Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
Civ II rules after all these years......
Aside from Gimli, they are absent from war againt Sauron
This is just plain wrong. Sauron sent an army of 200,000 Easterlings (larger than the army that attacked Minas Tirith) north so that the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain, the Men of Dale and the Elves of Mirkwood could not come south and form up under one banner with Gondor and Rohan. The Dwarves and Men went out to meet them and eventually fell back to the Lonely Mountain. They withstood the siege until news of victory at Minas Tirith, then broke the siege.
I apologize for resurrecting this old thread, but I just couldn't help but chime in.
First Age, Battle of Unnumbered Tears:
"Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghal, Lord of Belegost, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghal drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him."
Next, the war between Sauron and the Elves of Eregion in the Second Age:
"In black anger he (Sauron) turned back to battle; and bearing as a banner Celebrimbor's body hung upon a pole, shot through with Orc-arrows, he turned upon the forces of Elrond. Elrond had gathered such few of the Elves of Eregion as had escaped, but he had no force to withstand the onset. He would indeed have been overwhelmed had not Sauron's host been attacked in the rear, for Durin sent out a force of Dwarves from Khazad-dum...Ever afterwards Moria had Sauron's hate, and all Orcs were commanded to harry Dwarves whenever they might."
Finally, Gandalf speaking to the hobbits in Minas Tirith after Sauron was defeated:
"Yet things might have gone far otherwise and far worse. When you think of the Battle of Pelennor, do not forget the battles in Dale and the valor of Durin's Folk. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here to ruin and ash."
I apologize for resurrecting this old thread, but I just couldn't help but chime in.
First Age, Battle of Unnumbered Tears:
"Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghal, Lord of Belegost, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghal drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him."
Next, the war between Sauron and the Elves of Eregion in the Second Age:
"In black anger he (Sauron) turned back to battle; and bearing as a banner Celebrimbor's body hung upon a pole, shot through with Orc-arrows, he turned upon the forces of Elrond. Elrond had gathered such few of the Elves of Eregion as had escaped, but he had no force to withstand the onset. He would indeed have been overwhelmed had not Sauron's host been attacked in the rear, for Durin sent out a force of Dwarves from Khazad-dum...Ever afterwards Moria had Sauron's hate, and all Orcs were commanded to harry Dwarves whenever they might."
Finally, Gandalf speaking to the hobbits in Minas Tirith after Sauron was defeated:
"Yet things might have gone far otherwise and far worse. When you think of the Battle of Pelennor, do not forget the battles in Dale and the valor of Durin's Folk. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here to ruin and ash."
In response to earlier mentions of Dwarves not being corrupted, they kind of ere (but not exactly)
When Sauron gave them the seven rings, it is said (don't have the book handy so can't quote) that the lust for gold and gems was kindled to new levels in their hearts, and with this Sauron wrought great evils.
What I gathered from this was that the intense lust for wealth the dwarves had was what lead them to awake the Balrog...
Bad dwarves! ./slap
"None the less it may well be, as the Dwarves now believe, that Sauron by his arts had discovered who had this Ring, the last to remain free, and that singular misfortunes of the heirs of Durin were largely due to his malice. For the Dwarves had proved untameable by this means. The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them. But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows, enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any Ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it. All the more did Sauron hate the possessors and desire to dispossess them."
The rings were not without negative effects on the Dwarves, to be sure. But they did not have the effect Sauron intended. It is also very likely (imo) that they would have awakened the Balrog without the rings. Mithril had a value infinitely greater than any other material in Middle Earth. The Dwarves had a rich vein running deep under their own home city....I think the Dwarven motto, regardless of rings, would have been "Drill baby, drill!"
thanks for the quote, +rep for that... which book is that from? I'm up to re-reading Two Towers and Dont remember it (could be my memory though )
About the Balrog.... I think without the desire from the Dwarf rings they would have been rational with their mining under Silvertine and wouldn't have had to dig so far down and disturb Durins Bane. I suppose it all a matter of opinion really (which is one of the great things about LOTR, the things left open) but I think that the rings caused the dwarves to delve for Durins Bane, resulting in a great loss of material possessions, as well as the breaking of the friendship between the Dwarves and the Elves of Lorien/Eregion
Assuming you're referencing the Gandalf quote, it's from the LOTR Appendices, I don't remember which one. If you haven't read them before I'd highly recommend it, they're full of good stuff
I think without the desire from the Dwarf rings they would have been rational with their mining under Silvertine and wouldn't have had to dig so far down and disturb Durins Bane.
