Stories of Arda - Lord of the Rings Fan-Fiction Archive


	About Us News Resources Login Become a member Help Search

Just Desserts by Lindelea	6 Review(s)
demeter d	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 12/6/2005
More re: Haleth/Hama; Sorry to disillusion you, or something, but Hama did indeed die before he even entered Helm's Deep. I haven't read Two Towers in awhile, but I think it goes something like "killed before the gates, and his body hewn after he was dead". Theoden adds Hama's loss to the list of grievances that he lays at Saruman's feet as he and the others stand at the bottom of the steps of Orthanc after the battle. Sadly, yes, killed by Orcs before the battle of Helm's Deep, although probably not quite like the movie. Have enjoyed your story! Author Reply: O yes, now, that does ring a faint bell in the back of my mind. Haven't read Two Towers in a long time, and really need to revisit the Original. I just remember seeing the movie and being disappointed at the way Hama died (as opposed to how the book went--but it's so long ago I now don't remember how the book went!). It's on the nightstand next to my bed. Just have to get some required RL reading out of the way first... Whew. Thanks!

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 10/24/2005
Continuity. It can be such a bear. The more stories one writes in the same "universe" the more chances one has to mess up. I think you do a remarkable job on the score of continuity--and considering the complexity of plots and the number of your stories it is amazing how well it all holds together. I know how hard it is. And how many times I've had to go in and edit older stories to make them fit newer ones myself, LOL! Author Reply: I know that you know how hard it is! And you do a wonderful job! It is lots of fun to read a story and hear a tantalising reference to something and wonder if there is a story behind it and find out that there is!

Bodkin	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 10/15/2005
I wonder if Edicts, like the Constitution, could be subject to amendments. And, if reason dictated that amendments would be sensible, just what amendments might be implemented? And who would negotiate just what they were? Was the Edict initially issued without consultation with the hobbits? (The number of times I type bobbits and have to go back and correct it!) Might the Counsellors of the North Kingdom actually request some relaxation of its rigidity? Who better to get the king to adapt it - and their reasons would have far more force on Aragorn than any whingeing from the men of Bree or wherever. Author Reply: Well it just might be that the edict is about to get renegotiated. Wouldn't you think so? It's not on SoA, but in "LifeWatch" I postulated the possible seed that grew into the Shire-ban for Men as the result of a conversation between Merry and King Eomer, I think.

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 10/13/2005
Just thought I would comment on your idea of using history as a precedent for the strict interpretation of the law, and of its penalties. It's one used often by writers, and is a perfectly legitimate way to fill in gaps left unanswered by canon. I've seen it used to remarkable effect in a number of stories, including yours. It's quite true that the death penalty was usually passed summarily, and carried out the same way, and often for crimes that we nowadays would consider misdemeanors. Another penalty, and a more common one, was servitude, and a criminal might find himself and possibly his family losing their status as freemen. Somewhat later on, in the colonial age, transport and hard labor were more often used. Among early Saxon societies, there was an elaborate system of fines, which would be paid off in coin or in a term of servitude--that's what I'm basing my ideas of justice in Rohan on. My own take on Gondor and Arnor though is slightly different: Aragorn was a Dunadan, heir of lost Numenor. It was a more advanced society than that of Middle-earth--we know, for example, that the medicine of Gondor remained far in advance of that practiced elsewhere, due to its Numenorean roots. He was heir to that tradition, which I think would have been more enlightened than that of lesser civilizations around him. I think that would have changed if the King had not returned--Denethor clearly was well along the road to becoming a despot, if not a tyrant, and tyrannies are anything but enlightened. Anyhoo, this really is just me blathering on, because I'm finding your story fascinating, and I like to blather on about hobbits, and Middle-earth in general. Author Reply: O I am being persnickety indeed... someone is definitely overzealous, and the angst is heaping high. Perhaps there is an assistant steward who in the steward's absence is trying to make his mark. (The steward is a Dunedan, but I can't imagine one of them being so hasty... unless perhaps he takes the protection of the Shire very seriously. Hmmm. Might work.) Don't know quite yet, it's not quite working but we're in the fourth revision now so I'm sure we'll muddle through somehow. Of course, there is precedent in canon for the death penalty or I wouldn't make such liberal use of it. I did suggest that certain crimes resulted in fines or confiscation of property. Dereliction to duty, at least among guardsmen, can result in flogging. I am (only) imagining here that a hanging offence would result in seizure of property as well... it seemed logical to me. There aren't a lot of hanging offences in my version of M-e: murder, mayhem, breaking an edict of the King (somehow I don't think Elessar issued a whole bunch of these. It's possible that there were lesser edicts, with lesser penalties attached. Haven't given it oodles of thought). Now I know in historical England, cut-purses and pick-pockets could lose a hand (at least I think I remember that), but I also remember reading in Dickens' "Oliver Twist" that Fagin was hanged--was he a murderer or was it for something else? And I think the Dodger was hanged, too, or threatened with it. I don't remember why. Do you think that the death penalty for Beregond's crime was a relatively recent innovation, or something that came from Numenor? (But Elessar said "of old death was the penalty", when I think more deeply on it.) As for names... might you have a few more to spare? I am certainly appreciating all you've given me thus far, but I need, yet, to name the Steward of the northern Kingdom and Turambor's sons... And why are there so many darned guardsmen in this piece??? (And the executioner, I had to give him a name too. sigh. And the healer. Sheesh, how about a cast of thousands?)

