Why didn't the Nazgul (Ring wraiths) kill them?
Steuard Jensen
> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> purpose)?
As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
was just a parting blow as they fled.
2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
breaking off their attack.
3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
nine present) was overly risky.
4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
give the others the slip, with the Ring.
The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense. It just
seems unreasonable that they would not have been able to kill off all
of the defenders with little risk. On the other hand, considering the
value of the Ring, I would suggest that even if four of the five were
somehow killed before the defenders were slain, they would still come
out ahead. The only conclusions that I can draw are that the Nazgul
were, in this case at least, either nervous or lazy. Neither of these
seems sensible.
I have, for the moment at least, pushed this issue into my
"background-to-be-mulled-over" category; no resolution has yet
suggested itself. Perhaps the Nazgul simply made a substantial
miscalculation...
Steuard Jensen
Nicholas Costa
>1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
>was just a parting blow as they fled.
>2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
>without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
>breaking off their attack.
>3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
>nine present) was overly risky.
>4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
>5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
>give the others the slip, with the Ring.
>
>The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
>but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense
The last possibility is likely, the Nazgul may not be permitted / wont to
touch the ring being Dark already. it may have been felt that the WK or any
of the others may have been seduced by it.
this means that the present ring bearer would be kept and made to go to
Sauron himself and give him the ring. As far as I know this is not supported
by any text be thought is the tool of the gods so...
one other suggestion is that knowing the power of the ring the Nazgul was
screed of IT thinking when Frodo put it on he know how it would work.
My 2 cents
Nick C=}
M Phillips
Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
>Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
>> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
>> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
>I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
>Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness at this
point is that the story's development would be seriously hampered by the
death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery of the Ring by Sauron,
and his triumph. In other words, it's a dramatic device, not to be taken so
seriously.
Out of interest, if the Nazgul Lord did kill Frodo and take the Ring, would
the Ring's influence make him think that he could rule the world? - it had
this effect on Gollum,a nd Galadriel and Gandalf both feared it would affect
them in this way. If the Ring was trying to find it's way back to Sauron,
why didn't it just influence the Ring-bearers directly to do that.
Martin
Gwydion
> The last possibility is likely, the Nazgul may not be permitted / wont to
> touch the ring being Dark already. it may have been felt that the WK or any
> of the others may have been seduced by it.
> this means that the present ring bearer would be kept and made to go to
> Sauron himself and give him the ring.
This pov is supported both by Gandalf in
chapter II of book I, and also by the WK
at the Ford crossing into Rivendell.
cHris
Mark Myers
> >was just a parting blow as they fled.
Well I think it certainly put them off a bit.
> >2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> >without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> >breaking off their attack.
Not IMO.
> >3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> >nine present) was overly risky.
I definitely got this impression from the text (although don't have it to
hand, so can't site - possibly something Gandalf said afterwards in
Rivendell?)
> >4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
Not IMO.
> >5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> >give the others the slip, with the Ring.
> >
Possibly, more likely a combination of all three.
> >The last possibility is the one most clearly supported by the text,
> >but _none_ of these possibilities makes that much sense
then Nicholas Costa wrote ...
> The last possibility is likely, [snip]
>
> one other suggestion is that knowing the power of the ring the Nazgul was
> screed of IT thinking when Frodo put it on he know how it would work.
>
But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
differently.
--
Regards
Mark Myers
jahdzia at iname dot com
Daniel Hildebrandt
> Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
> >Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> >> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> >> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
>
> >I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> >Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
>
> Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness at this
> point is that the story's development would be seriously hampered by the
> death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery of the Ring by Sauron,
> and his triumph. In other words, it's a dramatic device, not to be taken so
> seriously.
Acknowledged, but... These groups rarely want to accept that TH and LOTR are
simply literature, and a valid explanation for everything that happens in the
books is a great comfort. Mind you, I'm not knocking that point of view - I
myself get very involved in the universe of Tolkien. Now let the flames
begin...
Actually, the above nitpicking aside; Isn't there a place in the books (I'm at
work and can't look it up) where it is stated that the nine don't have their
full power when separated? Maybe not, but I've always had the impression that
only together, all nine at once, do they have really awesome power...
--
Hildy
My PID is Inigo Montoya. You kill -9ed my PPID. Prepare to vi.
Margaret Dean
>
> M Phillips wrote:
>
> > Steuard Jensen wrote in message ...
> > >Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > >> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> > >> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
> >
> > >I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at
> > >wounding Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone
> > >else, too.
> >
> > Methinks that the best explanation for the Nazgul's seeming weakness
> > at this point is that the story's development would be seriously
> > hampered by the death of the King and the Ring-bearer, the recovery
> > of the Ring by Sauron, and his triumph. In other words, it's a
> > dramatic device, not to be taken so seriously.
>
> Acknowledged, but... These groups rarely want to accept that TH and
> LOTR are simply literature, and a valid explanation for everything that
> happens in the books is a great comfort. Mind you, I'm not knocking
> that point of view - I myself get very involved in the universe of
> Tolkien. Now let the flames begin...
The problem is that even if you look at LotR from the literary point of
view, it's the sign of a careless (or at least less than perfect) author
that he has to rely on auctorial fiat ("It happens this way because =I
say so!=") to make the story come out right. And none of us want to
believe that Tolkien was careless. :)
I'd go for the nervous-Nazgul explanation myself.
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@erols.com>
Nicholas Costa
>
>But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
>on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
>it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
>think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
>the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
>differently.
>
>--
>Regards
>
>Mark Myers
>jahdzia at iname dot com
Do they know how powerful a Hobbit is??
I thought that one of the points of the LOTR was that the Hobbit was little
known, also if you were fighting The Ring and it was put on by an unknown
quantity then I would be as frightened of The Ring fighting back at the wont
of the bearer (or it's self) as I was of Frodo having full control. I feel
that the ring has a self-awareness even if it has know intelligence. this is
shown by the ability of The Ring to 'control' it's owner.
All this aside I saw The Ring as the force that made Frodo put it on not the
fear of the Nazgul. this betrayal seems more in the character of The Ring.
Nick C=}
Nigel
Steuard Jensen wrote:
Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> purpose)?
The wraiths didn't want to touch the property of their master. It might be that for a wraith even to touch the One Ring would be seen as a challenge to the sovereignty of Sauron, their boss. It might also be that the other wraiths wouldn't trust or work with the one who carried the Ring, in case the bearer put on the Ring and commanded the rest of the nine through it. It could also have been that there would have been some sort of magical / spiritual conflict arising from having one of the nine and the One in so close a spacial proximity ( a sort of critical mass effect ? ).
In any case, the wraiths wanted to take Frodo and the Ring back to Mordor, as evidenced by what they said at the battle at the ford of Rivendell. It might have been that they wanted to use Frodo as the vessel for moving the Ring about, or possibly just because Sauron wanted revenge ( another likely option I think ).
Mark Myers
>
>
> >MM wrote...
> >But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
> >on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
> >it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
> >think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
> >the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
> >differently.
> >
>
Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
> I thought that one of the points of the LOTR was that the Hobbit was little
> known, also if you were fighting The Ring and it was put on by an unknown
> quantity then I would be as frightened of The Ring fighting back at the wont
> of the bearer (or it's self) as I was of Frodo having full control. I feel
> that the ring has a self-awareness even if it has know intelligence. this is
> shown by the ability of The Ring to 'control' it's owner.
> All this aside I saw The Ring as the force that made Frodo put it on not the
> fear of the Nazgul. this betrayal seems more in the character of The Ring.
> Nick C=}
>
I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
even in the Shire.
Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
not worthy of their fear.
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> > attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them? It
> > is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> > himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> > pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> > five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> > not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> > purpose)?
>
> As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
> Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
> servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
> attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
> regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
> around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
>
> I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
> In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
>
> 1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
> was just a parting blow as they fled.
The name of Elbereth did put them off somewhat, although we can't say how
much influence it was. Personally I think that the power was great. Almost
everywhere in the book, where the name of Elbereth is used, it has
significant influence on the events.
Aragorn: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.”
I always saw this as the prime reason they backed of.
> 2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> breaking off their attack.
> 3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> nine present) was overly risky.
> 4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
> 5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> give the others the slip, with the Ring.
Aragorn, just after the attack: ”They are only waiting, because they think
that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly
much further."
Add to this that in Gandalf's opinion many strong men would have succumbed
within day, whereas Frodo carried the point for 2 weeks.
<snip>
We have to consider two different situations:
1) why did thay back off at Weathertop?
2) why did they not attack again?
As for 2) I think it is quite plain, that they saw no reason to attack.
Frodo was doomed within days and they were not themselves in full power.
And they had trouble finding Aragorn, Frodo etc.
But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
And, lastly, remember: though they are terrible, their chief weapon is
fear and they can be killed. And they know it.
I don't see the situation as that incomprehensible, but Frodo *was* very
lucky, that they did not return.
Regards,
Kristian
Mark Wells
wrote:
>Nicholas Costa wrote ...
>>
>>
>> >MM wrote...
>> >But it was the presence of the Nazgul that drove Frodo to put the Ring
>> >on, against his will. It made him 'visible' to them. If they made him put
>> >it on in the first place why would they then be scared of him? I don't
>> >think they ever considered that a mere hobbit would be able to control
>> >the power of the One Ring. If Aragorn had put it on, they might have felt
>> >differently.
>> >
>>
>> Do they know how powerful a Hobbit is??
>
>Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
I think Mr. Costa's point here was that they didn't know what to think
of Frodo. They didn't know what he was or what he could do with that
Ring. They chase these little short guys all over the Old Forest, and
they finally catch them and find that one of them is walking around
with the One Ring and an enchanted sword and a Numenorean warrior as
backup.
>I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
>it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
>their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
>Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
>even in the Shire.
I think fear was a major factor also. He saw the Nazgul and he
panicked and put on the Ring because he didn't know what else to do
about them.
>Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
>thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
>not worthy of their fear.
But they had no reason to think he wasn't powerful. The only Hobbit
Sauron had met (up to this point) was Gollum, who was too messed up to
be an accurate indicator of Hobbits in general. (Bilbo didn't even
know he *was* a Hobbit, and I doubt Sauron knew either.) The way the
Nazgul severely underestimated Frodo was in stabbing him with a
Morgul-knife and then leaving, expecting him to fade out of the
physical world and bring them the Ring within a few hours.
That doesn't mean they underestimated his power. If they tried that
with a much more powerful opponent, such as Aragorn, it would have
worked perfectly. (Note that they got out of there before Frodo could
inflict any serious injury on them with that nasty sword of his.)
What they underestimated was his amazing resistance to their weapons.
