Ping: Group. A Newbie thinks of a question (which jus won't leav him), and seeks help.
starm...@hotmail.com
me since i read the books (12 years ago), and saw the films (we all know
when they were showing). The question is, if only Frodo (seemingly
uncorrupted since he's a hobbit) can touch the ring, why can't the giant
eagles just pick him up (while he holds the ring) and fly him to Mt. Doom so
he can drop bloody thing in the volcano?
Very interested to know.
Michael O'Neill
Ruins the plot utterly. Think not? Read on...
The alternate history centres on how 100 years later the Corsairs of
Umbar, together with the Orcs of Mordor and following plans laid by
Saruman overrun an unprepared Gondor, undefended by the spirits from the
Paths of the Dead.
Gondor has no King or heir because Gandalf left after the Ring was
destroyed because his task was accomplished and Aragorn was murdered
stealthily by Boromir following his father's and Saruman's orders.
Rohan was destroyed by Saruman's forces because Gandalf was not there to
rally the troops and Gondor was besieged from West South and East.
Lothlórien was destroyed by the Balrog who eventually got tired or Orc
and was undefended by Galadriel who left with Gandalf. He takes up throne
in Dol Guldur and Mirkwood becomes Ash Plain after a stray spark engulfs
it with fire.
The de-housed Mirkwood Spiders and Northern Orcs destroy the Lonely
Mountain and the Wood-Elves and all settlements of Men in between.
I have allowed 100 years for new alliances to form and for Saruman to
learn to wield his new Rings of power.
Sauron's spirit and the spirits of the Nazgul are now his to control
through the new rings he gave them, and through his magicks, or so he
thinks...
Yet just like s stealth program, Sauron's spirit gains the ascendant in
their relationship and Saruman rises in his image, completing the tasks
Sauron set himself so many years before.
Manwe, seeing all this from Taniquetil, the failure of the Line of Elros
is ignominy, the flight, enslavement or death of the Elder Children, the
ruination of the Dwarves and the dominion of Evil Men once more cries out
to Eru.
Eru free Morgoth and Manwe's son Eonwe, borrowing all the Gods powers,
acts as their avatar and battles him for dominion. This breaks the world,
which passes away, and Eru makes Arda Unmarred, a boring place where
nothing much happens.
The end.
M.
Phlip
> Now, I've come here for a serious answer to a question that has been
> bugging
> me since i read the books (12 years ago), and saw the films (we all know
> when they were showing). The question is, if only Frodo (seemingly
> uncorrupted since he's a hobbit) can touch the ring, why can't the giant
> eagles just pick him up (while he holds the ring) and fly him to Mt. Doom
> so
> he can drop bloody thing in the volcano?
Then the Eagle says, "Hey halfling! What's that thing in your hand? Oooh, it
looks shiiiiny..!"
--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
Derek Broughton
First, because it would have made the story much too short an
uninteresting :-)
Story internally, though, I suspect it would be an unacceptable interference
by Eru in the destiny of the peoples of Middle Earth. Of course, there's
many an argument to be made that the Eagles - as emissaries of Eru -
_continually_ interfere with destiny, and Gandalf's resurrection is an
interference, too.
--
derek
Taemon
> Very interested to know.
Hoo boy. You just openend up another flame war. You could have checked
the FAQ, you know.
Thing is, there isn't really a satisfying answer, at least, for me
there isn't. My own secret theory (which will cost me, admitting it
here!) is that Tolkien simply never thought of the possibility. Or he
would someone have it brought up on the Council. There are some
practical problems (stealth, ringlust of eagles) but considering the
alternative I've always thought them meagre.
Welcome to the group!
T.
Bran Mak Muffin
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
<snip>
> There are some
> practical problems (stealth, ringlust of eagles) but considering the
> alternative I've always thought them meagre.
"Stealth" (specifically lack thereof) is the best answer in my book.
"Eagle ringlust" chaps my rear.
Bran Mak Muffin
13:51:11 GMT, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
<snip>
> Gondor has no King or heir because Gandalf left after the Ring was
> destroyed because his task was accomplished and Aragorn was murdered
> stealthily by Boromir following his father's and Saruman's orders.
This is the weakest part of this scenario. I find it hard to accept on
faith that Boromir could have killed Aragorn, stealthily or otherwise.
> Rohan was destroyed by Saruman's forces because Gandalf was not there
> to rally the troops and Gondor was besieged from West South and East.
