forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Glorelendil wrote:No idea if this conflicts with any canon, but I like to think of giants as lesser Maia servants of one of the Valar (Aulë or Tulkas?) and not particularly concerned with the doings of elves or mortals. Sort of like the Eagles, but across a broader range of "goodness" (for lack of a better word).

I don't know of any reference that would place the giants among the Ainur (I might be wrong, but I think that there were Ainur that were not counted as either Valar or Maiar). I also think that we should not rule out the possibility that they had origins with the Ainur or incarnated spirits of nature.

Otaku-sempai wrote: I don't know of any reference that would place the giants among the Ainur (I might be wrong, but I think that there were Ainur that were not counted as either Valar or Maiar). I also think that we should not rule out the possibility that they had origins with the Ainur or incarnated spirits of nature.

Yeah, exactly. This gets back to the additive vs. subtractive difference in philosophy: I don't need evidence they are Ainur, as long as there's no specific evidence that they are not.

Others may draw a harder line.

Running around now so I don't have a link, but doing some research on the issue yesterday lead to an essay from Michael Martinez about Giants. I don't always agree with Mr. Martinez, but in this case I do agree with his summation, paraphrased thusly: "If you accept Tom Bombadil, you have to accept there being all kinds of other weird stuff in Middle-earth too."

Glorelendil wrote:

Otaku-sempai wrote: I don't know of any reference that would place the giants among the Ainur (I might be wrong, but I think that there were Ainur that were not counted as either Valar or Maiar). I also think that we should not rule out the possibility that they had origins with the Ainur or incarnated spirits of nature.

Yeah, exactly. This gets back to the additive vs. subtractive difference in philosophy: I don't need evidence they are Ainur, as long as there's no specific evidence that they are not.

Others may draw a harder line.

My line is softer. I consider Tolkien's work to be a combination of imperfect historical records and legends that are generally true but not 100% accurate.