Tolkien, you thief!

[Glom]

I just found out where the story of Bilbo and the trolls that turned to stone came from.

It was a story about the dwarf Alvis who made weapons for the gods. In return, he was promised the hand of Thrud, daughter of Thor, in marriage. Thor was unhappy about this so devised a test of knowledge to subvert the marriage. He kept the test going for so long that it lasted through the night until sun up and the rays of the sun turned Alvis to stone, thus Thor prevented his daughter from marrying him.

[Monique]

Is no one to trust?? :doh:

;)

[Gemini]

Trust no one, not even yourself

[ToSeek]

Much of Tolkien's tales of Middle Earth have roots in Norse mythology, even the name (Midgard = Middle Earth).

[SolusLupus]

Not to mention the dwarves, elves, etc., are based on mythologies. However, some interesting facts:

Dwarves' attitudes were based on his perceptions of Jews. No kidding.

Uhm... that's all I'm going to post, since I don't remember the rest. x.x

[EvilBob]

Dwarves' attitudes were based on his perceptions of Jews. No kidding.
Where'd you see that? I'd like to see a reference to that before I accept it, being a fairly inflammatory sort of claim!

[soylentgreen]

Those Norse...always getting the short end of the geirr! ;)

[Lord Jubjub]

Hate to break it to you, but Tolkien grabbed a lot of stuff from Nordic mythology to create Middle-Earth.

[SolusLupus]

I got it from a few sources, mainly informal. If I'm wrong, then I apologize. *Shrugs*

[Candy]

Deleted - Candy

[Cylinder]

The movies were quite disappointing and abandon the underlying themes of the trilogy. Of course it would take another 6 hours or so of film to properly treat the subject.

I think that Tolkien reliance on mythology lends more credibility to the stories since the 3rd and 4th ages chronicled by LOTR happened in our fictional past.

[gethen]

Tolkien was a student of Norse culture an and a respected authority on it before he ever wrote the Ring Trilogy. Until a recent translation by Seamus Haney, his translation of Beowulf was gold standard for that story.
I don't see how his using those old legends in his writing is plagiarizing, any more than Steinbeck was when he wrote East of Eden, a retelling of the story of Cain and Abel from the Bible. What writers know best always show up in their work.

[soylentgreen]

It all seems linear to me. One cultural epic informs the storytellers of the next generation who reflect the elements through a somewhat subjective prism and shine it towards the next reflector, as if some colossal multi-generational "Work in Progress" ;)

Wagner used the Edda as a source...Tolkien had threads from Wagner(whether he chose to admit it or not) and Lord British took from all of 'em for his "Ultima" games. Who is the next wandering bard whose tale will captivate the children of the new village?

note: Of course Wagner, Tolkien and Lord British(Richard Garriot)also absorbed the unavoidable influences of their own times such as aristocratic caste entropy, near-anarchic class struggle, rampant anti-semitism, two world wars, global scale tyranny, the Bee Gees, etc....

[Kizarvexis]

Tolkien was a student of Norse culture an and a respected authority on it before he ever wrote the Ring Trilogy. Until a recent translation by Seamus Haney, his translation of Beowulf was gold standard for that story.
I don't see how his using those old legends in his writing is plagiarizing, any more than Steinbeck was when he wrote East of Eden, a retelling of the story of Cain and Abel from the Bible. What writers know best always show up in their work.

Exactly. A lot of literature is based on common themes, so stories resonate with each other and are retellings/reinterpertations of common themes. It's thievery or plagarism, just literature.

Kizarvexis

[hewhocaves]

As far as I know... and I've read several works on Tolkein's point of view and a couple of biographies, the dwarves are not based on the Jews. And I'm not even going to dignify the suggestion that the comment was ment deragatorily.

Go and read the exchange between Legolas and Gimli about the "Glittering Caverns of Aglarond" and then come back and try to tell me that dwarves are money grubbing merchants more interested in gold than beauty. Its demostrably untrue.

