OOTS #1215 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

I think that's a big part of it. In a lot of stories, being good means a happy ending and evil means an unhappy ending.

In SoF&I being good and dumb doesn't ensure your safety; maybe in times of peace, but not in the fires of war.

Being smart and evil delays the consequences of your actions.

Being dumb and evil doesn't lead to a long life.

Meanwhile Jaehaerys The Counciliator/the Old King and Good Queen Alysanne: Good not dumb!

Exactly what a paragon of virtue would say!

AAAAAAAH!

[Lemarc]

Nope.
Not in LoTR. (The Silmarillion was published decades later)
Sauron was the evil dark lord who was going to take over the whole world in the Third Age.
The BBEG to end all BBEG's, in that story and in that world.

Morgoth was referenced (obliquely) in LoTR, in the song of Beren and Luthien, and one or two references to Sauron being "but a servant" of a greater power. Tolkien more or less wrote his languages first, then his histories for the languages (in piecemeal), and then his epic.

Sauron was Morgoth's servant, yes. But he was FAR more successful than Morgoth in actually ruling over (and corrupting) the children of Ilúvatar. Morgoth, being the most powerful created being of all, He who arises in Might spent most of his power corrupting Arda, and was barely able to defeat a ragtag alliance of Elves and Men. Sauron defeated the Valar (who had to "cheat" by calling on Eru). He truly is the BBEG of a BBEG but you have to look at all Tolkien's writings to realize that (specially the Akkalabeth, but others as well)

I'm not sure Professor Tolkien, a devout Catholic, would agree with your assessment. Morgoth was, after all, effectively Satan.

My impression matches yours that he spent most of his power corrupting Arda - unlike the other Valar he wasn't being "topped up" by Eru and had to expend all his personal power on the project. But he was fighting Tolkien's mythical 'heroes of a higher age', no rag-tag band like Sauron actually lost to. Tolkien follows a theme of descending grandeur from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd age. Morgoth won utterly in the end and the Valar had to send their own army to defeat him; the Valar didn't attack the Numenoreans themselves because they were forbidden by Eru, not because of any fear of Sauron.

But more importantly I think Morgoth was envisaged by Tolkien as the prime evil, the absolute source of corruption. He "sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days." Sauron is more of a symptom.

[Metastachydium]

They get a bit more respect than one might suppose.
Cows and sheep eat some of those plans, so in righteous vengeance humans slay the cows and sheep ... and to not be wasteful, then make food and shoes out of them.

That is a fine gesture of goodwill, but could we then perhaps kill those faster than we breed them?

[Mightymosy]

"Maybe you'll understand when you're older, kid" is the most condescending thing I've read here in a while, Mightymosy.

Good thing I didn't say that.
I said I am curious what he thinks about this topic when he is older (and I am, as well).
And I really am. Maybe I think different than now?
You can read it as condescending if you absolutely must, but it was not intended as such, and I certainly didn't use the words you put in my mouth
Bad Form, putting words in other people mouth
Non me gusta

[Goblin_Priest]

Goblins find sunlight painful and it turns trolls to stone, so I'd say they've got a pretty good reason to live underground. I got nothing for the dwarves, though.

Well, finding the light painful doesn't really negate any of the rest. They could just sleep during the day and go out when the sun sets.

Trolls aren't shown to live in large quantities/densities.

@Goblin_Priest: I am pretty sure that the goblins didn't only inhabit the caves, they just lived there. I suspect that they hunted for quite a bit of their nourishment. They lived in sparsely populated mountains.

Now, I don't really remember how the book describes it, but in the movie, you see thousands of goblins rush out against the Fellowship (bit of an overkill, really?). Such numbers could not be possible on simple hunting and foraging, they'd need agriculture, and a lot of it, which would need to be done on the surface, under the sun.

Dwarves necessarily had to be a very large quantity to build such a vast underground dungeon. And so would the goblins need to be to be a threat to them.

But maybe the movies are just taining my imagination, and the mines were really just a tiny cavern holding one or two families.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, there's also the issue that dwarves live a long time, so they have plenty of time to keep carving and shaping the stone.

