Q: Why aren't Thorin and the rest of the 12 Dwarves in The Hobbit carrying any kind of weapons, except small knives? I think it is rather strange that they don't have the traditional Dwarf-Axe that Gimli uses so often and so well in LOTR. I also wonder why the Dwarves are so panicky in, for example, Mirkwood. If the Dwarves were like Gimli in LOTR it is impossible to think that even a hundred spiders would have captured them.

–Håkon Hellenes

A: Again I must fall back on my often-used "principle of duality." I could give two answers: one that tries to explain away the difference within the frame of reference given, i.e. Dwarves in Lord of the Rings, and I can also give an explanation that deals solely with the frame of mind in which Hobbit was written.

First of all, within the frame of reference. No doubt Dwarves were hardy and brave when they needed to be. But, the Dwarves with Thorin had not had to fight for anything for quite a while. They were miners. They had set up their stronghold in lode-rich hills and were in the business of working ore. They were no longer accustomed to handling weapons. Also, they were a bit short-sighted. They knew they were going to need to deal with a dragon, but it’s made pretty clear in the first couple chapters of Hobbit that they didn’t have any plans on how to fight a dragon, and hadn’t given much thought to incidental dangers along the way, either. Also it never even entered their heads that they would need to fight others for possession of the dragon’s hoard, i.e. the Wood-elves or Lake-men. Which brings us to my next point. The hoard was well-stocked with weaponry. When they discovered they would need to fortify against the "usurpers," as they saw it, it gave them not only a motive to fight [protecting their gold] but also the means–all the weapons they could have needed were there in the hoard.

So we see that the Hobbit dwarves are grim and brave in defense of their greed, but your question about the spiders needs consideration. In Mirkwood, they were half-starved, having lost or eaten up their food and with no means of getting more. They were at the last edge of their strength and also in despair because Bilbo hadn’t been able to see the end of the forest when he climbed the trees. Add to that, when they were captured by spiders, they had been put into a magical sleep by the Wood-elves. Remember, when they stepped out into the light of the feasting, all the lights went out and the Dwarves fell over right where they were, sound asleep. It was then that the spiders came to get them.

As far as having the foresight to take along weapons in case of incidental Road danger, well, here I fall back on the way in which Hobbit was written. It was meant to be amusing, and Dwarves who are selfish and pompous are more amusing than heroic Dwarves like Gimli. We see them grumbling, quarreling, etc. The amusing bumbling Dwarves in Hobbit were simply not meant to have the foresight or heroic qualities of a Gimli.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: In a previous question you speculated that it was probable that Bilbo and Aragorn would be at Rivendell at the same time. I like that thought! But here's my question: Bilbo seems to imply in LOTR that Aragorn is an "old friend." When did the two of them actually meet then? And how long have they known each other? And on that line... when did Aragorn and Gandalf meet? Aragorn DOES call the wizard "old friend" if I'm not mistaken. How long have they known one another?

–Capodo

A: As I said before, we can only assume that a young Aragorn met Bilbo in T.A. 2941. If that hypothesis is true, still Bilbo would NOT have known about him being a "Dúnedan" or anything. We know from The Tale of Years that Bilbo settled in Rivendell in T.A. 3002, after his farewell party which opens LOTR. It is very likely that at that time a grown-up Aragorn was re-acquainted with the traveling Hobbit, naturally becoming friends. The Tale of Years also says Aragorn and Gandalf became friends in T.A. 2956, just a dozen years before Frodo was born.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: I'm intrigued by Tolkien's works, although I haven't finished them, so I won't yet ask one of my many questions about the 'goings-on' of LOTR. In fact, my question is much more basic, and maybe less interesting. I searched the Q&A of the site, and couldn't find anything similar in nature, so I will ask of you: What if any ties exist in Tolkien's world to that of our own commonly accepted mythology? I hear mention of Avalon in The Silmarillion. Is this similar to the classical Avalon? Do any of the names of people or places re-surface in 'real life'? The name Morgoth sounds like Mordred. I was surprised at the similarity (in pronunciation) of Elladan to that of Eiledon. Someone mentioned to me that the brown wizard (Radagast?) was a druid. Huh? All are meaningless, I'm sure, but is there some equation between Tolkien's world and 'ours'?

