(U18 Spoilers) Lorebreaking in the Epic

[LagunaD2]

The Return of the King says unambiguously says that Horn "fought and fell" in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

Yet, he is alive at the end of the battle, and Gleowine lamely explains that the idealistic Horn he knew before the battle had been changed.

The idea that a bard in a heroic milieu like Middle Earth would falsely include somebody among the names of the fallen due to ... psychological trauma ... is really a slap in the face to the lore, and an offensive projection of modern sensibilities where they don't belong.

Yes, poor Horn was *triggered* by the horrific experience of battle, so let's count him among those who *actually* gave their lives, even though he didn't!

In the warrior ethos of Rohan, a bard who even suggested such a notion would be flogged, drawn, and quartered for dishonoring the memory of the dead, and rightly so...

[Curuer_Bauglir]

I actually liked it because of the curveball factor it introduced into LOTRO, where everyone was expecting Horn to die. Horn is a minor enough character that we don't even meet him in Lord of the Rings, so I have no problem with the writer's adaption of Horn's history. It's not like they kept Theoden alive. Plus, we don't know the rest of the story. It sets up the possibility for Horn to run off with Nona, hence the reason he was proclaimed dead after the battle thanks to Gleowine's song.

[LagunaD2]

The question isn't whether, if you were writing a story ab initio, it would be interesting to foreshadow Horn's death and then have him defy expectations by living.

This story has boundary conditions that are set by Tolkien, and trying to "improve" it by contradicting what Tolkien explicitly wrote is unacceptable in my book.

Death in battle (meaning *real* death in battle) has deep, foundational significance in the culture of the Rohirrim. To knowingly falsify the memory of that, and rationalize it with postmodern psycho-babble, would be sacrilegious and unthinkable.

[KM3161]

Horn was supposed to die in the battle. Tolkien wrote it that way. Turbine rewrote it-probably to keep the Horn/Nona love story going. In my opinion they were wrong. Definitly a lore break since Tolkien included his death in his writing.

"We heard of the horns in the hills ringing,
the swords shining in the South-kingdom,
Steeds went striding to the Stoningland
as wind in the morning. War was kindled.
There Théoden fell, Thengling mighty,
to his golden halls and green pastures
in the Northern fields never returning,
high lord of the host. Harding and Guthláf,
Dúnhere and Déorwine, doughty Grimbold,
Herefara and Herubrand, Horn and Fastred,
fought and fell there in a far country:
in the Mounds of Mundburg under mould they lie
with their league-fellows, lords of Gondor.
Neither Hirluin the Fair to the hills by the sea,
nor Forlong the Old to the flowering vales
ever, to Arnach, to his own country
returned in triumph; nor the tall bowmen,
Derufin and Duilin, to their dark waters,
meres of Morthond under mountain-shadows.
Death in the morning and at day's ending
lords took and lowly. Long now they sleep
under grass in Gondor by the Great River
Grey now as tears, gleaming silver,
red then it rolled, roaring water:
foam dyed with blood flamed at sunset;
as beacons mountains burned at evening;
red fell the dew in Rammas Echor."

[Theozor]

Really?!! What's next, Gollum survives his plunge into Mount Doom?

[Warmutkan]

Kill the bard. Ever since I met him I've been looking forward to someone putting a spear through his skull.

[Lady_Lethargy]

Yeah... I really liked this update's Epic, except for this one thing. I kept waiting for Horn to die, and then I finished the last quest like "What? But... but... It's not over yet. He's not dead. It can't be over."

[The_Warg]

This is a great example of when someone (in this case, Turbine) tries to be clever and really doesn't acknowledge what they've just done.

[infinitewhimsy]

The thousands of Runekeepers shooting fire and lazers from their eyes while riding through Lothlorien on goat alongside thousands of hobbits, while wielding giant flowers and dressed as multicolored clowns and fishermen...or as boxes....with glow in the dark disco cloaks, that was all fine. But this! This is lorebreaking!

[Lady_Lethargy]

The thousands of Runekeepers shooting fire and lazers from their eyes while riding through Lothlorien on goat alongside thousands of hobbits, while wielding giant flowers and dressed as multicolored clowns and fishermen...or as boxes....with glow in the dark disco cloaks, that was all fine. But this! This is lorebreaking!

I must admit, I laughed.
But one breach in the lore (or in this case many) does not justify another.

[Sylvain]

I personally do not think that in the culture of the Rohirrim the disappearance of idealistic motifs and beliefs was not something to write stories and poems about.

