CotW LotR, Bk 3 Chptr 3 - The Uruk-hai (corrected version)

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Yuk Tang

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 1:05:11 PM7/13/04
to
Please reply to this thread instead of the other, since I forgot to
cross-post it to rabt.

********************

The chapter starts with Pippin's half-dream recollection of Boromir's
stand, and the Hobbits' capture by the Orc hunting

band. Having depressed himself by his comparison with the heroics of
Boromir and Merry, P, now fully awake, listens to the

arguments between the various factions within the pack. The two main
voices, representing Orthanc and Barad Dur

respectively, are Ugluk and Grishnakh. They agree on the integrity
of the captives, but little else. During the quarrel that

breaks out, a fallen Orc's knife allows Pippin the opportunity to cut
his binds, which he nonetheless retains for

appearance's sake.

When the outrunners report back with the sighting of a horseman,
Ugluk decides to speed proceedings by making the

captives run on their own feet. Reviving Merry and Pippin with Orc-
cordial, the pack accelerate towards the relative cover

of Fangorn. Spotting an opportunity to leave a token of their
passing, Pippin veers off the trail to leave his brooch in the

mud, and tastes the whip for his troubles.

For whatever unknown reason, Grishnakh's band rejoins the
Isengarders. After another argument about the effectiveness

of Grishnakh's Nazgul superiors, the Isengarders take possession of
the Hobbits. Despite a surprising turn of speed, they

cannot outrun the Riders who fence them from the forest and encircle
them. Ugluk is content to wait for reinforcements

from Isengard who will strike at dark.

Grishnakh takes advantage of a Rider-induced confusion to get close
to the Hobbits, and Pippin reacts by tempting him with

the offer of the Ring. Taking them to the relative darkness for
closer inspection, Grishnakh is spotted by a Rider and

spitted. Hidden by their Elven-cloaks, the Hobbits avoid detection,
and Pippin is able to untie Merry and head further into

the dark. When they are clear of the fight, they stop for a snack
(!?) and reflection, before heading into the trees, away

from the sound of battle and the sight of Ugluk, fighting to the end.
And what an end it is, as Ugluk's band is finally taken

and Ugluk himself killed by Eomer.

Discussion points:

1. Who are the Uruk-Hai? With the knowledge that the Olog-Hai were
trolls (see barrowdowns.com for a fuller essay), it seems probable
that the Uruk-Hai were the Orcish name for themselves, that 'Orc' and
'Yrch' were merely Elvish corruptions of the original. Yet Ugluk
refers to the Isengarders apart as the fighting Uruk-Hai, they who do
the fighting, they who do the dirty work. One way of reconciling
this is to consider Uruk-Hai as a term that can includes _all_ Orcs,
but that there is also an ideal that Orcs aspire towards, that _this_
was the ultimate in Uruk-Haidom. This explains Ugluk's later
reference to 'the Uruk-Hai of Isengard', which can imply both their
uniqueness as Isengard's brood, and their lack of uniqueness so that
their Isengardian origin would need specifying. However, we must
remember that the evidence for this comes via Hobbit chroniclers, and
as their account of the army of Isengard implied, the eye (ear?)
witnesses thought that Uruks were a group apart.

2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were
heading towards Isengard. Since their bodies were not found on the
trail, it would logically follow that they, or their bodies, were
still headed towards Isengard, brooch or not brooch.

3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet leaves
no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of chilli and
garlic?

4. What did Grishnakh know about the Ring, and how did he know about
it? It's been stated (admittedly by Gandalf, who's hardly 'in the
loop') that Sauron doesn't trust anyone other than the Nazgul to deal
with matters involving the One. Yet Grishnakh obviously knows of its
allure, and its connections with Gollum. Was he one of the
interrogators who wrung the information from Gollum in Barad Dur?

5. Ugluk da Hero. We see in the Hobbits the attributes of heroism,
as recognised in Tolkien's world. Frodo: wisdom, Sam: faithfulness,
Merry: courage, Pippin: wit. This can be seen in purer form in the
Silm, but within LotR (and this chapter) we can see what sets Ugluk
apart from the other Orcs. He is faithful to his master, delivering
the Hobbits as requested, and trusting the White Hand to send him
reinforcements to finish the job. He is canny enough to concentrate
on realistic objectives, keeping the ultimate end in sight but
shaping their efforts to achieve that end. He is quick-witted enough
to react successfully to the machinations of Grishnakh, and to make
snap decisions to maximise their chances of success. And finally,
his courage cannot be questioned. While events (and Eomer) may have
overtaken him, he meets a heroic end, and is accorded a memorial of
sorts, his head stuck on a stake. While ignominious to our eyes, it
shows that Eomer evidently thought much of his opponent, that he
dismounted and fought him on foot, and giving him this special
treatment after.

--
Cheers, ymt.

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 6:48:38 PM7/13/04
to

"Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4...

> Please reply to this thread instead of the other, since I forgot to
> cross-post it to rabt.
>
> ********************
>
( snip of very nice summary of an action packed chapter )

> Discussion points:
>
> 1. Who are the Uruk-Hai? With the knowledge that the Olog-Hai were
> trolls (see barrowdowns.com for a fuller essay), it seems probable
> that the Uruk-Hai were the Orcish name for themselves, that 'Orc' and
> 'Yrch' were merely Elvish corruptions of the original. Yet Ugluk
> refers to the Isengarders apart as the fighting Uruk-Hai, they who do
> the fighting, they who do the dirty work. One way of reconciling
> this is to consider Uruk-Hai as a term that can includes _all_ Orcs,
> but that there is also an ideal that Orcs aspire towards, that _this_
> was the ultimate in Uruk-Haidom. This explains Ugluk's later
> reference to 'the Uruk-Hai of Isengard', which can imply both their
> uniqueness as Isengard's brood, and their lack of uniqueness so that
> their Isengardian origin would need specifying. However, we must
> remember that the evidence for this comes via Hobbit chroniclers, and
> as their account of the army of Isengard implied, the eye (ear?)
> witnesses thought that Uruks were a group apart.

I think that perhaps Saruman used the designation to instill pride, and
perhaps to set them apart, so that they would give him their chief
allegiance, rather than Barad-Dur. Still, your theory has appeal as well.

>
> 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
> he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were
> heading towards Isengard. Since their bodies were not found on the
> trail, it would logically follow that they, or their bodies, were
> still headed towards Isengard, brooch or not brooch.

Ah, but now Aragorn knows that at least one of them is not only alive, but
has the use of his wits, and is healthy (uninjured) enough to leave the
brooch. A useful thing to know.

>
> 3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
> leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet leaves
> no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of chilli and
> garlic?

Something pretty dire. I would guess it is the Orc equivalent of miruvor.
Your description sounds about right. LOL!

>
> 4. What did Grishnakh know about the Ring, and how did he know about
> it? It's been stated (admittedly by Gandalf, who's hardly 'in the
> loop') that Sauron doesn't trust anyone other than the Nazgul to deal
> with matters involving the One. Yet Grishnakh obviously knows of its
> allure, and its connections with Gollum. Was he one of the
> interrogators who wrung the information from Gollum in Barad Dur?

I have always thought that perhaps Grishnakh eavesdropped on conversations
not meant for his ears. But if he were one of Gollum's interrogators, or
even a lackey in the vicinity of Gollum's interrogation, it would account
with his famiiliarity with the noise he made.

>
> 5. Ugluk da Hero. We see in the Hobbits the attributes of heroism,
> as recognised in Tolkien's world. Frodo: wisdom, Sam: faithfulness,
> Merry: courage, Pippin: wit. This can be seen in purer form in the
> Silm, but within LotR (and this chapter) we can see what sets Ugluk
> apart from the other Orcs. He is faithful to his master, delivering
> the Hobbits as requested, and trusting the White Hand to send him
> reinforcements to finish the job. He is canny enough to concentrate
> on realistic objectives, keeping the ultimate end in sight but
> shaping their efforts to achieve that end. He is quick-witted enough
> to react successfully to the machinations of Grishnakh, and to make
> snap decisions to maximise their chances of success. And finally,
> his courage cannot be questioned. While events (and Eomer) may have
> overtaken him, he meets a heroic end, and is accorded a memorial of
> sorts, his head stuck on a stake. While ignominious to our eyes, it
> shows that Eomer evidently thought much of his opponent, that he
> dismounted and fought him on foot, and giving him this special
> treatment after.

I suppose that he might have been as close to a hero to Orcs as an Orc might
get. But although a warrior like Eomer might appreciate the creature's
physical ability and courage enough to engage him, I don't think anyone will
be handing out any medals.

Other comments: You seemed to indicate surprise that the first thing Merry
and Pippin did after escaping was eat. These *are* hobbits, after all.

Pippin really comes into his own in this chapter. For the first time since
the story began, he has no one else to rely on, and he really comes through,
showing his Tookishness, courage and wit.
Barbara


>
>
> --
> Cheers, ymt.


Christopher Kreuzer

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:10:56 PM7/13/04
to
aelfwina <aelf...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> 4. What did Grishnakh know about the Ring, and how

<snip>

>> Was he one of the
>> interrogators who wrung the information from Gollum in Barad Dur?
>
> I have always thought that perhaps Grishnakh eavesdropped on
> conversations not meant for his ears. But if he were one of Gollum's
> interrogators, or even a lackey in the vicinity of Gollum's
> interrogation, it would account with his famiiliarity with the noise
> he made.

Being familiar with Gollum's noises: remember that the orcs we meet
later in Mordor also seem familiar with Gollum. It seems that, much like
Hurin in 'The Silmarillion' Gollum was released by Sauron and allowed to
go where he would, and the orcs (for Gollum) and Easterlings (for Hurin)
let him pass at will. Though Gollum was by that time being hunted by the
orcs, it is implied that earlier he had the freedom of the lands. Word
must have been sent out to let him pass. But the Ring information would
have been a closely guarded secret, so very possibly Grishnakh was one
of the interrogators.

<snip>

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Tar-Elenion

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:20:41 PM7/13/04
to
In article <10f8pmc...@corp.supernews.com>, aelf...@cableone.net
says...

>
> "Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4...
<snip>

> > 1. Who are the Uruk-Hai? With the knowledge that the Olog-Hai were
> > trolls (see barrowdowns.com for a fuller essay), it seems probable
> > that the Uruk-Hai were the Orcish name for themselves, that 'Orc' and
> > 'Yrch' were merely Elvish corruptions of the original. Yet Ugluk
> > refers to the Isengarders apart as the fighting Uruk-Hai, they who do
> > the fighting, they who do the dirty work. One way of reconciling
> > this is to consider Uruk-Hai as a term that can includes _all_ Orcs,
> > but that there is also an ideal that Orcs aspire towards, that _this_
> > was the ultimate in Uruk-Haidom. This explains Ugluk's later
> > reference to 'the Uruk-Hai of Isengard', which can imply both their
> > uniqueness as Isengard's brood, and their lack of uniqueness so that
> > their Isengardian origin would need specifying. However, we must
> > remember that the evidence for this comes via Hobbit chroniclers, and
> > as their account of the army of Isengard implied, the eye (ear?)
> > witnesses thought that Uruks were a group apart.
>
> I think that perhaps Saruman used the designation to instill pride, and
> perhaps to set them apart, so that they would give him their chief
> allegiance, rather than Barad-Dur. Still, your theory has appeal as well.

According to the explanation given in the index of UT:
"/Uruks/ Anglicized form of /Uruk-hai/ of the Black Speech; a race of
Orcs of great size and strength."
It seems unlikely that Saruman would use the B.S. to name Orcs that were
exclusively his. Additionally, since the term /Uruks/ is used both of
Sauron's and Saruman's Orcs and /Uruks/ is just the anglicized form of
Uruk-hai, then the general term /Uruk-hai/ refers to Orcs in the service
of both Sauron and Saruman. Or, as per, LotR, App. F "Related, no doubt,
was the word /uruk/ of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a
rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor
and Isengard." These great soldier-orcs would be Uruk-hai.

--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.

jsberry

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 8:17:28 AM7/14/04
to
> > 3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
> > leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet leaves
> > no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of chilli and
> > garlic?
>
> Something pretty dire. I would guess it is the Orc equivalent of miruvor.
> Your description sounds about right. LOL!

I always thought it was coffee. Not Starbucks or Lavazza; no, this
was some stale gas-station coffee. Bitter, dark, hot, and strong.
Tolkien had a way of putting the real world's stimulants into Middle
Earth, they had pipe weed and beer so why not coffee. Further, the
Europeans got coffee from the Turks and the orcs are kind of
eastern/african-esque in Tolkien's way, so it fits.

Henriette

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:06:13 PM7/14/04
to
Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4>...

(snip good and short summary, thank you Yuk Tang! Taemon, maybe you
don't have objections to making a relatively *short* summary?)

> 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
> he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were

> heading towards Isengard. (snip)
>
I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to do that.
Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.

> 3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
> leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet leaves
> no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of chilli and
> garlic?
>

Are those your phantasies after Merry has said about the cordial: "I
wonder what it was made of. Better not to know I expect"?

> (snip) and is accorded a memorial of sorts, his head stuck on a stake.

I'm not always sure when you are being serious and when you are being
ironic. The above is an example...

Henriette

Yuk Tang

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:25:16 PM7/14/04
to
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
news:be50318e.0407...@posting.google.com:
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4>...
>
> (snip good and short summary, thank you Yuk Tang! Taemon, maybe
> you don't have objections to making a relatively *short* summary?)
>
>> 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew
>> that he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that
>> they were heading towards Isengard. (snip)
>>
> I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to do that.
> Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.

On impulse, but I just failed to see how it affected events to any
great degree. A touch like the 'Help me!' that bound sidekicks utter
when the hero confronts the villain; it's not as though the hero
would abandon his friends without such an entreaty.


>> 3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
>> leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet
>> leaves no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of
>> chilli and garlic?
>>
> Are those your phantasies after Merry has said about the cordial:
> "I wonder what it was made of. Better not to know I expect"?

Just wondering. It's evidently quite disgusting, but has pretty
similar short-term effects to miruvor. Since I asked the question, I
felt that I should at least venture _some_ kind of answer; hence my
'phantasies'.


>> (snip) and is accorded a memorial of sorts, his head stuck on a
>> stake.
>
> I'm not always sure when you are being serious and when you are
> being ironic. The above is an example...

Trying to be different, and provoke an informed argument about things
not covered in the FAQs. Unfortunately, judging by Kohrs' comments,
I guess that I've been killfiled by most of the regulars who provide
the bulk of the discussions. Oh well, at least I've tried.


--
Cheers, ymt.

Taemon

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:13:05 PM7/14/04
to
Henriette wrote:

> (snip good and short summary, thank you Yuk Tang! Taemon,
> maybe you don't have objections to making a relatively *short*
> summary?)

What do you call relative? I tend to think two sentences is more
than enough. Although, this was my summary for one of my Hobbit
chapters:

Bilbo and the dwarves journey through the Mirkwood, a gloomy
place with little light and no food. Eventually they leave the
path and get lost. Bilbo saves the dwarves from the big spiders
but for Thorin, who has been captured by the Wood-elves.

(or: I assume you all read the chapter, on with the nitpicking)


Why do you value those summaries so? I usually skip them, since
there is nothing new in there.

> > 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion?

> I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to
> do that.
> Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.

Really, that's no answer. He did it because he did it?
Story-external, I'd say it is to show Pippin's somewhat
unexpected quick-thinking and level-mindedness. Story-internal -
maybe a cry for help? An action like that could help him believe
that there was actually help on the way? In his place, I wouldn't
dare hope that Aragorn was on his way to help _me_, not Frodo.

> I'm not always sure when you are being serious and when
> you are being ironic. The above is an example...

I like it when someone thinks of the orc's perspective of things!

T.


Yuk Tang

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 4:58:17 PM7/14/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in news:2lleuaFdin4oU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> Henriette wrote:
>
>> (snip good and short summary, thank you Yuk Tang! Taemon,
>> maybe you don't have objections to making a relatively *short*
>> summary?)
>
> What do you call relative? I tend to think two sentences is more
> than enough. Although, this was my summary for one of my Hobbit
> chapters:
>
> Bilbo and the dwarves journey through the Mirkwood, a gloomy
> place with little light and no food. Eventually they leave the
> path and get lost. Bilbo saves the dwarves from the big spiders
> but for Thorin, who has been captured by the Wood-elves.

My fault. I haven't been following the CotWs in detail (just dipping
in here and there), so I was making my own path; reinventing the
wheel, one could say.


> (or: I assume you all read the chapter, on with the nitpicking)

A thoroughly sensible attitude.


> Why do you value those summaries so? I usually skip them, since
> there is nothing new in there.
>
>> > 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion?
>> I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to
>> do that.
>> Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
>
> Really, that's no answer. He did it because he did it?
> Story-external, I'd say it is to show Pippin's somewhat
> unexpected quick-thinking and level-mindedness.

The Hobbits-Grishnakh scene is also quite illustrative of the
differences between Merry and Pippin. Merry, bless him, is a brave
and warlike character. But his straightforward haggling with
Grishnakh was, I thought, rather less effective than and quite
counter-productive to Pippin's impersonation of Gollum. A current,
or former, Ringbearer would not be conducting negotiations about the
Precious. However, it would be quite plausible that he would have
been reduced to a nervous pulp by its effects, which was obviously
Pippin's idea.


> Story-internal -
> maybe a cry for help? An action like that could help him believe
> that there was actually help on the way? In his place, I wouldn't
> dare hope that Aragorn was on his way to help _me_, not Frodo.
>
>> I'm not always sure when you are being serious and when
>> you are being ironic. The above is an example...
>
> I like it when someone thinks of the orc's perspective of things!

It's boring when everyone reads the book the same way, taking the
side of the narrator, etc. Why not look at things from 'the other
side', and see how the story reinterprets itself? By striking for
the unknown and deliberately asking provocative questions (as long as
they're not covered by the FAQs), one can often learn new things
about the story.


--
Cheers, ymt.

the softrat

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 7:29:18 PM7/14/04
to
On 14 Jul 2004 05:17:28 -0700, jsb...@yahoo.com (jsberry) wrote:
>
>I always thought it was coffee. Not Starbucks or Lavazza; no, this
>was some stale gas-station coffee. Bitter, dark, hot, and strong.
>Tolkien had a way of putting the real world's stimulants into Middle
>Earth, they had pipe weed and beer so why not coffee. Further, the
>Europeans got coffee from the Turks and the orcs are kind of
>eastern/african-esque in Tolkien's way, so it fits.

Your description fits French Truck-stop Coffee to a 'T'.

(Ah, that romantic place outside of Dijon ...... my throat will NEVER
forget!)


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Mr Bullfrog says, "Time's fun, when you're having flies!"

Emma Pease

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 8:10:13 PM7/14/04
to

Timeline

Feb 26
- Breaking of the Fellowship
- Frodo and Sam cross to the east bank and head off
- Merry and Pippin captured by orcs
- Death and funeral of Boromir
- late afternoon, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas set off after the orcs

- evening, orcs stop for a while in the valley between the two ridges
of the Emyn Muil. Grishnakh leaves. Pippin frees his hands.

- early night, orcs reach the west edge of the Emyn Muil, sighted by a
rider of Rohan
- little bit later (moon hasn't set), Pippin swerves off and drops brooch

Feb 27
- dawn, Aragorn's party reaches the western ridge of the Emyn Muil,
Legolas sights an eagle heading north, orcs 12 leagues away
- early morning, find Pippin's brooch
- night, Aragorn's party rests, 12 leagues from the Emyn Muil

- midnight (probably 27/28), Eomer starts pursuing the Orcs

- Gandalf sees Treebeard but doesn't speak to him

Feb 28
- Aragorn's party continues NW
- dusk, are 24 leagues from the Emyn Muil
- night, rests

- morning, orc party camps temporarily on the banks of the Entwash,
Grishnakh rejoins

-dusk, Eomer's eored overtakes the Orcs at the edge of Fangorn

Feb 29
- pre-dawn, Merry and Pippin escape
- dawn, Eomer attacks and destroys the orcs

- just before noon, Aragorn's party reaches the downs
- find Orc camp (36 hours old)
- night, rests, 10 leagues from Fangorn

Merry and Pippin are prisoners from about mid-day 26 till about
midnight of the 28/29. A total of about 2 and half days. During this
time they had no food.


> Discussion points:

> 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
> he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were
> heading towards Isengard. Since their bodies were not found on the
> trail, it would logically follow that they, or their bodies, were
> still headed towards Isengard, brooch or not brooch.

Well there was the possibility of a small group leaving the main party
with the hobbits. Aragorn does not seem to have noticed Grishnakh's
departure from the party in the Emyn Muil but Pippin who did know
might have thought it useful to convince any trackers that he was with
this party of orcs.

> 4. What did Grishnakh know about the Ring, and how did he know about
> it? It's been stated (admittedly by Gandalf, who's hardly 'in the
> loop') that Sauron doesn't trust anyone other than the Nazgul to deal
> with matters involving the One. Yet Grishnakh obviously knows of its
> allure, and its connections with Gollum. Was he one of the
> interrogators who wrung the information from Gollum in Barad Dur?

Grishnakh must have been highly trusted for an orc; he probably wasn't
one of the interrogators but probably was one of the interrogators'
guards. The original raiding party seems to have consisted of

1. The Isengard orcs led by Ugluk
2. The Moria orcs that had joined up with the Isengard orcs
3. Grishnakh apparently on his own

Grishnakh leaves and then rejoins later with some more Sauron orcs.

My thoughts

1. How did the raiding party get to Amon Hen and how long had they
been waiting? Aragorn doesn't seem to have come across any path of
the orcs heading towards the Emyn Muil. Note that Eomer's scouts
don't seen anything until the orcs return.

2. Why was Grishnakh apparently sent on his own?

--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

Henriette

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 12:38:18 AM7/15/04
to
Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9526C590723CA...@130.133.1.4>...

> > I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to do that.


> > Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
>
> On impulse, but I just failed to see how it affected events to any

> great degree. (snip)

Not to any great degree, but it does in detail: I love the exciting
moment when Pippin dares to dash off, and I love the moment the brooch
is found and the subsequent drawing of conclusions by Aragorn.

> > Are those your phantasies after Merry has said about the cordial:
> > "I wonder what it was made of. Better not to know I expect"?
>
> Just wondering. It's evidently quite disgusting, but has pretty
> similar short-term effects to miruvor. Since I asked the question, I
> felt that I should at least venture _some_ kind of answer; hence my
> 'phantasies'.
>

Yes. And they were actually quite funny, though disgusting. But not
nearly disgusting enough. I think, there is blood in there.

> > I'm not always sure when you are being serious and when you are
> > being ironic. The above is an example...
>
> Trying to be different, and provoke an informed argument about things
> not covered in the FAQs.

Which is a wonderful idea. It is just that when I'm not sure you are
serious, which I regularly am, I am not starting an argument. It may
be *me*; I thought you might like to know nevertheless.

> Unfortunately, judging by Kohrs' comments,
> I guess that I've been killfiled by most of the regulars who provide
> the bulk of the discussions. Oh well, at least I've tried.

After relatively few days, I see *five* regulars in 'your' thread who
provide part of the bulk of the discussions!

Henriette

Henriette

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 1:01:59 AM7/15/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:<2lleuaF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> Henriette wrote:
>
> > (snip)Taemon, maybe you don't have objections to making a relatively *short*

> > summary?)
>
> What do you call relative?

In comparison with the average length of the summaries in this thread.
You could make an 'indicatief referaat' where other posters make an
'informatief referaat'.
(snip)


> Why do you value those summaries so? I usually skip them, since
> there is nothing new in there.
>

a) To refresh my memory. I always read the chapter before joining the
CotW discussion, but sometimes I finished it a few days before and
have read many other things since. I also find it legitimate when
posters who have read LOTR do not re-read the chapter, but rely on the
summary.
b) Some discussions have evolved from the summaries, e.g because
things were missing or wrong, or comments were included.

> > I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to
> > do that. Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
>
> Really, that's no answer. He did it because he did it?

What a strange conclusion you draw! I say:

a) he acts intuitively
b) he acts on impulse ( "Pippin's somewhat unexpected quick-thinking",
you say)
c) he was *meant* to do it
d) this action fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
Your summary of my remarks is: 'he did it because he did it'? Maybe
just as well you don't make summaries!

H.

Kristian Damm Jensen

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 2:58:29 AM7/15/04
to
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<slrncfbiq...@munin.Stanford.EDU>...

<snip>

> Merry and Pippin are prisoners from about mid-day 26 till about
> midnight of the 28/29. A total of about 2 and half days. During this
> time they had no food.

But they did!

"An Orc stooped over him, and flung him some bread and a strip of raw
dried flesh. He ate the stale grey bread hungrily, but not the meat.
He was famished but not yet so famished as to eat flesh flung to him
by an Orc, the flesh of he dared not guess what creature."

This is just before Grishnakh returns, i.e. on the morning of feb 28.

Your point stands, though: They would be starving after their ordeal
with the orcs.

<snip>

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 8:55:40 AM7/15/04
to

"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be50318e.04071...@posting.google.com...

> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9526C590723CA...@130.133.1.4>...
> > held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
> > news:be50318e.0407...@posting.google.com:
>
> > > I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was meant to do that.
> > > Which fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
> >
> > On impulse, but I just failed to see how it affected events to any
> > great degree. (snip)
>
> Not to any great degree, but it does in detail: I love the exciting
> moment when Pippin dares to dash off, and I love the moment the brooch
> is found and the subsequent drawing of conclusions by Aragorn.

And, as I said, those conclusions by Aragorn *were* important. It let the
three hunters *know* that they had at *least* one hobbit still alive to
rescue, and that he was able to run, and had the use of his wits. After
all, up until this point, they could not be certain that the Orcs had not
simply carried off the hobbits' corpses for some foul reason. To me, this is
a necessary point, and not just a useless "help me."
Barbara

Guillaume Criloux

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 11:55:41 AM7/15/04
to
Le Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:18 -0700, the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> a
écrit :

>Your description fits French Truck-stop Coffee to a 'T'.
>
>(Ah, that romantic place outside of Dijon ...... my throat will NEVER
>forget!)
>

Was it a romantic truck stop ?

>the softrat

Guillaume

Taemon

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 3:11:34 PM7/15/04
to
Yuk Tang wrote:

> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in
> news:2lleuaFdin4oU1@uni- berlin.de:

> > What do you call relative? I tend to think two
> > sentences is more than enough. Although, this was my
> > summary for one of my Hobbit chapters:

<snip>


> My fault. I haven't been following the CotWs in detail
> (just dipping in here and there), so I was making my own
> path; reinventing the wheel, one could say.

Your fault about what? I wasn't critising you in any way!
Henriette and I are discussing whether or not I should do a
LotR-chapter, given my dislike of summaries :-)

> > I like it when someone thinks of the orc's perspective
> > of things!
> It's boring when everyone reads the book the same way,
> taking the side of the narrator, etc. Why not look at
> things from 'the other side', and see how the story
> reinterprets itself?

I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A major weakness
of LotR, for me.

T.


Taemon

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 3:16:01 PM7/15/04
to
Henriette wrote:

> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:<2lleuaF...@uni-berlin.de>...

> > What do you call relative?
> In comparison with the average length of the summaries in
> this thread.
> You could make an 'indicatief referaat' where other
> posters make an 'informatief referaat'.

Heh :-) I guess I could.

> b) Some discussions have evolved from the summaries, e.g
> because things were missing or wrong, or comments were
included.

I see. I'd still focus on the comments (keeping them out of the
summary, of course).

> > > I think he acted intuitively on impulse, and was
> > > meant to do that.

> > Really, that's no answer. He did it because he did it?
> What a strange conclusion you draw! I say:
>
> a) he acts intuitively
> b) he acts on impulse ( "Pippin's somewhat unexpected
> quick-thinking", you say)
> c) he was *meant* to do it
> d) this action fits in with the general atmosphere of LOTR.
> Your summary of my remarks is: 'he did it because he did
> it'? Maybe just as well you don't make summaries!

Well, it _was_ concise! But none of this is really an answer. "He
acts intuitively" means "He doesn't know why he does it". "He
acts on impulse" means the same thing. "He was meant to do that"
is, with all due respect, a hollow statement. It doesn't
enlighten us about why he did it. I liked my own analysis better
;-) (he did it because he wanted to believe help was on the
way).

T.


Neil Anderson

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 4:24:21 PM7/15/04
to

"aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:10f8pmc...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4...
> > Please reply to this thread instead of the other, since I forgot to
> > cross-post it to rabt.
> >
> > ********************
> >
> ( snip of very nice summary of an action packed chapter )
>
> > Discussion points:
> >
> > > 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
> > he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were
> > heading towards Isengard. Since their bodies were not found on the
> > trail, it would logically follow that they, or their bodies, were
> > still headed towards Isengard, brooch or not brooch.
>
> Ah, but now Aragorn knows that at least one of them is not only alive, but
> has the use of his wits, and is healthy (uninjured) enough to leave the
> brooch. A useful thing to know.
>
> >
> <snip to end>

Obviously, Pippin DIDN't know whether Aragorn (or anyone else) knew if he
and Merry were alive or not - hence the need to make some nice clean tracks
and drop a token that anyione following him could find. He didn't even know
if anyone at all was chasing them.

We as readers knew that, but the hobbits themselves didn't, at that point in
the narrative.

Neil Anderson


Jim Deutch

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 4:25:15 PM7/15/04
to
On 13 Jul 2004 17:05:11 GMT, Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For whatever unknown reason, Grishnakh's band rejoins the
>Isengarders.

That's always confused me, too. In fact, I've been confused (at
various times) about who left, who returned, when, why, and how.

There are only two plausible reasons I can think of for their heading
off on their own:
- They may have been trying to contact other Orcs or a Nazgul: these
would probably have been stationed near or even across the Anduin.
- They might have just had a snit, and later thought better of it.

If Grishnakh &co headed back the other direction, towards the river,
how could they have ever managed to catch back up with Ugluk and the
rest? If it was just a snit, which direction did they go? Were they
just shadowing Ugluk at some distance for a while?

That latter theory seems the most plausible: ISTR that Ugluk, at
least, opined that Grishnakh came back because the "horseboys" were
hot on (all their) tails. If the two groups had truly split into
widely different directions, at least one group might have had hope of
eluding the Rohirrim.

[later]
Now I've seen Emma's timeline. I'd thought it was a day or two later
that Grishnakh's group split off! If it's really the evening of the
day they captured the hobbits, I think that lends support to the
theory that they were looking for more help, probably to overcome the
Isengarders and get the hobbits taken to Barad-dur instead.

It _couldn't_ be a result of being sighted by horsemen: that happened
_later_ (though the same night).

But how on ME does Grishnakh make his detour and yet still catch back
up? Ugluk was _not_ dawdling. And why doesn't Aragorn seem to have
any idea that there are two groups of orcs?

I see that Emma thinks Grishnakh was alone when he left, and
accompanied by other Mordor orcs when he returned. That makes much
sense, but I never got that from my reading (IDHTBIFOM)...

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
I wish I deserved some self-esteem.

Jette Goldie

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 4:26:28 PM7/15/04
to

"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m6gbf0t27eafsjvgs...@4ax.com...

> On 14 Jul 2004 05:17:28 -0700, jsb...@yahoo.com (jsberry) wrote:
> >
> >I always thought it was coffee. Not Starbucks or Lavazza; no, this
> >was some stale gas-station coffee. Bitter, dark, hot, and strong.
> >Tolkien had a way of putting the real world's stimulants into Middle
> >Earth, they had pipe weed and beer so why not coffee. Further, the
> >Europeans got coffee from the Turks and the orcs are kind of
> >eastern/african-esque in Tolkien's way, so it fits.
>
> Your description fits French Truck-stop Coffee to a 'T'.
>


I dunno, sounds more like "Denny's" breakfast stuff - except
a bit stronger. "Subway" coffee was more like dishwater, so
it can't be that.

(never had a bad cup of coffee in France yet - not even
in a truck stop)


--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/


Christopher Kreuzer

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 6:32:00 PM7/15/04
to
Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A major weakness
> of LotR, for me.

Ah! But there _are_ many viewpoints in LotR!! It is just a bit difficult
to discern them. True, the main viewpoint is the hobbits, but you also
have several grades of narration, switches into several other character
viewpoints, and several historical viewpoints.

From a purely story POV though, the hobbits do dominate, and I can see
why the might be considered a weakness (though it can be a strength as
well).

the softrat

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 6:52:46 PM7/15/04
to
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:26:28 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>(never had a bad cup of coffee in France yet - not even
>in a truck stop)

You live a charmed life.....

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--

"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,
which failed to start because of the following error: The
operation completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

Emma Pease

unread,
Jul 15, 2004, 8:08:37 PM7/15/04
to

Shortcut via Nazgul? Grishnakh taken north to a point on the Anduin
due east of the southern border of Fangorn where he meets up with a
party of Mordor orcs and heads due west to intercept Ugluk before he
gets to Fangorn (his due west path would be shorter than Ugluk's route
assuming he can be moved north very fast). Note the land is like


Fangorn Grishnakh path
_ ........|
\ |Anduin
Ugluk\ |
Path \ |
\ |
\ Emyn Muil

Aragorn is aware of two parties but in fact there are three parties
(Isengard orcs, Moria orcs, Mordor orcs) though I think the Mordor
orcs except for Grishnakh don't show up till later.

> I see that Emma thinks Grishnakh was alone when he left, and
> accompanied by other Mordor orcs when he returned. That makes much
> sense, but I never got that from my reading (IDHTBIFOM)...

I need to reread with your questions in mind.

My guess is that Sauron aimed to intercept at the rapids (hence the
ambush there) while Saruman aimed for Amon Hen. After the failure at
the rapids, the Nazgul sent a single orc (or a small party) to try to
subvert Saruman's orcs or, hmm, perhaps Grishnakh was with the Moria
orcs from the beginning as a backup in case the ambush failed.
Grishnakh failed to get the orcs to take the hobbits north so went
himself to report back to the Nazgul. He was ferried north, given
some backup, and told to try again. As a drawback, I would think
Sauron if he knew a party had actually captured hobbits (and Grishnakh
knew this and would presumably tell if he did report back) wouldn't
send a winged Nazgul across the river to retrieve. Perhaps they
didn't have time to report to Sauron and the Nazgul had no leeway on
his instructions not to cross the river.

Still doesn't explain why the Isengard orcs and the Moria orcs
apparently initially attacked separately (Pippin remembers the first
attack which Boromir beat off and then being attacked by larger orcs
while on their way back to Parth Galen).

Emma

Henriette

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 1:19:11 AM7/16/04
to
"aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<10fcvml...@corp.supernews.com>...

> "Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:be50318e.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:

> > > (snip)I just failed to see how it affected events to any great degree.

> >
> > Not to any great degree, but it does in detail: I love the exciting
> > moment when Pippin dares to dash off, and I love the moment the brooch
> > is found and the subsequent drawing of conclusions by Aragorn.
>
> And, as I said, those conclusions by Aragorn *were* important. It let the
> three hunters *know* that they had at *least* one hobbit still alive to
> rescue, and that he was able to run, and had the use of his wits. After
> all, up until this point, they could not be certain that the Orcs had not
> simply carried off the hobbits' corpses for some foul reason. To me, this is
> a necessary point, and not just a useless "help me."

Yes. So one can back up the conclusion that the dropping of the brooch
*did* affect events to a great degree.

Henriette

Henriette

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 1:42:08 AM7/16/04
to
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ABDJc.532$hn6.6...@news-text.cableinet.net>...

> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A major weakness
> > of LotR, for me.
>
> Ah! But there _are_ many viewpoints in LotR!! It is just a bit difficult
> to discern them.

Difficult? Not at all. We get a *lot* of information that does not
come through the Hobbits.

> True, the main viewpoint is the hobbits, but you also
> have several grades of narration, switches into several other character
> viewpoints, and several historical viewpoints.
>

Well said!

Henriette

Henriette

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 2:08:59 AM7/16/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:

> Well, it _was_ concise! But none of this is really an answer. "He


> acts intuitively" means "He doesn't know why he does it".

It means his intuition urged him to act. Why does his intuition, this
many layered phenomenon, urge him to do so? It may have been the part
called "sense of self-preservation".

> "He acts on impulse" means the same thing.

It means this intuitive flash is stronger than his fear. He acts in
spite of the severe consequences it may have. Impulse and intuition or
not at all the same, BTW. What *do* you cognitive scientists learn
anyway!

> "He was meant to do that" is, with all due respect, a hollow statement.

You say that, because to *you* it has no meaning. I am referrring to
the discussions we (not you) had about the many instances in LOTR
where things are *meant* to happen, because some Will is at work.
Sometimes it appears to be the will of the Ring, sometimes it is
strongly suggested it is the will of Providence.

> It doesn't
> enlighten us about why he did it. I liked my own analysis better
> ;-) (he did it because he wanted to believe help was on the way).
>

(H. intuitively represses impulse to comment)

H.

Henriette

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 3:13:56 AM7/16/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:<2lo37hF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> Yuk Tang wrote:
> > "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> > > What do you call relative? I tend to think two
> > > sentences is more than enough. Although, this was my
> > > summary for one of my Hobbit chapters:
> <snip>
> > My fault. I haven't been following the CotWs in detail
> > (just dipping in here and there), so I was making my own
> > path; reinventing the wheel, one could say.
>
> Your fault about what? I wasn't critising you in any way!
> Henriette and I are discussing whether or not I should do a
> LotR-chapter, given my dislike of summaries :-)
>

Yes, and we were discussing summaries. Did you read into our
conversation that I thought your summary was too long? Au contraire.
Like I said in my first post: I thought it was (relatively, so
compared to the other CotW summaries)short but good (not missing
important points and besides written quickly!), which was meant as a
compliment.

Henriette

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 3:32:36 AM7/16/04
to

"Neil Anderson" <nanders...@northrock.bm> wrote in message
news:VJBJc.366$bA6.2...@newshog.newsread.com...

This is true. Pippin was acting out of desperate hope that *someone might*
be following, and even his own thought reflects that he knows this.
IDHTBIFOM but he thinks something like "I ought to hope they've all gone
with Frodo..." Nevertheless, it still holds true that it *was* a useful and
not a useless action.
Barbara

>
> Neil Anderson
>
>


Michael Ikeda

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 4:59:22 AM7/16/04
to
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in
news:slrncfe73...@munin.Stanford.EDU:

(snipped)

>
> Still doesn't explain why the Isengard orcs and the Moria orcs
> apparently initially attacked separately (Pippin remembers the
> first attack which Boromir beat off and then being attacked by
> larger orcs while on their way back to Parth Galen).
>

My guess would be, either the two groups arrived separately or, since
the Moria orcs were primarily after vengeance, the Moria orcs simply
charged in without waiting for Ugluk's forces.

--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association

Taemon

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 12:54:40 PM7/16/04
to
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A
> > major weakness of LotR, for me.
> Ah! But there _are_ many viewpoints in LotR!!

You are right, of course. I meant the Good vs Evil-thing. I miss
the voice of the orcs.

T.


Taemon

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 12:55:02 PM7/16/04
to
Henriette wrote:

> Yes. So one can back up the conclusion that the dropping
> of the brooch *did* affect events to a great degree.

But how? I don't see it either.

T.


Taemon

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 1:00:43 PM7/16/04
to
Henriette wrote:

> "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:

> > But none of this is really ananswer. "He


> > acts intuitively" means "He doesn't know why he does it".
> It means his intuition urged him to act. Why does his
> intuition, this many layered phenomenon, urge him to do
> so? It may have been the part called "sense of
> self-preservation".

Now that is really the question. Why did he do it? "Sense of
self-preservation" is a much better answer than "intuition",
wouldn't you say?

> > "He acts on impulse" means the same thing.
> It means this intuitive flash is stronger than his fear.
> He acts in spite of the severe consequences it may have.

I don't agree. Acting on impulse means _not_ taking consequences
into account.

> Impulse and intuition or not at all the same, BTW. What
> *do* you cognitive scientists learn anyway!

Well... we learn that "intuition" (knowledge gained by viewing
the whole picture, usually subconcious) is a right-hemisphere
function. We also learn that mathematics, as a sequential
process, is a left-hemisphere function. We learn that, when
taking very large groups into account, women are slightly better
in left-hemispheric functions than men, and vice versa.

We learn that common sense is the enemy of science ;-)

> > "He was meant to do that" is, with all due respect, a
> > hollow statement.
> You say that, because to *you* it has no meaning. I am
> referrring to the discussions we (not you) had about the
> many instances in LOTR where things are *meant* to
> happen, because some Will is at work. Sometimes it
> appears to be the will of the Ring, sometimes it is
> strongly suggested it is the will of Providence.

Of course. But just saying it is "meant" is no answer. Meant by
whom and why?

> (H. intuitively represses impulse to comment)

Oh, come on. You can do it!

T.


Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 5:57:12 PM7/16/04
to
Yuk Tang (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4>:

> Discussion points:
>
> 1. Who are the Uruk-Hai? With the knowledge that the Olog-Hai were
> trolls (see barrowdowns.com for a fuller essay), it seems probable
> that the Uruk-Hai were the Orcish name for themselves, that 'Orc' and
> 'Yrch' were merely Elvish corruptions of the original.
"Yrch" is of course the plural ("Orcs"), singular presumably "Orch"

> Yet Ugluk
> refers to the Isengarders apart as the fighting Uruk-Hai, they who do
> the fighting, they who do the dirty work. One way of reconciling

> this is to consider Uruk-Hai as a term that can includes _all_ Orcs,
> but that there is also an ideal that Orcs aspire towards, that _this_
> was the ultimate in Uruk-Haidom. This explains Ugluk's later
> reference to 'the Uruk-Hai of Isengard', which can imply both their
> uniqueness as Isengard's brood, and their lack of uniqueness so that
> their Isengardian origin would need specifying.
"Hai" = "Big", "Grand" ("High"?!) or something like that. Perhaps if
"orc" ("uruk") is an ordinary orc, then an Uruk-Hai is a larger creature of
the same (or similar) species, which may be identified with the "hobgoblin
for the larger kind".

> 2. What's the point of Pippin's diversion? The trackers knew that
> he and Merry had been taken by Orcs, and could tell that they were
> heading towards Isengard.

To show that, at this point at least, he was still alive, to give the
trackers more heart to continue the chase.

> 3. What was the orc-cordial? It invigorates upon imbibing, but
> leaves the drinker dull after its effects have worn off, yet leaves
> no lasting after-trace. Ginger brandy with an infusion of chilli and
> garlic?
Presumably something akin to an Ent-draught? Liquid cram?

> 4. What did Grishnakh know about the Ring, and how did he know about
> it? It's been stated (admittedly by Gandalf, who's hardly 'in the
> loop') that Sauron doesn't trust anyone other than the Nazgul to deal
> with matters involving the One.

He probably knew of the ring-verse so he was familiar with the concept of a
One Ring even if for all he knew it were a mere legend. After three
millennia with no overt Ring-activity, such verses would have degenerated
on both sides into mere nursery rhymes, something to frighten the kiddies
with, be they dwarflings, hobbit-children or man cubs - or orclings.

> 5. Ugluk da Hero. [snip] While events (and Eomer) may have
> overtaken him, he meets a heroic end, and is accorded a memorial of
> sorts, his head stuck on a stake.
Far from heroic - this is traditionally an example to any who might emulate
his deeds - stop or you too will end up like this.

--
Paul Townsend
I put it down there, and when I went back to it, there it was GONE!

Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply

Tar-Elenion

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 6:08:01 PM7/16/04
to
In article <cd9ivi$3s6$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, pvstownsend@zyx-
abc.fsnet.co.uk says...

> Yuk Tang (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <Xns9525B7FC06DF3...@130.133.1.4>:
>
> > Discussion points:
> >
> > 1. Who are the Uruk-Hai? With the knowledge that the Olog-Hai were
> > trolls (see barrowdowns.com for a fuller essay), it seems probable
> > that the Uruk-Hai were the Orcish name for themselves, that 'Orc' and
> > 'Yrch' were merely Elvish corruptions of the original.
> "Yrch" is of course the plural ("Orcs"), singular presumably "Orch"
>
> > Yet Ugluk
> > refers to the Isengarders apart as the fighting Uruk-Hai, they who do
> > the fighting, they who do the dirty work. One way of reconciling
>
> > this is to consider Uruk-Hai as a term that can includes _all_ Orcs,
> > but that there is also an ideal that Orcs aspire towards, that _this_
> > was the ultimate in Uruk-Haidom. This explains Ugluk's later
> > reference to 'the Uruk-Hai of Isengard', which can imply both their
> > uniqueness as Isengard's brood, and their lack of uniqueness so that
> > their Isengardian origin would need specifying.
> "Hai" = "Big", "Grand" ("High"?!) or something like that. Perhaps if
> "orc" ("uruk") is an ordinary orc, then an Uruk-Hai is a larger creature of
> the same (or similar) species, which may be identified with the "hobgoblin
> for the larger kind".

Uruks is the anglicized form of Uruk-hai. This indicates that '-hai' is
a plural form. As such it probably means something like 'folk'. This
would also be supported by the Orcish name of the Druedain 'Oghor-hai'.

--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.

aelfwina

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 6:14:12 PM7/16/04
to

"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:2lqfjcF...@uni-berlin.de...

You don't see that it *meant* something for the three hunters to *know* that
at least one of their friends was alive and more or less well, when up to
that point they were simply running on hope?
Barbara

>
> T.
>
>


Jette Goldie

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 6:53:16 PM7/16/04
to

"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:dj2ef0hd3hhbj5aqs...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:26:28 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> >(never had a bad cup of coffee in France yet - not even
> >in a truck stop)
>
> You live a charmed life.....


Except in Florida, where I get rear-ended at an intersection
by a pick-up truck that doesn't even stop :-(

the softrat

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 7:08:21 PM7/16/04
to

*You* would!!

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--

Alas, usenet is where one will often see crowds of
people jumping up and down on the greasy smear on
the pavement that used to be a dead horse.
--Nyrath the Nearly Wise

the softrat

unread,
Jul 16, 2004, 7:59:15 PM7/16/04
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:53:16 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>Except in Florida, where I get rear-ended at an intersection
>by a pick-up truck that doesn't even stop :-(

Rear-ending is the way they do it in Flordia.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--

Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.

AC

unread,
Jul 17, 2004, 10:45:22 PM7/17/04
to
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:11:34 +0200,
Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A major weakness
> of LotR, for me.

To be honest with you, I haven't read a lot of stories with what I would
consider multiple points of view. Most stories, LotR included, follow a
model of selecting protagonists and antagonists, and, other than setting up
why the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, pretty much follow that
vein.

I don't think it's a weakness of LotR, any more than it is a weakness of the
thousands upon thousands of other volumes that use the same approach. It's
one way of telling a story. Certainly, from Tolkien's religious
perspective, Sauron and Saruman were fallen angels and sinners because they
defied Authority. Now I'm not saying a story that explained further why
they may have done this would be bad, but it would be a different story.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

Taemon

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 4:18:35 AM7/18/04
to
aelfwina wrote:

> > Henriette wrote:
> > > Yes. So one can back up the conclusion that the
> > > dropping of the brooch *did* affect events to a great
> > > degree.
> > But how? I don't see it either.
> You don't see that it *meant* something for the three
> hunters to *know* that at least one of their friends was
> alive and more or less well, when up to that point they
> were simply running on hope?

A bit, yes, of course. But I don't see the "great degree". They
would have followed anyway, only probably a bit slower.

T.


Taemon

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 10:58:24 AM7/18/04
to
AC wrote:

> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > I always preferred stories with many viewpoints. A
> > major weakness of LotR, for me.
> To be honest with you, I haven't read a lot of stories
> with what I would consider multiple points of view.

They are rare.

> Most stories, LotR included, follow a model of selecting
> protagonists and antagonists, and, other than setting up
> why the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad,
> pretty much follow that vein.

Most of these are pretty bad.

Here's an excerpt from one Ian Montgomerie at
rec.arts.sf.written:

<huge snip>
If you look at what happens when people imitate Tolkien, what
mostly
happens is that they take the general nature of the setting and
tone
along with all its antiprogressive parts, and drop the
sophisticated
bits. And the result is stuff like the universal nature of Orcs
as
the universal fantasy evil who are, morally, treated as no
different
from rabid animal pests. Tolkien apparently worried about the
morality of just mowing down the Orcs, so he explicitly decided
that
they were created as inherently evil and irredeemable. He had
them
mostly be minor pests unless there was a Dark Lord handy to give
them
unity and focus. But most people don't seem to have gone even to
that
level of seeking rationalization. Orcs (and many other nasty
races
created from the same literary mold) are simply inherently evil
and
always wanting to pillage or conquer civilization. They may be
mowed
down with no compunction. They often appear to be 100%
combatants,
having no discernable women and children. They may not come with
any
particular creation myth, and in any given fictional world there
may
be no actual evidence presented to suggest that they're really
much
different from the barbarian raiders of much of human history -
and
yet still they are provided for the heroes to slaughter en masse
without a thought, while avoiding any of those uncomfortable
moral
questions that would come from butchering en masse any apparently
hostile group of humans. The good guys are almost invariably
facing a
horde of enemies out to crush all that is good and true out of
sheer
bloody-mindedness, and who can be killed without a thought
because
they cannot be negotiated with, cannot be coexisted with, and
don't
have any small element of justice to their own motivations. And
just
to keep things clear, they tend to be very open about being evil
conquerors who want power/chaos/death/etc. for its own sake,
unlike
humans who have a huge tendency to rationalize whatever they're
doing,
and sincerely believe they're morally justified even when they're
doing something profoundly nasty.
<end huge snip>

I can recommend everyone Julian May's Many-Coloured Land-series.
She's the master of showing all sides and the books are very
exciting to boot.

T.


Öjevind Lång

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 11:31:26 AM7/18/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:2lvhggF...@uni-berlin.de...

[snip]

Well, in Tolkien's work, they are quire clearly mythical creatures, like
ogres or dragons, so demanding human rights for them, so to speak, is rather
pointless. A mythical creature can incanate evil, which a human being can't.

Öjevind


Yuk Tang

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 12:26:24 PM7/18/04
to
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in news:2lvhggF...@uni-berlin.de:

>
> I can recommend everyone Julian May's Many-Coloured Land-series.
> She's the master of showing all sides and the books are very
> exciting to boot.

Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, by Hayao Miyazaki. Intelligent,
balanced, philosophical and, if the Pentagon's assessments are anywhere
near accurate (and we see hints of their accuracy in many areas today),
prophetic. Plus beautiful artwork as well. And for those who want to
explore yet another medium, I recommend the film's music, especially
'Fantasia'; the film has one of the most memorable openings I've seen.


--
Cheers, ymt.

Taemon

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 12:41:37 PM7/18/04
to
Öjevind Lång wrote:

> Well, in Tolkien's work, they are quire clearly mythical
> creatures, like ogres or dragons, so demanding human
> rights for them, so to speak, is rather pointless. A
> mythical creature can incanate evil, which a human being
> can't.

I think that, from a philosophical point of view, that doesn't
matter. And you mustn't forget that we're talking a whole species
here, not a few individuals. Orcs are born evil and born to be
slayed by anyone who wants and I have got a problem with that.

I know that most people differ from me in this. We don't have to
discuss it. It's just that I liked it very much that Yuk Tang put
some orc-perspective in zhir discussion.

T.


Emma Pease

unread,
Jul 18, 2004, 2:41:48 PM7/18/04