# My view and opinion on Rings of Power



## Mr.Underhill (Sep 2, 2022)

Pros: The armors is good looking and visually stunning landscape
Cons: The actors and narrative feels like a MARVEL movie.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 2, 2022)

As opposed to a DC movie?


----------



## Barrow Wight (Sep 2, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As opposed to a DC movie?


If RoP were like Man of Steel, it might be decent! In contrast, ALL of the Marvel Universe movies are painful to watch. RoP can't possibly be THAT bad (he says with blind hope) . . . .


----------



## Berzelmayr (Sep 2, 2022)

Mr.Underhill said:


> Pros: The armors is good looking and visually stunning landscape
> Cons: The actors and narrative feels like a MARVEL movie.


What reminds you of Marvel movies? (I barely watch them)


----------



## Mr.Underhill (Sep 2, 2022)

Berzelmayr said:


> What reminds you of Marvel movies? (I barely watch them)


One example
In the part where the group was fighting a cave troll in Fellowship of the Ring it still felt kinda real despite being fantasy

In Rings of Powers with origin story of Galadriel (saying origin story already sounds like a MARVEL story) But basically she just goes flash and kills the ice troll, the end. I guess i am a sucker for flipping the weapons to look cool at the end of that fight though

But basically that.


----------



## Will Whitfoot (Sep 2, 2022)

I am really liking it! No spoilers but I am all in on this thing.


----------



## Ent (Sep 2, 2022)

I have now watched them the first time as well.
I will make just very few comments until I have watched each at least 3 times, as I look for so many things in any movie... (and see new and different things every time I do.)

For now:
On the "pro" side:
- I do feel by and large the settings, general costuming, and overall filmography, are very pleasant. (Minus a few burps.)
- also I think for the most part the characters' handling and delivery of the lines is acceptable - comparative to many new series with actors struggling to settle in, probably above average. (Anyone remember the early episodes of "Star Trek: Voyager" and how the characters struggled so hard and delivered so...umnhh...poorly...before they started to fit together? That's my "D minus" comparative for new characters in a new series.)

On the "neutral" side:
I will say, in terms of invoking the appropriate "feeling" given the scene at hand and what was supposed to be delivered, at times I felt the proper tension or relief or suspense or fear that was intended, while at other times it felt just kind of flat (and in a couple spots, a little comical given what it should have been).

On the "con" side:
There are a couple spots where the scene simply 'resolves' too quickly, without taking advantage of it for further plot or character development. And a couple where we move from the event at hand to the resolution or conclusion of the event at hand with a bit of a "big jump", leaving out interim steps that would have linked things together better - and again, provided further opportunity for 'development'. The loss of both the continuity of the event and its opportunity left me a little sad.

And there is one big issue at hand not yet resolved that I totally withhold judgment on as it's just too curious still. It will be interesting to see where they take it and how it is brought to fruition. That element will make it either a bit of a triumph or a key disaster for me... (not the whole series, just the handling of the character at hand.)

So there... hopefully all this with no 'spoilers' involved... that's where I'm at for now.

Am i looking forward to it going forward? you betcha I am.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Sep 3, 2022)

Watched the first episode. 
And all I can tell is: 
If they wanted this to be new GOT, they are still miles away from the Got season 1... very boring story... very boring dialogues... very boring characters... colors are way too saturated,. so elvish lands looks very fake.. etc...


----------



## Will Whitfoot (Sep 3, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> And there is one big issue at hand not yet resolved that I totally withhold judgment on as it's just too curious still. It will be interesting to see where they take it and how it is brought to fruition. That element will make it either a bit of a triumph or a key disaster for me... (not the whole series, just the handling of the character at hand.)



I am dying to share speculation on (what I assume to be) the "one big issue at hand" referenced above, but will refrain so as to let others form their own speculations and realizations. Super excited about it all so far! Many aspects match very closely with things I have thought and said and written, and so it feels very much like a validation. I could not be more thrilled. AND it was released on my birthday! Ha!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 3, 2022)

You could always put your speculations under a spoiler in the episode discussion threads.


----------



## Will Whitfoot (Sep 3, 2022)

Thanks! I was unfamiliar with the "spoiler" isolator. I followed to the episode threads and tried posting a speculation there.


