The Changing of Middle Earth - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Mnemosyne · 07-07-2009, 12:51 PM

Another idea I remember hearing (haven't read the actual theory on it from Tolkien myself) was the later notion of "Morgoth's Ring," that because Morgoth had put so much of himself into the land of Beleriand, when he was destroyed that too had to be purged so that his taint wouldn't be felt in the Hither Lands.

Really, when you look at pre- and post- Siege of Angband Beleriand, you have a beautiful dark forest that turns into a hideous, creepy forest with horrifying ravines and spidery things, necessitating the forging of blades like Sting; a breadbasket-type plain that becomes a desert, kingdoms despoiled, curses, battle mounds... the land itself is a wreck by the time he's through with it!

Of course, these are all story-internal reasons, and it's really interesting that the "Morgoth's Ring" theory didn't pop up until later in Tolkien's life, after LotR. So the justification I laid out in the first paragraph can't be the original conscious reason for Tolkien's choices.

It would make sense to remove the Valar from Middle-earth even more on a stylistic level because that's what they do. The chief flaws of the Valar in the First and Second Ages is that they meddle and muddle too much (and rather inconsistently at that) rather than not enough. It isn't till the Third Age that they get things right, to the point that next to nobody knows that they're even helping unless called for. The most obvious forms of help (i.e., the Istari), only have a 20% success rate, and even subtler ones (i.e., the wind from the Sea around March 15 and Sam seeing Earendil in Mordor) can't be attributed to them at all.

ETA: Oh, and careful with the maps. That's one of the few things that fansites have gotten C&D'd on.

07-07-2009, 12:51 PM	#5
Mnemosyne Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Between the past and the future Posts: 1,159	Another idea I remember hearing (haven't read the actual theory on it from Tolkien myself) was the later notion of "Morgoth's Ring," that because Morgoth had put so much of himself into the land of Beleriand, when he was destroyed that too had to be purged so that his taint wouldn't be felt in the Hither Lands. Really, when you look at pre- and post- Siege of Angband Beleriand, you have a beautiful dark forest that turns into a hideous, creepy forest with horrifying ravines and spidery things, necessitating the forging of blades like Sting; a breadbasket-type plain that becomes a desert, kingdoms despoiled, curses, battle mounds... the land itself is a wreck by the time he's through with it! Of course, these are all story-internal reasons, and it's really interesting that the "Morgoth's Ring" theory didn't pop up until later in Tolkien's life, after LotR. So the justification I laid out in the first paragraph can't be the original conscious reason for Tolkien's choices. It would make sense to remove the Valar from Middle-earth even more on a stylistic level because that's what they do. The chief flaws of the Valar in the First and Second Ages is that they meddle and muddle too much (and rather inconsistently at that) rather than not enough. It isn't till the Third Age that they get things right, to the point that next to nobody knows that they're even helping unless called for. The most obvious forms of help (i.e., the Istari), only have a 20% success rate, and even subtler ones (i.e., the wind from the Sea around March 15 and Sam seeing Earendil in Mordor) can't be attributed to them at all. ETA: Oh, and careful with the maps. That's one of the few things that fansites have gotten C&D'd on. __________________ Got corsets?