u/Rafaelrosario88

This version of "The Council of Elrond" appears in "The History of Middle-earth" and discusses the dangers of Sauron obtaining the three Elven rings:

>Now is the time for true speaking. Tell me, Elrond, if the Three Rings still are? And tell me, Gloin, if you know it, whether any of the Seven remain?'

>'Yes, the Three still are,' said Elrond, 'and it would be ill indeed if Sauron should discover where they be, or have power over their rulers; for then perhaps his shadow would stretch even to the Blessed Realm.'

But how is that possible? During the Third Age, the Blessed Realm was not even in Arda.

In alternative versions of The History of Middle Earth, Sauron was able to:

Make Tsunamis:

>But as the ships of the embassy drew nigh to the land an unquiet came upon the sea, and it arose like a mountain and cast the ships far inland; and the ship whereon Sauron stood was set upon a hill. And Sauron stood upon the hill and preached a message of deliverance from death to the Numenoreans; and he beguiled them with signs and wonders. And little by little he turned their hearts toward Morgoth, his master; and he prophesied that ere long he would come again into the world.

>They descried ships far off, and they seemed to be sailing west at a speed greater than the storm, though there was little wind. Suddenly the sea became unquiet; it rose until it became like a mountain, and it rolled upon the land. The ships were lifted up, and cast far inland, and lay in the fields. Upon that ship which was cast highest and stood dry upon a hill there was a man, or one in man's shape, but greater than any even of the race of Numenor in stature. 'He stood upon the rock (25) and said: "This is done as a sign of power. For I am Sauron the mighty, servant of the Strong" (wherein he spoke darkly). "I have come. Be glad, men of Numenor, for I will take thy king to be my king, and the world shall be given into his hand

Tolkien thought of Sauron emitting a kind of energy/radiation or evil aura that accelerated the demise of all elven people:

>And it is said that the war with Thu (Sauron) hastened the fading of the Eldar, for he had power beyond their measure, as Felagund King of Nargothrond had found in the earliest days; and they expended their strength and substance in the assault upon him - II THE FALL OF NUMENOR. History of Middle Earth

Sauron helped Ar-pharazôn's fleet reach Valinor, even though the Valar decreed that there would be no wind:

>Slowly the fleets passed out (...) For at middle night a wind arose in the East (by Zigur's art, it is said), and it wafted them away; and they broke the ban of the Avaloi, and sailed into forbidden seas, going up with war against the Deathless Folk, to wrest from them life everlasting in the circle of the world.

Sauron caused illness and fatigue to the Armies of the Last Alliance:

>I was at the council I spoke of, for I was the minstrel and counselor of Gilgalad. The armies of Elves and Men were joined once more, and we marched eastward, and crossed the Misty Mountains, and passed into the inner lands far from the memory of the Sea. And we became weary, and sickness was heavy on us, made by the spells of Sauron

Sauron could corrupt the Blessed Realm (Valinor?) if he mastered the three elven rings!

>Now is the time for true speaking. Tell me, Elrond, if the Three Rings still are? And tell me, Gloin, if you know it, whether any of the Seven remain?' 'Yes, the Three still are,' said Elrond, 'and it would be ill indeed if Sauron should discover where they be, or have power over their rulers; for then perhaps his shadow would stretch even to the Blessed Realm.'

Sauron would personally defeat, even without the One Ring, Tom Bombadil:

>In time the Lord of the Ring would find out its hiding-place, and in the end he would come in person. I doubt whether Tom Bombadil, even on his own ground, could withstand that power; but I am sure that we should not leave him to face it.

With Necromancy, Sauron could cause "demonic possession":

>For one of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the Living, may seek to eject the fea from its body; and in the contest for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if it he not wrested from its rightful habitant. Or the Houseless may plead for shelter, and if it is admitted, then it will seek to enslave its host and use both his will and his body for its own purposes. It is said that Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.

Only Finrod resisted Sauron's "darkness spell" that "choked the senses" of Beren and his companions:

>Thu laughed: 'Patience! Not very long shall ye abide. But first a song I will sing to you, to ears intent.' Then his flaming eyes he on them bent, and darkness black fell round them all. Only they saw as through a pall of eddying smoke those eyes profound in which their senses choked and drowned.

Tolkien stated, in a letter, that he disliked Frank Herbert's Dune "with some intensity" but never elaborated in detail:

>Dear Mr. Lanier, I received your book Dune just before I went abroad for a short while. Hence the delay in acknowledging it. I don’t think I shall have time to read it until I next get a holiday.’

Tolkien’s unpublished letter to John Bush, 12 March 1966:

>Thank you for sending me a copy of Dune. I received one last year from Lanier and so already know something about the book. It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment. Would you like me to return the book as I already have one, or to hand it on?’”.

