What would you criticize or change about LotR, The Hobbit, or Silmarillion?

[paranoid marvin]

From what I have read Sauron forged the Ring in order to control the population of Middle-earth? He did so by distributing lesser Rings amongst specific individuals in the Elf, Human and Dwarf communities and then used the One Ring to control the them. So it's kind of a feudal system where the owners of the lesser rings become his vassals, and they in turn use their lesser rings to control the population. In such a manner Sauron controls Middle-earth.


Rather than a weapon of mass death and destruction , the Ring is primarily a tool of control. It can only control the owners of the lesser rings and undo what was created by them. We know that he has already recovered the (recoverable) dwarven and human lesser rings. So by recovering the One Ring he would only have control over those possessing the Elven rings and what they have wrought with them (presumably places like Lothlorien and Rivendell).

 

[BAYLOR]

From what I have read Sauron forged the Ring in order to control the population of Middle-earth? He did so by distributing lesser Rings amongst specific individuals in the Elf, Human and Dwarf communities and then used the One Ring to control the them. So it's kind of a feudal system where the owners of the lesser rings become his vassals, and they in turn use their lesser rings to control the population. In such a manner Sauron controls Middle-earth.


Rather than a weapon of mass death and destruction , the Ring is primarily a tool of control. It can only control the owners of the lesser rings and undo what was created by them. We know that he has already recovered the (recoverable) dwarven and human lesser rings. So by recovering the One Ring he would only have control over those possessing the Elven rings and what they have wrought with them (presumably places like Lothlorien and Rivendell).

We know what happed to the rings that he gave to the Humans and their possessors, They became the Nazgul . He's recovered the Dwarf rings but what happened to the Dwarfs who possessed them? What was their actual fate?

 

[Bick]

We know what happed to the rings that he gave to the Humans and their possessors, They became the Nazgul . He's recovered the Dwarf rings but what happened to the Dwarfs who possessed them? What was their actual fate?

They became wealthy. The Dwarf Lords were resistant to influence from the rings, as dwarves are hard to subjugate. The rings made them greedy and better at mining for riches. Four rings were lost to dragons remember, so those dwarf lords were presumably eaten. One was stolen from Thrain by Sauron in Dol Guldor. In essence, the plan to use 7 rings to bind the dwarves failed.

 

[BAYLOR]

They became wealthy. The Dwarf Lords were resistant to influence from the rings, as dwarves are hard to subjugate. The rings made them greedy and better at mining for riches. Four rings were lost to dragons remember, so those dwarf lords were presumably eaten. One was stolen from Thrain by Sauron in Dol Guldor. In essence, the plan to use 7 rings to bind the dwarves failed.

If that's the case, would Gimli have been a better Ring Bearer than Frodo ?

 

[Bick]

If that's the case, would Gimli have been a better Ring Bearer than Frodo ?

Possibly, but the one ring was of course much more powerful, so on the other hand possibly not. It would have made Gimli very greedy I guess, but possibly not invisible, which might make him a less good bearer?

 

[KGeo777]

I have only read the Hobbit. Twas an innocuous book.
But I suppose it could have benefited from a certain Cimmerian dropping by.

Just kidding.

 

[paranoid marvin]

They became wealthy. The Dwarf Lords were resistant to influence from the rings, as dwarves are hard to subjugate. The rings made them greedy and better at mining for riches. Four rings were lost to dragons remember, so those dwarf lords were presumably eaten. One was stolen from Thrain by Sauron in Dol Guldor. In essence, the plan to use 7 rings to bind the dwarves failed.

Yes, Gandalf tells Frodo that the rings were 'consumed' by dragons. An interesting phrase to use as those creatures were more used to hoarding than consuming their treasure. I guess we could speculate that dragons being intelligent and extremely independant would see the lesser rings for the controlling influences that they were and would destroy them in fire ('consumed' by their flames). Though I do like to think that Smaug ate one which helped make him more powerful and live longer.

 

[HareBrain]

Yes, Gandalf tells Frodo that the rings were 'consumed' by dragons. An interesting phrase to use as those creatures were more used to hoarding than consuming their treasure. I guess we could speculate that dragons being intelligent and extremely independant would see the lesser rings for the controlling influences that they were and would destroy them in fire ('consumed' by their flames). Though I do like to think that Smaug ate one which helped make him more powerful and live longer.

