The works of J. R. R. Tolkien

You really should get on that. Like, now, if not yesterday.

 

I take them simply as this...
They are books I enjoy reading.
And they are movies I enjoy watching.
Again & again.

Each enjoyable for their own aspects...certain portions I like better than others, some not.

But just the fact that they have been "reviewed" by so many for so long, shows their significance and quality.
Some like them, some don't...some like parts.
But they keep talking about them, either way.

Kind of like the Bible...but not.

 

My paperback copy of The Silmarillion could do with replacing. I have multiple editions of paperbacks of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, so now my collection mostly focuses on acquiring hardbacks. This is not my entire collection of Tolkien books, by the way.

 

I will. Will you listen to the seminars at least?

 

I think it's beautifully written, but yes, it can be dry at points, and my first read through it was a bit of a slog. I compare it to reading the Bible if people ask me what it's like.

 

Agreed and agreed. I'd love a Legolas/Gimli story. Their relationship is the ultimate in the Power of Friendship.

 

As an aside (and, I suppose, as my first comparison of an author to Tolkien): The Silmarillion was edited by Tolkien's son, Christopher Tolkien, with the help of Canadian fantasy author Guy Gavriel Kay.

Kay is best known these days for writing long yet beautiful novels that are best described as historical fantasy, though he has a vein of urban fantasy as well. However, his first three novels, first published in the '80s, consist of a fantasy trilogy called the Fionavar Tapestry.

I won't get into much detail since you can just check out the linked page, but it compares to Tolkien's work in that the books delve into a fantasy world that is mythologically rich. Kay borrows from various mythologies including Authurian legend. He elegantly weaves together these wonderful elements while infusing some powerful themes that run throughout. In many ways, the Fionavar Tapestry represents a wonderful following of the kind of work Tolkien did. However, let me be clear: This is not as directly derivative of Tolkien as, say, the Wheel of Time, or the Shannara books (as entertaining as you might find them). In it, Kay does much of what Tolkien did: He takes mythological sources and "repurposes" them.

The main difference is that it's more overt in Kay's work. Tolkien was brilliant in making his sources strange and new. Certainly a tough act to follow.

Regardless, I can't recommend the Fionavar Tapestry highly enough. If you like the concept of mythopoeia and the kind of literature close to Tolkien's heart, you should read it.

 

@Baraka_Guru, you bring up one of the things I really love as a teacher about Tolkien's body of work. I find it incredibly accessible when introducing criticism and analysis. We're not typically getting down into the close reading/deconstruction/parsing, but rather I use it to illustrate to students the bigger movements and motifs. I use it as a kind of common language we all know--we've all read the books or seen the films, so we can discuss things like the Epic Quest, for example, or Lord Raglan's Hero Pattern without having to read something new to understand.

Additionally, I used it in a Prezi this fall on the history of the English language (this book is amazing, I just wish it weren't $120; I read my mentor's copy. Amazon.com: A History of the English Language (6th Edition) (9780205229390): Albert Croll Baugh, Thomas Cable: Books). How?
The Wanderer
Lament for the Rohirrim - Tolkien Gateway

The kids went nuts.

 

ORLY?

 

I found a PDF copy!!! http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1380984377.3491A%20History%20of%20English%20Language.pdf Someday I'll have enough money to justify buying the hardback.

BTW, I think that's one of the hottest pics I've ever seen of you, BG. The only thing that would make it better is swapping out the hoodie for a cardigan.

 

Oh please, sir, do go on. I agree with a lot of what you've said about criticism and analyzing an author's work. One of my favorite English professors was quite insistent that if it wasn't in the text, it wasn't in the text, and no amount of reading between the lines would make an analysis work if it wasn't in the text. I try to teach my students the same approach.

 

And this is why Balrogs have no wings.

 

I read that as a continued metaphor/simile for the shadow it casts, from this earlier passage:

The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.​

When the Balrog draws its height up, it casts its "winglike" shadows further.

The debate will never be resolved. I remain, faithfully, in the "no wings" camp.

 

I'll tell you what. If I ever come to you in a tempest of the regular kind (say, snow or rain), I'll come by foot, for I cannot fly. I'd try the same in a tempest of fire, but I'd probably burn to a crisp.

It's "winged speed." We can go as far back as Homer and look at his use of winged, which he used as "winged words" multiple times. It can be interpreted as "words spoken with some urgency." In translation, Fitzgerald often avoided winged, opting for words such as rapid, sharp, or rough. Fagles often used burst or urgent. (Homer's Winged Words)

[EDIT to add: I've seen it interpreted in Oxford as to mean "apposite" or "significant," which may also apply. If a situation is dire, "significant speed" or "speed that is apposite/pertinent/appropriate to the situation" would be suitable.]

So in this passage from The Silmarillion, we can interpret "winged speed" as meaning "urgent speed" or "rapid speed" (or, more directly, speed as though they were flying, i.e., metaphorically). Indeed, winged in this case is interpreted as modifying the word speed and not as suggesting that the Balrogs had wings and were actually flying.

Surely, when Gandalf tells the Fellowship, "Fly, you fools," he doesn't mean for them to literally soar through the air (that will come later, for some). In this instance, Tolkien opts for an archaic meaning of the word fly, meaning "to flee."

We must remain open to the idea that Tolkien often uses archaic meanings of words, given his command of languages both old and new. This, and his rich use of metaphor, give his work the capacity for multiple interpretations.

As I suggest, we also can't prove definitively that the Balrogs don't have wings. I suggest we can't prove it definitively either way. I'm simply in the camp that believes they don't have wings.