What are your thoughts on how Tolkien's military service affected what he wrote and the affect of PTSD on Frodo. I know Tolkien said the war wasn't a base for the trilogy but it Sure as hell coloured it. For example the end scene in the return of the king at the Green dragon with the four hobbits all siting at the table together and yet alone kinda kills me (In the movie I still need to read the last book.).

Thank you for posting I love your videos!

Do you plan to do a video on how to write war

That jump scare got me good.

for God's sake read Tolkien's Letters, written by his own hand. There is one, Letter 246, dedicated entirely to explaining Frodo's failure.

The best line from the hobbit

Oliver Schöneck yes I have that page permanently bookmarked.

Great line that!

If you exchange "Saruman" for Suleiman this excerpt sounds very close to what St. Francis of Assisi said to the Muslim leaders when in their courts!

Never forget that Tolkien was an anarchist.

Light weight

Additional reason for tears of joy: the leitmotif of Valinor (Into the West) swells in this moment, showing that the Valar are focused in like a laser on what's happening. The Gods have not abandoned the world after all!

I never understood this. Sam clearly has a resistance to the ring and if hobbits have a natural resistance anyway, why CAN'T Sam carry the ring for Frodo?

@@WobblesandBean Mostly because it would break Frodo, at that time, sure, Sam probably did have the will to resist it, although it is quite possible that he didn't, since the rings effects seem to grow stronger as it nears Mordor. But Frodo would never have given up the ring willingly, and Sam was never going to violently take it from him, which means that he could not carry the ring (for Frodo).

@@DutchDread I suppose not, but st the very start of their journey, I don't see why he couldn't have. Samwise really didn't get the recognition he deserved, he saved Middle Earth just as much as Frodo; arguably moreso. He should have been offered a place in Valinor, too.

Deep

Exactly my thoughts.

Nice catch.

He got it to sound like Gollum, but he was trying to sound like Gollum screaming.

Everyone can do gullum impression, its literally the easiest one

@@digitalnomad9985 he managed to sound like gollum screaming though, imo it was pretty good

Suspiciously good 🤔

Yeah man it's cool that he talks and looks like golem throughout the entire video

Ikr!!! :)

The quote in the book is somewhat different: "No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.’"

That line always makes me tear up

That's what you feel when you sin and sodomize, when you sale your soul.

@@hulking_presence No, you're thinking of acid.

I know this is 10 months later but here's the passage when that exact thing happens: And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung. From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain. At his summons, wheeling with a rending cry, in a last desperate race there flew, faster than the winds, the Nazgûl the Ringwraiths, and with a storm of wings they hurtled southwards to Mount Doom.

"Filled his shorts" has made my day. Also, thanks Hector, that is an awesome passage. Been too long since I read it.

We see this in the movie, too. Right when Frodo puts on the Ring in the Crack of Doom, the Eye of Sauron was originally focused on the battle at the Black Gates. Then the Eye widens in shock, and looks immediately to Sammath Naur, and the Ringwraiths immediately pulled from the battle and beelines for Mount Doom. Like Sauron realized "My Ring is THERE!"

@@masterofmythology He was like, "Oh SHIT."

I'd imagine the fact Gollum slipping being the killing blow and the last thing he sees didn't help either

I just never understood the way the movie glossed over when Gandalf spoke those words. I guess I was looking forward to it so much it disappointed me.

I think a lot of people need to spend more time pondering "Can you give it to them?" in this context.

Do not be so fast to deal out death and judgement.. for even the wisest cannot see all ends.

@@shutout951 a choice to let life flourish or not. at this case a human: will you let him/her live or end it?

Thank you ❤️

I mean, that is Tolkien's whole point about the struggle against reaching your absolute limitations. He believes that good men will always come forth to resist evil, but it is within ourselves to overcome our more selfish natures to help in that resistance. It is only through that resistance, no matter how long and hard it is, that evil will be overcome by it destroying itself.

never fails

Jeez... I wish he hadn't stuck that in. Not nice.

Yeah that didn't happen. Frodo just hallucinated it, due to the Ring-induced paranoia. Unfortunately movie-makers aren't always all that literate.

@@SovereignStatesman mmm yay, gatekeeping

He will certainly be missed. Of all days, I saw this on the day of his passing.

This is so fascinating to me haha thanks for the great comment.

@@calebcreates8555 Welcome

It's a very interesting contrast, because in Christianity there is an element of both, in that God is both a deeply personal being and also a hidden and unknowable force, to varying degrees.

I wonder if it has something to do with C.S. Lewis being a protestant and Tolkein being a Catholic... I believe historically Catholics held up the deep transcendence/unknowability/mysticism of God. I believe Protestants hold the idea of casual yet loving friendship with God as though God directly talks to us ("God told me to tell you..."). Not sure but maybe?