Ignacio and Stephanie Diaz
bearer, whoever that might be)?? They are prevented from killing the bearer
outright, but are allowed to disable him and bring him to Sauron? Of
course, this doesn't explain why they don't kill Strider and the other
Hobbits. Hmm...
Stephanie Diaz
rabb...@my-dejanews.com
perhaps it was because they didn't really see Strider and the other hobbits.
What I mean by that is perhaps they were so focused on Frodo as the Bearer
that they paid no mind to the others. The others were of no consequence to
them.
*Rabbyt the Elf-Queen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Myers
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:33:12 -0000, spam...@see.sig (Mark Myers)
> wrote:
>
> >Nicholas Costa wrote ...
> >
> >Exactly. They underestimated Frodo's power, so to them he wasn't scary.
>
> I think Mr. Costa's point here was that they didn't know what to think
> of Frodo. They didn't know what he was or what he could do with that
> Ring. They chase these little short guys all over the Old Forest, and
> they finally catch them and find that one of them is walking around
> with the One Ring and an enchanted sword and a Numenorean warrior as
> backup.
>
Um, I think they knew exactly what they were looking for. What I am
arguing is that they were prejudiced. They were used to being powerful,
and instilling fear, and did not expect to be opposed. When they were it
took them aback.
> >I didn't say fear. Yes, it was the Ring, but the Ring drove Frodo to put
> >it on _because_ the Nazgul were there, so that he would transfer into
> >their world. So it was a combination of the Ring's malice and the
> >Nazgul's presence. He felt this urge every time the Nazgul were near,
> >even in the Shire.
>
> I think fear was a major factor also. He saw the Nazgul and he
> panicked and put on the Ring because he didn't know what else to do
> about them.
>
In the earlier argument it is probable that we are talking about the same
things really, but I have to disagree here. Putting on the ring was the
worst thing Frodo could do, and he knew it. He didn't panic, he
succumbed.
> >Also, little known is not the same as unknown. Anyway the Nazgul probably
> >thought Frodo to be of little power, unable to control the One, and so
> >not worthy of their fear.
>
> But they had no reason to think he wasn't powerful. [snip]
Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
I would suggest that this theme of the powerful underestimating the
little people runs right through LOTR. Let's face it, if Sauron had
covered his arse rather than make sweeping assumptions about the
opposition he would have won easily.
Nicholas Costa
>little people runs right through LOTR.
Was this not one of the major themes and the point of the story?
Robert S. Coren
Mark Myers <spam...@see.sig> wrote:
>
>Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
>i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
>went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
>shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
You may be right, but I question whether he "underestimated" Merry. I
think he just didn't see him.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"There is altogether too much searching for meaning in this
world. Who understands a buttercup?" --Walt Kelly
F@ C@
-Maybe they didn't truly regard him as a threat, and once they smote Frodo,
their job was complete.
-They may well have slew Aragorn if they had known his lineage, but it
seemed that sparing them revealed their true purpose: they sought the
ring-bearer ONLY.
-They do indeed, as many have suggested, rely more on their terrifying
reputation, if you will, and DID know of his lineage and were scared of HIM.
Any thoughts?
Ignacio and Stephanie Diaz wrote in message
<7d48ei$o5u$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>Perhaps it's because they are slaves, ultimately, to the ring (and its
>bearer, whoever that might be)?? They are prevented from killing the
bearer
>outright, but are allowed to disable him and bring him to Sauron? Of
>course, this doesn't explain why they don't kill Strider and the other
>Hobbits. Hmm...
>
>Stephanie Diaz
>
>
Muse
>Steuard Jensen wrote:
>> Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
>> > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
>> > attacked the hobbits and Aragorn while camping, not defeat them?
For the same reason that Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius in the first
act: the story would have ended not even halfway through the first
volume, that's why. :)
Laurie Forbes
news:36F25083...@capgemini.dk...
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
> > Quoth "F@ C@" <pauls...@minerva.com.au>:
> > > Why did the Nazgul (Chapter: A Knife in the Dark') when they
> > > is stated that they are at their strongest at night, and Gandalf
> > > himself states that even The Wise at their strongest, would be hard
> > > pressed to stand openly against the Nine. So why, when there are
> > > five of them,at night, against one human and four hobbits, do they
> > > not slay the Ring Bearer and attain the ring (as is their sole
> > > purpose)?
> > As far as I have seen, this remains one of the Great Mysteries of
> > Middle-earth. As you point out, the Nazgul were Sauron's most deadly
> > servants, particularly at night. The fireworks when Gandalf was
> > attacked on Weathertop indicate the intensity of that conflict,
> > regardless of which side was actually throwing the fire and lightning
> > around. They also had an overwhelming preponderance of simple force.
> >
> > I have yet to hear a good explanation for why they stopped at wounding
> > Frodo rather than killing (or at least wounding) everyone else, too.
> > In fact, I can think of very few reasonable explanations:
> >
> > 1) They _really_ don't like the name Elbereth, and the Morgul knife
> > was just a parting blow as they fled.
Kristian Damm Jensen:
> The name of Elbereth did put them off somewhat, although we can't say how
> much influence it was. Personally I think that the power was great. Almost
> everywhere in the book, where the name of Elbereth is used, it has
> significant influence on the events.
>
> Aragorn: "More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
> I always saw this as the prime reason they backed of.
>
Steuard:
> > 2) It had been so long since even one person stood against them
> > without fear that Aragorn alone was able to disconcert them into
> > breaking off their attack.
> > 3) They felt that a full attack with less than full strength (i.e. all
> > nine present) was overly risky.
> > 4) They recognized the barrow blades and got nervous.
> > 5) They expected Frodo to quickly succumb to his wound and immediately
> > give the others the slip, with the Ring.
>
Kristian:
> Aragorn, just after the attack: "They are only waiting, because they think
> that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly
> much further."
>
> Add to this that in Gandalf's opinion many strong men would have succumbed
> within day, whereas Frodo carried the point for 2 weeks.
>
> <snip>
>
> We have to consider two different situations:
> 1) why did thay back off at Weathertop?
> 2) why did they not attack again?
>
> As for 2) I think it is quite plain, that they saw no reason to attack.
> Frodo was doomed within days and they were not themselves in full power.
> And they had trouble finding Aragorn, Frodo etc.
>
> But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
> And, lastly, remember: though they are terrible, their chief weapon is
> fear and they can be killed. And they know it.
>
> I don't see the situation as that incomprehensible, but Frodo *was* very
> lucky, that they did not return.
>
> Regards,
> Kristian
>
I've come to think of the behavior of the Ringwraiths at Weathertop as a
combination of all of the factors everyone has mentioned. My top picks are:
an inability to perceive the "world of light" effectively, their counting on
Frodo's succumbing swiftly to his wound, and fire.
I don't interpret "world of light" to be limited to just when the sun is
up - rather, I see it as the whole operating system (day, night, seasons,
all living things). The wraiths may have felt a little more at home in the
dark, but I don't believe this would have made those of us on "this side"
that much more visible to them. I think instead that our tendency to be more
apprehensive and fearful in "our" dark may have worked to their advantage in
other situations. Regarding "fear" itself, though, this seems to have been
a "hit or miss" weapon for them depending upon whom they were trying to
intimidate - at least after they started dealing with hobbits. The
gatekeeper was clearly incontinent, but the gaffer and Farmer Maggot
displayed their fear and alarm as resistance, not cowering and abject
terror.
I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
This, then, made me wonder about Aragorn's "fire" information. At the Ford
it clearly scared the horses, but the wraiths? Then Gandalf tells Frodo
that the wraiths were dismayed by a combination of the sight of Glorfindel,
by the water and by the fire. So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent"
list.
--
Laurie Forbes
Adam Barnard
> So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
Is that a new Raid product? :)
Laurie Forbes
news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>
>
>
Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
Enterprises is crying "foul"!
Graham Lockwood
wrote:
>Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
>> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
>Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
>are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your body and then
you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
Stian Lomnes
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
>>> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
>>>
>>> > So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
>>>
>>> Is that a new Raid product? :)
>>>
>>Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
>>Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
>>are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
>>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
>Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your body and then
>you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
>
You *will* probabbly have to worry about some serious burns,
though.....:))
Stian
Adam Barnard
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes"
> <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> >> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> >>
> >> > So "fire" goes back on my "Wraith Repellent" list.
> >>
> >> Is that a new Raid product? :)
> >>
> >Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
> Woods
> >Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
> and
> >are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
> they're
> >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>
> >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
> Wraith-away. I like that. So do you just spray this fire on your
> body and then
> you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
Pretty much. They're testing it on lab rats right now. They just can
seem to figure how to fix the problem of charred corpses being all that
remains when the repellant wears off. :)
Kazul
"Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> >
> >
> >
> Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep Woods
> Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in and
> are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think they're
> Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
>
Hmm, yes, I read about that in the "Morning Flame" (Dragon gossip paper.
(quote: "If you want the inside scoop on life as we know it, read the "Morning
Flame"! It sizzles!" unquote)) It appears that Angmar Ent. is filing a suit
against Raid for "purposeful discrimation against Angmar workers" and "1st
degree attempted murder of Angmar Nazgul(tm)". Raid is yet to reply.
In related news, there was a fire at the "Woodsman" company; police have no
leads, as it *appears* that the fire started in a room filled with locked
files with the header "Angmar Deal". "Fire-Breather Times" believes that
this fire has something to do with the friendliness between Angmar and
Woodman. . . and also, the fact that "Wraith-dope" appears to work only on
*Elvish* wraiths.
Also, the "Daily Draco" reports that the Mentos company is considering coming
out with a "Hobbit-Spray" which temporarly blinds the litl' buggers. Rumour
has it that Angmar and Mentos are planning a merger to boast both companies
falling stocks.
-Kazul the sky-blue floating dragon, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Check out my brainchild, TEUNC, at
http://www.egroups.com/list/teunc/info.html and my article and cartoon
at http://members.xoom.com/Naskha/ !!!!
Laurie Forbes
> Graham Lockwood wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:23:22 -0500, "Laurie Forbes"
> > <rfor...@maine.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > >> Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
> > Woods
> > >Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
> > and
> > >are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
> > they're
> > >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >
> > >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> > body and then
> > you don't have to worry about wraiths any more?
