The Balrog as the Loathly Lady from medieval literature.

[monks]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So, you know that's way too long to respond to, right?


Please also be aware that the last person we had on here who quoted Priya Seth was exclusively focussed on her theories; he would show up, start a thread on whatever her most recent post was, defend every aspect of that post uncritically and at extreme length against anyone who disagreed, and never posted outside those threads. While you're posting about your own theories rather than hers, you're otherwise acting very similarly. Come join in some of the other threads! Are you excited about the new book? What do you think about Mithrellas? Or look outside of Books - are you going to watch the Amazon series? Do you want to play Password or Werewolf? People are much more likely to engage with you if you engage with the community.


hS

The Book yeh. :-) I read that Tolkien wrote things relating to the phases of the Moon. But I don't think, as far I'm aware, it's been published or released. That info could prove very useful in understanding why it was so important for him in the Lord of the Rings. I have the beginning of a theory and the fact that he did write about the phases encourages me to think that his inclusion of the Moon in TLotR does have the significance I think it does. (I discovered that he had written about the phases after I started to develop my theory). The Moon relates to Aragorn and it also relates to the Battle of the Sexes, the squaring of the circle. Square = male (Moon). Circle = female (Sun). In essence it relates to the Loathly Lady theme.

But, anyway, it will be awesome to see all of the new info. Really looking forward to it.

monks

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just wondering, monks. Have you read Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49? Or Eco's Foucault's Pendulum?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by monks

You are accusing me of having an ego? heh. You need to go and read the responses I've had to my posts. There are a lot of very closed minds in the Tolkien Community.

I think you're having an old argument with someone else here. Boro neither said nor implied that you were egotistical; he said you were falling into logical fallacies like appeal to authority (eg 'this agrees with Priya Seth's anagram, so you KNOW it's true!'). As for 'the Tolkien Community': the Downs is a very small, very quiet corner of the internet, and you've made less than 20 posts here. You've not had 'a lot' of people reply to you, and you don't have enough evidence to say 'very closed minds' - just 'they haven't agreed with me'. Again, I think this is an argument you're making against some other community.

Originally Posted by monks

And guess what? Virtually not a single jack man one of them has ever looked up an etymological definition of a single word in all of his books in their whole life.

That is a wild assumption. Personally I have access to the OED through my library system, and use it all the time - for fun, usually, though I did have to do it for work once ("Why is ferrous chloride called copperas when it doesn't contain copper?" Because it's green, is the rather silly answer.)

Originally Posted by monks

Here's one example off the top of my head of how the experts have not used the right approach to truly understanding Tolkien. Hammond and Scull. Loads and loads of great things done for Tolkien and the Community. Respect right? But when it comes to literary criticism of Tolkien they don't have a clue. In their book Artist & Illustrator they comment on an image in the Book of Ishness. [&c &c]

If you'll take some advice, I'd say you're more likely to get positive reactions by sticking to etymologies (for now) than by posting about numerology. We all know Tolkien was a philologist - I'd wager most of the Downs recall the phrase "low philological jest", even if they can't remember what Tolkien was referring to (the name of Smaug; I had to look it up, though). Drawing out hidden etymological details may lead you down blind alleys sometimes ("'Ring' comes from words that also meant a circle of people, so that's why Tolkien had a Fellowship!!!"), but you can at least support them with specific data. Numerology is... well, to be polite, we'll say 'very subjective'.

A brief example: let's say I conclude for whatever reason that Tolkien's use of the number 7 is because he loved the movie The Seven Samurai. I've not even looked yet, but I Predict(TM) that I can 'prove' this with every instance of 7 in Tolkien.