As for Tolkein pilfering mythology - if the origins of the hobbit concern you, don't bother looking into the origins of Numenor :-)

Tolkein was concerned from the very beginning that England really did not have a mythology of it's own - just some tired french legends (Arthur). So he decided to write his own mythology. Hobbits are supposed to represent the basic Englishman - average people stuck in a distnat corner of the world who are called upon to save the world in it's moment of greatest crisis. Even though this was written during WWII, it's not meant as a direct metaphor for germany, after all Tolkein's military experience came in WWI. Although it's understandable if that comparison is drawn.

[hewhocaves]

Oh, and no one swiped sources more than Shakespeare. ;)

Great literature comes from the way a story is told, not the story itself. It's the journey, not the destination.

[SirBlack]

Of course, ancient mythologies themselves borrowed ideas from each other back in the day. The most blatant example which comes to mind being the Romans adapting all the Greek gods.

Authors and storytellers have been adapting past stories into their own works ever since there were past stories to adapt.

Furthermore, it's interesting to note how Tolkein's books have fallen into the realm of a past work adapted by more recent authors. And in fact, a massive portion of today's fantasy genre have adapted elements from Tolkein. For instance, Elves are now almost universally portrayed as being taller, more beautiful, and longer lived than humans as well as being more in touch with magic and nature. Tolkein basicly invented that description of Elves whereas previously they had always been represented as some sort of mischievious pixie.

[Fram]

TolkIEn, not Tolkein, please!

As for the Dwarves being based on the Jews, or Tolkien being antisemitic: I've never heard these claims, and I have read a few scholarly works about Tolkien, his life and his work (including one which searched for origins in the most impossible of languages and mythologies, often based on some coincidental likening of two names).

If you want to read a rip-off of Tolkien, try the works of Niel Hancock ("The circle of light" series)

[Lianachan]

I've probably already mentioned this a few times, but I am an extremely enthusiastic (and time served) Tolkienologist - having read Lord Of The Rings for the first time at six years old and a least once a year, every year, since then (I'm now 33). I have also read just about everything ever written by or about him, a lot of it several times.

The suggestion that Tolkien based the Dwarves on Jews is one that's pretty old, and there is some literary evidence for it.

For example, in The Letters Of J.R.R. Tolkien, which is a record of some some of his correspondence with publishers, fans, etc.. he says:

I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue

But he wasn't antisemtic in the slightest.

It is not Jewish in origin, though I should consider it an honour if it were.

I should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.

*edited to add - My own view is that Tolkien didn't base the Dwarves on the Jews, but merely found (after writing them) that the former reminded him of the latter*

[Lianachan]

The whole trolls-turn-to-stone-in-daylight thing is actually extremely old. Although Tolkien would have been aware of the tale you relate, I wouldn't expect that he based Bilbo's Troll Experience particularly on it.

Here are some interesting links for those interested in Tolkien's works, or further study.

His influences (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ring/index.htm)

The Encyclopedia Of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp)

Tolkien Meta-FAQ (http://tolkien.slimy.com/)

[GDwarf]

Furthermore, it's interesting to note how Tolkein's books have fallen into the realm of a past work adapted by more recent authors. And in fact, a massive portion of today's fantasy genre have adapted elements from Tolkein. For instance, Elves are now almost universally portrayed as being taller, more beautiful, and longer lived than humans as well as being more in touch with magic and nature. Tolkein basicly invented that description of Elves whereas previously they had always been represented as some sort of mischievious pixie.
Not true, actually. I don't have the book on hand, but it was a summary of various points of interest from the LotR trilogy. It mentioned that pre-Shakespeare (by about a hundred years or so) elves were, in fact, Tolkien elves, tall, in touch with nature, long living, proud etc. Over time they 'shrunk' into smaller, more playful creatures. Apparently Tolkien disliked Shakespeare for making it common to consider them small by making all of the ones in his plays small, rather silly, pixie-ish creatures.

[hewhocaves]

:)

someone Pmmed me asking if in my earlier statement I personally considered Jews to be "money grubbing" (and possibly hinting that I might be a little antisemitic myself). All I can say is that my girlfriend would kill me if that were the case, and her rabbi would probably do the same! I merely tried to reflect the negative attitude of the time in as non-confrontational a means as possible. Repeating the negative criticisms of the Jewish people in the 1940s verbatim would proabbly get me banned!

