Tolkien in General

hee hee, yeah

So here's a question: why come Tolkien felt content to cram nearly the whole of the Silmarillion, a much vastier story expanse than the LotR, into Beriliand, yet when writing LotR felt compelled to expand by a linear scale of 5 to 10, with of course 30 to 100 times the area? Did it just take him that long to realize he had scrounched everything into an area the size of Britain and perhaps he should expand to west/east European scales?

What do you mean though, because the Silmarillion's setting includes such far-flung places as the bay of Cuivienen where the elves awoke, to Forochel, to Numenor, to Aman. Vasty stretches in-between indeed.

That elf awakening story doesn't interact much with lands they pass through, and is a miniscule part of the whole story. Something about the misty mountains and then suddenly they're on the shores of the sea. Forochel is all of a couple of paragraphs. Numenor didn't get added until LotR. Aman doesn't count.

90% of the stories are all in this area about the size of Mordor. Then you get to stuff written during the Hobbit and after LotR and the territory explodes.

I'm sure many of us have mixed feelings about Michael Martinez. I somewhat disagree with his answer to point #2: Tolkien clearly stated in The Hobbit that for the Misty Mountain orcs at least, sunlight makes their legs wobbly.

https://www.toptentopia.com/10-popular-but-wrong-ideas-fans-believe-about-j-r-r-tolkien-middle-earth/

{{ On point 1- isn't there a reference somehwere in Tolkien to elf ears being 'leaf-shaped'? Or am I misremembering? Which would indicate if not pointy then tapering at least. }}

Martinez has this link: https://middle-earth.xenite.org/do-tolkiens-elves-have-pointy-ears/

but whereas he uses this as evidence against pointy ears, I would draw the opposite conclusion.  Martinez's arguments seems to be that as we don't have slam-dunk evidence of pointy ears, we should believe they do not have pointy ears.  I would take the converse: since we do have some evidence of pointy ears, he wouldn't have mentioned it at all unless it was a strong possibility. We are not talking about the real world where the assumption of normality should weight our judgement; we are talking about fantasy characters which we should assume from the outset are different from normal human beings. I call martinez's logic absolutely flawed.

halfwise wrote:I'm sure many of us have mixed feelings about Michael Martinez.  I somewhat disagree with his answer to point #2: Tolkien clearly stated in The Hobbit that for the Misty Mountain orcs at least, sunlight makes their legs wobbly.

https://www.toptentopia.com/10-popular-but-wrong-ideas-fans-believe-about-j-r-r-tolkien-middle-earth/

Not only that, but the swiftest of the goblins were selected to run through the dark tunnels after the fleeing dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo. Was this possible because of their intimate knowledge of the tunnel systems, or because they could see at least a little in the dark?

This list is dumb. Entries like "Did Tolkien hate technology?" are bullshit. As the author points out, Tolkien "expressed deep regret at the way modern industrialization was eating away at the landscape and transforming human society." That is what people think of when they think of Tolkien's views on industry, not this straw-man nonsense about hating all technology.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/english-landmarks-that-inspired-key-scenes-in-tolkiens-lord-of-the-rings-and-hobbit-books-are-revealed-including-a-berkshire-folly-a-ruined-dorset-castle-and-a-wooded-hill-in-warwickshire/ar-BB14wOUN?ocid=spartanntp

Well, this is a pleasant surprise

Although we knew there are still various bit of unpublished writing by Tolkien relating to Middle Earth, I had been under the impression most of it was quite fragmentary and linguistic in nature, or largely alternate drafts of writing published elsewhere...this volume sounds like it will be brand new and containing writing that was previously largely unknown, exciting news.

It's remarkable that all these decades later they are still publishing 'new' books by Tolkien.

Now if only the Tolkien Estate would allow publication of an expanded volume of The Letters Of J.R.R Tolkien...

Yes, are these books on a 'time release' ? Tho it hopefully will be bringing light to new stuff, & not a rehash but shuffled differently of old stuff. Price one wonders ? IL guess £15 ?

I want it!

