The Building of Barad-dûr

[Aiwendil]

I've recently noticed that there appear to be three somewhat contradictory statements in The Lord of the Rings and the 'Akallabeth' concerning when Barad-dur was first built.

In 'The Council of Elrond', Elrond, telling of the Last Alliance, says:

Originally Posted by Elrond

The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed; for they were made with the power of the Ring, and while it remains they will endure.

In the 'Tale of Years' (appendix B), we read:

Originally Posted by Tale of Years

c. 1000 Sauron, alarmed by the growing power of the Númenoreans, chooses Mordor as a land to make into a stronghold. He begins the building of Barad-dûr.

Originally Posted by Tale of Years

c. 1600 Sauron forges the One Ring in Orodruin. He completes the Barad-dûr. Celebrimbor perceives the designs of Sauron.

And in the 'Akallabeth':

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

Already in the days of Tar-Minastir, the eleventh King of Niimenor, he had fortified the land of Mordor and had built there the Tower of Barad-dur

Now, these statements raise two questions. First, if (as ToY says) the One Ring was made around 1600, right at the end of the 600 year long building of Barad-dur, then how can Barad-dur's foundations have been made with the power of the Ring? The foundations, after all, surely must have been the first part of Barad-dur that was built (it's rather difficult to build a fortress from the top down!).

The second problem is that the reign of Tar-Minastir was, according to 'The Line of Elros', from 1731 to 1869. So, even if we assume that the Akallabeth is meant to place only the completion of Barad-dur, and not its whole construction, in the reign of Tar-Minastir, that still puts it more than a century later than is said in ToY.

It's perhaps worth noting that in earlier versions of the Tale of Years and of the Akallabeth the dates line up somewhat better: the earlier draft of ToY gives Barad-dur's construction as 900 - 1900 and the forging of the One Ring sometime between 1200 and 1500; and the earlier draft of the Akallabeth puts the building of Barad-dur during the reign of Tar-Atanamir, which at that time was 1790 - 2061. But still, there is the issue of Barad-dur's foundations being laid long before the Ring was made.

I don't know if there's all that much to say on this topic, but I do find it somewhat puzzling and was wondering what others make of it.

[Inziladun]

Hm. Well, I see a couple of possibilities.

1. There were actually two towers named Barad-dûr: one raised long before the forging of the Rings of Power by Sauron as a base of operations in Mordor. If that is considered, it can be surmised that Sauron decided to "improve" the Tower by razing the original structure and rebuilding it using the power of the One.

2. Elrond et al were merely guessing about Sauron using the One to build the Tower, and in the event mistaken.

Of the Rings of Power states that after Sauron was defeated by the Last Alliance:

The Dark Tower was levelled to the ground, yet its foundations remained, and it was not forgotten.

No mention there of why the foundations were still there, nor indeed why the Tower fell. Maybe the Alliance physically brought down the Tower, but didn't see the need to break and remove the stone foundations. After all, they believed Sauron was gone forever. How could they have known the foundations were unbreakable unless they tried to remove them? Would they have bothered to try, and seen it was impossible, and divined that the power of the One was the reason? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Formendacil]

Along the lines of Inziladun's first proposition, is it possible that we can distinguish between a literal Barad-dûr tower and a more general Barad-dûr ediface/city? I'm think of how Minas Anor/Tirith is both the seven-tiered city and yet is topped by the literal Tower of Ecthelion (who only ruled it as Steward something like 2500 years after Isildur and Anárion founded the city. (As far as that goes, though, I think we have to assume that there was a tower in Minas Anor from close to the beginning for it to have been named "tower" in the first place...)

By way of analogy, it's possible that Sauron founded the "city/castle/whatnot" of Barad-dûr ca. 1000 S.A. but that he didn't actually raise the eponymous tower until after he'd forged the One Ring. After all, since Mordor served as his base of operations for a number of centuries, it seems plausible that he would have had some permanent residence there. It's possible that the "Barad-dûr complex" was older than the tower which gave it it's name--and it's also possible that it wasn't until after Sauron "came out" as the Dark Lord that they realised he had a base in Mordor--and thus there would have been no reason to have a name for it in Elvish.

