/lit/ - Literature

Question to folks who are familiar with Lord of the Rings and general Tolkien's lore, what were his portrayals of women? I've only read Hobbit and the main trillogy, but that was long ago, so I cannot recall how women were exactly written.

I know there was this review by a guy calling Tolkien's heroes maidenless men who 'have never known the touch of a woman.' How was this in silmarilion? Yes, the question is inspired by watching the first episode of new LotR show, it seemed decent as a fantasy, but barely anything was explained and I had to read the wiki to learn what those two radiant trees were (are those actually trees? The wiki says 'lamps'). I'm not even sure if that scene of burning city at the start was supposed to be the fall of Numenor or not. They really fucked up that side of the show, haven't they? Just making a decent fantasy, but the lore aspects were either bluntly told in exposition-like dialogues or skimmed.

>“The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.

>'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

>The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly onto the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

>From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.

>Glamdring glittered white in answer.

>There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.

>'You cannot pass!' he said.

>With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled and hissed.

>'He cannot stand alone!' cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. 'Elendil!' he shouted. 'I am with you, Gandalf!'

>'Gondor!' cried Boromir and leaped after him.

>At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog's feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.

>With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. 'Fly, you fools!' he cried, and was gone.”

>>20574865
>Soft magic systems where everything is nebulous are better because...because I said so, Okay!?
Lmao, people really can't get over the fact some people want their stories to make sense. You can have magic in a story to serve some specific purposes like evoking emotions or resembling ideas, concepts, whatever, but bitching about people doing the opposite and just enjoying crafting and reading worlds in which supermundane fenomena has rules that can be understood and harnessed is the height of dumbfuckery.

That is not to say that Sanderson's magic is great, it's just decent, but as his books are popular, people mindlessly emulate him without understanding what is what. Jesus, this is not a hard concept to understand, different ways of presenting fantasy worlds are compelling to different people.

Also, I am not sure what George means by Gandalf never using spells, fucker literally spammed firebolts against Goblins when he was with the dwarfs on trees in Hobbit. I think there were also other instances of him using magic, like to provide light etc. That's as straightforward application of magic for mundane problems as you get.

That is not to say that George doesn't have a point by pointing out Tolkien's magic isn't just a series of spells someone can cast, there is a lot of mystery to it, and having that can be great for stories. But blanket statements about magic systems are jsut straight-up retarded.

>>20394132
I never managed to truly enjoy Lord of the Rings, read it only once. But Hobbit I read several times, plus listened to the audiobok. That book is mad comfy, concise and enjoyable.

>>20346707
>I remember trying to read The Hobbit in 6th Grade and then never touching a Tolkien book ever since. I probably won't "get it" until I'm an old ass man
Hobbit is super comfy, I read it like 6 times, even listened to audiobook on youtube. Tight, comfy adventure of bros going against the dragon.