Someone think of a LotR topic to discuss to break the sloooooow.
Why can’t there be female Istari?
Tolkien was sexist (no he wasn’t, every female character he made is a worldshaking badass. Except Niniel), wizards are stereotypically men, idk. Someone smarter will have a better answer.
(Additional quotations removed for brevity.)
This is actually probably closet to the correct answer, though it is probably more accurate to say Tolkien was the product of his times and upbringing as an Englishman and scholar of Nordic history. Let's look at his two most famous women real quick to establish themselves as characters.
Éowyn is very much in the tradition of some female characters from the Icelandic Sagas, such as Freydís Eiríksdóttir in the Saga of the Greenlanders. During Tolkien's time, it would have been understood that women warriors were something known in Viking times and literature, though not seen as overly common. Subsequent archeological finds after Tolkien have both affirmed such women did exist and were possibly more common than the Sagas might otherwise indicate.
Galadriel is depicted as a wise queen who eclipses her husband in terms of rule and power. This characterization likely draws inspiration from England's own history--consider that Tolkien was born at the end of Victoria's illustrious reign and it was commonly accepted that Elizabeth I had been among their best monarchs. In his desire to create a mythology for England, he could hardly ignore the important rolls of female leadership, when England had been so competently ruled by two different extremely consequential monarchs.
Looking to the Istari, the Istari were supposed to take the role of trusted advisor, serving as a check to Sauron's potential influence. Here is what we have of why they were formed as they were, from the Unfinished Tales:
For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.
From this, we can learn that their forms were chosen to (a) to be seen as equals to men and elves and (b) to be trusted by the same. We look at the world of men both created by Tolkien and in the reality that Tolkien lived and the idea of female advisors were relatively rare, bordering on unheard of. Things were changing in the late 1910s and 1920s (when Tolkien really started formulating the concepts that would become the Lord of the Rings)--Parliament had its first woman elected in 1918, Oxford had its first female professor in 1920--but equality was still a long way off and men were still seen as the primary movers and shakers in politics and education.
This is reflected in how the races of men view women within the confines of the novel--Éowyn is looked down upon by others for being a woman, with the stereotyping of others ultimately being undermined by her character's journey. Still, though Tolkien used Éowyn to undermine these perceptions, the Istari are characterized as beings not to undermine expectations--but who are there specifically to work within the expectations and use those expectations as leverage in manipulating events. They, as characters, needed to be able to serve as advisors and mentors to the race of Men, with its predominantly sexist attitudes based on the historical frameworks in which Tolkien operated. As such, for them to be most successful within the particular world Tolkien created, they had to be older men to maximize their utility.
Someone think of a LotR topic to discuss to break the sloooooow.
Why can’t there be female Istari?
Tolkien was sexist (no he wasn’t, every female character he made is a worldshaking badass. Except Niniel), wizards are stereotypically men, idk. Someone smarter will have a better answer.
(Additional quotations removed for brevity.)
This is actually probably closet to the correct answer, though it is probably more accurate to say Tolkien was the product of his times and upbringing as an Englishman and scholar of Nordic history. Let's look at his two most famous women real quick to establish themselves as characters.
Éowyn is very much in the tradition of some female characters from the Icelandic Sagas, such as Freydís Eiríksdóttir in the Saga of the Greenlanders. During Tolkien's time, it would have been understood that women warriors were something known in Viking times and literature, though not seen as overly common. Subsequent archeological finds after Tolkien have both affirmed such women did exist and were possibly more common than the Sagas might otherwise indicate.
Galadriel is depicted as a wise queen who eclipses her husband in terms of rule and power. This characterization likely draws inspiration from England's own history--consider that Tolkien was born at the end of Victoria's illustrious reign and it was commonly accepted that Elizabeth I had been among their best monarchs. In his desire to create a mythology for England, he could hardly ignore the important rolls of female leadership, when England had been so competently ruled by two different extremely consequential monarchs.