Tolkien was a devout Catholic, hence he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I don’t know how you could get a more personal notion about God than that! Unless it were if God entered into the world to experience it as one of us, and that was the God I think Lewis wrote about, the one (and the same) we are more able to relate to. But even there, the magnitude, majesty, etc., can only be hinted at, much like some of Tolkien’s characters do, too, though, especially in The Silmarillion, and even in the character of Illuvatar.

That's because he himself outright stated his religion did not have a part in his books, they were based more or less on Nordic and Germanic mythology, a lot of the things people attribute to Christianity like the idea of forgiveness being given and taken freely, for example, can be found in most religions.

@@hyperion3145 No, he said it was not Allegorical. That's not the same as saying the values and lessons aren't transferable, applicable, or any less relatable. The Murder of Deagol against Smeagol or the first kin slaying of Aqualonde isn't an allegory for Cain And Abel. However, the values and lessons to be taken away are most certainly Judeo/Christian. He wrote his values (which were Judeo/Christian) through stories that aren't side to side direct bible references. Tolkien understood that enlightenment is impossible without a Mythological background where narrative and history meet.

In his letters, tolkien said that LOTR was "a fundamentally catholic work."

@@hyperion3145 lmao, most religion you says? This show how little you know about history of the world.

@@hyperion3145 Tolkien himself said otherwise in one his letters... "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

too bad you didn't join the military

@@ffxiarcadius lmao you probably dont realize how pathetic that makes ya sound lol

@@ffxiarcadius ?

Right in the feels. Just imagine they died then. That would've been the cruelest ending in the history of fantasy

Iluvatar : thank god I created idiots

@@Hellothere-lk7xi Iluvatar thanking god... I'm sensing some narcissism here.

Illuvatar: oh, wait...

i mean, if you're god you're probably allowed to be a narcissist can hardly be accused of having a god complex

@@Hellothere-lk7xi ''can hardly be accused of having a god complex'' this

Pretty much my thought. As Galadrial told Frodo, "you've never tried" that is to say tried to weild the power in the ring (which includes great power over others, power to command, etc.) In the taming of Smeagol, Frodo had his greatest motivation/cause to apply the power of the ring - keeping Gollum from re-taking it, and it worked did it not? Gollum even held to it, although he thought he had a surefire loophole with Shelob. The failure of that plan and the realization (Sam deduced this himself earlier) that Frodo was going to destroy it brought out the Stinker, as Sam called him. The ring itself seemed caught in the dillemma itself at the end, on one hand (literally, ha ha) it was eager to dominate Frodo, but the power of Frodo's curse on Gollum still remained. And that curse took effect as soon as Gollum took the ring. If it was anyone else (except maybe Tom Bombadil), then the quest would have failed. idk why, but I just can't picture Bombadil riding an eagle. It's an earth thing or something.

He never, as Gollum himself would say. He never swore any oath, merely made a meaningless promise. It would be good for someone to subject this very strange scene to a detailed critique. Because it might appear that The Ring destroyed Itself to fulfill the oath that Gollum never actually swore.

@@alanpennie8013 If one can quibble that, then they can quibble anything. To a person who can be characterized as an oathkeeper, it is enough for that person to say "I will do this or that." To an oathbreaker, any and all words may be false, no matter how sincere or carefully worded they appear.

@@semperintrepidus16 It seems to me it's you who's quibbling. I don't understand this scene of Gollum not swearing an oath and I'd be interested in a detailed analysis by someone.

@@alanpennie8013 clarrification: I've used the word quibble in its traditional meaning. It refers to someone trying to evade a greater issue by use of minor irrelevancies. I think you took it as the dumbed down version which is more akin to squabbling. As for the ring and who wields it, we're all speculating here to some degree. The ring is full of malice. It has a will of its own, borne of that malice, but it's still an inanimate physical object. It's a tool, and the real power is how it is used and by whom. I don't think the ring could sense it's own destruction any more than it's maker could anticipate than anyone would seek that end. Who, but Isildur, ever came so close? and he failed. So maybe the real important questions are, who does the ring obey? Is such a thing on its own mightier than the he who bears it? I like to think that the Ring>Smeagol>Frodo interplay is a masterful case of good defeating an evil that seems invincible. Tolkien writes about other powers at work. Something at work in Frodo led to the curse he proclaimed while at the same time he demonstrated mercy. That curse was the ring's undoing, but Frodo's pity made it possible. Sam is the one who saw things clear enough all along. Thankfully, his loyalty to Frodo had no rival. That loyalty even proved stronger than the ring itself. Gollum was malicious indeed, but look how long he was tamed by Frodo. Who among the fellowship would have believed it? (maybe Legolas, idk) For all the ring knew, here were two recent bearers returning the precious to it's maker and rightful owner. But Frodo, more than any, was really most underestimated and maybe still is. He indeed struggled with the ring, but when he declared his curse, it was irrelevent whether Smeagol/Gollum agreed or not, promised or not except that for a time, Smeagol experienced a little taste of freedom from the ring.

