CotW: LotR App. B, The Tale of Years (From c.3000 to end of Fellowship)

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 24, 2005, 7:04:35 PM7/24/05
to
This latter part of the Tale of Years starts out grimly: The shadow in
Mordor is lengthening and the head of the White Council that opposes
Sauron is trapped by Sauron through the palantiri and becomes a traitor
to the council. Still a very powerful wizard in his own right, Saruman
also learns that something of great value must be in the Shire, for the
Rangers of the North are guarding it.

One year later, Gandalf the Grey begins to suspect that the ring the
hobbit Bilbo has given to his heir Frodo may be none other than the One
Ring. He doubles the guard on the Shire and eventually sets off with
the greatest huntsman of age to find the ring’s previous owner, Gollum,
unaware that at about this same time Gollum has been captured by Sauron
and is telling the Dark Lord all that he knows about “Bagginses” and the
Shire.

So even as the traitor Saruman and the Dark Lord are starting to look
north and west with growing suspicion that the long overlooked hobbit
land of the Shire may be the hiding place of the Peril of the World,
Gandalf and Aragorn are heading south and east to comb Wilderland for
Gollum. Gandalf uses his head and makes a detour to Minas Tirith where
he learns in old books what he needs to know to identify the One Ring
and so heads back to the Shire, while Aragorn uses his feet and his
strength of will and his tracking skills and walks along the very fences
of Mordor in his search, finally locating Gollum, who has recently been
released from Mordor, and capturing him in the Dead Marshes to bring him
north to Mirkwood where he can be kept safe (as they think) in the
dungeons of King Thranduil.

The Great Years begin in April 3018 when Gandalf reaches Hobbiton and
tells Frodo about the Ring. There follows in this Tale of Years a
detailed chronology (detailed down to the hour at times, and with a bit
dialogue even!) of the events contained in “The Lord of the Rings,” as
well as follow-up of other events in the west of Middle-earth during the
War of the Ring that of necessity were swept aside as the main narrative
went forward.

The Tale of Years then presents a summary of “the chief days” from the
fall of Barad-Dur to the end of the Third Age and finally tells us what
happened to the rest of the Fellowship after the departure of Frodo from
Middle-earth. It ends on a bittersweet note with the hobbits Merry and
Pippin, after long and happy lives, laid to final rest next to the bed
of their friend, the great king Elessar, in Rath Dinen, after which the
immortals Legolas and (presumably) Gimli finally pass West in their own
grey ship. “And when that ship passed an end was come in the
Middle-earth of the Fellowship of the Ring.”

But not in our hearts.

_________________________
Discussion points:

1) What did you think of this part of the Tale of Years when you first
read it? I first paid attention only to this section as it helped me
synchronize some of the events in the tale itself. For instance, even
though the author clearly spells it out in the text, I hadn’t really
grasped how the Army of the West distracted both Sauron and the Nazgul
by heading north at the time Frodo and Sam, on the other side of the
mountains and in Mordor, were heading south to Orodruin until I read the
daily descriptions of simultaneous events.

2) How has it been useful to you over the years? If I had to summarize
the effect it has had on my understanding of “The Lord of the Rings” as
I’ve looked up this point or that over time while becoming more familiar
with it all, I’d have to say that without it “The Lord of the Rings”
would be more like a song (indeed, it is a prose song) and rather
ephemeral and intangible; this chronology sort of tacks it down and
brings a dimension of reality to it that I don’t recall finding in any
other work I’ve read thus far.

3) What was its use to the author?

4) Why is it so important to us to know what happened in Lorien and Dale
and elsewhere during the War, and also how things went for the members
of the Fellowship and others encountered along the way?

5) Does it answer all of your questions? Is there more (or less) you
would see in it? I’m satisfied with it, though I do wish there had also
been follow-up on Faramir and Eowyn. I also wonder what Gandalf and
Aragorn did in their search for Gollum between 3001 and 3009; granted,
Aragorn's mother died in 3007 and he would have been in the north for
that, but I had been under the impression that once Gandalf became
suspicious of the ring he and Aragorn immediately set out; instead he
visited Frodo off and on for several more years. Why did they only get
really fired up enough to set off in earnest after Gollum in 3009?