Looking to the Istari, the Istari were supposed to take the role of trusted advisor, serving as a check to Sauron's potential influence. Here is what we have of why they were formed as they were, from the Unfinished Tales:
For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.
From this, we can learn that their forms were chosen to (a) to be seen as equals to men and elves and (b) to be trusted by the same. We look at the world of men both created by Tolkien and in the reality that Tolkien lived and the idea of female advisors were relatively rare, bordering on unheard of. Things were changing in the late 1910s and 1920s (when Tolkien really started formulating the concepts that would become the Lord of the Rings)--Parliament had its first woman elected in 1918, Oxford had its first female professor in 1920--but equality was still a long way off and men were still seen as the primary movers and shakers in politics and education.
This is reflected in how the races of men view women within the confines of the novel--Éowyn is looked down upon by others for being a woman, with the stereotyping of others ultimately being undermined by her character's journey. Still, though Tolkien used Éowyn to undermine these perceptions, the Istari are characterized as beings not to undermine expectations--but who are there specifically to work within the expectations and use those expectations as leverage in manipulating events. They, as characters, needed to be able to serve as advisors and mentors to the race of Men, with its predominantly sexist attitudes based on the historical frameworks in which Tolkien operated. As such, for them to be most successful within the particular world Tolkien created, they had to be older men to maximize their utility.
Someone think of a LotR topic to discuss to break the sloooooow.
Why can’t there be female Istari?
Tolkien was sexist (no he wasn’t, every female character he made is a worldshaking badass. Except Niniel), wizards are stereotypically men, idk. Someone smarter will have a better answer.
(Additional quotations removed for brevity.)
This is actually probably closet to the correct answer, though it is probably more accurate to say Tolkien was the product of his times and upbringing as an Englishman and scholar of Nordic history. Let's look at his two most famous women real quick to establish themselves as characters.
Éowyn is very much in the tradition of some female characters from the Icelandic Sagas, such as Freydís Eiríksdóttir in the Saga of the Greenlanders. During Tolkien's time, it would have been understood that women warriors were something known in Viking times and literature, though not seen as overly common. Subsequent archeological finds after Tolkien have both affirmed such women did exist and were possibly more common than the Sagas might otherwise indicate.
Galadriel is depicted as a wise queen who eclipses her husband in terms of rule and power. This characterization likely draws inspiration from England's own history--consider that Tolkien was born at the end of Victoria's illustrious reign and it was commonly accepted that Elizabeth I had been among their best monarchs. In his desire to create a mythology for England, he could hardly ignore the important rolls of female leadership, when England had been so competently ruled by two different extremely consequential monarchs.
Looking to the Istari, the Istari were supposed to take the role of trusted advisor, serving as a check to Sauron's potential influence. Here is what we have of why they were formed as they were, from the Unfinished Tales:
For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.
From this, we can learn that their forms were chosen to (a) to be seen as equals to men and elves and (b) to be trusted by the same. We look at the world of men both created by Tolkien and in the reality that Tolkien lived and the idea of female advisors were relatively rare, bordering on unheard of. Things were changing in the late 1910s and 1920s (when Tolkien really started formulating the concepts that would become the Lord of the Rings)--Parliament had its first woman elected in 1918, Oxford had its first female professor in 1920--but equality was still a long way off and men were still seen as the primary movers and shakers in politics and education.
This is reflected in how the races of men view women within the confines of the novel--Éowyn is looked down upon by others for being a woman, with the stereotyping of others ultimately being undermined by her character's journey. Still, though Tolkien used Éowyn to undermine these perceptions, the Istari are characterized as beings not to undermine expectations--but who are there specifically to work within the expectations and use those expectations as leverage in manipulating events. They, as characters, needed to be able to serve as advisors and mentors to the race of Men, with its predominantly sexist attitudes based on the historical frameworks in which Tolkien operated. As such, for them to be most successful within the particular world Tolkien created, they had to be older men to maximize their utility.