Agree to disagree on this one I don't think there's much that was not rational with their mining for mithril. They would have had no idea there was a Balrog living down there. The possession of the rings probably accelerated the pace at which they mined, and thus they discovered the Balrog sooner perhaps, but I think they would have found him eventually anyways.
which is one of the great things about LOTR, the things left open
Agreed on this. The questions unanswered and the stories only partially told make it seem much more "historical" and "real" in a sense. One of the many reasons it sits far and above the rest of the fantasy genre.
This conversation reminds me of ... the internet. Someone asks a question to which some people take offense so they launch into a rhetoric driven retaliation. Apologists who don't understand the source material except what they gleaned from it by their own partisan understanding jump out and demolish the authors original intent.
The Lord of the Rings is ALLEGORY. The races and the players in Middle Earth are very much indicative of things that existed in Tolkeins world. Surely he did not mean to put a political bent on his narrative but nevertheless he did. the spewage of Sycophants say "In This battle, so and so did this, and in this instance so and so did this ... which OBVIOUSLY MEANS..."
But the underlying theme is that progress destroyed beauty, knowledge, magic, mysticism. Greed, obsession, thirst for power, conquest, ad-nauseum ... these all lend themselves to the destruction of the magic and beauty of the world. Dwarves while certainly capable of greatness and magnitude were also players in the destruction of middle-earth. No race was infallible. EVERYONE contributed in their own way to the evil that overtook Middle Earth.
That said, Elves were the embodiment of goodness. What is a the heart of the hatred of many of these posters is a modern day hatred of goodness. I expect nothing more than flaming for speaking the truth ... but it's not my words. Watch the National Geographic documentary on The Lord of the Rings and Return of the King (both available on Netflix) ... where they delve into the life of Tolkein ... yeah I know we want to believe our own interpretations of what Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits are but I think their summation pretty much says it all. You'll find that a lot of the assumptions made in this threads are designs of the creator of the post and not the author.
So, don;t take my word. Watch the documentary and learn something about the author. Before you chastise any race (or partisan player of said race) in Middle Earth .. understand the author. It's not YOU. It was him. And he did a wonderful job of it. It is we .. the players of this game that have destroyed the spirit of the law with the letter of it.
Last edited by Valmarill; Jun 15 2012 at 07:42 AM.
Looks like the signatures are broken ... All of my craft skills are maxed.
"I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving. As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches. Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous." - J.R.R. Tolkien, Foreword to Lord of the Rings
Tolkien never meant for one single, particular message to be sent universally to all readers. He says it himself. If what National Geographic gets from the story is also what you get from it, great. Everyone will get something different from it. That was his goal, i.e. "I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." But to say that anyone who has not seen your particular National Geographic documentary must not know anything about Tolkien or his writings is a rather unfair assertion.
the spewage of Sycophants say "In This battle, so and so did this, and in this instance so and so did this ... which OBVIOUSLY MEANS..."
I assume that I am the "spewing sycophant" of this statement. If you read my post, you'll see that I quoted three instances where the race of Dwarves had contributed something positive to Middle Earth, which was the original question. I am curious to know what I "OBVIOUSLY MEAN" by the answers, as the apparent obviousness is lost on me.
I expect nothing more than flaming for speaking the truth
We obviously have our disagreements on this topic, and of course I'm going to voice those disagreements. I do not intend anything as "flaming." If you take disagreement as such, then I apologize for your interpretation, but not for my disagreement.
It is we .. the players of this game that have destroyed the spirit of the law with the letter of it.
You remind me of the hobbits in Micheal Delving listening to the female Hobbit ranting about rancid pie fillings.
