> but my favourite has to be the Rob Inglis recordings
Impressive, very nice. Let's see Paul Allen's recording.
Martin Shaw's recording of the Silmarillion is similarly wonderful.
If you’re sitting on an armchair not really doing anything else, why not just read the book?
Reserve audio versions for when you genuinely can’t look at the book because you’re doing something else.
Some people just prefer to listen. I read well and I read quite quickly -- I don't know how many books I've physically read, but it's gotta be in the high hundreds at least -- but over the past ~10 years I've switched primarily to audiobooks. Rather than being something that I enjoy while I'm doing something else, I typically do something mindless with my hands (weave chainmail, cross stitch, sew) in order to give my full attention to the book.
hi loloquwowndueo, i was thinking the same thing, but then I thought why you would prefer reading a book while sitting instead of listening - is it about efficiency and that if you CAN read one should (you use the imperative) read?
I also have this view, but when I was young and an avid reader I also enjoyed radio stories immensely as my imagination was also activated. As in the past we were an species with a predominantly oral cultural transmission, arguably more 'embodied', there could be something to say for attending a theatre version in preference of a book. On the other hand, reading often is faster, but it's indirect, you translate the symbols into your imagination yourself, on the upside you perhaps train your mind more. So both have their advantages, one is not necessarily better. I notice I am often looking through a lense of efficiency and then make choices where I loose a certain experience - sitting in the dark listening to someone telling a story instead of reading can be equally wonderful.
Goodness gracious; I remember having a copy of that in my teens. Wonderful.
nice - gandalf meets merlin. do love Nicol Williamson
My favorite recent LotR media:
There is a Lord of the Rings MMO (like World of Warcraft) and a guy made a video recording a walk from the Shire to Mordor. Like you can just walk from the Shire to Mordor in the game. And it's almost 10 hours long in real world time to do that! But on top of that the whole journey is narrated by the Lord of the Rings audio book, with the relevant parts of the journey.
Oh man, something to watch and listen to in the evenings to come, thank you!
I don't have experience with the LotR Online outside of small clips here and there, but for the past 5 years or so I have been enjoying a bit more retro LotR "mmorpg", a free-to-play MUD that has been in development since 1991 or something: https://mume.org/
In MUME (Multi-Users in Middle Earth) getting from Bree to Mordor by walking won't take you 10 hours, but maybe 10 minutes at most. However, the trip and the destination will be full of dangers, whether it's from pve or pvp side of things.
As a side note, MUME is being developed by volunteers, and I believe the game itself is still ran on some Swiss University servers, where it all began, heh.
A nice, relaxing trip to Mordor.
This is so good. You can tell that Andy Serkis based his gollum voice off of this.
[deleted]
Is there a version minus the music?
People who don't like "On The Road" should listen to Jack read it in his own voice.
[deleted]
Of course he didn't live to see the Peter Jackson movies but I think I've heard his son didn't like them
The Hobbit movies had nothing to do with the books.
The M4 fan edit was quite good.
Sorry, I meant LOTR
Even the LOTR adaptation is questionable. Gandalf kicking Pippin (the exact opposite of what happens in the book), the lack of the scouring of the Shire, and super-Legolas right out of a Marvel movie...
Legolas was kind of super in the books, though. I think Faramir was the worst character assassination in the movies.
I wonder what Tolkien would say of so much of the symbolism from his novels being used to bootstrap a horrible dystopian control grid? Would he approve or disapprove? The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
Tolkien’s orc dialogue in TLOTR is actually very humanised in some ways – the orcs moan about their bosses, complain about rival teams, are concerned about completing their tasks, being punished for failure, etc, etc. When they aren’t fighting, they come across as petty functionaries in a totalitarian state.
> The way that orcs are dehumanized
Orcs aren't human, though. If anything, they were deelfized
Do you mean the palantir or the rings?
I find Tolkein's depictions on his original jacket covers of the Rings of Power and the one ring and the "all seeing eye" that accompanies them quite evocative:
Why the gap between 1 ring, 3 for elves, 7, and 9?
