What's your favorite headcanon?

[Cikomyr]

Only if you choose to view it as "wrong".

Look. Tolkien is great, but LOTR is extremely eurocentric by nature, and it depicts all nonwestern people as being barbarian, cruel invaders that would feel at home in KKK depiction of noneuropean people.

I am not saying Tolkien was deliberate. He made a really cool story, but he hinged his entire story on fighting an "other" so vile, evil and destructive that there is no potential redemption for any of them.

They are barbarians, monsters who will plunge the world in eternal darkness. There is no peace with them.

Depicting any people as an outright absolute evil is suspect in my mind. Especially if you consider that orcs are.. Old prisoner of wars. A slave race made of prisoner of wars, who have been turned into soulless being by the suffering they endured.

And that is why they deserve to be wiped out.

[Tvtyrant]

Edit: Sorry, we veered out of acceptable bounds.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keep real world religion and politics out of this discussion regardless of its relevance. Also, please be civil to each other.

[Fyraltari]

EDIT: Shutting up now.

EDIT2: I apologize if I upset anyone.

[Sapphire Guard]

The ring he made controls minds, that's not really a recommendation.He tricked Numenor into destroying itself.

The orcs are treated as completely expendable, he's not advancing their cause, and they actually don't want to be united under one banner at all, the different tribes don't like each other.

Gondor can't even hold on to the land it claims. They have no significant presence beyond the Anduin, they're not powerful enough to keep orcs contained if they wanted to.

It's very difficult to put a positive spin on all this.

On the likes of Harad and Rhun, we know almost nothing about them, so where is this 'cruel invaders' stereotype coming from?

[The Jack]

I'll behave.

Weren't the human ring bearers initially fantastically successful and became extremely wealthy? There's more ways he could get their allegiance than mind control from that; Maybe some conditioning, where they would only benefit from the ring if they obeyed, or maybe they were really grateful to Sauron. Maybe the ring gave them warm liking for sauron, but for that last point; Whilst enslaving someone is bad, if you enslaved a leader so that they made the right choices, or enslaved a king so that the integration of their nation would be bloodless....
I think it could be the right thing to do under the right circumstances.

Didn't he "trick" numenor into sailing west to gain what the Valar had (arguably wrongfully) kept from them?


Orcs not liking eachother is like humans not liking eachother; It happens. But maybe through civic and technological advance things could get easier?

Sauron's not some virginal saint but 'the ends justify the means' isn't the worst trait a leader can have. Great unifiers of the ancient world have gotten their hands extremely bloody, and often did better because they made those harsh choices.


Without Sauron, Humans, elves, orcs and all would still war with eachother. The wars would be smaller, but they'd still be at it. You know a thing about modern war is that it's awful, so people don't like it, but in bygone eras everyone thought war was great. Note Theoden lamenting the loss of wars with 'the horse and the rider'; Because some war was nicer than other war.

[Gnoman]

Didn't he "trick" numenor into sailing west to gain what the Valar had (arguably wrongfully) kept from them?

No. Not in the least.

Timeline:

Sauron conquers the world, except for Numenor
Numenor sends a vast army, defeating Sauron's forces and forcing him to hole up in Mordor
After time passes, the Numenorians go home
Sauron rebuilds his armies, and proceeds to conquer the world, except for Numenor again
Numenor comes back, crushes Sauron's forces, and take him prisoner
Sauron concocts a plan to destroy Numenor entirely
Sauron tricks the King into banning the worship of the Valar, because the Valar invented the mythical Ilúvatar to keep humans in their proper subservient place (a lie)
The king of Numenor makes Valar worship a capital crime
Sauron tricks the King into thinking that worshipping Morgoth will make the King immortal
The king starts worshipping Morgoth with human sacrifice, but still ages, and comes near death
Sauron convinces the king that invading and conquering Valinor will make the King immortal
The king launches a massive invasion of Valinor
The Valar, forbidden from harming Men, call on Ilúvatar for aid
Ilúvatar wipes out the invading army and destroys Numenor
Elendil and his sons, forewarned of the destruction, arrive in Middle Earth and found Gondor
Morgoth-worshipping allies of the King were already in Middle Earth (thus surviving the wrath of Ilúvatar) and found Umbar and other southern nations.
Sauron's revenge is complete.