The books are about blood and soil

The end of the story is extremely sad. I don't much like Frodo as a character but there's no doubt God (or rather the author) dealt unkindly with him.

Yes... LOTR doesn't really have that happyend that so many people think and say it has. First reading appeared to me as happyend, but with second I could feel the sadness... Tolkien is great also because he doesn't say "this is sad, you should feel like it", but you feel it in your heart (not only the ending, but also do many times in the middle of the story or in the begining)

WanderingRandomer Even after reading your comment, it still got me, I literally jumped.

When I'm working, I like to 'watch' videos on youtube like podcasts, just listening to them from an nonactive tab. That scared the shit of me. Not cool, dude! (like, really, don't do that)

I saw it coming. Basically the main scene I thought of when he was leading up to it.

Yeah I had to skip that one scene as well. :P It got me this time, because the video was playing on my second screen, and my attention was split between it and something else.

No

Agreed! Though that one was great too, this was more "complete"

I thought wisecrack had some insightful ideas, but I actually lol'd when they started dancing around the whole religion topic... Guys, we all know what you mean, it's okay to talk about it

Wisecrack is just a bunch of Jewish communists

@@wulfocrow5549so even if they were jewish or communist, that would invalidate them in what way?

It doesn't invalidate them, but it gives a reason for why they would want to downplay or ignore any Christian themes. If you weren't aware, both communists and jews hate Christianity with a serious passion.

I ain't christian, but you're probably goddamn right :D

If you are moved by that idea then accept the free gift through the gospel of Jesus Christ and consider yourself a Christian and former atheist.

@@Matthew-of9sp I'm moved by it because its profound, whether or not God is real.

@@Dirtgut How ironic that you are being told to accept Jesus again by a literal Bible verse

Eh. K.

@@Matthew-of9sp For your message to be understood, you need to speak the words the person you speak to can understand as you understand them. With love ❤️

A literal deus ex machina.

@@rikk319 Not exactly.

Which reminds me of the book of revelations where it says that Not even the most just could withstand evil - permit me to paraphrase - and would fall and fail - but that Jesus would wash away all sins in the end.

@@rikk319 More rather a Deum in igne (God in the fire) ;)

Joshua Scott: Tolkien doesn't say that. He says that Frodo couldn't destroy the Ring _in the state that he was in._ This was after Frodo used his last strength against Gollum, AND used the Ring's power against Gollum to command him cast into the fire. So Gollum's destruction was no accident "Disney Villain Death," but Tolkien simply didn't want an allegorical "Bridge of Death" scene.

You can not really explain it. It something that goes beyond everything else in entertainment history. Those three movies will always be my favourite ones. I can watch them countless times without ever getting bored.

@C Hmmm ... I like reading ...

The book is better ! I loved the books they had a lot of meaning for me . I was suffering through heroin addiction and the ring symbolized that horrible addiction. I felt like Frodo battling the powers of the ring to keep his soul was so much like my struggle . How heavy , dark and soul crushing it was . And the farther I carried it the heavier it got. It gave me hope that love could set me free as well . I wonder deeply if Tolkien ever witnessed opiate addiction in the war. It seems very similar to Frodo’s addiction to the ring. And how it slowly sucks away your soul and takes your will and ability to see the worlds beauty.

Yes, too bad the movie ruined it.

It’s good but Star Wars is better ;)

“The Road goes ever on and on / Down from the door where it began. / Now far ahead the Road has gone, / And I must follow, if I can.” - The Fellowship of the Ring. "if you can," and you physically could not, and that's ok cause the world will go on and other roads will disappear and a new road will appear. Hope this helps you heal.

Nah great fate defining battles were a thing before tolkien was writing, ask the norse about their religion or read The Worm Ouroboros both were among his inspirations I believe. He revolutionised genre and made it what it was to be for quite a while, but he did not literally create it.

Clashing of mighty armies and hero’s on the battlefield have been a thing since literature was a thing.

I would love to know more about this!

@@lexinoel7 it's quite a fascinating character study. I'm always amazed how little bio or analysis on Saruman there are on youtube

I agree! I was just discussing it with my sisters about it and we were wondering how and when exactly did he betray his office. I didn’t like the hobbit movies, but it was interesting to see how far back Saruman’s betrayal went if the movies were accurate in that regard. I didn’t know this before seeing the movie and I have not read every book either so it would be nice to know!

@@lexinoel7 Well in the books he did about a few decades before the Hobbit as since he landed he grew gradually more and more resentful and jealous of gandalf as upon landing at the Grey havens Cirdain the Shipwright(a high elf) gave Gandalf the ring of fire(one of the three elven rings) instead of Saruman, then Galadriel wanted Gandalf to be head of the Council instead of Saruman. He also began wanting the ring for himself to overthrow and replace Sauron himself. In the films they changed this to him turning after the Hobbit which i was actually happy about because Sir Christopher Lee(the actor who played Saruman) wanted to play gandalf and was very tired of always playing villains so one of his last roles he got to play Saruman when he was still a good guy and it made Lee exceedingly happy.