Okay. But I still don’t like it.
Ever feel useless?
Just remind thyself that Galadriel had a husband.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi, I am not a chest. I deny with 100% certainty that I am a chest. I can neither confirm nor deny what I am beyond that.
I used to portray Krathian, Q'ilbrith, Jim, Tara, Turin, Nathan, Tench, Finn, Alvin, and other characters in various taverns.
I would agree that the all-male Istari is one of his low points from a worldbuilding perspective. Though one can derive the historical basis for his decision, he ignores the fact that the "old wise woman" was also a trope throughout history, and frequently were a primary source of knowledge on the local level. Even if we accept the rules of the world, where males are the primary advisors to the elite, there was room for a female Istari who could provide advice and guidance to those other than the rulers of the world.
I would agree that the all-male Istari is one of his low points from a worldbuilding perspective. Though one can derive the historical basis for his decision, he ignores the fact that the "old wise woman" was also a trope throughout history, and frequently were a primary source of knowledge on the local level. Even if we accept the rules of the world, where males are the primary advisors to the elite, there was room for a female Istari who could provide advice and guidance to those other than the rulers of the world.
Big news, I'm trying to resurrect the LotR tavern with its two biggest players (Gradius and Pallghost) inactive. Cause I'm stupid. So if anyone even just kinda wants to join, please do so. There's a plot involving the ruins of Angmar!
Big news, I'm trying to resurrect the LotR tavern with its two biggest players (Gradius and Pallghost) inactive. Cause I'm stupid. So if anyone even just kinda wants to join, please do so. There's a plot involving the ruins of Angmar!
Fun. I'd join, but I'm too busy with RL and tons of other online campaigns at the moment to make a character for it...
Big news, I'm trying to resurrect the LotR tavern with its two biggest players (Gradius and Pallghost) inactive. Cause I'm stupid. So if anyone even just kinda wants to join, please do so. There's a plot involving the ruins of Angmar!
Fun. I'd join, but I'm too busy with RL and tons of other online campaigns at the moment to make a character for it...
Long time no posts. Anyone got any theories on who the Witch King was before he became a Nazgul?
Could the Witch King be an Istari who went over to the dark side?
It is somewhat interesting that we know more canon information about Witch-King's second in command than we know about the commander himself. Even sources like Unfinished Tales provide scant information about who the Nine were before their corruption by Sauron, so all we really know is that they were men, likely men of great power, and that they fell to Sauron's machinations.
My guess--based on pure speculation and the general themes of Tolkien's writings--is that the Witch-King was originally of Númenórean heritage. Númenóreans are usually depicted as the most advanced of all the humans in various feats, be it war, architecture, or art, and who used their influence and power to quickly establish themselves as the predominant force of men in Middle Earth. It would stand to reason that Sauron would corrupt one of their number, and it would further make sense that one of Númenór would be chosen to lead the Nazgûl from their inception.
Whether he engaged in sorcery before his corruption and fall is something left up for debate. It would make sense that he might have practiced magic before falling in with Sauron, and that he was easily swayed by the promise of greater magical secrets if he joined Sauron.
We can, however, conclusively say he was not an Istari for two reasons. First and foremost, he was one of the "Mortal Men" given one of the Nine, so was definitionally not a Maiar. Second, the Istari arrive in Middle Earth in the Third-Age; the Witch-King was around in the Second Age.
Try watching the movies, they’re more easily digestible.
I must disagree with this advice. To have the novels present and choosing instead the films would be like visiting the Vatican and choosing to look at the School of Athens on your phone instead of walking over to see the original. Yes, the image on the phone might give you an idea of the art and you will generally be able to know what is occurring, but it lacks the scale and context of the original piece, loosing much of its impact. Given the choice betwixt the two, when both are equally available, the novels are clearly the superior option.