6) Are there any discrepancies in it? There is only seeming discrepancy
I can find in it, and that may just be due to ignorance on my part. At
Cormallen Gandalf tells The Hobbits that the New Year in Gondor will
always begin on March 25th when Sauron fell and they were brought to the
King. That was in 3019. Why, then, does the Fourth Age begin in Gondor
on that same date two years afterwards?

7) Did Merry and Pippin die before Aragorn, at about the same time, or
afterwards? The text is a little confusing there.

8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing years
of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age? Most notable to
me is the way people lingered for others that they loved: old King Eomer
(hard to imagine him old, isn’t it?) called Merry to him before he died;
Sam did not leave to follow Frodo until after Rose had passed away and
his children were all doing well; and especially moving for me is
Legolas and Gimli staying there until all the mortals had gone and then
leaving for the West themselves.

9) Your thoughts, comments and

Barb

Michael Ikeda

unread,
Jul 24, 2005, 8:00:58 PM7/24/05
to
Belba Grubb From Stock <ba...@dbtech.net> wrote in
news:11e87kb...@corp.supernews.com:

(snipped)

>
> 6) Are there any discrepancies in it? There is only seeming
> discrepancy I can find in it, and that may just be due to
> ignorance on my part. At Cormallen Gandalf tells The Hobbits
> that the New Year in Gondor will always begin on March 25th when
> Sauron fell and they were brought to the King. That was in
> 3019. Why, then, does the Fourth Age begin in Gondor on that
> same date two years afterwards?
>

Presumably because that's the year that the Keepers of the Rings
actually leave Middle-Earth (along with many of the remaining
prominent Elves).

--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association

Chris Kern

unread,
Jul 24, 2005, 9:18:27 PM7/24/05
to

I find it very regrettable that the much richer and expanded version
of the Tale of Years published in HoME XII could not be included in
LotR. (Same for the Arwen and Aragorn tale)

-Chris

denaldo

unread,
Jul 24, 2005, 10:08:12 PM7/24/05
to
Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:

<snipped to the points I had comments on>

> _________________________
> Discussion points:


>
> 3) What was its use to the author?

I presume the same as the other Appendices. A chance to make use
of some of the many notes and story fragments and ideas that didn't
work as part of the narrative itself. It would not have been good for
the story to drag things out any further after Frodo left, and this
works so much better than "and they all lived happily ever after".


>
> 4) Why is it so important to us to know what happened in Lorien and Dale
> and elsewhere during the War, and also how things went for the members
> of the Fellowship and others encountered along the way?

I frequently find myself pointing out that there were other battles
going on in other places when explaining some aspects of the
narrative itself to questioners. As an analogy, it helps when
reading histories or fictional accounts of the Napoleonic Wars in
Europe if you are aware of what is going on in the Americas,
Africa, south Asia, etc.

> 5) Does it answer all of your questions? Is there more (or less) you

Fortunately not, or I wouldn't be driven to find wonderful newsgroups
like this for more information.

> would see in it? I’m satisfied with it, though I do wish there had also
> been follow-up on Faramir and Eowyn. I also wonder what Gandalf and
> Aragorn did in their search for Gollum between 3001 and 3009; granted,
> Aragorn's mother died in 3007 and he would have been in the north for
> that, but I had been under the impression that once Gandalf became
> suspicious of the ring he and Aragorn immediately set out; instead he
> visited Frodo off and on for several more years. Why did they only get
> really fired up enough to set off in earnest after Gollum in 3009?

I have to assume that Gandalf just couldn't really believe that
the damn thing could possibly be the 'ONE'. One of those things
like putting off the visit to the doctor because it just might
_be_ cancer.


> 8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing years
> of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age?

It was particularly important to me in my desire to 'believe' that
the 'provenance' of the manuscript was established. How the book was
passed on to Sam and then on until presumably it came to one of the
members of the TCSB.

--
Your caterpillars just ate my snails!!!
Send POINTless replies to den...@ePOINTv1.net

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 9:11:34 AM7/26/05
to

"Belba Grubb From Stock" <ba...@dbtech.net> wrote in message
news:11e87kb...@corp.supernews.com...

(snip most of wonderful summary)

“And when that ship passed an end was come in the
> Middle-earth of the Fellowship of the Ring.”
>
> But not in our hearts.