Oh, and I liked Lianachen's quotes about the similarities between the two. Of course, since antisemitism was very much in the headlines at the time the question was bound to come up.

Lastly, yes 99.9% of all fantasy novels since Tolkien have short dwarves with beard and tall elves with blonde hair (way too much blonde hair with the elves). And fat. Dwarves were supposed to be fat. That always bugged me. I've been caving a lot over the years and the one thing you can't be underground is fat.

John

[AstroSmurf]

I believe Tolkien countered the arguments about nazism best himself.

In 1938, Tolkien denounced the Nazis’ "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." When German publishers wished to translate The Hobbit from English, they wrote to him, asking whether his name was of "Aryan" origin. Tolkien replied:

I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is, Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.

[SolusLupus]

Y'know, I never claimed Tolkien was an anti-semite.

I shouldn't have said anything.

[Lianachan]

Y'know, I never claimed Tolkien was an anti-semite.

I shouldn't have said anything.

Personally, I never thought (or for that matter, at least to my mind, implied) that you did. It's a subject that comes up from time to time - usually tied in with perceived racism in some of his works, and is one I quite enjoy discussing.

[SolusLupus]

Alright. Well, I just want to add something in: Is it so impossible that Tolkien didn't base the dwarves on semites? He doesn't even necessarily have to be anti-semite - maybe he was just basing them on the "negative image", rather than what he really thought jews were like.

On the other hand, the other pertinent question to believing or disbelieving this line of thought is: Are the mythological dwarves like this? Tolkien based his creations on a lot of different mythologies. I do recall in the game Darklands (which was based a LOT on mythologies, but with a heavy underlying Christian theme), that when both dwarves and elves popped up, they were in mines, and they were greedy. And yeah, I shouldn't use a game as my source, but it's the only one I have, not having researched into many myths myself =P

Thus, if that's true, then any similarities between them and the perceptions on Jews could very well be mere coincidence, as you said, Liana.

[AstroSmurf]

No sweat - I posted the letter excerpt here mostly because I find it to be very cleverly written :-)

The Norse dwarves are less "human" than Tolkien's, if my admittedly vague memories of the mythology is correct - they're a fair distance in the direction of demigods or natural spirits. The greed is still there, though it could also be for power or sex, not merely money. Tolkien does seem to consider greed as such to be a negative trait, but to go from there to antisemitism is stretching things a lot.

[SolusLupus]

Mmmh, you have a good point.

Also, in Darklands, the dwarves weren't very "human", they were much like natural spirits, so that works :P

[Monique]

Oh, and no one swiped sources more than Shakespeare. ;)

Great literature comes from the way a story is told, not the story itself. It's the journey, not the destination.
If my post cause trouble, tell me.

Some say Shakespeare use personality of Yahweh from Jewish bible for character of King Lear.

[Gillianren]

Tolkein was concerned from the very beginning that England really did not have a mythology of it's own - just some tired french legends (Arthur). So he decided to write his own mythology. Hobbits are supposed to represent the basic Englishman - average people stuck in a distnat corner of the world who are called upon to save the world in it's moment of greatest crisis. Even though this was written during WWII, it's not meant as a direct metaphor for germany, after all Tolkein's military experience came in WWI. Although it's understandable if that comparison is drawn.

Okay, to be honest, this is one of the things that bothers me about the man. England has a lot of its own mythology. It's just that nobody knows it. After all, only a few of the Arthurian legends, just as an example, can be traced to France. I find it unlikely that the French would have a legend about Stonehenge, and England has at least two that I know of, one Arthurian. The problem is that England was conquered so often that its native mythology was hidden under layers of Saxons and Normans and Norse, oh my. No, England hasn't as rich a mythological heritage as Ireland, but few countries have.

As for the elves--well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly picture Titania and Oberon as tall and stately, and I don't exactly picture Puck as flitting around flowers (except that one certain flower, but he's certainly taller than it is). I blame the Victorians for the twee, flower-flitting version of the Fair Folk. (I also strongly recommend Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies for a proper Celtic view of elves.)

