#Tolkien’s friends who died in WWI | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

destielshippingnews · 2 years

Text

Edvard's Supernatural Guide: The Author is Dead: Long Live bi!Dean!

An essay on biphobia, heteronormativity, and interpretation

Dean likes men. I am tired of arguing my case for this over and over again and getting the same scorn and derision from biphobic and homophobic fans (and the occasional heteronormative bisexual person, believe it or not!). I do this of my own free will, but it is physically and mentally exhausting.

People hate gay!Dean. Those who acknowledge the existence of bisexuality hate bi!Dean. In contrast, I could say Buffy is bi and point to her relationship with Faith as supporting evidence, and I would expect to get a mild ‘You just want to see girls kiss’ at most. I could point out that Willow is possibly bisexual, not gay as she states, and expect little blow back from most people. Suggest Dean is bisexual, however, and it is a completely different story. Suggest Cas is gay or bi and that he and Dean were more than ‘friends’ or ‘brothers’, and the response will end up with me wanting to consume vast quantities of glass.

While I am arguing in the context of Supernatural, a lot of my points will not be exclusive to the show, and could just as easily be applied to Frodo and Sam, for example. The main points I want to discuss first before zooming in on Dean’s bisexuality and Destiel are:

1) authorial intent vs death of the author

2) the ‘gay’ bias

3) heteronormativity / heterosexuality as default

So let’s begin with authorial intent. This is the classic principle of interpreting a fictional text, and the purpose is to find exactly what it is the author wanted to say with a text in order to understand its real meaning.

To give an example, if we were to discuss the topic of Frodo and Sam’s relationship, one could well point to the fact that the author was a devout Catholic, lost two close friends in WWI, and was very traditional in many ways. Given this, we can’t justifiably interpret Frodo and Sam’s relationship as anything more than platonic if we go by authorial intent. Rather, we must see it as a reflection of his own experiences with his friends in WWI, and as a glimpse of a time when men could be emotionally intimate with other men without fear of being thought to be homosexual. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity (or it is thought by many to be so), and Tolkien would surely not have written his characters as gay or bisexual because it would be against his principles. Certainly it is possible to interpret them like that, but these interpretations are subordinate to the author’s intentions, and are not to be taken seriously. There is one true meaning to a text, and that is whatever the author wanted it to be. If we analyse based on authorial intent, Frodo and Sam are heterosexual: nothing else is possible.

The opposite of authorial intent is death of the author. This is a concept popularised in 1967 by literary theorist Roland Barthes which claims that authorial intent should not be given especial weight when analysing a fictional text; any serious analysis based on and harmonious with the text is as valid as any other. The author is no longer the authority, but rather the authority is with the audience.

In this framework, it is absolutely valid to interpret Frodo and Sam’s relationship as platonic and as a reflection of Tolkien’s friendship with men at university. However, there are too many things in the novel which suggest something deeper than this. Sam canonically calls Frodo beautiful while he is sleeping, and holds his hands on many an occasion. Frodo never married, nor ever showed romantic or sexual interest in women. One of the reasons he left Bag End for Valinor at the end of the book is because his continued presence kept Sam divided between him and his wife Rosie. Let me reiterate: Sam was unable to be fully devoted to his wife as long as Frodo was around, but was pulled between both of them. Furthermore, after Rosie died, Sam did not remain in Middle-Earth to die and be buried with his wife, but followed Frodo into the west by sailing to Aman. He chose Frodo over his wife. All of this can be interpreted as purely platonic, but one would have to be in serious denial to say none of this can be justifiably interpreted as a sexual and/or romantic love.

Death of the author holds that both these interpretations are valid. Neither contradicts anything in the text whatsoever and both are harmonious with it, so by the law of death of the author both must be accepted as valid interpretations of the book. This is not to say all interpretations are equally valid, of course: surface level interpretations are worth less than in-depth analyses.

Returning to the point of the essay, when stating Dean is bisexual, I have often been called arrogant for presuming my opinion and my interpretation is worth as much as or more than the writers and actors. This is based on a complete misunderstanding of my position: I do not think for a second that my opinion on the subject is worth more than anybody else’s solely by virtue of my being me. My opinion on the subject is, however, worth more than a casual viewer or reader of a text who has put little or no time into active interaction with it.

This applies equally to actors, authors, writers, and artists of all stripes. Elijah Wood’s opinions of Frodo and Sam’s relationship, for example, is not worth more or less than mine just because he played Frodo. His opinions on his acting methods or what he intended when playing in a certain scene can certainly be interesting, but when analysing the films are to be given no more weight than anybody else’s by virtue of his having portrayed the character.

Anybody who has visited my home can surely testify to the fact I value Jensen (the actor who played Dean, in case you’re out of the loop) about as much as my favourite bands and books. Other than my inordinate number of Dean Funko Pops...

and my insanely expensive custom-made Soldier Boy Funko Pop (months before Jensen's episodes of The Boys have even been released)...

I have a signed photo he sent me framed in my bedroom; a Dean poster above my bed which has followed me from London to Helsinki via Lapland since 2015; a Radio Company hat which I wore all summer and autumn 2021 and will do so again in 2022...

and various other sundry items.

(Nephew's face scribbled out for his privacy)

I have made no bones about the fact I rank him among my favourite artists (both as actor AND singer) along with the likes of Floor Jansen and Einar Selvik (no, that's not hyperbole). I am the unrepentant fanboy watching all 448 of his episodes of Days of Our Lives, so when I say his interpretation is worth no more than others, it should tell you I am serious about this.

I say the same about Misha: he has said in no uncertain terms that Cas’s ‘I love you’ was a declaration of homosexual love (to which the other cast members said ‘We all knew anyway’), but we do not need this to come to this conclusion. The Show itself makes it clear enough.

What an actor intends whilst playing a role is only of especial interest if analysing intent. If analysing a text for what it shows us, rather than what the author wanted to tell us, intent means nothing. Jensen has indeed said things in the past to the tune of having played Dean as straight, that he thinks Dean is straight, that he does not think there is anything more than friendship and brotherhood between him and Cas, that Destiel does not exist etc, but the actual show and his own acting choices can easily be interpreted elsewise. His interpretation means no more than anybody else’s.

(Side note: those comments were years ago. He has spoken in vaguer terms on the subject since, but his acting and behaviour in the last few years of the show, and his comments relating to the finale suggest a change in his opinions and interpretations. He wrote a song called Watching Over Me for his album which can only be reasonably interpreted as Dean's feelings for Cas. There is a very good chance he was Ben Hur'd (kept completely in the dark about the bi subtext and coding, though certain writers knew it full well), and that after he cottoned on after five or six years, he was forced to lie to and sometimes hurt fans by denying its existence in order to protect the show (his livelihood) from the homophobic network and executive producers. This is the only explanation for his Jekyll and Hyde attitude to bi!dean and Destiel.)

