In Olmer's Honor: Take Tolkien at Face Value - or is there 'Something Else'

[hectorberlioz]

Olmer, that is one of the most incredible reads I've had in while

[Olmer]

azalea...it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged,

And this is the main reason of all their troubles - they WANTED to have things unchanged, this is why they were leaving for Valinor and this was a major function of the rings - preservance.
.

azalea...plan A assumes that the elves knew where the Ring was -- and they didn't until Gandalf figured it out.

They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.

AnglorfinIt is a great irony that the only thing preserving their last remaining strongholds in Middle Earth is the one thing linked to the greatest evil of that time.

Glad that your analytical mind can see the broader picture of the history of Elves and Men. But I don't agree on the greatest evil . Sauron was depicted as evil figure, all right. But he was allowed by Eru to be as a stopover on the Elves ideas to change, or better to unchange the World. Andthey, by doing this, budged into the area which is strictly God's Department.

AnglorfinThe only discrepancy here would be the fact that Cirdan and Elrond had urged Isildur to destroy it years earlier after the Last Alliance.

It is a LOT of discrepancy in the whole story of Isildur owning the Ring and his death. But this is Elrond's heresay, because no other witnesses could come forward.

GrayMouserIt's similar to what Ursula K. LeGuin did in going back to Earthsea in her later books and taking another look at it from a much darker point of view.

That is the point!
Nothing in the world is as White and Black. Much of the matters located in the Gray area, where the same facts can be interpreted in another way. It is always an another side of the coin.

Bombadillo..if he thought of someone (Gandalf & the Elves) as noble, he'd dwell on that nobility with a certain admiration of his own that is consequently shared with his readers.

Yes he admired the Elves , as noble and great, as they were, they had the same as men shortcomings: such as pride and boldness, absence of compassion even to their own kind and also is being headstrong and self-conceited . Look into "The Sill".

Bombadillo Are you implying that Gandalf was seeking glory?

I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.

Count Comfect...Denethor, who shows other madnesses, nor Sauron seems to me quite a reliable source.
.

Denethor was very smart, powerful and VERY respected man even in his late madness, not a marasmatic of PJ invention.
Sauron as a maker of the Ring is more than reliable source.

Count ComfectClearly, the peace isn't lasting anyway.

I was never saying that it will be lasting peace. This is the reason why Elves were fleeing from ME.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Olmer


They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.

That's okay, we're not in the confines of chapters in this thread, which is outside of the project. Go ahead and back yourself up on this (when you have time, of course).

I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.

But blunders don't equal deception, underhandedness, or acting out of greed/self-interest. Honest mistakes are different than intentionally "using" someone. What other priorities does Gandalf have, in your opinion?

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
Seems to me that in all replies I see one major point: is it possible that Tolkien, as genius as he was , could write the book with deeper, inner meaning with " huge 'behind it all' meaning" ?
I would say, why not?

Heya Olmer,

Thanks for taking the time for these 3 responses and opening this up for discussion. Nice job.

Here's the first place I would disagree with you. I don't think anyone here would say that TOlkien's work does not have a "deeper, inner meaning", certainly not those you are citing. The question is whether the "deeper, inner meaning" you are presenting can be supported by a reading of the texts. We must also answer the question of what authority if any to place on the author's own interpretations and understanding of his work. Most of us here would probably put a great deal of store by what Tolkien says, and it is apparent that you have a different take on that. So the real question is not whether there is more meaning than the plot, but what that meaning is.

But could we with absolute certainty say that this is the history , which Tolkien acquired in unexplained way?
No. But also we can?t say with absolute certainty that the book is not based on historical facts derived from old manuscripts and ancient myths.