----------



## Ent (Sep 4, 2022)

i guess i'll have to figure that out...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 4, 2022)

Look for this symbol in the BB codes:

You'll find it by clicking on the second set of vertical dots:


Click on that, and type your message between the SPOILER 's that appear.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Sep 4, 2022)

Sorry, I'm going to add that to the instructions.SES is right. You might have to hit the three dots menu to get it


----------



## Ent (Sep 4, 2022)

Thanks guys, I have discovered it and plan to


Spoiler



test it.



As to its use though, having read a bunch more 'stuff' already this morning, I have decided I am likely to just stand to the side and let everybody else hash out the pros and cons and such from their perspectives.

I will just sit it out and try to create a suitable smile or frown in my facial bark somehow, as may be approrprate.


----------



## Mr.Underhill (Sep 8, 2022)

Feel i need to mention. But take this fight. Obvious sign of a struggle to bring it down. Which is why LOTR or Tolkien world in general has elements of fiction fantasy but also a real element of actual struggle. 

So its kinda why the Amazon Rings of Powers feels a little bit like a MARVEL series almost with Galadriel just swonk the Ice troll away. Though i am a sucker for that cool victory pose. But i think its fair to say. Its ok to enjoy it as a spin off which many consider it and not so much Tolkien canon. But interms of Rings of Powers, i wouldnt consider it so much Tolkien canon as more trying to make its own entertainment based on some Tolkien works.


----------



## Barrow Wight (Sep 8, 2022)

Mr.Underhill said:


> Feel i need to mention. But take this fight. Obvious sign of a struggle to bring it down. Which is why LOTR or Tolkien world in general has elements of fiction fantasy but also a real element of actual struggle.
> 
> So its kinda why the Amazon Rings of Powers feels a little bit like a MARVEL series almost with Galadriel just swonk the Ice troll away. Though i am a sucker for that cool victory pose. But i think its fair to say. Its ok to enjoy it as a spin off which many consider it and not so much Tolkien canon. But interms of Rings of Powers, i wouldnt consider it so much Tolkien canon as more trying to make its own entertainment based on some Tolkien works.


"Based on" typically means that the film producers think they have a "better idea" for a story than the original author--a thought that typically is proven wrong by the final product. There was enough written about events in the Second Age to make a decent movie/series, so I do not understand why Amazon felt compelled to change Tolkein's story in material ways. [I do not consider the diversity of the cast to be one of those material changes, BTW; I'm not particularly concerned about that aspect of the production thus far.] The argument that Amazon "doesn't have the rights to Silmarillion and other books" is a smoke-and-mirrors diversion----they incorporate/borrow from Silmarillion when they wish to [e.g., Galadriel crossing the ice waste---looks like FIrst Age Helacraxe (sp?)/Silmarillion to me]. In any event, even if Amazon were meticulously trying to steer clear of Silmarillion's discussion of the Second Age, that doesn't mean it is somehow obligated to CHANGE those aspects of the story that are addressed in Silmarillion. They could be faithful to the Silmarillion discussion of the Second Age without violating their licensing agreement that gives them the screen rights only to the appendices---but they don't want to, because they think they have a "better" idea of how the story should be told.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 9, 2022)

Barrow Wight said:


> ... but they don't want to, because they think they have a "better" idea of how the story should be told.


The arrogance of scriptwriters for decade upon decade. Yes, there are things that need to be adapted from a book to the screen (large or small), but how many scriptwriters ever had a book published? Not that book authors make good scriptwriters, on the other hand. Douglas Adams's - during his lifetime - futile attempts to get "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" filmed is an example. But then Adams was a book author almost by accident. The first incarnation of H2G2 was a BBC4 radio program (the one most listened to by "bookies", it's true), and Adams, wanting to become a writer-performer, once ironically commented that he "wanted to be John Cleese", but then found that the job had already been taken ...

As I see it (and have grumped about innumerable times), the problem is that "needs of film" have degenerated into a cookie-cutter. Yes, the cookie-cutter has evolved over the decades (talking to studio trolls must be an extremely tedious business), but its depressing, homogenizing effect has not become better over the decades.


