Grand unified books thread

[grumbler]

I finally got around to reading The Silmarillion; it was fun, the unornamented prose reminded me of the prose Eddas.  (Which probably was the point.)

Question for the Tolkien scholars; why do the elves feel compelled to leave Middle Earth before the One Ring is destroyed (and therefore the three rings still are able to preserve beauty in the world)?  Also why isn't the Akallabêth the end of an age?

Magic had been fading from Middle Earth since the War of the Valar.  Many elves had begun "regressing," so to speak, to their roots as mere people of the forest, less and less likely to perceive the magic of the stars.  Others fled to avoid that.

The Akallabêth wasn't the end of an age in Middle Earth because it didn't happen in Middle Earth.  As far as the inhabitants there were concerned, the fall of Sauron was much more compelling as the end of an age.  I've always wondered, though, how long after the events at the end of the First and Second Ages people started seeing them as actually ending an age.  The Shire Reckoning didn't change with the end of the Third Age.

As far as going "into the West," one of the more interesting details is that, to Tolkien, "going West" was WW1 British Army slang for dying.  Coincidence?

[Savonarola]

Magic had been fading from Middle Earth since the War of the Valar.  Many elves had begun "regressing," so to speak, to their roots as mere people of the forest, less and less likely to perceive the magic of the stars.  Others fled to avoid that.

That makes sense; the decay of magic is a repeated theme in the book.

The Akallabêth wasn't the end of an age in Middle Earth because it didn't happen in Middle Earth.  As far as the inhabitants there were concerned, the fall of Sauron was much more compelling as the end of an age.  I've always wondered, though, how long after the events at the end of the First and Second Ages people started seeing them as actually ending an age.  The Shire Reckoning didn't change with the end of the Third Age.

I guess that's fair.  I was just thinking that the Akallabêth literally reshaped the world it should have been given significance.  Though, thinking it over, going from a flat to a round world might not have been perceptible to anyone other than sea-faring civilizations (maybe nomads who covered great distances as well.)

As far as going "into the West," one of the more interesting details is that, to Tolkien, "going West" was WW1 British Army slang for dying.  Coincidence?

I think that was intentional.

[Savonarola]

Keeping with Tolkien, I re-read The Hobbit.  I used to imagine Gandalf with the John Huston voice, now I hear him with the Ian McKellen voice.  I'm not sure if that's better or worse.

This time through I thought the part where the narrator explains that the Battle of Five Armies was the most miserable of Bilbo's experience, therefore the most fondly recollected, was insightful.  Also The message that the world would be a better place if we were all a little more concerned with getting a good breakfast and less concerned about gold was every bit as relevant today as it was in 1937.

[grumbler]

As far as going "into the West," one of the more interesting details is that, to Tolkien, "going West" was WW1 British Army slang for dying.  Coincidence?

I think that was intentional.

I agree that it was intentional, but what isn't clear is whether Tolkien expected his readers to know the significance; were the readers supposed to understand that Frodo et al were dead at the end of the third book? 

[The Brain]

Medieval Military Combat: Battle Tactics and Fighting Techniques of the Wars of the Roses, by Lewis. The author uses personal war experience, the experiences of reenactors, and basic reasoning to describe how medieval armies likely fought in practice. It had gotten pretty bad reviews, so I came to this with low expectations. It's not that horrible. He speaks of the necessity or rotating fighters since you can't physically fight for hours without breaks, but is unable to provide evidence describing how this was done in practice. Seems to me that a natural ebb and flow of combat activity could have solved the same problem. He also argues that medieval battles were smaller than commonly believed, which wouldn't surprise me is true to some extent, but the evidence is fairly weak. For instance, comparing how many soldiers could be raised for a campaign overseas may not be directly applicable to raising an army for a couple of weeks worth of campaigning in England, and looking at the size of towns when a majority of the population lived in the countryside is problematic. When it comes to numbers killed at Towton, given by some contemporary sources as 20,000, he asks "where are the bodies?". A reasonable question, but not in itself enough. But some guy a week after the battle saying that 20,000 had been killed IS very weak stuff (for one thing, how would he know this?), and I'm not sure what historians today actually believe are realistic numbers.