[Bohandas]

Without Sauron, Humans, elves, orcs and all would still war with eachother. The wars would be smaller, but they'd still be at it. You know a thing about modern war is that it's awful, so people don't like it, but in bygone eras everyone thought war was great. Note Theoden lamenting the loss of wars with 'the horse and the rider'; Because some war was nicer than other war.

I think it's more that in bygone eras the baseline awfulness was so high that the addition of war didn't really make a difference to it

[Mith]

I think it's more that in bygone eras the baseline awfulness was so high that the addition of war didn't really make a difference to it

Eh, there is the fact that war became so catastrophic in the modern era that we cannot see glory in the actual act of fighting. Even if life was hard, most farmers would prefer farming to the army.

The only frame of reference someone in the middle ages Europe would have to say a nuclear bomb is the story of Sodom and Gamorrah. A miraculous feat of Wrath that would break the mind of any who would dare to behold it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

War was gloryfied, people thought of it as great, particularly people raised in warrior classes. But make no mistake, the 30 years war killed a larger percentage of the European population than ww2 did, and several old Chinese wars still rank among the most lethal things ever even in absolute numbers. War was always bad. At best the ruling class had a harder time telling the difference between fictional violence and the real thing when they hadn't had a real war in a while. It's just another flavor of machoism. (O, hey, I can see real world politics from here, I should stop.)

[The Jack]

I think I can get away with this...

Historically, nobles loved war, because they were really good at it. They had training, armour that made them very safe, and would likely be ransomed instead of executed if they lost. Imagine war was the worst P2W game.
Also, as the warrior class, their worth was determined by how well they fought and they'd get better lands if they impressed.

For peasants, they joined war at the promise of loot/plunder when their farming season was bad, or to defend their homes. Their war ideals varied considerably.
Of course, nobles and people closely associated to them, wrote the history.


In modern war, outside of a few areas like piloting, nobles have no advantage. There's no expensive armour for them that can protect the whole body from rifle rounds, their training isn't much better and the combat isn't a melee where skill matters much. In Tolkien's war, people died to machines and that was horrible.

I think it's more that in bygone eras the baseline awfulness was so high that the addition of war didn't really make a difference to it

How bad things were in bygone eras were largely exaggerated by people in less-bygone eras to make things at the time seem a lot better or to get sales through juicer and more exciting stories. Then film makers and future historians get a hold of -Victorian 'accounts' of the 1500s and depict everyone as unreasonably filthy, and then Hollywood copies itself... and then people are firmly entrenched in the idea that feudal life was unbearable.

Other than the infant death rate (which people got used to) it really wasn't anywhere near as bad as you are thinking. Work was seasonal, people had free time to make nice clothes and maintain their buildings, people washed, kings were rarely oppressive (Oppressive kings make for good stories, which is why it seems like the norm) and they celebrated a lot of holidays. Their death-rate and life expectancy was only slightly worse than ours after they got past childhood.

People didn't go to war because their lives were **** and they didn't care about themselves (though they might've gone after a really bad harvest or other devastation)

Tolkien lamented modern war, that's certain.
But he held a romantic view of old war and wished war was fought a certain way, if at all.

Gnoman

What if Sauron was right about the Iluvatar? For a lie to work, it's best to have some basis in truth.


I know, my point of view is probably hilarious; I don't trust Tolkien telling me about his own universe. I think that makes it better.

[Mith]

I know, my point of view is probably hilarious; I don't trust Tolkien telling me about his own universe. I think that makes it better.

