The Bard's Sanctum

[Tracer Bullet]

In an effort to keep from cluttering the forum with short-lived, pointless threads, I will henceforth TRY to confine my various random observations to this one thread. Updated with new garbage weekly. Or hopefully more often.

 

This week's random query:

Click to reveal..

F P P h R M F T I F t I S F A R S Y F R M A M R

Odd, right? Wondering where I got that from?

Here:

Click to reveal..

They are rough keyboard transcriptions of the runes on the stained-glass window above the Shaper Council.

 

Well the runes got me thinking, and I hunted all over, but to my eyes there is no consistent writing system in the Geneforge universe. In G2, you walk over a rune in the floor of the Icy Breeding Pits, and the game says, effectively:

Quote:

To anyone with magical training, it says "Warning: high security ahead."

Note the "to anyone with magical training."

Therefore we are left with two possibilities:

One: Only magicians knew how to read.

Two: The mages practiced at least one distinct, arcane writing system.

 

More on this topic tomorrow, but I would love another voice on this. Please?

[Triumph]

Considering how certain levels of a particular magic or shaping skill are necessary to read particular books (to gain a skill), it would appear that every school of magic or shaping has its own distinct set of symbols or notation or something. We know the Drayk's had their own language, and I think their own system of writing as well.

[Txgangsta]

I think you're reading too much into the game. Jeff did not think about all these things. Jeff just wanted decoration.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted By: Txgangsta

I think you're reading too much into the game. Jeff did not think about all these things. Jeff just wanted decoration.

I read too much into everything. You can't study Tolkien and not pick up that habit. But assuming that I'm onto something, here's today's scrap of writing:

Click to reveal..

Check the G1 intro in the panel where the guy is Shaping an Artila

Needless to say, the fragments are useless unless we already knew what they meant. But I saw enough to convince me that they are not the same writing system.
What say you?

[A less presumptuous name.]

I say that Jeff just made scribbly lines to add decoration.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted By: Master1

I say that Jeff just made scribbly lines to add decoration.

Possible but anticlimax. I shall reserve that solution for a last resort.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

I read too much into everything. You can't study Tolkien and not pick up that habit.

The problem is that Jeff is NOT Tolkien. You can't approach Jeff's works expecting the same kinds of details that are found in Tolkien's works because they aren't the same kind of world-creators. Most especially, Jeff is not a philologist.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

Originally Posted By: Master1

I say that Jeff just made scribbly lines to add decoration.

Possible but anticlimax. I shall reserve that solution for a last resort.

That's even assuming Jeff drew that picture and didn't get another artist to do it. I don't know about Geneforge, but I do know that he hasn't created all the art he uses himself.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

In an effort to keep from cluttering the forum with short-lived, pointless threads...

you already failed by creating this thread

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

I read too much into everything. You can't study Tolkien and not pick up that habit.

I've already read a bit of Tolkien, and don't have that habit; then again, I've always taken his works at face value, especially after the time I went into a bookstore and saw a tarot deck based on LotR.

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

I read too much into everything. You can't study Tolkien and not pick up that habit.

I've already read a bit of Tolkien, and don't have that habit; then again, I've always taken his works at face value, especially after the time I went into a bookstore and saw a tarot deck based on LotR.

You saw a WHAT?! I'm 99.926738163564232% certain it was unlicensed.

[A less presumptuous name.]

87.6253% of all statistics are made up.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

I read too much into everything. You can't study Tolkien and not pick up that habit.

I've already read a bit of Tolkien, and don't have that habit; then again, I've always taken his works at face value, especially after the time I went into a bookstore and saw a tarot deck based on LotR.

You saw a WHAT?! I'm 99.926738163564232% certain it was unlicensed.

Well, I can't imagine Tolkien was ever concerned about people plagiarizing his works- after all, it didn't seem to bother him too much when he did the exact same thing to Wagner.

[Trenton.]

Originally Posted By: Master1

87.6253% of all statistics are made up.

im sure that 87.6253% of that is made up.