So when I say Dean is bi, this is how I interpret the show based on analysis of what it shows us. It is not simply wishful thinking, delusion, or wanting to see men kiss (I have access to the internet, I can do that on my lunch break), but seeing what is in front of my eyes and interpreting it accordingly. This of course naturally leads to certain accusations of bias, which brings me to the next topic of discussion: the ‘gay’ bias.

Some will say that I and others who interpret a character presented outwardly as straight to be gay or bi do so because we are biased. We want to see ourselves reflected in our media, so we push our own sexuality onto him or her (or whatever variation thereupon is appropriate) or we see and interpret things in a certain way simply because we want to. This is bias, and therefore our views are invalid.

The assumption is therefore that the heterosexual viewpoint and interpretation is the neutral, valid one, i.e. the perspective lacking bias. This is thus the perspective to be favoured. A heterosexual interpreting a character as heterosexual is not down to bias of any variety, it is simply a neutral, unbiased way of viewing things. A heterosexual does not push his or her sexuality onto a character, because the character just is heterosexual. Interpreting Frodo and Sam as anything other than heterosexual is simply down to bias. Our interpretation might be based on the text itself, but we only interpret it the way we do because our perspective is skewed.

This is one of the most pernicious aspects of erasure and silencing I have encountered over the last 17 months. An angel in a man’s body stood on screen and said ‘I love you’ to a man in front of the tiny number of people who still watch Supernatural, and then sacrificed himself to save the man he loved from Death. His confession of ‘I love you’ cannot be interpreted as fraternal or platonic in context; the mirrors with Buffy/Angel and true happiness leading to metaphorical death, for one, are particularly glaring comparisons, but to the point: a gay love confession was on our screens, but my interpreting what I see right in front of me as homosexual love is biased. I am a gay man, so my opinion is skewed, partisan, and invalid. It was not a confession of romantic and/or sexual love, but rather an angel confessing his love for humanity, or a man confessing his love to his ‘brother’ or any other way which avoids the admission of the Greek vice.

Forgive me for being so bold, but if homosexual or bisexual interpretations are based on bias, then so too must heterosexual interpretations be. After all, do heterosexuals not want to see heterosexuals in their media? Do they not push their own sexuality onto characters who express interest in the opposite sex? Do they not interpret things in a certain way simply because they want to? I am not heterosexual, so I cannot say for certain, but given the sheer desperate denial when a man tells another man ‘I love you’ with tears in his eyes, it is no stretch of my imagination to conclude it is a distinct probability. However, it is the norm they live in and it is the norm presented to them not only in almost every single piece of media they consume, but in their everyday lives right from birth. Their perspective must naturally feel unbiased and, well, natural, because it almost always goes unchallenged.

This leads me onto the third topic: heteronormativity. To clarify, I use this term to mean a few things:

a) that heterosexuality is the norm and everything else a deviation from the norm

b) that all sexualities and sexual relations work like a traditional heterosexual relationship

c) that everybody in real life and fiction is to be assumed heterosexual unless presented otherwise or proven without a shadow of a doubt to be otherwise.

Point a) is the one I have the least problem with. Heterosexuality – or heterosexual behaviour, at least – is most usual. It’s safe to assume most people you meet are probably heterosexual. b) and c) however, are much more irksome. I have written elsewhere about my issues with heteronormativity and same-sex male relationships in fiction (read here), so here I will focus on c).

Heterosexuality is the norm in most people’s minds. Having grown up in this paradigm, I too have to stop myself making assumptions about people’s orientations, but if I were heterosexual, I would likely have little reason to do so. Homosexuals and bisexuals do exist in this paradigm, but they are clearly differentiated from the heterosexuals: the males by their moisturised faces, limp wrists, or interest in fashion, and the females by their short hair, dungarees, and intimacy with hardware shops. This is comfortable as it does not challenge the unquestioned norm. However, if a character does not behave like this, it is assumed s/he is heterosexual until evidence is presented to the contrary. Even then, if the evidence can be explained away in a heterosexual manner, it will be, as heterosexual is the default.

The result of this is that when trying to argue my case that Frodo is gay and Sam is bi, I am dismissed because their behaviour can be explained in a heterosexual way. When arguing that Dean Winchester – an aggressively non-stereotypical bisexual – is bisexual, a mountainous burden of proof is placed upon me to ‘prove it’, but any evidence which can be otherwise explained is dismissed.

The effect of this is that claiming a character is not heterosexual is like accusing somebody of committing a crime, and I must provide overwhelming evidence which can not be explained in any way other than bisexuality. Yes, Dean got flustered and nervous around Dr Sexy, but that doesn’t mean he’s sexually attracted to him: he’s just a fanboy.

This is fairly frequently followed by an accusation of my trying to make everything about sex, and that trying to force a heterosexual character to be gay is toxic behaviour. The fact that heterosexuality is forced upon characters by default is unquestioned, yet if my evidence supporting a bisexual interpretation is ‘toxic’, then what is their behaviour which they have no evidence for?

A character cannot simply be bisexual or homosexual. A character must prove it, in the same way a real person is made to feel s/he must. As somebody who had no desire to ‘come out’, but rather got dragged out by a nosy mother reading things she shouldn’t have and then starting a very awkward and uncomfortable conversation about it in front of my dad in the car, this narrative is not one I hold dear.

Frodo and Sam cannot just be whatever it is they are, and Dean cannot just be bisexual, but rather it must be proven like a murder. This reinforces the perception of it as abnormal, wrong, and invalid.

Moving from the general to the more specific at the end of this essay, the following issues are also important aspects to this discussion, but are best left for full elucidations on their own.

One is a complete lack of understanding of what a bisexual is, and negative preconceptions about what a gay or bi man is. Most people unfortunately don’t factor bisexuality into the equations, so a discussion of e.g. Dean and Cas being more than friends leads to the inevitable ‘Dean’s not gay, he loves women’ or ‘Cas is only shown having sex with women, so he’s not gay’. Never mind the fact that plenty of gay men spent a lot of time presenting as straight and many married women and had children before accepting their homosexuality in middle age or older, the thing about bisexual men is that they like women AND men.

Yes, both Dean and Cas are shown explicitly to have sexual and/or romantic interest in and relationships with women, but Dean gets flustered around men as much as around women, if not more. From series 7 onwards, he has almost no sexual relations with women (at least that we’re told of), but he does form close relationships with other men and spends most of his free time with either his brother or Cas. Cas does have occasional sex with a woman, but series 6 showed his utter devotion to Dean: everything he did with Purgatory and the Leviathan was for Dean. As the show goes on, he increasingly rejects women’s advances whilst acting more and more like Dean’s unofficial romantic partner.

If we don’t assume the characters are heterosexual until proven guilty, we can observe these things and see that perhaps the characters are not what we assumed. As for the negative opinions of gay and bi men, comments such as the following suggests further reasons for resistance to interpreting male characters as bisexual: ‘Dean is a hot-blooded male who loves women’. Yes, bisexual men love women, but the claim he is ‘a hot-blooded male’ stinks of negative perceptions about men who love men, either exclusively or as well as women.

