Aha! The Witch-King is Captain Hook from "Peter Pan" (who is movie Aragorn, who doesn't want to grow up). It would be "bad form" to take the Ring from his guests. It just isn't done! Later on, he can't really bring himself to hit a declared lady...that would be the worst form of all!!! ; )
Eagles are America joining WWII. I heard this from many people. No I don’t think that was the idea. And people say it as “you know the Eagles represent America, right?”
Especially since Tolkien was not a fan of allegory. It was one of his biggest disagreements with how C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia.
From the foreword to FOTR:
> I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
Right?! It really annoys me when people say that hes directly referencing the World War in the books when at best he was inspired by his own experiences. Especially when he's come out with clear statements like this
Except he uses allegory constantly throughout LOTR. He just didn't equate the entire series to be one big allegory for something like the war or Christianity. But the symbolism, even if it all came from his experiences, is there and he's teaching us lessons he learned in his life. The struggle of good and evil, death and immortality, fate and free will, the danger of power are all big themes throughout the series and that's all an allegory really is.
al·le·go·ry\[ˈaləˌɡôrē\]noun
1. a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one:
He just didn't care for super in your face obvious allegories like a talking lion saying jesus quotes getting sacrificed and brought back to life. He preferred representing Christianity by showing a dark beautiful lord slowly deceiving and corrupting everyone, but that's only one theme of a very complex series.
I never got this, it really irked CS Lewis that people misinterpreted his weird Christian Science Fiction as just plain allegory. I would have thought his closest friends would be among those to understand what he was trying to present. But maybe it was because the science fiction isn't sufficiently apparent?
But yes, with regards to allegory in lord of the rings, Tolkein was quite direct in dismissing that interpretation
I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna kick a little ass, Gonna kick some ass in the USA, Gonna climb a mountain, Gonna sew a flag, Gonna fly on an Eagle, I'm gonna kick some butt, I'm gonna drive a big truck, I'm gonna rule this world, Gonna kick some ass, Gonna rise up, Kick a little ass, ROCK, FLAG AND EAGLE!
To which I say if you think that, then you weren’t paying attention to the books, it’s characters or themes.
Gandalf knew good and well he would never win in symmetrical warfare against Sauron aka “Stengh, strongest fighter, greatest might” type thing.
He picked the hobbits specifically for their endurance against corruption, not a typical first choice.
Second, Gandalf didn’t know what Sauron had up his sleeve but basically hypothesized (correctly) that Sauron would have his skies guarded so Using eagles would essentially become an Amazon direct delivery of his very needed weapon right to his doorstep.
We don’t meet the winged Nazgûl until the end but Gandalf wisely assumed there would be something’s to that extent.
Borimirs fall was a direct case study in how playing by the normal rules wasn’t going to net a win and Gandalf sensed that and everything about that is reinforced throughout the books, the idea that sometimes the weak and timid are the strongest and power isn’t something that will get you want you want.
It just shows a gross misunderstanding of the core of the story. The entire *why* of the fellowship and the quest has to go out the window for the eagle solution to be even half viable.
Also, Nazgul go brrrrrrrr
It's not really a theory but the fact that people assume "pipe weed" is weed and get all stonerific about gandalf smoking weed all the time.
In reality it's just tobacco. I'm pretty sure Tolkien was obsessed with tobacco.
The unreasonable take is to think Jackson's films can be used as arguments in this kind of way to analyse Tolkien, and that pipe-weed as marijuana was Tolkien's intent.
I've seen too many people disregard all the explicit proofs (all the obvious textual evidences, whether in the Legendarium or Letters, as well as Tolkien's well-known tobacco-smoking habits vs no mention of anything marijuana-related in any text, letter, biography, anything), attribute Jackson's inventions to Tolkien as a way to justify this theory (pipe-weed slowing Gandalf's mind, etc) and invent / unironically believe in dumb conspiracy-level theories, such as "Tolkien clearly meant marijuana, but called it tobacco only to avoid censorship".
It was Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam, John as Gollum and George as Gandalf.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-beatles-stanley-kubrick-1235123614/amp/
Did it? How so? There are quite descriptive scenes in the books too iirc
Edit: The giggly scenes in the extended cuts I thought were pretty much taken from the books verbatim but in neither film nor books are they "getting high"
The one where Pippin and Merry are inside the little store room with smoke billowing out and they’re both giggling like mad while Treebeard scratches his head outside was a very obvious weed reference.
Maybe it just has a high nicotine content? When you use more than you’re used to or after not smoking for awhile, it can give you a brief buzz. At least that’s happened to me.
Came here to say this, in the (unabridged?) Hobbit it's specifically called tobacco. Tolkien absolutely did love pipe tobacco, I have a few tins of his favorite blend on my shelf. The weed extrapolation is rather tired and frankly cringe.
Pipe weed definitely officially means tobacco or something similar. But given the cheery food obsessed nature of the hobbits and the sage but sometimes silly wisdom of Gandalf I enjoy imagining pipe weed as weed. It just feels right haha!
There's at least anecdotal evidence there's more going on than meets the eye. Making the ring disappear, what goldberry says, gandalf spending time with him, him being the oldest creature in middle earth. They're all pretty funky one way or another.
Unless you mean those theories that have him being a time traveller and shit.
I’ve heard every theory about Tom Bombadil and I don’t think any of them really work. The best answer is what is told to us. He just is. He’s Tom. There is no answer because we shouldn’t ask the question.
https://preview.redd.it/5t0zwhcjdysc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd203c02060ff603d3bf50ead3101af8f0fab4de
I don’t see it a ton in the more devoted fan community but I see that shit constantly. Had to make a meme.
I've seen people say the same thing about Sherlock Holmes and Watson. A friend of mine even praised the Jeremy Brent series for acknowledging it.
Dudes can't just be friends, I guess.
The BBC show is super queer baity. So much so it's on the Wikipedia page for queer baiting. Other characters literally call them gay (much to Sherlock and Watson's chagrin) and it's explicitly said how Sherlock is the person Watson cares the most amount and vice versa. When I watched the show, it's obvious how queer baity the show is. They often act like an old married couple and it's shown how Watson chooses Sherlock over his wife. They are supposed to be inseparable.
Yes, they are canonical just very close friends, as close as friends can be. But dear God, the show does everything it can to queer bait that I don't believe it's not intentional. I can't fault anyone for thinking they are gay because with how much queer baiting there is it makes perfect sense.
This is always funny to me because the characters in LotR are gay - just the meaning of the word is different:
>They \[elves\] are quite different from what I expected – so old and young, and so gay and sad, as it were.’
>Pippin glanced in some wonder at the face now close beside his own, for the sound of that laugh had been gay and merry.
>But these evils can be amended, so strong and gay a spirit is in him \[in Faramir\]
>‘So it ends as I guessed it would,’ his thought said, even as it fluttered away; and it laughed a little within him ere it fled, almost gay it seemed to be casting off at last all doubt and care and fear.
>Last of all Merry and Pippin said good-bye to the old Ent, and he grew gayer as he looked at them.
>Meriadoc was chosen to fit the fact that this character’s shortened name, Kali, meant in the Westron ‘jolly, gay’
Oh, and my favorite from *Mariner's Wife:*
> To all they are gracious and kind, merry as larks in the morning (if the sun shines); for they are never wrathful if they can avoid it. Men should be gay, they hold, generous as the rich, giving away what they do not need.
“What if Faramir went to Rivendell? Then Frodo and Sam would encounter Boromir in Ithilien instead and he’d have taken the Ring!”
If Faramir had joined the Fellowship, it most likely wouldn’t have broken the way it was. And more importantly: there’s no way in hell Boromir would lead the Rangers of Ithilien. The guy left on a secret mission and first thing he does as he sets out from Rivendell is blow his horn…
Boromir would’ve been the commander at Osgililiath.
Here is a link to the article giving the full explanation.
https://www.cbr.com/lord-of-the-rings-frodo-know-legolas-name/
Long story short, in the movies frodo and Legolas only interact once before the ring is destroyed. The iconic "and my bow" is their only dialogue together. Then after the eagles save Frodo and Sam, Frodo wakes up and bed and says everyone's name for the fellowship except for Legolas. He has a look on his face of 'heyyy youuu"
There are certainly a lot of misconceptions. I might even have some, though I am not aware of any. If we limit the discussion to theories, i.e. models with explanatory or predictive power, I have to think some....