I believe the Rohirrim were based on the Anglo-Saxon societies that existed in history. Those societies did write about those motifs. For instance the poem the Wanderer. (http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?d...pe=text&id=wdr).

This poem contains three chief parts.
The poem is about a member of a lord's retinue. During an attack, his lord died, his fellow retinue members died protecting their lord and his family died.

In the first part the man laments for his personal loss of family and possessions. He has no lord left to give him gifts, no wife to love anymore and no children to carry his legacy. The man thinks of going of seeking another lord and building that which he once had again.

In the second part the man is an exile. He knows he cannot pledge his allegiance to a new lord, that he cannot wed another time and that he will never have children again. The exile knows that this must be and is inevitable.

In the third part the exile becomes the Wanderer. He is wise beyond his years and knows that everything, made by men, must come to pass and is thus futile.

The man has witnessed the horrors of war, and acknowledges those horrors, by talking about it in his poem. The poet might at the time have been flogged down and quartered for writing this poem, but Tolkien did think it represented the culture of the Rohirrim. For he took a part of the poem and used it to make his own: "Lament for the Rohirrim".

Where is the horse gone? Where the rider?
Where the giver of treasure?
Where are the seats at the feast?
Where are the revels in the hall?

Does resemble the beginning of the Lament:

Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?

Thus Tolkien might have incorporated more "Psychobabble" into his books then one might think.

[Doronlas]

The question isn't whether, if you were writing a story ab initio, it would be interesting to foreshadow Horn's death and then have him defy expectations by living.

This story has boundary conditions that are set by Tolkien, and trying to "improve" it by contradicting what Tolkien explicitly wrote is unacceptable in my book.

Death in battle (meaning *real* death in battle) has deep, foundational significance in the culture of the Rohirrim. To knowingly falsify the memory of that, and rationalize it with postmodern psycho-babble, would be sacrilegious and unthinkable.

Totally agree. I didn't like the fact that Horn didn't die either. No, I'm not bloodthirsty (lol) but it specifically says he died in the books. Fought AND fell. Apparently if you chose for Halros to stay in the Shire at the beginning of Vol 3, Horn will die in the battle because Halros is not there to save him. I've only heard this, but even if that is the case, I still don't like that Horn lives in one scenario when he was said to have died in the book. I would also guess that the majority of players would choose for Halros to follow Aragorn, as was his duty. I was very disappointed in this 'interpretation' of Horn (and doubt at this point it will be fixed), but I will add my voice to the fact that it didn't sit well with me at all.

[LagunaD2]

Thus Tolkien might have incorporated more "Psychobabble" into his books then one might think.

Themes of LOSS are of course part of heroic epic story-telling.

But that is a far cry from falsifying the names in a poem written to commemorate those who fell in battle. Your poem does not glorify the Wanderer for a death in battle where he didn't actually die.

[LagunaD2]

The thousands of Runekeepers shooting fire and lazers from their eyes while riding through Lothlorien on goat alongside thousands of hobbits, while wielding giant flowers and dressed as multicolored clowns and fishermen...or as boxes....with glow in the dark disco cloaks, that was all fine. But this! This is lorebreaking!

Tolkien never said any of that didn't exist/never happened. It is a case of being very liberal about filling in between the lines, to be sure, particularly the Hobbit diaspora.

But Tolkien does say, very explicitly, that Horn died and was buried on the Pelennor Fields.

[ertr]

Tolkien never said any of that didn't exist/never happened. It is a case of being very liberal about filling in between the lines, to be sure, particularly the Hobbit diaspora.

But Tolkien does say, very explicitly, that Horn died and was buried on the Pelennor Fields.

Does he also say that there was only one person named Horn who fought in the battle of Pelennor? It is not impossible for there to be more than one person with the same name after all.
Are we really sure that the Horn we know of is the same Horn that Tolkien says died on the Pelennor Fields?

[Lady_Lethargy]

Does he also say that there was only one person named Horn who fought in the battle of Pelennor? It is not impossible for there to be more than one person with the same name after all.
Are we really sure that the Horn we know of is the same Horn that Tolkien says died on the Pelennor Fields?

Possible, but a poor excuse IMO.

[Bakenellan]

The thousands of Runekeepers shooting fire and lazers from their eyes while riding through Lothlorien on goat alongside thousands of hobbits, while wielding giant flowers and dressed as multicolored clowns and fishermen...or as boxes....with glow in the dark disco cloaks, that was all fine. But this! This is lorebreaking!