@@grandadmiralzaarin4962 It's been a while since I read those books but I seem to remember the deal was that Saruman was not called The White for nothing, he was exceedingly virtuous which makes his fall all the more tragic, especially since it was only an error of judgment that caused him to fall (he thought he could resist the influence of Sauron's evil texts and learn something from them that could defeat Sauron, and probably had much more resistance than Gandalf but still not enough).

His primary beef with allegory was that "experts," would pull out the metaphor, say "this is what the story is about," and then presume the literal meanings of the words on the page to be meaningless. Treating the story itself as a mere wrapper to be discarded once it has been opened up to reveal the true meaning... Tolkien rightly hated that school of analysis and thus avoided allegory as much as possible.

I enjoy3d your analysis Luke Skywalker. J R R Tolkien was a Christian esotericist.

When I first read LOTR as a kid, I think one of the things that I really enjoyed about it were the subtleties. Tolkien was great at hinting at things, but leaving the rest for you to guess at or interpret for yourself.

@@agentm83 I couldn't agree more! :)

@@lukeskywalkerthe2nd773 An example of that is the distrust and outright discrimination between the Elves and the Dwarves. Tolkien makes it clear that they dislike each other (even though they were willing to work together), but in LOTR itself he doesn't get into why.

Another interesting perspective was Gollum's promise to Frodo at the very beginning. Gollum swears to serve Frodo "on the precious", despite Frodo's warning that it is treacherous and will hold him to his word, tying into the theme of good and evil. Gollum performs a moral act (assisting Frodo) at a point where he seems to act genuinely on behalf of his good nature. Eventually, his harsh experience at Ithilien tips him over to evil and brings him to betray Frodo. That moral failure of Gollum is very parallel to Frodo's and they both end up "failing" *together*. At the end, it can be seen as though the ring indeed holds him to his word and betrays Gollum to both their ends. And so it is, that it's not only in his guiding the hobbits, but also in his word of good faith that Gollum ultimately brings to the end of the ring.

I know, so few commentators do these days.

Compared to Wisecrack's analysis, it does more openly portray his faith.

I was thinking about that when I was watching this video. I can't blame WiseCrack, to read those paragraphs that are core to an institution that with the power it gathered through the ages to evil and sin (hate, lust, greed, to name a few) made myself have unsavory memories of my rising. That said, I still call myself a catholic and I don't blame the religion nor Tolkien for the wrongdoings of the institution. (It's funny just what I wrote has reference to what happened to the bearers of the Ring)

RCs do love to push it. What is noticeable in Tolkien’s work is the almost complete lack of organised religion and how Illuvatar does not require worship.

@@SvenTviking I understand your confusion, but Catholics do not believe that God requires worship. Rather, worship is something we do for ourselves, not because God needs our thanks, but because after all he has done for us it would be wrong not to thank him. He doesn't care that we thank him, nor punish us if we don't, but to lead a life so filled with pride and lacking in charity as to begrudge your creator of taking the time to thank him is a sign of deeper problems in the soul, which may well be the cause of our damnation.

Poor Smeagol . . . can you imagine how long he spent alone in the dark?

"All the ‘great secrets’ under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night" I think this line, given when it was said, directly foreshadows the Mines of Moria, that the dwarves were so blinded by the pursuit of riches, that they convinced themselves that they hadn't already found the best, and only digging deeper into darkness can bring MORE. They became addicted to loot crates, until they stared so long into the darkness that it stared back, and they found the hiding place of Evil's servant. I wonder, too, if this is a metaphor for humanity's futile efforts to explore deep space. That Tolkien was trying to say we should be happy for what we already have and take care of it, lest we lose ourselves to the vast empty dark, where either we find nothing, or just confirm what we already know and gain no new knowledge, OR 'best' case scenario we discover something we couldn't have predicted, and it destroys us. I'm a believer in the consciousness of the infinite, that given a long enough time, life is inevitable, and will eventually evolve into the universe discovering itself, learning about what makes it up, and that human imagination, our dreams and ambitions and desire to learn and grow and explore, is our 5th dimensional need to reveal new truths to ourselves, so that the infinite may itself be conscious, and we become one with God (or whatever we call it). If that's the case, then all the best stories are our guide to bring us closer to the infinite, and its through Tolkien we have taught ourselves of the nature of good and evil, of monsters and men, and a foundation of fantasy to explore new stories, to seek out new life, and new ways of communication, to boldly go deeper into ourselves.

Agree but as a Christian I feel it’s a better analogy for addiction not sin. The implications are different too because addiction has more to do with weakness than making evil choices

Hatred , is when there is no good thing left in you , . Socialism reduced to hatred, is mankind over the brink , and all is lost , ring ,faith , mercy , ,all swept away by fire , .

