We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Evil Ents

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    3,973

    Question Evil Ents

    The books & the game point on several times that some ents got angry cause the dammage they received & their hearts got rotten. Can someone point when this started?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    This is part of the plot of the two towers, the tree became twisted and hostile but "Evil ents" weren't mentioned its just made-up by Turbine.

    Ents are tree-sheppards, the trees got hostile to anything like humans,orcs, dwarves, etc. The ents controlled them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    3,973
    Not correct. The ents going berseker by Orthanc tower, is described on the book, also they were mad, not evil at that moment. But Tom Bombaldil told the hobbits that he was keeping an eye on the old willow tree cause his heart have turned rotten & he was doing mischiefs. Also, the ent of Fangorn told the hobbits that the huorns where sleeping ents & there were good huorns but some huorn hearts have gotten rotten. So knowing that some ents have gotten evil, i just want to know when it started.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    The ents going berseker by Orthanc tower, is described on the book, also they were mad, not evil at that moment.
    Right, no evil ents..
    But Tom Bombaldil told the hobbits that he was keeping an eye on the old willow tree cause his heart have turned rotten & he was doing mischiefs.
    Wrong Old willow is a Evil tree not an ent.

    Also, the ent of Fangorn told the hobbits that the huorns where sleeping ents & there were good huorns but some huorn hearts have gotten rotten. So knowing that some ents have gotten evil, i just want to know when it started.
    Huorns are like Moving trees, Evil Ents were made by Turbine, there isn't evil ents anywhere in Tolkien works, get your facts right.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    3,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    ...get your facts right.
    I do get the facts = right. All that i said is on the books. Now going back to the theme... Do someone know the earliest the book cite that those ents heart started to root? Because i found where it said that they was already rotten but not when it started. I just cant find if it happened by Melkor actions, Sauron actions or they got corrupted by themself & if it happen before or after the first born arrived.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    I do get the facts = right. All that i said is on the books. Now going back to the theme... Do someone know the earliest the book cite that those ents heart started to root? Because i found where it said that they was already rotten but not when it started. I just cant find if it happened by Melkor actions, Sauron actions or they got corrupted by themself & if it happen before or after the first born arrived.
    Look, here is the proof.

    Treebeard is talking about talking trees, not Ents. The Old Forest is supposed to have no Ents, only Huorns and "treeish ents" Same thing in the deeper, darker glens of Fangorn, they are not composed of rotten Ents, but of rotten trees. (with rotten heart, that is)

    Trees can become "Entish" (Huorns), and Ents can become "treeish" (Finglas, Fladrif), but they do not become the same thing by the process.

    Old man Willow is a tree gone bad. Possibly a Huorn.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    3,973
    Thats what im trying to find, why & when they gone bad. By the way:
    Huorns : Trees under the command of the Ents . Apparently a form of Ent that had lapsed into an almost complete tree-like existence.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    Thats what im trying to find, why & when they gone bad. By the way:
    Huorns : Trees under the command of the Ents . Apparently a form of Ent that had lapsed into an almost complete tree-like existence.
    Hourns =/=ents

    Just accept it. http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Ents

    treeish=/=tree

    Im gonna try editting that source because its clearly wrong in context.
    Last edited by Al.; Oct 08 2013 at 06:55 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Middle Earth, Arda
    Posts
    3,973
    Oh never mind we all can breeth. I just found the answer of when & how the ents started to gone bad. Thanks to all those that tried to find the answer with me :
    Trolls : Hulking monsters of the dark Lumbering evil creatures originated by Melkor. Their origins are mysterious: the only clear statement on the matter is Treebeard's suggestion that they were made by the Dark Lord to resemble Ents. That claim is certainly false (Melkor had no power to create thinking beings of his own) but it seems possible that the first Trolls were twisted and corrupted Ents1.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by YamydeAragon View Post
    Oh never mind we all can breeth. I just found the answer of when & how the ents started to gone bad. Thanks to all those that tried to find the answer with me :
    Trolls : Hulking monsters of the dark Lumbering evil creatures originated by Melkor. Their origins are mysterious: the only clear statement on the matter is Treebeard's suggestion that they were made by the Dark Lord to resemble Ents. That claim is certainly false (Melkor had no power to create thinking beings of his own) but it seems possible that the first Trolls were twisted and corrupted Ents1.