[Alorael at Large]

Tolkien didn't plagiarize from Wagner, he used elements similar to Wagner's Ring Cycle. Whether they were taken from Wagner, or whether they just both used the same mythology as a basis for their work, is debated. And in any case, it's not Tolkien who cares, it's Tolkien's estate. And, now, a film company.

 

—Alorael, who comes down on the "pro" side of reading too much into incidental details. It's more interesting to consider the implications of script that only has meaning to mages.

[Dantius]

More than 90% of the entire plotline and concept is identical. Sure, some names are changed and new character introduced, but when you reduce it to its essential elements, it's identical. Observe:

 

The plot commences several centuries before the action itself begins, as a twisted and evil being forges a ring of vast power to rule the world, however, the ring is stolen, and a curse is placed upon it: whoever does not posses the ring desires it. The ring then jumps from person to person as people murder and betray one another for it. Eventually, it falls into the hands of a man and his brother; however; one kills the other and the flees, hiding in a cave for centuries until he becomes as evil as the ring he possesses. Later on (this is the main action), a hero with broken sword finds the ring and goes on adventures, incidentally snagging up a smoking hot immortal babe who sacrifices her status and immortality for her love of him. In the finale, the ring is eventually destroyed in flames that escalate and consume the supernatural beings that created it, and the action resolves with man finally free to do as he pleases beyond the influence of the gods.

 

This is generally defined as "plagiarism". Your mileage may vary, but there is definitely a connection that goes waaaay beyond "used the same vague mythology" between the two stories.

[A less presumptuous name.]

It sounds like Tolkein split Wagner's hero into two (or more) different people. The man with the broken sword is not the ring-bearer in Tolkein's version...

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

More than 90% of the entire plotline and concept is identical.

"90%" is a gross overstatement, if you really mean "the entire plotline and concept." There are obvious similarities and parallels, on a very general level. Some of these can be explained simply by the fact that both authors drew from the Eddas, the Nibelungenlied, and other such sources (and I believe both explicitly acknowledged this; Tolkien definitely did). The others, I think, are less substantial than you make out. Here's the Wikipedia synopsis of the Ring Cycle: I've bolded the phrases that apply to LOTR as well:

Quote:

The plot revolves around a magic ring that grants the power to rule the world, forged by the Nibelung dwarf Alberich from gold he stole from the Rhinemaidens in the river Rhine. Several mythic figures struggle for possession of the Ring, including Wotan (Odin), the chief of the gods. Wotan's scheme, spanning generations, to overcome his limitations, drives much of the action in the story. His grandson, the hero Siegfried, wins the Ring, as Wotan intended, but is eventually betrayed and slain. Finally, the Valkyrie Brünnhilde, Siegfried's lover and Wotan's estranged daughter, returns the Ring to the Rhinemaidens. In the process, the Gods and their home, Valhalla, are destroyed.

There are a few words above, bolded or not bolded, which we could argue over, but the point is that "90% of everything" is several ballparks away from accurate, however you look at things. Also:

Originally Posted By: Dantius

This is generally defined as "plagiarism".

Um, no, it's not. Copying someone's idea, and telling the same thing in different words, is plagiarism. Copying elements of someone else's story, and using them in your own story, is not plagiarism. That's part of the exchange of images and ideas that is the hallmark of art when it is being created by entire civilizations and not just by one individual in isolation. If you want to call that plagiarism, then Tolkien is guilty of it clear as day, for he talked endlessly about his sources of inspiration; also guilty are Shakespeare and Goethe, Sophocles and Ovid, Dostoevsky and Joyce — and they would all admit to it as readily.

[Trenton.]

amen to that!

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

"90%" is a gross overstatement, if you really mean "the entire plotline and concept." There are obvious similarities and parallels, on a very general level. Some of these can be explained simply by the fact that both authors drew from the Eddas, the Nibelungenlied, and other such sources (and I believe both explicitly acknowledged this; Tolkien definitely did). The others, I think, are less substantial than you make out. Here's the Wikipedia synopsis of the Ring Cycle: I've bolded the phrases that apply to LOTR as well:

The Ring cycle is a 20-hour opera, you can hardly pull out one paragraph and expect that to adequately describe the series. This is further exacerbated by the fact that that summary grossly oversimplifies in places. Formatting a paragraph from an encyclopedia is not a refutation. Arguing that I have misinterpreted the plot points in my prior post, or that they are not important, would be.

