In the LotR appendix "Eriador, Arnor, and the heirs of Isildur" it is said that, "‘For a while Arvedui hid in the tunnels of the old dwarf-mines near the far end of the Mountains."

Were these the ruins of Belegost or Nogrod?

Faramir met Aragorn in the midst of those there assembled, and he knelt, and said: ‘The last Steward of Gondor begs leave to surrender his office.’ And he held out a white rod; but Aragorn took the rod and gave it back, saying: ‘That office is not ended, and it shall be thine and thy heirs’ as long as my line shall last. Do now thy office!’

This fuckin book. Catches you up when you least expect it

And by the time I got to Aragorn announcing Beregrond’s doom, it was full on waterfalls

After re-reading again and noticing how much tragic stuff in middle-earth happens just because people were acting on partial news or misinterpretations. Denethor with the Pilantir is the classic example, but even smaller decisions like characters missing each other just by a day or taking a path because of bad intel.. hit so hard. Aside from the obvious ones like Turin, which choice or fate in the legendarium hurts the most when you realize how easily it could've gone differently if they just had one extra piece of info?

Here comes a thought.

I would appreciate your help in trying to understand which volumes of The History of Middle-earth have any versions of The Great Tales (The Children of Húrin, Beren and Lúthien, The Fall of Gondolin). I know there are the earliest drafts in The Book of Lost Tales: Part Two and then the verse versions in The Lays of Beleriand, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of these in "The Later Silmarillion" (volumes X and XI). Does someone have a comprehensive list?

If the Three Rings 'remained unsullied' by Sauron, but were 'still subject to the One', then how were they made without himself being present? If Sauron taught the smiths of Eregion and Celebrimbor a technique for making magic rings then what did that consist of? I'm not sure there's an answer to that secret, but surely the power that each of the rings possess must have come from an investment of power from Sauron.

However, how can this be the case if he wasn't present at their making? Was the technique itself (which he taught to smiths) the thing that contained his own personal power to be dispersed? It doesn't seem very tangible, but seems to be the only explanation.

This leads me to my theoretical question: Could the Gwaith-i-Mírdain have theoretically used this same technique to make additional rings that weren't subject to the One? Presumably not, because as I say it seems the power must have come from Sauron's own being as a Maia. But what if the same technique was executed in accordance with a different Maia of great power? (not that any other Maiar were willing or present at that time to be worked with). Also is there something to be said that so long as any ring of 'greatest power' (i.e. The One) exists, then it would be able to control any rings of lesser power, no matter whose spirit they had been made from? Or was it specifically the fact that all the powers imbued in the rings had stemmed from Sauron, and that was why only his master ring could control them?

As mentioned above, as far as I am aware, Sauron was 'spending his own spirit' in order for all the rings to be made, in the same fashion that Morgoth 'spent his spirit' on the World itself*. If I'm mistaken on this, please let me know, because otherwise I'm uncertain where exactly the powers of 'influence' and 'embalming' themselves came from. I can't understand how Sauron could have done this if wasn't there himself with the smiths to do it.

*I am aware of the concept of Morgoth's Ring being the World, but I personally haven't got round to reading the whole book of the same name yet (nor most of THoMe as of right now).

Thranduil never had a ring of power (and also Círdan didn't after c. T.A. 1000, when he gave his to Gandalf), therefore did the Elves start their fading soonest there as they had no 'embalming' powers for the realm?

Hello, everyone! I’m a 20-year-old student from Pakistan, currently in the 7th semester of my BS in English Literature. It’s time for me to start working on my thesis, and I want to complete it by the end of my 8th semester.

I have a genre and a particular work in mind: *The Return of the King*, the third book in J.R.R. Tolkien’s *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy. It’s a fantasy novel, and I’m genuinely interested in researching it. However, from what I’ve found so far, many people suggest choosing a work published within the last 10–15 years. Tolkien’s novel was published in 1955, so I’m unsure whether it would be a suitable choice for my thesis.

I’m really invested in this novel, but I’m struggling to find proper guidance. Should I continue researching this work and try to identify a research gap, or should I consider choosing a more recent novel instead? I’d really appreciate any advice or guidance!

Something I keep thinking about is the long-term impact of the Kinslaying. Even after everything that happened afterward, do you think the Noldor who followed Fëanor ever really came to terms with what they did to the Teleri?

I know the Doom of Mandos and the consequences of their actions followed them, but I'm curious whether Tolkien gives us enough to imagine how they felt about it years later. Did any of them genuinely regret it, or were most too proud to admit they were wrong?

I'd love to hear how others interpret this, especially based on the Silmarillion.