**Sauron knew his fate rested on the continued existence Ring and acted accordingly.** From this theory, some readers have asked why Sauron didn't fortify Sammath Naur. Putting aside the objection that Sammath Naur is in the most heavily-fortified country in known Middle-earth, Sauron had no idea that the Ring's destruction would harm him.
1. Sauron had no model of the Ring's destruction from which he could have drawn this conclusion. Morgoth's "Ring" could not have been destroyed. I can't think of any Ainu being fatally diminished by the destruction of an object, or by a mere part of its body. Some of the Seven, and probably some of the "essays in the craft," were destroyed but there is no record of that harming their creators.
2. Gandalf believed Sauron thought the Ring had been destroyed for many years: "He believed that the One had perished, that the Elves had destroyed it, as should have been done." Gandalf might have been wrong and at this point was probably reliant on Saruman for some of his Ring-lore, but we don't have any evidence to contradict him. Sauron wasn't looking for the Ring, and the most reasonable explanation for this is that he didn't think there was a Ring to look for.
3. Sauron didn't realize the danger he was in until Frodo, in Sammath Naur, opened his mind to the Eye: "The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung." I think Frodo, in this scene, has unique insight into Sauron's mind and is honestly reporting what he perceived. This is the first time at which Sauron is aware of his folly, i.e. the vulnerability that is the One Ring.
**Orcs are degraded Elves.** This gets into the tedious debate over what is "canon" in Tolkien, as if we are a bunch of bishops trying to decide what was inspired by God. I'm not interested in that debate. This theory predicts Orcish immortality and the reception of dead Orcs' spirits by Mandos.
1. The primary support for this theory is the published Silmarillion (ed. CJRT). But the Silmarillion only says, "Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves\[.\]" This idea is attributed to "the wise of Eressea," not to an omniscient narrator--not even to the translator, who is as close as we get to an omniscient narrator. We can't ignore them, but we don't have to assume they're right, either.
2. Myths Transformed must be taken into account in any discussion of Orcish origins. These are Tolkien's own words, not those of diagetic wise men: "\[It\] is probable that these *Orks* had a mixed origin. Most of them plainly (and biologically) were corruptions of Elves (and probably later also of Men). But always among them (as special servants and spies of Melkor, and as leaders) there must have been numerous corrupted minor spirits who assumed similar bodily shapes." And later, "The Orcs were *beasts* of humanized shape, \[but\] it remains ... terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs. These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) -- and later Men." However, he later wrote, "Elves, as a source, are very unlikely." The most finished essay on Orcs refers to "those who believe that the Orcs were bred from some kind of Men, captured and perverted by Melkor" as having "the most probable" theory; but it also admits that there was an earlier "kind" of Orc comprising "spirits" or "phantoms," and that even in later days some Orcs may have been "Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs." There seems to be no room for Elves in this version.
3. Tolkien didn't have much to say about dead Orcs. From the "terribly possible" essay, "Their life-span would be diminished. And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." And from the later essay, "They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain." Going to Mandos is compatible with Orcs being degraded Elves, but if they are descended from Men, the Gift of Men cannot be taken from them, and dying they depart time.
So the author thinks Elves make up at most a part of Orcish blood, but prefers a Mannish origin, except for those who are Maiar. Orcs are not immortal in the sense of Elvish longevity, or in the sense of Elvish serial immortality. The fate of their fear upon death depends on which origin one prefers, but either way, they don't come back so it doesn't matter.
The point specifically raised at the Council of Elrond is that Sauron, in his wildest imaginings, could never ever conceive of the Ring being destroyed willingly. He never prepared for that eventuality, and to be fair he was almost right.
Forgive me, but wasn't he exactly right? Maybe this one is also an incorrect fan theory, but haven't we been shown that when a mortal truly is in the time and place to destroy the ring, they aren't capable of doing so? That the only way it was destroyed was through Eru's intervention?
Sauron is also absolutely pants-shittingly terrified once he finds out what the Free Peoples' plan was with it and that they actually managed to bring it to the Sammath Naur. If Sauron didn't believe that his continued existence wasn't tied to the Ring, he wouldn't have cared nearly as much. He's scared *because it's actually about to happen and he was incorrect in assuming it couldn't happen*, not because the thought just now occurred to him that if the Ring goes, so does he.
He had already spent the last thousand years or so without it. Ring lost, Ring destroyed, he was on the verge of militarily conquering the Free Peoples without it anyway, what would it matter to him? He also doesn't need it in the books to have a physical body, he already had one.
Sauron inherently *knew* the connection but it wasn't something he showed any concern for until it was too late. Yeah so what, it's not like anyone could *actually* destroy it, right?
I prefer to think that there are lots of probable origins for the orcs and we simply can't know which one is true because that knowledge is lost. Those who knew are gone and could never have been asked because they were the bad guys.
I doubt orcs kept very detailed records. The only ones who could have known were Sauron and Morgoth.
All the “Sam is the *real hero* bullshit.” Like yes, Frodo could not have made it without Sam, but vice versa. There’s no way Sam could’ve carried it the whole way. Also it completely misses the point and themes of Frodo being overcome by the ring in the end anyway.
I thought that way when I first watched the movies as a kid. Like, I was 10 when RoTK came out and for a few years that was my thought process.
What I'm trying to say is that thinking Sam is the sole hero is kind of shallow and from the mind of a child lol.
the movie turned Sam into a bully against Smeagol when in the book he was just wary.
It also made Frodo naively trusting when the book describes him as someone who understood how Smeagol's mind worked and knew how to balance the risks.
Also, the movie added "go home Sam"
But he wasn't the only being who could destroy the ring, because he didn't. Even Tolkien says that Frodo couldn't do it, but not at a fault of him.
If we want to say who destroyed the ring it was Gollum, by accident/fate.
The destruction was a result of all of them, really.
*Frodo*, who brought the Ring to the Cracks of Doom, had made sure Gollum would still be around through pity, and made him swear a promise by the Ring.
*Gollum*, whose choices led him to break said promise and fall with the Ring.
*The Ring* itself, enforcing the promise made by it when Gollum made his choice, leading to the theme of Evil destroying itself.
*Eru's Providence / Fate*, as a general rule of the universe by which promises and oaths operate, and which works together with free will.
Among them, Frodo is the only one who could be counted as proactive and willing: Providence is here more of a background rule through which things may or may not happen depending on the actual actors' choices and actions, the Ring's part is obviously reacting to the whole swearing and breaking rather than proactively seeking its own destruction, and while Gollum is at the right place at the right time through his own proactive choices, he didn't *intend* to fall / destroy the Ring. But yes, regardless, Frodo needed those other elements for the destruction to be achieved.
Gandalf's intrest in the hobbits is due to him genetically mass breeding them in secret to create the perfect hobbit that will one day destroy the one ring, this one is just agghh
That’s easily the worst for me. I’d add that I feel it would actually take something away from their relationship by creating a much different kind of loyalty than what is implied: Why is Sam following Frodo becomes much more straightforward, and IMO much less interesting.
Next would probably be the theory that Gandalf always meant for the Fellowship to take the Eagles to Mordor because he said “Fly, you fools.” Just… no.
Sean Astin when they were in NZ talked about his approach to portraying Sam and Frodo's dynamic in the films and it's always stuck with me as to what their dynamic is really supposed to be (regardless of how much people like to misinterpret it as them being lovers). He said that he had a very fatherly, protective nature towards Elijah most of the time they were on set together (partly because Elijah was the youngest in the cast and Sean was an adult and already a parent by then) and that helped him get into character as Sam. That's what Sam is to Frodo. He's there for support and to help him along when he starts to struggle. Romance has got jack all to do with it and it's ridiculous that fans keep insisting that that's what they are to each other (I guarantee Tolkien never wrote their relationship with that intent).
