who is Maia
Jem
wizards being Maia of sorts (and also wormtounge but thats got me
toatally lost). I knew the wizards came across the seas sot this could
mean from the island of the valar, is this where people are getting it
from or is there some bit or book i havent read. Id appreaciate
anything u can tell me as i love the book and would like to know more
Jem
Aris Katsaris
"Jem" <jjar...@ford.com> wrote in message news:3D2307B2...@ford.com...
> I have read in a few of the posts here about Gandalf and the other
> wizards being Maia of sorts (and also wormtounge but thats got me
> toatally lost).
Wormtongue is *not* a Maia. He's a human being.
Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron and others are Maiar (the plural form has
an "r" in the ending) angelic spirits that pre-existed the physical universe
and then took bodily forms. They are the same in kind, but weaker in
power than the "Valar", the Powers of the World.
Aris Katsaris
morgan mair fheal
the month may is named after her
based on just the lotr and the hobbit
all you will see is vague references to the west
and the wizards are emissaries of the west
the silmarillion gives lots more information about the valar and maiar
but its in unfinished tales that we got the full story of the wizards (istari)
gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
sauron is another maia who lost the ability to make a pleasing form
in the lotr these are the only maiar we meet
and no valar are visible in the story
(valar and maiar are of the same kind but different strength
sort of like men and hobbits)
grima wormtongue is a man
morgoth whom sauron serves or served was a vala
and he is the one luthien and beren fought with
but he was disincorporated six thousand yeats before lotr
elbereth of whom the elves sing is another vala
AC
The Maiar are a class of Ainur, servants of the Valar. The Ainur (that is
Valar, Maiar and some others) are angelic beings created by Eru Illuvatar
(God) before the world. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Istari were
angels clothed in physical bodies. Of course, so was Sauron and the Balrog.
--
AC
AC
> gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
> sauron is another maia who lost the ability to make a pleasing form
> in the lotr these are the only maiar we meet
Don't forget the Balrog.
--
AC
Thomas R. Shannon
> gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
Does that mean that the maiar actually changed form when they crossed
the sea? Or were they locked in human form before that? What about
the elves when they were on the island of Valar? Were they corporeal?
Were the valar and maiar corporeal?
The reason I'm asking all this is because I constantly hear about
Sauron rising in different forms (the last of which was apparently the
evil eye). But the wizards apparently weren't allowed to do this.
I'm also curious about what actually happened to Gandalf during his
"resurrection". It also comes to the root of what actually happens
when an elf/wizard/hobbit passes over the sea.
Tom S.
--
Quote of the Day for June 30, 2002:
Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
-- Quentin Crisp
Jem
i found it in a posting earlier
>> On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:55:31 -0400, Ermanna <Erm...@erols.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >And he had already fended off several Nazgul at Weathertop, and that
>> >was Gandalf the Grey. Personally, I doubt a Man, even a witch, could
>> >beat a Maia.
>
>> Wormtongue?
>You've a point. Let me rephrase: I doubt a Man could beat a
>Maia who has power he can use.
I dont remeber wormtounge ever beating a maia so i assumed it was
inferring he was on which didnt make sense
morgan mair fheal
(Thomas R. Shannon) wrote:
> mair_...@yahoo.com (morgan mair fheal) writes:
>
> > gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
>
> Does that mean that the maiar actually changed form when they crossed
> the sea? Or were they locked in human form before that? What about
the istari were five maiar who agreed to be formed as old aging slowly
as part of their service
theirs is a special case
> the elves when they were on the island of Valar? Were they corporeal?
> Were the valar and maiar corporeal?
they could change bodies as we change clothes
they needed a body to physically interact with the world
but beyond that it was a choice
the silmarillion tells the olorin often went unseen among the elves
to inspire them
> The reason I'm asking all this is because I constantly hear about
> Sauron rising in different forms (the last of which was apparently the
> evil eye). But the wizards apparently weren't allowed to do this.
the last form was a large humanoid
that was not pleasant to look upon
sauron lost his ability to form bodies easily or pleasing to see
after squandering which of his power earlier on
after the ring was destroyed
his power was so diluted that its unlikely he will ever be incarnate again
by his own power
> I'm also curious about what actually happened to Gandalf during his
> "resurrection". It also comes to the root of what actually happens
> when an elf/wizard/hobbit passes over the sea.
his body lay on the top of the mountain
while his essence was released and returned either to the west
or completely outside creation to eru himself
(and the only maia or vala ever permitted to leave creation before the end)
and then returned to his body whcih came back to life
gandalf does not say explicitly but he does say he was outside of time
and the only place that can be literally true is outside of creation
when gandalf sailed back he was presumably released from his duty
and wnet back to the garden lorien as a maia
the elves continued living their lives as before
but without swift changes and mortality of middleearth
the hobbits spent a time healing from their ordeal
and then would abandon their bodies and leave creation
morgan mair fheal
> The thing about wormtounge that confusing me is this,
> i found it in a posting earlier
> >> On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:55:31 -0400, Ermanna <Erm...@erols.com> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >And he had already fended off several Nazgul at Weathertop, and that
> >> >was Gandalf the Grey. Personally, I doubt a Man, even a witch, could
> >> >beat a Maia.
> >
> >> Wormtongue?
>
> >You've a point. Let me rephrase: I doubt a Man could beat a
> >Maia who has power he can use.
>
> I dont remeber wormtounge ever beating a maia so i assumed it was
> inferring he was on which didnt make sense
slit sarumans throat
saruman was a maia in human form
Steuard Jensen
<m3adp8u...@jel12mb36.phys.rush.edu>:
> > gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
> Does that mean that the maiar actually changed form when they
> crossed the sea? Or were they locked in human form before that?
> What about the elves when they were on the island of Valar? Were
> they corporeal? Were the valar and maiar corporeal?
For a complete description of all this, you'll want to read _The
Silmarillion_, the essay on the Istari from _Unfinished Tales_, and
Tolkien's late essay "Osanwe-kenta", published in the journal _Vinyar
Tengwar_ #39 (available for just $2 from http://www.elvish.org/).
A short description is as follows. The Valar and Maiar were not
naturally "clothed" in physical bodies: they could put on and take off
bodies in the same way that people put on and take off clothes.
However, if they used a physical body for specifically physical things
(eating, violence, sex, and the like), they would gradually become
"habituated" to having that physical form, and less able to function
without it. In cases like those of Morgoth and Sauron (and probably
others), this eventually led to each of them being completely bound to
one specific physical shape.
The Istari (the wizards) seem to have voluntarily allowed themselves
to be permanantly bound to physical bodies before they left for
Middle-earth. It's never made explicit how this was done. As for
Elves, humans, and others, their physical bodies were an intrinsic
part of their being, even more so than the attachment of Sauron or
Gandalf to their physical forms. Elves weren't really "complete"
without them (which is why the Valar would eventually help them to
rebuild their bodies when they left Mandos), and the spirits of humans
actually left the world when their bodies were destroyed (though that
sometimes seems to have been delayed a little). Going across the Sea
in either direction wouldn't affect any of the races' basic
relationship to their bodies.
> The reason I'm asking all this is because I constantly hear about
> Sauron rising in different forms (the last of which was apparently
> the evil eye).
Nononono. :) The "eye" was never meant as a description of Sauron's
full physical form. See the Tolkien Meta-FAQ at
http://tolkien.slimy.com/ for an explanation of the evidence, or for
that matter my comments in a recent thread on the topic.
Steuard Jensen
Pradera
>the last form was a large humanoid
But his mouth was shaped like a black Numenorean on a horse. Weird.
--
Pradera
'Of course Sauron has a physical form.
He's got a Mouth, hasn't he?'
---
AC
> mair_...@yahoo.com (morgan mair fheal) writes:
>
>> gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
>
> Does that mean that the maiar actually changed form when they crossed
> the sea? Or were they locked in human form before that? What about
> the elves when they were on the island of Valar? Were they corporeal?
> Were the valar and maiar corporeal?
Though it doesn't say, I would assume that the Istari were clothed in the
weaker forms in Aman, and then put on a boat.
> The reason I'm asking all this is because I constantly hear about
> Sauron rising in different forms (the last of which was apparently the
> evil eye).
No, it was not an "evil eye". He was a large, terrible form, but still
manlike.
> But the wizards apparently weren't allowed to do this.
> I'm also curious about what actually happened to Gandalf during his
> "resurrection". It also comes to the root of what actually happens
> when an elf/wizard/hobbit passes over the sea.
When Gandalf "died" in Moria, it was Eru (God) who directly intervened,
"enhancing" him.