[Mightymosy]

I think that's a big part of it. In a lot of stories, being good means a happy ending and evil means an unhappy ending.

In SoF&I being good and dumb doesn't ensure your safety; maybe in times of peace, but not in the fires of war.

Being smart and evil delays the consequences of your actions.

Being dumb and evil doesn't lead to a long life.

Exactly what a paragon of virtue would say!

1. Yeah, I got in recent years that a lot of people wanted more antihero es, darker edgier stuff, villain protagonists and the like.
Me, I just don't like it at all.
Occasionally, in a lighthearted comedy, yeah, go for it. But in serious media? No, not for me. A friend of mine loved the show Dexter. Ugh. I would never watch that one voluntarily.


2. The blue I had intended to say myself, but decided against since Fyra seemed uncomfortably flattered as it where :-D

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, I don't really remember how the book describes it, but in the movie, you see thousands of goblins rush out against the Fellowship (bit of an overkill, really?).

That was Peter Jackson taking liberties. Beyond that, the encounter in the Hobbit with the Goblin king (book, not that silly fun stuff in the movies) was what I had in mind, since Gollum lived in / around the same parts of the Misty Mountains as the goblins. (And he ate some of them now and again, if I recall the narrative correctly).

Also, goblins hunting at night, or in the twilight (dawn/dusk) would fit pretty well. (And the dawn/dusk hunting is how I've hunted most of the time when I have been successful ...)

[Metastachydium]

Also, goblins hunting at night, or in the twilight (dawn/dusk) would fit pretty well. (And the dawn/dusk hunting is how I've hunted most of the time when I have been successful ...)

You live underground and shun the light?

[KorvinStarmast]

A friend of mine loved the show Dexter. Ugh. I would never watch that one voluntarily.

That one was a tough watch for me. After season 2, my suspension of disbelief was under assault since his colleague who had fingered him as a weirdo and who was on to him would not be the only cop in that office who wondered about old Dex.
Season 3 I kept at it, since Jimmy Smits' screen presence is something both my wife and I like.
Season 4 with John Lithgow as the evil one: that was pretty good, but that last episode clinched it for me.
I was done. They had gone as far as I think that story could go (Heh, obviously, the producers did not agree).

What's weird is that my wife watched it to the end ... and she usually does not care for that kind of dark plotting.

You live underground and shun the light?

Heh, no, that was a different job when I was on the vampire shift.

I was referring to only being out before sunrise and before sunset, in twilight, and otherwise not being out stalking during the day when the game is hunkered down. (Also, it's been a few years since I last hunted, not sure if I'll be doing that again any time soon).

[bunsen_h]

Well, finding the light painful doesn't really negate any of the rest. They could just sleep during the day and go out when the sun sets.

Per The Hobbit, "they don't like the sun: it makes their legs wobble and their heads giddy". But given Gollum's reactions to things like sunlight, lembas, and the Elvish rope, it's possible that the Orcs' aversion isn't just to the light. There may be some ineffable positive quality to the sunlight that they need to have solid shielding from, such as a good thick layer of stone.

Or it could be psychological. Get zapped by that horrible burning thing in the sky once or twice, and you'll want to have a nice solid chunk of stone over your head.

[KorvinStarmast]

Per The Hobbit, "they don't like the sun: it makes their legs wobble and their heads giddy". But given Gollum's reactions to things like sunlight, lembas, and the Elvish rope, it's possible that the Orcs' aversion isn't just to the light. There may be some ineffable positive quality to the sunlight that they need to have solid shielding from, such as a good thick layer of stone.

There's a book called Splintered Light that delves into how Tolkien used light in his stories, both literally and symbolically, and I think you are on the right track with the 'ineffable positive quality' thing. One of his influences, a contemporary, was a philosopher ... grrr, I'll try and dig up the name .... Owen Barfield.

Or it could be psychological. Get zapped by that horrible burning thing in the sky once or twice, and you'll want to have a nice solid chunk of stone over your head.

That too.

[diplomancer]

Morgoth was referenced (obliquely) in LoTR, in the song of Beren and Luthien, and one or two references to Sauron being "but a servant" of a greater power. Tolkien more or less wrote his languages first, then his histories for the languages (in piecemeal), and then his epic.