>
> Pretty much. They're testing it on lab rats right now. They just can
> seem to figure how to fix the problem of charred corpses being all that
> remains when the repellant wears off. :)
>
third-degree burns, eh? Well, I'm happy to announce that the Product
Development Department is also testing scent-based repellents. A few
promising entries:
"Eau D'Orc", "Ent-ssence", "It's Amor-ia!" and "Balrog #5"
Laurie Forbes
news:7d99b8$qbq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <hnOJ2.1743$6d6....@newsr2.maine.rr.com>,
> "Laurie Forbes" <rfor...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:36F7A6FF...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > > Laurie Forbes wrote:<BIIIIIIIG Schnip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, according to my sources. I have it on good authority that "Deep
Woods
> > Off" didn't work at all for Frodo, so the Raid people have stepped in
and
> > are in direct competition with "Woodsman's Wraith Dope". I think
they're
> > Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> >
>
> In related news, there was a fire at the "Woodsman" company; police have
no
> leads, as it *appears* that the fire started in a room filled with locked
> files with the header "Angmar Deal". "Fire-Breather Times" believes that
> this fire has something to do with the friendliness between Angmar and
> Woodman. . . and also, the fact that "Wraith-dope" appears to work only on
> *Elvish* wraiths.
>
> Also, the "Daily Draco" reports that the Mentos company is considering
coming
> out with a "Hobbit-Spray" which temporarly blinds the litl' buggers.
Rumour
> has it that Angmar and Mentos are planning a merger to boast both
companies
> falling stocks.
>
> -Kazul the sky-blue floating dragon, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Damned tabloids! Next we'll be reading that Celebrían was really abducted
by space aliens and Arwen is their love-child or that Gandalf and Tom
Bombadil have been secretly doctoring up the pipeweed and Goldberry is an
undercover cop. -- Laurie Forbes
PS Are "Mentos" that baton-sized roll of peppermints? If so, I think we're
looking at a hostile takeover. Cut the staff by at least 20%, golden
parachutes for the principals, no bonuses for 1999 or 2000, productivity
dips then recovers and Ang-Ments is on its way!
badg...@tcac.net
>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
How about "Wight Flight"?
Graham Lockwood
Would that be piloted by the Wight Bwothers?
Iskandar Taib
Robert S. Coren <co...@spdcc.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.11605c9f1...@news.netforce.net>,
>Mark Myers <spam...@see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>Indeed, completely true. But I think they were prejudiced in this matter,
>>i.e. they had an opinion for no good reason. That the morgul lord then
>>went on to underestimate Merry in the final battle, even after Frodo had
>>shown his mettle, seems to prove this (at least to me).
>
>You may be right, but I question whether he "underestimated" Merry. I
>think he just didn't see him.
I suspect they suffer from tunnel vision of sorts (not that their
senses are "normal", to begin with). They don't perceive the
insignificant.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Laurie Forbes
<badg...@tcac.net> wrote in message news:36f88bd2...@news.tcac.net...
> >I think they're
> >going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgūl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >Enterprises is crying "foul"!
>
> How about "Wight Flight"?
>
Very good! We've added it to our air-freshener line, along with
Barr-O-San. Don't read the next note; I'll take care of that - just a small
problem with the staff.
--
Laurie Forbes
Laurie Forbes
news:36f8651...@news.fsu.edu...> >>I think they're
> >>going to call it "Wraith-Away" or "Nazgűl-Be-Gone". Of course, Angmar
> >>Enterprises is crying "foul"!
> >
> >How about "Wight Flight"?
>
>
Mark Burlison
> I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
> about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
> initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
> Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
> is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 8 | Tinky Winky Vs. Jerry Falwell
http://come.to/World2World | A new caption competition
Laurie Forbes
news:36FD4D96...@pmail.net...
> SNIP
>
> > I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our
information
> > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
had
> > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's
striking
> > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken
again. Or
> > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
>
> able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
>
> Mark
>
Good point. And this weaves back in nicely with our discussions of the
types of behavior the Nazgūl were and weren't used to: weakness as betrayed
by cringing, grovelling fear, or strength as displayed by courageous
resistance (strong voice, determined actions and demeanor). Frodo's weakness
at the Ford was still more physical than spiritual, but the Wraiths may not
have known - or cared about - the difference.
--
Laurie Forbes
Ron Barber
Ron B.
Mark Burlison wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our information
> > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I had
> > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > Weathertop. However, at the Ford, the name "Elbereth" doesn't seem to
> > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's striking
> > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken again. Or
> > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
>
> At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
> able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
>
> Mark
>
VORAVOR
Guessing from the state of utter hatred the wraiths must subsist in (hatred and
loathing of their slave-master, Sauron), I would judge their hate to be intense
enough to cause the Dark Lord some pause before giving the order, for example,
"kill the ringbearer and bring the One to me in Mordor immediately". Even some
hesitation to order "enslave the Ringbearer, take the Ring and bring both to
me." I don't think the Sauron-nazgul relationship is one built upon trust. It
wass built on fear and dominance of one evil will overanotherl. These
creatures were not "ordinary" mortal men in their lives: they were kings,
conquerers, mages, real estate agents, in other words, they had accumulated
some measure of potency and "will" on their own before being "given" one of the
Nine. I don't think their "resistance" to Sauron's dominance ever ended, even
in the end.
How tight was Sauron's hold on the nazgul? I think the Weathertop incident is
very suggestive of this relationship. Their relationship is built around the
historical perspective of treachery, and their memories were long. Sauron would
not risk putting the One in the hand of the Witch-King, or his lieutenant, or
whomever. Not for an instance. Not in Sauron's deepest nightmares. Don't ever
think of Sauron and his servants as "allies" in the sense that Edoras or
Imrahil was allied to the White Tower. The Witch-King himself was powerful
enough to challenge Gandalf (the White!), or at least he thought so at the
time. Remember Gandalf the Grey's words: "Do not tempt me!" Who knows what the
"personality" of this being was before he succumbed to one of the Nine Rings?
It may have been akin to Anakin Skywalker, for example. I don't think this
analogy is silly, it may even be instructive.
Also, might the Ring itself have had different plans? Might it not have deemed
the path to Mordor thru Frodo& the Fellowship (and I personally ascribe to the
Ring a kind of malevalent intent, or sentience, or foresight) to be shorter and
more certain than jumping into the hand of the Witch-King? I think that the
nazgul's chief weapon is not steel, but fear and persuasion to succumb to
"fall" from "grace" so to speak, and have their opponent's choose to do evil.
It seems more likely to me that they were "enabling" Frodo to do just that, to
"fall" into a state of submission to their will. Having said this, I also
believe that the Witch-King would have desired nothing more than to seize the
Ring at this point and destroy Aragorn first (remember the rivalry with
whats-his-name, the last King of Gondor)and then go after Sauron. He would
never have succeeded.
What was Frodo's "control" over the One at this point? The story suggests that
Frodo's resistance to succumbing to the Morgul blade helped him to grow in
wisdom, such that he could, only months later, perceive one of the Three on
Galadriel's hand. He had bourn the Ring many years (I forget how many). It
certainly had power over him, and eventually conquered him utterly. As it would
anyone, besides Sauron. Even Gandalf. Even the Witch-King. Might not the latter
have been thinking something like,"no way the One will conquer me (pride,
hubris, etc). If I get this thing, I will roast Sauron" such that he might
ascribe such aspirations of poweras well as the power itself to any that had
bourn the Ring for so long (like Frodo). I don't think it was trepidation or
fear of unknowns that stayed the death-blow. I think it was very clear in the
nazgul's mind that Frodo was extremely evil,"like them", and an enemy, or even
a rival.
Finally, I think all of the posts have failed to properly judge the power of
Aragorn himself, and the "will" or presence he had in the minds of the nazgul.
A more material opponent to the abduction of the Ringbearer, whose "power" so
to speak probably had an effect on the Enemy and its servants that was at least
analogous to the fear that the nazgul wielded. Also, Aragorn was no normal
Numenorean even at his worst: he was THE King, the true triumphant "hero" of
the entire LOTR saga. It is not inconceivable in my thinking that Aragorn could
have driven ALL Nine away, even at night. If the Ringbearer, for example, was
in control of the Heir of Isildur, who bore Elendil's sword, etc., what might
the combined clout of the Ring and Aragorn do to the aggressive intentions of
the wraiths?
And don't forget, Gandalf was, in their minds, still in the neighborhood, and
still a very real threat.. And Glorfindel was coming...
vora
hoping to be cast as eowyn...
James Kuyper
>
> What were Sauron's actual "orders" to the nazgul, anyway? Who really knows?
> Guessing from the state of utter hatred the wraiths must subsist in (hatred and
> loathing of their slave-master, Sauron), I would judge their hate to be intense
> enough to cause the Dark Lord some pause before giving the order, for example,
> "kill the ringbearer and bring the One to me in Mordor immediately". Even some
> hesitation to order "enslave the Ringbearer, take the Ring and bring both to
> me." I don't think the Sauron-nazgul relationship is one built upon trust. It
> wass built on fear and dominance of one evil will overanotherl. These
> creatures were not "ordinary" mortal men in their lives: they were kings,
> conquerers, mages, real estate agents, in other words, they had accumulated
> some measure of potency and "will" on their own before being "given" one of the
> Nine. I don't think their "resistance" to Sauron's dominance ever ended, even
> in the end.
If Sauron had any doubt about the Nazgul following his orders, do you
think he would have sent them after the Ring? I think that either his
domination over them, or their loyalty to him, was absolute. "loyalty"
you say? Yes - evil is quite capable of forming ties of loyalty. In
fact, it's fairly common for people to commit evil toward one group of
people, out of loyalty to another person or group.
Robert S. Coren
VORAVOR <vor...@aol.com> wrote:
>What were Sauron's actual "orders" to the nazgul, anyway? Who really knows?
>Guessing from the state of utter hatred the wraiths must subsist in (hatred and
>loathing of their slave-master, Sauron), I would judge their hate to be intense
>enough to cause the Dark Lord some pause before giving the order, for example,
>"kill the ringbearer and bring the One to me in Mordor immediately". Even some
>hesitation to order "enslave the Ringbearer, take the Ring and bring both to
>me." I don't think the Sauron-nazgul relationship is one built upon trust. It
>wass built on fear and dominance of one evil will overanotherl. These
>creatures were not "ordinary" mortal men in their lives: they were kings,
>conquerers, mages, real estate agents, in other words, they had accumulated
>some measure of potency and "will" on their own before being "given" one of the
>Nine. I don't think their "resistance" to Sauron's dominance ever ended, even
>in the end.
This is an interesting view, but there's no written evidence in its
favor, and quite a bit against it, both in _Unfinished Tales_ and in
JRRT's letters. The latter indicate in a few places (I don't have a
copy to cite) that the Nazgûl were wholly subservient to Sauron's
will, and that rebellion would not have been possible -- indeed, it
would not even occur to them.
