Morgoth! We hates him forever! In the book, in one of the Smeagol/Gollum debates there is something very roughly like this: G "We hates Bagginses." D "Not this Baggins." G "Yes, ALL Bagginses. All who keeps the Precious from us." Gollum here seems to be DEFINING "Bagginses" as an improper noun denoting an entity keeping the Ring from him. We hates all who would keep the Precious from us is similar to the Oath of Feanor, except, one suspects, for the grammar (though the wording is not written, and the swearers were actually, rather than psychologically, plural).
The ring was for sauron like an oath: he put much of himself into something outside of his direct control (he externalised himself, like Tolkien says), and his intention in doing so was domination- and so he bound himself to that intention forever.
I allways cry in the film scene, when he before he dies says to Aragorn, my friend, my Captain my king. I know it is only in the film but its giving real emphasis on this Boromir redemption moment.
It's a change for sure but I think a very good translation of all the complicated feelings bubbling under the surface into an effective film moment. I cry too.
I have no problem with Fëanor being Gollum, and, furthermore, I embrace Sam being Tulkas. Did the orcs who took Frodo not see him as a mighty warrior while he bore the ring?
A wonderful analysis, Lexi--thank you for going into depth about this interesting topic. One of my favorite character arcs (of redemption) is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who goes from an almost cartoon villain in The Hobbit, to a thoroughly redeemed Hobbit who has learned compassion through suffering and loss.
A very good reference to bring up here. Love how Lobelia goes from the cranky neighbour who everyone dislikes and stays away from if they can help it to a local hero thanks to her savage skills with an umbrella.
What you said about Ar-Pharazôn reminded me of this passage in Lewis' "Tha Hideous Strength", chapter 16: "The last scene of Dr. Faustus where the man raves and implores on the edge of Hell is, perhaps, stage fire. The last moments before damnation are not often so dramatic. Often the man knows with perfect clarity that some still possible action of his own will could yet save him. But he cannot make this knowledge real to himself. Some tiny habitual sensuality, some resentment too trivial to waste on a blue-bottle, the indulgence of some fatal lethargy, seems to him at that moment more important than the choice between total joy and total destruction."
35:50 🤯🤯🤯I never made that specific connection to Aulë creating the Dwarves before, I always just assumed it was a general sentiment about making things. "New Perspective Unlocked"... I think I just leveled up. 😅 Thank you!
Your point about accepting the last chance not fixing everything reminds me of that really heartbreaking XKCD about cancer, where they frame remission not as recovery, but just staying on the path, as more and more of your fellows swerve off into death.
Partly-developed opinion on the 'circumflex' - the little angle that letters wear for a hat sometimes: In Khuzdul, of course, it denotes an elongated vowel (as in Khazad 'Dûm', pronounced like English 'doom'). But Tolkien also anglicizes the Kuduk (Hobbit language) name 'Tûk' to 'Took' (from Appendix F II, 'On Translation'). Dwarves are a people apart, but Kuduk must be related to Adûnaic. This far from firm ground to stand on, and it does lead to some stresses quite different from Sindarin, or English for that matter. But that is as developed as my opinion has managed to become so far.
I admit I lost it at “Celebrimbanner.” Perhaps Túrin was fish in a barrel in a discussion like this, oscillating as wildly and repeatedly as he did between redemption and surrender to his worse side. Maybe you’re exercising mercy by not wringing further shame from his ghost. And the discussion is certainly well-rounded in the subjects you do discuss. Still … I kind of miss him.
I don't know, I think Turin was cursed (passive voice), not lost. He made a lot of bad choices, but he never had the full picture until it was too late, and he never surrendered to abject evil. In the prophesy concerning the end times, this is implied when Turin is the one who gets to finish off Morgoth, as his (presumably) chief VICTIM.
@@digitalnomad9985 What is evil, though? Is it something you choose whether to be or whether to do? Túrin not only had behavior patterns that led to evil outcomes (e.g., turning his back on Thingol, social climbing in Nargothrond and Brethil) he also precipitated disaster by doubling down on his intense but narrow and sometimes-juvenile sense of honor. The worst of Boromir's actions stemmed from a similar moral tunnel vision, albeit compounded by Ring-lust.
Love this topic! The themes of forgiveness and redemption are so important to me and it feels like there's room to explore it so much further in modern fantasy literature. I've always admired how Tolkien handles it.
I did NOT expect the Aulë, Tulkas, Fëanor / Frodo, Sam, Gollum parallel. Such a fascinating concept. Thank you for sharing it, I definitely like this angle.
@@amh9494 Christians or mormons, yes. Like Brandon Sanderson or Shad Brooks. Brandon doesn't really focus on this topic at all but from what I've heard, the theme of redemption is central to Shad's book Shadow of the Conqueror. I have yet to get a copy
This is an amazing video. It started with "hey this fella knows a lot of LotR lore, and delivers it in an engaging way"... And keeps getting better until my mind is blown with Sam=Tulkas, Gollum=Feanor! And it's not just pointing out fact that you are good at. The way you arrange the subject matters and bring in the feeling of LotR into your descriptions, it all fits so well together
Holy cats, man! Hope you're doing better ❤🩹 I can say with utter certainty that 'provide distraction to people who are *in the hospital for heart attacks* ' was not something I ever anticipated doing through UA-cam, but I'm very pleased to hear you found them helpful. Heal up quick!
@@GirlNextGondor Doing much better than I should! I was VERY lucky! Eru was looking out for me! I really do appreciate all your work and am glad to be able to stick around and watch the channel grow!
I loved your observation or interpretation of Sauron as being befuddled by the Elves taking off their Rings. The idea that he thought they would be too covetous of the power and positive outcomes they could accomplish with the Rings to even consider that possibility feels right to me and perhaps revelatory. And maybe even that he thought they would want to work with him to an extent since all their goals were...in his mind..vaguely similar. Perhaps he even felt wronged, judged, or betrayed in that moment? That would go some way to explaining the abrupt rage and reversal in strategy from "conning and dominating the Elves" to "wiping them off the face of Middle-earth". Anyway, luckily for the Free Peoples he still didn't absorb the lesson that his enemies might not _always_succumb to temptation. edit: Re-reading _Of the Rings of Power..._ it actually says of the moment Sauron put on the One and the Elves took off the Three, "[Sauronj], finding that he was betrayed..." So Sauron feeling genuinely betrayed by the Elves isn't the leap I thought it was.
I agree. I feel that in his mind he almost did believe he had the same goal as the elves even when he forged the ruling ring and felt surprised and betrayed when he realized that they actually wanted to be independent of his will. i don't know if he had the emotional intelligence as Lexi said to realize that he would be seen as domineering or why that would necessarily be a bad thing
Did he even know about the three Elven rings before putting on the One ring? Cause Celebrimbor went and made those in secret, but using some of the methods taught by Sauron (which is why they were affected). Obviously after putting on the master ring he would then know about the elven rings.
@@tabby_cat There may be counterpoint sources on this in Letters and the HOME, but _Of the Rings of Power_ says of the Elves "...and they made Rings of Power. But Sauron guided their labours, and he was aware of *all* that they did..." [Emphasis mine.] Also, "And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency..." Celebrimbor forged the Three without the hand of Sauron touching them, and perhaps intending to keep them secret from Annatar, but I believe the latter was fully aware of their existence. And probably had to be in order to make the One capable of dominating the Three as well as the lesser Rings. I can't tell that "Elven-rings" in the above is specifically referring to the Three, but I still lean to the same conclusion. Even if I'm wrong about all that, I think it's absolutely certain he was aware of the Three as soon as he put on the One, at the very latest.
❤ GOAT of all Tolkien UA-camrs ❤ 🫶 Convince me that I’m wrong 🫵 But no naming or criticizing other content makers bc Lex (GnG) has zero interest in competition or having a cult of personality and it’s literally impossible to get her to say a bad word about anyone. Like seriously sign up for the highest level Patreon and try to get her to voice any criticism whatsoever of another Tolkien channel or creator and not just maybe an idea or concept that she disagrees with. You’ll fail and instead probably get her opinion on their unique contributions and what they do well. She just wants ppl to enjoy Tolkien to the max and is a sweet person and busy mom who has zero time or interest in drama whatsoever and I don’t want to engage in that either. Just convince me that there is a better series than Down the Hobbit Hole that isn’t like 20+ hours of lecture by a literal Tolkien scholar. While her content always shows a natural gift with words and skill in literary analysis, familiarity with the lore, almost psychoanalytic insight into why characters act in ways they consciously tell themselves and others they don’t want, it’s three other things that make these so special: 1. Seeing parallels and connections that others just don’t - I know she puts a lot of work in but she also just has a rare talent. She’s far too humble to call herself a Tolkien scholar and she relates to the material as a fan rather than an academic, but she just has some special insight that others don’t, and I often gain just as much or more from her content than I do from reading academic Tolkien scholarly work or 2+ hour lectures by people who do this as a job. 2. Pity. She extends pity towards every character, not just in her language, but in her approach to them. She wants characters to take the chances at redemption, and she understands why Tolkien gives so many characters chance after chance even after they do truly ghoulish and horrific actions. If I had to identify her with a Vala, I would say a mixture of Ulmo’s knowledge of the Music which he shares rather than hoards and unshakable but humble confidence & estel + Nienna’s desire for everybody to have enough chances as necessary regardless of the harm they’ve done (minus the perpetual weeping). 3. This is kinda particular to the Down the Hobbit Hole series, but GnG is like the DMT of the Legendarium. You’re listening to a video you think is interesting but maybe not sure where it’s going and then *boom* you are blown apart like Sauron’s spirit in a moment of shattering insight/atomic annihilation of your paradigmatic views of a character or the whole Legendarium. You can’t ever return to what you didn’t see before even if you want to - like Galadriel, you could break yourself if you just want your views to be reinforced but slightly expanded with an info-dump or more evidence for online arguments. Also one of the most loyal & battle-hardened warriors of Fëanor, true High King of the Noldor + Leonardo da Vinci of Middle-Earth + Moses, the greatest foe of Morgoth Bauglir who sacrificed everything that he held dear to save peoples and lands he never got to see or meet. The Hero of Middle-Earth who was right about Morgoth, though not completely infallible and arguably might have done one or two things wrong depending on your pov.
Hey now, I can badmouth other channels and stir up drama! ...Men of the West has too much content! It makes me look lazy by comparison; time to cancel him! 😂 Thank you for the kind words, my dude. #Feanordidnothingwrong
I agree on your point that Boromir dies before he can be worse again, Faramir take about how things might have gone badly when the two returned to Minas Tirith and Aragorn received some of the adulation usually reserved for Boromir.
On the one hand, thank goodness our favorite Heir to the Stewardship never had to go through that and lose his dignity in the process. On the other, I would have *loved* a scene or chapter involving pouty Boromir making passive-aggressive comments while Aragorn feverishly tries to prepare to march on the Black Gate without running Gondor into the ground or triggering a civil war 😂
I love this type of topic! I was hooked when you made a whole episode about the potential redemption of Orc and it really made me think deeper about the source material. Can't wait to finish listening to this video!
At 25:20, the letter is not 131 (a plausible guess) but 153: "But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape -- and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up." Excellent analogy at the end (Feanor/Tulkas/Aule and Gollum/Sam/Frodo)! This whole topic (the importance of mercy, as taught by Gandalf and Nienna) is to my mind the moral and metaphysical core of Tolkien's story. Thanks for this episode!
Larry, ALL reformers who just cannot stop themselves from reconstruction and reorganization, are psychopaths/sociopaths, and who THINK they have their pride and lust under control (but don't) are wholly/completely evil/sinful. They are NOT capable of redemption, because that character trait is MISSING.
Listening to you, it just struck me: did Sauron actually create the One Ring because he sincerely thought he could repair Middle Earth, and that the Elves had their own power to do so, so in his mind he needed to control the Elves so they would work to implement his program?
This is a great question. Some loremasters-okay, my brother and I-have been thinking about this question too. And the answer is clearly yes. Let’s talk about it. For no sufficient reason, I will frame it as a dialogue between pseudonymous twin loremasters. And let’s first all give praise and thanks to Lexi for her wonderful video that inspired the comment in the first place!
LOREMASTER 1: I think the good Mosux asks an excellent question. And the answer is certainly "yes". Sauron did create the One because he sincerely thought to use it to reorder Middle-earth and Arda in general, and that controlling the Elves would aid his program. The being who wrought the One Ring in the Second Age was not yet understood to be the same being who had taken Finrod’s tower and done such evil in Beleriand. Sure, we know _now_ that the Elf-smiths' generous new friend was the same Maia known in the previous Age as Sauron, "The Cruel", or Norsus/Gorthaur, "The Smell of Fear" ... but _he_ had never called himself by these abhorrent nicknames. He was working in a new, fair form, under new, fair names, like Aulendil-"Friend of Aulë"-and "Annatar". Such fine-sounding, fair-seeming names.
