Why didn't the Nazgul (Ring wraiths) kill them?
F@ C@
doubt something within the text , I must ask the opinion of others. I can
think of no other place better than this NG. So here goes: Why did the
Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It is stated that they are at their
strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why,
when there are five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do
they not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
purpose)? Even if they did fear fire to a great extent, Frodo did have the
ring on, which places him partly in their world - where they would hold an
even greater advantage? Any ideas? Grimgard? Michael M.? Anyone? Anyone?
Steuard Jensen
> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> purpose)?
As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
was just a parting blow as they fled.
2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
breaking off their attack.
3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
nine present) was overly risky.
4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
give the others the slip, with the Ring.
The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense. It just
seems unreasonable that they would not have been able to kill off all
of the defenders with little risk. On the other hand, considering the
value of the Ring, I would suggest that even if four of the five were
somehow killed before the defenders were slain, they would still come
out ahead. The only conclusions that I can draw are that the Nazgul
were, in this case at least, either nervous or lazy. Neither of these
seems sensible.
I have, for the moment at least, pushed this issue into my
"background-to-be-mulled-over" category; no resolution has yet
suggested itself. Perhaps the Nazgul simply made a substantial
miscalculation...
Steuard Jensen
Nicholas Costa
>1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
>was just a parting blow as they fled.
>2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
>without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
>breaking off their attack.
>3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
>nine present) was overly risky.
>4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
>5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
>give the others the slip, with the Ring.
>
>The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
>but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense
The last possibility is likely, the Nazgul may not be permitted / wont to
touch the ring being Dark already. it may have been felt that the WK or any
of the others may have been seduced by it.
this means that the present ring bearer would be kept and made to go to
Sauron himself and give him the ring. As far as I know this is not supported
by any text be thought is the tool of the gods so...
one other suggestion is that knowing the power of the ring the Nazgul was
screed of IT thinking when Frodo put it on he know how it would work.
My 2 cents
Nick C=}
M Phillips
Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
>Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
>> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
>> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
>I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
>Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness at this
point is that the story's development would be seriously hampered by the
death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery of the Ring by Sauron,
and his triumph. In other words, it's a dramatic device, not to be taken so
seriously.
Out of interest, if the Nazgul Lord did kill Frodo and take the Ring, would
the Ring's influence make him think that he could rule the world? - it had
this effect on Gollum,a nd Galadriel and Gandalf both feared it would affect
them in this way. If the Ring was trying to find it's way back to Sauron,
why didn't it just influence the Ring-bearers directly to do that.
Martin
Gwydion
> The last possibility is likely, the Nazgul may not be permitted / wont to
> touch the ring being Dark already. it may have been felt that the WK or any
> of the others may have been seduced by it.
> this means that the present ring bearer would be kept and made to go to
> Sauron himself and give him the ring.
This pov is supported both by Gandalf in
chapter II of book I, and also by the WK
at the Ford crossing into Rivendell.
cHris
Adam Floro
<pauls...@minerva.com.au> wrote:
>I am not one to over analyze this fantastic series, but when I seriously
>doubt something within the text , I must ask the opinion of others. I can
>think of no other place better than this NG. So here goes: Why did the
>Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
>Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It is stated that they are at their
>strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
>strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why,
>when there are five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do
>they not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
>purpose)? Even if they did fear fire to a great extent, Frodo did have the
>ring on, which places him partly in their world - where they would hold an
>even greater advantage? Any ideas? Grimgard? Michael M.? Anyone? Anyone?
>
>
My thoughts...
Because Frodo's ring was "The One Ring" the Nazgul was under *his*
power rather than the reverse.
Because the Nazgul were so far from home (the land of Mordor) their
own power was weakened.
My $.02 .....
Adam Floro
Mark Myers
> >was just a parting blow as they fled.
Well I think it certainly put them off a bit.
> >2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> >without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> >breaking off their attack.
Not IMO.
> >3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> >nine present) was overly risky.
I definitely got this impression from the text (although don't have it to
hand, so can't site - possibly something Gandalf said afterwards in
Rivendell?)
> >4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
Not IMO.
> >5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> >give the others the slip, with the Ring.
> >
Possibly, more likely a combination of all three.
> >The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
> >but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense
then Nicholas Costa wrote ...
> The last possibility is likely, [snip]
>
> one other suggestion is that knowing the power of the ring the Nazgul was
> screed of IT thinking when Frodo put it on he know how it would work.
>
But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
differently.
--
Regards
Mark Myers
jahdzia at iname dot com
Daniel Hildebrandt
> Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
> >Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> >> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> >> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
>
> >I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> >Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
>
> Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness at this
> point is that the story's development would be seriously hampered by the
> death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery of the Ring by Sauron,
> and his triumph. In other words, it's a dramatic device, not to be taken so
> seriously.
Acknowledged, but... These groups rarely want to accept that TH and LOTR are
simply literature, and a valid explanation for everything that happens in the
books is a great comfort. Mind you, I'm not knocking that point of view - I
myself get very involved in the universe of Tolkien. Now let the flames
begin...
Actually, the above nitpicking aside; Isn't there a place in the books (I'm at
work and can't look it up) where it is stated that the nine don't have their
full power when separated? Maybe not, but I've always had the impression that
only together, all nine at once, do they have really awesome power...
--
Hildy
My PID is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9ed my PPID. Prepare to vi.
McREsq
<pauls...@minerva.com.au> writes:
>I am not one to over analyze this fantastic series, but when I seriously
>doubt something within the text , I must ask the opinion of others. I can
>think of no other place better than this NG. So here goes: Why did the
>Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
>Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It is stated that they are at their
>strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
>strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why,
>when there are five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do
>they not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
>purpose)? Even if they did fear fire to a great extent, Frodo did have the
>ring on, which places him partly in their world - where they would hold an
>even greater advantage? Any ideas? Grimgard? Michael M.? Anyone? Anyone?
I read recently in Letters (I can probably dig out the cite if need be) a
passage that expanded on the idea that the Nazgul's chief weapon was fear. If
the fear is neutralized, they would not be any more dangerous than a mortal
warrior.
I am of the opinion that the Nazgul intended to take the ring that night but
were surprised by the level of resistance from the party and drew off. Once
they drew off they decided not to attack again thinking the wound would do the
work. I disagree that it was their plan from the start to merely wound Frodo
and back off and wait.
They certainly had no qualms about killing the ringbearer since they sent their
minions to kill him in the attack on the Prancing Pony
Regarding Gandalf's previous fight, I agree it is incongrous that Gandalf would
have his hands full while Aragorn and company could drive them off. I have
opined that the Gandalf fight was more a function of the limitations placed on
Gandalf the Grey by the Valar. Gandalf was not allowed to use brute force to
start knocking off Sauron's servants. He could defend himself (and others) but
he was following his instructions by not incinerating the Nazgul then and
there. This meshes with what happened later at the Fords. Although Gandalf
was clearly more powerful than Elrond, it was left to Elrond to deal with the
Nazgul - Gandalf's role was to add his two cents by inserting the vision of
horses in the waters.
The events in Moria appear consistent with this also. Gandalf did not take
part in fight in the guardroom even though he probably could have handled all
the attackers. Later, when the Balrog appeared, during the fight on the
Bridge, he really took no attacking action. He parried the Balrog's attack,
then struck the bridge below to cause the Balrog to fall. The only real fight
Gandalf the Grey was involved in was the final battle with the Balrog on the
Peak. There Gandalf was fighting for his life and likely had more latitude in
directly using force.
Of course, Gandalf the White appeared to have been released from such
strictures - now his authority came directly from Illuvatar. The White rode at
the head of armiesand engaged in battles and later at the gates of Minas Tirith
appeared ready to do direct battle with Angmar ;-p
That was quite a tangent. But it is *my* explanation for why Gandalf didn't
take out the Nazgul on Weathertop.
Ultimately, the answer may simply be that the wtory would have ended too
quickly had the Nazgul taken the ring from Frodo in the first book. <g>
Russ
badg...@tcac.net
initiative (as evidenced by their confusion during the battle at the
gates of Mordor when Sauron withdrew his will and focused it on Mount
Doom). The Nazgul, as Gandalf later explained to Frodo at Rivendell,
thought that with the stabbing of Frodo, their mission was
accomplished. Lacking further instructions and the ability to follow
through, they retreated. Sauron had been looking for the ring for
thousands of years. Another couple of days would not matter.
Margaret Dean
>
> M Phillips wrote:
>
> > Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
> > >Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > >> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
> >
> > >wounding Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone
> > >else, too.
> >
> > Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness
> > at this point is that the story's development would be seriously
> > hampered by the death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery
> > of the Ring by Sauron, and his triumph. In other words, it's a
> > dramatic device, not to be taken so seriously.
>
> Acknowledged, but... These groups rarely want to accept that TH and
> LOTR are simply literature, and a valid explanation for everything that
> happens in the books is a great comfort. Mind you, I'm not knocking
> that point of view - I myself get very involved in the universe of
> Tolkien. Now let the flames begin...
The problem is that even if you look at LotR from the literary point of
view, it's the sign of a careless (or at least less than perfect) author
that he has to rely on auctorial fiat ("It happens this way because =I
say so!=") to make the story come out right. And none of us want to
believe that Tolkien was careless. :)
I'd go for the nervous-Nazgul explanation myself.
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@erols.com>
Nicholas Costa
>
>But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
>on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
>it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
>think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
>the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
>differently.
>
>--
>Regards
>
>Mark Myers
>jahdzia at iname dot com
Do they know how powerful a Hobbit is??
I thought that one of the points of the LOTR was that the Hobbit was little
known, also if you were fighting The Ring and it was put on by an unknown
quantity then I would be as frightened of The Ring fighting back at the wont
of the bearer (or it's self) as I was of Frodo having full control. I feel
that the ring has a self-awareness even if it has know intelligence. this is
shown by the ability of The Ring to 'control' it's owner.
All this aside I saw The Ring as the force that made Frodo put it on not the
fear of the Nazgul. this betrayal seems more in the character of The Ring.
Nick C=}
Grimgard
>doubt something within the text , I must ask the opinion of others. I can
>Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
>strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
>strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why,
>when there are five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do
>they not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
>purpose)? Even if they did fear fire to a great extent, Frodo did have the
>ring on, which places him partly in their world - where they would hold an
>even greater advantage? Any ideas? Grimgard? Michael M.? Anyone? Anyone?
I think this was intended to be a surgical strike (no pun intended), not an
all-out invasion. After all, the Nazgul didn't have a hell of a lot of friends
in the middle of Eriador. My understanding is that their intent was to pierce
Frodo's heart with a Morgul-blade, thereby subjugating him to their will and
then to flee with him to Mordor. It seems like a sane enough plan to me, and
probably the safest bet they had, short of murdering Frodo and actually taking
the One Ring themselves, an act which may well have been prohibited by Sauron.
It seems quite possible that they could have continued to attack the camp and
they may have been able to kill all present, but probably not without suffering
significant losses. If you're the King of the Nazgul and your entire
contingent is nine ringwraiths, you can hardly afford to lose two or three at
every serious confrontation, now can you? The Nazgul's plan seems perfectly
logical to me, and probably would have been quite successful except for two
things. The first was Frodo's unexpected courage in resisting the will of the
Witch-king so that his shoulder was pierced instead of his heart. The second
was the Nazgul's lack of familiarity (for which I suppose they must be
forgiven) with hobbit constitutions. Having pierced Frodo's shoulder, the
Witch-king knew full well that he had delivered a deadly wound which would
achieve its purpose within a matter of a few hours at most. He ordered his
forces to withdraw and wait like a pack of vultures for the appropriate moment.
So they waited. And they waited. And they waited. And then they waited some
more. By the time they figured out that they may have made a minor
miscalculation, things had progressed, the sun had risen and the carrion had
flown the coop! Anyway, that's my two cents worth - bascially that the Nazgul
had a highly workable plan based on their limited knowledge of hobbit-lore, for
which under-estimation they paid dearly.
Grimgard
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
Nigel
Steuard Jensen wrote:
Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> purpose)?
The wraiths didn't want to touch the property of their master. It might be that for a wraith even to touch the One Ring would be seen as a challenge to the sovereignty of Sauron, their boss. It might also be that the other wraiths wouldn't trust or work with the one who carried the Ring, in case the bearer put on the Ring and commanded the rest of the nine through it. It could also have been that there would have been some sort of magical / spiritual conflict arising from having one of the nine and the One in so close a spacial proximity ( a sort of critical mass effect ? ).
In any case, the wraiths wanted to take Frodo and the Ring back to Mordor, as evidenced by what they said at the battle at the ford of Rivendell. It might have been that they wanted to use Frodo as the vessel for moving the Ring about, or possibly just because Sauron wanted revenge ( another likely option I think ).
F@ C@
read through and considered all the points thoroughly - some were just plain
implausible. Thanks everyone for your points - my mind feels more at rest.
Though, I would love a beer...
badg...@tcac.net wrote in message <36f136f3...@news.tcac.net>...
Inkliing
i don't think the nazgul were quite as powerfull as we might think. it is said
that there main weapon was fear and that their enemies cringe in the dirt and
all that. well, it's easy to seem very powerfull when your enemies are always
cringing and not fightinhg. fear of the nazgul made them the enemy's greatest
servants. but what if a nazgul runs into uncommon courage. without the weapon
of fear, a nazgul is just another big guy with a sword flying on a giant bat.
in that case, *maybe* even a lowly hobbit can stab him in the leg and help
bring him down.
so then why all the fireworks when gandalf fought the nazgul on weathertop?
well, i guess maybe because gandalf was alone defending himself against all
nine. they were stronger when all together. perhaps the fireworks were all
gandalf's, and the nazgul were just guys with swords (against an unafraid
gandalf). this is possible. so if the nazgul weren't that powerfull, then why
didn't gandalf kick their collective butts? well, i think there's alot of
places in the lord of the rings where gandalf could have kicked some evil
creatures butt, but didn't. gandalf was quite wise and knew when force was
necessary and the only time i remember him really fighting (as gandalf the
grey) was with the balrog because i guess he had to really defend himself.
on the other hand, there are places where gandalf talks about the which king as
if he were quite powerfull and so i guess he was, but i don't think th witch
king was one of the five that attacked the hobbits and strider in the dell.
but this still doesn't mean that four hobbits and a future king can fight five
nazgul at night using just fire and some old barrow swords. but they might, if
they mastered their fear. and i always got the impression that nazguls were
somewhat cautious. maybe if one relies on fear all of the time, then one
becomes used to winning without engaging in open conflict, and one therefore
becomes cautious. maybe five cautious nazguls will just stab frodo and let the
poison do the work so that they can then capture him and take him to mordor.
the ring forced frodo to put it on to help him get stabbed.
it seems very likely that sauron would leave standing and explicit orders with
his most powerfull, ring-corrupted, nazgul servants that they were *never* to
handle the one ring themselves. wouldn't sauron be worried that a nazgul
wearing the one ring would become a dark lord or something? better that the
nazgul would poison frodo and take him to mordor. perhaps sauron had to keep
constant control of the nazgul through their rings and needed to continuously
dominate their wills and so perhaps it was he who forced the nazgul to maintain
a descrete distance form the one ring and to be cautious and to rely on the
poison to corrupt frodo.
of course, this doesn't really explain why the nazgul didn't kill the other
hobbits and strider, but maybe these four weren't afraid enough to make the
nazguls advantage big enough for five cautious nazguls. the hobbits and strider
didn't cringe in the dirt but defended themselves with fire and swords. so the
nazgul followed their orders and didn't touch the ring. they just followed the
good guys around and waited for frodo to become corrupted.
O.L.
BigJeff73
powerful if the 9 stand together
>Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
>strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine.
alone or with a small few of them they were no where near powerful enought to
take Aragorn
it wasnt there intention to kill Frodo but to wound him and slow there pace
till the 9 could be one
they were nasty and brutil foe on there own i atest to that but together there
power was inumerable
Mark Myers
>
>
> >MM wrote...
> >But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
> >on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
> >it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
> >think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
> >the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
> >differently.
> >
>
Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
> I thought that one of the points of the LOTR was that the Hobbit was little
> known, also if you were fighting The Ring and it was put on by an unknown
> quantity then I would be as frightened of The Ring fighting back at the wont
> of the bearer (or it's self) as I was of Frodo having full control. I feel
> that the ring has a self-awareness even if it has know intelligence. this is
> shown by the ability of The Ring to 'control' it's owner.
> All this aside I saw The Ring as the force that made Frodo put it on not the
> fear of the Nazgul. this betrayal seems more in the character of The Ring.
> Nick C=}
>
I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
even in the Shire.
Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
not worthy of their fear.
Mike Scott Rohan
from Margaret Dean <marg...@erols.com> contains these words:
> I'd go for the nervous-Nazgul explanation myself.
Maybe, but what does the authority say?
"They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is
accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam,
they they believe your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him
to their will."
That doesn't sound very nervous IMHO. But it does sound as if doing
anything else would present them with some problems, which make it
more worthwhile to wait. Fire, the defence of his friends, and the
name of Elbereth, are undoubtedly some of these problems. But there's
a bigger problem facing them, and a clue to it lies in their mode of
attack. Why did they go to such trouble to get Frodo to put on the
Ring, before they attacked? Why not just rush in? And why did the
attack stop when he took the Ring off? Almost certainly because it's
much harder for them to find him at all without it. The reason they
back off is that, from their point of view, he vanishes -- much as he
does from humans when he puts the Ring on.
It's just been well established that they can't actually see as
humans can; their grasp of the material world is a bit tenuous. So
while they can sense where the Ring is, and smell the blood of
humans, they can't see them in any detail, or tell which one of them
has got it. Maybe the fire makes that even harder. So they choose to
flush out their target by using their willpower to make him reveal
himself. When he does, they strike him with a knife which will make
him permanently visible to them. Since they don't have the knife, and
don't know how hardy hobbits can be, they probably think the wound is
worse than it is, and that he's going to pop up again any minute.
That is a lot safer and surer for them than barging in again, and it
makes sense to me as motivation.
{It's also, incidentally, how a lot of predators hunt larger animals
-- deliver a disabling bite or clawing to their prey, often tearing
the haunch muscles. Then follow the prey till the wound bleeds too
much or goes septic, and it falls over. Wonder if Tolkien knew of that?}
Almost certainly against the Wise that problem wouldn't arise --
because, as we're also told, those who have dwelt in the Blessed
Realm live in both worlds at once. They could both see and be seen.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown -- The Castle of the Winds -- now a Bookwatch SF bestseller
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Brian Ross
difficult or impossible to take the ring all the way back to Sauron since they
can't see, and because they would be traveling through enemy lands.
Considering how grossly they underestimated the companions, they wouldn't have
had much doubt that their knife would do the job.
F@ C@ wrote:
> I am not one to over analyze this fantastic series, but when I seriously
> doubt something within the text , I must ask the opinion of others. I can
> think of no other place better than this NG. So here goes: Why did the
> Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
> Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It is stated that they are at their
> strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
> strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why,
> when there are five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do
> they not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
Grimgard
>as
>if he were quite powerfull and so i guess he was, but i don't think th witch
>king was one of the five that attacked the hobbits and strider in the dell.
I have no definitive proof, but I've always been under the impression that the
Wraith that stabbed Frodo was the Witch-king, maybe because he was the only one
of the five to be wearing a crown. Does anyone have any clear and convincing
evidence, one way or the other?
Grimgard
>a bigger problem facing them, and a clue to it lies in their mode of
>attack. Why did they go to such trouble to get Frodo to put on the
>Ring, before they attacked? Why not just rush in? And why did the
>attack stop when he took the Ring off? Almost certainly because it's
>much harder for them to find him at all without it. The reason they
>back off is that, from their point of view, he vanishes -- much as he
>does from humans when he puts the Ring on.
>
>It's just been well established that they can't actually see as
>humans can; their grasp of the material world is a bit tenuous. So
>while they can sense where the Ring is, and smell the blood of
>humans, they can't see them in any detail, or tell which one of them
>has got it. Maybe the fire makes that even harder. So they choose to
>flush out their target by using their willpower to make him reveal
>himself. When he does, they strike him with a knife which will make
>him permanently visible to them. Since they don't have the knife, and
>don't know how hardy hobbits can be, they probably think the wound is
>worse than it is, and that he's going to pop up again any minute.
>That is a lot safer and surer for them than barging in again, and it
>makes sense to me as motivation.
An excellent point, and one which, I must confess, had never occurred to me.
The Nazgul may have had quite as much trouble perceiving the mortals as the
mortals had perceiving them. I guess if you're going to have to fight The
Invisible Man, the first thing you'd want to do is spray some paint on him.
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> > attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> > is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> > himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> > pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> > five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> > not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> > purpose)?
>
> As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
> Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
> servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
> attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
> regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
> around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
>
> I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
> In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
>
> 1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
> was just a parting blow as they fled.
The name of Elbereth did put them off somewhat, although we can't say how
much influence it was. Personally I think that the power was great. Almost
everywhere in the book, where the name of Elbereth is used, it has
significant influence on the events.
Aragorn: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.”
I always saw this as the prime reason they backed of.
> 2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> breaking off their attack.
> 3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> nine present) was overly risky.
> 4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
> 5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> give the others the slip, with the Ring.
Aragorn, just after the attack: ”They are only waiting, because they think
that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly
much further."
Add to this that in Gandalf's opinion many strong men would have succumbed
within day, whereas Frodo carried the point for 2 weeks.
<snip>
We have to consider two different situations:
1) why did thay back off at Weathertop?
2) why did they not attack again?
As for 2) I think it is quite plain, that they saw no reason to attack.
Frodo was doomed within days and they were not themselves in full power.
And they had trouble finding Aragorn, Frodo etc.
But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
And, lastly, remember: though they are terrible, their chief weapon is
fear and they can be killed. And they know it.
I don't see the situation as that incomprehensible, but Frodo *was* very
lucky, that they did not return.
Regards,
Kristian
Brigitte Stewart
Why did the
>Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they attacked the hobbits and
>Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It is stated that they are at their
>strongest at night, and Gandalf himself states that even The Wise at their
>strongest, would be hard pressed to stand openly against the Nine.
there's a reason Aragorn is the hero of the epic, after all, he IS directly
descended form Isildur, of the first of men. there are few in the course of
the history of middle earth that could stand up to him.
GLuigiD
here's mine
a nazgul's sole purpose is to get the ring, as we all know, so why kill anyone
at all. i think in their twisted, wraith minds they believe that since the
ring has shown itself again, it is only a matter of time before the dark lord
gets what's his. so why risk their necks fighting the upstart strider, and the
puny hobbits? soon, all of middle earth will be under sauron's dark hand, every
free being will be enslaved and the nine will be on easy street. just seduce
the bearer into revealing himself by putting the ring on, give him a nick with
the sword and wait: for him to become corrupted and the nine to come together.
it almost works, too, at the fords of rivendell, the nine were ready to cross,
indeed * were* crossing the river to take frodo, even though glorfindel,
aragorn and the rest of the nine walkers were coming. their prize was within
reach! then the water came. d'oh!
where has this ng been all my life?
g.l.
Adam Barnard
Grimgard wrote:
> >on the other hand, there are places where gandalf talks about the which king
> >as
> >if he were quite powerfull and so i guess he was, but i don't think th witch
> >king was one of the five that attacked the hobbits and strider in the dell.
>
> I have no definitive proof, but I've always been under the impression that the
> Wraith that stabbed Frodo was the Witch-king, maybe because he was the only one
> of the five to be wearing a crown. Does anyone have any clear and convincing
> evidence, one way or the other?
I consider the crown to be pretty convincing evidence.
Mark Wells
wrote:
>Nicholas Costa wrote ...
>>
>>
>> >MM wrote...
>> >But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
>> >on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
>> >it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
>> >think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
>> >the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
>> >differently.
>> >
>>
>> Do they know how powerful a Hobbit is??
>
>Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
I think Mr. Costa's point here was that they didn't know what to think
of Frodo. They didn't know what he was or what he could do with that
Ring. They chase these little short guys all over the Old Forest, and
they finally catch them and find that one of them is walking around
with the One Ring and an enchanted sword and a Numenorean warrior as
backup.
>I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
>it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
>their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
>Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
>even in the Shire.
I think fear was a major factor also. He saw the Nazgul and he
panicked and put on the Ring because he didn't know what else to do
about them.
>Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
>thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
>not worthy of their fear.
But they had no reason to think he wasn't powerful. The only Hobbit
Sauron had met (up to this point) was Gollum, who was too messed up to
be an accurate indicator of Hobbits in general. (Bilbo didn't even
know he *was* a Hobbit, and I doubt Sauron knew either.) The way the
Nazgul severely underestimated Frodo was in stabbing him with a
Morgul-knife and then leaving, expecting him to fade out of the
physical world and bring them the Ring within a few hours.
That doesn't mean they underestimated his power. If they tried that
with a much more powerful opponent, such as Aragorn, it would have
worked perfectly. (Note that they got out of there before Frodo could
inflict any serious injury on them with that nasty sword of his.)
What they underestimated was his amazing resistance to their weapons.
ddjhenrie
bearers of lessor
rings, they would be well aware of the Power of the ONE RING.
They probably would have to assume that whomever possessed the Ring had
possibly
mastered some of it's power. Imagine if they ambused the party only to find
Strider
with the Ring and able to wield some of it's power against them!
to put it in modern terms
A SWAT team may have all the advantages of manpower, firepower, location
etc,
but if an amatuer bank robber is inside with a bomb...they do not go blindly
rushing
in trusting thier superior training to disarm the crook before he can
detonate the device.
dave henrie
Spokane, Washington
Ignacio and Stephanie Diaz
bearer, whoever that might be)?? They are prevented from killing the bearer
outright, but are allowed to disable him and bring him to Sauron? Of
course, this doesn't explain why they don't kill Strider and the other
Hobbits. Hmm...
Stephanie Diaz
rabb...@my-dejanews.com
perhaps it was because they didn't really see Strider and the other hobbits.
What I mean by that is perhaps they were so focused on Frodo as the Bearer
that they paid no mind to the others. The others were of no consequence to
them.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Myers
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:33:12 -0000, spam...@see.sig (Mark Myers)
> wrote:
>
> >Nicholas Costa wrote ...
> >
> >Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
>
> I think Mr. Costa's point here was that they didn't know what to think
> of Frodo. They didn't know what he was or what he could do with that
> Ring. They chase these little short guys all over the Old Forest, and
> they finally catch them and find that one of them is walking around
> with the One Ring and an enchanted sword and a Numenorean warrior as
> backup.
>
Um, I think they knew exactly what they were looking for. What I am
arguing is that they were prejudiced. They were used to being powerful,
and instilling fear, and did not expect to be opposed. When they were it
took them aback.
> >I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
> >it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
> >their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
> >Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
> >even in the Shire.
>
> I think fear was a major factor also. He saw the Nazgul and he
> panicked and put on the Ring because he didn't know what else to do
> about them.
>
In the earlier argument it is probable that we are talking about the same
things really, but I have to disagree here. Putting on the ring was the
worst thing Frodo could do, and he knew it. He didn't panic, he
succumbed.
> >Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
> >thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
> >not worthy of their fear.
>
> But they had no reason to think he wasn't powerful. [snip]
Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
I would suggest that this theme of the powerful underestimating the
little people runs right through LOTR. Let's face it, if Sauron had
covered his arse rather than make sweeping assumptions about the
opposition he would have won easily.
Nicholas Costa
>little people runs right through LOTR.
Was this not one of the major themes and the point of the story?
Robert S. Coren
Mark Myers <spam...@see.sig> wrote:
>
>Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
>i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
>went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
>shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
You may be right, but I question whether he "underestimated" Merry. I
think he just didn't see him.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"There is altogether too much searching for meaning in this
world. Who understands a buttercup?" --Walt Kelly
Kjell Ivar Øvergård
the party at weathertop. So this may have weakened them to some extent.
But the main reason that they fled was maybe as gandalf says in Rivendell
that what the wraiths tried to do was to stab Frodos heart so he could
become one of them and then follow by him self to Mordor.
Frodo was attacked by only one of the wraiths, just before the wraith came
onto Frodo, F. attacked with the words O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!, then Frodo
gave the first blow (then he was stabbed in the shoulder).
I bleieve that the central key to why the wraiths did'nt kill all of the
party is here, the posibilities may be:
1) Frodo may have fooled the wraiths to believe that he was not afraid of
them, and that the ring had no affect on him exept that he came into their
world. Noone have ever dared to attack the wraiths in thier world, this may
have fooled the wraith to believe that Frodo had the ring under his will.
(This is not very possible!)
2) Frodos blow made the wriath with the knife to loose his aim, and
therefore hitting Frodo in the shoulder instead of in the heart. When the
knife broke they had no other weapons to attack with (exept regular swords,
and teir fear did'nt seem to work!). therefore they withdrawed, since they
had done what they could do (or should do?).
3) Together with nr. 2 Straider attacked with a torch (burning piece of
wood) and this may have scared the wriaths so they withdrawed since they
already had stabbed Frodo. Their most powerful weapon (fear) did not work
and the knife was broken - they had nothing more to attack with. (I also
supposed that they knew Stradier and feared him for his figthing abillities.
4) Frodo is after he have been stabbed still strong enough to hold up
against the ring and the wraiths. He takes off the ring, which may have to
effects a) the wraiths looses their sigth of him, and b) they are surprised
that he is withholding the force of the ring, the knife and the precense of
5 of the wriaths. The symbolic value of Frodos last act in chapter XI may
have mede the wriath believe that they stood up agains a _very_ strong enemy
(together with straider and the other of the same rase as Frodo!
( remembeer to have read anythig about Tolkiens problems about the number of
wraiths at Weathertop, but I cnnot recall where. I also believe that there
is something which say why the wraiths withdraw.
I believe that the wraiths withdraw as an interaction between a lot of
factors which is
- that Frodo actually attacked, and not succumbed to the fear.
- that the knife broke, and that there was no other knife to "finish the
job" with
- That the wraiths was afraid of the attack of both Frodo and Starider. they
had never been attacked in their own world.
- they believed that Frodo would either die or become a wraith himelf as
a result of the wound.
- they was put off by hte scream of Frodo (O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!) and the
flames that striader attacked with.
- because Fordo actually took off the ring after been wounded by an
inchanted knife, in the precense of 5 of the wraiths and to some extent
under the contol of the ring. This would say something of the strength of
Frodo.
sincerely
Kjedli
Inkliing skrev i meldingen <19990319014700...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>on the other hand, there are places where gandalf talks about the which
king as
>if he were quite powerfull and so i guess he was, but i don't think th
witch
>king was one of the five that attacked the hobbits and strider in the dell.
>
F@ C@
-Maybe they didn't truly regard him as a threat, and once they smote Frodo,
their job was complete.
-They may well have slew Aragorn if they had known his lineage, but it
seemed that sparing them revealed their true purpose: they sought the
ring-bearer ONLY.
-They do indeed, as many have suggested, rely more on their terrifying
reputation, if you will, and DID know of his lineage and were scared of HIM.
Any thoughts?
Ignacio and Stephanie Diaz wrote in message
<7d48ei$o5u$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>Perhaps it's because they are slaves, ultimately, to the ring (and its
>bearer, whoever that might be)?? They are prevented from killing the
bearer
>outright, but are allowed to disable him and bring him to Sauron? Of
>course, this doesn't explain why they don't kill Strider and the other
>Hobbits. Hmm...
>
>Stephanie Diaz
>
>
Muse
>Steuard Jensen wrote:
>> Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
>> > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
>> > attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
For the same reason that Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius in the first
act: the story would have ended not even halfway through the first
volume, that's why. :)
Laurie Forbes
news:36F25083...@capgemini.dk...
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
> > Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> > > is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> > > himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> > > five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> > > not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> > > purpose)?
> > As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
> > Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
> > servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
> > attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
> > regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
> > around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
> >
> > I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> > Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
> > In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
> >
> > 1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
> > was just a parting blow as they fled.
Kristian Damm Jensen:
> The name of Elbereth did put them off somewhat, although we can't say how
> much influence it was. Personally I think that the power was great. Almost
> everywhere in the book, where the name of Elbereth is used, it has
> significant influence on the events.
>
> Aragorn: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
> I always saw this as the prime reason they backed of.
>
Steuard:
> > 2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> > without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> > breaking off their attack.
> > 3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> > nine present) was overly risky.
> > 4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
> > 5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> > give the others the slip, with the Ring.
>
Kristian:
> Aragorn, just after the attack: "They are only waiting, because they think
> that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly
> much further."
>
> Add to this that in Gandalf's opinion many strong men would have succumbed
> within day, whereas Frodo carried the point for 2 weeks.
>
> <snip>
>
> We have to consider two different situations:
> 1) why did thay back off at Weathertop?
> 2) why did they not attack again?
>
> As for 2) I think it is quite plain, that they saw no reason to attack.
> Frodo was doomed within days and they were not themselves in full power.
> And they had trouble finding Aragorn, Frodo etc.
>
> But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
> And, lastly, remember: though they are terrible, their chief weapon is
> fear and they can be killed. And they know it.
>
> I don't see the situation as that incomprehensible, but Frodo *was* very
> lucky, that they did not return.
>
> Regards,
> Kristian
>
I've come to think of the behavior of the Ringwraiths at Weathertop as a
combination of all of the factors everyone has mentioned. My top picks are:
an inability to perceive the "world of light" effectively, their counting on
Frodo's succumbing swiftly to his wound, and fire.
I don't interpret "world of light" to be limited to just when the sun is
up - rather, I see it as the whole operating system (day, night, seasons,
all living things). The wraiths may have felt a little more at home in the
dark, but I don't believe this would have made those of us on "this side"
that much more visible to them. I think instead that our tendency to be more
apprehensive and fearful in "our" dark may have worked to their advantage in
other situations. Regarding "fear" itself, though, this seems to have been
a "hit or miss" weapon for them depending upon whom they were trying to
intimidate - at least after they started dealing with hobbits. The
gatekeeper was clearly incontinent, but the gaffer and Farmer Maggot
displayed their fear and alarm as resistance, not cowering and abject
terror.
I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
This, then, made me wonder about Aragorn's "fire" information. At the Ford
it clearly scared the horses, but the wraiths? Then Gandalf tells Frodo
that the wraiths were dismayed by a combination of the sight of Glorfindel,
by the water and by the fire. So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent"
list.
--
Laurie Forbes
Adam Barnard
> So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
Is that a new Raid product? :)
Laurie Forbes
news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>
>
>
Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
Enterprises is crying "foul"!
Graham Lockwood
wrote:
>Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
>> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
>Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
>are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your body and then
you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
Stian Lomnes
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
>>> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>>>
>>> > So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
>>>
>>> Is that a new Raid product? :)
>>>
>>Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
>>Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
>>are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
>>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
>Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your body and then
>you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
>
You *will* probabbly have to worry about some serious burns,
though.....:))
Stian
Adam Barnard
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes"
> <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> >> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> >>
> >> > So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
> >>
> >> Is that a new Raid product? :)
> >>
> >Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
> Woods
> >Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
> and
> >are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
> they're
> >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>
> >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
> Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your
> body and then
> you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
Pretty much. They're testing it on lab rats right now. They just can
seem to figure how to fix the problem of charred corpses being all that
remains when the repellant wears off. :)
Kazul
"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> >
> >
> >
> Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
> Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
> are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
> Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
>
Hmm, yes, I read about that in the "Morning Flame" (Dragon gossip paper.
(quote: "If you want the inside scoop on life as we know it, read the "Morning
Flame"! It sizzles!" unquote)) It appears that Angmar Ent. is filing a suit
against Raid for "purposeful discrimation against Angmar workers" and "1st
degree attempted murder of Angmar Nazgul(tm)". Raid is yet to reply.
In related news, there was a fire at the "Woodsman" company; police have no
leads, as it *appears* that the fire started in a room filled with locked
files with the header "Angmar Deal". "Fire-Breather Times" believes that
this fire has something to do with the friendliness between Angmar and
Woodman. . . and also, the fact that "Wraith-dope" appears to work only on
*Elvish* wraiths.
Also, the "Daily Draco" reports that the Mentos company is considering coming
out with a "Hobbit-Spray" which temporarly blinds the litl' buggers. Rumour
has it that Angmar and Mentos are planning a merger to boast both companies
falling stocks.
-Kazul the sky-blue floating dragon, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Check out my brainchild, TEUNC, at
http://www.egroups.com/list/teunc/info.html and my article and cartoon
at http://members.xoom.com/Naskha/ !!!!
Laurie Forbes
> Graham Lockwood wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes"
> > <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > >> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
> > Woods
> > >Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
> > and
> > >are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
> > they're
> > >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >
> > >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> > body and then
> > you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
>
> Pretty much. They're testing it on lab rats right now. They just can
> seem to figure how to fix the problem of charred corpses being all that
> remains when the repellant wears off. :)
>
third-degree burns, eh? Well, I'm happy to announce that the Product
Development Department is also testing scent-based repellents. A few
promising entries:
"Eau D'Orc", "Ent-ssence", "It's Amor-ia!" and "Balrog #5"
Grimgard
>third-degree burns, eh? Well, I'm happy to announce that the Product
>Development Department is also testing scent-based repellents. A few
>promising entries:
> "Eau D'Orc", "Ent-ssence", "It's Amor-ia!" and "Balrog #5"
Scent-based repellents? Against creatures with halitosis so severe it's
described as The Black Breath? Get serious! These guys use skunk oil for
after-shave!
Laurie Forbes
news:19990323203606...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> >OK, Graham, Stian and Adam - scared (or should I say "scarred"?) of a few
> >third-degree burns, eh? Well, I'm happy to announce that the Product
> >Development Department is also testing scent-based repellents. A few
> >promising entries:
> > "Eau D'Orc", "Ent-ssence", "It's Amor-ia!" and "Balrog #5"
>
> Scent-based repellents? Against creatures with halitosis so severe it's
> described as The Black Breath? Get serious! These guys use skunk oil for
> after-shave!
>
> Grimgard
You're still upset about the "electroweak" thing from the other thread - I
can tell! Well, I said I was sorry. Now with respect to "scent" -what if
these smelled really GOOD to us? That would drive them off, right? Or - to
throw off their olfactory-based tracking system - maybe a scent that smells
exactly like something ELSE (other than "hobbit"), i.e. not "repellent", but
"confusing". -- Laurie Forbes
Laurie Forbes
news:7d99b8$qbq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <hnOJ2.1743$6d6....@newsr2.maine.rr.com>,
> "Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > > Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
Woods
> > Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
and
> > are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
they're
> > Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> >
>
> In related news, there was a fire at the "Woodsman" company; police have
no
> leads, as it *appears* that the fire started in a room filled with locked
> files with the header "Angmar Deal". "Fire-Breather Times" believes that
> this fire has something to do with the friendliness between Angmar and
> Woodman. . . and also, the fact that "Wraith-dope" appears to work only on
> *Elvish* wraiths.
>
> Also, the "Daily Draco" reports that the Mentos company is considering
coming
> out with a "Hobbit-Spray" which temporarly blinds the litl' buggers.
Rumour
> has it that Angmar and Mentos are planning a merger to boast both
companies
> falling stocks.
>
> -Kazul the sky-blue floating dragon, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Damned tabloids! Next we'll be reading that Celebrían was really abducted
by space aliens and Arwen is their love-child or that Gandalf and Tom
Bombadil have been secretly doctoring up the pipeweed and Goldberry is an
undercover cop. -- Laurie Forbes
PS Are "Mentos" that baton-sized roll of peppermints? If so, I think we're
looking at a hostile takeover. Cut the staff by at least 20%, golden
parachutes for the principals, no bonuses for 1999 or 2000, productivity
dips then recovers and Ang-Ments is on its way!
badg...@tcac.net
>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
How about "Wight Flight"?
Graham Lockwood
Would that be piloted by the Wight Bwothers?
Grimgard
>can tell! Well, I said I was sorry. Now with respect to "scent" -what if
>these smelled really GOOD to us? That would drive them off, right? Or - to
>throw off their olfactory-based tracking system - maybe a scent that smells
>exactly like something ELSE (other than "hobbit"), i.e. not "repellent", but
>"confusing". -- Laurie Forbes
I don't think it works like that. Animals that hunt by scent usually don't
mind what we would consider really bad smells, but that doesn't mean that
they're repulsed by what we would consider really nice smells. For instance,
my cat will spend several minutes smelling my neighbors roses when they're in
bloom, but she spends a roughly equivalent amount of time investigating the
insides of my dirty socks.
Iskandar Taib
Robert S. Coren <co...@spdcc.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.11605c9f1...@news.netforce.net>,
>Mark Myers <spam...@see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
>>i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
>>went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
>>shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
>
>You may be right, but I question whether he "underestimated" Merry. I
>think he just didn't see him.
I suspect they suffer from tunnel vision of sorts (not that their
senses are "normal", to begin with). They don't perceive the
insignificant.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Iskandar Taib
The first time I read LOTR, it was an OLD edition (I don't know HOW
old - red bound hardcover, falling apart by that time in the mid
70s). The thing is, I could have sworn (reading the account of the
confrontation on Weathertop) that Frodo saw that the leader of the
Wraiths wore a ring. Its not in any of the newer volumes I own, and
its bothered me greatly since then.
Was this actually in there, or was it a figment of my imagination?
Tolkien supposedly edited the books several times over the years,
mainly to iron out inconsistencies. In this case, the account would
have conflicted with the assertion later on that Sauron kept the Nine
- the Nazgul didn't wear them. (Yeah, yeah, it could've been some
other ring Frodo saw, but if so, why even bother to mention it?)
If anyone's got volumes dating back to the 40s and 50s, please look
this up for me, I'd much appreciate it.. ^_^;;
Laurie Forbes
<badg...@tcac.net> wrote in message news:36f88bd2...@news.tcac.net...
> >I think they're
> >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
> How about "Wight Flight"?
>
Very good! We've added it to our air-freshener line, along with
Barr-O-San. Don't read the next note; I'll take care of that - just a small
problem with the staff.
--
Laurie Forbes
Laurie Forbes
news:36f8651...@news.fsu.edu...> >>I think they're
> >>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> >How about "Wight Flight"?
>
>
Mike Scott Rohan
from nt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) contains these words:
> >You may be right, but I question whether he "underestimated" Merry. I
> >think he just didn't see him.
> I suspect they suffer from tunnel vision of sorts (not that their
> senses are "normal", to begin with).
True, and that was the explanation I advanced for the reason they
didn't attack again at Weathertop, or wipe out the others; they could
only be sure of seeing Frodo as long as he had the Ring on. That was
why they always exert their wills to make him put it on.
I believe that was what Tolkien intended. It's explicitly said that
they don't see "the world of light" as we do, only that we "throw
shadows in their minds", and that they can smell the blood of living
things. So presumably even the Witch-King would have had to
concentrate pretty hard on Eowyn at that point, with little room left
for the equivalent of peripheral vision. Also, even if he did notice
Merry, he could not guess that this small crawling thing happened to
have a weapon capable of doing him unusual damage.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. I've looked up the Weathertop passage in my early impression,
and I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be a mention of a ring on the
Nazgul's finger. Sorry! Might have resulted from speed-reading the
paragraph, because there are so many references to rings on fingers!
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown -- The Castle of the Winds -- now a Bookwatch SF bestseller
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Donald Martinich
: Here's something I think someone might be able to help me with.
:
: The first time I read LOTR, it was an OLD edition (I don't know HOW
: old - red bound hardcover, falling apart by that time in the mid
: 70s). The thing is, I could have sworn (reading the account of the
: confrontation on Weathertop) that Frodo saw that the leader of the
: Wraiths wore a ring. Its not in any of the newer volumes I own, and
: its bothered me greatly since then.
:
: Was this actually in there, or was it a figment of my imagination?
: Tolkien supposedly edited the books several times over the years,
: mainly to iron out inconsistencies. In this case, the account would
: have conflicted with the assertion later on that Sauron kept the Nine
: - the Nazgul didn't wear them. (Yeah, yeah, it could've been some
: other ring Frodo saw, but if so, why even bother to mention it?)
I have the first edition of LOTR published by George Allen and Unwin in
1956 but it is the 10th impression. There is no mention of a ring on any
of the 5 Nazgul in the attack on Weathertop.
D.M.
Mark Burlison
> I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
> about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
> initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
> Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
> is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 8 | Tinky Winky Vs. Jerry Falwell
http://come.to/World2World | A new caption competition
Laurie Forbes
news:36FD4D96...@pmail.net...
> SNIP
>
> > I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our
information
> > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
had
> > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's
striking
> > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken
again. Or
> > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
>
> able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
>
> Mark
>
Good point. And this weaves back in nicely with our discussions of the
types of behavior the Nazgūl were and weren't used to: weakness as betrayed
by cringing, grovelling fear, or strength as displayed by courageous
resistance (strong voice, determined actions and demeanor). Frodo's weakness
at the Ford was still more physical than spiritual, but the Wraiths may not
have known - or cared about - the difference.
--
Laurie Forbes
Ron Barber
Ron B.
Mark Burlison wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
> > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
> > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
> > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
> > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
>
> At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
> able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
>
> Mark
>
Grimgard
>> about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
>had
>> initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
>> Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
>> bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
>> Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again.
>Or
>> is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
>
>At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
>able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
So you're saying that the louder he says it, the more it hurts the Nazgul? If
that were the case, I would think that the good guys could have just invaded
Mordor with megaphones.
Brian E. Clark
> Our information about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire
> comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
> best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
I find myself part of a small minority. :) Even the first
time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgûl.
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is
seldom a mistake. -- H. L. Mencken
Michael Martinez
>Mark Burlison <thismarkdo...@pmail.net> wrote,
>
>> Our information about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire
>> comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
>> best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
>
>time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
>him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
>emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgûl.
Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Brian E. Clark
> Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
That "shrill cry" can be taken to be:
* Frodo's scream of anguish as the knife met his shoulder.
* The Nazgūl's crying in pain at the name of Elbereth. (But
as has been pointed out, the Ringwraiths did not react to
Frodo's invokation of Elbereth at the Ford.)
* The Ringwraith's "attack cry."
I favor the first, but the none of them, nor for that matter
a combination of the second and third, trouble me much.
I neglect possible but highly unlikely alternatives, such as
the idea that the cry had nothing to do with the key players
but came instead from a rabbit cornered by an owl. :)
Michael Martinez
>
>>Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
>
>That "shrill cry" can be taken to be:
>
>* Frodo's scream of anguish as the knife met his shoulder.
Tolkien usually attributes screams or whatever to the hobbits if such
outbursts come from them. It is unlikely that the shrill scream of anguish
was Frodo's. Besides, Frodo was crying out "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" I
don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at the same
time.
>* The Nazgul's crying in pain at the name of Elbereth. (But
>as has been pointed out, the Ringwraiths did not react to
>Frodo's invokation of Elbereth at the Ford.)
There is no indication of a reaction at the Ford of Bruinen, but then, all
Nine were there as well -- a completely different situation from that on
Weathertop. In several places we are told that the Nine together are more
powerful than any lesser number of them.
>* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>
>Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
They cry out at the Ford.
Brian E. Clark
> don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at
> the same time.
I read it this way: Frodo slashes and calls out the name of
Elbereth, then the cry (whoever's it is) is heard. On the
other hand, Tolkien kept all this action confined in the
same paragraph, which I admit lends support to the idea that
the scream was not Frodo's.
[...]
> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
I was thinking more of a yell of the kind any fighter might
make before delivering what will clearly be an open and
decisive blow.
Still, there was this, at the Ford: "At the same moment the
black horses leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the
Riders came a terrible cry..."
And, in RotK, "With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears
like venom he let fall his mace."
Michael Martinez
>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 04:01:04 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>{snip}
>>
>>Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>
"At once the white horse sprang away and sped like the wind along
the last lap of the Road. At the same moment the black horses
leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the Riders came a
terrible cry, such sa Frodo had heard filling the woods with
horror in the Eastfarthing far away. It was answered; and to
the dismay of Frodo and his friends out from the trees and rocks
away on the left four other Rides came flying...."
(From "Flight to the Ford" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
"*Ho! Ho! Ho!* they began again louder. They stopped short
suddenly. Frodo sprang to his feet. A long-drawn wail came
down the wind, like the cry of some evil and lonely creature.
It rose and fell, and ended on a high piercing note. Even
as they sat and stood, as if suddenly frozen, it was answered
by another cry, fainter and further off, but no less chilling
to the blood. There was then a silence, broken only by the
sound of the wind in the leaves."
(From "A Short Cut To Mushrooms" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
"At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and
he heard himself crying aloud: *O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!* At
the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry
rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of
poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder. Even as he swooned
he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider
leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood
in either hand. With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword,
slipped the Ring from his finger and closed his right hand
upon it."
(From "A Knife in the Dark" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
Michael Martinez
>> Besides, Frodo was crying out "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" I
>> don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at
>> the same time.
>
>I read it this way: Frodo slashes and calls out the name of
>Elbereth, then the cry (whoever's it is) is heard. On the
>other hand, Tolkien kept all this action confined in the
>same paragraph, which I admit lends support to the idea that
>the scream was not Frodo's.
Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's action,
although it would logically follow that if the Nazgul were reacting to
anything Frodo did it would have to come after his actions. However, in
the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry comes before Frodo is
stabbed.
>[...]
>
>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>
>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>
>I was thinking more of a yell of the kind any fighter might
>make before delivering what will clearly be an open and
>decisive blow.
>
>Still, there was this, at the Ford: "At the same moment the
>black horses leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the
>Riders came a terrible cry..."
See the citation I posted for Graham. I left in the part comparing it to
the cry that Frodo, Sam, and Pippin heard in the Shire -- which was much
longer and more varied in tone than the shrill cry on Weathertop.
>And, in RotK, "With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears
>like venom he let fall his mace."
That would serve to support the contention that the scream came from the
Lord of the Nazgul and not from Frodo. However, Tolkien does not describe
the Lord of the Nazgul's "cry of hatred" as shrill, and he IS on the attack
when he strikes the blow that shivers Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm.
We do, however, get a "shrill wailing" when the spirit of the Nazgul is
freed by Eowyn's blade. That would support the contention that a shrill
cry coming from a Ringwraith is a cry of pain or fear or despair.
Brian E. Clark
> Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's
> action,
Maybe, maybe not. I keep searching (unsucessfully) in the
text for some means of finding a definite answer.
Textually, the order is this:
Frodo shouts and stabs at the Nazgūl's feet.
The shrill cry is heard and Frodo feels a pain
in his shoulder.
Trouble is, the passage as written presents no unambiguous
clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
alternative version of the story?
[...]
> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
Again, we do not know that for sure. The cry is described
first, yes, but the shriek and the stabbing are joined by
the word "and," which can imply simultaneous action but
(alas for clarity in this case) need not do so.
"A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
One natural reading would have the the cry and the stabbing
taking place at the same moment. But an equally natural
reading could treat the sentence as sequence of events. (For
comparison: "I ducked the snowball and avoided its impact."
That's simultaneous action. "I ducked the snowball and
dodged left." That's sequential.)
Again, I just don't know...
[...]
> We do, however, get a "shrill wailing" when the spirit of the Nazgul is
> freed by Eowyn's blade. That would support the contention that a shrill
> cry coming from a Ringwraith is a cry of pain or fear or despair.
Now you've got me thinking...
On Weathertop, did the invokation of Elbereth distress the
Nazgūl enough to cause him to fumble his blow, such that the
blade aimed at Frodo's heart hit Frodo's shoulder instead?
That is, did Frodo perhaps save his own life by calling out
the name of Elbereth?
Mark Burlison
>
> Mark Burlison <thismarkdo...@pmail.net> wrote in message
> news:36FD4D96...@pmail.net...
> > SNIP
> >
> information
> > > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
> had
> > > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's
> striking
> > > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken
> again. Or
> > > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
> >
> > At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
> > able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
> >
> >
>
> Good point. And this weaves back in nicely with our discussions of the
> types of behavior the Nazgūl were and weren't used to: weakness as betrayed
> by cringing, grovelling fear, or strength as displayed by courageous
> resistance (strong voice, determined actions and demeanor). Frodo's weakness
> at the Ford was still more physical than spiritual, but the Wraiths may not
> have known - or cared about - the difference.
They may/probably/would have have taken his weak voice as a sign of him
losing the 'battle within' against the knife point's work in turning him
(Frodo) into a minor wraith, as opposed to him just being weary due to
the wound, though I daresay a fair proportion of it was due to him
getting close to becoming a minor wraith. Personally, I think that the
Nazgul presumed that his weakness was totaly due to him becoming a
wraith. After all, they expected him to become a wraith within a few
days, surely it most be happening by the time they got to the fords???
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 9 | http://come.to/World2World
Mark Burlison
>
> And he wasn't wearing the ring at the Ford.
Another good point. Stick our points together and you have a weapon so
sharp that would worry Gandalfs sword :)
Mark Burlison
>
> >> I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
> >> about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
> >had
> >> initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> >> Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> >> bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
> >> Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again.
> >Or
> >> is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
> >
> >At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
> >able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
>
> that were the case, I would think that the good guys could have just invaded
> Mordor with megaphones.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying ;-) Gandalf should have come to see me. I'm
sure my VS100R + ME-8 + MDI1 and I could have blown Sauron, no, Mordor
off the map if it's volume that's important...
See my reply to Laurie Forbes post for a serious reply ;-)
Robert S. Coren
Brian E. Clark <zz...@zzz.zzz> wrote:
>
>Trouble is, the passage as written presents no unambiguous
>clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
>of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
>alternative version of the story?
>
>
>> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
>> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
>
>Again, we do not know that for sure. The cry is described
>first, yes, but the shriek and the stabbing are joined by
>the word "and," which can imply simultaneous action but
>(alas for clarity in this case) need not do so.
>
> "A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
> like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
Maybe I've lost the thread here, but is part of this question whether
the cry was, in fact, Frodo's? I'm inclined to think that it was not,
for this reason: the entire scene is described from Frodo's point of
view, so most likely his own cry would not be described as though it
were an external event.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
Greg: Andy's missing a glove.
James: Yeah, that accounts for his piss-poor attitude.
Greg: That, and he don't like most people. --_NYPD Blue_, 1/28/97
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote,
>
>> Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's
>> action,
>
>Maybe, maybe not. I keep searching (unsucessfully) in the
>text for some means of finding a definite answer.
>
>Textually, the order is this:
>
> Frodo shouts and stabs at the Nazgūl's feet.
>
> The shrill cry is heard and Frodo feels a pain
> in his shoulder.
>
>clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
>of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
>alternative version of the story?
Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here. Tolkien is not about to put Frodo's
reaction to being stabbed PRIOR to the deed. He doesn't do anything like
that anywhere else in the story and it's pure obfuscation to insist there
is some sort of ambiguity here.
>[...]
>
>> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
>> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
>
>Again, we do not know that for sure.
Absolutely we know that for sure. Please refrain from rewriting Tolkien
for us. I really hate it when people do that.
> "A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
> like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
>
>One natural reading would have the the cry and the stabbing
>taking place at the same moment.
[snip]
A natural reading keeps in mind that Frodo is the character of perspective
here and that any shrill cries not attributed to him (as his crying out "O
Elbereth! Gilthoniel" is) are not to be considered his. Unnaturally, we
could assume all sorts of things contrary to the text. Hopefully we will
not get into that.
Conrad B. Dunkerson
news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
Michael Martinez
As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <7e54fr$56h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad B. Dunkerson" <con...@planet.net> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>>> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>
>>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>>
>>"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
>>appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
>>all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
>>fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
>>ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
>
>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Well, it doesn't say "deep low cry" either. It doesn't describe it at
all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
"shrill"?
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e54fr$56h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad B. Dunkerson" <con...@planet.net> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>>> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>
>>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>>
>>"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
>>appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
>>all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
>>fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
>>ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
>
>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
I wouldn't attach too much importance to that fact. I've always
imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
In any case, it seems that they emit a lot of "cries", for a variety
of purposes. The ones the hobbits hear in the Shire seem to be used
for long-distance communication; additionally, as cited in several
posts in this thread, they seem to use them (rather effectively, in
most cases) for purposes of intimidation as they attack; and the Lord
of the Nazgūl emits a cry that fades out as he perishes. (The "harsh
croaking scream" that is heard after Legolas shoots down the Nazgūl
over the River is probably the death-cry of the winged beast.)
Given this, it's not really possible to determine whether the "shrill
cry" we're discussing is part of the attack or a pain-reaction to the
name of Elbereth; but I think it's pretty clear that it comes from one
of the Nazgūl (the Lord would be my choice, if I had to guess).
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"The 'Ring' can be read as the story of an aristocrat who grows bored
in a loveless marriage and builds a palace he cannot afford. He cuts
corners, and the world ends." -- Alex Ross in _The New Yorker_ of 8/10/98
Michael Martinez
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:14:15 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>
>all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
>subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
>"shrill"?
Yes. As "terrible". Are these supposed to be monocry Nazgul, capable of
uttering only one kind of "cry"?
Laurie Forbes
> Ron Barber wrote:
> >
> > And he wasn't wearing the ring at the Ford.
>
> Another good point. Stick our points together and you have a weapon so
> sharp that would worry Gandalfs sword :)
>
Well, with respect to MY points, I would quote Foghorn Leghorn: "That old
gal's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice!"
Mark Burlison
> > comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
> > best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
Actualy, I think Laurie Forbes wrote that...
> I find myself part of a small minority. :) Even the first
> time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
> him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
> emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgūl.
I can see why you would say that, but I don't agree, sorry.
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>
>imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
>always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
>of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
>Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
what others imagine he meant.
>In any case, it seems that they emit a lot of "cries", for a variety
>of purposes. The ones the hobbits hear in the Shire seem to be used
>for long-distance communication; additionally, as cited in several
>posts in this thread, they seem to use them (rather effectively, in
>most cases) for purposes of intimidation as they attack; and the Lord
>of the Nazgūl emits a cry that fades out as he perishes. (The "harsh
>croaking scream" that is heard after Legolas shoots down the Nazgūl
>over the River is probably the death-cry of the winged beast.)
>
>Given this, it's not really possible to determine whether the "shrill
>cry" we're discussing is part of the attack or a pain-reaction to the
>name of Elbereth; but I think it's pretty clear that it comes from one
>of the Nazgūl (the Lord would be my choice, if I had to guess).
With this I cannot disagree (and have no wish to).
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e5n4e$sd0$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>>
>>I wouldn't attach too much importance to that fact. I've always
>>imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
>>always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
>>of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
>>Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
>
>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>what others imagine he meant.
I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
say.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Being eaten by a hyena is not as bad as it sounds."
George Leonard Herter, _George the Housewife_
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>what others imagine he meant.
>
>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>say.
That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>
>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>say.
>
>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
probably not so.
I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
excessively literal-minded indiscussing a literary work of
fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I feel like my brain was run over by a lawnmower. That was really
excellent." --Rider getting off a roller coaster, as seen on The
Learning Channel
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren)
> wrote:
>>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>>
>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>>say.
>>
>>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
>
>I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
>was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
>probably not so.
How about just reading what I write? Since Tolkien doesn't equate the word
"shrill" with "terrible" anywhere, and since he doesn't describe the Lord
of the Nazgul's cry in "The Battle of Pelennor Fields" as "shrill" but
instead uses the word "terrible", why should I (or anyone else) be required
to ASSUME he used the two words to mean the same thing?
>I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
>a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
>excessively literal-minded indiscussing a literary work of
>fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
Yes, I thought you were trying to derail the discussion with unwarranted
personal remarks. This is not the first time you've stooped to such sleazy
tactics.
Thank you SO MUCH for doing it to me once again.
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e6p6c$st8$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren)
>> wrote:
>>>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>>>
>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>>>say.
>>>
>>>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>>>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
>>
>>I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
>>was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
>>probably not so.
>
>How about just reading what I write? Since Tolkien doesn't equate the word
>"shrill" with "terrible" anywhere, and since he doesn't describe the Lord
>of the Nazgul's cry in "The Battle of Pelennor Fields" as "shrill" but
>instead uses the word "terrible", why should I (or anyone else) be required
>to ASSUME he used the two words to mean the same thing?
I'm not requiring you (or anyone else) to assume any such thing. I'll
also point out that the words "shrill" and "terrible" are not mutually
exclusive.
>>I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
>>a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
>>excessively literal-minded in discussing a literary work of
>>fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
>
>Yes, I thought you were trying to derail the discussion with unwarranted
>personal remarks. This is not the first time you've stooped to such sleazy
>tactics.
That was not at all my intention. It's my serious belief that our
discussions here are often derailed -- or at least directed into
channels which I personally don't find fruitful or interesting -- by a
narrow focus on exactly the words used, and a restricted view of what
those words might mean. As I said, you are far from the only
participant here to fall into this trap; I do it myself on
occasion. If you regard a critical observation about a certain
approach to discussion as an "unwarranted personal remark", you're
going to end up feeling offended a lot more often than necessary (and
a lot more often than any offense was intended).
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"The optative passive rocks!" --Jeffrey William McKeough
Conrad B. Dunkerson
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
[Citation of attack cry snipped]
> As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
> Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Ah. I must have missed the word 'shrill' in your original post. So, if I
understand correctly, you now agree that the Nazgul do make 'attack cries',
but suggest that these attack cries are never "shrill"?
I'd agree with other writers that this is largely a semantic issue as
reference to a thesaurus will tell us that 'wailing', 'shreiking', and other
such descriptions >could< be equated with 'shrillness'. However, the only
two instances I can find where the word "shrill" is specifically used in
reference to Nazgul cries are the scene at Weathertop and the death of the
Witch King. This is supportive of the idea that the Witch King was crying
out in pain or fear at Weathertop (due to the name of Elbereth), but is
hardly conclusive. I'm not sure whether the 'shrill cry' at Weathertop was
an attack cry, a cry of pain, or some combination of the two... and really I
think it is impossible to specifically categorize it. Sadly, Tolkien did
not provide us with a detailed lexicon of Nazgul shrieks.
Brian E. Clark
> Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here.
Okay, you're excused on that count. :)
There is another matter for which you perhaps ought not be
pardoned so quickly: namely, you made little effort to
understand the other fellow's opinion before setting out to
rebut it. Now, I'm not so self-important as to think that
you or anyone should feel obliged to consider my points,
just because I write them. But if you would respond to those
points, I think it sensible that you would understand them
first. In this case, you responded not to my statement but
to an inadvertant parody of it:
> Tolkien is not about to put Frodo's reaction to being
> stabbed PRIOR to the deed.
Obviously I would not argue that a cry of pain could precede
its cause. What I said was, Tolkien joined the stabbing and
the cry with the conjunction "and," which sometimes
indicates simultaneous action and sometimes indicates
sequence. That is, a sentence structured "this happened; and
that happened" does not of itself tell us whether this and
that were seperated in time. The passage (and surround
passages) may, however, offer other textual or narrative
clues, such as those you and others have pointed out.
I should mention that I never intended that my grammatical
observation should be given especial consideration, relative
to other facts about the passage, much less that it should
be considered some coup-de-grace. I offered only as one
point among many.
[...]
> Absolutely we know that for sure. Please refrain from
> rewriting Tolkien for us.
That charge is overused, Michael. We seek only the intent a
passage, and no one has rewritten so much as one syllable.
> I really hate it when people do that.
That cannot be so, because you clearly do not have a poor
self image, and no one conflates his own opinions about the
texts with the texts themselves more consistently than
yourself. ;-) Whereas others will say, "I believe the text
such such-and-such, though I understand why people think it
says thus-and-so," you will say, "There's no doubt: Tolkien
says thus-and-so, and who are you to disagree with the
author?" There is no rewriting occurring in any case, but
sometimes a person might lose the distinction between a
passage and his interpretation of it -- a sin that every
half-serious commentator commits from time to time.
FWIW, I've found the opinions expressed in this thread by
others (including the majority of your observations) to be
compelling. I'm coming to agree that the cry was not
Frodo's. What's more, I found another reason while re-
scrutinzing the very sentence on which this little exchange
of ours centered. Yes, the cry and the stabbing are joined
in the same sentence. However, in the first clause the
action is external: "A shrill cry rang out in the night." In
the second clause, the action is personal and internal: "and
[Frodo] felt a pain..."
Mark Burlison
> Kristian:
> > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
back off?
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 9 | Features Funky Files
http://come.to/World2World | Year 2000 paranoia guide and more
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote,
>
>> Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here.
>
>Okay, you're excused on that count. :)
>
>There is another matter for which you perhaps ought not be
>pardoned so quickly: namely, you made little effort to
>understand the other fellow's opinion before setting out to
>rebut it.
Really? That's interesting. Thank you for pointing that out for me.
Erich A Adler
>In article <37061603...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham Lockwood) wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:14:15 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>>Martinez) wrote:
>>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>>
>>all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
>>subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
>>"shrill"?
>
>Yes. As "terrible". Are these supposed to be monocry Nazgul, capable of
>uttering only one kind of "cry"?
=^P
Erich
--
ON MISTAKES--
Doctors bury them, architects cover them with ivy, engineers write
long reports that never see the light of day.
|---------------|
| Erich Adler |
|---------------|
Adam Barnard
> > Kristian:
>
> > > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> > > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> > > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> > > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> > > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
> Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
> back off?
Just wild speculation, but maybe it is something like "Naming the Dark One" in
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, for those of you who have read it. Maybe
it draws her attention, and that is definitely NOT the kind of attention the
Ringwraiths would want near them.
Just a wild thought with no real evidence to back it up, besides the fact that
she could supposedly hear almost all things when she stood atop Taniquetil with
Manwe.
Grimgard
>> > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
>> > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
>> > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
>> > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
>Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
>back off?
Other than the speculation in the post to which you were responding, I don't
think there's any evidence that the name of Elbereth did cause them to back
off.
Grimgard
Cats know what you're thinking. They don't care, but they know.
Michael Martinez
>> Kristian:
>
>> > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
>> > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
>> > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
>> > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
>> > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
>Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
>back off?
Just out of curiosity, who is "you"? You're obviously replying to someone
through another person's article, but was the "you" intended for all of us
(the figurative or plural "you") or for this "Kristian" person (whose name
is unfamiliar to me)?
F@C@
(Grimgard, Martinez, Mark Burlinson)of the group throwing in their two cents
on the thread I created. I have read so many great points that I have
decided to opt out and sit on the fence! HA!
Michael Martinez wrote in message <3709...@news.usenetserver.com>...
Benji Flaming
start, and I have reviewed all the debate messages still left on the server.
It is my opinion that the answers to many of the questions are given at the
beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring" chapter 12 - "Flight to the
Ford". Since I have not seen this text posted (or quoted) in any previous
message, I now present two paragraphs extracted from this chapter.
As to why the Nazgul did not kill Strider and the hobbits, I offer the
following excerpt in which Strider is speaking to Sam shortly after the
attack on Weathertop:
"I think I understand things better now," he said in a low voice.
"There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all
here, I don't know; but I don't think they expected to be resisted. They
have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They are only
waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and
that the ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your
master has a deadly would that will subdue him to their will. We shall
see!"
I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
spoken by Strider:
"Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
|>
|>enji
Benjamin Flaming
www.solobanjo.com
--------------------
"Eating is for the weak in body,
Sleeping is for the weak in mind."
- A wise Flamingan Monk(ey)
Graham Lockwood
<be...@nechville.com> wrote:
> While I have not watched every message of this debate, I saw the debate
>start, and I have reviewed all the debate messages still left on the server.
>It is my opinion that the answers to many of the questions are given at the
>beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring" chapter 12 - "Flight to the
>Ford". Since I have not seen this text posted (or quoted) in any previous
>message, I now present two paragraphs extracted from this chapter.
> As to why the Nazgul did not kill Strider and the hobbits, I offer the
>following excerpt in which Strider is speaking to Sam shortly after the
>attack on Weathertop:
>
> "I think I understand things better now," he said in a low voice.
>"There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all
>here, I don't know; but I don't think they expected to be resisted. They
>have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They are only
>waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and
>that the ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your
>master has a deadly would that will subdue him to their will. We shall
>see!"
If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
non-all-knowing opinion.
> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
The Elves sing to her a lot.
>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>spoken by Strider:
>
> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
a very high standard.
Michael Martinez
>If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
>true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
>"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
>ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
>all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
>non-all-knowing opinion.
So, Tolkien goofed once again. Instead of having Aragorn say, "Here are
the indisputable acts, Sam", Tolkien erroneously wrote "I think I
understand things better now".
What an amateurish approach to the problem! The writer should be hanged
from the highest yardarm in the land!
>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>
>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>The Elves sing to her a lot.
They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
>>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>>spoken by Strider:
>>
>> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
>
>Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
>not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
>didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
>a very high standard.
The blade cut the Nazgul's cloak. THAT constitutes damage.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <370a64c6...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham Lockwood) wrote:
>>If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
>>true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
>>"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
>>ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
>>all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
>>non-all-knowing opinion.
>
>So, Tolkien goofed once again. Instead of having Aragorn say, "Here are
>the indisputable acts, Sam", Tolkien erroneously wrote "I think I
>understand things better now".
>
>What an amateurish approach to the problem! The writer should be hanged
>from the highest yardarm in the land!
Eh? I'm afraid I don't follow you here.
>>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>>
>>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>>The Elves sing to her a lot.
>
>They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
Sometimes Tolkien refers to them as angels and sometimes he refers to
them as gods. I refer you to the letter quoted by Conrad B. Dunkerson
in the "Concerning Gandalf and his death" thread.
>>>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>>>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>>>spoken by Strider:
>>>
>>> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>>>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>>>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>>>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>>>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
>>
>>Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
>>not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
>>didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
>>a very high standard.
>
>The blade cut the Nazgul's cloak. THAT constitutes damage.
True, but it still wasn't particularly "deadly".