Chow Yee Lee I was actually going to comment something very similar to what you have just said thank you for saying what needed to be said! I agree completely! Since Tolkien was a Christian his worldview influenced his work.

I don't think the two views are separate - you are totally right that he saw Eru's plan as final, but within the scene, the nature of evil is self destructive. ~ Tim

@@HelloFutureMe Agreed. I guess to push the matter further would be to confront the very nature of omniscience and omnipotence, probably the heaviest of all theological subjects.

​@@HelloFutureMe Perhaps self-limiting would be a better way of putting it. To combine the two views you might say that attempts to defy Eru's/ God's will originate from a will to destroy that inevitably consumes itself before that evil intent can do any more than serve the divine plan it sought to disrupt. It's an interesting take on the problem of evil that is in dramatic tension with story the audience sees, are we meant to take the sacrifices of the heroes and the costs inflicted upon them and the many innocents they fail to protect while evil burns itself out as the "devising of things more wonderful"? Perhaps from Eru's perspective but only if he cares less for the characters in drama unfolding than we, the readers, do. Edit: I just remembered what this reminds me of, brewing beer! The yeast that creates the alcohol is self-limiting in a similar way to that described above. The more the yeast uses sugar to grow and spread the more alcoholic the beer gets until the alcohol content becomes too high for the yeast to survive, stopping the process. I wonder if Tolken had any interest in brewing because the parallel is quite nice, even resulting in the creation of "things more wonderful" if you are a fan of beer.

@@dcnockels notably the greatest failiures come when men and elves seek to go against the will of Illuvatar. The Rings of power for example were created so the elves could go against the nature of middle earth by not fading and look what happened then... but it also resulted in beautiful holy things like Lorien. Or when Ar Pharazon rejected the Gift of Men and tried to seize Valinor to be immortal but the survivors did tremendously heroic deeds and defeated Sauron. Why did Eru allow Melkor to poison Arda itself? Maybe because that struggle matured the Children of Illuvatar in a way they could never have gained otherwise (third theme). And yes, on an individual level it brought suffering but after death the children were hallowed either in body (elves) or soul (men) for eternity.

Having read four of Martin's books I would have to question if moral greyness is somehow more complex than saying that some people are better than others. It seems like such a childish view, that if something is bad or uncomfortable it must be more mature. Thing is, you don't often see people embracing this philosophy, trying to always discomfort themselves to be more "adult". No, instead they act like everyone else, trying to maximize comfort and saying that their views are right. Tolkien at least wants us to struggle to be good, whereas Martin seems to be of the opinion that we might as well turn into a pedophile pimp it all doesn't matter in the end.

@@mattmorehouse9685 Are you sure you read them? The characters are constantly questionning themselves if they should do what they are doing. Even Cersei, arguably the most evil pov in the serie, gets inconfortable when torturing/seeing someone tortured. Characters like Theon or Jaime experience regret for things they have done in the past, characters like Tyrion do what they consider the good decision even if it opposes the wish of their family, Daenerys realizes she might have done more wrong than good by freeying all slaves and close combat arena, because now she has to do with a economical crisis, which leads to wars and murder by the Son of the Harper. She now understand that she has to make compromise to eventually reach these goals. All that to say that I don't understand how it encourage to be pedophile...

It's complex, but still black and white. Frodo is white, he WANTS to do good, and does, until at the end he fails. Martin's characters, on the other hand, are much more like real life. There are some who are almost white or black, but most are gray.

@@edgepixel8467 Personally I love both Lord of the Rings and... well, I'm not sure I *love* Game of Thrones, but I do enjoy it quite a bit. I'll certainly agree that Tolkien's characters do tend to lean more clearly to either the black or white side of the moral spectrum (with some exceptions like Gollum, or Feanor in the Silmarillion), while Martin's characters generally tend to fall somewhere in the middle (with exceptions like Brienne on the pure side, and Joffrey & Ramsay on the monstrous side). I only take issue with the implication that, because Tolkien has fewer truly gray characters, that therefore makes Tolkien's stories "less complex" or "less mature." To me, that's a very simple-minded and frankly kind of childish argument (and usually made by people who like to think of themselves as very un-childish). The stories are just two different treatments of morality and humanity, that's all. You could say it's like abstraction vs. realism in art. Tolkien is looking at morality through a somewhat more abstracted lens, while Martin is attempting to depict his world more through a lens of stark realism. Neither approach is objectively more or less valuable than the other (regardless of what you personally might find more enjoyable). Both can be equally challenging and complex, and both have the ability to reveal truths about ourselves and the world: Tolkien's approach can reveal & explore things in ways that Martin's approach can't, and vice versa.