<snip>
> I have allowed 100 years for new alliances to form and for Saruman to
> learn to wield his new Rings of power.
> Sauron's spirit and the spirits of the Nazgul are now his to control
> through the new rings he gave them, and through his magicks, or so he
> thinks...
<snip>
So your assertion is that if the Ring had been destroyed before Gandalf
neutered Saruman, Saruman would have become more powerful on an absolute
scale rather than simply on a relative scale (by moving up the Middle Earth
Power-o-Meter after Sauron's weakening)?
Phlip
> This is the weakest part of this scenario. I find it hard to accept on
> faith that Boromir could have killed Aragorn, stealthily or otherwise.
Regardless, Aragorn couldn't have claimed the Throne of Gondor without
saving its ass through three large battles. So his actual fate is less
relevant.
> So your assertion is that if the Ring had been destroyed before Gandalf
> neutered Saruman, Saruman would have become more powerful on an absolute
> scale rather than simply on a relative scale (by moving up the Middle
> Earth
> Power-o-Meter after Sauron's weakening)?
Recall the early morning scene on Mindolluin, where Gandalf pointed a White
Tree out to Aragorn.
Before the dawn of the Dominion of Men, Middle-earth contained potentates
who are natively immortal. That means they can maintain the same kinds of
eternal political alliances that human dynasties pretend to maintain via
primogeniture.
Even if Saruman weren't more powerful than Sauron, he's still immortal, and
hence a threat to the Dominion of Men.
pmhilton
> Now, I've come here for a serious answer to a question that has been bugging
> me since i read the books (12 years ago), and saw the films (we all know
> when they were showing). The question is, if only Frodo (seemingly
> uncorrupted since he's a hobbit) can touch the ring,
Anyone can 'handle' the ring (see Bilbo's manner of bequeathing the ring
- once Gandalf has brought seriousness to the moment); those who put it
on are,, in one manner or another, doomed.
> why can't the giant
> eagles just pick him up (while he holds the ring) and fly him to Mt. Doom so
> he can drop bloody thing in the volcano?
>
> Very interested to know.
>
>
From my point of view, this would be too much deus ex machina. Frodo &
the eagles would not be on congruent thoughtlines such that this would
be a forseeable turning of the plot. We need to see Frodo's corruptible
humanity wising/facing/fearing the ring's destruction. In some way, the
ring has captured Frodo as it has captured others before him. He is
"Hobbitly" resilient yet not sufficiently immune to its allure. I feel
the eagles are beyond the ring; it is only at the direst human need that
they will inject themselves into human affairs. It would even be my
suspicion the eagles neither care about nor would care to know about the
ring as an element of evil & domination.
Pete H, aka The Ent
pmhilton
utter rot
Bran Mak Muffin
pmhilton <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote:
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> utter rot
Oh, please. Michael is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I found
it rather amusing. Plus, there were some kernels of material for properly
serious discussion.
Bran Mak Muffin
22:46:14 GMT, "Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bran Mak Muffin wrote:
>> <My snip>. I find it hard to accept
>> on faith that Boromir could have killed Aragorn, stealthily or
>> otherwise.
> Regardless, Aragorn couldn't have claimed the Throne of Gondor without
> saving its ass through three large battles. So his actual fate is less
> relevant.
If the Ring had been destroyed prior to Saruman's downfall, how would
that necessarily have affected Aragorn's ability to save Gondor?
Presumably Gondor would simply have fought Orthanc, albeit an Orthanc
bolstered by the remnants of Mordor, rather than Mordor. A different war
than Gondor vs. Mordor, harder because Orthanc was closer, but easier
because even an Orthanc swollen with the refugess of a fallen Mordor
would have been less powerful than Morder under Sauron.
>> So your assertion is that if the Ring had been destroyed before
>> Gandalf neutered Saruman, Saruman would have become more powerful on
>> an absolute scale rather than simply on a relative scale (by moving
>> up the Middle Earth
>> Power-o-Meter after Sauron's weakening)?
> Recall the early morning scene on Mindolluin, where Gandalf pointed a
> White Tree out to Aragorn.
You'll have to enlighten me. How is that related to Saruman's level of
power in a post-Ring Middle Earth?
<snip>
> Even if Saruman weren't more powerful than Sauron, he's still
> immortal, and hence a threat to the Dominion of Men.