LOREMASTER 2: That last name really should have tipped Galadriel off. The ancient name Morgoth had first used among the Men in Hildórien meant "Giver of Gifts". Few remembered this; among Men, only the House of Marach preserved this memory. But a wise-woman of that House, Adanel, had passed it down to her half-Bëorian niece, Andreth; and Andreth, who loved Finrod's brother Aegnor, had passed it in turn to Finrod. Thus, when Finrod's wise sister, Galadriel, heard the name _Annatar_ -"Lord of Gifts"-did she not wonder at this Quenya take on Morgoth's ancient Mannish name? No red flags?
LOREMASTER 1: Well, perhaps we should not be too hard on Galadriel. For it is attested that Sauron also offered the West-elves a third fair-seeming alias-"Artano". And that name was so very close to "Artanis"-the name Finarfin gave his lovely daughter, when she was born, long before she took the name Galadriel. So she may have been distracted.(But I'm sure it was just a coincidence.) Also, we know how Galadriel felt about gifts. Recall that when Celebrimbor-mighty heir to Fëanor’s gift of craft, maker of Rings of Power, and at the same time her gormless first cousin who had a crush on her-came to her, filled with regret, showing her the Three Elven Rings Of Power, blubbering that it was now clear that Annatar had been Sauron and that his Gwaith-i-Mírdain had messed everything up, and asking her advice whether he should destroy the Three-her response was, “Thanks! I’ll think I’ll take the bling-bling mithril one!” And of course her very wise, and very, very reluctant, choice to decline Frodo’s gift of the One Ring is one of the pivotal events not only of her life and soul, but of the story of the One Ring. But to return to the original question. There is lore indicating that this being-known by his enemies as Sauron-still thought of himself by his original fair name, the one he had in the West before he fell: Mairon-“the excellent”. Even after he made the One Ring, and even after he lost his subsequent War with the Elves, our proud Maia still remembered his old name-and more importantly, still thought it befitting. When King Ar-Pharazôn of Númenor landed in force near Mordor, our crafty Lord of the Rings met him in another fair form, bent the knee, shipped to Númenor as hostage of the overconfident King, and swiftly rose to be his chief counsellor. And what did he counsel his new boss? That the King should call his new, fair-seeming counsellor by an old, fair-sounding name: “Tar-Mairon”-“King Excellent”!
LOREMASTER 2: Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Pharazôn responded, politely but firmly, that this was completely out of the question-the new name could not be in High Elvish, which had royal implications, when it was spoken at all on Númenor. Which was never, as far as he was concerned. No: his new counsellor would be known as _Zigûr_ -Adûnaic for “Wizard”. No doubt "Ziggy" bore this ridiculous smackdown from this ridiculous Man with a tolerant smile-and the same patience with which he had borne Galadriel’s scorn in Eregion. And the same gritted teeth.
LOREMASTER 1: Your bootless asides are growing in number. But we’re all loremasters here. My point was this. In his heart-or at least, in the fiery heart of his unincarnate _ëala_ -the being whom we constantly refer to as “Sauron” still called himself “Mairon.” And I submit that this reflected the fact that he still thought that he was doing Ilúvatar's will; which was to restore order to Arda, and to clean up the mess the Valar had made. And he needed the Noldor Elves’ help for that.
LOREMASTER 2: I agree that Sauron needed to _control_ the Elves. But for him, it was not so much that he believed he needed the Elves’ _help._ (Of course, he had just needed and gotten their help to make the Ring. But he had trouble admitting such things.) It was that in his mind, the Elves, unless controlled, would get in the way of him accomplishing his will. Which, he had really convinced himself, was Eru’s.
LOREMASTER 1: A good point. And he was being very solipsistic, to be sure, to believe such a thing. And he was mistaken.
LOREMASTER 2: Even so, I submit that he still believed it. Because Sauron’s greatest lies were the lies that he told himself. So ... was the fact that he still believed his plans were congruent with the will of Eru-that he was, at a divine level, "doing the right thing"-was _that_ the reason he was still able to put on a “fair seeming” form, when he surrendered to Ar-Pharazôn?
LOREMASTER 1: Yes, that’s it, exactly. "Mairon" still believed, sincerely, that it was Eru’s will that the Valar be dethroned for incompetence, and replaced with better management. That result would be accomplished by old Ar-Pharazôn’s invasion. The Great Armament was unthinkably mighty. To be sure, the Valar had flexed considerable muscle in the War of Wrath, but the so-called Host of the Valar is vaguely described at best in the sources, and it is unclear that any Ainur personally participated other than the Maia Eönwë. Sauron could have believed that the Valar were getting soft, cowardly, uninvested. Disconnected from the immanent affairs of grubby Middle-earth. Believing Eru was on his side, it would never occur to "Mairon" that Eru himself might step in, personally, and intervene to alter the result. And even if he did, he could never imagine that Eru would break the World-that He would sacrifice Elenna itself. Sauron's moment of clarity-the "trembling moment" when Eru taught him the great lesson, and Mairon truly and finally became Sauron once and for all-was also, and not by chance, the moment he lost the ability to assume the "fair form" of his lasting infamy. It was the moment the Great Wave, the Hand of Eru, whelmed Númenor. And it swept away his great Temple, and the Island, and his last beautiful form, for ever. And in doing so, washed away all his illusions.
There was NO last chance moment. The cake was baked in Eru's mind before he shared the recipe with the ALWAYS ROTTEN, ALWAYS WICKED Mairon/Sauron/GoDaddy-Gorthaur@@wxwaxone
@@wxwaxone Interesting take. But Sauron's complete fall - perhaps not in the sense of being beyond (a very tiny) possibility of repentance, but certainly in that of being beyond believing himself that he was doing Eru's will - was before that. It came, at the latest, when he was in Númenor and i) told Ar-Pharazon precisely *not* that the Valar weren't competently doing Eru's will, but that they had lied about Eru's existence and made Him up, ii) induced him to worship Melkor, whom he, even as an (overly and despotically) order-loving Maia who had once courted him to use the great power he then had for order, should properly now despise both for having used his power in a disorderly, nihilistic way in the end and for not having it any-more, iii) induced him to sacrifice human beings to gain long-life and power by magic (rather than organization, discipline and the great technical resources Númenor has anyway). He was and remained smart. He could not possibly justify, even to himself, anything of that as Eru's will. (What he did justify it to himself with was the very nasty following thing: "He gave me the shame of defeat, but I will beat him, yet. I will make him blaspheme Eru, and Eru will punish him for it.")
I would say assuming the guise of Annatar and infiltrating Eregion is when Sauron crosses the threshold. He is going into Ost-en-Edhel with intent to coerce Celebrimbor to help him undermine the Eldar, the Rings of Power as the means may not have crystalized in his mind yet but he was going there to make trouble.
Lexi: Sauron is a shapeshifter, it's incredibly difficult to divine what his real thoughts are Also "Lexi": I have no more opinions, this was all of them
I totally agree on Sauron. I would also speculate, with regards to his forging the ring in the fires of a volcano created by Melkor, that though Melkor's spirit of darkness is in them I am not sure how much Sauron views this as morally good or bad. He served Melkor for a long time and it is true that Melkor was the mightest of the Valar and explored the void of DARKNESS more than the others, and I feel that in some regard Sauron almost deluded himself into believing that Melkor WAS the true god as opposed to Eru. With that, I would say that even by the time Saruon is in Numenor and talks to Ar Pharazon about the ancient darkness from which the world was made and that Eru is nothing but a phantom and that Melkor is the true god, I cannot wholeheartedly say Sauron is DELIBERATELY lying so much as burying himself and therefore Ar Pharazon further into his delusions. But maybe I am thinking way too hard about this haha.
I wouldn't say that you're thinking too hard on this at all. You raise an interesting possibility. I tend to view Sauron as a pragmatic despot, unconcerned with theology. But that's more of a reflection of the way things go in our real world. Sauron suspecting Eru of being merely a fantasy of others, yet still believing a higher power who must be appeased is part of his reality? At a glance I can see nothing in what we know of Sauron which contradicts the notion.
@@robertwkalkman9603 I mean he definitely knew of Eru since he was there during the music, but I just wonder if he questions his ultimately legitimacy, especially considering his view on the Valar who he believed to have abandoned ME after the overthrow of Morgoth. Tolkien also tells us that the bonds Morgoth laid on Sauron were strong and that his power had been great under Morgoth. I tend to believe that what separates Morgoth from Sauron is faith. Morgoth having none compared to Sauron who didn’t necessarily have supreme faith in Morgoth himself but definitely did in the *spirit* Morgoth laid upon the world. In other words it seems clear to me that Sauron had faith in the power that darkness provided him, and darkness in the world just happened to be created by Morgoth 😊
You are in good company, we are all overthinking every little detail here ahahaha. Remembering that Sauron is a literal satanic figure, his old boss being a fantasy of Lucifer, then I think the answer would be that while he knows with complete certainty that Eru is the One True God, he rejects His authority and instead submits to Melkor in fully conscious rebellion. Mr. golden king was indeed very delusional, but Sauron is simply twisting what he actually belives (the cause of his rebellion) into a little theatre of theology dramatic enough to get the Numenoreans to commit national suicide.
Good stuff as ever. I really liked the comparisons you drew out between different people in essentially the same situation. Indeed as a kind of catholic thing these evil doers must confess or aknowledege before they can move back to good. One thing struck me, and this is an observation not a criticism, when you qouted the ring poem you said bring and bind them. That Tolkien uses and i the darkness bind them gives the poem a beautifully doom laden cadence and a real gravitas, whilst enriching the meaning. One is bound in the darkness by the ring, the power of the other rings become bound in the darkness as do the possessors of the other rings. Thanks GNG.
I thought you might find this amusing. I wrote this to a friend today: So I have been watching videos by this woman "GirlNextGondor" She does analyses of Tolkien. She got me thinking about the unreliable narrator aspect of Tolkien's work. e.g., LotR is the notes from the hobbits -- they're biased. She kind of opened a Pandora's box... See I had always viewed LotR etc. as myth with true canon but I realize now this is not necessarily true. Tolkien wasn't as deliberate about it as Stafford, but neither could make up their mind about the truth. Tolkien has notes with all kinds of variations. Christopher just picked some sensible combo. And then I remembered the Silmarillion is told to us by The Noldor. They are not unbiased! For instance, note that the Vanyar basically do nothing. That's like 1/3 of the high elves. Apparently, they show up and hang out around Valinor for aeons and mostly just look at the stars or something. The only time they are even mentioned is when one marries a Noldoli or when they leave en-masse to fight Morgoth in the War of Wrath. Really? If this was Glorantha, I'd be saying "Yeah I'm sure that's right." Then I started thinking about Melkor... Like here's a simple one: The Valar make the two lamps that light the world. Melkor destroys them. Option 1 Melkor, the most powerful and maybe smartest Vala with the keenest sight of the world, capriciously destroys lamps for no reason anyone can understand. Option 2: Melkor is saying, "You idiots! Don't you understand the men are coming and they have to SLEEP! You can't have it be day all the time!" The Valar won't listen to him because lamps are "my precious" so he finally tears them down. Now I think at some point he totally loses his shit. But when? I would never have read it at face value if it was Glorantha. I would say that the black and white bad guy that is Melkor is for sure Noldor propaganda. So now I find myself thinking "what really happened?" I have no reason to believe Tolkien wanted this kind of analysis, but, in some sense, he invites it because none of his work is from the voice of an omniscient narrator. He makes them be "what the hobbits saw" and hence vast swaths of land are undocumented for instance, there is no complete map, the map isn't even fully reliable. A lot of the world is like one word with no details. I'm inclined to take the entire body of Tolkien's writing and assume all of it was found in different places with different pedigree and we can't assume any of it is the truth anymore than we would if it was actual history. A better assumption is that it's all at least slightly wrong and any given copy totally omits important stuff that particular historian didn't happen to think was important. You could conclude that there are fewer women heroes in the available legends because most of the historians were men. Consider: Merry didn't even know who Dernhelm was and he was riding with her. Can we really assume she is therefore truly the sole female? And now I can't close the box anymore!
Did the Noldor earn redemption the only way they possibly could have? The same way as the Dead Men of Dunharrow? The Noldor are coming. They have been summoned. Kinslayers, you would call on them? ....
Once you see the metafiction, you can't unsee it! And to some extent, Tolkien did make use of this feature, both as a 'cheat code' to reconcile plot holes, and as a way to add depth and detail to his worldbuilding. In late writings he even gives Fingolfin and Finarfin some never-before-mentioned bonus sisters, and explains them away with 'oh, they were always there, but historians didn't often mention or focus on them because they weren't directly involved in the kinds of military/political maneuvers that concerned the Mannish tribes.' It's not that 'canon doesn't matter,' but if Tolkien himself liked to test the suppositions of his own invented history, he can't have been *entirely* opposed to the practice....
You have come up with some well thought out and remarkable analogies. It's going to take me sometimes to digest this all. But thank you very much for your podcast.