I would have you know, dear reader, than my blood does indeed get very hot around men, as does my bisexual male friends’ blood around their wives and girlfriends. We are just as vital, vigorous, and alive as any other man, but clearly some people are unwilling to face this truth. They want to see us as weak, emasculated, and pathetic; the heterosexual women who say things like this hate the idea of their ‘heterosexual’ masturbation fodder not being the ‘real man’ they want him to be, and the heterosexual men who say this fear losing a role model or a cool character, because they do not want to identify with or live vicariously through a gay or bi man.

Moreover, they want to pretend we do not exist. We make them uncomfortable, and they are disgusted by the sex acts they reduce us to and define us by. They do not want to see us, and they certainly do not want to hear what we have to say. This is simply homophobia and biphobia, and I will credit my reader with enough life experience to not need these explained to them.

One of the last topic before I finish is the apparent belittlement of platonic male friendships supposedly inherent in seeing a relationship between two men as romantic and/or sexual. As somebody who cares very much about male friendships and male bonds in general, it never ceases to amuse me how people will trot out this argument against having a male/male pairing:

I think it's so toxic that people try to turn healthy, platonic, but still loving male friendships into something more. All that does is reinforce the idea that men can't form any kind of intimate connection without it turning sexual.

Male friendships are healthy, claim this and copious other comments to the same effect. And they are. I have gone a large part of my life without meaningful male friendships, and the ones I have managed to build in the last few years have shown me exactly how much I was missing. The laughing, the birthday parties, the support, the care, talking until 4 o’clock in the morning… I do not know where I would be without it, so imagine my ire when I see that people in general only care about men being friends when the alternative is a same-sex relationship. Otherwise, male friendships are a source of amusement, and derided as ‘bromances’. They are seen as childish, incidental, and something men will grow out of when they find a woman and have children. A man’s relationship with a woman is an adult bond, but men’s bonds with men are risible.

The culture we live in is a toxic environment for male friendships. Claiming it is toxic to see more than friendship sometimes in a relationship is simply an effort to silence and shame us out of sharing our own perspectives. A same-sex male relationship is not to be taken seriously, or to be treated with respect, dignity, or gravitas. It is an object of no interest to anybody but gay men and women, or so their thinking goes, and has no place in mainstream media or stories, especially not in a horror/fantasy show. So they attempt to silence us through calling us toxic, belying their own views on homosexual behaviour and relationships in the process.

As for ‘forcing things onto the actors’, no. This is a diversion tactic, and I am sick of it. It is true that a tiny handful of unhinged fans have threatened the actors, their wives, and apparently even their friends, out of anger that certain relationships are not canonical. Jensen (Dean’s actor) was handed a voodoo doll of his wife full of fish hooks, for example, and somebody tried to stab Misha (Cas’s actor) with a box cutter at a convention. And yes, for some in the fandom, ‘ships are purely about pornography (middle-aged heterosexual women in the Supernatural fandom apparently really like abusive, incestuous relationships). This is unhinged insanity, and after this, I can well understand and sympathise with the actors’ resistance to certain ‘ships and their distaste with the idea of their characters being more than friends. The work they do should not be reduced to material for sexual gratification, and their own and their families’ security should not be jeopardised.

This is a completely different phenomenon than discussing a character’s orientation. My seeing Dean as bisexual forces nothing on the actor, nor does it rub anything in his face. Funnily enough, the people saying this are the kind to objectify and sexualise the actors in a way which would be seen as chauvinistic if a man were doing it to a woman, but returning to the point: seeing more than friendship between Dean and Cas should not make the actors in any way uncomfortable unless they are intensely homophobic.

This homophobia is highly unlikely; Misha makes no bones about his public support of GLBT people, and has frequently supported them loudly and in public. Jensen is his close friend, and he has done a good bit of charity work for gay, bi, and trans youth in Texas with his wife. In an interview about a big ‘secret’ his character on Days of Our Lives might have, he stated in 1998 that playing Eric Brady as a gay man would be 'Fine by me' (while he was a straight-presenting 20 year-old Texan from a Christian family playing a character on a show watched by conservative housewives, grandmothers, and unrepentant fanboys in Finland).

Indeed, he did play a bisexual lover of Marilyn Monroe in Blonde (2001), and Priestley in Ten Inch Hero (2007) could very well be bisexual, too. His production company Chaos Machine has had the gay pride flag on its Instagram profile pic for most of a year (see here), his brewery Family Business Beer Company posted this for Pride 2022, and his private interactions with gay, bi, and trans fans have been heart-warming.

This is not to mention his gay auntie and her wife who love him to the moon and back [x] [x], or the song he wrote about Castiel from Dean's perspective for his own album.

youtube

He is not a homophobe and I am tired of the gaslighting. But on the subject of homophobia, Jensen has apparently been the target of homophobia and gay jokes over the course of his life, mostly due to his modelling and his androgynous - sometimes downright feminine - appearance until his early 20s. His characters in Dark Angel, Dawson's Creek, and Supernatural are also the butt of homophobic jokes largely because of Jensen's looks. I can understand his discomfort. It is easy to see how the sheer amounts of porn by straight and bi women for straight and bi women who talk about the characters and actors with homophobic language would feel like another big gay joke which he is the butt of.

The Dean of my interpretation is a bisexual, cissexual man. Cas is gay, possibly bi, but either way he is the Patroclus to Dean’s Achilles. Cas has loved Dean since 2010, maybe earlier, and Dean might not have been far behind. However, it was not until 15x18 (the last episode I view as valid) that I was convinced it was reciprocal: the look in Dean’s eyes the moment after Cas said ‘I love you’, the lump in his throat, and his tears all begged the viewer to see that Dean loved Cas in the same way.

Dean loves Cas, and Cas loves Dean. Upon rewatching this scene for the umpteenth time, I have come to believe Dean knew Cas was going to say 'I love you' before Cas even said it. This is not toxic, creepy, stalkery, or wishful thinking: it is right there on my screen in front of my eyes. Perhaps the deniers are simply seeing what they wish to see.

People will hand-wave this as ‘just my interpretation’, lacking the self-awareness to see that their own reading is also ‘just their interpretation’, with no more inherent worth than anybody else’s. But I can not have this discussion every single time I see anger directed at a drawing of Dean and Cas kissing, or a discussion of Dean’s bisexuality. It is simply exhausting, and I hope that the 3 ½ hours I spent writing this goes some way to combatting the utter detestation we are subjected to when we dare to claim that a character or two in a television show might not be heterosexual, but rather two men in love with one another.

51 notes · View notes

luna-writes-stuff · 2 years

Note

luna i am . . . a little confuzzled can you clear something up for me? alright so I’m pretty mad about princess disa not having a beard and that the male elves don’t have long hair, and the whole galadriel situation, but there are soooo many people pissed about the diverse casting ??? I’ve heard a lot of people say that it’s because tolkien created middle earth so he could write what he wanted to be English folklore, so most of the characters are white because it’s based on Anglo Saxon stuff but I don’t see why that means there can’t be poc in the cast..