Isn't it more likely that they were all eaten, because dragons lack the manual dexterity to get them off the dwarves' fingers?

Hence the dwarvish obsession with sifting through dragon poop (not mentioned in the books themselves, but discussed in correspondence between Tolkien and the Archbishop of Westminster**).

**Maybe

 

[BAYLOR]

They became wealthy. The Dwarf Lords were resistant to influence from the rings, as dwarves are hard to subjugate. The rings made them greedy and better at mining for riches. Four rings were lost to dragons remember, so those dwarf lords were presumably eaten. One was stolen from Thrain by Sauron in Dol Guldor. In essence, the plan to use 7 rings to bind the dwarves failed.

Those Dwarf lords lived Moria ?

 

[Bick]

Those Dwarf lords lived Moria ?

There were 7 lords, 7 hoards of riches and 7 great cities. Its not clear if Erebor and Moria were included in the 7, but they probably were.

 

[JJewel]

Make them more accessable, the language is rather long winded

 

[hitmouse]

Make them more accessable, the language is rather long winded

Silmarillion can be a bit intimidating, but The Hobbit is written at the level of a children’s novel.

 

[JJewel]

Silmarillion can be a bit intimidating, but The Hobbit is written at the level of a children’s novel.

Yes they always say that but the writing is more complex than most modern newspapers for adults, his writing demonstrates his background and although yes the work is very original I have never felt it be particularly well written.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Silmarillion can be a bit intimidating, but The Hobbit is written at the level of a children’s novel.

Agreed that the Silmarillion can come across as intimidating , especially if you arrive at it having first read LOTR and The Hobbit and are expecting something similar. In fact it's almost like an appendix similar to the one that you find at the back of LOTR. Obviously much more detailed, but more of a publication for references than to be read as a story cover to cover.

LOTR I compare to the work of Rohald Dahl and CS Lewis; they aren't written at the children's level but in such a way as to be on a level accessible to all ages.

 

[paranoid marvin]

There were 7 lords, 7 hoards of riches and 7 great cities. Its not clear if Erebor and Moria were included in the 7, but they probably were.

Considering how deep Moria went, it's quite possible (probable) that magic was used.And if magic, why not one of the lesser rings?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Isn't it more likely that they were all eaten, because dragons lack the manual dexterity to get them off the dwarves' fingers?

Hence the dwarvish obsession with sifting through dragon poop (not mentioned in the books themselves, but discussed in correspondence between Tolkien and the Archbishop of Westminster**).

**Maybe

Quite possibly! One has to wonder how dragons actually hoarded treasure in the first place. Swallowing it, taking it back to the lair, and *ahem* letting nature take it's course was really their only method of transportation. (though I wouldn't like to think how troublesome the Arkenstone might have been!)

 

[Danny McG]

Don't forget today's date - it's Hobbit day!

 

[BAYLOR]

Sauron and Saruman The slightly similarity between the name main villain In LOTR and White Wizard . Was that supposed to be Tolkien's way of saying "Don't trust the White Wizard?" He's Sauron's Man? .

 

[Venusian Broon]

Sauron and Saruman The slightly similarity between the name main villain In LOTR and White Wizard . Was that supposed to be Tolkien's way of saying "Don't trust the White Wizard?" He's Sauron's Man? .

No

Tolkien has his faults as a writer, but he adored languages and he made loads of his own as soon as he could as a nipper. Particularly Finnish if my memory serves me right. (That is my memory of reading a biography of him about thirty years ago.)

Anyway Sauron is totally his own invention, through the language Quenya. It means 'The Abhorred" (according to the interwebs). Saruman however, apparently has it's roots in real old English, and could be translated as 'Skilled man' or 'Cunning one'.

 

[BAYLOR]

No

Tolkien has his faults as a writer, but he adored languages and he made loads of his own as soon as he could as a nipper. Particularly Finnish if my memory serves me right. (That is my memory of reading a biography of him about thirty years ago.)

Anyway Sauron is totally his own invention, through the language Quenya. It means 'The Abhorred" (according to the interwebs). Saruman however, apparently has it's roots in real old English, and could be translated as 'Skilled man' or 'Cunning one'.

It was a bit of crazy notation that popped into my head VB .

Interesting Info , I didn't any of this. Thanks !