[SirBlack]

Not true, actually. I don't have the book on hand, but it was a summary of various points of interest from the LotR trilogy. It mentioned that pre-Shakespeare (by about a hundred years or so) elves were, in fact, Tolkien elves, tall, in touch with nature, long living, proud etc. Over time they 'shrunk' into smaller, more playful creatures. Apparently Tolkien disliked Shakespeare for making it common to consider them small by making all of the ones in his plays small, rather silly, pixie-ish creatures.

Ah, I guess what I'd read about Tolkien failed to mention that or else I read past it. Still, I'd say the representations of Elves (and Dwarves and Orcs and more, among other things) in modern fantasy owe a lot to Tolkien's work.

[Dr Nigel]

Sir Black - I agree. Without the success of LotR in the late 50s and 60s, novels such as Terry Brooks' Shannara trilogy would not have been published. Many modern fantasy novels owe LotR for bringing the older legends and stories to a wider audience in the first place.

[TheBlackCat]

As for the elves--well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly picture Titania and Oberon as tall and stately, and I don't exactly picture Puck as flitting around flowers (except that one certain flower, but he's certainly taller than it is). I blame the Victorians for the twee, flower-flitting version of the Fair Folk. (I also strongly recommend Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies for a proper Celtic view of elves.)
Most of what I have read about elves is somewhere in between. There are certainly classes of fairies that are similar to the elves from Tolkien's mythology (the Tuatha de Dannan come to mind). There are other fairies that are small like the modern view of elves and pixies (although I cannot think of any off the top of my head). However, at least in western Europe my understanding is that elves were generally seen as smaller than humans (although not insect or mouse-size), and were generally mischeiveous tricksters when it comes to humans (elf-locks and elf-shot, for instance). The elves from Tolkien may be more along the lines of Norse elves (I am not as familiar with Norse elves), but they are certainly nothing like the classic elves I have read about in Western European folklore from the middle ages.

[Dr Nigel]

As far as I know... and I've read several works on Tolkein's point of view and a couple of biographies, the dwarves are not based on the Jews. And I'm not even going to dignify the suggestion that the comment was ment deragatorily.

In my understanding, he wrote them to represent beings of the Earth (i.e. they were created by the Vala Aulë out of stone, as opposed to the Elves and Men, who were created by Iluvatar). In this sense, they represent to some extent the dwarfs of the Scandinavian mythologies.

Tolkein was concerned from the very beginning that England really did not have a mythology of it's own - just some tired french legends (Arthur). So he decided to write his own mythology. Hobbits are supposed to represent the basic Englishman - average people stuck in a distnat corner of the world who are called upon to save the world in it's moment of greatest crisis. Even though this was written during WWII, it's not meant as a direct metaphor for germany, after all Tolkein's military experience came in WWI. Although it's understandable if that comparison is drawn.

The legend of King Arthur actually is traceable back to Wales. There was a Welsh prince in the 7th or 8th century who fought against the Saxons, Norsemen and Danes. Stories of him were later carried across Europe by crusaders. In France, these stories fell on fertile ears, and the tales grew from there, eventually travelling back to England and thence to the New World.

Tolkien's lament about the English mythology was that it had been obliterated by the invading Normans in the 11th century. Since the bulk of Anglo-Saxon England was illiterate, stories were passed down in an oral tradition. Since everyone spoke similar languages (a relatively few Anglo-Saxon dialects, influenced heavily by Danish the further East or North you went), the stories throve. When the Normans arrived, they brought their own language with them (which was mediaevel Norman French). They insisted that anyone who wanted to deal with, in or around the upper echelons of society speak only in French.

However, the language that ended up emerging in the 13th century (Middle English) was an amalgam of the Anglo-Saxon with the French. Some oral traditions survived (but not many). However, some time around the end of the first millenium (I'm not sure of the century, never mind the date), someone had transcribed some of the original Anglo-Saxon poetry. It is a later copy of of this (original, lost manuscript) that partially survived to give us the extant fragment of Beowulf, which is often cited as the oldest fragment of English literature.

As far as I am aware, no pre-Roman British stories from the area that was to become England have survived. The Anglo-Saxon stories are, of course, Germanic, which is why there are so many themes in common with other collections (such as Der Ring des Niebelungen).