• This is from the ‘Tolkien’s Library: An Annotated Checklist’.

Why did Tolkien have that opinion about Dune?

Edit: I don't understand why. But this post is getting a lot of downvotes.

J.R.R. Tolkien stated, in a letter, that he disliked Frank Herbert's Dune "with some intensity" but never elaborated in detail:

>Dear Mr. Lanier, I received your book Dune just before I went abroad for a short while. Hence the delay in acknowledging it. I don’t think I shall have time to read it until I next get a holiday.’

Tolkien’s unpublished letter to John Bush, 12 March 1966:

>Thank you for sending me a copy of Dune. I received one last year from Lanier and so already know something about the book. It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another author working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike DUNE with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment. Would you like me to return the book as I already have one, or to hand it on?’”.

This is from the ‘Tolkien’s Library: An Annotated Checklist’.

Why did Tolkien have that opinion about Dune?

In J.R.R. Tolkien's The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (specifically Letter 210), the author notes that during the siege of Minas Tirith, Sauron gave the Witch-king an "added demonic force" to amplify his powers:

>The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.

Could this be a reference to the "Morgoth Ingredient" mentioned in "The History of Middle-earth" - "Morgoth´s Ring" ?

>(It was this Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.) It is quite possible, of course, that certain 'elements' or conditions of matter had attracted Morgoth's special attention (mainly, unless in the remote past, for reasons of his own plans).

>Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa,(2) the 'flesh' or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster, and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient',(3) and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.

>But in this way Morgoth lost (or exchanged, or transmuted) the greater part of his original 'angelic' powers, of mind and spirit, while gaining a terrible grip upon the physical world. For this reason he had to be fought, mainly by physical force, and enormous material ruin was a probable consequence of any direct combat with him, victorious or otherwise. This is the chief explanation of the constant reluctance of the Valar to come into open battle against Morgoth. Manwe's task and problem was much more difficult than Gandalf's. Sauron's, relatively smaller, power was concentrated;

>Morgoth's vast power was disseminated. The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west. Unless swiftly successful, War against him might well end in reducing all Middle-earth to chaos, possibly even all Arda.
It is easy to say: 'It was the task and function of the Elder King to govern Arda and make it possible for the Children of Eru to live in it unmolested.' But the dilemma of the Valar was this: Arda could only be liberated by a physical battle; but a probable result of such a battle was the irretrievable ruin of Arda. Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such eradication of Morgoth was possible, since this required the complete disintegration of the 'matter' of Arda. Sauron's power was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a particular form or shape made of a particular portion of total gold. Morgoth's power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute (for he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent.

>It is quite possible, of course, that certain ‘elements’ of conditions of matter had attracted Morgoth’s special attention (mainly, unless in the remote past, for reasons of his own plans). For example, all gold (in Middle-earth) seems to have had a specially ‘evil’ trend — but not silver. Water is represented as being almost entirely free of Morgoth. (This, of course, does not mean that any particular sea, stream, river, well, or even vessel of water could not be poisoned or defiled — as all things could.)

 

Sorry for the long post, it's because there's a lot to analyze (and even speculate about) on this subject.

I'm reading some chapters of the History of Middle-earth after reading The Silmarillion, and I've always been curious about the nature of Ungoliant:

1. Would Ungoliant be a Maia?

At first, I thought she would be a Maia. Ungoliant, like Melian, gave birth to offspring (Shelob) with beings incarnated in Arda. But, Tolkien suggests that Melian's case was a concession made by Eru Ilúvatar, since, in her case, the body with which she conceived Lúthien Tinúviel was a real organism, a Hröa nourished by the physical substance of Arda and not a fána with which the Ainur "clothe" themselves in the visible world:

>(LUTHIEN WAS THROUGH HER MOTHER, MELIAN, WHOSE BEING BEGAN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE DESCENDED ALSO FROM THE MAYAR, THE PEOPLE OF THE VALAR.) MELIAN ALONE OF ALL THOSE SPIRITS ASSUMED A BODILY FORM, NOT ONLY AS A RAIMENT BUT AS A PERMANENT HABITATION IN FORM AND POWERS LIKE TO THE BODIES OF THE ELVES. THIS SHE DID FOR LOVE OF ELWE; AND IT WAS PERMITTED, NO DOUBT BECAUSE THIS UNION HAD ALREADY BEEN FORESEEN IN THE BEGINNING OF THINGS, AND WAS WOVEN INTO THE AMARTH OF THE WORLD, WHEN ERU FIRST CONCEIVED THE BEING OF HIS CHILDREN, ELVES AND MEN, AS IS TOLD (AFTER THE MANNER AND ACCORDING TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF HIS CHILDREN) IN THAT MYTH THAT IS NAMED THE MUSIC OF THE AINUR.