(am I the dumb one?)

The short answer is; Some people turn into giant babies when they see someone with a darker tint having success.

A full answer is; Unfortunately, the Tolkien consists out of a lot conservative and racist people, as J.R.R Tolkien is a high-fantasy writer. In his time (1892-1973) there was very little acceptance for anyone who wasn't white, straight, christian and cis, and those prejudices sadly get passed through generations. The last two generations have thankfully been much more accepting, but conservative people are still hanging around there, and they don't understand the sudden diverse casting, claiming it's "just to get more audience" and that "they are overdoing it". They don't understand that they are not the only people in the world who like fantasy and that representation really matters.

Then we come to the idea that Tolkien wanted to write English Folkore; A bunch of bullshit. Sure, some of his stories are inspired by them and other mythologies, but this does not mean he intended to write English Folkore. Works like The Father Christmas Letters and The Hobbit were originally written for his children as a gift. If anything, the Lord of the Rings was primarely written because his readers wanted to see more hobbits. Besides that, the Lord of the Rings series were inspired by the loss and love of his mother when he turned twelve. Father Morgan (a priest) took him in, making him a giant father figure for Tolkien himself, something he referenced to with Bilbo and Frodo's relation.

Besides the passing of his mother, WWI played a big role for Lord of the Rings as well. He often send letters to his friends who fought, but eventually found out they had all died as well:

"The ring in The Lord of the Rings is a symbol of the burden that Tolkien must have felt after realizing that it was left to him to write something that would preserve the memory and ideas of his fallen friends – to say the things they never had a chance to say and to write the stories they never had a chance to write."

- Literary Yard

If we fall back onto the Hobbit and his other works, we come to the basic fact that Tolkien first created an entire world and language and then realized it might need a story:

"Tolkien was heavily inspired by the writings, languages and fantasies of Icelandic linguistic traditions, particularly Old Norse sagas like the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda."

- Newsweek

The Hobbit was written for his children primarily, as a fairy tale of their own. Though Gothic and Germanic tints are shown in the story, and the use of Slavic names are shown in its lexicon, it is nowhere explicitly written that it was supposed to be a new English Folklore. While writing the story, he did experiment with own writing styles and storylines, but it was meant to be a gift to his children. (Source)

Judging on what we know of Tolkien's life and words, I think he would love to see POC in his own projects. It is the older fans who assume he did not, because they would not want their own idol to work against them. I personally think the diverse casting is one of the only things that makes me happy about the whole Amazon project. I am so relieved to see some more representation in my favorite fandom, even if Amazon is definitely going to fuck up the entire lore. We will finally get some awesome characters who aren't white, male protagonists!

I hope that helped a little bit! And no, you are not dumb. The people who are angered by POC participating in a Tolkien project are. If they truly cared about the whole reveal of the series, they should be more pissed off about princess Dísa's lack of a beard than about her color. They should leave their racism with the rest of 1945❤️

#tolkien #LOTR #lord of the rings #amazon #rings of power

35 notes · View notes

squidproquoclarice · 3 years

Note

hey squid! if you're feeling like it, could i ask your thoughts on boromir? i just found out that you like lotr, and he's my fave and you're my fave!

Sure! There was a great meta I saw on FB about Boromir (actually from @letmetellyouaboutmyfeels, small world, eh?) that essentially went with the thesis that Aragorn is the shining heroic paragon we dream of being, but Boromir is the flawed person we are, particularly as we grow older and inevitably encounter some of life’s disappointments and our own failures. And I think that’s apt. In a story populated with larger than life personalities, there are the more down-to-earth protagonists: namely, the hobbits and Boromir. The hobbits are wonderful in their sensibility and humility and the illustration of “the most unlikely people are capable of being heroes”, but there’s also something in how Tolkien wrote them as somewhat childish and innocent. I don’t mean that in a negative way, but in that there’s something naive and pure about the hobbits. Which is part of the reason Frodo is so badly damaged by the whole quest and finds he can’t live in the world anymore, can’t go back to the Shire and live that life. Obvious and huge parallel there to Tolkien relating the experience of combat veterans of WWI returning home and finding a dissonance with that former life, especially in the movies where the Scouring of the Shire didn’t happen to bring the reality of war to the home front, and therefore the Shire is still pristine and untouched. But again, that’s the story rising from the experiences of young Edwardian men being thrown into an incomprehensible, scary, and violent world after a fairly idyllic life to that point. It’s very well written, and it’s certainly relatable to more people than British men ~17-25 in 1914-1918. But it’s only going to be deeply personal and relatable to a certain type of person about their experiencing a very sudden loss of innocence. Then you have Boromir, whom I agree is the relatable character in LotR for many of us. Boromir has grown up in a country fallen from its former glory. Boromir’s grown up in a country constantly under threat. Boromir’s grown up with the weight of impossible expectations. Boromir is afraid, and Boromir is tired, but Boromir will fight all the same. Boromir loves his people, loves his brother. Boromir's a warrior, not the “wizard’s pupil” like Faramir, but his motives in fighting are still fairly pure. Boromir knows he’s not given power as a lordly birthright, but he’s instead been entrusted with it as a caretaker, and he takes that charge seriously as the heir to the Stewardship of Gondor rather than bearing it with arrogant entitlement.

Boromir’s kind, showing the hobbits how to fight, demanding that they be given a little time to rest and absorb the loss of Gandalf. Boromir’s eager to defend those in need, by fighting for the hobbits, by showing them how to fight, by caring about Gondor and its people, by constantly telling Fucking Asshole Denethor that Faramir has worth and talent and wants desperately only to please his dad. Boromir falls to the Ring briefly--and who among us hasn’t made a poor choice we immediately regret? But he makes that choice not for the lure of power for himself, but out of the idea that this will help him save those he loves. Even his failure is generally well-intended. And he realizes it and is horrified, and dies trying to make it right. He even defends Merry and Pippin to the end. Boromir falters. Boromir doubts. And alone of the Fellowship, Boromir dies. And that could be taken as a sign of his weakness. But I believe it’s a sign of his relatable human nature. Most of us didn’t grow up in an idyllic bubble like the hobbits. Most of us aren’t paragons and heirs to great power like Aragorn. Most of us aren’t amazingly powerful like Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas. Most of us are people who grew up in some kind of uncertainty, and who have found the world is more complicated, exhausting, and disappointing than the tales would have us believe. That even our best intents and best efforts sometimes won’t be enough. That sometimes darkness wins a battle. That we’re flawed and human, despite our best intents, and all we can do is own our mistakes as best we can. He’s dying, afraid that he’s failed entirely, and his final exchange is with Aragorn, distant aloof near-elvish Aragorn who hasn’t really cared about the people of Gondor who are actually his responsibility. Boromir has tried repeatedly to make Aragorn care, to make him love Gondor and its people as Boromir does. And Aragorn does. He swears that he won’t let Minas Tirith and Gondor fall into darkness. Aragorn takes Boromir’s vambraces and wears them for the rest of the journey, openly bearing the sigil of Gondor and bearing the memory of a dear friend and Gondor’s fiercest defender. And that’s the legacy of Boromir--his absence deeply marks the Fellowship, and we see it moving pieces later with things like Aragorn’s love of Gondor, or Pippin’s offering service to Denethor and then helping Faramir. Boromir died, he faltered when confronted with the Ring, but his life was no failure, his death no forlorn disgrace. His memory lives on and helps his friends save the day in the end. And Tolkien could easily have written Boromir as a boorish, selfish disgrace in this tale that’s often about larger-than-life fantasy archetypes, but he didn’t.

