Gandalf is a fraud?!

[Lord Tataraus]

Greeting's my fellow LotR-fans, I have just recently joined this forum after a bit of lurking and I would like to see what the Barrowdowners have to say about this interesting perspective on Gandalf. For a bit of backstory, I frequent a RPG forum focusing on D&D. In one thread we were discussing how the Fellowship would translate into D&D terms. One the question of Gandalf there was much debate and it sparked one poster to present his view of Gandalf, here are his claims contained within two posts:

Originally Posted by Lord_Kimboat

Despite some of my criticisms in other posts, I am actually a fan of LotR. However, you might have to clarify a few things. First, are you trying to stat the characters from the films or the book? Are you trying for what the author intended or just what is observed?

One of the few things I dislike about LotR (the book as author intended) is how noble and righteous everyone and thing is. People respect Aragorn because he is the heir without having a reason of knowing that he is the heir or because he does anything noteworthy. Sam's respect for Frodo is almost fawning and is definitely part of some class structure as Sam is clearly tougher and usually has better judgement than Frodo.

Gandalf says he is a wizard but rarely (if ever) casts spells. The book also explains he is of some near godly race and everyone seems to accept this. However, being a little more cynical, we can see that Gandalf benefits from his reputation as a wizard and his actions fit most closely with those of a bard. He produces fireworks and illusions, he obviously has a great deal of charisma as he commands respect almost everywhere he goes and isn't afraid to bluff people either. He is even chalked up on knowledge skills.

Also, if you take only what is witnessed by others, it explains far better his fall in Moria and reappearance. He didn't fight the Balrog in an epic battle that "smote the mountainside" where he was then raised from the dead so that he could help a little more. No! He fell, but grabbed something below the bridge and managed to get to safety - or even cast a low level spell to stop him from falling to his death. He then escapes Moria but when confronted weaves a great story about what a powerful wizard he is.

Don't even get me started on why he has one of the rings for Elven Kings, when he is clearly neither.

second post:

Originally Posted by Lord_Kimboat

Okay, so my suspicious mind has Gandalf as the not quite so noble Bard who somewhat fraudulently claims to be a wizard so people respect him more. I mean come on, people in these forums will tell you that wizards, especially high level wizards with some cheesy race with LA, will pwn just about anything. While Bards can be beaten by three goblins, a stiff breeze and Fifi the Wonder Dog. I'd lie about it as well.

So, how does Gandalf get the ring? He goes down to the docks (yeah, nothing dishonest ever happens there) and a shipbuilder (or maybe even a stevedore, remember, Gandalf embellishes these things) says, "uh yeah, an Elf headed for the Haven's just gave me this ring. *looks around shiftily* He said he wouldn't need it any more and I could just keep it. But I don't really need it so you, a fine adventuring type should have it."

In short, a successful slight of hand roll and the ring now has a new owner. Enterprising Elven rogue, known to the local authorities as Ciridan, then unloads his magical merchandise for several thousand gold pieces to the first adventurer he can find before the previous owner notices its missing. This is probably one of the reasons why Gandalf doesn't show it off or even use it that much around Elves.

Now we all know the poem. Three rings for Elven Kings. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that none of these rings are actually owned by an Elven king?

Galadriel has the best claim. She is the ruler of a small, but perfectly functional kingdom. However, female kings are usually referred to as Queens.

Elrond has a ring but Rivendell is quite clearly a 'house' not a kingdom. Also, he is not exactly 100% Elven either.

Gandalf is clearly not an Elf (the lack of pointy ears is a giveaway) and seems lucky to own his own clothes much less a kingdom!

There is though, one Elven king around, Thirandiril - Logolas' father. Now I know the Tolkien fans will start jumping up and down at this point complaining about High Elves and nobility, etc, etc. However, we know that Thirandiril isn't exactly adverse to breaking the law. He did abduct and hold prisoner a party of Dwarves and a Halfling just for straying into his kingdom. Also, Legolas strikes me as an Elf of action rather than a stickler for niceties or fine points of heritage.