I think this is because you are confused about what I mean. Perhaps I should have specified: when I say "plotline and concept", I mean the general sequence of events both leading up to the story that occur before the main action, and the events that occur within the narrative itself. If Aragorn does A and then B, and Siegfried does B and then A, my argument is not invalidated because they did them in a different order. For instance, Tolkien's ring is actually evil, whereas Wagner's is simply cursed. This does not mean that I am false in comparing the two, as the results of this are 100% functionally identical for both items: they are desired as sources of power, and people will kill and betray to obtain them.

What I am not saying is that the characters, setting, or progression of events are identical. There are some minor similarities, to be sure, but they are different enough to plausibly attribute them to actual independent thought.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

the point is that "90% of everything" is several ballparks away from accurate, however you look at things.

I am aware of this. That is why I at no point said "90% of everything" in my post. Like I explained above, I did not mean to state that 90% of the two works are identical- only the plot and the backstory are 90% identical.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Um, no, it's not. Copying someone's idea, and telling the same thing in different words, is plagiarism.

This is exactly what Tolkien did, though! Did you read my previous post? Had I shown the center section to someone who had seen/read both works, they would be unable to distinguish which one I was referring to! The salient events in both stories are so similar that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart from a single summary!

[Slawbug]

"The entire plotline and concept," your original phrasing, is hardly the same thing as "the general sequence of events both [backstory] and the events that occur within the narrative itself," but whatever. We seem to have different ideas of how much the two works have in common, and I suspect also in how much similarity constitutes plagiarism. Point taken that our one paragraph summaries were not really adequate to the task; I'm not really up for an epic argument over this, so I'm moving on.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I'm not really up for an epic argument over this, so I'm moving on.

Awww. I was gearing up to an epic debate . I guess in the absence of one, I'll just go sleep for about fourteen hours.

That was an underwhelming conclusion to a promising start.

[Trenton.]

just because he wants to miss out doesnt mean we cant have our "debate"

[Tracer Bullet]

Wow. I lost my thread already.

 

WHOA! WHOA, BOY! Easy, boy, easy.

[Radix Malorum Est Cupiditas]

Originally Posted By: Fflewddur Fflam son of Godo

Wow. I lost my thread already.

WHOA! WHOA, BOY! Easy, boy, easy.

Yea. You're going to see a lot of that here.

[Trenton.]

*had a topic about creations turn to a conversation about pie

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

The salient events in both stories are so similar that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart from a single summary!

I haven't read the Ring Cycle, but I have read LotR, and I can tell you that your center paragraph isn't an accurate synopsis of it.

Dikiyoba.

[Trenton.]

Lotr pwns

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

I haven't read the Ring Cycle, but I have read LotR, and I can tell you that your center paragraph isn't an accurate synopsis of it.

Dikiyoba.

And I haven't read LotR books, but I have seen the (extended? Director's cut? Whatever it's called) movies, (and actually seen the Ring cycle, and it's kind of important to be familiar with both works when you're having a discussion compating them ). So how is that not an accurate synopsis? It covers the rise and fall of Sauron, the corruption of Smeagol into Gollum, Aragorn's eventual acceptance of his rule and reunification of Man as symbolized by the reforging of the broken sword, the resolution of the romantic subplot, the eventual destruction of the Ring by its consumption in flame and its return to where it began, and the destruction of Sauron and exodus of the Elves, leaving an "Age of Man" to rule all Middle-Earth.

Sure, Frodo got left out because there isn't really a commensurate character in the Ring, and the Gandalf=Wotan connection is tenuous at best (they're both gods with long robes who dress like old men), but I would definitely say that that is an accurate summary of LotR. What, exactly, am I missing?

