How would it all of ended if... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Kin-strife · 01-18-2003, 10:58 AM

As I assume most of us know the Necromancer referred to in The Hobbit was finally revealed, in The LOTR, to be none other than the 2nd and 3rd ages' favourite whipping boy Sauron. However, we also know that the whole ring of power idea was a brand new one not devised until the writing of the Lord of the Rings. One thing that can never be said of Tolkien is that he didn't think things through. So my question, to those resident pundits, who've actually waded through the entire History of Middle-earth series is: is there any known conception of the rise and, consequently, the fall of Sauron in the 3rd age before LOTR was thought up or does it all stop cold after the Hobbit? Or was Tolkien himself not yet aware that the Necromancer was Sauron at the time he was writing The Hobbit?

The reason I ask this is because I've always been interested in the way that the LOTR is generally seen (by me at any rate) as an end to the mythology. It shows the Elves leaving Middle-earth, the ever increasing self-imposed isolation of the Dwarves, the beginning of the Dominion of men and the general passing of all that readers would find 'other-worldly' in the mythology. The fact that this poignant farewell (especially at the Grey havens) to the fantasy, that almost acts as a cue for the entrance of real history, came into being from a happy accident when Tolkiens sequel to The Hobbit spiralled out of control has always made me wonder. Would the mythology have had any final point of closure (I hate that word) if Tolkien had decided not to write a sequel to The Hobbit? Since true myth can never be said to have a beginning or an end was Tolkien's myth not supposed to? Would the writings on the descendants of the Nùmenòreans in Middle-earth, as given in the appendices to LOTR, ever have come into being? Have I completely misinterpreted the LOTR and, if so, will someone please set me straight immediately? If anyone can give any insight whatsoever into any of these questions (much more than originally intended) I'd be very grateful. Funny how this post has sort of spiralled out of control on me much like Tolkien's book and Niggle's leaf.

Legolas · 01-18-2003, 12:18 PM

The last question in the first paragraph is correct. Tolkien had no idea the Necromancer was Sauron when he wrote The Hobbit. A lot of people wrote him after it was published asking for information on Gandalf. What were these other errands he had to tend to? Who was the Necromancer?

At the request of all of these readers and the publisher, Tolkien started to write The Lord of the Rings. Much of this can be seen in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. The letters in chronological order deal with almost everything you could imagine - correspondence with publishers, critics, and other authors/friends (Auden, Lewis) as well as fans and family members. In the first 100 or so letters, Tolkien is dealing with the success of The Hobbit and the beginnings of The Lord of the Rings. He shares a lot of what has happened as he is writing with his son Christopher.

He never ever intended it to be such a monster of a tale.

I must be going now, but I'll get back on tonight and add quotes from various letters showing the work's progress as a whole and Tolkien's thoughts as he saw what it was becoming.

doug*platypus · 01-18-2003, 10:36 PM

Excellent topic, Kinstrife. If I may say so, I'm glad that you're dead and haunting the Downs. I believe that Tolkien's desire to bring his created world in line with the real world means that he would eventually have had to write a transition story. Incredibly he managed to work it into the huge tale of the Ring. I think the book in general was a rare inspiration of genius, a literary version of E=mc² (but fortunately the book hasn't been used to make atomic weapons).

If LOTR had not existed we may have had instead a short story, something similar to the Cottage of Lost Play, which described how the elves came to leave Middle-Earth or fade away, and how the blood of the Númenóreans gradually became mingled. Without such a transition, I think that the created world would appear pure fantasy as for example Raymond E. Feist's Krondor, or blindingly unrealistic, as C.S. Lewis' Narnia. I think the realism, and the blending in to our own world, is one of the major attractions of Tolkien's work.

***Sharkû*** · 01-18-2003, 11:00 PM

Welcome back Kin-Strife, hope to see you around more often.

I think the crucial point of the topic is the speculative missing link between the Legendarium as we have it and the old Silmarillion myths which Tolkien had invented long before even The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings turned out to be just that, greatly centered on hobbits and men, and yet having the lofty air of the legends of the Elder Days as history, and as living proofs in the Elves.

Without The Lord of the Rings then, I would still assume the Legendarium would have taken a turn towards Men in the process of further development. In a way, a story as that of the Ring War was a logical consequence of Tolkien's writings on Middle-Earth up to The Lord of the Rings, with the exception of The Hobbit. He had more or less hesitatingly discarded the ideas of a historic or Germanic layer behind the Legendarium (as was envisioned in Ælfwine and in The Lost Road), but not the interest in focussing on the Men of Middle-Earth more.

For me, an important question would be, why link the Silmarillion mythology with hobbits?

Legolas · 01-19-2003, 12:16 AM

Silly hobbits, foolish, yes foolish!

doug*platypus · 01-19-2003, 02:15 AM

Quote:

why link the Silmarillion mythology with hobbits?

Damn, the italics disappeared! Foolish quote button... yess... foolish! I liked the way hobbits was italicised, making them appear to be grubby little inferior beings hardly worthy of recognition. Very Saruman of you.

I think perhaps that, being far removed from the greatness and nobility of the Edain and the Eldar, they are a good people for us to see these stories through the eyes of. I think that most of us are like hobbits ourselves, and far removed from participating in great political events save by random chance or fate. I think we have a greater appreciation for the later epic battles of the Lord of the Rings because we start in the humble beginnings of The Shire. And also we get to see that all the fighting does have a purpose, it's not just war for war's sake. The West fights to preserve the liberty and peace which makes somewhere like The Shire possible.

Kin-strife · 01-19-2003, 09:24 AM

I remember when I first read the books when I was thirteen I found the homely adventuring in the Shire at the start a bit of a labour and was impatient to get to the grander and darker settings promised me in the chapter The Shadow of The Past. I had little time for Hobbits then and, seeing as I tackled the daunting book largely because I felt I was done with children's books, I almost felt cheated by the presence of Farmer Maggot and his infernal mushrooms. Obviously Tolkien won me over in the end but it still seems odd when one considers the two greatest records of the legendarium; one, the Silmarillion, written by the first-born Elves, the other, The Red Book of Westmarsh written, not by men, but by a half-sized off-shoot of men most of whom wouldn't know a Balrog from a Bill Ferny. But Hobbits is what we loves so Hobbits is what we gots. I wonder that if the epic wasn't given to us from such a familiar viewpoint would it have been read at all?

doug*platypus · 01-20-2003, 06:10 AM

Hm! It would be interesting to read an account of the War of the Ring through someone else's eyes. Maybe Legolas or Gimli. Evolution is a funny old thing, and perhaps there were several accounts, and the one by Bilbo/Frodo (hereafter referred to as Bildo) was the only one to have survived. But of course that's blurring the line between fantasy and reality a little too much. The wording in The Silmarillion seems very different to LOTR. I personally wouldn't like LOTR as much if it was written in the high-toned way elven way that The Silarillion is. Who is said to have written Quenta Silmarillion, etc. by the way? Rúmil? Eriol?

01-18-2003, 10:58 AM	#1
Kin-strife Haunting Spirit Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 58	How would it all of ended if... As I assume most of us know the Necromancer referred to in The Hobbit was finally revealed, in The LOTR, to be none other than the 2nd and 3rd ages' favourite whipping boy Sauron. However, we also know that the whole ring of power idea was a brand new one not devised until the writing of the Lord of the Rings. One thing that can never be said of Tolkien is that he didn't think things through. So my question, to those resident pundits, who've actually waded through the entire History of Middle-earth series is: is there any known conception of the rise and, consequently, the fall of Sauron in the 3rd age before LOTR was thought up or does it all stop cold after the Hobbit? Or was Tolkien himself not yet aware that the Necromancer was Sauron at the time he was writing The Hobbit? The reason I ask this is because I've always been interested in the way that the LOTR is generally seen (by me at any rate) as an end to the mythology. It shows the Elves leaving Middle-earth, the ever increasing self-imposed isolation of the Dwarves, the beginning of the Dominion of men and the general passing of all that readers would find 'other-worldly' in the mythology. The fact that this poignant farewell (especially at the Grey havens) to the fantasy, that almost acts as a cue for the entrance of real history, came into being from a happy accident when Tolkiens sequel to The Hobbit spiralled out of control has always made me wonder. Would the mythology have had any final point of closure (I hate that word) if Tolkien had decided not to write a sequel to The Hobbit? Since true myth can never be said to have a beginning or an end was Tolkien's myth not supposed to? Would the writings on the descendants of the Nùmenòreans in Middle-earth, as given in the appendices to LOTR, ever have come into being? Have I completely misinterpreted the LOTR and, if so, will someone please set me straight immediately? If anyone can give any insight whatsoever into any of these questions (much more than originally intended) I'd be very grateful. Funny how this post has sort of spiralled out of control on me much like Tolkien's book and Niggle's leaf. __________________ "Come away, O human child!/ To the waters and the wild/With a faery hand in hand,/ For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand."

01-18-2003, 12:18 PM	#2
Legolas A Northern Soul Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Valinor Posts: 1,847	The last question in the first paragraph is correct. Tolkien had no idea the Necromancer was Sauron when he wrote The Hobbit. A lot of people wrote him after it was published asking for information on Gandalf. What were these other errands he had to tend to? Who was the Necromancer? At the request of all of these readers and the publisher, Tolkien started to write The Lord of the Rings. Much of this can be seen in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. The letters in chronological order deal with almost everything you could imagine - correspondence with publishers, critics, and other authors/friends (Auden, Lewis) as well as fans and family members. In the first 100 or so letters, Tolkien is dealing with the success of The Hobbit and the beginnings of The Lord of the Rings. He shares a lot of what has happened as he is writing with his son Christopher. He never ever intended it to be such a monster of a tale. I must be going now, but I'll get back on tonight and add quotes from various letters showing the work's progress as a whole and Tolkien's thoughts as he saw what it was becoming. __________________ ...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art.

01-18-2003, 10:36 PM	#3
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	Excellent topic, Kinstrife. If I may say so, I'm glad that you're dead and haunting the Downs. I believe that Tolkien's desire to bring his created world in line with the real world means that he would eventually have had to write a transition story. Incredibly he managed to work it into the huge tale of the Ring. I think the book in general was a rare inspiration of genius, a literary version of E=mc² (but fortunately the book hasn't been used to make atomic weapons). If LOTR had not existed we may have had instead a short story, something similar to the Cottage of Lost Play, which described how the elves came to leave Middle-Earth or fade away, and how the blood of the Númenóreans gradually became mingled. Without such a transition, I think that the created world would appear pure fantasy as for example Raymond E. Feist's Krondor, or blindingly unrealistic, as C.S. Lewis' Narnia. I think the realism, and the blending in to our own world, is one of the major attractions of Tolkien's work. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

01-19-2003, 12:16 AM	#5
Legolas A Northern Soul Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Valinor Posts: 1,847	Silly hobbits, foolish, yes foolish! __________________ ...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art.

01-19-2003, 09:24 AM	#7
Kin-strife Haunting Spirit Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 58	I remember when I first read the books when I was thirteen I found the homely adventuring in the Shire at the start a bit of a labour and was impatient to get to the grander and darker settings promised me in the chapter The Shadow of The Past. I had little time for Hobbits then and, seeing as I tackled the daunting book largely because I felt I was done with children's books, I almost felt cheated by the presence of Farmer Maggot and his infernal mushrooms. Obviously Tolkien won me over in the end but it still seems odd when one considers the two greatest records of the legendarium; one, the Silmarillion, written by the first-born Elves, the other, The Red Book of Westmarsh written, not by men, but by a half-sized off-shoot of men most of whom wouldn't know a Balrog from a Bill Ferny. But Hobbits is what we loves so Hobbits is what we gots. I wonder that if the epic wasn't given to us from such a familiar viewpoint would it have been read at all? __________________ "Come away, O human child!/ To the waters and the wild/With a faery hand in hand,/ For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand."

01-18-2003, 11:00 PM	#4
*Sharkû* Hungry Ghoul Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,719	Welcome back Kin-Strife, hope to see you around more often. I think the crucial point of the topic is the speculative missing link between the Legendarium as we have it and the old Silmarillion myths which Tolkien had invented long before even The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings turned out to be just that, greatly centered on hobbits and men, and yet having the lofty air of the legends of the Elder Days as history, and as living proofs in the Elves. Without The Lord of the Rings then, I would still assume the Legendarium would have taken a turn towards Men in the process of further development. In a way, a story as that of the Ring War was a logical consequence of Tolkien's writings on Middle-Earth up to The Lord of the Rings, with the exception of The Hobbit. He had more or less hesitatingly discarded the ideas of a historic or Germanic layer behind the Legendarium (as was envisioned in Ælfwine and in The Lost Road), but not the interest in focussing on the Men of Middle-Earth more. For me, an important question would be, why link the Silmarillion mythology with hobbits?

01-20-2003, 06:10 AM	#8
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	Hm! It would be interesting to read an account of the War of the Ring through someone else's eyes. Maybe Legolas or Gimli. Evolution is a funny old thing, and perhaps there were several accounts, and the one by Bilbo/Frodo (hereafter referred to as Bildo) was the only one to have survived. But of course that's blurring the line between fantasy and reality a little too much. The wording in The Silmarillion seems very different to LOTR. I personally wouldn't like LOTR as much if it was written in the high-toned way elven way that The Silarillion is. Who is said to have written Quenta Silmarillion, etc. by the way? Rúmil? Eriol? __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.