From what I understand, only one Maia produced descendants: Melian. If we interpret Melian as a unique case, then Ungoliant would not be a Maia, if we take into account this rule of the Mother of Lúthien.

2. Would Ungoliant be a Vala?

Ungoliant was a purely spiritual entity (fairë) who, like the Valar and Maiar, was capable of taking a visible form within Arda.

The texts that make up the Silmarillion also suggest that Ungoliant may have been a spirit who, in the early days of Eä, was co-opted by Melkor for his cause. A very relevant passage from one of the texts comprising the Silmarillion (HOME 10 - Morgoth's Ring - The Later Silmarillion) seems to corroborate this version, as in it Melkor addresses Ungoliant in the following terms:

>COME FORTH!’ HE SAID. ‘THRICE FOOL: TO LEAVE ME FIRST, TO DWELL HERE LANGUISHING WITHIN REACH OF FEASTS UNTOLD, AND NOW TO SHUN ME, GIVER OF GIFTS, THY ONLY HOPE! COME FORTH AND SEE! I HAVE BROUGHT THEE AN EARNEST OF GREATER BOUNTY TO FOLLOW. 

Melkor would be Ungoliant's Master:

>IT IS NOT KNOWN WHENCE SHE CAME, THOUGH AMONG THE ELDAR IT WAS SAID THAT IN AGES LONG BEFORE SHE HAD DESCENDED FROM THE DARKNESS THAT LIES ABOUT ARDA, WHEN MELKOR FIRST LOOKED DOWN IN ENVY UPON THE LIGHT IN THE KINGDOM OF MANWE. BUT SHE HAD DISOWNED HER MASTER, DESIRING TO BE MISTRESS OF HER OWN LUST, TAKING ALL THINGS TO HERSELF TO FEED HER EMPTINESS

Would the relationship between Melkor and Ungoliant be the only one in which one Vala would be a servant of another Vala? If so, all I can think of is that she's an extraterrestrial Vala. From another planet of EÄ, even:

>OTHERS THERE WERE, COUNTLESS TO OUR THOUGHT THOUGH KNOWN EACH AND NUMBERED IN THE MIND OF ILUVATAR, WHOSE LABOUR LAY ELSEWHERE AND IN OTHER REGIONS AND HISTORIES OF THE GREAT TALE, AMID STARS REMOTE AND WORLDS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE FURTHEST THOUGHT. BUT OF THESE OTHERS WE KNOW NOTHING AND CANNOT KNOW, THOUGH THE VALAR OF ARDA, MAYBE, REMEMBER THEM ALL.

3. Would Ungoliant be a manifestation of the discord among the themes of the Ainulindalë?

There is a text in the History of Middle-earth that talks about entities created because of the discord among the themes of the Ainulindalë:

>OUT OF THE DISCORDS OF THE MUSIC – SC. NOT DIRECTLY OUT OF EITHER OF THE THEMES, ERU’S OR MELKOR’S, BUT OF THEIR DISSONANCE WITH REGARD ONE TO ANOTHER – EVIL THINGS APPEARED IN ARDA, WHICH DID NOT DESCEND FROM ANY DIRECT PLAN OR VISION OF MELKOR: THEY WERE NOT ‘HIS CHILDREN’; AND THEREFORE, SINCE ALL EVIL HATES, HATED HIM TOO. THE PROGENITURE OF THINGS WAS CORRUPTED

The notion that certain creatures may have arisen from the dissonance of the themes of the Ainulindalë is quite interesting and could explain some obscure points in Tolkien's mythology, but personally, I don't think this idea provides an adequate explanation for the existence of Ungoliant. The reasons that lead me to think this way are basically two:

• The evil beings originating from dissonance would have come to exist within Arda, whereas in all texts dealing with Ungoliant, it is always stated that she originates from outside Arda and perhaps from outside the Universe itself (Eä).

• In letter number 144, Tolkien said that:

>THE GIANT SPIDERS WERE THEMSELVES ONLY THE OFFSPRING OF UNGOLIANTE THE PRIMEVAL DEVOURER OF LIGHT, THAT IN SPIDER-FORM ASSISTED THE DARK POWER, BUT ULTIMATELY QUARRELLED WITH HIM. THERE IS THUS NO ALLIANCE BETWEEN SHELOB AND SAURON, THE DARK POWER’S DEPUTY; ONLY A COMMON HATRED

I have always interpreted the use of the word "primordial" (primeval) in the passage transcribed above as indicating that Ungoliant was a "primeval" being, preceding the very creation of Eä. Before the Ainulindalë!

