Tolkien related video's.

His interpretation is interesting but I wish he'd quote where he takes his statements from. How does he claim Sauron saw organization as good and worth pursuing at any cost? I have to assume the story of Sauron trying to repair Middle Earth after the War of Wrath comes from History of Middle Earth? This makes me more interested in reading HOME.

{{ I was flicking through Letters the other day coincidentally and Tolkien was talking of the aftermath of the fall of Morgoth and Sauron remaining behind in ME.

Letter 130

'He lingers in Middle-Earth. Very slowly, beginning with FAIR MOTIVES: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-Earth.' (Bold added)

In the same letter however he says that Sauron became a 'reincarnation of Evil' and says his real motives in seeming to want to make ME fair again was to get at the Valar.

'He was still fair in that early time, and his motives and those of the Elves seemed to go partly together: the healing of the desolate lands. Sauron found their weak point in suggesting that, helping one another, they could make Western Middle-Earth as beautiful as Valinor. It was really a veiled attack on the gods, an incitment to try to make a seperate independent paradise.'

So I'd say Tolkien puts a big quesiton mark over those 'fair motives' later in the same Letter. }}

Would it really take so much for this Carl fellow to say "In his letters, Tolkien mentioned..."?   I know these videos are not intended for a scholarly audience, but the common reader still wants some indication of where things come from.

Finally got around to watching that vid about the Book of Lost Tales. From that I finally realize that the name Ingwe was a holdover from Tolkien's attempt to write an English mythology.

It remains interesting to me that Tolkien seemed to hold British mythology (Arthurian) as inferior to the missing Anglo-Saxon mythology. Is this distinction between British and English/Anglish culture still current?

{{ I do enjoy his videos usig the map and icons is a good way to go about it. }}

{{ This is a thing, only about halfway through, but yeah lot I'd take issue with. Mainly that they miss out on intent of the author, and Tolkien set out with no intent to write a religous or catholic work, he does say in Letters it became so more delibretly in the revising, but not in the intent or setting out, it was more something he realised about his own work as he revised it- that his catholic world view was present. The woman is much better than the guy.}}

I jumped to the middle - I think they got it right in the quote "I was fascinated by exploring moral and religious truth through ancient devices". So Tolkien didn't want it to be explicitly Catholic, but to create an atmosphere that would be supportive of Catholic belief. So I would disagree with you Petty - I think they got it right that Tolkien wanted readers to make the connections themselves. As "Holly" said, it wasn't about Christianity but about the deeper themes that undergird it such as death and deathlessness, pity and mercy. She notes that the latter themes are completely absent in the Norse literature that Tolkien so admired, so to him bringing mercy into something that was devoid of Christian imagery would make it stand out all the more. In that sense he thought of it as a Christian work.

{{ The guy in paticular says a few things I dont agree with at all, drawing much stronger direct lines between Jesus, catholism, christainity and the books. Im much more on her side of the argument. Its not that Tolkiens work doesnt have moral and theoligcal meaning, it clearly does, its more how Tolkien choose to express that through universal human truths that resonate even if you have no religous belief.
For me a much more firm footed place to begin is how Tolkien saw the releationship between creation (by God) and sub-creation (by the author). }}

Never really thought about this question.

I always felt that Gandalf's statement that "the rings gives power according to stature" was Tolkien's attempt to quickly dispense with the mismatch between the simple magic ring of the Hobbit and the Ring of Power of the Lord of the Rings.  Though not a convincing argument there was no expectation that it needed to stand up under scrutiny, as the two versions of the ring really have nothing to do with each other except as a means to cobble together two stories.

But I think the narrator comes up with some good explanations that Tolkien never fully fleshed out, such as the ring thrusting the bearer into the spirit world, and only those who could be in both at once (like Glorfindel) would remain visible.

{{ Not much in this I think wont be known to all here, but there is some interesting stuff from about 8.10 }}

That's quite a production for a fan film!

Bloody is IL keep an eye out for that

wow visually that is stunningly good for fan-fiction. Unfortunately the only thing that lets it down is the actors, they don't look right, the voice overs, and the hair/makeup. But the rest of it looks fab.

Yeah, real actors make a difference.  Most of us are just blah in front of a camera.

I went to a performing arts high school (music) and managed to take an intercession acting class (2 weeks of crashing other people's classes).  One thing that's stressed is radiating energy, good posture, etc just so that people are drawn to you.  Darryl Hannah mentioned treating the camera like it's a person you are trying to attract who you know is watching you from across the room, so you secretly turn on everything that will attract them.  You become more animated, more focussed on expressing yourself.

Tolkien gives us so little about Celebrimbor I was surprised to see a 16 minute video, but it largely laid out the historical backdrop. The Amazon series could actually do the world a favor if it does a good job putting meat on the bones of his story. Otherwise he seems to just pop out of nowhere. He's a non-entity in the first age and even through most of the second age.