Anti-Nazgul Blades! (Reader's Companion)
Steuard Jensen
Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion" [RC], and despite my
tremendously busy schedule these days I've been gradually making my
way through it. It's full of fascinating tidbits and information
(together with lots of general background that most of us "experts"
already know, of course), and I'm enjoying it tremendously.
There are a few claims made that I'm a bit dubious of, such as their
statement regarding p. 129 that "the implication is clear that
Goldberry can call up rain with her singing", which had never occurred
to _me_ before. There are observations that I've somehow missed
despite at least two dozen readings of the book, such as their note
for p. 186 that "Strider reveals that he knows Bilbo, but the hobbits
do not notice." And there are fascinating excerpts from previously
unpublished letters and essays, such as many new excerpts from "The
Hunt for the Ring" that give insight into how the Nazgul sense of the
Ring's proximity worked (I've been marking those for future study).
And that brings me to their final notes on "A Knife in the Dark",
because they quote a long passage from "The Hunt for the Ring" that
never made it from the Marquette archives into _Unfinished Tales_.
It's incredible; in fact, if I had seen someone post a summary of it
here, I would have checked to see if the date was April 1. This
excerpt provides seemingly definitive answers to at least two major
FAQ questions, and new insight into a third.
I'm not going to quote the whole thing here, even though it's full to
the brim with highly significant content. Here's a short paragraph
about the Witch-king that summarizes the FAQ-related points:
"Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the
Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved in the end), he withdrew and
hid for a while, out of doubt and /fear/ both of Aragorn and
especially of /Frodo/. But fear of Sauron, and the forces of
Sauron's will was the stronger."
The full excerpt has a bit more to say about the blade (which the
Witch-king clearly recognized as "enchanted... for his destruction"),
and especially about the various reasons that he had the Nazgul
withdraw rather than re-attack or even watch Weathertop. (Frodo's use
of "/Elbereth/, a name of terror" is mentioned, but mainly because it
revealed his connection with the High Elves. More significant were
the many factors that made the Witch-king realize that his mission to
find the Ring was "one of great peril to himself".)
All of this comes pretty close to my own take on the situation
previously, but to see it confirmed so clearly and vividly (and with
new unexpected detail) is amazingly cool. I'll try to update the FAQ
soon, but I'm dubious that I'll have time before the next posting on
the 22nd.
So in short, those FAQs:
III.C.2. Were the barrow blades magical? In what way?
Yes. They were enchanted by the Men of Arnor for the destruction of
the Witck-king. Their effect on him would have been comparable to the
effect of the Morgul-knife on Frodo, and would (at least eventually)
have been deadly.
III.C.3. Why didn't the Nazgul take the Ring at Weathertop?
Primarily because the Witch-king was afraid of his foes. He had been
in danger from Gandalf, he perceived Aragorn as "a great power", and
above all he feared Frodo who wielded a deadly weapon and seemed
somehow associated with surprisingly great power and will.
III.C.4. Who killed the Witch-king, Merry or Eowyn?
This one's less clear now than I considered it to be before. I still
think that the argument that Eowyn's stroke was meaningful is
important, but Tolkien seems to have said (in the paragraph quoted
above) that Merry's blow proved "deadly" to the Witch-king. It's hard
to tell if Tolkien meant that Merry's stroke killed the Witch-king
outright, if it would have killed him eventually (after hours or days
like Frodo's suffering) had not Eowyn's stroke finished the job, or if
it simply proved deadly in that it incapacitated him at a critical
moment of danger.
Personally, I'm leaning toward the second reading: that Merry's stroke
would have killed the Witch-king eventually (if he did not receive
expert healing in time), but didn't kill him instantly. Others may
prefer different readings.
As I said, this excerpt is amazing, at least to a FAQ-oriented person
like me. I hope there are further gems like this to be found later in
the book! (In case it's not clear, I heartily recommend it to all of
you!)
Steuard Jensen
Bill O'Meally
> III.C.3. Why didn't the Nazgul take the Ring at Weathertop?
>
> Primarily because the Witch-king was afraid of his foes. He had been
> in danger from Gandalf, he perceived Aragorn as "a great power", and
> above all he feared Frodo who wielded a deadly weapon and seemed
> somehow associated with surprisingly great power and will.
Very interesting. We always think of the Nazgul as being without fear,
and being single-minded in their purpose. That they would have such
fears, and would let those fears get in the way of their mission is a
new concept for me. But then, their Master had such vulnerabilities, so
why shouldn't they?
Regarding the FAQ entry, I can see *adding* this to what you have, but I
would still include the account given by Aragorn in the book, that is,
the Nazgul thought that their task was nearly complete and that Frodo
would quickly succumb to his wound. Both accounts are probably true
anyway.
Post publication explanations by the author are fine, but I don't think
they should trump what he decided to send for publication.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
Simon J. Rowe
> But then, their Master had such vulnerabilities, so
> why shouldn't they?
As did Morgoth, who is stated as the only one of the Valar to know fear.
Bill O'Meally
Well, OK. Yes, that is true...
Bill O'Meally
Simon, your newsreader is set so that replys to your posts are only sent
to one group, even though you crossposted to two. Could you reset your
"followup" option please, so that people who want to reply to both
groups don't have to keep their eyes on the address bar?
Raven
news:yJZSf.37$25....@news.uchicago.edu...
> There are a few claims made that I'm a bit dubious of, such as their
> statement regarding p. 129 that "the implication is clear that
> Goldberry can call up rain with her singing", which had never occurred
> to _me_ before.
I'm dubious of that claim too. Last page of chapter 7 of Book I, "In the
House of Tom Bombadil": 'I am no weather-master,' [Tom] said; ' nor is aught
that goes on two legs.' Unless Goldberry habitually walked on all fours
when no hobbits were around, she must also have been no weather-mistress.
Although Tom does not know everything, and Sauron may or may not have had
something to do with the storm on Caradhras, and the Witch-king may or may
not have had something to do with the storm in which Arvedui perished,
surely Tom must have known if his wife could command or at least call up the
rain.
Cuervo.
Conrad Dunkerson
> So in short, those FAQs:
>
> III.C.2. Were the barrow blades magical? In what way?
>
> Yes. They were enchanted by the Men of Arnor for the destruction of
> the Witck-king. Their effect on him would have been comparable to the
> effect of the Morgul-knife on Frodo, and would (at least eventually)
> have been deadly.
I agree with this except for the last bit. The excerpt says the barrow
blades would have been 'as deadly' to the Witch King as the Morgul knife
was to Frodo... but that does not say anything about the method of
operation. To this point my view has been that the barrow blades
inflicted particularly painful / incapacitating wounds on the Nazgul.
The statement in this passage isn't really inconsistent with that except
that it argues for a more pronounced effect.
Also, note the letter where Tolkien describes the effect of the barrow
blades as simply 'causing the wraith to fall down'. Either there is a
wide disparity between his thoughts on the matter at different times or
the two statements can be reconciled somewhere in between.
The various passages might be taken to suggest that the WK could not
have just 'gotten back up' (even with difficulty) if Eowyn had not
struck when she did, but rather that he would have been incapacitated,
nearly helpless, for some time.
> III.C.3. Why didn't the Nazgul take the Ring at Weathertop?
>
> Primarily because the Witch-king was afraid of his foes. He had been
> in danger from Gandalf, he perceived Aragorn as "a great power", and
> above all he feared Frodo who wielded a deadly weapon and seemed
> somehow associated with surprisingly great power and will.
The passage incorporates Aragorn's 'name of Elbereth' explanation and
thus is not inconsistent with previous discussion. We'd speculated that
the barrow blade played a part, and as you say it is very interesting to
see that confirmed.
> III.C.4. Who killed the Witch-king, Merry or Eowyn?
>
> This one's less clear now than I considered it to be before. I still
> think that the argument that Eowyn's stroke was meaningful is
> important, but Tolkien seems to have said (in the paragraph quoted
> above) that Merry's blow proved "deadly" to the Witch-king. It's hard
> to tell if Tolkien meant that Merry's stroke killed the Witch-king
> outright, if it would have killed him eventually (after hours or days
> like Frodo's suffering) had not Eowyn's stroke finished the job, or if
> it simply proved deadly in that it incapacitated him at a critical
> moment of danger.
>
> Personally, I'm leaning toward the second reading: that Merry's stroke
> would have killed the Witch-king eventually (if he did not receive
> expert healing in time), but didn't kill him instantly. Others may
> prefer different readings.
As above, I'm not ready to go that far. There are lots of ways that the
barrow blades could be 'as deadly'. Causing nearly immediate death would
clearly be far MORE deadly - and would seem to contradict both the
letter and the published text. Leading to an eventual death would be not
only 'as deadly', but an exact parallel... which I don't think is the
only possibility from the wording used. Anything which made the WK's
death a near certainty would meet the description.
I think the WK was certainly still alive when Eowyn struck because he
was moving and calling out, and her sword was destroyed. The question
then is whether he would have died anyway without her action. I don't
think that established/likely.
Stan Brown
<sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> The full excerpt has a bit more to say about the blade (which the
> Witch-king clearly recognized as "enchanted... for his destruction"),
How can it have been enchanted for his destruction? It was forged
thousands of years before he was born.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins 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/genl/faqget.htm
Tamim
snip
> How can it have been enchanted for his destruction? It was forged
> thousands of years before he was born.
What? Come on Stan, the Barrow blades were made by Arnorians and the WK
certainly predated them. What's gotten into you ;)?
Steuard Jensen
<441CA803...@worldnet.att.net>:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
> > So in short, those FAQs:
Just to be clear (since I even confused myself when I saw this again),
the paragraphs I wrote in this section were brief summaries of new
information only, not proposed new versions of the full FAQ entries.
The modified FAQ entries _have_ been written, and I hope to have them
online in time for posting on the 22nd.
> > III.C.2. Were the barrow blades magical? In what way?
> > Yes. They were enchanted by the Men of Arnor for the destruction of
> > the Witck-king. Their effect on him would have been comparable to the
> > effect of the Morgul-knife on Frodo, and would (at least eventually)
> > have been deadly.
> I agree with this except for the last bit. The excerpt says the
> barrow blades would have been 'as deadly' to the Witch King as the
> Morgul knife was to Frodo... but that does not say anything about
> the method of operation.
It's stated more strongly here than I intended it to be, I think.
Tolkien did use the word "deadly" in the passage under discussion, and
I do think that the Morgul-knife would have killed Frodo eventually
(or something worse: I still don't understand how the "turning him
into a wraith" was supposed to work), so I would tend to read
Tolkien's statement here about the barrow blades in the same way. I
rather like the parallel, in fact.
> To this point my view has been that the barrow blades inflicted
> particularly painful / incapacitating wounds on the Nazgul. The
> statement in this passage isn't really inconsistent with that except
> that it argues for a more pronounced effect.
I've held generally the same opinion myself. But to my eye, this
passage suggests something at least a step beyond mere pain: it sounds
like the Witch-king very much feared for his life. If I had to guess
right now, I would say that the effect of a barrow blade on the
Witch-king would have been comparable to the effect of a Morgul-knife
on a strong human: not instant death, but immediate incapacitation and
a relatively swift decline to death (perhaps on the order of a few
days). I may still be reading too much into this, I suppose; I'll
probably need a while to digest the new information and put it in
perspective.
> Also, note the letter where Tolkien describes the effect of the barrow
> blades as simply 'causing the wraith to fall down'. Either there is a
> wide disparity between his thoughts on the matter at different times or
> the two statements can be reconciled somewhere in between.
Agreed. Then again, that description fits Frodo's reaction to the
Morgul-knife pretty well, too: he fell down. And without the best
healing in Middle-earth, he would have been dead within a few weeks.
The two statements don't seem that far apart, really.
> > III.C.3. Why didn't the Nazgul take the Ring at Weathertop?
> > Primarily because the Witch-king was afraid of his foes. He had been
> > in danger from Gandalf, he perceived Aragorn as "a great power", and
> > above all he feared Frodo who wielded a deadly weapon and seemed
> > somehow associated with surprisingly great power and will.
> The passage incorporates Aragorn's 'name of Elbereth' explanation and
> thus is not inconsistent with previous discussion. We'd speculated that
> the barrow blade played a part, and as you say it is very interesting to
> see that confirmed.
It was very interesting to me to see just how many of the ideas in the
earlier drafts were still retained (but inexplicit) when Tolkien was
writing the final version. (UT says that all versions of "The Hunt
for the Ring" were written at about the same time: after publication
of FotR but before RotK was completed.) Hearing that the name
"Elbereth" was indeed still significant came as a bit of a surprise to
me, though it still doesn't seem like it was the deciding factor. (I
often considered Aragorn's statement on the name to mean little more
than "the blade did no harm at all, so even an unpleasant name was
worse".)
On the other hand, I felt like the "fear of the barrow blades" aspect
really was given heavy emphasis in this new passage. It was far from
being the whole story, but it was mentioned as often and in as much
detail as any other factor. It's pretty cool to see our
reconstructions and speculations confirmed in this way; it gives me
some level of confidence that the games we play here aren't _entirely_
self-gratification. :)
> > III.C.4. Who killed the Witch-king, Merry or Eowyn?
> > This one's less clear now than I considered it to be
> > before.
[snip]
> > Personally, I'm leaning toward the second reading: that Merry's stroke
> > would have killed the Witch-king eventually (if he did not receive
> > expert healing in time), but didn't kill him instantly. Others may
> > prefer different readings.
> As above, I'm not ready to go that far. There are lots of ways that the
> barrow blades could be 'as deadly'. Causing nearly immediate death would
> clearly be far MORE deadly - and would seem to contradict both the
> letter and the published text.
I certainly agree there; the more I think of it, the more I think that
"near immediate death" can't have been what Tolkien had in mind. (I
was trying to be open to all possibilities. :) )
> Leading to an eventual death would be not only 'as deadly', but an
> exact parallel... which I don't think is the only possibility from
> the wording used. Anything which made the WK's death a near
> certainty would meet the description.
It's hard for me to see how anything less than "leading to an eventual
death" (if untreated) could be "as deadly" as Frodo's Morgul wound.
Yes, "deadly" can simply mean "harmful" in some contexts like this (as
it did when Aragorn described the name "Elbereth" as "more deadly"
than Frodo's failed sword slash). But to me the word takes on its
full literal meaning any time you use it in a context with something
that actually causes death. (I suppose it could be argued that
Tolkien meant the barrow blades would have been as deadly to the
Witch-king as the Morgul-knife proved to be to Frodo /in
practice/... but that feels a little less natural to me somehow.)
> I think the WK was certainly still alive when Eowyn struck because
> he was moving and calling out, and her sword was destroyed.
I agree 100% (as I have pretty much throughout).
> The question then is whether he would have died anyway without her
> action. I don't think that established/likely.
I'm still not sure (and as I said, that's a change for me: if you'd
asked me this morning, I would have argued strongly against this
possibility). Perhaps the answer would have been that he would not
have died but for a reason comparable to Frodo's: another Nazgul would
have retrieved him and taken him back to Sauron for swift healing.
I still don't _like_ the notion that he would have eventually declined
and died because of Merry's stroke alone, but this passage does tend
to reinforce that notion.
Steuard Jensen
Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm>:
> Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:04:46 GMT from Steuard Jensen
> <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> > The full excerpt has a bit more to say about the blade (which the
> > Witch-king clearly recognized as "enchanted... for his destruction"),
>
> How can it have been enchanted for his destruction? It was forged
> thousands of years before he was born.
(The other hobbits had blades from the barrow, but Frodo had Sting,
which was made by the same armory as Gandalf's sword Glamdring.)
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> (The other hobbits had blades from the barrow, but Frodo had
> Sting, which was made by the same armory as Gandalf's sword
> Glamdring.)
Frodo didn't get Sting until Rivendell -- at Weathertop he carried a
blade just like the other Hobbits': the one that the Witch-king
destroyed at the Ford.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Derek Broughton
> [aft added to my re-sent reply]
>
> Simon, your newsreader is set so that replys to your posts are only sent
> to one group, even though you crossposted to two. Could you reset your
> "followup" option please, so that people who want to reply to both
> groups don't have to keep their eyes on the address bar?
>
The usual problem with kNode. We've been trying to get the developers to
fix this for years, and patches to do it have even been submitted, but the
developers seem to know better than the users...
--
derek
Simon J. Rowe
> The usual problem with kNode
Apologies, it is knode mowing the followup header. I'll look out for that in
future.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> In message <news:MPG.1e8730f87...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> > Sting, which was made by the same armory as Gandalf's sword
> > Glamdring.)
>
> Frodo didn't get Sting until Rivendell -- at Weathertop he carried a
> blade just like the other Hobbits': the one that the Witch-king
> destroyed at the Ford.
D'oh! I knew Frodo didn't get Sting till Rivendell, but I somehow
thought that Weathertop was _after_ Rivendell. I can't imagine how I
came up with that. As Monty Python say, "What a silly bunt."
Thanks, Troels!
Stan Brown
> Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:43:01 -0500 from Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>:
> > Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:04:46 GMT from Steuard Jensen
> > <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> > > The full excerpt has a bit more to say about the blade (which the
> > > Witch-king clearly recognized as "enchanted... for his destruction"),
> >
> > How can it have been enchanted for his destruction? It was forged
> > thousands of years before he was born.
>
> (The other hobbits had blades from the barrow, but Frodo had Sting,
> which was made by the same armory as Gandalf's sword Glamdring.)
As Troels observed, the flaw in my thinking is that they reached
Weathertop before Rivendell. I can't imagine how I made such a basic
error, but at least it's _so_ basic it won't confuse anyone. :-)
Stan Brown
<sr...@mose.org.uk>:
Where is it written that every article posted to r.a.b.t must be
crossposted to a.f.t? Seems to me if someone chooses to subscribe to
only one of the groups, they accept that they'll miss some things.
I personally find it a little bit irritating to see articles posted
twice because the first person posted them in only one group and then
someone "helpfully" reposts then.
Bill O'Meally
> I personally find it a little bit irritating to see articles posted
> twice because the first person posted them in only one group and then
> someone "helpfully" reposts then.
But that's not what we're talking about. The first person *did* post to
both groups. It is therefore proper that the reply should also go to
both groups.
Bill O'Meally
> Frodo didn't get Sting until Rivendell -- at Weathertop he carried a
> blade just like the other Hobbits': the one that the Witch-king
> destroyed at the Ford.
Which brings up a good point. The WK was easily able to destroy this
sword that is supposed to strike such fear into his heart that he would
abandon his mission when the Ring was within his grasp.
As I said, post-publication musings by the author are fine, but I put
more credence in what he sent for publication!
Derek Broughton
> Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:36:19 +0000 from Simon J. Rowe
> <sr...@mose.org.uk>:
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>> > The usual problem with kNode
>>
>> Apologies, it is knode mowing the followup header. I'll look out for that
>> in future.
>
> Where is it written that every article posted to r.a.b.t must be
> crossposted to a.f.t? Seems to me if someone chooses to subscribe to
> only one of the groups, they accept that they'll miss some things.
The problem with this newsreader, though, is not that it "helpfully"
prevents cross-posting. Unless you're crossposting to more than 5
newsgroups, it doesn't complain. The problem is that it lets _me_ post to
both newsgroups, but it tells everybody else's newsreaders to only post in
one of them. It seems at best impolite, and at worst really annoying, to
in essence say "I know which newsgroups I want to post to, but I don't
trust you to do it right". If I really shouldn't be cross-posting, I
should have changed the groups on my own post, not via the "Followups-to"
header. And since I'm using the same newsreader as Simon, I've been bitten
by this often...
--
derek
Stan Brown
<OMea...@wise.rr.com>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > I personally find it a little bit irritating to see articles posted
> > twice because the first person posted them in only one group and then
> > someone "helpfully" reposts then.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about. The first person *did* post to
> both groups. It is therefore proper that the reply should also go to
> both groups.
Right (usually), but if it doesn't then reposting it as a crosspost
is not the answer. Once someone breaks the crossposting, voluntarily
or accidentally, the bifurcation is there and posting again simply
adds to the bandwidth.
nfw
> I'm still not sure (and as I said, that's a change for me: if you'd
> asked me this morning, I would have argued strongly against this
> possibility). Perhaps the answer would have been that he would not
> have died but for a reason comparable to Frodo's: another Nazgul would
> have retrieved him and taken him back to Sauron for swift healing.
Yet, could Sauron even *heal*?
Evil minded only to destruction surely didn't had any craft near
Elrond's healing power!
The WK was nearer to Imladris anyway so he should have headed this way
for any medical emergency ;-)
Just kiddin', WK. Mind not, please!
Bill O'Meally
> Right (usually), but if it doesn't then reposting it as a crosspost
> is not the answer. Once someone breaks the crossposting, voluntarily
> or accidentally, the bifurcation is there and posting again simply
> adds to the bandwidth.
As opposed to a reply not getting posted in the group to which the
author intended it to go, and then having other people possibly replying
with the same information that might otherwise have been shared?
Honestly, which wastes more bandwidth?
People who only follow aft and responded to the person's post would not
even have seen their reply at all.
Anyway, my intent at crossposting was less an attempt to share some sort
of sublime comment I had (which it wasn't) with aft, as to let the
person I was responding to know that their followup feature was screwed
up. I suppose I could have simply sent him an email.
Steuard Jensen
<LNnTf.29643$ty4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>:
> Which brings up a good point. The WK was easily able to destroy this
> sword that is supposed to strike such fear into his heart that he
> would abandon his mission when the Ring was within his grasp.
> As I said, post-publication musings by the author are fine, but I
> put more credence in what he sent for publication!
It's hard to know whether to call this "post-publication", though.
UT says that all versions of "The Hunt for the Ring" were probably
written by Tolkien after FotR was published but before RotK was
completed. So this isn't Tolkien thinking back on what he'd written
long before, it's a reflection of his thought process right in the
midst of putting finishing touches on the book. I do agree completely
that unpublished notes like this have much less weight than the
published text, but I still think they can do a lot to tell us what
Tolkien's intent was.
And in this case, the note simply suggests that Tolkien had stuck to
the same basic idea from the early drafts of the Weathertop scene up
through publication: that the blade was "the one kind of sword the
Riders fear" (as Gandalf said in the chapter "At Rivendell" in /The
Return of the Shadow/). It's worth noting that even in those early
drafts where the Nazgul's fear of the barrow blades was explicit in
the text, the Witch-king still shattered Frodo's blade at the Ford: at
least at that point, the issue that is troubling you here apparently
did not trouble Tolkien. (And this unpublished note suggests that it
continued to not bother him even after FotR was thoroughly revised and
published.)
I and others have proposed ways to resolve this puzzle in the past.
One possibility that has always seemed pretty natural to me is that
the magic used to destroy the sword took some time and effort to
prepare. The Witch-king probably hadn't seen such a weapon in a
thousand years, so he may have stayed in hiding until he remembered
how to deal with them. And as we know so little about how magic
worked in Middle-earth (especially as used by humans, or Ringwraiths),
it's hard to guess what preparations were necessary: meditation,
summoning of arcane power, making a cute little voodoo sword... who
knows. :)
I'm not sure that this is the _right_ solution, but especially given
the new evidence from RC I'm pretty much convinced that trying to
resolve this one puzzle with the detailed explanation there is more
natural than rejecting all of the evidence in favor of that
explanation.
Steuard Jensen
Stan Brown
<OMea...@wise.rr.com>:
> Anyway, my intent at crossposting was less an attempt to share some sort
> of sublime comment I had (which it wasn't) with aft, as to let the
> person I was responding to know that their followup feature was screwed
> up. I suppose I could have simply sent him an email.
Bill, I didn't mean to criticize you personally. I see this business,
reposting stuff solely to crosspost it, fairly often, and I really
haven't paid much attention to who's doing it when. I know everyone's
intentions are good.
Tamim
snip
> Yet, could Sauron even *heal*?
> Evil minded only to destruction surely didn't had any craft near
> Elrond's healing power!
Well the WK wasn't exactly made of flesh and bone, so we can't speak of
healing in the traditional sense. I'd say Sauron had the ability to fix
or strenghten him. In the first place Sauron (or the ring to be exact) had extended his life
magically by several millenia. Secondly Sauron did strenghten him during
the battle of the Pelennor fields. And thirdly as we know, the WK could
not "die" as long as Sauron (Or the rings) existed.
> The WK was nearer to Imladris anyway so he should have headed this way
> for any medical emergency ;-)
> Just kiddin', WK. Mind not, please!
--
O. Sharp
Steuard Jensen:
> > [...] Perhaps the answer would have been that he [the Witch-king]
> > Nazgul would have retrieved him and taken him back to Sauron for swift
> > healing.
> Yet, could Sauron even *heal*?
> Evil minded only to destruction surely didn't had any craft near
> Elrond's healing power!
While I doubt Sauron and his ilk would have very good bedside manner, I'd
suspect they had the tools and knowledge to keep the Witch-king alive if
they wanted to. Even the Orcs who captured Merry and Pippin had a certain
degree of The Healer's Art (_TT_ pp. 51-2 hardback):
"Pippin fell down, and Ugluk dragged him up by his hair again.
Several Orcs laughed. Ugluk thrust a flask between his teeth and poured
some burning liquid down his throat; he felt a hot fierce glow flow
through him. The pain in his legs and ankles vanished. He could stand.
"'Now for the other!' said Ugluk. Pippin saw him go to Merry, who
was lying close by, and kick him. Merry groaned. Seizing him roughly Ugluk
pulled him into a sitting position, and tore the bandage off his head.
Then he smeared the wound with some dark stuff out of a small wooden box.
Merry cried out and struggled wildly.
"[...] He was healing Merry in orc-fashion; and his treatment
worked swiftly. [After a drink from the same flask] Merry stood up,
looking pale but grim and defiant, and very much alive. The gash in his
forehead gave him no more trouble, but he bore a brown scar to the end of
his days."
If the Orcs had this kind of healing abilities, it seems safe to say that
Sauron would likely be on a par with Elrond as far as healing knowledge
is concerned - though, doubtless, different skills would be emphasized
(prolonging life rather than removing pain, for example).
Any other examples come to mind?
> The WK was nearer to Imladris anyway so he should have headed this way
> for any medical emergency ;-)
Ah, but the Witch-king was probably on a different policy. I strongly
suspect that Sauron runs the HMO I'm compelled to subscribe to, and if so
the Witch-king couldn't go to Imladris because it was a non-network
provider. "If the Member is admitted to a non-MHCN Facility they should
contact the Emergency Notification Line as indicated on their GHO
identification card in order to be covered." (*)
(*) - actual quote from my own HMO's damnable "Summary of Benefits". I
don't believe "MHCN" was _intended_ to be an acronym for "Mordor Health
Care Network", but obviously it is. :(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@drizzle.com "The copayment applies after your annual deductible
has been met. The claim system indicates $104 charge of the
applied to your deductible" [sic] "because the $350 total
had not been met. The medical staff are not required to
confirm benefit information. Your request was submitted to
Patient Financial Services for review. Patient Financial
Services has reviewed the charge and determined it is
correct. The balance will remain patient responsibility. If
you have any further questions please call the Customer
Service Department..."
-Actual excerpts from the latest letter I've
recieved from my damnable HMO, this one explaining
how medical staff can't actually tell you how much
something will cost; and if they _do_ tell you when
you ask, Group Health Cooperative won't honor it.
Hell, with the low quality of this outfit I think I'd
_prefer_ to be healed by an Orc. :)
Bill O'Meally
>
> I and others have proposed ways to resolve this puzzle in the past.
> One possibility that has always seemed pretty natural to me is that
> the magic used to destroy the sword took some time and effort to
> prepare.
Another explanation, and one that is alluded to in Aragorn's comments,
is that at the Ford all Nine were assembled, as opposed to only five as
on Amon Sul. Perhaps the Witch King's powers were somehow more enhanced
with them all assembled, enabling him to overcome the spells in (and any
fears he had of) the Barrow-blade.
Bill O'Meally
> Bill, I didn't mean to criticize you personally.
Sorry Stan. My angst started to get the better of me. :-)
Bill O'Meally
> Well the WK wasn't exactly made of flesh and bone,
Wasn't he? He was a Man afterall, made of flesh and blood (and bone :-))
whose life was prolonged beyond measure by the power of his Ring. Though
invisible to Mortal eyes, he had form that was obvious only when a cloak
was worn over it. His 'sinews' (i.e., tendons and ligaments) though
'unseen', were quite real and able to be cleaved by a blade.
Tamim
> Tamim wrote:
>> Well the WK wasn't exactly made of flesh and bone,
> Wasn't he? He was a Man afterall, made of flesh and blood (and bone :-))
> whose life was prolonged beyond measure by the power of his Ring. Though
> invisible to Mortal eyes, he had form that was obvious only when a cloak
> was worn over it. His 'sinews' (i.e., tendons and ligaments) though
> 'unseen', were quite real and able to be cleaved by a blade.
Good point. In any case healing withered flesh that should have been
dead a long time ago is adifferent art from normal healing.
Bill O'Meally
> Good point. In any case healing withered flesh that should have been
> dead a long time ago is adifferent art from normal healing.
Certainly a challenge for even the best physician!
nfw
:-)
Sometimes I feel my credit card is kind of Ring of power one should
never use and oft growing heavier as approaching its Doom: either the
end of the month or the shopping center (with increasing danger of wife
weilding it).
;-}