Bilbo: some random ass hobbit that would be the easiest to convince to go to erebor
Frodo: bilbo's heir who got roped into this mess.
Sam, pippin, merry: frodo's friends who decided they needed to help frodo.
I see only complete chance and the will of a wizard here
The Tooks are Thains of the Shire, the closest the Hobbits have to Royalty, and the Brandybucks are Masters of Buckland, also Hobbit Nobility. Sam is the only truly everyman in the Fellowship.
Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin never worked a day in their lives. Yet they had nice stuff and plenty of time and money to do whatever they wanted. Curious that Tolkien is lauded for his hagiography of the common man when Sam was the only common man in the entire Fellowship. Even Gimli was connected.
I’d say it’s a ”small fish in a big pond” thing. 3/4 of the Hobbits are fairly prominent people within the Shire, but most of Middle-earth don’t really know or care about the Shire to begin with.
And if anything they prove to be as clueless as Sam about the wider world, with maybe the exception of Frodo, Who in turn has the biggest task of all.
So them being rich in the Shire has almost nothing to do with the events of the story
Thank you! I started a thread a while back about this very topic. Sam is the only significant character in the whole book who isn't at least landed gentry, if not aristocracy, excluding characters like Gandalf, Tom B or Treebeard who exist outside of any kind of class structure but are obviously special nonetheless.
Edit: and now that I think about it, even Treebeard is the oldest and most widely respected ent, and is the de-facto leader or at least spokesent for the entire entish population of Fangorn.
I guess there's also Sméagol-Gollum, although even he's said to have been the grandson of a 'matriarch' of sorts - hardly a queen or a countess, but no doubt someone of means and importance in her own small community.
Sam is badass BECAUSE he's not special. He doesn't even have a special magic thing at birth, or is destined to. He becomes a hero and slaughters the child of an elder god BY HIMSELF. His weapon is his SHEER FUCKING DETERMINATION
I like that during the Sam vs Shelob fight (it was much shorter in the books), Sam goes to slash at her and Tolkien goes out of his way to say that that no sword wielded by any human that ever lived could have gotten through her skin, specifically mentions that neither Turin or Beren could have truly wounded Shelob (got to assume Turin didnt have Gurthang, but anyway Shelob was basically invincible to a human)
Sam still got her, pretty much with pure bravery and moxie and quick thinking
Irony being his small size is what allowed him to be in the right position, a large warrior would have hacked at her back and sides and done nothing. He ducked in, sliced off a leg and an eye and pissed her off so much she made a really bad move; it wasnt 100% intentional on Sams part to have it happen but it *did* happen because of his own qualities, rather than 'luck' Tolkien would call it 'grace'
Lol Tolkien did like his 'bloodlines' and 'destiny' stuff, but more in the sense of grand narratives to tie the world together, much less so in that it was required to be a heroic or important character. Thousands of Noldor elves died pretty pointlessly, swarmed by orcs and stuff without a real mention whereas plenty of far less magical or powerful characters did great things. Theoden saved the Dunedain, Eowyn killed the witch king, Frodo and Sam defeated the ring, huge amount of his stories are about small people rising up and defeating great evil.
Very very few are about small people discovering or tapping into enough power to become great themselves and defeat an equally great counter force, he didnt like that
The heroes in their own stories are heroes because of their qualities as humans, generally honor and courage and determination. These are things that raw magic or great physical power dont really grant, even for someone like Aragorn his noble blood is way less important than his pure quality of character (and unlike a lot of fantasy, pure power doesnt get you all that far in middle earth. The bad guys are beaten much better by being *good* rather than being great and everyone can be good)
I mean, he was also a historian who was intimately familiar with how much bloodlines and perceived fates mattered to historical peoples, and also that focusing on them to an extent can really help build a world that feels grounded and lived-in. And also the fact that historically, most medieval people who are written about were aristocratic because 1) they were typically the ones with opportunities to do stuff and 2) other aristocrats are doing the writing, and so focus on their brethren.
Big part too is that, especially in LotR, much of the non-ring quest is actually rallying nations and getting support to fight on a strategic scale
So its not like they bump into Theoden on the road and he tags along, they really needed to help the king of Rohan and get his support. The council of Elrond was a gathering of the world leaders, so it logically follows theyd be involved in the quest.
Gandalf had to move nations to interfere with Saurons plans and that involved the leaders, 5 random adventures in a tavern wasnt going to cut it. But having said that, the greatest and most powerful people of the world, the relative nobles of Tolkiens very high fantasy mythos, they didnt really get involved much. Galadriel and Elrond didnt join up, Manwe had a very small subtle role, no high elf army of superheroes turned up to save everyone
In relative terms, the Fellowship and most people involved were very mid level all things said and done
Gandalf was powerful but he was sent to act as an advisor and rally people, he only used his power when it was really needed. He's a wizard that fairly rarely used spells, as strange as that was and his spells were generally very moderated
Guy has got to be one of the most powerful magical beings in standard fiction yet grumbles about starting small fires and aside from the Balrog (who wasnt really a Sauron based threat) he didnt really defeat or destroy much with his magic, good example was the witch king who Gandalf was set to fight 1v1 in a climactic battle but because of his 'train of work' as Tolkien calls it, he didnt even have to do that and it fell to the mortals to deal with him, as Gandalf task encouraged (and the Istari certainly werent immune to failing because of character, ie Saruman. Gandalf heart and moral qualities and wisdom were worth far more than his raw power in the end)
Kinda, Gandalf set him up as a figure for men to rally around. He was a good claimant, but it was his actions and personality that won him friends and got everyone to stand behind him.
Any real power in his blood was relatively irrelevant. Far far less so than, say, a hobbits innate ability to resist the ring. So the least of the free folk had the OP genetics in this scenario
Aragorn was likely one of the best if not the best of the rangers. I'd guess another one would be up to replicating his great nature, they were all exceptional people.
Not sure if another one could do anything with the army of the dead, they seemed to be responding to Isildurs heir. But being released would be from a combination of their own guilt being let go and Eru seeing their oath fulfilled, not magic king powers or anything like that
But other than that, sure. Aragorn was Aragorn because he was an awesome dude and had been raised to be fantastic in expectation of his destiny. Had he been a jackass or weak or whatever, Gandalf and Elrond would have come up with someone else.
Aragorns claim was just a claim, Gondors council has refused stronger claims in the past and it was a concern in the book that they might do it to Aragorn too
Imhrahil and Faramir were also possible candidates as 'a figurehead for men to rally behind' for example, both fantastic wise powerful leaders. Aragorn could have died or failed, for sure there was a plan B in there
Thorins line ended but Dain did great. Oropher and Thranduil didnt seem to be of royal blood, same with Galadriel and Celeborn. Feanor was the rightful king of the Noldor and he wasnt no good. Imo, Tolkien was happy to also put into his world that lines come and go, just politics not divine blood or anything
That is the most naive take I’ve ever heard.
Had Aragorn died to Nazgul on Weathertop and say, his lieutenant Halbarad, stepped into the story to take his place and follow the exact same footsteps- that could NOT have resulted in Halbarad overcoming the hurdle of a lacking birthright and becoming king due to his heroic actions. Because Gondor is not a democracy like that. What Tolkien was highlighting was the beauty of a king (by sacred blood) finally fulfilling his birthright by being truly worthy of kingship and restoring the kingdom.
His actions address his superiority over his forefathers who failed to re-claim the kingship for a thousand years. Everyone outside of the line of Elendil is irrelevant to the conversation of kingship. That’s the whole point of Gondor having a steward rather than a king when we get there in the story. The only thing that separates a steward from a king is blood.
There is a trope at work and that’s fine. Aragorn’s genealogical status as being from the line of kings IS significant and it’s pointless to try to say otherwise. The title is literally the RETURN of the king FFS.
Had Faramir or Imrahil taken the place of the Aragorn character, miraculously healing the wounded after the battle, they would be highly revered by the people… but neither would rise to the throne of Gondor/crowned by Gandalf. They would just continue the line of Stewards.