This, i am afraid. The Middle-Earth of LOTRO is not the Middle-Earth of the book (or of the movies). It is close enough for most of us to love but that is it. And the song of the Mounds of Mundburg is not even written yet. Maybe it won't mention Horn as fallen in battle or maybe it was different Horn. Whatever. We almost never encounter scenes depicted in books (though it probably has changed in later updates - I have not played them yet). But when we do, they are never shown exactly as in the book. They are similar, but the act and words said are different. You may check the instance The Fellowship Departs form Book 2 Prologue and compare with the scene from The Ring Goes South.

[mykidstjz]

Actually Horn does die if you chose Halros to stay in the shire....

[mykidstjz]

And also another point is when under the renewal process this was possibly was ok with the Tolkien estate on what areas they can break away from the lore and when they can't.Horn was mentioned in the mounds but no real story was given behind him.People were okay with his father who wasn't mentioned in the book or back stories as part of the game.

[LagunaD2]

And the song of the Mounds of Mundburg is not even written yet.

Regardless, Tolkien has told us what it will say: that Horn fell in the battle and is buried on the field.

And also another point is when under the renewal process this was possibly was ok with the Tolkien estate on what areas they can break away from the lore and when they can't.Horn was mentioned in the mounds but no real story was given behind him.People were okay with his father who wasn't mentioned in the book or back stories as part of the game.

LOL. The Tolkien estate has nothing to do with "the renewal process". The game's license comes from Middle Earth Enterprises, who the Tolkien estate is in a more or less permanent state of litigation against...

I'm pretty sure that the Tolkien estate wouldn't be OK with directly contradicting the book and re-writing the story to accommodate a contrived soap-opera in some video game.

[Lady_Lethargy]

I think a decent solution would be to have Horn kill himself after the battle, since he can't live with the memories.

[Curuer_Bauglir]

I still don't see the issue with this. Horn's death never occurred within the framework narrative of the story. By that I mean his death wasn't explained in detail by Tolkien, the real life author or expositor within the story. It was briefly mentioned in a sub-story of LotR, a sub-story that was written by an unnamed minstrel after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. LOTRO decided to give that minstrel a name (Gleowine) and an explanation as to why he included Horn in the song, despite his survival. Within the LOTRO story, future inhabitants of Middle-earth will still read the Song of the Mounds of Mundburg and assume Horn died on the Pelennor, just as you read the Song of the Mounds of Mundburg and assumed Horn died. Even within Tolkien's works, there are many instances where he himself acknowledges the fact that some legends may or may not be fact. The fate of Ungoliant is one example I can think of off the top of my head. I love the epic storylines within LOTRO. To me, they have provided depth to parts of Middle-earth that the main narrative frame didn't have time to explore. I view Horn's fate as simply more added depth given to one random line in one random poem in a 1000 page story.

[LagunaD2]

It is not appropriate for anybody at Turbine to try to make a liar out of Tolkien (or his characters).

Obviously it is Turbine who have been false to the story as written.

Many significant events in Middle-earth happen "off-camera", such that we read the equivalent of "somebody says ...". Turbine should not "improve" or re-write ANY of these parts of the story, much less take the liberty of directly contradicting what Tolkien wrote (as they have done with Horn).

[Polymachos]

A few weeks ago, I did the battle on the Pelennor with a character who met Horn after the battle, and I thought, Gleowine's explanation for still including him in the song was somewhat weak.

Then I did the epic line with another character, and experienced another end, and I wondered what I had done that with this character, that brought such an outcome about, but I had no idea what it was.

Yesterday when I played the last Bingo episode with this latter character, I saw a woman (what a blast from the past) beside our little hero, that reminded me of this moving moment in the depths of Isengard.

In the morning I still mused about her fate, and tried to remember who it was that ended her misery, then I thought of all the other stories of the rangers, who had done what, and where they had been when I called them to the Grey Host; and suddenly I saw a connection emerge that spanned the whole land of Middle-Earth, from the most idyllic place one can imagine, to the fields of utter destruction.

Was it really that? Something I did way in the past? I rode as fast to the place in the Shire as I could. And dead sure he stood there. I had allowed him to remain, and by doing his, I had doomed another man's fate.


Now I need a moment to stomach this.


Pondering in melancholy, Polymachos

[Ceredig]

The other lore-break inherent in Turbine's scenario is having Gléowine be the author of the 'Song of the Mounds of Mundburg'.

The poem was written 'long after' the battle by an unknown maker.

Gléowine recited Théoden's funeral dirge in the chapter "Many Partings" where it states "he made no other song after".