Amen!


>
> _________________________
> Discussion points:
>
> 1) What did you think of this part of the Tale of Years when you first
> read it? I first paid attention only to this section as it helped me
> synchronize some of the events in the tale itself. For instance, even
> though the author clearly spells it out in the text, I hadn’t really
> grasped how the Army of the West distracted both Sauron and the Nazgul by
> heading north at the time Frodo and Sam, on the other side of the
> mountains and in Mordor, were heading south to Orodruin until I read the
> daily descriptions of simultaneous events.

The first time I read the book, I did not even know it was there, of course,
LOL! Not until I had finished the story. In my first reading of the
Appendices, I found it interesting, most especially those parts taking place
*after* the end of the story. But in subsequent readings I often found
myself going in and checking on this or that event.


>
> 2) How has it been useful to you over the years? If I had to summarize
> the effect it has had on my understanding of “The Lord of the Rings” as I’ve
> looked up this point or that over time while becoming more familiar with
> it all, I’d have to say that without it “The Lord of the Rings” would be
> more like a song (indeed, it is a prose song) and rather ephemeral and
> intangible; this chronology sort of tacks it down and brings a dimension
> of reality to it that I don’t recall finding in any other work I’ve read
> thus far.

Over the years, I often would check on certain points using the ToY, but it
was not until about a year and a half ago, when I started writing fanfic,
that I found myself obsessively combing the ToY for information, clues and
important gaps. The appendices on the copy of LotR that I keep next to the
computer are just about worn out on the ToY and Family Tree sections.

>
> 3) What was its use to the author?

Aside from adding depth to his world-building, and enabling him to get in
some of the things he was forced to leave out of the main story, I am sure
he often consulted it himself while trying to keep his own story straight.

>
> 4) Why is it so important to us to know what happened in Lorien and Dale
> and elsewhere during the War, and also how things went for the members of
> the Fellowship and others encountered along the way?

Again, it adds depth and versimilitude to the rest of the story, and it
somewhat satisfies our curiousity on some of those things.

>
> 5) Does it answer all of your questions?

Good heavens no! I'm as bad as Pippin...and would like to know everything
there is to know about Middle-earth, Over-heaven and the Sundering Seas...

Is there more (or less) you
> would see in it?

I would like to have read more of Merry's and Pippin's personal lives than
just the little snippet that indicated they both had sons, and the tiny bit
in the family trees of who they married. I would like to have known if
Aragorn and Arwen had other children than Eldarion. I would like to have
known for certain the decision made by Elrohir and Elladan. I would like to
know what happened that made Aragorn ban Men from the Shire completely
nearly seven years after the War was over.

I’m satisfied with it, though I do wish there had also
> been follow-up on Faramir and Eowyn. I also wonder what Gandalf and
> Aragorn did in their search for Gollum between 3001 and 3009; granted,
> Aragorn's mother died in 3007 and he would have been in the north for
> that, but I had been under the impression that once Gandalf became
> suspicious of the ring he and Aragorn immediately set out; instead he
> visited Frodo off and on for several more years. Why did they only get
> really fired up enough to set off in earnest after Gollum in 3009?

I think that there were two reasons: Gandalf could not *quite* believe that
the One could actually be in the Shire of all places, and two, he was still
being lulled by Saruman's lies. Remember that he *trusted* Saruman right up
until he was imprisoned by him.


>
> 6) Are there any discrepancies in it? There is only seeming discrepancy I
> can find in it, and that may just be due to ignorance on my part. At
> Cormallen Gandalf tells The Hobbits that the New Year in Gondor will
> always begin on March 25th when Sauron fell and they were brought to the
> King. That was in 3019. Why, then, does the Fourth Age begin in Gondor
> on that same date two years afterwards?

They had begun to celebrate the New Year then, but I think they decided to
wait to technically observe the New Age until the Old Age (as represented by
the Ringbearers) had left.

>
> 7) Did Merry and Pippin die before Aragorn, at about the same time, or
> afterwards?

I am certain that it must have been before. They went South in 1484 SR, and
Merry was 102 then, and Elessar did not pass away until 1541 SR--almost 60
years later. That would have definitely put him and Pippin far past the Old
Took and Bilbo as well, if they had lived *that* much longer. Of course,
the two of them *did* have the benefit of Ent-draughts, but I don't think
they would have been *that* efficacious.