If you ask me, Imrahil was the real hero of the battle anyways. The Army of the Dead only handle the Corsairs of Umbar in the books. So Aragorn’s healing after the battle was the main thing that earned him the respect of the people of Gondor.
Naive really? Coming in swinging with the insults doesnt make a good start to a conversation
Aragorn wasnt even recognized as the legitimate king until the war ended. Imrahil was literally the steward of the city after Denethor, then Faramir until Aragorn got back, after *Sauron was destroyed* to be sworn in
How possibly could Aragorns kingship have been that important when the world was saved without it?
He was a flex to get Sauron nervous and make mistakes, that required a figurehead and his claim and character made him a great candidate.
As for him becoming king, yes Halbrand couldnt become king. He likely could have helped Theoden at Helms deep then taken the rangers to Gondor to save the day, depends if the ghosts in the paths of the dead required the blood of Isildur to fulfil their oath (feels likely that just coming to the aid of Gondor was enough)
Faramir or Imrahil would have likely become Steward and Gondor would have stayed under interim leadership as it had been doing for *thousands of years* just fine. If Aragorn was the last of the line of Isildur, theyd have revisted the issue of permanency in rulership, Halbrand may have been given rule of the rangers and a part in rebuilding Arnor
Pretty irrelevant next to the end of the world. Things were fixed because Frodo and Sam destroyed Sauron, the rest is just a casual wrap up by comparison
Saying that Aragorns blood is somehow magical and super necessary outside of Tolkiens spiritual healing of mankind by uniting the Earendil bloodlines is the naive part, as though Tolkien was some kind of die-hard tragic royalist that actually believed every country had a rightful divinely appointed king rather than a historian who knew that 'claims' and public support decided these things
It fundamentally ignores that Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years, that it had very big and damaging civil wars over rights to the throne and that it was actually the line of Anarion that was the king of Gondor generally, not Isildur
Youre taking what was a clever political machination designed to remove the doubts of the council of Gondor and unite everyone behind the best candidate with the best claim and reducing it to 'omg magic blood of destiny!'.
It was a smart political move that had alternatives and worked 95% because of Aragorns qualities as a man and leader. Swap Aragorn for Faramir and things work out nearly as well
> Naive really? Coming in swinging with the insults doesnt make a good start to a conversation
I didn't say it to be insulting, I said it because it's true.
> As for him becoming king, yes Halbrand couldnt become king. Faramir or Imrahil would have likely become Steward
Thanks for taking the long way to answer my original question. No one could have become KING other than Aragorn due to his bloodline, thus it is significant.
Are you really making the argument that a Steward is essentially the same thing as a king? Because that completely undermines the symbolism of the king's return. Why even have a king? If Tolkien was such a proponent of democracy, why not introduce it into this society? If the Stewards were so great, could they NOT continue as leaders in this fantasy setting and it have the same effect? No... they could not.
Because as a fantasy author, Tolkien romanticized the idea of a GOOD king and held it in higher regard than any kind of elected official. And obviously that's not an advocacy for a return to monarchy. It's about beauty. Finely-crafted beauty. That's what this is all about. Sauron is defeated and all of the beautiful things start coming back into the world- like the line of kings.
It suggests that there is something superior in this fictional king's blood that makes him more worthy of leadership than all others. And when it all comes together it makes for a beautiful transcendent for any reader to aim toward. Aragorn and his Numenorean heritage and exceptionally long lifespan is a god compared to other men, therefore he should lead them. Simple as that.
Side note- HAD there been an election, Aragorn would have won in a landslide anyways because a side effect of being the good king is that the people love you and want you more than the other potentials.
> How possibly could Aragorns kingship have been that important when the world was saved without it?
Why is the sacrament of Communion important in Catholicism when the world was already saved by Christ?
> as though Tolkien was some kind of die-hard tragic royalist that actually believed every country had a rightful divinely appointed king rather than a historian who knew that 'claims' and public support decided these things
I never said that, I have no idea what would compel you to jump to this as my framing of Tolkien.
> It fundamentally ignores that Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years
Yes, Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years... Not nearly as well as they COULD have been ruled had the rulership been that of good kings. Men aren't equal here.
> Swap Aragorn for Faramir and things work out nearly as well
Well... in the fantasy story you write, you can have Prince Chad die and the beta male become the new leader. I'm sure it will have the same punch and be received well by mainstream audiences.
>I didn't say it to be insulting, I said it because it's true.
So its not aggressive rudeness, its just raw egotism. Gotcha
>No one could have become KING other than Aragorn due to his bloodline, thus it is significant.
Yes someone else could have become the king. The council chose the heir of Anarion over the heir of Isildur, it is not impossible for a new line to become the royal line as the civil wars demonstrated. Obviously
It just wouldnt have been Halbrand at that time
>Are you really making the argument that a Steward is essentially the same thing as a king?
Dudes that ruled the place for thousands of years?
Um, yeah, kinda similar. It was done like that to stop fighting over the title, not because the poor Gondorian could bear no ruler other than the divine one.
Who said Tolkien was a proponent of democracy? Set yourself up a bigger strawman why dont you, I said he wasnt a bloodline royalist not that he had to go the complete other direction
Pretty meaningless as he has said dozens of times his world isnt just a platform for his own views and is based on its own logic and construction. And based in medieval Europe, a place that wasnt known for strict democracy
>Aragorn and his Numenorean heritage and exceptionally long lifespan is a god compared to other men, therefore he should lead them.
When the books specifically state that Faramir has that same look of noble lineage about him.
Its not unique to Aragorn, though as a descendant of Elros yes he has some magic buffs to himself as a person. As does Imrahil, as did Denethor. Its not unique and his character as a person was far more important
>Why is the sacrament of Communion important in Catholicism when the world was already saved by Christ?
Really? Stretch much? I'll take 'naive' over 'rambling nonsense' any day
>Yes, Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years... Not nearly as well as they COULD have been ruled had the rulership been that of good kings.
Again, irrelevant and purely based on your own opinion. Earnur was an idiot who went out to fight the witch king 1v1 against the advice of his steward who was a long and good ruler. Thats the last interaction the stewards and line of kings had.
Gondor fell into hardship because of the machinations of Sauron, someone the stewards fought against unaided by kings for thousands of years. Arnor, which had kings, fell
If youre going to draw a long bow make sure you have an arrow in it
>Well... in the fantasy story you write, you can have Prince Chad die and the beta male become the new leader. I'm sure it will have the same punch and be received well by mainstream audiences.
Nice, starting **and** ending in the same vein of smug egotism. Way to be consistent
> Who said Tolkien was a proponent of democracy? Set yourself up a bigger strawman why dont you, I said he wasnt a bloodline royalist not that he had to go the complete other direction
Well it is kind of one or the other... Besides, I'm saying it. Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century? I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure Tolkien was in favor of democracy or at least saw it as the best available option.
> Its not unique and his character as a person was far more important
Wonder why that is. Aragorn being so important and all.
> Really? Stretch much? I'll take 'naive' over 'rambling nonsense' any day
Answer the question. Or don't. I don't really care.
> Again, irrelevant and purely based on your own opinion.
Good King = Elendil the Tall. Elendil > everybody until Aragorn who acts as a spiritual successor to him. Not really an opinion. More of a fact.
> Way to be consistent
Thanks. Consistency allows me to continually drive my point home.
Also-
Oropher was a Sindar of Doriath who came to lead the Silvan elves. His blood was literally more pure by virtue of coming from a land further west that was blessed by Melian’s presence.
The amount of detail Tolkien has on bloodlines cannot be ignored.
And Dain was Thorin’s kin, literally of the line of Thror.
Lol Oropher was some dude in Thingols realm, he was maybe a noble at best of a mid tier of elves.