----------



## TrollinSun (Sep 9, 2022)

Just finished the third episode. I have a few thoughts about the show. I really like the scale and the settings of the show. The landscape shots and the cities look amazing. That is about the only thing in this show that I like off the bat.

If the plot of the show was meant to fit in with the legendarium, they failed spectacularly. We know they weren't going to, but it still takes me out of the story seeing named Tolkien characters traveling to places or doing/saying things that we know never happened or seem totally out of character. _This is biggest my grievance with the show_. I know some of you are enjoying it regardless but I just can't get into the show because of it.

Minor dislikes
Similarity between elves and humans in the show. Really how human-like they portrayed the eldar. Elves experiences anger, rage, wrath, jealousy, but I always pictured them them as regal, even when acting petty. The only elf I can think of as described as broken and desolate was Gwindor when Beleg found him.​​While ascetically pleasing, I don't like how they are portraying different cultures (not talking the race of the cast). If the hobbits are england as tolkien wished, you would think the harfoots would be a less refined but still clearly english culture, not a weird version of nomadic people not based in any english history.... Also history of the isles and nomadic people... ummmmmm​​Finally, that massive budget and you can't make any fight seem realistic and grounded? The troll fight, come on, that fight was so lame for a show of this scale. Have a struggle, destroy a real set. 
I am not a PJ loyalist but even Legolas moments aren't that bad. I want battle scenes to make me feel horror and respect. Like the charge of the rohirrim in Pelannor Fields, the horse and riders crashing from arrow fire make me wince yet the heroism still shines through in a Tolkien way. The man witnessed one of the worst moments in human history and still is capable of writing about, and must have found examples of human valor in no mans land. Battle scenes like from the King (2019) and Gettysburg make me feel like I think Tolkien wanted us to feel. Great and terrible, proud and sad, are many feats in human history and Tolkiens Legendarium.

I hope this show can evoke similar emotions but so far, not happening.

Sorry for the meandering ramble, go for feedback.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 9, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As opposed to a DC movie?


The only way it would have been worse.


----------



## Deimos (Sep 9, 2022)

TrollinSun said:


> Just finished the third episode. I have a few thoughts about the show. I really like the scale and the settings of the show. The landscape shots and the cities look amazing. That is about the only thing in this show that I like off the bat.


I've decided that should the series ever make its way to disc ( in whatever super dee duper HD format) I'm going to watch it thusly: no sound, FF through any people/dialogue scenes, and just watch all the scenery, buildings, (some are Tolkien-esque) and broad vistas parts.🙂


TrollinSun said:


> If the plot of the show was meant to fit in with the legendarium, they failed spectacularly. We know they weren't going to, but it still takes me out of the story seeing named Tolkien characters traveling to places or doing/saying things that we know never happened or seem totally out of character. _This is biggest my grievance with the show_. I know some of you are enjoying it regardless but I just can't get into the show because of it.


It is also my biggest grievance, and that of many others. The show has the Tolkien name, but not the game.



TrollinSun said:


> Minor dislikes
> ...​​Finally, that massive budget and you can't make any fight seem realistic and grounded? ... I want battle scenes to make me feel horror and respect. Like the charge of the rohirrim in Pelannor Fields, the horse and riders crashing from arrow fire make me wince yet the heroism still shines through in a Tolkien way. The man witnessed one of the worst moments in human history and still is capable of writing about, and must have found examples of human valor in no mans land. Battle scenes like from the King (2019) and Gettysburg make me feel like I think Tolkien wanted us to feel. Great and terrible, proud and sad, are many feats in human history and Tolkiens Legendarium.


Well said. You especially captured what Tolkien wanted to convey, to wit, quiet heroism amidst appalling carnage.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 9, 2022)

TrollinSun said:


> If the plot of the show was meant to fit in with the legendarium, they failed spectacularly. We know they weren't going to, but it still takes me out of the story seeing named Tolkien characters traveling to places or doing/saying things that we know never happened or seem totally out of character. _This is biggest my grievance with the show_. I know some of you are enjoying it regardless but I just can't get into the show because of it.


Why I, again, feel like Celebrían would have been a better choice for female lead. We know a lot less of what she was up to over the years.