Sauron was a charming bastard that convinced Numenor to wage war on the gods, and Numenor were the descendants of men that got rewarded for standing against evil. Also, one of the reasons Sauron gets so much men to follow him is that Numenoreans were notable assholes to what they considered lesser men. Also, Sauron plays on the elves' fear of change to make the rings. It's pretty morally grey. The problem is, by the point Lotr starts, Sauron has done so much evil that he can't fool anyone into thinking he's good (and he still makes Saruman fall by playing to his pride). Song of Ice and Fire has the White Walkers who are pure evil (or at least strictly antilife), but the story starts a while before they become the main threat. The only thing I wish Tolkien had addressed was Orcs being all evil, but it was even mentioned that some of the smallest orcs were slaves ruled by fear.

7 months later but.. You got this!

I'm not sure how but good on you!

Hope you are still carrying on :) best wishes

Hope you are still carrying on :) best wishes

Update: I am doing a lot better mentally. Thank you guys for your support.

Diego Mercier Mysterious connection? You mean impossibility.

@@edgepixel8467 No, I don't mean impossibility. If you think it is impossible, then you have to deny one of the two: either the freedom of people or the almighty powers if God. No serious theologian denies either one of them.

Diego Mercier This is why I don't agree with theologians. The two can't be made compatible, not in a comprehensible, logical manner. Saying "God can do it, because He's so special, we just can't understand how" isn't solving the paradox. Hence I call it impossible. Frankly, I don't believe in the objective existence of either, but I admit that belief in both can make living easier :)

@@edgepixel8467 I see what you mean. The explanation lies on the fact that God's existence lies outside (and it is not affected by) time. Only matter is affected by time. So, if God lives outside time, everything is 'present' for him, and so he can have control over everything without forcing his will on us. It make sense to me, to a great extent, but it still is kind of a mystery, obviously.

It's not just a Catholic concept, it is a concept held in all areas of Christian theology

Unless you’re Sam or Tom Bombadil.

@@Freshwater121 one was extremely temporary and Tom bomadil litterly does not care about anything other then going for walks and tending to trees. He has nothing remotely human about him in that sense.

@@irontemplar6222 So the solution to not letting evil corrupt you is to just not give a fuck? Maybe the Jedi are onto something with their whole "there is no emotion there is peace" and dismissal of all attachments. I guess the argument here is that when you care, you may wish to use evil but since using evil is basically impossible you are just giving it a chance to corrupt you.

Some say the One Ring is a symbol for power, in a sense that when you seek power and try to take it for yourself it will ultimately corrupt you.

@@beskamir5977 no it's more he was so powerful and his mindset was so alien the ring couldnt work.

Geoff Britton I would disagree. Good does not depend on evil in fact it’s the other way around. Evil depends on good. Power, strength, intelligence, beauty, and existence itself are good things but can be used for the wrong purposes. Evil itself is spoiled goodness that is good things used in the wrong way

@@shawnboahene5231 I'm talking about the quote only in the context of this video and in Lord of the Rings. Of course it isn't applicable to most situations; but in the narrative structure of Lord of the Rings, it applies brilliantly and with a lot of gravity, and it was that to which I was responding. I apologize that I wasn't at all clear on that in my comment.

Geoff Britton it’s ok I misunderstood you as well. Please forgive me. However it just seems so pessimistic to me

Hope you’re doing better

The key to Tolkien’s writing is Catholicism

Hope your doing well 🙏

@@Prometheus7272 no it isnt

BE MERCIFUL to YOUR SELF,

To add on to this it's the author forcing their ideas AT THE EXPENSE of the story. I think that's the main point of contention.

Tolkien employed allegory while deriding it. He was The Hobbit.

@@duderama6750 well you said it on the internet so it must be true.

@@duderama6750 what you meantion is not alagory anyway. A self insert is just a self insert. Alagory is a wholly different concept

He also didn't want people looking at his work and saying things like "The Ring = Nuclear Bombs" or "Mordor = Nazi Slave Camps" or what-have-you. There are no simple 1:1 things where "X = Y" in a literal sense, where everything is a stand-in for a real-life counterpart.

A lot of people say this but it isn't true. Gollum never swore any oath. You should reread the chapter.

Basically, he supported death of the author *cough* Rowling *cough*. Sorry, don't know what that last bit was about

Pluveus I don't think even Sam could have destroyed the ring or anyone else. The best people could do was let it go, it is literally impossible to destroy it willingly.

In the book Faramir is also a paragon character, and to be honest he is too perfect for me to like in the books.

Sam wouldn't have been able to destroy the ring either, I believe. He's wasn't as tempted as Galadriel or Aragorn because he was less powerful, and he didn't fall under the ring's power like Frodo did because he wasn't its owner and bearer for 17 years. In one of his letters Tolkien suggests that probably noone else would have gotten as far as Frodo. And love, humility and mercy are certainly traits to be found in Frodo as well. Given the ring's power the quest could only be achieved by Frodo basically giving himself up, his sanity, his peace of mind, and he did that. Sam wasn't tested in the same way.