Perhaps someone had whispered to him that we already have "Five Eyes".
The use of encryption bears much similarity to one of the key functions of the rings... For the one Ring. or the nine, putting on the ring (like encryption) made one hidden to those around you, but ironically made you more, not less visible (cyphertext stands out!) to the maker of the rings.
That's both a very good description of Tolkien's struggles with orcs, and a writing style that feels out of place in an encyclopedia. The Halls of Mandos are described as a halfway house.
> J. R. R. Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, created what he came to feel was a moral dilemma for himself with his supposedly evil Middle-earth peoples like Orcs [...] so killing them would be wrong without very good reason. Orcs serve as the principal forces of the enemy in The Lord of the Rings, where they are slaughtered in large numbers in the battles of [...]
Admitting that there's a very wide diversity of beliefs under the "Roman Catholic" banner - historic Roman Catholic armies have been eager participants in well-documented battles for the past 1,500 or so years. I'd assume that Tolkien would have had a wide variety of perfectly historic Roman Catholic arguments to chose from, to justify his fictional slaughter.
(If I recall, the orcs slaughtered in LoTR are pretty much all soldier or near-soldiers. Do orc women, children, or other non-combatants ever appear in the story?)
In many ways, that Wikipedia article feels like a Hays Code-era whitewashing of Roman Catholicism.
Your criticism of Catholicism is valid, but regardless: this dilemma of Tolkien is real, and well-documented (e.g. in his letters, etc).
He really did struggle with this, re: the origin of the Orcs, whether they had souls, whether it was ok to default to massacring them without second thought, etc. He never really resolved it.
Most Tolkien fan communities are aware of this dilemma, it's one of those well-known things, along with "did Balrogs have wings?", "couldn't they just fly to Mount Doom and drop the ring?" and "why did Sauron need to put his power within a ring, anyway?".
Yes - I am not saying that JRRT himself was anything less than saintly, or did not struggle with the issue.
My issue is with the Wikipedia article's heavy identification of JRRT's personal dilemma with the Roman Church and its doctrines. Historically, for that Church - one could just assume that the orcs were Protestants, so slaughtering them was perfectly okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
Fascinating thank you. I was only aware of the surface level concern around the orcs.
It's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment. It's hard enough to write dwarves and elves, orcs are a necessary plot device. If you want you can imagine them as pitiable creatures who have been deprived of free will and have no choice but to act the way they do and loath themselves for it.
> It's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment
On one hand, you're right.
On the other, it's unfair to Tolkien and to the scholars who study his work. He spent a lot of his life and effort towards developing this world, he deeply pondered the moral implications and theology of his world, and for all his denial of there being any analogies to the real world, you can see he considered them (he did describe modern men in the modern world as "Orc-ish", etc).
All of this to say we cannot just dismiss it as "it's a fantasy novel".
>>The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
If anything, it's their portrayal in the Rings of Power that is idiotic(trying to humanize them) - they aren't human, they don't have families or friends or internal lives and psychological doubts going through their heads - they are meant to be a force("force" like in "force of nature") of evil, not a misunderstood and exploited race of intelligent beings.
For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs are actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer by a Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)
I will however agree with you that it's truly insane how we have a global survailence company that is used to spy on citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
I've not seen Rings of Power and I don't plan to, but I'd just point out that the Silmarillion describes the origin of orcs as being an exploited race of intelligent beings, elves who were captured and tortured until their forms became what we know as orcs.
"... all those of the Quendi [elves] who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes."
Like the sibling comment remarks, Tolkien never fully embarked on this path.
He had a problem: as a Catholic [1], he thought every creature deserved pity and second chances (you can see this when Gandalf rebukes Frodo when he says "it's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum"). If the Orcs are really "fallen Elves", they deserve pity and maybe mercy; they are worthy of redemption. Yet Orcs in LotR are to be killed on sight; there's only one passage in all of LotR where the Hobbits reflect on the corpse of an Orc with any kind of attempt at insight.