{ Now that does sound interesting. But I am sure there is already in one of the books (possibly UT) a section on the fauna of Numenor. }}

There's a description of Numenor with some of the flaura and fauna in UT. I have to suppose the upcoming papers go into more depth.

{{{ I hope we are not just getting a collection of all the previously published stuff just stuck together in one book. Actual new previoulsy unpublished writings on ME fauna and nature would be interesting indeed, a rehash money grab not so good.
Would this by any chance be the first such book to be published since Christopher Tolkien passed away?}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{  I hope we are not just getting a collection of all the previously published stuff just stuck together in one book.   Actual new previoulsy unpublished writings on ME fauna and nature would be interesting indeed, a rehash money grab not so good.
Would this by any chance be the first such book to be published since Christopher Tolkien passed away?}}

Hostetter has addressed this:

>[Christopher Tolkien] sent me (the bulk of) the material that forms this book, in photocopy. Aside from that, before he passed, he gave me his approval of my plan to produce a book based on it, and of the sample of preliminary work that I was able to send him.

Hostetter has been involved for many years as an editor on Vinyar Tengwar and Parma Eldalamberon:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Parma_Eldalamberon

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Vinyar_Tengwar:

-Scholarly journals that regularly publish/analyse previously unpublished linguistic works by Tolkien, perhaps this new book will contain some of this material?

See this thread for more info:

https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=25290#forumpost25290

It does sound like this volume will contain largely unpublished writings by Tolkien, probably something akin to the later volumes of the HOME and Unfinished Tales (i.e essays, philosophical/thematic writings and background lore info rather than fll narratives), the Tolkien Gateway lists some of the unpublished writing that we know about:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Index:Unpublished_material

Christopher Tolkien wasn't the only editor of posthumous writings by Tolkien, there's been quite a few other books published in the last decade or so:

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Index:Writings_by_J.R.R._Tolkien

{{ Youll have to excuse my crabbit suspicions, but Im crabbitly suspicous! }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ On point 1- isn't there a reference somehwere in Tolkien to elf ears being 'leaf-shaped'? Or am I misremembering? Which would indicate if not pointy then tapering at least. }}

This Martinez article seems outdated regarding the word human, as the illegibility issue was resolved in an issue of Vinyar Tengwar. Also, it doesn't seem to be updated with respect to Words, Phrases and Passages.

Anyway.


My shortish answer: Tolkien does not describe Elven ears in anything he published, but in a "linguistic entry" (LAS-2), written in the mid 1930s or early 1940s [in a text called Etymologies], it's said that the Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than human . . .  human ears of course . . .

... but then in the late 1950s, early 1960s [Words, Phrases and Passages] Tolkien revises his thoughts on LAS-words [which now includes SLAS- words] and does not make the same or similar description about Quendian ears that he had made earlier.

So while Elvish words for "ear" or "listen" and "leaves" -- lasto "listen" and lassi "leaves" -- for a couple of examples, were set in publication in The Lord of the Rings, there is no longer an explanation [again, as stated explicitly back when JRRT wrote the LAS2- entry in Etymologies] that these words were necessarily connected due to the shape of Elven ears.


So, in my current opinion, Tolkien as translator, or some later redactor possibly, is feigning ignorance with respect to knowing, for certain anyway, about "true" Elvish ears -- while allowing for the implied possibility of leaf-shaped, or "more" pointed ears (than humans), as seen in some "more modern" depictions.



Early-ish And Post Lord Of The Rings LAS entries For Comparison:


Etymologies generally dated to the mid to later 1930s, early 1940s.


LAS1- *lasse leaf: Q lasse, N lhass; Q lasselanta leaf-fall, autumn, N lhasbelin (*lassekwéne), cf. Q Narquelion [KWEL]. Lhasgalen Greenleaf (Gnome name of Laurelin). (Some think this is related to the next and *lassê ear. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than human).

LAS2- listen. N lhaw ears (of one person), (...)

 

And years later, in Words, Phrases and Passages, Tolkien writes the following entry in a wholly new text...