@@sarasamaletdin4574 He never felt 'real' like most of the characters did, at least at some point.

@@Lothiril This is authorial commentary and doesn't have much weight. I think a good many readers have felt that Sam's love of Frodo (touching though it is) finally hindered the quest. It would have been a lot easier to carry only The Ring up rather than taking Frodo as well.

Yes, I'm watching this late at night and I'm still trying to slow my heart rate down!

Catholicism in the modern day is humble Christianity and fierce theology has no place in it. I love it for that. In my experience as a cradle Catholic, most practicing Catholics are humble and have a lot of patience.

@@tempstep4058 Interesting... what do you consider "fierce theology", because that phrase doesn't sound like a bad thing?

@@davidrojas6457 Fierce is not a good thing. St. Paul wrote in the later days men will become... he listed many bad things. Fierce was among them. Modern churchs speak with a loud fierce attitude so sure of themselves. Some won't even back down from calling others not in their group not saved; not Christians. That is having fierce theologies. Practicing Catholics don't do that. They trust Christ, they place their hope in Him and they wait. That's it.

@@tempstep4058 I have to say, what an interesting "arc" religions go through. Let's use the Catholic faith as an example (but we could use Islam, Judaism, or any other ancient religion as well): First religions start as organized beliefs, spread slowly from person to person. Often times, said religion encounters fierce opposition, from larger more established religions or governments and institutions. Ultimately, though, the religion spreads and becomes popular because, largely, it is representative and illustrative of the core beliefs and values this religion's followers adhere to. But notice, after quite some time, the organized religion becomes quite commonplace, and the original teachings and beliefs are changed with time and interpreted by different people. Due to the dominant nature, the religion now becomes THE institution of power. It's at this point that we see division of beliefs (see the Great Schism, or the different branches of Islam). However the power of the institute remains powerful, and unfortunately many people will use it to justify crusades, genocides, inquisitions, persecution, and terror. This ultimately will disillusion many followers, and it is then that reforms and changes come, as people attempt to change or adapt the faith to represent the present values of the people in their modern times. Often times, however, this must result in catastrophic changes (the Protestant Reformation). And so, after losing power and influence, it is in this new found humility that the religion may continue to serve the generations of people in the new age, or risk becoming legend and lost to the sands of time, as many ancient religions have in Greece or Egypt. I know this is just my own personal opinion, but I would think others may agree. We could argue that Catholicism has gone through it's ugly stages, and now has better place in our lives than it did in the Medieval age. I suppose we could say Islam is struggling to get out of it's turbulent stage, and many in the West often criticize or ridicule those of Protestant or non-Catholic beliefs. The only modern Western religion i can think that hasn't gone through that, perhaps, is Judaism.

Amazing! Feels like I'm really taking making strides in this job I love. ~ Tim

@@HelloFutureMe You definitely earned it. Good work and keep it up!

@@HelloFutureMe I hope you know how proud we all are of you

@@HelloFutureMe... the word you are looking for is Esotericist. J R R R Tolkien knew all the Christic esotericist myths and lore. Words and places like Aragon, Minas Morgul Galadriel etc

I was always touched when Sam offered to cook Gollum fish and chips if they all managed to survive the quest. It was a real offer of friendship which Gollum was too imperceptive to appreciate.

@@alanpennie8013 I'd say that Sam didn't understand how broken Smeagol was.

@@MySerpentine Sam hadn't worn The Ring at that point.

Underrated comment 😂

Wow how have you slacked off that long lol. Atleast you got to it finally!

Now read the books.

Lexort 420 i mean i remember trying to watch the first one when i was like 8/9 because my older brother was really into them but i just found it boring and didn’t bother until now when a friend suggested watching it

@@FreakigesSternchen Alright fair enough, you better thank that friend though lol. Now you gotta read the books, they are so good and they have more content then the movies did. Glad you gave the movies another go!

Lexort 420 once i’m not dying under the workload of finals, maybe haha

As a Catholic, LOTR is amazing for explaining some of these themes to people when they have questions about the faith. I can point them to a 'secular' book, and it has great examples right there.

Aragorn is very kind! :)

@@atk05003 haha thanks. I fixed the typo. :P

I can't see how Frodo is a priest. The chief role of a priest in a religion that has priests is to carry out a cycle of sacramental acts. Killing calves on the altar, turning water into wine, whatever. Frodo does not fill that role.

@@sourisvoleur4854 His role is to carry and destroy the ring. It is very sacramental and symbolically in line with the role of a priest in Catholicism. Of course you are correct it is not perfectly one to one. Frodo is not a priest. However, that is because Tolkien did not do allegories. The characters do not usually literally embod their roles when using the priest, prophet, king literary analysis. (Though in this case Aragorn does.) You can apply this analysis to many stories like you can apply the hero's journey. It is not meant to be a perfect fit, but help uncover underlying structures of character or story. The general overview is; priest - grounded and focused on immediate tasks, prophet - high level thinker with a broad view, king - leader and mediator.

