[HN Gopher] The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark - The Lost Version (... ___________________________________________________________________ The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark - The Lost Version (2001) Author : sohkamyung Score : 109 points Date : 2022-12-23 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ringgame.net) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ringgame.net) | mike-the-mikado wrote: | Interestingly, in Tolkien's letter to his publisher (142, in "The | Letters of J.R.R. Tollkien", selected and edited by Humphrey | Carpenter), "I did not mean the suggested revision [which he had | sent them earlier] to be printed off; but it seems of have come | out pretty well in the wash". | bombcar wrote: | Yeah, originally he had written the LoTR expecting not being | able to "fix" the previous. He even mentions it in the text | (said by bilbo at the council of Elrond) | swayvil wrote: | It's a beautiful example of the story (the "true account") | bending to the gravity of desire. | | (The ring is a desire singularity with 1000 gravities.) | | That's a big deal. I mean, the story is basically everything to | us. Our whole reality. | | That the story is just a squishy thing that gets smashed around | by desire is a very big important point. A shocking revelation. | | In the context of LOTR, all the narrators are now untrustworthy. | | Maybe things weren't so black and white. | | I think that's the point that's getting underlined and belabored | here. | | Beware desire and its effects upon reality. | | Also, LOTR is a history. History isn't what happened. It's a | story about what happened. And it's a story written by the | winners. | | I think JRR Tolkien saw a lot of this in the war. | Zircom wrote: | Glen Cook has an absolutely fantastic series called The Black | Company where the entire series is framed as being the recorded | annals of a mercenary company, with who is writing them | switching occasionally between books to different characters, | which let's you see the narrating character who usually writes | them from a different, and sometimes less flattering, | perspective. | | In any case, unreliable narration is obviously a big of the | series, and the concept that just because something is written | down doesn't mean it happened that way is pretty central, and I | think it's outright brought up by the narrator at least a few | times, and reading between the lines/making inferences that | don't line up exactly with what is recorded is pretty much | necessary to understanding the plot of the series sometimes. | | Cook also served for 10 years, not sure if he ever saw active | combat but the series is constantly praised by veterans for | it's accurate portrayal of what life in the military actually | feels like. | Arrath wrote: | I don't see the Black Company brought up often, but it sure | is a good read. I rank it akin to Malazan, though markedly | different. | [deleted] | wolverine876 wrote: | > In the context of LOTR, all the narrators are now | untrustworthy. | | I think that's a common misunderstanding of the 'untrustworthy | narrator' concept. All narrators are untrustworthy, the | question is not a binary one: 100% or not. The question is how | trustworthy, and where and when can we trust this narrator? | | Like real people, nobody is perfect - everyone tells >0 lies | and >0 truth - but putting them all in the same basket is | meaningless and aburd. Some are far more trustworthy than | others. | | Tolkien was very clear that knowledge had great power (Gandalf, | for example) and that deception and untrustworthiness were | works of the enemy, of evil. Bilbo's lie was driven by the | Ring, the ultimate corrupting evil. The protagonists, including | the hobbits, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Legalos, etc., were | exceptionally trustworthy and took it very seriously; look at | Sam's faithfulness to Frodo, for example. Boromir was depected | as flawed, and ultimately broke trust and was corrupted by the | Ring. | helf wrote: | There is an alt history version of The Lord of the Rings | written by a Russian author named Kirill Eskov called "The Last | Ringbearer" and it is fantastic. | | In it, Mordor and the Orcs are a science advanced nation and | the southern countries are the aggressors. It's a great | "history is written by the victor" take on the mythos. I highly | recommend checking it out. | xoxxala wrote: | Thanks. | | I sort of recommend Khraniteli, the Soviet Lord of the Rings | Soviet TV movie from 1991. Delightfully bizarre in small | doses but a little hard to sit through the whole thing. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xluxT4fj2U8 | mnw21cam wrote: | While we're talking alternative LoTRs, it's worth having a | look at The DM Of The Rings | https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 which | manages to use all stills from the LoTRs films and tell a | completely different story, in the same vein as Darths and | Droids https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0001.html . | swayvil wrote: | I just downloaded it. Thanks :) | oneoff786 wrote: | Well I hate it. | | Is history written by the victor? Maybe. But the lord of the | rings is not intended to be read that way. I find it tiresome | to have someone come out and say this nice fantasy story, | that is not a hard deep dive on morality or political | reality, is actually something entirely wrong; and to then | have it implicitly suggested that if I don't buy it that I | don't get "the point". | | Our post modern society has truth written by whichever side | validates your beliefs at this point. I'm not convinced that | "written by the Victor" is even an accurate take. | swayvil wrote: | Good point. I totally appreciate it as excellent epic | fantasy too. | | BUT the whole "reality is distorted by desire" thing is | dead seriously real, and it is a big deal (The Buddha | himself ranted about it). And the ring IS a total solid | desire macguffin. People go crazy over it. And Bilbo DID | change his story. So... it makes an interesting line of | thought, you gotta agree. | | Also : You ever read Lord Dunsany, CS Lewis or Lovecraft? | They were all sorta on the same page as Tolkien. | bentley wrote: | In the United States, the copyright on _The Hobbit_ will last | until 2033, 95 years after publication--but only the first | edition. The second edition with the revised Gollum story was | published in 1951, so it will remain copyrighted until 2047. | Interestingly, this is still earlier than the first editions of | _The Lord of the Rings_ (which will expire in 2050 and 2051). | | Tolkien died in 1973, so in life+50 countries, all of his works | will expire in the same year, 2024--that is, unless the country | chooses to extend by twenty years to life+70, as both Canada and | New Zealand are doing next year. | colechristensen wrote: | Life + 50 just doesn't make any sense. A creative work doesn't | need to provide for your grandchildren in retirement quibbling | in an estate trust about how to squeeze every last drop of | blood from the stone. | | If it was really so successful then save up some profits from | when it was reasonably in your control and make a trust fund | with that. | CyborgCabbage wrote: | Disgraceful, what's even the point of putting pen to page when | you're only gonna get a measly 95 years of ownership. | purple_ferret wrote: | Just in time for Rings of Power Season 3 | amanaplanacanal wrote: | Extending copyright seems antithetical to the whole purpose. If | copyright is supposed to incentivize creative works, how does | extending it after the fact do that? Doesn't it have the | opposite effect? | bell-cot wrote: | At this point, "incentivize creative works" is 99% | ideological gloss. The long-running payments from copyrighted | works are golden Rings of Power from the POV of the financial | and legal industries - and those guys are far less neglectful | and benevolent than Gollum was, to ever let go if they can | possibly avoid it. | boredemployee wrote: | i love all the (movie) sequels of hobbit, LOR etc. but I have a | hard time to put the stories together in my mind. maybe reading | all the books would help me with the timeline and overall | understanding? | BerislavLopac wrote: | Yes, but in all honesty just "reading the books" is probably | not enough. To really understand the full "lore" you should | definitely read the appendices and the chronology; also reading | The Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales is most recommended. | jfengel wrote: | It's rather a surreal artifact of Tolkien's writing process. He | began his book as a direct sequel to The Hobbit, and chose | Gollum's ring as the macguffin to drive the plot. As the story | evolved, the ring became The Ring, at which point some of the | original story didn't actually work any more. | | He could simply have chosen a different macguffin, but Tolkien | had a weird way of fixating on things that he'd already written. | It's almost scientific: you explore the space of stories, and | whatever hangs together consistently must be "true". | | He solved that not by deprecating the original book, but by | rewriting it, and then including a preface in _The Lord of the | Rings_ about how the original book was Bilbo 's self-promoting | propaganda. | | This is emblematic of his work. He kept re-writing and re-writing | to find something that felt "true". Which is partly why he never | really settled on anything. He kept assigning characters | different names, and then assigning some names to other | characters until they fit. In the early _Hobbit_ , Thorin was | called "Gandalf", which makes it a hell of a thing to read. (And | the wizard was named "Bladorthin". Which is almost as bad as | "Bingo Bolger-Baggins", the original name of Frodo. Or "Trotter", | the original Strider, a Hobbit with wooden feet...) | | Given that _The Hobbit_ was not actually intended to be connected | directly to his Middle-earth works except retroactively, and that | _The Silmarillion_ was not published until after his death (with | significant editing, because he kept re-writing it until it was | no longer compatible with _The Lord of the Rings_ ), in a sense | there is only one truly "canonical" Middle-earth book: _The Lord | of the Rings_. | | Tolkien was not only an extraordinary genius, but we have an | incredible collection of his draft works to see how his genius | worked. I can't think of any other author whose process is | simultaneously so remarkable and so well-documented. | sprkwd wrote: | It's wonderful, right? Being able to directly observe | creativity and iteration in the story. | wolverine876 wrote: | > He could simply have chosen a different macguffin, but | Tolkien had a weird way of fixating on things that he'd already | written. | | Tolkien pulled much from older myths, of which Tolkien was a | leading scholar. The Ring as a driving force (and its power and | the consequences of that power) was not an invention of | Tolkien's; Tolkien didn't get the idea from the Hobbit. Wagner | famously used it in the 19th century, and likely myths, on | which Wagner also relied, preceded Wagner. | | I think your description is a common process of many (most? | almost all?) artists and creative workers. Creation is not | making things in a first draft out of whole cloth. You don't | know where you are going or what will work. It's not unlike a | startup in that respect (please let's not get carried away with | our frame of reference): you have some great ideas and talent; | you develop it, often in unanticipate directions; and | eventually you find an application for them - sometimes | completely unanticipated, even from a side project. | | > He began his book as a direct sequel to The Hobbit | | Where does Tolkien describe that? | jfengel wrote: | His biographer says that Allen & Unwin (his publishers) asked | for "a new Hobbit book". The earliest drafts are about a | second adventure for Bilbo -- he had run out of money and | needed a new treasure fetch-quest. | | You can read the early drafts in book 6 of the _History of | Middle-earth_ , and watch as "the tale grew in the telling". | They start with Bilbo, then the protagonist changes name and | identity as the concept fills out. He made it as far as Bree | in a very Hobbit-esque style before scrapping it all and | rewriting it in the more adult LotR style. | | (He later tried to re-write _The Hobbit_ in that LotR style, | but it was dreadfully boring and he gave up after a few | chapters.) | wolverine876 wrote: | > His biographer says that Allen & Unwin (his publishers) | asked for "a new Hobbit book". | | I wonder what the publisher's thoughts were about Tolkien's | response: 'How about a six book, three volume epic, not | suitable for much of the same audience (children), in | essentially a new genre, with almost all new characters?' | Someone1234 wrote: | Much like movies today, if the sequel comes out long | enough after the original, and you want to target the | SAME people, you go from children/YA to adult. | | For example there was a 17-year gap between The Hobbit | and LOTR's first two books. | deeg wrote: | > Where does Tolkien describe that? | | It's discussed extensively in History of the Lord of the | Rings. The sequel was originally intended to have a tone as | light as The Hobbit (which somewhat excuses his original | "Bingo" Baggins). Tolkien had no idea where he was going when | he started writing; he just knew he wanted to start with a | party and somewhere include an off-hand story involving Tom | Bombadil. He eventually decides that the protagonist | (Bilbo/Frodo/Bingo/whoever) will go to Rivendell. | | He wrote a few chapters with all this in mind, still in a | light tone. He went back to rewrite some things and he | decides to add a passage where Frodo hides to surprise/scare | Gandalf, who is coming down the road on his horse. Tolkien | writes the part where Gandalf stops and starts sniffing, | probably intending for Gandalf to ruin the surprise. | | But then, with no known explanation, he scratches out Gandalf | and writes "black rider" (or something close to that). In the | margin he writes "who is the black rider?". He then pauses | his rewrite so he can ponder who this new character is. This | starts him down the new, darker, path that leads to the Ring | and Sauron. The sniffing rider eventually becomes a Nazgul. | Fascinating stuff! | ordu wrote: | Wow. I always was flummoxed by the first part of the story, | especially by the fox thinking about hobbits sleeping under | a tree. It just feels to be out of place in the book. An | echo of The Hobbit. But if the real story of LOTR started | later it becomes clearer. | jfengel wrote: | That's an important point: Tom Bombadil was another | character that Tolkien had already created, independent of | both the Middle-earth stuff and _The Hobbit_. | | His inclusion in the book is awkward and people have tons | of questions about it because it doesn't really fit. Tom | Bombadil is more of a nursery-rhyme character, and would | have fit better into a Hobbit sequel than what became _The | Lord of the Rings_. | | His continued inclusion reflects the way Tolkien was loath | to give up an idea once he'd written it, leading to a | chapter that is at once incredibly evocative and | maddeningly uninformative. | niemandhier wrote: | So LOTR was written in iterations, and the Hobbit was patched | after first released? | | Sounds like a good framework for productivity. | jfengel wrote: | It was released only because he was forced to by management. | | Given Tolkien's druthers, he'd have kept it all in a private | repository, working on branch after branch, cherry-picking | changes strung like a Christmas tree. | | What he really wanted to release was The Silmarillion, but | they passed. It included a long but incomplete verse version | of Beren and Luthien, which utterly baffled the readers. The | publisher demanded a Hobbit sequel -- which already included | a bunch of random stuff from The Silmarillion, but mostly | just a few inconsistent fragments. | | So he wrote The Lord of the Rings, and despite himself, | managed to actually get it released. All the while he kept | tinkering with his masterpiece, never releasing it at all. | Some other developer (his son) finally cobbled something | together after he died -- mostly by reverting to branches | that were decades behind the HEAD. | | He was very, very, very unproductive. But he sure made a lot | of commits -- and then reverted them. | sdenton4 wrote: | The Hobbit edits here make a lot of sense in the bigger | picture, though. Given what we later learn about the Ring, | there's NO WAY Gollum would wager it as a 'present' in a riddle | game... And if he somehow did, he would cheat like hell to keep | it, despite all the 'ancient tradition' around the Riddle Game. | | The edit is great; it solves the continuity problem in a really | creative way. Making the old version into Bilbo's self-serving | rationalization is an excellent bit of meta-fiction, further | reinforcing the seductive power of the Ring. | colechristensen wrote: | Isn't most fiction writing like this though? You just don't get | to see it because it's not so interesting and you don't | generally have a person (tolkiens son) making editing leftovers | their life's work. | | People edit, make major changes, names change, a minor detail | in an early draft becomes a central plot point. | | Neil Gaiman definitely talks about development of his work like | this. | | Tolkien seems to be particularly interested in having a body of | his life's work writing being consistent, but it's not so out | of line with how any fiction is written. | bee_rider wrote: | It is sort of funny. Historical myths and legends of were not | controlled in the same sense that modern fiction is, so you had | various sets of stories -- King Arthur, Greek pantheon, etc, | where the canon is really more of a suggestion. Events can be | jumbled around to ignored, new characters can be introduced, | the Lancelots of the whole thing stick around but some of their | aspects are pulled forward or pushed back. | | And then of course modern stories are generally single-source | and totally controlled (other than comic books and that sort of | thing). | | And one of the major authors who sort of bridges the gap... his | method seems to have been "well I'll just run that whole | historical process in my head, with the various characters and | groups recording their legends and myths!" | jfengel wrote: | That is the truly epic thing about his, uh, epics. He | basically used his own evolution of thoughts as a parallel | for the history of a culture -- all by a single person. The | languages themselves evolved in his head, and he documented | all of the versions as if they belonged to thousands of years | of linguistic divergence. | | Star Wars and Marvel still evoke debates about canonicity, | but at least that's a bunch of authors taking things in their | own directions. Tolkien achieved that kind of argument about | canon all by himself. | | It's actually ripe for fanfic, and why people really | shouldn't get so up in arms about whether modern expansions | of Middle-earth are in conflict with "canon". He explicitly | called for "other hands and minds" to expand on his work. But | what he achieved all by himself is so masterful that it's | understandable that some want to think of it as a pristine | canon unto itself. | wardedVibe wrote: | I hadn't thought of it before, but cannon seems mostly to be | a consequence of copyright. Places like SCP, which only | vaguely use copyright, have a cannon that more closely | resemble traditional mythmaking. | whakim wrote: | > Historical myths and legends of were not controlled in the | same sense that modern fiction is. | | I think this point misses a bit of context - notably the | contrast between oral and written literature. Many historical | legends and folklore originated in some kind of oral context, | which gives rise to a huge set of interconnected stories (and | it's only later that we get some kind of "canonical" version | of these stories, when someone _writes down_ one of those | oral performances). The oral performances of such stories | necessitated some of the attributes you allude to. The | characters and plotting are formulaic and interchangeable | because that makes them easier to memorize; the details are | sparse and interchangeable because that allows the bard to | fill in details to fit the meter and appeal to the | preferences of their audience. | | > And then of course modern stories are generally single- | source and totally controlled. | | Tolkien was incredibly _aware_ of this written /oral | distinction, and this whole post is great evidence! Tolkien | _uses_ the way that oral storytelling functions as an in- | world device to explain away a discrepancy between | conflicting written versions of the same story. This ends up | feeling incredibly satisfying because people intuitively | understand the nature of oral folklore, as opposed to, say, | George Lucas 's endless revisions to Star Wars (which | conflicts with the audience's desire for a single "canonical" | version.) | xg15 wrote: | > _Given that The Hobbit was not actually intended to be | connected directly to his Middle-earth works except | retroactively_ | | In the first version of the book I read, there was an offhand | mention that a Took ancestor had married a "Fairy" (or Fae). It | was never discussed in the book again and I found that later | versions had it charged to "Elf". | | I always supposed that this was another bit left over from the | time where the Hobbit was its own universe - at least I never | heard any mention of Fairies living in Middle-Earth. | | Edit: Of course maybe a wiser choice might have been to leave | it in - and present it as a sign that there are still a lot of | unexplored corners in Middle-Earth and even after reading all | the books, we don't know all about it. | | I think the modern pressure to have a "canon" which explains | absolutely everything that goes on in the world can lead to | sterile and unbelievable worlds as well if a worldbuilder gives | in too much. | HideousKojima wrote: | Also IIRC Valinor is called "Faerie" at one point in _The | Hobbit_. | chungy wrote: | > I think the modern pressure to have a "canon" which | explains absolutely everything that goes on in the world can | lead to sterile and unbelievable worlds as well if a | worldbuilder gives in too much. | | I agree with that. Leaving room for expansion, and mystery, | feels like a more "real" world than one where everything has | already been explored and done. | | Fandoms sometimes put themselves into a corner, too, when | they start making assumptions that all that can be said and | done already has been. The Star Wars sequel series (episodes | 7, 8, 9) come to mind. I think the majority of complaints | came about because they dared to do something new to Star | Wars. (Some of it was already hinted in the original films, | too; as an example: Leia being force-sensitive) | xg15 wrote: | > _The Star Wars sequel series (episodes 7, 8, 9) come to | mind. I think the majority of complaints came about because | they dared to do something new to Star Wars._ | | (Warning, Star Wars rant follows) | | Interesting to hear this direction of criticism. | | My personal impression from watching The Force Awakens was | the opposite: It felt like the movies where at the same | time obligated to continue the story of the original | trilogy (due to them being sequels) but at the same time | not allowed to introduce any substantial new ideas. | | That led to a very strange kind of "rhyming" history which | really strained my suspension of disbelief: | | Even though the Empire had been defeated and the Death Star | blown up (twice), 20 years later somehow nothing noteworthy | has happened except that a _new_ Empire has sprung up - | which looks and behaves exactly like the old one, has its | own copies of Darth Vader and Darth Sidious and somehow can | 't think of anything better than building a _third_ Death | Star - which is promptly blown up _again_! | | Same on the side of the good guys as well: Last time we saw | them they were celebrating victory with flying colours, | having freed the galaxy from the grip of evil, ready to | usher in an exciting era of a nascent new galactic | republic. | | But sure, let's skip all that and fast-forward to a point | where the good guys somehow ended up _again_ as the scrappy | underdogs, fighting against an overwhelming enemy. | Nevermind even explaining what went wrong. | | If the heroes do everything right, archive full victory - | and still end up in the exact same place as they had | started, I can't help but feel dreadful. | | I'm sure the restrictions here didn't really have to do | with canon: They were sequels, so strictly speaking there | was no canon to respect, and the Extended Universe canon | that did exist actually was a lot more daring and | interesting than what the movie attempted. So my guess here | is that the restrictive approach came from the producers | who didn't want to risk their investment by trying out | anything new. | chungy wrote: | > My personal impression from watching The Force Awakens | was the opposite | | Totally fair, it really is a remake of A New Hope. I | think the same could be said of The Phantom Menace, for | better and worse, but there is precedent in how to start | a trilogy ;) | | Episodes 8 and 9 do a lot more to stuff new ideas. | Episode 8 still felt obliged to repeat the major plot | points of 5 and 6 (I'll ding it for that), but once those | were out of the way, the plot could really do its own | thing. | | > But sure, let's skip all that and fast-forward to a | point where the good guys somehow ended up again as the | scrappy underdogs, fighting against an overwhelming | enemy. Nevermind even explaining what went wrong. | | It's not the reading I came away with. The good guys won, | set up the New Republic, became a bit too complacent. | Despite Leia and others warning about the First Order | faction springing up out of the ashes of the Empire, they | weren't taken seriously. These are the resistance the | films focus on. | | The First Order showed that it was serious business by | blowing up Coruscant, capital of the New Republic (as | well as the Old Republic and the Galactic Empire). | bombcar wrote: | Tolkien originally used the term Fairy (as in Fae) to mean | elf - but he changed the name without changing the concept; | he felt the term elf was closer and fairy had too much | "baggage" from Shakespeare and friends. | | I wonder how he'd feel known Ing that his concepts of orc and | elf and dwarves now dominate fantasy | [deleted] | Retric wrote: | His version of orc, elf, and dwarves are close enough to | earlier versions it's hard to say how much he changed vs | these versions simply fitting a modern aesthetic. | | Earlier dwarves vs Tolkien dwarves vs more modern examples | don't seem that different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dw | arf_(folklore)#Norse_mytholo... | | Elves are easier to argue but Santa workshop elves, Harry | Potter elves, D&D elves, etc are all quite different. | bombcar wrote: | One thing Tolkien never had was pointy ear elves - that | crept in somehow and now it's everywhere. | Retric wrote: | Large and sometimes pointy elf ears where a thing before | he was born, but I don't know where pointy thing really | took off. I suspect it was mostly a way to draw larger | ears without it being as comical. | | 1870: https://freevintageillustrations.com/enter-an-elf- | in-search-... | | He did say in a letter that Hobbits had pointy ears | seemingly a nod to existing tradition, while elves had | leaf shaped ears whatever that meant. | xg15 wrote: | Oh, I wasn't aware of that. That's interesting to know! | jfengel wrote: | Tolkien also kept using the word "Gnome" to refer to a | particularly high-class subset of the Elves. That, too, | reads very strangely, because it puts me in mind of garden | gnomes. I have no frame to think of the most beautiful | Elves -- including Elrond and Galadriel -- as "gnomes". | | He eventually gave up on that and used "Noldor", a term | he'd been kicking around for a while in various contexts. | That's much more comfortable, but he kept using "gnome" way | longer than seemed reasonable. | rimunroe wrote: | > Tolkien also kept using the word "Gnome" to refer to a | particularly high-class subset of the Elves. | | What do you mean by "high-class" here? Do you mean | they're Calaquendi, or are you saying they were esteemed | greater than the other houses? | jfengel wrote: | The Gnomes were Calaquendi, who answered the call of the | Valar (angels/gods) to come see the Light of the Two | Trees in the West. | | The Vanyar (also Calaquendi) were probably "higher" than | the Gnomes, but they were never seen in Middle-earth | again. We learn very little about them, and I don't think | they're even passingly alluded to in _The Lord of the | Rings_. Some of the Gnomes returned to Middle-earth, so | they outrank everybody who never left. | | He renamed the Gnomes "Noldor", and most of The | Silmarillion is about them (and the Men who hung out with | them). They came back to Middle-earth to retrieve the | Silmarils, which had been stolen by Morgoth (the Big Bad | of the First Age, and Sauron's boss). | | Galadriel is one of the very few we meet who were part of | that go-and-return trip. It was a nasty business, and | that's why her turning down the Ring and returning to the | West was such a big deal. (Though she wasn't part of the | story at the time they were called Gnomes, and she had to | be retroactively inserted into it. He never did finalize | that story, and we're left with a conflicting mess of | unpublished stories.) | gpderetta wrote: | IIRC Galadriel is the noblest Noldor[1] left in Middle | Earth at the time of the war of the rings. | | All children of Feanor (the main contingent of the | Noldor) are dead by the end if the first age). | | The few Noldor that outranked Galadriel left by the end | if the second era after the last alliance of men and | elves and the war with Sauron. | | [1] which I think is also half Teleri. | pdonis wrote: | _> which I think is also half Teleri_ | | Yes, Galadriel's father, Finarfin, was of the Noldor, and | he married Earwen of Alqualonde, the daughter of Olwe, | who was one of the two leaders of the Teleri. | gpderetta wrote: | Yes, as opposed to the Moriquendi. | | So his gnomes were not of the, aehm, garden variety. | wolverine876 wrote: | Before Tolkien, elves were much closer to gnomes than | immortal, super-human creatures. They were mischievious, | etc. | solstice wrote: | In the Magic the Gathering lore, the elves on the plane | of Lorwyn could be an example of a reflection of this. | They are obsessed with beauty and perfection and | absolutely xenophobic. | https://gamelore.fandom.com/wiki/Lorwyn_Elf | jonnycomputer wrote: | I read the original version first, some ancient copy checked out | of the library. When I re-read it a couple of years later, the | book was different than I remembered. It was only years later | that I discovered why. | dadjoker wrote: | Heh, the web dev geek in me made it so that the first thing I | noticed about the page was the old school web page layout using | tables. | [deleted] | hprotagonist wrote: | oh thank god there are diffs. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-23 23:00 UTC)