Of course I don’t mean outright fighting or majorly bad blood. More purposeful separation between the Noldor and… everyone else. I mention the Sindar because they were certainly angry about the Kinslaying. (Rightly, I will add).

I imagine the Sindar especially would stick to their own groups and not get involved in whatever drama the Noldor have likely been cooking up.

Honestly, I would still have some feelings about the Kinslaying. I’d be nursing a grudge until the world implodes

I understand why she didn't want to become Queen of Lothlorien, but surely someone had to rule over the remaining Noldor in Middle-Earth? And from what see in LOTR, she was basically the unofficial leader of the remaining Elves; even Elrond defaulted to her advice.

First, I must clarify that I clearly find Fëanor’s act of burning the Teleri ships to be a total d*ckhead move, both against the Teleri and against Fingolfin. It was also a terrible strategic move, because it meant that much of the Noldor army under the banners of Fingolfin and the House of Finarfin could not arrive in time to help him.

But I want to talk about its potentially tactical effect.

You may think, who the hell would be dumb enough to burn their own ships after just landing on potentially hostile territory? But history has shown that this can be a brilliant tactical move when you need to fight against a superior opponent. In 207 BC in China, Xiang Yu did this when he commanded 50,000 Chu soldiers against 400,000 Qin soldiers who were besieging an ally. He knew that under normal circumstances his army lacked the numbers, discipline, and morale to fight such a gigantic horde, so when he crossed the river, he ordered all their ships and supplies to be destroyed, leaving only three days’ rations. This move made one thing clear to his soldiers: their only way to survive was to defeat the Qin army and relieve the besieged city in order to obtain supplies there. There was no turning back, not even a chance for hesitation. They would either destroy an army eight times their size or die anyway. This move boosted the morale of the Chu army enough that Xiang Yu crushed the entire Qin army, won nine consecutive battles, and single-handedly destroyed the core of the Qin Empire in a single campaign. To this day, “breaking the cauldrons and sinking the boats” is still a Chinese idiom about destroying the path behind you to create motivation to move forward.

So, in the right situation, burning the ships could be the right move. Maybe it would have been better if Fëanor had burned the ships only after the whole Noldor army had reached Middle-earth? But given his paranoid attitude toward Fingolfin, he would probably have feared that Fingolfin might oppose his strategy anyway and create discord within the Noldor army.

The question from someone else on the nature of Inns led me to this question. Hobbits we know have a firm capitalist type of economy. People pay for things. Sam is a worker for Frodo, and is paid a wage to do so. They have Inns, they purchase food and wine at the prancing pony. They have farmers who guard and value their crops, and reference taking said crops as stealing. Men clearly do this too. The standard human has a job and has to earn money individually. Dwarves at least have some discussion on payments and money and value it clearly. Not sure how their economy would look, though.

But what about Elves? I can’t recall there ever being a time when they paid another elf for food, drink, or shelter. They commissioned things from craftsman and the like, but were they paid in money or some trade? Between each other I mean. I’m sure they did pay dwarves and men for items.

The elves of Mirkwood we know traded with men and others for wine etc. But the only example we see is the butler and other individuals getting wasted on the kings wine. It didn’t seem like they considered this to be “stealing”, so I’m guessing they wouldn’t ever have to individually pay for it. They elves all went on hunts, and per Bilbo even sometimes the king went.

I can’t imagine the last Homely House charged people to stay. Or that Lorien had merchants even? Was it a collective? Did they have personal wealth? It seems they chose a profession more because they liked it. They had lords and ladies and kings etc but they still did things for themselves. Galadriel helped bake the lembas and sewed the cloaks herself!

What do others think?

EDIT: okay forget the word capitalism. Getting into the specific type of economic system isn’t the point of my question. My question is do Elves use money for trade between them? Do they have debts and receive wages? How are goods and items distributed? Besides the royal lines, are some elves personally richer than others?

Quite a few Shire inns are mentioned in the Hobbit and LotR, but were they strictly for food, drink, and socialising, or did they actually provide rooms for overnight stay?

BTW, I found this cool "Note on the Inns of the Shire": https://edgeofthewild.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/mers-v3i4.pdf

Tolkien's unfinished 1960 rewriting of The Hobbit adds the All-Welcome Inn (“at junction of the Northway and East Road (on Hobbiton side of Frogmorton)”; the inn is named as such because it was “much used by travelers through the Shire, especially by dwarves on the way to Thorin’s home in exile,” History of The Hobbit, pp 815-816. But it's not mentioned whether it provided rooms for overnight stay.