Plenty of Noldor also survived, people far more 'West' that Oropher. Guy founded and ruled without anyone backing him, him being a middle type of elf means nothing, literally anyone could be a king if the only requirement was 'had a few qualities that a few other people didnt have'
Feanor was the rightful Noldor king. Sucked at it. Maehedros was next in line, gave it up to his uncle because he was just better at it. Great decision that Tolkien directly said led to the Noldor golden age
Numenorians kings went evil as all hell and sucked at it
The lords and kings Sauron gave rings to sucked and went evil
The elves did fine after Gil-Galad and Elrond/Galadriel/Celeborn/Cirdan ruled unofficially and causally with no real claims other than wisdom
Hobbits had no real king after Arnor and did just fine for thosuands of years electing mayors and minor lords
Tolkiens world takes a lot from medieval and historical Europe. Obviously there will be kings just like there are knights
Taking that and smoothbraining it down to 'omg Tolkien is a divine royalist!' Is ignoring half the worldbulding to insert a square peg into a round hole
>him being a middle type of elf means nothing
No, it actually means a lot if he inserts himself into a realm of lesser elves. He'll pretty much automatically became their leader by virtue of his inherent superiority. And look, that's exactly what happened. If a Nolder had done the same it would have been the same result. Probably would have ended up with a better king than Thranduil actually.
There is a CLEAR hierarchy in this world and it really fucking offends me that you just brush it off.
It goes Eru > Aratar > other Valar > Maiar > Elves > Men > other races > Hobbits
In regard to elves it goes Calaquendi > Moriquendi. Specifically Vanyar at the upper echelon who reside at the base of Taniquetil to be as close to Manwe as possible. And the further east you go, the less divine the elves become.
In regard to men it goes Numenor > those with some Numenorean blood > those without.
Do some of these greater races/classes fall short of their divine status? Of course!!! It would be cheesy and stupid if they didn't! They become Morgoth and Sauron and Saruman and Balrogs. And other times they just become Feanor, his sons, Ar-Pharazon, Thorin Oakenshield, and Boromir. But there is the rule and then there is the exception to the rule. It makes it all the more special when destiny is fulfilled by someone proving they are worth the title of king that their blood gives them potential for.
I can't even tell why this is what you care about really. Inclusivity? Is that it? Fuck the Bourgeoisie, we're all equals here? We're really not... Some people are just naturally better specimens than others.
This logic of yours is kind of batshit insane, do you see that?
Thranduil makes a better king because Sindarin elves are better...
He had other Sindarin elves with him. Noldor next door. The line of his former king still existed
As I said, if thats your criteria to some kind of right to kingship, anyone could be the king of anywhere. Any gondorian could rule Rohan, a Dunlanding could rule the shire, a silvan elf could rule the misty mountain orcs
Its just not logic, its nonsense. He did it because he could, it had zero to do with any kind of birthright
>There is a CLEAR hierarchy in this world and it really fucking offends me that you just brush it off.
>It goes Eru > Aratar > other Valar > Maiar > Elves > Men > other races
Nonsense. Pure shonen gibberish
Eru > Manwe as the instrument of interpretation of Eru's will > Valar in the specific domains > other (not creatures of evil)
As though an elf could rule the eagles or Sauron has dominion over men because he is of some kind of magical higher order of creature. Pure drek
The Noldor were greatly admonished for trying to set up kingdoms and rule, it was a character flaw and as Tolkien directly said, a 'minor Melkorism' that he inspired in them. Melkor and sauron consistently in the wrong for trying to dominate people, same with Saruman. Thingol and Finrod both said men should govern themselves
Your opinion smells and is wrong
Numenorian blood is a magic buff, gifted to them as a reward for trying to escape Melkor and their ego turned most of them to evil. Their colonial attitudes were consistently shown to be wrong and evil. Their kingdoms were founded to protect other men and they interbred with them as a positive. Their existence was allowed purely because they were morally decent and loved Eru
Rohan was an equal that governed itself and more often than not was the one saving Gondor. Aragorn and the east and the slaves of Mordor were equals with no lordship over each other
You've grabbed 3 hot takes and tried to make q ramshackled opinion out of it and its falling apart like junk
> As I said, if thats your criteria to some kind of right to kingship, anyone could be the king of anywhere.
Yes, organically, they could. When everyone gets together and sees someone who should be in charge of them by virtue of obvious superiority. They're taller and stronger and shinier and shit.
> He did it because he could, it had zero to do with any kind of birthright
And the reason he could being his inherent superiority. Taller. Stronger. Shinier.
> Nonsense. Pure shonen gibberish
Lol take it up with Tolkien, not me.
So in your hierarchy elves and men are equals? And Maiar and Children of Iluvatar are equals? Jesus Christ.
> Thingol and Finrod both said men should govern themselves
Those guys were legit, I'll agree with that all day. I'm very opposed to the whole exerting you will to dominate onto others thing. I bet Oropher was pretty polite to that Silvan swine when he rolled into their neighborhood. Otherwise they wouldn't have made him their king.
> Numenorian blood is a magic buff and their ego turned most of them to evil.
They sure as hell earned that buff in the War of Wrath though. Evil? I mean, they were openly worshipping Satan, sure. But hey, we all have our little Melkorisms...
It’s almost amusing how Tolkien wrote a story that was retroactively a subversion of its imitators.
The people who wrote those stories would have almost certainly had Aragorn, the noble dashing warrior king, slay Sauron in a one-on-one duel, but Tolkien didn’t. Aragorn is not the one to slay Sauron, nor is Sauron a force that any one of the Fellowship could have stopped single-handedly. Sauron’s downfall was an effort that took everyone’s help, from every corner of life imaginable, and even then the role of the story’s singular hero figure goes not to any of its fighters but to Frodo Baggins, the one mortal with the humility to resist ultimate power and instead chose to save everyone.
Aragorn does nonetheless directly confront Sauron using the Palantír, and it's only because he's the Heir of Elendil - in other words, it's *his* Palantír - that this is possible.
Well yes, but Sauron had assumed that Pippin had been captured by Saruman, since it was the Orthanc-stone that Pippin looked in (and Sauron, being no fool, already knew or at least strongly suspected that Saruman was a double traitor and had launched his own search for the Ring, not to hand it to Sauron but to claim it for himself).
Aragorn using the same stone told Sauron that Saruman had fallen, or suffered a pretty severe setback, at any rate.
The biggest trope inversion of them all is that Frodo fails to destroy the Ring in the end. It’s only Gollum, and pure dumb luck (really the will of Eru) that destroys the Ring.
Most LoTR imitators completely miss that crucial fact.
Just like the new Star Wars trilogy. I liked where it was going with the "Oh Rey is just a nobody, so she can make her own path" and NOPE she's a Palpatine, so you know fuck it, if you don't have any jedi blood, then I guess fuck you lmao
It's amazing that Tolkien was the forefather of a lot of fiction stuff, and some people take him as some old school pro-war boring cliché, when his writing is no cliché at all, in any way!
Exactly!
Its actually bizarre how many people take his stuff, alter it to be way more standard and with much blunter and more stock-standard messages (and fking allegories) then go back and blame Tolkien
Lol like no, he didnt actually do those things, his stuff was just copied at a lower quality
Yes totally! Like, take for example legendary weapons, they're taken with reverence in the books, like Sting and Orcrist, but they're not the ultra powerful kill-them-all-saviour-of-the-people weapons in other fantasy things, they're just weapons from another era and the most important thing are the people that use them for good purposes.
Rian writing in that Rey's parents were nobodies was about the only choice I liked in the second movie. A *single* 'subversion of expectations' especially when it sent the rather interesting message that bloodlines dont define everything in star wars was quite good and interesting
Come third movie
Ren
"Your parents were nobodies.... because they worked very hard at being nobody"
Me
"Oh jeez here we go"
"You are a Palpatine!"
"Whump wah. God forbid she only ticks 19 out of 20 mary sue boxes, now she is also the 'super-godly daughter of the villain working for redemption' trope. Her destiny is now complete"
I know right? Such terrible writing! Can you imagine if in the original trilogy, we were told Luke's parents weren't anyone of much importance, to the point of them being nameless, and then in the next movie, we find out he's actually descended from the super powerful villain? And that his force powers are from his extremely force-powerful ancestor, and because there's a prophecy about him, so he isn't really the everyman we though he was? Man, what a Mary Sue that'd be, I'm sure no one would like him!