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

Lotr pwns

This is a perfect example of the type of spam-y, nonsense posts that you really shouldn't make- it gets people frustrated with you. Try to either add something meaningful, original, or humorous to the discussion if you're going to post. Thanks!

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

(and actually seen the Ring cycle, and it's kind of important to be familiar with both works when you're having a discussion compating them )

Right, which is why I did not compare the two or say anything about the contents of the Ring Cycle at all. I just said your synopsis didn't match up with LotR very well.

Quote:

The plot commences several centuries before the action itself begins,

Check, although I'm not sure that's the amount of time.

Quote:

as a twisted and evil being forges a ring of vast power to rule the world,

Check.

Quote:

however, the ring is stolen,

Check.

Quote:

and a curse is placed upon it:

Um, what? Definitely not LotR.

Quote:

whoever does not posses the ring desires it.

Check.

Quote:

The ring then jumps from person to person as people murder and betray one another for it.

Also not LotR. The ring gets lost and forgotten right away.

Quote:

Eventually, it falls into the hands of a man and his brother;

Pretty sure Smeagol and Deagol weren't actually related. I could be misremembering, though.

Quote:

however; one kills the other and the flees, hiding in a cave for centuries until he becomes as evil as the ring he possesses.

Check.

Quote:

Later on (this is the main action), a hero with broken sword finds the ring and goes on adventures,

Yeah, no. Frodo and Aragorn are different characters and do radically different things.

Quote:

incidentally snagging up a smoking hot immortal babe who sacrifices her status and immortality for her love of him.

Aragorn does, so check.

Quote:

In the finale, the ring is eventually destroyed in flames

Check.

Quote:

that escalate and consume the supernatural beings that created it,

I'd say check, but Sauron was the only one who made the ring and the only one who died when it was destroyed. No check.

Quote:

and the action resolves with man finally free to do as he pleases beyond the influence of the gods.

Um, no. The new age might be a World of Man, but there are certainly still other forces at work. (Remember, Gandalf tells Frodo he was meant to have the ring.) Plus, elves aren't really comparable to gods.

Dikiyoba.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

and a curse is placed upon it:

Um, what? Definitely not LotR.

No, but remember that whoever does not posses the ring desires it. While in LotR, this is because of the ring itself as opposed to a curse, the effects wind up being identical (people want it), so just because the exact mechanism is different, doesn't mean that there's any essential difference between the two objects.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

The ring then jumps from person to person as people murder and betray one another for it.

Also not LotR. The ring gets lost and forgotten right away.

Well, Isildur takes it from Sauron, refuses to destroy it, gets killed by orcs (not related), Deagol finds it, Smeagol murders him for it, Bilbo cheats at riddles to obtain it, Gandalf has to very nearly threaten Bilbo to give it up, Bilbo nearly attacks Frodo at Rivendell for it, Boromir nearly kills and betrays the Fellowship to obtain it for Gondor, Gollum leads Sam and Frodo into a trap to kill them so he can take it from their dead bodies, and Frodo very nearly attacks Sam when he finds Sam took the ring after Shelob's lair. That sure seems like betrayal and murder to obtain it to me.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

Later on (this is the main action), a hero with broken sword finds the ring and goes on adventures,

Yeah, no. Frodo and Aragorn are different characters and do radically different things.

Okay, bear with me on this one. This may be an instance of YMMV or just a discrepancy between the books and the movies, but it seemed to me like Aragorn was the main character and protagonist, since his personality and character actually goes through stages- at first, he's a loner ranger tormented by his heritage, until finally he gains the courage to accept who he is, finally saving the day as he acknowledges and shoulders the burdens placed upon him by the form of kingship. Frodo is just a reluctant hobbit who changes very little until the very end, where he starts to get corrupted by the power of the Ring, which doesn't really count as it's not an internal struggle against himself, but rather a test of wills between himself and an enormously powerful artifact that he loses. Frodo is also inherently replacable- had he died in Shelob's lair, Sam could have carried it to Mount Doom and destroyed it himself (we already know he can resist its power). If Aragorn dies, though, nobody is capable of rallying the men or ascending to the rightful throne of Gondor, so he's unique.