But we can, at least with as absolute a certainty as we can say that say Margaret Atwoods _A Handmaid's Tale_ is not history. How? We can reconstruct the entire growth of the story in Tolkien's own hand writing. We have his papers and his drawings. and can go to the Bodleian or to Marquette or Wheaton and see them. It is unlikely that Tolkien discovered an otherwise unknown manuscript that no one else had catalogued before and that between Tolkien's death and the opening of his will this manuscript, which outside of the LoTR Tokien never spoke of, should utter;u dosa[[ear without a trace, without anyone else having seen it, without its translator, a philologist extraordinaire, having brought attention to the artefact and its linguistic features. We also know that various parts of the story as Tolkien composed it were read to the Inklings and the C. S. Lewis saw other bits, as had C. Tolkien. And both mention at vraious points that suggestions were made in the story details (hardly to be given the time of day if this is a translation of a mss) and that such a point was as far as Tolkien had written. Finally we have no evidence that LoTR is based on a specific history or specific document outside of Tolkien's imagination. Thus, we can say with all but absolute certainty that it is not based on old manuscripts and ancient myths, at least in the way I think you mean it.

This isn't to say that ancient myths and manuscripts didn't influence Tolkien--not at all, and quite the contrary. But there is no reason to suppose that it is a direct and singular influence.

So, why everybody rushing forward to say that the book does not have a historical basis, repeating one after another with solid assurance: He did not mean THAT!
Why ?

Lack of Evidence, simple as that, and silence from the author.

Where such assurance came from?
It came from the surface impression of his work and the reason that Tolkien didn't broadcast it publicly.
But who would take him seriously after such announcement, "as educated as he was " he knew that it spells "death" of his impeccable reputation and respectable professorship?

What in particular would spell death? If he had a manuscript or manuscripts of the Red Book for instance, all he has to do is produce the manuscript, create a facsimile of it, make an edition, and then call his work an adaptation. Ta Da. No academic, career ending moments. As a scholar who worked on manuscripts and with manucripts daily, I suggest that if there were manuscripts behind LoTR that this is the first thing that would have occurred to Tolkien, followed by a grammar of Elvish and Westron and efforts made to tie them into the ancestors of our present languages.

He had a hard time from the publisher on acceptance of his books, who refused even to endorse the author

Huh? The Hobbit was enthusiastically received, and the LoTR was requested before it was written (more on Hobbits). They rejected the Simarillian, true, but let's face it, that isn't nearly as interesting. Most of us wouldn't have read it without LoTR, I can't think of anyone who would read the tales of the Sim and then move into the Hobbit and LoTR, if they even finished the Sim. But I don't think this claim holds water.

I have some problem with the quotes below. The first one you say is on the cover of the Hobbit? Which edition? And why would a publisher in the business of selling books put a disclaimer that they had no idea who would read the Hobbit, the book they're trying to sell? I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin...I can't find it right now but I thought his statement in this regard was in reference to the Sim, not to LoTR. Can anyone confirm these quotes and their context?

Who would want to be ostracized even more?

Huh? How can you claim that the publishers ostracized Tolkien? They published the Hobbit, requested him to write more about hobbits and published LoTR when Tolkien finally finished it. I think that rejecting the Sim hardly constitutes "ostracization".

other tidbits scattered through all professor's writing, is unpersuasively giving an implication that behind the whole story is something bigger than just an author's fantasy.

Of course there is, LANGUAGE. And why would you assume that history is unpopular? From what I see, history is alive and well--whether we look at movies, at books, at television channels devoted to history...its alive and very well. Tolkien professionally also avoided the allegorical texts in his field and went for the more historical texts, although as he wrote to CT, who had read a paper on an historical subject, the thing that thrilled him in the paper was the comments on the roots of attilla, little father.

The story you relate would make great fan fiction, but how is ol' Tolkien going to keep all this secret from his family? Wouldn't they have noted a strange elf or two? And the Bodleian is well catalogued, find the manuscript.

Forkbeard[

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
But Talkien himself has another version of the source of acquired information, of which he could tell only to very close people.
In his letters to his son he tells that he has kind like divine .
Does all of this suggest that in some way he had a sudden divine revelations of the things of which he was not aware before?
Yes, it does! At least from my point of view.

But Olmer, many writers speak of these kind of experiences while writing, Tolkien is not unique in this respect. By that then every book fits your argument. And I don't mean just a few great artists, I mean even students in creative writing classes have breaktrhoughs in their writing that they describe in very similar terms to Tollers. Seems to be a part of the creative process.


FB

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Olmer
And this is the main reason of all their troubles - they WANTED to have things unchanged, this is why they were leaving for Valinor and this was a major function of the rings - preservance.
.
They DID know. We will discuss it in the next chapter of the book.

Glad that your analytical mind can see the broader picture of the history of Elves and Men. But I don't agree on the greatest evil . Sauron was depicted as evil figure, all right. But he was allowed by Eru to be as a stopover on the Elves ideas to change, or better to unchange the World. Andthey, by doing this, budged into the area which is strictly God's Department.

It is a LOT of discrepancy in the whole story of Isildur owning the Ring and his death. But this is Elrond's heresay, because no other witnesses could come forward.

That is the point!
Nothing in the world is as White and Black. Much of the matters located in the Gray area, where the same facts can be interpreted in another way. It is always an another side of the coin.

Yes he admired the Elves , as noble and great, as they were, they had the same as men shortcomings: such as pride and boldness, absence of compassion even to their own kind and also is being headstrong and self-conceited . Look into "The Sill".

I understand your unwillingness to accept the fact, that Gandalf had his own priorities besides presenting himself as the world peacemaker.
But I think it could be very incorrect to assume the maiar's infallibility , if Valar themselves made a heap of blunders.

Denethor was very smart, powerful and VERY respected man even in his late madness, not a marasmatic of PJ invention.
Sauron as a maker of the Ring is more than reliable source.

I was never saying that it will be lasting peace. This is the reason why Elves were fleeing from ME.

Just a few issues:

a) I'm not convinced that the Elven motivation in Middle Earth was preservation of the past, I think this was more a result.

b) the Elves knew the whereabouts of the Ring all those millenia? Where do you get that from?

c) so you're saying that Sauron was really Eru's agent against those rebellious Elves, who are the real evil?

FB

[azalea]

Originally posted by Forkbeard



I have some problem with the quotes below. The first one you say is on the cover of the Hobbit? Which edition? And why would a publisher in the business of selling books put a disclaimer that they had no idea who would read the Hobbit, the book they're trying to sell? I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin...I can't find it right now but I thought his statement in this regard was in reference to the Sim, not to LoTR. Can anyone confirm these quotes and their context?

[

I think he's attributing the given quote (edit: the quote is the publisher's, I meant the one sentiment is being attributed to the publisher, when in fact it means T.) to the publisher, when in fact it was Tolkien himself who was humbly suggesting that he couldn't believe anyone would be interested in reading his stories. The quote is worded in such a way as to be confusing, perhaps moreso to non-native English speakers.

The quote being "Professor Tolkien, but NOT his publishers, remains to be convinced..." IOW it is not his publishers that need convincing, they already know the book is good for public consumption. The quote means Tolkien remains to be convinced of that.

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by azalea
I think he's attributing the given quote (edit: the quote is the publisher's, I meant the one sentiment is being attributed to the publisher, when in fact it means T.) to the publisher, when in fact it was Tolkien himself who was humbly suggesting that he couldn't believe anyone would be interested in reading his stories. The quote is worded in such a way as to be confusing, perhaps moreso to non-native English speakers.

The quote being "Professor Tolkien, but NOT his publishers, remains to be convinced..." IOW it is not his publishers that need convincing, they already know the book is good for public consumption. The quote means Tolkien remains to be convinced of that.

Thanks Azalea, that helps. But it just illustrates my point: I do not see how this quote establishes Olmer's contention that Tolkien and his works were ostracized, particularly if it indeed was Tolkien himself who questioned who would read his books.

Gratefully,

Forkbeard

[Count Comfect]

A couple points, some new, some rehashing of points I don't think are adequately emphasized:

Bombadillo - Tolkien hated allegory

He really did. And that makes it very unlikely that he would write the entire series of all those books and unpublished manuscripts with some hidden meaning (i.e. allegorical meaning) inside.
Also, Denethor is respected, yes, but he does try to burn himself and his son alive, as well as taking the Palantir with him to death (those are in Tolkien, not PJ) and that certainly does not seem so balanced in the head to me.
Oh, and Sauron/Thu certainly seems evil in the Sill, which is written omnisciently (not from hobbit POV like LOTR and the Hobbit), so the evil of Sauron (and the need to destroy him/the Ring) seems objective, not subjective.