The text is a little confusing there.
>
> 8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing years of
> the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age? Most notable to me is
> the way people lingered for others that they loved: old King Eomer (hard
> to imagine him old, isn’t it?) called Merry to him before he died; Sam did
> not leave to follow Frodo until after Rose had passed away and his
> children were all doing well; and especially moving for me is Legolas and
> Gimli staying there until all the mortals had gone and then leaving for
> the West themselves.

Yes, I have always been touched by the way the remaining Fellowship tried to
stay together. Another thing I loved was the bit about Sam being Mayor, and
the little snippets about Merry's and Pippin's becoming Master and Thain,
and their marriages. I love that the three of them are made Counselors of
the Northern Kingdom. It just shows how much love and respect the King had
for his hobbit friends.

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 12:30:38 PM7/25/05
to
Michael Ikeda wrote:
> Belba Grubb From Stock <ba...@dbtech.net> wrote in
> news:11e87kb...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> (snipped)
>
>
>>6) Are there any discrepancies in it? There is only seeming
>>discrepancy I can find in it, and that may just be due to
>>ignorance on my part. At Cormallen Gandalf tells The Hobbits
>>that the New Year in Gondor will always begin on March 25th when
>>Sauron fell and they were brought to the King. That was in
>>3019. Why, then, does the Fourth Age begin in Gondor on that
>>same date two years afterwards?
>>
>
>
> Presumably because that's the year that the Keepers of the Rings
> actually leave Middle-Earth (along with many of the remaining
> prominent Elves).
>

That's it, of course. I got so caught up in the "coming dominion of
Men/fading of Elves" aspect of the Third and Fourth Ages, I overlooked
the close personal ties between the King and Queen of Gondor and two of
the three Keepers.

Barb

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 12:33:34 PM7/25/05
to

Well,I'm on shaky ground here, having never explored HoME yet, but
presumably JRRT either didn't want it in there or else hadn't got it put
together yet. Could this be the reason? Not having read the expanded
Tale, I can't comment on how it would have added to /"The Lord of the
Rings"/ - would it have contributed a lot?

Barb

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 12:48:52 PM7/25/05
to
denaldo wrote:
> Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
>
> <snipped to the points I had comments on>
>
>> _________________________
>> Discussion points:
>
>
>
>>
>> 3) What was its use to the author?
>
>
> I presume the same as the other Appendices. A chance to make use
> of some of the many notes and story fragments and ideas that didn't
> work as part of the narrative itself. It would not have been good for
> the story to drag things out any further after Frodo left, and this
> works so much better than "and they all lived happily ever after".

What makes that absolutely delicious is that JRRT had specifically
defended that particular ending earlier in the story when Gandalf and
Bilbo were discussing its use in Bilbo's book.

It's interesting, too, that he discussed endings in "On Fairy-tales"
(when he was in the early stages of /The Lord of the Rings,/ I believe)
in a much different light than what he actually used when the time came
to close his story.

>> 4) Why is it so important to us to know what happened in Lorien and
>> Dale and elsewhere during the War, and also how things went for the
>> members of the Fellowship and others encountered along the way?
>
>
> I frequently find myself pointing out that there were other battles
> going on in other places when explaining some aspects of the
> narrative itself to questioners. As an analogy, it helps when
> reading histories or fictional accounts of the Napoleonic Wars in
> Europe if you are aware of what is going on in the Americas,
> Africa, south Asia, etc.

Yes; I never realized how critical it was, for example, that Eomer left
at midnight with his eored to pursue the Orcs until I read some of the
earlier discussions of that section.

<snip>

>> 8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing years
>> of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age?
>
>
> It was particularly important to me in my desire to 'believe' that
> the 'provenance' of the manuscript was established. How the book was
> passed on to Sam and then on until presumably it came to one of the
> members of the TCSB.
>

Oh, I hadn't heard about the connection to the TCSB. That's wonderful!

Barb

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 1:08:00 PM7/25/05
to
aelfwina wrote:

<snip>

> The first time I read the book, I did not even know it was there, of course,
> LOL! Not until I had finished the story. In my first reading of the
> Appendices, I found it interesting, most especially those parts taking place
> *after* the end of the story. But in subsequent readings I often found
> myself going in and checking on this or that event.