I'm not sure Professor Tolkien, a devout Catholic, would agree with your assessment. Morgoth was, after all, effectively Satan.

My impression matches yours that he spent most of his power corrupting Arda - unlike the other Valar he wasn't being "topped up" by Eru and had to expend all his personal power on the project. But he was fighting Tolkien's mythical 'heroes of a higher age', no rag-tag band like Sauron actually lost to. Tolkien follows a theme of descending grandeur from the 1st to 2nd to 3rd age. Morgoth won utterly in the end and the Valar had to send their own army to defeat him; the Valar didn't attack the Numenoreans themselves because they were forbidden by Eru, not because of any fear of Sauron.

But more importantly I think Morgoth was envisaged by Tolkien as the prime evil, the absolute source of corruption. He "sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days." Sauron is more of a symptom.

These are Tolkien's words (in Morgoth's Ring, Volume X in History of Middle Earth, my favourite volume of the series, it has many precious writings):

"Sauron was greater, effectively, in the Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First. Why? Because, though he was far smaller by natural stature, he had not yet fallen so low. Eventually he also squandered his power (of being) in the endeavour to gain control of others. But he was not obliged to expend so much of himself. To gain domination over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth — hence all things that were born on Earth, and lived on and by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be stained. Morgoth at the time of the War of the Jewels had become permanently incarnate; for this reason he was afraid, and waged the war almost entirely by means of devices, or of subordinates and dominated creatures.

Sauron, however, inherited the corruption of Arda, and only spent his (much more limited) power on the Rings; for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate. In this way Sauron was also wiser than Melkor-Morgoth. Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of the Music than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with his own plans and devices, and gave little attention to other things. The time of Melkor’s greatest power, therefore, was in the physical beginnings of the World; a vast demiurgic lust for power and the achievement of his own will and designs, on a great scale. And later after things had become more stable, Melkor was more interested in and capable of dealing with a volcanic eruption, for example, than with (say) a tree. It is indeed probable that he was simply unaware of the minor or more delicate productions of Yavanna, such as small flowers.

Thus, as Morgoth, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction. Elves, and still more Men, he despised because of their weakness: that is their lack of physical force, or power over matter; but he was also afraid of them. He was aware, at any rate originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not annihilate them: that is, destroy their being; but their physical life, and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind the only thing that was worth considering. Or he became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy them and rid Arda of them altogether. Hence his endeavour always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them in his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own creatures, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men. Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: that whereas the Valar (and in their degree Elves and Men) could still love Arda Marred, that is Arda with a Melkor-ingredient, and could still heal this or that hurt, or produce from its very marring, from its state as it was, things beautiful and lovely, Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have existed, independent of his own mind, and a world in potential.

Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. He still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.) Sauron had, in fact, been very like Saruman, and so still understood him quickly and could guess what he would be likely to think and do, even without the aid of the palantíri or of spies; whereas Gandalf eluded and puzzled him. But like all minds of this cast, Sauron’s love (originally) or (later) mere understanding of other individual intelligences was correspondingly weaker; and though the only real good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and planning and organization was the good of all inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron’s right to be their supreme lord), his plans, the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself.

Morgoth had no plan; unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share can be called a plan. But this is, of course, a simplification of the situation. Sauron had not served Morgoth, even in his last stages, without becoming infected by his lust for destruction, and his hatred of God (which must end in nihilism). Sauron could not, of course, be a sincere atheist. Though one of the minor spirits created before the world, he knew Eru, according to his measure. He probably deluded himself with the notion that the Valar (including Melkor) having failed, Eru had simply abandoned Eä, or at any rate Arda, and would not concern himself with it any more. It would appear that he interpreted the change of the world at the Downfall of Númenor, when Aman was removed from the physical world, in this sense: Valar (and Elves) were removed from effective control, and Men under God’s curse and wrath. If he thought about the Istari, especially Saruman and Gandalf, he imagined them as emissaries from the Valar, seeking to establish their lost power again and colonize Middle-earth, as a mere effort of defeated imperialists (without knowledge or sanction of Eru). His cynicism, which (sincerely) regarded the motives of Manwë as precisely the same as his own, seemed fully justified in Saruman. Gandalf he did not understand. But certainly he had already become evil, and therefore stupid, enough to imagine that his different behaviour was due simply to weaker intelligence and lack of firm masterful purpose. He was only a rather cleverer Radagast — cleverer, because it is more profitable (more productive of power) to become absorbed in the study of people rather than of animals."