He’s a deeply relatable man with fears and flaws, who loved fiercely and fought fiercely. Who knew he was no grand hero fated to save the world, but only a man caught up in events far bigger than him, with a charge to do what he could to the best of his ability. Who acted with as much honor as he could, and who felt his mistakes deeply. Boromir’s an ordinary person who’s a major character in a high fantasy tale.

We admire Aragorn’s perfection, or the beyond-human abilities of Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf. We adore the hobbits in their earnest naivete. But at the end of the day, especially as we get older, we relate to Boromir.

#boromir #lord of the rings #lotr #thank you for coming to my ring talk #Anonymous

29 notes · View notes

taaroko · 4 years

Text

Quarantined at Bag End

Nine years ago, my dear friend and I set out to reread The Lord of the Rings and make it into kind of an online book club thing with discussions and a regular schedule. We made an LJ group about it, called the Hobbiton Reading Society, and I made a couple of icons to go with it. It was all very charming and well-intentioned.

...We made it as far as chapter 5 before fizzling out, which was probably my fault. There’s no time like a quarantine to pull out the good books, though, so we’re making a fresh attempt. However, the landscape of internet fandom has changed somewhat, so we’re not sure what the best place is to host our discussions. Tumblr or LJ? Or is this worthy of a Discord server? (I’m not rightly sure what a Discord server is, but they seem to be good sorts of fandom hubs in this strange age after the fall of fan forums.)

Anyone who wants to join us in our reread and discussion is welcome to do so and invite their friends, and please let me know what platform sounds most appealing. My vote is probably for Tumblr because of how many people are on it, even though LJ has a more suitable structure for discussion.

Since the last time I read LotR (well, listened to the audiobooks, which is what I’m doing now as well), I’ve read The Wheel of Time and many Brandon Sanderson books and played a lot of D&D, so it’ll be especially fun to return to the story that began this entire genre now that I have all those under my belt.

If we make it all the way through Return of the King, we will certainly celebrate with a rewatch of the films. (Extended editions, naturally.)

So far, I’ve already listened to Tolkien’s foreword, the prologue, and a chunk of chapter 1. Because this isn’t the actual discussion group yet, just a post meant to gauge interest levels, I just want to talk about the foreword. As a writer, listening to Tolkien’s words on this massive creative endeavor of his was incredibly moving and delightful. He was so far from expecting this series that he wrote because of his love of linguistics and history would ever become widely beloved. It was just a quirky amusement for him and his kids. His mention of living through the hardships of war was really interesting, and it will be interesting to see how much of that shows through in the story. He noted that even people who live through a war can quickly forget what that was like once peace time returns, and it was strange for him to look back on WWI (which he fought in and many of his friends died fighting) while WWII was happening.

I also loved what he had to say about the opinions of his critics, and it’s probably something any aspiring author should take to heart:

“Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.”

Is that the greatest burn of all time? I think it might be. We stan a legend.

#lord of the rings #quarantine reads #lotr reread #who wants in?

3 notes · View notes

khazzman · 4 years

Text

I’ve been thinking a lot about why I am constantly going back to Lord of the Rings. From a young age, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have tended to be in rotation as my favorite things. But now more and more I find that Lord of the Rings is my main source of comfort. For one I feel that it is because it is fairly timeless. Sure that Amazon series will be coming out but the books and films are already so engraved that they feel untouchable while with Star Wars the story has been progressively expanding since I was born.

But then there is the main reason I find I am drawn to it. It is beautifully wholesome and bittersweet.

The wholesome thing should be obvious to those who have any knowledge of it. It isn’t a series founded on epic battles and great heroes. There are of course many of those but they are relegated to only about a quarter of the total storytelling. The majority instead focuses on friends out of their depth, banding together out of love and loyalty. Friends who cry together and laugh together. Who risk horrible danger simply because they don’t want their friend to face it alone. It is full of pieces of wisdom that teach the value of mercy and courage. Strength but the foresight to wield it sparingly. About seeking where live still flourishes instead of wanting after death.

But it is also, like life, bittersweet. Adventures are pumped up to be magnificent things, fun activities to undergo. But adventures leave scars. You come back changed and not always for the better. Frodo and friends go off to save the world in their own small ways and there is suffering because of it. Loss of friends and mentors, dark toils and sorrowful partings. Frodo, after losing both Gandalf and Boromir, two of those he looked to for wisdom and strength respectively, realizes that perhaps his journey will not be There and Back Again. All he can do is go and give it his all. Every bit of him. And though he survives this entire ordeal, he doesn’t. The young Master Frodo of Bag End died in Mordor. The Frodo that returns is a troubled man who has seen and hurt too much.

Perhaps the hobbits are akin to Tolkien and his friends going off to the horrors of WWI. Thinking they were going to be fighting for the Glory of King and Country only to find the killing fields of the Western Front to be the only truth. Tolkien, the lone survivor, returns as the Frodo, hurt and scarred by his own “Adventure”.

In the end it is a good ending. Evil is put in its place, a just man is made King, a maiden seeking death finds new purpose in life, and the value of mercy is made clear in the victory over the Ring. But now the Elves are leaving, magic slowly leaving the world. Though evil be vanquished, its wounds still hurt, and the home the hobbits return too has been touched by the wars as well, and is no longer what they remembered.

They cut down the Party Tree. A new one will have to be planted.

And I think all this is beautiful and more human than many other fantasy stories I have read before.

#lord of the rings #tolkien #lotr #frodo #sam #merry #Pippin #my feelings #they feel so much

22 notes · View notes

cassandra-bites · 5 years

Text

the third issue of DIE was ... a lot. I’m only beginning to understand it, and only very imperfectly. But I keep coming back to it, and have now collected myself enough to think aloud. Spoilers beneath the cut.

DIE makes use of poetic structures from the very first issue. There are rhymes everywhere - die, lie, cry, deny, defy, dry, spy, eye. Sol wearing a die in each eye is as poetic as it is logical.

I thought I was reaching really badly, thinking of DIE in poetic terms, and gave up thinking about it. This issue makes me want to keep thinking. It’s set up as a chiasmus of sorts: it begins with dungeons and dragons and ends with a (dead) dragon and a (march into a) dungeon, and in the process the meaning of dungeon and the meaning of dragon are both radically changed.