On the note of Elvish--and only tangentially related to the topic of Barad-dûr--does anyone have sufficient skills in Sindarian to distinguish between the meaning or nuances of "Minas" and "Barad?" I think of them as interchangeable, but I can't imagine Tolkien using two words for "tower" without having a distinction betwixt them.

[Galin]

Barad would appear to imply a 'great towering building (fort, city, castle) tower', and also according to Tolkien, the root seems to express great height combined with strength, size, majesty. One of the Quenya words given for comparison is Tarminas. This is according to Tolkien's Words, Phrases and Passages, entry Elbereth.

However I couldn't find something post-Lord of the Rings for minas in this source (I thought there was something here!), so going back in external time to Etymologies (where we are dealing with N. meaning Noldorin not Sindarin, among other early differences)...

MINI -- stand alone, (...) Q. mindo isolated tower N. min 'one, single, distinct unique' minnas 'tower'

Again I wish I could remember a later reference, but with this (at least) I think we can see a semantic distinction.

[Aiwendil]

Interesting ideas - the possibility that there were two Barad-durs, or a greater Barad-dur and Barad-dur proper, as it were, hadn't occurred to me. While I must say that I think it very unlikely that Tolkien had such an idea in mind when he wrote the Tale of Years, it is rather a nice harmonization of the sources.

Another possible explanation may be offered by a reference to Barad-dur found in 'Of Dwarves and Men' that I came across just now. Here Tolkien is discussing the Druedain and says parenthetically:

Originally Posted by Of Dwarves and Men

The tales, such as 'The Faithful Stone', that speak of their transferring part of their 'powers' to their artefacts, remind one in miniature of Sauron's transference of power to the foundation of the Barad-dur and to the Ruling Ring.

Although a discussion of the relation between Barad-dur and the Ring is clearly not what Tolkien is focused on here, this statement does seem to present a different version of that relationship from what Elrond says. Namely, it suggests that Sauron transferred some of his own power into the foundations of Barad-dur and, quite separately, also transferred some of his own power into the Ring. If this is the case, then maybe the link between Barad-dur and the Ring comes about not because the Ring was used in the making of Barad-dur, but because it was invested with the same power that was invested in Barad-dur. Instead of Sauron -> Ring -> Barad-dur we have Sauron -> Barad-dur and Sauron -> Ring. We might then take Elrond's statement either as an error on his part or as merely an imprecise way of describing the situation.

Of course, either of those explanations still leaves the 'Akallabeth' statement, which seems to place the fortification of Mordor between 1731 and 1869, in contradiction with the Tale of Years, which has it taking place from 1000 to 1600.

[Alfirin]

If Sauron did indeed put some of his power into the foundations of Barad-dur, thay may explain why Elrond and co. did not take the foundations down; quite possibly they couldn't. With some of Sauron's power in them, it may be that, as long as Sauron "lived", the foundations were indescructable.
Another point may be the foundations may have not have been "built" in the sense we are thinking. Going back further, to Melkor's Angbad and Utumno, I have always thought that they might not have been "built" in the sense we think; but putting stone upon stone. Given Melkor's power he may have actually casued both structures to form from the living rock, or have had some of his fire Maiar (like the Balrogs and Dragons, when they were not off battling) melt all of the stones together, so the castle became one solid mass. If he could make volcanos, this could be witin his power. Doing something of this magnitude to the whole of Barad Dur would likely be beyond Saurons strength, but doing it to the foundations might not have been, especially for a powered up early Sauron. If he did, then the foundations would be hard to break.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Another point may be the foundations may have not have been "built" in the sense we are thinking. Going back further, to Melkor's Angbad and Utumno, I have always thought that they might not have been "built" in the sense we think; but putting stone upon stone. Given Melkor's power he may have actually casued both structures to form from the living rock, or have had some of his fire Maiar (like the Balrogs and Dragons, when they were not off battling) melt all of the stones together, so the castle became one solid mass.

I don't think Utumno and and Angband were comparable to the Barad-dûr. The former were subterranean dungeons, not above-ground fortresses. Angband had near it the "towers" of Thangorodrim, true. However, I highly doubt Sauron would have had a similar power of the earth itself, either with the Ring or without it.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

(...) Now, these statements raise two questions. First, if (as ToY says) the One Ring was made around 1600, right at the end of the 600 year long building of Barad-dur, then how can Barad-dur's foundations have been made with the power of the Ring? The foundations, after all, surely must have been the first part of Barad-dur that was built (it's rather difficult to build a fortress from the top down!).

Perhaps 'made' as in fortified (by magic) -- although if so the word fortified itself seems better -- even if 'made stronger' includes made

Anyway I can imagine Sauron later fortifying the foundations of the Dark Tower so that they are, in a sense, re-made -- later not only strong enough to hold up the weight of the structure itself, but to resist destruction as long as the One endures.

The second problem is that the reign of Tar-Minastir was, according to 'The Line of Elros', from 1731 to 1869. So, even if we assume that the Akallabeth is meant to place only the completion of Barad-dur, and not its whole construction, in the reign of Tar-Minastir, that still puts it more than a century later than is said in ToY.

I'm not sure The Line of Elros was written with enough attention to Appendix B (already published material of course) in general. If I remember correctly we can find dates here that directly contradict Appendix B, as well as make a certain 'mix' of texts seem problematic.

Of course I could characterize Akallabeth as never published by its author as well, and nothing says that we can't try to iron out essentially (in my opinion) 'draft' material with author-published ideas in any case, but I still think it's only fair to JRRT as a Worldbuilder to at least remember that certain contradictions, or seeming contradictions, might hail from texts that weren't really ready for Tolkien's readership, or at least not necessarily in the form revealed to the public by Christopher Tolkien.

Not that anyone 'forgot' or said otherwise!

I think Christopher Tolkien was concerned with consistency between Akallabeth and The Lord of the Rings at least, and I'm not sure but I think that the reign of Tar-Minastir (what little we know of it) can fall in line with AK, given the life-spans of the Numenoreans.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Although a discussion of the relation between Barad-dur and the Ring is clearly not what Tolkien is focused on here, this statement does seem to present a different version of that relationship from what Elrond says. Namely, it suggests that Sauron transferred some of his own power into the foundations of Barad-dur and, quite separately, also transferred some of his own power into the Ring. If this is the case, then maybe the link between Barad-dur and the Ring comes about not because the Ring was used in the making of Barad-dur, but because it was invested with the same power that was invested in Barad-dur. Instead of Sauron -> Ring -> Barad-dur we have Sauron -> Barad-dur and Sauron -> Ring. We might then take Elrond's statement either as an error on his part or as merely an imprecise way of describing the situation.

Perhaps an imprecise description from Elrond. But he does say "made with the ring" not "made by."

Made by would definitely point to Sauron made the Ring then used it to build the foundations. Then as you ask in this thread, we've got a problem with inconsistency.

Made with, I think there is a different interpretation possible. It would suggest the somehow the Sauron-Barad Dur and Sauron-Ring connection leads to Barad-dur's foundations being enhanced. Either it's an effect from the Ring being made or Sauron directly strengthens the foundations, tying its strength to the Ring.

I'd say this is even more likely, since Sauron's own power was enhanced by creating the Ring:

While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport' with himself: he was not 'diminished.~Letter #131

[Morthoron]

I rather think the Ring fortified the existing structure, but it might be that Sauron could also tap into the existing and eternal corruption of the earth (see Morgoth's Ring) even prior to the Ring being forged. The Ring merely reinforced the corruption of Morgoth (and Sauron, of any being in Arda, would certainly understand his master's concepts, having completed Angband while Morgoth was captive of the Valar).

If you look at another existing structure, Minas Morgul, built by Gondor, it was already a stout fortification. But once inhabited by the WitchKing (who evidently channeled Sauron's power), it became such a place of dread that the evil power which enveloped it superseded the mere stone of the structure. An army would quail in fear simply coming near to it. How then could an army attempt to storm it?

In another fortification, Dol Guldur, Galadriel laid bare the pits and destroyed its foundations. She did this AFTER the One Ring was destroyed. Obviously, there was enough residual evil exuding from the place to warrant its complete destruction before the land could become wholesome again.

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The second problem is that the reign of Tar-Minastir was, according to 'The Line of Elros', from 1731 to 1869. So, even if we assume that the Akallabeth is meant to place only the completion of Barad-dur, and not its whole construction, in the reign of Tar-Minastir, that still puts it more than a century later than is said in ToY.

I've always understood the Akallabeth quote to mean that by the time Tar-Minastir became king (by the time we reached his days) Sauron had already accomplished his goal of fortifying his land of Mordor (which included building Barad-dur).

That is, the quote is

• Not "In the days of Tar-Minastir... he fortified the land of Mordor and..."
• But rather "Already in the days of Tar-Minastir... he had {which can signify past-tense} fortified the land of Mordor and..."

Taken this way, the problem dissolves.

[FlimFlamSam]

Aiwendil spoke: I don't know if there's all that much to say on this topic, but I do find it somewhat puzzling and was wondering what others make of it.

It's a tangled web.
Several of the timelines were shifted in writing, screwing up other things.
Note that the author attempts to cover these fumblings with a "SA c.1600" in the final text as the date of forging--circa 1600 or somewhere therabouts (we think, maybe, who the hell knows).
In other words he passes the whole situation off as pure guess-work on the part of the "historians" and avoids solving the issue altogether.
Too many readers take this guess-work information in the Tale of Years as definitive.
The original timelines in Peoples are a bit more precise, even if there are several of them, often contradictory.

Sauron creates the Orodruin forge in SA 900. Waits 300 years to approach the elves and "teach them" for 300 more years, waits another 100 years to complete the One Ring, supposedly using the knowledge of the Elves to do so.

As given in the Tale of Years that's a hell of a lot of iffy planning on Sauron's part.

In setting a "trap", do you really depend on your "prey" to teach you not only how to make it work (if it would at all) but to even fall for it? That make sense to you?
Me neither.
The trick was to get the elves to make their own "precious" rings using his knowledge to trap themselves into his service.

Does it make more sense that the One Ring was forged before he approached the elves?
This is also when the Barad-dur was begun--before the elves and their Rings and thus the foundations done when the Ring was around.
Kind of explains the 300 years from the time of the construction of the Orodruin forge until approaching the elves.

Where did he get the knowledge to pass on? He made a basic unadorned ring that would be the anchor for anything else created likewise. Translated: he knew it would work because he made one already. The Master Ring upon which all others were based.

Sauron is called the Necromancer. He deals in the Spirit Realm. His top servants are of the Spirit Realm--Wraiths, Wights, Spirit Werewolves, among the notables. The Rings tapped into the Spirit Realm, where they derive thier power--Sauron's dominion.

The Three Elven Rings untouched by Sauron tap into the Spirit (Shadow) Realm held open by the One Ring as well, but not as Sauron planned. Note that Galadriel's Ring (and presumably also the other two) is normally "Invisible"--not the wearer, as Sam noted. He saw a star through her finger. The Rings utilize Invisibility, the power of longevity and preservation. Ever wonder why the Three lost their power after the One Ring was destroyed? Now you have an idea. The door to the Spirit (Shadow) Realm got slammed shut with its destruction. You don't really think that Sauron himself was the door, do you?

Note that Celebrimbor only perceives the One Ring when Sauron "activates" it with the words of command to take control of the other rings tapping into his playground.

Aiwendil spoke: It's perhaps worth noting that in earlier versions of the Tale of Years and of the Akallabeth the dates line up somewhat better

Many of the details work bettter in earlier drafts. Including the earlier finding of the Ring by Smeagol who takes it into the Misty Mountains just as Sauron returns to Mirkwood. Instead, with the shifting of the date, we get the Stoors playing some version of a tennis ball being batted back and forth to reconcile the date-shift.
Yeah, because a 500+ year-old Gollum is so much more believable than a 2,000+ year-old Gollum. Or the fact that with the date-shift that the Ring would lay so close nearby for 1,500 years without being felt. What's a ring laying in a river with 2,500 years of silt being so easily found versus only 1,000 years worth of silt. Funky thinking all around really. It's dangerous to look too close at the logic in this book, it's truly mind-boggling at times. That said...

The Rings of Power are a mess, so it should be no surprise that the One Ring and anything involved with it is also a mess. If Ringlore 101 were a class, the author would fail. The more he attempted to "clarify" for story sake the worse it became.

Initially, Gandalf was fairly ignorant of Ringlore. Then as Gandalf was elevated in knowledge in later drafts many of his statements became complete nonsense.
Most amusing is the author's fumble with Gandalf in the Council of Elrond where he talks about Saruman's words in an earlier council concerning the unadornment of the One Ring.

Gandalf's excuse? Oh, I heard what he said but I wasn't really paying attention. So what if all the other Rings of Power had their own gem. Obviously Bilbo found a Ring of Power and I knew it immediately, but simply had a brain fart. Let's not talk about the other room-filling flatulances I let loose when talking to Frodo in Shadow of the Past.

Probably not a coincience that Shadow of the Past was the most re-written chapter in the entire book.

Going into this particular topic further would be for another thread.

[Nerwen]

Ah. Back in troll-mode, I see.

[Andsigil]

I always had the impression that Sauron "summoned" the tower out of the very earth, resulting in a relatively fast construction.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

Aiwendil spoke: I don't know if there's all that much to say on this topic, but I do find it somewhat puzzling and was wondering what others make of it.

It's a tangled web.
Several of the timelines were shifted in writing, screwing up other things.
Note that the author attempts to cover these fumblings with a "SA c.1600" in the final text as the date of forging--circa 1600 or somewhere therabouts (we think, maybe, who the hell knows).
In other words he passes the whole situation off as pure guess-work on the part of the "historians" and avoids solving the issue altogether.
Too many readers take this guess-work information in the Tale of Years as definitive.
The original timelines in Peoples are a bit more precise, even if there are several of them, often contradictory.

Sauron creates the Orodruin forge in SA 900. Waits 300 years to approach the elves and "teach them" for 300 more years, waits another 100 years to complete the One Ring, supposedly using the knowledge of the Elves to do so.

As given in the Tale of Years that's a hell of a lot of iffy planning on Sauron's part.

In setting a "trap", do you really depend on your "prey" to teach you not only how to make it work (if it would at all) but to even fall for it? That make sense to you?
Me neither.
The trick was to get the elves to make their own "precious" rings using his knowledge to trap themselves into his service.

Does it make more sense that the One Ring was forged before he approached the elves?
This is also when the Barad-dur was begun--before the elves and their Rings and thus the foundations done when the Ring was around.
Kind of explains the 300 years from the time of the construction of the Orodruin forge until approaching the elves.

Where did he get the knowledge to pass on? He made a basic unadorned ring that would be the anchor for anything else created likewise. Translated: he knew it would work because he made one already. The Master Ring upon which all others were based.

Sauron is called the Necromancer. He deals in the Spirit Realm. His top servants are of the Spirit Realm--Wraiths, Wights, Spirit Werewolves, among the notables. The Rings tapped into the Spirit Realm, where they derive thier power--Sauron's dominion.

The Three Elven Rings untouched by Sauron tap into the Spirit (Shadow) Realm held open by the One Ring as well, but not as Sauron planned. Note that Galadriel's Ring (and presumably also the other two) is normally "Invisible"--not the wearer, as Sam noted. He saw a star through her finger. The Rings utilize Invisibility, the power of longevity and preservation. Ever wonder why the Three lost their power after the One Ring was destroyed? Now you have an idea. The door to the Spirit (Shadow) Realm got slammed shut with its destruction. You don't really think that Sauron himself was the door, do you?

Note that Celebrimbor only perceives the One Ring when Sauron "activates" it with the words of command to take control of the other rings tapping into his playground.

Aiwendil spoke: It's perhaps worth noting that in earlier versions of the Tale of Years and of the Akallabeth the dates line up somewhat better

Many of the details work bettter in earlier drafts. Including the earlier finding of the Ring by Smeagol who takes it into the Misty Mountains just as Sauron returns to Mirkwood. Instead, with the shifting of the date, we get the Stoors playing some version of a tennis ball being batted back and forth to reconcile the date-shift.
Yeah, because a 500+ year-old Gollum is so much more believable than a 2,000+ year-old Gollum. Or the fact that with the date-shift that the Ring would lay so close nearby for 1,500 years without being felt. What's a ring laying in a river with 2,500 years of silt being so easily found versus only 1,000 years worth of silt. Funky thinking all around really. It's dangerous to look too close at the logic in this book, it's truly mind-boggling at times. That said...

The Rings of Power are a mess, so it should be no surprise that the One Ring and anything involved with it is also a mess. If Ringlore 101 were a class, the author would fail. The more he attempted to "clarify" for story sake the worse it became.

Initially, Gandalf was fairly ignorant of Ringlore. Then as Gandalf was elevated in knowledge in later drafts many of his statements became complete nonsense.
Most amusing is the author's fumble with Gandalf in the Council of Elrond where he talks about Saruman's words in an earlier council concerning the unadornment of the One Ring.

Gandalf's excuse? Oh, I heard what he said but I wasn't really paying attention. So what if all the other Rings of Power had their own gem. Obviously Bilbo found a Ring of Power and I knew it immediately, but simply had a brain fart. Let's not talk about the other room-filling flatulances I let loose when talking to Frodo in Shadow of the Past.

Probably not a coincience that Shadow of the Past was the most re-written chapter in the entire book.

Going into this particular topic further would be for another thread.

What all this seems to boil down to is a question of canon.

LOTR is canon, therefore the ToY is canon.

To me, The Silmarillion is canon, because it is presented by Christopher Tolkien, who was in the best position to know his father's intentions concerning the subject matter, as a completed work.

For that reason, I'm not really concerned with the HOME drafts and ideas. They're interesting, but I readily discount them in favor of the canon.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

What all this seems to boil down to is a question of canon.

LOTR is canon, therefore the ToY is canon.

To me, The Silmarillion is canon, because it is presented by Christopher Tolkien, who was in the best position to know his father's intentions concerning the subject matter, as a completed work.

For that reason, I'm not really concerned with the HOME drafts and ideas. They're interesting, but I readily discount them in favor of the canon.

To me, LotR is canon, but consistency was not and ought not to have been the highest priority in creating the tale. The story is the thing. The level of nitpicking and band aiding of flaws one sees among die hard fans seems misspent energy.

I can appreciate the effort Christopher Tolkien put into attempting consistency, but I consider Silmarillion something slightly less than canon with respect to LotR. Middle Earth is an extremely complex creation. Each piece was written for itself, taking depth from what came before, but not rigidly bound to be consistent with what came before. Attempts to pretend otherwise, or to reinterpret everything in vain search of conformity, would be misguided.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by FlimFlamSam

The Three Elven Rings untouched by Sauron tap into the Spirit (Shadow) Realm held open by the One Ring as well, but not as Sauron planned. Note that Galadriel's Ring (and presumably also the other two) is normally "Invisible" -- not the wearer, as Sam noted. He saw a star through her finger. The Rings utilize Invisibility, the power of longevity and preservation.