4. Could Ungoliant be the embodiment of Primordial Night?

One of Christopher Tolkien's notes in the Book of Lost Tales, chapter VI, THE THEFT OF MELKO AND THE DARKENING OF VALINOR:

>“MÓRU- GL* IN A LATER ADDITION GIVES MURU A NAME OF THE PRIMEVAL NIGHT PERSONIFIED AS GWERLUM OR GUNGLIONT, HENCE MY READING IN THE TEXT MÓRU RATHER THAN MORN. AMONG THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES IN GL IS MÚRI, DARKNESS, NIGHT. SEE MORNIË.”

"Personified as Gwerlum." And who is Gwerlum? Well, the text of The Book of the Lost Tales itself provides the answer in chapter VI, THE THEFT OF MELKO AND THE DARKENING OF VALINOR:

>UNGWE LIANTI THE GREAT SPIDER WHO ENMESHES DID THE ELDAR CALL HER, NAMING HER ALSO WIRILOMË OR GLOOMWEAVER, WHENCE STILL DO THE NOLDOLI SPEAK OF HER AS UNGOLIONT THE SPIDER OR AS GWERLUM THE BLACK.

IMHO, this primeval “night” cannot be the one that exists outside the circles of the world, outside of Arda, because, being “primordial,” it existed before our universe, before Eä, and consequently, before creation itself.

Ungoliant, or Ungweliantë as she is called in the "Lost Tales," is an avatar form of the Void, the absence of divinized light that lies outside of Eä (outside the Circles of the World with a capital W) and the dwellings of Eru Ilúvatar, the eternal Mansions (The Timeless Halls). As such, maybe she is (apparently) NOT a creation of Ilúvatar but a manifestation of an independent force, older than all Ainur!

>"In Nan Dungorthin where nameless gods have shrouded shrines in shadow secret, more old than Morgoth or the Ancient lords the golden Gods of the guarded west".

What would the political (and historical) consequences be if Jaime saved Elia and the children? What would each protagonist do (or attempt to do) in that situation?

What does the future hold for them?

They probably knew about general aspects of the upheavals occurring in Valinor: Melkor's release; the corruption of the Noldor; the conflicts of the House of Finwe (Fëanor and Fingolfin). But, it seems to me, the Teleri's stance was one of total isolationism. A kind of indifference. Something like: "It's not our problem; leave us alone, I won't participate in this and I don't want them interfering in our way of life."

I get the impression that the Teleri are the kind of people who aren't necessarily evil, but who, through omission, end up letting evil (in peace) grow, directly or indirectly reaching their lives sooner or later. And, worse, the Noldor helped them build the port and their city (as Fëanor recalled), but a need arose that the Teleri didn't want to participate in: and I'm not talking about giving/lending the ships that the Noldor brutally took, I'm talking precisely about the omission of an entire people who ignored the Noldor's corrupting process and simply did nothing.

Is this a moral aspect of "The Silmarillion"? The idea that evil also multiplies through "negligence"?

If the theories that attest to Euron's use of magic (or monsters) to destroy the Redwyne fleet are correct, I imagine his next step will be an attack on Oldtown.

I theorize that Euron wants some artifact/book (Necronomicon style) to perform some ritual (to tame a dragon?) or summon something from the depths (Deep Ones, Cthulhu?).

But I ask: what will be the consequence of Oldtown's fall for Westeros? If this ritual goes very wrong (which I imagine it will), will southwest Westeros become a Valyria 2.0?

I imagine the North being swept away by the Others; and the South swept away by a Greyscale epidemic. And then there's winter, widespread famine, and total anarchy. Add to that a Valyria 2.0 in the Southwest. Wow, what chaos.

Venderam um hype tão grande que eu cheguei com altas expectativas realmente. Sempre gostei da Obra. Já li várias vezes até. Quando criança, eu adorava a versão da Odisséia que passava no SBT, mesmo com o baixo orçamento, erros da adaptação (etc), mas eu me divertia e sentia uma paixão das pessoas que produziram a minissérie.

Sobre o filme do Nolan: não é um filme ruim, mas diante da expectativa criada, achei que faltou algo: eu queria, por exemplo, ter sentido a catarse e imersão de ter sido transportado para uma era perdida na história da humanidade. A Odisséia se passa no período do colapso da Era do Bronze. Então eu achei que Nolan ia sim seguir, na medida do possível, a caracterização da época: armaduras, navios, vestimentas, por exemplo. Mas tudo me lembrou muito mais uma adaptação da Era Viking. Fiquei frustrado com isso. E aquele Batman em Troia, pqp.

Sobre os aspectos mitológicos, achei que Nolan quis trazer uma certa ambiguidade sobre a existência de magia, deuses, etc. Mas, por falar nos deuses, parece que ficaram com vergonha de mostrar os deuses (que são tão importantes na história do livro). Não sei, parece que ia ficar ridículo eles aparecem? Não sei também. Mas temos Circe fazendo magia de transformação de homens em porcos. Então existem poderes divinos, mas Poseidon não aparece diretamente, só é mencionado.

