And Even More Tolkien

All answers

6 years ago, so not mentioned. If a comment is more recent, the date is mentioned.

Q I

Are there any professional linguists that have attempted to write about Tolkien's constructed languages? Where can I access such texts on the Internet?
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-professional-linguists-that-have-attempted-to-write-about-Tolkiens-constructed-languages-Where-can-I-access-such-texts-on-the-Internet/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

If Bible translator counts as professional linguist, Helge Fauskanger is one.

https://folk.uib.no/hnohf/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

THIS VERSION OF ARDALAMBION WILL NO LONGER BE UPDATED, AND THE URL WILL BE DISCONTINUED. PLEASE REFER TO THE UPDATED VERSION OF THE SITE AT THE NEW PERMANENT LOCATION AT ARDALAMBION.NET

Q II

Has there been any attempt to parse Tolkien's constructed languages through computational linguistics to deeply analyze the logical structure of the syntax and semantics?
https://www.quora.com/Has-there-been-any-attempt-to-parse-Tolkiens-constructed-languages-through-computational-linguistics-to-deeply-analyze-the-logical-structure-of-the-syntax-and-semantics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

I think there is no real need, since Quenya has a structure similar to Finnish and Sindarin to Welsh.

Q III

Do you think that unfinished Tolkien Stories should be adapted into full novels? Which authors would be suitable for this task?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-unfinished-Tolkien-Stories-should-be-adapted-into-full-novels-Which-authors-would-be-suitable-for-this-task/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Nicholas Miner

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Fan fictions based on such are clearly licit as fan fiction.

When it comes to officially approved ones, for his heirs to decide.

I am basing one character in my Susan fic - her husband - loosely on The Lost Road.

And that one is, as said, a fan fiction.

Q IV

What would it take for a young-earth creationist to believe that the Earth is way older than 10,000 years?
https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-a-young-earth-creationist-to-believe-that-the-Earth-is-way-older-than-10-000-years/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

I am a Young Earth Creationist.

If Tolkien had written Genesis as a novel drafted together with a few others after his death to a volume first published in 1973 or 1974, and if Silmarillion had been the heritage of an observable elvish civilisation, and had been known for centuries or millennia, and that as an at least reputed history, I would have believed the world was as old as Silmarillion said.

History of Arda - Wikipedia

Q V

One of Círdan's names is Nowë, can it be a wordplay with Noé, the French name for Noah?
https://www.quora.com/One-of-C%C3%ADrdans-names-is-Now%C3%AB-can-it-be-a-wordplay-with-No%C3%A9-the-French-name-for-Noah/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Probably.

French has it from Latin, and Latin was a language Tolkien was very familiar with. And the Vulgate has it from LXX.

In other words, not per se on French Noé, but rather on the Latin and LXX Greek behind the French.

Q VI

Why is J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings considered to be such a classic?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-J-R-R-Tolkiens-Lord-of-the-Rings-considered-to-be-such-a-classic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

"Why is J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings considered to be such a classic?"

Because it is enjoyed by so many and this, by now, in the third generation of readers. (I think, before third generation, it is too soon to decide between “Classic” and “one generation hit”).

"I have read the LOTR and I really enjoyed it."

Then you can understand why it is a Classic - unless by Classic you means sth other than what is universally enjoyed, which it should not mean. You can understand it in the most relevant way.

"At points I thought it pandered on far too much in terms of description and backstory, but that's just a personal opinion."

First, an aside. Take a look at another Classic to check what "pander" means. In Troilus and Cressida or Troilus and Criseide (Shakespear and Chaucer share the writing honour with Boccaccio, where the title is Il Filostrato - there are three versions) there is a character known as Pandar or Pandarus. Acting like him is to "pander". If “pander” is used in any other way, it is more or less misused.

To the point, now. Many Classics (I nearly said all) have a lot of depth and many sides and not all sides are enjoyed by all readers, including those who otherwise enjoy it.