–Michael Hubbard

A: Middle-earth is, as Tolkien put it in one letter, "our world, in an imaginary time." Think of it as similar to the world in which The Odyssey takes place (the Mediterranean sea, but one in which you would find a cyclops, sirens, etc), but of an even remoter imagined antiquity, in which even the continents had different shapes.

Tolkien claims (on the title page) that Lord of the Rings is his translation of an ancient book, The Red Book of Westmarch, in which the Hobbits set forth their version of the history of the War of the Ring. It is hinted in the text that The Silmarillion (which was not published in Tolkien's lifetime) is similarly based on Bilbo's "Translations from the Elvish". In various ways, Tolkien suggests that his works represent a forgotten history. Perhaps the most familiar example (if a somewhat frivolous one) is Frodo's song in which the cow jumps over the moon, of which only a couple of lines are now remembered; the most striking may be the Akallabêth, in which the Elvish name for Númenor, Atalantë ("The Downfallen") closely resembles the mythic Atlantis.

The conceit, never stated explicitly, is that stories from our world's mythology, such as Kullervo or Sigurd, resemble tales like Turin's not because Tolkien was inspired by the mythology (as is factually the case), but because those tales are half-remembered echoes of the earlier tale from Tolkien's world.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Is there any reason to doubt that the Galdor of Rivendell was the mighty Galdor of Gondolin?

–Obloquy

A: Yes. The "Index of Names" to The Silmarillion has the following listing for Galdor: "Called the Tall; son of Hador Lórindol and lord of Dor-lómin after him; father of Húrin and Huor; slain at Eithel Sirion." This is a human named Galdor, not an Elf. As there is no other listing for this name, I must assume at face value that there was no Elf called Galdor mixed up in the doings of The Silmarillion enough to warrant a mention. Moreover, the Galdor spoken of in Fellowship is not of Rivendell, but of the Havens. Fellowship says: "…and with him was Galdor, an Elf from the Grey Havens who had come on an errand from Círdan the Shipwright." Doesn’t sound like a mover and a shaker, but probably an assistant to Círdan. However, there was a Glorfindel in Rivendell as well as one of old, and if it was about him you intended to ask, we’ve discussed him many times in our archives.

–Anwyn

UPDATE:

The reader who submitted the question to begin with wrote the following:

My question was regarding Galdor of the Tree, who was an Elf-lord in Gondolin, according to The Fall of Gondolin in Book of Lost Tales 2. Granted, this is not published as "canon" material, and conflicts in some ways with other writings. But not in the inclusion of Galdor, and there's no reason to believe that this Galdor was a mistake or an abandoned concept. The reason he was not mentioned in 1977's published Silmarillion could be simply that the account of Gondolin's fall in that book was much abbreviated. It does in fact refer in its text to another, more complete tale, which we can only assume is the BoLT2 version. I am inclined to believe that this particular Elf-lord was the one present at Elrond's council – visiting, as you pointed out – just because I like the idea of it. There is no mention anywhere of his death (which is what I was looking for in asking my question), or in fact any other reason to doubt that he, long after the sack of Gondolin, came into the service of Cirdan at the Grey Havens. I have kind of answered my own question, and my opinion is simply that – an opinion. It's based more on lack of evidence to the contrary and personal fancy than anything else. Thank you for your consideration of my question, however. If it is possible, I would like to have this posted as an update to my question so that readers can understand what I was referring to.

–obloquy

So there you are. I looked no further than the index of the Silmarillion–when I found Galdor’s name there I didn’t pursue it, silly me! "Obloquy" seems to have answered his own question very well, so there it is.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: When I read The Silmarillion I assumed Ungoliant (the giant spider who helped Morgoth invade Valinor and destroy the Two Trees) was the very same as Shelob, who later guarded Mordor for Sauron. Others seem to assume they are different, so can you tell me if there is anything in other books (I have only read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion & Unfinished Tales) that says Shelob isn't Ungoliant? We are given in Sil no definitive statement of her death, and of her offspring we are told they were much, much smaller than she (I presume this refers to the spiders of Mirkwood)–a statement which would not seem to apply to Shelob.

