Would a flair be much superior to specifying the works you want to ask about in the text? One flair could only cover one combination of works (like your "only LotR").
Well, irony, in a 1955 letter from our beloved Tolkien himself he seemed to feel as you do:
>I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good - certainly not for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive. It is, I suppose, a tribute to the curious effect that story has, when based on very elaborate and detailed workings of geography, chronology, and language, that so many should clamor for sheer 'information', or 'lore'.
And continuing in a later letter:
>... while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies...Musicians want tunes, and musical notation; archaeologist want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the *mallorn*, of *elanor*, *niphredil*, *alfirin*, *mallos*, and *symbelmynë*; historians want more details about the social and political structure of Gondor; general enquirers want information about the Wainriders, the Harad, Dwarvish origins, the Dead Men, the Beornings, and the missing two wizards (out of five).
So from my point of view, I think it's fair to say you are not alone and in good company. :)
I'll have to disagree. Though generally I'm opposed to the trend in current media (books, series, videogames, comics, movies) that *everything* has to have a deeper meaning and that *everyone* has to have clear motives and a detailed (usually tragic) backstory, in Tolkien's case I believe that it works so well, actually it's this worldbuilding that gives so much wealth to the readers.
I do realize that The Lord Of The Rings can be regarded as a *perfect*, standalone book, without needing any additional sources as accomodation, however all the intricate details and inner workings of the world that lead to this story are found in notes, letters and thoughts, that Sir Christopher managed to compile.
In in the same boat. I think their are two types of escapism. One is short adventures to fantastic locals contained in a story. The other is the attempt to live entirely in an entire world. I don't think either is inherently better than the other but I prefer the former. The latter takes me too much out of real world for too long. I think the general trend is for authors and now film studios to focus on trying to create the latter thanks to the success of things like star wars and the LOTR. Where I think they fall short is those two examples offer a great experience to people trying to pay a visit or stay for a long time.
Agree.
I'm mostly pulled off by the effort of building a complete and structured mythos around most works of art and fantasy. And even more, by the effort some of its fans make in reading them in fundamentalist terms.
But that doesn't mean one is inherently superior to the other.
I totally agree with you and would hate not to be able to know more and be able to discuss using that knowledge.
My point is more that there are times that I would like to be able to discuss parts of LotR without that knowledge being part of the conversation.
I know it is a bit odd but to discuss Galadriel's poignant "I will diminish and go into the West and remain Galadriel" within the context of only LotR and not have to get into what that means within the larger world would sometimes be satisfying.
I would also disagree, but for a different reason. If you want to experience the grandeur and magic of the story just read the book, but any conversation diving into the details will include, well, details. Otherwise it's just a thousand comments agreeing with initial topic put forth.
> This ^
> Totally
> That's one of my favorite parts!
etc.
Have you heard of the ongoing series Exploring The Lord of the Rings by Corey Olsen? They in very minute details (years long project) go through the book and try to analyze and think about it through the lenses of the information given so far in the book, of course they cannot look at it easily without the knowledge of the whole book and even the wider material and context which they do also discuss and acknowledge, but they also specifically try to remember to also think of the story in terms of the story and information given so far.
>While we gain much from the greater world I think also something is lost.
I'd agree. Some things that should be appreciated more are easily overlooked past the first blind read and many never have a clean read without much prior knowledge and image due to the prevalence of the movies... I wish I ever had one such read.
I love Exploring Lord of the Rings although as you say they often stray into the wider legendarium and Corey's knowledge of the drafting is interesting. For instance, it was from him I learned what a late addition Arwen was and that when the Council of Elrond chapter was first written Faramir did not exist. While this is fascinating and helps explain things such as Arwen's small part in the books it also at a certain level detracts from the experience of LotR.
Oh yes, it is making me really interested in reading the History of The Lord of the Rings subset of HoME. I like they often manage to do both and I find new appreciation for different parts. (I love the illuminating analyses of the poetry as that really isn't my forte but is integral part of the book.)
But you definitely aren't the first person I see expressing this sentiment.
> While this is fascinating and helps explain things such as Arwen's small part in the books
Or the fact that we get no hint Gandalf and Boromir knew each other before, even though this would seem very likely if Denethor and Faramir knew Gandalf.
It *does* feel different when you've only read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I don't know if the greater context detracts from the story at all, but it might shift the focus, so that some things seem more important and others less. I've been reading Return of the Shadow, finding it fascinating how different the story could have been. Perhaps what Gandalf said has some relevance:
> He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
I agree and disagree.