Question: did Feanor "create" the Silmarils, from scratch, or fabricate them using already materials, including the light of the Rees, created by Eru? However, Gollum did nothing but kill somebody who had the precious in his hand. Gollum IS Feanor?? Not a chance in hell on a clear day.@@tabby_cat
All is fine, no one (including me) is or should be upset about a little banter. It's all make-believe, of course. And who doesn't like tabby cats?@@tabby_cat
Also interesting is that Tulkas and Sam make their biggest mistake because of their (arguably) best and (certainly for Sam) most defining quality, their loyalty. Sam’s wisdom, such as he has, is summed up in that trait. But it just goes to show even good qualities can be taken too far.
Just listened again to your discourse on Boromir.......it's nicely explained, and yes, the quality of your voice (a lovely female voice) doesn't hurt a bit either. This entire discussion on last chances, in fact, is VERY deep and multi-layered. Thank you for continuing these deep dives into Osse's surf. You, and Tolkien, and most people, seemingly, believe in earned redemption and free will, yet at the same time accept that some D'ONT accept that Last Chance, and end up in the void. Also, it's a given that the Ring (sin and temptation concentrated to the nines) is so powerful, that almost all will fall under its domination. Why is this so? Yes, Aule and Osse do bad things (evil), but they never commit the ultimate sin (which is to reject Eru). Melkor and Sauron have the conceit they ARE Eru. Again, why is this so? NONE of the Ainur can create anything, they can only shape. When Jesus met the demon-possessed man among the Gerasenes (Mark's gospel), he doesn't contemplate giving the legion of demons a last chance but removes them from the crazy man into the swine, and then launches them over the cliff to be drowned. The demons could not be redeemed; the unfortunate swine were collateral damage. One is tempted to conclude that those capable of being redeemed (however weak) will be. Boromir CONFESSED his sins. Melkor, Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, the Witch King (?), MOS (Mouth of Sauron) and Gollum all show psychopath tendencies and behave like psychopaths. They never confessed anything, perhaps because they were not capable of it? Isn't it curious that a psychopath clutches the Ring in his withered hand as he enters the burning void? Ultimately, it's a 1 and zero world. Shades of gray are composed of variable concentrations of black dots in a sea of white. One might guess the dots are the psychopaths, but who knows?
I'll duck down low, grab myself some excellent ale, some cold chicken and pickles, and just see what a cozy evening I'll be fortunate enough to enjoy Down the Hobbit Hole this time. Dwarves, Wizards, bring it on!
Milady, listening quite a few of yor vids makes me suspect you have indeed given some thought to this masterwork. Nothing I can really argue against, but there's room for interpretation and you clearly don't have problem recognizing it and incompleteness of Tolkien's work. Respect!
Wonderful content, as always. Thank you!! I still feel cheated because I never had my moment, a small sad spark cast off to his doom by an unfeeling wheel of curses set in rapid motion into the tinder of my own tiny fragile life. I've tried to stay away from Sauron, but when everything is taken from you, and it suddenly reappears: hos before bros. I guess :p
Great discussion as always! I think you paraphrased Gandalf poorly concerning Boromir's death. He said "Poor Boromir!... But he escaped in the end. I am glad." Gandalf wasn't glad Boromir died but that he escaped by sacrificing himself for Merry and Pippin.
Yea, at the last he leaps into damnation, knowing with the foreknowledge of death that no power of the elves would breach Morgoth's stronghold, RENEWS THE OATH, dragging his sons in with him.
ZD "pull a melkor"Here's a question--if Melkor hadn't truly hit 'the point' because he did not consider himself at that threshold, I'm guessing that people would assume that Feanor's moment was the burning of the ships--but is it? (probably?) But now I"m wondering if brains like yours see more subtle moments in a narrative being the 'key' rather than the explosive event...if that makes sense. I also LOVE the observation is what culpability to onlookers have. And what is the difference between an 'onlooker' and one 'bound by oath'/destiny-- things you see in the difference of Faenor's sons and how some of them handle their lifelong task, or even in Turin in the things he does under the belief/existence of a curse. Also love how all t hese questions of redemption are also tied in with the reoccurring theme of forgivness and the chance to act 'as you should' not jsut at one great moment throughout your timeline. One last random thought, coming off of DorkLord's video on Huan and Carcharoth-- what room is there for those who aren't /truly/ given a choice? Carcharoth was raised/created as a part of a prophecy/curse/foresight/what the not to be Huan's foe. Yet Luthien gives him a brief dream/respite from this task... but it does not shake him of the shadow that has chained him his whole life-- but could you even call that glimpse a choice/chance?
I haven't seen the Dork Lords take on Huan/Carcharoth yet, but now I know I need to! My serious/pragmatic guess is that by Tolkien's reckoning Carcharoth isn't technically a 'person,' ie one of the Children of Eru, who have certain specific gifts/powers allowing them to rise above pure Determinism (Men in particular, though one presumes Elves and Dwarves also have free will). But when I put on my Overthinking Lit Nerd hat I have to observe that the 'magical'/fantasy elements in Middle-earth so often amount to elaborate stand-ins for psychological forces that might impede the expression of "pure" Free Will (belief in Curses and the binding power of Oaths, as you mentioned, being big examples; others include the role of foresight and prophecy, the fear that the Nazgul spread, the tempting 'pressure' of the Ring that promises absolute power and eternal life....) Basically, if you use that lense you can (if you want) reduce the whole Middle-earth project down to: Tolkien wrestling with the paradox that our decisions are of supreme importance, but also the parameters of our situation in history exert influences so pervasive and yet subtle that they can never be fully quantified (unless you symbolically turn them into cursed jewelry)
@@GirlNextGondor Hey at least it's not cursed cookware...though that might be a more efficent way to reduce one's enemies ;) WEll wait, hey! What if someone had blessed/cursed /sam's/ cookware..not THERE'S a weapon! Er...hwo the bleep did I go down that absurdist line of thought? Serious hat on now, I really appreciate how you took the time to actually think and respond with such an indepth reasoning.
Morgoth is the ultimate example of this. He had almost no moments of self doubt and at this point imo if you tripped on a rock (which has Morgoth element in it as all physical things do) and broke your kneck, he would consider it a good day because he hates you. Like just unreal levels of pettiness and pathetic mania. Re: Sauron, the Blue Wizards and Glorfindel arrived at 1600. So it seems Sauron making the Ring and deciding to go full evil is what triggered the response.
I think we're all perfectly justified in blaming every burnt dinner, bad hair day, and automotive failure on Morgoth 😂 Good point about the arrival of the Blue Wizards (and Glorfindel) being a marker for the point at which Sauron had gone too far! I hadn't thought of it like that!
In Tolkien's legendarium, penances can be interpreted as a test that is woven into the Music of the Ainur, a test that every race and every conscious being with free will must pass in exchange for Melkor's inclination towards musical dissonance, and the price that must be paid within the scope of this test. For example, the rebellion of the Noldor was actually a product of the seeds of separation that Melkor had sown in Valinor. Those who were inclined to his words and the rebellious Noldor in the following process paid the price (as Mandos expressed in his prophecy) with various pains in Middle-earth. These examples can be multiplied by diversifying, but this is the basis of it.
Personally, I think the only Elves who detected Sauron when he put on the One Ring were the ones wearing the Three Elven Rings as Sauron was not directly involved in their creation. Those 3 Elves warned the others to take their Rings of Power off.
The draw and pull of the ring is not pretty much insurmountable. Most people surmount it. Just in the Fellowship, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin and Sam all surmount it. In the quest, out of all the "good" characters, only two fail to surmount it: Saruman and Boromir. And we're told there's one other who would fail to surmount it: Denethor. No one else who was around Frodo was overcome with the desire to take the Ring. So they all surmount it. Frodo didn't wake up to the sword of one of Faramir's men that Ring had filled with desire for itself. That's the thing everyone misses in the analysis. It's tough bearing the Ring. It's not that tough being *near* the Ring. For most characters, it's not a problem at all.
Super-well-made point. I feel like I'm always trying to refine my understanding of what the Ring does, how it works, what makes it so corrupting (I mean, it's only Tolkien's most central symbol that's simultaneously *really ambiguously described*) and you just articulated a distinction I think I've been missing. I'm definitely in agreement that 'proximity to the Ring exerts a mind-warping aura of frenzied temptation!' is, at best, an oversimplification, and likely a misrepresentation. I think it's what the Ring offers (a fantasy of absolute power) that eats away at people, and the speed at which it does so has something to do with how closely their ambitions/desires align with that. That being said, the *prospect* of absolute power (and the knowledge of its proximity) would start to weaken anybody *eventually,* and that's why Gandalf, Galadriel etc are so wary of it, and one reason why it should be kept as secret as possible even from trusted friends (the everpresent risk of Sauron's spies being another)
@@GirlNextGondor A long time ago in a place not too far away, as a child and teen, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about common wisdom as encapsulated in sayings. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" was one I found particularly disturbing. When it came to "Absolute power corrupts," I came to the conclusion that it was wrong. That it should be, "Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible. The rest of us wouldn't want it." It's like the "gift of telepathy." If someone gave me the gift of telepathy, I'd give it right back. We have filters for a reason. I know what I think behind my filter. I don't even want to know what other people think behind their filters. The desire to wield absolute power only appeals to a certain type of person. Who, by definition, should never have it. (Though that's how you end up with the Ruler of the Universe being the Man in the Shack who lives with his cat, The Lord --- if you get that geek reference.) So just being near The Ring isn't going to have a draw for most people. The Ring must have thought it was in Hell when it ended up in The Shire. It couldn't have come among a group that it had less to work with. And then there's The Ring's history. A history of utter and complete failure. Sauron,while *wearing* The Ring, was defeated twice and disembodied once. Didn't do much for its creator, did it? Didn't make Sauron the ruler of the world. Isildur couldn't even command the orcs attacking him. They shot him. No ruling the world for him. Gollum ended up skulking under a mountain using The Ring to strangle orcs from behind. Hundreds of years and he couldn't make a single orc come to him and serve itself up for dinner. The orcs would fight back. He wasn't the Goblin King. Bilbo wasn't even Mayor. The Ring's track record of doing anything positive in terms of ruling power for its bearers is pathetic. And it was Samwise who was wise enough to figure that out. That The Ring was a big, fat, loudmouth orange liar and cheat. (Which reminds me of another big, fat, loudmouth, orange liar and cheat. But that's another matter.) Not that Sam the Wise described it in those exact terms. At the point of the quest, Sauron's ability to rule the world was because of the military power he built. He didn't need The Ring to do it. He just needed that The Ring continued to exist. That being near The Ring is a strong temptation to select people I can understand. That it's not a temptation to most people it's near makes sense. They don't want to rule the world, which is the only lure we've seen The Ring use, "With me you can rule and do what you want." From "Lord Sméagol? Gollum the Great? The Gollum!" to "at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit" to "became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise" to "you will set up a Queen." The Ring plays variations on one theme only --- that theme being Sauron's own central desire of ruling all and making it over to his ideal. And plenty of people don't want that. So most of the characters near The Ring aren't tempted by The Ring. And that's what I've never seen any of the Tolkien pundits or the vast majority of fandom acknowledge. Instead it's all about how strong The Ring's pull is. Even though in the books, for most of the characters near it, it's got no pull at all. Though I'd be careful mentioning that in a video. Bringing up that The Ring isn't this all-powerful object that only a special few can resist because of their strong wills, that ordinary people all through the story aren't even tempted by it makes Tolkien fans start foaming at the mouth. At least it did when I pointed out the obvious.
@@GirlNextGondori want to blow out a party popper and say: The Ring has an almost quantum mechanics (Schrödinger’s cat) like quality For those not already on the path of malice, like Bilbo, the Ring both doesn’t do anything as if it really is just a trinket, while simultaneously it possesses them for real But the Ring (undead cat) is always looking for the box to be opened by someone who can take it out When circumstances are pressured enough, the Ring, as it is perceived by those who were once fine around it, suddenly becomes dangerous
For Sauron that "moment" was in eternity, as in while the singing is still going on and he decides to jam with Melkor. He is an Angel, or as the good professor called them, a Maia: an eternal spirit, clear in thought and understanding of himself and the paths before him, with no shades of personality or conflicting facets pulling him all over the place. As Church teaching would have it with the Angels that inspired Tolkien, their decision to rebel is instant and complete, they do not fall by steps but go down all in one go and become literal demonic abominations, incarnate evil instead of manifest virtue. Sauron chose his path, as did the Balrogs, "back then", and all that was good in him became fully and automatically corrupted. I would say, the instances you mention were instead a chance to undo it all through repetance but... for a Ainu/Angel to do that, is to choose a form of self anhilation, to destroy what they have become so as to be reborn in the light, so they have it that much harder than us mortals to embrace salvation.
But Feanor in the Dagor Dagorlath is supposed to repent and give up the Silmarills. So I think 100% irredeamable is almost not possible until the end of time. Maybe with the exception of Morgoth????
