[+] The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - SPOILERS ALLOWED

[Sepulchrave II]

A bit more on the The Silmarillion. In many ways, it truly is the "Bible of Middle-earth." Not just because it presents the mythology, but because it is a limited slice of a much larger body of stories.

I think this is true on many levels. Tolkien was quite cognizant of the way that stories are transmitted, and how tales tend to morph with time. There are many layers of "unreliable narration," both within (our) primary world - Christopher and JRR both having a moving set of goalposts in this regard - but also within the secondary world, with the Red Book of Westmarch (especially Translations from the Elvish).

So when we read the Music of the Ainur, we aren't seeing a true account of the Creation of Arda, we are seeing an account delivered by the Valar to the Eldar in Aman in terms which they find comprehensible (music), refracted through Bilbo's translation, imagined by Tolkien, and edited by Christopher. These multiple levels of (sometimes conflicting) tradition map quite well to something like what would become the Tanakh - where the literary task of assembling those stories in the 3rd Century BCE in Alexandria, has a parallel with Christopher's role as editor.

 

[damiller]

I think this is true on many levels. Tolkien was quite cognizant of the way that stories are transmitted, and how tales tend to morph with time. There are many layers of "unreliable narration," both within (our) primary world - Christopher and JRR both having a moving set of goalposts in this regard - but also within the secondary world, with the Red Book of Westmarch (especially Translations from the Elvish).

So when we read the Music of the Ainur, we aren't seeing a true account of the Creation of Arda, we are seeing an account delivered by the Valar to the Eldar in Aman in terms which they find comprehensible (music), refracted through Bilbo's translation, imagined by Tolkien, and edited by Christopher. These multiple levels of (sometimes conflicting) tradition map quite well to something like what would become the Tanakh - where the literary task of assembling those stories in the 3rd Century BCE in Alexandria, has a parallel with Christopher's role as editor.

In one game of The One Ring I ran, we had some changes to the cannon. I explained it via manuscript traditions, but my player insisted on their being only one true/factual way it happened. And didn't like our campaigns changing that. We didn't get too deep into that discussion, but it was fun. Fans are always nitpicky about the details - whether Tolkien or Biblical.

 

[Mercurius]

I think this is true on many levels. Tolkien was quite cognizant of the way that stories are transmitted, and how tales tend to morph with time. There are many layers of "unreliable narration," both within (our) primary world - Christopher and JRR both having a moving set of goalposts in this regard - but also within the secondary world, with the Red Book of Westmarch (especially Translations from the Elvish).

So when we read the Music of the Ainur, we aren't seeing a true account of the Creation of Arda, we are seeing an account delivered by the Valar to the Eldar in Aman in terms which they find comprehensible (music), refracted through Bilbo's translation, imagined by Tolkien, and edited by Christopher. These multiple levels of (sometimes conflicting) tradition map quite well to something like what would become the Tanakh - where the literary task of assembling those stories in the 3rd Century BCE in Alexandria, has a parallel with Christopher's role as editor.

I think this is true to a point, though I don't think Tolkien ever implied that the Valar were unreliable in their depiction of creation, or that the stories of the Silmarillion were just versions of what happened.

I mean, I can see a One Ring campaign taking that approach, but if one reads the Silmarillion with that in mind, it diverges quite far from Tolkien's intent, imo.

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't equate Bilbo with the Valar, in terms of the reliability of narration!

And as far as canon goes, whatever Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything else is fan fiction and/or material used for individual games, be it Rings of Power or the One Ring. End of story. It is Tolkien's world, his story.

But this also works both ways: Once we buy a game and run a campaign, that campaign is no longer Tolkien's but ours, and we can do whatever we want. For example, it could be fun to play a One Ring campaign in which the Silmarillion is distorted propaganda, and the truth of it - what PCs realize over time - is that Manwe is a malefic demiurge, and Melkor a misunderstood dissident. Perhaps orcs are actually elves who were punished by Manwe for rebelling, and Melkor took them under wing. Etc etc.

 

[Hriston]

I think you're right on both counts.

I probably have warped "gone astray" in my head into "went bad". However, going astray from their mission effectively helps Sauron, so...?

At least one website, <tolkiengateway.net>, says of the Blue Wizards, "some held that they fell into evil and became servants of Sauron", and provides a reference to "The Istari" in Unfinished Tales of which I don't have a copy at the moment, but I haven't seen the original text from which this conclusion seems to have been drawn.

ETA: Radagast, for example, unwittingly helped Saruman to lure Gandalf to Orthanc, but I don't think anyone would say that made him evil.

 

[John R Davis]

I have decided the three entities in white are all Sauron. And one day soon they will merge as one.

 

[Ryujin]

I have decided the three entities in white are all Sauron. And one day soon they will merge as one.

"I am Sauron of Christmas Past."

 

[John R Davis]

Yeah, each bit represents a certain feature

And I hope they introduce Glorfindel in season 2 as I think he returns round about the time the rings are forged?
I'm assuming he was the elf in the elf-balrog-tree bit

 

[eyeheartawk]

I'm finally caught up and I just want to address the main criticism that people have with the show. That is, that it's slow and boring and that nothing happens for ages.

To which I would say; that's all very accurate to the books.

My abiding memory of the LotR was chapters upon chapters of people jogging across grassy fields and then camping. It's all very on-brand.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My abiding memory of the LotR was chapters upon chapters of people jogging across grassy fields and then camping. It's all very on-brand.

Be fair.

There's also a lot of singing.

 

[ART!]

I think this is true to a point, though I don't think Tolkien ever implied that the Valar were unreliable in their depiction of creation, or that the stories of the Silmarillion were just versions of what happened.

I mean, I can see a One Ring campaign taking that approach, but if one reads the Silmarillion with that in mind, it diverges quite far from Tolkien's intent, imo.

Or to put it another way, I wouldn't equate Bilbo with the Valar, in terms of the reliability of narration!

And as far as canon goes, whatever Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything else is fan fiction and/or material used for individual games, be it Rings of Power or the One Ring. End of story. It is Tolkien's world, his story.

But this also works both ways: Once we buy a game and run a campaign, that campaign is no longer Tolkien's but ours, and we can do whatever we want. For example, it could be fun to play a One Ring campaign in which the Silmarillion is distorted propaganda, and the truth of it - what PCs realize over time - is that Manwe is a malefic demiurge, and Melkor a misunderstood dissident. Perhaps orcs are actually elves who were punished by Manwe for rebelling, and Melkor took them under wing. Etc etc.

I agree, although as has been pointed out, Tolkien rewrote and reimagined a lot of things, so even if you go with the last version he wrote of X, you'll still run into problems with how the new X jibes with the ripple effects of the old version of X.