In a letter Tolkien noted that the Three do not confer invisibility, so can you explain why the Three are the most powerful of the Elven rings, utilize invisibility as you say, but yet are only themselves invisible? And why Celebrimbor would have made them so?

It's dangerous to look too close at the logic in this book, it's truly mind-boggling at times.

I think this might depend upon various opinions -- or, what one finds 'more logical' than something else



As for canon and the 1977 Silmarillion: I don't believe Christopher Tolkien ever took up the mantle of providing the story, or the most canonical version, but as with The Children of Hurin, wanted to provide the intended, and proper, reading experience that comes with a one volume 'internal' presentation.

A one volume (or how ever many volumes considered as 'one' legendarium, in a sense) internal presentation was Tolkien's goal, no matter the changes he had in mind, and this is a very different experience for the reader than looking at the unfinished texts as they were left -- again, texts still working their way to a 'one volume' presentation, from JRRT's perspective.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by blantyr

To me, LotR is canon, but consistency was not and ought not to have been the highest priority in creating the tale. The story is the thing. The level of nitpicking and band aiding of flaws one sees among die hard fans seems misspent energy.

I can appreciate the effort Christopher Tolkien put into attempting consistency, but I consider Silmarillion something slightly less than canon with respect to LotR. Middle Earth is an extremely complex creation. Each piece was written for itself, taking depth from what came before, but not rigidly bound to be consistent with what came before. Attempts to pretend otherwise, or to reinterpret everything in vain search of conformity, would be misguided.

Sorry to collect 'em here, but other recent comments concerning consistency include...

Tolkien grew as an author and a scholar. He did not retain the same perspective and values in his art over his entire life. As he grew, his highest priority was not to go back and rewrite his older stuff so that all his works are nitpick consistent. His newer works borrowed depth and flavor from the older, but fans expecting all the works to be entirely in agreement with one another are… Hmm. In the interests of keeping things friendly, I guess I’ll not say explicitly what they are.

And...

Others seem to believe all of Tolkien's works ought to be consistent, and find themselves hacking away at bits and pieces of various stories in an attempt to remove conflict with other stories. I would rather let each work stand on its own.

While I agree that consistency is not the highest priority, I would still say that it was both very important to Tolkien and a fundamentally important part of Secondary World building. In a sense I think naturally important to Tolkien, who was naturally concerned with a believable subcreated world -- not a perfect world however, as that in itself might undermine the Secondary World; but still, when I think about the art of subcreation, to me the intended inconsistencies and confusions are more like the dashes of flavoring -- yet dashes that only add flavorful reality if the much larger meal has a sound measure of internal consistency.


Tolkien himself noted that the task before him, from the 1950s onward, included that the Silmarillion legends had to be rewritten and made consistent with The Lord of the Rings -- and he appears to have, at least at first, desired to make The Hobbit notably more consistent too, considering the 1960 Hobbit (at least before he abandoned this on someone's advice -- here arguably putting a higher priority on the character of the original, but also because the changes 'necessary' were too destructive).


We also have examples of Tolkien himself seemingly doing a bit of creative dancing in order to preserve consistency when faced with readers observations and questions -- to my mind fans who engage in this sort of thing, engaging their imaginations, are doing much the same thing, although this probably has a collective effect if so many are trying to smooth out even the smallest of bumps that JRRT himself might not have noticed, or intended.

Even where Tolkien chose to change the perception of his readership (altering something already in print) he might go to imaginative lengths to preserve a consistency in the sense of 'internal explanations' -- for instance, Bilbo's version of how he came by the Ring -- or in other words: to explain inconsistency in a story internal way is, in a sense, a way to avoid a 'true' inconsistency. Christopher Tolkien even noted his father's intense concern to avoid discrepancy, although even Tolkien arguably had a line that he didn't feel the need to cross.


But all that said, I'm not really sure what you mean, at least specifically. Shirly there are measures here, as some of your phrasing above speaks to of course, but maybe you can provide a few examples of what you feel represents misspent energy?