Q lasse "leaf" (S las); pl. lassi (S lais). It is only applied to certain kinds of leaves, especially those of trees, and would not e.g. be used of leaf of a hyacinth (linque). It is thus possibly related to LAS "listen", and S-LAS stem of Elvish words for "ear"; Q hlas, dual hlaru. Sindarin dual lhaw, singular lhewig.

lasse "leaf"


_____

So, what to make of this. Surely opinions will vary, but in my opinion we've gone from: "some think" LAS1 and LAS2 are related seemingly because of the stated fact that Quendian ears are more pointed and leaf-shaped ----- to ----- (years later): Q. lasse "leaf" "is thus possibly related to LAS "listen", and S-LAS..."... and that's it, at least in ink.

In other words [pre-Lord of the Rings and early draft writing]: A) some thought there was a relationship because, I would guess, of an observable, physical fact (Etymologies) ----- to ----- [post-Lord of the Rings publication] B) the author of this text (Tolkien as translator?) again notes there is a possible relationship here, but no longer states the observable fact based on a comparison of the Quendi to Humans.

A solution, if indeed it is one, that seems Tolkien-ish to me, anyway.

My opinion so far . . .  while waiting for this new book edited by C.F.H.

So he early on explicitly said elf ears are more pointy and leaf shaped, and tangentially referred to the same later with no explicit retraction.

I'd say elf ears are pointy.   And I'm saying it outright with no scholarly hedging or qualifications.

In my opinion though, no explicit retraction is needed, since from Tolkien's point of view, no one would ever see a rejected version of the LAS- entries. That is, even in the realm of both texts never being published by Tolkien, I think we need to try to read the much later text as if we had never seen the first.

Tolkien's "true" Elves are obviously tall, and not winged (Appendix F if not the tales themselves), but what about pointy ears?

Do the texts Tolkien is translating describe Elvish ears? Seemingly no. Are there any illustrations from a first hand observer? Who knows. Has Tolkien as translator ever seen a faded Elf? I'd like to answer yes (even in "reality"), but struck by such an arguably wondrous encounter -- a meeting which might stagger the mortal mind -- would JRRT necessarily notice/remember the shape of elven ears, if indeed they were visible?

I should add that the base LAS is not the only duplicate base. Just for a few examples (mined from the abandoned Etymologies simply for ease of collecting):

KHAL1- (small) fish
KAHL2-  uplift

LUG1- heavy
LUG2- blue

NAR1- flame, fire
NAR2- tell, relate

So, are . . .

LAS1-
LAS2-
SLAS-

necessarily related due to the shape of Elven ears (or the ears of certain beasts maybe?) In any case, again I think Tolkien decided to act like he doesn't know . . .

. . . while smiling "hmmm, maybe"

{{ Im going with leaf shaped ears, Tolkien might have left that reference out the second time, but nor does he deny it, and by stil maintaing a link to 'listen' which you need ears for I think there is still a connection, conceivably. }}

Again though, why deny a reference written around (possibly) 20 years earlier, from an abandoned document that no one will even see? I don't think Tolkien ever denied the flying ships of the Numenoreans, for example.

{{ Because in this case he maintains a link to listening, ear and leaf. Just not specific to leaf-shaped. But still hints to me he was still in the same ball park as previously, just being less explicit about it. }}

Well, the comparison was to illustrate that if (admittedly if) something from private papers is rejected (or arguably so), from his perspective, Tolkien does not need to explicitly deny it later. That said, here I think he's rejected that this matter should be stated as fact.

Anyway, we might be approaching each other in wording Petty

. . . as I would say Tolkien was no longer explicit, now leaving the hint of this possibility within the realm of language.


Also I think my "answer" is coming more from: if I were writing an essay about this -- rather than which way I lean myself.


And as far as orcs with wobbly legs goes, while I agree that The Hobbit reference should show up in an essay on the matter under discussion, in general it appears that Moria orcs can run pretty well under the Winter sun in The Lord of the Rings for example, and a few even appear to keep up with Saruman's Uruks!

Elthir wrote:Also I think my "answer" is coming more from: if I were writing an essay about this -- rather than which way I lean myself.

{{ Dare I ask then what your personal leaning on the matter is? Or is that breaking some sort of Lore Master rule to divulge? Dont want the Higher Powers taking your Tower of Lore away! }}