"I didn't mean to...empower him".
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
Civ II rules after all these years......
The Lord of the Rings is ALLEGORY. The races and the players in Middle Earth are very much indicative of things that existed in Tolkeins world. Surely he did not mean to put a political bent on his narrative but nevertheless he did. the spewage of Sycophants say "In This battle, so and so did this, and in this instance so and so did this ... which OBVIOUSLY MEANS..."
lol
Originally Posted by Valmarill
That said, Elves were the embodiment of goodness. What is a the heart of the hatred of many of these posters is a modern day hatred of goodness. I expect nothing more than flaming for speaking the truth ... but it's not my words. Watch the National Geographic documentary on The Lord of the Rings and Return of the King (both available on Netflix) ... where they delve into the life of Tolkein ... yeah I know we want to believe our own interpretations of what Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits are but I think their summation pretty much says it all. You'll find that a lot of the assumptions made in this threads are designs of the creator of the post and not the author.
lolno. putting aside the silmarillion, in which elves are often horrible, this is just a stupid assertion. If you find the elves in lotr to be unequivocally good then you're not reading very closely. the rings are essentially an elvish creation. yes, they were deceived by sauron, but celebrimbor was a willing participant, and his intention was not entirely good. in lotr, the elves are primarily concerned with preservation, and the rings are the very embodiment of that impulse. while preservation sounds like an admirable goal, the particular brand practiced by the elves is a greedy sort of preservation, the kind that seeks to shut out the rest of the world, and even to stop the passage of time (which of course is only an illusion). this is exactly what elrond and galadriel use their rings for. like so many elves in the silmarillion, they 'love too well the works of their own hands.' you can see this articulated quite clearly in the 'test' that galadriel has to pass. she must give up this desire for power and preservation.
Actually they can. The petty dwarfs in the Children of Hurin are a fairly good example.
I haven't read that one recently, so my memory isn't great. I guess my recollection from other works in HoME was that they were more of a dwindled, faded race of Dwarves, i.e. a once proud race reduced to an 'uncivilized' state. I don't remember much talk about them actually being corrupted to evil though...is it different in Children of Hurin?
Well, in Eregion the Noldor knew that the Dwarves were the best allies to fight against the Orcs, which was one reason why Eregion had a great friendship with Khazad-Dûm.
Their trust with Dwarves was well justified when Sauron attacked the area. Without the dwarves of Khazad-Dûm and Elrond from Rivendell the battle could have been much worse for the Noldor. That's when Sauron also swore not to give Dwarves any moment of peace wherever they might live.
'There now the numbers of Eldar increase,' Voronwë said, 'for ever more flee thither of either kin from the fear of Morgoth, weary of war.'
lolno. putting aside the silmarillion, in which elves are often horrible, this is just a stupid assertion.
Let's try and be a bit accurate if nothing else. The 'horrible' elves in the Silmarillion I assume you refer to are the banished Noldor. The whole point of that story was to show how Melkor had corrupted the elves of Valinor and caused strife between them. Ultimately that led to the later actions of Feanor, but the root evil was the working of Melkor. I'd hardly call those elves 'horrible'. Wayward, deceived, desperate and Feanor had too much pride to boost, but 'horrible' hardly enters into it.
Maeglin is the only other elf one could be suspect of. He seems to have a unique flaw put into him by fate which would eventually lead him to betray Turgon but even then that was only under threat of dire torture. Besides he doesn't seem to be whom you're refering to.
Originally Posted by newwwwb
the rings are essentially an elvish creation. yes, they were deceived by sauron, but celebrimbor was a willing participant, and his intention was not entirely good. in lotr, the elves are primarily concerned with preservation, and the rings are the very embodiment of that impulse. while preservation sounds like an admirable goal, the particular brand practiced by the elves is a greedy sort of preservation, the kind that seeks to shut out the rest of the world, and even to stop the passage of time (which of course is only an illusion). this is exactly what elrond and galadriel use their rings for. like so many elves in the silmarillion, they 'love too well the works of their own hands.' you can see this articulated quite clearly in the 'test' that galadriel has to pass. she must give up this desire for power and preservation.