I guess my sticking point is that it sounds like all you are saying is "What if the people that are telling the truth (according to Tolkien) are lying, and the "liar" is telling the truth? Eru Iluvitar is the basis of the entire Legendarium after all.

And while that's a perspective to take, it's a skeptic one that sort of hits a wall of just refutation, as all evidence of other perspective are countered with "Well how do you KNOW that's true?"

(This isn't a political reference BTW. It's a huge philisophical issue of being able to objectively anchor your system of beliefs.)

[The Jack]

I'll limit this response for the minefield, but while Tolkien's middle earth is awesomely well realized, a lot of it is sociologically unlikely. Not Impossible, but if you stretch unlikely far enough it starts to look that way. When you couple that with a romantic outlook from a dude with strong opinions, it's easy to think the other way.


In contrast, while the guy's too miserable, I can trust every word of G.R.R Martin, as the dude's mostly a logical (fairly pessimistic) realist. Sure, he ****s on knights a lot to break the romantic myth, but the guy's only agenda is to make a grounded fantasy, so I can trust that and my brain doesn't go wild with alternatives.

[Bohandas]

How bad things were in bygone eras were largely exaggerated by people in less-bygone eras to make things at the time seem a lot better or to get sales through juicer and more exciting stories. Then film makers and future historians get a hold of -Victorian 'accounts' of the 1500s and depict everyone as unreasonably filthy, and then Hollywood copies itself... and then people are firmly entrenched in the idea that feudal life was unbearable.

Think about all the luxuries we take for granted today. And now think of how in medieval and renaissance times you couldn't have most of them even if you were an emperor. I can hold trivial conversations with people on the other side of the world. I can travel from the northeast US to hawaii in under a day. I have several hundred books in my house. I have air conditioning and central heating. I have heating and air conditioning IN MY CAR, which also can and does go faster than a horse ever could. I can listen to music and watch performances any hour or the day or night. I can play games on my phone while I'm waiting in line at the store. My refridgerator makes ice rather than consuming it. If I go to a doctor I'll get good advice rather than it being a cointoss between good advice and nonsense. The biggest health crisis in my country is that the people actually have too much to eat. I can make a copy of any document in seconds. I have a free app on my phone that graphs complex mathematical equations. If I see something cool looking I always have at least one thing with me that I can photograph it with, and running out of film is never a concern. My reading glasses turn into sunglasses in bright light. None of the interface devices on my computer are attached with cables. My calculator back when I was in school was more powerful than the computers NASA used during the Apollo 11 mission. The lightbulbs that light my house aren't reliant on fire and thus use no oxygen and give off no smoke, and since they're LED lightbulbs I can grip one in my hand after it's been running for eight hours. I don't have to leave the house to buy most things and I don't have to wait six to eight weeks for delivery either. I don't need cash for most transactions, and the cash I do use is made of cloth paper rather than heavy bulky cumbersome useless metal, and I can withdraw it from my account via the ATM so I don't have to actually stand in line at the bank. I have indoor plumbing on every floor of my house. Several social issues I'm not allowed to expound upon here. etc.


EDIT:
And you don't even have to worry about garbled historical accounts, the 1990's were miserable compared to today

[comicshorse]

The orcs are treated as completely expendable, he's not advancing their cause, and they actually don't want to be united under one banner at all, the different tribes don't like each other.

Gondor can't even hold on to the land it claims. They have no significant presence beyond the Anduin, they're not powerful enough to keep orcs contained if they wanted to.

Its not about putting a positive spin on it but more is he any more evil than hundreds of real worlds warlords. Certainly press ganging troops and attacking weaker opponents are absolutely standard moves for any kingdom looking to expand

[Bohandas]

Eru Iluvitar is the basis of the entire Legendarium after all.