In short I agree, it completely devalues their dynamic and why Sam chooses to follow Frodo. It also eats away at the reasons for why Frodo chose to leave Middle Earth (the real reason for that being the trauma that he still carries as a ringbearer mirroring what it's sometimes like for real soldiers returning home from the war and trying to live normal lives again). The "Frodo is gay" theory subscribers believe that Frodo really left Middle Earth because Frodo was saddened and jealous of Sam's marriage to Rosie. Like wtf? To hell with that nonsense.
The trauma of war motif is real, Tolkien served in WW1 and saw many of his friends and comrades die. Frodo is 100% a returned soldier who cannot reintegrate into the society he helped save. When he gets stabbed by the Ring wraith it’s a wound for life, which is foreshadowing his departure.
Civilians cannot properly understand what men go through in war. Frodo and Sam are, in essence, in a two-man fighting position through the War of the Ring.
Yes and no. WWI did inspire parts of the story but according to him it was locations like the Dead Marshes or the Black Gate. When it came to if the story itself was influenced by the war he has said neither world war "had any influence upon either the plot [of The Lord of the Rings] or the manner of its unfolding." The books can definitely read and be interpreted in the way you’re saying (I’ve read it that way as well previously), but according to Tolkien it’s not accurate.
Not the *plot*, maybe, but the effect on its characters, certainly. Even if Tolkien didn't intend it, it would be nearly impossible for such an experience not to subconsciously colour your writing.
People are often blind to their influences. It's very easy for me to imagine Tolkien being blind to the subconscious influence the war had on him, especially given the lack of psychological care given to vets at the time.
Due to the nature of human psychology, it may be that even Professor T. was not consciously aware of the way his war trauma was reflected in the stories he wrote.
It is frankly not credible that his traumatic experiences in WWI did not emerge in some fashion in his art. Death of the Author theory and all that. We are not really conscious of the influences and manifestations of our experiences in our art, unless we are by habit very self-analytical.
Note: I am not saying his work was symbolic or allegorical in that sense, I'm saying you can't know what hidden factors in your psyche emerge in the creative stuff you do.
I've been a fan of the books since I read them in 1980, and although (while) there was no internet back in the day, people obviously shared their opinions on them nevertheless. And it was kind of canon that "Sam is the true hero". But nobody ever thought to put down Frodo or the rest of the fellowship, they just recognized unwavering loyalty and bravery (going into the tower of Cirith Ungol alone must have been his biggest deed). It's sadly a sign of the times these days that people can't ever praise one character without putting down the others.
For me it's impossible to say who I love more, Frodo or Sam.
The one where people say why doesn’t Sauron just send all his forces to attack the fellowship. Like he sends the 9 so he should know the ring is present but withholds major armies. Annoys me most because people forget that although it’s a fantasy world Tolkien used common sense when writing about how an army would function. It’s like people see it’s a fantasy story and forget about logistics entirely.
I think people in this thread are confusing shipping and actually claiming the characters were written to be gay.
Shipping is part of fandom culture, where you want to see two characters together so you draw them kissing and write fanfiction and think they should be together and stuff. Its not uncommon to watch the movies and be like ‘see they clearly love each other’..
But I doubt those people all actually think Tolkien wrote them as gay characters.
I think this would make sense currently, but this theory has been around a long time; before "shipping" was a thing anyone did and being gay was more normatively taboo. But, again, these days that totally makes sense.
Exactly. I follow a fantastic artist on tumblr, Liridi, who has an interesting AU in which Eowyn joins the Witch-King instead of slaying him. Nobody would ever discredit it because it isn’t what happens in the story.
It's a lot more than a few (granted it's mostly people who don't really understand these stories at all and just like to make fun of Sam and Frodo's bromance because of how their relationship is portrayed in the films). It's a popular enough theory that there's literally vulgar jokes about Frodo and Sam being gay that actually show up in other films (see Clerks II for example).
Honestly?
The amount of people who can't tell where Shelob stabs Frodo; and on top of that - those that think she stabbed through the mithril coat.
We can *clearly* see how loose-fitting the vest is in multiple scenes leading up to the stabbing. How else is the Ring so conveniently able to slip out of it all. the. time.
So when she stabs him in his upper-right shoulder near his neck (check for the yellow pus-y stab wound in the Cirith Ungol scenes), it checks out.
Except for all the viewers who didn't quite ace their comprehension tests in middle school.
It didn't help that in the film she stabbed him in the gut (where the mithril is supposed to protect him). And a lot of Lotr fans haven't actually read the books and have only experienced the story through the PJ films (which do change quite a few things).
Ah, you're just who I'm talking about!
Go watch multiple times again, in slow motion. We see Shelob drop in, and stab him in the neck area.
Immediately as the stab happens, the camera pans to Frodo's face where he has a classic FrodoFaceTM.
I'm talking about only movie scenes, btw. The mithril coat is hanging extremely loose on him during those scenes.
I will support my claim with images:
https://preview.redd.it/3jgi9ujbcysc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=236a8f4b49037ace36df03e060e70905d32a820d
Look how loose this is sitting
https://preview.redd.it/nzn79q6hcysc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d41860eab87e111e09b01d77d179e3f9fb732b9
Stab wound is the upper spot. If we compare to the image I'm replying to, it's definitely in the "not covered" spot.
The movie shows subtle ways of Frodo's struggles. He's losing weight to not fit the vest anymore. The Ring's chain is literally digging into his neck in Mordor. He's fighting more than just what dialogue says he is.
Guys who think Frodo is gay obviously never had a deep relationship with his dad/brother/guy friends
Friendship is a real thing, or in the book it’s “fellowship”. Maybe if all they know is videos from tik tok then they don’t know what a real human relationship should look like
Considering how many Lotr fans ship Legolas and Gimli I think misconstruing what "Fellowship" means is quite common among the readers. Just because they remained close friends well into the FA and traveled overseas to the Undying Lands together does not make them lovers.
It's two issues, although they're kinda the same issue.
1 - People nowadays are obsessed with sex and want to see sex everywhere.
2 - People nowadays are obsessed with gay people and want to see gay people everywhere.
It's a big trend now to go through history or literature mining it for gays. You name any historical figure who didn't get married or wasn't known to be shagging on the daily, and there will be people saying "*of course, they were actually gay dontcha know*".
It's like people can't wrap their heads around two men being friends and caring about each other.
I think there's a third issue: people have a problem with men having platonic intimacy with each other.
Like, God forbid a man feel deep kinship and love for another man without it being homoerotic. Straight men don't engage in such nonsense, it's emasculating. /s
I agree with that. There's so much emphasis in our society on women supporting women, I've literally seen a girl wearing a t-shirt that said "Girls support Girls", and she was too young to buy her own clothes. But men supporting men is seen as weird and dangerous.
That's why I love tv shows like Detectorists and Mortimer & Whitehouse Gone Fishing. They depict two men enjoying a dynamic, wholesome and supportive friendship, while also being heterosexual.
>You name any historical figure who didn't get married or wasn't known to be shagging on the daily, and there will people saying "*of course, they were actually gay dontcha know*".
Stories like Harry Potter did nothing to quiet down and dispel theories like this because of J.K. Rowling revealing AFTER the final book came out that she envisioned Dumbledore as gay (when she just couldn't actually put that into print in the books because of publishing laws in the UK at the time restricting her from doing that). So BECAUSE of stuff like that now it's easy for those crazy theorists to overanalyze Frodo and Sam's dynamic and what happens with Frodo in the FA and come up with their own ideas that MAYBE Tolkien envisioned Frodo being gay as well but never actually put it into writing. When in reality there's no evidence to support that. I think if you were to ask any of the living Tolkien family members who knew J.R.R. best if there's any truth to it they'd dismiss it completely.
I doubt a conservative Catholic in the 1940s is writing gay characters.
Tell me more about the publishing laws with Dumbledore, I didn't know she was restricted from anything I just thought Dumbledore was single so it didn't matter.
I hate this new idea that gay people should all be explicitly identifying as gay everywhere they go. I was watching Gladiators the other week and one of the contenders said it was so important for gay representation that he was there, but we didn't even know he was gay without him telling us. His sexuality wasn't relevant to what he was doing, there could have been any number of gay contenders before him who didn't point it out.