Sobre outros aspectos: atuações, história contada. Mais uma vez, em geral são boas. Uma ou outra atuação que eu não gostei. Mas o que eu percebi é que eu não senti a emoção que acharia que iria sentir. Não senti a imersão com os personagens, e com o que me foi apresentado em tela.

Dizem que é uma marca predominante (mas não em todos os filmes, na minha opinião) essa falta de ligação/emoção nos filmes do Nolan. Cito um exemplo: eu não me conectei com nenhum personagem do filme Dunkirk, mas me lembrei de uma cena do filme "Desejo e Reparação" que se passa na praia em Dunkirk e que mostra 3 personagens vendo a devastação do homem diante da Guerra e como isso afeta a natureza humana. Mas nessa cena do "Desejo e Reparação" não havia explosão, tiro, bombas; apenas 3 soldados vendo a devastação humana nos olhos dos outros soldados. Uma cena de 4 minutos me foi mais emocionante do que um filme de mais de 2 horas.

A Odisséia do Nolan me trouxe isso: a sensação que falta algo. Parece que foi uma oportunidade perdida. Podia ter sido mais.

Acho que Nolan perdeu a essência da Odisseia e caiu em conclusões óbvias: "é apenas um mito"; "é apenas ficção"; "tem monstros e deuses, não se deve exigir precisão histórica";

A Ilíada e a Odisseia são histórias que envolvem aspectos mitológicos e fantásticos não apenas para entreter o leitor; há também certos aspectos históricos de um período (pré-)homérico, na época do Colapso da Idade do Bronze.

Imagine só: as invasões que destruíram as civilizações daquele período (com exceção do Egito), nas quais tudo o que registrava a cultura da época foi destruído, e a única fonte escrita (que chegou aos nossos dias) a descrever como eram a cultura, a sociedade, a língua, as tradições, a religião, os mitos, as armaduras, as táticas militares e as visões de mundo daquele período (etc.) são duas obras (Ilíada e Odisseia) que as pessoas veem apenas como mera ficção.

Mais uma vez, caem no óbvio: "Mas tem um Ciclope". Veja, o Ciclope Polifemo é uma representação mitológica de um elemento intrigante da arquitetura e engenharia das grandes estruturas de pedra (cujas ruínas ainda existem) que os "gregos" imaginavam ter sido erguidas por gigantes, devido ao peso e à precisão das pedras que compunham tais construções.

A Odisseia é uma carta de amor, em forma de mito, de uma era perdida que quase desapareceu devido a guerras, invasões e ao colapso de uma civilização.

Sobre o filme: Pessoalmente, achei que Nolan demonstraria mais respeito (algo que ele mostrou com Oppenheimer, por exemplo) em relação aos personagens humanos (as vestimentas, as armaduras, os navios, por exemplo) da história, em meio aos elementos fantásticos.

Essa estética e a cinematografia me parecem (com todo o respeito) algo típico de um telefilme. É um filme desprovido de emoção, na minha humilde opinião. Não há sensação de catarse nesta adaptação de uma das maiores obras da cultura (e da história) ocidental — uma obra-prima de 3.000 anos que inspirou filósofos e gerações em todo o Ocidente. O que Nolan entregou não é necessariamente *ruim*, mas falta alguma coisa.

Sabe qual é a sensação? A diversidade e a tentativa de agradar ao movimento "woke" distraíram o diretor e lhe tiraram o foco. Ele perdeu de vista a imersão e a catarse inerentes a algo antigo e grandioso. Falhou em realmente nos transportar de volta a uma era perdida. A Idade do Bronze é um período fantástico da história mundial, mas permanece pouco explorada. Nolan teve a oportunidade, mas a desperdiçou para agradar ao público "woke".

Acho que Nolan perdeu a essência da Odisseia e caiu em conclusões óbvias: "é apenas um mito"; "é apenas ficção"; "tem monstros e deuses, não se deve exigir precisão histórica";

A Ilíada e a Odisseia são histórias que envolvem aspectos mitológicos e fantásticos não apenas para entreter o leitor; há também certos aspectos históricos de um período (pré-)homérico, na época do Colapso da Idade do Bronze.

Imagine só: as invasões que destruíram as civilizações daquele período (com exceção do Egito), nas quais tudo o que registrava a cultura da época foi destruído, e a única fonte escrita (que chegou aos nossos dias) a descrever como eram a cultura, a sociedade, a língua, as tradições, a religião, os mitos, as armaduras, as táticas militares e as visões de mundo daquele período (etc.) são duas obras (Ilíada e Odisseia) que as pessoas veem apenas como mera ficção.