In a post-ring Middle Earth, IMO Sauron would have been the most powerful
being in Middle Earth prior to the appearance of Gandalf the White. And
if we accept that Saruman/Orthanc would have acquired some part
Sauron's/Mordor's power after the destruction of the Ring, probably more
powerful than GtW.
I believe Saruman saw himself as the leader of a Middle Earth to be
rightfully dominated by Men. He may have been a threat to individual Men,
but he was not a theat to Men's dominion over Middle Earth, especially a
post-Ring Middle Earth.
Shanahan
> Then the Eagle says, "Hey halfling! What's that thing in your hand?
> Oooh, it looks shiiiiny..!"
You're a Buffy fan, aren't ya? <g>
- Ciaran
-----------------------
mooreeffoc
Phlip
> If the Ring had been destroyed prior to Saruman's downfall, how would
> that necessarily have affected Aragorn's ability to save Gondor?
> Presumably Gondor would simply have fought Orthanc, albeit an Orthanc
> bolstered by the remnants of Mordor, rather than Mordor. A different war
> than Gondor vs. Mordor, harder because Orthanc was closer, but easier
> because even an Orthanc swollen with the refugess of a fallen Mordor
> would have been less powerful than Morder under Sauron.
Then Aragorn has a shot.
The proposition was not upheld that Aragorn's crowning strictly required
Frodo's slow secret march to Mount Doom.
But I think that Saruman would have simply secured Mordor remotely, then
waited a long time before striking Gondor. Enough time to actually take over
Mordor's vassal states, and enough time for Aragorn to either die of old age
or get killed by Denethor's spooks.
>> Recall the early morning scene on Mindolluin, where Gandalf pointed a
>> White Tree out to Aragorn.
>
> You'll have to enlighten me. How is that related to Saruman's level of
> power in a post-Ring Middle Earth?
You snipped all the Dominion of Men stuff. Gandalf announced the Dawn of the
Dominion of Man, to King Elessar, at dawn, and confirmed it with a White
Tree.
Ultimately, Frodo and Aragorn are mortals who defeat Sauron, an immortal.
The dawn of the Dominion of Men requires natural beings - humans and
hobbits - to defeat the supernatural Shadow. Of course they have endless
supernatural help, from the Light of Earendil's Silmaril, to the spirits of
the Oathbreakers.
But you get an entirely different drama if a Great Eagle - a supernatural
being - directly leads the Quest. If natural humanoids have not yet bested
the supernatural Shadow, then Men do not yet inherit their Dominion.
> I believe Saruman saw himself as the leader of a Middle Earth to be
> rightfully dominated by Men. He may have been a threat to individual Men,
> but he was not a theat to Men's dominion over Middle Earth, especially a
> post-Ring Middle Earth.
And even if the Ring's drawing power had not corrupted him, he's still
supernatural and an immortal, so such Dominion of Men would have false.
Good point that Saruman saw the Dominion of Men coming, and wanted a piece
of the action. He could have ended up the only immortal being left.
Did the Great Song predict the Dominion of Men?
Bran Mak Muffin
2006 04:28:27 GMT, "Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bran Mak Muffin wrote:
> But I think that Saruman would have simply secured Mordor remotely,
> then waited a long time before striking Gondor. Enough time to
> actually take over Mordor's vassal states, and enough time for Aragorn
> to either die of old age or get killed by Denethor's spooks.
So you think Denethor would not have killed himself if the Ring had
perished early? That seems plausible, without Sauron to mess with
Denethor's mind anymore. Saruman taking over Sauron's part in that does
seem unlikely. He probably had no idea Sauron was doing that to Denethor.
<You wrote>:
>>> Recall the early morning scene on Mindolluin, where Gandalf pointed
>>> a White Tree out to Aragorn.
>> You'll have to enlighten me. How is that related to Saruman's level
>> of power in a post-Ring Middle Earth?
> You snipped all the Dominion of Men stuff. Gandalf announced the Dawn
> of the Dominion of Man, to King Elessar, at dawn, and confirmed it
> with a White Tree.
Just because I snipped something in my reply doesn't mean I didn't read
it. I still don't get what you're drivng at.
> Ultimately, Frodo and Aragorn are mortals who defeat Sauron, an
> immortal. The dawn of the Dominion of Men requires natural beings -
> humans and hobbits - to defeat the supernatural Shadow. Of course they
> have endless supernatural help, from the Light of Earendil's Silmaril,
> to the spirits of the Oathbreakers.