For Orcs to be a thing to be destroyed without mercy, unworthy of redemption, they must have not be corrupted souls. Yet here Tolkien found another stumbling block: according to his Catholic-influenced vision, Evil cannot create, only corrupt and destroy. So Morgoth couldn't have created Orcs, he must have used existing souls as raw material.
Tolkien never resolved this conundrum.
----
[1] someone in another comment argued quite convincingly that Catholics at times had no trouble murdering other Christians over doctrinal affairs, so let's add a qualification here: "Tolkien's Catholic-influenced morality, which was his own nonetheless".
And as this wiki article posted in other comments very nicely explains, Tolkien never came to a good and final conclusion on how this all really worked, with different explanations in different works of his. The "they were just evil force that could be killed without remorse" theme is the dominant one, because it works in the context of the story and the worldbuilding that he did for it.
To me it sounds more like he really wanted to give them some agency and the ability to speak, but then was unable to resolve the moral dilemma that came out of it - with different works suggesting different "solutions" to it. As the Wiki article points out, Tolkien was a devout Christian and part of his world view included beings which were wholy and irredimably evil while still able to speak and reason on some level. When you look at Christian iconography, you don't really have theologians saying "well when you have angels slaying demons, are the demons really evil or are they just misunderstood". That's your orcs. Since Tolkien really cared about world building he wanted to make it fit neatly in the myth of creation but as far as I can tell - he was never able to do it neatly.
> we have a global survailence company that is used to spy on citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
The Palantir are not evil creations in the book iirc. They were used by the great kings to see whatever they wished.
Heck, even in the book Aragorn uses the Palantir to make a critical decision turning the tide of battle.
In the book the Palantir are technically neutral devices for Seeing things, that, it turns out, are inherently prone to misuse and once used for Evil, are incredibly difficult to use in any other way.
A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance technology I've never seen.
> A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance technology I've never seen.
Edit: it just occurred to me that the book describes a kind of filter bubble, too. The Palantir stones are inherently incapable of showing false data. But they became tuned over time to show highly editorialized video clips which supported a specific (Evil) narrative. That (IIRC) included future projections of possible outcomes.
> For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs are actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer by a Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)
I found The Last Ringbearer a book good! Of course it's not in the same league as LotR, it's not engaging in vast myth- and world-building, but it's a well-written, fun book that manages to be engaging. Even knowing it was an alternative take to LotR, I wanted to know what happened!
For everyone who has not read it, it's not simply a "let's retell LotR, only from the perspective of the Orcs". It's a brand new "adventure" so to speak, which shifts the point of view but also describes new events. It starts at the end of the War of the Ring, with Mordor defeated.
are we the baddies?
wink wink
There must be some pretty industrial strength compartmentalising going on.
Palantir, Anduril, Istari, and there's even a home security one called Sauron, you can't make this shit up.
Back in my day, LotR names were used for cool metal bands like Gorgoroth, Amon Amarth, Cirith Ungol, Carach Angren, Burzum, etc.
There is band called Silmarils as well
> Like, no one working there is seeing it?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair (1878 - 1968)
"Because Pharaoh is paying daddy, and we need the money." - Unknown laborer at the Pyramid of Djoser, c. 2660 BC, explaining to his son why he's making a giant pile of rocks in the desert.
This is the most magnificent audio version ever recorded of The Hobbit - by Nicol Williamson in the early 1970's.
Zip file with mp3 in it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2aPKgVVguOKMOOqWskaliOviYr...
Best enjoyed on a rainy afternoon in an armchair with a cup of tea.
Excellent, but my favourite has to be the Rob Inglis recordings (of both The Hobbit and LOTR). The songs are top notch, and his voice is perfect, esp. for the tone of the Hobbit. https://archive.org/details/TheHobbitAudiobook/The+Hobbit/Ch...
> but my favourite has to be the Rob Inglis recordings
Impressive, very nice. Let's see Paul Allen's recording.