Gandalf describes them as "shadows under his great Shadow"; I think
it's accurate to say that, fundamentally, they have no will of their
own left.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"When angry, count four; when very angry, swear." -- Mark Twain
Brian E. Clark
> Our information about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire
> comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
> best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
I find myself part of a small minority. :) Even the first
time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgûl.
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is
seldom a mistake. -- H. L. Mencken
Michael Martinez
>Mark Burlison <thismarkdo...@pmail.net> wrote,
>
>> Our information about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire
>> comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
>> best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
>
>time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
>him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
>emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgûl.
Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
VORAVOR
would rebel or had the power to break their thralldom. I was making a comment
on the psychology behind Sauron's administration of his most powerful slaves. I
think it likely that Sauron's first political inclination was to be paranoid
of potential rivals to his power, and where the One Ring is concerned to be
psychotic, as in the case of his fear of it falling into the hands of the White
Tower or Saruman, or even Gandalf the White. It was this fear that forced his
hand and so he began the War of the Ring too soon. His policy toward Gondor was
over the top aggressive, more than he needed to be. He could have easily waged
this campaign with a small escalation. A war of attrition suggests a patient,
biding intelligence with a clear judgement of your opponent's strengths and
weaknesses. This was not a war of attrition. It was the action of someone
panicking in his doubt. Sauron was constantly gnawed by doubt and fear. Like I
said, I believe it was not trust that was the subtext in the Sauron-nazgul
relationship, but fear.
Also, the nazgul do show that they possess some measure of independent
judgement throughout FOTR, despite Gandalf's view. I don't view them as "pawns"
or simple "end-users" of Sauron's power extending, say, like an evil server or
a network into Eriador to control their every deed or thought. I think they are
in fact slaves, but very powerful ones with some capacity to evaluate a
situation and act independently according to what they think is appropriate.
This ability is commensorate with their stature and leadership abilities as
humans.
I am not suggesting that they call upon specific experiences or scenarios from
their temporal lives. Do they "think" about or remember their human lives? Like
the Mouth of Sauron, they probably do, but like the latter, not in a linear
way, i.e., about what they did, who they were, who they knew, etc. But their
psyches must have been filled with jealousies, hatreds, self-loathing.. It
informs their behavior. A lonely agonized scream filling the countryside of the
Shire. Echoed by another. "There were words in that cry", says Frodo. Their
language is not contentless, apparently containing information as well as
emotional content, as witnessed by the power of the passage.
>VORAVOR <vor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What were Sauron's actual "orders" to the nazgul, anyway? Who really knows?
>>Guessing from the state of utter hatred the wraiths must subsist in (hatred
>and
>>loathing of their slave-master, Sauron), I would judge their hate to be
>intense
>>enough to cause the Dark Lord some pause before giving the order, for
>example,
>>"kill the ringbearer and bring the One to me in Mordor immediately". Even
>some
>>hesitation to order "enslave the Ringbearer, take the Ring and bring both to
>>me." I don't think the Sauron-nazgul relationship is one built upon trust.
>It
>>wass built on fear and dominance of one evil will overanotherl. These
>>creatures were not "ordinary" mortal men in their lives: they were kings,
>>conquerers, mages, real estate agents, in other words, they had accumulated
>>some measure of potency and "will" on their own before being "given" one of
>the
>>Nine. I don't think their "resistance" to Sauron's dominance ever ended,
>even
>>in the end.
>
>This is an interesting view, but there's no written evidence in its
>favor, and quite a bit against it, both in _Unfinished Tales_ and in
>JRRT's letters. The latter indicate in a few places (I don't have a
>copy to cite) that the Nazgūl were wholly subservient to Sauron's
Brian E. Clark
> Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
That "shrill cry" can be taken to be:
* Frodo's scream of anguish as the knife met his shoulder.
* The Nazgūl's crying in pain at the name of Elbereth. (But
as has been pointed out, the Ringwraiths did not react to
Frodo's invokation of Elbereth at the Ford.)
* The Ringwraith's "attack cry."
I favor the first, but the none of them, nor for that matter
a combination of the second and third, trouble me much.
I neglect possible but highly unlikely alternatives, such as
the idea that the cry had nothing to do with the key players
but came instead from a rabbit cornered by an owl. :)
Michael Martinez
>
>>Well, SOMEONE screamed out that night....
>
>That "shrill cry" can be taken to be:
>
>* Frodo's scream of anguish as the knife met his shoulder.
Tolkien usually attributes screams or whatever to the hobbits if such
outbursts come from them. It is unlikely that the shrill scream of anguish
was Frodo's. Besides, Frodo was crying out "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" I
don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at the same
time.
>* The Nazgul's crying in pain at the name of Elbereth. (But
>as has been pointed out, the Ringwraiths did not react to
>Frodo's invokation of Elbereth at the Ford.)
There is no indication of a reaction at the Ford of Bruinen, but then, all
Nine were there as well -- a completely different situation from that on
Weathertop. In several places we are told that the Nine together are more
powerful than any lesser number of them.
>* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>
>Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
They cry out at the Ford.
Brian E. Clark
> don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at
> the same time.
I read it this way: Frodo slashes and calls out the name of
Elbereth, then the cry (whoever's it is) is heard. On the
other hand, Tolkien kept all this action confined in the
same paragraph, which I admit lends support to the idea that
the scream was not Frodo's.
[...]
> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
I was thinking more of a yell of the kind any fighter might
make before delivering what will clearly be an open and
decisive blow.
Still, there was this, at the Ford: "At the same moment the
black horses leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the
Riders came a terrible cry..."
And, in RotK, "With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears
like venom he let fall his mace."
Michael Martinez
>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 04:01:04 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>{snip}
>>
>>Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>
"At once the white horse sprang away and sped like the wind along
the last lap of the Road. At the same moment the black horses
leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the Riders came a
terrible cry, such sa Frodo had heard filling the woods with
horror in the Eastfarthing far away. It was answered; and to
the dismay of Frodo and his friends out from the trees and rocks
away on the left four other Rides came flying...."
(From "Flight to the Ford" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
"*Ho! Ho! Ho!* they began again louder. They stopped short
suddenly. Frodo sprang to his feet. A long-drawn wail came
down the wind, like the cry of some evil and lonely creature.
It rose and fell, and ended on a high piercing note. Even
as they sat and stood, as if suddenly frozen, it was answered
by another cry, fainter and further off, but no less chilling
to the blood. There was then a silence, broken only by the
sound of the wind in the leaves."
(From "A Short Cut To Mushrooms" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
"At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and
he heard himself crying aloud: *O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!* At
the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry
rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of
poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder. Even as he swooned
he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider
leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood
in either hand. With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword,
slipped the Ring from his finger and closed his right hand
upon it."
(From "A Knife in the Dark" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
Michael Martinez
>> Besides, Frodo was crying out "O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" I
>> don't see how Tolkien could possibly mean he was shrieking at
>> the same time.
>
>I read it this way: Frodo slashes and calls out the name of
>Elbereth, then the cry (whoever's it is) is heard. On the
>other hand, Tolkien kept all this action confined in the
>same paragraph, which I admit lends support to the idea that
>the scream was not Frodo's.
Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's action,
although it would logically follow that if the Nazgul were reacting to
anything Frodo did it would have to come after his actions. However, in
the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry comes before Frodo is
stabbed.
>[...]
>
>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>
>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>
>I was thinking more of a yell of the kind any fighter might
>make before delivering what will clearly be an open and
>decisive blow.
>
>Still, there was this, at the Ford: "At the same moment the
>black horses leaped down the hill in pursuit, and from the
>Riders came a terrible cry..."
See the citation I posted for Graham. I left in the part comparing it to
the cry that Frodo, Sam, and Pippin heard in the Shire -- which was much
longer and more varied in tone than the shrill cry on Weathertop.
>And, in RotK, "With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears
>like venom he let fall his mace."
That would serve to support the contention that the scream came from the
Lord of the Nazgul and not from Frodo. However, Tolkien does not describe
the Lord of the Nazgul's "cry of hatred" as shrill, and he IS on the attack
when he strikes the blow that shivers Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm.
We do, however, get a "shrill wailing" when the spirit of the Nazgul is
freed by Eowyn's blade. That would support the contention that a shrill
cry coming from a Ringwraith is a cry of pain or fear or despair.
Brian E. Clark
> Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's
> action,
Maybe, maybe not. I keep searching (unsucessfully) in the
text for some means of finding a definite answer.
Textually, the order is this:
Frodo shouts and stabs at the Nazgūl's feet.
The shrill cry is heard and Frodo feels a pain
in his shoulder.
Trouble is, the passage as written presents no unambiguous
clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
alternative version of the story?
[...]
> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
Again, we do not know that for sure. The cry is described
first, yes, but the shriek and the stabbing are joined by
the word "and," which can imply simultaneous action but
(alas for clarity in this case) need not do so.
"A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
One natural reading would have the the cry and the stabbing
taking place at the same moment. But an equally natural
reading could treat the sentence as sequence of events. (For
comparison: "I ducked the snowball and avoided its impact."
That's simultaneous action. "I ducked the snowball and
dodged left." That's sequential.)
Again, I just don't know...
[...]
> We do, however, get a "shrill wailing" when the spirit of the Nazgul is
> freed by Eowyn's blade. That would support the contention that a shrill
> cry coming from a Ringwraith is a cry of pain or fear or despair.
Now you've got me thinking...
On Weathertop, did the invokation of Elbereth distress the
Nazgūl enough to cause him to fumble his blow, such that the
blade aimed at Frodo's heart hit Frodo's shoulder instead?
That is, did Frodo perhaps save his own life by calling out
the name of Elbereth?
Mark Burlison
>
> Mark Burlison <thismarkdo...@pmail.net> wrote in message
> news:36FD4D96...@pmail.net...
> >
> > > I'm on the fence about the effectiveness of "Elbereth". Our
> information
> > > about this and about the wraiths' fear of fire comes from Aragorn, and I
> had
> > > initially clung to them as the best explanations of the outcome at
> > > bother the wraiths at all - unless one can interpret the leader's
> striking
> > > Frodo dumb to mean he (the wraith) couldn't bear to hear it spoken
> again. Or
> > > is Elbereth a less effective invocation just because it's daytime?
> >
> > At the ford Frodo would have been much weaker and probably wouldn't be
> > able to yell it out at the top of his voice.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> types of behavior the Nazgūl were and weren't used to: weakness as betrayed
> by cringing, grovelling fear, or strength as displayed by courageous
> resistance (strong voice, determined actions and demeanor). Frodo's weakness
> at the Ford was still more physical than spiritual, but the Wraiths may not
> have known - or cared about - the difference.