If the main character is Aragorn, the it's clear that the main character is in fact just a clone of Siegfried, which proves my point. If the main character is Frodo, that weakens my point, but it's still clear that the second most important character still is an exact copy of the most important character in Gotterdammerung.

If it helps, you can say that Siegfried was broken up into two characters: the one who finds the ring and is seduced by its power, and the heir with the broken sword.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

that escalate and consume the supernatural beings that created it,

I'd say check, but Sauron was the only one who made the ring and the only one who died when it was destroyed. No check.

It kills the Ringwraiths, the legions of orcs, and Sauron, and probably some other characters that were only in the books (like the Mouth of Sauron). At least two of those three qualify as "supernatural beings". There's a slight divergence here as in the Ring cycle the destruction of the ring winds up destroying all the gods, but the destruction of Sauron and his minions should qualify at least in part.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

and the action resolves with man finally free to do as he pleases beyond the influence of the gods.

Um, no. The new age might be a World of Man, but there are certainly still other forces at work. (Remember, Gandalf tells Frodo he was meant to have the ring.) Plus, elves aren't really comparable to gods.

There's no spectre of Sauron to haunt the world, the wise and powerful Elves have left, the wizards (these were the gods referenced, because they are demigods) have left to the West as well, so there's really no clear ascendant species aside from Man. Hence, an age of Man free (or at least free-er) from the influence of those stronger than them.

[Trenton.]

still. lord of the rings. great story,book,movie etc. etc

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

No, but remember that whoever does not posses the ring desires it. While in LotR, this is because of the ring itself as opposed to a curse, the effects wind up being identical (people want it), so just because the exact mechanism is different, doesn't mean that there's any essential difference between the two objects.

My point is that this assertion:

Quote:

Had I shown the center section to someone who had seen/read both works, they would be unable to distinguish which one I was referring to! The salient events in both stories are so similar that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart from a single summary!

is completely wrong, because Dikiyoba can clearly tell it's not a summary of LotR.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Dantius

No, but remember that whoever does not posses the ring desires it. While in LotR, this is because of the ring itself as opposed to a curse, the effects wind up being identical (people want it), so just because the exact mechanism is different, doesn't mean that there's any essential difference between the two objects.

My point is that this assertion:

Quote:

Had I shown the center section to someone who had seen/read both works, they would be unable to distinguish which one I was referring to! The salient events in both stories are so similar that it's nearly impossible to tell them apart from a single summary!

is completely wrong, because Dikiyoba can clearly tell it's not a summary of LotR.

Okay. Had I clarified the one phrase about Aragorn and eliminated another about the nature of the Ring, the paragraph would accurately describe both works. Acceptable?

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

And I haven't read LotR books, but I have seen the (extended? Director's cut? Whatever it's called) movies, (and actually seen the Ring cycle, and it's kind of important to be familiar with both works when you're having a discussion compating them ).

I agree whole-heartedly with what you wrote in parentheses. That leaves me kind of shocked that you are seriously attacking an author for plagiarizing, when you haven't even read the book in question!

The movies manage to sustain the general atmosphere and feeling of the books in many places. And in many places, plot and dialogue is straight from the books. In other places, however, there have been serious changes. There is no parallel in Wagner for Tom Bombadil, nor for the Scouring of the Shire, which Tolkien himself considered the most important part of the story -- and both of those were omitted from the movies. Likewise, Arwen. Aragorn does have a "smoking hot immortal babe" etc etc in the books. However, Arwen doesn't get a single line of dialogue, and her romance with Aragorn is mentioned twice, and briefly. She is hugely upstaged by the Faramir-Eowyn romance, which gets a whole chapter, and even Sam's future wife, Rosie Cotton, gets talked about as much. Most of Arwen's screen time in the first movie is taken from Glorfindel, another elf -- a male elf -- who does not show up in the movies at all.

Quote:

This may be an instance of YMMV or just a discrepancy between the books and the movies, but it seemed to me like Aragorn was the main character and protagonist

Um, yeah. Discrepancy. It would definitely be reasonable to say that Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf are all the protagonists of LOTR, but in the books, everything begins and ends with Frodo; Gandalf, you eventually find out, is working just offstage the entire time; and Aragorn leads up the more impotant of two intersecting secondary plots (the other involving Rohan, Fangorn, and Isengard), but gets rather less screen time than either Frodo or Gandalf.

Quote:

Frodo is also inherently replacable- had he died in Shelob's lair, Sam could have carried it to Mount Doom and destroyed it himself (we already know he can resist its power).

Extremely strong disagreement. Read the book.

Quote:

It kills the Ringwraiths, the legions of orcs, and Sauron, and probably some other characters that were only in the books (like the Mouth of Sauron). At least two of those three qualify as "supernatural beings". There's a slight divergence here as in the Ring cycle the destruction of the ring winds up destroying all the gods, but the destruction of Sauron and his minions should qualify at least in part.

First of all, the destruction of the Ring does NOT kill the orcs; Gandalf in fact is quite clear in stating that the orcs are not inherently evil and should not be treated as such. Also, the Silmarillion, which tells the story of things that came before LOTR, makes it clear that there is an entire pantheon of gods, the Valar, ranking above both Gandalf and Sauron. They are quite explicitly not on Sauron's side, and destroying the Ring doesn't do anything to them. So, um, no.

We could argue like this for ages, but I want to return to my main point: if you are making an accusation of plagiarism, the burden of proof is on you, and making such an accusation about a book you haven't read is just foolish.

[Trenton.]

comment drift happening >.<

[Randomizer]

Both used elements from earlier stories, but developed them in different directions..

 

Aragorn while a major character is never the main protagonist of LotR. His character in the earlier drafts was a hobbit named Trotter, who is a Tookish cousin of Frodo and Bilbo. It's only in the later drafts that became the published book that Aragon evolves from a helper of Gandalf into the mythic lost king that makes him equivalent to Siegfried.

 

The LotR was written as a sequel to The Hobbit and the story always centers around the hobbits. This is the continuation of Bilbo's diary and of course they are the most important characters. All those humans and elves are there for color. As Merry and Pippin point out, hobbits are always getting left out of the stories.

[Trenton.]

maybe they have too "small" parts XD or theyre too "short" in stature to reckonize

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

comment drift happening >.<

Loyal Servile,

There are now at least four members here, including moderators and non-moderators, who have politely asked you to stop making so many "spam" posts. You have stopped making the worst of the posts ("what he said") which is great. However, you are continuing to make large numbers of "spam" posts, especially one-line posts. Wading through so much "spam" can be annoying for other members.

You are very welcome here at Spiderweb! You seem like someone who has interesting things to say, and you have been very friendly. But, the excessive "spam" posts, including the excessive one-line posts, need to stop.

Therefore, I am giving you an official warning: please stop making so many one-line posts, or your posting ability may be restricted.

Thanks,
Slarty

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Quote:

The plot commences several centuries before the action itself begins,

Check, although I'm not sure that's the amount of time.

You're close; it's actually millennia in LotR. If my (admittedly hasty) calculations are correct, there's about 4800 years from the forging of the One Ring to the beginning of The Hobbit.

Quote:

Quote:

In the finale, the ring is eventually destroyed in flames

Check.

To be technically correct, LotR uses lava to destroy the One Ring. Still, check.

Quote:

Quote:

that escalate and consume the supernatural beings that created it,

I'd say check, but Sauron was the only one who made the ring and the only one who died when it was destroyed. No check.

Not quite. Sauron "dies" similar to the way Gandalf "died"; however, in Sauron's case, the vast majority of his power was destroyed with the One Ring. Sauron is, in some way, still alive, but he can't take shape again.

[Trenton.]

gandalf never really died. he came back later right?

[The Mystic]

He "dies" as Gandalf the Grey after defeating the Balrog, but he was "sent back" as Gandalf the White.