[Olmer]

brownjenkins
..."mystical inspiration" does not have to come from an external forcebeing to another, as one envisions there may be a basic chaotic foundation within our neurosystem which allows for pure imagining that doesn't necessarily depend upon an actual or mythical past ...

...i prefer not to automatically attribute intelligence to the miraculous, ...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.(Hamlet. Shakespeare.)
The intelligence itself is a miracle. Over millions of species existing on the Earth only one evolved to develop high intelligence, and to compare with time of planet Earth existence , if we will count it as 365 days, it took only 4 minutes before the end of the year.
So a human race is still too young to presume that they already know how the Universe work. Any way, the things, what we call now 'a miracles' in future could be very well considered as natural human abilities.

Count Comfect
..it very unlikely that he would write the entire series of all those books and unpublished manuscripts with some hidden meaning (i.e. allegorical meaning) inside.

J.R.R.T didn't like allegories, all right, and pointed out that it is nothing allegorical in all his work , but still, if "the better and more closely woven story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it", because "Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth".And when the Truth reveals itself, as I said, then the author might find in his creations more, than he wanted to tell.
The novel "Don Quixote" which considered by esteemed literators as the symbol of romanticism, for example, was written by Cervantes just as a parody on chivalry.

Count Comfect
Also, Denethor is respected, yes, but he does try to burn himself and his son alive, as well as taking the Palantir with him to death (those are in Tolkien, not PJ) and that certainly does not seem so balanced in the head to me.

Denethor, the man of true Numenorian blood, proud and wise, took in deadly earnest his enormous responsibilities to rule the diminishing in power kingdom of Gondor , and, as a man of strong will and high honor, he demanded the same dedication to the cause from everyone, including his sons. .
Up to the day when Faramir was brought to the White Tower he was at the command of his army, sane and sound.
Even Sauron couldn't overcome his strength of mind, only a despair of loosing his last son weakened his iron will and allowed the Dark Lord to break his mind.

..Sauron certainly seems evil in the Sill, which is written omnisciently (not from hobbit POV like LOTR and the Hobbit), so the evil of Sauron seems objective, not subjective.

Yes, he was evil, but have not been cast away in nothingness like Melkor.
Seems God had other plans for him.

Forkbeard
But there is no reason to suppose that it is a direct and singular influence.
It is unlikely that Tolkien discovered an otherwise unknown manuscript that no one else had catalogued before

..but how is ol' Tolkien going to keep all this secret from his family? Wouldn't they have noted a strange elf or two?

And ...the Bodleian is well catalogued, find the manuscript.

... we have no evidence that LoTR is based on a specific history or specific document outside of Tolkien's imagination.

Thank you for taking your time to "pull apart" my hypotheses. I see you are really trying to point on weak spots of the offered theory.

First of it, may I direct your attention to such aspect in my posts that I have NEVER stated that the direct and singular influence came exactly from an Elf or lost manuscript.
I just presented the way of my thoughts, suggesting a few possibilities, as unusual as they are, and disregarding them on the course. No need for you to prove that they are "wild', I KNOW it, just thought it would be interesting for some people to look from "another angle".

BTW, librariy's books (even Bodleian) can be well catalogued, but not necessary all of them studied. It is still a lot of papers and documents in the libraries vaults, which require a full time workers just to sort it out and cataloque, and I am not talking about studies.
And also, the luck of evidence doesn't necessarily prove that the subject not exist.

I think you've also misquote Raynor Unwin

I purposely didn't put the # of letters in all quotes , they are basically from "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" book, in order to make you read more of the book while looking for specific quote. The book worth of the time to spend on it.
But I assure that all quotes was taken exactly as they were printed in the book.
Just to ease your headache in the letters #109and #127 the fuller R. Unwin's reviews on the book

And why would you assume that history is unpopular?

Considering that prevailed amount of book readers prefer to read novels, fiction and detectives.

....many writers speak of these kind of experiences while writing, Tolkien is not unique in this respect. By that then every book fits your argument. And I don't mean just a few great artists, I mean even students in creative writing classes have breakthroughs in their writing that they describe in very similar terms to Tollers. Seems to be a part of the creative process.

So? This is what I'm saying. He is not the only one in having such experiences while creating. I think almost everyone can give an account of the sudden breakthroughs or foresights.

Every book wouldn't fit my argument, but books of genius people usually have much deeper depth , more dimensional and therefore contain much more information for attentive reader.

...who are the real evil?

You still don't know that Evil doesn't' t exist in pure form?

azalea Thanks for correcting my perception on the quote

[Count Comfect]

Denethor, the man of true Numenorian blood, proud and wise, took his enormous responsibilities to rule the diminishing in power kingdom of Gondor in deadly earnest, and as a man of strong will and high honor he demanded the same dedication to the cause from everyone, including his sons

Also a jealous man... his grudge against Gandalf and elves can be dated all the way back to his youth, when Thorondir was his father's favorite and a friend of Gandalf and the elves. He is biased against them.

Also remember, Eru does not involve himself highly in ME after the creation... so the fact that Sauron was allowed to live does not mean Eru ("God") necessarily had a plan for him. It just means he wasn't key enough to destroy utterly. And he is evil, utterly, no question, so destroying him doesn't have to be some sort of self-serving plot.

EDIT: And in Tolkien, evil does exist in pure form: that's Sauron and Melkor for you. Very clearly expressed in the Sill.

Oh, and about Allegory/Story, my argument would be that your interpretation is entirely Allegory, meaning that Tolkien didn't intend it. It may be interpretable from the text (which I would still dispute) but it isn't Tolkien's interpretation, that's all.

Oh, and on a totally different point, Don Quixote is still regarded as the classic parody of chivalry

Thanks for answering all this stuff we're throwing at you.

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Count Comfect
Also a jealous man... his grudge against Gandalf and elves can be dated all the way back to his youth...

And in Tolkien, evil does exist in pure form: that's Sauron and Melkor for you. Very clearly expressed in the Sill.

It may be interpretable from the text (which I would still dispute) but it isn't Tolkien's interpretation, that's all.

Oh, and on a totally different point, Don Quixote is still regarded as the classic parody of chivalry

Denethor was not jealous.He was smart and perseptive, can put two and two together to find real meaning behind seemingly innocent events. He did not trust elves, seeing them as self-serving and ignorant to other ME's inhabitants need and suspected (quite rightfully) them and Gandalf to be involved in some shady intrigue against the Men. And after all his perseption was proved to be true:Gandalf WAS planning a coupe to put an elve's marionette at the head of the dominion which is bordering with theirs realm.

Evil NEVER exist in pure form.Remember A road to hell paved by good notions? It's quite true to Tolkien's stories. Let me remind you that Tolkien did not depict Melkor and Sauron as born to be evil. They turned into evil because they wanted express themselves, dared to be different and therefore became outcasts, but their notions from the beginning was benign.

What "allegorical " you see in my interpretation? I agree, it might be very well not what Tolkien meant to tell and the another dimension in his book turned out quite independedly. But then again, as genius as he was, he might weave it in the story's canvas just for the heck of it. As he was writing to his son Christopher, it is not the story, which mostly exites a reader, but an untold glimpses of another stories behind it, which fuels your imagination.

"Don Quixote it IS regarded as the classic parody on chivalry, but ALSO as symbol of romanticism.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Olmer
Denethor was not jealous.He was smart and perseptive, can put two and two together to find real meaning behind seemingly innocent events. He did not trust elves, seeing them as self-serving and ignorant to other ME's inhabitants need and suspected (quite rightfully) them and Gandalf to be involved in some shady intrigue against the Men. And after all his perseption was proved to be true:Gandalf WAS planning a coupe to put an elve's marionette at the head of the dominion which is bordering with theirs realm.

Denethor was jealous of Aragorn. He was also wise and far-sighted. He got insane after Boromir died and after he saw in the Palantir Sauron's army - he was desparate and therefore I don't think I'd trust his word.
Who's the elf's marionette? Aragorn? How is he an elf marionette?
Denethor disliked Gandalf because he suspected them to have a conspirasy to have Thorongil (back then) instead of him rule Gondor. But that's ridiculous, and as you can see he was wrong - because back then Aragorn had no plans to come to Gondor to be a leader.