For my part, I thought "a long expected party" boring, laid the book aside and then later started rereading chapter 1 (with some effort, I am now more familiar with what hobbits have as social relations and enjoy the chapter more than then).

Perhaps you just loved chapter 1. Many people do, and in Peter Jackson chapter 1 becomes a masterpiece of half rural festivity. On the other hand, Peter Jackson seems to either have missed what is special about the Tom Bombadil chapters, or at least to have

"I partly understand the literary achievement of what Tolkien accomplished,"

As said, Classics are books universally enjoyable, therefore universally enjoyed. If not by all readers, at least to readers of a similar and often recurring type independent of age, sex, profession and the time they live in (among those available since first publication, or many of them).

They are NOT defined by how "great" the literary "achievement" is.

"that he created a setting of good vs evil involving multiple races"

He was very much not the first.

"that have been ripped off to high heaven by every subsequent fantasy author"

Not more than he "ripped off" some others. But “ripping off” such general setting features is not “ripoff” in legal terms, I don’t approve of using it so in critical ones.

"and his invention of multiple languages and scripts."

Enjoyable as it is, the achievement is in this case not purely literary.

The literary effect of "elen síla lumenn'omentielvo" (a star shines on the hour of our meeting) and "Tarzan ko-korak" (Tarzan/White-skin great-killer) is similar, and that the language of the great apes is without a script and much nearer to Syldavian in sketchiness than to Quenya in elaboration is without literary importance.

As a phrase is given in the novel, the phrase gives an impression of strangeness.

Different kinds of exotism, different kinds of strangeness. As different from each other as Karl May giving a phrase in Arabic in one Orient cycle novel and a phrase in Apatche or Shoshone in a Wild West novel. The literary effect is similar in so far as we know the main person (Frodo, Jane, Sharli/Kara ben Nemsi) is hearing a language not his or her own or even using one not his or her own, and one beyond the ken of the usual reader too.

The different talents in conlanging are as irrelevant to this effect as the fact that Karl May was not a conlanger, but used dictionaries or language experts.

So Tolkien inventing many languages makes him a great conlanger, but not in and of itself a great novelist. Or romance writer.

Tolkien using mellifluous Quenya for good elves, and harsh Black Speech for Uruk hai (the language of Pal ul Don seems to fall between them in sound type) is of course making Middle-earth a bit a "planet of the hats" - a place where moral allegiance can be seen from the outside, before specific good or evil acts occur, due to something worn or used in speech.

In general realistic-novelistic terms, this would be a fault - but all Classics are not "novels" (of the Jane Austen type), some are, like Tarzan and Lord of the Rings, romances. And in romance, neither exotism nor "planet of the hats" is a faulty thing.

What is more speaking of his "literary achievement" is that the hobbit parts of the human/near-human characters are probably as good novel writing as Trollope (never did look into Trollope, can't tell for sure), while the romance, totally alien to Trollope (I suppose) is also there, and the two do not fall apart.

At the same time darker types of novel writing (like Dostoyevsky) enter into Tolkien's descriptions of certain key characters. If you know how successful the recent "ponerogenesis" of an originally good Anakin Skywalker is, you might appreciate that Tolkien has more than one example of ponerogenesis and in diverse degrees of evil achieved, redeemable vs non-redeemable, great mage vs "addict and nest robber", failed/flawed statesman vs despicable traitor (OK, in Gríma, the ponerogenesis is unsubtle, he loved gold and desired a gal who despised him).

I have on one occasion compared Tolkien to Dostoyevsky by saying Dostoyevsky is too dark to be enjoyable (except to a more exceptional and élite type of reader than the usual Tolkien one), and Tolkien says the same things (on certain, not all subjects), but in a setting where this darkness does not exclude touches of light.