[Quizatzhaderac]

1. Yeah, I got in recent years that a lot of people wanted more antihero es, darker edgier stuff, villain protagonists and the like.
Me, I just don't like it at all.
Occasionally, in a lighthearted comedy, yeah, go for it. But in serious media? No, not for me. A friend of mine loved the show Dexter. Ugh. I would never watch that one voluntarily.

I'd be interested in what you think of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, where where the hero's (Brutus) tragic flaw was his naivety, rather than any "moral" flaw.

[Mightymosy]

These are Tolkien's words (in Morgoth's Ring, Volume X in History of Middle Earth, my favourite volume of the series, it has many precious writings):

That guy really thought things through :-D

Any info about Radagast, for that matter? The LOTR books didn't tell much, and I have always wondered. Guy who hangs out with squirrels and birds can't be too bad :-)

@unfortunately never saw or read that one. Is it good?

[Lemarc]

These are Tolkien's words (in Morgoth's Ring, Volume X in History of Middle Earth, my favourite volume of the series, it has many precious writings):

An enjoyable read, I haven't seen that in a long time. But it does seem to support my comment rather than yours. You may be misinterpreting the bold sentence: it refers to personal power, all Morgoth's having gone to making the night fearful and men liable to beat their wives and so forth, whereas Sauron still had most of his until he put it in the Ring.

[diplomancer]

An enjoyable read, I haven't seen that in a long time. But it does seem to support my comment rather than yours. You may be misinterpreting the bold sentence: it refers to personal power, all Morgoth's having gone to making the night fearful and men liable to beat their wives and so forth, whereas Sauron still had most of his until he put it in the Ring.

I think it's talking about actual political power. Morgoth hardly controlled Beleriand by the end of the First Age, everything to the East was "free" (though Men, specially, were under his "influence", they were not under his command). Even in Beleriand, he only had free reign for a few years. Sauron, until the Numenorian invasion, ruled almost all of Middle-Earth. After his "surrender", he ruled the Numenorians and, through them, pretty much all of Middle-Earth (even the Elves couldn't even use their Rings, so he had some power even over them). The catastrophic downfall of Numenor with God's intervention was not on Sauron's plans, though*, and after that he never fully recovered again.

But if there was a straight fight between Morgoth and Sauron? Sauron would lose (except Sauron knew that, and was too smart to ever let that straight fight happen).

*Numenor's invasion of Aman was Sauron's masterstroke. Either the Numenorians, under his influence, would win, in which case Sauron would be supreme, or they would lose, in which case the only power that could stop him in Middle-Earth would be destroyed. Anyway, Sauron would win. He only "forgot" that there was a power greater even than the Valar.

[Fyraltari]

Any info about Radagast, for that matter? The LOTR books didn't tell much, and I have always wondered. Guy who hangs out with squirrels and birds can't be too bad :-)

Radagast original Quendi name was Aiwendil (which, I think means « he wo talks to birds » or something to that effect). He was a spirit serving under Yavana Kemantari, Lady of Life. When the Order of Wizards was created, Yavanna asked for Radagast to be included and specifically, asked Curumo/Saruman to look out for him (he was a servant of her husband) which Saruman always took as an unnecessary burden. Unlike the other Wizards he also had the mission to protect the animals and plants of Middle-Earth. Tolkien was never really sure what happened to him, but my favorite version is the one where he gave up on the « defeat Sauron » mission to focus on the other one is presumably still out there, shape shifting into various animals to protect the wild.

He may also have taught Beorn and his descendants the whole « turn into a bear » trick.

[Lemarc]

I think it's talking about actual political power. Morgoth hardly controlled Beleriand by the end of the First Age, everything to the East was "free" (though Men, specially, were under his "influence", they were not under his command). Even in Beleriand, he only had free reign for a few years.

