I have always been especially intrigued by how Elvish seems intrinsically beautiful, while Orcish is ugly.Why is this so?

Having once pursued a minor in linguistics, I'm aware of the study of phonaesthetics that explores this phenomenon. Elvish uses lots of diphthongs and mid-vowels (e and o) whereas Orcish has no diphthongs and is confined to the primary vowels (a, i, u). Elvish also uses velar stops (k, g) infrequently and, as far as I recall, does not use any velar fricatives (kh, gh). Velar sounds prevail in Orcish. Orcish also allows abrupt consonantal clusters such as we hear in words like "nazg" and "Lugburz" whereas almost all consonant clusters in Elvish involve the so-called liquid consonants l and r.

You can hear how all this affects you phychologically just by comparing the Elvish "Ai laurië lantar lassi surinen" to Orcish "Ash nazg thrakatuluk." The Elvish sentence sounds like water flowing over stones, while the Orcish sentence sounds like you're trying to cough up phlegm.

Similar sorts of phonaesthetic "rules" explain why most humans find the Romance languages (French, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish) to be "prettier" than Teutonic languages like German, Dutch or English.

Philosophically, I feel that LOTR cannot be properly analyzed unless its story is placed in its proper context amidst the entire history of Middle Earth as documented in Tolkien's more comprehensive work, The Silmarillion. In such a full context, I would say the story of Middle Earth is all about the ramifications of what can be called the Fall from Grace. LOTR is then the final chapter of that bigger story and is specifically concerned (on a thematic level) with the possibility of renewal via sacrifice.

As much as I admire Peter Jackson's movies, I feel he seriously mishandled Tolkien's major themes of sorrow and loss embodied in the Elves and the possibility of renewal embodied in Elves' and mortals' choice to sacrifice everything that the Elves had made possible in favor of the Unknown. It is actually a very existential theme. Jackson gave these themes such short shrift that we are left with merely 3 magnificent films of grand adventure topped with the bittersweetness of departure. Tolkien deserved better.

The average movie-goer isn't interested in the themes, and overall intelect that went into the plot. They usually want a shallow, black and white, good and evil story with some twists and turns sprinkled here and there. Great quality, visually appealing, explosions, large fight scenes, ect.. That is Peter Jackson's telling of The Lord of the Rings in a nut shell, and yet I can't wait for the two Hobbit movies to come out.

I also eagerly await the Hobbit movies. I just also imagine what could have been. Jackson could have pulled it off too if he had just made one change: re-imagine the entire Lothlorien sequence in the first film to be more like the book instead of the seemingly menacing place it is in the movie. It is in Lothlorien that Tolkien makes clear to readers what is really at stake for the Elves and we get to see an image of the world that was. As it is, Lothlorien is the one area of LOTR that I feel Jackson really botched. And it didn't have to be so: audiences would have welcomed a timeless image of Elvendom that was, with no impact to their need for shallow gratification.

You're welcome, Belinda. And I agree 100% that the modern-day equivalent of the master ring is dogmatic certainty. As we see in our lifetimes the global state tentatively forming, driven by economics, we sense more and more how critical it will eventually be for political/ideological differences to be bridged. As global unrest grows, and the stakes of failure to achieve a global state increase, the pressure to neutralize the obstacles of dogma will grow, while those committed to fundamentalist beliefs will become even more entrenched and certain, driven by their own faith to resist. The choice to give up the ring must happen from within.

Regarding Rivendell, technically it cannot be an embattled place because it is one of the 3 Elvish realms protected by one of the 3 Elvish rings (Elrond bears Narya, while Galadriel bears Nenya which protects Lothlorien. The Grey Havens were historically protected by Cirdan The Shipwright's ring Vilya, but he gave that ring to Gandalf when Gandalf first arrived in Middle Earth from Valinor). Of course, if Sauron had retrieved the One Ring, none of the 3 rings could have withstood an assault from armies led by the Master ring. For my taste, Rivendell seems too confining, sealed in a mountain valley, while the Grey Havens sound gloomy. I'll take Lothlorien.

Personally, I take Bombadil as a lesson to everyone that the One Ring does not have mastery over everyone: those whose innate power matches it are immune to it in some manner and they do not disappear when they wear it. In the entire story there are only 2 such entities who wear it and don't disappear (or succumb to its power): Sauron and Bombadil.

Sauron actually is the Ring in some sense, having let his own will animate the device in the first place, so that makes sense. But Bombadil's immunity is of another kind. Bombadil is obviously what The Silmarillion describes as a "Maia" (no other creature could predate history such as he, and have such power as he does over his domain) so in terms of actual "species," Sauron and Bombadil are equals since Sauron is also a Maia according to the Silmarillion. From there I like to speculate that Bombadil's childlike sensibilities and utter lack of guile are the result of unparalleled wisdom from truly having "seen it all" across the ages. In effect, Bombadil is an unwitting Buddha.

Tolkien's ideas on Evil are very Christian-influenced, and perhaps the greatest insight of Christianity about Evil (even if it did steal it from Zoroastrianism) is that Evil is impotent as a purely external force: it must be invited from within one's own will to gain any foothold. Bombadil's utter lack of desire for domination--indeed his apparent inability to even understand domination despite his incredible power, allows no foothold for the Ring. Anyway, that's how I like to interpret it.

I agree Steve. Frodo succeeded but at irrecoverable cost to himself. Middle Earth was saved but at the cost of any chance for permanence and paradise ever again. With the ascendency of the Aftercomers (humans) and the departure of the immortal First-Born (elves), comes swift change and death.

I believe the maring of Arda was in fact a plan of Eru the supreme being, thus Melkor's role was to put his taint into it. I believe the unmarred parts were put into the land where the Valar resided with the elves. In the beginning there was music sung and Melkor always caused discord in the song as he did with the building up of the world.

I too have wondered whether Eru (God) intended for Melkor to fall. The parallel with Lucifer is obvious and demonstrates that in composing his own creation myth (Ainulindalë from The Silmarillion) Tolkien ran straight into the age-old "Problem of Evil" that plagues the Abrahamic traditions and Western philosophy.

Speaking of the Inklings, a fellow member and good friend to both C.S. Lewis and Tolkien was the philosopher Owen Barfield. Barfield's tome Saving The Appearances: A Study in Idolatry is highly regarded and offers a valuable examination of the evolution of consciousness from an historicist perspective. (I don't know if Barfield was an historicist or not, but that is my take on him. I found his book heavy going but worth the read.)

Has anyone else encountered Barfield?

I like your interpretation very much, Belinda. I was trying to imagine how LOTR might have been influenced by Barfield's views but couldn't quite see it. You've made it more obvious to me, so thanks!

Along the same lines, the gods of Middle-Earth (i.e., the Valar) are silent throughout LOTR (appearing only in Elvish songs), and although it is likely that the Elves still believe in them, it is pretty obvious that Men (except perhaps the Dunedain) consider them myth. But in the Elder Days, as The Silmarillion makes clear, Elves and Men interacted with the Valar directly, much like the ancient Greeks interacted with their pantheon. I begin to understand more clearly how the literal turns in time into the metaphorical.

Perhaps human understanding has to progress through the separation of mental and physical before spiralling into a new vision of wholeness.

thesis antithesis synthesis?

But, the overarching God, that Frodo could and did call on in necessity (compare to our OMG! Pathetic!), was there to make Frodo succeed while the evil beings carrying us to Hell have to count on us not calling on that God. The ring drew the black riders, but could not call them, without getting Frodo to put it on. But, Frodo could call on Elbereth.

No intention of nit-picking here but, since Tolkien was indeed Roman Catholic, it might be prudent to point out that Elbereth is more like the Virgin Mary than God. The mother of Jesus is especially revered in Catholicism, especially in Mediterranean and Latin American countries, and many Catholics direct their prayers to her rather than to God the Father. Similarly, Elbereth was not God; she was a Vala, which is sort of equivalent to an archangel. She was in fact the Queen of the Valar (as Mary is often called "Queen of the Angels") and the most beloved of all the Valar by the elves, and they called to her in their songs more than any other Vala. In Middle Earth, God (Eru, a.k.a. Illuvatar) was always more remote, was almost never addressed directly, and never appeared in any form visible to elves or humans.