Imagine you had someone facing Dostoyevsky, Dracula and Little House on the Prairie. He wanted to preach about how people either become evil, or stay good (perhaps not so much of how they become good again, unlike Dostoyevsky who is directly confronting us with Grace - like Karl May in places), he wanted to make moral evil, the dark thoughts of the heart as eerie as ... Lucy Westenra removing the garlic after opening the window. He also wanted it to be not too dark, not too horror as Dracula, not too morally depressive as Dostyevsky, and so he wanted to include several dashes of Little House of the Prairie or Li'l Abner. Imagine that guy opens Tolkien ... "oh, someone already did that"!

But a literary achievement does not confer enjoyability, let alone universal enjoyability on a work.

This means, there is not much "understanding" involved. A book becomes a Classic by a mystery. If Apollonius Rhodus could analyse what Homer did, in great detail, and try to emulate it, there are probable reasons why a Homer fan need not be too excited to lay his hands on Argonautica. Especially if he doesn't like hints about exactly what Hercules felt for Iolaus. Hints which would probably have made Oscar Wilde blush. I have not read the work, but I was renting a room with a guy who made a thesis on it.

Then in comes Virgil, some centuries after Apollonius, and his Aeneid is a super masterpiece even better than Homer in some ways (which Tolkien analysed en passant in his discussion of Beowulf poem).

"Also, how his LOTR reflected the changing, evolving world that he saw around him,"

*Tolkien peacefully smoking chokes on the pipe ...*

"Darn, does it now? I tried to avoid exactly that!"

Back to your concerns:

"but I would love for someone with a literary background to answer this question detailing exactly why Tolkien is considered such a superstar in academic circles."

My "literary background" is, as you may see, a more Tolkien centred and Edgar Rice Burrough's centred than a Dostoyevsky centred one.

As to why he is considered a superstar "in academic circles," it depends on where you are and when you study it. I don't know where you are, but my guess is, whereever it is, Tolkien was considered as a huge no no back in the 70's. And he's a hero now, because of a new generation being tired of that rigmarole. In some places that anti-Tolkien rigmarole is still in place.

Q VII

What mystery do you find most interesting within The Lord Of The Rings universe for which Tolkien never provides an answer?
https://www.quora.com/What-mystery-do-you-find-most-interesting-within-The-Lord-Of-The-Rings-universe-for-which-Tolkien-never-provides-an-answer/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

The identity of Tom Bombadil.

Q VIII

Did Tolkien ever say which events mark the end of the Fourth, the Fifth and the Sixth Age, being that we are in the Seventh Age?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Tolkien-ever-say-which-events-mark-the-end-of-the-Fourth-the-Fifth-and-the-Sixth-Age-being-that-we-are-in-the-Seventh-Age/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

We are in Sixth, perhaps Seventh, age. As I recall the quote.

Normally in Catholic theology, birth of Christ marks beginning of Sixth age, and Seventh Age would normally be the eternal glory.

If he said “perhaps seventh”, it is because he was “millennialist,” and placed millennium as seventh age, but recognised that most Catholic theologians have identified millennium with “Church age”, so that would perhaps make AD 33 the Seventh Age starting.

Q IX

Tolkien was anti-industrialist. What was his opinion of colonialism which was closely linked with industry?
https://www.quora.com/Tolkien-was-anti-industrialist-What-was-his-opinion-of-colonialism-which-was-closely-linked-with-industry/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

His view of colonialism is complex, consider ALL Numenoreans in Middle-Earth as examples of some kind of colonialism and then consider “Black Numenoreans” (referring to allegiance, not skin colour) as the bad colonisers and Aragorn taking over Harad as a very good one (note, Sauron also had colonised Harad, both the “Berber style” near Harad and the “Negro style” far Harad).

I share it. You cannot put a man like Cecil Rhodes and a man like Brazza in the same moral basket, just because both were colonialists.

Obviously, he was not a huge fan of very big trade agreements displacing very large portions of the physical economy. Especially since this tends to modes of production like large industries.