Pretty insightful video! Though I am not sold on Sauron not being fully corrupted while making the ring, unless phrase "he poured his malice and will to dominate into ring" was only in the movies (I need to re-read books, when I get the chance). I mean, dude put his bad traits into damn thing and it ended up turning best fellows into absolute assholes. Can't wrap my head around someone not being double evil with no cherry on top (because he stole it, and ate it) and creating such wicked item.
I know you're a feanorian but you left out Finarfin, who repents the action of the rebellion of the Noldor and is forgiven. in this and the repentance of Boromir you see the faith of Tolkien, a devout Catholic, that true repentance gains redemption. at the other end of the scale you have Saruman who time and again has it offered and turns it down.
@@EriktheRed2023 Indeed, Saruman had that chance with Gandalf, Angel to Angel, but him refusing to confess and submit dooms him. The Noldor had that chance when Mandos threw his doom at them, it shock Arafinwe and his lot back into their senses, but Nolofinwe's group stays on the path out of loyalty and they do end up paying for it. Then there is Fëanaro...
While listening to your very interesting and accurate take on Aule it came to me, did Melkor ever get somekind of comment or conversation from Eru. We never know this stuff from his perspective and I think he would not talk of it. (Looks to me Eru liked to talk at key moments. Like he did with the first men) Maybe instead of humbling himself like Aule, Melkor talked back to Eru and rejected him
Oh he had his convo while belting out his disonant music and he dug his ethereal heels, which made him fall. Eru does tell him about the Music, the Flame Imperishable and the futility of rebelion, but good old Melkor just says "nope, I will make my own universe with terror and chaos in it".
@AugustusR well yeah but I don't think the one right after the music is THE conversation. Eru talks a lot and to a lot of people, which we know just a few words of it. Melkor at this stage is not evil. A convo between evil Melkor and Eru should be fascinating
'D' for 'dimensional'. If you're playing 2D chess (our variant), you're being clever. If you're a Vulcan in Star Trek, you may play 3D chess, where there are several stories to the chess board. This shows you're way ahead of your human colleagues in the being clever department. This has led to the notion of 4D chess, being when someone is being really, extremely clever, and nobody can even tell how clever they're being. 5D, then, is turning the dial to the next level. Inflation may be setting in prior to this point, but I think that's part of the humour.
Question: If Sauron was able to regrow physical form at least twice after deaths of his body (Fall of Numenor and Finger Cut by Issildur), why then Saruman can't regrow physical form in few centuries and come back to middle-earth?
We are told that he put much of his power and essence into the Ring at its creation and I always imagined he had some Black Numenorian/necromancer help coming back as soon as he did at the end of the Third Age.
I don't think there's any Moral Event Horizont in Middle-earth, at least not before the final end of Arda Marred. Everyone has an infinite amount of chances to turn back, and they will never run out of those chances. The only thing they will at some point run out of is time. This means that there is no act so vile that the person cannot receive grace and be forgiven and "restored to the fellowship with God". No evil is greater than the endless love that desires to forgive. The Eru of Arda is like the Biblical God - He is rooting for His creations and actively wants to see them all restored. The only thing standing between the fallen one and their deliverance is their own will. They must make the willful choice to not to be restored. I'm thinking of Fëanor here. So many readers hate and despise him and count him as an unredeemable villain. And his history of violence is indeed worthy of a Big Bad of some other storyverse. But in Tolkien's writings, we see that his idea was that in the true end of the tale, Fëanor will indeed return as a restored person. And when you think of it, you can see how. Fëanor's ultimate problem is that in his heart of hearts he doesn't trust Eru, and the goodness and justness of Eru, at least not personally in his own life. He really feels helpless and powerless, a victim of arbitary and unfeeling powers shaping his life where he is a mere object, and reacts to it with anger at the perceived reality. It's very telling that anger is his go-to emotion, since anger is the emotion that spurs us to protect ourselves from outside threats. He doesn't trust Eru, he doesn't trust the goodness and the wisdom of the authorities over him, and instead tries to fix things in his own power - feels the need to control the events, his life and his fate himself. He doesn't dare to consciously see it quite as it is, and only voices his resentment of and distrust of the Valar, but since the Valar has been established by Eru, his rejection of the Valar is actually rejection of Eru. But his crusade is of course hopeless. His rebellion is ultimately against the very fabric of reality. He cannot be in the control of his own life, no matter what. And against this all, his final moments in body are very important. Because he finally realizes the futility of his own desire for power over reality. Now, he reacts to it with anger, once again. But then he leaves the story and goes to Mandos, where he will spend the following millenias. We know that once he emerges from there, he will be of different mood. So I believe his final insight wasn't meaningless, even though it might seem so from the point of view of the story thus far. He did in the end "come to the end of himself". Of course, more than the mere crushing reality of your own powerlessness will be needed - he needs to experience the unconditional love that has loved him all his life, even when he has felt like he's just a play thing and a chew toy of higher powers. But realizing he can't fight reality is the necessary starting point. And I think all that is more important to Eru / Tolkien than anything. Arda is not so much a school test where you're graded and told if you're good enough or not. It's a place where the author wants absolutely everyone to pass, and is bending backwards to make it happen. That is why love, pity and patience is the heart of Middle-earth. Eru is rooting for you. He doesn't want to judge you, he wants to carry you across the finish line. Sometimes you can be treated with what C.S. Lewis called radical mercy. I think Fëanor was treated with it. He was allowed to pursue his own will to its end and find out its hopelessness, and then he was removed before he could do more ill to himself. Sure, he managed to get in one last unwise tantrum, but that was it. Sorry I'm rambling at this point, I was just suddenly filled with love for these characters - and for Tolkien. He had such gentle, kind heart.
Whoa whoa whoa, you're giving my boy Aulë a bad rap here. Aulë is directly contrasted with Melkor, who, as you said, creates to aggrandise himself and dominate others, whereas Aulë creates to give someone a free life and teach them. Aulë is not motivated by spite and jealousy, like Melkor is. I don't think he was anywhere near as sinister as Melkors attempts at creation.
For sure - but one of the big demonstrations of this is that he's capable of admitting when things haven't gone exactly to plan and accepting feedback 😂 So far as we know, the Dwarves were the first and only time he seriously overreached, and they turn out to be pretty cool *because* he was able to ask for, and accept, mercy and help. Melkor's original creative desires were said to be very close to Aule's, but by the time he 'perfects' his expression of them, he's already failed several vibe-checks and carried blithely on regardless.
I think, in Thomistic philosophy (or at least in one version of it that I had to read for a course), angels have only one moment of choice, at the very moment of their creation, after which they can't change, allegedly for metaphysical reasons. In general I don't think I've run across Christian theologians or even Christian myth-makers entertaining the possibility that fallen angels might ever repent -- except Tolkien, and I rather like that feature of his legendarium. [EDITED] Wait, I can think of at least one other Christian myth-maker who does that, namely George MacDonald in _Lilith_, where at the end of the book it's predicted that the two main villains (one of whom represents the devil, or maybe death personified) will eventually repent and undergo full purification at the end of the world. A bit like the Second Prophecy of Mandos predicting that after the Dagor Dagorath Feanor will at last give the Silmarils to Yavanna to rekindle the Two Trees.
@@wolfsbanealphas617 I think the Thomistic theory I mentioned may have argued that angels have no bodies, and their spirits are each a single unit rather than a compounded structure, leaving no room for change. (Or I may have misremembered.) Offhand I don't see why this would have to be true, though no doubt there was some chain of reasoning behind it.
Listening to it, it sounds like the greatest fault of these characters seems to be pride, combined with a refusal or inability to relinquish that pride. Which makes sense since that is one of the greatest fault in Christian Theology, the fatal flaw of Lucifer as the Devil.
But... Boromir is already a Captain of Gondor and Hero of Men. Proven against evil and as a Shield of his people. Like all the Fellowship, he starts out a hero on the quest. He stumbled a bit...
One of the best things about Lord of the Rings ( the finest heroic romance ) is they are all heroes to begin with. Gimli or Legolas or Sam doesn't need a psycho-drama. They're ready, insofar as they could be, it's just doing the job. But it's an Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit
And Feanor is a glorious hero, as Gandalf admits. His first thought with the Palantir in his grasp is actually to look for the spirit of Feanor. A hero is not a saint
There are a couple of problems with your thesis you might want to ponder. Can we assume that immortals would/could view reality the same as mortals? You are treating elves, orcs, men, and dwarves as flawed or limited immortals, (Ainur Light), but I do not think this is so. Those who die are NOT the same as those who do not. It's a time thing. IF you have all eternity to figure things out, and you're initially made good, wouldn't you, in fact, do the figuring and BE good? Death is the reason, the finality of it, that makes sane, but flawed mortals (and I include the elves here) capable of regret and redemption. Sauron IS immortal, doesn't fear death, and is a psychopath who (I maintain) was never good because he was made to be incapable of it. Tolkien struggled with this, and used mealy language to disguise the conundrum, but the issue is deep. No wonder he (and we) struggle here. I listened to your comments about Aule with great interest, too. You, however, seem to be blurring the line between creating and the ability to create. If I understand Tolkien correctly, Melkor and Aule were not ABLE/CAPABLE of creating life; they didn't just lack permission. The proto-dwarves Aule made were NOT alive, but very intricate animated toys (mechanical). They had no living spark. If Aule was not making them dance, they did nothing. Orcs, thus, were ultimately regarded as modified something else, and NOT created by Melkor, just as our breeders can shape and change a root stock, but not create one (as far as I know). So Aule played around with the notion of creating man-like toys but did not engage in rebellion or disobedience. He honored Eru. Melkor, Gorthaur, and all the other fallen "angels" did not. I conclude ALL the fallen angels were psychopathic because they were made that way (intentionally), or so we opine. We need such entities to help explain not just evil, but SIN. We can find extenuating reasons for cutting Feanor some slack, but not Melkor or Sauron. They ARE wickedness personified, and always were (IMHO).
that idea speaks to a cruel and uncaring God (eru) by making entities that way on purpose and then punishing them throughout the whole of their existence and eternally simply for being what he made them. without free will neither good nor evil can actually exist
I'm now imagining Fëanor gnawing at Tulkas' shoulder.
Why can I see that perfectly?
Nom nom nom 😋
@@moonlightmystery7306'cause its realistic.
Like passionate hate sex.
Morgoth! We hates him forever!
In the book, in one of the Smeagol/Gollum debates there is something very roughly like this:
G "We hates Bagginses."
D "Not this Baggins."
G "Yes, ALL Bagginses. All who keeps the Precious from us."
Gollum here seems to be DEFINING "Bagginses" as an improper noun denoting an entity keeping the Ring from him. We hates all who would keep the Precious from us is similar to the Oath of Feanor, except, one suspects, for the grammar (though the wording is not written, and the swearers were actually, rather than psychologically, plural).
The ring was for sauron like an oath: he put much of himself into something outside of his direct control (he externalised himself, like Tolkien says), and his intention in doing so was domination- and so he bound himself to that intention forever.
I allways cry in the film scene, when he before he dies says to Aragorn, my friend, my Captain my king. I know it is only in the film but its giving real emphasis on this Boromir redemption moment.
It's a change for sure but I think a very good translation of all the complicated feelings bubbling under the surface into an effective film moment. I cry too.
“Do you want orcs? This is how you get orcs!” 😂
I have no problem with Fëanor being Gollum, and, furthermore, I embrace Sam being Tulkas. Did the orcs who took Frodo not see him as a mighty warrior while he bore the ring?
You know what the (Tolkien nerd) world needs is a deep dive into Aule and Yavanna's relationship because hoo boy are there some issues there.
Could not agree more. It's on my list 😆
A wonderful analysis, Lexi--thank you for going into depth about this interesting topic. One of my favorite character arcs (of redemption) is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who goes from an almost cartoon villain in The Hobbit, to a thoroughly redeemed Hobbit who has learned compassion through suffering and loss.
A very good reference to bring up here. Love how Lobelia goes from the cranky neighbour who everyone dislikes and stays away from if they can help it to a local hero thanks to her savage skills with an umbrella.
What you said about Ar-Pharazôn reminded me of this passage in Lewis' "Tha Hideous Strength", chapter 16:
"The last scene of Dr. Faustus where the man raves and implores on the edge of Hell is, perhaps, stage fire. The last moments before damnation are not often so dramatic. Often the man knows with perfect clarity that some still possible action of his own will could yet save him. But he cannot make this knowledge real to himself. Some tiny habitual sensuality, some resentment too trivial to waste on a blue-bottle, the indulgence of some fatal lethargy, seems to him at that moment more important than the choice between total joy and total destruction."
Good note on aule sticking up for my boy feanor, and sam sharing responsbility for gollum's fall. SOmething I always felt should be noted
35:50 🤯🤯🤯I never made that specific connection to Aulë creating the Dwarves before, I always just assumed it was a general sentiment about making things.
"New Perspective Unlocked"... I think I just leveled up. 😅 Thank you!