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 10/10/2005
I think each of us makes her/his own interpretation of the edict. Personally, I simply think that JRRT did not think through all the implications of it. Generally speaking, it would have stifled trade, and as has been pointed out, often caused more problems than it solved. However, it's canon, and those of us who respect canon, have to find our own ways through the mine-field along with a number of other quirky things--such as six or seven meals a day, the need for seven witnesses and red ink for legal documents, the fact that neither Sam nor Fatty Bolger had ever been in Buckland before the Conspiracy, the distance between the Shire and Bree, or Buckland, Tookland and Hobbiton, the age gap between Frodo and his cousins, Sam inexplicably forgetting Frodo's anniversary illnesses, and any number of other inconveniences. People do sometimes ignore these roadblocks, but it is often to the detriment of the story, and will automatically render it AU. My own take on the edict is that yes, Elessar binds himself to it, but I allow him to have given the hobbits some leeway--by the agreement of the three most eminent people of the Shire, the Thain, Master and Mayor, exceptions can be made. Having looked at what it says in the Tale of Years, there are no specifics on the edict other than just the general ban. So I feel we are able to make up our own minds about the apecifics and the penalties. I have seen some, where the Thain may give permission, or where the edict may be lifted for some reason or other. Nothing in canon says this cannot have happened. I have not addressed what the punishment would be. I am not so certain that I would go with the death penalty myself. It would give me too many problems. (I don't mean ethically, I mean plot-wise.) You have chosen to give a very strict penalty, and have given yourself a real challenge to overcome. It is a tribute to your own ingenuity that you have been able to work all these challenges out. In "All that Glisters" and in "As Falls the Gentle Rain", you have addressed the legal problems brilliantly, and I have every confidence that you will do so again in this story. Author Reply: I think you're right about that. Sometimes I write stories without thinking through all the implications... not so often as I used to. Justice could be pretty harsh in olden times. The dc and I were just discussing the other day that the lenient rulers seemed to be the ones who were most easily deposed... Don't know if that's a rule of thumb, but we keep coming up against it in history. A "good" king, loved by the people, ends up getting replaced where a ruthless ruler seems to go on and on like the Energizer bunny (unless he was crazy, in which case he might be murdered or suffer a mysterious death). I can see Elessar as strict but fair. Certainly the penalties are severe, but they fit the sociology of the time back when "punishment" was the name of the game rather than "rehabilitation". As a matter of fact, the justice I've thought out for the Shire is rehabilitative in nature, and only those who are thought of as incorrigible are cast out, when it appears that they cannot be rehabilitated or their actions/attitude comprise a threat to other hobbits. Thank you for the vote of confidence! I certainly hope I can make it through the legal quagmire in this story and safely to the other side...

Bodkin	Reviewed Chapter: Author's Notes on 10/10/2005
Men are not to enter the Shire It's too absolute a rule, isn't it? And there are too many perfectly justifiable reasons that you can think of when the rule would be more of a hindrance than a help. And then you think - it's apartheid. Imposed for the best of reasons, but still apartheid. He is removing the choice from the people who live in the Shire. And you're right - there's the road. Surely it can't have been used only by dwarves and elves - it would have fallen into disrepair and the trade of those who depended on the travellers would have collapsed. Surely a system of visas of something would have worked better. Permission from Rangers supervised by the Borderers. One of those things that sounds a good idea. Like Elwing in her White Tower. Until you really begin to think about the ripples in the pond. (I love your note sections. So informative.) Author Reply: Thanks for the feedback. Makes me wonder... JRRT was born in Africa, wasn't he? Or am I mixing him up with another author? I have heard the Edict compared to Apartheid before. I wonder what JRRT thought of Apartheid, or if he saw any kind of analogous relationship between the edict and the situation in South Africa. I wonder if JRRT thought it through--did the Edict lead to the decline of ths Shire? Or was the Edict lifted at a later time, which mention didn't make it into the Tale of Years? What about the Road? One author I know wrote it as a sort of "easement" where Men could travel through the Shire on the Road but couldn't stray from the path, so to speak. I suppose that would mean they'd have access to inns along the way, for to travel all the way across the Shire would take more than a day... But I have gone for a strict interpretation here, where Men must stop at the borders. Pippin, while seeing the good in the Edict (I remember in "Rope" and again in "Merlin" he is meticulous in the enforcement, considering the King's request to allow Men at specific times for specific events and no more than that) might wish to stretch the rules somewhat, as was done for Bergil. Or perhaps he's concerned about the impact on the businesses along the Road. It has been nearly 20 years since the Edict was proclaimed... ...but how much Manly traffic was there in earlier times? What business would Men have had at the Grey Havens, I wonder, especially after the North-kingdom fell? Seems to me that Men of the North were either fugitives or gathered in small enclaves against the surrounding darkness. (Bree, the villages of the Dunedain, Dale, to name a few) ...just a few thorny issues that have raised themselves up as I was thinking this story through. So does stretching the rules begin the eventual failure of the Shire? Or was it the isolation that doomed the Shire-folk to diminishing and furtiveness? I would so love to see the Professor's take on this.

Return to Chapter List