Mais uma vez, caem no óbvio: "Mas tem um Ciclope". Veja, o Ciclope Polifemo é uma representação mitológica de um elemento intrigante da arquitetura e engenharia das grandes estruturas de pedra (cujas ruínas ainda existem) que os "gregos" imaginavam ter sido erguidas por gigantes, devido ao peso e à precisão das pedras que compunham tais construções.

A Odisseia é uma carta de amor, em forma de mito, de uma era perdida que quase desapareceu devido a guerras, invasões e ao colapso de uma civilização.

Sobre o filme: Pessoalmente, achei que Nolan demonstraria mais respeito (algo que ele mostrou com Oppenheimer, por exemplo) em relação aos personagens humanos (as vestimentas, as armaduras, os navios, por exemplo) da história, em meio aos elementos fantásticos.

Essa estética e a cinematografia me parecem (com todo o respeito) algo típico de um telefilme. É um filme desprovido de emoção, na minha humilde opinião. Não há sensação de catarse nesta adaptação de uma das maiores obras da cultura (e da história) ocidental — uma obra-prima de 3.000 anos que inspirou filósofos e gerações em todo o Ocidente. O que Nolan entregou não é necessariamente *ruim*, mas falta alguma coisa.

Sabe qual é a sensação? A diversidade e a tentativa de agradar ao movimento "woke" distraíram o diretor e lhe tiraram o foco. Ele perdeu de vista a imersão e a catarse inerentes a algo antigo e grandioso. Falhou em realmente nos transportar de volta a uma era perdida. A Idade do Bronze é um período fantástico da história mundial, mas permanece pouco explorada. Nolan teve a oportunidade, mas a desperdiçou para agradar ao público "woke".

Acho que Nolan perdeu a essência da Odisseia e caiu em conclusões óbvias: "é apenas um mito"; "é apenas ficção"; "tem monstros e deuses, não se deve exigir precisão histórica";

A Ilíada e a Odisseia são histórias que envolvem aspectos mitológicos e fantásticos não apenas para entreter o leitor; há também certos aspectos históricos de um período (pré-)homérico, na época do Colapso da Idade do Bronze.

Imagine só: as invasões que destruíram as civilizações daquele período (com exceção do Egito), nas quais tudo o que registrava a cultura da época foi destruído, e a única fonte escrita (que chegou aos nossos dias) a descrever como eram a cultura, a sociedade, a língua, as tradições, a religião, os mitos, as armaduras, as táticas militares e as visões de mundo daquele período (etc.) são duas obras (Ilíada e Odisseia) que as pessoas veem apenas como mera ficção.

Mais uma vez, caem no óbvio: "Mas tem um Ciclope". Veja, o Ciclope Polifemo é uma representação mitológica de um elemento intrigante da arquitetura e engenharia das grandes estruturas de pedra (cujas ruínas ainda existem) que os "gregos" imaginavam ter sido erguidas por gigantes, devido ao peso e à precisão das pedras que compunham tais construções.

A Odisseia é uma carta de amor, em forma de mito, de uma era perdida que quase desapareceu devido a guerras, invasões e ao colapso de uma civilização.

Sobre o filme: Pessoalmente, achei que Nolan demonstraria mais respeito (algo que ele mostrou com Oppenheimer, por exemplo) em relação aos personagens humanos (as vestimentas, as armaduras, os navios, por exemplo) da história, em meio aos elementos fantásticos.

Essa estética e a cinematografia me parecem (com todo o respeito) algo típico de um telefilme. É um filme desprovido de emoção, na minha humilde opinião. Não há sensação de catarse nesta adaptação de uma das maiores obras da cultura (e da história) ocidental — uma obra-prima de 3.000 anos que inspirou filósofos e gerações em todo o Ocidente. O que Nolan entregou não é necessariamente *ruim*, mas falta alguma coisa.

Ele perdeu de vista a imersão e a catarse inerentes a algo antigo e grandioso. Falhou em realmente nos transportar de volta a uma era perdida. A Idade do Bronze é um período fantástico da história mundial, mas permanece pouco explorada. Nolan teve a oportunidade, mas a desperdiçou.

Enfim, mais do que "precisão histórica", eu queria ter tido uma catarse diante dos eventos fantásticos da Odisséia. Queria emoção, imersão também. Mas, infelizmente, não senti isso.

It's just an impression I've always had: that Eru intervened at key moments in the great work of Arda:

a) In the First Age: It seems to me that Ilúvatar intervened so that Lúthien and Beren could succeed in their love story, mainly because Eru transformed Lúthien into a mortal woman.