Yes, there was a very personal interest in following up on everybody; a
sense that the story should still go on and on. Later on, and I suppose
even through to today, the story goes on and on, but in deepened
channels and between widened banks, so to speak; this chronology in
large part helps with that deepening and widening familiarity with the
story and its world.

<snip>

>>3) What was its use to the author?
>
>
> Aside from adding depth to his world-building, and enabling him to get in
> some of the things he was forced to leave out of the main story, I am sure
> he often consulted it himself while trying to keep his own story straight.

I hope to find the exact quote in /Letters,/ but there is a mention in
the biography that JRRT was quite upset at one point because the moon
was doing strange things all over Middle-earth, coming up for some
characters and setting for others at the same time, and so forth.

>>4) Why is it so important to us to know what happened in Lorien and Dale
>>and elsewhere during the War, and also how things went for the members of
>>the Fellowship and others encountered along the way?
>
>
> Again, it adds depth and versimilitude to the rest of the story, and it
> somewhat satisfies our curiousity on some of those things.

Yes.
<snip>

> I would like to
> know what happened that made Aragorn ban Men from the Shire completely
> nearly seven years after the War was over.

Oooh, I'd never noticed that before. Hmmm....??? Wonder if it was just
due to the intense pressure in the first few years of his reign to
subdue and fend off the Men who had been allies with Mordor and
establish the security and rule of Gondor beyond all challenge, so that
he was only able to get to it after the need for constant campaigning
had slacked off a bit; the Shire meant so much to Aragorn, though, I
don't think it was that. There is a clue in that he also makes the
Shire a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre; what
does that mean exactly, a Free Land under the protection of a Sceptre?

Also it's interesting that it happened only after Will Whitfoot finally
resigned as Mayor and let Sam have the job. Hmmm.....

Sounds kind of like an adjustment period for the people of the Shire,
who hadn't had a clue any of this turmoil and change was about to
happen. Maybe Will Whitfoot headed the old faction and Sam the new, and
Aragorn added the bit about the Big People not coming in to make coming
under the rule of the king more palatable for the Shire folk?

>
> I’m satisfied with it, though I do wish there had also
>
>>been follow-up on Faramir and Eowyn. I also wonder what Gandalf and
>>Aragorn did in their search for Gollum between 3001 and 3009; granted,
>>Aragorn's mother died in 3007 and he would have been in the north for
>>that, but I had been under the impression that once Gandalf became
>>suspicious of the ring he and Aragorn immediately set out; instead he
>>visited Frodo off and on for several more years. Why did they only get
>>really fired up enough to set off in earnest after Gollum in 3009?
>
>
> I think that there were two reasons: Gandalf could not *quite* believe that
> the One could actually be in the Shire of all places, and two, he was still
> being lulled by Saruman's lies. Remember that he *trusted* Saruman right up
> until he was imprisoned by him.

That makes sense -- he does say something about that, too.

<snip>

>>7) Did Merry and Pippin die before Aragorn, at about the same time, or
>>afterwards?
>
>
> I am certain that it must have been before. They went South in 1484 SR, and
> Merry was 102 then, and Elessar did not pass away until 1541 SR--almost 60
> years later. That would have definitely put him and Pippin far past the Old
> Took and Bilbo as well, if they had lived *that* much longer. Of course,
> the two of them *did* have the benefit of Ent-draughts, but I don't think
> they would have been *that* efficacious.

Ah, and so then they set the beds of Merry and Pippin next to Aragorn's
after the King passed on. OK, that makes sense.

Barb

Caleb N. Diffell

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 3:44:26 PM7/25/05
to
Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
> 8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing years
> of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age? Most notable to
> me is the way people lingered for others that they loved: old King Eomer
> (hard to imagine him old, isn't it?) called Merry to him before he died;
> Sam did not leave to follow Frodo until after Rose had passed away and
> his children were all doing well; and especially moving for me is
> Legolas and Gimli staying there until all the mortals had gone and then
> leaving for the West themselves.