    Yes thats logically pausible. Trolls were first "twisted Ents", but later on they became mockeries of ents because sun-light doesn't affect Ents just trolls, maybe the first trolls were immune to sunlight and were treeish.


    Treebeard was right Trolls are mockeries of Ents at least in the Third Age.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Yes thats logically pausible. Trolls were first "twisted Ents"
    Quote, please.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Quote, please.
    This is indirectly implied by this quote:
    "Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves."
    (The Two Towers, p. 89)
    Also YamydeAragon is wrong about Huorns:
    http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Huorns

    Huorns have voices of their own, but are hearded by Ents, in a way they are "talking trees" which is derived from their name in Quenya:
    Hu-Voice, Orn-Tree

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    This is indirectly implied by this quote:
    Thought so... you're reading too much into that; you shouldn't try to tell people that like it's definite - it's an extreme interpretation, one that's not substantiated elsewhere. The thing is that Trolls (like Dwarves) have provenance outside Tolkien's work, from Norse folk-tales - that's where the idea of them having a stone-hard hide that turns blades and them turning into stone in sunlight comes from. There's never anything in the least 'Entish' about them. They're cheap imitations, the nearest Melkor could get - and not all that close, as they were nowhere near as strong.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Thought so... you're reading too much into that; you shouldn't try to tell people that like it's definite - it's an extreme interpretation, one that's not substantiated elsewhere. The thing is that Trolls (like Dwarves) have provenance outside Tolkien's work, from Norse folk-tales - that's where the idea of them having a stone-hard hide that turns blades and them turning into stone in sunlight comes from. There's never anything in the least 'Entish' about them. They're cheap imitations, the nearest Melkor could get - and not all that close, as they were nowhere near as strong.
    Look, just as Orcs they are imitations/mockery of the orginal, but Tolkien gave origins for mostly everything that is why Trolls like or not resemble Ents in size and other things.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Look, just as Orcs they are imitations/mockery of the orginal, but Tolkien gave origins for mostly everything that is why Trolls like or not resemble Ents in size and other things.
    You said that Trolls were "twisted Ents" rather than simply something made to crudely approximate them. And no, Tolkien doesn't always provide an origin for things. He didn't say where dragons came from, either.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    You said that Trolls were "twisted Ents" rather than simply something made to crudely approximate them. And no, Tolkien doesn't always provide an origin for things. He didn't say where dragons came from, either.
    I gave you a quote, that says Trolls were made same way as Orcs from Elves. Thats proof enough.

    So maybe you don't like "twisted ents" but that is what Tolkien intended.

    Dragons were made by Melkor by smith mastery:
    In The Silmarillion the dragons that came against Gondolin were 'of the brood of Glaurung', which 'were become now many and terrible'; whereas in the tale the language employed suggests that some at least of the 'Monsters' were inanimate 'devices', the construction of smiths in the forges of Angband. But even the 'things of iron' that 'opened about their middles' to disgorge bands of Orcs are called 'ruthless beasts', and Gothmog'bade' them 'pile themselves'; those made of bronze or copper 'were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire'; while the 'fire-drake' that Tuor hewed screamed and lashed with its tail
    Christopher Tolkien
    Last edited by Al.; Oct 09 2013 at 05:28 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    I gave you a quote, that says Trolls were made same way as Orcs from Elves. Thats proof enough.
    Except it doesn't actually say that; you're insisting on something that isn't borne out elsewhere, either, as it's apparent that Trolls were not made of the same stuff as Ents. As I already pointed out, Tolkien didn't invent the idea of Trolls nor their supposed quirks (such as being turned to stone by sunlight), he was simply recycling traditional stuff from folk-tales.

    Dragons were made by Melkor by smith mastery:
    Are you thinking of the brazen serpents in The Fall of Gondolin?