• Seven Rings - given to the dwarves. Dwarves are a noted warrior race from the mountains. Samurai are noted warriors from Japan, which is basically a string of mountains in the sea.
• Seven Fathers/Houses of the Dwarves - same thing.
• Seven Palantiri - By the War of the Ring, only three of the Palantiri survive. By the end of the film, only three of the samurai survive.
• Seven sons of Feanor - warriors again, obviously. The sons of Feanor are orphans - there's a whole thing in the film about one of the samurai being an orphan. The sons of Feanor burn all sorts of things, including 'enemy' settlements - the samurai open Part Two by burning an enemy camp. There's even multiple samurai dying to kill an enemy leader, just like how Celegorm kills and is killed by Dior in Doriath.
• Seven stars - The Seven Samurai is noted as an influence on Star Wars. Just like Tolkien to put multiple layers into his references, eh? Sure, he was dead by that point, but why let that stop him?

All this, without ever even seeing the film! I must be onto something here, right? There's just so many links!

... to a film that came out after LotR was written. Your theories are more historically plausible than this (they could hardly be less!), but this is basically how they sound. My advice would be to post about your (possible) discoveries in the etymology, and put a link to your site in your signature ("For more details on my theories about The Turn and Tolkien's use of numbers, see..."). That way, people who are interested can easily find it, but you won't have to spend every thread listening to "Tolkien wasn't a numerologist/numerology is nonsense".

Originally Posted by monks

Huinesoron's response is sane. He has disagreed but not become abusive or dismissive. He will actually engage (as far as he feels he can or has time) and not just dismiss outright.

I wouldn't put too much stock in my habit of 'engaging' with things I think are wrong. It's a personality flaw of mine.

Originally Posted by monks

The Book [&c]

There's a thread for that! The Downs likes to keep its threads at least vaguely on topic, so replies like this are best suited for the original thread.

hS

[monks]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I think you're having an old argument with someone else here. Boro neither said nor implied that you were egotistical; he said you were falling into logical fallacies like appeal to authority (eg 'this agrees with Priya Seth's anagram, so you KNOW it's true!'). As for 'the Tolkien Community': the Downs is a very small, very quiet corner of the internet, and you've made less than 20 posts here. You've not had 'a lot' of people reply to you, and you don't have enough evidence to say 'very closed minds' - just 'they haven't agreed with me'. Again, I think this is an argument you're making against some other community.

If you'll take some advice, I'd say you're more likely to get positive reactions by sticking to etymologies (for now) than by posting about numerology. We all know Tolkien was a philologist - I'd wager most of the Downs recall the phrase "low philological jest", even if they can't remember what Tolkien was referring to (the name of Smaug; I had to look it up, though). Drawing out hidden etymological details may lead you down blind alleys sometimes ("'Ring' comes from words that also meant a circle of people, so that's why Tolkien had a Fellowship!!!"), but you can at least support them with specific data. Numerology is... well, to be polite, we'll say 'very subjective'.

A brief example: let's say I conclude for whatever reason that Tolkien's use of the number 7 is because he loved the movie
[]

Snipped your post- still not got the hang of the boards..heh I'll respond..

There's a thread for that! The Downs likes to keep its threads at least vaguely on topic, so replies like this are best suited for the original thread.

hS

Uhm Boro said I had big boots in his quote regarding Saruman. Of course it's implied with Gandalf's words to Saruman. Saruman wanted to become 'a Power' and replace Sauron who wanted to be King of kings essentially. The boots is a reference to Bombadil: philology. And Bombadil is Tolkien the philologist with a private symbolic language who seems to speak nonsense to everyone. Saruman tried to make a counterfeit with machine wheels of Tolkien's narrative 'machinery' which is the TURN and his *Wheel* of Fortune which turns the world (and the subject of Seth's anagrams). I've got lots of evidence for all of that. And the Powers are those 4 compass points, Tolkien's incorporation of the Ezekiel's Tetramorph: Eagle, Bull, Lion, Man (hint: *wheels* within wheels). But you don't know that stuff- people seem to already know for a cast iron FACT that I'm wrong. If Boromir88 didn't intend that, it's implied in the quote itself.

Anyway, no biggie.

Access to the OED. That's rather cool. I've been considering subscribing myself. At the moment I'm using etymonline and Skeats. I said in the Tolkien Community. The community is a lot bigger than these boards as you state yourself. I've encountered it elsewhere. So has Priya.