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
He got insane after Boromir died and after he saw in the Palantir Sauron's army - he was desparate and therefore I don't think I'd trust his word.

This what happened when you did not read carefully.
Read about the last council before Faramir went to defend Osgiliath.
..."we should not lightly abandon the outer defence...the Enemy must pay dearly for the crossing of the River"...
..".I will not yeld the River and the Pelennor unfought..."
Does he sounds like the man who is loosing his marbles?
He was deeply depressed by Boromir's death, but was still sane and sound till the last two days of his life.

Who's the elf's marionette? Aragorn? How is he an elf marionette?

Because he was brought up in the loyalty to the Elves. Remember, that exept Rangers , united under Aragorn's leadership , nobody around didn't feel too much love for the Elves.
Rohirrim, for example, considered them as evil, clearly afraid and dislike them, saying:"Let them go where they belong, into the dark places, and never return. The time are evil enough".LOTR, book V, ch.II

Denethor disliked Gandalf because he suspected them to have a conspirasy to have Thorongil (back then) instead of him rule Gondor.

You said it yourself! There WAS a conspiracy, othervise Gandalf wouldn't be instructing Pippin to keep his mouth shut, and Denethor's suspicions was right on the target.
.

.. back then Aragorn had no plans to come to Gondor to be a leader.

At that time Aragorn already was trying to prove himself to be worthy the honor of Arwen's hand, because Elrond clearly let him know that with her great lineage she worth to be wife of the King, but not a dirty-nosed ranger.

[Count Comfect]

If I am following your logic, the fact that Aragorn likes the elves and is their friend ipso facto makes him a "marionette" - by the same logic, Pippin becomes Denethor's marionette at the end, and Merry is Eomer and Theoden's.
What's this about people not liking elves? The friendship between Gondor and the elves goes back centuries. The Rohirrim came from the North and lack that link.
Gandalf tells Pippin to keep his mouth shut because Denethor will THINK that Gandalf is plotting if he hears anything.
By the way, Aragorn is unquestionably the heir, so it isn't exactly usurpation Earnur (can't remember if its him) explicitly recalled the kinship of the two houses of Arnor and Gondor when he took the throne.
Denethor most certainly was jealous of Thorongil and Gandalf. Everyone loved Thorongil more (Denethor's dad included) and he hated that.
I see Allegory because it is not the author's interpretation - that would be my definition of it.
And those who would categorize Don Quixote as a romance are those who consider Shakespeare Baroque... fools.

[Olmer]

Originally posted by Count Comfect
- by the same logic, Pippin becomes Denethor's marionette at the end, and Merry is Eomer and Theoden's.

There is a big difference between person, who can be manipulated, and person , who can be ordered.
Merry and Pippin was just servants.

The friendship between Gondor and the elves goes back centuries.

Wrong. The friendship between ARNOR and the elves was going back for centuries. Gondor have never been too chummy with them.

Gandalf tells Pippin to keep his mouth shut because Denethor will THINK that Gandalf is plotting if he hears anything.

You said it yourself!
Gandalf was PLOTTING against Denethor, but didn't want him to know or to guess about it.

Denethor most certainly was jealous of Thorongil and Gandalf. Everyone loved Thorongil more (Denethor's dad included) and he hated that.

Could you back up with a quote, which at least suggest that he was jealous and full of hate?
Then again it's just your interpretation and not an author's.
Why do you think that yours interpretation is better than mine?
I, at least, can back up each of my statements with quotes of the text, which was written by Tolkien himself, and can describe the way, how I came to logical conclusion based on the facts given by the author.

I see Allegory because it is not the author's interpretation - that would be my definition of it.

Whatever...As Tolkien said, if you are looking for it, you certainly will find it.