I'm not sure I would say that. How many times does he really show up? He could be written out of the Silmarillion and it would be mostly the same other than the first bit and the origin story of the dwarves, both of which are also severable from the overall plot

[The Jack]

Entirely missing the point

Compared to today, of course it's going to have a certain amount of suck without all the modern luxuries.

But they had people. People are generally better than things.

My point isn't that what they had better lives than we give them credit for. They had respectable homes, communicated with their neighbours (something we hardly do!) They were clean, their medicine wasn't entirely quack, they spent time making things, they had colourful clothes, they played games and had sport and had holidays very often. We don't have a lot of the things they had, because we're preoccupied by newer things.

But you see, there's a big difference between:
Things we have now and things they had then
and
Things we have now and our ideas about the things they had then.

Because evidently, they're very different things.

[Bohandas]

Compared to today, of course it's going to have a certain amount of suck without all the modern luxuries.

But they had people. People are generally better than things.

My point isn't that what they had better lives than we give them credit for. They had respectable homes, communicated with their neighbours (something we hardly do!) They were clean, their medicine wasn't entirely quack, they spent time making things, they had colourful clothes, they played games and had sport. We don't have a lot of the things they had, because we're preoccupied by newer things.

But you see, there's a big difference between
Things we have now and things they had then
and
Things we have now and our ideas about the things they had then.

Because evidently, they're very different things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5uEQct9wTY

[Sapphire Guard]

I don't think in bygone eras people particularly thought war was great, so much as until WW1, relatively few people were literate enough to write down complaints, and those that did had to get them past the rulers.

Its not about putting a positive spin on it but more is he any more evil than hundreds of real worlds warlords. Certainly press ganging troops and attacking weaker opponents are absolutely standard moves for any kingdom looking to expand

Being a Maia, he doesn't have to keep any of his promises. He has been defeated and surrendered more than once, and any mercy shown to him previously has backfired. But I'm not seeing the importance of the distinction.

Even if we assume that Tolkien's sources are lying, we still need a reason to believe that Sauron is telling the truth or has greater good motivations, and I don't think we have that.The orcs have a brilliant defensive position in Mordor, that is very fertile in the south, there's no need to expand particularly. The Northern orcs, don't want to be part of any war at all.

Re ASOIAF, one thing that wasn't convincing was that the knight's code would be believed in as much as it was. All the stuff Bronn gets away with, in a Westeros filled with war veterans, nobody at all should be surprised to see 'dishonourable' fighting.

[Traab]

Its not about putting a positive spin on it but more is he any more evil than hundreds of real worlds warlords. Certainly press ganging troops and attacking weaker opponents are absolutely standard moves for any kingdom looking to expand

Forget press ganging, he basically CREATED his troops through torment and cruelty of captured prisoners. Imagine if East Elbonia, that dread despotic nation, kept kidnapping troops and civilians from everywhere they could, then brainwashing them, torturing them, enhancing them with drugs, breaking them into his personal army, then unleashing them on the world once a large enough force was formed. Ok sure in this case it was his boss who made the troops but the point stands. He didnt just go to the local village and recruit at sword point everyone who could see lightning and hear thunder, these people were twisted and mutated into monsters then unleashed upon their former countrymen.

And as for,

I guess my sticking point is that it sounds like all you are saying is "What if the people that are telling the truth (according to Tolkien) are lying, and the "liar" is telling the truth? Eru Iluvitar is the basis of the entire Legendarium after all.

And while that's a perspective to take, it's a skeptic one that sort of hits a wall of just refutation, as all evidence of other perspective are countered with "Well how do you KNOW that's true?"

(This isn't a political reference BTW. It's a huge philisophical issue of being able to objectively anchor your system of beliefs.)