They may/probably/would have have taken his weak voice as a sign of him
losing the 'battle within' against the knife point's work in turning him
(Frodo) into a minor wraith, as opposed to him just being weary due to
the wound, though I daresay a fair proportion of it was due to him
getting close to becoming a minor wraith. Personally, I think that the
Nazgul presumed that his weakness was totaly due to him becoming a
wraith. After all, they expected him to become a wraith within a few
days, surely it most be happening by the time they got to the fords???
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 9 | http://come.to/World2World
Mark Burlison
>
> And he wasn't wearing the ring at the Ford.
Another good point. Stick our points together and you have a weapon so
sharp that would worry Gandalfs sword :)
Robert S. Coren
Brian E. Clark <zz...@zzz.zzz> wrote:
>
>Trouble is, the passage as written presents no unambiguous
>clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
>of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
>alternative version of the story?
>
>
>> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
>> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
>
>Again, we do not know that for sure. The cry is described
>first, yes, but the shriek and the stabbing are joined by
>the word "and," which can imply simultaneous action but
>(alas for clarity in this case) need not do so.
>
> "A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
> like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
Maybe I've lost the thread here, but is part of this question whether
the cry was, in fact, Frodo's? I'm inclined to think that it was not,
for this reason: the entire scene is described from Frodo's point of
view, so most likely his own cry would not be described as though it
were an external event.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
Greg: Andy's missing a glove.
James: Yeah, that accounts for his piss-poor attitude.
Greg: That, and he don't like most people. --_NYPD Blue_, 1/28/97
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote,
>
>> Tolkien does not place the "shrill cry in the night" after Frodo's
>> action,
>
>Maybe, maybe not. I keep searching (unsucessfully) in the
>text for some means of finding a definite answer.
>
>Textually, the order is this:
>
> Frodo shouts and stabs at the Nazgūl's feet.
>
> The shrill cry is heard and Frodo feels a pain
> in his shoulder.
>
>clues about how to translate the events temporally. Do any
>of the Apocrypha (if you take my meaning) hold an
>alternative version of the story?
Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here. Tolkien is not about to put Frodo's
reaction to being stabbed PRIOR to the deed. He doesn't do anything like
that anywhere else in the story and it's pure obfuscation to insist there
is some sort of ambiguity here.
>[...]
>
>> However, in the text I just cited for Graham, the shrill cry
>> comes before Frodo is stabbed.
>
>Again, we do not know that for sure.
Absolutely we know that for sure. Please refrain from rewriting Tolkien
for us. I really hate it when people do that.
> "A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain
> like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder."
>
>One natural reading would have the the cry and the stabbing
>taking place at the same moment.
[snip]
A natural reading keeps in mind that Frodo is the character of perspective
here and that any shrill cries not attributed to him (as his crying out "O
Elbereth! Gilthoniel" is) are not to be considered his. Unnaturally, we
could assume all sorts of things contrary to the text. Hopefully we will
not get into that.
Conrad B. Dunkerson
news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
Michael Martinez
As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <7e54fr$56h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad B. Dunkerson" <con...@planet.net> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>>> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>
>>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>>
>>"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
>>appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
>>all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
>>fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
>>ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
>
>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Well, it doesn't say "deep low cry" either. It doesn't describe it at
all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
"shrill"?
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e54fr$56h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad B. Dunkerson" <con...@planet.net> wrote:
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>>> In article <MPG.116c748e7...@news.telerama.com>,
>>> lo...@bottom.in.sig.for.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>>
>>> >* The Ringwraith's "attack cry".
>>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
>>
>>"But it is said that when all was lost suddenly the Witch-king himself
>>appeared, black-robed and black-masked upon a black horse. Fear fell upon
>>all who beheld him; but he singled out the Captain of Gondor for the
>>fullness of his hatred, and with a terrible cry he rode straight upon him."
>>ROTK, Appendix A, Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion, page 331 HM
>
>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
I wouldn't attach too much importance to that fact. I've always
imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
In any case, it seems that they emit a lot of "cries", for a variety
of purposes. The ones the hobbits hear in the Shire seem to be used
for long-distance communication; additionally, as cited in several
posts in this thread, they seem to use them (rather effectively, in
most cases) for purposes of intimidation as they attack; and the Lord
of the Nazgūl emits a cry that fades out as he perishes. (The "harsh
croaking scream" that is heard after Legolas shoots down the Nazgūl
over the River is probably the death-cry of the winged beast.)
Given this, it's not really possible to determine whether the "shrill
cry" we're discussing is part of the attack or a pain-reaction to the
name of Elbereth; but I think it's pretty clear that it comes from one
of the Nazgūl (the Lord would be my choice, if I had to guess).
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"The 'Ring' can be read as the story of an aristocrat who grows bored
in a loveless marriage and builds a palace he cannot afford. He cuts
corners, and the world ends." -- Alex Ross in _The New Yorker_ of 8/10/98
Michael Martinez
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:14:15 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>
>all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
>subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
>"shrill"?
Yes. As "terrible". Are these supposed to be monocry Nazgul, capable of
uttering only one kind of "cry"?
Laurie Forbes
Well, with respect to MY points, I would quote Foghorn Leghorn: "That old
gal's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice!"
Mark Burlison
> > comes from Aragorn, and I had initially clung to them as the
> > best explanations of the outcome at Weathertop.
Actualy, I think Laurie Forbes wrote that...
> I find myself part of a small minority. :) Even the first
> time I read LotR, I took Aragorn's remark ("More deadly to
> him was the name of Elbereth") as wit, as if here were
> emphasizing that no harm had come to the Nazgūl.
I can see why you would say that, but I don't agree, sorry.
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>
>imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
>always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
>of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
>Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
what others imagine he meant.
>In any case, it seems that they emit a lot of "cries", for a variety
>of purposes. The ones the hobbits hear in the Shire seem to be used
>for long-distance communication; additionally, as cited in several
>posts in this thread, they seem to use them (rather effectively, in
>most cases) for purposes of intimidation as they attack; and the Lord
>of the Nazgūl emits a cry that fades out as he perishes. (The "harsh
>croaking scream" that is heard after Legolas shoots down the Nazgūl
>over the River is probably the death-cry of the winged beast.)
>
>Given this, it's not really possible to determine whether the "shrill
>cry" we're discussing is part of the attack or a pain-reaction to the
>name of Elbereth; but I think it's pretty clear that it comes from one
>of the Nazgūl (the Lord would be my choice, if I had to guess).
With this I cannot disagree (and have no wish to).
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e5n4e$sd0$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
>>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>>
>>I wouldn't attach too much importance to that fact. I've always
>>imagined the Ringwraiths' various cries to be high-pitched, and they
>>always seem to their hearers to be unpleasant, so it's not too much
>>of a stretch to suppose them to be some category of "shrill", even if
>>Tolkien doesn't use that exact word.
>
>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>what others imagine he meant.
I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
say.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Being eaten by a hyena is not as bad as it sounds."
George Leonard Herter, _George the Housewife_
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>what others imagine he meant.
>
>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>say.
That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>
>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>say.
>
>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
probably not so.
I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
excessively literal-minded indiscussing a literary work of
fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I feel like my brain was run over by a lawnmower. That was really
excellent." --Rider getting off a roller coaster, as seen on The
Learning Channel
Michael Martinez
>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren)
> wrote:
>>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>>
>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>>say.
>>
>>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
>
>I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
>was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
>probably not so.
How about just reading what I write? Since Tolkien doesn't equate the word
"shrill" with "terrible" anywhere, and since he doesn't describe the Lord
of the Nazgul's cry in "The Battle of Pelennor Fields" as "shrill" but
instead uses the word "terrible", why should I (or anyone else) be required
to ASSUME he used the two words to mean the same thing?
>I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
>a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
>excessively literal-minded indiscussing a literary work of
>fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
Yes, I thought you were trying to derail the discussion with unwarranted
personal remarks. This is not the first time you've stooped to such sleazy
tactics.
Thank you SO MUCH for doing it to me once again.
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <7e6p6c$st8$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>In article <7e6h9s$spg$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren)
>> wrote:
>>>>In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I depend on what Tolkien said more than I do on
>>>>>what others imagine he meant.
>>>>
>>>>I hope you'll forgive me if I suggest that you show (here and
>>>>elsewhere) a tendency to depend rather too much on what he *didn't*
>>>>say.
>>>
>>>That's interesting. I don't see what you're referring to at all. Where am
>>>I depending on what Tolkien didn't say in this discussion?
>>
>>I read you as suggesting that because only the cry heard at Weathertop
>>was characterized by the word "shrill", other Nazgūl cries were
>>probably not so.
>
>How about just reading what I write? Since Tolkien doesn't equate the word
>"shrill" with "terrible" anywhere, and since he doesn't describe the Lord
>of the Nazgul's cry in "The Battle of Pelennor Fields" as "shrill" but
>instead uses the word "terrible", why should I (or anyone else) be required
>to ASSUME he used the two words to mean the same thing?
I'm not requiring you (or anyone else) to assume any such thing. I'll
also point out that the words "shrill" and "terrible" are not mutually
exclusive.
>>I'm also commenting, obliquely, on what I've previously referred to as
>>a tendency (not unique to you by any means) to be what I consider
>>excessively literal-minded in discussing a literary work of
>>fantasy. But I suspect that's a dead end as a discussion topic.
>
>Yes, I thought you were trying to derail the discussion with unwarranted
>personal remarks. This is not the first time you've stooped to such sleazy
>tactics.
That was not at all my intention. It's my serious belief that our
discussions here are often derailed -- or at least directed into
channels which I personally don't find fruitful or interesting -- by a
narrow focus on exactly the words used, and a restricted view of what
those words might mean. As I said, you are far from the only
participant here to fall into this trap; I do it myself on
occasion. If you regard a critical observation about a certain
approach to discussion as an "unwarranted personal remark", you're
going to end up feeling offended a lot more often than necessary (and
a lot more often than any offense was intended).
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"The optative passive rocks!" --Jeffrey William McKeough
Conrad B. Dunkerson
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>>news:3704...@news.usenetserver.com...
>> Possibly, but they never use such an "attack cry" elsewhere.
[Citation of attack cry snipped]
> As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say SHRILL CRY.
> Okay? Got it? Thank you.
Ah. I must have missed the word 'shrill' in your original post. So, if I
understand correctly, you now agree that the Nazgul do make 'attack cries',
but suggest that these attack cries are never "shrill"?