TrollinSun said:


> Minor dislikes
> While ascetically pleasing, I don't like how they are portraying different cultures (not talking the race of the cast). If the hobbits are england as tolkien wished, you would think the harfoots would be a less refined but still clearly english culture, not a weird version of nomadic people not based in any english history.... Also history of the isles and nomadic people... ummmmmm​


It also seems to be going for more of a generic fantasy aesthetic with the moose antlers.


----------



## TrollinSun (Sep 9, 2022)

TrollinSun said:


> Just finished the third episode. I have a few thoughts about the show. I really like the scale and the settings of the show. The landscape shots and the cities look amazing. That is about the only thing in this show that I like off the bat.
> 
> If the plot of the show was meant to fit in with the legendarium, they failed spectacularly. We know they weren't going to, but it still takes me out of the story seeing named Tolkien characters traveling to places or doing/saying things that we know never happened or seem totally out of character. _This is biggest my grievance with the show_. I know some of you are enjoying it regardless but I just can't get into the show because of it.
> 
> ...


apologies to mods, forgot about the language rule. I'm quite a crass speaker irl


----------



## Deimos (Sep 9, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> .....
> 
> It also seems to be going for more of a generic fantasy aesthetic with the moose antlers.


----------



## SwordSix (Sep 12, 2022)

The Harfoots are Hobbits…but the show creators make them seem rather stupid compared to Hobbits in Tolkien’s works.

Some of the CGI is stunning. The Orcs are hideous enough and I like this version of Galadriel.

Not completely sold on it but I’ll continue to watch,


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

SwordSix said:


> make them seem rather stupid


Welcome aboard. Good to have you with us.
It DOES seem like they could have been made a little more 'elegant' or 'intelligent' in some way, doesn't it? 
And I'm not at all sure they need to be made to look so ungroomed/unkempt. 
But perhaps I'm just being defensive on behalf of my hobbitses. 
Who knows what they were really like so many years ago... certainly not comfortably settled in the Shire yet...!


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 13, 2022)

TrollinSun said:


> Finally, that massive budget and you can't make any fight seem realistic and grounded?


They seems to be aiming for Marvel-esque fight scenes rather than realistic battles - which PJ, to his credit, tried to achieve (Legolas excepted)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 13, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Welcome aboard. Good to have you with us.
> It DOES seem like they could have been made a little more 'elegant' or 'intelligent' in some way, doesn't it?
> And I'm not at all sure they need to be made to look so ungroomed/unkempt.
> But perhaps I'm just being defensive on behalf of my hobbitses.
> Who knows what they were really like so many years ago... certainly not comfortably settled in the Shire yet...!





> In their unrecorded past they must have been a primitive, indeed 'savage' people


_The Peoples of Middle-earth_, p. 310

So again, perhaps someone associated with the series is more familiar with Tolkien's works than some "Tolkien fans" seem to think.


----------



## Will Whitfoot (Sep 13, 2022)

My view, if anyone cares is.... LOVING IT! It is IN the world I love. it is only slightly predictable, which means that there is much speculation and anticipation. The heartache comes, not from gratuitous gore, but because we know, from our god-like perspective, that some things are going to go very badly for our characters. I absolutely LOVE the Harfoot (as in HAIR-Foot) pre-Hobbit characters. As a diminutive people they would naturally be shy of bigger folk who would be likely to shove them around. Their wandering ways fit in perfectly with the backstory in which the Hobbits gather to The Shire only later on, when the King of Eriador at Fornost early in the third age issues a decree to the Fallohides setting the district aside for them. You can already hear their yearning for a place to call home. I am eagerly awaiting the next episode, and hope that (most) folks here are also enjoying it. I am speculating desperately about the identity of The Stranger! My biggest complaint.... episodes release at MIDNIGH EST ??? Oh... what nefarious scheme of Morgoth is this?


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> _The Peoples of Middle-earth_, p. 310


Indeed, thank you for pointing me to this..! Most enlightening.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 13, 2022)

My crack wasn't aimed at you, I hasten to add! 😄


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

SwordSix said:


> The Harfoots are Hobbits…but the show creators make them seem rather stupid compared to Hobbits in Tolkien’s works.


They also seem to want to make them "proto-Hobbits" even though Harfoots are just an ethnic branch.


SwordSix said:


> Some of the CGI is stunning. The Orcs are hideous enough and I like this version of Galadriel.