We know what happens when they cross the Sea to Aman. Elves and Ainur would
dwell until the End, while mortals (such as Hobbits) would enjoy a period of
healing before dying (this does not apply to Ar Pharazon and the Numenoreans
who tried to invade Valinor, but that's a different story).
This is how it essentially works. The Ainur who entered Arda are bound to
it. Elves have a form of serial immortality, and are also bound to Arda.
Men (this includes Hobbits) are not bound to Arda, and irregardless of
whether they die in Middle Earth or in the West, they leave Arda.
--
AC
Chris Applegate
> morgoth whom sauron serves or served was a vala
> and he is the one luthien and beren fought with
Well, they didn't *directly* fight him. Luthien danced for him and Beren
cowered under his chair, if I remember correctly. Then when he fell asleep,
they played a horrible, sophomoric prank on him.
> but he was disincorporated six thousand yeats before lotr
He wasn't "diminished" like Sauron and Saruman; he was bound with a chain
and thrown through the Door of Night into the Timeless Void. Tolkien always
planned to bring him back for a final battle, but never settled on how it
would unfold.
And to answer the original question, I think Maia is the mother of
Hermes/Mercury in that other mythology.
CDA
hobes
Maiar came from...). There is some speculation that the Istari may
have been Maia (or perhaps even the Valar themselves...), but Tolkien
never states exactly what they are. I believe Gandalf's true name was
actually "Olorin", but it still doesn't clear things up much...
The wizards most certainly came from across the sea and were sent by
the Valar. However they were constrained against direct action.
Thus, Saruman's downfall was hubris.
Get the Tolkien Companion if you can find it... It's really a must for
anyone who wants to know more about these sorts of things.
And it doesn't hurt to read the Silmarillion too.
hobes
Jem <jjar...@ford.com> wrote in message news:<3D2307B2...@ford.com>...
Pradera
>Wormtongue was a man (I have no idea where all that about him being a
>Maiar came from...). There is some speculation that the Istari may
>have been Maia (or perhaps even the Valar themselves...), but Tolkien
>never states exactly what they are. I believe Gandalf's true name was
>actually "Olorin", but it still doesn't clear things up much...
>
Umm...yes it does. Theres a whole lot of stuff about Olorin in
Silmarillion.
>Get the Tolkien Companion if you can find it... It's really a must for
>anyone who wants to know more about these sorts of things.
>
Or better yet-don't. Just read the books.
Bagronk the Happy Orc
> When Gandalf "died" in Moria, it was Eru (God) who directly intervened,
> "enhancing" him.
On most points in your post I clearly agree with you, but this one
sentence obtained my attention.
Was there any necessity for Eru to act in this moment? AFAIK, it were
the Valar who sent Gandalf in the first time, so it would be logical
that they also sent him back and allowed him to show more of his
"natural" Olorin power. This power was already there (although surely
slightly diminished after his death - I'm sure the
destruction-of-physical-form-weakens-Rule also applies to good Ainur),
so no need for Eru to enhance him.
--
Bagronk the Happy Orc
Every text becomes absurd after a certain amount of bytes. If it
exceeds this length, the reader’s brain implodes. (IGfrI)
Steuard Jensen
<c8cb88ee.02070...@posting.google.com>:
> a Maiar came from...).
Absolutely correct (except for the use of the plural "Maiar" instead
of the singular "Maia", but that's not important). :)
> There is some speculation that the Istari may have been Maia (or
> perhaps even the Valar themselves...), but Tolkien never states
> exactly what they are.
Huh? Tolkien states explicitly that they were Maiar in many places.
Admittedly, none of those were published before his death, but his
thoughts on the matter are downright unambiguous. (And heck, without
reading _The Silmarillion_ which was published posthumously, we
wouldn't really know anything about the Maiar at all.) Probably his
best writing on the Istari is the essay in section four of _Unfinished
Tales_. That's a great book, and I recommend it highly to anyone who
wants to know more about the world of _The Lord of the Rings_ or _The
Silmarillion_ (reading Silm. before UT is helpful, but only necessary
for the first section or two).
> I believe Gandalf's true name was actually "Olorin", but it still
> doesn't clear things up much...
Well... it certainly seems to fit well with the name "Olorin" of one
of the Maiar as mentioned in the Valaquenta as published in _The
Silmarillion_ (and, for those who care about such things, as is
present in Tolkien's latest drafts of the Valaquenta in _Morgoth's
Ring_).
> Get the Tolkien Companion if you can find it... It's really a must
> for anyone who wants to know more about these sorts of things.
The Tolkien Companion is a remarkably unreliable source of information
about Middle-earth. Tyler fails to make it at all clear which
information in the book comes from Tolkien's writings and which is
his own invention. His research itself tends to be flawed, too; I'll
give some examples below.
Amazon.com has a few pages of the book scanned in as samles of its
contents, which you can probably reach from this link:
(No, I haven't been able to find a way to make this link shorter; if
it doesn't work for you, just search for "The Tolkien Companion" on
Amazon.com and look through the snapshots provided.) The discussion
below comes from this sample page and the one that follows. Let's try
to judge the quality of the entries here.
First entry: "Accursed Years". I don't know why Sauron is called
"Sauron the Great"; are there other important people named "Sauron" in
Middle-earth we need to distinguish him from? Tolkien certainly
didn't use that form often, anyway. In the second paragraph, he says
that the Elves who forged the Rings were of "Celebrimor's House". I
don't know exactly what he means by this, but it's not a term that
Tolkien ever used of the smiths of Eregion as far as I recall. Still,
this entry isn't too bad, even if it's not great.
Next entry: "Adamant". Tyler defines this as "A poetic invention for
an imagined hard substance." The Oxford English Dictionary generally
agrees, but points out that after the 17th century the word was
treated as a synonym for "diamond" (which seems consistent with the
appearance of Galadriel's Ring), and that in modern use it's only a
"poetical name for the embodiment of surpassing hardness". (I've
forgotten if there is firmer evidence for the identification of
Galadriel's Ring with diamond.) It's odd that after a long digression
on the making of the Rings in the entry for "Accursed Years", Tyler
doesn't manage to mention any place in Tolkien's writings the word
"Adamant" is to be found.
Next entry (including "translation" and "etymology"):
"Adan, Edain 'Father-of-Man' (Sind. from Q. Atan, Atani)". We haven't
even gotten to the main entry yet, and Tyler is dead wrong. If Tyler
thinks "Adan" means "Father-of-Man", one might wonder what he thinks
the word for just "Man" is (hint: the right answer is "Adan").
"Edain" literally means the same thing as Quenya "Atani": "the Second
Folk" (according to the Ardalambion website and as strongly supported
in the texts). As for the etymology given, I'm not a linguistic
expert, but it seems unlikely to me: why would the Sindar copy the
word from the Noldor when both groups met human beings at the same
time?
On to Tyler's actual entry for "Adan". The second paragraph says that
the Three Houses of the Edain were "led during the wars by Hurin,
Turin and Hador the Goldenhaired." It's not clear why he doesn't
mention Huor next to Hurin, nor why Turin is on this list despite
never actually leading Men of his House. He explains that Beren was
of the First House, which is fine, but he doesn't ever mention that it
was called the House of Beor. His statement that "the Second House
(of Turin) had much to do with Dwarves" is entirely wrong: Turin was
descended from the House of Hador and the House of Beor, but Tyler
goes on to mention "the Third House (of Hador)". Entirely left out of
Tyler's entry is the House of Haleth, which I think is the one usually
referred to as the "Second" House. To the best of my knowledge, no
House of the Edain was particularly associated with Dwarves; the only
explanation I can think of for Tyler's statement is Turin's encounter
with Mim.
After his disastrous attempt to describe the Three Houses, Tyler goes
on to tell of the founding of Numenor. He says that the island was
originally called Elenna, though that is a relatively obscure name
given by the Edain themselves as they sailed toward Earendil's star.
In the final paragraph of the entry, he refers to "the immortality
[the Edain] always desired", although the Edain didn't seem to
seriously "fall" in that way until well after arriving in Numenor.
His final comment that after returning to Middle-earth under Elendil,
the Dunedain were a "dwindling people" was true at the time of LotR,
but certainly not true for their full history: Gondor prospered and
almost grew to rival the memory of Numenor at its peak.
I think I'll stop with that. Of the first three entries in _The
Tolkien Companion_, one is okay, one is incomplete, and one is
completely full of errors. As far as I've seen, this is typical of
the entire book. Short review: don't buy it, and don't read it. :)
> And it doesn't hurt to read the Silmarillion too.
Understatement of the year. :) Though as mentioned earlier,
_Unfinished Tales_ might be a better place to start for this
particular topic (apart from the first section or two, it doesn't
_really_ assume knowledge of _The Silmarillion_).
Thomas R. Shannon
> I found some words from AC <sp...@nospam.com> in my phone cable...
>
> > When Gandalf "died" in Moria, it was Eru (God) who directly intervened,
> > "enhancing" him.
>
> On most points in your post I clearly agree with you, but this one
> sentence obtained my attention.
>
> Was there any necessity for Eru to act in this moment? AFAIK, it were
> the Valar who sent Gandalf in the first time, so it would be logical
> that they also sent him back and allowed him to show more of his
> "natural" Olorin power. This power was already there (although surely
> slightly diminished after his death - I'm sure the
> destruction-of-physical-form-weakens-Rule also applies to good Ainur),
> so no need for Eru to enhance him.
Actually this brings up another question that I had. Was his
(apparent) power actually enhanced?
I've always been absolutely facinated by the contrast between Gandalf
the Grey and Gandalf the White. Clearly Gandalf's status was
increased. His interactons with Saruman indicate that. But in
addition it was always my impression that Gandalf came back refreshed
and more confident. For instance, Gandalf the Grey is always
described as being increasingly bent and care worn. And I once
counted dozens and dozens of instances of Gandalf's use of the words
"I fear", "We fear" or some similar phrase in FOR. There were many
more instances in one chapter, "A Shadow of the Past", than there were
in TT and ROK combined.
My point is that I always attributed the "improvement" in Gandalf to
these things, the rest and confidence, rather than an actual
enhancement of power.
Thomas R. Shannon
to Steuard for pointing me to the Meta-FAQ. I'm pretty sure I'm going
to enjoy reading it.
Tom S.
Stan Brown
Jem <jjar...@ford.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
/Unfinished Tales/, section "The Istari"
But it sounds as though you haven't read /The Silmarillion/ either.
Why not scope out Steuard's book list (URL below).
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Stan Brown
Thomas R. Shannon <tsh...@lumc.edu> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>mair_...@yahoo.com (morgan mair fheal) writes:
>
>> gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
>
>Does that mean that the maiar actually changed form when they crossed
>the sea? Or were they locked in human form before that? What about
>the elves when they were on the island of Valar? Were they corporeal?
>Were the valar and maiar corporeal?
Valar and Maiar could put bodies on or off the way you or I put
clothes on or off. With long "wearing", the spirit would grow an
affinity for the body. Particularly if great evil was done while in
the body, the spirit might be unable thereafter to create an
attractive body (as was the case with Morgoth and Sauron both).
The Wizards were different. They were sent as missionaries.
Originally pure spirit like all Maiar, they put on bodies that
looked like Men as a disguise. This was because they were allowed
only to persuade and to offer counsel, not to overawe or to command.
Presumably it was always planned that they would return to Valinor
when (if) their mission was accomplished. But Saruman fell into
evil, Radagast wasn't evil but kind of forgot about his mission, and
the two Blue Wizards also failed (see Letters). So of the five
Gandalf (Olorin) was the only one who fulfilled the mission.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>However, if they used a physical body for specifically physical things
>(eating, violence, sex, and the like), they would gradually become
>"habituated" to having that physical form, and less able to function
>without it.
Tolkien does indeed say that. However, Melian the Maia did all those
things, yet apparently abandoned her body without difficulty after
Thingol's death and the ruin of Doriath.
Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing something?
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>On most points in your post I clearly agree with you, but this one
>sentence obtained my attention.
>
>Was there any necessity for Eru to act in this moment?
It's moot whether there was a necessity, because it's pretty likely
that Eru _did_. Gandalf says he "wandered out of thought and time",
and most of us take that to mean that he went right out of Arda into
the Timeless Halls where Eru and the other Ainur dwell.
Stan Brown
>(apparent) power actually enhanced?
Yes. (I don't know what you mean by "(apparent)". His _actual_ power
was enhanced.)
For one thing, he was invulnerable to sword, axe, and bow after his
return. Clearly the Wizards were natively vulnerable to those
weapons, as Saruman's death demonstrates. He was also able to expel
Saruman from the "order and the Council", whatever precisely that
may mean, where previously Saruman had been placed above Gandalf.
Beyond any actual increase in power, Gandalf was now operating under
fewer limitations of his own native power. The Istari had been
forbidden to interfere: they were to give advice and encouragement
but not to command or take major direct action. But Gandalf took
direct action with Théoden, he effectively ruled Minas Tirith, he
fought on the Pelennor Fields, and so forth.
Stan Brown
>to Steuard for pointing me to the Meta-FAQ. I'm pretty sure I'm going
>to enjoy reading it.
I'm sure you will. Please take note of the part about posting right-
side up. :-)
Stan Brown
>"Sauron the Great"; are there other important people named "Sauron" in
>Middle-earth we need to distinguish him from?
Not to defend Tyler, but _perhaps_ he wrote "Sauron the Great"
because that's what Gandalf called him in Book I Chapter 2? :-) "But
last night I told you of Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord."
You didn't cast scorn on another feature of this entry that was
ripe for scorn: "until many of the Free Peoples were defeated or
enslaved." There were four Free Peoples: elves, men, dwarves, and
ents. (Hobbits don't come into tales before the Third Age.) To talk
of "many" being a part of FOUR is ludicrous. And anyway, Dwarves and
Ents were not defeated or enslaved, nor were quite a few Elves.
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Bagronk the Happy Orc <NOvr-stef...@arcor.de> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >On most points in your post I clearly agree with you, but this one
> >sentence obtained my attention.
> >
> >Was there any necessity for Eru to act in this moment?
>
> It's moot whether there was a necessity, because it's pretty likely
> that Eru _did_. Gandalf says he "wandered out of thought and time",
> and most of us take that to mean that he went right out of Arda into
> the Timeless Halls where Eru and the other Ainur dwell.
Depending here on letter #156, in which Tolkien himself puts forth that
interpretation.
He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors;
but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of
its failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is
done.' Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business
is only with the embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of
thought and time'
-- Letter #156
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Feed the hungry at www.thehungersite.com
kristian-d...@cgey.com | Two wrongs doesn't make a right,
ICQ# 146728724 | but three lefts do.
Jem
> >
> > I dont remeber wormtounge ever beating a maia so i assumed it was
> > inferring he was on which didnt make sense
>
> slit sarumans throat
> saruman was a maia in human form
Oh yer i remeber now, i really need to read LOTR again, i havent for a
few months new books were calling but i keep forgetting stuff
Jem
Jem
about wizerds in,
i've heard about the unfinished tales are they any other books tolkien
wrote that are worth reading (not including the hobbit as ive got that
too)
i cant go to any links alas as i am at work and limited to certain sites
Jamie Andrews
Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I think I'll stop with that. Of the first three entries in _The
>Tolkien Companion_, one is okay, one is incomplete, and one is
>completely full of errors. As far as I've seen, this is typical of
>the entire book. Short review: don't buy it, and don't read it. :)
I agree, but the explanation for why this happened is
fairly simple. Tyler's book came out before _The Silmarillion_
was published, and it doesn't seem to ever have been updated
extensively, even though the 2nd edition apparently came out in
1979 and _Silm_ was 1977. Tyler was working from the scanty
knowledge contained in the LOTR appendices. In his entries, he
made paraphrases that probably looked reasonable at the time but
that now are clearly inaccurate.
One might ask why the publisher is still selling the book
if it's full of outdated information, but I think one already
knows the answer.
--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Steuard Jensen
<MPG.178d7cf92...@news.odyssey.net>:
> Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >...if [Maiar] used a physical body for specifically physical things
> >(eating, violence, sex, and the like), they would gradually become
> Tolkien does indeed say that. However, Melian the Maia did all those
> things, yet apparently abandoned her body without difficulty after
> Thingol's death and the ruin of Doriath.
I've wondered that, too. I've come up with two possible answers
(which may not be mutually inconsistent :) ). First, I don't know
what J.R.R. Tolkien actually wrote about Melian's departure: as I
recall, that is described in "Of the Ruin of Doriath" in Silm. which
was largely written by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay based on very
early drafts of the story. Who knows what Tolkien would have written
if he'd ever returned to that story with the legendarium in a more
developed form?
Second, it seems possible to me that even a fully "habituated" Ainu
could abandon her physical body, but at the cost of no longer being
able to interact with others at all (at least not well, and at least
not for a while). I'm imagining something similar to a normal human
or Elvish "death by grief" (or even similar to the Elvish "death
before rape" that Tolkien describes). I would suspect that just as
for Elves, such Ainur would need the assistance of the Valar to
rebuild their physical form.
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<ag1f4s$c5p$1...@panther.uwo.ca>:
> >I think I'll stop with that. Of the first three entries in _The
> >Tolkien Companion_, one is okay, one is incomplete, and one is
> >completely full of errors. As far as I've seen, this is typical of
> >the entire book. Short review: don't buy it, and don't read it. :)
> Tyler's book came out before _The Silmarillion_ was published, and
> it doesn't seem to ever have been updated extensively, even though
> the 2nd edition apparently came out in 1979 and _Silm_ was 1977.
> Tyler was working from the scanty knowledge contained in the LOTR
> appendices. In his entries, he made paraphrases that probably
> looked reasonable at the time but that now are clearly inaccurate.
The problem is that both editions have the same fundamental problem:
they don't make it clear what claims are due to Tolkien and what
claims are due to Tyler. The book was certainly updated substantially
after Silm. was published: for example, the entry in which Tyler
claimed that Sauron was an ancient Elf gone bad was completely
rewritten in the second edition. Admittedly, he used phrases like
"may have been" to indicate doubt in that discussion, but he used the
same expressions when quoting Tolkien's statements of uncertainty.
As for "probably looked reasonable at the time", I'd point out that
the entry for "Adan, Edain" that I criticized in my last message was
based largely on information in Silm. alone: I don't believe that the
Three Houses of the Edain are discussed in detail in LotR. Given
that, it's inexcusable that he so badly botched his summary.
(I should acknowledge, incidentally, that Turin _did_ have a
grandmother of the Haladin, and that he did eventually lead the
remnant of that folk, but I still think that representing him as the
most significant or typical member of that people is entirely wrong.)
Anyway, once again: the short review is "don't read it". :)
Steuard Jensen
Thomas R. Shannon
> Thomas R. Shannon <tsh...@lumc.edu> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Actually this brings up another question that I had. Was his
> >(apparent) power actually enhanced?
>
> Yes. (I don't know what you mean by "(apparent)". His _actual_ power
> was enhanced.)
My use of the word "apparent" was supposed to mean "power he had as a
maia that he couldn't use before as a wizard on Middle Earth". Sorry.
It wasn't very clear.
> For one thing, he was invulnerable to sword, axe, and bow after his
> return. Clearly the Wizards were natively vulnerable to those
> weapons, as Saruman's death demonstrates. He was also able to expel
> Saruman from the "order and the Council", whatever precisely that
> may mean, where previously Saruman had been placed above Gandalf.
>
> Beyond any actual increase in power, Gandalf was now operating under
> fewer limitations of his own native power. The Istari had been
> forbidden to interfere: they were to give advice and encouragement
> but not to command or take major direct action. But Gandalf took
> direct action with Théoden, he effectively ruled Minas Tirith, he
> fought on the Pelennor Fields, and so forth.
As far as I can tell, all of this could be interpreted as an increase
in authority or as I put it in my original post, "status". I can't
remember anywhere its actually said that Gandalf's apparent power was
enhanced or where Gandalf actually does something "magically" that he
didn't have the power to do before.
I suppose you could point to the fact that Gandalf the Grey was
imprisoned by Saruman. You could say that was because he didn't have
the power to oppose him. But even that could be interpreted as
Gandalf not having the authority to directly attack someone of higher
status. It could also be because he was afraid to do so and that held
him back whereas the refreshed and confident Gandalf the White has no
such reservations. I'll have to think about it.
Tom S.
--
Quote of the Day for July 4, 2002:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>Stan Brown wrote:
[a feeble defense of the idea that it was Eru, not the Valar, who
sent Gandalf back after his death in Moria]
>
>Depending here on letter #156, in which Tolkien himself puts forth that
>interpretation.
>
>He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors;
>but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of
>its failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is
>done.' Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business
>is only with the embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of
>thought and time'
Well caught; thanks! I had forgotten about that letter.
Stan Brown
Jem <jjar...@ford.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
Please don't post upside down. It is also unfortunate to quote an
entire past article when you're actually not referring to it.
>Iv read the simirilion it says lots about maia and i cant find anything
>about wizerds in,
Read again. Look at the "Maiar" section in "Valaquenta". Look at "Of
the Rings of Power".
>i've heard about the unfinished tales are they any other books tolkien
>wrote that are worth reading (not including the hobbit as ive got that
>too)
Already answered.
>i cant go to any links alas as i am at work and limited to certain sites
(1) You can't really expect us to type out the contents of Web sites
for you.
(2) If you're supposed to be working, why don't you just make note
of the URLs and then follow them up on your own time?
Stan Brown
> I agree, but the explanation for why this happened is
>fairly simple. Tyler's book came out before _The Silmarillion_
>was published,
That would excuse making wrong guesses. It does not excuse making
wrong guesses without any indication that they _are_ guesses.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a
correct reply address is more important to me than time spent
deleting spam.
Larry Mahnken
"AC" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:slrnai66p...@ts1.alberni.net...
> In article <mair_fheal-03...@c34.ppp.tsoft.com>, morgan mair
fheal wrote:
> > gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
> > in the lotr these are the only maiar we meet
>
> Don't forget the Balrog.
>
Speak of him not!
--
-Larry Mahnken
--
"As a Nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal'. Now,
we practically read it, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes'. Soon,
it will read, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes, and foreigners,
and Catholics'. Should it come to this, I would prefer emigrating to some
country where they make no pretense of loving liberty. To Russia, for
instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
hypocrisy."
- Abraham Lincoln
Steuard Jensen
<m3wusc1...@lumc.edu>:
> to Steuard for pointing me to the Meta-FAQ. I'm pretty sure I'm
> going to enjoy reading it.
Great! I hope you do enjoy it, and if you have any suggestions for
making it better, by all means let me know! (I probably won't be able
to _act_ on those suggestions until early August when I get back from
my upcoming vacation, but I'd still like the feedback. :) )
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> >I don't know why Sauron is called "Sauron the Great"; are there
> >other important people named "Sauron" in Middle-earth we need to
> >distinguish him from?
> Not to defend Tyler, but _perhaps_ he wrote "Sauron the Great"
> because that's what Gandalf called him in Book I Chapter 2? :-)
I didn't know where that phrase was used in the books, though I had a
feeling Tolkien had used it somewhere. That still doesn't explain why
Tyler decided to use that "title" of Sauron rather than any other, or
why he felt using a title was necessary in the first place. :)
> You didn't cast scorn on another feature of this entry that was ripe
> for scorn: "until many of the Free Peoples were defeated or
> enslaved." There were four Free Peoples: elves, men, dwarves, and
> ents. (Hobbits don't come into tales before the Third Age.) To talk
> of "many" being a part of FOUR is ludicrous. And anyway, Dwarves and
> Ents were not defeated or enslaved, nor were quite a few Elves.
The Eagles don't count? :) I was being generous there, and allowing
that Tyler may have meant "Free Peoples" to mean "free nations" or
"free populations", of which there were many that were distinct.
Still, you're absolutely right that the Dwarves don't seem to have
been defeated by Sauron in any substantial sense, and the Ents (and
Entwives) don't seem to have been involved, and the Elves were never
fully defeated either. Consider scorn to have been cast. :)
Steuard Jensen
Mark Constantino
>I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
>with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
> -- Galileo Galilei
>
From old paper:
Copernicus -- "The sun not earth is the center"
Galileo -- "The sun has spots on it"
Shakes up science communities since he publishes his ideas in Italian
Mark Constantino
>To Russia, for
>instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
>hypocrisy.
How about, "all men are created fair and square"?
"all men are created quits"?
"all men are created toits"?
"all men are created 'twixt the left and the right"?
Everything sucks except for "all men are created equal by fu**ing of the males
and females, except test tube babies and those products of in vitro
fertilization".
Stan Brown
>> You didn't cast scorn on another feature of this entry that was ripe
>> for scorn: "until many of the Free Peoples were defeated or
>> enslaved." There were four Free Peoples: elves, men, dwarves, and
>> ents. (Hobbits don't come into tales before the Third Age.) To talk
>> of "many" being a part of FOUR is ludicrous. And anyway, Dwarves and
>> Ents were not defeated or enslaved, nor were quite a few Elves.
>
>The Eagles don't count? :)
No. :-)
Learn now the lore of living creatures.
First name the Four, the Free Peoples.
Quoted from memory, but I'll bet a Balrog wing it's right, modulo
capitalization. Eagle comes further down the list, along with oxen
if I recall.
Seriously, I'm never been comfortable with how the Eagles fit in.
Tolkien says in a letter that he used them as much as he could get
away with, and I tend to think he used them a bit too much. So I
block out the "intelligent eagle" bits and think only of the
humanoids.
Of course, if we _do_ count eagles then Sauron conquered 1.5 races
out of 5 instead of 1.5 out of 4, so that makes the "many" even less
appropriate.
> I was being generous there,
Steuard, you've been told before: you're just too nice! :-)
Bagronk the Happy Orc
cable...
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> [a feeble defense of the idea that it was Eru, not the Valar, who
> sent Gandalf back after his death in Moria]
> >
> >Depending here on letter #156, in which Tolkien himself puts forth that
> >interpretation.
> >
> >He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors;
> >but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of
> >its failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is
> >done.' Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business
> >is only with the embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of
> >thought and time'
>
> Well caught; thanks! I had forgotten about that letter.
OK, if Tolkien himself said so, I assume it'll be true...
But I still wonder why Gandalf should have wandered "out of thought
and time", i.e. outside Ea. Why shouldn't he go the normal way of a
Ainu whose body is destroyed - lingering around until he is able to
form a new one? Cf. Ainulindale: Iluvatar clearly says that the Valar
are confined to the "embodied world and its time". How can this little
Maia, who just got burnt by an evil sibling, violate this law?
I always thought Gandalf went to Aman for recuperation, just as Melian
did. It is, in this age, also kind of "outside the world", at least
symbolically speaking. What about the long grey road Gandalf walks
upon (Frodo's view in Galadriel's Mirror) ? Twilight, mountains in the
background... sounds like he's taking a walk through Araman rather
than somewhere outside the physical world.
--
Bagronk the Happy Orc
Every text becomes absurd after a certain amount of bytes. If it
exceeds this length, the reader’s brain implodes. (IGfrI)
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
<snip>
> But I still wonder why Gandalf should have wandered "out of thought
> and time", i.e. outside Ea. Why shouldn't he go the normal way of a
> Ainu whose body is destroyed - lingering around until he is able to
> form a new one? Cf. Ainulindale: Iluvatar clearly says that the Valar
> are confined to the "embodied world and its time". How can this little
> Maia, who just got burnt by an evil sibling, violate this law?
I don't think he did. (Or could. Or would.)
I think Eru's intervention took place when he died.
But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
shouldn't?
<snip>
Conrad Dunkerson
news:m33cv02...@lumc.edu...
> My point is that I always attributed the "improvement" in Gandalf to
> these things, the rest and confidence, rather than an actual
> enhancement of power.
"Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent
back, as he says, with enhanced power."
Letters #181
"Gandalf really 'died', and was changed... So Gandalf sacrificed
himself, was accepted, enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the
name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality
and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater.
When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not
have dealt so with Theoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under
the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than
forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the
Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be
effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'..."
Letters #156
Stan Brown
>and time", i.e. outside Ea. Why shouldn't he go the normal way of a
>Ainu whose body is destroyed - lingering around until he is able to
>form a new one? Cf. Ainulindale: Iluvatar clearly says that the Valar
>are confined to the "embodied world and its time". How can this little
>Maia, who just got burnt by an evil sibling, violate this law?
At the end of the Second Age, the Valar temporarily "laid down their
guardianship and called upon the One". Ar-Pharazon's presumption was
too much for them to handle, at least without unleashing forces they
feared to unleash.
I think they may have done a similar thing a few centuries into the
Third Age vis-a-vis the new menace of Sauron. They had left him
alone in the Second Age and he caused no end of trouble, to the
point where an island continent had to be destroyed. Now here he was
at it again. Manwe may have asked Eru to keep an eye on the
situation; perhaps even Eru told Manwe to send five messengers to
Middle-earth.
That's about the only way I can account for Eru taking a direct hand
in things. Gandalf could not have gone to the Timeless Halls on his
own: all the Valar and Maiar are constrained to stay in Arda while
it lasts. So Eru would have had to summon him, regenerate him, and
send him back.
>I always thought Gandalf went to Aman for recuperation, just as Melian
>did.
He tells us that he went to Lorien for recuperation. "Thus it was
that I came to Caras Galadhon and found you but lately gone. I
tarried there in the ageless time of that land where days bring
healing not decay. Healing I found, and I was clothed in white."
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
>(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
>time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
>fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
>shouldn't?
An orthodox Christian might say that God wants people to make
efforts on their own. Believing Gandalf dead, the other members of
the Fellowship grew and matured as they made their own decisions. If
they had seen Gandalf die and then he was restored to them in
Lorien, they might be inclined just to "coast" since it would be
obvious their quest would not be allowed to fail.
Tamim
snip
> I think they may have done a similar thing a few centuries into the
> Third Age vis-a-vis the new menace of Sauron. They had left him
> alone in the Second Age and he caused no end of trouble, to the
> point where an island continent had to be destroyed. Now here he was
> at it again. Manwe may have asked Eru to keep an eye on the
> situation; perhaps even Eru told Manwe to send five messengers to
> Middle-earth.
snip
Why didn't anything similar happen when Melkor was causing trouble?
Not only in the first age but right from the beginning. Sauron might
have caused the destruction of Numenor but Melkor caused the marrring of
Arda, destuction of the lamps, the trees, Beleriand, corruption of elves
to orcs (ambiguous), fall of men....
Pradera
Please don't ask questions like that. It's too general. 'Why God allows
Evil'? People wonder about it for last 2000 yrs at least.
Let's just say that Eru knows what he's doing...
--
Pradera
'Of course Sauron has a physical form.
He's got a Mouth, hasn't he?'
---
Tamim
> Please don't ask questions like that. It's too general. 'Why God allows
> Evil'?
To my knowledge God hasn't intervened a single time in our world. In ME
he did, two times. Once he destroyed Numenor. That situation was
understandable because the Valar didn't think they had enough authority
to commit a genocide and destroy a continent. The second time is a
mystery and what I was trying to say is that Stan's explanation isn't
good enough because it supposes that the situation in Third age ME was
unique. It wasn't, there had been greater evil before and God didn't
intervene.
ksnip
TradeSurplus
>
>To my knowledge God hasn't intervened a single time in our world. In ME
>he did, two times. Once he destroyed Numenor. That situation was
>understandable because the Valar didn't think they had enough authority
>to commit a genocide and destroy a continent. The second time is a
>mystery and what I was trying to say is that Stan's explanation isn't
>good enough because it supposes that the situation in Third age ME was
>unique. It wasn't, there had been greater evil before and God didn't
>intervene.
Maybe it was because intervention by Eru was the only way to stop Sauron
from complete triumph and total domination of ME. In earlier ages, the Elves
and Valar were capable of resisting Morgoth and ultimately were able to
defeat him without the need for intervention by Eru. By the third age, the
Elves were no longer powerful enough and the Valar no longer had the will to
oppose Sauron. Men were also still too weak to provide successful
opposition. If this intervention was the one and only way to save ME then it
was warranted where in earlier times, since there were alternatives, it was
not.
Trade.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:ag4jml$agc$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Why didn't anything similar happen when Melkor was causing trouble?
It did.
Who did you think freed the early Edain from Melkor?
No, Eru did not intervene in every single instant where something
bad happened... but in cases where the situation was beyond repair
without his intervention he stepped in.
Tamim
g> "Tamim" <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ag4jml$agc$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> Why didn't anything similar happen when Melkor was causing trouble?
> It did.
> Who did you think freed the early Edain from Melkor?
Edain themselves.
> No, Eru did not intervene in every single instant where something
> bad happened... but in cases where the situation was beyond repair
> without his intervention he stepped in.
--
Thomas R. Shannon
> "Thomas R. Shannon" <tsh...@lumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:m33cv02...@lumc.edu...
>
> > My point is that I always attributed the "improvement" in Gandalf to
> > these things, the rest and confidence, rather than an actual
> > enhancement of power.
>
> "Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent
> back, as he says, with enhanced power."
> Letters #181
Well, it can't be put any plainer than that. Thanks.
Tom S.
--
Pradera
>
>> Why didn't anything similar happen when Melkor was causing trouble?
>
>It did.
>
>Who did you think freed the early Edain from Melkor?
>
Tom :)
Stan Brown
>Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> I think they may have done a similar thing a few centuries into the
>> Third Age vis-a-vis the new menace of Sauron. They had left him
>> alone in the Second Age and he caused no end of trouble, to the
>> point where an island continent had to be destroyed. Now here he was
>> at it again. Manwe may have asked Eru to keep an eye on the
>> situation; perhaps even Eru told Manwe to send five messengers to
>> Middle-earth.
>
This has always been a big problem for me. I have never understood
how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor -- and then, after
he poisoned the two trees, how they could let him go back there
again without pursuing him.
AC
> Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> I think they may have done a similar thing a few centuries into the
>>> Third Age vis-a-vis the new menace of Sauron. They had left him
>>> alone in the Second Age and he caused no end of trouble, to the
>>> point where an island continent had to be destroyed. Now here he was
>>> at it again. Manwe may have asked Eru to keep an eye on the
>>> situation; perhaps even Eru told Manwe to send five messengers to
>>> Middle-earth.
>>
>>Why didn't anything similar happen when Melkor was causing trouble?
>
> This has always been a big problem for me. I have never understood
> how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
> Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor
Because at that point he was still by far the mightiest of the Ainur.
> -- and then, after
> he poisoned the two trees, how they could let him go back there
> again without pursuing him.
I would imagine that Fate required that Morgoth have some dominance over
Middle Earth.
--
AC
Brought to you by Ed the Invisible Orange Iguana of Doom, Creator of the
Universe.
morgan mair fheal
> > how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
> > Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor
>
> Because at that point he was still by far the mightiest of the Ainur.
in the early stories because thats what the stories
later jrrt decided they withheld action to avoid harming men
(because the war when the elves awoke did great damage beyond the lake)
toward the end of his life jrrt decided the valar had a failure of nerve
and that they shouldve acted and trusted in eru
that eru would not let men be destroyed
Stan Brown
>> This has always been a big problem for me. I have never understood
>> how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
>> Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor
>
>Because at that point he was still by far the mightiest of the Ainur.
Maybe -- though he and Manwe can't have been that far apart.
But was he a match for all the Valar put together? I can't imagine
it.
Tamim
> AC <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>> This has always been a big problem for me. I have never understood
>>> how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
>>> Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor
>>
>>Because at that point he was still by far the mightiest of the Ainur.
> Maybe -- though he and Manwe can't have been that far apart.
> But was he a match for all the Valar put together? I can't imagine
> it.
In the beginnin, yes.
"And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other
of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above
the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the
light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and
pierces with a deadly cold.
Thus began the first battle of the Valar with Melkor for the dominion of
Arda; and of those tumults the Elves know but little. For what has here
been declared is come from the Valar themselves, with whom the Eldalië
spoke in the land of Valinor, and by whom they were instructed; but
little would the Valar ever tell of the wars before the coming of the
Elves. Yet it is told among the Eldar that the Valar endeavoured ever,
in despite of Melkor, to rule the Earth and to prepare it for the coming
of the Firstborn; and they built lands and Melkor destroyed them;
valleys they delved and Melkor raised them up; mountains they carved and
Melkor threw them down; seas they hollowed and Melkor spilled them; and
naught might have peace or come to lasting growth, for as surely as the
Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo it or corrupt it."
"It is told among the wise that the First War began before Arda was
full-shaped, and ere yet there was anything that grew or walked upon
earth; and for long Melkor had the upper hand. But in the midst of the
war a spirit of great strength and hardihood came to the aid of the
Valar, hearing in the far heaven that there was battle in the Little
Kingdom; and Arda was filled with the sound of his laughter. So came
Tulkas the Strong, whose anger passes like a mighty wind, scattering
cloud and darkness before it; and Melkor fled before his wrath and his
laughter, and forsook Arda, and there was peace for a long age"
AC
> AC <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>> This has always been a big problem for me. I have never understood
>>> how the Valar, the Guardians of the World, could just traipse off to
>>> Valinor and leave all of Middle-earth to Melkor
>>
>>Because at that point he was still by far the mightiest of the Ainur.
>
> Maybe -- though he and Manwe can't have been that far apart.
>
> But was he a match for all the Valar put together? I can't imagine
> it.
I don't know. He was clearly more than a match for them in the very first
days.
Stan Brown
>> it.
>
>I don't know. He was clearly more than a match for them in the very first
>days.
Huh? Where do you get that? He caused lots of damage, but as soon as
they decided to bring him to heel they did. The problem is not that
they were too weak, but that they were too irresolute.
Tamim
> AC <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> [Melkor]
>>> But was he a match for all the Valar put together? I can't imagine
>>> it.
>>
>>I don't know. He was clearly more than a match for them in the very first
>>days.
> Huh? Where do you get that? He caused lots of damage, but as soon as
> they decided to bring him to heel they did.
After Tulkas came, yes. Read my post.
snip
Stan Brown
I did. That's why I disagreed.
Once again, where _precisely_ do you find a quote to show that
Melkor all on his lonesome was "clearly" more than a match for all
the Valar put together?
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
> >January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
> >(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
> >time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
> >fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
> >shouldn't?
>
> An orthodox Christian might say that God wants people to make
> efforts on their own. Believing Gandalf dead, the other members of
> the Fellowship grew and matured as they made their own decisions. If
> they had seen Gandalf die and then he was restored to them in
> Lorien, they might be inclined just to "coast" since it would be
> obvious their quest would not be allowed to fail.
That is the obvious story-external explanation. I was hoping for a
story-*internal* explanation.
Tamim
> I did. That's why I disagreed.
> Once again, where _precisely_ do you find a quote to show that
> Melkor all on his lonesome was "clearly" more than a match for all
> the Valar put together?
Not more that a match but at least a mactch.
"It is told among the wise that the First War began before Arda was
full-shaped, and ere yet there was anything that grew or walked upon
earth; and for long Melkor had the upper hand"
But that's before Tulkas came.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> >But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
>> >January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
>> >(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
>> >time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
>> >fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
>> >shouldn't?
>That is the obvious story-external explanation. I was hoping for a
>story-*internal* explanation.
Perhaps the shock of dying was so severe that it took him a while to
recover consciousness. That was the case with Sauron, except after
his second death it took him centuries to grow again.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com/
"What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?"
"My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."
"I was misinformed."
Stan Brown
>> Melkor all on his lonesome was "clearly" more than a match for all
>> the Valar put together?
>"It is told among the wise that the First War began before Arda was
>full-shaped, and ere yet there was anything that grew or walked upon
>earth; and for long Melkor had the upper hand"
>
>But that's before Tulkas came.
You are right and I was wrong.
Based on your quote Melkor was indeed more than a match for them. I
can't see any other interpretation of "had the upper hand". It's the
first sentence of the "Quenta Silmarillion", and I can't imagine how
I came to forget it. Thank you for persisting to show me my error!
Jim Webster
Larry Mahnken wrote:
> "AC" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnai66p...@ts1.alberni.net...
> > In article <mair_fheal-03...@c34.ppp.tsoft.com>, morgan mair
> fheal wrote:
> > > gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
> > > sauron is another maia who lost the ability to make a pleasing form
> > > in the lotr these are the only maiar we meet
> >
> > Don't forget the Balrog.
> >
>
> Speak of him not!
> --
> -Larry Mahnken
> --
> "As a Nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal'. Now,
> we practically read it, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes'. Soon,
> it will read, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes, and foreigners,
> and Catholics'. Should it come to this, I would prefer emigrating to some
> country where they make no pretense of loving liberty. To Russia, for
> instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
> hypocrisy."
> - Abraham Lincoln
Jim Webster
a personal trainer!
Seriously, I remember when I first read LOTR years ago, I was severely
disappointed by Gandalf's resurrection; "deux ex spirita" is what I'd
call it. It felt like a cop out, and it detracted from the poignancy of
his death. I liked the old Gandolf, he felt more personable and real to
me.
Jim
Jim Webster
Stan Brown wrote:
> Bagronk the Happy Orc <NOvr-stef...@arcor.de> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >On most points in your post I clearly agree with you, but this one
> >sentence obtained my attention.
> >
> >Was there any necessity for Eru to act in this moment?
>
> It's moot whether there was a necessity, because it's pretty likely
> that Eru _did_. Gandalf says he "wandered out of thought and time",
> and most of us take that to mean that he went right out of Arda into
> the Timeless Halls where Eru and the other Ainur dwell.
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
> >> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >> >But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
> >> >January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
> >> >(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
> >> >time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
> >> >fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
> >> >shouldn't?
>
> >That is the obvious story-external explanation. I was hoping for a
> >story-*internal* explanation.
>
> Perhaps the shock of dying was so severe that it took him a while to
> recover consciousness.
Reasonable, but still not matching the fact. He was *dead* for 20 days.
After returning to life he lay 3 days more in a trance, before Gwaihir
brought him to Lorien.
I restate my question:
Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
Pradera
>
>Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
>any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
>
God does not _wish_ to change the rules of the universe he creates. Heck,
if he could do that, he could also put Gandalf back at the beginning of the
third age, so that he could overcome Isildur and throw the Ring out. That's
just not the way things work for omnipotent, omniscient beings, somehow.
But don't ask me why, I don't believe in them :)
--
Pradera
Batman Books presents:
'How to use aikido in a flame war'
Buy now!
---
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> Nasta? dzie? 09 lip 2002, gdy Kristian Damm Jensen by? ?askaw napisa?:
>
> >
> >Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
> >any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
> >
>
> God does not _wish_ to change the rules of the universe he creates.
Pardon me, how would he violate the rules of this universe be removing
Gandalf, enhancing him, and then returning him to with a couple of
seconds (minutes, hours) of his demise? Why does it have to be 20
*days*?
I am beginning to think Stan was right in the first place: Eru simple
does not want Gandalf to catch up with the company at Lorien.
<snip>
Pradera
>> >Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf
>> >to any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If
>> >so, why?
>> >
>>
>> God does not _wish_ to change the rules of the universe he creates.
>
>Pardon me, how would he violate the rules of this universe be removing
>Gandalf, enhancing him, and then returning him to with a couple of
>seconds (minutes, hours) of his demise? Why does it have to be 20
>*days*?
>
>
Perhaps those are the rules: you can't, even being a Maia, die and be
brought back instantly. You have to recover for at least 20 days...
But yes, there also was probably a 'bigger picture' of things involved...as
always... (who knows, maybe that '20 days' law was created at the beginning
of the universe solely for this purpose. Eru was, after all, omniscient)
Thomas R. Shannon
> All this 'cause he got offed by a Balrog? Sounds even better than getting
> a personal trainer!
>
> Seriously, I remember when I first read LOTR years ago, I was severely
> disappointed by Gandalf's resurrection; "deux ex spirita" is what I'd
> call it. It felt like a cop out, and it detracted from the poignancy of
> his death. I liked the old Gandolf, he felt more personable and real to
> me.
I can see where you're coming from here. But I've always seen an
awful lot of biblical parallels in LOTR. I assumed that Gandalf was a
Christ figure and that the "resurrection" was a natural outgrowth of
that. Given Tolkien's religious beliefs, I assume this isn't too far
fetched.
Tom S.
--
Quote of the Day for July 8, 2002
Everything you can imagine is real.
-- Pablo Picasso
Thomas R. Shannon
> Bagronk the Happy Orc wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > But I still wonder why Gandalf should have wandered "out of thought
> > and time", i.e. outside Ea. Why shouldn't he go the normal way of a
> > Ainu whose body is destroyed - lingering around until he is able to
> > form a new one? Cf. Ainulindale: Iluvatar clearly says that the Valar
> > are confined to the "embodied world and its time". How can this little
> > Maia, who just got burnt by an evil sibling, violate this law?
>
> I don't think he did. (Or could. Or would.)
>
> I think Eru's intervention took place when he died.
>
> But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
> January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
> (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
> time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
> fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
> shouldn't?
If this had been forty or one of about a dozen other numbers, I'd say
there was some symbolism involved in the number of days. But 20? I
never heard of anything regarding that number. Anyone else? Perhaps
in Norse mythology or something?
AC
> All this 'cause he got offed by a Balrog? Sounds even better than getting
> a personal trainer!
>
> Seriously, I remember when I first read LOTR years ago, I was severely
> disappointed by Gandalf's resurrection; "deux ex spirita" is what I'd
> call it. It felt like a cop out, and it detracted from the poignancy of
> his death. I liked the old Gandolf, he felt more personable and real to
> me.
I don't know. Once you read the Silmarillion, and find out that death
doesn't mean death unless you happen to be a Man, it seems logical that Eru
would have intervened and enhanced Gandalf.
AC
>
> Perhaps those are the rules: you can't, even being a Maia, die and be
> brought back instantly. You have to recover for at least 20 days...
> But yes, there also was probably a 'bigger picture' of things involved...as
> always... (who knows, maybe that '20 days' law was created at the beginning
> of the universe solely for this purpose. Eru was, after all, omniscient)
Since Gandalf's resurrection was, for all intents and purposes, a miracle, I
don't see how we can, or even need to, apply any story internal explanation.
As bad as it sounds, you have to write it of to "it happened because Eru
wanted it to happen that way".
morgan mair fheal
>
> Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
> any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
why ddidnt eru just zap it out of existence
AC
> I have read in a few of the posts here about Gandalf and the other
> wizards being Maia of sorts (and also wormtounge but thats got me
> toatally lost).
Wormtongue is just a Man who learned how to make and deceive friends from
Saruman.
> I knew the wizards came across the seas sot this could
> mean from the island of the valar,
> is this where people are getting it
> from or is there some bit or book i havent read. Id appreaciate
> anything u can tell me as i love the book and would like to know more
Pick up a copy of the Silmarillion. This will answer all your questions.
BTW. The Valar (Gods or Powers) don't live on an island, They live in
Aman, which was the westernmost land in the world until the Downfall of
Numenor. It was removed from the circles of the world at that time and only
Elves can cross into the Undying Lands.
Mark Constantino
>Elves can cross into the Undying Lands.
WTF cares? Elves are there and they have pointy ears, and hobbits are there
and they have hairy feet. Legends of their ancestors may or may not be lying
to make someone look good.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return
> Gandalf to any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not
> want to? If so, why?
I'd generally assumed that it was 'transit time'. That is, it took
ten days for Gandalf's spirit to travel entirely outside of Ea,
whatever went on in the Timeless Halls was... well, timeless... and
then it took ten days for his spirit to return to his body.
Could Eru just have zapped him there and back? Probably. Why didn't
he? Insufficient data to speculate meaningfully.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.178d7cf92...@news.odyssey.net...
> Tolkien does indeed say that. However, Melian the Maia did all those
> things, yet apparently abandoned her body without difficulty after
> Thingol's death and the ruin of Doriath.
I'd had the impression that she DID have difficulty, but that
might actually be >because< of the VT essay and/or connections to
Miriel.
Jim Webster
Jim Deutch
<kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> >But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
>> >January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
>> >(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
>> >time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
>> >fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
>> >shouldn't?
>>
>> An orthodox Christian might say that God wants people to make
>> efforts on their own....
>
>That is the obvious story-external explanation. I was hoping for a
>story-*internal* explanation.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Eru was directly involved in the
return of Gandalf. Is this assertion based on anything but Gandalf's
"out of time" statement? I'd take that more as a figure of speech.
If it were "mere" Valar who returned Gandalf to Middle Earth, then the
restriction is much more believable. The Valar bound themselves to
Arda and to time: it might indeed take them 20 ME days to help Gandalf
build a new body. (As near as I can tell, he was "reconstituted"
in-situ, on top of the mountain, but I cannot dismiss the possibility
that it happened in Valinor and he was later transported back to the
site of the Balrog battle.)
Either way, you'd think they would have summoned Gwaihir right away
when they were done, and not left him lying there on the
mountaintop...
Jim Deutch
--
Don't you just hate rhetorical questions?
AC
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:12:53 +0200, Kristian Damm Jensen
><kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote in
>>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>> >But explain to me, why it would take 20 Middle-earth days (from 25
>>> >January to 14 February) to enhance and return Gandalf. Why couldn't Eru
>>> >(out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to any point in
>>> >time? That would have made it possible for Gandalf to join the
>>> >fellowship in Lorien. But maybe it was part of Eru's plan, that he
>>> >shouldn't?
>>>
>>> An orthodox Christian might say that God wants people to make
>>> efforts on their own....
>>
>>That is the obvious story-external explanation. I was hoping for a
>>story-*internal* explanation.
>
> Personally, I'm not convinced that Eru was directly involved in the
> return of Gandalf. Is this assertion based on anything but Gandalf's
> "out of time" statement? I'd take that more as a figure of speech.
It is based on the Letter which was quoted a number of times over the last
week in Tolkien states explicitely that it is Eru who enhanced Gandalf.
>
> If it were "mere" Valar who returned Gandalf to Middle Earth, then the
> restriction is much more believable.
I thought this too, until I was proven wrong.
<snip>
"[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or
govenors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the
moment of its failure. Naked I was sent back- for a brief time, until
my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the Gods'
whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he
passed t of thought and time'. Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant
just literally, Unclothed like a child' (not disincarnate), and so
ready to receive the white robes of the highest. Galadriel's power is
not divine, and his healing in Lorien is meant to be no more than
physical healing and refreshment."
Letter #156
Max Behara
: Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
That quote only implies that Melkor was winning, not that he was a
match in power for the others. When I read it I felt that it meant the
rest were too aloof to stop him, even if they could. Of course perhaps
they didn't because he was a match for them in power.
It's vague. :)
--
2001 (RM)
http://www.hwcn.org/~ac575/Profile.html
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>Personally, I'm not convinced that Eru was directly involved in the
>return of Gandalf. Is this assertion based on anything but Gandalf's
>"out of time" statement?
Yes, more than one person in this very thread has quoted an extract
from /Letters/ in which Tolkien left no room for doubt.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but since you quote my
original challenge I should restate for the record: the quote
convinced me that the assertion "Melkor was originally more than a
match for all the Valar" was correct and I was wrong.
Doug Elrod
> We know what happens when they cross the Sea to Aman. Elves and Ainur would
> dwell until the End, while mortals (such as Hobbits) would enjoy a period of
> healing before dying (this does not apply to Ar Pharazon and the Numenoreans
> who tried to invade Valinor, but that's a different story).
It's not clear what the plan of the Valar originally was for "returned Istari".
Only Gandalf ever appeared to go back to Aman. I'm guessing that he retained
his body, though, if only for smoking pipe-weed :-). I would bet that there
were pipe-weed plants and/or seeds on the boat going back!
-Doug Elrod (dr...@cornell.edu)
(They might be available in Aman, but who would take the chance? :-))
Pradera
>> We know what happens when they cross the Sea to Aman. Elves and Ainur
>> would dwell until the End, while mortals (such as Hobbits) would enjoy
>> a period of healing before dying (this does not apply to Ar Pharazon
>> and the Numenoreans who tried to invade Valinor, but that's a
>> different story).
>
>It's not clear what the plan of the Valar originally was for "returned
>Istari". Only Gandalf ever appeared to go back to Aman. I'm guessing
>that he retained his body, though, if only for smoking pipe-weed :-). I
>would bet that there were pipe-weed plants and/or seeds on the boat
>going back!
>
There need not be. Pipe-weed was brought to M-E by Numenoreans, and to
Numenor probably from elves from Tol Eressea, where it was, however, only
used as an aromatic herb.
Although maybe Gandalf packed some seeds of the best varieties, like Old
Toby, to improve the Aman variety.
--
Pradera
'Nobody tosses an elf!'
'Ai! Not by the hair!'
from the early draft of LotR script
---
The American
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:9248B3A2Fprade...@130.133.1.4...
*damn-it i don't have my books handy so no exact quote*
i thought all the plant and animals that ever were could be found in Valinor
and some that are to be found no where else (i like to think about unicorns
and Leprechauns when i read this passage from the Sil.)
but your right about the pipe weed though.
i bet Gandalf had a few barrels of the stuff brought onboard.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:aghn63$3lr$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> That quote only implies that Melkor was winning, not that he was
> a match in power for the others. When I read it I felt that it
> meant the rest were too aloof to stop him, even if they could. Of
> course perhaps they didn't because he was a match for them in
> power. It's vague. :)
In early texts Melkor and Manwe were equal in power. Then in
Ainulindale text B (see LROW, page 164 note 4) Melkor was recast
as the most powerful of the Ainur.
However, the idea that Melkor was more powerful than all the
others put together did not show up until very late;
"Melkor must be made FAR MORE POWERFUL in original nature (cf.
'Finrod and Andreth'). The greatest power under Eru...
Later, he must NOT be able to be controlled or 'chained' by
all the Valar combined. Note that in the early age of Arda he was
alone able to drive the Valar out of Middle-earth into retreat."
MR, Myth's Transformed VI - Melkor Morgoth
Paul S. Person
<snippo>
>I restate my question:
>
>Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
>any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
Perhaps Eru was using a computer system for one one "tick" equalled 20
days to run the "Arda" simulation and so He could not be any more
precise.
Perhaps it is harder than we think for Eru, existing outside of Time,
to find any particular place in Time. For example, perhaps his fingers
are too thick for such precision.
Perhaps the Timeless find it hard to distinguish between one time and
another, or to understand the importance of particular times or
durations (except intellectually). Thus, perhaps Eru literally saw no
difference at all between the point at which Gandalf was returned and
twenty days earlier.
Perhaps, having already run through the Song of the Ainur twice, Eru
was bound (by his own will, to be sure) to reinsert Gandalf after the
twenty days had passed, to preserve the Song.
--
You are not being ignored! With rare exceptions:
I download on Saturdays. I upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue
AC
> Kristian Damm Jensen <kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote:
>
><snippo>
>
>>I restate my question:
>>
>>Why couldn't Eru (out of time, in the timeless halls) return Gandalf to
>>any point in time? Or is it simply, that he did not want to? If so, why?
>
> Perhaps Eru was using a computer system for one one "tick" equalled 20
> days to run the "Arda" simulation and so He could not be any more
> precise.
>
> Perhaps it is harder than we think for Eru, existing outside of Time,
> to find any particular place in Time. For example, perhaps his fingers
> are too thick for such precision.
>
> Perhaps the Timeless find it hard to distinguish between one time and
> another, or to understand the importance of particular times or
> durations (except intellectually). Thus, perhaps Eru literally saw no
> difference at all between the point at which Gandalf was returned and
> twenty days earlier.
>
> Perhaps, having already run through the Song of the Ainur twice, Eru
> was bound (by his own will, to be sure) to reinsert Gandalf after the
> twenty days had passed, to preserve the Song.
He's God. He has his own purposes, and they don't have to make any sense to
us. That's the benefit of being a god, particularly a omnipotent god.
Max Behara
: Perhaps the Timeless find it hard to distinguish between one time and
: another, or to understand the importance of particular times or
: durations (except intellectually). Thus, perhaps Eru literally saw no
: difference at all between the point at which Gandalf was returned and
: twenty days earlier.
Oh dear, just imagine he had put him back 20 days before he had
left. <VBG>
Old One
> To quote George Harrison, "Beware of Maia." :>
Eh?
> Larry Mahnken wrote:
>
> > "AC" <sp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnai66p...@ts1.alberni.net...
> > > In article <mair_fheal-03...@c34.ppp.tsoft.com>, morgan mair
> > fheal wrote:
> > > > gandalf saruman and radagast are all maiar locked in a human form
> > > > sauron is another maia who lost the ability to make a pleasing form
> > > > in the lotr these are the only maiar we meet
> > >
> > > Don't forget the Balrog.
> > >
> >
> > Speak of him not!
> > --
> > -Larry Mahnken
> > --
> > "As a Nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal'. Now,
> > we practically read it, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes'. Soon,
> > it will read, 'all men are created equal--except Negroes, and foreigners,
> > and Catholics'. Should it come to this, I would prefer emigrating to some
> > country where they make no pretense of loving liberty. To Russia, for
> > instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of
> > hypocrisy."
> > - Abraham Lincoln
--
Subtitles on the LOTR DVD Edition: "Why not try a holiday in Mor-
dor this year? See the lovely alkaline pools, and many interesting
slimy animals..."
Paul S. Person
No, he is a character in a book. As such, he can be freely discussed
and examined.
For example:
We are told that Melkor and Manwe were "first in the thought of Eru".
In the Timeless Halls, how can they have been "first"? In fact, all
the Ainur must have been preexistent with Eru, since otherwise they
would have become, and that implies a /moment/ when they became, which
implies both a /time when they were not/ and a /time when they were/
and neither can exist in /timeless/ halls.
Much the same can be said about Melkor's seeking in the Void for the
Secret Fire: how is this possible in the absense of time? (If he began
seeking, then there is a moment when he did so, ... see above).
We are told that Eru conceived a musical composition. Ignoring the
problem of at what moment he did so when no moments existed, how could
the Ainur have played it? One single chord resounding literally
forever, yes, that would be possible in the Timeless Halls, but three
themes? No, the Music of the Ainur could not have been made in the
Timeless Halls either.
Now, with God, it makes perfectly good sense to say:
>He's God. He has his own purposes, and they don't have to make any sense to
>us. That's the benefit of being a god, particularly a omnipotent god.
and many other things besides (summary: God cannot be understood by
human beings). But Eru, a character in a book written by a human
being, is, necessarily, understandable by human beings. If JRRT
intended Eru to be God, he failed in his intent, for Eru ultimately is
more like Slartibartfast's multidimensional clients. That is, Eru can
be said to be in "timeless halls" only because the dimension Eru
experiences as time is a higher dimension than the dimension we
experience that way. Eru's time is different from our time, and in
that sense he is (our)timeless.
Paul S. Person
>Paul S. Person (ppe...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Perhaps the Timeless find it hard to distinguish between one time and
>: another, or to understand the importance of particular times or
>: durations (except intellectually). Thus, perhaps Eru literally saw no
>: difference at all between the point at which Gandalf was returned and
>: twenty days earlier.
>
> Oh dear, just imagine he had put him back 20 days before he had
>left. <VBG>
Indeed.
Strider: Gandalf is lost!
Gandalf: I'm getting better!