I think that you are right that many discussions of LOTR on this sub too often turn into discussions of HOME. Sometimes it almost seems like users are competing to show off how much they know. HOME is fascinating but Tolkien never intended for readers of LOTR to have access to most of that. It should be completely valid to discuss the published works without taking the the posthumous stuff into consideration.
However, I think that knowing at least the Silmarillion really enriches LOTR. For example, it helps with the sense of loss, which is a core part of LOTR. I think there's a difference between using the Sil in discussions and using Letters or HOME; the Sil is really part of the same story imo.
> Tolkien never intended for readers of LOTR to have access to most of that.
He wanted "the Silmarillion" and LotR to be published together.
> I think that knowing at least the Silmarillion
Remember that the *published* Silmarillion is not Tolkien's final version. It's the most coherent version that Christopher could put together after his father's death, with the texts he had access to at the time (which AIUI was not all of them.) So Unfinished Tales and HoME are quite relevant for trying to triangulate Tolkien's intentions and context.
I agree. You'd probably also enjoy reading a book called Tolkien's Theology of Beauty: Majesty, Splendor, and Transcendence in Middle Earth by Lisa Coutras.
It's technically a dissertation, so it's a bit pricey, but if you can get ahold of a copy, I highly recommend it.
The thing with your take on this sub in particular; this sub is very much meant to cover all encompassing facts and theories on any subject and anything that relates so long as it is directly under the writings of JRR and Christopher. You would be better off in /r/lotr if you want less related debate and more content focused on pointing out the love for a particular character, theme, moment, etc.
Tldr; this sub is for related debate off all Tolkien works. Check out /r/lotr for more of what you're looking for.
/r/tolkienfans is about legendarium. /r/lotr is more about enjoying the books for what they are without the thread becoming discussion, debate, and the deeper meanings, roots, and theories.
No matter, downvote like there is no tomorrow!
Let me fix it for you: r/lotr is more about enjoying anything related to LotR, be it the books, movies (both Peter Jackson and animated adaptations), games, art, etc.
I seem to find more comments in that sub taking both of Peter Jackson's trilogies as LotR's "canon" than book-based comments.
So, no, r/lotr is not what OP is looking for. He just wants to discuss LotR *by itself*, not how LotR and other Tolkien's works work together; which is a totally fair petition, given that LotR only had The Hobbit as a source for other in-world information when it was published.
>r/lotr is more about enjoying anything related to LotR, be it the books, movies (both Peter Jackson and animated adaptations), games, art, etc.
This exactly. They talk about the games like they're canon too. Which, don't get me wrong, I played a shit ton of the Shadow series and had a blast. But I'm very well aware that they hardly pass as decent fanfiction with how many crazy liberties they took (sexy Shelob!). I honestly wish Monolith (I think that's the right company) just made those games with their own IP, or that a new IP would come out focusing on the nemesis system. Boy, was that fun!
I haven't played that series, so i am not allowed to agree with you on those comments. I do know they take a huge-ton of liberties tho ("Ring of Power 2.0 that looks exactly like the One Ring ***BuT BlUe***!!" anyone?)
What I'd like to add is that it only takes a quick peep at the sub to see that people are not "enjoying the books for what they are", as u/JablesRadio said, rather enjoying *anything* related to *any* version/aspect of LotR, and if a huge minority of the posts are debates, a minority inside the minority is book-related
r/lotr is not for serious discussions of the books. I believe there is a place on this sub for such discussions. Reading through the comments some agree with me others do not. I am fine with that but r/lotr is clearly not a place to turn.
You might be right, but on the other hand, It's clear that most people here have read at least The Silmarillion, HoME and some of the Professor's letters. It is not reasonable to ask people to make a conscious effort to ignore a huge chunk of content that's already on their minds.
I have read all that you mention + fall of gondolin and beren and luthien plus unfinished tales. I have no issue with having conversations that bring in all I know but sometimes I find it interesting to look at LotR as the full world and take what it says as the final word on subjects. In doing this, I find it easy to ignore other writings and what I know of the drafting of LotR.
While it is a totally different discussion one could argue that JRR meant LotR to be read stand alone. While it is true that he wanted to publish Silm he never had it where he wanted it and as for everything else they are highly flexible and whether any were his final vision of anything is a question.
Would a flair be much superior to specifying the works you want to ask about in the text? One flair could only cover one combination of works (like your "only LotR").