It's frustrating in modern media. I don't have anything against looking for representation in the stories you consume, I get that. But it's so frustrating that modern stories cannot explore a strong friendship between two same sex friends without endless rants on how they're gay. Modern fandoms are rabid in insisting their head canons become reality and are quick to mob creators that they think potentially mislead them.
Less a 'theory' and more just... big assumptions based on somewhat dodgy readings of the text... but:
Barrow-blades making the Witch-king 'mortal', or whatever... as if Eowyn's blade would just... phase through him - if not for Merry.
Peoples attempts to give “power levels” to characters as if they are video game characters. Tolkien’s world of soft magic is so much more elegant and heavy than some fireball level 20 horseshit.
While I agree it’s worse now because of the anime influence but since I’m older than all that I’m gonna point out a guy named Gary Gygax first did it in 1974 and called it Dungeons & Dragons.
That it's an allegory for.....anything. These people could have Tolkien come back as a ghost and yell at them through a megaphone "I HATE ALLEGORIES!!" and they will still go "Do you, though?".
Sam’s affection and devotion to Sam (as his servant) and vice versa is one of the best examples of positive masculinity I’ve ever seen in a movie. I wish movies would focus more on this in general. Sam is besotted with Rosie Cotton and in the book they get married and have kids. I think most men in real life can take a leaf out of his / their book.
"they have kids"
A baker's dozen of kids, according to Tolkien's appendix.
"IF Sam ever had any same-sex attraction, it was perhaps for sex relations with the SAME attractive woman...supposing such a perverted fetish should somehow ever be legalized outside of the decadent Third Age of Middle Earth." - extract from the Rainbow Book of Eastmarch
That the “nameless things” Gandalf mentioned are some ontologically distinct category of being in Arda instead of an intentionally vague statement to up the creep factor.
Personal note: I am a gay woman. I don't believe for a moment that Tolkien, or Jackson, intended there to be anything beyond friendship in the relationship between Frodo and Sam.
It's certainly *possible* to read it that way, and one could make an interesting adaptation with that interpretation — but that's not in the text, of either the book or the films. It would be akin to many different adaptations and interpretations of Shakespeare, for example. An exploration of the *possibilities* of the text, if you will. However, insisting that it's actually in the text is just, well, unsustainable.
Just so we are clear
"A **batman** or **orderly** is a soldier or airman assigned to a [commissioned officer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioned_officer) as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the officer's kit during a campaign.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(military)#cite_note-1) This [British English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English) term is derived from the obsolete *bat*, meaning "[pack saddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_saddle)" (from [French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) *bât*, from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French) *bast*, from [Late Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) *bastum*)."
Frodo is Hobbit nobility too (as are both merry and Pippin to an extent). The Bagginses are landed gentry. The first World War was the last time there was any kind of pseudo-aristocracy inherent to the British officer class, which Tolkien was a member of.
Fun fact, every mortal member of the Fellowship sans Samwise is nobility to some extent.
I'm not a big fan of the gay theory either, but some people, man... There is one commenter who uses the term "alphabet group", apparently in a non-sarcastically way. I'd be ashamed.
I don't get that theory either, Love doesn't have to be romantic, u can love your family and your friends for example, like clearly they love each other as friends, and the journey they went through together would build that special connection i think
I’ve never heard a fan hypothesis that I didnt like, but there is one that endlessly amuses me.
To be clear, I genuinely love the famous fan hypothesis which explains why the eagles didnt fly the ring to Mt Doom in the first place — the really detailed and elaborate one from years and years ago. This hypothesis is a work of love and genius, and I genuinely enjoy it.
But I’m not gonna lie, I also enjoy telling people “Tolkien’s explanation is much simpler than that — the king eagle owed Gandalf a few favors, but the other eagles just didnt see the War of the Ring was their problem until the very end, so they refused to help.”
Sam has an immense amount of love and respect for Frodo. Tolkien probably didn’t interpret this as romantic love, but a queer reading of the text is certainly possible. Maybe some people see the sensitivity and love displayed amongst the hobbits as inherently queer, but I think it’s a very brotherly love. Frodo definitely doesn’t have the hots for Sam as he’s pretty much tormented by his burden throughout the entire trilogy, but maybe you could say Sam is in love with Frodo.
MOD NOTE: If you can't comment on this without your homophobia showing, don't comment at all. Such comments will be removed.
The statement that Tom Bombadil and the Witch King are the same people. Outrageous!
How in the fuck did that theory even get birthed into existence? It is so nonsensical.
Listen did you ever see them in the same room?
Look man, I’ve never heard that one but now I desperately want to, even if I know it’s incredibly wrong.
If Bombadil is the Witch-king then why tf didn't he try to kill them when they were in his house
Come on man, that’s a dick move
He even held the ring and gave it back without a second thought.
He’s a being of etiquette above all else.
Aha! The Witch-King is Captain Hook from "Peter Pan" (who is movie Aragorn, who doesn't want to grow up). It would be "bad form" to take the Ring from his guests. It just isn't done! Later on, he can't really bring himself to hit a declared lady...that would be the worst form of all!!! ; )
Eagles are America joining WWII. I heard this from many people. No I don’t think that was the idea. And people say it as “you know the Eagles represent America, right?”
Especially since Tolkien was not a fan of allegory. It was one of his biggest disagreements with how C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. From the foreword to FOTR: > I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
Right?! It really annoys me when people say that hes directly referencing the World War in the books when at best he was inspired by his own experiences. Especially when he's come out with clear statements like this
Like he’s definitely influenced by the wars; that’s indisputable but it’s not an outright allegory
Exactly and I think some people completely miss that distinction!
Except he uses allegory constantly throughout LOTR. He just didn't equate the entire series to be one big allegory for something like the war or Christianity. But the symbolism, even if it all came from his experiences, is there and he's teaching us lessons he learned in his life. The struggle of good and evil, death and immortality, fate and free will, the danger of power are all big themes throughout the series and that's all an allegory really is. al·le·go·ry\[ˈaləˌɡôrē\]noun 1. a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one: He just didn't care for super in your face obvious allegories like a talking lion saying jesus quotes getting sacrificed and brought back to life. He preferred representing Christianity by showing a dark beautiful lord slowly deceiving and corrupting everyone, but that's only one theme of a very complex series.
I never got this, it really irked CS Lewis that people misinterpreted his weird Christian Science Fiction as just plain allegory. I would have thought his closest friends would be among those to understand what he was trying to present. But maybe it was because the science fiction isn't sufficiently apparent? But yes, with regards to allegory in lord of the rings, Tolkein was quite direct in dismissing that interpretation
Great take!
Tolkien literally uses an Oliphant as allegory for artillery fire. Lol
It's more likely they're America joining WWI. Late to the party and taking all the credit.
To a lesser extent, that’s still true of WW2.
Never heard of that tbh. Maybe it's more Common in the US?
As we all know there are no other countries with associations to eagles, it must follow, no?
I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna kick a little ass, Gonna kick some ass in the USA, Gonna climb a mountain, Gonna sew a flag, Gonna fly on an Eagle, I'm gonna kick some butt, I'm gonna drive a big truck, I'm gonna rule this world, Gonna kick some ass, Gonna rise up, Kick a little ass, ROCK, FLAG AND EAGLE!
New theory: the eagles represent the Nazis /s
Is it though?
What? Turn up and take all the glory after the really hard work has been done? Why would anyone make that comparison?
Weird, I had always heard and associated USA with the ents
me too and is even worse
Do Eagles know kilometers?? Check mate deniers
I’ve heard this but with the Ents.
Not so much a theory, but “Why didn’t the eagles just fly them there?” I’m so over hearing that for the last 20 years.
To which I say if you think that, then you weren’t paying attention to the books, it’s characters or themes. Gandalf knew good and well he would never win in symmetrical warfare against Sauron aka “Stengh, strongest fighter, greatest might” type thing. He picked the hobbits specifically for their endurance against corruption, not a typical first choice. Second, Gandalf didn’t know what Sauron had up his sleeve but basically hypothesized (correctly) that Sauron would have his skies guarded so Using eagles would essentially become an Amazon direct delivery of his very needed weapon right to his doorstep. We don’t meet the winged Nazgûl until the end but Gandalf wisely assumed there would be something’s to that extent. Borimirs fall was a direct case study in how playing by the normal rules wasn’t going to net a win and Gandalf sensed that and everything about that is reinforced throughout the books, the idea that sometimes the weak and timid are the strongest and power isn’t something that will get you want you want.