 

The way I understand it, Gandalf (and Sauron, Saruman, Radagast, and the Balrog, for that matter) is originally from a race called the Maia, which are supposed to be some kind of immortal spirit; I'd have to reread The Silmarillion to be more sure.

[Alorael at Large]

Most of the story behind LotR is the Silmarillion, which has a lot of worldbuilding and mythology that gets only hints and allusions in the more widely read trilogy.

 

The Maiar are something like angels, or maybe demigods. They have spirits that survive the death of the body and can be sent back to Middle-Earth. So do elves, actually; humans are uniquely blessed in their ability to die and go somewhere beyond the reach of the Valar, who are the gods, but not God, who is someone else entirely. (Follow?)

 

—Alorael, who thinks this all may miss the point a bit. The question is whether Tolkien plagiarized. The answer is that LotR is so overwhelmingly different from Wagner's operas that regardless of hte influence Wagner had or didn't have they're completely different in tone, in style, in themes, and in feel.

[Trenton.]

mow im confused. gandalf is an angle or demigod?

[Alorael at Large]

Neither. Gandalf is a Maia. Tolkien created his own cosmology and his own ranks of supernatural beings. So are the other wizards, notably Saruman. Sauron is also a Maia, and so is the balrog that Gandalf dies fighting.

 

Some of them are angelic beings who hang around the gods and do their bidding. (Sauron is this type; he was the lieutenant of Morgoth, an evil god, until Morgoth was defeated.) Some are more like spirits of nature. Some are wizards. Some are demonic, like balrogs.

 

—Alorael, who believes some of that even gets described in the appendices of Return of the King. The rest is in the Silmarillion.

[Slawbug]

Demigod is probably the simplest comparison. Basically, in Tolkien's world, you have

 

THE VALAR (gods)

 

THE MAIAR (powerful immortal beings)

 

QUASI-IMMORTAL RACES (elves, etc.)

MORTAL RACES (men, etc.)

 

 

I'm not entirely sure if other races (dwarves, hobbits, ents, orcs, etc.) go into the elf category or the man category, particularly those races of unusual origin (dwarves, orcs, etc.)

 

As Alorael mentioned, there is a somewhat deistic creator God figure, Iluvatar or Eru, who stands above the Valar, but basically doesn't figure into anything after creation.

 

Each and every Maia (I think) is associated with a particular one of the Valar. Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman apparently all served Aule, at least originally. The Balrogs were Maiar in the service of Melkor (aka Morgoth).

[Trenton.]

and thats why you cant kill a belrog and gandalf cant die? i mean its IMPOSSIBLE for them to die?

[Alorael at Large]

Yes. Mostly. When they die, their physical forms are destroyed. What happens then depends on the Maia and divine intervention. Some, like Gandalf, get reincarnated. Some, like Sauron, don't, although it's implied to be due to Sauron's loss of power and his inability to focus himself on anything but rage, hate, and loss long enough to do anything about his incorporeality.

 

Elves are also impossible to kill. When they die, their souls go to the Halls of Mandos, where they wait for some time before being reincarnated in Valinor. That's something like going to a Purgatory- or Limbo-like waiting area before going to Heaven, except Valinor is a Heaven that has a geographical location, so it's not impossible for elves to die, get new bodies, and sail east back to Middle-Earth.

 

—Alorael, who is pretty sure the balrog Gandalf fights is gone, if not permanently, then for the remainder of meaningful time before the end of the world. Permanent death, meaning a soul beyond recall gone somewhere that even the gods cannot follow, is unique to Men.

[Dikiyoba]

Huh. If orcs are immortal in the same way elves are, that would make for some very interesting possibilities.

 

'Course, that's a pretty complicated form of immortality, so Dikiyoba can understand why so many post-Tolkien fantasy novels feature elves just live forever until they get killed.

[Alorael at Large]

Orcs may be elves, or at least their corrupted descendants. Tolkien was never quite decisive about that.

 

—Alorael, who also isn't sure that J.R.R. himself ever described the metaphysics of Ents or Orcs. He's not even positive that Dwarves got a definitive afterlife, although he is fairly sure that at least one of them is reborn several times.