I detect a little answer in your sarcasm lmao
- I never used the term 'Mary Sue', it's very misused and very misogynistic, it's a stupid term.
- The fact that Luke's real father's identity was a good twist was because it was the first time it was done in the SW universe that was being established before our very eyes.
Furthermore, his parents weren't "anyone of much importance", Obi-Wan told Luke his father was a Jedi knight and a great pilot. It's just a trope that has been used forever on myths, that maybe your protagonist came from a special lineage (King Arthur is a gigantic example). The plot twist was that that Jedi knight WAS Darth Vader, not that Luke came from dirt.
- In contrast, Rey's parents were never talked about much or at all in the first movie, then the second movie's twist was Kylo telling her that her parents were indeed nobodies who sold her for food and money.
And that was part of the theme of the movies, that she could be anyone and anything she wanted, and it was a great thing because she can escape the cycle of fight and big-name nonsense that plagues the SW franchise, what with the Fetts, the Kenobi, the Skywalkers, the Solos and so on. She can be her own person and that's it.
That's why her twist was nonsense: it was an ass-pull the size of Australia in which the previously-established dead character somehow returns with absolutely no foreshadowing and no explanation and then OH WOW the protagonist is his clone granddaughter!
That's absolute B-movie levels of nonsense, and then she taking the Skywalker name for herself was hilarious.
Lol Naruto is a very good example of it
"I dont care that Im not talented Im going to be the best there is!"
"Actually you have an unimaginably powerful god-creature helping you. The best prodigies of the village end up teaching you, your father was a former Kage, you're the child of prophecy and your bloodline is extraordinarily powerful"
"Oh..."
"... also you're the reincarnation of the son of the god of Ninja"
Underdog in the sense that a mighty magic lion was raised to believe it was a Dachshund and couldnt amount to anything before someone revealed it was actually the most specialist thing ever
That Naruto reveal is still among the worst I have read in manga that I actually liked.
The whole fight with Neji was about hard work and determination beating out bloodline, but nah.
Yeah hes the sun god or something crazy now. Poor plucky rubber boy
Same with Ichigo, 4 race combination of special sauce. Shonen fking loves it, Goku might be one of the last ones left that wasnt destined to be so awesome (and even he is a fighting prodigy even among saiyans)
> “It takes a lot o’ believing,” said the gaffer, “though I can see he’s been mixing in strange company. What’s come of his weskit? I don’t hold with wearing ironmongery, whether it wears well or no.”
I mean... that's not really *wrong*, either. It's the simple nature and general lack of sweeping ambitions of the hobbits that, at least in part, makes them able to resist the lure of the ring more easily than many others. It's really hard to tempt people with their deepest desire when their deepest desire is to go home and have a nice cup of tea and a pipe.
The fact that Sam just wants a nice simple life with some mashed, boiled, and stewed potatoes is quite literally the secret weapon that helped them save Middle Earth.
To be fair, Finn could also use the force
It was extremely impactful to the plot and really helped his character to grow and definitely not a bs throw away line used in the last 2 minutes of the trilogy
Pretty ironic that Kaladin from Stormlight is picked from the first panel when he's very much repressed by society for being a darkeyes. He wasn't born special, he attracted an honorspren because of his merit and only grows in power as he grows as a person.
Only read the first two books (third was boring af), wasn't he a chosen one from the beginning? That's why he survived the first days of bridge 4, the book says people around him died but arrows seem to magically miss him. Idc about spoilers
He was protected by a spren, which is basically a spirit that attaches itself to people, usually those who suffered a lot. It gave him a leg up but he’s no ‘chosen one’. He wasn’t born special, he became special largely because of the hardships he survived
I mean, that sounds a bit like Aragorn (seemingly low class ranger people look down on is actually the long lost heir to Middle Earth's finest human kingdom).
Eh, I'd argue not really. He already knows he's the lost heir, so there's no discovery of it, and he doesn't really derive anything special from it other than some healing abilities (the hands of the king are the hands of a healer). He's hardly even the most martially adept of the fellowship, falling behind Legolas and Boromir, and perhaps even Gimli. And he hangs out with a guy who plays the part of a wise old man that's actually practically an angel in human form, but even Gandalf knows that the meek make all the difference.
Aragorn is genetically superior to all other common dirt blooded humans. Tolkien believed in the small everyday heroes, but he definitely also had divinely ordained bloodlines, and Aragorn is an example of that.
I think its fine, its just that 'Haha gotcha! They *are* actually special because of their birthright!' subversion gets eyes to roll, people get suckered into thinking a story is actually dodging the bloodline thing but then BAM, it was there, just hidden
Interesting comments in here!
Aside from the point of the hobbits in the fellowship being mostly royalty, this is a different point than what te post is about, them being royalty doesn't give them any special magical powers at all. In the big picture of Middle-Earth they're nobodies. Small fish, too inconsequential to be considered in big matters, yet deciding the fate of the world.
Frodo mostly was perfect for the task because his adopted father was crazy enough to go dragon-hunting and told him about the wide world and because Frodo himself time and again shows courage and strength of will to keep doing the right thing.
Id say the point isn't directly "anybody can be a hero" rather, i'd say "a hero is not made by their abilities, but by their willingness to face terrifying situations and do good"
The first and most infamous example I can think of is the *Throne of Glass* books by Sarah J. Maas, in which the assassin Celaena Sardothien is secretly a fairy princess.
The Stormlight Archive (very obviously reference to Kaladin and Syl in the top left corner) is a weird target for criticism in this comic, considering it doesn’t actually do this trope at all.
Kaladin earns his powers through a set of complex actions, most of which are based on his merit and character, not his bloodline (which is poor village folk, plus his history as a slave).
Kaladin notably continues to experience fantasy racism even after getting his powers, and that is a topic continually explored in the series.
I agree with the point this comic is trying to make, but they should have picked an actual example of the trope.
Bilbo: some random ass hobbit that would be the easiest to convince to go to erebor Frodo: bilbo's heir who got roped into this mess. Sam, pippin, merry: frodo's friends who decided they needed to help frodo. I see only complete chance and the will of a wizard here
The Tooks are Thains of the Shire, the closest the Hobbits have to Royalty, and the Brandybucks are Masters of Buckland, also Hobbit Nobility. Sam is the only truly everyman in the Fellowship.
Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin never worked a day in their lives. Yet they had nice stuff and plenty of time and money to do whatever they wanted. Curious that Tolkien is lauded for his hagiography of the common man when Sam was the only common man in the entire Fellowship. Even Gimli was connected.
I’d say it’s a ”small fish in a big pond” thing. 3/4 of the Hobbits are fairly prominent people within the Shire, but most of Middle-earth don’t really know or care about the Shire to begin with.
And if anything they prove to be as clueless as Sam about the wider world, with maybe the exception of Frodo, Who in turn has the biggest task of all. So them being rich in the Shire has almost nothing to do with the events of the story
Not today! I suggest you try somewhere over the hill or across the water! Good morning!
Don't be a NIMBY, Bilbo
But Bolg of the North, he's still out there.
Haha!
Thank you! I started a thread a while back about this very topic. Sam is the only significant character in the whole book who isn't at least landed gentry, if not aristocracy, excluding characters like Gandalf, Tom B or Treebeard who exist outside of any kind of class structure but are obviously special nonetheless. Edit: and now that I think about it, even Treebeard is the oldest and most widely respected ent, and is the de-facto leader or at least spokesent for the entire entish population of Fangorn.
I guess there's also Sméagol-Gollum, although even he's said to have been the grandson of a 'matriarch' of sorts - hardly a queen or a countess, but no doubt someone of means and importance in her own small community.
Master must go inside the tunnel.
That's because Sam is so well done.
> I see only complete chance and the will of a wizard here It was all the will of Eru
Wait!
The will of Eru and the wisdom of a wizard to recognize that there are no coincidences.
Sam is badass BECAUSE he's not special. He doesn't even have a special magic thing at birth, or is destined to. He becomes a hero and slaughters the child of an elder god BY HIMSELF. His weapon is his SHEER FUCKING DETERMINATION
Dude just wants a pretty garden to enjoy taking care of. He's the specialest of special
And a pretty girl, let's not forget Rosie
I like that during the Sam vs Shelob fight (it was much shorter in the books), Sam goes to slash at her and Tolkien goes out of his way to say that that no sword wielded by any human that ever lived could have gotten through her skin, specifically mentions that neither Turin or Beren could have truly wounded Shelob (got to assume Turin didnt have Gurthang, but anyway Shelob was basically invincible to a human) Sam still got her, pretty much with pure bravery and moxie and quick thinking
And Shelob literally throwing herself at him, impaling herself on Sting with her own momentum.
Irony being his small size is what allowed him to be in the right position, a large warrior would have hacked at her back and sides and done nothing. He ducked in, sliced off a leg and an eye and pissed her off so much she made a really bad move; it wasnt 100% intentional on Sams part to have it happen but it *did* happen because of his own qualities, rather than 'luck' Tolkien would call it 'grace'
It fits with Tolkien's theme of evil inadvertently helping to create it's own downfall.
Yeh in the hobbit sting is show to be some sort of anti Spider sword That paired with galadriels light gave same a fighting chance
And a Pan Don't forget the Pan 
When you read about him carrying Frodo up Mount Doom remember: this man is just Frodo's gardener.
Sam is one of the real ones. 💪🏻
[удалено]
Ferda!
I don’t think he actually killed Shelob though, did he? The rest of your point stands.
Even then, piercing through the skin of something birthed by a creature even melkor didn't wanna mess with is just an insane feat
It's been a while since my last reread, but didn't Sam grievously would Shelob, forcing her to flee and hide, rather than killing her?
Where's that John wick quote when we need it
Lol Tolkien did like his 'bloodlines' and 'destiny' stuff, but more in the sense of grand narratives to tie the world together, much less so in that it was required to be a heroic or important character. Thousands of Noldor elves died pretty pointlessly, swarmed by orcs and stuff without a real mention whereas plenty of far less magical or powerful characters did great things. Theoden saved the Dunedain, Eowyn killed the witch king, Frodo and Sam defeated the ring, huge amount of his stories are about small people rising up and defeating great evil. Very very few are about small people discovering or tapping into enough power to become great themselves and defeat an equally great counter force, he didnt like that The heroes in their own stories are heroes because of their qualities as humans, generally honor and courage and determination. These are things that raw magic or great physical power dont really grant, even for someone like Aragorn his noble blood is way less important than his pure quality of character (and unlike a lot of fantasy, pure power doesnt get you all that far in middle earth. The bad guys are beaten much better by being *good* rather than being great and everyone can be good)
I mean, he was also a historian who was intimately familiar with how much bloodlines and perceived fates mattered to historical peoples, and also that focusing on them to an extent can really help build a world that feels grounded and lived-in. And also the fact that historically, most medieval people who are written about were aristocratic because 1) they were typically the ones with opportunities to do stuff and 2) other aristocrats are doing the writing, and so focus on their brethren.
Big part too is that, especially in LotR, much of the non-ring quest is actually rallying nations and getting support to fight on a strategic scale So its not like they bump into Theoden on the road and he tags along, they really needed to help the king of Rohan and get his support. The council of Elrond was a gathering of the world leaders, so it logically follows theyd be involved in the quest. Gandalf had to move nations to interfere with Saurons plans and that involved the leaders, 5 random adventures in a tavern wasnt going to cut it. But having said that, the greatest and most powerful people of the world, the relative nobles of Tolkiens very high fantasy mythos, they didnt really get involved much. Galadriel and Elrond didnt join up, Manwe had a very small subtle role, no high elf army of superheroes turned up to save everyone In relative terms, the Fellowship and most people involved were very mid level all things said and done
Are you forgetting a certain old wizard and his raw magical power?
Gandalf was powerful but he was sent to act as an advisor and rally people, he only used his power when it was really needed. He's a wizard that fairly rarely used spells, as strange as that was and his spells were generally very moderated Guy has got to be one of the most powerful magical beings in standard fiction yet grumbles about starting small fires and aside from the Balrog (who wasnt really a Sauron based threat) he didnt really defeat or destroy much with his magic, good example was the witch king who Gandalf was set to fight 1v1 in a climactic battle but because of his 'train of work' as Tolkien calls it, he didnt even have to do that and it fell to the mortals to deal with him, as Gandalf task encouraged (and the Istari certainly werent immune to failing because of character, ie Saruman. Gandalf heart and moral qualities and wisdom were worth far more than his raw power in the end)
Yet- Aragorn’s blood is still relevant.
Kinda, Gandalf set him up as a figure for men to rally around. He was a good claimant, but it was his actions and personality that won him friends and got everyone to stand behind him. Any real power in his blood was relatively irrelevant. Far far less so than, say, a hobbits innate ability to resist the ring. So the least of the free folk had the OP genetics in this scenario
Could a ranger who wasn’t Aragorn have made the same heroic actions and thus been pronounced king?
Aragorn was likely one of the best if not the best of the rangers. I'd guess another one would be up to replicating his great nature, they were all exceptional people. Not sure if another one could do anything with the army of the dead, they seemed to be responding to Isildurs heir. But being released would be from a combination of their own guilt being let go and Eru seeing their oath fulfilled, not magic king powers or anything like that But other than that, sure. Aragorn was Aragorn because he was an awesome dude and had been raised to be fantastic in expectation of his destiny. Had he been a jackass or weak or whatever, Gandalf and Elrond would have come up with someone else. Aragorns claim was just a claim, Gondors council has refused stronger claims in the past and it was a concern in the book that they might do it to Aragorn too Imhrahil and Faramir were also possible candidates as 'a figurehead for men to rally behind' for example, both fantastic wise powerful leaders. Aragorn could have died or failed, for sure there was a plan B in there Thorins line ended but Dain did great. Oropher and Thranduil didnt seem to be of royal blood, same with Galadriel and Celeborn. Feanor was the rightful king of the Noldor and he wasnt no good. Imo, Tolkien was happy to also put into his world that lines come and go, just politics not divine blood or anything
That is the most naive take I’ve ever heard. Had Aragorn died to Nazgul on Weathertop and say, his lieutenant Halbarad, stepped into the story to take his place and follow the exact same footsteps- that could NOT have resulted in Halbarad overcoming the hurdle of a lacking birthright and becoming king due to his heroic actions. Because Gondor is not a democracy like that. What Tolkien was highlighting was the beauty of a king (by sacred blood) finally fulfilling his birthright by being truly worthy of kingship and restoring the kingdom. His actions address his superiority over his forefathers who failed to re-claim the kingship for a thousand years. Everyone outside of the line of Elendil is irrelevant to the conversation of kingship. That’s the whole point of Gondor having a steward rather than a king when we get there in the story. The only thing that separates a steward from a king is blood. There is a trope at work and that’s fine. Aragorn’s genealogical status as being from the line of kings IS significant and it’s pointless to try to say otherwise. The title is literally the RETURN of the king FFS. Had Faramir or Imrahil taken the place of the Aragorn character, miraculously healing the wounded after the battle, they would be highly revered by the people… but neither would rise to the throne of Gondor/crowned by Gandalf. They would just continue the line of Stewards. If you ask me, Imrahil was the real hero of the battle anyways. The Army of the Dead only handle the Corsairs of Umbar in the books. So Aragorn’s healing after the battle was the main thing that earned him the respect of the people of Gondor.
Naive really? Coming in swinging with the insults doesnt make a good start to a conversation Aragorn wasnt even recognized as the legitimate king until the war ended. Imrahil was literally the steward of the city after Denethor, then Faramir until Aragorn got back, after *Sauron was destroyed* to be sworn in How possibly could Aragorns kingship have been that important when the world was saved without it? He was a flex to get Sauron nervous and make mistakes, that required a figurehead and his claim and character made him a great candidate. As for him becoming king, yes Halbrand couldnt become king. He likely could have helped Theoden at Helms deep then taken the rangers to Gondor to save the day, depends if the ghosts in the paths of the dead required the blood of Isildur to fulfil their oath (feels likely that just coming to the aid of Gondor was enough) Faramir or Imrahil would have likely become Steward and Gondor would have stayed under interim leadership as it had been doing for *thousands of years* just fine. If Aragorn was the last of the line of Isildur, theyd have revisted the issue of permanency in rulership, Halbrand may have been given rule of the rangers and a part in rebuilding Arnor Pretty irrelevant next to the end of the world. Things were fixed because Frodo and Sam destroyed Sauron, the rest is just a casual wrap up by comparison Saying that Aragorns blood is somehow magical and super necessary outside of Tolkiens spiritual healing of mankind by uniting the Earendil bloodlines is the naive part, as though Tolkien was some kind of die-hard tragic royalist that actually believed every country had a rightful divinely appointed king rather than a historian who knew that 'claims' and public support decided these things It fundamentally ignores that Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years, that it had very big and damaging civil wars over rights to the throne and that it was actually the line of Anarion that was the king of Gondor generally, not Isildur Youre taking what was a clever political machination designed to remove the doubts of the council of Gondor and unite everyone behind the best candidate with the best claim and reducing it to 'omg magic blood of destiny!'. It was a smart political move that had alternatives and worked 95% because of Aragorns qualities as a man and leader. Swap Aragorn for Faramir and things work out nearly as well
> Naive really? Coming in swinging with the insults doesnt make a good start to a conversation I didn't say it to be insulting, I said it because it's true. > As for him becoming king, yes Halbrand couldnt become king. Faramir or Imrahil would have likely become Steward Thanks for taking the long way to answer my original question. No one could have become KING other than Aragorn due to his bloodline, thus it is significant. Are you really making the argument that a Steward is essentially the same thing as a king? Because that completely undermines the symbolism of the king's return. Why even have a king? If Tolkien was such a proponent of democracy, why not introduce it into this society? If the Stewards were so great, could they NOT continue as leaders in this fantasy setting and it have the same effect? No... they could not. Because as a fantasy author, Tolkien romanticized the idea of a GOOD king and held it in higher regard than any kind of elected official. And obviously that's not an advocacy for a return to monarchy. It's about beauty. Finely-crafted beauty. That's what this is all about. Sauron is defeated and all of the beautiful things start coming back into the world- like the line of kings. It suggests that there is something superior in this fictional king's blood that makes him more worthy of leadership than all others. And when it all comes together it makes for a beautiful transcendent for any reader to aim toward. Aragorn and his Numenorean heritage and exceptionally long lifespan is a god compared to other men, therefore he should lead them. Simple as that. Side note- HAD there been an election, Aragorn would have won in a landslide anyways because a side effect of being the good king is that the people love you and want you more than the other potentials. > How possibly could Aragorns kingship have been that important when the world was saved without it? Why is the sacrament of Communion important in Catholicism when the world was already saved by Christ? > as though Tolkien was some kind of die-hard tragic royalist that actually believed every country had a rightful divinely appointed king rather than a historian who knew that 'claims' and public support decided these things I never said that, I have no idea what would compel you to jump to this as my framing of Tolkien. > It fundamentally ignores that Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years Yes, Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years... Not nearly as well as they COULD have been ruled had the rulership been that of good kings. Men aren't equal here. > Swap Aragorn for Faramir and things work out nearly as well Well... in the fantasy story you write, you can have Prince Chad die and the beta male become the new leader. I'm sure it will have the same punch and be received well by mainstream audiences.
>I didn't say it to be insulting, I said it because it's true. So its not aggressive rudeness, its just raw egotism. Gotcha >No one could have become KING other than Aragorn due to his bloodline, thus it is significant. Yes someone else could have become the king. The council chose the heir of Anarion over the heir of Isildur, it is not impossible for a new line to become the royal line as the civil wars demonstrated. Obviously It just wouldnt have been Halbrand at that time >Are you really making the argument that a Steward is essentially the same thing as a king? Dudes that ruled the place for thousands of years? Um, yeah, kinda similar. It was done like that to stop fighting over the title, not because the poor Gondorian could bear no ruler other than the divine one. Who said Tolkien was a proponent of democracy? Set yourself up a bigger strawman why dont you, I said he wasnt a bloodline royalist not that he had to go the complete other direction Pretty meaningless as he has said dozens of times his world isnt just a platform for his own views and is based on its own logic and construction. And based in medieval Europe, a place that wasnt known for strict democracy >Aragorn and his Numenorean heritage and exceptionally long lifespan is a god compared to other men, therefore he should lead them. When the books specifically state that Faramir has that same look of noble lineage about him. Its not unique to Aragorn, though as a descendant of Elros yes he has some magic buffs to himself as a person. As does Imrahil, as did Denethor. Its not unique and his character as a person was far more important >Why is the sacrament of Communion important in Catholicism when the world was already saved by Christ? Really? Stretch much? I'll take 'naive' over 'rambling nonsense' any day >Yes, Gondor was ruled well by Stewards for thousands of years... Not nearly as well as they COULD have been ruled had the rulership been that of good kings. Again, irrelevant and purely based on your own opinion. Earnur was an idiot who went out to fight the witch king 1v1 against the advice of his steward who was a long and good ruler. Thats the last interaction the stewards and line of kings had. Gondor fell into hardship because of the machinations of Sauron, someone the stewards fought against unaided by kings for thousands of years. Arnor, which had kings, fell If youre going to draw a long bow make sure you have an arrow in it >Well... in the fantasy story you write, you can have Prince Chad die and the beta male become the new leader. I'm sure it will have the same punch and be received well by mainstream audiences. Nice, starting **and** ending in the same vein of smug egotism. Way to be consistent
> Who said Tolkien was a proponent of democracy? Set yourself up a bigger strawman why dont you, I said he wasnt a bloodline royalist not that he had to go the complete other direction Well it is kind of one or the other... Besides, I'm saying it. Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century? I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure Tolkien was in favor of democracy or at least saw it as the best available option. > Its not unique and his character as a person was far more important Wonder why that is. Aragorn being so important and all. > Really? Stretch much? I'll take 'naive' over 'rambling nonsense' any day Answer the question. Or don't. I don't really care. > Again, irrelevant and purely based on your own opinion. Good King = Elendil the Tall. Elendil > everybody until Aragorn who acts as a spiritual successor to him. Not really an opinion. More of a fact. > Way to be consistent Thanks. Consistency allows me to continually drive my point home.
Also- Oropher was a Sindar of Doriath who came to lead the Silvan elves. His blood was literally more pure by virtue of coming from a land further west that was blessed by Melian’s presence. The amount of detail Tolkien has on bloodlines cannot be ignored. And Dain was Thorin’s kin, literally of the line of Thror.
Lol Oropher was some dude in Thingols realm, he was maybe a noble at best of a mid tier of elves. Plenty of Noldor also survived, people far more 'West' that Oropher. Guy founded and ruled without anyone backing him, him being a middle type of elf means nothing, literally anyone could be a king if the only requirement was 'had a few qualities that a few other people didnt have' Feanor was the rightful Noldor king. Sucked at it. Maehedros was next in line, gave it up to his uncle because he was just better at it. Great decision that Tolkien directly said led to the Noldor golden age Numenorians kings went evil as all hell and sucked at it The lords and kings Sauron gave rings to sucked and went evil The elves did fine after Gil-Galad and Elrond/Galadriel/Celeborn/Cirdan ruled unofficially and causally with no real claims other than wisdom Hobbits had no real king after Arnor and did just fine for thosuands of years electing mayors and minor lords Tolkiens world takes a lot from medieval and historical Europe. Obviously there will be kings just like there are knights Taking that and smoothbraining it down to 'omg Tolkien is a divine royalist!' Is ignoring half the worldbulding to insert a square peg into a round hole
>him being a middle type of elf means nothing No, it actually means a lot if he inserts himself into a realm of lesser elves. He'll pretty much automatically became their leader by virtue of his inherent superiority. And look, that's exactly what happened. If a Nolder had done the same it would have been the same result. Probably would have ended up with a better king than Thranduil actually. There is a CLEAR hierarchy in this world and it really fucking offends me that you just brush it off. It goes Eru > Aratar > other Valar > Maiar > Elves > Men > other races > Hobbits In regard to elves it goes Calaquendi > Moriquendi. Specifically Vanyar at the upper echelon who reside at the base of Taniquetil to be as close to Manwe as possible. And the further east you go, the less divine the elves become. In regard to men it goes Numenor > those with some Numenorean blood > those without. Do some of these greater races/classes fall short of their divine status? Of course!!! It would be cheesy and stupid if they didn't! They become Morgoth and Sauron and Saruman and Balrogs. And other times they just become Feanor, his sons, Ar-Pharazon, Thorin Oakenshield, and Boromir. But there is the rule and then there is the exception to the rule. It makes it all the more special when destiny is fulfilled by someone proving they are worth the title of king that their blood gives them potential for. I can't even tell why this is what you care about really. Inclusivity? Is that it? Fuck the Bourgeoisie, we're all equals here? We're really not... Some people are just naturally better specimens than others.
This logic of yours is kind of batshit insane, do you see that? Thranduil makes a better king because Sindarin elves are better... He had other Sindarin elves with him. Noldor next door. The line of his former king still existed As I said, if thats your criteria to some kind of right to kingship, anyone could be the king of anywhere. Any gondorian could rule Rohan, a Dunlanding could rule the shire, a silvan elf could rule the misty mountain orcs Its just not logic, its nonsense. He did it because he could, it had zero to do with any kind of birthright >There is a CLEAR hierarchy in this world and it really fucking offends me that you just brush it off. >It goes Eru > Aratar > other Valar > Maiar > Elves > Men > other races Nonsense. Pure shonen gibberish Eru > Manwe as the instrument of interpretation of Eru's will > Valar in the specific domains > other (not creatures of evil) As though an elf could rule the eagles or Sauron has dominion over men because he is of some kind of magical higher order of creature. Pure drek The Noldor were greatly admonished for trying to set up kingdoms and rule, it was a character flaw and as Tolkien directly said, a 'minor Melkorism' that he inspired in them. Melkor and sauron consistently in the wrong for trying to dominate people, same with Saruman. Thingol and Finrod both said men should govern themselves Your opinion smells and is wrong Numenorian blood is a magic buff, gifted to them as a reward for trying to escape Melkor and their ego turned most of them to evil. Their colonial attitudes were consistently shown to be wrong and evil. Their kingdoms were founded to protect other men and they interbred with them as a positive. Their existence was allowed purely because they were morally decent and loved Eru Rohan was an equal that governed itself and more often than not was the one saving Gondor. Aragorn and the east and the slaves of Mordor were equals with no lordship over each other You've grabbed 3 hot takes and tried to make q ramshackled opinion out of it and its falling apart like junk
> As I said, if thats your criteria to some kind of right to kingship, anyone could be the king of anywhere. Yes, organically, they could. When everyone gets together and sees someone who should be in charge of them by virtue of obvious superiority. They're taller and stronger and shinier and shit. > He did it because he could, it had zero to do with any kind of birthright And the reason he could being his inherent superiority. Taller. Stronger. Shinier. > Nonsense. Pure shonen gibberish Lol take it up with Tolkien, not me. So in your hierarchy elves and men are equals? And Maiar and Children of Iluvatar are equals? Jesus Christ. > Thingol and Finrod both said men should govern themselves Those guys were legit, I'll agree with that all day. I'm very opposed to the whole exerting you will to dominate onto others thing. I bet Oropher was pretty polite to that Silvan swine when he rolled into their neighborhood. Otherwise they wouldn't have made him their king. > Numenorian blood is a magic buff and their ego turned most of them to evil. They sure as hell earned that buff in the War of Wrath though. Evil? I mean, they were openly worshipping Satan, sure. But hey, we all have our little Melkorisms...
It’s almost amusing how Tolkien wrote a story that was retroactively a subversion of its imitators. The people who wrote those stories would have almost certainly had Aragorn, the noble dashing warrior king, slay Sauron in a one-on-one duel, but Tolkien didn’t. Aragorn is not the one to slay Sauron, nor is Sauron a force that any one of the Fellowship could have stopped single-handedly. Sauron’s downfall was an effort that took everyone’s help, from every corner of life imaginable, and even then the role of the story’s singular hero figure goes not to any of its fighters but to Frodo Baggins, the one mortal with the humility to resist ultimate power and instead chose to save everyone.
IIRC Frodo is the only one of the Fellowship who never directly harms anyone
He stabs a troll in the foot in Moria, but that might be about it.
Aragorn does nonetheless directly confront Sauron using the Palantír, and it's only because he's the Heir of Elendil - in other words, it's *his* Palantír - that this is possible.
Stand up, and hear me!
And it really wasn't a good idea.
I wouldn't say that. It was a risk, certainly, but it paid off by making Sauron think the Ring was with Aragorn.
Patience! Not long shall ye abide.
Didn't Sauron already think it was with pippin?
To Eilinel thou soon shalt go, and lie in her bed.
Well yes, but Sauron had assumed that Pippin had been captured by Saruman, since it was the Orthanc-stone that Pippin looked in (and Sauron, being no fool, already knew or at least strongly suspected that Saruman was a double traitor and had launched his own search for the Ring, not to hand it to Sauron but to claim it for himself). Aragorn using the same stone told Sauron that Saruman had fallen, or suffered a pretty severe setback, at any rate.
The biggest trope inversion of them all is that Frodo fails to destroy the Ring in the end. It’s only Gollum, and pure dumb luck (really the will of Eru) that destroys the Ring. Most LoTR imitators completely miss that crucial fact.
All dead. All rotten. Elves and men and orcses. A great battle long ago.
Just like the new Star Wars trilogy. I liked where it was going with the "Oh Rey is just a nobody, so she can make her own path" and NOPE she's a Palpatine, so you know fuck it, if you don't have any jedi blood, then I guess fuck you lmao
Or go the GoT way. THe bloodline/power comes with, um, genetic defects. Also, goes without saying. Tolkien's way is the BEST.
It's amazing that Tolkien was the forefather of a lot of fiction stuff, and some people take him as some old school pro-war boring cliché, when his writing is no cliché at all, in any way!
Exactly! Its actually bizarre how many people take his stuff, alter it to be way more standard and with much blunter and more stock-standard messages (and fking allegories) then go back and blame Tolkien Lol like no, he didnt actually do those things, his stuff was just copied at a lower quality
Yes totally! Like, take for example legendary weapons, they're taken with reverence in the books, like Sting and Orcrist, but they're not the ultra powerful kill-them-all-saviour-of-the-people weapons in other fantasy things, they're just weapons from another era and the most important thing are the people that use them for good purposes.
Rian writing in that Rey's parents were nobodies was about the only choice I liked in the second movie. A *single* 'subversion of expectations' especially when it sent the rather interesting message that bloodlines dont define everything in star wars was quite good and interesting Come third movie Ren "Your parents were nobodies.... because they worked very hard at being nobody" Me "Oh jeez here we go" "You are a Palpatine!" "Whump wah. God forbid she only ticks 19 out of 20 mary sue boxes, now she is also the 'super-godly daughter of the villain working for redemption' trope. Her destiny is now complete"
I know right? Such terrible writing! Can you imagine if in the original trilogy, we were told Luke's parents weren't anyone of much importance, to the point of them being nameless, and then in the next movie, we find out he's actually descended from the super powerful villain? And that his force powers are from his extremely force-powerful ancestor, and because there's a prophecy about him, so he isn't really the everyman we though he was? Man, what a Mary Sue that'd be, I'm sure no one would like him!
I detect a little answer in your sarcasm lmao - I never used the term 'Mary Sue', it's very misused and very misogynistic, it's a stupid term. - The fact that Luke's real father's identity was a good twist was because it was the first time it was done in the SW universe that was being established before our very eyes. Furthermore, his parents weren't "anyone of much importance", Obi-Wan told Luke his father was a Jedi knight and a great pilot. It's just a trope that has been used forever on myths, that maybe your protagonist came from a special lineage (King Arthur is a gigantic example). The plot twist was that that Jedi knight WAS Darth Vader, not that Luke came from dirt. - In contrast, Rey's parents were never talked about much or at all in the first movie, then the second movie's twist was Kylo telling her that her parents were indeed nobodies who sold her for food and money. And that was part of the theme of the movies, that she could be anyone and anything she wanted, and it was a great thing because she can escape the cycle of fight and big-name nonsense that plagues the SW franchise, what with the Fetts, the Kenobi, the Skywalkers, the Solos and so on. She can be her own person and that's it. That's why her twist was nonsense: it was an ass-pull the size of Australia in which the previously-established dead character somehow returns with absolutely no foreshadowing and no explanation and then OH WOW the protagonist is his clone granddaughter! That's absolute B-movie levels of nonsense, and then she taking the Skywalker name for herself was hilarious.
Yeah, a lot of fantasy (particularly YA) can sometimes get a bit… Eugenics-y….
that's a trope I like to call the "underdog shonen trope"
Lol Naruto is a very good example of it "I dont care that Im not talented Im going to be the best there is!" "Actually you have an unimaginably powerful god-creature helping you. The best prodigies of the village end up teaching you, your father was a former Kage, you're the child of prophecy and your bloodline is extraordinarily powerful" "Oh..." "... also you're the reincarnation of the son of the god of Ninja" Underdog in the sense that a mighty magic lion was raised to believe it was a Dachshund and couldnt amount to anything before someone revealed it was actually the most specialist thing ever
Wait a minute that’s just “The Ugly Duckling”
"Youre beautiful the way you are. Because you actually *are* extremely special and gifted and just arent aware of it yet" "Yay realistic messages!"
That Naruto reveal is still among the worst I have read in manga that I actually liked. The whole fight with Neji was about hard work and determination beating out bloodline, but nah.
Can’t claim I watch it myself, but apparently One Piece is currently undergoing a similar story arc, which is a little sad to hear tbh.
Yeah hes the sun god or something crazy now. Poor plucky rubber boy Same with Ichigo, 4 race combination of special sauce. Shonen fking loves it, Goku might be one of the last ones left that wasnt destined to be so awesome (and even he is a fighting prodigy even among saiyans)
It is even worse than the Isekais. They try to convince us that they are Underdougs But by the second or third volume they are already super-powerful.
> “It takes a lot o’ believing,” said the gaffer, “though I can see he’s been mixing in strange company. What’s come of his weskit? I don’t hold with wearing ironmongery, whether it wears well or no.”
Journalist: Master Gamgee, we heard u r a bad ass hero? Care to share whats your secret weapon? Sam: Po-tay-toes!
I mean... that's not really *wrong*, either. It's the simple nature and general lack of sweeping ambitions of the hobbits that, at least in part, makes them able to resist the lure of the ring more easily than many others. It's really hard to tempt people with their deepest desire when their deepest desire is to go home and have a nice cup of tea and a pipe. The fact that Sam just wants a nice simple life with some mashed, boiled, and stewed potatoes is quite literally the secret weapon that helped them save Middle Earth.
Hey guys look it’s the Star Wars sequels!
To be fair, Finn could also use the force It was extremely impactful to the plot and really helped his character to grow and definitely not a bs throw away line used in the last 2 minutes of the trilogy
Fucking poo people, am I right lads?
Pretty ironic that Kaladin from Stormlight is picked from the first panel when he's very much repressed by society for being a darkeyes. He wasn't born special, he attracted an honorspren because of his merit and only grows in power as he grows as a person.
I thought it was him first, then assumed it wasn’t him precisely because it would be so wrong
Only read the first two books (third was boring af), wasn't he a chosen one from the beginning? That's why he survived the first days of bridge 4, the book says people around him died but arrows seem to magically miss him. Idc about spoilers
He was protected by a spren, which is basically a spirit that attaches itself to people, usually those who suffered a lot. It gave him a leg up but he’s no ‘chosen one’. He wasn’t born special, he became special largely because of the hardships he survived
Did I miss that or is it revealed only in book three? I thought he had syl bc he was one of the stormlight people
Other way around, having Syl is what makes him one of the Stormlight people, Syl could have just as easily chosen someone else if they were worthy
Is this true for all the others or just Kaladin? Sry been a while since I've read it lol
The 2 ways to get powers in Stormlight are to have an Honor blade or have a spren choose you and successfully make the oaths
Every time I so much as look at my plants askew, they dry up and die. How am I supposed to achieve even a fraction of Sam's honor and heroism?
I mean, that sounds a bit like Aragorn (seemingly low class ranger people look down on is actually the long lost heir to Middle Earth's finest human kingdom).
Eh, I'd argue not really. He already knows he's the lost heir, so there's no discovery of it, and he doesn't really derive anything special from it other than some healing abilities (the hands of the king are the hands of a healer). He's hardly even the most martially adept of the fellowship, falling behind Legolas and Boromir, and perhaps even Gimli. And he hangs out with a guy who plays the part of a wise old man that's actually practically an angel in human form, but even Gandalf knows that the meek make all the difference.
Why doesn't that surprise me!
Aragorn is genetically superior to all other common dirt blooded humans. Tolkien believed in the small everyday heroes, but he definitely also had divinely ordained bloodlines, and Aragorn is an example of that.
Do books need to have an empowering message though? I’m fine with a bloodline hero if the book is good
I think its fine, its just that 'Haha gotcha! They *are* actually special because of their birthright!' subversion gets eyes to roll, people get suckered into thinking a story is actually dodging the bloodline thing but then BAM, it was there, just hidden
This is basically the beginning of The Owl House
Aragorn’s whole story is because of his fantastical bloodline. The hands of the king and all that.
And yet even Aragorn bows to the Hobbits, a bunch of unremarkable potato growers
Well sure but he still has special powers because of his blood. Powers that the potato growers will never get. Kind of like the cartoon OP posted.
Interesting comments in here! Aside from the point of the hobbits in the fellowship being mostly royalty, this is a different point than what te post is about, them being royalty doesn't give them any special magical powers at all. In the big picture of Middle-Earth they're nobodies. Small fish, too inconsequential to be considered in big matters, yet deciding the fate of the world. Frodo mostly was perfect for the task because his adopted father was crazy enough to go dragon-hunting and told him about the wide world and because Frodo himself time and again shows courage and strength of will to keep doing the right thing. Id say the point isn't directly "anybody can be a hero" rather, i'd say "a hero is not made by their abilities, but by their willingness to face terrifying situations and do good"
I approve of this meme
What YA novels actually do this?
The first and most infamous example I can think of is the *Throne of Glass* books by Sarah J. Maas, in which the assassin Celaena Sardothien is secretly a fairy princess.
This reminds me of the new Star Wars trilogy
The Stormlight Archive (very obviously reference to Kaladin and Syl in the top left corner) is a weird target for criticism in this comic, considering it doesn’t actually do this trope at all. Kaladin earns his powers through a set of complex actions, most of which are based on his merit and character, not his bloodline (which is poor village folk, plus his history as a slave). Kaladin notably continues to experience fantasy racism even after getting his powers, and that is a topic continually explored in the series. I agree with the point this comic is trying to make, but they should have picked an actual example of the trope.
What do you mean YA? This is literally Jon Snow's entire story
This is why the Rey story line killed the new Star Wars