# The New Shadow by JRR Tolkien: an aborted story of the Fourth Age



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 13, 2005)

I begin this thread with a copy of a post from another thread about what we might commission Tolkien to write, were he still alive. It turned out that he wrote an aborted sequel to The Lord of the Rings. Details below:

=================================



Narsil said:


> Tolkien actually started a story about the Fourth Age..about a 100 years after the War of the Ring. Supposedly it had something to do with palace corruption and the Gondorians getting bored and stirring up trouble, trying to overthrow the king, etc, etc. I believe Tolkien abandoned it because it wasn't a very compelling story. Perhaps the very absence of a great evil, a dark lord of some sort, made it seem all rather ordinary.



Can you direct us to something that can give more details?

=================================

Well, I liked my own advice so much that I actually took it! I googled around, and this is what I found in a Tolkien chat site:

_*King of the North*

This has been on my mind recently, are there any works by Tolkien concerning the 4th Age?

*Fingolfin II*

There was one abandoned work by Tolkien set in Gondor during the Fourth Age, after Aragorn died (during Eldarion's reign). It's only about 12 pages long and can be found in Part Three of The Peoples of Middle-Earth (HoME 12) under the title 'The New Shadow'. Basically it's about a couple of Gondorian kids who are bored and start acting like orcs and creating havoc. Tolkien disliked the story and discontinued it, as he didn't see it able to be portrayed as anything but a 'cheap thriller'. Worth a read, though. In fact, I think you can even read it somewhere online. Hope that helps ._

=================================

Googling around some more (using "The New Shadow" as keywords), I came up with this:

*The New Shadow by J.R.R. Tolkien
His sequel to The Lord of the Rings*

Tolkien started his sequel to The Lord of the Rings a number of times but never got very far. The links below are scanned images of the pages of the book.

The story begins one hundred and five years after the fall of the Dark Tower and is set in Gondor. Tolkien wrote about the story:

"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the downfall of Sauron, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace and justice and prosperity would become discontented and restless - while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors - like Denethor or worse. I found that even so there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow - but it would be just that. Not worth doing." 

(You can actually read the fragment at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/tolkien/.)

You can do your own research at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Tolkien+new+shadow

I think this short passage reveals much insight into Tolkien's view of man, and of Christianity, and could be the basis of quite a discussion!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 13, 2005)

Well, I have read the fragment (at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/tolkien/.), and it leaves me quite chilled. Tolkien seems to say that Men are inherently inclined to evil, peace is not enough for them, and in times of calm and peace, the Old Evil will grow again, an inherent function of Man's nature. Given enough time, we forget what we had to pay to keep evil down and will therefore have to pay the price again and again. (I offer the political situation in the world today as proof.)

I myself came to this conclusion long ago: that evil is a weed inherent in Man that pops up under any condition, and good is a Man-created garden that needs constant tending. 

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 13, 2005)

That's...chilling. And fascinating. Thanks a lot for the link!


----------



## Snaga (Mar 13, 2005)

I am glad Tolkien didn't continue with this idea. It wouldn't have been very happy reading.


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Mar 14, 2005)

I think it is more interesting to know his views on certain genres of literature.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 14, 2005)

Snaga said:


> I am glad Tolkien didn't continue with this idea. It wouldn't have been very happy reading.



Indeed, neither is the Silmarillion! Had he continued with the new story, it would have been very revealing — as in fact are the twelve pages or so that he did write. In fact what he wrote is pretty much on the money of how mankind has in fact behaved, and by projection will behave. Just those twelve pages are scarily prophetic. 

(One thing is interesting about the story: evidently the orcs were so decimated after the War of the Ring that even after a hundred years, they seem only to be a legend. And if man has no orcs, he will pretend they exist...)

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 14, 2005)

Barley, you don't find the Sil to be happy reading? Certainly, there are many woes and ill fortunes to be encountered therein, but juxtaposed to each one of them is an event, concept or deed of beauty and compassion that uplifts and comforts. Regardless of Man's quick satiety with good, our race will continue to do good, even though it is constantly marred by evil. Don't you think?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 14, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> Barley, you don't find the Sil to be happy reading? Certainly, there are many woes and ill fortunes to be encountered therein, but juxtaposed to each one of them is an event, concept or deed of beauty and compassion that uplifts and comforts. Regardless of Man's quick satiety with good, our race will continue to do good, even though it is constantly marred by evil. Don't you think?



Alas, m'dear, I don't find Sil happy reading atall atall. As I've said in prior posts, it is ultimately about "the long defeat." It's about things going wrong from the very beginning, with Melkor almost immediately trying to dominate the Creation Music, and things going downhill from there. It can be taken as "God can't control evil." There is not one sentence of real humor in the entire saga.

We see Melkor and Sauron forever working evil over innocents. It shows the _very first elves_ getting waylaid by Melkor and taken off to be corrupted into orcs, and we know what came of that! 

It shows the later elves to be just as greedy, vengeful and warlike as any man or orc, swearing irresponsible oaths and suffering the consequences for generations.