Either we've read different sources or someone's misremembering. My recollection was after the Fall of Gondolin Morgoth controlled all of Beleriand and killed almost all the Noldor, except for a few secret havens by the sea from which Earendil sailed to beg the Valar for help.

[Mightymosy]

Radagast original Quendi name was Aiwendil (which, I think means « he wo talks to birds » or something to that effect). He was a spirit serving under Yavana Kemantari, Lady of Life. When the Order of Wizards was created, Yavanna asked for Radagast to be included and specifically, asked Curumo/Saruman to look out for him (he was a servant of her husband) which Saruman always took as an unnecessary burden. Unlike the other Wizards he also had the mission to protect the animals and plants of Middle-Earth. Tolkien was never really sure what happened to him, but my favorite version is the one where he gave up on the « defeat Sauron » mission to focus on the other one is presumably still out there, shape shifting into various animals to protect the wild.

He may also have taught Beorn and his descendants the whole « turn into a bear » trick.

Sweet!

Any stories about the Ent? Like those as well

[diplomancer]

Either we've read different sources or someone's misremembering. My recollection was after the Fall of Gondolin Morgoth controlled all of Beleriand and killed almost all the Noldor, except for a few secret havens by the sea from which Earendil sailed to beg the Valar for help.

Yes, but Beleriand is a small part of Middle Earth (if I recall correctly, considerably smaller than the map in LotR, which is itself only a small part of the continent) . And that was the point where Morgoth had the maximum political power over the Children of Ilúvatar.

If I remember correctly, it's stated that the Numenorean Army that invaded Aman was the greatest army the world had ever seen (i.e, even greater than the armies that clashed by the end of the 1st age, ending Morgoth's reign, ergo, Sauron's political power was greater than Morgoth's).

[Lemarc]

Yes, but Beleriand is a small part of Middle Earth (if I recall correctly, considerably smaller than the map in LotR, which is itself only a small part of the continent) . And that was the point where Morgoth had the maximum political power over the Children of Ilúvatar.

If I remember correctly, it's stated that the Numenorean Army that invaded Aman was the greatest army the world had ever seen (i.e, even greater than the armies that clashed by the end of the 1st age, ending Morgoth's reign, ergo, Sauron's political power was greater than Morgoth's).

Beleriand on the LotR map isn't Beleriand in the First Age, it referred to the entire land, most of which sank into the sea (as a result of the fighting between Morgoth's forces and the Valar's, IIRC), so was actually considerably larger than and inclusive of the map in LotR. I'm pretty sure it also was "everywhere that mattered" - after Beleriand fell there was nobody left to fight.

I can't speak to the Numenorean fleet, but it seems hard to top among other things a host of flying dragons, the largest of which split the mountains of Angband when it fell.

Here, I found a map.

[diplomancer]

Beleriand on the LotR map isn't Beleriand in the First Age, it referred to the entire land, most of which sank into the sea (as a result of the fighting between Morgoth's forces and the Valar's, IIRC), so was actually considerably larger than and inclusive of the map in LotR. I'm pretty sure it also was "everywhere that mattered" - after Beleriand fell there was nobody left to fight.

I can't speak to the Numenorean fleet, but it seems hard to top among other things a host of flying dragons, the largest of which split the mountains of Angband when it fell.

Here, I found a map.

I saw a different map, that one is not to scale. Check the 2 rivers in Lhun and Ossiriand and you see the shape of the river in Lhun is pretty much the same shape as the upper part of Gelion in Ossiriand. That's because it's the same river (look for the maps that have the islands that survived the drowning of Beleriand) It's about 60% of the map in LotR, from the ones I saw. Let's split the difference and say slightly smaller. Still, a small part of Middle-Earth.

As to whether there was "anything else that mattered", there were many tribes of Men (including not only the "bad" Haradrim and Easterlings, but also the ancestors of the Rohirrim, Men of Bree, Beornings, Bardings, Woses, etc.) , as well as quite a few Avari and Sindarin, leaving away from Beleriand. But the Silmarillion is very Noldor-centric (naturally), so their final defeat is Morgoth's triumph. But it was short-lived, and he could not expand his political power over all of Middle-Earth.