Thats kinda the point though, how do we know its true? Because this book that is considered the complete history of middle earth says so? I could write a book about how the god of mango chutney formed this world for our saucy pleasure, that doesnt make it true. The elves are basically our only source to draw from for confirmation and they HATE sauron and his people. Now if you believe the books they have good reason, but there is no neutral source to confirm it. And this is all about head cannon anyways, if someone wants to believe the entire written history of middle earth is elvish propaganda designed to hide that they were just as much at fault for every evil that happened in the world, or even entirely responsible, thats their prerogative. There is absolutely no reason to decide "You cant think that way" and personally, I find the concept at least amusing enough to consider even though of course its not the actual case.

[The Jack]

Deep down inside almost every 16 year old boy there's a wanting to go out and prove yourself by beating others. More to the point if you win, you get to rave about it. If you lose, you're less likely to be coming back. And if you're a 16 year old boy, you lose, you come back, and your friends didn't make it home, you're kind of the best man in the village, and that might alleviate -all your friends are dead-

Bronn got knighted during the course of the books, and was a sellsword loyal to money beforehand.
I've stopped watching the show so I'd appreciate it if you didn't cite it, but I can't remember Bronn doing anything particularly bad. De-handing all the thieves wasn't particularly malicious.
Knights have good publicity.

[Sapphire Guard]

I've only watched season 1. I mainly mean that everyone always seems so surprised whenever Bronn does something 'unknightly', like killing someone's horse. It seems very strange that so many professional killers are completely shocked to see someone fighting pragmatically, as though it's something unusual. It is not.

Spoiler: TV Show: Late Seasons?

Show

I did see one clip where Bronn teaches Jaime, professional fighter since his teens, that people sometimes cheat during fights, which seemed completely silly to me (the one where he hits him with his gold hand).

[The Jack]

I think it's largely because Bronn's treating a duel like the battlefield. (also, quite frankly that duel in the Eyrie is one of the low points of the book, the low armour thing is silly and the Vale knights were right, but I suppose environmental hazards must be used)

Also, He's a sell-sword, everyone knows it. Even when he is a knight, they treat him like a sell-sword. I think, in general they look down on first generation knights (kinda like how old money looks down on new money) because they've been brought up with different value sets (and people who climb the ladder are a combination of risks and threats)

Honour is a pragmatic institution for westrosi knights. Having a good reputation, or at least a reliable reputation, is good for them. Bronn doesn't care.

Also by martin, A series on Sir Dunk the Lunk; A knight of the seven kingdoms. The guy who's actually super honorable (it's a character flaw) but gets lots of props for being such a top-bloke. Also explored; Westrosi Knights and how they view honour. It's a good read.

[Dienekes]

Look. Tolkien is great, but LOTR is extremely eurocentric by nature, and it depicts all nonwestern people as being barbarian, cruel invaders that would feel at home in KKK depiction of noneuropean people.

I am not saying Tolkien was deliberate. He made a really cool story, but he hinged his entire story on fighting an "other" so vile, evil and destructive that there is no potential redemption for any of them.

They are barbarians, monsters who will plunge the world in eternal darkness. There is no peace with them.

Depicting any people as an outright absolute evil is suspect in my mind. Especially if you consider that orcs are.. Old prisoner of wars. A slave race made of prisoner of wars, who have been turned into soulless being by the suffering they endured.

And that is why they deserve to be wiped out.

While you're not 100% wrong I do think you're oversimplifying a bit about, well, everything.

For instance, while the Easterlings are definitely on the side of Sauron, they're not actually depicted as barbarians. The most common description of them is just they're fierce. We also get this from Sam in the book (and Faramir in the movie).

He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.

Which does a deal toward humanizing the humans among Sauron's host. Sauron had deceived them, just as he had done to the elves and greatest of man. It's what he does.

In the Silmarillion there are several appearances of these Easterlings and while some turn to Morgoth and Sauron, others remain loyal to the free people and the elves.

Is the story still Eurocentric? Yes. But it was not as cut and dry as "everyone that isn't an Anglo-Saxon is bad" any more than they were good. There were some pieces of horse dung among the races of men and elves. Including the ones that were supposedly on the good side.