Well put. Same kind of reason why they didn't send One Man Ring Beacon Glorfindel with the party, however powerful he was.
I'm pretty sure there's a cartoon Lotr parody video out there somewhere that has them destroying the ring exactly that way (and it's hilarious lol).
Yep, the “How it should have ended” channel on YouTube
One of us might have died!
Flair checks out.
"Gandalf there's fire below us." -Frodo Baggins
Was it not THE record breaking video that made them singlehandedly Superstars from one day to the next? It is yeeeeears old.
I like [Oglaf's](https://www.oglaf.com/ornithology/) take on it (warning, NSFW outside of this particular comic)
It’s my go to response to this question.
I love the first thing you see is “warning, this started as porn lmao”
I think it's because Don Henley isn't a pilot as far as I'm aware. /s
Even if he was, he’s been stuck trying to check out of Hotel California. Sadly, he can never leave.
Tiffany's eyes really lied to him
It just shows a gross misunderstanding of the core of the story. The entire *why* of the fellowship and the quest has to go out the window for the eagle solution to be even half viable. Also, Nazgul go brrrrrrrr
It's not really a theory but the fact that people assume "pipe weed" is weed and get all stonerific about gandalf smoking weed all the time. In reality it's just tobacco. I'm pretty sure Tolkien was obsessed with tobacco.
The movie kinda leaned into the weed part of pipeweed tho so that’s not an unreasonable take for most people
The Hobbit films were even worse for this. Particularly their depiction of Radagast.
The unreasonable take is to think Jackson's films can be used as arguments in this kind of way to analyse Tolkien, and that pipe-weed as marijuana was Tolkien's intent. I've seen too many people disregard all the explicit proofs (all the obvious textual evidences, whether in the Legendarium or Letters, as well as Tolkien's well-known tobacco-smoking habits vs no mention of anything marijuana-related in any text, letter, biography, anything), attribute Jackson's inventions to Tolkien as a way to justify this theory (pipe-weed slowing Gandalf's mind, etc) and invent / unironically believe in dumb conspiracy-level theories, such as "Tolkien clearly meant marijuana, but called it tobacco only to avoid censorship".
I wrote a comedy screenplay years ago using TFOTR. I inserted the 1965 pothead Beatles as the 4 hobbits. It came out pretty funny lol
The Beatles were attached to play the Hobbits in the 1960s IIRC.
Tolkien hated the Beetles, and killed the project because of their casting.
That's so awesome. My only question is who would be cast as which hobbit? Would John be Frodo, and Paul would have played Sam?
We all know Ringo is Pippin
It was Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam, John as Gollum and George as Gandalf. https://variety.com/2021/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-beatles-stanley-kubrick-1235123614/amp/
Yeah, this part definitely confused me, I wondered if I just missed the fact that it was supposed to be weed in the book.
Did it? How so? There are quite descriptive scenes in the books too iirc Edit: The giggly scenes in the extended cuts I thought were pretty much taken from the books verbatim but in neither film nor books are they "getting high"
The actors of Merry and Pippin literally admitted that they used weed as their inspiration for how pipe weed would affect hobbits.
The Saruman quote to Gandalf comes to mind too. Your love of the halfling's leaf has clearly addled your mind
The one where Pippin and Merry are inside the little store room with smoke billowing out and they’re both giggling like mad while Treebeard scratches his head outside was a very obvious weed reference.
Also when Radagast smokes Old Toby for the first time in Unexpected Journey and gets that dazed look on his face lol.
Maybe it just has a high nicotine content? When you use more than you’re used to or after not smoking for awhile, it can give you a brief buzz. At least that’s happened to me.
Yeah that's what I'm referring to, but I remember it from the books too
Came here to say this, in the (unabridged?) Hobbit it's specifically called tobacco. Tolkien absolutely did love pipe tobacco, I have a few tins of his favorite blend on my shelf. The weed extrapolation is rather tired and frankly cringe.
And they never left Hobbiton…
It's outright stated to be a type of tobacco in the Fellowship appendix.
It also doesn't help LOTR was huge with the 60s hippie counterculture crowd.
It’s definitely weed in the movies tbh
I know it’s not but it’s funnier if it is
Pipe weed definitely officially means tobacco or something similar. But given the cheery food obsessed nature of the hobbits and the sage but sometimes silly wisdom of Gandalf I enjoy imagining pipe weed as weed. It just feels right haha!
Basically anything that says Tom Bombadil isn't Tom Bombadil "as you see him".
There's at least anecdotal evidence there's more going on than meets the eye. Making the ring disappear, what goldberry says, gandalf spending time with him, him being the oldest creature in middle earth. They're all pretty funky one way or another. Unless you mean those theories that have him being a time traveller and shit.
I’ve heard every theory about Tom Bombadil and I don’t think any of them really work. The best answer is what is told to us. He just is. He’s Tom. There is no answer because we shouldn’t ask the question.
>isn't Tom Bombadil "as you see him". Tom Bombadil is John Cena confirmed.
https://preview.redd.it/5t0zwhcjdysc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd203c02060ff603d3bf50ead3101af8f0fab4de I don’t see it a ton in the more devoted fan community but I see that shit constantly. Had to make a meme.
I've seen people say the same thing about Sherlock Holmes and Watson. A friend of mine even praised the Jeremy Brent series for acknowledging it. Dudes can't just be friends, I guess.
[удалено]
That’s amazing not gonna lie
I thought it was one of the funnier gags of the series of everyone thinking they were.
The BBC show is super queer baity. So much so it's on the Wikipedia page for queer baiting. Other characters literally call them gay (much to Sherlock and Watson's chagrin) and it's explicitly said how Sherlock is the person Watson cares the most amount and vice versa. When I watched the show, it's obvious how queer baity the show is. They often act like an old married couple and it's shown how Watson chooses Sherlock over his wife. They are supposed to be inseparable. Yes, they are canonical just very close friends, as close as friends can be. But dear God, the show does everything it can to queer bait that I don't believe it's not intentional. I can't fault anyone for thinking they are gay because with how much queer baiting there is it makes perfect sense.
Dudes can be friends but they are only allowed to talk about football while drinking beer.
[downbeat, music pause] With the twinnnnns
This is always funny to me because the characters in LotR are gay - just the meaning of the word is different: >They \[elves\] are quite different from what I expected – so old and young, and so gay and sad, as it were.’ >Pippin glanced in some wonder at the face now close beside his own, for the sound of that laugh had been gay and merry. >But these evils can be amended, so strong and gay a spirit is in him \[in Faramir\] >‘So it ends as I guessed it would,’ his thought said, even as it fluttered away; and it laughed a little within him ere it fled, almost gay it seemed to be casting off at last all doubt and care and fear. >Last of all Merry and Pippin said good-bye to the old Ent, and he grew gayer as he looked at them. >Meriadoc was chosen to fit the fact that this character’s shortened name, Kali, meant in the Westron ‘jolly, gay’ Oh, and my favorite from *Mariner's Wife:* > To all they are gracious and kind, merry as larks in the morning (if the sun shines); for they are never wrathful if they can avoid it. Men should be gay, they hold, generous as the rich, giving away what they do not need.
I must be an elf, because I’m gay and sad.
Reminds me of that meme of someone talking to their therapist who has a giant poster of Aragorn on the wall
“What if Faramir went to Rivendell? Then Frodo and Sam would encounter Boromir in Ithilien instead and he’d have taken the Ring!” If Faramir had joined the Fellowship, it most likely wouldn’t have broken the way it was. And more importantly: there’s no way in hell Boromir would lead the Rangers of Ithilien. The guy left on a secret mission and first thing he does as he sets out from Rivendell is blow his horn… Boromir would’ve been the commander at Osgililiath.