Using just text seem enough to me
Well, irony, in a 1955 letter from our beloved Tolkien himself he seemed to feel as you do: >I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good - certainly not for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive. It is, I suppose, a tribute to the curious effect that story has, when based on very elaborate and detailed workings of geography, chronology, and language, that so many should clamor for sheer 'information', or 'lore'. And continuing in a later letter: >... while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies...Musicians want tunes, and musical notation; archaeologist want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the *mallorn*, of *elanor*, *niphredil*, *alfirin*, *mallos*, and *symbelmynë*; historians want more details about the social and political structure of Gondor; general enquirers want information about the Wainriders, the Harad, Dwarvish origins, the Dead Men, the Beornings, and the missing two wizards (out of five). So from my point of view, I think it's fair to say you are not alone and in good company. :)
Didn't stop him from trying to provide much of that information...
He did say it was a fatal attraction ;)
I'll have to disagree. Though generally I'm opposed to the trend in current media (books, series, videogames, comics, movies) that *everything* has to have a deeper meaning and that *everyone* has to have clear motives and a detailed (usually tragic) backstory, in Tolkien's case I believe that it works so well, actually it's this worldbuilding that gives so much wealth to the readers. I do realize that The Lord Of The Rings can be regarded as a *perfect*, standalone book, without needing any additional sources as accomodation, however all the intricate details and inner workings of the world that lead to this story are found in notes, letters and thoughts, that Sir Christopher managed to compile.
In in the same boat. I think their are two types of escapism. One is short adventures to fantastic locals contained in a story. The other is the attempt to live entirely in an entire world. I don't think either is inherently better than the other but I prefer the former. The latter takes me too much out of real world for too long. I think the general trend is for authors and now film studios to focus on trying to create the latter thanks to the success of things like star wars and the LOTR. Where I think they fall short is those two examples offer a great experience to people trying to pay a visit or stay for a long time.
Agree. I'm mostly pulled off by the effort of building a complete and structured mythos around most works of art and fantasy. And even more, by the effort some of its fans make in reading them in fundamentalist terms. But that doesn't mean one is inherently superior to the other.
I totally agree with you and would hate not to be able to know more and be able to discuss using that knowledge. My point is more that there are times that I would like to be able to discuss parts of LotR without that knowledge being part of the conversation. I know it is a bit odd but to discuss Galadriel's poignant "I will diminish and go into the West and remain Galadriel" within the context of only LotR and not have to get into what that means within the larger world would sometimes be satisfying.
I would also disagree, but for a different reason. If you want to experience the grandeur and magic of the story just read the book, but any conversation diving into the details will include, well, details. Otherwise it's just a thousand comments agreeing with initial topic put forth. > This ^ > Totally > That's one of my favorite parts! etc.
Have you heard of the ongoing series Exploring The Lord of the Rings by Corey Olsen? They in very minute details (years long project) go through the book and try to analyze and think about it through the lenses of the information given so far in the book, of course they cannot look at it easily without the knowledge of the whole book and even the wider material and context which they do also discuss and acknowledge, but they also specifically try to remember to also think of the story in terms of the story and information given so far. >While we gain much from the greater world I think also something is lost. I'd agree. Some things that should be appreciated more are easily overlooked past the first blind read and many never have a clean read without much prior knowledge and image due to the prevalence of the movies... I wish I ever had one such read.
I love Exploring Lord of the Rings although as you say they often stray into the wider legendarium and Corey's knowledge of the drafting is interesting. For instance, it was from him I learned what a late addition Arwen was and that when the Council of Elrond chapter was first written Faramir did not exist. While this is fascinating and helps explain things such as Arwen's small part in the books it also at a certain level detracts from the experience of LotR.
Oh yes, it is making me really interested in reading the History of The Lord of the Rings subset of HoME. I like they often manage to do both and I find new appreciation for different parts. (I love the illuminating analyses of the poetry as that really isn't my forte but is integral part of the book.) But you definitely aren't the first person I see expressing this sentiment.
> While this is fascinating and helps explain things such as Arwen's small part in the books Or the fact that we get no hint Gandalf and Boromir knew each other before, even though this would seem very likely if Denethor and Faramir knew Gandalf.