Yes, it makes sense to me that Catholics should pray to Mary and also to "patron saints" since of all the heavenly panoply, she and the so-called community of saints are the only ones that started out as humans and might be predisposed to the human dilemma. Eliminating the community of saints is one example of where I think the Protestant Reformation "threw the baby out with the bathwater."

Until recently, the Catholic Church historically supported "Mary cults" wherever they cropped up around the world (Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, etc.), which surprises me given that traditional Judeo-Christianity has no regard for the ancient principle of the Sacred Feminine. I'm not clear on why the Vatican is so resistant to the newest cult that has erupted in the former Yugoslav Republic.

Yes, that's the one. I caught the tail-end of a TV show about them a few months ago. The children are now grown up and still having visions, and thousands of people are pilgrimaging (is that a word?) to the hillside each year.

I know that the RCC has dedicated investigators for debunking claims of miracles, so I suppose they have a duty here. It just seems so bass-ackwards that something as psychologically understandable as a cult of hope, around an established iconic spriritual figure, arising in a war-torn region, should be harrassed and discredited, while the previous Pope made a hobby of beatifying more people than any Pope in history, and he doesn't have to answer to anybody.

Belinda,

Do you think that popes are too inclined to support the institution's theology and not pragmatically support the people?

Most definitely. However, if the institution really understood Christianity then the support of the people would not be motivated by pragmatic principles, but by a holistic view of what a Christian community really is supposed to be, and would be part of its theological viewpoint!

Is this the same sort of error that caused the RCC paedophile priests whitewash?

Definitely. Essentially, I see an institution that is so 100% convinced that it holds the high-hand of morality and moral sanction, that it is incapable of questioning its own assumptions. The cover-up is then justified by the intended end result--a purely pragmatic approach. This is so ironic, given that pragmatism is such a secular mentality.

If so, I call the error 'idolatry' because ideas are being valued more than living people.

Agreed. I'm delighted how Barfield seems to resonate with you. Me too.

Kingkool,

Regarding orcs, I always loved the extended dialog between Shagrat and Gorbag that Sam Gamgee overhears at Cirith Ungol. From their conversation, it seems to me that they are the perfect example of "thralls:" they have freedom to direct their own immediate actions without oversight, but their will is ultimately bound to servitude of their master. On some level, both Shagrat and Gorbag are aware of this, I think, because their all-consuming cynicism and distrust of everything seems like a natural consequence of someone who has no reason to live but is compelled to live and serve anyway. For this reason, I think orcs are not innately evil, but they are beyond hope of redemption, at least in Tolkien's eyes.

Motivated by Kingkool's orc question, a thought occurs to me about orcs.

Tolkien makes clear that orcs originated from captured, mutilated elves, since Morgoth could not create life, only corrupt it. If they can avoid being slain, elves are immortal which implies that orcs are also immortal. Actual death--as humans understand it--is "the Gift of Illuvatar" and is reserved to humans (although Tolkien is very ambiguous about what happens to other sentient species such as Dwarves and Ents). The Valar cannot grant death, nor take it away, so logically orcs are tied to the fate of the Firstborn (elves) whose slain spirits reside in the Halls of Mandos until the end of the world. Somehow I cannot imagine Mandos, a Vala, managing the spirits of orcs side-by-side with elves.

Furthermore, one can imagine that the Valar would make no judgement against orcs, given that their corrupt nature is the doing of Morgoth and not innate to their original elven nature. The Valar would pity the orcs and grant them their birthright as Firstborn: to sing with the Children of Illuvatar at the end of the world.

Yet Tolkien treats orcs exactly like vermin, showing no remorse or even a second thought when they are slain and not one word concerning the possibility of reform or redemption. Very odd for a writer of such Christian sensibilities.