Tolkien was also a little dismayed at the discrepancy between other races as portrayed by the Scandinavians and the same races as portrayed by the Victorians and, yes, Shakespeare (Tolkien always maintained that he "cordially disliked" Shakespeare because old Will had had so many brilliant ideas and yet failed to fully realise them. One example of this comes from Macbeth - there is a reference to prophecy that shall come true when the woods come to Dunsinane, but in fact it was fulfilled by soldiers carrying bushes and branches as camouflage. Tolkien had a better idea - that the woods themselves should rise up and go to war. Hence the Ents).

Gosh, that was a long parenthetic comment.

One last thing - He started writing LotR in 1938, so it couldn't really be construed as relating to WWII. It does, however, contain much of the horror of mechanised warfare that JRRT experienced in WWI, although it was not written as an allegory.

[tbm]

Okay, to be honest, this is one of the things that bothers me about the man. England has a lot of its own mythology. It's just that nobody knows it. After all, only a few of the Arthurian legends, just as an example, can be traced to France. I find it unlikely that the French would have a legend about Stonehenge, and England has at least two that I know of, one Arthurian. The problem is that England was conquered so often that its native mythology was hidden under layers of Saxons and Normans and Norse, oh my. No, England hasn't as rich a mythological heritage as Ireland, but few countries have.


I agree, sort of. Tolkien was trying to create a mythology that England could call her own, kind of pre-dating the Saxon, et al mythology.

Being of Irish heritage, I absolutley love the Irish legends: Cuchulainn, Lugh Lamfada, The Dagda, The Morrigan, the Táin Bó Cúalnge..........

I never tire of the legends.

tb,m

[GDwarf]

Oberon, Titania, and Puck, I must admit I have trouble picturing as small, but the elves in Shakespeare's work are described as small enough to fit in the cap of an acorn. So apparently they come in two sizes based on how important they are to the script :P.

[Lord Jubjub]

(Tolkien always maintained that he "cordially disliked" Shakespeare because old Will had had so many brilliant ideas and yet failed to fully realise them. One example of this comes from Macbeth - there is a reference to prophecy that shall come true when the woods come to Dunsinane, but in fact it was fulfilled by soldiers carrying bushes and branches as camouflage. Tolkien had a better idea - that the woods themselves should rise up and go to war. Hence the Ents).

He also didn't like how Macbeth met his end. Macbeth was told "Laugh to scorn The pow'r of man, for none born of woman shall harm Macbeth." Macduff was born by C-section. Tolkien decided to offer two alternatives that are much more satisfactory (though the biological definition of hobbit is hazy and the Macbeth quote doesn't make clear whether none referred to men only).

Thus: The Witch-King falling not at the hand of man but at the hand of a woman (or a hobbit).

[EvilBob]

Y'know, I never claimed Tolkien was an anti-semite.

I shouldn't have said anything.
I feel I should add that I wasn't suggesting, and never thought that you had. But since such a connection could be made by someone anti-semitic, I asked for some reference for it. I'd never heard that before, and I've read a few books on Tolkien...

[SolusLupus]

EvilBob said:
I feel I should add that I wasn't suggesting, and never thought that you had. But since such a connection could be made by someone anti-semitic, I asked for some reference for it. I'd never heard that before, and I've read a few books on Tolkien...

True, at the same time we aren't alive at that time period - perceptions today are entirely different. However, I personally wouldn't be surprised if he did do it. I mean, Lovecraft was racist. *Shrugs* Doesn't make his work any worse.

Of course, after this discussion, I'm leaning towards Tolkien not having anti-semitism in his novels, so it's really moot.

[hewhocaves]

hey Lonewulf...

I actually did not think that you thought that. If anything, it seemed to me that you were shocked that you had heard that from somewhere else. So naturally you came here to discuss it amongst 10,000 of your closest friends.

So everything is cool :-) No one here has said or done anything that might make the IDF knock on your door.

And I'd like to add that my pm came from a person who has not posted on this discussion at all.

(turns directly to the hidden camera behind the window)
See what happens?

*shakes head discouragedly*

Anyway....

getting back to the inital tolkienesque discussion...