There are a few parts of Silmarillion that absolutely shake me down to my socks, and this is one of them. Thanks for sticking that in here. T-dog wounds my heart with sweet words. Another great one is when Eonwe, herald of Manwe, brings a message to the Men of Numenor, but I can't for the life of me find it on the Web.

Is this an allegory for God or not? I wonder how Tolkien would explain this.

@@tempstep4058 Good question. The God allegory isn't Tolkien's point here. In this quote, he is basically having Illuvatar explain and address the Problem of Pain, and he does it in astonishingly few words. That Problem of Pain is one of a handful of really compelling arguements against the existence of God - if there is an all knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, why is he hanging out ouside of time and space and letting evil happen to good people? Well, I-dog here, big Eru, lays it out: he has allowed evil to exist because greater good will come from it. What is the point of virtue if it's easier than vice? How can you be courageous without danger, or charitable without want? Solution: "I hereby set y'all created things (Ainur and Children) so completely free that you can even disobey me, your Maker." All manner of bad things ensue, but much greater is the good because it is tested by evil. I love this passage a lot.

@@oogalook The first time I read The Silmarillion, that question hit my head. I concluded, despite the fact that Tolkien disliked allegory, he does realize that it is one form of literature or the creation thereof. And if he has to use it, then in bringing God into his world like he did, he can get away with it without explaining or describing God or Ilúvatar. God is there, He created the Valar and everything else ensues and Ilúvatar is in the background instead of the forefront of the stories, so no need to fall into the blasphemy of explaining and describing God as if I know Him with my mortal mind. Either way, if Tolkien's answer is what you said or what I just stated, it is an absolutely genius way of having God in your story without having to describe the unknowable thereby committing blasphemy.

@Karl Quetzacoatl Hrm, good comment. You put that in a difficult way, but I agree, I think. The term "dangerous" you use is important here - a truth can be misconstrued and used to rationalize evil. Any truth can be distorted so. Lol, let me add another wall of text to this monolithic string. I want to further distinguish the idea of "suffering as a good" from the idea of "the ends justify the means" (Nazi garbage, also repeated by anybody trying to hide from morality). Vital to this particular case - the case of Tolkien's (and Christianity's) understanding of hardship as a positive good permitted by God - strife is not evil in and of itself. A hurricane isn't evil, nor a house fire, nor a flood. They are just accidents that happen, and they can hurt or kill you. But strife pushes people to the limit, and only at one's limit does one reveal and play out one's true inclinations. That's why you only get heroes (and looters) during great upheaval. Life's challenges constantly teach you and constantly test you, you know what I mean? Big challenges do it more, faster. What _would_ be evil would be to _cause_ strife for the stupid reason that you want to mess with people or shake them up. If you can _cause_ a hurricane or a house fire or a war, the excuse of "teaching and testing" people can't outweigh the fact that you're knowingly killing people and destroying their stuff. I don't think you meant to say that Tolkien was wrong, but I want to put down a point here which I think gets lost in the Internet shouting matches: Who says something doesn't affect its objective veracity. That's called the Genetic Fallacy, and it's a sucky thing that politicians and polemics have gotten us used to. One can't say the idea - hardship as a good to the world - is false because Nazis said it. The Nazis also held that science was important and medicine was good for you. The idea Tolkien presents in the passage waaaay up there, that idea has pretty obvious truth to it. Tolkien used the concept in a good way. God is the only one to know whether the good of a disaster will outweigh the harm. The Nazis tried to use it in a bad way. Thankfully they got theirs. Cheers!

I looked through his backlog of videos, loaded the last 2-3 years of videos, and did a crtl+f search for 'culture', which turned up nothing. If anyone knows what its alternate name is, could you point me towards it? Thanks!

Sauron is not at all one dimensional. The only thing we the reader lack with respect to Sauron is his own explanation of his actions and vision of the future of middle earth, and the million dollar question we would also ask Satan - do you really think you can win? What was the point? But we are told in no uncertain terms that Sauron thinks he's the Prometheus of middle earth with the only way to its progress, freedom, and growth, if it will just give in to him, and he thinks, not without good reason, that the higher powers have all but abandoned it to him. And we are also told that if someone like Gandalf took the ring, they would quickly become the new Sauron with the same ideas - impose their will on the world in pursuit of their idea of good. Tolkien leaves something to be desired, though. His world is divided between black and white good and evil, no matter how he may half-heartedly subvert that in specific ways in the main story. I think something was lost when Sauron's servants were made orcs and not men serving Sauron and fighting for their own conception of the good and right. Tolkien is unconsciously motivated by his English background and its fear of vicious foreigners threatening it for no discernible reason than evil. The Shire couldn't make that more obvious.

Beowulf was a poem Tolkien studied obsessively.