While business as such may be a good thing, the bigger the business, the less likely it is to be honest business.

Comment deleted

September 1, 2018

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’d agree, both on your view of Tolkien and with him.

I consider this passage would refer to Black Numenoreans, though.

“since the West was denied”

I e, animosity against the Valar’s Ban.

What is told here is the first stage which leads some colonialists (both Numenoreans in Middle-Earth and some “more recent” - real life - examples) to divorce themselves from Christian ethics and eventually get into some cult like, at worst, Satanism.

Q X

Should I include a real religion in fantasy novels, or should I create a fictional religion?
https://www.quora.com/Should-I-include-a-real-religion-in-fantasy-novels-or-should-I-create-a-fictional-religion/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?6y

Depends on your beliefs, doesn’t it?

C. S. Lewis and Tolkien basically asked things like:

• how would Christianity look like on another planet (Cosmic Trilogy)
• in another world (Narnia)
• in our own world, but with the revelations transmitted by elves in pre-Flood and possibly even pre-Adamite pre-history if that time had existed (Middle-earth).

Jeff Smith involved a fictional religion, both for the good ones and the bad ones, founded on one same myth, namely other dragons locking dragon Mim / Lord of the Locusts in to preserve equilibrium (goody version) or Lord of the Locusts seeking to give back to himself and his followers freedom and power and domination over others, righteously, since holily (baddy version, with some Crusader vibes).

Jeff Smith just might be antireligious and using the fictitious religion to spoof certain real ones, which he thinks badly of.

In Conan (whose author was a freemason, occultist and suicide) depicted fictitious religions, good or bad, in his view, reflect his occultist concerns. That is why I quit reading Conan.

I am myself dealing with, if the Telmarines in our world (see end of Prince Caspian) are divided into Aslan worshippers and Tash worshippers, how would Tash worshippers act (one identified, fairly correctly, Satan as Tash), and would Aslan worshippers need a Christian missionary (I am beginning to pose Susan née Pevensie and her husband Audoin Errol for such a role in a sequel to what I am writing right now).

So, your choice will probably reflect your outlook in some way. But it is yours, not mine.

Q XI

In soundtracks, is the chant usually nonsense, or is it actual words? I know for LotR and the Hobbit, lyrics were written in Tolkien's languages. What happens in most movies where there is no unique language? Is the chant just in Latin?
https://www.quora.com/In-soundtracks-is-the-chant-usually-nonsense-or-is-it-actual-words-I-know-for-LotR-and-the-Hobbit-lyrics-were-written-in-Tolkiens-languages-What-happens-in-most-movies-where-there-is-no-unique-language-Is-the-chant-just-in-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

It depends very much on what kind of film it is, a fantasy film could well have a conlang, a medieval one in latin, a romantic comedy would usually have it in French or English or Spanish.

Q XII

In Lord of the Rings, can a human use magic?
https://www.quora.com/In-Lord-of-the-Rings-can-a-human-use-magic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Depending on how you define magic, yes and no as to licitness, definitely yes as to possibility. To mortals, that is men or hobbits (or to dwarfs, which is something else).

Using a magic ring is a possibility - but forbidden. Nine men become evil and twisted shadows of themselves, because of this, some other mortals include Isildur who was betrayed by the ring and killed by Orcs, Smeagol who became a long living and evil thing, called Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee who managed to stay or again become good, but who were hurt and needed healing.

Using a palantir used to be licit but has become forbidden to all except the strongest, spiritually. One hobbit uncautiously watched into it and was saved only by Gandalf acting the exorcist.

Apart from that, there is the question of “magic objects” like doors opening when a word is pronounced or letters invisible becoming invisible under certain constellations of moon light or star light or cloaks which make you not strictly invisible, but easier to overlook, or ropes which are serviceable in getting unhooked when needed (unless that was Gollum, or a knot being bad). That is basically a standin for technology.