Not only are the stories and characters better developed in the novel, the very part people struggle with--the language--is the true beauty of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, at heart, a linguist, and his unparalleled prose is one of the novel's true joys. Rather than struggle against his language and feel like you are fighting the books to finish, simply accept them for the artistry they are and just read, letting the words flow through you as you digest the story.
After, then you should watch the films--for they are excellent in their own right--but they so clearly pale in comparison to the novels that I would hate for your first experience with the story to be the inferior option.
Try watching the movies, they’re more easily digestible.
I must disagree with this advice. To have the novels present and choosing instead the films would be like visiting the Vatican and choosing to look at the School of Athens on your phone instead of walking over to see the original. Yes, the image on the phone might give you an idea of the art and you will generally be able to know what is occurring, but it lacks the scale and context of the original piece, loosing much of its impact. Given the choice betwixt the two, when both are equally available, the novels are clearly the superior option.
Not only are the stories and characters better developed in the novel, the very part people struggle with--the language--is the true beauty of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, at heart, a linguist, and his unparalleled prose is one of the novel's true joys. Rather than struggle against his language and feel like you are fighting the books to finish, simply accept them for the artistry they are and just read, letting the words flow through you as you digest the story.
After, then you should watch the films--for they are excellent in their own right--but they so clearly pale in comparison to the novels that I would hate for your first experience with the story to be the inferior option.
I agree completely. The novels are far superior to the movies. But, a lot of people will find them hard to read. You can’t deny that they are long, complicated, and sometimes hard to follow. That’s just one of the things that make them great, they’re simply packed with content. But you have to be a massive reader who reads gigantic novels regularly to properly follow and digest the Lord of the Rings. And a lot of people aren’t like that, and they’ll simply find themselves lost in, or bored, by the books.
If you’re type two, and you’re finding Lord of the Rings hard to digest, watch the movies. They’re considerably better then not experiencing LotR at all.
Try watching the movies, they’re more easily digestible.
I must disagree with this advice. To have the novels present and choosing instead the films would be like visiting the Vatican and choosing to look at the School of Athens on your phone instead of walking over to see the original. Yes, the image on the phone might give you an idea of the art and you will generally be able to know what is occurring, but it lacks the scale and context of the original piece, loosing much of its impact. Given the choice betwixt the two, when both are equally available, the novels are clearly the superior option.
Not only are the stories and characters better developed in the novel, the very part people struggle with--the language--is the true beauty of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, at heart, a linguist, and his unparalleled prose is one of the novel's true joys. Rather than struggle against his language and feel like you are fighting the books to finish, simply accept them for the artistry they are and just read, letting the words flow through you as you digest the story.
After, then you should watch the films--for they are excellent in their own right--but they so clearly pale in comparison to the novels that I would hate for your first experience with the story to be the inferior option.
I agree completely. The novels are far superior to the movies. But, a lot of people will find them hard to read. You can’t deny that they are long, complicated, and sometimes hard to follow. That’s just one of the things that make them great, they’re simply packed with content. But you have to be a massive reader who reads gigantic novels regularly to properly follow and digest the Lord of the Rings. And a lot of people aren’t like that, and they’ll simply find themselves lost in, or bored, by the books.
If you’re type two, and you’re finding Lord of the Rings hard to digest, watch the movies. They’re considerably better then not experiencing LotR at all.
I really like them, but they have such small text. That's the only problem, maybe I could find a better copy.
Try watching the movies, they’re more easily digestible.
I must disagree with this advice. To have the novels present and choosing instead the films would be like visiting the Vatican and choosing to look at the School of Athens on your phone instead of walking over to see the original. Yes, the image on the phone might give you an idea of the art and you will generally be able to know what is occurring, but it lacks the scale and context of the original piece, loosing much of its impact. Given the choice betwixt the two, when both are equally available, the novels are clearly the superior option.
Not only are the stories and characters better developed in the novel, the very part people struggle with--the language--is the true beauty of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, at heart, a linguist, and his unparalleled prose is one of the novel's true joys. Rather than struggle against his language and feel like you are fighting the books to finish, simply accept them for the artistry they are and just read, letting the words flow through you as you digest the story.