Between the appearance of the dragon and its death, Ash ends up in a hole. It is, to cite Tolkien and his reference character in the comic, a “nasty, dirty, wet hole” -- a trench that Stephanie Hans makes immediately evocative of WWI and the trench fever the historical person named Tolkien caught there. In this fictional trench, Ash encounters four hobbit-sized soldiers: a dead ringer for Frodo who proudly displays the wedding ring that weighs on him and is never invisible, his brave Samwise-equivalent who dearly wishes to see elves and whose eyes have melted out, a dead (halved - the pun was a little gruesome) halfling named “Mister P”, and another dead, unnamed fourth friend (Merry is not a word to be applied here). After the Frodo character dictates a letter to Luthi, the wife who references the name Tolkien associated with his own wife, it becomes clear there will be no “there and back again” for him either. His death is punctuated by the appearance of an officer who wears Tolkien’s face and cites his pipe-smoking habit. He does some interesting editing work on a passage from The Hobbit, switching what was nice to what is nasty, replacing life with death:

“In a hole in the ground there lived died a hobbit an Englander. Not a nasty, dirty, wet nice hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort., but a nasty, dirty, wet hole, a charnel hole ...” (the bold bit is added in the comic; the final bit is, however, not wholly new, but a reversal of the order in which those words were originally used)

Ash recognizes the reference and the person for whom the officer stands, deconstructs the whole down to its seemingly simple, idealized, dismissible parts, recognizing that she is seeing fictional references in context - in context that is at once fictional, trope-y, and reflective of real facts of Tolkien’s biography, of the real sacrifices and horrors of war - and struggles to come to terms with the hurt she feels. The Die-representative of Tolkien responds with another transformative line: “Allegories are ugly. But poetry? Poetry is poetry, and war poetry most of all.”

This line arrested me when I first saw it, mostly because of the quadruple repetition of the word poetry in a context defined by fours: Ash has the D4 in her chest, plus there are the four dead hobbits (and four that will replace them in the closing sequence, walking into the dungeon in another flip, this time of “one does not simply walk into Mordor”). But I had zero inkling of what it could mean until I found the citation it reframes. In response to readers who insisted on reducing his books to allegories for historical events or ideas, to fixed, defined, unchanging, top-down issued references, Tolkien wrote:

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” -- foreword to Fellowship of the Ring

Gillen thus replaces “history” with “poetry” and “war poetry” (a potential label for the issue itself), but keeps the opposition to allegories that dictate how a story should be read and interpreted.

The ending of the issue seems to reflect that desire to privilege readerly liberty, to open up a singular set of references to a question that concerns all readers - world war. (The closing image does this too, putting the reader right behind the four soldiers, as though to say - will you follow?) “Where would we have been if we were sixteen in 1914?” asks Matt. “Who volunteers to come to a dungeon?” Ash asks, concluding: “Better people than us”. The line calls back to how, in the eyes of the Frodo stand-in, she stood for the “high folks”, in contrast to the “low” “likes of us” used as cannon-fodder for "wizards and their schemes”. The final image has four Prussian hobbits, indistinguishable from the four who just died, killing the eagle sent to deliver the message for Luthi. Their officer (is he a reference too?) reads the letter, a letter any one of them would have wanted to send in the same situation, tells them they have stopped propaganda from being sent (a lie), burns the letter much like the dragon burned and gassed the four Englanders, then coolly sends them into the dungeon that is the war front, leaving the reader to reflect on ... a lot.

Like - how much of this specific situation was caused by Angela’s rush for Fair Gold to power her suit? Did the four dead ringers die because the dragon was brought out to stop her and the party? Or - what are the conditions under which fantasy and poetry are produced and consumed in the first place, and what are the costs? What is its legacy, and what of it does it choose to hide or reveal?

The repetitions of “foul” come to mind here. In this issue, foul is used first by the Frodo character as he tries to determine Ash’s allegiance (“fair or foul?”). Ash then silently characterizes herself, in her Bard/Dictator role, as foul to most people. Having dismissed elves as “dumb and obvious” in the past issue, only for the elf queen to transform into a murderous orc, Ash takes a more measured position on Tolkien here by recognizing the value of hobbits. As a result, the Master Who Looks and Talks Like Tolkien concludes she is not “entirely foul”. However one interprets this, it seems plausible that “fair and foul” could to be a question for the entire comic - two opposites held together and impossible to rend apart.

(What is fair, what is foul about the emotional manipulation the comic itself produces through Ash’s reaction, Matt’s reaction, and in the reader? Notice how the comic, by virtue of its having pages, puts the reader through the motions of closing the page on the four as they "simply walk" into Mordor, thereby putting the reader on the same side as the party on the question "who volunteers". Then there are metaphorical levels - what is foul about Angela going for FAIR gold? how shall the fair "alabaster princess" Ash reconcile herself to also being ash, ready to crumble under dragons’ breath, to the foul words that created the fouling corpse of a former lover who fairly? cursed her back? etc etc)

It looks like the next stop in the story is going to be the space of Brontë sister gaming, (a stop in a town invented by the mothers of gaming as this war-torn realm was regulated by the father of fantasy?), which starts up even more questions. But I’ve gone on long enough; looking forward to seeing how it all develops, textually and visually -

#diecomic #diecomic spoilers

40 notes · View notes

texaxwib · 2 years

Text

BIO SKETCH OF J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 – 1973)

J. R. R. Tolkien was born in South Africa; January 3, 1892. He was kidnapped by one of the natives; though not for ransom - but rather for bragging rights. (Grotta's biography supplies additional details.)

His health was very fragile and so at the age of 3, his mother took him to England, hoping his health would improve. His health did improve but they never returned to Africa because his father died.

Both of his parents died when he was young. His father (Arthur) passed away in 1896; and his mother (Mabel) in 1904. He was raised by a Catholic priest.

Tolkien was commissioned a Lieutenant in July 1915; served during the First World War, and was released from active duty in October 1918. Later, he indicated that the young soldiers who fought under him in his platoon served as models for his brave hobbits.

Reuel is an ancient Hebrew name which translates "God is his friend"; and the Tolkien family had a tradition of including it as each child's middle name.

Tolkien married Edith Mary Bratt in 1916; their firstborn son was named John Francis Reuel Tolkien (November 16, 1917 - January 22, 2003). The first born was given the name Francis to honor the priest who took care of him after his mother passed away. The other children born from their union:

- Michael Hilary Reuel "Mick" Tolkien (October 22, 1920 - February 27, 1984);

- Christopher Reuel Tolkien (born November 21, 1924); and

- Priscilla Anne Reuel Tolkien (June 18, 1929).

Professor Tolkien was a highly respected academic. His first job after WWI was contributing to the Oxford English Dictionary. (Must have looked quite impressive on his resume). :)

Tolkien's mother instilled in him a love for classic mythology, and consequently, he "borrowed" many ideas and incorporated them into his modern mythological adventures. He never claimed that his names and plots were entirely original.