In fact I would say: if Tolkien had written only that, his name as a novelist would have been long faded into dust right now because of the work's interminable dreariness. It has moments of beauty, but it is a work — at least to me — of almost suffocating pessimism. 

Then came LOTR with its satsifying _denouement._

And then came "The New Shadow," and even Tolkien, apparently, sensed he was beginning to plunge into a pessimism so black and terrifying to him that he suddenly stopped and dropped the whole project.

So I've had to change my mind about Tolkien. Had I not known about "The New Shadow," I would have gone on thinking that his basic philosophy was "there's some good worth fighting for." Now I'm not so sure. Now I think it may be "Evil sprouts like a weed in the heart of Man, if there is no one to make sure that good prevails." Indeed, human history bears me out.

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 14, 2005)

Snaga said:


> I am glad Tolkien didn't continue with this idea. It wouldn't have been very happy reading.


On the contrary, happy or not, I would have loved to read another Tolkien book, especially a fourth age one. Dreary as it may be, I would imagine it to have a similar moral as The Silmarillion; an initial paradise falling into debauchery due to the fallen status of man, with the evil finally defeated after the humility of the races and the brave deeds of the few faithful.

It sounds amazing.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 14, 2005)

Barley,

I think you are being a little too pessimistic about poor old JRRT. I think his view is that there is evil in the world and one has to be always on the watch for it and fight it. If one does that, the evil can be defeated. Even in The Sil, Melkor/Morgoth is eventually defeated and banished. Yes, Sauron survived, but without him there could be no LOTR.  And I agree with you, that it is LOTR that secures Tolkien's place in literature, not The Sil. Also from the standpoint of a writer, there pretty much has to be some sort of conflict for a story to exist. How successful would a novel be if it started out with everyone living happily, they all continued to live happily with nothing but happy and joyous events and then ended with eveyone living happily ever after? It would require some extraordinary writing to pull off something like that.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 14, 2005)

Barley said:


> Alas, m'dear, I don't find Sil happy reading atall atall. As I've said in prior posts, it is ultimately about "the long defeat."



I think you are either misunderstanding the concept of good and evil in Arda, or not seeing the big picture of it all. 

And whose long defeat is that? If we're gonna use the word _ultimately_ - then certainly Morgoth's and that of evil. If evil had been stifled by Eru before even having the chance to take shape and action, where would free will figure into all this? There would be none. With the presence of evil, good is enriched and becomes greater than prior to the 'intervention' of evil.

***

So what's the big _denouement_ of the LOTR that is not present in the Sil? What is so endlessly depressing about the Sil that could not also be claimed about the LOTR?

The Sil ends with the demise of Melkor. 

The LOTR ends with the downfall of Sauron.

So, both stories end with the ruin of a great supernatural evil. (Actually, if we're gonna nit pick about it, the Sil ends with the overthrow of Melkor, a being supremely greater than Sauron, and therefore the victory of good over Morgoth should be infinitely greater and more joyful than that over Sauron, eh?)

TLOTR is the Sil on a several times lesser scale. The enemy is lesser, but so are his opponents diminished from their primeval strength in the Elder Days. Therefore, I think it is fairly safe to assume that the bloodshed and battles will also be lesser quantity-wise, with less casualties (naturally) than in the wars of Beleriand. Yet, TLOTR contains much the same elements present in the Sil - deceit, betrayal, lust, folly, willful and unyielding behaviour, contempt,...etc. In contrast, both of these works contain a matching or superior number of antonyms for each of these 'evil' emotions, and finally, good always prevails, and the villains (at least the more intelligent ones) are aware of that in one way or another but fail or decline to change the error of their ways.

One of the few really big differences between the LOTR and the Sil is the style these books are written in. The former is much more detailed and more easily understood, while the latter is quite condensed and written using such language as to conjure up an ancient aura of ages long past and the very beginnings of the world/universe. Now you may like or dislike either of these for your own reasons, but there is no sense in claiming one is surpassingly more depressing than the other.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 14, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> I think you are either misunderstanding the concept of good and evil in Arda, or not seeing the big picture of it all.



Oh I think I understand it all just fine, even if my understanding differs from yours. 

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 14, 2005)

And it is my opinion that your understanding of good and evil in Arda is on a slight collision course with the many statements provided by the professor in the various tomes of Middle-earth.


----------



## Annaheru (Mar 14, 2005)

Indeed, Eru says in the first pages of the Sil: "And thou, Melkor, that ye may see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."The moral of Sil is not hopelessness, but the consequences of evil. Almost from the very first we see the eventual hope: the New Music, when everything is set right.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 14, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> Indeed, Eru says in the first pages of the Sil: "And thou, Melkor, that ye may see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."



How could it be otherwise, if Eru (or God) is going to be defined as omnipotent/omniscient? There's no choice: that statement _must_ be made, else it must be conceded that "God" — Eru, whoever — is other than perfect, and in letting evil loose, let things get out of hand. When Eru created Melkor, he either created him knowing exactly what he was going to do as part of the plan, or he didn't, and made a cosmic flub. But if he knew that Melkor was going to unleash all this destruction why was everyone so upset about it? It was supposed to happen, yet they all act as if it was an unforeseen unplanned-for calamity.

This is the very thing I have against the idea of a "God" who is all-good. It leads to all sorts of rationales for the existence of evil, as if both good and evil were inherent features of a Reality created by an all-good all-loving God. The best we can do with that is to say, "Well, we don't know God's cosmic purposes." The fact is, we don't KNOW whether God exists or not. So then we say, "Well, all the evil's done by the devil and all the good's done by God." These are the conclusions drawn by the men who first wrote the holy books of the world. Such ideas, methinks, have held us back for the last 5,000 years.

This is one of the great problems with Western religion. That's why I lean to Buddhism. I am a "devout Buddhist agnostic!"  But this is all way off topic.

Getting back to "The New Shadow:" I believe that had Tolkien gone ahead with it, he would have written something totally black and defeatist, without hope, something along the lines of Mankind being on a one-way road to its final inevitable self-created destruction. (Indeed, he left the briefest passing hint of it in LOTR. Read the first lines of my signature.)

He didn't want to confront what was about to bubble up into his consciousness, and he dropped it like a hot rock. He sensed a revelation coming about the future of man and suppressed it for the sake of his own peace of mind. "He smelt the old Evil and knew it for what it was."

Barley


----------



## Annaheru (Mar 14, 2005)

Ah, but within Tolkien's mythos we do know that there is a perfect God. That's the point. As to the purpose of evil in ME: the failure of evil to change Eru's end-purpose is reason enough. 


As to TNS, I really don't see how we can say it points to 'doom and gloom'- JRR never finished it. In both the Sil and LoTR we pass from the high to the low and then see a partial restoration, a revival (if you will), that will ultimately descend another level until we reach the Final Battle and the New Song. TNS continues this theme. We know that Tolkien became more interested in the language (Quenya) in his later years, returning to his original purpose in creating ME. If he had really felt the need to finish this story good would have triumphed. In reference to LoTR he said "foresight had failed", and he abandoned the tale for a time. In TNS he looked at the darkness and stopped. What if the manuscript for LoTR had stopped at the beginning of bk3? Gandalf dead, Boromir dead, Merry and Pippin taken. Or at the end of bk4? That would offer a horizon every bit as dark as TNS.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 14, 2005)

Barley said:


> Getting back to "The New Shadow:" I believe that had Tolkien gone ahead with it, he would have written something totally black and defeatist, without hope, something along the lines of Mankind being on a one-way road to its final inevitable self-created destruction. (Indeed, he left the briefest passing hint of it in LOTR. Read the first lines of my signature.)
> 
> He didn't want to confront what was about to bubble up into his consciousness, and he dropped it like a hot rock. He sensed a revelation coming about the future of man and suppressed it for the sake of his own peace of mind. "He smelt the old Evil and knew it for what it was."



Instead of all these frantic and apocalyptical reasons, how about we simply chalk it up to something less sensational, such as that the professor simply didn't see much potential in the story. Seems much more reasonable to me. 

I also cannot understand what is so shockingly gloomy and depressing about _The New Shadow_, and moreover what is the great unspeakable revelation made apparent in this unfinished work. With the demise of Sauron, the last 'supernatural' evil was vanquished. But did anyone expect this to be the end of all evil, that it would suddenly be swept under the rug and gone forever? The seeds of evil that Melkor implanted into the fabric of Arda would ever sprout anew, and in the Fourth Age and onwards, evil would be found in the hearts of Men. By defying and successfully battling it, Man would learn to fend for himself and become enriched in the process.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 14, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> Instead of all these frantic and apocalyptical reasons, how about we simply chalk it up to something less sensational, such as that the professor simply didn't see much potential in the story. Seems much more reasonable to me.



I have to agree. For reasons I can't quite put my finger upon, one of my immediate responses to the fragment is that it "feels" (if I can put it that way) like the kind of tale Raymond E. Feist would write (more "modern" or "contemporary" in tone, perhaps?). And I don't think Tolkien would have been interested in writing the kind of fantasy that Feist writes.

P.S. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy Feist almost as much as I enjoy Tolkien.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 15, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> Ah, but within Tolkien's mythos we do know that there is a perfect God. That's the point



_You_ may be satisfied with a perfect God who can't control his own creation, but I ain't! 




> As to TNS, I really don't see how we can say it points to 'doom and gloom'- JRR never finished it. In both the Sil and LoTR we pass from the high to the low and then see a partial restoration, a revival (if you will), that will ultimately descend another level until we reach the Final Battle and the New Song. TNS continues this theme....In TNS he looked at the darkness and stopped. What if the manuscript for LoTR had stopped at the beginning of bk3? Gandalf dead, Boromir dead, Merry and Pippin taken. Or at the end of bk4? That would offer a horizon every bit as dark as TNS.



What you say is every bit as valid conjecture as is mine — but I think mine's more fun...

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 15, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> Instead of all these frantic and apocalyptical reasons, how about we simply chalk it up to something less sensational, such as that the professor simply didn't see much potential in the story. Seems much more reasonable to me.



But not nearly as much fun!



> I also cannot understand what is so shockingly gloomy and depressing about _The New Shadow_, and moreover what is the great unspeakable revelation made apparent in this unfinished work. With the demise of Sauron, the last 'supernatural' evil was vanquished. But did anyone expect this to be the end of all evil, that it would suddenly be swept under the rug and gone forever? The seeds of evil that Melkor implanted into the fabric of Arda would ever sprout anew, and in the Fourth Age and onwards, evil would be found in the hearts of Men. By defying and successfully battling it, Man would learn to fend for himself and become enriched in the process.



That's not fair, you're making too much sense!  Anyway, those were my reactions to reading the fragment, and I have no reason to mistrust them. So what I say is more about me than about Tolkien, eh? However, taking a look at human history so far, both past and present, I believe Tolkien caught a glimpse of our fate and wanted nothing to do with it.

And to AV: Good to see you are posting again! But, knowing nothing about Feist, I haven't the slightest idea of what you're getting at.

Barley


----------



## baragund (Mar 15, 2005)

It seems to me _The New Shadow_ can be seen as a close parallel to the Akallabeth. In both stories, you have a society supposedly freed from ills but, eventually, evil creeps back. In the Akallabeth, there was the convenient figure of Sauron / Annatar egging on the increasingly corrupt kings and the King's Men, but that downfall began long before Ar-Pharazon captured him. In The New Shadow, there is only the the evil side of human nature that generates the downfall.

I can see how it would be a depressing story to write, especially if there is no longer a supernatural "bad guy" to blame. But it could have had a heroic or hopeful ending where, like in the Akallabeth, there was a wholesome component of this new Gondorian society who survived or managed to back back the impending evil.


----------



## Annaheru (Mar 15, 2005)

> _You_ may be satisfied with a perfect God who can't control his own creation, but I ain't!


Control his creations? So you prefer Aule's robot dwarves? They could only do what their master told them to do- Eru prefered that his creations 'behave' out of love for him, and when they tried to thwart him, they eventually discover that all they did was prove him right.
~I will agree that _Shadow_ leads to man's inability to help himself, but within the mythos that's inevitable; else there would be no need for the Final Battle and New Music that JRR told us about.

baragund,
I recently wrote a college paper on Akallabeth, and I agree with you. In Ak. it is really easy to see the Apocalyptic cycle I mentioned earlier, it's also present in Sil, and LoTR is the following one. _Shadow_ could have easily followed.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 15, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> ...Eru prefered that his creations 'behave' out of love for him...



Eru _needs love?_ What kind of omnipotent perfect god is _needy?_

Barley


----------



## Annaheru (Mar 15, 2005)

he doesn't need it, but he may want it: as much for their good as his glory. I think the ultimate point to keep in mind is that when Tolkien wrote he incorporated his beliefs as to what is real. Tolkien believed in an omnipotent, perfect God, and created his mythical god accordingly: the nature of Eru, therefore, cannot be a matter of debate or interpretation. Within the mythos he is what he is, regardless of how illogical it may seem to us. 

My arguments concerning Eru are based in Tolkien's own Christian heritage. JRR's understanding and beliefs about who God is define Eru. No one has to agree with them in real life, but in a world Tolkien made his word is law.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 16, 2005)

Annaheru said:


> ... the ultimate point to keep in mind is that when Tolkien wrote he incorporated his beliefs as to what is real. Tolkien believed in an omnipotent, perfect God, and created his mythical god accordingly: the nature of Eru, therefore, cannot be a matter of debate or interpretation. Within the mythos he is what he is, regardless of how illogical it may seem to us.
> 
> My arguments concerning Eru are based in Tolkien's own Christian heritage. JRR's understanding and beliefs about who God is define Eru. No one has to agree with them in real life, but in a world Tolkien made his word is law.



Sure I can argue and disagree with it. I am taking a look at Eru, who is God in a thin disguise. Both Eru, and God as described in Catholicism (and most versions of Christianity) are seen as anthropomorphic entities (how could they be otherwise) and therefore adrip with human qualities: anger, jealousy, but most egregious: when it comes to "evil," it is as if evil is an independent force or agency that has gotten out of control (the usual story is that one of the good guys turned rogue), that God let slip. I do not call that "perfection." That's all I'm saying. 

(Of course then there must be the rationale: "Even evil is part of the Grand Purpose, although you can't understand why, and I ain't tellin'." And I don't buy it.)

Barley


----------



## Narsil (Mar 16, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well, I have read the fragment (at http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/tolkien/.), and it leaves me quite chilled.



I would actually like to read _The New Shadow_. I'd read _of_ it but had never actually read it. 

I downloaded and saved this story and will read shortly. Thankyou for the link!


----------



## Narsil (Mar 16, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> So what's the big _denouement_ of the LOTR that is not present in the Sil? What is so endlessly depressing about the Sil that could not also be claimed about the LOTR?
> 
> The Sil ends with the demise of Melkor.
> 
> ...



I think this pretty much sums up how I feel about the Sil vs LOTR. However I do feel that LOTR had a happier ending in that Middle Earth was pretty much intact in the end. In the Sil, victory was eventually attained but at great cost. Beleriand was destroyed and many of the Elves went back to Valinor. It wasn't until the Valar themselves destroyed Morgoth (and with it the known world) that victory was indeed attained. The Silmarils themselves were lost forever and the oath that was made by the sons of Feanor destroyed them as well. The quest for the Silmarils was a hopeless one and the Noldor were doomed from the beginning. It was only the courage of Earendil and the compassion of the Valar that saved them in the end. 

In LOTR it was a similar theme but there was much more hope and victories along the way..the battle of Helm's deep, the Ent's attack on Isengard, the Battle of the Pelennor fields, Aragorn's victory over the Corsairs of Umbar. Things did look hopeless at many times but for some reason LOTR came across to me, at least, as being "less hopeless" than in The Silmarillion. 

Then there is the Akallabeth, which outlines the downfall of Numenor. I wonder if _The New Shadow_ is basically the counterpart to the Alkallabeth and takes place in the 4th Age just as the the events of Numenor took place in the 2nd Age? Both seem to be a story of "Paradise Lost". 

I will read The New Shadow and comment on it soon.


----------



## Snaga (Mar 17, 2005)

I stick to my opinion that it was better that no sequel was written. I believe it would have seemed a pale, uninteresting tale besides Lord of the Rings, aping its theme but on a lesser scale, with less grandeur and heroism. The Silmarillion is dark for it does show the 'long defeat' but it also shows the soaring pinnacles that the elves reached - the marvel of their strength, their subtlety of thought, and the heroism in spite of the hopelessness of their cause. Lord of the Rings works because we get that again, but glimpsed from the perspective of hobbits. This sequel would have been prosaic - a man's eye view of man's frailty. It could be made to work, but there would be a great cost. I think that it would have diminuished Lord of the Rings. Why? Because what is Lord of the Rings without the bitter-sweet feeling of a victory at great cost, of losing the magic of what once was, of the departure of the elves, and that the hobbits have disappeared... we know at the end that those days have gone, never to return. Where would that feeling be, if you were already reaching for the sequel? It would be gone, no matter how gloomy the next instalment was.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 17, 2005)

Snaga,

I have to say I agree with much of what you say. LOTR is an incredibly "hard act to follow". I believe it is going to be one of those books that lasts for centuries (assuming mankind allows the world to continue). How do you follow such a book without diminishing it? I would add another consideration to the possible reasons for Tolkien abandoning it. It took Tolkien fifteen years to write LOTR. By the time he was sketching The New Shadow, he was far from a young man. He may have just realized he didn't have the time and energy left to do it, or at least not to his own high standards.


----------



## baragund (Mar 18, 2005)

The orc hit the nail on the head.




On a wayyyyyy different topic: Snaga, any orclings on the way yet??  Or I suppose they would be Uruk-hai, no?


----------



## Narsil (Mar 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I myself came to this conclusion long ago: that evil is a weed inherent in Man that pops up under any condition, and good is a Man-created garden that needs constant tending.
> 
> Barley



Tolkien would probably agree. It sounds like a perfect argument for "Original Sin". 



Annaheru said:


> As to TNS, I really don't see how we can say it points to 'doom and gloom'- JRR never finished it. In both the Sil and LoTR we pass from the high to the low and then see a partial restoration, a revival (if you will), that will ultimately descend another level until we reach the Final Battle and the New Song. TNS continues this theme. We know that Tolkien became more interested in the language (Quenya) in his later years, returning to his original purpose in creating ME. If he had really felt the need to finish this story good would have triumphed. In reference to LoTR he said "foresight had failed", and he abandoned the tale for a time. In TNS he looked at the darkness and stopped. What if the manuscript for LoTR had stopped at the beginning of bk3? Gandalf dead, Boromir dead, Merry and Pippin taken. Or at the end of bk4? That would offer a horizon every bit as dark as TNS.



I agree with this POV. While TNS started out rather dark and probably got darker, no doubt good would've triumphed. That's assuming Tolkien's philosophy in general hadn't changed since LOTR. It very well could've but we'll never really know for sure. It seems he felt it wouldn't make for a compelling story and would only be a shadow of his former great works. It probably didn't help that was nearing the end of his life. Had he started this 10 years earlier perhaps we would indeed have a sequel to LOTR. 

If I were a teacher and had a classroom of students studying Tolkien I'd make TNS required reading and ask the students to finish this story, basing it on Tolkien's philosophy and works. It would be fascinating to see how it turned out. 

While part of me agrees with what a lot of you are saying and understands the reasons behind Tolkien not pursuing this any further I think there was fertile ground for this story. 

If _The New Shadow_ had taken place *1000* years after the fall of the Dark Tower no doubt it would in many respects be "modernized" in that this story would probably take place in a time and place that would resemble our society much more than Middle Earth. There wouldn't be any real memory of what transpired in the War of the Ring. The Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits would considered myths at best. As Snaga pointed out, the magic would indeed gone and it would be a faint shadow of what was and thus hardly worth doing. Basically it would be a modern story without any of the mythic grandeur of LOTR, seen through the eyes of Men and peopled by Men. It wouldn't be much different from any other action-adventure-drama. Not worth doing IMO. 

But I don't see that as being the case here. TNS takes place *100* years after the fall of the tower. This puts it into an entirely new perspective for me. For one, the King is Eldarion, son of Aragorn and Arwen. This would be no ordinary man! Surely he could hearken back to Earendil or Elrond, being of both Numenorean and Elvish blood. That makes for some compelling reading right there and a lot could be done with that. There would also be Faramir's and Eowyn's children and grandchildren to consider as well. I see a lot of potential in this story and would've loved to have seen it explored. 

Also, 100 years later surely there would a renegade Elf or two who decided not to go into the West? Or perhaps the Dwarves could take on more importance? A descendent of Gimli? Maybe Merry, Pippin's or Sam's children could come into the story..Who knows? When it comes to the Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits it is hard to believe that everything dried up so soon after LOTR. In the entire history of ME, 100 years isn't that long. It seems logical that since LOTR took place about 60 years after _The Hobbit_ a sequel for LOTR could easily come about 100 years later, despite the many changes that happened at the end of the 3rd Age.

As for the nature of the evil itself, that could be made interesting as well. There is talk of "satanic cults" but they needn't be based soley on the deeds of the Men of Gondor. The name _Herumor_ was used to hint at the role of evil in TNS. This was the name a renegade Numenorean who became powerful in Harad during the 2nd Age. It would be interesting to see this explored. Sauron was Morgoth's disciple so perhaps this could indeed by a disciple of Sauron? It would also be interesting to read more about Harad and the other lands to the East and South. If ever evil was to rear it's ugly head, surely it would be the lands where Sauron's followers lived and might still harbor anger and resentment towards Gondor, despite Aragorn's pardoning them at the end of the war. 

You could even have another version of Gandalf when you consider that there were two "Blue" Istari who originally went into the Eastern lands and weren't heard from again. I would imagine that they could be used now, especially if you are concentrating on an evil that takes it's roots in the eastern lands. 

I suppose one could shrug it it off as a pale "redo" of LOTR but most sequels are like that in that they often repeat the general theme of the story that precedes them. I don't think that Tolkien himself could've topped LOTR, particularly at the point of his life when he wrote TNS. But I do think that it would've been possible to have had a compelling, interesting sequel that would've satified the curiousity of those who wanted to read more about Middle Earth in the 4th Age, particularly when you consider that people still line up bookstores for the latest addition of _Harry Potter_. Had Tolkien had felt the need to write it, I don't think it would've been as daunting nor as dark as one would think. 

Unfortunately I don't think Tolkien was himself compelled to write it and died not too long afterwards so we'll never know. But I found it interesting reading and would've liked to have known what it was exactly that Borlas found in his house. I think it would've made for an interesting tale and wished it had come to fruition.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Mar 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Barliman Butterbur said:
> 
> 
> > I myself came to this conclusion long ago: that evil is a weed inherent in Man that pops up under any condition, and good is a Man-created garden that needs constant tending.
> ...



Tolkien might have indeed. But what _is_ "sin," and what is "original sin?" If you say that original sin is the tendency for man to get desperate and to steal when he's desperately hungry, even murder, then I suppose you could call that "original sin." Others call it taking desperate survival measures. But men are usually peaceful when they have all they need. I think I'd like you to give me your definitions of "sin" and "original sin," and then perhaps we can take that further.

Barley


----------



## Narsil (Mar 20, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> *Originally Posted by Barliman Butterbur*
> I myself came to this conclusion long ago: that evil is a weed inherent in Man that pops up under any condition, and good is a Man-created garden that needs constant tending.
> 
> *Narsil:* Tolkien would probably agree. It sounds like a perfect argument for "Original Sin".
> ...



Barley, I'm not a religious person by any means. In fact, if I were to guess I'd say we share similar views in that respect. My knowledge of religion is even less than my faith in it, and that's not saying much.  

But I'm going by the traditional Christian view of man being born in sin as a result of the Garden of Eden "incident". As a result it's Man's tendency to act "sinful" and tend towards evil unless he makes a concerted effort to embrace a higher power and act in a way that will "cleanse" him of his sins. This is what my more religious friends tell me. 

If this is wrong then chalk it up to my not knowing what the heck I'm talking about. It's how I interpret it. Since Tolkien was a devout Catholic I can see him taking the view that men need to constantly be vigilant against evil because that is their innate tendency. Seems this is an important component in the Catholic faith. 

As for me, I think some people are good and _most_ will stay that way. However, some people are bad and nothing will change them. The jails are full of people who were supposed to be "rehabilitated". I don't think that evil people will become good..but good people are often tempted by evil, so perhaps that dovetails with the idea of Man's tendency towards evil unless he's vigilant against temptation.

Oh boy, is this thread not going in a good direction and I'm not helping it. I think I'm breaking some rule about not discussing religion here  Could you please read my _second_ post? The one about the actual topic? I'd rather discuss that because I find it a lot more interesting.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 20, 2005)

Narsil, that was a wonderful post there. You've got some interesting ideas that make up for an intriguing would-be sequel. How can we bribe you into writing it?  

As for the issue of religion, it is indeed forbidden to discuss it 'on its own', but within the bounds of Tolkien's world, it is perfectly okay.


----------



## Narsil (Mar 20, 2005)

Ithrynluin,

Thank you for the compliment.  I'm easily bribed, it wouldn't take much.  Just having the opportunity to add my perspective and input on something that Tolkien inspired and see it published would be quite a reward in itself.  

It would be nice if Tolkien was still alive and thinking of writing TNS, saw my post and used those ideas. Now THAT would be priceless!


----------



## Alcuin (Mar 21, 2005)

Tolkien wrote about this ("The New Shadow", which is published as it stands in _Peoples of Middle-Earth_) in Letter 256 to one Colin Bailey, dated 13 May 1964.


> I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall [of Mordor], but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless – while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors – like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going round doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discoverY and overthrow- but it would be just that. Not worth doing.


There are similar comments in Letter 338 from June 1972. 

Christopher Tolkien has extensive commentary on the story in _Peoples of Middle-Earth_, on its manuscripts (3 of them, apparently), on the two letters, and extensive footnotes.


----------



## Alatar (Mar 31, 2005)

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE SMELLED!!!
Thanks for the link


----------



## Ellatur (Apr 24, 2005)

whoa scary stuff...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 25, 2005)

Alatar said:


> I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE SMELLED!!!



Taking your question seriously, I think it means that he sensed/intuited that kind of evil that was in the air in Mordor — that miasma of sheer living evil — he could just feel it.

My own private thought: I believe that Tolkien had a hunch that he just wasn't up to dealing with the ramifications of serious evil arising yet again, that he simply wasn't up to going "once more into the breach" — he was too old and tired. And, it would have taken away the power and meaning (that good can triumph over evil in a major way) from everything he'd written prior to that.



Narsil said:


> [Discussing the concept of "sin"]...I'm going by the traditional Christian view of man being born in sin as a result of the Garden of Eden "incident". As a result it's Man's tendency to act "sinful" and tend towards evil unless he makes a concerted effort to embrace a higher power and act in a way that will "cleanse" him of his sins. This is what my more religious friends tell me.



Then all we have is a specifically _Christian concept:_ a doctrine, a dogma — not Divine Truth, but only a particular religion's assertion.

Barley


----------



## Litsedal (May 23, 2005)

I hate unfinished work.....
Anyway I think that Tolkien should have finished it, evin if it wasn't going to be published until the History of Middle Earth series...It would be a little side-tale...
We were discussing this somewhere and came up with lots of plot outlines. Unfortunately the copyrights prevent 'sequels or continuation of the author's work without direct written permission'...grrr....


----------



## lotr_lukyfer (Feb 9, 2006)

I have a pretty cool idea for a continuation of "The New Shadow." How about this: Herumor is indeed the same Herumor of the Second Age and is still alive because he is the host of an elvish wight. He is also the Mouth of Sauron. Anyway, Eldarion, hearing of his growing might in Rhun, and being a somewhat decrepant ruler, calls for Herumor (and Fuinir) to be his chancellor(s). Before long, Eldarion himself is (secretly) involved with the cult (the Worship of the Dark) that the two chancellors have started in Gondor. Borlas, through Saelon, hears of the meeting that the cult is having and decides to go. He finds out at the meeting that it is more than just Melkor-worship. The leaders of the cult know of a secret possessed by the ancient Numenorians. The secret is that of traveling between worlds. There was a special box that contained dust from some of the worlds that survived Akallebeth. This box was lost in the division of Arnor and is known to have come into possession of the king of Carloden. It is said to rest somewhere in the Barrow-downs. 
This idea is a connection between LotR and Narnia. Remember where Uncle Andrew's dust came from? It came from Atlantis. Numenor is Atlantis.
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/images/icons/icon13.gif


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 15, 2006)

the new shadow is in HOME: Peoples of Middle Earth isn't it?


----------



## Bucky (Jan 3, 2008)

A very interesting thread on a very un-interesting story.....

I mean, if you (and I) were involved in a secret evil cult, would we tell an old man who was obviously of high morals - He had beaten this guy as a child for stealing fruit off one of his trees.

Duh....

I wonder how 'The New Shadow' would've liked his BIG MOUTH?

Now, a few comments on some other posts:

 Tolkien seems to say that Men are inherently inclined to evil, 

Well, that would be the Christian view of Man & Tolkien was a Christian....

*TLOTR is the Sil on a several times lesser scale. *

No, not really, other than 'Good' winning out over 'evil'.....

TLOR contains a story of ONE long journey that breaks into a few side stories & ultimate victory by 'the common folk' over the Dark Lord whereas The Silm contains tragedy after tragedy that gains unlooked for victory over the Dark Lord snatched by one act of sailing a ship by one common folk into the West & gaining the aid of The Greatest Beings in Arda......

Very little in common but the victory - and passing away amidst victory of much that was fair......

*This is the very thing I have against the idea of a "God" who is all-good. *

No offense, Barley, but The God of the Universe will (not) be highly upset......

And this is what has been Man's problem since The Fall - we want to make God in OUR image instead of letting God make US in HIS image.

And this brings us right back to the Garden of Eden where we ate the apple when God said we could have ANYTHING but that one little thing.
Funny, but, isn't that what JRRT chose as the thing this guy stole in this story?
A piece of fruit.....

Coincidence?
I think not.
Why?

Because Tolkien has been using Christian imagery since day one in Middle-Earth - he says so himself in one of his Letters. (If someone doubts it, I'll find the exact quote because I just read it yesterday. It's in the #140's.)

Look at Melkor/ Morgoth. Unquestionably a takeoff on Satan.
He falls in heaven.
During The Music of the Ainur.
Satan (Lucifer) was God's Minister of Music.
The other Ainur (angels) fight with Morgoth and the Ainur he has tempted into falling in the 'void' (heaven) just as Satan did......

Even Sauron is a parable of Satan, especially in The Alkabeth.
Here, he comes to Numenor & corrupts the king, Ar-Pharazon, an admidttly fallen & proud man already.
But, within a few years, Sauron has the Numenoreans worshipping Melkor, 'Lord of Darkness' & 'Giver of Gifts', sacrivicing 'The Faithful' in a pagan temple of fire that is a conterfeit of the true temple, just as there are many pagan temples that sacrivice humans (such as the Mayans) in conterfeit to the true Temple of The Jews in Jerusalem where bulls, lambs & doves were sacriviced to Jehovah for 1400 years until The TRUE Lamb of God came..... 
Sauron finally even persuades Ar-Pharazon in his pride to attack the Valar to attempt to wresstle the rule of Arda from them, and even (though deceived), 'eternal life'......

*Instead of all these frantic and apocalyptical reasons, how about we simply chalk it up to something less sensational, such as that the professor simply didn't see much potential in the story. Seems much more reasonable to me.*

Absolutely not......

Tolkien himself says so in his reasons for not going on with the story:

'Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace and justice and prosperity would become discontented and restless -'

On the subject of there being no Orcs after The War of the Ring, nonsense.
We need to remember that MANY Orcs fled in the battle before the gates of Mordor. Only some slew themselves.
Many were left in Moria & Orcs had secretly spread through the Misty Mountains since the Battle of Five Armies.

A more reasonable answer to why there may have been few Orcs 100 years after Aragorn's Reign (therefore 200 or so years after The War of the Ring) is that Aragorn & Eomer are said to have gone to battle far into Harad & Rhun to clear out the Evil Men still around & it is reasonable to assume that they also erradicated the remaining Orcs.
Also, the time was at hand for the dominion of Men & the decline of all other speaking Peoples.

* But what is "sin," and what is "original sin?"*

'Sin' & 'original sin' are one & the same......

Sin is not as you might think & seem to be implying being evil or doing bad things by a standard that MAN sets up.
Sin is litterally 'missing the bullseye' in the original Greek it was written, i.e., a lack of being perfect in God's eyes.
And who can say they are perfect in God's eyes?
'Good people' are so sadly deceived, 'for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God'.
People may look at Heaven as a place to be gained by 'good' outweighing 'evil' or 'bad', but God looks at it as His Holyness can not stand in the pressence of ONE sin. And let's face it, we've ALL misssed the bullseye of being perfect once (or a thousand times).

And, it doesn't matter what WE believe, it matters what GOD says.


*Eru needs love? What kind of omnipotent perfect god is needy?
*

Boy, Barley, you do have your issues with God, don't you?

As 'Eru' repressents the (real) Living God, and Tolkien makes his interaction the same as Jehovah (I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, that's just one of His many names - 'The Great I Am' if you prefer), let me explain how/why God would 'need', or 'want', if you prefer, love......

He makes us with free will.
If we didn't have free will, we'd be robots.
Love is to be GIVEN, not demanded, or it wouldn't be love. Yet God showed us love in that while we were yet sinners, in rebellion to Him, he became a man like us, subject to all our trials & tribulations, so He could understand our weak & fallen state, relate to what it meant to be human & show us what it meant to be truely loving & selfless, even to the point of dying on the cross as a sacrivice for us.
That's love.
When the truth that Jesus was real & did this for us hits home, we can't help but love God for what He did as a man.
We understand He is our Loving Father and He sends His Holy Spirit into us to commune with us, relate to us and change us to be like His Son, and to clean out the 'junk' in our lives that keep us from being like His Son.
If we hold onto our 'junk', this keeps us from the fullness of God's relationship with us & He states in the bible that He is a jealous God & we were 'bought with a price' (his Son's death). We belong to Him & He means BUISNESS.
If you accept His Son as Saviour, you will NEVER be happy unless you give up EVERYTHING to follow him with your whole heart.
He went to the cross & we have to pick up ours to - yet it frees us to love & be loved & see that this love is more than life itself because it is eternal life......

'Taste and see that the Lord is good'

You may say that this doesn't belong on a discussion on The Tolkien Forum, but I say it does because

A. Some of you brought God into it and

B. JRR Tolkien's creation of Middle-Earth/Arda was based totally on Christianity, from Eru to Melkor to Sauron, and many characters were based on Christian ideals such as Gandalf (Obviously returns from the dead clothed in white), Sam (The suffering servant) and Aragorn (The Return of the King - How? Through 'The Paths of The Dead').


----------