Martin Shaw's recording of the Silmarillion is similarly wonderful.
If you’re sitting on an armchair not really doing anything else, why not just read the book?
Reserve audio versions for when you genuinely can’t look at the book because you’re doing something else.
Some people just prefer to listen. I read well and I read quite quickly -- I don't know how many books I've physically read, but it's gotta be in the high hundreds at least -- but over the past ~10 years I've switched primarily to audiobooks. Rather than being something that I enjoy while I'm doing something else, I typically do something mindless with my hands (weave chainmail, cross stitch, sew) in order to give my full attention to the book.
hi loloquwowndueo, i was thinking the same thing, but then I thought why you would prefer reading a book while sitting instead of listening - is it about efficiency and that if you CAN read one should (you use the imperative) read? I also have this view, but when I was young and an avid reader I also enjoyed radio stories immensely as my imagination was also activated. As in the past we were an species with a predominantly oral cultural transmission, arguably more 'embodied', there could be something to say for attending a theatre version in preference of a book. On the other hand, reading often is faster, but it's indirect, you translate the symbols into your imagination yourself, on the upside you perhaps train your mind more. So both have their advantages, one is not necessarily better. I notice I am often looking through a lense of efficiency and then make choices where I loose a certain experience - sitting in the dark listening to someone telling a story instead of reading can be equally wonderful.
Goodness gracious; I remember having a copy of that in my teens. Wonderful.
nice - gandalf meets merlin. do love Nicol Williamson
My favorite recent LotR media:
There is a Lord of the Rings MMO (like World of Warcraft) and a guy made a video recording a walk from the Shire to Mordor. Like you can just walk from the Shire to Mordor in the game. And it's almost 10 hours long in real world time to do that! But on top of that the whole journey is narrated by the Lord of the Rings audio book, with the relevant parts of the journey.
https://youtu.be/LYipECdYpXc
Incredibly relaxing
Oh man, something to watch and listen to in the evenings to come, thank you!
I don't have experience with the LotR Online outside of small clips here and there, but for the past 5 years or so I have been enjoying a bit more retro LotR "mmorpg", a free-to-play MUD that has been in development since 1991 or something: https://mume.org/
In MUME (Multi-Users in Middle Earth) getting from Bree to Mordor by walking won't take you 10 hours, but maybe 10 minutes at most. However, the trip and the destination will be full of dangers, whether it's from pve or pvp side of things.
As a side note, MUME is being developed by volunteers, and I believe the game itself is still ran on some Swiss University servers, where it all began, heh.
A nice, relaxing trip to Mordor.
This is so good. You can tell that Andy Serkis based his gollum voice off of this.
Is there a version minus the music?
People who don't like "On The Road" should listen to Jack read it in his own voice.
Of course he didn't live to see the Peter Jackson movies but I think I've heard his son didn't like them
The Hobbit movies had nothing to do with the books.
The M4 fan edit was quite good.
Sorry, I meant LOTR
Even the LOTR adaptation is questionable. Gandalf kicking Pippin (the exact opposite of what happens in the book), the lack of the scouring of the Shire, and super-Legolas right out of a Marvel movie...
Legolas was kind of super in the books, though. I think Faramir was the worst character assassination in the movies.
I wonder what Tolkien would say of so much of the symbolism from his novels being used to bootstrap a horrible dystopian control grid? Would he approve or disapprove? The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
Tolkien’s orc dialogue in TLOTR is actually very humanised in some ways – the orcs moan about their bosses, complain about rival teams, are concerned about completing their tasks, being punished for failure, etc, etc. When they aren’t fighting, they come across as petty functionaries in a totalitarian state.
> The way that orcs are dehumanized
Orcs aren't human, though. If anything, they were deelfized
Do you mean the palantir or the rings?
I find Tolkein's depictions on his original jacket covers of the Rings of Power and the one ring and the "all seeing eye" that accompanies them quite evocative:
https://imgur.com/CZSNpiS
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/The_Fellowshi...