In the confrontation against Sauron, there was a small event (one of the most decisive in the story) that can be seen as "mere chance" or "accident": Lúthien's cloak putting Sauron under a sleeping spell, a fact that occurred after the Enemy, with his Eye, caused Lúthien to faint, and also caused Huan to recoil in terror.

This is just my view, but it seems to me that there was a providential "accident" of Ilúvatar himself, which would be a theological equivalent of Divine Alignment/God-incidents: What appears to be a random event or coincidence is believed to be a precisely orchestrated moment in a larger plan (Beren and Lúthien, Númenor, Gondor and Arnor, and Aragorn).

b) In the Second Age, Sauron uses the corrupting power of the One Ring to return the men of Númenor to Darkness (for further information, read Andreth's version of the Fall of Mankind for Finrod). Knowing the Valar's lack of jurisdiction over men, Sauron directs the blasphemous military might of the Isle against Valinor (and Tolkien says that Númenor could devastate the continent), a true checkmate for the Dark Lord. However, Tolkien says that Sauron was defeated by a miracle when Eru changes the shape of Arda and destroys Númenor and Sauron's physical form in the process.

And with this miracle, Sauron is diminished enough for Gil-Galad and Elendil to defeat the Enemy in the War of the Last Alliance.

c) In the Third Age: Sauron was militarily (almost) unbeatable, but an act of mercy towards Gollum occurred (first with Bilbo), and with this act of compassion the Hobbits managed to enter Mordor. However, an act of betrayal by Smeagol occurs, and from this evil act, in several events of chance x destiny x providence, an unexpected good will occur - a true Felix Culpa (happy guilt, when an evil act/event generates an unexpected good). Gollum cuts off Frodo's finger, takes the One Ring, jumps for joy and (once again) a providential "accident" occurs in which Smeagol trips, falls and the One Ring is destroyed.

Sauron seems to have realized what the greatest work Ilúvatar created for his children was. And it wasn't the Universe or Arda, but rather free will and the ultimate concept that only God is worthy of being loved and worshipped.

This seems to explain Ilúvatar's "subtle" interventions in relation to Sauron.

Of course, there is also Evil and the discussion regarding its existence. Something that Manwë himself spoke of: "a beauty yet unconceived will come to Arda, and it will still be good that evil existed."

Regarding intriguing passages in the Legendarium.

I was rereading The Silmarillion, and I came across tma passage that, seemingly, was not very important, but which made a certain impression on me when I read it:

>But it was said afterwards among the Eldar that when Men awoke in Hildórien at the rising of the Sun the spies of Morgoth were watchful, and tidings were soon brought to him; and this seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he himself departed from Angband, and went forth into Middle-earth, leaving to Sauron the command of the War.

Good heavens, was the awakening of mankind of such great importance that Melkor left the safety of Angband to commit unspeakable evil? When the Quendi awoke, Melkor sent servants—the shadow rider who hunted and devoured the elves—but in relation to the great fathers of mankind, did Morgoth personally corrupt our Fathers? Was there an "Eden"? Did a "serpent" corrupt the ancestors of mankind then?

It amazes me how a political ideology can blind even a great actress like Lupita Nyong'o.

She simply ignored the cultural and literary importance of the *Odyssey*. To want cheap, sordid modern politicking in a work over 2,500 years old—one that reveals not only myths but also aspects of the history and culture of a nearly forgotten era.

I think people are missing the main point of the adapted work and falling into obvious conclusions: "it's just a myth"; "it's just fiction"; "it has monsters and gods, you shouldn't demand historical accuracy";

The Iliad and The Odyssey are stories that involve mythological and fantastical aspects not only as a way to entertain the reader, but there are certain historical aspects of a (pre)Homeric period at the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.

Imagine: the invasions that destroyed the civilizations of the period (with the exception of Egypt), where everything that recorded the culture of the time was destroyed, and the only written source (that has reached our times) that tells what the culture, society, language, traditions, religion, myths, armor, military tactics, worldviews of that period (etc.) were like are two works (Iliad and Odyssey) that people see only as mere fiction.

Once again, they fall into the obvious: "But there's a Cyclops." Look, the Cyclops Polyphemus is a mythological representation of an intriguing element of the architecture and engineering of the great stone structures (of which ruins still exist) that the "Greeks" imagined were erected by giants because of the weight and precision of the stones that made up such constructions.

The Odyssey is a love letter, in the form of a myth, from a lost era that almost disappeared because of wars, invasions, and the collapse of a civilization.

About the movie: Personally, I thought Nolan would show more respect (something he showed for Oppenheimer, for example) regarding the human characters (the clothing, the armor, the ships, for example) in the story amidst the fantastical elements.

This aesthetic and the cinematography seem to me (with all due respect) like something from a TV movie.