One of the most fascinating aspects to me is the veritable flood of
mortals to Aman at this time. If you look through the history of
Middle-Earth, you see only a one (that I know of) mortal ever making it
to Aman/Valinor (Earendil, of course...anyone else?). And yet here, in
the space of a few short years, you have at least 3 mortals (possibly 4
if Gimli did accompany Legolas, and I prefer to believe that he did)
making the trip. Aside from being a very moving picture of reward and
rest for toil and labor, it also reveals a soft spot in JRRT's heart
for hobbits. Obviously the one unifying thread between Bilbo, Frodo,
and Sam is that they were all Ringbearers. But if you think about it,
the reward granted to Bilbo and Sam is rather out of character with
their contribution (well, maybe not for Sam since he went through
everything Frodo did, but definitely for Bilbo). Nevertheless, they are
all granted special dispensation, and if you think about it it wouldn't
have felt 'right' any other way, even if it's a little surprising.

The entries regarding the deaths or passing of the major characters
have the effect of 'whiting out' our perception of Middle-Earth, much
in the same way that films sometimes 'fade to white' at the end, giving
you fainter and fainter glimpses until, suddenly, it's gone. This is, I
think, definitely intended and the reason why the Tale of Years was
included in the book. It's NOT just to help sort out the events of the
story and put them in a time frame (although it is helpful for that for
sure), but it's a softer, more drawn-out and poignant ending than the
simple ending of the narrative could ever be, mainly by virtue of its
conciseness: Many years of healing, building, and living are condensed
into short descriptions designed carefully to evoke a specific
emotional response. I don't consider the story complete WITHOUT this
appendix, not by a long shot. Incidentally, it's precisely the power of
these short phrases to evoke one's emotions that demonstrate the
Tolkien's power as a writer, and also the power of the story over those
who read it, even after the last page is turned.

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 5:02:55 PM7/26/05
to

"Caleb N. Diffell" <cdif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122320666....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(snip)

Absolutely! I am as enthralled now by the brief snippets of the lives of
Sam, Merry and Pippin as I am by the main part of the story. JRRT always
had the ability to make you see more than he showed, if you know what I
mean. Just as he could make characters who had no more than bit parts in
the story come to life with their own personalities, he also makes us feel
that the little bits we see are only the tip of an iceberg. It is something
he has done throughout the book, with bits of song, poetry and history, and
now he does it again with these seemingly dry little factoids. It makes you
really want more of the story...even though, as you said, the story has
faded away...
>


Steve Morrison

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 11:13:53 PM7/25/05
to
Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
>
> I hope to find the exact quote in /Letters,/ but there is a mention in
> the biography that JRRT was quite upset at one point because the moon
> was doing strange things all over Middle-earth, coming up for some
> characters and setting for others at the same time, and so forth.
>

The relevant Letter is No. 69 (to Christopher Tolkien).

Count Menelvagor

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 11:13:35 PM7/25/05
to

aelfwina wrote:

> Absolutely! I am as enthralled now by the brief snippets of the lives of
> Sam, Merry and Pippin as I am by the main part of the story. JRRT always
> had the ability to make you see more than he showed, if you know what I
> mean. Just as he could make characters who had no more than bit parts in
> the story come to life with their own personalities, he also makes us feel
> that the little bits we see are only the tip of an iceberg. It is something
> he has done throughout the book, with bits of song, poetry and history, and
> now he does it again with these seemingly dry little factoids. It makes you
> really want more of the story...even though, as you said, the story has
> faded away...
> >

it's also sort of interesting to see them from the outside, after
having spent most of the book viewing events from their point of view.
also that tolkien further creates a kind of distance by the uncertainty
with which he relates the departures of sam and gimli to aman. (of
course, one always wants to believe they did, but the narrator keeps
indefinite, esp. in the case of gimli.)

Raven

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 5:08:53 PM7/26/05
to
"aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:11e9pg0...@corp.supernews.com...

> I would like to have known if Aragorn and Arwen had other children than
> Eldarion.

He was their first-born. I believe he was their only son, and that they
also had daughters.

> I would like to know what happened that made Aragorn ban Men from the
> Shire completely nearly seven years after the War was over.