Your point about accepting the last chance not fixing everything reminds me of that really heartbreaking XKCD about cancer, where they frame remission not as recovery, but just staying on the path, as more and more of your fellows swerve off into death.
Somehow, these excellent analyses always greatly deepen my already awed regard for JRR! Thanx
I've had that same thought.
My words too.
Partly-developed opinion on the 'circumflex' - the little angle that letters wear for a hat sometimes: In Khuzdul, of course, it denotes an elongated vowel (as in Khazad 'Dûm', pronounced like English 'doom'). But Tolkien also anglicizes the Kuduk (Hobbit language) name 'Tûk' to 'Took' (from Appendix F II, 'On Translation'). Dwarves are a people apart, but Kuduk must be related to Adûnaic.
This far from firm ground to stand on, and it does lead to some stresses quite different from Sindarin, or English for that matter. But that is as developed as my opinion has managed to become so far.
The light of the trees in the silmarils is like the light of creation in the dwarves at their initial creation by aule - or something
I admit I lost it at “Celebrimbanner.”
Perhaps Túrin was fish in a barrel in a discussion like this, oscillating as wildly and repeatedly as he did between redemption and surrender to his worse side. Maybe you’re exercising mercy by not wringing further shame from his ghost. And the discussion is certainly well-rounded in the subjects you do discuss. Still … I kind of miss him.
I don't know, I think Turin was cursed (passive voice), not lost. He made a lot of bad choices, but he never had the full picture until it was too late, and he never surrendered to abject evil. In the prophesy concerning the end times, this is implied when Turin is the one who gets to finish off Morgoth, as his (presumably) chief VICTIM.
@@digitalnomad9985 What is evil, though? Is it something you choose whether to be or whether to do? Túrin not only had behavior patterns that led to evil outcomes (e.g., turning his back on Thingol, social climbing in Nargothrond and Brethil) he also precipitated disaster by doubling down on his intense but narrow and sometimes-juvenile sense of honor. The worst of Boromir's actions stemmed from a similar moral tunnel vision, albeit compounded by Ring-lust.
Love this topic! The themes of forgiveness and redemption are so important to me and it feels like there's room to explore it so much further in modern fantasy literature. I've always admired how Tolkien handles it.
I did NOT expect the Aulë, Tulkas, Fëanor / Frodo, Sam, Gollum parallel. Such a fascinating concept. Thank you for sharing it, I definitely like this angle.
You'd need more modern fantasy writers to be be devout Christians.
@@amh9494 Christians or mormons, yes. Like Brandon Sanderson or Shad Brooks. Brandon doesn't really focus on this topic at all but from what I've heard, the theme of redemption is central to Shad's book Shadow of the Conqueror. I have yet to get a copy
This is an amazing video. It started with "hey this fella knows a lot of LotR lore, and delivers it in an engaging way"... And keeps getting better until my mind is blown with Sam=Tulkas, Gollum=Feanor!
And it's not just pointing out fact that you are good at. The way you arrange the subject matters and bring in the feeling of LotR into your descriptions, it all fits so well together
Thank you Lexi! Had a mild heart attack early Thursday morning and a stent put in. Your podcasts got me through the hospital stay!
mo o0 lo
hb. bu0yu0u0y0u 0 0
u
.yhnj0
jh
.ohp
h.
Holy cats, man! Hope you're doing better ❤🩹
I can say with utter certainty that 'provide distraction to people who are *in the hospital for heart attacks* ' was not something I ever anticipated doing through UA-cam, but I'm very pleased to hear you found them helpful. Heal up quick!
@@GirlNextGondor Doing much better than I should! I was VERY lucky! Eru was looking out for me! I really do appreciate all your work and am glad to be able to stick around and watch the channel grow!
I loved your observation or interpretation of Sauron as being befuddled by the Elves taking off their Rings. The idea that he thought they would be too covetous of the power and positive outcomes they could accomplish with the Rings to even consider that possibility feels right to me and perhaps revelatory. And maybe even that he thought they would want to work with him to an extent since all their goals were...in his mind..vaguely similar. Perhaps he even felt wronged, judged, or betrayed in that moment? That would go some way to explaining the abrupt rage and reversal in strategy from "conning and dominating the Elves" to "wiping them off the face of Middle-earth".
Anyway, luckily for the Free Peoples he still didn't absorb the lesson that his enemies might not _always_succumb to temptation.
edit: Re-reading _Of the Rings of Power..._ it actually says of the moment Sauron put on the One and the Elves took off the Three, "[Sauronj], finding that he was betrayed..." So Sauron feeling genuinely betrayed by the Elves isn't the leap I thought it was.
I agree. I feel that in his mind he almost did believe he had the same goal as the elves even when he forged the ruling ring and felt surprised and betrayed when he realized that they actually wanted to be independent of his will. i don't know if he had the emotional intelligence as Lexi said to realize that he would be seen as domineering or why that would necessarily be a bad thing
Did he even know about the three Elven rings before putting on the One ring? Cause Celebrimbor went and made those in secret, but using some of the methods taught by Sauron (which is why they were affected). Obviously after putting on the master ring he would then know about the elven rings.
@@tabby_cat There may be counterpoint sources on this in Letters and the HOME, but _Of the Rings of Power_ says of the Elves "...and they made Rings of Power. But Sauron guided their labours, and he was aware of *all* that they did..." [Emphasis mine.] Also, "And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency..."
Celebrimbor forged the Three without the hand of Sauron touching them, and perhaps intending to keep them secret from Annatar, but I believe the latter was fully aware of their existence. And probably had to be in order to make the One capable of dominating the Three as well as the lesser Rings. I can't tell that "Elven-rings" in the above is specifically referring to the Three, but I still lean to the same conclusion.
Even if I'm wrong about all that, I think it's absolutely certain he was aware of the Three as soon as he put on the One, at the very latest.
❤ GOAT of all Tolkien UA-camrs ❤
🫶 Convince me that I’m wrong 🫵
But no naming or criticizing other content makers bc Lex (GnG) has zero interest in competition or having a cult of personality and it’s literally impossible to get her to say a bad word about anyone.
Like seriously sign up for the highest level Patreon and try to get her to voice any criticism whatsoever of another Tolkien channel or creator and not just maybe an idea or concept that she disagrees with. You’ll fail and instead probably get her opinion on their unique contributions and what they do well.
She just wants ppl to enjoy Tolkien to the max and is a sweet person and busy mom who has zero time or interest in drama whatsoever and I don’t want to engage in that either. Just convince me that there is a better series than Down the Hobbit Hole that isn’t like 20+ hours of lecture by a literal Tolkien scholar.
While her content always shows a natural gift with words and skill in literary analysis, familiarity with the lore, almost psychoanalytic insight into why characters act in ways they consciously tell themselves and others they don’t want, it’s three other things that make these so special:
1. Seeing parallels and connections that others just don’t - I know she puts a lot of work in but she also just has a rare talent. She’s far too humble to call herself a Tolkien scholar and she relates to the material as a fan rather than an academic, but she just has some special insight that others don’t, and I often gain just as much or more from her content than I do from reading academic Tolkien scholarly work or 2+ hour lectures by people who do this as a job.
2. Pity. She extends pity towards every character, not just in her language, but in her approach to them. She wants characters to take the chances at redemption, and she understands why Tolkien gives so many characters chance after chance even after they do truly ghoulish and horrific actions. If I had to identify her with a Vala, I would say a mixture of Ulmo’s knowledge of the Music which he shares rather than hoards and unshakable but humble confidence & estel + Nienna’s desire for everybody to have enough chances as necessary regardless of the harm they’ve done (minus the perpetual weeping).
3. This is kinda particular to the Down the Hobbit Hole series, but GnG is like the DMT of the Legendarium. You’re listening to a video you think is interesting but maybe not sure where it’s going and then *boom* you are blown apart like Sauron’s spirit in a moment of shattering insight/atomic annihilation of your paradigmatic views of a character or the whole Legendarium. You can’t ever return to what you didn’t see before even if you want to - like Galadriel, you could break yourself if you just want your views to be reinforced but slightly expanded with an info-dump or more evidence for online arguments.
Also one of the most loyal & battle-hardened warriors of Fëanor, true High King of the Noldor + Leonardo da Vinci of Middle-Earth + Moses, the greatest foe of Morgoth Bauglir who sacrificed everything that he held dear to save peoples and lands he never got to see or meet. The Hero of Middle-Earth who was right about Morgoth, though not completely infallible and arguably might have done one or two things wrong depending on your pov.
Hey now, I can badmouth other channels and stir up drama! ...Men of the West has too much content! It makes me look lazy by comparison; time to cancel him! 😂
Thank you for the kind words, my dude. #Feanordidnothingwrong
2nd best
"... of course a hill falls on him and his army, and his island sinks." 😆 Yeah, a bad moment in anyone's day. Makes you tut with annoyance.
I agree on your point that Boromir dies before he can be worse again, Faramir take about how things might have gone badly when the two returned to Minas Tirith and Aragorn received some of the adulation usually reserved for Boromir.
On the one hand, thank goodness our favorite Heir to the Stewardship never had to go through that and lose his dignity in the process.
On the other, I would have *loved* a scene or chapter involving pouty Boromir making passive-aggressive comments while Aragorn feverishly tries to prepare to march on the Black Gate without running Gondor into the ground or triggering a civil war 😂
@@GirlNextGondor what do you think that the danger was that was growing in Tolkien's sequel he didn't complete
Aaaah, my Middle-earth fix to end the weekend, lovely!
Fantastic video. I think the roots of many of these themes - confession, forgiveness, redemption - come from Tolkien's Catholic faith.
I love this type of topic! I was hooked when you made a whole episode about the potential redemption of Orc and it really made me think deeper about the source material. Can't wait to finish listening to this video!
I completely agree about Boromir - he fell, but he redeemed himself.
At 25:20, the letter is not 131 (a plausible guess) but 153: "But at the beginning of the Second Age he was still beautiful to look at, or could still assume a beautiful visible shape -- and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up."
Excellent analogy at the end (Feanor/Tulkas/Aule and Gollum/Sam/Frodo)! This whole topic (the importance of mercy, as taught by Gandalf and Nienna) is to my mind the moral and metaphysical core of Tolkien's story. Thanks for this episode!
Larry, ALL reformers who just cannot stop themselves from reconstruction and reorganization, are psychopaths/sociopaths, and who THINK they have their pride and lust under control (but don't) are wholly/completely evil/sinful. They are NOT capable of redemption, because that character trait is MISSING.
Borimir blows his horn. Sam " Is that Borimir's horn I hear?" Frodo "NO!"
Listening to you, it just struck me: did Sauron actually create the One Ring because he sincerely thought he could repair Middle Earth, and that the Elves had their own power to do so, so in his mind he needed to control the Elves so they would work to implement his program?
This is a great question. Some loremasters-okay, my brother and I-have been thinking about this question too. And the answer is clearly yes.
Let’s talk about it. For no sufficient reason, I will frame it as a dialogue between pseudonymous twin loremasters.
And let’s first all give praise and thanks to Lexi for her wonderful video that inspired the comment in the first place!
LOREMASTER 1:
I think the good Mosux asks an excellent question. And the answer is certainly "yes". Sauron did create the One because he sincerely thought to use it to reorder Middle-earth and Arda in general, and that controlling the Elves would aid his program.
The being who wrought the One Ring in the Second Age was not yet understood to be the same being who had taken Finrod’s tower and done such evil in Beleriand.
Sure, we know _now_ that the Elf-smiths' generous new friend was the same Maia known in the previous Age as Sauron, "The Cruel", or Norsus/Gorthaur, "The Smell of Fear" ... but _he_ had never called himself by these abhorrent nicknames. He was working in a new, fair form, under new, fair names, like Aulendil-"Friend of Aulë"-and "Annatar". Such fine-sounding, fair-seeming names.
LOREMASTER 2:
That last name really should have tipped Galadriel off.
The ancient name Morgoth had first used among the Men in Hildórien meant "Giver of Gifts". Few remembered this; among Men, only the House of Marach preserved this memory. But a wise-woman of that House, Adanel, had passed it down to her half-Bëorian niece, Andreth; and Andreth, who loved Finrod's brother Aegnor, had passed it in turn to Finrod.
Thus, when Finrod's wise sister, Galadriel, heard the name _Annatar_ -"Lord of Gifts"-did she not wonder at this Quenya take on Morgoth's ancient Mannish name? No red flags?
LOREMASTER 1:
Well, perhaps we should not be too hard on Galadriel. For it is attested that Sauron also offered the West-elves a third fair-seeming alias-"Artano".
And that name was so very close to "Artanis"-the name Finarfin gave his lovely daughter, when she was born, long before she took the name Galadriel.
So she may have been distracted.(But I'm sure it was just a coincidence.)
Also, we know how Galadriel felt about gifts. Recall that when Celebrimbor-mighty heir to Fëanor’s gift of craft, maker of Rings of Power, and at the same time her gormless first cousin who had a crush on her-came to her, filled with regret, showing her the Three Elven Rings Of Power, blubbering that it was now clear that Annatar had been Sauron and that his Gwaith-i-Mírdain had messed everything up, and asking her advice whether he should destroy the Three-her response was, “Thanks! I’ll think I’ll take the bling-bling mithril one!” And of course her very wise, and very, very reluctant, choice to decline Frodo’s gift of the One Ring is one of the pivotal events not only of her life and soul, but of the story of the One Ring.
But to return to the original question.
There is lore indicating that this being-known by his enemies as Sauron-still thought of himself by his original fair name, the one he had in the West before he fell: Mairon-“the excellent”.
Even after he made the One Ring, and even after he lost his subsequent War with the Elves, our proud Maia still remembered his old name-and more importantly, still thought it befitting.
When King Ar-Pharazôn of Númenor landed in force near Mordor, our crafty Lord of the Rings met him in another fair form, bent the knee, shipped to Númenor as hostage of the overconfident King, and swiftly rose to be his chief counsellor. And what did he counsel his new boss? That the King should call his new, fair-seeming counsellor by an old, fair-sounding name: “Tar-Mairon”-“King Excellent”!
LOREMASTER 2:
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Pharazôn responded, politely but firmly, that this was completely out of the question-the new name could not be in High Elvish, which had royal implications, when it was spoken at all on Númenor. Which was never, as far as he was concerned.
No: his new counsellor would be known as _Zigûr_ -Adûnaic for “Wizard”.
No doubt "Ziggy" bore this ridiculous smackdown from this ridiculous Man with a tolerant smile-and the same patience with which he had borne Galadriel’s scorn in Eregion.
And the same gritted teeth.
LOREMASTER 1:
Your bootless asides are growing in number. But we’re all loremasters here. My point was this. In his heart-or at least, in the fiery heart of his unincarnate _ëala_ -the being whom we constantly refer to as “Sauron” still called himself “Mairon.”
And I submit that this reflected the fact that he still thought that he was doing Ilúvatar's will; which was to restore order to Arda, and to clean up the mess the Valar had made.
And he needed the Noldor Elves’ help for that.
LOREMASTER 2:
I agree that Sauron needed to _control_ the Elves. But for him, it was not so much that he believed he needed the Elves’ _help._
(Of course, he had just needed and gotten their help to make the Ring. But he had trouble admitting such things.)
It was that in his mind, the Elves, unless controlled, would get in the way of him accomplishing his will.
Which, he had really convinced himself, was Eru’s.
LOREMASTER 1:
A good point. And he was being very solipsistic, to be sure, to believe such a thing.
And he was mistaken.
LOREMASTER 2:
Even so, I submit that he still believed it. Because Sauron’s greatest lies were the lies that he told himself.
So ... was the fact that he still believed his plans were congruent with the will of Eru-that he was, at a divine level, "doing the right thing"-was _that_ the reason he was still able to put on a “fair seeming” form, when he surrendered to Ar-Pharazôn?
LOREMASTER 1:
Yes, that’s it, exactly. "Mairon" still believed, sincerely, that it was Eru’s will that the Valar be dethroned for incompetence, and replaced with better management.
That result would be accomplished by old Ar-Pharazôn’s invasion. The Great Armament was unthinkably mighty. To be sure, the Valar had flexed considerable muscle in the War of Wrath, but the so-called Host of the Valar is vaguely described at best in the sources, and it is unclear that any Ainur personally participated other than the Maia Eönwë.
Sauron could have believed that the Valar were getting soft, cowardly, uninvested. Disconnected from the immanent affairs of grubby Middle-earth.
Believing Eru was on his side, it would never occur to "Mairon" that Eru himself might step in, personally, and intervene to alter the result.
And even if he did, he could never imagine that Eru would break the World-that He would sacrifice Elenna itself.
Sauron's moment of clarity-the "trembling moment" when Eru taught him the great lesson, and Mairon truly and finally became Sauron once and for all-was also, and not by chance, the moment he lost the ability to assume the "fair form" of his lasting infamy.
It was the moment the Great Wave, the Hand of Eru, whelmed Númenor. And it swept away his great Temple, and the Island, and his last beautiful form, for ever. And in doing so, washed away all his illusions.
There was NO last chance moment. The cake was baked in Eru's mind before he shared the recipe with the ALWAYS ROTTEN, ALWAYS WICKED Mairon/Sauron/GoDaddy-Gorthaur@@wxwaxone
@@wxwaxone Interesting take. But Sauron's complete fall - perhaps not in the sense of being beyond (a very tiny) possibility of repentance, but certainly in that of being beyond believing himself that he was doing Eru's will - was before that.
It came, at the latest, when he was in Númenor and
i) told Ar-Pharazon precisely *not* that the Valar weren't competently doing Eru's will, but that they had lied about Eru's existence and made Him up,
ii) induced him to worship Melkor, whom he, even as an (overly and despotically) order-loving Maia who had once courted him to use the great power he then had for order, should properly now despise both for having used his power in a disorderly, nihilistic way in the end and for not having it any-more,
iii) induced him to sacrifice human beings to gain long-life and power by magic (rather than organization, discipline and the great technical resources Númenor has anyway).
He was and remained smart. He could not possibly justify, even to himself, anything of that as Eru's will. (What he did justify it to himself with was the very nasty following thing: "He gave me the shame of defeat, but I will beat him, yet. I will make him blaspheme Eru, and Eru will punish him for it.")
Boromir dies in a state of final repentance, a state of grace he has no chance to screw up. That's honestly a gift, and Gandalf sees that.
The greatest of their kind for Ainur, Elves, and Men fell hard in Melkor, Fëanor, and Ar-Pharazôn the Golden respectively.
very interesting, thanks! we know we are deep in the hobbit hole when come the time to make a list of similarities between Tulkas ans Sam. I like it 😆
I would say assuming the guise of Annatar and infiltrating Eregion is when Sauron crosses the threshold. He is going into Ost-en-Edhel with intent to coerce Celebrimbor to help him undermine the Eldar, the Rings of Power as the means may not have crystalized in his mind yet but he was going there to make trouble.
Lexi: Sauron is a shapeshifter, it's incredibly difficult to divine what his real thoughts are
Also "Lexi": I have no more opinions, this was all of them
😂
I totally agree on Sauron. I would also speculate, with regards to his forging the ring in the fires of a volcano created by Melkor, that though Melkor's spirit of darkness is in them I am not sure how much Sauron views this as morally good or bad. He served Melkor for a long time and it is true that Melkor was the mightest of the Valar and explored the void of DARKNESS more than the others, and I feel that in some regard Sauron almost deluded himself into believing that Melkor WAS the true god as opposed to Eru. With that, I would say that even by the time Saruon is in Numenor and talks to Ar Pharazon about the ancient darkness from which the world was made and that Eru is nothing but a phantom and that Melkor is the true god, I cannot wholeheartedly say Sauron is DELIBERATELY lying so much as burying himself and therefore Ar Pharazon further into his delusions. But maybe I am thinking way too hard about this haha.
I wouldn't say that you're thinking too hard on this at all. You raise an interesting possibility.
I tend to view Sauron as a pragmatic despot, unconcerned with theology. But that's more of a reflection of the way things go in our real world. Sauron suspecting Eru of being merely a fantasy of others, yet still believing a higher power who must be appeased is part of his reality? At a glance I can see nothing in what we know of Sauron which contradicts the notion.
@@robertwkalkman9603 I mean he definitely knew of Eru since he was there during the music, but I just wonder if he questions his ultimately legitimacy, especially considering his view on the Valar who he believed to have abandoned ME after the overthrow of Morgoth. Tolkien also tells us that the bonds Morgoth laid on Sauron were strong and that his power had been great under Morgoth. I tend to believe that what separates Morgoth from Sauron is faith. Morgoth having none compared to Sauron who didn’t necessarily have supreme faith in Morgoth himself but definitely did in the *spirit* Morgoth laid upon the world. In other words it seems clear to me that Sauron had faith in the power that darkness provided him, and darkness in the world just happened to be created by Morgoth 😊
You are in good company, we are all overthinking every little detail here ahahaha. Remembering that Sauron is a literal satanic figure, his old boss being a fantasy of Lucifer, then I think the answer would be that while he knows with complete certainty that Eru is the One True God, he rejects His authority and instead submits to Melkor in fully conscious rebellion. Mr. golden king was indeed very delusional, but Sauron is simply twisting what he actually belives (the cause of his rebellion) into a little theatre of theology dramatic enough to get the Numenoreans to commit national suicide.
Fascinating. Certainly still relevant in our own modern culture.
Good stuff as ever. I really liked the comparisons you drew out between different people in essentially the same situation. Indeed as a kind of catholic thing these evil doers must confess or aknowledege before they can move back to good. One thing struck me, and this is an observation not a criticism, when you qouted the ring poem you said bring and bind them. That Tolkien uses and i the darkness bind them gives the poem a beautifully doom laden cadence and a real gravitas, whilst enriching the meaning. One is bound in the darkness by the ring, the power of the other rings become bound in the darkness as do the possessors of the other rings. Thanks GNG.
Thanks!
I thought you might find this amusing. I wrote this to a friend today:
So I have been watching videos by this woman "GirlNextGondor"
She does analyses of Tolkien. She got me thinking about the unreliable narrator aspect of Tolkien's work. e.g., LotR is the notes from the hobbits -- they're biased.
She kind of opened a Pandora's box...
See I had always viewed LotR etc. as myth with true canon but I realize now this is not necessarily true. Tolkien wasn't as deliberate about it as Stafford, but neither could make up their mind about the truth. Tolkien has notes with all kinds of variations. Christopher just picked some sensible combo.
And then I remembered the Silmarillion is told to us by The Noldor. They are not unbiased!
For instance, note that the Vanyar basically do nothing. That's like 1/3 of the high elves. Apparently, they show up and hang out around Valinor for aeons and mostly just look at the stars or something. The only time they are even mentioned is when one marries a Noldoli or when they leave en-masse to fight Morgoth in the War of Wrath. Really?
If this was Glorantha, I'd be saying "Yeah I'm sure that's right."
Then I started thinking about Melkor...
Like here's a simple one:
The Valar make the two lamps that light the world. Melkor destroys them.
Option 1
Melkor, the most powerful and maybe smartest Vala with the keenest sight of the world, capriciously destroys lamps for no reason anyone can understand.
Option 2:
Melkor is saying, "You idiots! Don't you understand the men are coming and they have to SLEEP! You can't have it be day all the time!" The Valar won't listen to him because lamps are "my precious" so he finally tears them down.
Now I think at some point he totally loses his shit. But when?
I would never have read it at face value if it was Glorantha. I would say that the black and white bad guy that is Melkor is for sure Noldor propaganda.
So now I find myself thinking "what really happened?"
I have no reason to believe Tolkien wanted this kind of analysis, but, in some sense, he invites it because none of his work is from the voice of an omniscient narrator. He makes them be "what the hobbits saw" and hence vast swaths of land are undocumented for instance, there is no complete map, the map isn't even fully reliable. A lot of the world is like one word with no details.
I'm inclined to take the entire body of Tolkien's writing and assume all of it was found in different places with different pedigree and we can't assume any of it is the truth anymore than we would if it was actual history. A better assumption is that it's all at least slightly wrong and any given copy totally omits important stuff that particular historian didn't happen to think was important. You could conclude that there are fewer women heroes in the available legends because most of the historians were men. Consider: Merry didn't even know who Dernhelm was and he was riding with her. Can we really assume she is therefore truly the sole female?
And now I can't close the box anymore!
Did the Noldor earn redemption the only way they possibly could have? The same way as the Dead Men of Dunharrow? The Noldor are coming. They have been summoned. Kinslayers, you would call on them? ....
Once you see the metafiction, you can't unsee it!
And to some extent, Tolkien did make use of this feature, both as a 'cheat code' to reconcile plot holes, and as a way to add depth and detail to his worldbuilding. In late writings he even gives Fingolfin and Finarfin some never-before-mentioned bonus sisters, and explains them away with 'oh, they were always there, but historians didn't often mention or focus on them because they weren't directly involved in the kinds of military/political maneuvers that concerned the Mannish tribes.' It's not that 'canon doesn't matter,' but if Tolkien himself liked to test the suppositions of his own invented history, he can't have been *entirely* opposed to the practice....
You have come up with some well thought out and remarkable analogies. It's going to take me sometimes to digest this all. But thank you very much for your podcast.
I love this content. I love the material, and how it's delivered. You have a fantastic voice!
Now we need a 'Fëanor IS Gollum' meme. 😄
i mean he certainly does get a bit 'my precioussss'y over the Silmarils
Question: did Feanor "create" the Silmarils, from scratch, or fabricate them using already materials, including the light of the Rees, created by Eru? However, Gollum did nothing but kill somebody who had the precious in his hand. Gollum IS Feanor?? Not a chance in hell on a clear day.@@tabby_cat
I made a jokey comment about Feanor's possessive attitude, no need to take me so seriously...
All is fine, no one (including me) is or should be upset about a little banter. It's all make-believe, of course. And who doesn't like tabby cats?@@tabby_cat
Also interesting is that Tulkas and Sam make their biggest mistake because of their (arguably) best and (certainly for Sam) most defining quality, their loyalty. Sam’s wisdom, such as he has, is summed up in that trait. But it just goes to show even good qualities can be taken too far.
This was a great listen! Thanks!
Just listened again to your discourse on Boromir.......it's nicely explained, and yes, the quality of your voice (a lovely female voice) doesn't hurt a bit either. This entire discussion on last chances, in fact, is VERY deep and multi-layered. Thank you for continuing these deep dives into Osse's surf.
You, and Tolkien, and most people, seemingly, believe in earned redemption and free will, yet at the same time accept that some D'ONT accept that Last Chance, and end up in the void. Also, it's a given that the Ring (sin and temptation concentrated to the nines) is so powerful, that almost all will fall under its domination. Why is this so?
Yes, Aule and Osse do bad things (evil), but they never commit the ultimate sin (which is to reject Eru). Melkor and Sauron have the conceit they ARE Eru. Again, why is this so?
NONE of the Ainur can create anything, they can only shape.
When Jesus met the demon-possessed man among the Gerasenes (Mark's gospel), he doesn't contemplate giving the legion of demons a last chance but removes them from the crazy man into the swine, and then launches them over the cliff to be drowned. The demons could not be redeemed; the unfortunate swine were collateral damage.
One is tempted to conclude that those capable of being redeemed (however weak) will be. Boromir CONFESSED his sins. Melkor, Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, the Witch King (?), MOS (Mouth of Sauron) and Gollum all show psychopath tendencies and behave like psychopaths. They never confessed anything, perhaps because they were not capable of it?
Isn't it curious that a psychopath clutches the Ring in his withered hand as he enters the burning void?
Ultimately, it's a 1 and zero world. Shades of gray are composed of variable concentrations of black dots in a sea of white. One might guess the dots are the psychopaths, but who knows?
I'll duck down low, grab myself some excellent ale, some cold chicken and pickles, and just see what a cozy evening I'll be fortunate enough to enjoy Down the Hobbit Hole this time. Dwarves, Wizards, bring it on!
How the frick BABE WAKE UP GNG POSTED UNEXPECTEDLY SUDDENLY and I don't have a good last minute bit
On a serious note though, this video topic did kinda blow my mind and now I'm gonna start looking for more of these moments in Tolkien's works
appreciate your work on this!
Milady, listening quite a few of yor vids makes me suspect you have indeed given some thought to this masterwork. Nothing I can really argue against, but there's room for interpretation and you clearly don't have problem recognizing it and incompleteness of Tolkien's work. Respect!
Relexing with lore today
22:18 so Aule and Morgoth both created for self-satisfaction, which is inherently evil. Makes one wonder: What motivates Illuvatar?
Probably the same. They were both derived from Erú's desire to create. What they lacked is wisdom, humility and the flame imperishable.
Wonderful content, as always. Thank you!! I still feel cheated because I never had my moment, a small sad spark cast off to his doom by an unfeeling wheel of curses set in rapid motion into the tinder of my own tiny fragile life.
I've tried to stay away from Sauron, but when everything is taken from you, and it suddenly reappears: hos before bros. I guess :p
Great discussion as always! I think you paraphrased Gandalf poorly concerning Boromir's death. He said "Poor Boromir!... But he escaped in the end. I am glad." Gandalf wasn't glad Boromir died but that he escaped by sacrificing himself for Merry and Pippin.
Enjoyed this exploration of this recurring theme in the Legendarium. The Tulkas-Aule, Frodo-Sam comparison regarding Feanor-Gollum was pretty good.
I am so grateful for this. Thank you 😊
Osse has Uinnen to calm him. In a similar way that Feanor way has Nerdanell. Off course Feanor out of pride never repented.
Yea, at the last he leaps into damnation, knowing with the foreknowledge of death that no power of the elves would breach Morgoth's stronghold, RENEWS THE OATH, dragging his sons in with him.
I like the comparison of Frodo and Feanor’s decision making
ZD "pull a melkor"Here's a question--if Melkor hadn't truly hit 'the point' because he did not consider himself at that threshold, I'm guessing that people would assume that Feanor's moment was the burning of the ships--but is it? (probably?) But now I"m wondering if brains like yours see more subtle moments in a narrative being the 'key' rather than the explosive event...if that makes sense. I also LOVE the observation is what culpability to onlookers have. And what is the difference between an 'onlooker' and one 'bound by oath'/destiny-- things you see in the difference of Faenor's sons and how some of them handle their lifelong task, or even in Turin in the things he does under the belief/existence of a curse. Also love how all t hese questions of redemption are also tied in with the reoccurring theme of forgivness and the chance to act 'as you should' not jsut at one great moment throughout your timeline.
One last random thought, coming off of DorkLord's video on Huan and Carcharoth-- what room is there for those who aren't /truly/ given a choice? Carcharoth was raised/created as a part of a prophecy/curse/foresight/what the not to be Huan's foe. Yet Luthien gives him a brief dream/respite from this task... but it does not shake him of the shadow that has chained him his whole life-- but could you even call that glimpse a choice/chance?
I haven't seen the Dork Lords take on Huan/Carcharoth yet, but now I know I need to! My serious/pragmatic guess is that by Tolkien's reckoning Carcharoth isn't technically a 'person,' ie one of the Children of Eru, who have certain specific gifts/powers allowing them to rise above pure Determinism (Men in particular, though one presumes Elves and Dwarves also have free will).
But when I put on my Overthinking Lit Nerd hat I have to observe that the 'magical'/fantasy elements in Middle-earth so often amount to elaborate stand-ins for psychological forces that might impede the expression of "pure" Free Will (belief in Curses and the binding power of Oaths, as you mentioned, being big examples; others include the role of foresight and prophecy, the fear that the Nazgul spread, the tempting 'pressure' of the Ring that promises absolute power and eternal life....)
Basically, if you use that lense you can (if you want) reduce the whole Middle-earth project down to: Tolkien wrestling with the paradox that our decisions are of supreme importance, but also the parameters of our situation in history exert influences so pervasive and yet subtle that they can never be fully quantified (unless you symbolically turn them into cursed jewelry)
@@GirlNextGondor Hey at least it's not cursed cookware...though that might be a more efficent way to reduce one's enemies ;) WEll wait, hey! What if someone had blessed/cursed /sam's/ cookware..not THERE'S a weapon! Er...hwo the bleep did I go down that absurdist line of thought? Serious hat on now, I really appreciate how you took the time to actually think and respond with such an indepth reasoning.
Feanor is Gollum- this is why come back to watch these videos!
Morgoth is the ultimate example of this. He had almost no moments of self doubt and at this point imo if you tripped on a rock (which has Morgoth element in it as all physical things do) and broke your kneck, he would consider it a good day because he hates you. Like just unreal levels of pettiness and pathetic mania.
Re: Sauron, the Blue Wizards and Glorfindel arrived at 1600. So it seems Sauron making the Ring and deciding to go full evil is what triggered the response.
I think we're all perfectly justified in blaming every burnt dinner, bad hair day, and automotive failure on Morgoth 😂
Good point about the arrival of the Blue Wizards (and Glorfindel) being a marker for the point at which Sauron had gone too far! I hadn't thought of it like that!
Wooohoooo!
Beer, gummy bears, and new upload from GNG?! Lucky me!
I like the inclusion of the sound waves on the video!!
Thanks, Lexi! Listening now. 😊
You are literally the only person I have ever heard pronounce Maedhros correctly. 🙂
In Tolkien's legendarium, penances can be interpreted as a test that is woven into the Music of the Ainur, a test that every race and every conscious being with free will must pass in exchange for Melkor's inclination towards musical dissonance, and the price that must be paid within the scope of this test. For example, the rebellion of the Noldor was actually a product of the seeds of separation that Melkor had sown in Valinor. Those who were inclined to his words and the rebellious Noldor in the following process paid the price (as Mandos expressed in his prophecy) with various pains in Middle-earth. These examples can be multiplied by diversifying, but this is the basis of it.
Personally, I think the only Elves who detected Sauron when he put on the One Ring were the ones wearing the Three Elven Rings as Sauron was not directly involved in their creation. Those 3 Elves warned the others to take their Rings of Power off.
The draw and pull of the ring is not pretty much insurmountable. Most people surmount it. Just in the Fellowship, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin and Sam all surmount it. In the quest, out of all the "good" characters, only two fail to surmount it: Saruman and Boromir. And we're told there's one other who would fail to surmount it: Denethor.
No one else who was around Frodo was overcome with the desire to take the Ring. So they all surmount it. Frodo didn't wake up to the sword of one of Faramir's men that Ring had filled with desire for itself.
That's the thing everyone misses in the analysis. It's tough bearing the Ring. It's not that tough being *near* the Ring. For most characters, it's not a problem at all.
Super-well-made point. I feel like I'm always trying to refine my understanding of what the Ring does, how it works, what makes it so corrupting (I mean, it's only Tolkien's most central symbol that's simultaneously *really ambiguously described*) and you just articulated a distinction I think I've been missing.
I'm definitely in agreement that 'proximity to the Ring exerts a mind-warping aura of frenzied temptation!' is, at best, an oversimplification, and likely a misrepresentation. I think it's what the Ring offers (a fantasy of absolute power) that eats away at people, and the speed at which it does so has something to do with how closely their ambitions/desires align with that.
That being said, the *prospect* of absolute power (and the knowledge of its proximity) would start to weaken anybody *eventually,* and that's why Gandalf, Galadriel etc are so wary of it, and one reason why it should be kept as secret as possible even from trusted friends (the everpresent risk of Sauron's spies being another)
@@GirlNextGondor A long time ago in a place not too far away, as a child and teen, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about common wisdom as encapsulated in sayings. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" was one I found particularly disturbing. When it came to "Absolute power corrupts," I came to the conclusion that it was wrong. That it should be, "Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible. The rest of us wouldn't want it." It's like the "gift of telepathy." If someone gave me the gift of telepathy, I'd give it right back. We have filters for a reason. I know what I think behind my filter. I don't even want to know what other people think behind their filters.
The desire to wield absolute power only appeals to a certain type of person. Who, by definition, should never have it. (Though that's how you end up with the Ruler of the Universe being the Man in the Shack who lives with his cat, The Lord --- if you get that geek reference.)
So just being near The Ring isn't going to have a draw for most people. The Ring must have thought it was in Hell when it ended up in The Shire. It couldn't have come among a group that it had less to work with.
And then there's The Ring's history. A history of utter and complete failure. Sauron,while *wearing* The Ring, was defeated twice and disembodied once. Didn't do much for its creator, did it? Didn't make Sauron the ruler of the world.
Isildur couldn't even command the orcs attacking him. They shot him. No ruling the world for him.
Gollum ended up skulking under a mountain using The Ring to strangle orcs from behind. Hundreds of years and he couldn't make a single orc come to him and serve itself up for dinner. The orcs would fight back. He wasn't the Goblin King.
Bilbo wasn't even Mayor.
The Ring's track record of doing anything positive in terms of ruling power for its bearers is pathetic. And it was Samwise who was wise enough to figure that out. That The Ring was a big, fat, loudmouth orange liar and cheat. (Which reminds me of another big, fat, loudmouth, orange liar and cheat. But that's another matter.) Not that Sam the Wise described it in those exact terms.
At the point of the quest, Sauron's ability to rule the world was because of the military power he built. He didn't need The Ring to do it. He just needed that The Ring continued to exist.
That being near The Ring is a strong temptation to select people I can understand. That it's not a temptation to most people it's near makes sense. They don't want to rule the world, which is the only lure we've seen The Ring use, "With me you can rule and do what you want." From "Lord Sméagol? Gollum the Great? The Gollum!" to "at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit" to "became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise" to "you will set up a Queen." The Ring plays variations on one theme only --- that theme being Sauron's own central desire of ruling all and making it over to his ideal.
And plenty of people don't want that. So most of the characters near The Ring aren't tempted by The Ring.
And that's what I've never seen any of the Tolkien pundits or the vast majority of fandom acknowledge. Instead it's all about how strong The Ring's pull is. Even though in the books, for most of the characters near it, it's got no pull at all.
Though I'd be careful mentioning that in a video. Bringing up that The Ring isn't this all-powerful object that only a special few can resist because of their strong wills, that ordinary people all through the story aren't even tempted by it makes Tolkien fans start foaming at the mouth. At least it did when I pointed out the obvious.