After, then you should watch the films--for they are excellent in their own right--but they so clearly pale in comparison to the novels that I would hate for your first experience with the story to be the inferior option.
I agree completely. The novels are far superior to the movies. But, a lot of people will find them hard to read. You can’t deny that they are long, complicated, and sometimes hard to follow. That’s just one of the things that make them great, they’re simply packed with content. But you have to be a massive reader who reads gigantic novels regularly to properly follow and digest the Lord of the Rings. And a lot of people aren’t like that, and they’ll simply find themselves lost in, or bored, by the books.
If you’re type two, and you’re finding Lord of the Rings hard to digest, watch the movies. They’re considerably better then not experiencing LotR at all.
I probably would deny all those points and would argue that many books seen as "more accessible" are actually less accessible than LotR itself.
On length: Let's recall that Harry Potter as a franchise is 603,067 words longer, weighing in at more than twice the length of LotR's 481,103 words.
On complexity of language: Tolkien writes in a higher form of English, but it still follows the grammatical rules of English prose and language. He was not someone like Cormack McCarthy, who would forgo things like punctuation because he is a terrible writer who is pretentious for no point other than being pretentious and who is inexplicably critically acclaimed went out of his way to make his novels difficult to read. Yet, books like the Road are still bestsellers, read by millions despite the complexity of the writing itself. In fantasy, LotR might use more elegant words than something like Wheel of Time, but Tolkien's ability to actually write--unlike Jordan who is a terrible writer--means his more elegant language is still easier to digest than that of Jordan.
On complexity of story, and being hard to follow: Tolkien's themes are relatively simple, with a fairly straightforward good versus evil story. While there are multiple narratives going on at once, he organizes the story by narrative and never lets the number of perspectives grow out of control. Compare to A Song of Ice and Fire, with its more complex and branching narrative and myriad different simultaneous perspectives.
What made LotR successful and genera-defining is that is is a surprisingly accessible work of literature, in the way many other "classics" are not.
I really like them, but they have such small text. That's the only problem, maybe I could find a better copy.
Most libraries will have a "big text" version of novels. Another alterative would be reading it on Kindle or other digital reader--many digital readers have a smartphone, tablet, and/or computer application that you can use to read books, even if you do not have an e-reader. These applications will have a font size option so you can make the text a bit more manageable.
Also, since I am just always interested in what copies people own/are reading, which printing of LotR are you using?
(Additional quotations removed for brevity.)
This is actually probably closet to the correct answer, though it is probably more accurate to say Tolkien was the product of his times and upbringing as an Englishman and scholar of Nordic history. Let's look at his two most famous women real quick to establish themselves as characters.
Éowyn is very much in the tradition of some female characters from the Icelandic Sagas, such as Freydís Eiríksdóttir in the Saga of the Greenlanders. During Tolkien's time, it would have been understood that women warriors were something known in Viking times and literature, though not seen as overly common. Subsequent archeological finds after Tolkien have both affirmed such women did exist and were possibly more common than the Sagas might otherwise indicate.
Galadriel is depicted as a wise queen who eclipses her husband in terms of rule and power. This characterization likely draws inspiration from England's own history--consider that Tolkien was born at the end of Victoria's illustrious reign and it was commonly accepted that Elizabeth I had been among their best monarchs. In his desire to create a mythology for England, he could hardly ignore the important rolls of female leadership, when England had been so competently ruled by two different extremely consequential monarchs.
Looking to the Istari, the Istari were supposed to take the role of trusted advisor, serving as a check to Sauron's potential influence. Here is what we have of why they were formed as they were, from the Unfinished Tales:
For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.