Blind alleys? See my reply to William Cloud Hicklin. No it's you who are blind in this matter. You are all reading TLotR map upside down and I've just posted links to more hidden imagery in that reply.

You said, "Numerology is very subjective."

Thanks for the advice, I know you're trying to be constructive.

But no it's definitely not subjective in specifically Tolkien's works. Tolkien took his number system from Dante and developed his own from that which is encoded in the Chain of Angainor. Have you read any of those predictions I've made? Let's extend your analogy. Could you make specific predictions about details of moments in the film *even down to the second* before you even saw it based on Tolkien's use of those instances of 7?
That's what I've done. And not just once. Over a hundred times now. Tolkien has a system. He refers to it in hints in 'A Secret Vice'. Numerology is part of it because he was influenced by Dante and the medievals: numerology in the Bible, folk-lore, Dante, the Ancient World.

26 Predictions to date based on his numerological system. They're all in yellow there.

You can see evidence of the medievals again in his medieval symbolic landscape. See links posted in the reply to William. The famous LotR map is a medieval symbolic landscape.

I've sat on all of this for a very long time. I didn't even speak about it for 10 years. I don't believe in speaking as an authority in something before I've listened (to Tolkien in this instance, and a number of scholars out there inc Shippey, etc). I'm EXTREMELY sure of everything I'm saying.

monks

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by monks

Uhm Boro said I had big boots in his quote regarding Saruman. Of course it's implied with Gandalf's words to Saruman. Saruman wanted to become 'a Power' and replace Sauron who wanted to be King of kings essentially.

Perhaps my Saruman quote was too strong for the point I wanted to get across. I think Tolkien's note at the end of Letter 153 would have been better:

"Not sent. It seemed to be taking myself too importantly."

In this letter Tolkien is writing to his Catholic friend, Peter Hastings on a variety of topics...I believe Bombadil, the trolls in The Hobbit, the nature of Orcs, Gollum..etc. The point being he got to a moment where he stops and never sends the letter, commenting that 'It seemed to be taking myself too importantly.'

In Letter #211 Tolkien a similar point:

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.

And thus comes the general snag when using Letters in your research to prove there were intentional and coded messages Tolkien left for us and we all just don't care enough to find them and thus don't really care about Tolkien like yourself or others.

Tolkien wrote a ton of stuff...I mean a ton. And there's more that hasn't been published and there's even more that's been lost. So based on a person's own experiences and research yes you're going to find evidence that supports your arguments. As Tolkien writes in The Hobbit, if you're determined to find something, you will most likely find it:

There is nothing like looking, if you want to find something (or so Thorin said to the young dwarves). You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.~Over Hill and Under Hill

Who am I to believe then? The author who wrote a ton, describing his motivations and intentions. Writing correspondence to friends, family and fans saying he doesn't like allegories, which he called the 'purposed domination of the author?' Or should I believe you that Tolkien was lying to everyone as one big elaborate gag and inside joke and that you have discovered the gag? Come on now, of course my reaction is going to be I think you're taking yourself too importantly.

You say you only respond disrespectfully towards others who disrespectfully dismissed your opinions. Fair enough, I see your point. For my part I didn't intend disrespect, but I am trying to explain why I react the way I do to your arguments. Which well, I'll leave at no disrespect was intended, but I think you are unnecessarily heavy handed in your arguments.

I would make this same argument to anyone who claims to know Tolkien intentionally left messages. Even if it's an argument that I'm inclined to believe, I would try to make a counter argument to show the only 'true message' is based on the experiences of the individual reading the story:

The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of the readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.

No doubt there are parts of your arguments that sound possible, language and the meaning of words was probably Tolkien's biggest inspiration. Numbers were also an influence...why else would it be necessary for Thorin to have a '14th member' of the company if the number 13 wasn't an ill omen?