Why the gap between 1 ring, 3 for elves, 7, and 9?
Perhaps someone had whispered to him that we already have "Five Eyes".
The use of encryption bears much similarity to one of the key functions of the rings... For the one Ring. or the nine, putting on the ring (like encryption) made one hidden to those around you, but ironically made you more, not less visible (cyphertext stands out!) to the maker of the rings.
I'll just leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
That's both a very good description of Tolkien's struggles with orcs, and a writing style that feels out of place in an encyclopedia. The Halls of Mandos are described as a halfway house.
> J. R. R. Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, created what he came to feel was a moral dilemma for himself with his supposedly evil Middle-earth peoples like Orcs [...] so killing them would be wrong without very good reason. Orcs serve as the principal forces of the enemy in The Lord of the Rings, where they are slaughtered in large numbers in the battles of [...]
Admitting that there's a very wide diversity of beliefs under the "Roman Catholic" banner - historic Roman Catholic armies have been eager participants in well-documented battles for the past 1,500 or so years. I'd assume that Tolkien would have had a wide variety of perfectly historic Roman Catholic arguments to chose from, to justify his fictional slaughter.
(If I recall, the orcs slaughtered in LoTR are pretty much all soldier or near-soldiers. Do orc women, children, or other non-combatants ever appear in the story?)
In many ways, that Wikipedia article feels like a Hays Code-era whitewashing of Roman Catholicism.
Your criticism of Catholicism is valid, but regardless: this dilemma of Tolkien is real, and well-documented (e.g. in his letters, etc).
He really did struggle with this, re: the origin of the Orcs, whether they had souls, whether it was ok to default to massacring them without second thought, etc. He never really resolved it.
Most Tolkien fan communities are aware of this dilemma, it's one of those well-known things, along with "did Balrogs have wings?", "couldn't they just fly to Mount Doom and drop the ring?" and "why did Sauron need to put his power within a ring, anyway?".
Yes - I am not saying that JRRT himself was anything less than saintly, or did not struggle with the issue.
My issue is with the Wikipedia article's heavy identification of JRRT's personal dilemma with the Roman Church and its doctrines. Historically, for that Church - one could just assume that the orcs were Protestants, so slaughtering them was perfectly okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
Fascinating thank you. I was only aware of the surface level concern around the orcs.
It's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment. It's hard enough to write dwarves and elves, orcs are a necessary plot device. If you want you can imagine them as pitiable creatures who have been deprived of free will and have no choice but to act the way they do and loath themselves for it.
> It's a fantasy novel written primarily for entertainment
On one hand, you're right.
On the other, it's unfair to Tolkien and to the scholars who study his work. He spent a lot of his life and effort towards developing this world, he deeply pondered the moral implications and theology of his world, and for all his denial of there being any analogies to the real world, you can see he considered them (he did describe modern men in the modern world as "Orc-ish", etc).
All of this to say we cannot just dismiss it as "it's a fantasy novel".
>>The way that orcs are dehumanized you have to wonder.
If anything, it's their portrayal in the Rings of Power that is idiotic(trying to humanize them) - they aren't human, they don't have families or friends or internal lives and psychological doubts going through their heads - they are meant to be a force("force" like in "force of nature") of evil, not a misunderstood and exploited race of intelligent beings.
For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs are actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer by a Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
I will however agree with you that it's truly insane how we have a global survailence company that is used to spy on citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
I've not seen Rings of Power and I don't plan to, but I'd just point out that the Silmarillion describes the origin of orcs as being an exploited race of intelligent beings, elves who were captured and tortured until their forms became what we know as orcs.
"... all those of the Quendi [elves] who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes."
Like the sibling comment remarks, Tolkien never fully embarked on this path.
He had a problem: as a Catholic [1], he thought every creature deserved pity and second chances (you can see this when Gandalf rebukes Frodo when he says "it's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum"). If the Orcs are really "fallen Elves", they deserve pity and maybe mercy; they are worthy of redemption. Yet Orcs in LotR are to be killed on sight; there's only one passage in all of LotR where the Hobbits reflect on the corpse of an Orc with any kind of attempt at insight.