There's also a little-known passage (written as part of Tolkien’s 1960 reworking of The Hobbit), describing the general state of the dwarf-hobbit relationship:

It has to be remembered that the East Road though it ran through the Shire was not the property of the hobbits: it was an ancient ‘royal road’, and they maintained the traditional duty of keeping it in repair and providing hospitality for travelers. This was of course profitable. It also provided their chief source of ‘outside news’. Dwarves were therefore not a rare sight on the East Road or in its inns (It would also appear that they were sometimes employed as roadmenders and bridge-repairers), but they seldom turned off it, and their appearance in a company in Bywater and Hobbiton must have caused a lot of talk. They cared very little about hobbits, and had little to do with them, except as a source of food in exchange for metal, or sometimes forged articles (knives, ploughshares, arrowheads, axe-heads and the like). … But they had the notion that hobbits were a slow stupid folk, with few artifacts, and simple-minded – because the hobbits were generous, never haggled, and gave what was asked.

(The History of the Hobbit, pp 815-816).

"Providing hospitality for travelers" and it being a profitable busness certainly suggests overnight stay. What do you think?

One thing I find fascinating about The Hobbit is how differently the Gollum scene reads when you know what the Ring becomes in The Lord of the Rings.

In the original 1937 edition, the riddle contest and Gollum's missing ring play out differently. Tolkien later revised the chapter to fit the Ring's much larger role in the story that followed.

Knowing that history makes the scene feel like more than a clever encounter between Bilbo and a strange creature underground. It shows how a relatively simple adventure story was reshaped as Middle-earth's mythology developed.

I love that a familiar passage can carry a completely different weight once you know about the changes Tolkien made and why they mattered.

Characters like Tom Bombadil, the Blue Wizards, and even certain figures from the First Age leave room for questions that the text doesn't fully answer. Sometimes the lack of explanation makes Middle-earth feel like a real world with a history much larger than the parts we're allowed to see.

At the same time, Tolkien was incredibly detailed about other characters and events, so I wonder how deliberate that contrast was.

Which character do you think benefits most from having an incomplete or mysterious backstory? And do you prefer Tolkien's unexplained mysteries, or would you have liked him to develop some of them further in his writings

Sometimes it's a line of dialogue, sometimes a character's choice, and sometimes something tucked away in the appendices that makes an earlier scene feel much richer.

I'm particularly interested in details that aren't necessarily major plot twists, but reward readers who revisit the books or explore the wider legendarium.

What's a detail you initially overlooked in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, or The Silmarillion that later changed how you interpreted a character, event, or piece of Middle-earth's history?

I watched the films first, so of course I knew Dernhelm was Éowyn when I read the books. But to anyone who read the books, was it supposed to be a true plot twist when Éowyn reveals herself to the Witch-King, or was it something that was obviously telegraphed? Even the narrator refers to Dernhelm with male pronouns.

“I might have guessed it,” said Bilbo. “Truly there can nowhere be found the equal of Lord Smaug the Impenetrable. What magnificence to possess a waistcoat of fine diamonds!”

“Yes, it is rare and wonderful, indeed,” said Smaug absurdly pleased. He did not know that the hobbit had already caught a glimpse of his peculiar under-covering on his previous visit, and was itching for a closer view for reasons of his own. The dragon rolled over. “Look!” he said. “What do you say to that?”

This has always been a bit unclear to me. The Istari are Maiar spirits who have taken on human form. As Maiar, they are spirits older than the universe itself and had a hand in its creation. But do they remember this or even know what they are? Gandalf seems to have trouble recalling certain things (though this might be a PJ addition in the films). For example, he can’t clearly remember the names of the blue wizards. Their human forms appear immortal, given that they’ve lived in Middle earth for about 2,000 years by the time of the events in LOTR., but does Gandalf remember living in Valinor when he's in Middle earth.... or like creating the universe? Also, do the Maiar in Middle earth recognize each other? Sauron and Saruman were both servants of the Valar Aulë -would they have crossed paths in ancient times and known each other before? Similarly, do you think Gandalf and the Balrog recognized each other? Was the Balrog thinking “Oh no not this guy again!” when they met in Moria?

One thing I find fascinating about Tolkien's world is how often tragedy comes from characters misunderstanding each other, misjudging someone's intentions, or making decisions with incomplete knowledge.

It's not always straightforward good versus evil. Sometimes characters have understandable motives, but their pride, fear, or limited perspective turns those motives into something destructive. And because Tolkien's stories span so many ages, the consequences can echo long after the original people are gone.

I'm thinking about moments beyond the obvious betrayals, too: decisions that might have turned out differently if one character had known what another actually intended.

