the Numenorean story of Aldarion and Erendis and the Battles of the Fords of Isen.) There's quite a lot about all sorts of things -- information on the Nazgul (including a story-form recounting of just what the Nazgul were up to throughout the books), Palantiri, the Five Wizards, Galadriel and Celeborn, the story of Nimrodel, the Pukel-men, etc., etc. It's a very useful book, both as a reference and just for some of the writing. As I mentioned, Aldarion and Erendis is particularly interesting. It has no real impact on LotR, but it's a look at the Second Age and important events in it.