A question someone might ask, if you're worried about 13 being unlucky why not just have a few less dwarves? Why did there have to be so many dwarves? Well, 13 appears to be an appropriate, reoccurring number. Theoden has 12 knights as part of his body guard. Barahir has 12 companions. Thorin has 12 companions which could be interpreted as his body guard.

It seems likely to me Beowulf was a contributing element, because the hero sets off with 12 companions plus the thief as the 14th.

Some others don't make sense like your 2 and 6 argument in the Tom Bombadil and Goldberry thread. As that's a different thread and others had addressed the reasons they disagreed, I won't comment further on that here.

I'll take the 1, 3, 7 and 9 great Rings of Power example. Tolkien died in 1973. Wait? Did Tolkien predict the year of his death and leave it as a coded message in the numbers of his Rings of Power? Am I to believe that is a coincidence? Why, yes. Yes it is a coincidence.

With someone who wrote as much as Tolkien there are going to be an endless amount of interpretations and experiences as there are with any large myth. The amount of material there is (and like I said there's more that hasn't been published and more that's been lost) it very much feels like a mythology, which will have many different meanings to each individual. That's truly the only point I'm trying to make and why at least on my end, I quickly dismissed your arguments earlier.

I shall bow out now and and I do wish you more luck in your research. As I posted in another thread, glad you got joy and excitement from Tolkien's story.

[monks]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Who am I to believe then? The author who wrote a ton, describing his motivations and intentions. Writing correspondence to friends, family and fans saying he doesn't like allegories, which he called the 'purposed domination of the author?' Or should I believe you that Tolkien was lying to everyone as one big elaborate gag and inside joke and that you have discovered the gag? Come on now, of course my reaction is going to be I think you're taking yourself too importantly.

No problem. I'm not offended Boro. Don't walk away man. This reply is for everyone reading this thread.

Who are you to believe? Well, you make your mind up after reading the evidence. And the evidence is all there for Tolkien being deceptive. Highly deceptive. You can see those images with your own eyes I posted above to William. I didn't create them. And he must have practiced that art a lot! I would struggle to embed hidden images in pictures like that. The West Gate images = riddle. The bottom section that just so happens to line up perfectly with the top west side one is from the east side! Why the heck would he do that? It's a riddle.

And I've got a LOT more to show. And I can explain ALL of it. The Lord of the Rings map is to be read upside down because the world was turned on its head at the Downfall. It's a metaphor for the Enlightenment versus Faith.

The Misty Mountains are Ancalagon the Black in the medieval symbolic landscape. You can see the jaws clearly at Angmar. We also have the white mountains and then the grey mountains, So we have black, grey and white. We have a chessboard scheme after Alice Through the Looking Glass. And this is how that applies to the geometry of the map. Arnor = black. Gondor = White. Grey = Rhovanion. That 'looking glass' runs through Rhovanion. Hence why we have the Mirrormere and the Mirror of Galadriel both in that space. The jaws of the dragon are at the top of the map. That's the dragon Nidhogg who gnaws at the roots of the World Tree in hell. The root is placed over Niflheimr and Níðhǫggr gnaws it from beneath. Misty is from where Nidhogg dwells..Niflheim ("World of Mist","Home of Mist"). "Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he." In other words up is down on this map. Hell should be at the bottom. This is the Tolkien's illustration dragon at the root of the World Tree. It gets better , the World Tree is on the map as well, not just the dragon.

Aragorn's test of his heart at going through the Paths of the Dead at the bottom of the map is a test of his faith. He is going against the beliefs of the Godless World. The Paths of the Dead should be up on the map (=in the sky). And yes up/down on the map translates to up/down in the sky. Explained here. So when they called the river Morthond 'BlackRoot' they were saying the paths of the Dead was in hell. And he has to have faith that that door does not lead to death, everlasting death in hell because down is up. And that's why everyone is so irrationally afraid of that place. And that's why you see the butterfly rune suggested in the drawing of that place as posted above to William. The Door of the Dagaz rune. And that's why we see the 3 lines in the ring verse rhyme: sky die lie. And that's why the gates of Caras Galadhon face south-west- they face towards the Paths of the Dead. The Elves know where up is. Hence "Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,". The sky being south-west from their city = Paths of the Dead. The word being turned on its head. That's why the fish Uin is swimming down- down to where the dream fish go- which on the map is up. There are lots of other features on the symbolic map I will reveal. Uin is not alone. I could go on at great length with masses of supporting evidence.

And then we have the Acrostic that Adam Roberts found in the Hobbit. Hidden for 70 years or more. Then the Seth Bombadil anagram. And her other anagrams are genuine, including the 5th that she rejected. I can explain them all. They are about The Wheel of Fortune, his narrative 'machinery' and the hunt (3 Hunters). That turns the world the right way up again.

And then you have Kilby- everybody really needs to read that book. Tolkien wrote 'sex' stories..in the modern sense? Tolkien told him he was going to reveal to him things. Secrets. And then you see those images on the West Gate..and it all makes more sense. I've got a few more images with sexual symbolism in them to show.
Everywhere you look into Tolkien you see secrets. Secret codes. Secret Languages. Khuzdul anyone? His rebus. Riddles. Anagrams. Acrostics. A Secret Vice. Codes in his letters to Edith. The Book of Foxroot etc. Fox and rook- both words fox and rook mean to deceive, to trick. He calls Goldberry 'pretty' immediately after she calls him Master more than once...pretty etymology = Tricky. The Master is the same Master in A secret Vice. The little man IS Tolkien.

Secrets EVERYWHERE. Why d'you think he was approached to work at Bletchley Park?

Does that sound like a man who wasn't capable of being deceptive? And consistently on a big scale too. And guess what, Kilby even came up with a word for it: Contrasistency. Consistently contradictory. That fits perfectly. I get the feeling Shippey smelt something as well. And Shippey and Kilby were the only two people to have met Tolkien. So there's something about meeting Tolkien and discussing his work...a glint in his eye no doubt.

And then you have people saying to me oh Tolkien didn't even know himself what he was writing. And Tolkien may have said such a thing. He was lying. Being deceptive. He loved riddling people. If you look at the etymologies of the words he uses you can reveal deception via references to his private symbolism. I mean the new book that is coming out that Carl Hostetter is editing...those tables of events. Does that sound like someone who was just rambling along like Don Quixote? He also said that the book wrote itself. It did in a sense because he was following the logic of his own system and the journey up through the 7 planes. The logic of the book is the TURN through the Doors up those planes. Each turn consists of 3 turns, see my essay. You have turns of small wheels- 7 of them, 1 for each plane. And there are other ones such as the turn of Denethor. Then you have the two large turns that rotate the wheel of Fortune: the falls of Boromir and Frodo's failure to destroy the ring. So you have Ezekiel's wheels within wheels. It's a thing of beauty.

Tolkien didn't come clean probably because there's a lot of sex in there. And that originated from his time he was separated from Edith. An incredibly frustrated young man. He probably thought that he never had any chance of getting published at that point anyway. And the system was set at that point and he stayed with it. He had to settle with playing the riddler which he did even before he created the Book of Ishness anyway: The Book of Foxroot etc. I'm presuming that h didn't want to reveal the sex for whatever reason. He was tempted to reveal at that moment with Kilby because he was becoming famous- there was a buzz. He wanted recognition for his Dantean-Platonic masterpiece. It's up there with the top of the Literary Establishment what he did. Technically it exceeds them all, on a par with Dante's Divine Comedy. The other possibility is that he just wanted to play the riddler. My money is on the first though

monks

[Huinesoron]

monks, you're still throwing out far too many points per post; it's literally impossible for anyone to engage with all of them, so I'm not sure what you're looking to achieve. I'm going to choose just two to respond to. The first is your list of 'did you see's:

• Did you see this lady hidden in this image? -- No. There are two eye-like images at the top of your heavily cropped image - and also four at the bottom. Even if the top two are taken to be eyes, they are no more female than male.
• Do you see the hidden figures in the West Gate? -- No. All you've done is drawn some wiggly lines on clips of a rock face; I have no idea how this is supposed to be 'sexual'.
• Did you see the two figures here? That's the Loathly Lady theme. -- No. I can barely make out what you've done, but it seems to be just outlining some shadows. No figures.
• Did you see these wings and this apparition in this image? -- Maybe. There could be wings, but only because of that vertical line on the right side. The head isn't there, and the shoulders... are a door.
• Do you see the geometry of the rune Dagaz? He reuses that in other images such as his drawing of Helm's Deep and twice (here and here)in his Book Mr Bliss. -- No. Or rather, yes - it's called perspective. Any picture looking straight down a receding road/corridor will exhibit this shape. It's not mystical to draw a straight path.
• Do you see these hidden images in the West Gate? -- No. As far as I can tell, you're just slapping arrows down at random here.
• Did you see the woman with her cloak with its left wing oustretched (the same wing in Seth's anagram MINE HOLE FALL HELD LEFT WING and the same wing in the butterfly rune). -- No, in any of its forms. (Incidentally, you never have explained where the supposed anagram comes from, other than "Priya Seth".)
• Do you see the Balrog as the inverse of that woman here? -- No. There's nothing there.

Much like numerology, pareidolia is extremely subjective.

Originally Posted by monks

But no it's definitely not subjective in specifically Tolkien's works. Tolkien took his number system from Dante and developed his own from that which is encoded in the Chain of Angainor. Have you read any of those predictions I've made? Let's extend your analogy. Could you make specific predictions about details of moments in the film *even down to the second* before you even saw it based on Tolkien's use of those instances of 7?

Okay, I love a challenge. I'm not going to watch Seven Samurai to check predictions about it (and why would I? We're analysing Tolkien, not Kurosawa!), but I will make specific predictions for you. Ready?

• There are at least four named sets of seven in Tolkien - the Houses of the Dwarves, the Sons of Feanor, the locations of the Palantiri, and the Beacon Hills of Gondor. I predict that each of these sets will contain a reference to the names of the titular Seven Samurai. (Predictions 1-4)
• I predict that Tolkien would not stop at four sets of seven. There will be more. (Prediction 5)
• In fact, I predict that there will be seven named sets of seven which will contain references to the Seven Samurai. (Prediction 6)
• I predict that one of these will be found in the Hobbit family trees in the Appendices. (Prediction 7)
• I predict that another will concern rivers. (Prediction 8)
• I predict that there will be a reference to a seven in chapter seven of each book of LotR. (Prediction 9)
• In fact, I predict that the seventh word, of the seventh paragraph, of chapter 7 of The Fellowship of the Ring will be a reference to the Seven Samurai. (Prediction 10)

I have not checked any of these. If they are all correct, will you either concede that Tolkien was inspired by a film that came out after he'd already published the book, or that it's incredibly easy to make and 'prove' specific predictions based on numerology and pareidolia?

EDIT:

For reference, the Seven Samurai, along with Google Translations of the characters in their names, are:

• Kikuchiyo - Thousand Generation Chrysanthemum
• Kambei Shimada - Intuitive guardian / rice-field island
• Shichirōji - Next seven white
• Katsushirō Okamoto - Four white victory / book hill
• Heihachi Hayashida - Flat eight / rice-field forest
• Kyūzō - Long-term storage
• Gorōbei Katayama - Five white guardian / Piece of Mountain

As these translations precede any attempt to prove the predictions, errors are irrelevant - we know there's no actual connection, so who cares if I'm proving a link to the wrong thing?

[/edit]

The quickest one to look at, as a sample, is...

Prediction 10

Excluding the Prologue, and counting Frodo's poem as a single paragraph, the word descibed in #10 is 'with', as in 'overcome with surprise'. Now, the word by itself refers to the fact that [i]Seven Samurai[i] is a story about a group of warriors coming together to achieve their goals. They don't start out as a team - they come together over the course of the story. 'With' is a very apt word here - they fight with each other, rather than fighting separately.