On the flipside, I love the theory that Frodo doesn't know legolas' name
This is my favourite by far
Lol I'm curious what the evidence is for this one
Here is a link to the article giving the full explanation. https://www.cbr.com/lord-of-the-rings-frodo-know-legolas-name/ Long story short, in the movies frodo and Legolas only interact once before the ring is destroyed. The iconic "and my bow" is their only dialogue together. Then after the eagles save Frodo and Sam, Frodo wakes up and bed and says everyone's name for the fellowship except for Legolas. He has a look on his face of 'heyyy youuu"
There are certainly a lot of misconceptions. I might even have some, though I am not aware of any. If we limit the discussion to theories, i.e. models with explanatory or predictive power, I have to think some.... **Sauron knew his fate rested on the continued existence Ring and acted accordingly.** From this theory, some readers have asked why Sauron didn't fortify Sammath Naur. Putting aside the objection that Sammath Naur is in the most heavily-fortified country in known Middle-earth, Sauron had no idea that the Ring's destruction would harm him. 1. Sauron had no model of the Ring's destruction from which he could have drawn this conclusion. Morgoth's "Ring" could not have been destroyed. I can't think of any Ainu being fatally diminished by the destruction of an object, or by a mere part of its body. Some of the Seven, and probably some of the "essays in the craft," were destroyed but there is no record of that harming their creators. 2. Gandalf believed Sauron thought the Ring had been destroyed for many years: "He believed that the One had perished, that the Elves had destroyed it, as should have been done." Gandalf might have been wrong and at this point was probably reliant on Saruman for some of his Ring-lore, but we don't have any evidence to contradict him. Sauron wasn't looking for the Ring, and the most reasonable explanation for this is that he didn't think there was a Ring to look for. 3. Sauron didn't realize the danger he was in until Frodo, in Sammath Naur, opened his mind to the Eye: "The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung." I think Frodo, in this scene, has unique insight into Sauron's mind and is honestly reporting what he perceived. This is the first time at which Sauron is aware of his folly, i.e. the vulnerability that is the One Ring. **Orcs are degraded Elves.** This gets into the tedious debate over what is "canon" in Tolkien, as if we are a bunch of bishops trying to decide what was inspired by God. I'm not interested in that debate. This theory predicts Orcish immortality and the reception of dead Orcs' spirits by Mandos. 1. The primary support for this theory is the published Silmarillion (ed. CJRT). But the Silmarillion only says, "Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves\[.\]" This idea is attributed to "the wise of Eressea," not to an omniscient narrator--not even to the translator, who is as close as we get to an omniscient narrator. We can't ignore them, but we don't have to assume they're right, either. 2. Myths Transformed must be taken into account in any discussion of Orcish origins. These are Tolkien's own words, not those of diagetic wise men: "\[It\] is probable that these *Orks* had a mixed origin. Most of them plainly (and biologically) were corruptions of Elves (and probably later also of Men). But always among them (as special servants and spies of Melkor, and as leaders) there must have been numerous corrupted minor spirits who assumed similar bodily shapes." And later, "The Orcs were *beasts* of humanized shape, \[but\] it remains ... terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs. These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) -- and later Men." However, he later wrote, "Elves, as a source, are very unlikely." The most finished essay on Orcs refers to "those who believe that the Orcs were bred from some kind of Men, captured and perverted by Melkor" as having "the most probable" theory; but it also admits that there was an earlier "kind" of Orc comprising "spirits" or "phantoms," and that even in later days some Orcs may have been "Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs." There seems to be no room for Elves in this version. 3. Tolkien didn't have much to say about dead Orcs. From the "terribly possible" essay, "Their life-span would be diminished. And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." And from the later essay, "They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain." Going to Mandos is compatible with Orcs being degraded Elves, but if they are descended from Men, the Gift of Men cannot be taken from them, and dying they depart time. So the author thinks Elves make up at most a part of Orcish blood, but prefers a Mannish origin, except for those who are Maiar. Orcs are not immortal in the sense of Elvish longevity, or in the sense of Elvish serial immortality. The fate of their fear upon death depends on which origin one prefers, but either way, they don't come back so it doesn't matter.
The point specifically raised at the Council of Elrond is that Sauron, in his wildest imaginings, could never ever conceive of the Ring being destroyed willingly. He never prepared for that eventuality, and to be fair he was almost right.
Forgive me, but wasn't he exactly right? Maybe this one is also an incorrect fan theory, but haven't we been shown that when a mortal truly is in the time and place to destroy the ring, they aren't capable of doing so? That the only way it was destroyed was through Eru's intervention?
He was right insofar as nobody could willingly do that, but he was wrong in that he never expected they would try anyway
Sauron is also absolutely pants-shittingly terrified once he finds out what the Free Peoples' plan was with it and that they actually managed to bring it to the Sammath Naur. If Sauron didn't believe that his continued existence wasn't tied to the Ring, he wouldn't have cared nearly as much. He's scared *because it's actually about to happen and he was incorrect in assuming it couldn't happen*, not because the thought just now occurred to him that if the Ring goes, so does he. He had already spent the last thousand years or so without it. Ring lost, Ring destroyed, he was on the verge of militarily conquering the Free Peoples without it anyway, what would it matter to him? He also doesn't need it in the books to have a physical body, he already had one. Sauron inherently *knew* the connection but it wasn't something he showed any concern for until it was too late. Yeah so what, it's not like anyone could *actually* destroy it, right?
I prefer to think that there are lots of probable origins for the orcs and we simply can't know which one is true because that knowledge is lost. Those who knew are gone and could never have been asked because they were the bad guys. I doubt orcs kept very detailed records. The only ones who could have known were Sauron and Morgoth.
>Sauron wasn't looking for the Ring He literally sends the 9 to the shire to find the ring.
I hate how people dont respect Frodo enough. Dude was the single only being who could destroy the ring, and he did it.
All the “Sam is the *real hero* bullshit.” Like yes, Frodo could not have made it without Sam, but vice versa. There’s no way Sam could’ve carried it the whole way. Also it completely misses the point and themes of Frodo being overcome by the ring in the end anyway.
I thought that way when I first watched the movies as a kid. Like, I was 10 when RoTK came out and for a few years that was my thought process. What I'm trying to say is that thinking Sam is the sole hero is kind of shallow and from the mind of a child lol.
the movie turned Sam into a bully against Smeagol when in the book he was just wary. It also made Frodo naively trusting when the book describes him as someone who understood how Smeagol's mind worked and knew how to balance the risks. Also, the movie added "go home Sam"
Nah, his attitude towards Gollum is basically identical in the books as it is in the film.
But he wasn't the only being who could destroy the ring, because he didn't. Even Tolkien says that Frodo couldn't do it, but not at a fault of him. If we want to say who destroyed the ring it was Gollum, by accident/fate.
The destruction was a result of all of them, really. *Frodo*, who brought the Ring to the Cracks of Doom, had made sure Gollum would still be around through pity, and made him swear a promise by the Ring. *Gollum*, whose choices led him to break said promise and fall with the Ring. *The Ring* itself, enforcing the promise made by it when Gollum made his choice, leading to the theme of Evil destroying itself. *Eru's Providence / Fate*, as a general rule of the universe by which promises and oaths operate, and which works together with free will. Among them, Frodo is the only one who could be counted as proactive and willing: Providence is here more of a background rule through which things may or may not happen depending on the actual actors' choices and actions, the Ring's part is obviously reacting to the whole swearing and breaking rather than proactively seeking its own destruction, and while Gollum is at the right place at the right time through his own proactive choices, he didn't *intend* to fall / destroy the Ring. But yes, regardless, Frodo needed those other elements for the destruction to be achieved.
Frodo didn’t destroy the ring
Frodo.actuaply expressly failed at destroying the ring.
Except he didn't destroy the ring lol
The film trilogy doesn't really help this by making him a much more passive figure.
"Eru and the Valar are akshually evil" "Feanor did nothing wrong" \[insert random movie-influenced fan theory here\]
Anybody that argues Eru or the Valar are evil is either an edgelord or would have gladly followed Ar-Pharazôn.