Yes, I know it's very limited to base it solely on the trailer or a teaser, but i think people are missing the main point of the adapted work and falling into obvious conclusions: "it's just a myth"; "it's just fiction"; "it has monsters and gods, you shouldn't demand historical accuracy";

The Iliad and The Odyssey are stories that involve mythological and fantastical aspects not only as a way to entertain the reader, but there are certain historical aspects of a (pre)Homeric period at the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.

Imagine: the invasions that destroyed the civilizations of the period (with the exception of Egypt), where everything that recorded the culture of the time was destroyed, and the only written source (that has reached our times) that tells what the culture, society, language, traditions, religion, myths, armor, military tactics, worldviews of that period (etc.) were like are two works (Iliad and Odyssey) that people see only as mere fiction.

Once again, they fall into the obvious: "But there's a Cyclops." Look, the Cyclops Polyphemus is a mythological representation of an intriguing element of the architecture and engineering of the great stone structures (of which ruins still exist) that the "Greeks" imagined were erected by giants because of the weight and precision of the stones that made up such constructions.

The Odyssey is a love letter, in the form of a myth, from a lost era that almost disappeared because of wars, invasions, and the collapse of a civilization.

Personally, I thought Nolan would show more respect (something he showed for Oppenheimer, for example) regarding the human characters (the clothing, the armor, the ships, for example) in the story amidst the fantastical elements.

This aesthetic and the cinematography seem to me (with all due respect) like something from a TV movie.

Yes, I know it's very limited to base it solely on the trailer or a teaser, but i think people are missing the main point of the adapted work and falling into obvious conclusions: "it's just a myth"; "it's just fiction"; "it has monsters and gods, you shouldn't demand historical accuracy";

The Iliad and The Odyssey are stories that involve mythological and fantastical aspects not only as a way to entertain the reader, but there are certain historical aspects of a (pre)Homeric period at the time of the Bronze Age Collapse.

Imagine: the invasions that destroyed the civilizations of the period (with the exception of Egypt), where everything that recorded the culture of the time was destroyed, and the only written source (that has reached our times) that tells what the culture, society, language, traditions, religion, myths, armor, military tactics, worldviews of that period (etc.) were like are two works (Iliad and Odyssey) that people see only as mere fiction.

Once again, they fall into the obvious: "But there's a Cyclops." Look, the Cyclops Polyphemus is a mythological representation of an intriguing element of the architecture and engineering of the great stone structures (of which ruins still exist) that the "Greeks" imagined were erected by giants because of the weight and precision of the stones that made up such constructions.

The Odyssey is a love letter, in the form of a myth, from a lost era that almost disappeared because of wars, invasions, and the collapse of a civilization.

Personally, I thought Nolan would show more respect (something he showed for Oppenheimer, for example) regarding the human characters (the clothing, the armor, the ships, for example) in the story amidst the fantastical elements.

This aesthetic and the cinematography seem to me (with all due respect) like something from a TV movie.

In addition to being a great reformer who would bring law and order in a scenario of cultural decay after the War of Wrath, I think Sauron saw himself as a Promethean figure who would lift Humanity out of cultural prehistory and technological ignorance: The Silmarillion says that the men of the East and South built cities of stone and had access to metallurgical knowledge.

​

And bringing economic benefits: he proved himself a good economist in Númenor by multiplying the Island's wealth.

​

Furthermore, he had to see himself as a deity of a great world unification: a single theocratic government, a technocratic political-economic system and a religious reformer to bring true belief through dogmatic ideas.

​

This religious engineering reminds me (in some ways) of Gnosticism: a liberating god (Melkor) to rid rational beings of "Archons" (Valar) from a "Demiurgic monster" (Eru) who imprisoned everyone in a world of war and death. Interesting that Sauron spoke this of Melkor in the Second Age, but later he claimed to be Melkor in the Third Age.

​

I think Sauron's economic model is a kind of "hydraulic despotism" in relation to the technological and economic dependence of his subjects. And a vampire economy based on tribute, loot, and trade with the corrupted realms.

​

Tolkien says that Sauron was a "Reformist". After his vow of repentance to Eonwë, Sauron began with good reason to "rebuild" the devastated world post-War of Wrath.

​

In this case, he has become a kind of Tyrant who "knows what is best for his subjects". He would grant social, economic and technological advances to the dominated regions.

​

We see a kind of "Theocracy" perpetrated by the Enemy through the teachings of metallurgy, engineering, agriculture (etc) to the men under his dominion. Such men would see him as a kind of Prometheus who took them out of a kind of "cultural prehistory." The price of this would be a technological dependence on this "false god of fire" as humanity would be molded in the values ​​of a Creature that would deny the greatest gift granted by Ilúvatar: Free will.