Thus I have a theory. Thirandiril certainly knows the poem and it doesn't say 'three rings for HIGH Elven kings', but just 'Elven kings'. He is an Elven king and thus wants this magical piece of bling for himself. He sends his boy to the nearest Elven ring that he knows about, Elrond with the message, "hand it over."

When Legolas gets there though, he discovers (or maybe Elrond points out) that Gandalf has a ring and is neither Elf nor king and that would be a much nicer present for daddy. Thus Legolas joins the party with a hidden agenda. Gandalf may have discovered this and thus fakes his own death to cover for it. When he is caught, he spins the story of dying and coming back naked (without the ring).

Granted, this is all from my very cynical mind and I find it much easier to attribute motives of self interest to people rather than ones of nobility. This may seem sad but if you don't believe me, try watching the news some time. Our politicians, our business people and even our holy men and women almost always have motivations of self interest. They will quite often resort to lies and deception as a first resort. Maybe Tolkein didn't see that or didn't want it in his world but it is what people are like and I have a hard time suspending my disbelief if people don't act that way.

Disclaimer: I have included all content of the posts in question save one sentence which was a direct response to a side-topic discussion. I don't support these views above, but would like to see what scholars of the works of Tolkien can come up with to either disprove or support this theory.

[alatar]

Some interesting points:

• And I thought that *I* was cynical...We never read about Mandalf, Gandalf's brother, as he never amounted to much, and was a typical person, unlike his more noble brother, who by being exceptional, became worthy of a story or two. (Name the thirtieth best soccer player...)

• Like who 'wrote' or prophesied the 'poem?' Or was it a simple statement of fact at a particular moment of time? Or, specifically, in regards to Gandalf not being a King, was rhyming placed before dry facts (which would explain Galadriel as well...but also may have been a ruse to confuse the enemy. "Galadriel," Sauron pondered, "Nah...she's a Queen, and so it must be Celeborn, but I'm getting no vibes from him...most confusing.")?

• Gandalf was able to create fire on Caradhras, which even a Dwarf could not do. He states, at that time, that he'd just given himself away, as anyone seeing a fire in such conditions, and having access to Who's Who in Middle Earth would know that only Gandalf could have done such a miraculous deed.

• Gandalf escapes the Balrog. The Balrog is never seen again. We could assume that the Balrog died, even if Lord Gravity were its slayer, and so we can place that on Gandalf's resume, as even if he simply tricked the Balrog, he did something few others could or did not. And how did the Bridge and Doorway (of Balin's Room) in Moria fall?

• After all is said and done, doesn't Gandalf dress Frodo and Sam just before they meet "King Aragorn?" That gets me, and maybe there're other examples, but we have this Fellow or Fraud, great and wise (or at least considered so) stooping to serve others. He rejects Saruman, who would not serve. Gandalf even pities those caught by Sauron. That's cool stuff.

• And lastly, I, being genetically predisposed to being suspicious, always get out my microscope when someone writes..."I am actually a fan of LotR." Just drink the Kool-Aid, and all paradoxes, discrepancies and other apparent oddities will disappear.

[Lalaith]

I just want to know more about this Thirandiril. He sounds hot.

[Eönwë]

The thing is, I don't think Gandalf really likes to use his magic. He's not really supposed to use it that much, anyway. And he's definitely not allowed to use it in a way which makes people afraid of him, and/or forces them into submission (like Saruman did).

I can picture the whole Thranduil (or as you call him "Thirandiril") thing, but I don't really think so.

[alatar]

What I like about LotR is that 'magic' is understated. As the Elves would say, it's not really magic as in the Potter sense, but just a subtler understanding of the world.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

What I like about LotR is that 'magic' is understated. As the Elves would say, it's not really magic as in the Potter sense, but just a subtler understanding of the world.