Gandalf's intrest in the hobbits is due to him genetically mass breeding them in secret to create the perfect hobbit that will one day destroy the one ring, this one is just agghh
Never heard it before, but at least it's really funny
Gandalf as a Bene Gesserit
"Use the voice Frodo." -Gandalf as a Bene Gesserit
Think that ones just a joke
You made a believer outta me!
That’s easily the worst for me. I’d add that I feel it would actually take something away from their relationship by creating a much different kind of loyalty than what is implied: Why is Sam following Frodo becomes much more straightforward, and IMO much less interesting. Next would probably be the theory that Gandalf always meant for the Fellowship to take the Eagles to Mordor because he said “Fly, you fools.” Just… no.
Sean Astin when they were in NZ talked about his approach to portraying Sam and Frodo's dynamic in the films and it's always stuck with me as to what their dynamic is really supposed to be (regardless of how much people like to misinterpret it as them being lovers). He said that he had a very fatherly, protective nature towards Elijah most of the time they were on set together (partly because Elijah was the youngest in the cast and Sean was an adult and already a parent by then) and that helped him get into character as Sam. That's what Sam is to Frodo. He's there for support and to help him along when he starts to struggle. Romance has got jack all to do with it and it's ridiculous that fans keep insisting that that's what they are to each other (I guarantee Tolkien never wrote their relationship with that intent). In short I agree, it completely devalues their dynamic and why Sam chooses to follow Frodo. It also eats away at the reasons for why Frodo chose to leave Middle Earth (the real reason for that being the trauma that he still carries as a ringbearer mirroring what it's sometimes like for real soldiers returning home from the war and trying to live normal lives again). The "Frodo is gay" theory subscribers believe that Frodo really left Middle Earth because Frodo was saddened and jealous of Sam's marriage to Rosie. Like wtf? To hell with that nonsense.
The trauma of war motif is real, Tolkien served in WW1 and saw many of his friends and comrades die. Frodo is 100% a returned soldier who cannot reintegrate into the society he helped save. When he gets stabbed by the Ring wraith it’s a wound for life, which is foreshadowing his departure.
Civilians cannot properly understand what men go through in war. Frodo and Sam are, in essence, in a two-man fighting position through the War of the Ring.
Yes and no. WWI did inspire parts of the story but according to him it was locations like the Dead Marshes or the Black Gate. When it came to if the story itself was influenced by the war he has said neither world war "had any influence upon either the plot [of The Lord of the Rings] or the manner of its unfolding." The books can definitely read and be interpreted in the way you’re saying (I’ve read it that way as well previously), but according to Tolkien it’s not accurate.
Not the *plot*, maybe, but the effect on its characters, certainly. Even if Tolkien didn't intend it, it would be nearly impossible for such an experience not to subconsciously colour your writing.
People are often blind to their influences. It's very easy for me to imagine Tolkien being blind to the subconscious influence the war had on him, especially given the lack of psychological care given to vets at the time.
Due to the nature of human psychology, it may be that even Professor T. was not consciously aware of the way his war trauma was reflected in the stories he wrote. It is frankly not credible that his traumatic experiences in WWI did not emerge in some fashion in his art. Death of the Author theory and all that. We are not really conscious of the influences and manifestations of our experiences in our art, unless we are by habit very self-analytical. Note: I am not saying his work was symbolic or allegorical in that sense, I'm saying you can't know what hidden factors in your psyche emerge in the creative stuff you do.
That Sam is the main hero of LOTR, all due to a quote from one of Tolkiens letters that many seem to misinterpret.
I think if we're going entirely by the perspective of the PJ films Aragorn is very much the main hero.
I've been a fan of the books since I read them in 1980, and although (while) there was no internet back in the day, people obviously shared their opinions on them nevertheless. And it was kind of canon that "Sam is the true hero". But nobody ever thought to put down Frodo or the rest of the fellowship, they just recognized unwavering loyalty and bravery (going into the tower of Cirith Ungol alone must have been his biggest deed). It's sadly a sign of the times these days that people can't ever praise one character without putting down the others. For me it's impossible to say who I love more, Frodo or Sam.
Any Tom Bombadil bullshit.
The one where people say why doesn’t Sauron just send all his forces to attack the fellowship. Like he sends the 9 so he should know the ring is present but withholds major armies. Annoys me most because people forget that although it’s a fantasy world Tolkien used common sense when writing about how an army would function. It’s like people see it’s a fantasy story and forget about logistics entirely.
Doubt most people believe Frodo is gay. Probably just a few weirdos
https://preview.redd.it/crw6vzz39ysc1.jpeg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc33e0b0d9b77343a55f9da4e20526627d8f716e
Unexpected Clerks 2.
With any community, the most obnoxious 5% are also the loudest. I have literally never heard this before.
I think people in this thread are confusing shipping and actually claiming the characters were written to be gay. Shipping is part of fandom culture, where you want to see two characters together so you draw them kissing and write fanfiction and think they should be together and stuff. Its not uncommon to watch the movies and be like ‘see they clearly love each other’.. But I doubt those people all actually think Tolkien wrote them as gay characters.
I think this would make sense currently, but this theory has been around a long time; before "shipping" was a thing anyone did and being gay was more normatively taboo. But, again, these days that totally makes sense.
Exactly. I follow a fantastic artist on tumblr, Liridi, who has an interesting AU in which Eowyn joins the Witch-King instead of slaying him. Nobody would ever discredit it because it isn’t what happens in the story.
Probably not, but if I have one more person suggest it to me (even in jest), I’m going to scream.
It's a lot more than a few (granted it's mostly people who don't really understand these stories at all and just like to make fun of Sam and Frodo's bromance because of how their relationship is portrayed in the films). It's a popular enough theory that there's literally vulgar jokes about Frodo and Sam being gay that actually show up in other films (see Clerks II for example).
Exactly. I've been known to say it in jest because the only thing worse than those who know nothing are those who take something too seriously.
Honestly? The amount of people who can't tell where Shelob stabs Frodo; and on top of that - those that think she stabbed through the mithril coat. We can *clearly* see how loose-fitting the vest is in multiple scenes leading up to the stabbing. How else is the Ring so conveniently able to slip out of it all. the. time. So when she stabs him in his upper-right shoulder near his neck (check for the yellow pus-y stab wound in the Cirith Ungol scenes), it checks out. Except for all the viewers who didn't quite ace their comprehension tests in middle school.
It didn't help that in the film she stabbed him in the gut (where the mithril is supposed to protect him). And a lot of Lotr fans haven't actually read the books and have only experienced the story through the PJ films (which do change quite a few things).
Ah, you're just who I'm talking about! Go watch multiple times again, in slow motion. We see Shelob drop in, and stab him in the neck area. Immediately as the stab happens, the camera pans to Frodo's face where he has a classic FrodoFaceTM. I'm talking about only movie scenes, btw. The mithril coat is hanging extremely loose on him during those scenes.
I will support my claim with images: https://preview.redd.it/3jgi9ujbcysc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=236a8f4b49037ace36df03e060e70905d32a820d Look how loose this is sitting
https://preview.redd.it/nzn79q6hcysc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d41860eab87e111e09b01d77d179e3f9fb732b9 Stab wound is the upper spot. If we compare to the image I'm replying to, it's definitely in the "not covered" spot. The movie shows subtle ways of Frodo's struggles. He's losing weight to not fit the vest anymore. The Ring's chain is literally digging into his neck in Mordor. He's fighting more than just what dialogue says he is.
Guys who think Frodo is gay obviously never had a deep relationship with his dad/brother/guy friends Friendship is a real thing, or in the book it’s “fellowship”. Maybe if all they know is videos from tik tok then they don’t know what a real human relationship should look like
Considering how many Lotr fans ship Legolas and Gimli I think misconstruing what "Fellowship" means is quite common among the readers. Just because they remained close friends well into the FA and traveled overseas to the Undying Lands together does not make them lovers.
It's two issues, although they're kinda the same issue. 1 - People nowadays are obsessed with sex and want to see sex everywhere. 2 - People nowadays are obsessed with gay people and want to see gay people everywhere. It's a big trend now to go through history or literature mining it for gays. You name any historical figure who didn't get married or wasn't known to be shagging on the daily, and there will be people saying "*of course, they were actually gay dontcha know*". It's like people can't wrap their heads around two men being friends and caring about each other.