[Count Comfect]

I still hold that Aragorn is no puppet... I see no shred of evidence of any type that he is manipulated by the elves.
About the friendship of Gondor and the Elves - the elves of Rivendell ride out to the aid of Eärnur in his battle against the Witch-King, and they are clearly acting as allies.
Denethor is a suspicious man - especially of Gandalf, for "there was little love between Denethor and Gandalf (Appendix A) as early as Denethor's youth. So Gandalf doesn't want him to be any more suspicious than he would normally be, so naturally any talk of Aragorn would be a bad idea, and Pippin, the fool of a took can't see that without guidance.
Now, now, I didn't say Denethor was "full of" hatred, just that he disliked being #2. He was ever placed second to the stranger in the hearts of men and the esteem of his father (Appendix A). He believed that he [Thorongil] and Mithrandir designed to supplant him [Denethor] (Appendix A). If that doesn't sound like a suspicious, jealous man, I don't know what does. Although I suppose I might not know what does.

That help your issue with my lack of quotes? I do most of my mooting at school, which means I do not have a copy of the books sitting by at all times, making it hard to quote very often.

Very interesting discussion, thanks again for raising it.

[Olmer]

Count Comfect
I still hold that Aragorn is no puppet...

.
You are absolutely right! He is the most awesome figure.
Brought up by the Elves and in loyalty to the Elves, and being in complete dependency from Elrond, he not only DID NOT become an elves-puppet (in spite of intended plan), but what’s more he acquired an extraordinary authority among the Firstborn.

About the friendship of Gondor and the Elves - the elves of Rivendell ride out to the aid of Eärnur in his battle against the Witch-King, and they are clearly acting as allies.

Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril .

Denethor is a suspicious man - especially of Gandalf, for "there was little love between Denethor and Gandalf (Appendix A) as early as Denethor's youth. So Gandalf doesn't want him to be any more suspicious than he would normally be, so naturally any talk of Aragorn would be a bad idea, and Pippin, the fool of a took can't see that without guidance.
Now, now, I didn't say Denethor was "full of" hatred, just that he disliked being #2. He was ever placed second to the stranger in the hearts of men and the esteem of his father (Appendix A). He believed that he [Thorongil] and Mithrandir designed to supplant him [Denethor] (Appendix A
That help your issue with my lack of quotes? I do most of my mooting at school, which means I do not have a copy of the books sitting by at all times, making it hard to quote very often..

Let’s put it this way, Denethor was not suspicious, but apprehensive, and his believes that Mithrandir schemed to supplant him turned to be not baseless.
As about being jealous, now I see that you were right.

Quotes will be a great help in discussion. You see, all my logical presumption of the theory , which I’m advocating here, based solely on Tolkien’s text and in discussion , if I’m getting wrong in my deductions, I would be more convinced not by replies of popular believes that “Tolkien didn’t mean so”, but by support of exact quote of what Tolkien wrote himself.

Very interesting discussion, thanks again for raising it

You are welcome, and then again the pleasure is mine. I would never see the weak points if people wouldn’t try to show to me, which makes me work harder to adjust the theory to the surfacing facts and details.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Olmer
.
You are absolutely right! He is the most awesome figure.
Brought up by the Elves and in loyalty to the Elves, and being in complete dependency from Elrond, he not only DID NOT become an elves-puppet (in spite of intended plan), but what’s more he acquired an extraordinary authority among the Firstborn.

Do you really think Aragorn was planned to be a puppet by the elves? It just sounds wrong to me - they after all did not have any reason for that, did they? What would they get from ruling Gondor?
And there's no quote, as you said to CC, that would support your statement.

Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril.

So you expected the elves to send warriors from the north, from Lindon and Rivendell (which weren't many) to Gondor to help it in battles? I think they'd get to Gondor only after the battle ends.

Let’s put it this way, Denethor was not suspicious, but apprehensive, and his believes that Mithrandir schemed to supplant him turned to be not baseless.
As about being jealous, now I see that you were right.[/B]

Well, it wasn't a scheme first of all. Aragorn wasn't sure he should demand to be a King even in the War of the Ring time, and Gandalf had nothing to do with it, too.
But if Denethor knew who is Aragorn (heir of Isildor) then he should've let him be the King - and be 2nd in Gondor like it was in old times.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, they aided Earnur in the battle, but you can’t help to notice that somehow their help to neighbors in Eriador was always coming just a bit later than it was needed , but not that late when their existence will be put at peril .

Glorfindel came perfectly well in time to destroy the entire army of Angmar. I wouldn't call that "later than was needed."