I suppose he wanted to protect the Shire, in that their independence
might become compromised even if quite friendly Men entered. Remember that
with peace from all evil things and a king in Norbury again, old Arnor might
become repopulated, in part by immigration by Men who would not know
Hobbits. The seven year delay may then have been because he had not
sufficient strength to back his inherited authority in old Arnor until then.
As for the Shire becoming a Free Land under the protection of the
Northern Sceptre, I suppose it means that the Shire hobbits would be allowed
to rule themselves without interference by even Aragorn and his successors,
and yet Aragorn and his successors would still protect the Shire from
assaults from without. Whether that would mean *total* lack of interference
would depend on how "independent" would be interpreted by the government
after Aragorn's time...
Of course, in a sense this move by Aragorn may have served to turn the
Shire into a sort of zoo, or akin to a wildlife preserve.

Corvo.


Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 7:29:33 PM7/27/05
to
Thank you!

Christopher Kreuzer

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 2:11:42 PM7/28/05
to

There was an expanded version of the Tale of Years??
There was an expanded version of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen??

It's lucky I've just got my HoME volumes out of store!
Thanks for telling us about this.

Hmm. I seem to have left volume 9 in the store.
Or it is hiding somewhere.
Lucky I still have volume 12.

[...]

The extra bits of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen weren't particularly
enthralling. But the extra snippets (some quite large) in the Tale of
Years of the Second and Third Age are fascinating. Thanks again for
that.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Christopher Kreuzer

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 2:17:40 PM7/28/05
to
denaldo wrote:
> Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:

<snip>

>> 8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing


>> years of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age?
>
> It was particularly important to me in my desire to 'believe' that
> the 'provenance' of the manuscript was established. How the book was
> passed on to Sam and then on until presumably it came to one of the
> members of the TCSB.


TCBS.

Didn't it just come straight to Tolkien? I'm not aware he made any
mention of the TCBS in relation to his "role" in discovering this
ancient story.

Christopher Kreuzer

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 2:33:38 PM7/28/05
to
Caleb N. Diffell <cdif...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

[Appendix B]

> The entries regarding the deaths or passing of the major characters
> have the effect of 'whiting out' our perception of Middle-Earth, much
> in the same way that films sometimes 'fade to white' at the end,
> giving you fainter and fainter glimpses until, suddenly, it's gone.

Interesting. Never thought of it like that before, but now you've
pointed this out, it makes a lot of sense. There is a feeling of loose
ends being tied up, and hopefully when you reach the end, there are no
loose ends left and you get a feeling that the tale is complete, but the
history continues.

> This is, I think, definitely intended and the reason why the Tale of
> Years was included in the book. It's NOT just to help sort out the
> events of the story and put them in a time frame (although it is
> helpful for that for sure), but it's a softer, more drawn-out and
> poignant ending than the simple ending of the narrative could ever
> be, mainly by virtue of its conciseness: Many years of healing,
> building, and living are condensed into short descriptions designed
> carefully to evoke a specific emotional response. I don't consider
> the story complete WITHOUT this appendix, not by a long shot.

Agreed. Which is why I am still amazed that the story has often been
published without the Appendices (or only bits of the Appendices).

> Incidentally, it's precisely the power of these short phrases to
> evoke one's emotions that demonstrate the Tolkien's power as a
> writer, and also the power of the story over those who read it, even
> after the last page is turned.

He _is_ good at making themes and tales intertwine and resonate, so that
it really feels like a history and a story all at the same time. I still
don't quite know how he does it.

denaldo

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 10:43:12 PM7/28/05
to
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

> denaldo wrote:
>
>>Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>8) What do you especially like about this account of the closing
>>>years of the Third Age and opening years of the Fourth Age?
>>
>>It was particularly important to me in my desire to 'believe' that
>>the 'provenance' of the manuscript was established. How the book was
>>passed on to Sam and then on until presumably it came to one of the
>>members of the TCSB.
>
>
>
> TCBS.
>
> Didn't it just come straight to Tolkien? I'm not aware he made any
> mention of the TCBS in relation to his "role" in discovering this
> ancient story.
>

I just meant that it came to him, and "BTW, he was a
member of...". Didn't mean to impy that his friends had
anything to do with it. Though it would be a nice story.
One of the others finding it in some obscure little
house, a bit away from the war zone. A strange, small
house. One would almost think it had been built for
people smaller than average. He keeps the silver spoons
he finds, but passes the old book on to the most
literary member of the fellowship. Oh well, just
letting my imagination run away with me for a minute.

