Lord of the Rings

The elves probably pot their drinking water from those fountains. Gross

The fact that the elves were not upset by it was also decided by those who made the movie, and also didn't make any sense. In real life, elves would be very upset by someone burning their furniture. They didn't buy some cheap shit from IKEA, I don't think.

This whole scene was so nonsensical that I didn't even notice it at first, I thought the dwarves had somehow found an actual fireplace that was intended to make fire there, and actual firewood that was intended for burning. The movie would be much improved by changing it so that that is what happens.

Oh, and where did they get the food for their little picnic, if the elves all only ever eat salad? They couldn't have raided the kitchen in that case.

It was all cheap stereotyping of "salad eating elves" versus "meat eating dwarves" that did not make sense, but was included anyway because ... you gotta have stereotypes?

edited 28th Nov '17 8:45:00 AM by Gowan

When you live forever, you acquire a lot of household clutter. They probably have a whole building full of extra furniture.

And elves DO eat meat. Thranduil's feasts were largely supplied by hunted forest animals.

Not only do they eat meat, but the elves of Mirkwood have no problem cutting down trees as well:

It's how they use it that separates the actions of elves from the actions of men. Elves live in harmony with nature and take only what they need, for instance.

Or they immediately grow it back.

Can't elves talk to trees though? That must be an awkward conversation.

"Well, I don't normally do murder, but I need a new futon"

I got the impression that they could only communicate with the actually sentient trees of places like Fangorn. Mirkwood trees are just regular trees as far as I know.

Legolas could hear stones talking.

Either they're all just high as fuck, or something else is going on.

As the Fellowship approaches the gates to the mines of Moria:

Elves wouldn't think of cutting down a tree as murder, because to an elf it is obvious, perhaps precisely because of the fact that they are so much more aware of them, that a tree is not a person. Notice how the stones in this quote miss the elves digging them up and cutting them to shape. That might not be quite the attitude you would expect from a stone - to want to be torn from its natural setting and re-shaped into a wall or something, but that's how Legolas hears them - thousands of years after the elves in question were gone.

Sauron destroyed the elves in Eregion and Hollin around the year 1700 in the Second Age. The Fellowship is journeying through the same area in 3018 of the Third Age - more than 4,600 years later - and the rocks still remember the elves.

edited 30th Nov '17 7:37:19 AM by Bense

Maybe they have a consciousness, but no real sense of "self"? So there's no one there to be murdered?

eh.

edited 30th Nov '17 8:38:52 AM by blkwhtrbbt

You don't have to be a committed deconstructionist to suspect that the Elves' self-credited "harmony with nature" didn't infallibly hold up in practice ... or that someone like, say, the Ents might have a different opinion on just how well the Elves pulled off such harmony.

While the Ents call Saruman "the tree-killer!" when they see him at Isengard during the battle, Treebeard regards Legolas with respect, welcoming him to come spend time in Fangorn at their first meeting. 'Any Elf that comes with you will be welcome,' saying he has 'good will to Elves.'

Earlier to Merry and Pippin Treebeard said this about them:

So the Ents apparently recognize that sawing down trees in Mirkwood to make a clearing and feasting place is acceptable (or at least tolerated) behavior, while Saruman deforesting Isengard to feed his forges and equip his orc armies is not.

edited 30th Nov '17 9:35:29 AM by Bense

Treebeard doesn't inherently regard trees as "people" that require the same rights and consideration as other sapient beings; he objects, rather, to the wholesale destruction of forests. Which is perfectly reasonable.

In fact, they seem to regard non-Ent trees as a form of domestic animal, much like sheep, and shepherds recognize that members of their flock may be killed for food as long as all of them aren't killed.

edited 30th Nov '17 9:45:00 AM by Fighteer

That is a sensible and consistent theory of how it all works.

Of course, that gets complicated when you consider that there are intelligent, talking animals in Middle-Earth. While you might call the Eagles, Wargs, and Spiders magical aberrations, there's also the bird that told Bard about Smaug's weak spot, and I'm pretty sure there's one point in The Fellowship of the Ring where an ordinary fox spots the hobbits walking through the Shire at night and thinks intelligent, person-like thoughts about them.

Yes, that's a bit weird. I consider it a bit of artistic license on Tolkien's part, because he generally makes a point to draw distinctions between creatures that are considered thinking beings with agency and those that are not. But this is a mythology, so those lines may get a bit weird sometimes. It's never entirely clear, for example, whether we are supposed to think of trees as fully alive and aware (but mostly sleeping) or plants with spirits that grasp for sapience without ever quite getting there. (In my post above, I note what Treebeard seems to think about them.)

While it is clear that no "good" character would consider killing and eating an eagle, they seem to have no trouble hunting and eating game animals, nor harvesting plants for food. Tolkien romanticized a lifestyle that takes what it needs from the earth and its creatures without overdoing it. Thus, the pastoral community of the Shire is idealized while the industrial excesses of Mordor and Isengard are vilified.

edited 30th Nov '17 12:02:15 PM by Fighteer

The fox can be excused as Bilbo acting as narrator for the first few chapters of Fellowship and writing them in largely the same style that he wrote The Hobbit. In other words, it's just a Lemony Narrator at work, and not really an intelligent fox.

Am I the only one slightly nettled by the use of the word builded, not built?

Hey, Tolkien is a fan of occasionally using archaic words.

Considering it's an immortal elf quoting what he's hearing the rocks tell him about elves who were there more than 46 centuries earlier, I think using an archaic version of "built" is perfectly appropriate.

I'm currently making my way through a LOTR re-read and I just have to say how absolutely masterful the chapters on the Battle for Gondor are, from the siege of Gondor to Pelennor Fields. The ride of the Rohirrim and Theodén's speech still give me literal goosebumps after all these years. The prose is just beautiful.

During my re-read I also paid more attention to the (minor but deeply fascinating) Druedáin, or Woses as they're commonly called, a tribal native people that are crucial to getting the Rohirrim to Gondor in time. Their description (dark-skinned, stocky and stout, wearing straw loincloths) made me imagine them as fantasy counterparts to the the Maori people (who have a genetic predisposition to gaining body fat, thus fitting with the universally stocky look of the Woses).

Fascinating people, despite their short screentime.

In The Lord of the Rings Online you can pay a visit to Ghân-buri-Ghân's village and spend some time with the people there. The atmosphere is very Pacific Islander-ish and the Drúedain are fun to get to know.

Once again the attention to detail of the developers in that MMO amaze me.

Too bad the game play is a bag of smelly boredom

I also like how the Siege isn't necessarily hopeless from the beginning; it's really only Grond and the Witch King that are the deciding factors against Gondor, until the Rohirrim show up.