Compare this with this description of the Dark Years:

But in Lindon Gil-Galad still maintained his power, and Sauron dared not as yet to pass the Mountains of Ered Luin nor to assail the Havens; and Gil-Galad was aided by the Númenóreans. Elsewhere Sauron reigned , and those who would be free took refuge in the fastnesses of wood and mountain, and ever fear pursued them. In the east and south well nigh all Men were under his dominion, and they grew strong in those days and built many towns and walls of stone, and they were numerous and fierce in war and armed with iron. To them Sauron was both king and god ; and they feared him exceedingly, for he surrounded his abode with fire

And that was BEFORE he corrupted the Numenorians, ruling them through Ar-Pharazon! Morgoth never controlled that much area and had that much political power (and possibly couldn't because of the reasons stated in my first quotation. He purely hated the Children and wanted them dead. Sauron wanted to control them "for their own good" as he saw it)

[Lemarc]

I saw a different map, that one is not to scale. Check the 2 rivers in Lhun and Ossiriand and you see the shape of the river in Lhun is pretty much the same shape as the upper part of Gelion in Ossiriand. That's because it's the same river (look for the maps that have the islands that survived the drowning of Beleriand) It's about 60% of the map in LotR, from the ones I saw. Let's split the difference and say slightly smaller. Still, a small part of Middle-Earth.

As to whether there was "anything else that mattered", there were many tribes of Men (including not only the "bad" Haradrim and Easterlings, but also the ancestors of the Rohirrim, Men of Bree, Beornings, Bardings, Woses, etc.) , as well as quite a few Avari and Sindarin, leaving away from Beleriand. But the Silmarillion is very Noldor-centric (naturally), so their final defeat is Morgoth's triumph. But it was short-lived, and he could not expand his political power over all of Middle-Earth.

And that was BEFORE he corrupted the Numenorians, ruling them through Ar-Pharazon! Morgoth never controlled that much area and had that much political power (and possibly couldn't because of the reasons stated in my first quotation. He purely hated the Children and wanted them dead. Sauron wanted to control them "for their own good" as he saw it)

I won't quibble about the map. And I don't really mean that nobody else mattered, but that implicitly nobody else could stand against Morgoth, with his balrogs and his armies of dragons and his hosts so great Anfauglith could not contain them and his command of "a great part of the sons of Men" and his war that sank half a continent. I don't think Earendil was intended to be mistaken when he saw no hope left in Middle Earth and went west to plead mercy for men and elves. I really think you've gotten a skewed version of Tolkien's vision of the First Age, but I won't press the point further since this isn't really the place to start digging up a lot of Tolkien arcana and poring over it.

[Larsaan]

Regarding morality and what people should "get out of" A Song of Ice and Fire, I really want to share two of my favourite anti-war and anti-revenge quotes from the books.

Spoiler

Show

"There are many sorts of outlaws, just as there are many sorts of birds. A sandpiper and a sea eagle both have wings, but they are not the same. The singers love to sing of good men forced to go outside the law to fight some wicked lord, but most outlaws are more like this ravening Hound than they are the lightning lord. They are evil men, driven by greed, soured by malice, despising the gods and caring only for themselves. Broken men are more deserving of our pity, though they may be just as dangerous. Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends. They’ve heard the songs and stories, so they go off with eager hearts, dreaming of the wonders they will see, of the wealth and glory they will win. War seems a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know.

Then they get a taste of battle.

For some, that one taste is enough to break them. Others go on for years, until they lose count of all the battles they have fought in, but even a man who has survived a hundred fights can break in his hundred-and-first. Brothers watch their brothers die, fathers lose their sons, friends see their friends trying to hold their entrails in after they’ve been gutted by an axe. They see the lord who led them there cut down, and some other lord shouts that they are his now. They take a wound, and when that’s still half-healed they take another. There is never enough to eat, their shoes fall to pieces from the marching, their clothes are torn and rotting, and half of them are ****ting in their breeches from drinking bad water.