–Kalimac

A: Tolkien states in The Two Towers that Shelob was definitely the "last child of Ungoliant." So we know for a fact they were not the same creature. The Silmarillion suggests, and of course its only a suggestion, that Ungoliant may have perished in the First Age. She would therefore be long dead by the time Shelob camped out on the borders of Mordor. The smaller spiders in Mirkwood were actually offspring of Shelob, not Ungoliant.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: Why was Galadriel able to return to Valinor? In The Silmarillion it says that when the Noldor set out to Middle-earth, Mandos appeared to them and said in his long curse that the Noldor would never be able to return to Valinor. Yet Galadriel was one of those Noldor and she returned.

–Richard Baker

A: Tolkien spoke of this in his translation of "Namarië" in the "Road Goes Ever On" songbook: "She was the last survivor of the princes and queens who had led the revolting Noldor to exile in Middle-earth. After the overthrow of Morgoth at the end of the First Age a ban was set upon her return, and she had replied proudly that she had no wish to do so.... But it was impossible for one of the High-Elves to overcome the yearning for the Sea, and the longing to pass over it again to the land of their former bliss. She was now burdened with this desire. In the event, after the fall of Sauron, in reward for all that she had done to oppose him, but above all for her rejection of the Ring when it came within her power, the ban was lifted, and she returned over the Sea, as is told at the end of The Lord of the Rings.

But the story is not so simple; in later essays (seen in Unfinished Tales), JRRT modified the story. In a very late writing, Galadriel was wholly opposed to Fëanor in every way, and fought against him with Celeborn at Alqualondë. She wished to go to Middle-earth not in rebellion against the Valar, but for the exercise of her talents; for "being brilliant in mind and swift in action she had early absorbed all of what she was capable of the teaching which the Valar thought fit to give the Eldar." In this account, she was not forbidden from returning to Valinor at the end of the First Age, but refused to do so out of pride.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: I just wondered if the Wargs who attacked the Fellowship in the first book before they entered Moria were Werewolves. They probably are not, but after the battle the Fellowship didn't find any of the ones they had killed, only the arrows that Legolas had fired. And I know that the Wargs were killed, because Legolas shot the leader through the throat, Aragorn stabbed one in the heart, Gimli killed a couple and Boromir sliced one's head off.

–Nick Bruschi

A: Were-beings were not exactly to Tolkien what we think of from fairy-tales, but be that as it may, I do not believe that those wolves were anything but ordinary Wargs such as pursued Bilbo and Company in The Hobbit. Bigger, more intelligent, much bolder, capable of organization and communication among themselves, but not human. I can offer a theoretical explanation for the absence of bodies–the other Wargs themselves should have been able to contrive to carry them off.

On the other hand, I’m not going to sit here and say I knew exactly what Tolkien was thinking, either. Just because I don’t see them as were-wolves doesn’t mean it’s impossible. The passage is very creepy: "At a gap in the circle [of stones] a great dark wolf-shape could be seen halted, gazing at them. A shuddering howl broke from him, as if he were a captain summoning his pack to the assault. Gandalf stood up and strode forward, holding his staff aloft. ‘Listen, Hound of Sauron!’ he cried. ‘Gandalf is here. Fly, if you value your foul skin! I will shrivel you from tail to snout, if you come within this ring.’" Then it springs, Legolas puts an arrow in its throat, and it hits the ground, and ‘the watching eyes were suddenly extinguished.’ The key words to me there are Hound of Sauron. We know that wolves had been used to serve Morgoth, as well, and the communication and organization of the Wargs shows them to be closer to sentient than we might think at first. Perhaps he had a darker purpose in mind with these wolves, but if so, he does not elaborate.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: If Sauron had reacquired the Ring, how would he have put it on? Didn't he lose his ability to assume a physical form after Isildur cut the Ring from his finger? Does one merely have to be in the presence of the Ring to wield its powers? The Ring did have psychological powers that affected those in its vicinity but its major powers, like controlling all the other Rings, could not be accessed without first putting it on one's finger. A crazy example, but suppose a fish swimming in the River Anduin had swallowed the Ring–would it, without having a hand to put it on, still be able to use its powers to become the mightiest fish in all of Arda?

