4 ms·
It's admittedly in a different part of the book, so may be linguistic styling rather than lore-indicative, but the Old Forest felt more "wild" than "evil." In
by ethbr0 4y ago
It's admittedly in a different part of the book, so may be linguistic styling rather than lore-indicative, but the Old Forest felt more "wild" than "evil."
In the Old Forest, there were certainly dangers, including some lethal ones, but loosely organized and operating independently. More druidic.
Whereas Sauron / Morgoth were far more hierarchical in structuring their domains, exerted dominion over their forces, and attempted to implement a master plan.
- snowwrestler 4y agoThe forests are selfish and harsh to outsiders but wish merely to sit and be left alone. The evil of Sauron and Saruman is their wish to spread and dominate (which puts Saruman in direct conflict with the forest, to his loss).
- tsegratis 4y agoThe old forest to me was always the Ent wives gone wild
- jrumbut 4y agoIt's possible to have a disorganized evil! Maybe I just like a secret villain. I always assumed a component of the forest was a way to keep Hobbits at home and home with the Hobbits.
- ethbr0 4y agoDefinitely #iRestockYaoiInTheBibleSection #chaoticEvil
- WJW 4y agoInteresting, because I've always seen the hobbits as being so insular that they wouldn't need any conspiracy forest to keep them inside the Shire: it was such a paradise (and most hobbits so "boring") that nobody felt any desire to venture outside. Bilbo and Frodo were very much viewed with suspicion for their world-wandering ways, after all.
- jrumbut 4y agoThe surrounding dangers are the mechanism for preserving the coziness and insulation. That's my view anyway!