If they want new boots or a warmer cloak or maybe a rusted iron halfhelm, they need to take them from a corpse, and before long they are stealing from the living too, from the smallfolk whose lands they’re fighting in, men very like the men they used to be. They slaughter their sheep and steal their chickens, and from there it’s just a short step to carrying off their daughters too. And one day they look around and realize all their friends and kin are gone, that they are fighting beside strangers beneath a banner that they hardly recognize. They don’t know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they’re fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground. And the knights come down on them, faceless men clad all in steel, and the iron thunder of their charge seems to fill the world...

And the man breaks.

He turns and runs, or crawls off afterward over the corpses of the slain, or steals away in the black of night, and he finds someplace to hide. All thought of home is gone by then, and kings and lords and gods mean less to him than a haunch of spoiled meat that will let him live another day, or a skin of bad wine that might drown his fear for a few hours. The broken man lives from day to day, from meal to meal, more beast than man. Lady Brienne is not wrong. In times like these, the traveler must beware of broken men, and fear them... but he should pity them as well."

Spoiler

Show

"Oberyn wanted vengeance for Elia. Now the three of you want vengeance for him. I have four daughters, I remind you. Your sisters. My Elia is fourteen, almost a woman. Obella is twelve, on the brink of maidenhood. They worship you, as Dorea and Loreza worship them. If you should die, must El and Obella seek vengeance for you, then Dorea and Loree for them? Is that how it goes, round and round forever? I ask again, where does it end? I saw your father die. Here is his killer. Can I take a skull to bed with me, to give me comfort in the night? Will it make me laugh, write me songs, care for me when I am old and sick?"

That second one is probably going to surprise those who only watched the show, since the showrunners turned her character into the complete opposite of what she was in the books.

[KorvinStarmast]

That second one is probably going to surprise those who only watched the show, since the showrunners turned her character into the complete opposite of what she was in the books.

One of their many crimes.

[Skull the Troll]

Agree. The books are surprisingly not as violent as their reputation would show. I think it stems from the shock value -- there's moments of very intense violence, usually in a handful of words, and it sometimes happens to demographics you don't expect it to happen to. Most of the longer excessive details mostly center on food, clothing, setting, and

Spoiler: 5th book

Show

Obviously, Dany's dysentery.

I don't think I can agree with that. The books seem FAR more violent. Tyrion after the battle of the blackwater is a horror. His face isn't scarred, he barely has one. Dany is violently raped on numerous occasions. There are all kinds of things like this. I think where the show gets that sort of rep is it feels more visceral when you see it rather than read it.

[Krakius]

If anything, aren't they opposites?



One of my favorite authors, let's call him GGK, thinks a well-crafted book is like an iceberg: The reader only sees 10% of the story, and the rest is background. In this example, "They passed a group of trees [unusual characteristic]. [Side character] remarked on how strange it was to [unusual characteristic], and [Wise mentor] murmured [brief allusion to legendary event]. [Someone reacts to it.]"

In a book by GGK, there might be other mentions of different aspects of that event later, or tie-ins to present events. And you can be pretty sure that somewhere in his study, there are pages/outlines of how the event occurred. But he would seldom stop the story right there to give you four pages of the event's history.

Without thinking through a lot of details the reader will never see, you risk things not making sense if the reader stops to think about how the events you wrote might fit into a larger framework. Viz. the Harry Potter series, where magic/people/events always pop up at just the right time to be relevant - and you really shouldn't think too much about why X that was just introduced but has always existed, wasn't used to resolve C problem two books ago.

A big part of that is that most of that ten percent is the actual story. The background info is best given on a need to know basis so it supplements that story rather than overpowering it.

Sad times... people will watch 23 completely inconsequential and formulaic superhero movies and consider it well-spent time, or 50 hours worh of faux-vikings series on TV, yet feels bored at beautiful and well elaborated descriptions taking a few lines that *do* have meaning, since establishing details to the world is important, especially from the point of view of the Hobbits.

Those believing LotR is long winded need to provide us with some context. Can you please confirm if you have read Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Cervantes, Melville, Dickens, Mann? Do you consider those authors long winded and boring as well? I don't ask this in a derogatory way, I'm just trying to rule out if you have a problem with enjoying complex literature in general.



Even taking into account hyperbole, that is simply not true. Otherwise please quote an example.

Tolkien indeed was not known for his brevity, there's his famous "April" footnote when he worked on the Canterbury Tales as philologist in Oxford. The first Tale begins with the "April" word (written as "Aprille") and is the note [1] from Tolkien... which takes three pages of text. Yes, just on the word April.

But here's the thing, those three pages are magnificent scholarship. After reading them, I learned of the significance of that month for latin poets and of other books that started out similarly, and much more. Similarly, not a single line or paragraph is "filler" in LotR. Although I admit this term is subjective... for me, most of what I read in G.R.R.Martin books is filler.

I assure you a lot of that description is unnecessary.

I've read a bit of those author's works ("God Sees the Truth, But Waits", "Bartleby, the Scrivener", and "A Christmas Carol", and one of those I didn't actually read for class). I admit I'm not as well read as I would have liked. I do not remember finding those works long and boring, although those are not those author's longer works. And in case you didn't get it, I didn't find "The Hobbit" long-winded and boring. Okay, a little long-winded, but not to the point it was actively detrimental to the work itself. Also, saying you're not asking something in a derogatory way, then asking if I have a problem enjoying complex literature feels a lot like saying "Not to be rude, but maybe you're not smart enough for this?". And here's the thing, I don't need to read those author's works to say I found this one work of fiction kind of a slog, because the question "Is this work of fiction too long?" is something that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not I would have found the longer works of those other authors to be excessively long says nothing about the fact I found this work to be excessively long.

The Lord of the Ring's long-winded nature is not something I remember specific examples of so much as the general gist of how I felt about it. And while I could track down a passage in there and quote it, I've decided I have better things to do with my time than pore through there to try to win an argument with a stranger on the internet, especially since I'm busy this week.

Maybe that April footnote really is as good as you say it is. But if you spend three pages talking about a minor detail of the world, then I'm probably going to be thinking "I'm sorry, didn't you have a story you were telling?", no matter how good it is.

See, I am not an elitist, but some things are more complex and require more dedication and focus than others. Reading Tolkien is, in this respect, "superior", if you want, to reading most modern fantasy authors. Yet I insist I am no elitist because often I enjoy "simpler" entertainment myself for what it is. I just read the (rather terrible) Dark Sun D&D novels and had fun with them. However when I try again to read Joyce's Ulisses I won't make the mistake of puting the blame in his style or complexity if I fail once more, but in my lack of focus on it. If I begin stating that Joyce is repetitive and boring, I risk the possibility of someone telling me I am just not ready for it. Which would be true, and there'd be no "elitism" in that.

I admit my attention and dedication are . . . lacking. But I do not like the implication that I just need to "git gud" at reading, and it does feel elitist.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It is elitist, and I say that as one of the few people you'll ever hear admit to reading Proust's Remembrance of Things Past of their own free will.

[arimareiji]

A big part of that is that most of that ten percent is the actual story. The background info is best given on a need to know basis so it supplements that story rather than overpowering it.

Indeed. Depending on your interest in a subject, you might want to know EVERYTHING about it. No matter how many degrees of tangent it departs from the subject.

But most people, no matter how much they care about character Joe who's in the middle of the climactic battle with his friend-who's-now-the-villain... won't be keen on stopping to learn the family tree of Explicatius Maximus, as part of Joe reminiscing about celebrating the Feast of St. Explicatius decades ago with FWNTV and their mutual-love-interest-just-killed-by-FWNTV.

Also, saying you're not asking something in a derogatory way, then asking if I have a problem enjoying complex literature feels a lot like saying "Not to be rude, but maybe you're not smart enough for this?".
...
I admit my attention and dedication are . . . lacking. But I do not like the implication that I just need to "git gud" at reading, and it does feel elitist.

That seems to be a big thing nowadays. Most people recognize "No offense, but" as meaning "What I'm about to say will be insulting and offensive, but you're not allowed to call me out for it" - but that doesn't stop people from saying it, or one of its relatives.