As to the depiction of orcs as being POWs who could no longer be redeemed, and how that's problematic. Yeah, Tolkien agrees with you. The problem with the orcs was something he grappled with himself, and changed repeatedly through his writing. The earliest version of the origin of orcs is actually that Morgoth created them through slime of the earth. But Tolkien also thought that only the true God of his setting, Eru, should be able to create life. It's pretty important to the story of Morgoth, the dwarves, and other bits. Other theories include that the orcs were animals that Morgoth corrupted and gave speech. Then of course is the corrupted men and elves lore, which was, for the record not the last version Tolkien wrote.

He didn't like the idea of Sauron being able to corrupt living noble souls of men and elves past the point of all redemption either, and was, supposedly, planning on rewriting the sections of the Silmarilion dealing with the origin of orcs before it was published. And there are hints of it in the Sil as is. With the statement that during the final fight with Morgoth all races on Middle-Earth were divided on which side to fight, except the elves. Which certainly implies that there were some Orcs were in on the alliance.

Only, he died. And when the Sil was published 4 years after his death, it's not like he could edit it.

[Keltest]

As far as it goes, it doesn't take a genius to look at Sauron's orc army and know its bad news. Its not out of the question that the "good" orcs just didn't want anything to do with it, and thus we don't see any. They stayed in their caves and forts and what not back home, without answering Sauron's call. And since the orcs still had food and such, its not like their entire population could have been uprooted, they still needed to have some logistics back home, farmers or hunters or fishermen or however the orcs survived in Mordor for generations.

[The Jack]

For instance, while the Easterlings are definitely on the side of Sauron, they're not actually depicted as barbarians. The most common description of them is just they're fierce. We also get this from Sam in the book (and Faramir in the movie).



Which does a deal toward humanizing the humans among Sauron's host. Sauron had deceived them, just as he had done to the elves and greatest of man. It's what he does.

Sam's musings aren't fact and law.
Maybe if the Easterling killed Sam, he'd be wondering 'what the small man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.

[Dienekes]

Sam's musings aren't fact and law.
Maybe if the Easterling killed Sam, he'd be wondering 'what the small man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.

True, they're not law or fact. But we're discussing the racism within the Lord of the Rings. And while there most certainly is a degree of anti-Eastern sentiment that can be read in the work, I do think it has a tendency to be overstated. Which, I suppose is better than being completely ignored. The sentiment of the character Tolkien has called his true hero of the series does not think of them in terms of being lesser or worse, but as noble as anyone he knows. Just on the wrong side.

He even makes a point to discuss their bravery after the death of Sauron. And when Aragorn visited their lands he found both the good and evil people as stated in the Appendices.

[No brains]

We also get this from Sam in the book

Sam's musings aren't fact and law.

Maybe I'm just tired, but this snippet really tickled me. I guess Sam's headcanon is getting called out as well.

[Eldan]

One important thing to note, I'd think, is that Tolkien does not present his writing as fact about the world. He presents it as legends and historical sources, with all that implies. The Lord of the Rings claims to be a translation of a book written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam. Of course it presents their viewpoint.

And the Silmarillion is the stories and legends of the elves. A people who have almost entirely moved on from this world. The last few remaining elves in Middle Earth today are strange incorporeal spirits that haunt remote woods.

It's entirely possible to speculate about what "really" happened.

[Bohandas]

One important thing to note, I'd think, is that Tolkien does not present his writing as fact about the world. He presents it as legends and historical sources, with all that implies. The Lord of the Rings claims to be a translation of a book written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam. Of course it presents their viewpoint.

And the Silmarillion is the stories and legends of the elves. A people who have almost entirely moved on from this world. The last few remaining elves in Middle Earth today are strange incorporeal spirits that haunt remote woods.

It's entirely possible to speculate about what "really" happened.

I was going to say something like this myself but I wasn't 100% sure I wasn't comfusing the Silmarillion with something else. Thank you for verifying this for me