I should have clarified in my earlier post about the Norman invasion. I see it's been copiously clariifed. As has the point about the origins of Arthur. What a knowledgeable crowd. :)

I love the connections critics and ananlysts come up with with fiction writers. Here's a neat example. I was in an undergrad class. We were studying Ragtime, by E.L. Doctorrow. My professor, an excellent and erudite marxist was making some point about some obscure passage. I forget what. The guy sitting next to me was shaking his head disgustedly. After class, I asked him why.
He said: Doctorrow is a goodfriend of my uncle's. I've met him a couple of times. I don't think that he would intend for what she said he meant."
Fast forward to next week's class. The prof is making the same point and my friend raises his hand to respectfully disagree. She listens politely while he explains his point, then with honest curiosity (the two points of view were quite dissimilar) asks why he thought that's what it meant.
"It's not what I thought. I called him up and asked him!"

Example #2: I was in a pre-renaissance lit class. We were studying some annoying piece of Donne. The class wasn't getting it. I wasn't getting it. It looked obviously like Donne meant something else than what the teacher said. We were getting antsy. Finially he ended the discussion by saying (and I am not making this up)

"Sometimes you have to go beyond what the author intended when he wrote it."

At which point another friend stood up and asked: "SO at what point does this stop being literature and become (expletive deleted)?".

Point being, you have to take into account the world around the author when he wrote it. Decades were wasted in the 20th century by a literary movement to understnad literature out of context. After careful thought, I would say that it is a valid question to ask whether dwarves are based on the stereotypical view of Jews in the 1930s. A supplementary question would be "Does Tolkein's portrayal of the dwarves serve to contradict or reinforce the stereotype?" Obviously, if the first is true, then the second must be that he is contradicting the view.

Ok.. I've used my english degree enough tonight. Back to playing Civ.

john

[Cylinder]

The Witch-King falling not at the hand of man but at the hand of a woman (or a hobbit).

I credit Merry with Angmar's kill.

No other blade, not though mightier hands had weilded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

[Lianachan]

I credit Merry with Angmar's kill.

Important difference between the film and the book, that. In the book, Merry manages to break the spell around the Witch-king because of the sword he's weilding. An enchanted blade from Westernesse that came out of the Barrow-wight's mound. As the quote you gave clearly shows, it's that blade that's the crucial thing, rather than Merry himself. In the films, Aragorn produces some swords out of absolutely nowhere and gives them to the Hobbits. The extended edition of FotR shows Merry being presented with an Elvish blade by Galadriel, although this is contradicted by the scene in RotK where Merry is told by Eowyn (at Dunharrow) to go and sharpen his sword ("You won't kill many Orcs with that!").

Anyway, I'm rambling and could fly off on a severe criticism of the films at any moment so I'll just say these last things:

I don't credit Merry with the kill. I consider it a joint effort, especially since Merry himself isn't a key part of it. Apart from the limiting factors regarding the courage to face the Witch-king in the first place, absolutely anybody whatsoever could have wounded and distracted him with that particular blade.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the prophecy surrounding the Witch-king. It doesn't say he can't be killed by a man, it says he won't be killed by a man. I am also of the opinion that where the prophecy talks about "man", it's referring to Man as a race (as opposed to Elves, Dwarves, etc...). As such, and as (for want of a better way of putting it) a female Man, I don't think that Eowyn's killing of the Witch-king saw the prophecy fulfilled.

*edited in - Lonewulf! Not Liana, please! Lianachan, or abbreviated exclusively to Lian!

[Fram]

I respectfully disagree. The Witch-King (or anyone else for that matter) could not imagine a woman going into battle, and thus thought himself invincible (though not untouchable, like the flood at Rivendell showed).
Furthermore, Tolkien, as a linguist, would have thought hard about the exact words of the prophecy and the way it could be beaten (or fulfilled, as you like). If he had meant Man as opposite to Elves and so on, he would (in my opinion) have used humans. The use of man is a construction to make the death by a woman possible. After all, she is human as well, so if any human could temporarily (as opposed to definitely) kill him, he would probably have gone into battle differently and wouldn't have reacted as he did on seeing a woman.
I feel that it is comparable with the "riddle" of the gate of Moria, where you have to take it literally as well, instead of interpreting it.