Note in this context, the palantir could be seen as belonging to this category, but back when TV and radio channels were few, in certain cases one could be dealing with “a palantir with communication hijacked by” well, either Saruman or Sauron. I e, by demons.

These objects were produced by elves, who are not mortals and therefore have other capacities increated, not acquired by incantations, and the objects are in such cases useable by mortals much like technology is useable by people unable to produce or repair it. If you consider this magic, yes, then mortals could in LotR “licitly use magic”.

Note very well, Tolkien could have envisaged a scenario in which Mosaic ban on magic came thousands of years later, after all good elves had gone over the “straight road” and after all “magic” that was left was by now demonic, i e acquired by mortals through incantations.

From one other answer:

"Many Men had the gift of foresight, including Aragorn. I consider his healing powers to be magical too—tthey certainly were not biological."

Note, Ernest W. Adams is a kind of Atheist or Deist (not sure exactly which), and is using "magic" as a Catholic Christian would not.

Foresight, reading character, being a healer because you are a king, these are all things which no Catholic would call "magic" in a sense close to "magic arts", since these are things which, even currently, can be completely legitimate gifts of God.

Certain kings of Christendom have been proving their legitimacy by curing scrofles, in the case of French and English, or by making exorcism, in the case of Spanish ones.

Will Farmer

3 years ago

What about Elven Rings?

Digibeet

2 years ago

Foresight, reading character, being a healer because you are a king, these are all things which no Catholic would call "magic" in a sense close to "magic arts", since these are things which, even currently, can be completely legitimate gifts of God.

I am slightly confused about this. From what I know (which admittedly is more about what, for example, the Inquisition believed (as I am sure you know, they didn’t think magic was wrong but the belief in it was, along with other superstition (their words, not mine)), healing hands could be both magic (as in bad) and good (as in justified) depending on who did it. So someone who was known to be pious and compliant would’ve been seen as having received a gift of God, and someone doing the exact same thing but less liked by the church would’ve been seen as performing magic. Is that at all accurate? And if so, can you explain how one action could be seen as magic (and thus, in their eyes, wrong) and good even if it has the exact same consequences (healing, in this case)? And why in the latter case isn’t it just called good magic, or something like that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21.IX.2024

St. Matthew's Day

I think different Inquisitors differred, and you might be featuring a version a bit older than when what we usually call the Inquisition came to exist

Q XIII

Did Tolkien and Lewis ever meet?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Tolkien-and-Lewis-ever-meet/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

It’s like asking if Boswell and Doctor Johnson ever met …

Tolkien and CSL were meeting every Tuesday evening for certain years, during terms, and in holidays sometimes went walking together.

Q XIV

What do you think life would be like on Earth, if Adam and Eve would not have rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-life-would-be-like-on-Earth-if-Adam-and-Eve-would-not-have-rebelled-against-God-in-the-Garden-of-Eden/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Tolkien invented the Elves to answer the question.

Note, his Eldar and the Elves of folklore are not identic, he made a very peculiar interpretation of the theme.

They are his “unfallen race”.

Q XV

Is there any practice of alchemy in Tolkien's world?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-practice-of-alchemy-in-Tolkiens-world/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Not really.

Two “wizards” are both angelic but temporarily corporate beings, one of them, staying good, is practising what could be considered as “fire magic” as well as exorcism, the other is more into genetic engineering than into alchemy.

I have spoken of Gandalf and Saruman.

Rully Armando

at the moment Gandalf open the doors of Durin, shall we consider that some spells combine with alchemy being made by elves in that entrance?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possibly.

But we could note that similar effects are clearly within our technological reach now.

Obviously, the word “mellon” would have to be pronounced exactly right, not sth the computer work would take as “mallon” or “millun”.

If this is “alchemy”, it is at least offstage, we would be seeing results of it, not the process itself.