Persians, The Age of the Great Kings, by Llewellyn-Jones. An odd one this. The author complains about the Greek-centred image of the Persian Empire people in the West have always had, and says that the Persian story should be told from the Persian perspective. He doesn't like the portrayal of Persia as a land of despotic kings, exotic methods of execution, or porno-like harems. Then goes on to use mostly Greek sources to tell the lurid family history of the Achaemenids, including detailed descriptions of methods of execution and all, and without using footnotes. At first the thought struck me that this was some kind of meta stuff, but I don't think it is. Some strange arguments are included. For instance, when the Persians marched against Greece Greek sources describe how the King stopped at a tree the army passed, decorated it with gold and put an armed guard to protect it and basically worshipped it. The author claims that this was just a Greek way to paint the Persians as weirdly stupid, but then goes on to describe how trees were religiously important to the Persians, and decorating them etc is even portrayed on seals. So which is it? The book is a nice read, but NOT the definitive work on the Achaemenids.

Atatürk. This is the first book I've read that is written by A Mango. A nice fat biography of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk). I've only known the broad outlines of his story so I found it informative, but I am in no position to judge its accuracy. I think a more modern book (it was published in 1999 and the author was born in 1926) would have said more about his sexuality, which from the description gives off vibes of unorthodoxy. But since his political work is the main reason to read about him this isn't really a negative.

[Hamilcar]

As far as going "into the West," one of the more interesting details is that, to Tolkien, "going West" was WW1 British Army slang for dying.  Coincidence?

Oh interesting! I didn't know that...

[Hamilcar]

I agree that it was intentional, but what isn't clear is whether Tolkien expected his readers to know the significance; were the readers supposed to understand that Frodo et al were dead at the end of the third book? 

When I was a kid reading LOTR in German I definitely did not catch on to that.

[grumbler]

I agree that it was intentional, but what isn't clear is whether Tolkien expected his readers to know the significance; were the readers supposed to understand that Frodo et al were dead at the end of the third book? 

When I was a kid reading LOTR in German I definitely did not catch on to that.

I didn't catch that for many years, until I started reading a lot about WW1.

[Sheilbh]

I think the Rest is History episode on Tolkien is really good on the context of his work.

[Barrister]

I agree that it was intentional, but what isn't clear is whether Tolkien expected his readers to know the significance; were the readers supposed to understand that Frodo et al were dead at the end of the third book? 

When I was a kid reading LOTR in German I definitely did not catch on to that.

I didn't catch that for many years, until I started reading a lot about WW1.

I don't remember what I thought as a kid, but as an adult I understood "going into the West" as going to Heaven or the Afterlife, which of course means dying but also much more than that.

[crazy canuck]

I agree that it was intentional, but what isn't clear is whether Tolkien expected his readers to know the significance; were the readers supposed to understand that Frodo et al were dead at the end of the third book? 

When I was a kid reading LOTR in German I definitely did not catch on to that.

I didn't catch that for many years, until I started reading a lot about WW1.

I definitely missed that.  Many thanks.  And reminds me, I need to reread it. 

[grumbler]

I definitely missed that.  Many thanks.  And reminds me, I need to reread it. 

Look also for the almost word-for-word (IIRC - I'm still unpacking my book boxes) wording between how Gandalf escribes death to Pippin in Minas Tirith and how Tolkien describes the arrival of the White Ship in Aman.

[crazy canuck]

I definitely missed that.  Many thanks.  And reminds me, I need to reread it. 

Look also for the almost word-for-word (IIRC - I'm still unpacking my book boxes) wording between how Gandalf escribes death to Pippin in Minas Tirith and how Tolkien describes the arrival of the White Ship in Aman.

 

[Sophie Scholl]

I love this thread in general and even more when there is Tolkien discussion where I learn new little pieces of information! 

I've been on a Kingdom of Jerusalem/Outremer kick of late. I've been reading The Land Beyond the Sea by Sharon Kay Penman (historical fiction set during the tail end of Crusader control of Jerusalem for the first time in the late 12th century) as well as a few other non-fiction books/essay collections on the topic and reading/re-reading a lot of the Vampire: The Dark Ages books.

[crazy canuck]

When you get a chance I try recommend her book

The Sunne in Splendor