[Lianachan]

I respectfully disagree. The Witch-King (or anyone else for that matter) could not imagine a woman going into battle, and thus thought himself invincible (though not untouchable, like the flood at Rivendell showed).
Furthermore, Tolkien, as a linguist, would have thought hard about the exact words of the prophecy and the way it could be beaten (or fulfilled, as you like). If he had meant Man as opposite to Elves and so on, he would (in my opinion) have used humans. The use of man is a construction to make the death by a woman possible. After all, she is human as well, so if any human could temporarily (as opposed to definitely) kill him, he would probably have gone into battle differently and wouldn't have reacted as he did on seeing a woman.
I feel that it is comparable with the "riddle" of the gate of Moria, where you have to take it literally as well, instead of interpreting it.

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of Man shall he fall."

I think you're right about how the Witch-king interpreted the prophecy, but I think his judgement was clouded by his arrogance and his (justified) knowledge of his own abilities on the battlefield.

As you say, Tolkien would have thought hard about the exact words of the the prophecy - note the capitalisation of Man, and the the lack of it being prefaced with "a". Human isn't a term Tolkien used for the race of Men in Middle-earth.

It's interesting that you mention the gate of Moria - because it's description contains one of the few mistakes Tolkien made.

[Fram]

I had forgotten th capitalisation. You may be right after all.
I like the "originally posted by Glorfindel" though :D

Care to enlighten the error he made? I may have read it once, but I have forgotten all about it (I know he had an error in the phases of the moon in the first version of LotR, and he corrected it later).

[Lianachan]

Care to enlighten the error he made? I may have read it once, but I have forgotten all about it (I know he had an error in the phases of the moon in the first version of LotR, and he corrected it later).

The inscription on the gate translates as:The Doors of Durin, Lord of Moria. Say 'friend' and enter.


Moria wasn't used as a name for the place until the Dwarves had been driven out by the awoken Balrog. The doors, and the inscription, were made several thousand years before then. Celebrimbor (he inscribed the door) would probably have used the older Elvish place name - Hadhodrond. Also, the name Durin wouldn't have been used at that time. Neither, for that matter, would the name Balin as seen on the tomb. Tolkien did in fact raise this last one as a problem himself.

*edited thing about the Witch-king prophecy. I'm not saying I think that's a mistake Tolkien made, far from it - I'm just saying that I don't think the prophecy was exactly fulfilled as it was given.

[Fram]

Thanks! I hadn't realised this one...

I remember that in the beginning of LotR, someone in the pub where (I think) Sam is sitting is mentioning tree-people seen to the north of the Shire. Are these supposed to be Ents looking for their wives, or may these be the lost Ent-wives, or something completely unrelated? I don't think they are discussed any further in the books (I haven't read the later books edited by Christopher Tolkien with regards to the LotR though, they are on my todo list).

[Lianachan]

I remember that in the beginning of LotR, someone in the pub where (I think) Sam is sitting is mentioning tree-people seen to the north of the Shire. Are these supposed to be Ents looking for their wives, or may these be the lost Ent-wives, or something completely unrelated? I don't think they are discussed any further in the books (I haven't read the later books edited by Christopher Tolkien with regards to the LotR though, they are on my todo list).

That conversation was written long before Tolkien ever thought of Ents at all, and I think it was just included to add some mystery and a "fairy story" kind of feel. LotR at that time was intended to be a children's book, a sequel to The Hobbit so that conversation was written very much with that in mind. However, he never edited it out.... I think he left it in there to allow for the possibility that maybe the Ent-wives survived. You're right, it's never mentioned again - not even whenTreebeard asks Merry and Pippin if they've ever seen any Entwives around The Shire.

As for the Entwives: I do not know. ... But I think in TT, 80-81 it is plain that there would be for the Ents no re-union in 'history' -- but Ents and their wives being rational creatures would find some 'earthly paradise' until the end of this world: beyond which the wisdom neither of Elves nor Ents could see. Though maybe they shared the hope of Aragorn that they were 'not bound for ever to the circles of the world and beyond them is more than memory.'

The only real answer to your question is if you like, yes - as the man himself never gave a definate stance on it one way or another.