Really? She's one of the things I like LEAST. I agree with Grace Randolf: she's a Mary Sue Karen.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Sep 13, 2022)

"In their unrecorded past they must have been a primitive, indeed ‘savage’ people, 55 but when we meet them they had (in varying degrees) acquired many arts and customs by contact with Men, and to a less extent with Dwarves and Elves."

"55 In the original sense of ‘savage’; they were by nature of gentle disposition, neither cruel nor vindictive."


But oddly enough, the people associated with the series actually do make them more "intelligent", their *harfoots can read and have books and records.

Tolkien's Hobbits:
"Their own records began only after the settlement of the Shire..."
LotR, Prologue
Hobbits were not even literate until the Third Age:
"It was soon after their learning of letters, about Third Age 1300..."
PoMe
Savage in the meaning of uncivilized or in a low developmental stage, rather than leaving injured people behind to die or being constantly filthy...

Maybe they are not that familiar after all...


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> _The Peoples of Middle-earth_, p. 310
> 
> So again, perhaps someone associated with the series is more familiar with Tolkien's works than some "Tolkien fans" seem to think.


It's an odd assertion for Tolkien to make since the Hobbits, of all the branches of men, seem to have retained their original gifts (longer life, an inner light/goodness). Perhaps he just meant uncivilized? Like the "noble savage"? I suppose this might be a bit of linguistic growth. We now use it to mean violent/unhinged. But historically it meant more "uncivilized".


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

Will Whitfoot said:


> As a diminutive people they would naturally be shy of bigger folk who would be likely to shove them around.



Actually as it turns out, we read in Peoples of Middle-earth that Squint-eye pointed out, that they tended to hang around the bigger folk (men most easily) for the protection these sometimes brought to them. I've got to re-read it all to be sure I get it all in the right context, but it's very interesting.

"In their unrecorded history, they must have been a primitive, even 'savage', people." 

Such is TTF. Always learning, am I.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Tar-Elenion said:


> "In their unrecorded past they must have been a primitive, indeed ‘savage’ people, 55 but when we meet them they had (in varying degrees) acquired many arts and customs by contact with Men, and to a less extent with Dwarves and Elves."
> 
> "55 In the original sense of ‘savage’; they were by nature of gentle disposition, neither cruel nor vindictive."


Ah, my assumption was correct. Tolkien is known for using very specific, and older definitions.


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> My crack wasn't aimed at you, I hasten to add! 😄


Fear not. I did not take it so.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Actually as it turns out, we read in Peoples of Middle-earth that Squint-eye pointed out, that they tended to hang around the bigger folk (men most easily) for the protection these sometimes brought to them. I've got to re-read it all to be sure I get it all in the right context, but it's very interesting.
> 
> "In their unrecorded history, they must have been a primitive, even 'savage', people."


I think this had to do with their gentle natures. They were known for having a certain accuracy and could easily have become cunning, guerilla archers. I believe the LotR evens says they sent a contingent of archers when the King of Arthedain asked for aid in his fight against Angmar.


Well-aged Enting said:


> Such is TTF. Always learning, am I.


Wonderful, isn't it? Me too!


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> I think this had to do with their gentle natures. They were known for having a certain accuracy and could easily have become cunning, guerilla archers. I believe the LotR evens says they sent a contingent of archers when the King of Arthedain asked for aid in his fight against Angmar.
> 
> Wonderful, isn't it? Me too!



I concur. We MUST put Tolkien in his element when we read his works - and we must "understand Words..!!"

What this does for me, is explain somewhat the way they are made to appear, and possibly even behave, in their setting in LoTR. 

And while some may be concerned that they weren't literate until the 3rd age, that does not mean that SOME among them may not have been acquainted with certain rudimentary writing, etc.

After all, in my own lifetime (and certainly my parents and grandparents) I have seen several illiterate populations learn to read and write. And we're well past the 3rd age..!! 

It takes some who get taught as a beginning, to bring along others as an end goal.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Perhaps he just meant uncivilized?


Yes, I should probably have included Christopher's note:


> In the original sense of 'savage'; they were by nature of gentle disposition, neither cruel nor vindictive


Following along with what I quoted and what the Ent said:


> With Men of normal stature they recognized their close kinship, whereas Dwarves or Elves, whether friendly or hostile, were aliens, with whom their relations were uneasy and clouded by fear.


p. 311

Edit: Oops -- I missed Tar_Elenion's post above. Sorry for repeating.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> I concur. We MUST put Tolkien in his element when we read his works - and we must "understand Words..!!"
> 
> What this does for me, is explain somewhat the way they are made to appear, and possibly even behave, in their setting in LoTR.
> 
> ...


It's also important to understand what one means by "literate". Many may be "illiterate" but still able to read and write, just not to a certain threshold. If I remember correctly, the number of symbols one needs to know to be considered "literate" in China is so high that only about 55% are considered literate, yet they can all read a newspaper (don't quote me on that, it's been a VERY long time since I read that statistic and I may be butchering it).


Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> p. 311


Completely understandable. The Hobbits don't have a cultural connection with the Elves as the Edain did and so their ways would feel markedly different. The Dwarves share a number of attributes (height, underground dwellings) but their motivations are different.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Sep 13, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> I concur. We MUST put Tolkien in his element when we read his works - and we must "understand Words..!!"


Understand his words.


Well-aged Enting said:


> And while some may be concerned that they weren't literate until the 3rd age, that does not mean that SOME among them may not have been acquainted with certain rudimentary writing, etc.


savage, primitive
but:
books, paper, scrolls writing...

If some are going to add to what Tolkien says, then it is not Tolkien.
As Tolkien does not say that some could read and write, but rather:
"It was soon after their learning of letters, about Third Age 1300..."

Then they were illiterate until about TA 1300. 
Better to just say it is departing from what Tolkien said.


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

Sadly, I've only dappled with "Peoples of Middle-earth" a little bit.
And it is one of the three that are not available digitally, so I can't attack it for research like I can all the rest.
But there's MUCH in there. 
I must remember to pull it alongside at every turn. 

Hobbits, for example, are covered on many pages and from many different angles..! 
Maybe I can install a book-hook on my left branch and carry PoME there as a routine.


----------



## 🍀Yavanna Kementári🍀 (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> The Hobbits don't have a cultural connection with the Elves as the Edain did and so their ways would feel markedly different.


I've always felt like the Hobbits were the most different out of all the races, perhaps.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Sep 13, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Yes, I should probably have included Christopher's note:
> 
> Following along with what I quoted and what the Ent said:
> 
> ...


I do not think that is CT's note. 
His notes are in the brackets [ ]


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

Tar-Elenion said:


> Understand his words.



Just so you know, I'm not at all hesitant to go beyond "his" (Tolkien's) words to fully understanding words, during whatever period they were used.
Nor any other author's. 
The key is to know the words fully. Thus we can even see when an author is misusing them. (As many do.)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 13, 2022)

Tar-Elenion said:


> I do not think that is CT's note.
> His notes are in the brackets [ ]


You're right. My mistake.


----------



## Ent (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Ah, my assumption was correct. Tolkien is known for using very specific, and older definitions.



There are two etymological sources confirming one of the early meanings of 'savage' was simply "of the wild, of the forest, rustic" - especially in its derivation from the Latin root. 

Words are SO fun.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> There are two etymological sources confirming one of the early meanings of 'savage' was simply "of the wild, of the forest, rustic" - especially in its derivation from the Latin root.
> 
> Words are SO fun.


I LOVE etymology. Linguistic roots and it's ties to history is fascinating to me. Odd, since I'm actually really bad at learning new languages (much to the surprise and consternation of my teachers since I'm usually more engaged than my peers).


----------



## 🍀Yavanna Kementári🍀 (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> I LOVE etymology.


And I love Greek mythology.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Sep 13, 2022)

Vilisse said:


> And I love Greek mythology.


Something we have in common. The Greek Mythology book used to be the only book I'd check out of the library in grade school.


----------



## 🍀Yavanna Kementári🍀 (Sep 13, 2022)

ZehnWaters said:


> Something we have in common. The Greek Mythology book used to be the only book I'd check out of the library in grade school.


Beautiful!! Oh, and another thing we have in common:

_We are both of the Exiled Noldorin, are we not? #DoomofMandos _


----------