From this, we can learn that their forms were chosen to (a) to be seen as equals to men and elves and (b) to be trusted by the same. We look at the world of men both created by Tolkien and in the reality that Tolkien lived and the idea of female advisors were relatively rare, bordering on unheard of. Things were changing in the late 1910s and 1920s (when Tolkien really started formulating the concepts that would become the Lord of the Rings)--Parliament had its first woman elected in 1918, Oxford had its first female professor in 1920--but equality was still a long way off and men were still seen as the primary movers and shakers in politics and education.
This is reflected in how the races of men view women within the confines of the novel--Éowyn is looked down upon by others for being a woman, with the stereotyping of others ultimately being undermined by her character's journey. Still, though Tolkien used Éowyn to undermine these perceptions, the Istari are characterized as beings not to undermine expectations--but who are there specifically to work within the expectations and use those expectations as leverage in manipulating events. They, as characters, needed to be able to serve as advisors and mentors to the race of Men, with its predominantly sexist attitudes based on the historical frameworks in which Tolkien operated. As such, for them to be most successful within the particular world Tolkien created, they had to be older men to maximize their utility.
Okay. But I still don’t like it.
Ever feel useless?
Just remind thyself that Galadriel had a husband.
Hi, I am not a chest. I deny with 100% certainty that I am a chest. I can neither confirm nor deny what I am beyond that.
I used to portray Krathian, Q'ilbrith, Jim, Tara, Turin, Nathan, Tench, Finn, Alvin, and other characters in various taverns.
I also do homebrew, check out my Spells and Magic Items
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons, even death may die"
I would agree that the all-male Istari is one of his low points from a worldbuilding perspective. Though one can derive the historical basis for his decision, he ignores the fact that the "old wise woman" was also a trope throughout history, and frequently were a primary source of knowledge on the local level. Even if we accept the rules of the world, where males are the primary advisors to the elite, there was room for a female Istari who could provide advice and guidance to those other than the rulers of the world.
Thank you 😊. I totally agree.
@ItsNotAChest LOL 😂😂😂. Celeborn.
Big news, I'm trying to resurrect the LotR tavern with its two biggest players (Gradius and Pallghost) inactive. Cause I'm stupid. So if anyone even just kinda wants to join, please do so. There's a plot involving the ruins of Angmar!
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Fun. I'd join, but I'm too busy with RL and tons of other online campaigns at the moment to make a character for it...
Looking for a campaign? Or, perhaps, trying to start one? Come join Rolegate! Just send me a friend request (same name as here) and I'll help you get started!
Ducks are just geese lite. Focus on the future. It'll become the past soon enough.
Istari and White Counsel in Club. Not the wish-granter of a thread.
Become a Plague Doctor today!
Join the Knights of the Random Table and Calius and Kothar Industries!
Homebrew: Artifact, Dungeon
May be offline due to school
Ok np!
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Long time no posts. Anyone got any theories on who the Witch King was before he became a Nazgul?
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I have only read up to like half of Two Towers.
I am an Arachpriest, Cat Cultist, Sauce Monk, Angel of Death, and First Spinjitzu Master.
I play Thirteen the necromancer elf, Timber the tabaxi child, and more at the tavern. Hope you like yams!
Oh yeah, don't forget to be kind and loving and stuff. Not on during weekends.
Try watching the movies, they’re more easily digestible.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Could the Witch King be an Istari who went over to the dark side?
It is somewhat interesting that we know more canon information about Witch-King's second in command than we know about the commander himself. Even sources like Unfinished Tales provide scant information about who the Nine were before their corruption by Sauron, so all we really know is that they were men, likely men of great power, and that they fell to Sauron's machinations.
My guess--based on pure speculation and the general themes of Tolkien's writings--is that the Witch-King was originally of Númenórean heritage. Númenóreans are usually depicted as the most advanced of all the humans in various feats, be it war, architecture, or art, and who used their influence and power to quickly establish themselves as the predominant force of men in Middle Earth. It would stand to reason that Sauron would corrupt one of their number, and it would further make sense that one of Númenór would be chosen to lead the Nazgûl from their inception.