The OED (on which Tolkien worked, mind you!) describes the development of the word 'with' in these terms: These senses are mainly those denoting association, combination or union, instrumentality or means, and attendant circumstance. 'Union'. 'Combination'. These meanings foreshadow the Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien's homage to the Seven Samurai of his favourite film.

And there are other meanings of 'with'! It's used as a term relating to chimneys, ie fireplaces - and here occurs exactly seven (that number again!) paragraphs after the Hobbits enter a welcoming home. In words such as 'withhold' and 'withstand', it means 'away' or 'against' - and, indeed, just as the Hobbits move away from the Shire to fight against Sauron, we see this remarkably significant word show up!

Finally, since it is a word about coming together, it's appropriate to look at those surrounding words. 'Overcome with surprise' - this is a perfect description of the samurai's raid on the bandit camp at the beginning of Part 2. And how do they carry out that raid? With fire - as in fireplace, chimney - with.

I will come back to the other 9 predictions later, when I have more time. They probably won't be covered in as much detail (I don't have that much time), but I am confident they will all be proven true, and demonstrate the accuracy of my theories with indisputable power.

EDIT2: Found a little time.

Prediction 7

There are seven named Masters of Buckland before Meriadoc the Magnificent. Obviously, as Merry is a member of the Fellowship, he would not be included on a list set at the time of LotR.

The first connection to the Seven Samurai is that the first Master was Gorhendad Oldbuck, with the name 'Gorhended' meaning 'great-grandfather' (it's Welsh). Both his names therefore connect to old age, and who was the first of the Seven Samurai? Kikuchiyo - Thousand Generation Chrysanthemum.

Another link - you didn't think Tolkien would stop at one, did you? - is that three of the Masters have names ending in 'madoc'. See how three of the Samurai's names include 'white' in translation? Those are all the same character - 'shiro'. Three and three - you see?

Prediction 9

This should be fun.

Book 1, Chapter 7: In the House of Tom Bombadil

How many characters appear in this chapter - six, right? Four hobbits, Tom, and Goldberry. Except no: there is a seventh, though we don't learn about it until later. Frodo has a dream, in which he sees a vision which is later revealed to be Gandalf.

Book 2, Chapter 7: The Mirror of Galadriel

The heart of this chapter is Frodo's visions in the Mirror of Galadriel. How many does he see? Well, nine are mentioned - but the last is Sauron, and the first, described at length, is Gandalf. Between these two opposing forces, he sees seven things in the Mirror.

Book 3, Chapter 7: Helm's Deep

Seven warriors appear in this chapter: Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli - Eomer - Gamling (leader of the soldiers of Helm's Deep) - Theoden - and Erkenbrand, who arrives to break the siege. Gandalf arrives with Erkenbrand, but is presented less as a warrior than as a force of nature.

Book 4, Chapter 7: Journey to the Cross-roads

Easy: before the fall of night they halted, weary, for they had walked seven leagues or more from Henneth Annûn

Book 5, Chapter 7: The Pyre of Denethor

Reveals the palantir of Minas Tirith, one of the Seven Stones.

Book 6, Chapter 7: Homeward Bound

Towards the end of this chapter, the hobbits pass the point where they left Tom Bombadil, and think back to their time with him - the heart of which takes place in Chapter 7 of Book 1.

Predictions 'proved': 3. No, 4: Prediction 5 was proved by the existence of the Master of Buckland 7.

hS

[monks]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Just wondering, monks. Have you read Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49? Or Eco's Foucault's Pendulum?

Hi William, nice to meet you. :-)
No I haven't. What's your point exactly? Nothing to add about the Hammond and Scull example? Have you read my posts yet?Anyway..there are a lot of books I'd love to read but my research takes up WAY too much time mate. A friend of mine thought very highly of Pynchon's 'Gravity's Rainbow'.