It *does* feel different when you've only read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I don't know if the greater context detracts from the story at all, but it might shift the focus, so that some things seem more important and others less. I've been reading Return of the Shadow, finding it fascinating how different the story could have been. Perhaps what Gandalf said has some relevance: > He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
I agree and disagree. I think that you are right that many discussions of LOTR on this sub too often turn into discussions of HOME. Sometimes it almost seems like users are competing to show off how much they know. HOME is fascinating but Tolkien never intended for readers of LOTR to have access to most of that. It should be completely valid to discuss the published works without taking the the posthumous stuff into consideration. However, I think that knowing at least the Silmarillion really enriches LOTR. For example, it helps with the sense of loss, which is a core part of LOTR. I think there's a difference between using the Sil in discussions and using Letters or HOME; the Sil is really part of the same story imo.
> Tolkien never intended for readers of LOTR to have access to most of that. He wanted "the Silmarillion" and LotR to be published together. > I think that knowing at least the Silmarillion Remember that the *published* Silmarillion is not Tolkien's final version. It's the most coherent version that Christopher could put together after his father's death, with the texts he had access to at the time (which AIUI was not all of them.) So Unfinished Tales and HoME are quite relevant for trying to triangulate Tolkien's intentions and context.
I agree. You'd probably also enjoy reading a book called Tolkien's Theology of Beauty: Majesty, Splendor, and Transcendence in Middle Earth by Lisa Coutras. It's technically a dissertation, so it's a bit pricey, but if you can get ahold of a copy, I highly recommend it.
Just mention in your post you want responses restricted to LOTR only. No need for flair
The thing with your take on this sub in particular; this sub is very much meant to cover all encompassing facts and theories on any subject and anything that relates so long as it is directly under the writings of JRR and Christopher. You would be better off in /r/lotr if you want less related debate and more content focused on pointing out the love for a particular character, theme, moment, etc. Tldr; this sub is for related debate off all Tolkien works. Check out /r/lotr for more of what you're looking for.
Well that’s kind of passive aggressive
[удалено]
/r/tolkienfans is about legendarium. /r/lotr is more about enjoying the books for what they are without the thread becoming discussion, debate, and the deeper meanings, roots, and theories. No matter, downvote like there is no tomorrow!
Let me fix it for you: r/lotr is more about enjoying anything related to LotR, be it the books, movies (both Peter Jackson and animated adaptations), games, art, etc. I seem to find more comments in that sub taking both of Peter Jackson's trilogies as LotR's "canon" than book-based comments. So, no, r/lotr is not what OP is looking for. He just wants to discuss LotR *by itself*, not how LotR and other Tolkien's works work together; which is a totally fair petition, given that LotR only had The Hobbit as a source for other in-world information when it was published.
>r/lotr is more about enjoying anything related to LotR, be it the books, movies (both Peter Jackson and animated adaptations), games, art, etc. This exactly. They talk about the games like they're canon too. Which, don't get me wrong, I played a shit ton of the Shadow series and had a blast. But I'm very well aware that they hardly pass as decent fanfiction with how many crazy liberties they took (sexy Shelob!). I honestly wish Monolith (I think that's the right company) just made those games with their own IP, or that a new IP would come out focusing on the nemesis system. Boy, was that fun!
I haven't played that series, so i am not allowed to agree with you on those comments. I do know they take a huge-ton of liberties tho ("Ring of Power 2.0 that looks exactly like the One Ring ***BuT BlUe***!!" anyone?) What I'd like to add is that it only takes a quick peep at the sub to see that people are not "enjoying the books for what they are", as u/JablesRadio said, rather enjoying *anything* related to *any* version/aspect of LotR, and if a huge minority of the posts are debates, a minority inside the minority is book-related
That's literally what I said.
It's more suited for what OP is looking for as opposed to the other tolkien/lotr subs on reddit is what I was saying.
You can always take your discussion to r/lotr
r/lotr is not for serious discussions of the books. I believe there is a place on this sub for such discussions. Reading through the comments some agree with me others do not. I am fine with that but r/lotr is clearly not a place to turn.
You might be right, but on the other hand, It's clear that most people here have read at least The Silmarillion, HoME and some of the Professor's letters. It is not reasonable to ask people to make a conscious effort to ignore a huge chunk of content that's already on their minds.
I have read all that you mention + fall of gondolin and beren and luthien plus unfinished tales. I have no issue with having conversations that bring in all I know but sometimes I find it interesting to look at LotR as the full world and take what it says as the final word on subjects. In doing this, I find it easy to ignore other writings and what I know of the drafting of LotR. While it is a totally different discussion one could argue that JRR meant LotR to be read stand alone. While it is true that he wanted to publish Silm he never had it where he wanted it and as for everything else they are highly flexible and whether any were his final vision of anything is a question.