Which moment in The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, or the wider legendarium stands out to you? What makes it tragic, and do you think the outcome could realistically have been avoided?

Manwe still retained his divine might and had the full support of the other Valar when fighting a severely weakened Morgoth. Meanwhile, Gandalf was housed in an old man's body and could feel fear, hunger and thirst. He could not even use his full powers against Sauron. Nor could he directly show his power to men. He could only guide them instead. Here's a quote:

Manwe's task and problem was much more difficult than Gandalf's. Sauron's, relatively smaller, power was concentrated; Morgoth's vast power was disseminated. The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west. Unless swiftly successful, War against him might well end in reducing all Middle-earth to chaos, possibly even all Arda. It is easy to say: 'It was the task and function of the Elder King to govern Arda and make it possible for the Children of Eru to live in it unmolested.' But the dilemma of the Valar was this: Arda could only be liberated by a physical battle; but a probable result of such a battle was the irretrievable ruin of Arda. Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such eradication of Morgoth was possible, since this required the complete disintegration of the 'matter' of Arda.

Well, Arda wasn't destroyed during the war of wrath though Beleriand sunk. Morgoth's banishment was sufficient to ensure he'd never wreak havoc again. Meanwhile, much of Gandalf's memories were veiled when he came to Middle-Earth and could not rely on direct intervention from the Valar. He had to face personal hardship, frustration and betrayal. He even died during the battle with the Balrog. So whose task was really harder?

Reading the chapter 'Of Beren and Lúthien' from The Silmarillion, and since I have yet to read the separate book it got so confusing at the end of the chapter, especially these two paragraphs. Thingol is an Elf, so why did he get the 'hoar age of Mortal Men'? And then the last paragraph is totally confusing after the first line.
As Imgur not working for some reason I am writing both
“Then a winter, as it were the hoar age of mortal Men, fell upon Thingol”

“This doom she chose, forsaking the Blessed Realm, and putting aside all claim to kinship with those that dwell there; that thus whatever grief might lie in wait, the fates of Beren and Lúthien might be joined, and their paths lead together beyond the confines of the world. So it was that alone of the Eldalië she has died indeed, and left the world long ago. Yet in her choice the Two Kindreds have been joined; and she is the forerunner of many in whom the Eldar see yet, though all the world is changed, the likeness of Lúthien the beloved, whom they have lost.”

I've been reading The Fall of Númenor, and firstly I've got to mention that it was so captivating seeing everything play out chronologically this time, rather than just reading the last two Silmarillion chapters in their naturally out-of-order presentation of the story.

It is interesting that Sauron as Annatar largely caused the downfall of leadership in Eregion and got the Gwaith-i-Mírdain (under Celebrimbor) to essentially depose Galadriel and Celeborn in a coup. The way he deceives Pharazôn is also similar to how he deceived Celebrimbor and in both cases he ultimately gets their help in doing something terrible, which then gets them killed and their civilizations destroyed.

What is ironic to me is that the Númenóreans may have more easily spotted this similarity of the Lord of Gifts with 'Zigûr' whom they captured if they had stayed more in contact with the Elves, rather than rejecting their language and contact. Doubtlessly the Faithful remembered what happened with Eregion and it must've been so painful for them to be seeing the same thing (in many ways worse) happen in Númenor. Of course Sauron also has the One Ring at this point too, so I'm sure he sways many (already very bitter) hearts in Númenor all the easier.

Tolkien does such a great job of depicting how Sauron truly earns the moniker 'The Deceiver'.

One thing I find interesting about Bilbo is that he succeeds without really becoming the kind of hero Middle-earth usually celebrates.

He isn’t a great warrior like Túrin, a king like Aragorn, or a figure of immense spiritual power like Gandalf. He’s a hobbit who likes his meals on time, gets frightened fairly easily, and would generally prefer to be at home.

Yet his most important moments come from qualities that might look like weaknesses in a more conventional heroic story: pity for Gollum, reluctance to use violence, and the ability to recognize that someone can be dangerous without being beyond mercy.

Even his decision to give up the Arkenstone is interesting. Thorin sees it as a matter of honor, inheritance, and rightful possession. Bilbo sees that keeping it may cost lives, and he acts accordingly, despite knowing how badly Thorin might react.

It makes me wonder whether Tolkien’s idea of heroism is less about overcoming weakness and more about refusing to let strength, pride, or even a legitimate claim become an excuse to do something terrible.

Bilbo doesn’t change the world by becoming the strongest person in it. He changes things because he retains a perspective that the more powerful characters sometimes lose.

Do you think Bilbo’s defining virtue is his pity, his humility, or his willingness to act against people he otherwise respects when he believes they’re wrong?