    Edit: ah yes, I see you were. Sorry, but no - TFoG was the first such tale Tolkien wrote, and details like that don't appear in any of the later tales. That's the reason the original TFoG didn't appear in the published Sil.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Except it doesn't actually say that; you're insisting on something that isn't borne out elsewhere, either, as it's apparent that Trolls were not made of the same stuff as Ents. As I already pointed out, Tolkien didn't invent the idea of Trolls nor their supposed quirks (such as being turned to stone by sunlight), he was simply recycling traditional stuff from folk-tales.
    Trolls were the counterfeits of Ents, as Orcs from Elves.
    "twisted and tortured elves became orcs"-Silmarillion So, No you are wrong. Troills are "twisted ents" for all we know, unless you give a quote saying otherwise.

    Are you thinking of the brazen serpents in The Fall of Gondolin?

    Edit: ah yes, I see you were. Sorry, but no - TFoG was the first such tale Tolkien wrote, and details like that don't appear in any of the later tales. That's the reason the original TFoG didn't appear in the published Sil.
    Yet Christopher Tolkien, son of Tolkien who also recompiled the Silmarillion in latest edition says dragons are mere "machines" with hearts ala frankestein monster.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Yet Christopher Tolkien, son of Tolkien who also recompiled the Silmarillion in latest edition says dragons are mere "machines" with hearts ala frankestein monster.
    In a way that's a good description. Dragons are a perversion of a lifeform since as we know Melkor never could create something truly original. So from a point of view they are more biological constructs made alive by an evil spirit. Note the Glaurung interactions with Hurin and Nienor. The "evil spirit" in the dragon is quite directly implied.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Trolls were the counterfeits of Ents, as Orcs from Elves.
    "twisted and tortured elves became orcs"-Silmarillion So, No you are wrong. Troills are "twisted ents" for all we know, unless you give a quote saying otherwise.
    That's Orcs, not Trolls. You won't find anything in the Sil that suggested Melkor captured any Ents so no, you're just leaping to a mistaken conclusion. Let's see you explain why your "twisted Ents" turn to stone in sunlight when they weren't made of stone to start with. In one of his letters Tolkien suggested they were "stone inhabited by goblin-spirit" - not something he ran with, instead leaving the origin of Trolls somewhat mysterious as I said (too much explanation can be a bad thing, in fantasy). Trolls having been made in mockery of Ents doesn't require them to have been made from Ents, and they're plainly not - Trolls were made from stone, and to stone they returned.

    Yet Christopher Tolkien, son of Tolkien who also recompiled the Silmarillion in latest edition says dragons are mere "machines" with hearts ala frankestein monster.
    Context: in that quote you posted earlier he's referring to TFoG as it was - Tolkien never wrote a complete 'updated' version of that like he did most things so the only full version remains as it was when he first wrote it, in 1917 (!), when he was recovering from the illness he came down with while he was on the Western Front. That story contains details that are absent later, like some of the metal serpents that 'Melko' (as he was originally called) had constructed carried Orcs inside them. Now we can readily guess what had inspired that (tanks) but that sort of thing represents Tolkien's early ideas, not what his work matured into. The metal serpents go away and are entirely replaced by 'conventional' dragons, which are flesh and blood - when Glaurung first appears in the Sil he's 'young and scarce half-grown'. And indeed, in that quote you posted it says this:

    In The Silmarillion the dragons that came against Gondolin were 'of the brood of Glaurung', which 'were become now many and terrible'; whereas in the tale the language employed suggests that some at least of the 'Monsters' were inanimate 'devices', the construction of smiths in the forges of Angband.

    So in the published Sil what attacks Gondolin is dragons (and Orcs, and Trolls, and Balrogs), whereas (see that word in the middle of that sentence?) TFoG ('the tale') has some of the monsters being 'devices'.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Egorvlad View Post
    In a way that's a good description. Dragons are a perversion of a lifeform since as we know Melkor never could create something truly original. So from a point of view they are more biological constructs made alive by an evil spirit. Note the Glaurung interactions with Hurin and Nienor. The "evil spirit" in the dragon is quite directly implied.
    Well said ergovlad, that is exactly as I thought, had a problem explaining it.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Well said ergovlad, that is exactly as I thought, had a problem explaining it.
    There's no particular reason to imagine dragons being a 'construct'. Far in the past, Melkor's malign influence had led to beasts turning into all manner of 'monsters of horn and ivory' that 'dyed the earth with blood'* (Tolkien's version of the more dramatically fearsome prehistoric beasties. one assumes, the sort that come with great big claws and teeth and so on). It'd only require Melkor to take some suitable example of such a beast and do the same sort of trick on it that led to other monsters like Draugluin and Carcharoth (huge and terrible beasts with an evil spirit bound within them) and hey presto, what would have otherwise been, say, something like a cold-drake would become something new: Glaurung, Father of Dragons (much as Draugluin was the sire of the werewolves).