> But you get an entirely different drama if a Great Eagle - a
> supernatural being - directly leads the Quest. If natural humanoids
> have not yet bested the supernatural Shadow, then Men do not yet
> inherit their Dominion.
That sounds rather arbitrary. Wasn't the original proposition that Frodo
rides the eagle to Mt. Doom, whereupon he drops the Ring in?
>> I believe Saruman saw himself as the leader of a Middle Earth to be
>> rightfully dominated by Men. He may have been a threat to individual
>> Men, but he was not a theat to Men's dominion over Middle Earth,
>> especially a post-Ring Middle Earth.
> And even if the Ring's drawing power had not corrupted him, he's still
> supernatural and an immortal, so such Dominion of Men would have
> false.
If Saruman was all Maia, what you say is correct. It would have been a
Dominion of Men under the Sway of Saruman. But Saruman apparently thought
of himself as a Man, or so he obliquely implied to Gandalf, and he had
the form of a Man. If he was in the end a Maia-become-Man, then Middle
Earth under Saruman would have been a Dominion of Men. My opinion is that
Saruman was, for all intents and purposes, a Man.
If any character in LotR is a parallel for the leaders of the facist
regimes of the 20th centiry, it is Saruman. Saruman was clearly a
supporter of the notion of Men as The Master Race (as was Boromir,
arguably).
> Good point that Saruman saw the Dominion of Men coming, and wanted a
> piece of the action.
If you are crediting me with that point, I certainly can't take credit
for it. Saruman said as much to Gandalf.
> He could have ended up the only immortal being left.
His goal, no doubt, was to be Top Dog, with the Elves departed and the
other Middle Earth Maia also either departed, dead or subordinate to him.
Derek Broughton
> In news:LNLNg.679$TV3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, on Wed, 13 Sep
> 2006 04:28:27 GMT, "Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So you think Denethor would not have killed himself if the Ring had
> perished early? That seems plausible, without Sauron to mess with
> Denethor's mind anymore. Saruman taking over Sauron's part in that does
> seem unlikely. He probably had no idea Sauron was doing that to Denethor.
istr, that Saruman suggested that he _did_ have an idea, as Gandalf et al
rode off from Orthanc with Saruman under the guard of the Ents, but as
usual IDHTBIFOM. He seemed to know that not all was well with Denethor,
I'm sure he knew he had a palantir, and he _was_ Wise, so he could probably
put two & two together (hmmm - fuzzy recollection of Gandalf somewhere
saying "he'd put two & two together and get five").
>> You snipped all the Dominion of Men stuff. Gandalf announced the Dawn
>> of the Dominion of Man, to King Elessar, at dawn, and confirmed it
>> with a White Tree.
>
> Just because I snipped something in my reply doesn't mean I didn't read
> it. I still don't get what you're drivng at.
I don't get the relevance, either.
> If Saruman was all Maia, what you say is correct. It would have been a
> Dominion of Men under the Sway of Saruman. But Saruman apparently thought
> of himself as a Man, or so he obliquely implied to Gandalf, and he had
> the form of a Man. If he was in the end a Maia-become-Man, then Middle
> Earth under Saruman would have been a Dominion of Men. My opinion is that
> Saruman was, for all intents and purposes, a Man.
I think that's fair - if the Istari weren't essentially Men, then the reborn
Gandalf would still have been Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the White was
_more_ than he had been before.
--
derek
Phlip
> I don't get the relevance, either.
An Eagle is a supernatural being - one subject to fading eventually.
Launching the Dominion of Men requires natural techniques. Of course Aragorn
and Frodo get lots of supernatural help; that's only fair if they are up
against an immortal. But they must earn their new age.
It's not going to be the Dominion of Eagles...
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Phlip" <phli...@yahoo.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:03UNg.645$vJ2...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> > I don't get the relevance, either.
>
> An Eagle is a supernatural being - one subject to fading eventually.
>
told him"I can get you far away-but not to the end of the world".So, that an
Eagle *can* take Frodo to Mt.Doom doesn't mean necessarily he *wants* to do
it.Compare this to our world.Religion says that God is omnipotent, okay?Why
doesn't it rain manna from the heavens each day, so we haven't to work, or
cultivate the land?Maybe God doesn't want to spoil us.Why doesn't everyone
with whatever illness get spontaneously healed, if God is benevolent?Would
then be any medicine research, or we wouldn't be grateful for our good
health, since we would take it for granted?
> Launching the Dominion of Men requires natural techniques. Of course
Aragorn
> and Frodo get lots of supernatural help; that's only fair if they are up
> against an immortal. But they must earn their new age.
>
> It's not going to be the Dominion of Eagles...
>
> --
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Bran Mak Muffin
GMT, Derek Broughton <ne...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> istr, that Saruman suggested that he _did_ have an idea, as Gandalf et
> al rode off from Orthanc with Saruman under the guard of the Ents, but
> as usual IDHTBIFOM. He seemed to know that not all was well with
> Denethor, I'm sure he knew he had a palantir, and he _was_ Wise, so he
> could probably put two & two together (hmmm - fuzzy recollection of
> Gandalf somewhere saying "he'd put two & two together and get five").
Because this is all pure speculation, I believe you can make a plausible
claim that Saruman knew what Sauron was doing to Denethor. To me, it just
*seemed* Saruman did not know.
<snip>
>> If Saruman was all Maia, what you say is correct. It would have been
>> a Dominion of Men under the Sway of Saruman. But Saruman apparently
>> thought of himself as a Man, or so he obliquely implied to Gandalf,
>> and he had the form of a Man. If he was in the end a Maia-become-Man,
>> then Middle Earth under Saruman would have been a Dominion of Men. My
>> opinion is that Saruman was, for all intents and purposes, a Man.
> I think that's fair - if the Istari weren't essentially Men, then the
> reborn Gandalf would still have been Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the
> White was _more_ than he had been before.
That's an interesting point. My inference from your assertion is this:
Gandalf the Grey was, more or less, a Man. Gandalf the White was not, not
really. Sort of a Holy Rebirth event. Saruman had no such Rebrith, ergo he
was still, more or less, a Man, and therefor perfectly capable of leading a
Dominion of Men as its Manly leader, rather than as its supernatural
overlord. And my feeling is that Saruman would have preferred it that way.
Derek Broughton
> In news:eaclt3-...@news.pointerstop.ca, on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:05:50
> GMT, Derek Broughton <ne...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> istr, that Saruman suggested that he _did_ have an idea, as Gandalf et
>> al rode off from Orthanc with Saruman under the guard of the Ents, but
>> as usual IDHTBIFOM. He seemed to know that not all was well with
>> Denethor, I'm sure he knew he had a palantir, and he _was_ Wise, so he
>> could probably put two & two together
>
> Because this is all pure speculation, I believe you can make a plausible
> claim that Saruman knew what Sauron was doing to Denethor. To me, it just
> *seemed* Saruman did not know.
Ah, well. As usual, I can't find any evidence for what I think I
remember :-) I thought there was some parting shot from Saruman about how
Gandalf wouldn't find everything as well with Denethor as he expected - but
if he said such a thing at all, it certainly wasn't a parting shot as it
isn't at the end of the "Voice of Saruman" chapter.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If Saruman was all Maia, what you say is correct. It would have been
>>> a Dominion of Men under the Sway of Saruman. But Saruman apparently
>>> thought of himself as a Man, or so he obliquely implied to Gandalf,
>>> and he had the form of a Man. If he was in the end a Maia-become-Man,
>>> then Middle Earth under Saruman would have been a Dominion of Men. My
>>> opinion is that Saruman was, for all intents and purposes, a Man.
>
>> I think that's fair - if the Istari weren't essentially Men, then the
>> reborn Gandalf would still have been Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf the
>> White was _more_ than he had been before.
>
> That's an interesting point. My inference from your assertion is this:
> Gandalf the Grey was, more or less, a Man. Gandalf the White was not, not
> really. Sort of a Holy Rebirth event.
Exactly, though I'd never thought of it this way until this discussion. It
certainly fits into the religious background that infuses the story.
> Saruman had no such Rebrith, ergo he
> was still, more or less, a Man, and therefor perfectly capable of leading
> a Dominion of Men as its Manly leader, rather than as its supernatural
> overlord. And my feeling is that Saruman would have preferred it that way.
--
derek
Bran Mak Muffin
GMT, Derek Broughton <ne...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Bran Mak Muffin wrote:
<snip>
> Ah, well. As usual, I can't find any evidence for what I think I
> remember :-)
Nor do I have any more than my "feeling." Of couse, given the hypothetical
nature of the discussion, opinions and feelings are as good to go on as
quotes and citations.
> I thought there was some parting shot from Saruman about
> how Gandalf wouldn't find everything as well with Denethor as he
> expected - but if he said such a thing at all, it certainly wasn't a
> parting shot as it isn't at the end of the "Voice of Saruman" chapter.
Maybe you're thinking about what Saruman says to the Hobbits about not
finding everything in the Shire to their liking.
<snip>
>> My inference from your assertion is
>> this: Gandalf the Grey was, more or less, a Man. Gandalf the White
>> was not, not really. Sort of a Holy Rebirth event.
> Exactly, though I'd never thought of it this way until this
> discussion. It certainly fits into the religious background that
> infuses the story.
I'd never thought of it that way, either. And someone scoffed at Michael
O'Neill's post, which is what got this whole "What if the Ring got
destroyed very early on?" thing started.
BaJoRi
<starm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45069673$0$22358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Because it would have made the book about two pages long, with the ending
being that the eagles wound up being food for Nazgul steeds
>
Bran Mak Muffin
2006 00:53:42 GMT, "BaJoRi" <baj...@cbg.com> wrote:
> Because it would have made the book about two pages long, with the
> ending being that the eagles wound up being food for Nazgul steeds
That is obviously not true, as the rest of the thread can attest.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
> utter rot
Where, I ask myself, do this orators of note come from?
I'd better undertake a comprehensive review of this genius' posts...
Just so I can better weather such storms.
M.
Michael O'Neill
<bows>
Entertaining and informative.
Can one post contain much more of interest to the general lurker, as
opposed to the idiot/savant/orator poster?
There is indeed a fine line between TROLLing and inciting discussion. I
have crossed it many times in the eyes of both groups and will do so
again, but as you note, there is seldom smoke without fire.
So then, when more mature regulars get tired of the rehashed comments on
the canon, I note by my previous post that the field of rank speculation
known as the "Alternate History of Middle Earth" is always open.
Indeed there are fewer subjects more on-topic than this, given Tolkien's
propensity for researching several other plot and sub-plot endings and
resolutions before finally choosing what came, after publishing, to be
seen as "the canon".
Enjoy.
:-)
M.
Bran Mak Muffin
<snip>
> So then, when more mature regulars get tired of the rehashed comments on
> the canon, I note by my previous post that the field of rank speculation
> known as the "Alternate History of Middle Earth" is always open.
<snip>
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? How many times can the NGs re-
hash topics like "The movies suck!" or "The movies rock!" or "What are the
names of the Nazgul?" or "David Salo, what's Liv Tyler *really* like?" or
"Do Balrogs have wings?" (oops, that's a no-no!)
Troels Forchhammer
Bran Mak Muffin <branma...@yahoo.com> enriched us with:
> In news:450BDF42...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie, on Sat, 16 Sep 2006
> 11:25:54 GMT, Michael O'Neill <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>> So then, when more mature regulars get tired of the rehashed
>> comments on the canon, I note by my previous post that the field
>> of rank speculation known as the "Alternate History of Middle
>> Earth" is always open.
>
I've been surprised both at the energy with which we've been able to
'rehash comments on the canon' in the sense of repeatedly going
through all arguments about a given question, rarely producing new
evidence, but also by the gradual shift in focus that has been going
on, so that these days there is more focus on both Tolkien, the man,
and on other aspects closer to literary criticism/analysis than to
story-internal minutiae.
> How many times can the NGs re- hash topics like "The movies
> suck!" or "The movies rock!"
Or even the slightly more balanced discussion like "what about the
films sucks and what rocks?"
Experience, however, shows that the limit has, apperently, not been
reached yet (although the discussions these days often take on some
almost surreal levels of meta-meta-meta-discussion and genocide on
the persecuted men of straw <G>).
> or "What are the names of the Nazgul?"
That one's easy.
Black Riders (Hobbits)
Ringwraiths (English -- in the role of Westron)
Nazgûl (Black Speech)
Úlairi (Quenya)
;-)
The other take is covered by the FAQ:
<http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html#NazgulNames>
> or "David Salo, what's Liv Tyler *really* like?"
Has that really been discussed? <Off to search Google . . . ;-)>
> or "Do Balrogs have wings?" (oops, that's a no-no!)
It is difficult to imagine anything new being added to the actual
debate following Conrad's summary:
<http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html>
These days it's mostly mentioned humorously (which of course shows
that it is no longer debated seriously). Taken on its own the whole
debate is, of course, rather silly (although I believe there was an
underlying debate that was more serious, concerning the question of
how one should treat this whole mass of occasionally unclear and
occasionally conflicting versions of the Silmarillion mythology).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein
pmhilton
You come up with a scenario that wouldn't qualify for Saturday morning
cartoons & then worry about weathering "storms" from other quarters?
PH
Bran Mak Muffin
> I've been surprised both at the energy with which we've been able to
> 'rehash comments on the canon' in the sense of repeatedly going
> through all arguments about a given question, rarely producing new
> evidence, but also by the gradual shift in focus that has been going
> on, so that these days there is more focus on both Tolkien, the man,
> and on other aspects closer to literary criticism/analysis than to
> story-internal minutiae.
I'm not sure if this is exacly what you're driving at, but it's true that,
given the nature of people to change the subject, the most mundane, overly-
discussed thread-starter can quickly lead to more interesting discussions.
> Or even the slightly more balanced discussion like "what about the
> films sucks and what rocks?"
That might do for RABT, but not AFT. ;)
<I wrote>:
>> or "David Salo, what's Liv Tyler *really* like?"
> Has that really been discussed? <Off to search Google . . . ;-)>
<snip>
You must not have been active in the NG when the FotR movie came out. It
was not a constant topic, but far from unheard of. Maybe that's why David
Salo stopped posting here.
Troels Forchhammer
> 19:56:57 GMT, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
> I'm not sure if this is exacly what you're driving at, but it's
> true that, given the nature of people to change the subject, the
> most mundane, overly-discussed thread-starter can quickly lead to
> more interesting discussions.
That too, yes.
It wasn't exactly what I was driving at, though. In the five years
I've been regularly reading AFT & RABT there has been a small shift
in the on-topic discussions (ignoring for the moment any and all
discussions of the films).
The discussions used to be even more focused on story-internal
questions (including linguistic questions), and less on the man
himself or on other story-external matters.
<snip>
Bran wrote:
>>> or "David Salo, what's Liv Tyler *really* like?"
>>
>> Has that really been discussed? <Off to search Google . . . ;-)>
>
> You must not have been active in the NG when the FotR movie came
> out.
My first post is from the 21st of August 2001 -- not terribly long
before the film, but still before it ;-)
> It was not a constant topic, but far from unheard of.
Hmm -- I didn't find anything of that sort on Google (which is not to
say that Salo wasn't asked any other stupid questions regarding his
involvement with the films).
> Maybe that's why David Salo stopped posting here.
Without having talked to him about it, I suppose that between silly
questions and the occasionally very negative attitudes expressed
about the films (and the, as I perceived it, more common feeling that
the films had in some ways failed as adaptations), I cannot blame him
for stopping. We can only hope that he will return (discussions about
the films are already becoming rather uncommon, so perhaps there's
still hope).
What handle were you using back then?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put '[AFT]', '[RABT]' or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
Bran Mak Muffin
> In message <news:Xns98416044BD327br...@70.169.32.36>
> Bran Mak Muffin <branma...@yahoo.com> enriched us with:
<snip>
>>>> or "David Salo, what's Liv Tyler *really* like?"
>>> Has that really been discussed? <Off to search Google . . . ;-)>
>> You must not have been active in the NG when the FotR movie came
>> out.
> My first post is from the 21st of August 2001 -- not terribly long
> before the film, but still before it ;-)
>> It was not a constant topic, but far from unheard of.
> Hmm -- I didn't find anything of that sort on Google (which is not to
> say that Salo wasn't asked any other stupid questions regarding his
> involvement with the films).
I could be exaggerating the frequency of such posts. I do remember two or
three, one in particular was simperingly disgusting, something like:
"Please, Mr. Salo, sir, I know you're a busy man and all, and I now I'm
just a big nobody, but if you have any recordings of you coaching Liv
Tyler in her pronunciation of Quenya, could you please e-mail them to me?
I don't like to bother you in the NG but your e-mail address is a fake."
Well, no duh his e-mail was fake. Otherwise he'd have been inundated with
requests for MP3s of Liv Tyler's voice.
>> Maybe that's why David Salo stopped posting here.
> Without having talked to him about it, I suppose that between silly
> questions and the occasionally very negative attitudes expressed
> about the films (and the, as I perceived it, more common feeling that
> the films had in some ways failed as adaptations), I cannot blame him
> for stopping. We can only hope that he will return (discussions about
> the films are already becoming rather uncommon, so perhaps there's
> still hope).
>
> What handle were you using back then?
Jon Osborn. I stopped posting under my name because people in other NGs
were annoying me. Some of it was their doing, some of it was mine. After
a long lay-off from Usenet entirely, I found I wanted to post in those
same NGs (and others, like this one), but I didn't want to be easily
recognized. I could make multiple identities in Xnews, and switch back
and forth between them, but that's more of a hassle than I want to go
through.
Zoroaster
Eagles to Mordor:
After Gandalf was helped by the Eagles (Gwaihir really) to escape from
the roof of the Tower of Orthanc Saruman and Sauron started to see a
possible threat in Manwë's Eagles. Therefore they asked their birds
and beast to spy on them. When they would fly to Mordor with the Ring
sauron would have known and could have thought of a cunning plan to
overcome the eagles and reclaim the Ring
And why not mention it during the Council of Elrond...
All of those who were present, except Frodo, knew the nature of Eagles.
They would only help if they offered it theirselves, not when asked
...
pmhilton
snip
>
> And why not mention it during the Council of Elrond...
> All of those who were present, except Frodo, knew the nature of Eagles.
It's entirely likely that Bilbo had told Frodo of his experiences with
the eagles.
PH
Michael O'Neill
Hilton, the last storm like yours I had to weather I drank deeply of down
to the leaves.
M.
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> Jon Osborn.
<snip>
Geez! Its Jon Osborne! Not some cousin of Bran Mak Morn! Welcome back
Jon!
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:4506BB4F...@bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> > starm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, I've come here for a serious answer to a question that has been
> bugging
> > > me since i read the books (12 years ago), and saw the films (we all know
> > > when they were showing). The question is, if only Frodo (seemingly
> > > uncorrupted since he's a hobbit) can touch the ring, why can't the giant
> > > eagles just pick him up (while he holds the ring) and fly him to Mt.
> Doom so
> > > he can drop bloody thing in the volcano?
> > >
> > > Very interested to know.
> >
> >
> > The alternate history centres on how 100 years later the Corsairs of
> > Umbar, together with the Orcs of Mordor and following plans laid by
> > Saruman overrun an unprepared Gondor, undefended by the spirits from the
> > Paths of the Dead.
> >
> > Gondor has no King or heir because Gandalf left after the Ring was
> > destroyed because his task was accomplished and Aragorn was murdered
> > stealthily by Boromir following his father's and Saruman's orders.
>
> Nonsense. Without Sauron to rally them,
> Easterlings would have stayed East.
> Gondor would have, without too much trouble,
> come to Rohan's aid and
> vanquished Sauraman.
I am regularly astonished at the lack of political "Nous" in these
groups. Here is a clue.
Gondors adventures in their heydays brought them into contact with
several cultures inimical to their continued or expanding rule. All a
skilful politician would have to do would be to name Gondor an enemy,
stage a few "atrocities" in its name on foreign soil [using Orc-men,
perhaps] and then form a "coalition of the willing" to attack.
A question might be raised as to how Saruman might ride the tides of
fortune after victory, with so many disparate allies. Disparate peoples
of like political mind can be turned against an external enemy quite
easily and it would take many centuries to eradicate or enslave Western
Men, Dwarves and Elves fully.
During this time Saruman would have time to perfect his mind-control
tricks on unguarded minds and establish his control through generations.
In fact it would be in his interest to play one side off against another
aot allow him time ot extablish his control over his preferred people.
In one scenario a remnant of the West might be aided secretly by Saruman
to keep rebellion alive for an extended time in order to maintain his own
power-base along the line of: "only I can defeat these miscreants".
Just because Sauron was gone, not all Ring-Lore was gone and Saruman had
already puzzled out some of it. He would have found out the rest during
an inspection of Barad-Dur, under the guise of "making cerain things were
secure" with Gondor's blessing.
How then in the end would this pan out? Would not Saruman eventually have
to cede power? No. Religion would be brought into play from an early days
with Saruman initially claiming to speak on behalf of Sauron [he was an
ally, remember, at hte start of the LOTR] or his spirit, using some magic
tricks either to simulate or actually contact Sauron's wasted spirit in
front of the masses.
The fact that I had to spell all this out for *you* does not undermine
*my* credibility, by the way.
M.