For Orcs to be a thing to be destroyed without mercy, unworthy of redemption, they must have not be corrupted souls. Yet here Tolkien found another stumbling block: according to his Catholic-influenced vision, Evil cannot create, only corrupt and destroy. So Morgoth couldn't have created Orcs, he must have used existing souls as raw material.
Tolkien never resolved this conundrum.
----
[1] someone in another comment argued quite convincingly that Catholics at times had no trouble murdering other Christians over doctrinal affairs, so let's add a qualification here: "Tolkien's Catholic-influenced morality, which was his own nonetheless".
And as this wiki article posted in other comments very nicely explains, Tolkien never came to a good and final conclusion on how this all really worked, with different explanations in different works of his. The "they were just evil force that could be killed without remorse" theme is the dominant one, because it works in the context of the story and the worldbuilding that he did for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
It sounds like Tolkien didn't quite agree with the simplified take that Orcs are "just" a force of evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_moral_dilemma
To me it sounds more like he really wanted to give them some agency and the ability to speak, but then was unable to resolve the moral dilemma that came out of it - with different works suggesting different "solutions" to it. As the Wiki article points out, Tolkien was a devout Christian and part of his world view included beings which were wholy and irredimably evil while still able to speak and reason on some level. When you look at Christian iconography, you don't really have theologians saying "well when you have angels slaying demons, are the demons really evil or are they just misunderstood". That's your orcs. Since Tolkien really cared about world building he wanted to make it fit neatly in the myth of creation but as far as I can tell - he was never able to do it neatly.
> we have a global survailence company that is used to spy on citizens and destroy democracies worldwide that is literally called Palantir. Like, no one working there is seeing it?
The Palantir are not evil creations in the book iirc. They were used by the great kings to see whatever they wished.
Heck, even in the book Aragorn uses the Palantir to make a critical decision turning the tide of battle.
In the book the Palantir are technically neutral devices for Seeing things, that, it turns out, are inherently prone to misuse and once used for Evil, are incredibly difficult to use in any other way.
A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance technology I've never seen.
> A better metaphor (accidental or not) for surveillance technology I've never seen.
"We are easily corrupted"
[1] https://www.westword.com/opinion/opinion-palantir-technologi...
[2] https://www.pogo.org/investigates/stephen-miller-conflicts-o...
Edit: it just occurred to me that the book describes a kind of filter bubble, too. The Palantir stones are inherently incapable of showing false data. But they became tuned over time to show highly editorialized video clips which supported a specific (Evil) narrative. That (IIRC) included future projections of possible outcomes.
> For an actually interesting take on "hey what if the orcs are actually intelligent people" there is The Last Ringbearer by a Russian author, presenting LOTR from the perspective of Mordor(it's not a good book, but was an amusing read)
I found The Last Ringbearer a book good! Of course it's not in the same league as LotR, it's not engaging in vast myth- and world-building, but it's a well-written, fun book that manages to be engaging. Even knowing it was an alternative take to LotR, I wanted to know what happened!
For everyone who has not read it, it's not simply a "let's retell LotR, only from the perspective of the Orcs". It's a brand new "adventure" so to speak, which shifts the point of view but also describes new events. It starts at the end of the War of the Ring, with Mordor defeated.
are we the baddies?
wink wink
There must be some pretty industrial strength compartmentalising going on.
Palantir, Anduril, Istari, and there's even a home security one called Sauron, you can't make this shit up.
Back in my day, LotR names were used for cool metal bands like Gorgoroth, Amon Amarth, Cirith Ungol, Carach Angren, Burzum, etc.
There is band called Silmarils as well
> Like, no one working there is seeing it?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair (1878 - 1968)
"Because Pharaoh is paying daddy, and we need the money." - Unknown laborer at the Pyramid of Djoser, c. 2660 BC, explaining to his son why he's making a giant pile of rocks in the desert.
[dead]