–The 10th Nazgûl

A: I love the analogy! Funny as that suggestion may be, it surely doesn’t work like that. Since a fish does not have a will, or the consciousness that directs one’s will into action, he would have gained no benefit from swallowing the Ring.

And there’s the crux of my answer: The Ring needs not so much a finger as it does a will that it can ensnare. Think of the Ring as a focal point for Sauron’s will. Anyone using it is connected to–turned towards–Sauron’s will, ultimately losing their own. After all, it’s his Ring. Sauron may not have had the physical finger on which to wear it, but that’s a moot point. He would have just merged with it and become whole again, regaining the largest part of his missing power. I’m sure if his "floating shadow" could carry the Ring across the Sea after Númenor sank, then this same shadow-form could bear the Ring as if "wearing" it.

–Quickbeam

UPDATE: Okay, I am half right and half wrong on this. There are some important details that many folks have written in to contest. First let me clarify that YES, indeed it is true that Sauron took the Ring with him to Númenor. Tolkien states in Letters, #211: "Sauron's personal 'surrender' was voluntary and cunning: he got free transport to Númenor! He naturally had the One Ring, and so very soon dominated the minds and wills of most of the Númenoreans." The Ring was invaluable to Sauron's plan to exert greater control over Ar-Pharazôn. Tolkien goes on to say that: "though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind,' I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring..." It was from this statement that I formed my answer -- that Sauron as only a shadow-form could still wear and use the Ring.

But I failed to convey other, better details. Of course Sauron must have re-assumed a physical form later in the Second Age, because Isildur had to cut a finger off of SOMETHING! Sharp-eyed reader Joel Bowman reminds us that: "The books never say he doesn't have a physical form, just that after the Downfall he could no longer assume a form that was fair to the eyes." That is very true but there's more! In The Two Towers, Gollum tells us something truly creepy. Something he could have learned only from a face-to-face meeting with the Dark Lord: "Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough." Now that settles it... almost.

Patrick Dombrowski just sent me an eye-popping quote from The History of Middle-earth series, showing that Tolkien himself had once envisioned "a fish swallowing the Ring" in an early draft of LOTR, just as the original querent had suggested. This is the surprise Patrick sent to me:

"And here, I quote from Part 1 of The History of the Lord of the Rings, Chapter 15, 'Ancient History' (p. 261): '....Then Isildor [sic] plunged in and swam across, but the Ring betrayed him, and slipped form his hand, and he became visible to his enemies; and they killed him with their arrows. But a fish took the Ring and was filled with a madness, and swam up stream leaping over rocks and up waterfalls until it cast itself upon a bank, and spat out the Ring and died.' A very interesting connection indeed and a most amusing coincidence if 'The 10th Nazgûl' has not read these books."

back to top

Q: Is there any primary source that deals with the end of the Fourth Age or beyond? I vaguely remember reading a letter by Tolkien that implied we were in the Seventh Age and the Sixth Age had recently passed, the implication (although not explicitly stated and quite possibly wrong) being that World War Two marked the end of the Sixth Age. The way that ages are delineated means that there were two other major battles/conflicts that ended the Fourth and Fifth Ages. I've been searching for any clue Tolkien left about what these events were and have been unsuccessful. Any help would be appreciated.

–Frango

A: In a 1958 Letter to Rhona Beare Tolkien states: "I imagine the gap [between the Fall of Barad-dûr and modern times] to be about 6000 years; that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S[econd] A[ge] and T[hird] A[ge]. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh." In any case, it is likely that Tolkien was thinking in more religious terms than military ones. Undoubtedly he considered the birth of Christ to be the beginning of a new Age; he may also have considered the revelation of the Commandments to Moses to represent a new Age of Man.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Hi there. Following on from your illuminating answers about the gifts to man and elves, death and immortality respectively, I was curious as to whether JRRT tells of many instances of suicide. You discussed the fact that should elves be killed before they tired of Middle-earth and returned to the West, their immortal souls would still gather in the Halls of Mandos. One possibility I can see is if an elf was cut off (by imprisonment?) from the possibility of returning to the West, and thus through suicide was able in part to make the journey. I'm primarily interested to know if there were any 'divine' consequences for suicide, as there are in traditional Christian teachings. It's been too long since I last read The Silmarillion, and I know your collective memories are better than mine so I was wondering if you could shed some light on the subject.