Belba Grubb From Stock

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 7:38:35 PM7/29/05
to
Count Menelvagor wrote:

<snip>

> it's also sort of interesting to see them from the outside, after
> having spent most of the book viewing events from their point of view.
> also that tolkien further creates a kind of distance by the uncertainty
> with which he relates the departures of sam and gimli to aman. (of
> course, one always wants to believe they did, but the narrator keeps
> indefinite, esp. in the case of gimli.)

Now that you mention it, I remember that it did feel interesting to see
the hobbits and other characters from the outside, so to speak. It was
a very different experience of the book and I wasn't too sure that I
liked it right after that emotional finish; yet that was the avenue that
brought me back into the whole book several years later when I was ready
for

The distance is necessary, isn't it, for the reader has to separate from
the characters and eventually close the book.

Anything to do with the Uttermost West is spoken of in rather vague,
mysterious terms throughout the book and so it is a shock when
characters we feel we know so well leave for it. It is the Parting, of
course, but it's that very vagueness of it that sets your heart beating
in time with Sam's as he listens to the waves wash up against the shores
of Middle-earth after Frodo's departure. It's next to impossible to put
into words. We just know that place and we have stood there, peering
with yearning and loss to the West.

Then there is the more clinical matter of the appendices, in particular,
the Tale of Years, and by the time Sam himself rides off after giving
the book to Elanor, we are much better prepared to close the book (and
he met Frodo again and they lived happily ever after until they died in
'Heaven' -- one likes to think so anyway: hmmm, so I guess JRRT has set
it up so each of us can finish the story exactly as we want to).

That's what it feels like from one reader's POV, anyway --I wonder if
all this detail came about because the writer, too, needed to get some
distance.

Barb

--
Anybody can arrive at a plausible conclusion; it takes a genius to get
you nowhere.
-- Col. Stoopnagle

Count Menelvagor

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 10:09:12 PM7/29/05
to

Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
> Count Menelvagor wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > it's also sort of interesting to see them from the outside, after
> > having spent most of the book viewing events from their point of view.
> > also that tolkien further creates a kind of distance by the uncertainty
> > with which he relates the departures of sam and gimli to aman. (of
> > course, one always wants to believe they did, but the narrator keeps
> > indefinite, esp. in the case of gimli.)

> The distance is necessary, isn't it, for the reader has to separate from


> the characters and eventually close the book.

part of the "fading" mentioned above. related perhaps to the fading of
the "mythological" world (Dominion of Men, etc.).

> That's what it feels like from one reader's POV, anyway --I wonder if
> all this detail came about because the writer, too, needed to get some
> distance.

i suspect he found it hard to finish. (more prosaically, he found it
hard to finish ANYTHING.)

AC

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 12:50:27 PM8/4/05
to

Sadly there just wasn't time to complete alot of the material. The pressure
to get RotK out meant that some of his ideas was discarded.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

AC

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 12:55:16 PM8/4/05
to
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:02:55 -0500,
aelfwina <aelf...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> "Caleb N. Diffell" <cdif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122320666....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
>> One of the most fascinating aspects to me is the veritable flood of
>> mortals to Aman at this time. If you look through the history of
>> Middle-Earth, you see only a one (that I know of) mortal ever making it
>> to Aman/Valinor (Earendil, of course...anyone else?).

Well, if you accept the "it is said" type of claims, then Tuor made it to
Aman.

<snip>

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

Chris Kern

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 2:56:52 PM8/4/05
to
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:33:34 -0500, Belba Grubb From Stock
<ba...@dbtech.net> posted the following:

>Chris Kern wrote:
>> I find it very regrettable that the much richer and expanded version
>> of the Tale of Years published in HoME XII could not be included in
>> LotR. (Same for the Arwen and Aragorn tale)
>>
>> -Chris
>
>Well,I'm on shaky ground here, having never explored HoME yet, but
>presumably JRRT either didn't want it in there or else hadn't got it put
>together yet. Could this be the reason?

The publisher rejected his proposed Tale of Years as being too long,
and so he shortened it to what we have. I think the fuller version is
stylistically a lot better.

-CHris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages