Unfinished Tales - Part Three - I - The Disaster of the Gladden Fields

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Saurondil

## If it's not to late to comment...

It's never too late to add to a discussion here! Welcome to the Downs - we hope to see more of your interesting posts!

[Tuor in Gondolin]

It's remarkable how much more likeable/human this chapter
makes Isilidur then PJ's cartoonish picturing in the prologue of
the movie FotR. Ditto for the awful depiction of Numenorean
defending against an orc attack. The book section description
hearkens to Harold's shieldwall against that Bastard William.

I'd thnk such a "rehabilitation" of Isildur was much of the point
of Tolkien's writing this section.

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

It's remarkable how much more likeable/human this chapter makes Isilidur then PJ's cartoonish picturing in the prologue of the movie FotR. Ditto for the awful depiction of Numenorean defending against an orc attack. The book section description hearkens to Harold's shieldwall against that Bastard William.

I'd thnk such a "rehabilitation" of Isildur was much of the point of Tolkien's writing this section.

## The account of Isildur in the films was very unfair - it was so one-sided, as if that failure were all there was to him. And to make Elrond the speaker of some of the harsher remarks (several of them not even in the texts) was worse. Which is not a criticism of Hugo Weaving's Elrond, BTW: I think he played the part superbly - even with all the "Arwenisation". IMO it's very important that "Isildur took the Ring, as should not have been", for reasons that were, to say the least, excusable: he had excellent reasons for making a terribly misguided decision. To present him as a stubborn fool leaves out some essential details of his choice. If he's been as PJ pictures him, the grievousness of the decision he made would have been far less.

This section shows (what the Akallabeth had shown already) that there is much more to Isildur than his failure to destroy the Ring. I wish Tolkien had written about the time between the death of Elendil, & the point at which TDofTGF begins. At least there are glimpses. I thought the info about Meneldil was especially interesting - the notes to the text gives him a character & a date of birth, whereas previously he was no more than a name with a death-date. One person we don't hear about is Isildur's Queen - something is said of his other relatives, but I don't remember that anything is said of her. Maybe she died before Year 2 T. A. This section would be superb in a film - one largely about the Second Age, say. The story has buckets of pathos, plenty of action, suspense, heroism, emotional ambiguity - it's memorable and vivid, even on the page. All the characters are multi-dimensional - not one is a cardboard cut-out.

Thanks for pointing out the similarity between William of Normandy & the Orcs - I never noticed it before

[Faramir Jones]

Welcome to the Downs, Saurondil!

I certainly agree with you and the others that this story gives Isildur more depth as a character, something I was glad about when I first finished reading it. He now realises that he was wrong to keep the Ring, and believes that one of the keepers of the Three Rings would be a better guardian of it.

I particularly liked the depiction of Elendur, Isildur's eldest son, and the fact that Aragorn II was held by those who knew the former to greatly resemble him.

The depiction of Meneldil was particularly interesting; because his character, combined with the death of Isildur and his three eldest sons, explains the beginning of the division between Gondor and Arnor. While Meneldil might have accepted his uncle as overlord, he was unlikely to have so accepted his cousin Valandil, a minor, younger than him, and born in Middle-earth; so he would have behaved as an independent ruler. As Arnor declined and Gondor increased in power and influence, Meneldil's descendants and successors would have continued this policy.

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Welcome to the Downs, Saurondil!

I certainly agree with you and the others that this story gives Isildur more depth as a character, something I was glad about when I first finished reading it. He now realises that he was wrong to keep the Ring, and believes that one of the keepers of the Three Rings would be a better guardian of it.

I particularly liked the depiction of Elendur, Isildur's eldest son, and the fact that Aragorn II was held by those who knew the former to greatly resemble him.

The depiction of Meneldil was particularly interesting; because his character, combined with the death of Isildur and his three eldest sons, explains the beginning of the division between Gondor and Arnor. While Meneldil might have accepted his uncle as overlord, he was unlikely to have so accepted his cousin Valandil, a minor, younger than him, and born in Middle-earth; so he would have behaved as an independent ruler. As Arnor declined and Gondor increased in power and influence, Meneldil's descendants and successors would have continued this policy.

## TY for the welcome

I thought it was a shame that one of Isildur's three elder sons could not have been spared - as (say) the third man to escape the slaughter with Ohtar & Estelmo. Tolkien can be quite pitiless in killing off his characters. (I also wanted to Hurin to escape, after all Morgoth put him through - but no...) That point about Meneldil is good - I never thought of the separation coming about like that.

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Saurondil

## TY for the welcome

I thought it was a shame that one of Isildur's three elder sons could not have been spared - as (say) the third man to escape the slaughter with Ohtar & Estelmo. Tolkien can be quite pitiless in killing off his characters. (I also wanted to Hurin to escape, after all Morgoth put him through - but no...) That point about Meneldil is good - I never thought of the separation coming about like that.

At least he's honest. Like you, I was saddened, although I realised that in those days monarchs and their heirs really did lead their troops into battle, with the consequent risks of death, injury or capture. Even in real life, King George II of Great Britain and Ireland led his troops into battle as late as 1743:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

... actually as late as 1870.

http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/sedan.htm