Q XVI

Is Lord of The Rings a beautiful gay love story that narrates the struggle of homosexual couples in society?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Lord-of-The-Rings-a-beautiful-gay-love-story-that-narrates-the-struggle-of-homosexual-couples-in-society/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Tolkien’s friend C. S. Lewis wrote a novel - That Hideous Strength - in which Merlin, come to our times, expresses extreme horror at the use of contraceptives in what would otherwise be a heterosexual marriage.

Since CSL himself accepted the 1930 Lambeth Conference, I think, or partly, though was against a couple in his acquaintances opting for no children at all, he presumably took the stricter view as the historically Christian one for his character from his Catholic friend.

Q XVII

Why is it called 'Lord of the Rings' when there is only one ring in the story?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-Lord-of-the-Rings-when-there-is-only-one-ring-in-the-story/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

There is one ring throughout the story, but there are hints of the three and seven and nine rings too.

Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel carry the three elven rings, not made by Sauron, but which could be dominated by his ring if he came to use it, Gandalf not being an elf and having his from Cirdan who was.

The seven rings are those given to dwarfs to ensnare them in greed, and are the matter of The Hobbit.

The nine rings were given to men, producing the ringwraiths. All nine of them are deathless evils, quasi corpses animated by demons. They are also Sauron’s crew to get back his one ring. They and Sauron are loosely based on Koshchey the Deathless.

Q XVIII

What if Star Wars had been written by J.R.R. Tolkien?
https://www.quora.com/What-if-Star-Wars-had-been-written-by-J-R-R-Tolkien/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

There would for instance not have been a “light side” and a “dark side” of same force, monarchism would not have been the fault of Palpatine, and Jedis would not have been initiated into using the force.

“Don’t touch the ring, Frodo!”

Q XIX

Are all recent works of fantasy influenced by Tolkein?
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-recent-works-of-fantasy-influenced-by-Tolkein/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

Sharla Moody

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

No, some are, some are not, some are influenced by others, some are directly opposed to Tolkien influence.

GRRM is in some ways an Anti-Tolkien, I have heard, like Dark Materials is an Anti-Narnia.

Narnia was also not influenced by Tolkien.

Q XX

Since pipe-weed is tobacco and not marijuana, why did Tolkien call it "pipe-weed" and not just "tobacco"?
https://www.quora.com/Since-pipe-weed-is-tobacco-and-not-marijuana-why-did-Tolkien-call-it-pipe-weed-and-not-just-tobacco/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

My own hunch is this : while solanum species could theoretically have been here in Old World in very remote pre-Columbian times, they would not have had names from Amerindian languages.

With potato, he solves this by saying “taters”. Sounds very English, very unconnected to Americas.

With tobacco, he solves this by replacing the Amerindian name with a description of its function. Tobacco plant looks like certain weeds and it is put into the pipe (that name is not from Americas).

With tomato, he solves this (I think) by omitting it totally. Not sure if he did so in The Hobbit, but I can’t see any tomato reference in my memories from LotR.

The one good thing Middle Ages didn’t have … or one of them, at least. Actually all of above.

A

Ricardo Taglianni

I think “taters” is about American country as you can get. In fact, Ron White (a famous southern comedian), is called “Tater Salad”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant unconnected to pre-Columbian Americas.

South is obviously England trasnplanted to Americas.

B

Jonas Balle Petersen

Many people do not know that tobacco did not exist until Columbus brought it from America. When he arrived and started blowing smoke out of their nostrils, the Christian population exclaimed: “this is the devil’s work!”. But little by little the unscrupulous merchants managed to convince people about its great qualities. Up until the 1950’s tobacco was promoted in ads by doctors! Now it's only the Marlboro mythical Hero-man who keeps the scam going about the virtues of tobacco.

I thank Allaah (God) that some things have changed to the better as some awareness of health risks etc. have appeared. However, I believe the tobacco companies are still thriving greatly on their killer-industry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Many people do not know that tobacco did not exist until Columbus brought it from America”

Obviously tobacco did exist in Americas.

Tolkien’s point in that letter is, it could have existed earlier on and gone extinct in Old World too.

Tobacco taken with moderation is not too dangerous, tobacco taken immoderately is, in the long run (soldiers obviously have more urgent risks and may do well to use tobacco to face them with more agility).

Q XXI

In Lord of the Rings, what manner of being is Tom Bombadil?
https://www.quora.com/In-Lord-of-the-Rings-what-manner-of-being-is-Tom-Bombadil/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

“There are a number of different types of natural and supernatural beings in the Tolkien universe, but it doesn't seem incredibly clear what Tom is.”

You can say THAT again.

Tom Bombadil is the true elf, insofar as the medieval universe had lots of inhabitants, all of which were identified as irrational or rational, in the latter case embodied or not, and also fallen or unfallen.

The medieval view of elves were not that they were embodied and as a race unfallen rationals, as in Tolkien, the medieval view of elves is, no one know what they were.

They appear. They disappear. They identify by names - but not by cosmic hierarchic status.

Pekka considers Tom Bombadil has for literary origins a certain Väinämöinen. Partly true, but so has Gandalf at least as much. And if Väinämöinen tried to take Sampo instead of destroying it, well, you see Saruman as a comment on that if you like, and Radagast as much as Tom Bombadil of Väinämöinen’s closeness to forestial nature.

Tom Bombadil is equally close to “the Green Knight” - one of these medieval elves who appear but don’t identify their cosmic status and allegiance.

Tom Bombadil is also in some part inspired by Melchisedec. A pre-medieval non identifying, except he identifies as a priest - and Tom Bombadil instead identifies as an exorcist. He could have been to Baptism what the real life Melchisedec was to the Eucharist. He is in a sense unfallen man. He can touch the ring and not be tempted and he is master of all animals, as Adam was in Eden.

Tom Bombadil is ALSO the one full scale view we get on settled matrimonial happiness. I think we see as much of Tom Bombadil’s relation to Goldberry as we see of:

• Aragorn married to Arwen
• Faramir married to Eowyn
• and Sam Gamgee married to Rosie, née Cotton

all at the end of the novel. All taken together.

Since we see them as immortal, it is less offensive that they do not seem to have children - old couples who already had the children or young couples who for a month or week discuss what the children’s names shall be can be not pregnant or already fully parenting and yet respectable. With immortals, this could go on for centuries.

But what Tom Bombadil is in terms of the universe, that is another matter. One theory I saw on a site considered he was the Vala Aule, and Goldberry was Yavanna. On the other hand, this does not quite agree with Sauron ultimately being a threat to the two, since Aule could beat even Morgoth and definitely then Sauron. So, the mystery remains unsolved.

A

Fergus Hancock

I thought I had read a comment from Tolkien that Bombadil needed no justification, as he wanted a or a few characters who played no other role than to form part of nature, immune to the power of the Ring (and more powerful than the wights of the Barrow Downs).

There are alternatives that could draw Tom into the story, but he was so unreliable and could not understand the desire for the Ring or its destructive power it would have diminished the story. If you will, he was the unnecessary character who played a very minor part, though important in the overall scheme of things, as Erestor or Glrofindel.

Contrast his role with other side players, if they were also not directly threatened or commanded by the main characters. Imagine Treebeard refusing to go to war with Saruman, or the Dead not following Aragorn to Pelargir and not being central to Aragorn’s appearance on the black ships at the battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don’t think I mentioned “justification”, I mentioned explanations.

Apart from that polemic beginning (if rightly so taken), I agree with everything you say, though I wish you could reference which of his Letters …

Fergus Hancock

Hans-Georg, I apologise if I wrote in a polemic manner. It was no my intent. Tom B always puzzled me, to the point of being infuriating. That such a careless spirit existed, not only immune to the Ring, but without any concern over the threat it imposed on Middle Earth, seemed out of role across the entire LoTR universe.

Letter 19, written in 1937 after the Hobbit was published, but before LoTR had been developed…

...But I am sure you will sympathize when I say that the construction of elaborate and consistent mythology (and two languages) rather occupies my mind....Mr Baggins began as a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm’s fairytale dwarves, and got drawn into the edge of it—so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge. And what more can hobbits do? They can be comic, but their comedy is suburban unless it is set against things more elemental. But the real fun about orcs and dragons (to my mind) was before their time. Perhaps a new (if similar) line? Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.... “

Letter 144, written in April 1954 to Naomi Mitchelson, who was reviewing draft edits of LoTR:

...Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a ‘comment’. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken ‘a vow of poverty’, renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view in Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron....”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh thank you very much!

Always appreciate rereading his letters!

“That such a careless spirit existed, not only immune to the Ring, but without any concern over the threat it imposed on Middle Earth, seemed out of role across the entire LoTR universe.”

Arguably, that is why he is important as comment.

You can’t add an inch to your stature by taking care, but you can add a lot of inches to it by being careless - you know who said that and what Tolkien thought of him?

B

David Dahlbacka

5 years ago

Being childless is offensive? To whom?

Q XXII

Is it not strange that Tolkien didn't use any Catholic (Latin) theology/history as source material? Wasn't he a devout Catholic?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-not-strange-that-Tolkien-didnt-use-any-Catholic-Latin-theology-history-as-source-material-Wasnt-he-a-devout-Catholic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.

He very much did use Catholic theology as source material, for the general feeling of events : providence, free will, sin and temptation are very present all over the material.

If you get to close analysis or ask on his own opinion on things, it is very Thomistic.

However, as to Catholic history in the sense of Church history, that would be events which would have happened later than the supposed time of the legendarium (like conventional evolutionism, he provides an image with 4004 BC already having a long history before itself - but in the case of the legendarium, one in which valar, maiar, elves and men do bring back “male and female” to “the beginning of creation”.

Q XXIII

How do people create languages (not programming ones)?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-create-languages-not-programming-ones/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested by

BigDulles

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answering question posed as:

“How do people create languages (not programming ones)?” (I underline the word people for a reason).

• usually by carrying on the one one inherited with slight differences, which in time add up to mutual unintelligibility;
• these may among other things be caused by interference between two or several languages someone speaks (I pronounce “e” in “pen” a bit too open, I confuse non-accented “e” and “é” in French, though I do by now know it’s “besoin de début” and not **”bésoin de debut” : both due to Swedish pronunciation habits around letter E)
• sometimes also by constructing languages, like Quenya or Dothraki for art or like Volapük and Esperanto for communication.

In case you wondered about this last part, it involves conscious use of linguistic knowledge. It always involves the kind of features of a language which are needed to learn it (“he speaks, they speak” : how is number and persons of a verb subject shown, only by separate words or also by ending, or even by ending only, and is ending alternative or agreeing with separate words?) and optionally involves features of a language known to those studying its history (what outcome do you expect of an original “sie camon” and what was “they went” in Anglo-Saxon).

Esperanto for instance involves no fictional or constructed history internal to the language. (Its replacing a Volapük and its being sometimes replaced by an Ido or Inlingua is an external only matter, one would nearly say, since these are constructed on other plans).

Quenya and Sindarin share a common root, a fictional history : Sindarin celeb and Telerin telepe borrowed into Quenya telpe are supposed to come all from same proto-Eldarin … I tried to check on Ardalambion, but Helge Fauskanger took … ah, in the Quenya word list it comes notified as KYELEP-.

There have obviously not been thousands or ten thousands of years in which real elves have been speaking the various tongues, but the relationship between Quenya, Sindarin and Telerin to Proto-Eldarin mimics such a history. And does it really well.