Ungoliant vs. Morgoth
Justine Devlin
These three are usually thought of as the "Great Enemies" of the
world -- but who is the greatest?
Sauron is the weakest of the three -- a powerful Maia, more
powerful than any Maia east of the Sea in fact; he was turned from the
light by the guile of Morgoth, as were many others (the Balrog itself),
and vanquished in the end.
Morgoth is a very great foe indeed, and most of you out there will
have seen in how many ways he resembles Lucifer (or I guess Lucifer
would correspond more exactly to the name Melkor; whereas Morgoth,
Melkor's name _after_ he was seen for what he was, would correspond to
Satan). Melkor (it is not correct to use the name Morgoth in this
context) was the mightiest of the Valar; and ruined from the beginning
by his hunger for the Flame, and his desire to _create_ even as
Illuvatar created. Morgoth was eventually cast into the Night and
forever removed from Middle-Earth. Morgoth's plans, Tolkien tells us,
bore evil fruit down until the end of days...but in my opinion Morgoth
is _not_ the great evil of the Silmarillion.
Take finally Ungoliant, vile black-hearted spider that she was, one
of the most frightening creatures I have come across in all of
literature. Tolkien says somewhere, either through explication or
allusion, that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's grand scheme (as, who
knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she had a reality separate from
that of Eru, the One.
This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds crazy)
and perhaps even one, had things taken a different turn.
Morgoth needed Ungoliant's HELP for his evils, and he knew fear at
the sight of her; for Ungoliant was mighty indeed, mightier than
Morgoth, mightier than Manwe; and perhaps as mighty in her own way as
Illuvatar. And it was Ungoliant who ate (or drank) the Light of the
Two Trees, wasting and withering them; perhaps the most single
important act in the history of Arda, its implications echo down
through the ages; Feanor dead, the Silmarils stolen, Luthien and Beren
reclaiming them; the fall of Doriath, Sauron & Curunir and the creation
of the One Ring.
Sauron was vanquished by a pair of hobbits (in a sense).
Morgoth was vanquished by the combined might of many of the Valar.
Ungoliant was vanquished by the only thing that could have
vanquished her; herself. She ate and so destroyed herself in a frenzy
of hunger, ridding Ea of the greatest evil it had ever known.
John Osborne
cur...@ix.netcom.com (Justine Devlin ) writes:
[snip]
> Take finally Ungoliant, vile black-hearted spider that she was,
> one of the most frightening creatures I have come across in all
> of literature. Tolkien says somewhere, either through
> explication or allusion, that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's
> grand scheme (as, who knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she
> had a reality separate from that of Eru, the One.
No he doesn't. Try reading TS, _Of the Darkening of Valinor_,
second paragraph again. This _very_ strongly implies that
Ungoliant was originally one of the Maiar corrupted by Melkor, but
had become 'independant'.
> This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
> Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds
> crazy) and perhaps even one, had things taken a different turn.
> Morgoth needed Ungoliant's HELP for his evils, and he knew fear
> at the sight of her; for Ungoliant was mighty indeed, mightier
> than Morgoth, mightier than Manwe; and perhaps as mighty in her
> own way as Illuvatar.
Wherever did you get the idea that Ungoliant was mightier than
Manwe? Morgoth had once been the mightiest of the Valar, but had
depleted much of his power by passing it into Middle-earth itself
(Read 'Morgoth's Ring', HoME vol 10), else I doubt that Ungoliant
could have threatened him. She was driven off by Balrogs, which
could in turn be overcome by Eldar. And as for being as mighty as
Illuvatar (!!!), I really see no way of even entertaining the
possibility.
> And it was Ungoliant who ate (or drank) the Light of the
> Two Trees, wasting and withering them; perhaps the most single
> important act in the history of Arda, its implications echo down
> through the ages; Feanor dead,
Feanor's death was the result of Morgoth's theft of the Silmarils.
> the Silmarils stolen,
Again, Morgoth's malice and plan. I doubt if Ungoliant would have
come forth from Avathar without Morgoth's promises. Indeed, even
though starving, she was initially terrified by the thought of
testing the Powers in Aman.
> Luthien and Beren reclaiming them;
Well, one of them anyway.
> the fall of Doriath, Sauron & Curunir and the creation
> of the One Ring.
Nothing to do with Ungoliant.
> Sauron was vanquished by a pair of hobbits (in a sense).
> Morgoth was vanquished by the combined might of many of the
> Valar.
> Ungoliant was vanquished by the only thing that could have
> vanquished her; herself.
Except the Balrogs and the Valar.
> She ate and so destroyed herself in a frenzy
> of hunger, ridding Ea of the greatest evil it had ever known.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doubtful.
Regards
John O
--
John Osborne jo...@kami.demon.co.uk
Alle kunst is umsonst wenn ein Engel in das zundloch prunst
James Devlin
<jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article: <46q3cg$d...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
>cur...@ix.netcom.com (Justine Devlin ) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Take finally Ungoliant, vile black-hearted spider that she was,
>> one of the most frightening creatures I have come across in all
>> of literature. Tolkien says somewhere, either through
>> explication or allusion, that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's
>> grand scheme (as, who knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she
>> had a reality separate from that of Eru, the One.
>No he doesn't. Try reading TS, _Of the Darkening of Valinor_,
>second paragraph again. This _very_ strongly implies that
>Ungoliant was originally one of the Maiar corrupted by Melkor, but
>had become 'independant'.
Whether she was *originally* one of the Maiar matters little IMHO; I
maintain that she was not a part of Eru's plan; whether her existence
was not part of this plan, or her actions, is a surface difference;
either way, she has separated from the One.
>> This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
>> Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds
>> crazy) and perhaps even one, had things taken a different turn.
>> Morgoth needed Ungoliant's HELP for his evils, and he knew fear
>> at the sight of her; for Ungoliant was mighty indeed, mightier
>> than Morgoth, mightier than Manwe; and perhaps as mighty in her
>> own way as Illuvatar.
>Wherever did you get the idea that Ungoliant was mightier than
>Manwe? Morgoth had once been the mightiest of the Valar, but had
>depleted much of his power by passing it into Middle-earth itself
>(Read 'Morgoth's Ring', HoME vol 10), else I doubt that Ungoliant
>could have threatened him. She was driven off by Balrogs, which
>could in turn be overcome by Eldar. And as for being as mighty as
>Illuvatar (!!!), I really see no way of even entertaining the
>possibility.
I said 'as mighty in her own way as Illuvatar'; I meant only that she
may imply a fundamental duality in the scheme of creation, NOT that she
could contest against the creator in some crude _fight_ of all things.
>> And it was Ungoliant who ate (or drank) the Light of the
>> Two Trees, wasting and withering them; perhaps the most single
>> important act in the history of Arda, its implications echo down
>> through the ages; Feanor dead,
>Feanor's death was the result of Morgoth's theft of the Silmarils.
And I think the Silmarils became *MUCH* more valuable after the
withering of the Two Trees. The Valar asked Feanor for the Silmarils
(knowing that the Silmarils and only the Silmarils could fully restore
the light of the Two Trees) and he refused.
>> the Silmarils stolen,
>Again, Morgoth's malice and plan. I doubt if Ungoliant would have
>come forth from Avathar without Morgoth's promises.
I don't know how you get that. Ungoliant's hunger eventually led to
her destruction as she ate herself into nothingness; could she have
fared any worse at the hands of the Valar?
>Indeed, even though starving, she was initially terrified by the
>thought of testing the Powers in Aman.
Terrified she may have been, but she WOULD eventually have come forth.
>> Luthien and Beren reclaiming them;
>Well, one of them anyway.
But both were involved at one point or another.
>> the fall of Doriath, Sauron & Curunir and the creation
>> of the One Ring.
>Nothing to do with Ungoliant.
Indeed? I think you underestimate the consequences of the withering of
the Two Trees.
>> Sauron was vanquished by a pair of hobbits (in a sense).
>> Morgoth was vanquished by the combined might of many of the
>> Valar.
>> Ungoliant was vanquished by the only thing that could have
>> vanquished her; herself.
>Except the Balrogs and the Valar.
The idea that a *balrog* could have destroyed Ungoliant is laughable,
whether or not you believe she was originally of the Maiar, as the
Balrogs were; Morgoth was the most powerful being to _ever_ walk
middle-earth proper, and he feared her. Or to take it from another
angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog, Gandalf could _not_ have defeated
Sauron at any point; Sauron was very much Morgoth's inferior, a
lieutenant of sorts; even if you relegate Ungoliant down to the level
of Sauron, she still has more than enough power to destroy a balrog.
>> She ate and so destroyed herself in a frenzy
>> of hunger, ridding Ea of the greatest evil it had ever known.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Doubtful.
Only if you are maintaining that Ungoliant and her actions were a part
of Eru's plan. If, as I maintain, she was a creature not found
_anywhere_ in Eru's plan, she is the very epitome of philosphic evil -
duality.
Regards.
John Osborne
cur...@ix.netcom.com (James (or Justine) Devlin ) writes:
>
> In <514029...@kami.demon.co.uk> John Osborne
> <jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >In article: <4720bf$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
> >>
> >> In <494834...@kami.demon.co.uk> John Osborne
> >> <jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> >
> >> >In article: <46q3cg$d...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
[snip]
> In return let me ask you this: do *_YOU_* have any concrete
> evidence to support the fact that Ungoliant _was_ a Maia?
> Does Tolkien EVER say: "The dreadful spider known as Ungoliant
> was actually one of the Maiar in the beginning"?
> You quote me the passage, and I'll concede the point.
I think you'll find that I have never said that Ungoliant was a
Maia, only that TS _strongly_ implies this. I consistently use
terms such as 'If Ungoliant was a Maia', because that is what the
available evidence suggests. You, however, state
'Tolkien says somewhere, either through explication or allusion,
that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's grand scheme (as, who
knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she had a reality separate
from that of Eru, the One.'
I'd like to see that allusion.
> The words of
> Illuvatar, as great as He may be, are not enough. Read some
> fundamental metaphysics, read Descartes, Kant;
Ah! A student of philosophy! that explains a lot.
> in a presupposed fundamental unity such as Eru, there is _NO_ a
> priori way to prove oneness or lack thereof.
Do you not think that attempting to apply the philosophical ideas
of Descartes and Kant (no matter how you view their maunderings)
to a fictional universe a risky proposition? In JRRT's mythology
his own words provide a priori proof, as there is no reality other
than them in their own context.
And before you ask, no, I don't hold much store in Philosophy.
[snip]
> >> I said 'as mighty in her own way as Illuvatar'; I meant only
> >> that she may imply a fundamental duality in the scheme of
> >> creation, NOT that she could contest against the creator in
> >> some crude _fight_ of all things.
[snip]
> > What sort of contest had you in mind?
> I don't know about you, but I think that if there were indeed a
> duality of which Eru was unaware, it implies a contest; as
> simple as Reality A vs. Reality B, or to downphrase it, Good vs.
> Evil.
What you said was
'This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds
crazy) and perhaps even won, had things taken a different turn.'
So how would this contest be carried out? We _already_ have a Good
vs Evil power struggle with Melkor's rebellion. Could this be a
Good + Evil vs Evil? Or is the mere (hypothetical) existence of
duality an automatic win?
> >> >Feanor's death was the result of Morgoth's theft of the
> >> >Silmarils.
> >>
> >> >And I think the Silmarils became *MUCH* more valuable after
> >> >the withering of the Two Trees. The Valar asked Feanor for
> >> >the Silmarils (knowing that the Silmarils and only the
> >> >Silmarils could fully restore the light of the Two Trees)
> >> >and he refused.
> >
> >Agreed. However, the plan was Melkor's, Ungoliant was used as
> >an instrument.
>
> That tells me little, if anything.
All right, a real world example. During WWII, several millions of
Germans donned uniform and killed or injured several millions of
Allied soldiers and civilians. Who was ultimately to blame?
a. A Hitler
b. The individual Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen
I would suggest (a). Sorry to use such an over-simplification, but
the general idea's there.
Ungoliant fed on the light from the Trees for reasons of lust and
hunger, not malice or as part of a greater purpose. These latter -
the reason behind Ungoliants actions - were supplied by Morgoth.
[sniiip]
> Because by the time her hunger grew so great that she indulged
> in this "auto-cannnibalism", there was nothing, save herself,
> which could quench it. (Again: the uniqueness and value of the
> Two Trees).
Your supposition only. While in Avathar, '...she sucked up all
light that she could find, and spun it forth again dark nets of
strangling gloom, until no more light could come to her abode; and
she was famished.' and yet this was not enough to prompt her into
Aman until Melkor talked her into it. I find the arguments that
'She WOULD have come forth sooner or later' and 'only the Trees
could ease the hunger' to be matters of opinion only. I may not
read much Descartes and Kant, but I try to argue from a firm
footing.
[snip]
> >> Indeed? I think you underestimate the consequences of the
> >> withering of the Two Trees.
> >
> >Not at all; I merely place the blame at Melkor's door. It was
> >he, after all, who smote each tree to the core with his black
> >spear.
>
> And then, pray tell, what did Ungoliant do?
Exactly as Melkor bid her.
[snip]
> >> >> Ungoliant was vanquished by the only thing that could have
> >> >> vanquished her; herself.
> >>
> >> >Except the Balrogs and the Valar.
> >>
> >> The idea that a *balrog* could have destroyed Ungoliant is
> >> laughable,
> >
> >As are your arguments: I said _driven off_ not _destroyed_. If
> >Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in Middle-earth could destroy
> >her. She was indeed vanquished by Balrogs.
>
> Touchy. What do you mean that if Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing
> in Middle Earth could destroy her? WHERE did you get THAT?
> Unless you are somehow saying that (Maiar's) souls are immortal,
> the idea is ridiculous.
All immortals - Valar, Maiar and Eldar - have a body which is
impernanent. If the body is destroyed a new one is formed,
assuming that
a. the entity has sufficient power left to construct the body
and
b. in the case of the Eldar they must first reside for an
unspecified period in Mandos.
Sauron had his body destroyed in the fall of Numenor and later
formed another which was destroyed by Gil-Galad, Elendil &co. Each
time his power waned. The final act came with the destruction of
the Ring, which contained so much of Sauron's power. Even then
Sauron as an entity was not destroyed, merely disembodied and
rendered impotent. Note also the apparition on the killing of
Saruman's body.
The Valar and Maiar wore bodies or not as it pleased them. The
only known cases of 'immortals' permanently leaving Ea are Melkor
(against his will), Luthien and Arwen.
> Bombadil was a Maia, as were Sarumann, Gandalf, Radagast
> -- Sauron could have destroyed THEM, as Tolkien makes clear.
I don't want to be drawn into an argument on Bombadil's nature -
there is insufficient evidence either way (although presumably you
know differently?), but at best Sauron could only destroy the
_bodies_ of the Istari. Indeed, Gandalf's body was killed by the
Balrog of Moria, yet he was sent back again to finish his task.
> >> whether or not you believe she was originally of the Maiar,
> >> as the Balrogs were; Morgoth was the most powerful being to
> >> _ever_ walk middle-earth proper, and he feared her.
> >
> >He also feared Tulkas and Angainor. He feared Arien with a
> >great fear, and '...dared not come nigh her, having indeed no
> >longer the power.' This does not sound like the the Melkor of
> >old.
>
> Remember that Morgoth was craven; as his duel with Fingolfin
> makes clear.
Of course! _Now_ we know why he feared Ungoliant.
Incidentally, try reading 'Morgoth's Ring' _The Later Quenta
Silmarillion_ p284 - 285 (HC paperback). In this passage, Melkor
had to wheedle, threaten, cajole and bribe Ungoliant to get her
out of her hole in the rocks. In fact, everything short of poking
her with a stick.
> His courage or lack thereof does not in any way preclude the
> fact that he WAS the most powerful being to walk middle earth.
He was _in the beginning_ the most powerful of the Ainur. The
dissipation of his power due to his efforts to totally control
Arda reduced him to a level where, initially, Tulkas could subdue
him, and later he could be captured again and forced beyond the
Walls of Night. As you so rightly point out, even Fingolfin got in
a good shot at his foot.
> >> Or to take it from another angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog,
> >> Gandalf could _not_ have defeated Sauron at any point; Sauron
> >> was very much Morgoth's inferior, a lieutenant of sorts; even
> >> if
> >> you relegate Ungoliant down to the level of Sauron, she still
> >> has more than enough power to destroy a balrog.
> >
> >I guess her rout by Balrogs at Lammoth was just an off day
> >then? And this was when she was at the peak of her might.
>
> Speaking of oneness and duality, do you understand the
> difference between "balrog" and "balrogs"?
I most surely do. I have only ever used the plural, as did JRRT in
this context; _you_ brought in the singular. Or are you suggesting
that more than Balrog are more powerful than Ungoliant? Yet Feanor
(a lowly Elda) held off several Balrogs for a long time, and his
sons drove them off.
[snip]
> >> Only if you are maintaining that Ungoliant and her actions
> >> were a part of Eru's plan.
> >
> >Sure do; anything other than that is sacrilege.
>
> If you want to take it that far, go ahead.
In JRRT's mythology, this holds true.
> >> If, as I maintain, she was a creature not found _anywhere_ in
> >> Eru's plan, she is the very epitome of philosphic evil -
> >> duality.
> >
> >Your arguments remain unsupported by any evidence. I may
> >equally say that if Tom Bombadil was not found anywhere in
> >Eru's plan, he is the Michelin Man.
>
> Cute. Read Plato's dialogues concerning sophistry and rhetoric;
> you might learn something about yourself.
Is this a slight? Oooohh! I do not have to resort to sophism
(except in the sense of exaggeration in this one case), as (I
think) all my arguments have been verifiable simply by reading
JRRT's words, rather than supposing, opining and philosophising.
I have to counter with 'Read JRRT's works, more than a passing
acquaintance with them will serve better than Kant on this ng'.
Michael Martinez
cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) wrote:
>In return let me ask you this: do *_YOU_* have any concrete evidence
>to support the fact that Ungoliant _was_ a Maia?
>Does Tolkien EVER say: "The dreadful spider known as Ungoliant was
>actually one of the Maiar in the beginning"?
>Illuvatar, as great as He may be, are not enough. Read some
>fundamental unity such as Eru, there is _NO_ a priori way to prove
>oneness or lack thereof.
Descartes and Kant had nothing to do with Middle-earth and their ideas were
not bound up in Tolkien's conception of it. Ungoliant was a Maia in origin,
and if you choose to slip into denial of that to support your thesis, you've
left the path of logic and balanced debate.
Your attempts to show Ungoliant as more than she was are unavailing. THE
SILMARILLION says in the beginning of "Of the Darkening of Valinor" that she
had fled to the south to escape from Orome and his hunters. If Ungoliant was
truly so powerful, she wouldn't have fled. She wasn't exactly of a mind to
hang around and wait for the Valar to return after she helped Morgoth kill the
Two Trees, either.
The theme Tolkien propounded was that Evil cannot overcome Iluvatar's purposes
because he was the source of all creation and all life, so Evil was merely a
corruption of Iluvatar's works that would never be able to exist independently
of his creation. In the end, Evil itself must be vanquished and destroyed, as
Iluvatar will remake the world. Morgoth and all other Fallen Spirits will
have no place in that world.
In fact, inasmuch as Morgoth, Sauron, and Ungoliant all seek desperately for
more than they have, and ultimately are diminished, Tolkien is pretty much
saying that Evil will consume itself because it simply cannot sustain itself.
Evil does not nourish, but rather only destroys.
>Touchy. What do you mean that if Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in
>Middle Earth could destroy her? WHERE did you get THAT? Unless you
>are somehow saying that (Maiar's) souls are immortal, the idea is
>ridiculous. Bombadil was a Maia, as were Sarumann, Gandalf, Radagast
>-- Sauron could have destroyed THEM, as Tolkien makes clear.
Although it's nice for some of us to believe Bombadil was a Maia, nowhere is
this stated or implied in Tolkien's works.
Further, Maiar could not be destroyed. Nothing in Tolkien supports this
thesis. In fact, Sauron was said to have taken shape several times. Gandalf
was "killed" in the sense his "body" died, but his spirit returned to Valinor
and then was sent back.
The "spirits" or "fear" were indestructible because, coming from Iluvatar,
they were part of his will and creation. Tolkien made it clear the spirits
survived the demise of physical bodies.
>Remember that Morgoth was craven; as his duel with Fingolfin makes
>clear. His courage or lack thereof does not in any way preclude the
>fact that he WAS the most powerful being to walk middle earth.
By the time Morgoth dueled with Fingolfin he was far less powerful than he had
been in origin. He had divested himself of so much of his original power or
nature that he was no longer able to assume a fair form. The Morgoth who
first entered Arda would not have been wounded seven times by Fingolfin.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
James Devlin
writes:
>In article <474p1e$e...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
> cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) wrote:
>>In return let me ask you this: do *_YOU_* have any concrete evidence
>>to support the fact that Ungoliant _was_ a Maia?
>>Does Tolkien EVER say: "The dreadful spider known as Ungoliant was
>>actually one of the Maiar in the beginning"?
>>You quote me the passage, and I'll concede the point. The words of
>>Illuvatar, as great as He may be, are not enough. Read some
>>fundamental metaphysics, read Descartes, Kant; in a presupposed
>>fundamental unity such as Eru, there is _NO_ a priori way to prove
>>oneness or lack thereof.
>
>Descartes and Kant had nothing to do with Middle-earth and their ideas
were
>not bound up in Tolkien's conception of it. Ungoliant was a Maia in
origin,
>and if you choose to slip into denial of that to support your thesis,
you've
>left the path of logic and balanced debate.
You show me a quote that *_PROVES_* Ungoliant was a Maia (NOT
IMPLIES), (and if you are following the "path of logic and balanced
debate" you will, since you said outright: Ungoliant was a Maia in
origin) and I will concede the point. I AM capable of admitting it
when I'm wrong. Already I see (much) more opposition to my (attempted)
point; but why will you not give me the quote?? This is the second or
third time I've posted for it, and Mr. Martinez, et al, I begin to
suspect that I have seen no such quote because even such a knowledgable
ME scholar as yourself cannot find one <gasps in astonishment>.
But I may be wrong. Find and post the quote, and we no longer
disagree.
As for Kant and Descartes, well, I will only assume you knew them
and Mr. Tolkien personally to have such knowledge about the sources
that shaped the latter's work. I envy you.
Regards,
Louis Epstein
: Touchy. What do you mean that if Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in
: Middle Earth could destroy her? WHERE did you get THAT? Unless you
: are somehow saying that (Maiar's) souls are immortal, the idea is
: ridiculous. Bombadil was a Maia, as were Sarumann, Gandalf, Radagast
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bombadil was an ENIGMA.
: -- Sauron could have destroyed THEM, as Tolkien makes clear.
Sauron and Saruman were Maiar and were destroyed.
da...@cyberramp.net
>Further, Maiar could not be destroyed. Nothing in Tolkien supports this
>thesis. In fact, Sauron was said to have taken shape several times. Gandalf
>was "killed" in the sense his "body" died, but his spirit returned to Valinor
>and then was sent back.
Where exactly does this appear in The Lord of the Rings?! I've heard
this idea before, but I got NO such impression from the section where
Gandalf recalls hsi fight with the Balrog.
On another note, remember during that telling, how Gandalf 'encountered' all
sorts of creatures in the depths, which Sauron himself didn't even know about?
I think it is reasonable that Ungoliant is of THAT ilk. An inherent creature
due to the creation of the world? Personally, I suspect Bombadil is akin to
that, also, though of a more pleasant form.
Dan Stephenson
> || v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
Michael Martinez
This was uncalled for.
You brought Kant and Descartes into the discussion as if they had some
relevance to Tolkien's work as an author. Feel free to substantiate the
implication; otherwise, chew your own bitter pill carefully.
As for the quotation you seek, you've been told twice where to find it. Don't
you have a copy of THE SILMARILLION? If not, I'll level the playing field and
type it in for you.
Michael Martinez
>James Devlin (cur...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Touchy. What do you mean that if Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in
>: Middle Earth could destroy her? WHERE did you get THAT? Unless you
>: are somehow saying that (Maiar's) souls are immortal, the idea is
>: ridiculous. Bombadil was a Maia, as were Sarumann, Gandalf, Radagast
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Bombadil was an ENIGMA.
And not the only one. He just seems to be more interesting than others.
>: -- Sauron could have destroyed THEM, as Tolkien makes clear.
>
>Sauron and Saruman were Maiar and were destroyed.
Neither was destroyed, as neither could be destroyed. Their *bodies* were
destroyed. They continued to exist.
James Devlin
<jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article: <474p1e$e...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
>cur...@ix.netcom.com (James (or Justine) Devlin ) writes:
[snip]
>> In return let me ask you this: do *_YOU_* have any concrete
>> evidence to support the fact that Ungoliant _was_ a Maia?
>> Does Tolkien EVER say: "The dreadful spider known as Ungoliant
>> was actually one of the Maiar in the beginning"?
>> You quote me the passage, and I'll concede the point.
>
>I think you'll find that I have never said that Ungoliant was a
>Maia, only that TS _strongly_ implies this. I consistently use
>terms such as 'If Ungoliant was a Maia', because that is what the
>available evidence suggests. You, however, state
>
>'Tolkien says somewhere, either through explication or allusion,
>that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's grand scheme (as, who
>knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she had a reality separate
>from that of Eru, the One.'
>
>I'd like to see that allusion.
Well here's one, debatable as it may be:
"Therefore he [Melkor] seeks until he finds a dark cavern in the
hills....Very deep and winding were those ways having a subterranean
outlet on the sea as the ancient books say, and here on a time were the
Moon and Sun imprisoned afterward; for here dwelt the primeval spirit
Moru whom even the Valar know not whence or when she came, and the folk
of Earth have given her many names. Mayhap she was bred of mists and
darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas, in that utter dark that
came between the overthrow of the Lamps and the kindling of the Trees,
but more like that SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN....she brought forth only that
darkness that is a denial of all light....whence still do the Noldoli
speak of her as Ungoliont the spider..." (The Book of Lost Tales Part
One, "The Theft of Melko", p 151-2)
[massive snip]
>'This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
>Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds
>crazy) and perhaps even won, had things taken a different turn.'
Okay so the statement was in error. It just seems to me that an EQUAL
balance between Good and Evil at the highest level is needed to
preserve the drama of Tolkien's tale.
>So how would this contest be carried out? We _already_ have a Good
>vs Evil power struggle with Melkor's rebellion. Could this be a
>Good + Evil vs Evil? Or is the mere (hypothetical) existence of
>duality an automatic win?
Well now I don't even know that one can call Melkor's rebellion a
Good vs Evil power struggle; for, did not Illuvatar say: "And thou,
Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its
uttermost source in me.....for he that attempteth this shall prove but
mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful...."
So Melkor can do no evil, for whatever evil he may try to do but
serves Illuvatar in the creation of things even more wonderful; so
explain to me (if we take all this as given) how ultimately there is
any power struggle at all in ANY of Tolkien's ME work?
Note that any evil Ungoliant may do may not be subject to the same
"restrictions" imposed on Melkor. ;)
[snip]
>Agreed. However, the plan was Melkor's, Ungoliant was used as
>an instrument.
[snip]
Interesting what happens is you apply this statement to what I said
above.
>All right, a real world example. During WWII, several millions of
>Germans donned uniform and killed or injured several millions of
>Allied soldiers and civilians. Who was ultimately to blame?
>
>a. A Hitler
>
>b. The individual Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen
>
>I would suggest (a). Sorry to use such an over-simplification, but
>the general idea's there.
Ah but we KNOW that Hitler can make true evil. We know no such thing
about Melkor (again, refer to above).
[massive snip]
>> Ungoliant was vanquished by the only thing that could have
>> vanquished her; herself.
>Except the Balrogs and the Valar.
>> The idea that a *balrog* could have destroyed Ungoliant is
>> laughable,
>As are your arguments: I said _driven off_ not _destroyed_. If
>Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in Middle-earth could destroy
>her. She was indeed vanquished by Balrogs.
>> Touchy. What do you mean that if Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing
>> in Middle Earth could destroy her? WHERE did you get THAT?
>> Unless you are somehow saying that (Maiar's) souls are immortal,
>> the idea is ridiculous.
>All immortals - Valar, Maiar and Eldar - have a body which is
>impernanent. If the body is destroyed a new one is formed,
>assuming that
>
>a. the entity has sufficient power left to construct the body
>
>and
>
>b. in the case of the Eldar they must first reside for an
>unspecified period in Mandos.
I myself would say that Sauron was "destroyed" in the Second Age; but
he waited long as a shade of sorts, gaining power; I also think that
Maiar/Valar/Eldar CAN be destroyed without a trace, though I must admit
I have little concrete evidence to back this up. I will look though.
>Sauron had his body destroyed in the fall of Numenor and later
>formed another which was destroyed by Gil-Galad, Elendil &co. Each
>time his power waned. The final act came with the destruction of
>the Ring, which contained so much of Sauron's power. Even then
>Sauron as an entity was not destroyed, merely disembodied and
>rendered impotent. Note also the apparition on the killing of
>Saruman's body.
>
>The Valar and Maiar wore bodies or not as it pleased them. The
>only known cases of 'immortals' permanently leaving Ea are Melkor
>(against his will), Luthien and Arwen.
Hmm. I may be wrong about this (probably am) but did Melkor leave Ea?
I though Ea was the world that Is, as distinct from the void, while
Arda was the Earth, ie, Beleriand, Aman, Eastern Middle Earth instead.
The valar were the kings of Arda; I would say Arda is what Melkor left,
not Ea, but I could be wrong.
[snip]
>> whether or not you believe she was originally of the Maiar,
>> as the Balrogs were; Morgoth was the most powerful being to
>> _ever_ walk middle-earth proper, and he feared her.
>
>He also feared Tulkas and Angainor. He feared Arien with a
>great fear, and '...dared not come nigh her, having indeed no
>longer the power.' This does not sound like the the Melkor of
>old.
>>
>> Remember that Morgoth was craven; as his duel with Fingolfin
>> makes clear.
>
>Of course! _Now_ we know why he feared Ungoliant.
Actually, no. I would suggest that Melkor's cowardice/cravenness was
more directed at good than at creatures of his own ilk (or alignment,
if you prefer).
[snip]
>> Or to take it from another angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog,
>> Gandalf could _not_ have defeated Sauron at any point; Sauron
>> was very much Morgoth's inferior, a lieutenant of sorts; even
>> if
>> you relegate Ungoliant down to the level of Sauron, she still
>> has more than enough power to destroy a balrog.
>
>I guess her rout by Balrogs at Lammoth was just an off day
>then? And this was when she was at the peak of her might.
>> Speaking of oneness and duality, do you understand the
>> difference between "balrog" and "balrogs"?
>
>I most surely do. I have only ever used the plural, as did JRRT in
>this context; _you_ brought in the singular. Or are you suggesting
>that more than Balrog are more powerful than Ungoliant? Yet Feanor
>(a lowly Elda) held off several Balrogs for a long time, and his
>sons drove them off.
Yes, I would say that Ungoliant COULD indeed have destroyed ONE balrog
(or two, etc), but may very well have been "driven off" (whether
because she was weak or fearful) by more.
[snip]
>> Only if you are maintaining that Ungoliant and her actions
>> were a part of Eru's plan.
>
>Sure do; anything other than that is sacrilege.
That's my point. Ungoliant herself IS sacrilege (as my argument goes).
[snip]
>> If, as I maintain, she was a creature not found _anywhere_ in
>> Eru's plan, she is the very epitome of philosphic evil -
>> duality.
>
>Your arguments remain unsupported by any evidence. I may
>equally say that if Tom Bombadil was not found anywhere in
>Eru's plan, he is the Michelin Man.
>> Cute. Read Plato's dialogues concerning sophistry and rhetoric;
>> you might learn something about yourself.
Okay, okay, out of line, I'll give you that -- oops deleted your
response too. Ack.
[snip]
>I have to counter with 'Read JRRT's works, more than a passing
>acquaintance with them will serve better than Kant on this ng'.
Hmm. So I have only 'a passing acquaintance' with his works? Odd. I
have given you a quote (see above) which directly supports my main
point, and that quote was not in one of the more frequently read books
about ME, etc -- or is this what you tell everyone who engages in
debate with you?
Regards,
Jim
cur...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Martinez
>Where exactly does this appear in The Lord of the Rings?! I've heard
>this idea before, but I got NO such impression from the section where
>Gandalf recalls hsi fight with the Balrog.
One would think the several risings of Sauron after the destruction of his
body, and the return of Gandalf would be sufficient proof of the
indestructability of Maiar.
What exactly would suffice in the way of quotations on this subject to clarify
the issue?
John Osborne
> = James Devlin
: = John O
The nesting you can figure out for yourselves :-)
[snip bits about Ungoliants origin]
>>'Tolkien says somewhere, either through explication or allusion,
>>that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's grand scheme (as, who
>>knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she had a reality separate
>>from that of Eru, the One.'
:I'd like to see that allusion.
> Well here's one, debatable as it may be:
> "Therefore he [Melkor] seeks until he finds a dark cavern in the
> hills....Very deep and winding were those ways having a subterranean
> outlet on the sea as the ancient books say, and here on a time were the
> Moon and Sun imprisoned afterward; for here dwelt the primeval spirit
> Moru whom even the Valar know not whence or when she came, and the folk
> of Earth have given her many names. Mayhap she was bred of mists and
> darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas, in that utter dark that
> came between the overthrow of the Lamps and the kindling of the Trees,
> but more like that SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN....she brought forth only that
> darkness that is a denial of all light....whence still do the Noldoli
> speak of her as Ungoliont the spider..." (The Book of Lost Tales Part
> One, "The Theft of Melko", p 151-2)
To be honest, I had forgotten that one. TBoLT, however, is a questionable
source for concrete information relating to M-e, as it represents some of
the earliest writings (ca 1917?) and is also in the form of a _tale_ told
to Eriol by Lindor. It does not have the 'scriptural' import of the later
works which made it into TS. The importance of Ungoliant gradually
diminished as JRRT's work evolved. Note that in TBoLT Melkor had already
stolen the Silmarils, and, finding Ungoliant by accident, treats with her
as an equal. She needs little prompting to enter Valinor and darken the
Trees. Also from TBoLT, the reason for the East-West path of the Sun is
that Melkor held the North and Ungoliant the South of M-e.
In the next generation of writing (in the late 1920's) Ungoliant had lost
the name 'Moru' or 'Muru' - meaning 'Primeval Night' - and no mention is
made of her origin. HoME IV p16 has it that 'Only a terrible reward will
bring her to dare the dangers of Valinor or the sight of the Gods'. It is
interesting also to note that at this time the Trees are poisoned both by
Ungoliant _and_ Melkor's sword. The importance of the Silmarils in
renewing the Trees is not noted in this text. Rather than becoming a Power
in the South of M-e, at the time of this writing Ungoliant is slain by
Earendel (HoME IV p38).
By the 1930's we again have a surmise over her origin : HoME IV p91-93,
'It is not told whence she is, from the outer darkness, maybe, that lies
beyond the Walls of the World'. From this time on, Melkor must cozen her
before she will attempt Valinor. Again it is only Ungoliant's poison which
withers the Trees. Although the Silmarils are now now stolen (and Finn =
Finwe is killed) after the dimming of the Trees, still no mention is made
of their possibility of using them to renew the Trees. In Lammoth it was
Balrogs and Orcs that chased her away. Again, her final end comes at the
hands of Earendel (p149).
For brevity (!!) I'll skip the entries from HoME V, 'The Lost Road', _The
Lhamma_ and _Quenta Silmarillion_, as they don't add much to this line. So
now to 'Morgoth's Ring' HoME 10, _The Annals of Aman_, written in the
1950's. This says (p98) 'Whence she came none of the Eldar know, but maybe
she came to the South out of the darkness of Ea, in that time when Melkor
destroyed the lights of Illuin and Ormal... But she was loath to dare the
perils of Aman and the great wrath of the Gods, and would not stir from
her hiding until Melkor had vowed to render her a reward...'. It is now
that the use of the Silmarils to renew the Trees is brought out, and
Feanor's refusal to surrender them (p97). Of her fate we now have 'but
when she had healed her hurts... returned into the South of the worlds,
where she abides yet for all that he Eldar have heard'.
Moving on to the predecessor of TS, 'Morgoth's Ring' _The Later Quenta
Silmarillion_ shows development from the early to late 1950's. ca 1951
gives us (p190); 'It is not told whence she came; from the Outer Darkness,
maybe, that lies in Ea beyond the Walls of the World. By ~1958 the words
on Ungoliant's origin (p284) had reached pretty much those that appeared
in TS. The effort required by Melkor to chivvy her from out of her hole is
here considerable: 'And when Ungoliant[e] saw [Melkor] coming she was
afraid, knowing his hatred for all who tried to escape from him. She
shrank into her deepest lair, and tried to shroud herself in new shadow...
'Come forth!' he said. 'Thrice fool: to leave me first, to dwell here to
languish within reach of feasts untol, and now to shun me, Giver of Gifts,
thy only hope!... ' But Ungoliant made no answer, and retreated deeper
into the cloven rock. Then Melkor was angered, for he was in haste...
'Come out!' he cried. 'I have need of thee and will not be denied. Either
thou wilt serve me, or I will bury thee here and under black stone thou
shalt wither into naught.' ... Slowly Ungoliant came forth... 'What is
your bidding, Master?' she said.'
This last quote is particularly telling, as we have from Melkor's own
mouth that Ungoliant once served him.
Further, in _The Thieves Quarrel_ on p296, we have: 'But Ungoliant was not
daunted. She had grown great, and he less by the power that had gone out
of him... '
The above quotes and references are by no means exhaustive, but do serve
to illustrate the evolution of Ungoliant in JRRT's imagination. It would
appear that Ungoliant _may_ have had an origin separate from the Ainu, but
only in the very earliest writings. Her importance seems to have dwindled
in the evolution of the tale, until the most likely explanation, supported
by the majority of the references I know of, is that she was indeed one of
the Maia corrupted by Melkor.
Her great power which caused Melkor such disquiet in Lammoth was, I
suggest, not her own, but was 'borrowed' from the power of the Trees who's
light she drank. As this was digested (?) or metabolised (?) she shrank
back down to her own native stature. Also, Melkor's power was reduced from
that with which he was originally imbued.
> [massive snip]
[not so massive snip]
> It just seems to me that an EQUAL balance between Good and Evil at the
> highest level is needed to preserve the drama of Tolkien's tale.
Perhaps so (I happen to disagree), but I honestly don't see Ungoliant as a
vehicle for challenging Eru. Apart from that, any conflict which involved
Iluvatar would be invisible and unknowable by the denizens of M-e, as the
only ones to leave Ea to witness such events cannot return to report on
them. So far as we know, late-comers in Ea (eg Tulkas) did not mention
anything along these lines.
:So how would this contest be carried out? We _already_ have a Good
:vs Evil power struggle with Melkor's rebellion. Could this be a
:Good + Evil vs Evil? Or is the mere (hypothetical) existence of
:duality an automatic win?
>
> Well now I don't even know that one can call Melkor's rebellion a
> Good vs Evil power struggle; for, did not Illuvatar say: "And thou,
> Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its
> uttermost source in me.....for he that attempteth this shall prove but
> mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful...."
> So Melkor can do no evil, for whatever evil he may try to do but
> serves Illuvatar in the creation of things even more wonderful; so
> explain to me (if we take all this as given) how ultimately there is
> any power struggle at all in ANY of Tolkien's ME work?
> Note that any evil Ungoliant may do may not be subject to the same
> "restrictions" imposed on Melkor. ;)
Again, I disagree. IMHO, the evil is in the intent, not necessarily the
deeds or their outcome. It is quite easy to postulate deeds committed with
'evil' intent which actually have a 'good' effect, even in our own jaded
world. Conversely, it is possible for 'good' deeds to turn to 'evil'
effect, as is seen in the tale of Turin, although Morgoth's attention had
a lot to do with that. I would suggest that the evil is contained in the
intentions of the doer; Melkor was consciously turning to evil, but his
deeds were wound into the Music.
The power struggle does not directly involve Iluvatar; it is between Ainur
- the faithful and the unfaithful. The proposition of free will and just
how constraining the Music is on the actions of beings within M-e has been
raised many times on this ng, and I would hate to resurrect that now. Some
of my own personal views on that score are: None of the Powers fully knows
the mind or the Music of Iluvatar, so they cannot foresee _all_ events.
Even in the construction of Ea they did not follow the Music to the letter
(note?), else clouds and snow etc would have been part of Ea without
Melkor's meddling. The quote of Iluvatar's which you give does not say
that rebellion is impossible, only that the rebels will find that their
deeds and creations ultimately redound to the glory of Iluvatar, _not_
that they are following Iluvatar's plan. Perhaps even _he_ did not foresee
the outcome of Melkor's actions, only that 'things more wonderful' would
thereby be devised.
>
> [snip]
:Agreed. However, the plan was Melkor's, Ungoliant was used as
:an instrument.
> [snip]
>
> Interesting what happens is you apply this statement to what I said
> above.
What does happen?
[snip about Hitler and responsibility]
> Ah but we KNOW that Hitler can make true evil. We know no such thing
> about Melkor (again, refer to above).
I would likewise refer you to my response.
[snip on the nature of immortality]
> I myself would say that Sauron was "destroyed" in the Second Age; but
> he waited long as a shade of sorts, gaining power; I also think that
> Maiar/Valar/Eldar CAN be destroyed without a trace, though I must admit
> I have little concrete evidence to back this up. I will look though.
Rather say _NO_ evidence, concrete or otherwise. I hate to work without a
solid reference, but somewhere in HoME, JRRT plays with the idea of having
Melkor permanently extinguished (annihilated, totalled, call it what you
will) rather than exiled beyond the Walls of the World. He very quickly
decided against that, as only Iluvatar could have that power. I'm not sure
where I read that, but will back it up as soon as I find it (boy, could I
use a good search engine!).
:Sauron had his body destroyed in the fall of Numenor and later
:formed another which was destroyed by Gil-Galad, Elendil &co. Each
:time his power waned. The final act came with the destruction of
:the Ring, which contained so much of Sauron's power. Even then
:Sauron as an entity was not destroyed, merely disembodied and
:rendered impotent. Note also the apparition on the killing of
:Saruman's body.
I just thought I'd add a further note on the nature of the Immortals.
'Letters' #211, p280 has 'Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a
dark wind', ... That Sauron himself was not himself destroyed by the Anger
of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent
toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our
world. The indestructibility of _spirits_ with free wills, even by the
Creator of them is also an inevitable feature...'
Letters #200, p260. '... the spirits so often took the form and likeness
of the Children... [the body] took some time to build up. It was then
destructible like other physical organisms. But that of course did not
destroy the spirit, nor dismiss it from the world to which it was bound
until the end'.
:The Valar and Maiar wore bodies or not as it pleased them. The
:only known cases of 'immortals' permanently leaving Ea are Melkor
:(against his will), Luthien and Arwen.
> Hmm. I may be wrong about this (probably am) but did Melkor leave Ea?
> I though Ea was the world that Is, as distinct from the void, while
> Arda was the Earth, ie, Beleriand, Aman, Eastern Middle Earth instead.
> The valar were the kings of Arda; I would say Arda is what Melkor left,
> not Ea, but I could be wrong.
Whether Melkor left Ea is a moot point. It would appear that JRRT himself
had not decided, or was carelessly ambiguous on this issue. Considering
his known perfectionism, I suspect the former. The best I can suggest is
to read HoME X, 'Morgoth's Ring', _Myths Transformed_ which goes into both
sides of the argument. A sample from p403; 'When that body was destroyed
[Melkor] was weak and utterly 'houseless', and for that time at a loss and
'unanchored' as it were. We read that he was then thrust into the Void.
That should mean that he was put outside Time and Space, outside Ea
altogether; but if that were so this would imply a direct intervention of
Eru (with or without supplication of the Valar). It may however refer
inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda.'
The above looks like JRRT playing mind-games, yet we know of at least one
direct intervention of Eru - the destruction of Numenor and making the
World round.
>
> [snip]
>
>> whether or not you believe she was originally of the Maiar,
>> as the Balrogs were; Morgoth was the most powerful being to
>> _ever_ walk middle-earth proper, and he feared her.
>>
::He also feared Tulkas and Angainor. He feared Arien with a
::great fear, and '...dared not come nigh her, having indeed no
::longer the power.' This does not sound like the the Melkor of
::old.
>>
>> Remember that Morgoth was craven; as his duel with Fingolfin
>> makes clear.
>>
:Of course! _Now_ we know why he feared Ungoliant.
>
> Actually, no. I would suggest that Melkor's cowardice/cravenness was
> more directed at good than at creatures of his own ilk (or alignment,
> if you prefer).
We have but one known instance of an 'evil' creature threatening Melkor.
It is probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from such a small
sample.
It seems to me that Melkor acted like the archetypal bully: If a victim
could be brow-beaten and over-born then they were. Conversely, a potential
victim which stood up to him was to be (at least a little) feared. The
amount of fear would probably be directly proportional to the stature of
the antagonist; I doubt if Melkor would fear a courageous Hobbit very
much. Hmmm... thinking about it I _can_ imagine Melkor worrying along the
lines 'What hidden power does he have, or what does he know that I don't,
that allows him to stand up to me?' when faced with said Hobbit.
> [snip]
>
>> Or to take it from another angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog,
>> Gandalf could _not_ have defeated Sauron at any point;
A rather sweeping statement. Letters #246 p332. 'Of the others only
Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron] - being an emissary of the
Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a
visible physical form'.
>> Sauron
>> was very much Morgoth's inferior, a lieutenant of sorts; even
>> if you relegate Ungoliant down to the level of Sauron, she still
>> has more than enough power to destroy a balrog.
>>
::I guess her rout by Balrogs at Lammoth was just an off day
::then? And this was when she was at the peak of her might.
[snip]
> Yes, I would say that Ungoliant COULD indeed have destroyed ONE balrog
> (or two, etc), but may very well have been "driven off" (whether
> because she was weak or fearful) by more.
At that time she was at her most powerful and feeling feisty enough to
seriously threaten Melkor. IMHO she had real cause to fear the Balrogs;
they would have whipped her to bits.
> [snip]
>
>> Only if you are maintaining that Ungoliant and her actions
>> were a part of Eru's plan.
>
:Sure do; anything other than that is sacrilege.
>
> That's my point. Ungoliant herself IS sacrilege (as my argument goes).
Perhaps I'd better insert a rider here: Ungoliant may not have been part
of Iluvatar's 'Plan' in the sense that all of her actions were
preconceived and predestined, but I do think that Iluvatar's 'Plan' made
allowance for such creatures and their activities.
[snip]
>> Cute. Read Plato's dialogues concerning sophistry and rhetoric;
>> you might learn something about yourself.
>
> Okay, okay, out of line, I'll give you that -- oops deleted your
> response too. Ack.
>
> [snip]
>
:I have to counter with 'Read JRRT's works, more than a passing
:acquaintance with them will serve better than Kant on this ng'.
>
> Hmm. So I have only 'a passing acquaintance' with his works? Odd. I
> have given you a quote (see above) which directly supports my main
> point, and that quote was not in one of the more frequently read books
> about ME, etc -- or is this what you tell everyone who engages in
> debate with you?
No, only those that imply that I use fallacious or specious arguments with
intent to deceive. And it doesn't take much to look up 'Ungoliant' in an
index.
Michael Martinez
m.vi...@eworld.com (M.VIGNEAU) wrote:
>mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote
>
>
>: In article <478hua$a...@tzlink.j51.com>, lep...@j51.com (Louis Epstein)
>wrote:
>:>
>:>Sauron and Saruman were Maiar and were destroyed.
>:
>:Neither was destroyed, as neither could be destroyed. Their *bodies*
>:were destroyed. They continued to exist.
>
>
>that Tolkien says somewhere that only their bodies were destroyed.
>
>I remember that when Numenor failed, Sauron did not die but only lost his
>abality to appear in a fair form, and that afer the fall of Gandalf with
>the Balrog, it seems that he dies and is given a new body (Gandalf the
>White)
>
>Anyway, that does not prove that Maias can't die. And anyway, if only
>their bodie dies, where do they go ? to the Hall of Mandos ? Possible for
>Radagast and Gandalf, but what about Sauron and Saruman. I have some
>difficulties to imagine them wandering in the halls in the middle of elfs
>.....
>
>That raises an other question : what happens of "evil" elfs (I think of
>Eol, for exemple). Do they have a right to go to the hall of Mandos ?
>
>Martin
You seem to be confusing the nature of the Ainur with the natures of the Elves
and Men. The Ainur were not of Arda, but came from outside of it, and they
had great power within it. The "bodies" of the Valar and Maiar were simply
manifestations and were not to them as the bodies of Elves and Men were to
those races. The Ainur who dwelt in Arda could change their bodies at will
unless they divested themselves of a great part of their power, and yet even
then the destruction of their bodies only meant they would be formless
spirits until they could again take shape after a long time.
"Death" in Tolkien mythos applies to Elves, Men, and other things in Arda, but
not to the Ainur. Not having been created to know "death", they cannot "die".
The spirit of Sauron was "whisked away", as it were, to the east after the
destruction of the One Ring, and someone once suggested that perhaps he was
thrown out of Middle-earth by the Valar. Saruman's spirit, after the death of
his body, apparently tried to pass into the west, but the wind blew it toward
the east (probably a sign of Manwe's displeasure with Saruman).
Tolkien wrote a great deal about the nature of Elves and Men, but if you don't
have THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH you'll get lost if I try to go into all that
stuff.
What happens to a Maia whose body is destroyed? It's never really stated.
But Namo (Mandos) had authority only over the spirits of the Children of
Iluvatar (Elves, Men, and Dwarves). Only those spirits were summoned to
Mandos -- the Maia who were disembodied were not subject to Namo's authority.
As for the Elves, Tolkien wrote that they could refuse the summons to Mandos,
but in doing so lost their right to shape a new body (or to be reborn,
depending on how far back in his development of the concept you want to go).
But there's nothing in LOTR, THE SILMARILLION, or any of Tolkien's other
writings that suggests Maiar "died". The destruction of the Balrogs is not
pursued further for literary reasons; the end of their manifestations meant
the end of their effectiveness in Middle-earth. They were probably too weak
to reform themselves in the ages in which their bodies were destroyed, and so
no longer entered into the stories which Tolkien was telling.
Michael Martinez
>>that Ungoliant was _not_ in Illuvatar's grand scheme (as, who
>>knows, Morgoth may have been); i.e. she had a reality separate
>>from that of Eru, the One.'
>>
>>I'd like to see that allusion.
>
>Well here's one, debatable as it may be:
> "Therefore he [Melkor] seeks until he finds a dark cavern in the
>hills....Very deep and winding were those ways having a subterranean
>outlet on the sea as the ancient books say, and here on a time were the
>Moon and Sun imprisoned afterward; for here dwelt the primeval spirit
>Moru whom even the Valar know not whence or when she came, and the folk
>of Earth have given her many names. Mayhap she was bred of mists and
>darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas, in that utter dark that
>came between the overthrow of the Lamps and the kindling of the Trees,
>but more like that SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN....she brought forth only that
>darkness that is a denial of all light....whence still do the Noldoli
>speak of her as Ungoliont the spider..." (The Book of Lost Tales Part
>One, "The Theft of Melko", p 151-2)
That's a very early version of the story and long abandoned by Tolkien.
>>'This is a frightening thought; for it implies that ultimately
>>Ungoliant may have contested against Illuvatar (I know it sounds
>>crazy) and perhaps even won, had things taken a different turn.'
>
>Okay so the statement was in error. It just seems to me that an EQUAL
>balance between Good and Evil at the highest level is needed to
>preserve the drama of Tolkien's tale.
Tolkien's tale was about the ultimate triumph of Good over Evil, so a
*balance* between the two would not work to preserve the drama -- it would
destroy it. Morgoth will in the end be defeated and Arda remade, but even in
the scope of the individual parts of the tale (THE HOBBIT, LOTR, SILMARILLION)
Good triumphs in the end.
>>So how would this contest be carried out? We _already_ have a Good
>>vs Evil power struggle with Melkor's rebellion. Could this be a
>>Good + Evil vs Evil? Or is the mere (hypothetical) existence of
>>duality an automatic win?
>
> Well now I don't even know that one can call Melkor's rebellion a
>Good vs Evil power struggle; for, did not Illuvatar say: "And thou,
>Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its
>uttermost source in me.....for he that attempteth this shall prove but
>mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful...."
> So Melkor can do no evil, for whatever evil he may try to do but
>serves Illuvatar in the creation of things even more wonderful; so
>explain to me (if we take all this as given) how ultimately there is
>any power struggle at all in ANY of Tolkien's ME work?
You seem to misunderstand the passage. Iluvatar's words are concerned with
Melkor's attempts to define a new theme, not with Melkor's rebellion. Melkor
was indeed evil and in Tolkien's work Melkor was the source of all evil,
because he seduced others to his cause and so corrupted them that some even
rebelled against him.
Melkor's intentions and his actions are not one and the same. In the
beginning, Melkor wasn't evil, but he became so. And yet all his attempts to
change and alter what the Valar did within Middle-earth were foreseen by
Iluvatar, who took those actions and wove them into his own purpose.
It's a very Biblical theme.
>I myself would say that Sauron was "destroyed" in the Second Age; but
>he waited long as a shade of sorts, gaining power; I also think that
>Maiar/Valar/Eldar CAN be destroyed without a trace, though I must admit
>I have little concrete evidence to back this up. I will look though.
Sauron's body was destroyed twice in the Second Age, but his spirit was not.
"Destruction" implies an irrevocable state of dismantlement, and yet Sauron
continued to exist and to slowly remanifest himself in the Third Age.
>Hmm. I may be wrong about this (probably am) but did Melkor leave Ea?
>I though Ea was the world that Is, as distinct from the void, while
>Arda was the Earth, ie, Beleriand, Aman, Eastern Middle Earth instead.
>The valar were the kings of Arda; I would say Arda is what Melkor left,
>not Ea, but I could be wrong.
The Valar thrust Melkor out into the Void at the end of the First Age.
James Devlin
[MASSIVE snip on the Nature of The Book of Lost Tales]
(And check out earlier posts as it really is very good stuff pertaining
to the evolution of JRRT's work)
>> Well yes it IS rather a questionable source for information, but I
>>don't think it is thereby rendered useless (I'm not implying that you
>>were saying that either; just want to make my point clear).
>:The above quotes and references are by no means exhaustive, but do
serve
>:to illustrate the evolution of Ungoliant in JRRT's imagination. It
would
>:appear that Ungoliant _may_ have had an origin separate from the
Ainu, but
>:only in the very earliest writings. Her importance seems to have
dwindled
>:in the evolution of the tale, until the most likely explanation,
supported
>:by the majority of the references I know of, is that she was indeed
one of
>:the Maia corrupted by Melkor.
>Well and that is the predominant view held by most people today. But
>I think that it cannot be PROVEN either way. AND: Ficticious sources
>are often cited for Tolkien's writings (The Red Book etc), to give the
>readers an idea of where in ME all this information came from.
>Looking at it in that way, it seems to me that since the sources of
>the Silmarillion, TBoLT, etc are said to have stemmed from the songs,
>myths, and oral tradition of the people of Middle-Earth, gathered and
>summarized later, I can just as easily claim that the various versions
>simply corresponded to differences and anomalies amongst the
>legend/myth/tradition of ME, and I don't think that I can be disproven
>on that point (though I am by no means claiming that this IS the way
>things are, let me make clear).
>:Her great power which caused Melkor such disquiet in Lammoth was, I
>:suggest, not her own, but was 'borrowed' from the power of the Trees
who's
>:light she drank. As this was digested (?) or metabolised (?) she
shrank
>:back down to her own native stature. Also, Melkor's power was reduced
from
>:that with which he was originally imbued.
>This seems a reasonable statement but please remember that I am no
>longer argueing for the "might" or "power" of Ungoliant but her
>uniqueness as a creature not of Eru. She could be a speck of dust
>tumbling through space and the philosophical (sorry I know you hate
>the word) ramifications would be unchanged.
[massive snip]
[not so massive snip]
>> It just seems to me that an EQUAL balance between Good and Evil at
the
>> highest level is needed to preserve the drama of Tolkien's tale.
>
>:Perhaps so (I happen to disagree), but I honestly don't see Ungoliant
as a
>:vehicle for challenging Eru. Apart from that, any conflict which
involved
>:Iluvatar would be invisible and unknowable by the denizens of M-e, as
the
>:only ones to leave Ea to witness such events cannot return to report
on
>:them. So far as we know, late-comers in Ea (eg Tulkas) did not
mention
>:anything along these lines.
> I don't see her in that way either (anymore). My statement above wa
>more the reason why I had taken up this argument than my proof of it.
>:So how would this contest be carried out? We _already_ have a Good
>:vs Evil power struggle with Melkor's rebellion. Could this be a
>:Good + Evil vs Evil? Or is the mere (hypothetical) existence of
>:duality an automatic win?
>>
>> Well now I don't even know that one can call Melkor's rebellion
a
>> Good vs Evil power struggle; for, did not Illuvatar say: "And thou,
>> Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its
>> uttermost source in me.....for he that attempteth this shall prove
but
>> mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful...."
>> So Melkor can do no evil, for whatever evil he may try to do but
>> serves Illuvatar in the creation of things even more wonderful; so
>> explain to me (if we take all this as given) how ultimately there is
>> any power struggle at all in ANY of Tolkien's ME work?
>> Note that any evil Ungoliant may do may not be subject to the
same
>> "restrictions" imposed on Melkor. ;)
>
>:Again, I disagree. IMHO, the evil is in the intent, not necessarily
the
>:deeds or their outcome.
>Have to disagree with you flat out there. I myself believe in a
>universal/archetypal STANDARD of Good and Evil (call them whatever you
>like), not a quasi-relativistic hodgepodge of intent, purpose, or
>whatever you want to call it -- and I think (IMHO) that this holds
>DOUBLY true for Tolkien's world, where the warring sides are so
>clear-cut.
[snip]
>:None of the Powers fully knows
>:the mind or the Music of Iluvatar, so they cannot foresee _all_
events.
>:Even in the construction of Ea they did not follow the Music to the
letter
>:(note?), else clouds and snow etc would have been part of Ea without
>:Melkor's meddling. The quote of Iluvatar's which you give does not
say
>:that rebellion is impossible, only that the rebels will find that
their
>:deeds and creations ultimately redound to the glory of Iluvatar,
_not_
>:that they are following Iluvatar's plan. Perhaps even _he_ did not
foresee
>:the outcome of Melkor's actions,
>Well which is it? You cannot posit an omnipotent/omniscient being
>such as Eru, and then say that he doesn't know all. Either Eru knows
>EVERYTHING about Ea and its future, in which case Melkor can't do evil
>and in fact there can be no evil, because no free will; or he doesn't
>know everything, in which case it is well possible that a creature out
>of the mind of Eru (Ungoliant) may be able to exist.
[snip]
>:Agreed. However, the plan was Melkor's, Ungoliant was used as
>:an instrument.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Interesting what happens is you apply this statement to what I said
>> above.
>
>:What does happen?
>Only that the death of the Two Trees was in fact part of Eru's plan;
>and that Melkor and Ungoliant are not in fact evil, only destructive
>tools (needed) for certain tasks; and that the whole drama of
>middle-earth is not in fact drama anymore but a set of stale
>variations in landform/climate/thought/creature/etc made initiated for
>the purpose of ?? To what end all this if there is no Original Evil?
[snip about Hitler and responsibility]
>> Ah but we KNOW that Hitler can make true evil. We know no such
thing
>> about Melkor (again, refer to above).
>
>:I would likewise refer you to my response.
>And you mine ;)
>[snip on the nature of immortality]
>
>> I myself would say that Sauron was "destroyed" in the Second Age;
but
>> he waited long as a shade of sorts, gaining power; I also think that
>> Maiar/Valar/Eldar CAN be destroyed without a trace, though I must
admit
>> I have little concrete evidence to back this up. I will look
though.
>
>:Rather say _NO_ evidence, concrete or otherwise. I hate to work
without a
>:solid reference, but somewhere in HoME, JRRT plays with the idea of
having
>:Melkor permanently extinguished (annihilated, totalled, call it what
you
>:will) rather than exiled beyond the Walls of the World. He very
quickly
>:decided against that, as only Iluvatar could have that power.
>It is also possible that a Valar such as Morgoth wouldn't be destroyed
>without a trace because, whatever his later faults, he WAS once close
>with the mind of Eru, mighty and skillful and beautiful to look upon.
>I would not say that the Maiar shared this intimacy; hence, they very
>well could be destroyed. If you need evidence, read some of the other
>threads in this ng; there is currently a sub-thread going on about
>whether the Maiar can be destroyed; and to tell you the truth I've
>seen more yess than nos.
>:Sauron had his body destroyed in the fall of Numenor and later
>:formed another which was destroyed by Gil-Galad, Elendil &co. Each
>:time his power waned. The final act came with the destruction of
>:the Ring, which contained so much of Sauron's power. Even then
>:Sauron as an entity was not destroyed, merely disembodied and
>:rendered impotent. Note also the apparition on the killing of
>:Saruman's body.
>
>::I just thought I'd add a further note on the nature of the
Immortals.
>::'Letters' #211, p280 has 'Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred
borne on a
>::dark wind', ... That Sauron himself was not himself destroyed by the
Anger
>::of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent
>::toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with
our
>::world. The indestructibility of _spirits_ with free wills, even by
the
>::Creator of them is also an inevitable feature...'
>This supports my argument concerning Ungoliant as much as it does
>yours; it is another shred of evidence that downplays the creator and
>emphasizes free will, liberty, _duality_.
[snip of Evidence of Indestructability of Spirits]
>That is the great problem of Tolkien's work; often there is so little
>to go on; and that my friend is where logic and **PHILOSOPHY** come to
>our aid.
>:It seems to me that Melkor acted like the archetypal bully: If a
victim
>:could be brow-beaten and over-born then they were. Conversely, a
potential
>:victim which stood up to him was to be (at least a little) feared.
The
>:amount of fear would probably be directly proportional to the stature
of
>:the antagonist; I doubt if Melkor would fear a courageous Hobbit very
>:much. Hmmm... thinking about it I _can_ imagine Melkor worrying along
the
>:lines 'What hidden power does he have, or what does he know that I
don't,
>:that allows him to stand up to me?' when faced with said Hobbit.
>Well ;) I can almost see it now; if only Bandobras Took had been with
>Fingolfin at the latter's last fight!! Things might have gone
>differently. :)
[snip]
>> Or to take it from another angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog,
>> Gandalf could _not_ have defeated Sauron at any point;
>:A rather sweeping statement. Letters #246 p332. 'Of the others only
>:Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron] - being an emissary of
the
>:Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a
>:visible physical form'.
>Might be expected to "master" Sauron -- as he in fact did, but not
through might (you are rather adept at skirting this issue).
>>> Sauron
>>> was very much Morgoth's inferior, a lieutenant of sorts; even
>>> if you relegate Ungoliant down to the level of Sauron, she still
>>> has more than enough power to destroy a balrog.
>>>
>::I guess her rout by Balrogs at Lammoth was just an off day
>::then? And this was when she was at the peak of her might.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Yes, I would say that Ungoliant COULD indeed have destroyed ONE
balrog
>> (or two, etc), but may very well have been "driven off" (whether
>> because she was weak or fearful) by more.
>
>:At that time she was at her most powerful and feeling feisty enough
to
>:seriously threaten Melkor. IMHO she had real cause to fear the
Balrogs;
>:they would have whipped her to bits.
What can I do, when you ignore all my evidence to the otherwise?
GANDALF defeated a Balrog; Melkor FEARED Ungoliant; and I KNOW for a
FACT that GANDALF could NOT have defeated said MORGOTH; so HOW can you
posit that a Balrog could defeat UNGOLIANT???!!!!????!!!?!??!?!?!?
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Only if you are maintaining that Ungoliant and her actions
>>> were a part of Eru's plan.
>>
>:Sure do; anything other than that is sacrilege.
>>
>> That's my point. Ungoliant herself IS sacrilege (as my argument
goes).
>:Perhaps I'd better insert a rider here: Ungoliant may not have been
part
>:of Iluvatar's 'Plan' in the sense that all of her actions were
>:preconceived and predestined, but I do think that Iluvatar's 'Plan'
made
>:allowance for such creatures and their activities.
>"Made allowance" is a very bad way of putting it. It casts Illuvatar
>in a lesser light, one, incidentally, more helpful to my point. Why.
pray tell, would Illuvatar make allowances for anything?
[snip about sophistry and accusations of the same]
>:I have to counter with 'Read JRRT's works, more than a passing
>:acquaintance with them will serve better than Kant on this ng'.
>Ahem. Perhaps if you actually READ Kant rather than downsizing him
you would achieve a better understanding of Tolkien's work and the
myriad of possibilities therein; your erudition on subjects germane to
Middle-Earth notwithstanding (if you can call it 'erudition').
>> Hmm. So I have only 'a passing acquaintance' with his works? Odd.
I
>> have given you a quote (see above) which directly supports my main
>> point, and that quote was not in one of the more frequently read
books
>> about ME, etc -- or is this what you tell everyone who engages in
>> debate with you?
>
>:No, only those that imply that I use fallacious or specious arguments
with
>:intent to deceive.
>So let me get this straight; someone accuses you of fallacious logic
>and you in turn tell them they don't know what they're talking about
>(as opposed to, say, disproving them?) Constructive.
>:And it doesn't take much to look up 'Ungoliant' in an
>:index.
> And who would know better than you??
James
cur...@ix.netcom.com
Tom
mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>In article <47boj5$j...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) wrote:
>> Well now I don't even know that one can call Melkor's rebellion a
>>Good vs Evil power struggle; for, did not Illuvatar say: "And thou,
>>Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its
>>uttermost source in me.....for he that attempteth this shall prove but
>>mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful...."
>> So Melkor can do no evil, for whatever evil he may try to do but
>>serves Illuvatar in the creation of things even more wonderful; so
>>explain to me (if we take all this as given) how ultimately there is
>>any power struggle at all in ANY of Tolkien's ME work?
>You seem to misunderstand the passage. Iluvatar's words are concerned >with
>Melkor's attempts to define a new theme, not with Melkor's rebellion.
(snip)
>Melkor's intentions and his actions are not one and the same. In the
>beginning, Melkor wasn't evil, but he became so. And yet all his >attempts
to
>change and alter what the Valar did within Middle-earth were foreseen by
>Iluvatar, who took those actions and wove them into his own purpose.
Exactly. The assumption above is that 'evil' cannot be part of the theme of
Illuvatar, when in fact, it becomes an intricate part as it is woven in. This
is how there can be power struggles in Tolkien's works. The power struggles
are part of Illuvatar's (Tolkien's) creations, not outside of them.
Tom
Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky
writes:
>
>mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote
>
>
>: In article <478hua$a...@tzlink.j51.com>, lep...@j51.com (Louis
Epstein)
>wrote:
>:>
>:>Sauron and Saruman were Maiar and were destroyed.
>:
>:Neither was destroyed, as neither could be destroyed. Their *bodies*
>were
>:destroyed. They continued to exist.
>
>
>Where did you see that only their bodies were destroyed ? I don't
recall
>that
>Tolkien says somewhere that only their bodies were destroyed.
>
>I remember that when Numenor failed, Sauron did not die but only lost
his
>abality to appear in a fair form, and that afer the fall of Gandalf
with
>the Balrog, it seems that he dies and is given a new body (Gandalf the
>White)
>
>their bodie dies, where do they go ? to the Hall of Mandos ? Possible
for
>Radagast and Gandalf, but what about Sauron and Saruman. I have some
>difficulties to imagine them wandering in the halls in the middle of
elfs
>....
>
of
>Eol, for exemple). Do they have a right to go to the hall of Mandos ?
>
>Martin
Hmm...thats a good question...maybe evil Elves go to Mandos, but
stay there for eternity, with no hope of rebirth. Or, maybe they get
'made good?' and eventually get reborn. Of course they have a right!
It is their -destiny!- Good Humans/Hobbits/Dwarves can't go to
Aman/Valinor and live forever, either. It's their destiny to go beyond
Arda/Ea (I always wondered which it was..any ideas?) . Frodo, Sam,
and Gimli probably died sometime while in Valinor/Eressea(?) and
'passed on'. Even Beren couldn't stay in Valinor.
-Stephen - two...@ix.netcom.com
John Davis
the halls of Mandos and are sent to Angband, where all evil was
essentially created. Afterall, Angband means Iron Prison, or Hell of
Iron.
Brad (Ran...@ix.netcom.com)
@#$%!?!
an impotent spirit. Still full of hate, but without any
physicality to actually do anything.
--
In fearless youth when fervour leapt, | smr...@netcom.com PO Box 1563
he sought the treasures silence kept | Cupertino, California
in chambers chilled where chanting stilled,| (xxx)xxx-xxxx 95015
where bleaching bones were bleakly kept. | I don't use no smileys
John Davis
Michael Martinez
two...@ix.netcom.com (Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky ) wrote:
> I have always wondered- what exactly happened at the end TLOTR
>when Wormtounge kills Saruman? It seems to me that the Valar _denied_
>Saruman any rebirth, from the way his spirit/cloud 'reaches out' to the
>West, only to be dispelled. I agree that Sauron did not die, but it
>seemed that each time his body died, he was limited how he could come
>back:
>After his battle with Huan and Luthien- No more Werewolf
>After Numenor- No more nice guy
>After Gil-Galad, Elendil and Isildur- No more ?
>After Frodo and Sam- Possibly no body at all...he might have exausted
>his power so much that he was left as a 'spirit of darkness', with no
>tangible evidence of existance.
I don't understand why you think Sauron could not again assume the form of a
wolf after Luthien and Huan defeated him. His body was not destroyed in that
battle.
However, I would not associate the manifestation of a Maia's "earthly" body
with Elven rebirth, either the earlier version (true birth) or the later
version (reforming of the body). A Maia or Vala would simply assume the
aspect of some physical form.
Sauron (and Morgoth), however, invested part of their power -- their being or
"essence", as it were -- in the creatures they dominated and in their devices,
so they were in effect diminishing themselves as time went on.
Saruman created his own Ring of Power, and presumably had to put some of his
personal power into it in the making. Whether that was so is a matter for
speculation and has been debated (as I think you are well aware), but since
Saruman's knowledge was based largely on his research into Ring-lore, he might
have improved on some techniques, but I think he was still limited to the
fundamentals established by the Elves of Eregion and Sauron.
That also leads us to wonder whether Saruman's Ring failed with the others. I
favor that idea, but it is even more a matter for speculation and debate.
At any rate, Saruman also bred the Half-Orcs, and he probably had to invest
some of his power in *that* process, though I doubt nearly as much would be
required as Sauron and Morgoth had to put into *their* breeding programs
(Morgoth, recall, bred the Orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Werewolves, and other
creatures -- Sauron improved on the Orcs and Trolls and may have worked on
others; the enigmatic "half-trolls" in the Battle of the Pelennor have
always stirred my curiosity).
Anyway, my point is that Saruman, when he was "killed" by Wormtongue, was
probably much less than he had originally been. Gandalf even commented that
Saruman had become quite diminished after their second confrontation at
Orthanc. It may be that the Istari had to put some of their power into their
staves for some reason, and that when Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, Saruman
lost yet more power.
But I think the business about the west wind blowing Saruman's spirit away was
simply a punishment for his misdeeds. He was no longer welcome in the
Uttermost West, as Sauron and other fallen Ainur apparently were not welcome.
Michael Martinez
ran...@ix.netcom.com (John Davis ) wrote:
>Perhaps all evil elves (or any other creature) are denied entry into
>the halls of Mandos and are sent to Angband, where all evil was
>essentially created. Afterall, Angband means Iron Prison, or Hell of
>Iron.
I believe it is in fact written somewhere that the Elven spirits which refused
the summons to Valinor in the early ages were indeed susceptible to a summons
by Morgoth to Utumno, and perhaps later to Angband. But both were eventually
destroyed.
Tolkien also wrote that some of the Elves stayed in Mandos far longer than
others, and that Feanor was one of these. The time spent there was to be used
for reflection and healing. Some of the "evil" Elves may never have come out
again, but others would have eventually.
In the end, however, Elves who refused the summons to Mandos were doomed to
become spirits of malice and apparently Tolkien envisioned them as becoming
known in legend as ghosts and haunts, or whathaveyou.
Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky
writes:
>In article <47gtnh$s...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> two...@ix.netcom.com (Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky ) wrote:
>> I have always wondered- what exactly happened at the end TLOTR
>>when Wormtounge kills Saruman? It seems to me that the Valar
_denied_
>>Saruman any rebirth, from the way his spirit/cloud 'reaches out' to
the
>>West, only to be dispelled. I agree that Sauron did not die, but it
>>seemed that each time his body died, he was limited how he could come
>>back:
>>After his battle with Huan and Luthien- No more Werewolf
>>After Numenor- No more nice guy
>>After Gil-Galad, Elendil and Isildur- No more ?
>>After Frodo and Sam- Possibly no body at all...he might have exausted
>>his power so much that he was left as a 'spirit of darkness', with no
>>tangible evidence of existance.
>
>I don't understand why you think Sauron could not again assume the
form of a
>wolf after Luthien and Huan defeated him. His body was not destroyed
in that
>battle.
Well, according to the version in the Silmarillion, Luthien made
him 'forsake his body' or some other term. Therefore, when he left his
werewolf body, I think it probably "died", as his 'nice' body did
during the destruction of Numenor.
-Stephen - two...@ix.netcom.com
PS- I agree with most of the rest of what you said. :)
da...@cyberramp.net
>mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote
>
>: In article <478hua$a...@tzlink.j51.com>, lep...@j51.com (Louis Epstein)
>wrote:
>:>
>:>Sauron and Saruman were Maiar and were destroyed.
>:
>:Neither was destroyed, as neither could be destroyed. Their *bodies*
>were
>:destroyed. They continued to exist.
>
>Where did you see that only their bodies were destroyed ? I don't recall
>that
>Tolkien says somewhere that only their bodies were destroyed.
I remember something to the effect that Sauron lost 99.9999% of his
power, and only exists as wisps al malice here and there...
(Or something like that)
Remember how Saruman's "spirit" got blown away by a wind? So, I think
their spirits are dispersed.
>I remember that when Numenor failed, Sauron did not die but only lost his
>abality to appear in a fair form,
I remember that Sauron's body died, and his spirit, finally, eventually, made it
to Middle Earth, where he created a new (unfair) body.
If someone remembers better, please followup.
and that afer the fall of Gandalf with
>the Balrog, it seems that he dies and is given a new body (Gandalf the
>White)
I *still* don't understand where Gandalf *dies*.
>Martin
Daniel A. Stephenson
da...@srl01.cacs.usl.edu
Michael Martinez
>I remember something to the effect that Sauron lost 99.9999% of his
>power, and only exists as wisps al malice here and there...
Nowhere is a percentage given with respect to how much power Sauron loses. I
don't have a passage to cite, but I believe it is Gandalf who says that
Sauron will be reduced to a spirit of malice if the One Ring is destroyed.
I have extrapolated Sauron's eventual return from several sources.
>Remember how Saruman's "spirit" got blown away by a wind? So, I think
>their spirits are dispersed.
The spirits would not be dispersed. Saruman was simply denied re-admittance
to the Uttermost West.
>I *still* don't understand where Gandalf *dies*.
Gandalf's death is detailed in THE TWO TOWERS in the chapter "The White
Rider". His death is also mentioned in the Tale of Years, in the section
concerning the day-by-day unfolding of the events at the end of the Third Age.
John Osborne
> In <169662...@kami.demon.co.uk> John Osborne
> <jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
To try and cut down the length of quote-prompts :-
> = James Devlin
: = John O
[snip on the evolution of Ungoliant's origins]
>Well yes it [TBoLT] IS rather a questionable source for
>information, but I don't think it is thereby rendered useless (I'm
>not implying that you were saying that either; just want to make
>my point clear).
:the most likely explanation, supported by the majority of the
:references I know of, is that she was indeed one of the Maia
:corrupted by Melkor.
>Well and that is the predominant view held by most people today.
>But I think that it cannot be PROVEN either way.
I agree. That is why I use such terms as 'imply', 'probable', 'most
likely' etc when speaking of Ungoliant's origins.
>AND: Ficticious sources are often cited for Tolkien's writings
>(The Red Book etc), to give the readers an idea of where in ME all
>this information came from.
What makes The Red Book more fictitious than any other source in
M-e?
>Looking at it in that way, it seems to me that since the sources
>of the Silmarillion, TBoLT, etc are said to have stemmed from the
>songs, myths, and oral tradition of the people of Middle-Earth,
>gathered and summarized later, I can just as easily claim that the
>various versions simply corresponded to differences and anomalies
>amongst the legend/myth/tradition of ME, and I don't think that I
>can be disproven on that point (though I am by no means claiming
>that this IS the way things are, let me make clear).
There is somewhat of a difference between the internal 'myths' of
Arda and those of our world. Many of those who laid down the
stories got them from the Elves, who personally remembered the
subject matter. The garbling seen in our own oral traditions would
therefore be greatly reduced or non-existent. Having said that,
JRRT himself points out that man's _understanding_ of what he has
been told may be seriously flawed ('Morgoth's Ring', _Myths
Transformed_, p370).
::Her great power which caused Melkor such disquiet in Lammoth was,
::I suggest, not her own, but was 'borrowed' from the power of the
::Trees who's light she drank. As this was digested (?) or
::metabolised (?) she shrank back down to her own native stature.
::Also, Melkor's power was reduced from that with which he was
::originally imbued.
>This seems a reasonable statement but please remember that I am no
>longer argueing for the "might" or "power" of Ungoliant but her
>uniqueness as a creature not of Eru. She could be a speck of dust
>tumbling through space and the philosophical (sorry I know you
>hate the word) ramifications would be unchanged.
No, I don't hate the word 'philosophical' at all. It's some of the
weird premises involved in philosophy in an attempt to explain the
Universe that I find at best alien and at worst laughable.
>>>It just seems to me that an EQUAL balance between Good and Evil
>>>at the highest level is needed to preserve the drama of
>>>Tolkien's tale.
[snip response]
>I don't see her in that way either (anymore). My statement above
>wa more the reason why I had taken up this argument than my proof
>of it.
OK, so what do you suggest to replace Ungoliant as evidence of a
duality?
[snip bits about nature of evil]
::Again, I disagree. IMHO, the evil is in the intent, not
::necessarily the deeds or their outcome.
>Have to disagree with you flat out there. I myself believe in a
>universal/archetypal STANDARD of Good and Evil (call them whatever
>you like), not a quasi-relativistic hodgepodge of intent, purpose,
>or whatever you want to call it -- and I think (IMHO) that this
>holds DOUBLY true for Tolkien's world, where the warring sides are
>so clear-cut.
So was Turin Good or Evil? He was certainly not on Morgoth's side,
had no intention of doing evil, and yet most of his deeds turned
out so. It must be wonderful to inhabit such a black-and-white
Universe. Against what are these Standards of good and evil
measured?
Incidentally, JRRT's view on this may be of interest? 'Letters'
#183; 'In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think
there is such a thing, since that is Zero.'
::The quote of Iluvatar's which you give does not say that
::rebellion is impossible, only that the rebels will find that
::their deeds and creations ultimately redound to the glory of
::Iluvatar, _not_ that they are following Iluvatar's plan. Perhaps
::even _he_ did not foresee the outcome of Melkor's actions,
>Well which is it?
Sorry? I'm not aware of alternatives in the above quote. I was just
pointing out what is and is not said, and putting forward one
possibility.
>You cannot posit an omnipotent/omniscient being
>such as Eru, and then say that he doesn't know all.
Ahem. Please do not credit me with arguments which I have not made.
I have not posited omniscience for Eru. Although I believe that
JRRT intended him to be omnipotent I know of no reference
absolutely stating Eru's omniscience. Even the 'And thou, Melkor,
shalt see that no theme...' quote from TS p17 does not claim this
for Iluvatar.
>Either Eru
>knows EVERYTHING about Ea and its future, in which case Melkor
>can't do evil and in fact there can be no evil, because no free
>will; or he doesn't know everything, in which case it is well
>possible that a creature out of the mind of Eru (Ungoliant) may be
>able to exist.
Again, I have to disagree. Why should prior knowledge of events
make the being with the knowledge responsible for those events. The
Valar knew a great deal about what was to be in Arda, yet they did
not make it so, merely observed.
[snip]
>Only that the death of the Two Trees was in fact part of Eru's
>Plan; and that Melkor and Ungoliant are not in fact evil, only
>destructive tools (needed) for certain tasks; and that the whole
>drama of middle-earth is not in fact drama anymore but a set of
>stale variations in landform/climate/thought/creature/etc made
>initiated for the purpose of ?? To what end all this if there is
>no Original Evil?
Off hand the only religion or mythology of or own world which has
_original_ evil is the Slavonic Byelobog/Chernobog dualism. Pretty
much all of the others I can think of either had no inherent
creator vs adversary and had evil as a later addition. A lot of
gods which came to represent evil were the subject of propaganda as
the worship of new gods came into the ascendant. Why then should
JRRT's creation have a basic good/evil duality at the highest level
which is very rarely seen in our own world?
I may get on to shaky ground here; I have a 'passing acquaintance'
with mythology ;), but little practical knowledge of theology.
Taking Christianity (and Judaism) as an example, Lucifer begins as
does Melkor, one of God's creations, who goes through a Fall and is
doomed to failure in the end. Yaweh is The One, All-knowing,
All-powerful; yet he imbued his creations with free will. He is
never in any real danger from Lucifer, whereas we mortals are. Does
that mean God is evil for allowing Lucifer to act in such a manner?
Or that Lucifer is not evil because God let him do it? Choose your
answer carefully, you may cause offense to many devout Christians.
There is no original evil or duality here, yet I see the drama and
good/evil strife throughout human history. What is it's purpose?
Perhaps your philosophers can answer that, I can't.
[snip]
::I would likewise refer you to my response.
>And you mine ;)
Round and round the garden, like a teddy-bear. :-)
[snip on total destruction of Maiar]
>It is also possible that a Valar such as Morgoth wouldn't be
>destroyed without a trace because, whatever his later faults, he
>WAS once close with the mind of Eru, mighty and skillful and
>beautiful to look upon.
>I would not say that the Maiar shared this intimacy; hence, they
>very well could be destroyed. If you need evidence, read some of
>the other threads in this ng; there is currently a sub-thread
>going on about whether the Maiar can be destroyed; and to tell you
>the truth I've seen more yess than nos.
I've seen the other threads, and I'll stick with this one thanks;
it's more interesting. These other threads tend to express opinions
rather than evidence. I have yet to find _any_ evidence that Maia
could be caused to not-exist, whereas I could (if you wish)
probably find references to the contrary in addition to the ones
I've already used.
As to the indestructibility of Valar due to their intimacy with The
One; Wow! that's a jump in the dark! There is no essential
difference between the Valar and the Maiar; before they entered
into Ea they were referred to collectively as the Ainur. TS p21
'And the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well
nigh as great as themselves...', TS p25 ' Then those of the Ainur
who desired it arose and entered into the World... ...The Great
among these spirits the Elves name the Valar...' Note that it is
the Elves that make the distinction here, not the Powers
themselves. TS p30 'With the Valar came other spirits... of the
same order but of less degree'. I've used bits from 'Letters' #s
211 and 200 in a previous post, so shalln't use those again, but
'Letters' #212 'Many of the Ainur did enter into it, and _must_
bide in it till the End' (my emphasis)
[snip bits on Sauron's immortality]
::I just thought I'd add a further note on the nature of the
::Immortals. 'Letters' #211, p280 has 'Though reduced to 'a spirit
::of hatred borne on a dark wind', ... That Sauron himself was not
::himself destroyed by the Anger of the One is not my fault: the
::problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one
::for all who concern themselves with our world. The
::indestructibility of _spirits_ with free wills, even by the
::Creator of them is also an inevitable feature...'
>This supports my argument concerning Ungoliant as much as it does
>yours; it is another shred of evidence that downplays the creator
>and emphasizes free will, liberty, _duality_.
No. How can the mere fact of creations having free will downplay
the Creator? Your original argument was that Ungoliant may have
represented something not of Iluvatar's making, and therefore a
duality. Now you seem to be saying that only free will is
necessary. The duality is at _your_ behest, not JRRT's.
[snipsnipsnip]
::We have but one known instance of an 'evil' creature threatening
::Melkor.
::It is probably not a good idea to draw conclusions from such a
::small sample.
>That is the great problem of Tolkien's work; often there is so
>little to go on; and that my friend is where logic and
>**PHILOSOPHY** come to our aid.
You mean, 'if we can't know for sure, make it up'? When facts
concerning Ea are scant I try to interpolate rather than
extrapolate. I would be interested to see (just this once, mind ;)
) an example of applying logic and philosophy to a purely fictional
Universe which is known only imperfectly and inconsistently.
[snip]
>Well ;) I can almost see it now; if only Bandobras Took had been
>with Fingolfin at the latter's last fight!! Things might have
>gone differently. :)
The Bullroarer would have scared him spitless :-)
> [snip]
>
>> Or to take it from another angle: Gandalf defeated a balrog,
>> Gandalf could _not_ have defeated Sauron at any point;
::A rather sweeping statement. Letters #246 p332. 'Of the others
::only Gandalf might be expected to master [Sauron] - being an
::emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an
::immortal spirit taking a visible physical form'.
>Might be expected to "master" Sauron -- as he in fact did, but not
>through might (you are rather adept at skirting this issue).
OED, Master, v.tr. 1 Overcome, defeat.
Defeat, v.tr. 1 Overcome in a battle or other contest.
Overcome, v.tr 1 Prevail over, master, conquer.
Olorin's speciality was the power of wisdom while Sauron's was
physical power. I believe it was you who bridled against 'some
crude _fight_ of all things', well Gandalf mastered (defeated,
overcame) Sauron by using this wisdom. In what way does this skirt
the issue? Sauron was as thoroughly defeated as if he had been
nuked.
[snip]
>>Yes, I would say that Ungoliant COULD indeed have destroyed ONE
>>balrog (or two, etc), but may very well have been "driven off"
>>(whether because she was weak or fearful) by more.
::At that time she was at her most powerful and feeling feisty
::enough to seriously threaten Melkor. IMHO she had real cause to
::fear the Balrogs; they would have whipped her to bits.
>What can I do, when you ignore all my evidence to the otherwise?
>GANDALF defeated a Balrog; Melkor FEARED Ungoliant; and I KNOW
>for a FACT that GANDALF could NOT have defeated said MORGOTH; so
>HOW can you posit that a Balrog could defeat UNGOLIANT?
Earlier in this thread you questioned my ability to distinguish
between singular and plural, I must now do the same for you; The
only time I have mentioned *A BALROG* (singular) has been in
conjunction with Gandalf and Moria. When writing about Ungoliant I
have said *THE BALROGS* and *THEY*.
By your own logic:
Morgoth feared Ungoliant therefore Ungoliant > Morgoth
Ungoliant feared *THE BALROG_S_* therefore *THE BALROG_S_* >
Ungoliant.
If this is incorrect, please point out the error. The 'Melkor was a
coward' can be answered with 'so was Ungoliant', so those two
cancel out.
::Perhaps I'd better insert a rider here: Ungoliant may not have
::been part of Iluvatar's 'Plan' in the sense that all of her
::actions were preconceived and predestined, but I do think that
::Iluvatar's 'Plan' made allowance for such creatures and their
::activities.
>"Made allowance" is a very bad way of putting it. It casts
>Illuvatar in a lesser light, one, incidentally, more helpful to my
>point. Why. pray tell, would Illuvatar make allowances for
>anything?
OK, a for-instance. We have two fixed points; the creation of Ea
and the remaking of Arda. There are many possible ways to start at
one and achieve the other. 'Free will' is expressed by the path
chosen by an individual out of the myriads available, however the
end result will be the same. This very simplistic model is one way
of letting Iluvatar have overall control, give his creations free
will and make 'allowance' for their actions. This takes nothing
away from Iluvatar. This is not necessarily intended to represent
what I believe to be true, but to illustrate one possibility.
[snip]
The constant sniping is fast becoming wearisome.
>So let me get this straight; someone accuses you of fallacious
>logic and you in turn tell them they don't know what they're
>talking about (as opposed to, say, disproving them?) Constructive.
1. Sophistry is more than just using fallacious logic, as you are
well aware. I do not enjoy being labelled a deceiver.
2. Please point out any of my arguments which are _demonstrably_
fallacious, rather than just your opinion.
3. I have gone out of my way to back up what I can with many
references or quotes by way of constructive proof. Can you say the
same?
Tom
John Osborne <jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article: <47fc6b$9...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
>cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) writes:
>
>> In <169662...@kami.demon.co.uk> John Osborne
>> <jo...@kami.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>To try and cut down the length of quote-prompts :-
>
>> = James Devlin
>: = John O
::Again, I disagree. IMHO, the evil is in the intent, not
::necessarily the deeds or their outcome.
>>Have to disagree with you flat out there. I myself believe in a
>>universal/archetypal STANDARD of Good and Evil (call them whatever
>>you like), not a quasi-relativistic hodgepodge of intent, purpose,
>>or whatever you want to call it -- and I think (IMHO) that this
>>holds DOUBLY true for Tolkien's world, where the warring sides are
>>so clear-cut.
>So was Turin Good or Evil? He was certainly not on Morgoth's side,
>had no intention of doing evil, and yet most of his deeds turned
>out so. It must be wonderful to inhabit such a black-and-white
>Universe. Against what are these Standards of good and evil
>measured?
What about Feanor? I can't think of another character in which the line
between good and evil is so blurred.
>>Either Eru
>>knows EVERYTHING about Ea and its future, in which case Melkor
>>can't do evil and in fact there can be no evil, because no free
>>will; or he doesn't know everything, in which case it is well
>>possible that a creature out of the mind of Eru (Ungoliant) may be
>>able to exist.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get this. I don't understand why it's
assumed that only forces for good can be a part of the Song of
Illuvatar. I always believed that evil was part of Eru's plan. Or at
least it became part of the plan as it forced itself upon it. After all,
isn't one of the biggest lessons of TLOTR that evil can ultimately be a
force for good? I just don't think that 'evil' can be defined as
something which was or wasn't forseen. What can it possibly matter?
Tom
Lars Christensen
[snip]
: I *still* don't understand where Gandalf *dies*.
Check out The Two Towers, where Gandalf recounts his fight with the
Balrog (p. 524):
"Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time, and I
wandered far on roads that I will not tell. Naked I was sent back -
for a brief time, until my task is done."
That this was indeed his death is confirmed later, as he challenges
Saruman (p. 606):
"Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the
White, who has returned from death."
----
Lars Christensen
fl...@inet.uni-c.dk
Michael Richard SIMINSKI
>In <47ivs7$i...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez)
>writes:
>>
>>In article <47gtnh$s...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>> two...@ix.netcom.com (Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky ) wrote:
(SNIP)
>>>After his battle with Huan and Luthien- No more Werewolf
(SNIP)
>>I don't understand why you think Sauron could not again assume the form of a
>>wolf after Luthien and Huan defeated him. His body was not destroyed in
>>that battle.
> Well, according to the version in the Silmarillion, Luthien made
>him 'forsake his body' or some other term. Therefore, when he left his
>werewolf body, I think it probably "died", as his 'nice' body did
>during the destruction of Numenor.
(SNIP of rest of Michael's poster)
No, that is incorrect. Luthien threatened to make Sauron 'forsake his body'
unless he gave up the tower. This he did, so Huan let him go. Sauron was not
harmed or changed in any way, except for his fear of facing Morgoth after he
had lost the tower. That is why he turned himself into a bat and fled to the
Forest of Night.
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| MICHAEL SIMINSKI | "We may sail West, as far |
| rm...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au | as we will, yet come no |
| Dept of Mechanical Engineering | nearer to our dreams. |
| University of Wollongong | For these are far away, |
| New South Wales | and that is why they are |
| Australia | so beautiful." |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Michael Martinez
David McCanney <9504...@student.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky <two...@ix.netcom.com> wrote;
>
>> maybe evil Elves go to Mandos, but stay there for eternity, with no > hope
of rebirth. Or, maybe they get 'made good?' and eventually get > reborn.
>
>
>The length of this period is determined by how 'good' (for want of a
>better word) they have been.
All elves are *summoned* to Mandos, and only those who respond to the summons
are allowed to have a new body/birth. Those who refuse the summons remain in
Middle-earth as spirits.
>Elves who have sided themselves with Sauron and evil and have died are
>fated to wander Mandos' halls untill Morgoth re-enters the world - the
>End of the World.
Where is this stated?
>Incidently, concerning Saruman and Sauron, Saruman had no tie to ME (he
>wasn't as powerful as Sauron anyway) and his spirit fled back to Aman -
>where he wasn't really flavour of the month - when his body was killed.
Where is this stated? Saruman's spirit was blown into the east by a wind from
the west.
>After the ring was destroyed, Sauron's tie to ME was severed and he
>returned to Aman also. What happened to either of them after that, I have
>no idea.
Where is this written as well?
The Valar would not have welcomed evil Maiar among them, except perhaps to
punish them by imprisoning them in Mandos (as Morgoth) was, but Sauron refused
the summons to Valinor at the end of the First Age and the Valar never forced
him to return.
Charles J. Jones
>
>I always believed that evil was part of Eru's plan. Or at
>least it became part of the plan as it forced itself upon it. After
>all, isn't one of the biggest lessons of TLOTR that evil can
>ultimately be a force for good?
Indeed, in the story of the making of the Music it mentions that
the themes of Melkor were taken by the other singers and woven into
new strands to become a part of the whole. In this way it could not
overcome the themes of Eru, only contribute to them.
Sorry for the paraphrase, I don't keep my books at work ...
--
Charles J. Jones <Charle...@hp-loveland-om10.om.hp.com>
PGP Key ID = ABC80435
Loveland, Colorado, USA
"Not representing Aitch Pee in any way"
Feagil
> >>either.
>I don't agree with this.
>Admittedly it is strange that the Valar would permit other peoples onto
>Aman but the Hobbits and Dwarf that went, were either directly, (Frodo
>and Sam) or indirectly, (Gimli) resonsible for the destruction of
>*Morgoth's chief lieutenant* - an evil being more than 40,000 years old
>and extremely powerful. I would let them stay after doing that!
But the valar had no power to remove the gift of Eru to men, mortality
(The Half-Elven were a special case). So, while they were allowed into
valinor, they died anyway. Besides, Eonwe (I think) said that the
intensity of the spirits that dwell in valinor would cause mortals to
wither and die all the sooner.
PS Aren't the Ainur much older than 40,000?
Fea-gilceleb
Jeff Blanks
forever, either.
>
> I don't agree with this.
>
> Admittedly it is strange that the Valar would permit other peoples onto
> Aman but the Hobbits and Dwarf that went, were either directly, (Frodo
> and Sam) or indirectly, (Gimli) resonsible for the destruction of
> *Morgoth's chief lieutenant* - an evil being more than 40,000 years old
> and extremely powerful. I would let them stay after doing that!
JRRT says specifically in the Letters that the Valar can't take away the
Gift of Iluvatar (Death) from anybody, including Frodo et al. One of the
points Tolkien likes to make is that death isn't necessarily a bad thing.
What's in store for Frodo _eventually_ would probably be even better than
Valinor, in his opinion.
--
SHAMELESS PLUG AHEAD--E-mail me about my "contemporary instrumental"/Irish folk/art-rock LP, _The_Electric_Minstrel_, available for $10 postage paid.
Antti Rasinen
cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) wrote:
>What can I do, when you ignore all my evidence to the otherwise?
>GANDALF defeated a Balrog; Melkor FEARED Ungoliant; and I KNOW for a
>FACT that GANDALF could NOT have defeated said MORGOTH; so HOW can you
>posit that a Balrog could defeat UNGOLIANT???!!!!????!!!?!??!?!?!?
Mathematically you could say:
G > B
M <? U
G < M
Conclusions:
B << M
B < (<?) U.
But since we don't know if Melkor could have defeated Ungoliant,
he FEARED her. I don't like spiders either, but I could step on them,
if I wanted to. We don't even know how many Balrogs attacked
Ungoliant; if there were, say, 1000 Balrogs (I know, Tolkien planned
to reduce their numbers, but...), what could she do?
And in Tolkien's world 'strength' doesn't mean so much. A couple
of hobbits walked to Mt. Doom, and destroyed the One Ring
=> also 'killing' Sauron, who was MUCH greater than Frodo & Sam.
Ok, it's a bad example, but you can't just say that because
he feared this and she did that, that he's weaker than she.
--
===<Antti Rasinen>===<ras...@kontu.bbs.fi>========================
\ Drink blood. A billion mosquitos can not be wrong. /
\=======================================================<Raz>===/
@#$%!?!
Mathematically, dominance relations are not necessarily
transitive. There have been studies of nontransitive
pecking orders among chickens when taken two at time
and three at time.
Dominance is linear projection of complex and
multidimensional social factors. You should look for
transitivity in the pre-image.
Louis Epstein
: Incidently, concerning Saruman and Sauron, Saruman had no tie to ME (he
: wasn't as powerful as Sauron anyway) and his spirit fled back to Aman -
: where he wasn't really flavour of the month - when his body was killed.
Seems to me his spirit sought admission to Aman and was denied...
Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky
Oh well, my mistake... :(
-Stephen - two...@ix.netcom.com
Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky
writes:
>two...@ix.netcom.com (Louis, Linda, Alan & Stephen Belsky ) wrote:
>
>>Frodo, Sam,
>>and Gimli probably died sometime while in Valinor/Eressea(?) and
>>'passed on'. Even Beren couldn't stay in Valinor.
>>
>
>Not necessarily yet. They're probably still there. The world was
>changed since Beren, with Valinor being removed from the physically
>reachable world. Also, Frodo, Sam, and Gimli are all very special
>cases. Gimli is the first (probably only) dwarf ever to be allowed to
>reach the Undying Lands, and Frodo and Sam (and Bilbo) were
>Ringbearers.
>
>Yours, -Rick
>--
> / // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// /////////////////
> red...@pacificrim.net
> /////////////////// /////////////////////// / // /// ///// ///////
>
Yes, but for whatever reason, it seems that the only races not
subject to the Doom of 'Men' are the Elves and the Ents. (Hmm...is that
sure about Ents?) And since only Illuvatar can withhold the 'gift'
from Men, and from accounts in the Silmarillion, does not, there is no
reason why he would wthhold it from these specific people.
-Stephen - two...@ix.netcom.com
PS-Anyone know why Dwarves and Hobbits are subject to the Doom of
_Men_?
Michael Martinez
rm...@wumpus.cc.uow.edu.au (Michael Richard SIMINSKI) wrote:
>No, that is incorrect. Luthien threatened to make Sauron 'forsake his body'
>unless he gave up the tower. This he did, so Huan let him go. Sauron was not
>harmed or changed in any way, except for his fear of facing Morgoth after he
>had lost the tower. That is why he turned himself into a bat and fled to the
>Forest of Night.
Sauron was in fact wounded in the fight with Huan, as THE SILMARILLION says he
dripped blood as he fled (in vampire form) to Dorthonion. I quoted the
passage some time ago, so I suspect you'll will have seen that article by the
time you see this one.
Sauer, Alan Lewis
: In <47cvtm$3...@hp5.online.apple.com>, m.vi...@eworld.com (M.VIGNEAU) writes:
: >mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote
: >
: >abality to appear in a fair form,
: I remember that Sauron's body died, and his spirit, finally, eventually, made it
: to Middle Earth, where he created a new (unfair) body.
: If someone remembers better, please followup.
Okay. You're both kind of right. Sauron's body perished
in the Fall of Numenor, as he was sitting in the temple to
Morgoth. His _spirit_ arose from the wrack and returned
to Mordor, where he copped an idea from his late boss and
appeared as the dark Lord. I believe the _Silmarillion_
states that after that point he could no longer appear in
a fair semblance.
This brings up an interesting question. Are Sauron's bodies
"one-shot" deals? If embodying himself is merely an act of
will and power, as it seems to me, then why couldn't he
will himself back into the form of "Annatar" for example,
which he used on the elves of Eregion? Did he lose some of
his power along with his body?
===============================================================
Alan Sauer Lord Rabbit
"Hey, we aren't _all_ cute little fuzzy critters, ya know."
Michael Martinez
>Where did you see that only their bodies were destroyed ? I don't
>recall that Tolkien says somewhere that only their bodies were
>destroyed.
Unfortunately I have to look at the news groups through CompuServe
tonight and that means I can't take the time to look up the
appropriate references. Posting a long article through this
service is a nightmare anyway, as you have to get offline, write
your article in a text editor, and then upload the file in reply
to the right message (assuming you can find it again).
Very nasty business.
So, when the company news feed gets fixed, I hope to see your
article again and have a chance to reply. Otherwise, feel free to
email me.
--
++ ++ "Well, Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
Lars Christensen
[snip]
: This brings up an interesting question. Are Sauron's bodies
: "one-shot" deals? If embodying himself is merely an act of
: will and power, as it seems to me, then why couldn't he
: will himself back into the form of "Annatar" for example,
: which he used on the elves of Eregion? Did he lose some of
: his power along with his body?
Although a spirit can't be "killed" as such, Sauron needed to spend some
of his spirit to regenerate every time his physical body was destroyed.
E.g after the drowning of Numenor he lost the ability to assume a body
some one thousand years before he slowly began to take shape again (and
he wasn't even able to grow out the lost finger).
Hopefully he is now too weak to come back one more time.
----
Lars Christensen
fl...@inet.uni-c.dk
Lars Christensen
: Sauer, Alan Lewis (ALS...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu) wrote:
: [snip]
: : This brings up an interesting question. Are Sauron's bodies
: : "one-shot" deals? If embodying himself is merely an act of
: : will and power, as it seems to me, then why couldn't he
: : will himself back into the form of "Annatar" for example,
: : which he used on the elves of Eregion? Did he lose some of
: : his power along with his body?
: Although a spirit can't be "killed" as such, Sauron needed to spend some
: of his spirit to regenerate every time his physical body was destroyed.
: E.g after the drowning of Numenor he lost the ability to assume a body
oops, a line was missing here:
of fair form, and after his defeat at the end of the Second Age it took
: some one thousand years before he slowly began to take shape again (and
Jim Hobbs
> laughable,
> As are your arguments: I said _driven off_ not _destroyed_. If
Ungoliant was a Maia, nothing in Middle-earth could destroy her.
She was indeed vanquished by Balrogs.
I kind of like the "slain by Earandel" version myself....
James Devlin
>
>> I can't find a reference to Ungoliant being a Maia. Could you tell
>me where it says this?
>
>I wasn't the one who said that, but it is perhaps not a bad
supposition:
>
>"She descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor
>first looked down in envy on the Kingdom of Manwe" -- that's pretty
>early on -- "and that in the beginning she was one of those that he
>corrupted to his service." I guess it depends on your view of who
>was around to be corrupted when Melkor first looked down in envy.
But then we have in the Book of Lost Tales vol 1:
"...for here dwelt the _primevel_ spirit Moru whom even the Valar
know not whence or when she came....Mayhap she was bred of mists and
darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas....but more like she _has_
_always_ _been_.......whence still do the Noldoli speak of her as
Ungoliont...." p. 151-2, "The Theft of Melko". (italics mine)
Of course, TBoLT is a questionable source as it contains mainly very
early Tolkien material; but in this case perhaps not so questionable.
In Christopher Tolkien's commentary on the tale, he writes "a clear
explanation is in fact given: she was a being from 'before the world'"
(p. 160).
What exactly this means depends upon what he meant by 'world'. If
by world he meant _Arda_, the Earth, then the passage implies that she
was a Maiar (for she was definitely not a Valar, and the Maiar and
Valar together comprise the Ainur, from 'before the world'; aside from
them, the only other creature from before the world would be Illuvatar
himself). If however, by world he meant _Ea_ (which is the position I
take, for Arda is consistently linked with Earth while Ea seems to
imply the world that exists, and is in fact the Quenya imperative of
"to be". So, Ea representing all of creation, being separate only from
the void and the Timeless Halls, a creature from before Ea could NOT be
of the Ainur (and therefore not a Maiar) because the Ainur were
separate from the Void (whence Melkor went in search of the Flame
Imperishable) and waited not in the Timeless Halls.
My point: In my ever so humble opinion, Ungoliant was by no means a
Maiar, whether corrupted by Melkor or not.
jim
cur...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Martinez
> "...for here dwelt the _primevel_ spirit Moru whom even the Valar
>know not whence or when she came....Mayhap she was bred of mists and
>darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas....but more like she _has_
>_always_ _been_.......whence still do the Noldoli speak of her as
>Ungoliont...." p. 151-2, "The Theft of Melko". (italics mine)
>
>Of course, TBoLT is a questionable source as it contains mainly very
>early Tolkien material; but in this case perhaps not so questionable.
>In Christopher Tolkien's commentary on the tale, he writes "a clear
>explanation is in fact given: she was a being from 'before the world'"
>(p. 160).
As the entire passage was rewritten by Tolkien with a clearer definition of
what Ungoliant was, your quotation only serves to cloud the matter.
Why should something we know has been replaced by a later version be accepted
over the later version?
>"to be". So, Ea representing all of creation, being separate only from
>the void and the Timeless Halls, a creature from before Ea could NOT be
>of the Ainur (and therefore not a Maiar) because the Ainur were
>separate from the Void (whence Melkor went in search of the Flame
>Imperishable) and waited not in the Timeless Halls.
I agree with your definition of Ea, but I disgree with your conclusion about
Ungoliant, as the Ainur existed with Iluvatar in the Timeless Halls before he
made Ea. Ea was the realization of the vision he gave them, and the vision
was the interpretation of their music.
So, a creature from before Ea HAD to be of the Ainur, as nothing else had yet
been created.
Ungoliant was at least of the Ainur, though to have been of the Maiar should
would have to have entered Ea with the Valar, even with Melkor. That is not
clearly stated, but at some point she entered Ea.
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
Robert Shirley
> cur...@ix.netcom.com (James Devlin ) wrote:
> >But then we have in the Book of Lost Tales vol 1:
> > "...for here dwelt the _primevel_ spirit Moru whom even the Valar
> >know not whence or when she came....Mayhap she was bred of mists and
> >darkness on the confines of the Shadowy Seas....but more like she _has_
> >_always_ _been_.......whence still do the Noldoli speak of her as
> >Ungoliont...." p. 151-2, "The Theft of Melko". (italics mine)
> >
> >Of course, TBoLT is a questionable source as it contains mainly very
> >early Tolkien material; but in this case perhaps not so questionable.
> >In Christopher Tolkien's commentary on the tale, he writes "a clear
> >explanation is in fact given: she was a being from 'before the world'"
> >(p. 160).
>
> As the entire passage was rewritten by Tolkien with a clearer definition of
> what Ungoliant was, your quotation only serves to cloud the matter.
>
> Why should something we know has been replaced by a later version be accepted
> over the later version?
>
Now, I'm curious. Just what is your stance on canonical vs. non-
canonical works and of what value is quoting ideas and thoughts
from non-canonical sources in any argument that is trying to
establish a definitive interpretation? There seems to be a bit
of selective use and convenience in some of the arguments I've
been reading. This is not an attack - just curious.
> >"to be". So, Ea representing all of creation, being separate only from
> >the void and the Timeless Halls, a creature from before Ea could NOT be
> >of the Ainur (and therefore not a Maiar) because the Ainur were
> >separate from the Void (whence Melkor went in search of the Flame
> >Imperishable) and waited not in the Timeless Halls.
>
> I agree with your definition of Ea, but I disgree with your conclusion about
> Ungoliant, as the Ainur existed with Iluvatar in the Timeless Halls before he
> made Ea. Ea was the realization of the vision he gave them, and the vision
> was the interpretation of their music.
>
> So, a creature from before Ea HAD to be of the Ainur, as nothing else had yet
> been created.
>
Maybe Melkor missed a note on his discordant theme - and out popped
Ungoliant. Hey, that would mean Melkor is her dad - kind of? <G>