Exactly. Unlike D&D (wherein just any Tom, Dick and Harry Potter can sling spells), magic-use in Middle-earth is an inherent power, more akin to an innate physical ability (like the heightened acuities of the Elves). What the original poster (or rather, the poster the OP quoted) fails to understand is that using power against power was not part of Gandalf's mission; in fact, he and the other Istari ('wizard' being a handy Westron term that in no way really defines their character) were required to forego the elements of their true manifestation (which would be wholly spirit form), and became incarnate, that is, accept the bodily frailties of man. Their Maiaric powers were hooded and in some cases reduced.

The rest of the quoted poster's melange of misreadings betrays a lack of knowledge on the subject, and does not account for Gandalf's mention in numerous instances outside the Lord of the Rings (the Silmarillion, HoMe, Tolkien's letters, etc.) where his Maiaric presence is voluminously noted.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I just want to know more about this Thirandiril. He sounds hot.

What about his criminal tendencies....? Of course he is king.. he is the law..

Guess I will have to settle for Ciridan if I want a bad boy elf for myself then

This chap might have a future with the Grauniad though...

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Guess I will have to settle for Ciridan if I want a bad boy elf for myself then

Isn't Cirdan a bit old, I mean, 15000 at the end of the third age. Who knows his age now? (7th age)

[Groin Redbeard]

This guy’s theory about how Gandalf obtained Narya is absurd! Cirdan gave it to him out of his own free will. I'm not sure if this guy is implying that Cirdan was leaving when he gave Gandalf the ring because he clearly wasn’t, he said that he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thranduil.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

In fact, didn't he only leave Middle-earth in the year 62 (I think) of the Fourth Age with Sam?

[Groin Redbeard]

[/B]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In fact, didn't he only leave Middle-earth in the year 62 (I think) of the Fourth Age with Sam?

Yes, I remember that! He left of the last ship built in Mithlond. Good one, Eönwë!

Though I'm sure that Lord_Kimboat would argue that Gandalf cleverly gave Cirdan the slip and escaped to Valinor and Cirdan set out in pursuit with the mighty Samwise. All of his arguments seem to be like that.

In all the commotion I clean forgot to welcome the newcomer. Welcome to the Barrow Downs, Lord Tataraus!

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

This guy’s theory about how Gandalf obtained Narya is absurd! Cirdan gave it to him out of his own free will. I'm not sure if this guy is implying that Cirdan was leaving when he gave Gandalf the ring because he clearly wasn’t, he said that he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thraundil.

I have a feeling he did not read the appendices or any books beyond The Hobbit and the LotR Trilogy. I knew his theory was flawed, I justed wanted see it debunked. I find it quite humorous actually to think of Gandalf that way because it is so unexpected.

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a Quenya word with English rules, it makes me cringe.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I just want to know more about this Thirandiril. He sounds hot.

Ha ha.

[Gwathagor]

This guy's an idiot.

First, if he can't spell the names right, why would I be inclined to believe the rest of his assertions of fact? He clearly is not very familiar with Middle-earth.

Second, the poem is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Third, he just makes stuff up - stuff that has no apparent basis in anything Tolkien wrote.

Fourth, he doesn't understand that a wizard means something rather different to Tolkien and the rest of the pre-D&D world than it does to him.

This is more funny than anything else and belongs in the crackpot theory drawer, along with Bombadil's secret life as the Witch-King of Angmar.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

But he didn't hide it - it didn't do much besides vanish fear and despair and get people going. Plus Gandalf, being the obvious fraud that he was, wanted people to think that it was he that was the world's greatest cheerleader.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thraundil.

Careful there. Thought that it was spelled Thranduil. And though I too see spelling errors and grammatical pretzels as icky, I've learned that for some, writing in this tongue that I should know better than I do may be a very impressive feat in itself.

And Welcome! Lord Tataraus. Hope to read your, and not others, opinions soon.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

This guy's an idiot.

Ahem...better manners and arguments make the Downs a better place. (alatar goes to look up a better word than 'better.')

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a quenya word with english rules, it makes me cringe.

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by alatar

And Welcome! Lord Tataraus. Hope to read your, and not others, opinions soon.

Thank you (and Groin Redbeard) for the welcome!

I waited a bit to see what other's responses are before giving my opinion.

Firstly, while I do not wish to call anyone an idiot, it seems to be unfortunately appropriate. Lord_Kimboat is obviously not very well versed in Tolkein's work nor D&D despite his confidence. Coming from a RPG background I have the advantage of seeing more flaws in Kimboat's theory than others on this forum. Unfortunately, my knowledge of LotR is a bit rusty, its been awhile since last reading it (I've been working my way through The Silmarillion most recently).

So, my rebuttal paragraph by paragraph:

First Post:
(The first paragraph isn't very relevant so I'll skip it.)

1) Kimboat shortly describes "...how noble and righteous everyone and thing is." I do not agree with this statement, Aragon for one was an exceptional and likable man even without his hereditary lordliness. As Kimboat noted, Sam is most likely so loyal to Frodo for cultural reasons, but I also believe they were honest friends especially after traveling together for so long and Frodo being noticeably hindered by the Ring. There were many examples of not-so-noble characters. Many men were corrupt such as Wormtongue and Denethor and even Theoden wasn't always that "...noble and righteous..." as I recall.

2) Here is Kimboat's first sign of ignorance. Apparently he missed the entire discussion beforehand were it was concluded that magic in Middle-Earth is more subtle than in D&D-type fantasy. Additionally, he seems to think that any respectful magic-user would spam his spells at every little opportunity which is not a view supported by most fantasy works. Most such magic-users are wise and intelligent enough to realize it might be better to save their magic for when it is truly needed. I would also refute the idea that Gandalf "...isn't afraid to bluff people..." My interpretation of Gandalf was that he was always concerned about the knowledge he gave out, he was disturbed by the fact that he did not tell Frodo that the quest would most likely destroy him. Gandalf just doesn't strike me as being able to truly lie to people, he is too trusting and kind, he even tried to talk Saruman out of joining with Sauron even though it was obviously in vain.

3) This is one point that I can't really refute with anything except that Gandalf just doesn't seem the type. His character does not suggest that he would lie about something like that or even that he could. He was very devoted to the Fellowship and would have joined up with them, if only to ease their pain, if he could have done so.

Second Post:
1) I do not expect anyone to have much to say about this paragraph as it has to do directly with D&D mechanics, however this does proved another example of Kimboat's ignorance to those who are knowledgeable with such things. Kimboat uses one of the biggest misconceptions about D&D mechanical class balance within the gaming community. Many newer or less knowledgeable gamers think that the Bard is a wholly useless class as Kimboat so aptly describes. Among those more attuned to the topic of class balance, the Bard is one of the more powerful classes in the entire system. Additionally, the forum this was posted at has a reputation for being one of the more mature and knowledgeable ones in the overall gaming community which makes this statement even more ignorant.

2 and 3) These two paragraphs need no explanation. Any one who knows who Cirdan actually is would see the utter idiocy of this scenario. Additionally, the very power of the rings would prevent such thievery since the wearer can choose to hide its presence entirely.

4-7) as was mentioned by others, the poem is just that, a poem. Poems are famous for choosing their wording for poetic meter not for correctness. Additionally, the poem has been translated and in its original langauge the word that is translated into english as "king" might very well refer to a ruler of either sex. As for Elrond, well a kingdom is a nation ruled over by a hereditary house which is the case with Rivendell, they just call it by a different name. And as mentioned before, Gandalf was recorded as being gifted Cirdan's ring.

8) I can agree with this part.

9) I highly doubt Thranduil wants the ring that badly, it seems to bring more trouble than its worth and I doubt he would risk war with Rivendell (and possibly Lorien) when Sauron is the greater threat. Also, I thought that those at the council were summoned, not "happened to show up conveniently at the same time."

10) Legolas respected Gandalf and as I mentioned above, I doubt Thranduil was that envious of such a dangerous object.

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

Additionally, he seems to think that any respectful magic-user would spam his spells at every little opportunity which is not a view supported by most fantasy works. Most such magic-users are wise and intelligent enough to realize it might be better to save their magic for when it is truly needed. I would also refute the idea that Gandalf "...isn't afraid to bluff people..."

Someone help me here...there's a scene in some fantasy book where an older wizard is teaching a young and thirsty apprentice, and says something like, "Sure, I could make it rain here, but that would take water from a place that truly needed it." The author's point, I think, was to be that one did not use magic in a juvenile fashion. Power, or the use of, has consequences.

Additionally, the poem has been translated and in its original langauge the word that is translated into english as "king" might very well refer to a ruler of either sex. As for Elrond, well a kingdom is a nation ruled over by a hereditary house which is the case with Rivendell, they just call it by a different name.

I think that the original Quenya has it as "Big Cheese."

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)



And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Someone help me here...there's a scene in some fantasy book where an older wizard is teaching a young and thirsty apprentice, and says something like, "Sure, I could make it rain here, but that would take water from a place that truly needed it." The author's point, I think, was to be that one did not use magic in a juvenile fashion. Power, or the use of, has consequences.

Sounds like "A Wizard of Earthsea", if you ask me.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Hee hee, "cast a low-level spell?" Does he think Gandalf's from Morrowind?!

[Thinlómien]

An interesting thread, and while I disagree with this Lord_Kimboat, I think this could spark interesting discussion (like it already has).

Gandalf wasn't maybe lying about his encounter with the balrog - that has been proved unprobable already - but can we take all what Tolkien's characters say as true? This was discussed somewhere some time ago, but it is a very intriguing topic. Tolkien fans are probably the least critic fans in the world when it comes to evaluating whether the heroes of the story are being completely honest or not.

Also, LotR is, although in arguable fashion, written by Frodo Baggins so basically it's from his perspective. He might have exaggerated things or simply not remembered them totally correctly. Nevertheless, we can expect quite high accuracy from it as Frodo is a first-hand narrator in many cases, and we can consider his nature quite honest.

But what about The Silmarillion then? Those are folk tales, hereditary knowledge and ballads. Yet we always consider them facts. It would be interesting to analyse the stories of the Sil the same way people analyse old mythologies and epic tales. But not on this thread, surely...

Originally Posted by alatar

After all is said and done, doesn't Gandalf dress Frodo and Sam just before they meet "King Aragorn?" That gets me, and maybe there're other examples, but we have this Fellow or Fraud, great and wise (or at least considered so) stooping to serve others. He rejects Saruman, who would not serve. Gandalf even pities those caught by Sauron. That's cool stuff.

I never before realised this was more fuel for the Jesus-Gandalf theory... But it is a beautiful scene in any case.

Lastly, I like this thread. It makes me like Gandalf even more than I usually do and it also makes me feel like reading Le Guin... *glares at Gwath*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Oh, I've had some rather violent disagreements with Mr. Martinez elsewhere on the net. I don't necessarily agree with all his postulations, but he can be very thought provoking (I mean, after all, he's not as bad as David Day). I merely invoked his name as a more accessible scholar, as most of his material resides on the internet.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Gandalf wasn't maybe lying about his encounter with the balrog - that has been proved unprobable already - but can we take all what Tolkien's characters say as true? This was discussed somewhere some time ago, but it is a very intriguing topic. Tolkien fans are probably the least critic fans in the world when it comes to evaluating whether the heroes of the story are being completely honest or not.

Strangely enough, it seems Tolkien could not always vouch for the veracity of his own written material, as if the books had taken on a life of their own. Cases in point would be the origin of Orcs and the fate of the Blue Wizards.

I suppose one could say that LotR and the Silmarillion are legends and fables of a long-vanished Middle-earth, not unlike one could argue the historical fine points of the Bible, or dismiss it utterly (and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist). Or one could say that The Hobbit and LotR were written by the 'winners' of the war, and therefore the true story of the losing side was buried under a great, mouldering pile of propaganda. Thus, one could say that the Dunlanders were a people oppressed by a more powerful neighbor (like the English of the Normans, or the Irish of the English), and that the National People's Front of Dunland was merely seeking their rightful independence from subjugators and usurpers.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, LotR is, although in arguable fashion, written by Frodo Baggins so basically it's from his perspective. He might have exaggerated things or simply not remembered them totally correctly. Nevertheless, we can expect quite high accuracy from it as Frodo is a first-hand narrator in many cases, and we can consider his nature quite honest.

Interesting that both Bilbo and Frodo should have written (ostensibly) their memoirs in third person narrative (whether third person omniscient or limited could be argued), rather than in first person narrative, which is the case for most autobiographies. I suppose it would be considered a limited third person narrative, in that we know far more of the Hobbits' thought processes; however, that is not always the case.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Isn't Cirdan a bit old, I mean, 15000 at the end of the third age. Who knows his age now? (7th age)

And Thirandiril (I don't believe this guy read the book at all - it is the spelling of someone who has heard the name not seen it..) wouldbe a babe in arms comparatively... but we established a long time ago

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...uds#post346289

that these Telerin guys have got a lot going for them....elf-husbands of choice of the Alpha females ... Thingol, Celeborn .. I rest my case...

Cirdan would have to lose the beard though... and actually..nah he is a sailor ... forget it.... spent too many parties bored to sobs by yotties...

[Nerwen]

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

He is not joking, with all rebuttals and challenges to his theory he hasn't yet retracted it and its been a couple days now. Anyone (at least on that forum) who puts up jokes and far-fetched theories is found out and admitts to it with the first day usually.

[The Sixth Wizard]

and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist

I can be an Ardan agnostic? Sweet.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

He is not joking, with all rebuttals and challenges to his theory he hasn't yet retracted it and its been a couple days now. Anyone (at least on that forum) who puts up jokes and far-fetched theories is found out and admitts to it with the first day usually.

Oh dear. *shakes head sadly*

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with.

Huh? I really must work on my reputation.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?

Or, like some here, is he stirring the pot, winding up those of us who will fanatically defend Tolkien at all costs, regardless of the silly statements we have to make (at times) in order to do so?

What better fun than to see a straw man thrown into a hornet's nest?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

You are absolutely correct that Rohirrim is of course a substantive, but all grammars leak and some require a bit more bailing than others. When Gandalf says of the People of The Mark, "the Rohirrim, the Horse-lords, do not sleep," is he being descriptive or derivative?

As for this Quenyan/Sindarin thing, would it be a tad too post-modern to suggest that a possible course would be to import the most common name into all the languages? Yes, I know this flies in the face of Tolkien's delight in many-named things, but such a habit has an etymological pedigree. After all, the English language gobbled up many a word from other languages and did English them and in doing so could overlook inflection. And while English took Eskimo from French and Spanish, at least in official Canadian English that word is now eschewed in favour of the Native People's own word for themselves, Inuit. Other countries may, however, lag behind in this recognition. We could perhaps go with Markist I suppose or Markic or even Riddermarket.

Or would that be Eorlingian?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

You could say I delight in stirring the melting pot of language.

[Eönwë]

I think the reason thr rings were given to Cirdan, Galadriel and Elrond, was because they were probably the wisest elves left in middle-earth (Anyone who has survived 15,000 and gets messages from Ulmo must be a good choice; a powerful ruler like Galadriel, who also happens to be wise, though slightly headstrong is good; and Elrond, well, Elrond is just simply wise).

And as for why not Celeborn. Would you trust anyone whose name is Teleporno?

[CSteefel]

What a stupid set of posts at the beginning...

I am surprised you would bother to copy them here, but then I have to be stupid to be responding even with this short of a post...