I'm still checking the post every day for my copies of Sorceror and Sword to arrive, so you'll have to forgive me if some of this is way off - it derives mainly from what I've read on the boards, etc.

While I'll be trying out a Hyborian setting right off the bat, I've also started to wonder if the system can be bent to a LoTR (or Silmarillion)setting. Can the concept of a "demon" be stretched to represent a "personified national spirit" such as what made, for instance, the line of Numenorean kings greater than their peers, or a "demi-divinity" such as the Istari, or the power of the Nazgul? Can the concept of Humanity be used both to represent someone acheiving a closer tie to the Light, and those who have fallen to the Dark?

Characters would obviously fall somewhere between the poles I mentioned above, but in general I wanted to if this seems reasonable, has been done before, just wouldn't work, etc.

Regards,

Christopher

Christopher,

I had read your earlier posts, but failed to recognize you were a fellow Michigander. And from my old stomping grounds nonetheless! Very cool.

Anyway, check out this thread to see what some people have to say about Sorcerer and High Fantasy.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4023

For what it's worth, I think Sorcerer can do a lot of things. Now, most people (it would seem, me included) prefer to stick to its roots - dark, trangressive games where the demons aren't just metaphors, and where the relationships are almost always dysfunctional - which may not reconcile so well with Professor Tolkien's works. But I'm sure it could be done (and at this point I would recommend checking out The Sorcerer's Soul, for its fabulous discussion on what Humanity can mean, and maybe also for its Angelics/Grace rules...but I know that you just plunked down a wad of cash for the other two books, so maybe that's not what you want to hear).

Take care,
Scott

Scott,

Thanks for the reply, and congratulations on your suppliment.

After a while away from rpg's - resultant from a case of the AD&D blues - I tried 3e and came away nonplussed, and was thus very happy to find The Forge. I now have plowed through Paladin, and Donjon, and am awaiting Sorceror and S & Sword. I'll likely play a few games of "Star Wars" Paladin and "Little Keep" Donjon over Thanksgiving, and then prep for a Christmas "Conan" Sorceror game. This should give me a bit more time to digest things, and then I'll tackle S & Soul, and perhaps Charnel Gods, who knows? I do a lot of wargame design work, trying to chase down new takes on old themes, so it's refreshing to see the creative aspect of rpg design coming out again.

Regards,

Christopher

Hi Christopher,

Welcome! I'm glad the Forge, and Sorcerer in particular, is meetin' the need.

As for Sorcerer's application to The Lord of the Rings, I think that one key scene in the story tends to get overlooked even by its biggest fans: when Aragorn travels the Paths of the Dead and awakens the damned army to his call. This is necromancy. It is friggin' big necromancy, as bad and foul and "black" as any. In Sorcerer terms, Aragorn is patently low on Humanity after that experience, and in my opinion, he never recovers, based on his depiction throughout the rest of the book (contrast the "king on the faded tapestry" tone of Aragorn-sections in the last portion of the story with the vibrant, rather scungy Strider of the earlier parts).

Let's not forget Eowyn and the leader of the Nazgul: Taint, anyone?

Best,
Ron

I think there is more than sufficient soul-searching darkness in Tolkien's work to warrant a Sorcerer take on it.

Those books have a real darkness to them, a real decay of a way of life that could fit well into a Sorcerer game.

It isn't Tolkien but his imitators who had frolicky happy elves and goofiness. The Lord of the Ring has its darkness.

I think a high fantasy game that draws from Tolkien and Donaldson's Covenant the Unbeliever series could work well.

Tolkien to me naturally lends itself to Sorcerer. We have three major elder races (numenorians, elves and dwarves) and magical items that can only be counted as wicked powerful object demons. How else do you explain the power of the ring or the palantir? The nine are explicitly described in terms of demons created via necromancy. Humanity battles are rampant, and as Ron pointed out, victory is rare. Look at Frodo, who ultimately lost his struggle with the ring and became entralled to it. We even have a mythic otherworld: the destination for which the immortals (of whom Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, and finally Frodo and Bilbo are members) sail when they pass from the world of mortals.

