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

[Attalus]

That is how I understand it, too. I call it rewriting Tolkien and revisionism to boot. Sauron was evil, and would have ended as nihilistic as Morgoth his master in time. Remember the Barrow-Wight's song about the Dark Lord lifting his dark hand over dead seas and withered land. The only reason Sauron was leaving Harad and Rhun peopled was to provide fodder for his armies.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Olmer

I have to admit that I misunderstood you . You did not mention in what context you are giving such remark, and since we
are gathering here because we all are sharing one intence focus on Tolkien's work, "overemphasising on ONE thing" , it gave an impression of the suggestion that all Mooters are "crackheads", and indeed I jumped on conclusion.

Oh no, then I'd have had to include myself in that characterization, and we all know I have too big an ego to deride myself. But I meant it in reference to Denethor and have edited that post accordingly.

Peace?

Absolutely!

[matthew]

Hmmmmmmm...
Interesting theory. You have a point, Olmer, and that could be kind of a facet of the book.
However... Sauron was about to attack the men and elves etc. The elves would have a really hard time getting out then, so I guess you're saying it was in their interest... Well it was in everyone in middle earth's interest, then so were they ALL in a conspiracy... hmm.... sounds like the plot for a book... oh wait, there's already one...thats why I'm here, oh nevermind.
The other thing is the whole opening of the Silmarillion (I don't think anyone takes that seriosly enough). The third and last musical theme ended up kinda sad, but it wasn't like there was anything "unresolved" in it, like a treachery by the elves...
But still, a good point Olmer.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by azalea

My interpretation is that Olmer is saying that a lot of what is said in LotR and written in the Silm is at best a one sided interpretation by the elves and elf-friends, and at worst propaganda.
I see him saying that Sauron was not really as bad a bad guy as he is made out to be, that he didn't REALLY want dominion over all ME, but that is just what the elves say. I see him trying to see things from an omniscient viewpoint rather than filtered through those involved. I also think he is saying that the elves had their agenda, and that Sauron was getting in the way of that agenda.
He purports that since the hobbits were so isolated, they could only get info that was one-sided and was filtered through the elves and elf-friends (although I would argue that the dwarves would have provided another viewpoint, this would still kind of support Olmer's beliefs in that when we see elf and dwarf viewpoint of a situation side by side, they are clearly both biased toward each one's own side, thus we could conclude that the elf viewpoint may indeed be biased).
The heart of Olmer's viewpoint, from what I have read, is that the hobbits became unwitting pawns in the elves' plan to get rid of Sauron. That Frodo was "sacrificed" because no elf could accomplish what he did, but that it was ultimately unnecessary due to the fact that the elves had over-hyped Sauron's evil due to their bias against him.
That's kind of what I've seen in a nutshell. I don't know if I have interpreted it correctly, or of others have or have not seen what I did, but I thought I'd write what I read in what he wrote.

azalea, my deep respect for being able with your quick and analytical mind to summorise my long "mambo-jambo" in such compact and simple review. You got it altogether precisely correct, thank you.

Originally Posted by Attalus

The only reason Sauron was leaving Harad and Rhun peopled was to provide fodder for his armies.

If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire?

Originally Posted by matthew

Hmmmmmmm...
Interesting theory. You have a point, Olmer, and that could be kind of a facet of the book.But still, a good point Olmer.

Thanks for not discarding this ideas as "absurd".
If Tolkien , while re-reading his book, could quite unexpectedly for himself be amused by finding a new interpretations of the written events (Letter 163), then it quite possible that in his text we can find much more interpretation which could be missed by the author .
I set out on this challenge with notion to amuse myself just in the same way as Tolkien was doing some time ago. As a result, it made me really got hooked on Tolkien.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Olmer

If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire?

Well, I don't think usurper is quite the term you want. Dictator, perhaps--after all he promised them security from their hated enemies, the Gondorans.

And the Numenoreans, and it seems to me many of the Gondorans afterwards, were not the best and most benign of rulers.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

Well, I don't think usurper is quite the term you want. Dictator, perhaps--after all he promised them security from their hated enemies, the Gondorans.

Agree. A dictator is more suitable for characterization of Sauron's politic.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Olmer

If he was a such usurpator, why this "opressed" people, these that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for the last stand of desperate battle, even knowing that Sauron's dominion was over?
Is not it that their hatred of the West was because they were even more opressed by Gondor, and Sauron gave them a protection from ever growing appetite of Gondor's Empire?

Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

What's in letter 163 Olmer?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

They also invaded Osgiliath before the Battle of the Pellenor Fields.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

Erm... in reference to the Haradram, Gondor had indeed threatened to invade them in the past. In fact, the rulers of Harad were Gondorian expatriots who had been banished as a result of the kinstrife, and who Gondor had gone to some effort to hunt down and exterminate.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Gondor never threatened to invade Harad or Mordor (except as a desperate attempt to distract Sauron so they could save Middle-earth from his dominion by destroying the Ring). However, Mordor definitely threatened to invade Gondor, and had already attacked part of its realm - Minus Ithil which became Minus Morgul.

What's in letter 163 Olmer?

While I don't necessarily agree with Olmer's arguments, Gondor had once occupied Mordor and the Near Harad (and portions of the Far Harad, by some interpretations of the map).

[Nurvingiel]

Aha. Thanks Michael and Wayfarer.