As I've said to Huinesoron, I've not even read most of the H.O.M.E cover to cover. I've bumped into lots of things in my research in those books- that is searches on words and contexts of those words. I don't have to hide that fact because I was still able to 1) make 102 predictions 2) find and explain those images on the West Gate 3) explain Seth's anagrams. 4) Have clearer insights than experts into pictures that I've never even seen. Because...I've read an enormous number of etymologies of words in his texts and studied his texts and letters forensically in that manner (my method)..and I know Tolkien's methods (both as a writer and as a riddler) and his system. I can have insights into pictures I've never even seen because the reality of his works are in the hidden realm of etymology. Every word you look at- the real meaning of how Tolkien used it- is hidden to us as non-philologists.

Btw, you are reading the Lord of the Rings map upside down boys. It's a medieval symbolic landscape like this map and this one and the medieval T-O maps, like the landscapes of the Arthurian Romances, like Charles Williams' Taliessin through Logres. And you've all missed it. D'you want me to elaborate? Have a fish.

Hammond and Scull had already spotted the butterfly disguised in the image 'Undertenishness' . That's just the tip if the iceberg.

Did you see this lady hidden in this image?
Do you see the hidden figures in the West Gate?
Did you see the two figures here? That's the Loathly Lady theme.
Did you see these wings and this apparition in this image?
Do you see the geometry of the rune Dagaz?
He reuses that in other images such as his drawing of Helm's Deep and twice (here and here)in his Book Mr Bliss.
Do you see these hidden images in the West Gate?
Did you see the woman with her cloak with its left wing oustretched (the same wing in Seth's anagram MINE HOLE FALL HELD LEFT WING and the same wing in the butterfly rune).
Do you see the Balrog as the inverse of that woman here? Turn the picture upside down- just like the TLotR map in fact.

The hidden images are there because it's all manifestations of his geometry in his medieval symbolic landscape and he uses the same system in ALL of his works.


So you didn't see them. There's more too...a LOT more. If folks can all stop dismissing me, we might as a community clean those windows. Hey, I missed those wings in 'Before' even after looking at that image many many times- because I've studied it and used it as evidence in arguments as the 'butterfly rune' dagaz = the Door. The same butterfly in Undertenishness. And then I found the drawn wings- which are the same wings as those in the butterfly rune and in Seth's anagram. It just shows you how easy it is to become blind through familiarity and believe that you 'know' what you're looking at. What's more I can explain the symbolism of all of those images too. And important to state, I found those images AFTER I'd worked his system out from the etymologies. See my response to Boromir88 above:

We need, in any case, to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity—from possessiveness. Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention, perceiving their likeness and unlikeness: that they are faces, and yet unique faces. This triteness is really the penalty of “appropriation”: the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them.

D'you see what he's doing? The same faces he's hidden in his pictures. And he's dropping major hints there because that's what he DOES.

I will have to drag you all kicking and screaming into the world of Tolkien, the English language as HE USED IT. It's all hidden in plain sight in front of you right under your noses. It's not a dark art and I'm not Nostradamus or Dan Brown . Just look at the etymologies for goodness sake. No brainer! If people haven't got time. Fair enough. I have. And if you're not interested in such things, also fair enough but, to those people, don't turn up into my posts and pretend you already know that I'm wrong wrong wrong. If you'd all written this post off as "clickbait" like Morthoron has done you would never have learned that about why Tolkien chose the Russian Boatmen's Song and drew that image would you all? And you might even consider that to not be hardly worth knowing. But the big take away from that detail as I pointed out is that you are all using the wrong METHOD to understand Tolkien. And that the experts are not as expert as everyone thinks. Multiply that little moment of insight by a couple of orders of magnitude, and you arrive where I am. I'd like to SHARE that insight. I am NOT smarter than everyone else. I even make it VERY clear on my homepage that this all began through LUCK and the real smarts are with Tolkien because HE HAS A SYSTEM and is predictable. Thanks for reading.

monks