Who knows their trolls? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

galpsi · 09-12-2000, 12:10 PM

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Unquiet Dead
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Who knows their trolls?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Considering your vast knowledge of all things Tolkien, you've probably already read Part Five of the HoME book Morgoth's Ring, "Myths Transformed"...<hr></blockquote>
More like vastly inadequate ... I've only ever read Hobbit, LotR, Silma., and a little bit of HoME, v. 1. The rest of HoME post-dates my Tolkien-reading days. I just muddle through on my vague memories of what I did read.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was arguing more in a spirit of trying to make what's there "work". If JRRT decided to invent the mention of the Olog-hai in Appendix F as a patch to upgrade trolls v1.0 to v1.1, then I'll download and install the patch in the spirit in which it's offered…<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I tend to treat LotR more like "just a book" then a lot of other posters here do. And taking LotR as a story -- rather than as a descriptive treatise on an imaginary ecosphere -- I just can’t see that the whole Olog-hai conception was integral to the story. There it sits in the appendices, gently enriching, but not really integrated. I’m not trying to say that anybody who makes sense of this question differently than I am is wrong. Not at all. Mostly I was just realizing to myself, and subsequently remarking to everyone who followed this infernal thread, that this term just isn’t in the story. I was surprised. I keep expecting someone better acquainted with the text than I am to find it and post here. I kind of hope someone would. That’s all.

But I do totally disagree with this premise.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The Appendices were to illustrate points that may have been vague in the story, or lacking an explanation; would have slowed the story establishing one.<hr></blockquote>
JRRT could so easily have changed the references somewhere in the text to read Olog-hai instead of stone-troll or hill-troll. One sentence in the story could have clarified the point. There were already a few references in the the story that he could have built upon. I really think that the term was extrinsic to the story. Someone find a citation and correct me. As I said, I'd kind of rather be mistaken. But I can't find the cite.

</p>

09-12-2000, 12:10 PM	#1
galpsi The Unquiet Dead Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 971	<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Unquiet Dead Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> <img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/redeye.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Who knows their trolls? <blockquote>*Quote:<hr> Considering your vast knowledge of all things Tolkien, you've probably already read Part Five of the HoME book Morgoth's Ring, "Myths Transformed"...<hr></blockquote> More like vastly inadequate ... I've only ever read Hobbit, LotR, Silma., and a little bit of HoME, v. 1. The rest of HoME post-dates my Tolkien-reading days. I just muddle through on my vague memories of what I did read. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was arguing more in a spirit of trying to make what's there "work". If JRRT decided to invent the mention of the Olog-hai in Appendix F as a patch to upgrade trolls v1.0 to v1.1, then I'll download and install the patch in the spirit in which it's offered…<hr></blockquote> Yeah, I tend to treat LotR more like "just a book" then a lot of other posters here do. And taking LotR as a story -- rather than as a descriptive treatise on an imaginary ecosphere -- I just can’t see that the whole Olog-hai conception was integral to the story. There it sits in the appendices, gently enriching, but not really integrated. I’m not trying to say that anybody who makes sense of this question differently than I am is wrong. Not at all. Mostly I was just realizing to myself, and subsequently remarking to everyone who followed this infernal thread, that this term just isn’t in the story. I was surprised. I keep expecting someone better acquainted with the text than I am to find it and post here. I kind of hope someone would. That’s all. But I do totally disagree with this premise. <blockquote>Quote:*<hr> The Appendices were to illustrate points that may have been vague in the story, or lacking an explanation; would have slowed the story establishing one.<hr></blockquote> JRRT could so easily have changed the references somewhere in the text to read Olog-hai instead of stone-troll or hill-troll. One sentence in the story could have clarified the point. There were already a few references in the the story that he could have built upon. I really think that the term was extrinsic to the story. Someone find a citation and correct me. As I said, I'd kind of rather be mistaken. But I can't find the cite. </p>