A person could do an excellent Tolkien-inspired campaign with Sorcerer.

I've been mulling this over ever since recent discussions about "High Fantasy Sorcerer" on the boards. Here's the idea I formed, which I referenced in passing in one of the threads:

LotR is all about one thing...yes, I know that's blasphemous, but it really is...the One Ring.

If we forget the Silmarillion et al. for the moment and concentrate on the LotR trilogy, that's what it is about. Simply, can you resist the corruption of ultimate power (personified by the One Ring)?

Frodo held out. Boromir didn't. Saruman didn't. The rest of the characters spend their time (in the Fellowship) trying to resist its influence and their own desire for it. Look at Gandalf and the elven Queen -- would the book have been the same without their wrenching temptations and sweaty denials of the power offered to them.

Edit: Irmo pointed out to me privately that Frodo didn't hold out. He's right, of course, Frodo didn't. I should have been more careful in my writing...I'm really only talking about the Fellowship book above, not the other two books, which I mistakenly imply I am doing.

If we include the Silmarillion et al., then we see that Tolkien's works are really all about power and its proper uses. Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman and all the rest of the lot are guilty of one thing -- the misuse of power and authority.

They go against the natural order, against proper and rightful authority.
Morgoth changed the song of Eru to his liking, going against the vision and leadership of the Creator.

Sauron wished to rule all Middle-earth. His followers did not follow him because it was right or correct to do so, not because he was a rightful noble or lord, but because of fear and Sauron's rule through it and power instead of being a proper lord of his people -- he did not have the rightness of a true lord's actions and behavior.

(The new LotR RPG has a couple of wonderful sections in it about theme, role-playing and Tolkien's works. Go browse it at B&N if you get the chance.)

Sorcery and magic are two different things -- magic is inherent and natural, and must be used naturally. Consider it to be "thematic technology" for LotR (ie: a gun or car in a regular Sorcerer game isn't a demon just because it gives a type of power to a person...likewise, an enchanted sword or elven magic isn't sorcery just because it gives someone power). Sorcery thus arises from twisted and wrong uses of magic and power.

Hi Raven,

I'll buy that - most particularly and especially once we separate the six short books called "The Lord of the Ring" from (a) fanboy Middle Earth or Silmarilion issues and from (b) any fantasy role-playing allegedly based on the material, directly or indirectly.

I'll also call into attention a protagonist who's usually overlooked in (a) and (b): Gollum. Who does not, and will never, submit to Sauron, and whose defiance arguably achieves the greatest good in the entire book. What ... a ... sorcerer. One little aged hobbit, who without doubt and without ego (see his last speech), defies The Cosmos for what is his, even if it is (to use the metaphor from another thread) the most repulsive whore in existence.

Everyone should go and read all of Gollum's scenes carefully. You'll see it all: pride, endurance, agony, idealism, struggles with Humanity, and despair. Great stuff.

I have decided, as a general rule for myself now on, to campaign for making a huge distinction between Tolkien's stories and old-school D&D.

Best,
Ron

Quite. The folks who were responsible for Old School D&D (and they go way beyond Gygax and Arneson...check out any pre #100 issue of Dragon Magazine for a who's who of AD&D history) either A) read and understood their "source material" only on the most superficial of levels, or B) were just themselves so inadequate writers that they could not convey the depths of their understanding in their work.

I think this is probably true for most readers, myself included. The Lord of the Rings is often read by and refered to as juvenile literature...but there is no way that 10 and 12 year olds can really grasp the tremendous nuances in the book.

I never liked LotR as a kid. It was way too long. The "heroes" were these stupid little short people, the coolest characters like Boromir (who is still, I admit my favorite) were killed off way early and they kept going back to that pointlessly annoying little golum runt. Reading it again as an adult...what a diferent story it is...still way to long though ;-)

Just speaking of D&D...

This is the most accurate and simplest description of D&D I have ever seen


The original D&D seems, quite obviously, to be a pastiche of Fritz Leiber and Robert E. Howard adventure stories, set in a Tolkeinian world of Moorcockian morality, using Jack Vance's magic system, redacted for multiple protagonists. No wonder things are confused. - Ken Hite

Ron Edwards wrote:
I'll also call into attention a protagonist who's usually overlooked in (a) and (b): Gollum. Who does not, and will never, submit to Sauron, and whose defiance arguably achieves the greatest good in the entire book. What ... a ... sorcerer. One little aged hobbit, who without doubt and without ego (see his last speech), defies The Cosmos for what is his, even if it is (to use the metaphor from another thread) the most repulsive whore in existence.

Hi John,

Yup, that was me.

And yeah, Anthony, I think Ken nailed it with that one.

Best,
Ron

John (and Ron),

I've been thinking about this all night...
Gollum wasn't dedicated to himself. Not in the least. None of his actions are selfish or self-preserving or anything of the sort.
Gollum is dedicated to the One Ring -- the damn thing has a spirit about it, it's intelligent, after a fashion -- it's just like a person.

Imagine if the One Ring were a person -- literally, a whore -- who Frodo had to escort to her doom, resisting her temptations all the way. Look at Gollum's actions in that light.

There they are, Gollum and the One Ring, down in the darkness for ages, the Ring whispering to him, he caressing her...and then she up and leaves with Bilbo, passes from him to Frodo, who wants to destroy her.
Gollum wants to be with his One Ring, his Precious; he wants to protect her and caress her -- not use her (as would Sauron), not destroy her (as would Frodo).

It's a sick, twisted relationship...but there it is.

Gollum isn't thinking about himself, he's thinking about his precious.

---

So, how does this relate to Sorcerer: I'm thinking Humanity = Dedication to Another.

The Fellowship is all about this -- Boromir fails at this when he breaks with his dedication to the Fellowship and tries to take the One Ring. Sam is all about this, as he never abandons Frodo. Gimli and Legolas are all about this when they refuse to abandon Pippin and Merry to the uruk-hai. Gandalf sacrifices himself for the Fellowship on the bridge in Moria.

Saruman fails at this when he breaks his oaths to the Valar in regards to protecting the peoples of Middle-earth from the Shadow. Aragorn succeeds at this when he summons the dead, and perhaps this is what saves him (perhaps all that Humanity loss from the necromancy is offset by the single roll of Humanity gain).

Gollum succeeds at this repeatedly, in his attempts to regain the One Ring.
Ultimately, though, it is a sort of twisted selflessness -- and if you look at it all like this the Premise comes about as "What is dedication to another?" and "Are you willing to pay the price for that dedication? (and what is the cost?)"

Raven,

That sounds good to me. My absolute favorite aspect of The Lord of the Rings is Sam's dedication to Frodo. I love that, and a game that focused on it alone would be way cool in my book.

- Scott

Hi Raven,

I think you nailed it. That's about the best reading of the story I think I've ever seen. It agrees with my reading that Gollum's actions are not based on selfishness.

I also think the entire interaction between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in their journey into Mordor is the central arena for this conflict.

Best,
Ron

Interesting analysis all around...

greyorm wrote: Imagine if the One Ring were a person -- literally, a whore -- who Frodo had to escort to her doom, resisting her temptations all the way. Look at Gollum's actions in that light.

greyorm wrote: John (and Ron),

I've been thinking about this all night...
Gollum wasn't dedicated to himself. Not in the least. None of his actions are selfish or self-preserving or anything of the sort.
Gollum is dedicated to the One Ring -- the damn thing has a spirit about it, it's intelligent, after a fashion -- it's just like a person.

Imagine if the One Ring were a person -- literally, a whore -- who Frodo had to escort to her doom, resisting her temptations all the way. Look at Gollum's actions in that light.

There they are, Gollum and the One Ring, down in the darkness for ages, the Ring whispering to him, he caressing her...and then she up and leaves with Bilbo, passes from him to Frodo, who wants to destroy her.
Gollum wants to be with his One Ring, his Precious; he wants to protect her and caress her -- not use her (as would Sauron), not destroy her (as would Frodo).

It's a sick, twisted relationship...but there it is.

Gollum isn't thinking about himself, he's thinking about his precious.

Talysman,

Interesting thoughts. I also happen to think that it is interesting that, at the climax of LotR, two failed Humanity rolls ended up meaning victory for Good. That's another part of LotR to remember: that Evil defeats itself, and that the victory of Good can be won through Evil's self-defeat.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

GreatWolf wrote:
Interesting thoughts. I also happen to think that it is interesting that, at the climax of LotR, two failed Humanity rolls ended up meaning victory for Good. That's another part of LotR to remember: that Evil defeats itself, and that the victory of Good can be won through Evil's self-defeat.

I just saw the DVD of LOTR last night and something occured to me. Notice how the most powerful or indeed 'High level' character in the movie are so delicately careful to avoid even TOUCHING the ring (particularly Gandalf, when Bilbo leaves he lets the ring lay in the middle of the floor until Frodo comes and pics it up)
It seems than in Middle Earth vulnerability to corruption seems to be directly proportional to power level rather than inversely like the typical 'saving roll' mechanic were to suggest. Also it suggests a universe where good and evil are mingled properties not binary opposites. Everyone in middle earth has some good and evil, and almost everyone is evil enough to be tempted by the ring.

Interestingly if we regard g&e as separate metrics then its possible to have a character with high numbers in both, someone who is capable of great good and great evil (pace, Boromir trying to steal the ring, then giving his life trying to save Merry and Pippin).

Indeed if we regard power as more or less inherently corrupting then meerly 'leveling up' would add to your 'evil' score at least to a small degree.

Hmm the closer I look at Lord of the Rings, the more I wonder if people who compare it to D&D ever really read it....

The more times I watch that movie the more respect I have for the screen writers. Being in the middle of rereading the "first" book I am once again confronted with what I've always hated most about the series. "brevity is the soul of wit" is a motto completely lost on Tolkien.

It truely is one of the most ultimately rare (and thus precious) things in the known universe...when the screen play is actually BETTER written than the literature its derived from. So many scenes which drag on endlessly in page after page of tedious exposition are brilliantly and succinctly summarized in just a few frames on the screen.

The one you mentioned about Gandalf and the ring's power is one of them.

Another is the fact that in the book its 30 odd YEARS between Bilbao's disappearance at his birthday party and when Frodo finally leaves the shire. Gandalf lingered for MONTHS after that party and there are several dozen visits by Gandalf between those times. Pages upon pages on selling the damn house and preparations for moving into the new one.

In the scene in the movie where the hobbits hide off of the road from the black rider, the fear is palpable. Even knowing that he doesn't find them I was still gripping the armrests. In the book...no sense of danger, no sense of urgency, no sense of nothing. Just "glad he didn't see us, whatever he was" and several PAGES about "oh yeah I saw him back in Hobbitton asking the Gaffer where you were".

Anyway...this post seemed to have drifted dangerously close to a rant. The point I wanted to make was that several of the most powerful scenes in the movie (like the one you mentioned) are that powerful because the movie stripped away all the extraneous baggage and drove the core point home. In the book that same scene...not nearly as compelling in its depiction of Gandalf's vulnerability.

Hi Ralph,

Yup, you guessed it, you're off topic. I'm pretty sure there are lots of forums, etc, out there in which such a post will yield 2285 enraged replies ...

Anyway, b_bankhead, you wrote,
"... the closer I look at Lord of the Rings, the more I wonder if people who compare it to D&D ever really read it...."

I don't think you need to wonder. The answer is, they haven't, and they don't. I first realized that when I attended my first science fiction and fantasy convention in the mid-80s. I was really looking forward to it ... and was horrified to meet hordes of people who used elf names and clearly had no, zero, zilch interest in discussing the literature. And the few who did were all about Mercedes Lackey.

I bought a few books, chatted a while with Gene Wolfe (a really nice guy who likes talking to his readers), left, and never returned.

I think this is relevant because one of the goals of Sorcerer as a game (and Elfs as well, in a different way) is to have content actually span across media, based on quality, rather than be focused and self-referential, based on topical/superficial or medium. My recent points about D&D fantasy are obviously related to this aim.

Best,
Ron

Ron there are moments in which I wished you and the rest of the Forge crew were writing the LOTR RPG

It might be darker than I would normally like but at least you would be on the clue train

I don't know, Seth...which two Humanity rolls are you referring to (Frodo & Gollum)? And how, exactly, does Evil defeat itself?

If you are talking about Gollum, he isn't actually "evil," unless you count selfishness as "Evil" (I don't...it's a step away, but not evil...Evil is active and horrible and tries to hurt and maim and cause suffering and pain for others)...evil and selfishness are the difference between being immoral and amoral.

Here's an example of my reasoning about Gollum: At the foot of Mount Doom, Gollum attacks Frodo, chastising him for trying to destroy the ring. But here's the thing, remember that the ring says to Gollum: 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'
Shortly after that, Gollum begs Sam to let him live, just a little longer, so that he can finally die and become dust.

It's obvious to me that Gollum is planning his own demise, knows he goes away when the Ring goes away...that's not a very selfish thing at all. Heck, it even seems he knows he's corrupt and miserable and but a shadow of a living thing...and he can't stand it any longer.

As well, does Evil really "defeat itself" in the novels?
Actually, does Evil ever really defeat itself?
I mean, do the good guys ever sit back and say, "Oh, crikey, we don't need to do anything because Evil will just take care of itself."

I doubt the Nazis & the Axis powers would have lost if the Allies hadn't intervened...mostly, I think this whole "Evil defeats itself" is one of the great modern myths of fantasy, and self-destructs upon actual inspection.

Tolkien, IMO, carefully avoids any such espousement, and shows that Evil is only destroyed through the efforts and sacrifices of the noble and virtuous. Without action on the part of Good men, Sauron would have simply and ultimately prevailed...no karmic thumping of the Dark Lord whatsoever.

And back to the Humanity rolls...Humanity doesn't necessarily mean "good" in Sorcerer terms. There are a number of Sorcerer ideas presented on this board which showcase how Humanity is not a measure of how good, or right, or nice you are...its a Premise-yardstick. And check out Charnel Gods for another example (ie: the good you do for others -- regardless of your actual motivations or reasons!).

You could be a completely sick fuck, and yet have a high Humanity in Sorcerer terms. Even so, I'm not certain I even agree that Gollum failed his last Humanity roll...his Humanity was dependent upon his Dedication to the One Ring. That dedication prevailed in the end, and ultimately destroyed Sauron.

However, if I recall the books correctly, Sam's dedication saved Frodo. Forget the Dark Lord Sauron and all that crap, the important bit at the end wasn't his defeat: it was Sam's unwavering dedication to Frodo that ultimately saved his friend from damning himself with the Ring, even once Frodo had given into temptation and lost his dedication to the Fellowship and their cause.

I think maybe that is the really important bit right there to take away with you.

If I remember correctly, I'm cribbing this from an Ursula LeGuin comment about LotR, but it seems especially appropriate to a discussion of Sorcerer . . . if you're willing to really stretch the use of demon, take a look at the various characters in terms of "light" and "dark" sides of a particular personality. The easiest example is Theoden/Wormtounge, and Frodo/Gollum is pretty clear, but consider Gandalf/Saruman, and Aragorn/Boromir (later, Denethor). The demon character exemplifies a corrupted version of the main character, and often directly or indirectly "tempts" that character to follow a darker path. The issue in Sorcerer mechanics is having a way for the relationship to result in power for the main character, so I think we're talking an extensive mod of the rules here, but -

Pick one of the excellent angles on Humanity offered here already. Each player creates two characters, one light (the main PC), one dark (the demon). When players want more power (would normally summon a new demon), they trigger the creation of a new dark character (by the GM). All the demon abilities and such are kinda screwed up, and this substantially transfers the summoning of new demons to the metagame . . . I'm not sure if, or how, it'd work. But somehow, it feels like "the demon is another character who you can draw power from - at a cost" could be a start.

And Ron - the phenomena you refer to in F/SF conventions is a familiar one. I had the pleasure of attending a few Readercons (a quick check - yup, at the expected URL here) a decade or more back, when I lived on the East Coast. As far as I can tell, this was organized as a direct response to the lack of actual discussion of the literature at your typical F/SF con. And oddly enough, some of my fondest memories were the long, interesting small-group discussions with Gene Wolfe that convention allowed. I also remember very interesting discussions with Chip Delany, though both he as a personality and the discussions themselves (filled with French deconstructionists and the like) were a bit overwhelming.

If there's a place in the "traditional" F/SF convention scene where Sorcerer and/or The Forge would get an enthusiastic reception, Readercon would be it . . .

Gordon

Reading all the above posts, it occured to me that, and this nicely ties in with the dysfunctional relationship model of Sorcerer, what really matters about the Ring, and about human relationships, is LOVE.

Is your love a blinding fury, that consumes you, and drives you to terrible, selfish evil to acquire the object of your lust, or is it TRUE, untainted love, where you're willing to see this object of love disappear in the horizon for its own good? Even it it hurts like Hell?

This way, you only acquire a Binding when you let the relationship turn dysfunctional and fucked up. At no point in LOTR one of the characters can say "the Ring made me do it" - the Ring -maybe- has that power, but can it really be seen operating? Gandalf chooses to avoid it, the Nazgul chose their enslavement, etc...The key here is that only the ones whose love is pure can be free, and act as such. Free yourself from the object of your desire, and find freedom and redemption...Mmm, very psychoanalytic...gotta re-read my Lacan books.

Gollum is all devoted to the Ring, and because he spent so much time bathing in his power, is going through a major "break up blues" when Bilbo steals it. But he finally realizes what a scorned lover he is, what a parody of a free being he has become. Does he realize that Frodo, the newest whore lover, has fallen victim to the ultimate jealousy ? no matter, for he finally sees that the Ring can only generate scorned lovers, jealous exes, can only generate envy and never satisfaction; The whore could only satisfy one lover at a time, and hence generates much more envy and hatred than -temporary- relief; Frodo is no better than Gollum on the edge of the pit, and I believe Gollum goes into the fire with the Ring willing to sacrifice himself to destroy the whore, out of LOVE, for the whore never loves back. The only way to freedom...

So, Humanity= freedom from desire? Now, THAT would be a f*cking scary way to see it...or just = disinterested love...

Just my two cents, I'm currently going through an entire re-evaluation of LOTR, reading all I can find about it; Currently reading an intriguing french thesis about being attracted to Evil itself in LOTR...not for the power it confers !

greyorm wrote: I don't know, Seth...which two Humanity rolls are you referring to (Frodo & Gollum)? And how, exactly, does Evil defeat itself?

If you are talking about Gollum, he isn't actually "evil," unless you count selfishness as "Evil" (I don't...it's a step away, but not evil...Evil is active and horrible and tries to hurt and maim and cause suffering and pain for others)...evil and selfishness are the difference between being immoral and amoral.

Here's an example of my reasoning about Gollum: At the foot of Mount Doom, Gollum attacks Frodo, chastising him for trying to destroy the ring. But here's the thing, remember that the ring says to Gollum: 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'
Shortly after that, Gollum begs Sam to let him live, just a little longer, so that he can finally die and become dust.

It's obvious to me that Gollum is planning his own demise, knows he goes away when the Ring goes away...that's not a very selfish thing at all. Heck, it even seems he knows he's corrupt and miserable and but a shadow of a living thing...and he can't stand it any longer.

As well, does Evil really "defeat itself" in the novels?
Actually, does Evil ever really defeat itself?
I mean, do the good guys ever sit back and say, "Oh, crikey, we don't need to do anything because Evil will just take care of itself."

I doubt the Nazis & the Axis powers would have lost if the Allies hadn't intervened...mostly, I think this whole "Evil defeats itself" is one of the great modern myths of fantasy, and self-destructs upon actual inspection.

Tolkien, IMO, carefully avoids any such espousement, and shows that Evil is only destroyed through the efforts and sacrifices of the noble and virtuous. Without action on the part of Good men, Sauron would have simply and ultimately prevailed...no karmic thumping of the Dark Lord whatsoever.

Well said, Irmo. I completely agree.

And here's the slamdunk at the end. Who destroys the one ring?

Mike

Although it will be a short while yet before I can comment on the specifics of Sorceror adaptations to Tolkein's work, I must say that the response to my original query has at the very least proved that the Sorceror gamers here are a thoughtful bunch - I've thoroughly enjoyed seeing the observations and friendly debate that has arisen here, on a very complex subject that is all too often overlooked.

So, in short, thank you to everyone.

"Irmo" has very succinctly pointed out the world view, or rather the cosmological view, that Tolkein establishes in the Simarillion, and carries to fruition in the LoTR. As he points out, the key lies in the single vision of the all-powerful creator leading to a good and noble end, despite the actions of selfish, vain, or evil creatures within or without the world. I hadn't known of Tolkein's statement about thievery, however! I wonder what his comments would be about his progeny's handling of his estate...

At an rate, to build upon "Irmo's" observations, there is a fascinating dichotomy to Tolkein's works which to a very great extent reflects the period and literature which he studied, that of early Anglo-Saxon England. Tolkein professed to be attempting to build a mythological background for an England that had forgotten its past, but both that past and Tolkein himself were caught between a passionate view of mankind's struggle on earth and the belief in an all-powerful god that would see mankind through to a better end. The structure of Beowulf as we now possess it is rife with these issues, for instance, struggling at all points to meld a passionate tale of honor, violence, and pride with a new-come Christian view of the world where the meek rather than the bold are ultimately blessed. I believe that Tolkein inherited much of this view himself, and clearly had a dichotomous love for both the passions of the old ways and the faith of the new. I have suspected for some time that his mournful history of the glory, vanity, and passing of the elves in all their glory is really a reflection of his yearning for the Anglo-Saxon past. As to whether one could read a Norman tale into that of the Numenoreans, proud and warlike, yet the best of whom carry on the "old ways", I will leave to others to ponder.

Just a few thoughts to contribute to the debate - thank you all again, and more later!

Regards,

Christopher

Hello,

In one's own forum, as opposed to the general forums at the Forge, the moderator has a full and free hand to employ whatever local policies they want.

Therefore, I say - I'm kicking all this "Tolkien meant" and "Tolkien said" hoo-ha straight outta here. We were talking about Sorcerer and The Lord of the Rings.

Several portions of the thread have been fascinating to me, and several have not (notably all the sexual-psych and any mention whatsoever of Tolkien as a person or the Silmarillion). And currently, I see it degenerating into dick-swinging about who knows how much about Tolkien, and that's stopping now.

My forum, my way (unlike the general forums, as I say). Closin' this one, thanks for playing.

Best,
Ron