–Angrod

A: In my readings so far, I can recall and find only two instances of suicide, and only one among Elves, and even then the intent is questionable. Míriel, mother of Fëanor, after she had given birth to her son, languished and lapsed into fatigue and seeming depression. Silmarillion states: "But in the bearing of her son Míriel was consumed in spirit and body; and after his birth she yearned for release from the labour of living. And when she had named him, she said to Finwë: ‘Never again shall I bear child; for strength that would have nourished the life of many has gone forth into Fëanor.’ Then Finwë was grieved, for the Noldor were in the youth of their days, and he desired to bring forth many children into the bliss of Aman; and he said: ‘Surely there is healing in Aman? Here all weariness can find rest.’ But when Míriel languished still, Finwë sought the counsel of Manwë, and Manwë delivered her to the care of Irmo in Lórien [not Lothlórien, this was the companion place of the Halls of Mandos, where the elves went when they needed respite and rest]. At their parting (for a little while as he thought) Finwë was sad, for it seemed an unhappy chance that the mother should depart and miss the beginning at least of the childhood days of her son. ‘It is indeed unhappy,’ said Míriel, ‘and I would weep, if I were not so weary. But hold me blameless in this, and in all that may come after.’ She went then to the gardens of Lórien and lay down to sleep; but though she seemed to sleep, her spirit indeed departed from her body, and passed in silence to the halls of Mandos. The maidens of Estë tended the body of Míriel, and it remained unwithered; but she did not return. Then Finwë lived in sorrow; and he went often to the gardens of Lórien, and sitting beneath the silver willows beside the body of his wife he called her by her names. But it was unavailing; and alone in all the Blessed Realm he was deprived of joy. After a while he went to Lórien no more."

Well, I take it back. That doesn’t show questionable intent. "Yearned for release from the labour of living" is pretty clear. What’s also clear is that she held her true meaning back from her husband. See that part about "hold me blameless in this, and in all that may come after?" It seems pretty clear that she knew what she was doing, whereas Finwë thought the separation would be but "for a little while." It doesn’t say anything about consequences for her voluntary departure from her body, but it does seem clear she never returned to either that body or another.

The other instance of suicide is of Túrin, whose unfortunate tale led him to fall on his sword. His family was beloved of the Elves, and they came and mourned him, and made a monument upon his grave. Nothing is said of spiritual consequences for his suicide either.

I think your idea of Elves taking their spirits back to Mandos if their bodies were imprisoned is intriguing, but unfortunately such things are just not addressed. I am currently working my way through Tolkien’s Letters, so if I find anything that bears on this I will add to it.

–Anwyn

UPDATE:

Many, many, MANY readers, too numerous to name, have correctly taken issue with my statement that I could "recall and find only two instances of suicide." Obviously I can remember the self-slaying of Denethor as easily as anybody else can–but I was not thinking of him when I went to answer the question, I was thinking of Elven suicide, to which the question refers, so I went to Silmarillion as my primary source and was immediately intrigued by the account of Fëanor’s mother. Túrin was a human being, as was his sister Nienor who also committed suicide. But my thoughts were on the Elves, not the humans, and I misspoke myself in saying I could only recollect two instances. I suppose I meant two relevant or exemplary instances. My answer is still the same, that Tolkien does not seem to have addressed the question of spiritual consequences for suicide.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: Okay, we all know that the world was made round at the end of the Second Age, but it still baffles me. Does Middle-earth cover half the Earth? When Aman was hidden, did it cover the other half of the Earth? Were the lands to the east hidden along with Aman? How does Ekkaia still surround the Earth when it's round? Why does the map in the Atlas of Middle of Middle-Earth show the Straight Road going out of the Grey Havens straight to Tol Eressëa when Tol Eressëa would be thousands of miles south? If you ask me, I think Arda was much more comprehensible when it was just a flat disc.

–Eric Baker

A: Middle-earth does not cover half the planet but most maps make it seem that way. "Middle-earth" refers to one very large continent (some say continents)–bordered on the west by The Sundering Seas and on the east by the great East Sea. It was in the "middle" of these two bodies of water. There is much more of the planet Arda we know nothing about: Tolkien never mapped it. Still, notes and clues have led Karen Fonstad to create speculative Eastern continents that give us a larger perspective. The Eastern continents, beyond the East Sea, were never as you say "hidden," it’s just that Tolkien never recorded any events there, so we have nothing to grasp about these places.

As you well know the ethereal continent of Aman, which held the lands of Valinor, was actually removed from the surface Arda–at that time it did not cover anything. It was physically GONE, kaput, bye-bye: and could not be reached by any means save the Elves leaving from the Grey Havens. That map you mention in the Atlas is conceptual: it only suggests metaphysical travel of how a ship leaving from the Havens would travel the "Straight Way" from the physical world to the spiritual. If you look closely you’ll see the landmass of Tol Eressëa is NOT on the planet, it’s beyond the curve of the projected map, and does not represent a true connection to Arda.

As for Vaiya (Ekkaia, the Encircling Seas), you have to stop thinking of them as "seas." The terms comes from one of Tolkien’s early maps in The Shaping of Middle-earth, which uses domed "airs" around the planet such as you would find in a medieval map from, say, our 16^th century. Fonstad’s Atlas has plenty of valuable information in the Introduction about flat versus round. Check it out.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: Was Durin the only one of the Seven Dwarf Fathers named by JRRT?

–Richard Baker

A: Yes. The only other information about the seven houses of the Dwarves is in a late untitled essay (late 1960s) concerning Dwarves and Men. Here, the other six houses of the dwarves, beside the Longbeards, were named, apparently for the first and only time. These were the Firebeards and the Broadbeams, and (arising further east) the Ironfists, Stiffbeards, Blacklocks, and Stonefoots. (I cannot help wondering if the Stonefoot dwarves insisted on being called StoneFEET!) The Firebeards and Broadbeams were, apparently, the kindreds of Nogrod and Belegost. This essay appears in "The Peoples of Middle-earth", the last of The History of Middle-earth volumes.

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: Hello, people from TORn. I have a question that's been bothering me for quite a while. In Tolkien's wondrous works of the mind, there seems to be a lot of marriage between relatives. For example, Sam/Rosie, Pippin/Diamond, and the Bolgers were related to the Brandybucks, right? Also, Aragorn/Arwen were first cousins (about a zillion times removed), Ar-Pharazôn stole the throne by marrying his first cousin, and Turin Turambar and Nienor Niniel were siblings. Do you think that this is relevant to anything, or was it just coincidence?

–Silicongirl@popmail.com

A: I don’t think it’s relevant to anything except that there were fewer people in these worlds than the population of ours today. My father once set me an intellectual puzzle: He had me reckon up how many people composed my ancestry, back through a few generations, by multiplying. Two for my parents, four for my grandparents, eight for my great-grandparents, and so on. Multiplying by two each time very quickly brings you to a very large number, more than the population of the earth now, much less back a hundred years. You add the ancestry of another person, a friend, say, and the number doubles. So Dad asked me how this could be. The answer is that a few generations back, ancestries begin to overlap. Go back a few generations, or a few generations more, and you will find that the forebears of your father begin to mix with those of your mother. Most people are separated in ancestry by a lot of generations, true, but depend on it, in the end most everybody is related to each other. ANYWAY, back to the point, in a country as relatively small as the Shire, people are going to marry their third, fourth, second, and yes, sometimes first cousins. Even in our modern society, marriage of first cousins was not so taboo a couple hundred years ago, especially among the rich and prestigious of European society–wealth tended to marry wealth, even if it was in the same family. Read a little Jane Austen, but if you’re cousin-squeamish it might curl your hair. ANYWAY, back to Tolkien, there’s no particular significance other than smaller populations and a tendency to marry close by or even inside your extended family circle. However, in contemplating this, don’t forget that Turin didn’t intend to marry or dishonor his sister–that was part of the tragic history of his Oedipal sort of story.