The unexpected fame, fortune and success of the LOTR books brought with it an unwanted invasion of privacy. Tolkien retreated from public view. From 1965 forward, to preserve his private life, he hired Joy Hill as his personal assistant. She was his primary contact for communicating and handling inquires from the public.

On an official questionnaire used for army records, in response to the question, what was his father's profession, Mick Tolkien filled in the blank with the word: WIZARD.

Tolkien received Christmas cards from a girl who was at one time in a mental institution because he helped with her recovery.

Beren and Luthien, lovers from The Silmarillion were the Middle Earth names for Tolkien and his wife. Edith Mary Tolkien died November 1971, at the age of 82. They had been married 55 years.

September 3, 1973 OBITUARY published by THE NEW YORK TIMES: J. R. R. Tolkien Dead at 81; Wrote 'The Lord of the Rings' (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/11/specials/tolkien-obit.html)

1 note · View note

arda-marred · 7 months

Text

youtube

Essential viewing for any Tolkien fan who is interested in the impact of the Great War on Tolkien and his closest group of friends.

#Tolkien #j.r.r. tolkien #Tolkien and the Great War #jrr tolkien #tolkien studies #the great war #wwi #the Somme #the tcbs #tcbs #t.c.b.s. fellowship #tcbs fellowship #Tolkien's friends who died in WWI

14 notes · View notes

ultralaser · 6 years

Text

the problem with the hobbit trilogy™ is that the hobbit was a story from wwi about how war is hell, and then lotr was a story from after wwii abt how nazis are bad but lotr came along so much later that when jrr tolkien wrote the hobbit it was wholly bound up in 'war is bad', not 'war is a necessary, heroic thing sometimes' the battle of five armies, the glorious predecessor of the battle of pelennor fields, the hobbit's equivalent of the sequence where every major hero takes up a sword and goes heroically to fight for Civilization? bilbo gets hit in the head in minute one and the book SKIPS IT bc WAR IS HELL, NOT HEROIC GLORY so right away the movie trilogy™ failed because they spent eight hours building up to this epic battle of heroes standing against literally personified evil meanwhile in the book bilbo wakes up and the battle is over and half of his friends are dead and so are thousands and thousands of other people, all because everyone was trying to win control of this ultimately inconsequential bit of land, that at one time was a beautiful place, but now is a burned out mass grave and thorin lives just long enough to apologize to bilbo and then die, realizing he has killed his friends and family for a nothing he can't take with him, and he hasn't even really won them peace and a better future, on account of how half of them are dead now like the hobbit is unapologetically a critique of the grinding trench warfare of wwi where millions died for literally nothing and at the end bilbo, who agreed to the quest, woke the dragon, and brought smaug out of his cave, is forced to look on his dead friends in the fields of france erebor, and realize that in this analogy, he is, a little bit, gavrilo princip meanwhile in the movie, erebor is a crucial stronghold from which whoever holds it will gain a clear strategic advantage in the TOTALLY EPIC WAR COMING SOON IN 2001-3 like tolkien literally came in later with the appendices and tried to graft a kind of pre-wwii, the nazis are coming weight to the battle of erebor, i guess? and pj ran with that and turned the hobbit from a story about how War Is Bad to a story about how hitler is coming and everyone knows it a hundred years earlier but then when sauron returns everyone is caught by surprise, and that is why we have to stop voldemort from conquering poland now it doesn't work, is the problem, bc irl wwi and wwii were two decades apart, but in canon, thorin was actually, like, napoleon or, i guess azog was napoleon, or the necromancer, idk, maybe smaug point is, the necromancer being sauron was a good retcon for lotr, but the necromancer revealing himself as sauron **in the hobbit movies** was akin to napoleon taking off his mask to reveal baby hitler and saying 'literally a hundred years from now, look out' and then gandalf, who personally orchestrated the battle of five armies to stop sauron from getting control of erebor, spends a hundred god damn years after that doing FUCK ALL so anyways this is 90% of why the movies don't work, bc ultimately the hobbit / lotr connection only works one way. so all the shit with gandalf and tauriel fighting sauron is great, but all the bullshit with thorin doesnt really fit into lotr's worldview

#the hobbit #team bilbo #prequels #lotr #team frodo

23 notes · View notes

urbanhermit · 2 years

Photo

Thought I was ready for the final stage of my work regarding how WWI &/or WWII influenced the theology of 7 20th-Century theologians. Three friends/colleagues/former professors almost unanimously suggested that I add 3 others, two who were more spiritual writers & the third who was killed by the Nazis' so he did not live to publish post-war. They also recommended I beef up the Great Influenza of 1918 section. Otherwise, it was just minor edits. So another year of research & writing. Started yesterday with 'A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, & A Great War: How JRR Tolkien & CS Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, & Heroism in the Cataclysm of 1914-1918' by Joseph Loconte. Loconte is a native of Brooklyn & an Associate Professor of History at King's College in Brooklyn. He also writes commentary on international human rights & religious freedom. His paternal grandfather, Michele Loconte was drafted in 1917, served with the US Expeditionary Force on the Western Front in the summer of 1918. He was in the final & decisive campaign of the war - & the deadliest for the USA with 26,000 US soldiers killed in the battle. I had two great-uncles, my Grandmother Morgan's brothers drafted in 1918. Neither was assigned overseas, but GreatUncle John Ferenbach died from the 1918 flu while stationed stateside. My Grandpa Maurer's brother Henry did serve on an aircraft carrier in WW II. https://www.instagram.com/p/CZ95ov-JD1N/?utm_medium=tumblr

0 notes

vardasvapors · 7 years

Note

Gondolin?

1. I mentioned in a toss-off reply post once with @gurguliare that I see Gondolin as being “the juggernaut of that weird crossroads of more-preserved-and-stuck-in-the-past-and-impervious-to-the-outside-world-than-anyone-else in terms of their city’s design and policies and isolation, and yet more-psychologically-and-socially-adapted-to-and-changed-under-the-influence-of-this-bullshit-harsh-world-than-anyone-else.” Given it was a reply post I naturally filled it full of conversational-stream-of-thought hyphens instead of phrasing it properly but I stand by this! Gondolin is both most a throwback to Valinor of all the Noldorin realms (explicitly modeled on Tirion) and at the same time, the place that would be most utterly unfeasible to be found existing in its ME form anywhere in Valinor. I feel like this is a lot like how things go IRL too - the more people try to make things be like something from the past, the more artificial and forced and unlike the past - the natural present that existed in past - it becomes, and the more intrusive and explicit and visible the influence of the present - and the motivations for trying to be like the past instead of living in the natural present - become. Though of course, at the same time, the past is an undeniable and essential element of the present in all times and places, so the difference is less one of degree of similarity and more one of tone, rigidity, and level of insistence.