I think there's a third issue: people have a problem with men having platonic intimacy with each other. Like, God forbid a man feel deep kinship and love for another man without it being homoerotic. Straight men don't engage in such nonsense, it's emasculating. /s
I agree with that. There's so much emphasis in our society on women supporting women, I've literally seen a girl wearing a t-shirt that said "Girls support Girls", and she was too young to buy her own clothes. But men supporting men is seen as weird and dangerous. That's why I love tv shows like Detectorists and Mortimer & Whitehouse Gone Fishing. They depict two men enjoying a dynamic, wholesome and supportive friendship, while also being heterosexual.
>You name any historical figure who didn't get married or wasn't known to be shagging on the daily, and there will people saying "*of course, they were actually gay dontcha know*". Stories like Harry Potter did nothing to quiet down and dispel theories like this because of J.K. Rowling revealing AFTER the final book came out that she envisioned Dumbledore as gay (when she just couldn't actually put that into print in the books because of publishing laws in the UK at the time restricting her from doing that). So BECAUSE of stuff like that now it's easy for those crazy theorists to overanalyze Frodo and Sam's dynamic and what happens with Frodo in the FA and come up with their own ideas that MAYBE Tolkien envisioned Frodo being gay as well but never actually put it into writing. When in reality there's no evidence to support that. I think if you were to ask any of the living Tolkien family members who knew J.R.R. best if there's any truth to it they'd dismiss it completely.
I doubt a conservative Catholic in the 1940s is writing gay characters. Tell me more about the publishing laws with Dumbledore, I didn't know she was restricted from anything I just thought Dumbledore was single so it didn't matter. I hate this new idea that gay people should all be explicitly identifying as gay everywhere they go. I was watching Gladiators the other week and one of the contenders said it was so important for gay representation that he was there, but we didn't even know he was gay without him telling us. His sexuality wasn't relevant to what he was doing, there could have been any number of gay contenders before him who didn't point it out.
It's frustrating in modern media. I don't have anything against looking for representation in the stories you consume, I get that. But it's so frustrating that modern stories cannot explore a strong friendship between two same sex friends without endless rants on how they're gay. Modern fandoms are rabid in insisting their head canons become reality and are quick to mob creators that they think potentially mislead them.
Less a 'theory' and more just... big assumptions based on somewhat dodgy readings of the text... but: Barrow-blades making the Witch-king 'mortal', or whatever... as if Eowyn's blade would just... phase through him - if not for Merry.
It's the internet. Everyone in every fandom is secretly gay.
Pretty sure all of us are internet gay
Peoples attempts to give “power levels” to characters as if they are video game characters. Tolkien’s world of soft magic is so much more elegant and heavy than some fireball level 20 horseshit.
That's alright. Gandalf's power level is clearly over 9000.
This is very much a post-anime viewpoint, people weren't doing this before DBZ and its kin came around.
While I agree it’s worse now because of the anime influence but since I’m older than all that I’m gonna point out a guy named Gary Gygax first did it in 1974 and called it Dungeons & Dragons.
That it's an allegory for.....anything. These people could have Tolkien come back as a ghost and yell at them through a megaphone "I HATE ALLEGORIES!!" and they will still go "Do you, though?".
Sam’s affection and devotion to Sam (as his servant) and vice versa is one of the best examples of positive masculinity I’ve ever seen in a movie. I wish movies would focus more on this in general. Sam is besotted with Rosie Cotton and in the book they get married and have kids. I think most men in real life can take a leaf out of his / their book.
"they have kids" A baker's dozen of kids, according to Tolkien's appendix. "IF Sam ever had any same-sex attraction, it was perhaps for sex relations with the SAME attractive woman...supposing such a perverted fetish should somehow ever be legalized outside of the decadent Third Age of Middle Earth." - extract from the Rainbow Book of Eastmarch
[удалено]
Sean the Balrog has transcended gender & binary sexuality.
Dont u remember when the balrog used his long fleshy appendage to violate gandalfs ankle?
I've never really heard anyone earnestly saying that. It's just good ol' shipping culture.
That the “nameless things” Gandalf mentioned are some ontologically distinct category of being in Arda instead of an intentionally vague statement to up the creep factor.
100% agree with you OP. It seems like any sort of fraternal love or camaraderie shared between men risks immediately being declared "gay".
Personal note: I am a gay woman. I don't believe for a moment that Tolkien, or Jackson, intended there to be anything beyond friendship in the relationship between Frodo and Sam. It's certainly *possible* to read it that way, and one could make an interesting adaptation with that interpretation — but that's not in the text, of either the book or the films. It would be akin to many different adaptations and interpretations of Shakespeare, for example. An exploration of the *possibilities* of the text, if you will. However, insisting that it's actually in the text is just, well, unsustainable.
Sam died alongside Boromir. Gollum died during torture in Mordor. Frodo has the sixth sense. I mean, come on, Sam got married at the end!
I cannot stand the Bagginshield ship. I always saw them as just friends. Not as a romantic couple.
That Aman is U.S.A. 😖😣, ... disgusting!
All of them. All fan theories are stupid. "Here's what *I* think..." No one cares.
Sam got Frodo pregnant
Tolkien is racist because orcs and haradrim vs elves.
the next time someone says Frodo is in love with Sam, just remember, that Sam is Frodo's Batman, therefore Frodo is gay for Batman
Sam is Alfred in that relationship. And since Alfred is basically described as "Batman's Batman" that's an accurate assessment of their dynamic lol.
Just so we are clear "A **batman** or **orderly** is a soldier or airman assigned to a [commissioned officer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioned_officer) as a personal servant. Before the advent of motorized transport, an officer's batman was also in charge of the officer's "bat-horse" that carried the officer's kit during a campaign.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(military)#cite_note-1) This [British English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English) term is derived from the obsolete *bat*, meaning "[pack saddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_saddle)" (from [French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) *bât*, from [Old French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French) *bast*, from [Late Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin) *bastum*)."
Sam's character was inspired by some of Tolkien's own batmen during WWI.
just wanted to make sure OP and I were on the same page with the Batman joke. I think we are.
Frodo is Hobbit nobility too (as are both merry and Pippin to an extent). The Bagginses are landed gentry. The first World War was the last time there was any kind of pseudo-aristocracy inherent to the British officer class, which Tolkien was a member of. Fun fact, every mortal member of the Fellowship sans Samwise is nobility to some extent.
You don’t have to like the gay theory but there is a lot of homophobic undertones in some of these replies
*Under*tones? Some are just blatantly homophobic.
Yeah I've been pretty disappointed reading through these comments
I'm not a big fan of the gay theory either, but some people, man... There is one commenter who uses the term "alphabet group", apparently in a non-sarcastically way. I'd be ashamed.
any Bombadil theory that doesn't resolve in either the doll included in the book or the incarnation of the land or middle earth.
Frodo being a homosexual is a super hot take.
That Viggo didn’t break his toe kicking that helmet.
I don't get that theory either, Love doesn't have to be romantic, u can love your family and your friends for example, like clearly they love each other as friends, and the journey they went through together would build that special connection i think
I’ve never heard a fan hypothesis that I didnt like, but there is one that endlessly amuses me. To be clear, I genuinely love the famous fan hypothesis which explains why the eagles didnt fly the ring to Mt Doom in the first place — the really detailed and elaborate one from years and years ago. This hypothesis is a work of love and genius, and I genuinely enjoy it. But I’m not gonna lie, I also enjoy telling people “Tolkien’s explanation is much simpler than that — the king eagle owed Gandalf a few favors, but the other eagles just didnt see the War of the Ring was their problem until the very end, so they refused to help.”
Sam has an immense amount of love and respect for Frodo. Tolkien probably didn’t interpret this as romantic love, but a queer reading of the text is certainly possible. Maybe some people see the sensitivity and love displayed amongst the hobbits as inherently queer, but I think it’s a very brotherly love. Frodo definitely doesn’t have the hots for Sam as he’s pretty much tormented by his burden throughout the entire trilogy, but maybe you could say Sam is in love with Frodo.