@@GirlNextGondori want to blow out a party popper and say:
The Ring has an almost quantum mechanics (Schrödinger’s cat) like quality
For those not already on the path of malice, like Bilbo, the Ring both doesn’t do anything as if it really is just a trinket, while simultaneously it possesses them for real
But the Ring (undead cat) is always looking for the box to be opened by someone who can take it out
When circumstances are pressured enough, the Ring, as it is perceived by those who were once fine around it, suddenly becomes dangerous
For Sauron that "moment" was in eternity, as in while the singing is still going on and he decides to jam with Melkor. He is an Angel, or as the good professor called them, a Maia: an eternal spirit, clear in thought and understanding of himself and the paths before him, with no shades of personality or conflicting facets pulling him all over the place. As Church teaching would have it with the Angels that inspired Tolkien, their decision to rebel is instant and complete, they do not fall by steps but go down all in one go and become literal demonic abominations, incarnate evil instead of manifest virtue. Sauron chose his path, as did the Balrogs, "back then", and all that was good in him became fully and automatically corrupted. I would say, the instances you mention were instead a chance to undo it all through repetance but... for a Ainu/Angel to do that, is to choose a form of self anhilation, to destroy what they have become so as to be reborn in the light, so they have it that much harder than us mortals to embrace salvation.
If we're comparing Sam to Tulkas, it's worth noting that his key to defeating Gollum was wrestling fundamentals.
I think the conversation at the Black Gate is a last - last chance for Sauron.
Great video love your content keep up the good work :)
Nice work
I like Tulkas even more now that I know he is Sam.
A conga line...!
Thanks lexi .
If PartTime Hobbit makes a version of LotR with her rats, will you lend her your cat to play the balrog?
I like the idea of fëanor and gollum being parallels. Interesting.
I definitely consider Sauron irredeemable by the time he has the werewolf ilse.
But Feanor in the Dagor Dagorlath is supposed to repent and give up the Silmarills. So I think 100% irredeamable is almost not possible until the end of time. Maybe with the exception of Morgoth????
Pretty insightful video! Though I am not sold on Sauron not being fully corrupted while making the ring, unless phrase "he poured his malice and will to dominate into ring" was only in the movies (I need to re-read books, when I get the chance). I mean, dude put his bad traits into damn thing and it ended up turning best fellows into absolute assholes. Can't wrap my head around someone not being double evil with no cherry on top (because he stole it, and ate it) and creating such wicked item.
I know you're a feanorian but you left out Finarfin, who repents the action of the rebellion of the Noldor and is forgiven. in this and the repentance of Boromir you see the faith of Tolkien, a devout Catholic, that true repentance gains redemption. at the other end of the scale you have Saruman who time and again has it offered and turns it down.
There's also a Catholic touch in confessing your misdeed to an authority figure and then receiving forgiveness from their mouth.
@@EriktheRed2023 Indeed, Saruman had that chance with Gandalf, Angel to Angel, but him refusing to confess and submit dooms him. The Noldor had that chance when Mandos threw his doom at them, it shock Arafinwe and his lot back into their senses, but Nolofinwe's group stays on the path out of loyalty and they do end up paying for it. Then there is Fëanaro...
Your videos continue to be the gold standard of Tolkien commentary on this platform.
For his irredeemable sins after LotR Sauron is ultimately sent by Illuvatar straight to the pony jar.
so deep.
While listening to your very interesting and accurate take on Aule it came to me, did Melkor ever get somekind of comment or conversation from Eru. We never know this stuff from his perspective and I think he would not talk of it. (Looks to me Eru liked to talk at key moments. Like he did with the first men) Maybe instead of humbling himself like Aule, Melkor talked back to Eru and rejected him
Oh he had his convo while belting out his disonant music and he dug his ethereal heels, which made him fall. Eru does tell him about the Music, the Flame Imperishable and the futility of rebelion, but good old Melkor just says "nope, I will make my own universe with terror and chaos in it".
@AugustusR well yeah but I don't think the one right after the music is THE conversation. Eru talks a lot and to a lot of people, which we know just a few words of it.
Melkor at this stage is not evil. A convo between evil Melkor and Eru should be fascinating
Of course we root for Aule! That Vala is awesome. He gave us dwarves, for crying out loud!
Sam is absolutely Tulkas.
My only critique of your stress pattern is when you said "Quenya stress pattern".
Stress patterns are giving *me* a stress pattern lately 😂
how can you say Sauron only did go "full dark lord" only in the second age? What about Tol Sirion?
"Sam is Tulkas" reinforces my headcanon that Sam with the ring solos Mordor.
Let's gooooo!!!
Five D chess while everyone else is playing Four D ?
'D' for 'dimensional'. If you're playing 2D chess (our variant), you're being clever. If you're a Vulcan in Star Trek, you may play 3D chess, where there are several stories to the chess board. This shows you're way ahead of your human colleagues in the being clever department. This has led to the notion of 4D chess, being when someone is being really, extremely clever, and nobody can even tell how clever they're being. 5D, then, is turning the dial to the next level. Inflation may be setting in prior to this point, but I think that's part of the humour.
Question: If Sauron was able to regrow physical form at least twice after deaths of his body (Fall of Numenor and Finger Cut by Issildur), why then Saruman can't regrow physical form in few centuries and come back to middle-earth?
We are told that he put much of his power and essence into the Ring at its creation and I always imagined he had some Black Numenorian/necromancer help coming back as soon as he did at the end of the Third Age.
I don't think there's any Moral Event Horizont in Middle-earth, at least not before the final end of Arda Marred. Everyone has an infinite amount of chances to turn back, and they will never run out of those chances. The only thing they will at some point run out of is time.
This means that there is no act so vile that the person cannot receive grace and be forgiven and "restored to the fellowship with God". No evil is greater than the endless love that desires to forgive. The Eru of Arda is like the Biblical God - He is rooting for His creations and actively wants to see them all restored. The only thing standing between the fallen one and their deliverance is their own will. They must make the willful choice to not to be restored.
I'm thinking of Fëanor here. So many readers hate and despise him and count him as an unredeemable villain. And his history of violence is indeed worthy of a Big Bad of some other storyverse. But in Tolkien's writings, we see that his idea was that in the true end of the tale, Fëanor will indeed return as a restored person.
And when you think of it, you can see how. Fëanor's ultimate problem is that in his heart of hearts he doesn't trust Eru, and the goodness and justness of Eru, at least not personally in his own life. He really feels helpless and powerless, a victim of arbitary and unfeeling powers shaping his life where he is a mere object, and reacts to it with anger at the perceived reality. It's very telling that anger is his go-to emotion, since anger is the emotion that spurs us to protect ourselves from outside threats. He doesn't trust Eru, he doesn't trust the goodness and the wisdom of the authorities over him, and instead tries to fix things in his own power - feels the need to control the events, his life and his fate himself. He doesn't dare to consciously see it quite as it is, and only voices his resentment of and distrust of the Valar, but since the Valar has been established by Eru, his rejection of the Valar is actually rejection of Eru.
But his crusade is of course hopeless. His rebellion is ultimately against the very fabric of reality. He cannot be in the control of his own life, no matter what. And against this all, his final moments in body are very important. Because he finally realizes the futility of his own desire for power over reality. Now, he reacts to it with anger, once again. But then he leaves the story and goes to Mandos, where he will spend the following millenias. We know that once he emerges from there, he will be of different mood. So I believe his final insight wasn't meaningless, even though it might seem so from the point of view of the story thus far. He did in the end "come to the end of himself".
Of course, more than the mere crushing reality of your own powerlessness will be needed - he needs to experience the unconditional love that has loved him all his life, even when he has felt like he's just a play thing and a chew toy of higher powers. But realizing he can't fight reality is the necessary starting point.
And I think all that is more important to Eru / Tolkien than anything. Arda is not so much a school test where you're graded and told if you're good enough or not. It's a place where the author wants absolutely everyone to pass, and is bending backwards to make it happen. That is why love, pity and patience is the heart of Middle-earth. Eru is rooting for you. He doesn't want to judge you, he wants to carry you across the finish line. Sometimes you can be treated with what C.S. Lewis called radical mercy. I think Fëanor was treated with it. He was allowed to pursue his own will to its end and find out its hopelessness, and then he was removed before he could do more ill to himself. Sure, he managed to get in one last unwise tantrum, but that was it.
Sorry I'm rambling at this point, I was just suddenly filled with love for these characters - and for Tolkien. He had such gentle, kind heart.
Whoa whoa whoa, you're giving my boy Aulë a bad rap here. Aulë is directly contrasted with Melkor, who, as you said, creates to aggrandise himself and dominate others, whereas Aulë creates to give someone a free life and teach them. Aulë is not motivated by spite and jealousy, like Melkor is. I don't think he was anywhere near as sinister as Melkors attempts at creation.
For sure - but one of the big demonstrations of this is that he's capable of admitting when things haven't gone exactly to plan and accepting feedback 😂 So far as we know, the Dwarves were the first and only time he seriously overreached, and they turn out to be pretty cool *because* he was able to ask for, and accept, mercy and help. Melkor's original creative desires were said to be very close to Aule's, but by the time he 'perfects' his expression of them, he's already failed several vibe-checks and carried blithely on regardless.
Rad!
Since the aniur are supposed to be representations of angels do you think angels can seek a d get redemption
I think, in Thomistic philosophy (or at least in one version of it that I had to read for a course), angels have only one moment of choice, at the very moment of their creation, after which they can't change, allegedly for metaphysical reasons. In general I don't think I've run across Christian theologians or even Christian myth-makers entertaining the possibility that fallen angels might ever repent -- except Tolkien, and I rather like that feature of his legendarium.
[EDITED] Wait, I can think of at least one other Christian myth-maker who does that, namely George MacDonald in _Lilith_, where at the end of the book it's predicted that the two main villains (one of whom represents the devil, or maybe death personified) will eventually repent and undergo full purification at the end of the world. A bit like the Second Prophecy of Mandos predicting that after the Dagor Dagorath Feanor will at last give the Silmarils to Yavanna to rekindle the Two Trees.
@@larrykuenning5754 okay thanks I always felt it was because we were made differently then them the expectations for us and them are different
@@wolfsbanealphas617 I think the Thomistic theory I mentioned may have argued that angels have no bodies, and their spirits are each a single unit rather than a compounded structure, leaving no room for change. (Or I may have misremembered.) Offhand I don't see why this would have to be true, though no doubt there was some chain of reasoning behind it.
Listening to it, it sounds like the greatest fault of these characters seems to be pride, combined with a refusal or inability to relinquish that pride. Which makes sense since that is one of the greatest fault in Christian Theology, the fatal flaw of Lucifer as the Devil.
Algormancy!
But... Boromir is already a Captain of Gondor and Hero of Men. Proven against evil and as a Shield of his people. Like all the Fellowship, he starts out a hero on the quest. He stumbled a bit...
One of the best things about Lord of the Rings ( the finest heroic romance ) is they are all heroes to begin with. Gimli or Legolas or Sam doesn't need a psycho-drama. They're ready, insofar as they could be, it's just doing the job. But it's an Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit
But the Men are like that. Aragorn and Boromir are already legends.They just got to do this perilous task
And Feanor is a glorious hero, as Gandalf admits. His first thought with the Palantir in his grasp is actually to look for the spirit of Feanor. A hero is not a saint
The ring did podsess his mind. Once the ring is gone over the River he is free again.
@@ishmaelforester9825 Yea, a fairly high ranking Maia is a fanboy for an elf.
Hi
There are a couple of problems with your thesis you might want to ponder.
Can we assume that immortals would/could view reality the same as mortals? You are treating elves, orcs, men, and dwarves as flawed or limited immortals, (Ainur Light), but I do not think this is so. Those who die are NOT the same as those who do not. It's a time thing. IF you have all eternity to figure things out, and you're initially made good, wouldn't you, in fact, do the figuring and BE good?
Death is the reason, the finality of it, that makes sane, but flawed mortals (and I include the elves here) capable of regret and redemption. Sauron IS immortal, doesn't fear death, and is a psychopath who (I maintain) was never good because he was made to be incapable of it. Tolkien struggled with this, and used mealy language to disguise the conundrum, but the issue is deep. No wonder he (and we) struggle here.
I listened to your comments about Aule with great interest, too. You, however, seem to be blurring the line between creating and the ability to create. If I understand Tolkien correctly, Melkor and Aule were not ABLE/CAPABLE of creating life; they didn't just lack permission. The proto-dwarves Aule made were NOT alive, but very intricate animated toys (mechanical). They had no living spark. If Aule was not making them dance, they did nothing. Orcs, thus, were ultimately regarded as modified something else, and NOT created by Melkor, just as our breeders can shape and change a root stock, but not create one (as far as I know).
So Aule played around with the notion of creating man-like toys but did not engage in rebellion or disobedience. He honored Eru. Melkor, Gorthaur, and all the other fallen "angels" did not.
I conclude ALL the fallen angels were psychopathic because they were made that way (intentionally), or so we opine. We need such entities to help explain not just evil, but SIN. We can find extenuating reasons for cutting Feanor some slack, but not Melkor or Sauron. They ARE wickedness personified, and always were (IMHO).
that idea speaks to a cruel and uncaring God (eru) by making entities that way on purpose and then punishing them throughout the whole of their existence and eternally simply for being what he made them. without free will neither good nor evil can actually exist