Whether he engaged in sorcery before his corruption and fall is something left up for debate. It would make sense that he might have practiced magic before falling in with Sauron, and that he was easily swayed by the promise of greater magical secrets if he joined Sauron.
We can, however, conclusively say he was not an Istari for two reasons. First and foremost, he was one of the "Mortal Men" given one of the Nine, so was definitionally not a Maiar. Second, the Istari arrive in Middle Earth in the Third-Age; the Witch-King was around in the Second Age.
I must disagree with this advice. To have the novels present and choosing instead the films would be like visiting the Vatican and choosing to look at the School of Athens on your phone instead of walking over to see the original. Yes, the image on the phone might give you an idea of the art and you will generally be able to know what is occurring, but it lacks the scale and context of the original piece, loosing much of its impact. Given the choice betwixt the two, when both are equally available, the novels are clearly the superior option.
Not only are the stories and characters better developed in the novel, the very part people struggle with--the language--is the true beauty of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was, at heart, a linguist, and his unparalleled prose is one of the novel's true joys. Rather than struggle against his language and feel like you are fighting the books to finish, simply accept them for the artistry they are and just read, letting the words flow through you as you digest the story.
After, then you should watch the films--for they are excellent in their own right--but they so clearly pale in comparison to the novels that I would hate for your first experience with the story to be the inferior option.
I agree completely. The novels are far superior to the movies. But, a lot of people will find them hard to read. You can’t deny that they are long, complicated, and sometimes hard to follow. That’s just one of the things that make them great, they’re simply packed with content. But you have to be a massive reader who reads gigantic novels regularly to properly follow and digest the Lord of the Rings. And a lot of people aren’t like that, and they’ll simply find themselves lost in, or bored, by the books.
If you’re type two, and you’re finding Lord of the Rings hard to digest, watch the movies. They’re considerably better then not experiencing LotR at all.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I really like them, but they have such small text. That's the only problem, maybe I could find a better copy.
I am an Arachpriest, Cat Cultist, Sauce Monk, Angel of Death, and First Spinjitzu Master.
I play Thirteen the necromancer elf, Timber the tabaxi child, and more at the tavern. Hope you like yams!
Oh yeah, don't forget to be kind and loving and stuff. Not on during weekends.
I probably would deny all those points and would argue that many books seen as "more accessible" are actually less accessible than LotR itself.
On length: Let's recall that Harry Potter as a franchise is 603,067 words longer, weighing in at more than twice the length of LotR's 481,103 words.
On complexity of language: Tolkien writes in a higher form of English, but it still follows the grammatical rules of English prose and language. He was not someone like Cormack McCarthy, who would forgo things like punctuation because he
is a terrible writer who is pretentious for no point other than being pretentious and who is inexplicably critically acclaimedwent out of his way to make his novels difficult to read. Yet, books like the Road are still bestsellers, read by millions despite the complexity of the writing itself. In fantasy, LotR might use more elegant words than something like Wheel of Time, but Tolkien's ability to actually write--unlike Jordan who is a terrible writer--means his more elegant language is still easier to digest than that of Jordan.On complexity of story, and being hard to follow: Tolkien's themes are relatively simple, with a fairly straightforward good versus evil story. While there are multiple narratives going on at once, he organizes the story by narrative and never lets the number of perspectives grow out of control. Compare to A Song of Ice and Fire, with its more complex and branching narrative and myriad different simultaneous perspectives.
What made LotR successful and genera-defining is that is is a surprisingly accessible work of literature, in the way many other "classics" are not.
Most libraries will have a "big text" version of novels. Another alterative would be reading it on Kindle or other digital reader--many digital readers have a smartphone, tablet, and/or computer application that you can use to read books, even if you do not have an e-reader. These applications will have a font size option so you can make the text a bit more manageable.
Also, since I am just always interested in what copies people own/are reading, which printing of LotR are you using?