2. Especially in the BOLT, the litany of all the various houses and their Lords and their particular quirks and personality traits, followed by the ruthless stretch of cutting down as one character and house after another dies and are utterly wiped out, in one way or another, but all because of this doomed entrenched fight against the machines of the enemy as they mow down Gondolin, combined with the fact that The Fall of Gondolin was among the earliest stories Tolkien wrote after WWI where almost every single one of his close friends died, is particularly excruciating. The part where Rog and his people are consumed in flames, or the bit where Tuor is desperately trying to carry Ecthelion out of danger despite exhaustion…. :S I know nothing of course about how much of an influence RL was for Tolkien in this specific subject, but it’s got to have left a mark

3. I love Tarnin Austa! So beautiful and just, poignant and sweet. “For know that on a night it was their custom to begin a solemn ceremony at midnight, continuing it even till the dawn of Tarnin Austa broke, and no voice was uttered in the city from midnight till the break of day, but the dawn they hailed with ancient songs. For years uncounted had the coming of summer thus been greeted with music of choirs, standing upon their gleaming eastern wall; and now comes even the night of vigil and the city is filled with silver lamps, while in the groves upon the new-leaved trees lights of jewelled colours swing, and low musics go along the ways, but no voice sings until the dawn.”

4. The sheer immensity bordering on absurdity of the layers of security and secrecy in Gondolin’s entryways as detailed in the Unfinished Tales is both just, fascinating and really telling about how much time and energy was dedicated to maintaining this and what the general attitude was like, and such a wallop to the stomach given how it ended.

5. AAAHHH I love thinking about Hurin and Huor visiting!! Just, it’s so interesting and weird and entertaining, to think of these two kids being like, these guests of honor and goggled at by all these elves who know only a little about humans, unlike most of the Noldor, and H&H kind of holding court among more indulgent elves and telling them all they know of the Hadorians and their songs and stories etc, and this in part laying the groundwork for Tuor’s arrival later. I…tbh, I feel like the Gondolin thing was REALLY one of those “everyone knows you know and you know everyone knows” things when H&H came back lol, maybe even to the point of transparent plausible deniability, even though they intended to be completely secret etc for Turgon, because it was still so obvious. Also @crocordile convinced me that Idril totally told Tuor stories about his completely unknown father and uncle….

6. I…really like that scene in The Hobbit when Elrond identifies the swords as being from Gondolin, lmao, what a thing to experience. I also really like the theory that Orcrist was actually Idril’s sword and that’s why it is small enough for Thorin to use. Ahahahaha I wonder if Elrond asked Gandalf if he could borrow the swords for a minute to show Glorfindel….? I can see Glorfindel’s memory of and feelings about Gondolin being pretty mixed, tbh…

7. I am SO DOWN with the idea of like, late Gondolin, hushed and strained and full of whispers, restless and holding its breath in wait, and the shadow of Ulmo’s warning hanging over it like a wave. Idril & Co setting up this conspiracy of only their very closest and most trusted friends to convene regular meetings for years on end to secretly dig the tunnel, and the amount of intensity and just, the sheer trust and closeness and alignment of beliefs and goals and hope in escape not only from a potential siege by the enemy but the softer cage of loyalty and family ties, that must have arisen in such a situation…wonderful, it’s wonderful

#berrysphase #gondolin #memes and assorted tumblrosity #vaporous answers

21 notes · View notes

kansascityhappenings · 5 years

Text

World War I footage seen in color for the first time

Watch Video

Peter Jackson is known for bringing to life the world of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth. The Academy Award winning director has spent the past four years with a crew to meticulously take WWI footage in black-and-white and to restore it to color. The documentary film created from it is called “They Shall Not Grow Old.”

In the 1930s, color film was coming into use for major motion pictures. World War I was well before the technological advance; the war was fought from 1914-1918.

Jackson and his team restored and colorized nearly 100 hours of original WWI footage. It now belongs to Britain’s Imperial War Museum.

“The First World War, for good or for worse, is defined in people’s imaginations by the film that is always used in all the documentaries and it looks bloody awful, for obvious reasons,” Jackson said.

“There were technical limitations and also a hundred years of age – of shrinkage and duplication and starches. I think it’s the best gift I can give at the moment, as well as this movie, to restore footage,” Jackson continued.

The movie “They Shall Not Grow Old” had a limited release in October. It contains 90 minutes of the footage from the overall haul Jackson and his team restored. The movie had its world premiere October 16 at the BFI London Film Festival.

Jackson studied pictures of crowds on the Internet in order to accurately recreate color for the footage. He used collections of WWI uniforms as a reference point. The narration of the film is provided by real veterans. Jackson took the time to go through recordings from 1964 of 120 men who fought in WWI.

“I wanted to reach through the fog of time and pull these men into the modern world, so they can regain their humanity once more – rather than be seen only as Charlie Chaplin-type figures in the vintage archive film,” Jackson told the BFI about the documentary. “By using our computing power to erase the technical limitations of 100 year cinema, we can see and hear the Great War as they experienced it.”

Jackson’s previous work has a tie to WWI. The acclaimed author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings fought in the war. Tolkien’s relatives were shocked when he elected not to immediately volunteer for the British Army. Tolkien entered a program to delay enlistment, so he could complete his degree. He passed his finals in July 1915. His family urged him to enlist in the army throughout his studies. He was commissioned as a temporary second lieutenant on July 15, 1915. He trained with the 13th (Reserve) Battalion on Cannock Chase, Staffordshire.

Tolkien married Edith Bratt during the war in 1916. Following the wedding, the Lieutenant and Mrs. Tolkien took up lodgings near the training camp — it wasn’t the most romantic idea. Parting from his wife to go to war depressed Tolkien.

One of the most well known things he wrote while at war was the poem The Lonely Isle.

After he left Étaples on June 27, 1916, the author joined his battalion at Rubempré, near Amiens. He took compassion on enlisted men from the mining, milling, and weaving towns of Lancashire. He had to command them, which made him uneasy.

According to John Garth, he “felt an affinity for these working class men”, but military protocol prohibited friendships with “other ranks.” Instead, he was required to “take charge of them, discipline them, train them, and probably censor their letters … If possible, he was supposed to inspire their love and loyalty.”

Tolkien later lamented, “The most improper job of any man … is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” These hardships inspired his later works and are in part why the fantasy he composed has such depth.

On October 27, 1916, Tolkien came down with trench fever. He was invalided to England on November 8, 1916. Sadly, many of his closest schools friends were killed in the war. His battalion was almost completely wiped out after he returned to England. Tolkien said that by 1918 all but one of his close friends had died.

A weak and emaciated Tolkien spent the remainder of the war alternating between hospitals and garrison duties, being deemed medically unfit for combat.

Tolkien never expected to be a popular author. He wrote The Hobbit for his children. In 1936, his work caught the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin. They persuaded Tolkien to submit it for publication. The book instantly attracted readers, both adults and children. It was popular enough to lead to a sequel.

It took the author ten years to write the primary narrative and appendices for The Lord of the Rings. He originally intended for it to be more for children, but as he wrote the series, it grew darker.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2018/11/10/world-war-i-footage-seen-in-color-for-the-first-time/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/world-war-i-footage-seen-in-color-for-the-first-time/

0 notes