I think you've interpreted this rather strangely. Ultimately the goal of those elves was to try and re-create a glimmer of the Undying Lands in Middle-earth and the Rings of Power were a major part of this effort. I don't see anything wrong with that desire - any evil came from Sauron's input into the matter. How exactly does 'selfishness' enter the equation?
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Let's try and be a bit accurate if nothing else. The 'horrible' elves in the Silmarillion I assume you refer to are the banished Noldor. The whole point of that story was to show how Melkor had corrupted the elves of Valinor and caused strife between them. Ultimately that led to the later actions of Feanor, but the root evil was the working of Melkor. I'd hardly call those elves 'horrible'. Wayward, deceived, desperate and Feanor had too much pride to boost, but 'horrible' hardly enters into it.
Maeglin is the only other elf one could be suspect of. He seems to have a unique flaw put into him by fate which would eventually lead him to betray Turgon but even then that was only under threat of dire torture. Besides he doesn't seem to be whom you're refering to.
and several of the elves we meet in lotr are noldor as well. galadriel, gildor and elrond (at least partly), so im not sure that the distinction matters. just because someone is led into evil doesnt mean they are blameless. many of the things done by feanor and his sons certainly are horrible. although the part about the silmarillion is kind of irrelevant to the argument, since we're talking about lotr.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
I think you've interpreted this rather strangely. Ultimately the goal of those elves was to try and re-create a glimmer of the Undying Lands in Middle-earth and the Rings of Power were a major part of this effort. I don't see anything wrong with that desire - any evil came from Sauron's input into the matter. How exactly does 'selfishness' enter the equation?
my post is in response to the guy who said the elves are the embodiment of goodness. they are certainly not evil characters in lotr by an stretch, but they have their own unique complexities and dilemmas. like i said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of preservation. the problem with the elves is their outlook is flawed. they are fading, and they put forth their power in order to delay that fading, its not malevolent, but its not natural either. take turgon for example. he loved gondolin too much to abandon it. its no bad thing to build a city in memorial to tirion and try to defend it, but when you are so enamored with your creation that you refuse to take the advice of ulmo, as turgon was, there is an issue. the elves in lotr have this same problem, to a certain extent. take a look at the kind of approach that treebeard seems to take towards preservation and how it differs from the elvish method.
tolkien himself put it much better than i could have:
"But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal
historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the
advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it
as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' – and they were overburdened
with sadness and nostalgic regret."
and several of the elves we meet in lotr are noldor as well. galadriel, gildor and elrond (at least partly), so im not sure that the distinction matters. just because someone is led into evil doesnt mean they are blameless. many of the things done by feanor and his sons certainly are horrible. although the part about the silmarillion is kind of irrelevant to the argument, since we're talking about lotr.
They did a few things which someone might consider horrible, but that's different from calling them horrible wholesale. If Mother Teresa were to commit an act one could deem horrible I don't think that would therefore make her a horrible person.
I'd classify those Noldor as I said in my last post: 'Wayward, deceived, desperate' and some with perhaps too much pride. I think that's a long way from deducing:
Originally Posted by newwwwb
lolno. putting aside the silmarillion, in which elves are often horrible, this is just a stupid assertion.
As for:
Originally Posted by newwwwb
my post is in response to the guy who said the elves are the embodiment of goodness. they are certainly not evil characters in lotr by an stretch, but they have their own unique complexities and dilemmas. like i said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of preservation. the problem with the elves is their outlook is flawed. they are fading, and they put forth their power in order to delay that fading, its not malevolent, but its not natural either. take turgon for example. he loved gondolin too much to abandon it. its no bad thing to build a city in memorial to tirion and try to defend it, but when you are so enamored with your creation that you refuse to take the advice of ulmo, as turgon was, there is an issue. the elves in lotr have this same problem, to a certain extent. take a look at the kind of approach that treebeard seems to take towards preservation and how it differs from the elvish method.
They have some flaws, yes, they're not Perfect Beings. But ultimately elves are considerably better people than 'Men'. They don't seem to suffer from many of the flaws 'Men' do, or at least to a much less degree. I think the quote from The Hobbit best sums it up simply:
"They dwelt most often by the edges of the woods, from which they could escape at times to hunt, or to ride and run over the open lands by moonlight or starlight; and after the coming of Men they took ever more and more to the gloaming and the dusk. Still elves they were and remain, and that is Good People."
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Lets see dwarves are master builders when thousands of years pass and when all buildings are far gone moria will still be standing. They rebuilded the doors of minas thirith and inhabited helms deep after the war,retaken moria after some time and so on....
While elves are to be blamed for most of the evil in the world for some one so smart (elves) how couldnt they recognized sauron when they made the rings ??? They hunted petty dwarves instead of fighting orcs !
It's unclear why they were hunted by the elves. But I got the picture that they weren't too popular within the other dwarves either for some reason, and Mîm wasn't really nicest of the dwarves either, even if his hatred was justified at points. And after the sacking of Nargothrond he looted a treasure which wasn't made by himself.
Now, about Nargothrond. It was Ulmo (one of the Valar) who secretly gave Finrod the idea or message of taking the caves of petty dwarves and expanding them for the use of Noldor. Yet another mystery.
Something must have been wrong within them, but I do feel bad for Mîm, for some points. And yet he didn't do well in all things - he did betray his allies.
'There now the numbers of Eldar increase,' Voronwë said, 'for ever more flee thither of either kin from the fear of Morgoth, weary of war.'
Yet in the end Mim did pay for his treachery. He was killed by Hurin at the gates of Nargothrond. And this part I would like clarification on; the orcs kept his son from him? Alas that the last of the Petty Dwarves was so... petty!
They did a few things which someone might consider horrible, but that's different from calling them horrible wholesale. If Mother Teresa were to commit an act one could deem horrible I don't think that would therefore make her a horrible person.
I'd classify those Noldor as I said in my last post: 'Wayward, deceived, desperate' and some with perhaps too much pride. I think that's a long way from deducing:
As for:
They have some flaws, yes, they're not Perfect Beings. But ultimately elves are considerably better people than 'Men'. They don't seem to suffer from many of the flaws 'Men' do, or at least to a much less degree. I think the quote from The Hobbit best sums it up simply:
"They dwelt most often by the edges of the woods, from which they could escape at times to hunt, or to ride and run over the open lands by moonlight or starlight; and after the coming of Men they took ever more and more to the gloaming and the dusk. Still elves they were and remain, and that is Good People."
Apologies to the derailment, but I would hesitate here to consider the elves to be "better" then humans, or dwarves even. Different, yes, but better? They learnt their lessons better, perhaps - which is something of an advantage of immortality, if to live forever with your mistakes can be called that. Humans, after all, are fleeting, and our own history speaks of the ease of forgetting lessons of the past. But they were just as prone to pride (moreso, perhaps, considering their greater powers of mind and, yes, let's call it 'magic') as men, moreso prone to despair (Men, generally, don't fade out of despair. Go on a rampage of revenge and kill themselves after sure, but rarely do they fade), and had a tendency to distant themselves from the world around them in attempt to preserve what they had left. Every race had their failings and their triumphs, so to call one 'better' than the other, is, I think unfair. Both Men & Elves are "eruhini" yes? Children of the One. One elder, one younger. So, different - with different fates, and different skills. I think its no mistake that Tolkien's greatest heroes are those with blood of more than one race - a blend yes? To complement each other out.
Don't get me wrong ... I like dwarves. But I could imagine some elves singing this tune:
Dwarves, huh, yeah
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
Dwarves, huh, yeah
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
I believe that was in the original draft for the Hobbit, that was the song that the elves were supposed to sing to Bilbo and the dwarves on their arrival in Rivendell. Tolkien later replaced this with the more family friendly version we see in the book today.
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
Junior Member Online status:
Re: Dwarves, what are they good for?
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Nymphonic
The thread title makes me think of Edwin Star.
Senior Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