–Anwyn

back to top

Q: Considering Gandalf's life as Olórin in Valinor, his objectives in Middle-earth, and his enhanced powers with the Elven Ring, is it possible that he sent the dreams to Faramir and Boromir? I can't remember Tolkien ever discussing this in later works, but my mind isn't what it once was.

–Drjoe57@aol.com

A: Neither is mine, believe me. I have no idea if Gandalf had the desire or ability to "send" dreams to other sleeping mortals. But there is a funny connection between Frodo’s dreams of an unhappy Gandalf imprisoned in Orthanc and the actual event! The young Hobbit dreams quite clearly of Gandalf’s escape, and it astonishes the Wizard later on when Frodo conveys what he dreamt. It doesn’t seem like Gandalf had any part of it. If he really was behind it; and if he likewise sent the dreams to the brothers in Gondor, it would be strongly accordant with his purposes (to inspire and motivate people against the Enemy). Although I find nothing in the text to support this idea, it is still very interesting.

–Quickbeam

back to top

Q: If Beren hadn't been killed by Carcharoth, what would have been the fate of Beren and Lúthien? Would Beren have become immortal like Turin (or at least I think Turin became immortal)? If Lúthien became a woman not an elf when she was sent back to Middle-earth with Beren, than that would mean Dior was a mortal man, right? But he married Nimloth of Doriath who was an elf? This is all very confusing... I am not even going to ask about Aragorn and Arwen.

–Goldberry

A: It is amazing how many times this question gets asked, in various permutations. Let us allow Tolkien himself to answer it as best he can, from a September 1954 letter to one Mr. Hastings (Letters, #153):

In the primary story of Lúthien and Beren, Lúthien is allowed as an absolute exception to divest herself of `immortality' and become `mortal'–but when Beren is slain by the Wolf-warden of the Gates of Hell, Lúthien obtains a brief respite in which they both return to Middle-earth `alive'–though not mingling with other people: a kind of Orpheus-legend in reverse, but one of Pity not of Inexorability. Túor weds Idril ... and `it is supposed' (not stated) that he as an unique exception receives the Elvish limited `immortality': an exception either way. Earendil is Túor's son & father of Elros ... and Elrond, their mother being Elwing daughter of Dior, son of Beren and Lúthien: so the problem of the Half-elven becomes united in one line. The view is that the Half-elven have a power of (irrevocable) choice, which may be delayed but not permanently, which kin's fate they will share. Elros chose to be a King and `longaevus' but mortal, so all his descendants are mortal, and of a specially noble race, but with dwindling longevity... Elrond chose to be among the Elves. His children–with a renewed Elvish strain, since their mother was Celebrían dtr. of Galadriel–have to make their choices. .... When [Arwen] weds Aragorn ... she `makes the choice of Lúthien', so the grief at her parting from Elrond is specially poignant. Elrond passes Over Sea. The end of his sons, Elladan and Elrohir, is not told: they delay their choice, and remain for a while.

... Immortality and Mortality being the special gifts of God to the Eruhíni [children of Eru] ... it must be assumed that no alteration of their fundamental kind could be effected by the Valar even in one case: the cases of Lúthien (and Túor) and the position of their descendants was a direct act of God. The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves."

–Ostadan

back to top

Q: What happened to the Book of Mazarbul after the company left Moria? Did it fall into the abyss with Gandalf, or did Gimli carry it throughout the rest of story? If so, was any other information ever gleaned from it?

–Minderbinder

A: Perhaps it was left behind in the Chamber, which would be most unfortunate. Gandalf clearly asks Gimli to take possession of the Book. Strangely it is not mentioned again in the remainder of the novel. But, really, I see nothing that would prevent Gimli from stowing it with his gear and just carrying it with him, though Tolkien does not record any details.

I’ll hazard a guess that the ultimate destination of the Book would be the Dwarves of Erebor, as the contents of it would be of great interest to them. Immediately after the War of the Ring Dáin’s son, Thorin III, became King under the Mountain, and Dwarven ambassadors were sent to the crowning of King Elessar. Gimli was there to meet his kin at that time and, if still bearing it, would simply transfer the Book to their safekeeping. This is all speculation of course.

–Quickbeam