I'd agree with other writers that this is largely a semantic issue as
reference to a thesaurus will tell us that 'wailing', 'shreiking', and other
such descriptions >could< be equated with 'shrillness'. However, the only
two instances I can find where the word "shrill" is specifically used in
reference to Nazgul cries are the scene at Weathertop and the death of the
Witch King. This is supportive of the idea that the Witch King was crying
out in pain or fear at Weathertop (due to the name of Elbereth), but is
hardly conclusive. I'm not sure whether the 'shrill cry' at Weathertop was
an attack cry, a cry of pain, or some combination of the two... and really I
think it is impossible to specifically categorize it. Sadly, Tolkien did
not provide us with a detailed lexicon of Nazgul shrieks.
Brian E. Clark
> Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here.
Okay, you're excused on that count. :)
There is another matter for which you perhaps ought not be
pardoned so quickly: namely, you made little effort to
understand the other fellow's opinion before setting out to
rebut it. Now, I'm not so self-important as to think that
you or anyone should feel obliged to consider my points,
just because I write them. But if you would respond to those
points, I think it sensible that you would understand them
first. In this case, you responded not to my statement but
to an inadvertant parody of it:
> Tolkien is not about to put Frodo's reaction to being
> stabbed PRIOR to the deed.
Obviously I would not argue that a cry of pain could precede
its cause. What I said was, Tolkien joined the stabbing and
the cry with the conjunction "and," which sometimes
indicates simultaneous action and sometimes indicates
sequence. That is, a sentence structured "this happened; and
that happened" does not of itself tell us whether this and
that were seperated in time. The passage (and surround
passages) may, however, offer other textual or narrative
clues, such as those you and others have pointed out.
I should mention that I never intended that my grammatical
observation should be given especial consideration, relative
to other facts about the passage, much less that it should
be considered some coup-de-grace. I offered only as one
point among many.
[...]
> Absolutely we know that for sure. Please refrain from
> rewriting Tolkien for us.
That charge is overused, Michael. We seek only the intent a
passage, and no one has rewritten so much as one syllable.
> I really hate it when people do that.
That cannot be so, because you clearly do not have a poor
self image, and no one conflates his own opinions about the
texts with the texts themselves more consistently than
yourself. ;-) Whereas others will say, "I believe the text
such such-and-such, though I understand why people think it
says thus-and-so," you will say, "There's no doubt: Tolkien
says thus-and-so, and who are you to disagree with the
author?" There is no rewriting occurring in any case, but
sometimes a person might lose the distinction between a
passage and his interpretation of it -- a sin that every
half-serious commentator commits from time to time.
FWIW, I've found the opinions expressed in this thread by
others (including the majority of your observations) to be
compelling. I'm coming to agree that the cry was not
Frodo's. What's more, I found another reason while re-
scrutinzing the very sentence on which this little exchange
of ours centered. Yes, the cry and the stabbing are joined
in the same sentence. However, in the first clause the
action is external: "A shrill cry rang out in the night." In
the second clause, the action is personal and internal: "and
[Frodo] felt a pain..."
CHUCK BRAMLET
Has anyone considered the possibility that the "shrill cry" might
have been the Cheif Nazgul (WK) crying out a "Morgul spell" as he
stabbed Frodo with the Morgul Blade?
Just my centavo to this thread.
--
Mark Burlison
> Kristian:
> > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
back off?
Mark
--
World To World - Issue 9 | Features Funky Files
http://come.to/World2World | Year 2000 paranoia guide and more
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote,
>
>> Excuse me, but I see no ambiguity here.
>
>Okay, you're excused on that count. :)
>
>There is another matter for which you perhaps ought not be
>pardoned so quickly: namely, you made little effort to
>understand the other fellow's opinion before setting out to
>rebut it.
Really? That's interesting. Thank you for pointing that out for me.
Erich A Adler
>In article <37061603...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham Lockwood) wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:14:15 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>>Martinez) wrote:
>>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
>>
>>all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
>>subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
>>"shrill"?
>
>Yes. As "terrible". Are these supposed to be monocry Nazgul, capable of
>uttering only one kind of "cry"?
=^P
Erich
--
ON MISTAKES--
Doctors bury them, architects cover them with ivy, engineers write
long reports that never see the light of day.
|---------------|
| Erich Adler |
|---------------|
Adam Barnard
> > Kristian:
>
> > > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
> > > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
> > > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
> > > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
> > > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
> Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
> back off?
Just wild speculation, but maybe it is something like "Naming the Dark One" in
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, for those of you who have read it. Maybe
it draws her attention, and that is definitely NOT the kind of attention the
Ringwraiths would want near them.
Just a wild thought with no real evidence to back it up, besides the fact that
she could supposedly hear almost all things when she stood atop Taniquetil with
Manwe.
Michael Martinez
>> Kristian:
>
>> > But why did they back off in the first place then? Well, the name of
>> > Elbereth has a power in it, to force them back. At the same time Aragorn
>> > attacked them with fire - one of the only things they are afraid of, so
>> > they backed of ofr hte moment. They could have returned later the same
>> > night, but here I refer you to my explanation regarding 2).
>
>Here's a question for you, why did the name of Elbereth cause them to
>back off?
Just out of curiosity, who is "you"? You're obviously replying to someone
through another person's article, but was the "you" intended for all of us
(the figurative or plural "you") or for this "Kristian" person (whose name
is unfamiliar to me)?
F@C@
(Grimgard, Martinez, Mark Burlinson)of the group throwing in their two cents
on the thread I created. I have read so many great points that I have
decided to opt out and sit on the fence! HA!
Michael Martinez wrote in message <3709...@news.usenetserver.com>...
Benji Flaming
start, and I have reviewed all the debate messages still left on the server.
It is my opinion that the answers to many of the questions are given at the
beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring" chapter 12 - "Flight to the
Ford". Since I have not seen this text posted (or quoted) in any previous
message, I now present two paragraphs extracted from this chapter.
As to why the Nazgul did not kill Strider and the hobbits, I offer the
following excerpt in which Strider is speaking to Sam shortly after the
attack on Weathertop:
"I think I understand things better now," he said in a low voice.
"There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all
here, I don't know; but I don't think they expected to be resisted. They
have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They are only
waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and
that the ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your
master has a deadly would that will subdue him to their will. We shall
see!"
I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
spoken by Strider:
"Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
|>
|>enji
Benjamin Flaming
www.solobanjo.com
--------------------
"Eating is for the weak in body,
Sleeping is for the weak in mind."
- A wise Flamingan Monk(ey)
Graham Lockwood
<be...@nechville.com> wrote:
> While I have not watched every message of this debate, I saw the debate
>start, and I have reviewed all the debate messages still left on the server.
>It is my opinion that the answers to many of the questions are given at the
>beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring" chapter 12 - "Flight to the
>Ford". Since I have not seen this text posted (or quoted) in any previous
>message, I now present two paragraphs extracted from this chapter.
> As to why the Nazgul did not kill Strider and the hobbits, I offer the
>following excerpt in which Strider is speaking to Sam shortly after the
>attack on Weathertop:
>
> "I think I understand things better now," he said in a low voice.
>"There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all
>here, I don't know; but I don't think they expected to be resisted. They
>have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They are only
>waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and
>that the ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your
>master has a deadly would that will subdue him to their will. We shall
>see!"
If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
non-all-knowing opinion.
> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
The Elves sing to her a lot.
>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>spoken by Strider:
>
> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
a very high standard.
Michael Martinez
>If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
>true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
>"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
>ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
>all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
>non-all-knowing opinion.
So, Tolkien goofed once again. Instead of having Aragorn say, "Here are
the indisputable acts, Sam", Tolkien erroneously wrote "I think I
understand things better now".
What an amateurish approach to the problem! The writer should be hanged
from the highest yardarm in the land!
>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>
>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>The Elves sing to her a lot.
They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
>>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>>spoken by Strider:
>>
>> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
>
>Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
>not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
>didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
>a very high standard.
The blade cut the Nazgul's cloak. THAT constitutes damage.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <370a64c6...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham Lockwood) wrote:
>>If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
>>true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
>>"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
>>ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
>>all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
>>non-all-knowing opinion.
>
>So, Tolkien goofed once again. Instead of having Aragorn say, "Here are
>the indisputable acts, Sam", Tolkien erroneously wrote "I think I
>understand things better now".
>
>What an amateurish approach to the problem! The writer should be hanged
>from the highest yardarm in the land!
Eh? I'm afraid I don't follow you here.
>>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>>
>>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>>The Elves sing to her a lot.
>
>They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
Sometimes Tolkien refers to them as angels and sometimes he refers to
them as gods. I refer you to the letter quoted by Conrad B. Dunkerson
in the "Concerning Gandalf and his death" thread.
>>>there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small role
>>>in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
>>>spoken by Strider:
>>>
>>> "Look!" he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak
>>>that had lain there by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a
>>>slash. "This was the stroke of Frodo's sword," he said. "The only hurt that
>>>it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that
>>>pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth."
>>
>>Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
>>not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
>>didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
>>a very high standard.
>
>The blade cut the Nazgul's cloak. THAT constitutes damage.
True, but it still wasn't particularly "deadly".
Michael Martinez
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:40:22 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>In article <370a64c6...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham
> Lockwood) wrote:
>>>If you'll notice, Strider never actually says that his conjectures are
>>>true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
>>>"I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
>>>ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
>>>all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
>>>non-all-knowing opinion.
>>
>>So, Tolkien goofed once again. Instead of having Aragorn say, "Here are
>>the indisputable acts, Sam", Tolkien erroneously wrote "I think I
>>understand things better now".
>>
>>What an amateurish approach to the problem! The writer should be hanged
>>from the highest yardarm in the land!
>
>Eh? I'm afraid I don't follow you here.
The unvoiced complaint in my (perhaps) witty sarcasm is that once again an
argument is based on what Tolkien did not write.
>>>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>>>
>>>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>>>The Elves sing to her a lot.
>>
>>They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
>
>Sometimes Tolkien refers to them as angels and sometimes he refers to
>them as gods. I refer you to the letter quoted by Conrad B. Dunkerson
>in the "Concerning Gandalf and his death" thread.
I don't read anything written by Conrad Dunkerson. I'm well aware of
Tolkien's change from gods to angels. The Valar were for all intents and
purposes (in this mythology) ANGELS, sometimes perceived of as gods by Men
but not by Elves.
>>The blade cut the Nazgul's cloak. THAT constitutes damage.
>
>True, but it still wasn't particularly "deadly".
No, it's not particularly deadly.
Graham Lockwood
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <370a723a...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham Lockwood) wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:40:22 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>>Martinez) wrote:
>>>>> I do not recall what the significance of the name "Elbereth" is, but
>>>>
>>>>It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
>>>>The Elves sing to her a lot.
>>>
>>>They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
>>
>>Sometimes Tolkien refers to them as angels and sometimes he refers to
>>them as gods. I refer you to the letter quoted by Conrad B. Dunkerson
>>in the "Concerning Gandalf and his death" thread.
>
>I don't read anything written by Conrad Dunkerson. I'm well aware of
>Tolkien's change from gods to angels. The Valar were for all intents and
>purposes (in this mythology) ANGELS, sometimes perceived of as gods by Men
>but not by Elves.
Conrad Dunkerson said:
>"He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but
>Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its
>failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done'.
>Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only
>with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and
>time'"
>Letters, #156
>
>This from a rather long letter discussing the powers of the world. The
>'gods' or Valar did not send him back, that it was Eru is not specifically
>stated but clearly implied.
Michael Martinez
Bruckenmeister) wrote:
>another example of Strider not having a clue what the WR were up to
>was in Bree. He told the hobbits that the Nazgul would surely not
>attack the Prancing Pony, but they did.
>
>(Merry) 'Will they attack the inn?' 'No, I think not,' said Strider.
>'They are not all here yet. In any case that is not their way. In dark
>and loneliness they are strongest' etc etc.......
Actually, it was not the Nazgul who attacked the Inn. They would have
known the Ring was not in the room with the cushions.
>As the Nazgul were creatures of Evil, the name Elbereth (Queen of
>everything that was Good, basically) would have probably made them
>uneasy, but I would hardly think it would be deadly. After all, it was
>only a name, the actual entity (Elbereth) was not there in the flesh
>(spirit, whatever).....
I don't want to argue with anyone over the power the name of Elbereth might
provide against the Nazgul. However, Elbereth was "listening" during at
least one part of the story. I'm not sure how many people remember the
passage. But Tolkien does imply that she responded to at least one prayer
for help.
Jack Lawson
Erich A Adler <e...@alberti.unh.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn7gi1a...@alberti.unh.edu...
: In article <3706...@news.usenetserver.com>, Michael Martinez wrote:
: >In article <37061603...@news.fsu.edu>, gon...@iname.com (Graham
Lockwood) wrote:
: >>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:14:15 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
: >>Martinez) wrote:
: >>>As I have already pointed out, the text you cite does not say
SHRILL CRY.
: >>>Okay? Got it? Thank you.
: >>
: >>Well, it doesn't say "deep low cry" either. It doesn't describe it
at
: >>all except to say that it was "terrible", which can be extremely
: >>subjective. Is a Nazgul cry ever described as something other than
: >>"shrill"?
: >
: >Yes. As "terrible". Are these supposed to be monocry Nazgul,
capable of
: >uttering only one kind of "cry"?
: That's it, Ben Stein for the Witch King of Angmar,
: =^P
: Erich
I can imagine it now, "oh no, you stabbed me Eowyn, now I shall
perish.." (in a low one-toned voice)..
-Michael Lawson
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <370a8fdc....@news.mindspring.com>, n...@chance.com (Billy
>Bruckenmeister) wrote:
>
>>As the Nazgul were creatures of Evil, the name Elbereth (Queen of
>>everything that was Good, basically) would have probably made them
>>uneasy, but I would hardly think it would be deadly. After all, it was
>>only a name, the actual entity (Elbereth) was not there in the flesh
>>(spirit, whatever).....
>
>I don't want to argue with anyone over the power the name of Elbereth might
>provide against the Nazgul. However, Elbereth was "listening" during at
>least one part of the story. I'm not sure how many people remember the
>passage. But Tolkien does imply that she responded to at least one prayer
>for help.
This would be Sam's breaking the spell of the Watchers at the Tower of
Cirith Ungol, no?
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I often postulate with high structural coherence."
--Jeffrey William Sandris
Benji Flaming
> true. He uses words like, "I think I understand things better now,"
> "I think", "I don't know", "I don't think", and "I fear". Then he
> ends it all with "We shall see!" One's interpretation of this passage
> all depends on how much weight you wish to give to Aragorn's admitedly
> non-all-knowing opinion.
Quite true. I presented that particular paragraph as "evidence" rather
than as proof. I currently agree with Strider's assessment of the attack,
but I acknowledge that he (and I) certainly could be wrong.
> It's a name for Varda, Queen of the Valar (which are basically gods).
> The Elves sing to her a lot.
Thank you for informing me. I may have known this once, but if so, I
had forgotten.
> >there can be no question that it's invocation played at least a small
role
> >in driving off the attackers. As proof, here is another paragraph, again
> >spoken by Strider:
Let me say now that I was hesitant to use the word "proof" when I wrote
my message, and now I regret my decision to use it. I would consider both
paragraphs "evidence" and not proof, since they both rely on the correctness
of Strider's opinion.
> Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at all, it's
> not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
> didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't
> a very high standard.
This is also true. My intention was simply to point out that the name
had some effect, however small that effect might have been (I thought I
remembered someone previously suggesting that the name had no effect.) It
could be that the Nazgul were merely shocked and repulsed by the unexpected
use of the name, the same way an ordinary person might respond to a
3-year-old cussing them out for trying to take a favorite toy.
By no means do I claim to have resolved all the questions, I simply
thought the debate might benefit from a look at some of the original text.
Michael Martinez
>In article <370b...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>I don't want to argue with anyone over the power the name of Elbereth might
>>provide against the Nazgul. However, Elbereth was "listening" during at
>>least one part of the story. I'm not sure how many people remember the
>>passage. But Tolkien does imply that she responded to at least one prayer
>>for help.
>
>This would be Sam's breaking the spell of the Watchers at the Tower of
>Cirith Ungol, no?
That's it. I should have figured you'd pick it out pretty quickly.
Maybe next time I'll come up with something hard....
Jon Lennart Beck
>>>They are basically ANGELS, not gods.
>>Sometimes Tolkien refers to them as angels and sometimes he refers to
>>them as gods. I refer you to the letter quoted by Conrad B. Dunkerson
>>in the "Concerning Gandalf and his death" thread.
>I don't read anything written by Conrad Dunkerson. I'm well aware of
>Tolkien's change from gods to angels. The Valar were for all intents and
>purposes (in this mythology) ANGELS, sometimes perceived of as gods by >Men
but not by Elves.
And what would the peoples of Middle-Earth know of Christian theology
(one God, many messengers and otherwise helpers called 'angels')?
It seems to me that the Tolkien mythology is a cross between the old
Indoeuropean religions, with many gods each with his or her province, one of
them being their king, and the monotheistic religions, where one God made
all. The Valar are not gods like Zeus and his tribe, for they were the
offspring of Ilúvatar's thought, and wholly subject to him - except Melkor
and those others that he perverted into following him in rebellion. But
they are not purely angels either, for they shape the world with their
labours, and intervene in earthly matters out of their own will, usually in
concordance with that of Ilúvatar, but not usually by direct order.
I think a direct equation of Valar and either gods or angels will be a
mistake.
Jon L. Beck
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez skrev i meddelelsen <370a...@news.usenetserver.com>...
>>Tolkien's change from gods to angels. The Valar were for all intents and
>>purposes (in this mythology) ANGELS, sometimes perceived of as gods by >Men
>but not by Elves.
> And what would the peoples of Middle-Earth know of Christian theology
>(one God, many messengers and otherwise helpers called 'angels')?
They know nothing of "Christianity". They know of Iluvatar and the Ainur
(at least, SOME of them do).
> It seems to me that the Tolkien mythology is a cross between the old
>Indoeuropean religions, with many gods each with his or her province, one of
>them being their king, and the monotheistic religions, where one God made
>all. The Valar are not gods like Zeus and his tribe, for they were the
>offspring of Ilúvatar's thought, and wholly subject to him - except Melkor
>and those others that he perverted into following him in rebellion. But
>they are not purely angels either, for they shape the world with their
>labours, and intervene in earthly matters out of their own will, usually in
>concordance with that of Ilúvatar, but not usually by direct order.
An "angel" is simply a servant of God. Tolkien's world is shaped by his
angels, but they are angels nonetheless. You could call me a grape, but
that would not make me a grape. You could call me a god but that would not
make me a god. Hence, the fact that some of the Men of Middle-earth called
the Valar "gods" doesn't make them gods.
> I think a direct equation of Valar and either gods or angels will be a
>mistake.
The Valar were objects of veneration, but they were not gods. Tolkien
abandoned the idea of having "gods" in his world. It would be a mistake to
say or imply the author was wrong about what was and wasn't in his world.
It would be a matter of opinion to say the author was wrong to convert the
gods to angels.
Michael Martinez
>so since it is never explicitly stated who attacked the inn, we can
>all make our own scenario (and isnt that the beauty of fiction
>anyway???)
True, but there were only three occasions when the Black Riders entered
Bree. Each time they drew attention. No one noticed any of them during
the night when the Inn was attacked.
For what it's worth.
Joshua McAdams
same question about the incident at Weathertop. I went back and read
the book and came to the following conclusion, supported by nothing
but assumption and the trilogy.
The Nazgul were men, age-old, dark and twisted and possessing
no great amount of courage. Without the will of Sauron to guide they
they we're neither bold nor strong but relied on strength of number
instead. Weathertop was too far from Mordor for Sauron to tell exactly
what was happening so the Nazgul were on there own. And being there
were only five of them they decided, after learning that Aragorn was
with the halflings, that it was better policy to gather their forces
before attempting to an assualt in earnest. It was Aragorn's bravery
before them that cause them to doubt and to retreat. He had stood his
ground, shouting names from legend (that surely had power over men in
Middle-Earth), and was not afraid.
Nathan E. Banks <Paganini>
> In article <370c348b....@news.mindspring.com>, n...@chance.com (Billy
Bruckenmeister) wrote:
> >so since it is never explicitly stated who attacked the inn, we can
> >all make our own scenario (and isnt that the beauty of fiction
> >anyway???)
>
> True, but there were only three occasions when the Black Riders entered
> Bree. Each time they drew attention. No one noticed any of them during
> the night when the Inn was attacked.
>
> For what it's worth.
Then what did Merry see that night?
"I have seen them, Frodo! I have seen them! Black Riders!"
"Black Riders!" cried Frodo. "Where?"
"Here. In the village."
etc...
Although it doesn't seem very likely that the Riders could be fooled by
pillows.....
--
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
MOOk, the Great High Llama
ICQ 34492883
http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini
Jon Lennart Beck
>An "angel" is simply a servant of God. Tolkien's world is shaped by his
>angels, but they are angels nonetheless. You could call me a grape, but
>that would not make me a grape. You could call me a god but that would not
>make me a god. Hence, the fact that some of the Men of Middle-earth called
>the Valar "gods" doesn't make them gods.
Nor have I called them gods. But pointed out that they play a more
active role in Tolkien's universe than angels do in the Christian tradition.
>> I think a direct equation of Valar and either gods or angels will be a
>>mistake.
>The Valar were objects of veneration, but they were not gods. Tolkien
>abandoned the idea of having "gods" in his world. It would be a mistake to
>say or imply the author was wrong about what was and wasn't in his world.
>It would be a matter of opinion to say the author was wrong to convert the
>gods to angels.
I do not call it wrong. But unless you are actually equating the Valar
to Christian-style angels, we agree.
I see the way that Tolkien depicts the Valar, and what role he gives
them. If Tolkien then equates them exactly with angels of Christian
theology (or with gods of the various Indoeuropean pantheons), he might as
well describe a person giving birth and letting her baby suckle her breasts,
and yet explicitly call that person a man. Their actions are similar to
that of gods, though less powerful - they cannot create life out of their
thought, and they shaped Arda but did not make it. Their authority under
Ilúvatar is like to that of angels under God.
Jon L. Beck.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez skrev i meddelelsen <370c...@news.usenetserver.com>...
>>abandoned the idea of having "gods" in his world. It would be a mistake to
>>say or imply the author was wrong about what was and wasn't in his world.
>>It would be a matter of opinion to say the author was wrong to convert the
>>gods to angels.
> I do not call it wrong. But unless you are actually equating the Valar
>to Christian-style angels, we agree.
I'm not sure of what you mean by "Christian-style angels". Tolkien very
certainly equated them with angels as in the Bible -- servants of God.
Iluvatar was equated by him with God.
> I see the way that Tolkien depicts the Valar, and what role he gives
>them. If Tolkien then equates them exactly with angels of Christian
>theology (or with gods of the various Indoeuropean pantheons), he might as
>well describe a person giving birth and letting her baby suckle her breasts,
>and yet explicitly call that person a man. Their actions are similar to
>that of gods, though less powerful - they cannot create life out of their
>thought, and they shaped Arda but did not make it. Their authority under
>Ilúvatar is like to that of angels under God.
Tolkien originally conceived of a mythology -- a classical mythology with
gods, heroes, and monsters -- but he changed his mind and decided that what
he wanted was an imaginary time in the real history of our world. To him,
a devout Catholic, no imaginary time could exist without the benefit of
God's presence, so he was able to convert the gods to angels and keep many
of the mythological elements he had originally devised. I suspect it was
Tolkien's faith more than anything else which led him to make so radical a
change.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>news:370c...@news.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <370c348b....@news.mindspring.com>, n...@chance.com (Billy
>Bruckenmeister) wrote:
>> >so since it is never explicitly stated who attacked the inn, we can
>> >all make our own scenario (and isnt that the beauty of fiction
>> >anyway???)
>>
>> True, but there were only three occasions when the Black Riders entered
>> Bree. Each time they drew attention. No one noticed any of them during
>> the night when the Inn was attacked.
>>
>> For what it's worth.
>
>Then what did Merry see that night?
>
>"I have seen them, Frodo! I have seen them! Black Riders!"
>"Black Riders!" cried Frodo. "Where?"
>"Here. In the village."
Merry saw one of the Nazgul. Notice that it drew his attention. But the
Nazgul was not at that time puncturing bolsters in the Inn, was it?
Michael Martinez
>...It was Aragorn's bravery
>before them that cause them to doubt and to retreat. He had stood his
>ground, shouting names from legend (that surely had power over men in
>Middle-Earth), and was not afraid.
"Shouting names from legend"? Whose names? Maybe Mind's Eye isn't such a
good adaptation at all.
John Savard
> And what would the peoples of Middle-Earth know of Christian theology
>(one God, many messengers and otherwise helpers called 'angels')?
It's not what they knew, but what Tolkien knew: he intentionally made his
works compatible with Christianity (to an extent: they still could not have
taken place in our world, since God didn't choose to people it with Elves
as well...)
John Savard (teneerf is spelled backwards)
http://members.xoom.com/quadibloc/index.html
James Kuyper
>
> "Jon Lennart Beck" <jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote, in part:
>
> > And what would the peoples of Middle-Earth know of Christian theology
> >(one God, many messengers and otherwise helpers called 'angels')?
>
> It's not what they knew, but what Tolkien knew: he intentionally made his
> works compatible with Christianity (to an extent: they still could not have
> taken place in our world, since God didn't choose to people it with Elves
> as well...)
The way Tolkien described Middle Earth, the apparant absence of the
non-human speaking peoples of Middle Earth from our world is easily
explained: the Fourth Age marked the start of the dominance of humans,
and by now that dominance is so old and so nearly complete that our
histories no longer even remember that the other speaking peoples ever
existed. It's only our myths that carry any memory of that time.
The hard parts of connecting Middle Earth to our Earth are geological
and astronomical. Tolkien's implied connection between Atalante (the
Downfallen=Numenor) and the Atlantis myth puts an upper limit of a few
tens of thousands of years between the end of the Third Age and now. Any
longer than that and there wouldn't be any measurable similarity between
the names. It's just not geologically possible that any part of Earth
looked like Tolkien's Middle Earth maps, at any time that recent.
The flat-earth => round-earth cosmology of the Silmarillion is also a
bad fit to our astronomy, as Tolkien himself found out when he started
trying to modify it to fit.
Huan the hound
>Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:04:03 +0200
>From: Jon Lennart Beck <jonlenn...@get2net.dk>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien
>Subject: Re: Are the Valar gods or angels? was: Why didn't the Nazgul (Ring wraiths) kill them?
>
> Nor have I called them gods. But pointed out that they play a more
>active role in Tolkien's universe than angels do in the Christian tradition.
For most of my life, I never gave any thought to angels. However, I
recently read THIS PRESENT DARKNESS by Frank Peretti. While I do not know
how plausible any of its storyline is, I became aware of some of the
scripture about angels through the novel and from Bible study. I figure
that God keeps them pretty busy. So, I was wondering what you think the
Christian tradition says about angels, because I really never paid
attention to it before. Do most Christians believe that they are not much
involved?
For my part, I think the Valar were less involved in Middle Earth than I
suspect that angels are involved here.
>
>
>
--
Huan, the hound of Valinor
Intyalin
Subject: Re:Are the Valar gods or angels? was: Why didn't the Nazgul (Ring
wraiths) kill them?
Selected Highlights:
Benjamin Flaming wrote: "I do not recall what the significance of the name
"Elbereth" is, but there can be no question that its invocation played at least
a small role in driving off the attackers."
Graham Lockwood: "Yes, but since Frodo's blade did *no* damage to the WK at
all, it's not particularly hard to be more deadly than that. Maybe he just
didn't like hearing the name, but being more deadly than nothing isn't a very
high standard."
Benjamin Flaming: "My intention was simply to point out that the name had some
effect, however small that effect might have been (I thought I remembered
someone previously suggesting that the name had no effect.) It could be that
the Nazgul were merely shocked and repulsed by the
unexpected use of the name, the same way an ordinary person might respond to a
3-year-old cussing them out for trying to take a favorite toy."
Michael Martinez: "The Valar were for all intents and purposes (in this
mythology) ANGELS, sometimes perceived of as gods by Men but not by Elves."
John L. Beck: " It seems to me that the Tolkien mythology is a cross between
the old Indoeuropean religions, with many gods each with his or her province,
one of them being their king, and the monotheistic religions, where one God
made all. The Valar are not gods like Zeus and his tribe, for they were the
offspring of Ilúvatar's thought, and wholly subject to him - except Melkor and
those others that he perverted into following him in rebellion. But they are
not purely angels either, for they shape the world with their labours, and
intervene in earthly matters out of their own will, usually in concordance with
that of Ilúvatar, but not usually by direct order. I think a direct equation
of Valar and either gods or angels will be a mistake."
Billy Bruckenmeister: "As the Nazgul were creatures of Evil, the name Elbereth
(Queen of everything that was Good, basically) would have probably made them
uneasy, but I would hardly think it would be deadly. After all, it was only a
name, the actual entity (Elbereth) was not there in
the flesh (spirit, whatever)..... "
Michael Martinez: "I don't want to argue with anyone over the power the name
of Elbereth might provide against the Nazgul. However, Elbereth was
"listening" during at least one part of the story. I'm not sure how many
people remember the passage. But Tolkien does imply that she responded to at
least one prayer for help."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I will take up the argument.
Whether we call the Valar gods or angels is pure pilpul, in my opinion.*
The Ainur or Holy Ones were divine, as both gods & angels are divine, & as
divine beings their names were hallowed. The Witch King's reaction to the holy
name of Elbereth was similar to what happened to Carcharoth when he swallowed
the holy Silmaril.
The Biblical concept of holiness is an uncanny, numinous power intrinsic to
divinity, capable of exerting both a beneficent & destructive effect. This is
the same concept that we find in The Lord of the Rings & The Silmarillion.
The name of Elbereth, especially a desperate plea to Elbereth for help, was far
more than shocking or unpleasant to the Ring-wraiths. It was an extremely
painful encounter on a spiritual plane with the divine power & purity of the
holy Star-Queen herself.
It wasn't enough to keep the Witch King from stabbing Frodo with his
Morgul-knife, but perhaps it made him cry out shrilly or made him hesitate long
enough for Strider to leap out of the darkness wielding torches just in time.
As I interpret the text, it was the hymn to Elbereth that routed the Nazgul
snuffling for Frodo in the Woody End, not merely the arrival of Gildor et al, &
it was the divine presence of Elbereth, invoked by her holy name, that enabled
the light of Galadriel's Phial to break the will of the Two Watchers & drive
off Shelob.
- Intyalin
* By pilpul I don't mean the dictionary definition of "subtle or keen
disputation among rabbinicalscholars" but the type of hair-splitting that
become common when the study of the Talmud, some feel, degenerated into sterile
casuistry. Lest anyone is offended, let me admit that sterile
casuistry is not so bad as the wanted-posters would have you believe & that I
am a frequent practitioner.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Joshua McAdams
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <370ce11b...@news.giganews.com>, jo...@rlc.netREMOVETHIS (Joshua McAdams) wrote:
>>...It was Aragorn's bravery
>>before them that cause them to doubt and to retreat. He had stood his
>>ground, shouting names from legend (that surely had power over men in
>>Middle-Earth), and was not afraid.
>
>"Shouting names from legend"? Whose names? Maybe Mind's Eye isn't such a
>good adaptation at all.
>
Elbereth. A name from legend.