    *The Silmarillion, 'Of the Beginning of Days'

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    There's no particular reason to imagine dragons being a 'construct'. Far in the past, Melkor's malign influence had led to beasts turning into all manner of 'monsters of horn and ivory' that 'dyed the earth with blood'* (Tolkien's version of the more dramatically fearsome prehistoric beasties. one assumes, the sort that come with great big claws and teeth and so on). It'd only require Melkor to take some suitable example of such a beast and do the same sort of trick on it that led to other monsters like Draugluin and Carcharoth (huge and terrible beasts with an evil spirit bound within them) and hey presto, what would have otherwise been, say, something like a cold-drake would become something new: Glaurung, Father of Dragons (much as Draugluin was the sire of the werewolves).

    *The Silmarillion, 'Of the Beginning of Days'
    Correct, dragons were perverted "inventions" using livings things and putting evil spirits in them.

    Althought I think Glaurung was a pervertion of a long-worm, the winged kind were a sub-species of Glaurug.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    There's no particular reason to imagine dragons being a 'construct'. Far in the past, Melkor's malign influence had led to beasts turning into all manner of 'monsters of horn and ivory' that 'dyed the earth with blood'* (Tolkien's version of the more dramatically fearsome prehistoric beasties. one assumes, the sort that come with great big claws and teeth and so on). It'd only require Melkor to take some suitable example of such a beast and do the same sort of trick on it that led to other monsters like Draugluin and Carcharoth (huge and terrible beasts with an evil spirit bound within them) and hey presto, what would have otherwise been, say, something like a cold-drake would become something new: Glaurung, Father of Dragons (much as Draugluin was the sire of the werewolves).


    *The Silmarillion, 'Of the Beginning of Days'
    Quite right about Melkor mutating animals into all sorts of monsters. But there is a connection between both ideas.

    Dragons (and some other rare individuals like Carcharoth) are just far more intelligent and powerful than regular run-of-the-mill monstrosities. This along with the "evil spirit" theory expressly present with Glaurung and Carcharoth sets them somewhat apart.Actually I believe the idea of the spirit of Morgoth inhabiting Glaurung hailed from the same early principle of animated automaton dragons in the Fall of Gondolin. Tolkien just gradually removed the literal "Machines" from the crafts of the Enemy leaving the core idea intact.
    Last edited by Egorvlad; Oct 11 2013 at 05:48 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    5,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Egorvlad View Post
    Quite right about Melkor mutating animals into all sorts of monsters. But there is a connection between both ideas.

    Dragons (and some other rare individuals like Carcharoth) are just far more intelligent and powerful than regular run-of-the-mill monstrosities. This along with the "evil spirit" theory expressly present with Glaurung and Carcharoth sets them somewhat apart.Actually I believe the idea of the spirit of Morgoth inhabiting Glaurung hailed from the same early principle of animated automaton dragons in the Fall of Gondolin. Tolkien just gradually removed the literal "Machines" from the crafts of the Enemy leaving the core idea intact.
    I'm not convinced by that at all, because there was nothing mechanistic in Carcharoth's creation is described - it's straightforward fantasy, that Morgoth took a wolf-pup, fed it 'living flesh' with his own hand, and worked his will on it until there was this evil beast that sprawled 'huge and hungry' before his throne... and then to top it all, it became filled with a hellish 'devouring spirit'. The process of Glaurung's creation could, by extension, be imagined to be similar - just with a rather different starting point. Dragons are also implied to have been based on some living creature by how they could have offspring - the later dragons were said to be Glaurung's brood. I think Tolkien simply moved away entirely from the early notion of mechanism in Morgoth's creations - he was, after all, aiming for the feel of Northern European myth and legend, which has a particular character.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload