Why the two-month downtime in Rivendell?
Andrew F. Donnell
never worked for me: the two-month delay at Rivendell, so that the party
can set out just in time for the really nasty winter weather. Does the
"we're waiting to find out about the black riders" bit really work for
most people? Maybe it's just me....
Obviously, they want to get the ring out of Rivendell without its going
being marked by Sauron. The Nazgul know it went to Rivendell (well, at
least they know it went to the Fords of Bruinen), so the sooner they can
reasonably be off, the better. All are agreed to this point, but I
think the potential benefits of the extensive intelligence gathering
effort are overwhelmingly outweighed by the weather concerns and the two
months of downtime which could have been enough time for Sauron's forces
to deploy a spy network in the area around Rivendell (since crebain and
other critters were in fact on the patrol when the Fellowship set out).
Frodo got to Rivendell on October 20. Scouts should have been
dispatched to the Fords almost immediately, but, for sake of argument,
let's assume they don't go out until after the Council on October 25
(because we know for sure they're gone by then, since Gandalf says so).
Three of the horses were discovered at once in the Fords, five more
were found in the rapids, with a black cloak. This news should have
gotten back within a few days, let's say by October 29. At this point,
they know that if the Nazgul are still around, they are unhorsed and,
presumably, severely crippled. Furthermore, nobody felt their presence
around the Fords or near Rivendell at all, so if they are still out
there they may be licking their wounds or barking up the wrong tree.
So, I say, send the Fellowship out *now*! They should be on the road by
November 1. This gives them a much greater chance of leaving unnoticed,
and gives them decent weather in the mountains.
Yes, it is good to get intelligence about what's going on in the
Ettenmoors, Thrabad, Mirkwood, Rhosgobel, etc. but I would put a greater
priority on speed. Heck, Aragorn and Elrond's sons went down the
Silverlode, presumably all the way to Lorien. To Lorien! Why didn't
the ring go with them? I would still send out all the scouts, but I
would have the Fellowship leave at the same time. This way, if the
Nazgul are still there, or if there are any other spies in the area, it
might throw them off with many parties leaving Rivendell in all
directions.
I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
Andy
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip.
> I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external (though it is fun
trying to think through the story-internal reasons). I think Tolkien was
playing around with his calendar and moons and wanting to get to write a bit
about every season. So he had to get the timings right. Leaving the Shire in
the Autumn, arriving at Lothlorien at the right time to be able to show the
reader the different seasons, and the seasonal stuff as the Fellowship
travel south (including Aragorn's great line: "time flows on to a spring of
little hope"), with the reader being shown different lands in different
seasons. Ithilien in the springtime, Gondor in the summer, returning to the
Shire as the year draws round again. Having the line about the leaves
falling (Elrond says "at about this time of the year, when the leaves are
falling, look for [us] in the woods of the Shire"). A similar literary
device of drawing the story round the "circle of the year" was used in /The
Hobbit/, I think. And the rhythms of the whole story demand periods of
downtime that contrast with the moments of danger. This is a very rhythmic,
flowing story, not a "speedy Gonzales", rush-to-Mordor, Dungeons & Dragon
type story.
And of course, the dates are very important as well. Having the Fall of
Sauron and the triumph of Good co-incide with Easter is a no-brainer. I
think I read somewhere that the departure from Rivendell coincides with
Christmas or something. So I guess I'm speculating that once Tolkien had
arrived at Rivendell, and the idea of these dates occurred to him, rather
than go back and have the four hobbits leave the Shire later (the dates were
already partially tied to Frodo's birthday in September, anyway, and
Gandalf's departure from the Shire in June), Tolkien may have decided that
two months in Rivendell would allow him to get the dates right, help stretch
the story over the seasons of a whole year, and would be a nice interlude
anyway.
He might not even have bothered thinking too much about the issues of
strategy that you raise, though they are good points. What would help is if
we knew what Sauron was thinking about all this. But we mostly have to
speculate about what Sauron was up to.
Christopher
dawns...@gmail.com
the Ringbearer time to recover from the nearly deadly wound from the
WitchKings blade. He nearly did not make it to Mordor as a result
anyways and suffered dreadfully from it ever afterwords. The gathering
of information was more necessary for figuring out how best to protect
the elven realms as two of the major realms were ruled by Ring Bearers.
2 months was just barely enough time to gather supplies and for Frodo
to recover. If Frodo left before he was recovered they could have been
trapped in the Redhorn Pass with a seriously ill hobbit, and possibly
they could have been caught then. Saruman and Sauron both already knew
about the Ring and already had their spies in place by the time the
RingBearer reached Imladris.
Phlip
> Part of what you also have to remember is that Elrond wanted to give
> the Ringbearer time to recover from the nearly deadly wound from the
> WitchKings blade. He nearly did not make it to Mordor as a result
> anyways and suffered dreadfully from it ever afterwords.
That kind'a works both ways. Recall that when Gandalf saw Frodo first
recover from the wound, he gave him the impression of glowing, or filled
with light.
Galadriel's gift later symbolized this. Sam saw the same effect IIRC, in the
Tower of Cirith Ungol.
Because Frodo had recovered once from a Morgul spell, I think there are
hints he grew stronger, and more resistant to call of the Wraith world.
> The gathering
> of information was more necessary for figuring out how best to protect
> the elven realms as two of the major realms were ruled by Ring Bearers.
Point. Messengers had to reach Lothlorien - the other realm ruled by a Ring
Bearer. So the Nine Walkers set out into a completely empty land, guarded
for leagues by unseen elf scouts. And the first spies who can spot them are
the crebain...
--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
nfw
> Tolkien may have decided that
> two months in Rivendell would allow him to get the dates right, help stretch
> the story over the seasons of a whole year, and would be a nice interlude
> anyway.
>
> He might not even have bothered thinking too much about the issues of
> strategy that you raise, though they are good points. What would help is if
> we knew what Sauron was thinking about all this. But we mostly have to
> speculate about what Sauron was up to.
>
> Christopher
Weren't the distances enough to "stretch the story". They covered
hundreds of leagues, equivalent to crossing Europe *by foot*!(1) I
still wonder why they had to be waiting two months in Rivendell and one
in Lothlorien, without much narrative being related to those stays.
Anyway, this tale is a matter of procrastination, as Gandalf states
himself... ;-)
(1) BTW, has anyone calculated the distances and travel times?
Phlip
> (1) BTW, has anyone calculated the distances and travel times?
/The Atlas of Middle-Earth/ by Karen Wynn Fonstad does an excellent job of
projecting Tolkien's scrawled drawings, and thousands of individual
geographical and travel details in the text, into unified maps. They include
extrapolated camp sites for each of the Great Years' journeys.
Derek Broughton
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
> <snip.
>
>> I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>
> Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external (though it is
> fun trying to think through the story-internal reasons). I think Tolkien
> was playing around with his calendar and moons and wanting to get to write
> a bit about every season. So he had to get the timings right. Leaving the
> Shire in the Autumn, arriving at Lothlorien at the right time to be able
> to show the reader the different seasons, and the seasonal stuff as the
> Fellowship travel south
They didn't need to spend two months in Rivendell just to be able to show us
Winter on Caradhras. That smacks of the typical Englishman's lack of
understanding of real mountains. Assuming that the Shire is at a location
where climate is similar to England's, those mountains could be getting
really nasty by late October. Then if Tolkien needed those two months to
get the rest of the timing right, they could have spent it licking their
wounds in Lothlorien (where time is odd, anyway).
> And of course, the dates are very important as well. Having the Fall of
> Sauron and the triumph of Good co-incide with Easter is a no-brainer. I
> think I read somewhere that the departure from Rivendell coincides with
> Christmas or something.
It would have, not that a person as learned as Tolkien should have let that
influence him, since Christmas just isn't that important ...
--
derek
Francis A. Miniter
>dawns.wood wrote:
>
>
>
>>Part of what you also have to remember is that Elrond wanted to give
>>the Ringbearer time to recover from the nearly deadly wound from the
>>WitchKings blade. He nearly did not make it to Mordor as a result
>>anyways and suffered dreadfully from it ever afterwords.
>>
>>
>
>That kind'a works both ways. Recall that when Gandalf saw Frodo first
>recover from the wound, he gave him the impression of glowing, or filled
>with light.
>
>Galadriel's gift later symbolized this. Sam saw the same effect IIRC, in the
>Tower of Cirith Ungol.
>
>Because Frodo had recovered once from a Morgul spell, I think there are
>hints he grew stronger, and more resistant to call of the Wraith world.
>
>
>
I disagree. As Dawns.Wood suggests in another post, Frodo never really
recovers. If he has a glow about him, it is more likely that it is
evidence that he is being drawn toward the realm of the wraiths.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Alison wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:25:31 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
><spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>>
>><snip.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>>>
>>>
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>>And of course, the dates are very important as well. Having the Fall of
>>Sauron and the triumph of Good co-incide with Easter is a no-brainer. I
>>think I read somewhere that the departure from Rivendell coincides with
>>Christmas or something.
>>
>>
>
>The key Christian symbolism in the date of the destruction of the Ring
>is not a coincidence with Easter. According to Christian tradition,
>March 25th is the date of the Annunciation (it is nine months before
>Christmas after all), when the angel appeared to Mary and told her
>that she was to bear the Son of God. So the destruction of the Ring is
>linked to the announcement of a new age of redemption for mankind. I
>think this is what was in Tolkien's mind when he picked his dates.
>
>--
>Alison
>
>
Christopher Kreuzer
> The key Christian symbolism in the date of the destruction of the Ring
> is not a coincidence with Easter. According to Christian tradition,
> March 25th is the date of the Annunciation (it is nine months before
> Christmas after all), when the angel appeared to Mary and told her
> that she was to bear the Son of God. So the destruction of the Ring is
> linked to the announcement of a new age of redemption for mankind. I
> think this is what was in Tolkien's mind when he picked his dates.
Thanks for this. I knew there was some religious significance, but picked
the wrong thing. Though I vaguely thought the Easter thing might be a bit
wrong, seeing as Easter changes in date.
Elrond Half-Elven
And if my memories of college English courses serve me, because March
25th was the Annunciation, it was also New Year's Day for many
centuries in Christian Europe, including England, Scotland and Wales.
Historians have had to wrestle with this in many a tome by referring to
"Old Style" and "New Style" calendar dates which have nothing to do
with the medieval switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.
So there may have been a second reason for Tolkien to pick March 25 for
his new English mythology: It's a pre-Christian motive for choosing the
day that begins the new year.
Alison wrote:
> ><snip.
> The key Christian symbolism in the date of the destruction of the Ring
> is not a coincidence with Easter. According to Christian tradition,
> March 25th is the date of the Annunciation (it is nine months before
> Christmas after all), when the angel appeared to Mary and told her
> that she was to bear the Son of God. So the destruction of the Ring is
> linked to the announcement of a new age of redemption for mankind. I
> think this is what was in Tolkien's mind when he picked his dates.
>
> --
> Alison
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1156363771.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "Elrond
Half-Elven" <elrondi...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> And if my memories of college English courses serve me, because
> March 25th was the Annunciation, it was also New Year's Day for
> many centuries in Christian Europe,
You're right -- I knew that there was something I was forgetting ;)
<http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html> Look at section 2.10.
In particular the information about different 'years' in England:
In England (but not Scotland) three different years were used:
+ The historical year, which started on 1 January.
+ The liturgical year, which started on the first
Sunday in advent.
+ The civil year, which
from the 7th to the 12th century started on 25 December,
from the 12th century until 1751 started on 25 March,
from 1752 started on 1 January.
Wonderfully simple . . . LOL!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
Troels Forchhammer
<min...@attglobal.net> enriched us with:
>
> Phlip wrote:
>>
[The Morgul-wound and Frodo's need to recover]
>> That kind'a works both ways. Recall that when Gandalf saw Frodo
>> first recover from the wound, he gave him the impression of
>> glowing, or filled with light.
Aye, and my impression is that Frodo is fairly soon recovered from
any immediately debilitating (or merely obstructive) effects of his
wounds. The passage, "Health and hope grew strong in them, and they
were content with each good day as it came, taking pleasure in every
meal, and in every word and song.", seems to refer to the first
couple of weeks rather than the full two months.
>> Galadriel's gift later symbolized this. Sam saw the same effect
>> IIRC, in the Tower of Cirith Ungol.
In Ithilien, to be precise, when they were waiting around for the
rabbits for the stew:
[Sam] was reminded suddenly of Frodo as he had lain,
asleep in the house of Elrond, after his deadly wound.
Then as he had kept watch Sam had noticed that at times
a light seemed to be shining faintly within; but now the
light was even clearer and stronger. Frodo's face was
peaceful, the marks of fear and care had left it; but it
looked old, old and beautiful, as if the chiselling of the
shaping years was now revealed in many fine lines that had
before been hidden, though the identity of the face was
not changed. Not that Sam Gamgee put it that way to
himself. He shook his head, as if finding words useless,
and murmured: `I love him. He's like that, and sometimes
it shines through, somehow. But I love him, whether or no.
[LotR IV,4 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit']
We've discussed at times whether this is in any way related to light
in Elvish eyes or the flames of Fëanor's spirit. In any case I think
you're right that the star-glass of Galadriel is symbolically related
to this (both, I think, symbolize Frodo's gradual ennoblement).
Sam's recollection from Rivendell of "a light [that] seemed to be
shining faintly within" Frodo clearly puts this scene in direct
reference to Gandalf's comment at Frodo's sick-bed:
He is not half through yet, and to what he will come in
the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I
think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear
light for eyes to see that can.
[Gandalf, LotR II,1 'Many Meetings']
I've always found it fairly obvious that this "like a glass filled
[...]" is part of the specifically non-evil end that Gandalf is
forecasting for Frodo (although this may refer only to the recovery
from the Morgul-wound, not to Frodo's fate in the wider respect).
>> Because Frodo had recovered once from a Morgul spell, I think
>> there are hints he grew stronger, and more resistant to call of
>> the Wraith world.
That is my impression as well -- that this 'glow' is a good thing
seems fairly clear.
>
> I disagree. As Dawns.Wood suggests in another post, Frodo never
> really recovers. If he has a glow about him, it is more likely
> that it is evidence that he is being drawn toward the realm of the
> wraiths.
That, as I've said, seems to me a rather stretched reading of the
text, and also to be in contrast to the later evidence (e.g. the
'confrontation' between Frodo and the Witch-king in the Morgul-vale).
Both Gandalf and Sam clearly identifies this light as something
positive -- a mark of Frodo's growing spirit, I believe, and it is,
as Phlip pointed out, related by 'effect' to the star-glass (which is
definitely good). Light, in Tolkien's writings, is almost always
associated with good, and in the few cases where it is not[*] it is
clearly marked by the phrasing as unpleasant.
[*] For instance the corpse-candles in the Dead Marshes, which
"twisted like ghostly sheets unfurled by hidden hands", and the
glow from Minas Morgul (and the plants in that vale), which is
described as "wavering and blowing like a noisome exhalation of
decay, a corpse-light" (this description also refers back to the
lights in the marshes; "a noisome exhalation of decay", indeed!)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
John W. Kennedy
> Historians have had to wrestle with this in many a tome by referring to
> "Old Style" and "New Style" calendar dates which have nothing to do
> with the medieval switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.
The switch from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar began in 1582,
which is hardly "medieval".
"Old Style" is the Julian Calendar. "New Style" is roughly the same as
the Gregorian Calendar, but uses a different algorithm to calculate the
date of Easter, although it has given the same result for centuries (it
will not always do so).
The switch from "Old Style" to "New Style", on September 5/14, 1752,
effected both changes at once (although you can argue, if you really
feel you must, that the New-Year's change did not come until January 1,
1753, N.S.).
A further complication in all this is that, although the year definitely
began on March 25, many reckoned the old year as ending on December 31,
leaving January 1 through March 24 in limbo. Modern historians
traditionally refer to such dates as, e.g., "February 11, 1731/32,
O.S.", to be unambiguous.
Basically, it's called "New Style" because the good old Protestants of
the Georgian Church of England (which is exemplified by such fine
Christians as Mr. Collins) would rather have been caught in bed with a
set of crotchless panties, an underage goat, and a jar of Miracle Whip
than have anything to do with a calendar named after a pope.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Basically, it's called "New Style" because the good old Protestants of
> the Georgian Church of England (which is exemplified by such fine
> Christians as Mr. Collins) would rather have been caught in bed with a
> set of crotchless panties, an underage goat, and a jar of Miracle Whip
> than have anything to do with a calendar named after a pope.
ROTFL!
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> + The civil year, which
> from the 7th to the 12th century started on 25 December,
> from the 12th century until 1751 started on 25 March,
> from 1752 started on 1 January.
>
> Wonderfully simple . . . LOL!
Wow. Yes. So do you think that both the departure from Rivendell and the
Fall of Sauron are symbolically connected with these "New Years", with this
idea of a fresh start, a renewal, a setting forth, a new journey?
Christopher
Derek Broughton
> Basically, it's called "New Style" because the good old Protestants of
> the Georgian Church of England (which is exemplified by such fine
> Christians as Mr. Collins) would rather have been caught in bed with a
> set of crotchless panties, an underage goat, and a jar of Miracle Whip
> than have anything to do with a calendar named after a pope.
LOL. But that also has a great deal to do with the removal of March
25 - "Lady Day" - as a day of any importance.
--
derek
Sean
>
> I have been re-reading LOTR, and have gotten to a part that has just
> never worked for me: the two-month delay at Rivendell
>
They had to wait for Frodo to recover. A Morgul-wound takes more
than mere weeks to heal up.
I was in a motorcycle accident at Easter; my right arm and
shoulder still ache sometimes, and the Nazgul weren't even
involved (I hope).
Sean_Q_
Phlip
> I was in a motorcycle accident at Easter; my right arm and
> shoulder still ache sometimes, and the Nazgul weren't even
> involved (I hope).
"Harleys don't have accidents, lady, they have Acts of God." --some dumb
biker magazine
Steve Morrison
> Also I suspect that the characters would value the intelligence
> gained higher than the delay -- Boromir and the Hobbits excepted (and
> Gimli), the decision-makers of the company has spend decades
> (Aragorn) or millennia (Gandalf, Legolas and Elrond even ages)
> fighting Sauron, so they're not likely to grow impatient all that
> fast. We can, of course, discuss the worth of waiting a bit,
> increasing both the danger and the knowledge needed to avoid that
> danger -- there's a Danish proverb, "rather the devil you know, than
> the one you don't".
It's also a proverb in English, usually in the form "better
the devil you know than the devil you don't". See e.g.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/4/messages/696.html
Andrew F. Donnell
> "Andrew F. Donnell" wrote:
>
>>I have been re-reading LOTR, and have gotten to a part that has just
>>never worked for me: the two-month delay at Rivendell
>>
>>I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>
> They had to wait for Frodo to recover. A Morgul-wound takes more
> than mere weeks to heal up.
The first day Frodo woke up in Rivendell, after his chat with Gandalf
and a nap, "He got out of bed and discovered that his arm was already
nearly as useful again as it ever had been." The morning of the Council
he says, "I feel ready for anything, but most of all I should like to go
walking today and explore the valley. I should like to get into those
pine-woods up there [far up the side of Rivendell to the north]." Frodo
seems to recover the bulk of his strength almost immediately. He never
mentions a need for extended recovery, nor does anyone prescribe this
for him. Scouting the area is the only reason given for the two-month
delay. Maybe he was weakened for a while, but it must not have been too
serious since this is not given as a reason to push the departure back
into the middle of winter.
On the one hand, Frodo never fully recovered from the wound, but on the
other hand, he recovered remarkably fast.
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
> <snip.
>
>>I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>
> Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external (though it is fun
> trying to think through the story-internal reasons). I think Tolkien was
> playing around with his calendar and moons and wanting to get to write a bit
> about every season.
It would be fine for such story-external considerations to be the
primary motive for this, and the discussion of the dates has been quite
interesting, but I think he should have developed a better
story-internal reason to support it. He was a smart enough fellow to
come up with a better way to keep them at Rivendell for two months.
Story-external considerations inform most literature, but the best
results come when the internal and external goals are aligned. The
sense of pacing, symbolism, beautiful language, etc. works in LOTR and
enhances its greatness, but the reason it works is because the plot is
also internally consistent, logically thought out, compelling, etc.
Most of the events don't feel shoe-horned to fit into an archetype--they
follow naturally from the plot and they don't pull the reader out of the
story trying to make us say "ooo, the author was so clever."
<snip>
> He might not even have bothered thinking too much about the issues of
> strategy that you raise, though they are good points. What would help is if
> we knew what Sauron was thinking about all this. But we mostly have to
> speculate about what Sauron was up to.
Do we know how long it took the unhorsed Ringwraiths to get back to
Mordor? Are they constrained to traveling at speeds of an on-foot
human, or can they magic themselves around? Also, are they crippled in
any other way than being essentially blind? Do they have a direct
mental connection with Sauron, or do they have to communicate via
traditional means? And do they good guys know the answers to these
questions? If I were an unhorsed Ringwraith, I might try to high-tale
it to Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> That kind'a works both ways. Recall that when Gandalf saw Frodo first
> recover from the wound, he gave him the impression of glowing, or filled
> with light.
>
> Galadriel's gift later symbolized this. Sam saw the same effect IIRC, in the
> Tower of Cirith Ungol.
>
> Because Frodo had recovered once from a Morgul spell, I think there are
> hints he grew stronger, and more resistant to call of the Wraith world.
Did he grow more resistant to the wraith world, or is a little bit of
him now stuck there? I would say the latter, especially since Gandalf
did seem a bit concerned as he made his observation.
"He may become like a glass filled with clear light for eyes to see that
can." Since he is now partly in the spirit world, Gandalf predicts that
he will come to a good end, to be filled with clear light, which is
similar language to that used when we see glimpses of heros in the
spirit world (high elves, Gandalf, etc). A contrast to falling to be a
wraith.
Therefore, the original intent of his wound was to bring him into the
spirit realm and make him a wraith. That intent was thwarted, although
part of Frodo has been pulled into that realm, but his ultimate fate is
undetermined. He is no longer on the fast-track toward wraithdom,
although that possibility still exists. Gandalf's gut instinct is that
he will never fall to wraithdom, but instead will be elevated.
That's how I read it, at least.
Andy
Morgil
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>> Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external (though it
>> is fun trying to think through the story-internal reasons). I think
>> Tolkien was playing around with his calendar and moons and wanting to
>> get to write a bit about every season.
>
>
> It would be fine for such story-external considerations to be the
> primary motive for this, and the discussion of the dates has been quite
> interesting, but I think he should have developed a better
> story-internal reason to support it. He was a smart enough fellow to
> come up with a better way to keep them at Rivendell for two months.
The story-internal reason is explained quite thoroughly in
the first pages of chapter 3. They have to scout the area
to make sure the Nazgul are still not around, and no other
spies of the Enemy would be out spying their departure.
You mentioned that Nazgul could be still around, licking
their wounds. That would still make them dangerous. Only
when the scouts report that there's no sign of them
*anywhere* in the northern lands, and no other spies close
enough to pick the track, they can be sure it's safe to go.
Consider the alternative: They leave without preparations,
a nearby spy picks their track, they are shadowed entire
way to Misty Mountains, and instead of snow, they would
be caught in a rain of orc-arrows in the Caradhras Pass.
Morgil
Pete Gray
news....@ntlworld.com says...
> And that (taking into account the shift in days when the calendar
> changed) is why in Britain the tax year starts on April 6th...
>
> Alison
And thus was a day of rejoicing for all Middle-earth twisted into one of
lamentation and despair, the last fruits of that 'spirit of malice that
gnaws itself in the shadows'.
--
Pete Gray
Just another manic punday
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
The English use of a "civil year", which started on
25 December from the 7th to the 12th century
25 March from the 12th century until 1751
and
1 January from 1752
> Wow. Yes. So do you think that both the departure from Rivendell
> and the Fall of Sauron are symbolically connected with these "New
> Years", with this idea of a fresh start, a renewal, a setting
> forth, a new journey?
I wouldn't be surprised, at least.
I seem to recall having read something along these lines somewhere,
though I can't recall where (/A Reader's Companion/? /Author of the
Century/? Perhaps even /Letters/ or somewhere on the net?)
Shippey does discuss the issue in /Author of the Century/, which may
be what I remember (either because someone as cited/summarized it
here, or because I've been looking ahead, since it's on pp 208f in
the copy I've got out of the library, and I'm only on p 67 <G>):
The most relevant quotations would be:
However, as [Tolkien] knew perfectly well, in old English
tradition, 25th March is the date of the Crucifixion, of
the first Good Friday.
[Tom Shippey, /J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of the Century/, IV "The Lord
of the Rings (3): The Mythic Dimension" p. 208]
There is your connection with Easter, Christopher (showing, I
suppose, that one should probably fix Good Friday to 25th of March in
TA3019 if trying to look at significant dates. Incidentally that date
was, in the Shire Calenda, a Sunday (so possibly it should be Easter
Sunday?).
When the Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian in
1752, [...] the 25th March jumped to being the 6th of
April. And in England they year still /does/ start on
the 6th of April. But only the tax year, which no one
sees as a moment of eucatastrophe.
[ibid.]
;-)
And noting that the Company of the Ring set out from Rivendell on the
25th of December:
The main action of /The Lord of the Rings/ takes place,
then, in the mythic space between Christmas, Christ's
birth, and the crucifixion, Christ's death.
[ibid.]
Though Shippey refuses to make any conclusions with respect to Frodo
based on this, I still think that he implies that it is deliberate
from Tolkien's hand that the main part of the Quest (the more serious
part, one might say) takes place in this mythic time-span.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz
Troels Forchhammer
"Andrew F. Donnell" <donn...@gmail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Phlip wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Because Frodo had recovered once from a Morgul spell, I think
>> there are hints he grew stronger, and more resistant to call of
>> the Wraith world.
>
> Did he grow more resistant to the wraith world, or is a little bit
> of him now stuck there?
Or both?
> I would say the latter, especially since Gandalf did seem a bit
> concerned as he made his observation.
I would be very cautious about making any definite conclusions about
the nature of Frodo becoming "like a glass filled with clear light".
It is not clear exactly what is meant, even, by the statements about
Glorfindel as a glowing figure (and in particular what "other side"
Gandalf is speaking about -- to me it seems likely that he is
speaking of the Blessed Realm) and how any of this relates to what
happened to Frodo when he put on the Ring.
If, however, the glowing figure of Glorfindel is meant to be of the
same nature (although probably much stronger) as Frodo's later light,
then it would imply also that Sam was gaining the ability to look
into the wraith-world, as he could obviously see this light from
Frodo: a rather questionable conclusion, IMO.
Frodo obviously didn't become "one of the mighty of the Firstborn",
nor had he lived in the Blessed Realm. He might have gained some
small power "against both the Seen and the Unseen".
> "He may become like a glass filled with clear light for eyes to
> see that can."
This is given immediately /after/ Gandalf's assessment that Frodo
won't come to an evil end, implying that this is the non-evil fate
that Gandalf finds most likely for Frodo.
[...]
> filled with clear light, which is similar language to that used
> when we see glimpses of heros in the spirit world (high elves,
> Gandalf, etc).
We don't IIRC, ever see Gandalf in the spirit world (except possibly
in the Hobbit, when the ring was not yet the Ring).
Both for Frodo and for Gandalf the observations of their light are
clearly in the normal, physical world -- in Frodo seen by Sam and
Gandalf seen by many people in Gondor (e.g. Pippin).
I doubt that this 'light' is something belonging to the wraith-world
as such, though it may be dimmed by the physical world, and therefore
be clearer and more obvious when the /observer/ is in the wraith
world. However, I hesitate to make any conclusions either way.
Personally I am not sure that Tolkien ever developed these aspects
(this 'light' issue, and all the Seen/Unseen, material vs. wraith
world stuff) into a consistent description -- it appears to me to be
used rather inconsistently.
> A contrast to falling to be a wraith.
Yes.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Larry Swain
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
> <snip.
>
>
>>I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>
>
Yes and no. I'd like to take a moment to address both internal and
external reasons before the internal ones are disimssed out of hand.
Haste makes waste. Is "haste" in fact desireable?
1) How long? Well, it takes the Fellowship about 4 weeks (Dec. 25 to
Jan 17, with a couple extra days double back to Moria's entrance) to get
to Lorien, about half way from Rivendell to Mordor. On foot, it would
take another 3-4 weeks to get to Mordor. The Nazgul are not
supernatural, they travel quickly, but not like the wind. Even when air
born it nonetheless takes them several hours to fly from Mordor to
Isengard. The wraith are not going to travel by water, and must also
find a place they can ford the river (they don't float above the water
for example). So even if they traveled more quickly than the
fellowship, the best time they could make back to Mordor is 6 weeks, and
probably closer to 8. Part of the evidence for this is that it is not
until the crebain spot them, 3 weeks out from Rivendell, that we have
the first evidence that Sauron knows what happened back in Oct--almost 3
months before. So if we assume that the crebain are from Isengard and
only took a day or two to fly from Isengard to Hollin, and that Saruman
sent the crebain in response to a palantir communication with Sauron, it
woulld seem that the earliest that Sauron knew of what happened in Oct
is Jan 8 or 9. They had time.
Had they left earlier, would it have been better? As it turned out,
probably, but only because there were no surprises: but they didn't know
that. That's why they sent out scouts and waited for them to reutrn, so
that there was less channce of running int surprises on the way.
2)The "road" to take: there are many, many choices of how to get from
Rivendell to Mordor, even if one is going to do so quickly. They can
only determine what is the best path if they some knowledge of the roads
. It can be safely assumed from the beginning that they will make for
Lothlorien as the first stage, but how to get there? Cross the Misty
Mtns toward East and then head down the Anduin? Or follow the river on
foot? Through Hollin to the Dimrill Stair? What if Saruman has an army
on the pass? Follow the Loudwater to the Greyflood and then up the
Sweetwater? All unknown factors until someone goes to take a look and
report back.
Further, the scouts can't report to the Fellowship en route unless the
course is decided BEFORE the scouts set out (a foolish choice if you ask
me) since they have to find them in a trackless wilderness (not quite
the easy task). They couldn't find Aragorn with 4 hobbits in wilderness
close to home, much less Aragorn and Gandalf leading a company where
there is no road. So that option is out. The scout's have to go out,
report back, and then decisions are made about what route and what
supplies. Operating from knowledge is always better than not.
3) Frodo--Frodo needs to heal, as has been mentioned. He had a shoulder
wound, with a tip of a knife approaching his heart. He needs to walk
across the equivalent of Europe, over trackless wilderness, with a pack,
with little food or fire or comforts, in winter, through many dangers.
2 months is not too long to expect for that, as someone like Tolkien who
saw enough wounded in both wars would know.
4) planning and gathering stores for a long trip
5) Weather--while weather is a concern it is also a cover. Cold weather
and bad weather will be unpleasent for the Fellowship but will be
equally unpleasent and cold for anyone or thing tracking them or
attempting to find them. Bad weather will also serve to obscure their
trail. (Again drawing analogies to my mountain experience, storms
generally come in late fall and early winter and in spring; it gets
bitterly cold in Dec and Jan, but not many storms during that time of
year. I suppose it depends on the time of year and the climate, but I
suspect that it isn't that different in England)
By November 1, the most that is known is that the Nazgul are unhorsed
and not in the immediate vicinity of Rivendell, nothing more. Frodo is
healing nicely but up to a month long trek to Lothlorien and over the
moutains? Hardly. And how are they to know what lies ahead in those
mountains, where last they knew the orcs were gathering in strength?
What if they could have a second wizard on their side and in their
company? Isn't the delay worth it? Or suppose that a force had come up
the eastern side of the Misty Mtns and sat in the Ettanmoors or down the
river a couple days march, just waiting for the ring to come to
them...no way of knowing that by Nov 1 before the company heads out,
much less communicating with Galadriel. No, they did the right thing.
Larry Swain
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:25:31 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
>
>
>>Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>>
>><snip.
>>
>>
>>>I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>
>
>
>>And of course, the dates are very important as well. Having the Fall of
>>Sauron and the triumph of Good co-incide with Easter is a no-brainer. I
>>think I read somewhere that the departure from Rivendell coincides with
>>Christmas or something.
>
>
> is not a coincidence with Easter. According to Christian tradition,
> March 25th is the date of the Annunciation (it is nine months before
> Christmas after all), when the angel appeared to Mary and told her
> that she was to bear the Son of God. So the destruction of the Ring is
> linked to the announcement of a new age of redemption for mankind. I
> think this is what was in Tolkien's mind when he picked his dates.
It is much, much, much more than this. March 25th was freqnuently
celebrated as the New Year in pre-CHristian and post-CHristian
Anglo-Saxon tradition. Regardless of whether it was or not, though, it
was also the day of the creation of humanity and the fall, the day of
the first Passover in Exodus, typologically important, the day of the
Annuciation, the day of the Crucifixion, and in some medieval
commentators the day on which the world would end. It is indeed an
auspicious day!
Larry Swain
Christmas was unimportant in the story, but I disagree. The mythic
moment of Dec. 25 not only as Christ's birthday but in Mithraism as an
important day, as part of the Yule feasts from pre-Christian times, as
the celebration of the return of light after the shortest day of the
year (the 25th is generally recognized as the first day on which one
actually notices the increased length of the day)...so in both Christian
and pre-Christian senses, it was an important day and it is on this day
that the hope of Middle Earth sets out from Rivendell.
Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>>
>> <snip.
>>
>>> I think Elrond really dropped the ball on this one.....
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external (though it
>> is fun trying to think through the story-internal reasons). I think
>> Tolkien was playing around with his calendar and moons and wanting to
>> get to write a bit about every season.
>
>
> It would be fine for such story-external considerations to be the
> primary motive for this, and the discussion of the dates has been quite
> interesting, but I think he should have developed a better
> story-internal reason to support it. He was a smart enough fellow to
> come up with a better way to keep them at Rivendell for two months.
>
> Story-external considerations inform most literature, but the best
> results come when the internal and external goals are aligned. The
> sense of pacing, symbolism, beautiful language, etc. works in LOTR and
> enhances its greatness, but the reason it works is because the plot is
> also internally consistent, logically thought out, compelling, etc. Most
> of the events don't feel shoe-horned to fit into an archetype--they
> follow naturally from the plot and they don't pull the reader out of the
> story trying to make us say "ooo, the author was so clever."
See my previous post, in which I see no problem with the internal
reasons; I think they would have been stupid to venture forth as early
as NOv. 1 as you suggested in the original post. Mid December is the
best that could be hoped for. This after all isn't a jaunt in the park.
> <snip>
>
>> He might not even have bothered thinking too much about the issues of
>> strategy that you raise, though they are good points. What would help
>> is if we knew what Sauron was thinking about all this. But we mostly
>> have to speculate about what Sauron was up to.
>
>
> Do we know how long it took the unhorsed Ringwraiths to get back to
> Mordor? Are they constrained to traveling at speeds of an on-foot
> human, or can they magic themselves around?
We never see them do so anymore than we see Gandalf or Saruman or
Aragorn do so. They seem constrained by physical laws...they can travel
swiftly, but not so swiftly as to be beyond the expectations of physical
laws. As indicated in my previous post on the question, they could not
have returned much before Dec. 25, and if we take the crebain as an
indication of when Sauron heard the news and had Saruman send out the
search parties, it was about Jan 8.
Also, are they crippled in
> any other way than being essentially blind? Do they have a direct
> mental connection with Sauron, or do they have to communicate via
> traditional means?
Judging from the fact that Sauron has to be TOLD that the chief Nazgul
is dead at Pelennor Fields, it would seem that they must communicate via
traditional means.
And do they good guys know the answers to these
> questions?
Yes. They are wraiths, stretched beyond their normal lifespan and
enhanced by Suaron's power, but they nevertheless are human beings
If I were an unhorsed Ringwraith, I might try to high-tale
> it to Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
> reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
One assumes that the wraiths think they can find reinforcements at
Moria. As for any force coming out of dol guldur, that would be spotted
by the ever vigilant eyes of aladriel and her people, and so warning
sent to Rivendell. And Sauron doesn't entirely trust Saruman by this
point either. That pretty much limits one's options.
And what reinforcements? As Gandalf says, there is power in Imladris to
resist all the forces of MOrdor for a time, eventually it would fall.
I. E. Such reinforcements would need to be a huge and sizeable army to
take Rivendell and that would take time to assemble, equip, and outfit
for a long siege in the north. So the best they could do was send
spies, assuming they could communicate with others besides Sauron to
send the spies, and what would the spies do? Sauron's assumption will
be that Elrond or Gandalf will try and master the Ring and then come
against him. So why waste resources sending them North? Kill Gondor
now, neutralize or destroy Lothlorien so that by the time Elrond comes
with what force he has, he will simply be overwhelmed. Of course later
intelligence changes this perception, but this early in the game that's
probably what Sauron and the Nine are thinking.
Andrew F. Donnell
> In message <news:e62dnRx4pe1RdnDZ...@comcast.com>
> "Andrew F. Donnell" <donn...@gmail.com> enriched us with:
>
> <snip>
>
> I would be very cautious about making any definite conclusions about
> the nature of Frodo becoming "like a glass filled with clear light".
I was maybe a bit hasty and made stronger statements than I should have.
I'll see if I can develop any clearer conclusions. Here is the text:
----------
Gandalf moved his chair to the bedside, and took a good look at Frodo.
The colour had come back to his face, and his eyes were clear, and fully
awake and aware. He was smiling, and there seemed to be little wrong
with him. But to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint
as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left
hand that lay outside the coverlet.
'Still that must be expected,' said Gandalf to himself. 'He is not half
through yet, and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can
foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with
a clear light for eyes to see that can.'
----------
The faint hint of transparency that Gandalf sees is clearly a reference
to the attempted wraithification, as it comes after Gandalf said that
Frodo was "beginning to fade," and, but for their intervention, would
have "become like they are...a wraith under the dominion of the Dark
Lord." That it especially affected his left hand confirms that it is
part of the injury.
So there is a faint part of him that is still (permanently?) faded into
the spirit realm. I assume that he has made almost complete recovery,
since he no longer notices the shining of the high elves. So Elrond was
able to reverse the fading, but not totally.
"He is not half through yet." Is he saying that Frodo is not half
through the consequences of the morgul-knife wound? Or that he is not
half through the ordeal of the quest of the Ring? The former seems to
fit the context, although it is not clear what this means. They have
removed the splinter and healed the wound as best they could, and Frodo
seems to recover his strength rather quickly. As we know, it never
fully healed, and he still felt pain, and was still at least partially
subject to the will of the Witchking.
So what possible ends could he come to? Gandalf considers an evil end,
but rejects that. What is the evil end? That the healing would only be
temporary and that Frodo would eventually succumb to the wound and be
drawn into the wraith world? The alternative is that he becomes like a
glass filled with clear light. This implies that he does not just fully
heal and become a normal hobbit living completely in the material world.
It takes eyes that can see to notice this light--the eyes of those who
have dwelt in the Blessed Realm and live at once in both worlds,
implying that it is definitely a light from the spirit world?
Clearly, it is not the same as that of an elf-lord, for Frodo never
gains that kind of power. But, "There is power, too, of another kind in
the Shire." I think I'm stretching to apply that statement to the light
that Gandalf foresees for Frodo, but I wonder if it is a similar idea.
Frodo does accomplish a great deed in the destruction of the ring, and
is counted as a hero. I wonder if this faded part of him, this faint
hint of himself in the spirit world, I wonder if it does reflect this
resolve and will, even moral fiber, that brings about the downfall of
the Lord of the Rings, and thereby places him on the same level as the
great elven lords of old? It is, afterall, one of the major themes of
the story that good does not prevail by strength and wisdom, and that
other virtues are chiefly important.
> It is not clear exactly what is meant, even, by the statements about
> Glorfindel as a glowing figure (and in particular what "other side"
> Gandalf is speaking about -- to me it seems likely that he is
> speaking of the Blessed Realm) and how any of this relates to what
> happened to Frodo when he put on the Ring.
>
> If, however, the glowing figure of Glorfindel is meant to be of the
> same nature (although probably much stronger) as Frodo's later light,
> then it would imply also that Sam was gaining the ability to look
> into the wraith-world, as he could obviously see this light from
> Frodo: a rather questionable conclusion, IMO.
I agree, that is a questionable conclusion. And I agree, the Sam
passage definitely implies that connection. I don't really have a way
to rationalize that.
> We don't IIRC, ever see Gandalf in the spirit world (except possibly
> in the Hobbit, when the ring was not yet the Ring).
You're right, my brain must have misfired.
> Both for Frodo and for Gandalf the observations of their light are
> clearly in the normal, physical world -- in Frodo seen by Sam and
> Gandalf seen by many people in Gondor (e.g. Pippin).
>
> I doubt that this 'light' is something belonging to the wraith-world
> as such, though it may be dimmed by the physical world, and therefore
> be clearer and more obvious when the /observer/ is in the wraith
> world. However, I hesitate to make any conclusions either way.
That is an interesting idea. That would explain why Sam could see it in
Frodo. But then everyone, not just Frodo, should have seen light from
Glorfindel and others. And maybe they did--people can usually identify
an elf by that certain otherworldliness they possess--maybe it is this
light, just not seen so clearly in the physical world. Now we are
seeing through a glass darkly.... But then for Sam to see it in Frodo,
would mean that it is of significant magnitude in the spirit world.
> Personally I am not sure that Tolkien ever developed these aspects
> (this 'light' issue, and all the Seen/Unseen, material vs. wraith
> world stuff) into a consistent description -- it appears to me to be
> used rather inconsistently.
True. Maybe I'm trying to be too analytical....
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> Yes and no. I'd like to take a moment to address both internal and
> external reasons before the internal ones are disimssed out of hand.
>
> Haste makes waste. Is "haste" in fact desireable?
> 1) How long? Well, it takes the Fellowship about 4 weeks (Dec. 25 to
> Jan 17, with a couple extra days double back to Moria's entrance) to get
> to Lorien, about half way from Rivendell to Mordor. On foot, it would
> take another 3-4 weeks to get to Mordor. The Nazgul are not
> supernatural, they travel quickly, but not like the wind. Even when air
> born it nonetheless takes them several hours to fly from Mordor to
> Isengard. The wraith are not going to travel by water, and must also
> find a place they can ford the river (they don't float above the water
> for example). So even if they traveled more quickly than the
> fellowship, the best time they could make back to Mordor is 6 weeks, and
> probably closer to 8.
But do they really have to go back to Mordor? We don't know what forces
Sauron may have elsewhere. In another post you reject my notion of
getting reinforcements from Dol Guldur because they would need an army
to besiege Rivendell. And you say that Sauron would not waste spies
because he would expect Elrond or Gandalf to master the ring and come
against him. I agree that this is what Sauron would think, but I
suspect that he would still want to have spies watching the enemy's
movements. Besides, we know that the crebain *were* sent to spy on
them. Also, when the Fellowship reaches Lorien, Haldir tells them that
a great troop of Orcs recently went toward Moria. I assume that these
were sent as a direct reaction to the news about the ring. Sauron was
definitely turning some of his attention Northwards.
And were these things necessarily set in motion by Sauron himself? I
think the Witch King especially, but really any of the nazgul, would
have the authority to mobilize whatever resources they saw fit and send
them straightaway toward Rivendell, while, perhaps, others of the Nazgul
carried the news to Sauron himself. I think Sauron would be actually be
mad if all nine Ringwraiths came crying back to him, leaving the ring in
the wild without even making an attempt to keep tabs on it, and wasting,
basically, two months so that Sauron himself could authorize things that
the Ringwraiths should have done in the first place.
Also, does Sauron actually know where Rivendell is? My assumption
(although I don't remember if this has support) has been that they knew
only very generally where Rivendell was. And the only thing that the
Nazgul know about the ring at this point is that it was last seen at the
Fords of Bruinen in the company of hobbits, a human, and an elf-lord.
They may be en route to Rivendell, or to Lorien, or to Gondor. All the
more reason, I would say, for the Fellowship to leave earlier than
later. If spies start sweeping the land, they may find Rivendell and
put it under surveillance. Spies would likely start sweeping out around
the Fords, so get as far away from there as possible! If the Fellowship
leaves before any surveillance is enacted, it becomes incredibly
difficult to find them, because it is so very hard to locate a small
party in the wild, especially if you don't know for sure where they are
going.
Again, the only thing the Nazgul know at this point is that a small band
of hobbits, one human, and one elf lord are traveling in the wilderness
with the ring. And this elf lord is not using the ring! So, at this
point, I don't think Sauron would be content to just kick back and wait
for one of his enemies to master the ring and come challenge him.
> Part of the evidence for this is that it is not
> until the crebain spot them, 3 weeks out from Rivendell, that we have
> the first evidence that Sauron knows what happened back in Oct--almost 3
> months before. So if we assume that the crebain are from Isengard and
> only took a day or two to fly from Isengard to Hollin, and that Saruman
> sent the crebain in response to a palantir communication with Sauron, it
> woulld seem that the earliest that Sauron knew of what happened in Oct
> is Jan 8 or 9. They had time.
Whether or not the Ringwraiths could have found aid in Moria or Dol
Guldur, if I were Elrond making strategic decisions, I would have
assumed that if a Nazgul could reach one of them, that they could muster
spies, and try to lock down some of the mountain passes. So I would
count on about 4 weeks of relatively smooth sailing, after which time I
would expect spy networks to be deployed, and forces to begin being
mobilized. So I would like to have the Fellowship through the mountains
by then. I would expect heightened patrols on the mountains, and that
would really be the only place where it could be hard to slip a small
party through unnoticed.
Indeed, we have a large company of orcs entering Moria in early January.
If a Nazgul arrived in Dol Guldur in the beginning of December, that
would fit with the timing of these reinforcements entering Moria.
One could also say that the trouble on Caradhras may have been due to
this heightened security in the area, if one were to put malice intent
in the storms.
And the crebain and other creatures may have been searching for quite
some time prior to seeing the Fellowship.
Sauron may not have known what happened until Jan 8 or 9, but the Nazgul
knew and could make these sorts of decisions on their own.
> Had they left earlier, would it have been better? As it turned out,
> probably, but only because there were no surprises: but they didn't know
> that. That's why they sent out scouts and waited for them to reutrn, so
> that there was less channce of running int surprises on the way.
>
> 2)The "road" to take: there are many, many choices of how to get from
> Rivendell to Mordor, even if one is going to do so quickly. They can
> only determine what is the best path if they some knowledge of the roads
> . It can be safely assumed from the beginning that they will make for
> Lothlorien as the first stage, but how to get there? Cross the Misty
> Mtns toward East and then head down the Anduin? Or follow the river on
> foot? Through Hollin to the Dimrill Stair? What if Saruman has an army
> on the pass? Follow the Loudwater to the Greyflood and then up the
> Sweetwater? All unknown factors until someone goes to take a look and
> report back.
So we allow a month for the spy to get back and report that the pass is
clear. Then another month for the Fellowship to reach that pass. A lot
can change in two months.
If a small party encountered an army on the pass, they have a reasonable
chance of seeing signs of the army and hiding. At this point all the
Ringwraiths know is that a small party has the ring, so if they find any
allies, they will surely tell them to be on the look out. We know that
Aragorn and Elrond's sons went to Lorien during the scouting phase. I
think the ring should have gone with them.
> Further, the scouts can't report to the Fellowship en route unless the
> course is decided BEFORE the scouts set out (a foolish choice if you ask
> me) since they have to find them in a trackless wilderness (not quite
> the easy task). They couldn't find Aragorn with 4 hobbits in wilderness
> close to home, much less Aragorn and Gandalf leading a company where
> there is no road. So that option is out. The scout's have to go out,
> report back, and then decisions are made about what route and what
> supplies. Operating from knowledge is always better than not.
>
> 3) Frodo--Frodo needs to heal, as has been mentioned. He had a shoulder
> wound, with a tip of a knife approaching his heart. He needs to walk
> across the equivalent of Europe, over trackless wilderness, with a pack,
> with little food or fire or comforts, in winter, through many dangers.
> 2 months is not too long to expect for that, as someone like Tolkien who
> saw enough wounded in both wars would know.
Except that there is really no evidence that the injury was bothering
Frodo to such an extent. To all appearances he recovered quite rapidly.
True, this would be very strenuous walking, and recovery time might be
needed, but this isn't mentioned as one of the considerations.
> 4) planning and gathering stores for a long trip
Aragorn and Elrond's sons set out for Lorien with less than one day for
packing or planning. I don't think it would have been a problem to
outfit the others on such short notice. The reforging of the sword
seems to have taken no more than seven days. I don't know what other
planning needs to have been done at that stage. It doesn't sound like
much long-term thought was given to the ultimate end of the quest.
> 5) Weather--while weather is a concern it is also a cover. Cold weather
> and bad weather will be unpleasent for the Fellowship but will be
> equally unpleasent and cold for anyone or thing tracking them or
> attempting to find them. Bad weather will also serve to obscure their
> trail. (Again drawing analogies to my mountain experience, storms
> generally come in late fall and early winter and in spring; it gets
> bitterly cold in Dec and Jan, but not many storms during that time of
> year. I suppose it depends on the time of year and the climate, but I
> suspect that it isn't that different in England)
I think it is stretching to imply that the colder weather would be
better than warmer. I would much rather be outdoors walking in the
beginning of November than in the beginning of January. Neither is
likely to be pleasant, but I think the safest choice of weather,
regardless of the validity of any of my other points, is that earlier is
better.
<snip>
Andy
Derek Broughton
> Unrelated to Andrew's comments, someone mentioned that Dec. 25 as
> Christmas was unimportant in the story, but I disagree.
No, no. I said Christmas was unimportant in _Christian tradition_. At
least the priests of my childhood continually stressed that it was merely
adopted to supplant the pagan yule celebrations, and that Christ's birth
was far less important than his death.
> The mythic
> moment of Dec. 25 not only as Christ's birthday but in Mithraism as an
> important day, as part of the Yule feasts from pre-Christian times, as
precisely why it isn't that important in Christian tradition, and why I
think Tolkien may have implicitly used it, but didn't stress it.
--
derek
Emma Pease
Few questions
1. Were the crebain sent by Sauron's request or was it Saruman acting
on his own.
2. When did they start sweeping? It could have been some time before
but only in Hollin.
Aragorn does seem surprised at the quietness in Hollin so the scouts
to Lothlorien seem unlikely to have noticed anything odd. My guess is
that earlier crebain sweeps are responsible for the quietness but the
sweeps started after the scouts returned to Rivendell.
Note that Saruman is likely to know of Boromir's mission including the
riddle but when does Sauron learn of it? Saruman is also more likely
to guess what the council might decide (i.e., not to wield the ring
but destroy it).
3. Did Saruman use Radagast to get the crebain to spy for him? And
what happened to Radagast?
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Phlip
> Few questions
>
> 1. Were the crebain sent by Sauron's request or was it Saruman acting
> on his own.
A couple months earlier, Nazgul paid Saruman a visit, and he witnessed
first-hand the full horror of service to Mordor.
Sauron wants Saruman to force the Nine Walkers into some hard situation,
where the Ring might betray them (a plot that eventually worked!), and he
wants them east of the mountains.
Question: What would happen if the Balrog got the Ring??
Sauron doesn't want the Ring in the Gap of Rohan, because Saruman might get
it, and Sauron knows he might not get it back.
Sauron and Saruman are communicating at this point (right?), but Sauron
doesn't want Saruman to see thru Sauron's plots. So the most likely
interpretation is Sauron let Saruman think the Nine Walkers must be located,
and kept out of the Redhorn Pass.
Does Saruman think this will send the Ring into the Gap of Rohan? The best
interpretation is Sauron wants to force the Ring into Moria, but Saruman
thinks that forcing them out of the Redhorn Pass will send them to the Gap.
So when one of the Nine Walkers - Gandalf? - says "Sauron's arm has grown
long indeed", he means all the signs point to Saruman doing Sauron's dirty
work, for him.
And who is waiting - trapped - in Moria??
> 2. When did they start sweeping? It could have been some time before
> but only in Hollin.
>
> Aragorn does seem surprised at the quietness in Hollin so the scouts
> to Lothlorien seem unlikely to have noticed anything odd. My guess is
> that earlier crebain sweeps are responsible for the quietness but the
> sweeps started after the scouts returned to Rivendell.
Good catch.
> Note that Saruman is likely to know of Boromir's mission including the
> riddle but when does Sauron learn of it?
Probably straight from Saruman.
Another background story - Saruman and Sauron probably have a network of
spies in Gondor...
> Saruman is also more likely
> to guess what the council might decide (i.e., not to wield the ring
> but destroy it).
I really doubt this. Nobody but the Nine knew the Quest, and certain nobles.
Sauron weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice, but a
single feather, such as Saruman's deepest secret (or Saruman blabbing) would
have tipped the balance instantly in the correct direction. The Quest works
because the Ring's own powers give the Bearer, and his helpers, so many
opportunities to mislead Sauron.
Note that when Frodo wore the Ring, after Boromir's attack, and Sauron
nearly spotted him, he was still on the West side of the Anduin.
> 3. Did Saruman use Radagast to get the crebain to spy for him? And
> what happened to Radagast?
That has to be a FAQ. Maybe he became a woodland spirit, as he obviously
wanted to be all along.
And note we never meet Radagast, though he appears in both Hobbit and LotR.
His failure to grow into the Istari role is a quiet sadness behind others'
valor.
(And 2,000 years living in Middle-earth and he never heard of the Shire? How
oblivious can a "wizard" be??)
Troels Forchhammer
Morgil <more...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> It would be fine for such story-external considerations to be the
>> primary motive for this,
[...]
>> but I think he should have developed a better story-internal
>> reason to support it. He was a smart enough fellow to come up
>> with a better way to keep them at Rivendell for two months.
>
> The story-internal reason is explained quite thoroughly in
> the first pages of chapter 3. They have to scout the area
[...]
On the afternoon after the Council, Gandalf told the hobbits:
'Some of the scouts have been sent out already. More will
go tomorrow. Elrond is sending Elves, and they will get in
touch with the Rangers, and maybe with Thranduil's folk in
Mirkwood. And Aragorn has gone with Elrond's sons. We
shall have to scour the lands all round for many long
leagues before any move is made. So cheer up, Frodo! You
will probably make quite a long stay here.'
[Gandalf, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South']
The main point of contention, as I understood it, seemed, however, to
be rather the justification for sending the scouts out for such long
errands, rather than to scout the immediate area and leave it at that.
The main purpose, in any case, seemed to be to account for all the
Ringwraiths, although the reports also take note of wolves and other
spies of the Enemy, and the spies can be expected to have been looking
for any and all hostile activity.
Story-internally, the whole question is a matter of balancing the
increased risk due to waiting with the increased risk due to lack of
knowledge; and /not/ the actual risks, but the potential risks.
It is, of course, possible to criticize the decision-makers for erring
on the side of caution, but that would at most be a criticism against
their evalutation of the situation (made, naturally with the usual
hindsight), but I don't see how one can claim it an error of the
narrative: these people have been working against Sauron patiently for
millennia, the Ring has been lying about in the Shire for the last
sixty years, and a general feeling that it is better to walk into a
known danger than an unknown danger is, within the structure of the
story and the personalities of the main characters (in particular
Elrond and Gandalf) not only understandable, but, IMO, natural.
Personally I think I'd prefer their approach; I would definitely prefer
not to walk into the wild without knowing what awaited me (especially
if I had been overtaken and attacked by Ringwraiths en route to
Rivendell).
<reinstating>
>> Do we know how long it took the unhorsed Ringwraiths to get back
>> to Mordor? Are they constrained to traveling at speeds of an
>> on-foot human, or can they magic themselves around?
The implication is, I think, that they are forced to travel at foot and
possibly at a rather slower speed than normally hiking humans (their
sight was impaired, preventing them from travelling very fast and
probably preventing them from travelling at all during the middle of
the day). That is what I get of Gandalf's comment:
I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were
scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they
could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.
[Gandalf, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South']
>> Also, are they crippled in any other way than being essentially
>> blind?
We cannot know for sure. There's a lack of consensus regarding the
exact interpretation of what exactly a 'wraith' is -- is it,
physically, completely equivalent to Frodo's experience when he puts on
the Ring, only permanent? In that case they would not be otherwise
crippled, although one might say that this was quite enough.
>> Do they have a direct mental connection with Sauron, or do they
>> have to communicate via traditional means?
Another good question to which there is no definite answer. In some
situations where direct communication would have been a huge advantage
(in particular during book I[*]) they do act as if there is no means
for such direct communication, but upon Sauron's realisation of his
danger when Frodo claimed the One Ring in the Sammath Naur, they react
swiftly and unerringly to his desire for them to travel to Mount Doom.
[*] There is also the except from "The Hunt for the Ring" published in
Hammond and Scull's /Reader's Companion/, where it is, IMO, clear that
it would have been very natural for the Witch-king to ask his master
for advice after the failed attack on the party at Weathertop.
Ultimately I don't think the Ringwraiths had any means to communicate
directly to Sauron, although Sauron seems to have been able to
communicate at least simple ideas/desires to the Ringwraiths.
>> And do they good guys know the answers to these questions?
Gandalf certainly gives the impression of knowing quite well the answer
to some of them, and most likely to them all, and he is very firm in
his assessment of their need to have the reports from the scouts from
"the lands all round for many long leagues": "we must find out for
certain," he said about knowing the fate of the Ringwraiths.
>> If I were an unhorsed Ringwraith, I might try to high-tale it to
>> Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
>> reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
The impression I get from Gandalf's descriptions is that the
Ringwraiths were rather helpless until they could return to Sauron
specifically, or at least "for a while less dangerous", but the
implication of his explanations, as quoted above and below, is, IMO,
that the Nazgūl, if they had been robbed of both clothes and horses,
would not be able to hunt the company until they had been to see Sauron
himself.
'If that is so, it will be some time before they can
begin the hunt again. Of course the Enemy has other
servants, but they will have to journey all the way to
the borders of Rivendell before they can pick up our
trail. And if we are careful that will be hard to find.
But we must delay no longer.'
[ibid.]
Larry Swain
> In article <eI2dndFOSaFEgnPZ...@rcn.net>, Larry Swain wrote:
>
>>Haste makes waste. Is "haste" in fact desireable?
>>1) How long? Well, it takes the Fellowship about 4 weeks (Dec. 25 to
>>Jan 17, with a couple extra days double back to Moria's entrance) to get
>>to Lorien, about half way from Rivendell to Mordor. On foot, it would
>>take another 3-4 weeks to get to Mordor. The Nazgul are not
>>supernatural, they travel quickly, but not like the wind. Even when air
>>born it nonetheless takes them several hours to fly from Mordor to
>>Isengard. The wraith are not going to travel by water, and must also
>>find a place they can ford the river (they don't float above the water
>>for example). So even if they traveled more quickly than the
>>fellowship, the best time they could make back to Mordor is 6 weeks, and
>>probably closer to 8. Part of the evidence for this is that it is not
>>until the crebain spot them, 3 weeks out from Rivendell, that we have
>>the first evidence that Sauron knows what happened back in Oct--almost 3
>>months before. So if we assume that the crebain are from Isengard and
>>only took a day or two to fly from Isengard to Hollin, and that Saruman
>>sent the crebain in response to a palantir communication with Sauron, it
>>woulld seem that the earliest that Sauron knew of what happened in Oct
>>is Jan 8 or 9. They had time.
>
>
> Few questions
>
> 1. Were the crebain sent by Sauron's request or was it Saruman acting
> on his own.
Hi Emma,
We don't know. The interpretation I offered was the best interpretation
we could give on the textual evidence for Andrew's position about how
soon Sauron could have known about the events of the Fords of Bruinen.
There are certainly other possibilities re: the crebain, including
Saruman acting on his own.
>
> 2. When did they start sweeping? It could have been some time before
> but only in Hollin.
Perhaps, but that isn't all that useful if they are merely sweeping
Hollin, which isn't that far from the Gap, and only on one side of the
mtns. Saruman has got to know that the last thing Gandalf and Elrond
are going to do is go anywhere near the Gap. But they are probably
going to go to Lorien, so he needs to be able to watch all possible
paths, not just Hollin.
> Aragorn does seem surprised at the quietness in Hollin so the scouts
> to Lothlorien seem unlikely to have noticed anything odd. My guess is
> that earlier crebain sweeps are responsible for the quietness but the
> sweeps started after the scouts returned to Rivendell.
Probably not. Aragorn does not notice this until only a little while
before the crebain flew overhead.
>
> Note that Saruman is likely to know of Boromir's mission including the
> riddle but when does Sauron learn of it? Saruman is also more likely
> to guess what the council might decide (i.e., not to wield the ring
> but destroy it).
Perhaps, but how? Theoden didn't know it, and there is no evidence that
Saruman had spies in Denethor's throne room or that Saruman communicated
with Denethor via the palantir. Sauron may have told him I suppose, but
I rather doubt it, even if Sauron knew.
>
> 3. Did Saruman use Radagast to get the crebain to spy for him? And
> what happened to Radagast?
Perhaps, but it could be just the request to bring news to Orthanc that
Gandalf asked for, without any warning to beware Saruman. So the birds
come, bringing news and Saruman then sends them out. That's a
possibility. But more likely Saruman had some control over the
creatures around Isengard, for these crebain are "out of Dunland and
Fangorn."
We don't know what happened to Radagast, though in one of the letters
Tolkien intimates that he believes that all the wizards save Gandalf
failed in their missions. It is likely that Sauron or Saruman had
Radagast done in, but we are never told.
ste...@nomail.com
> We don't know what happened to Radagast, though in one of the letters
> Tolkien intimates that he believes that all the wizards save Gandalf
> failed in their missions. It is likely that Sauron or Saruman had
> Radagast done in, but we are never told.
I do not see how it is likely that Sauron or Saruman had Radagast
done in. Tolkien is rather clear about Radagast's failure:
"Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he
was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured
of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and
forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."
Radagast became more interested in "nature" than in opposing
Sauron, and so failed in his mission. There does not seem
to be either the opportunity or the motivation for Sauron
or Saruman to kill Radagast.
Stephen
Francis A. Miniter
Did Radagast fail? Or did he succeed? It could be argued that the one
who struggled for the survival of trees, ents and eagles had a lot to do
with the outcome of the tale.
Also, I am uncertain about the concept of "killing" entities like
Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman.
Francis A. Miniter
Phlip
> Did Radagast fail? Or did he succeed? It could be argued that the one
> who struggled for the survival of trees, ents and eagles had a lot to do
> with the outcome of the tale.
R is still an Istari, and still a Maiar. Incorporation carries risks,
including the risk of not becoming a fair counselor to all kings, like
Gandalf.
However, Sauron's war is also against Nature. (For example, real mountain
rings, like Mordor, tend to trap rain and grow fertile. Sauron made it a
desert.)
Nature gets even in many subtle ways - a root to trip a warrior here, a
winged spy there, etc. So Radagast's role, as counselor to Nature, lets even
his mistakes redound to harm Evil.
Phlip
>
> LOL. But that also has a great deal to do with the removal of March
> 25 - "Lady Day" - as a day of any importance.
And as soon as Sam returns to the Shire and greets Rosie Cotton, she says,
"I've been waiting for you since this Spring!"
Now what happened in Spring, hmm?
Robinsons
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > It is not clear exactly what is meant, even, by the statements about
> > Glorfindel as a glowing figure (and in particular what "other side"
> > Gandalf is speaking about -- to me it seems likely that he is
> > speaking of the Blessed Realm) and how any of this relates to what
> > happened to Frodo when he put on the Ring.
> >
> > If, however, the glowing figure of Glorfindel is meant to be of the
> > same nature (although probably much stronger) as Frodo's later light,
> > then it would imply also that Sam was gaining the ability to look
> > into the wraith-world, as he could obviously see this light from
> > Frodo: a rather questionable conclusion, IMO.
>
Excellent points, Andrew. However, to me it is clear that by "other side"
Gandalf is referring to the spirit world, or to beings that inhabit the
spirit world as well as the physical world. I mean, Elves don't start
physically glowing like radioactive embers when they visit Aman, do they?
I imagine the "light of the Eldar" is a purely spiritual thing, reflecting
only the spiritual power they have gained from dwelling in the light of the
Trees, which is presumably, also mostly spiritual (Tolkien confirms that
the light of the trees is not, cannot have been as intense as the light of
the sun, the fruit of Telperion which was described as "marred" (mutated?)
Presumably there are other ways of attaining spiritual "light" and perhaps
all beings with spiritual ("magical") powers have a discernible radiance
in the spirit world which is barely detectable by mortals, whose spirit is
trapped in their bodies and flees the world on their death. The movie
takes this route by depicting Nazgul as bathed in an evil radiance when
Frodo puts on the Ring, and the book describes a light that "illuminated
her alone" referring to Galadriel imagining herself with the Ring
(clearly not a product of Aman.)
Also, Frodo can see Galadriel's ring when
the others cannot, and is able to exercise use of the Ring enough to
command Gollum, and perhaps the Ringwraiths, had he claimed it for
long enough to do so. I think this means that he retained some of
the "other vision" that he had under the wriath spell.
> I agree, that is a questionable conclusion. And I agree, the Sam
> passage definitely implies that connection. I don't really have a way
> to rationalize that.
As for the improbability of Sam gaining the same sort of vision, I think
Tolkien implies mortals all have some minor ability to see into that
other spiritual dimension, but only if there is something shining through
that can be percieved.
Tolkien describes SEVERAL times Sam percieving
Frodo "with other sight", especially when Frodo is using the Ring to
command Gollum.
The first such instance is in Emyn Muil, I think, before Sam ever handled the
Ring. so we can't attribute Sam's vestigial capacity (to see a spiritual
presence) to Ring affinity. Instead, it is probably a vestigial ability
all mortals have. Otherwise, why would High Elves strike mortals
as any different than wood-elves?
I love how people criticized Peter Jackson for "nuclear Galadriel" and in so
doing probably caused him to fuck up the ending of ROTK, because if the book
were to be followed properly, the same thing would have happened to Frodo
when he commands Gollum to leave on Mount Doom, only instead of a breastplate
and flowing robes, Frodo would have appeared to Sam as, um... something
very similar. (they also omitted Sam's final act of mercy towards Gollum,
and Frodo's admission that without Gollum they could not have succeeded,
and nobody complained, sadly...) Another instance where purism (or a
certain popular attitude among readers, such as "mortals cannot percieve
or manipulate *anything* in the spirit realm unless they are given power
from some outside source") detracts from what is in the book.
--Brian
Robinsons
> When the Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian in
> 1752, [...] the 25th March jumped to being the 6th of
> April. And in England they year still /does/ start on
> the 6th of April. But only the tax year, which no one
> sees as a moment of eucatastrophe.
Does this have anything to do with April 15, the last day of
the fiscal year in the US? Why is money the last thing to be
tied to a liturgical calendar? Seems questionable that that
is the one thing people are most "pious" about.
> And noting that the Company of the Ring set out from Rivendell on the
> 25th of December:
> The main action of /The Lord of the Rings/ takes place,
> then, in the mythic space between Christmas, Christ's
> birth, and the crucifixion, Christ's death.
> [ibid.]
>
> Though Shippey refuses to make any conclusions with respect to Frodo
> based on this, I still think that he implies that it is deliberate
> from Tolkien's hand that the main part of the Quest (the more serious
> part, one might say) takes place in this mythic time-span.
I thought there was supposed to be no allegory whatsoever in
Lord of the Rings. Is Tolkien saying that putting LOTR in the
Real world means that important Christian dates and theological bits
HAVE to have meaning in this antediluvian setting? Again, seems
like kind of un unusual (and unique) redefinition of allegory.
"It's not allegory, it's truth" - Except that a liberal Christian
could argue that God has no reason to re-use the same dates twice,
and has not done so, unless you count massacres and such.
Did Tolkien have some evidence for believing that litirgical dates
were numinous in and of themselves, and therefore warrant inclusion
in any fictionalized setting based on this planet?
The fact that we don't know the real date of the Annunciation or
Christmas (and it was changed around for quite some time) makes this
a bit problematic.
I'm assuming that for Tolkien, the Fourth Age ended with Noah's Ark,
thereby setting the stage for the fictionalized point of departure
(where history and accurate geography begins.)
Of course, we now know that the Biblical flood, to the extent that
there was one, happened because of rising sea levels which flooded
the plain of Mesopotamia and catastrophically flooded Anatolia,
forming the Black Sea and demolishing a land bridge around the
Bosporous.
A similar thing happened to the Bridge of the Gods in Oregon,
an ancient natural bridge that was destroyed by an ice dam on
the Columbia River at the end of the last ice age, and recorded in folk memory.
--BEr.
Robinsons
Sauron became the spirit whose dominion is accountants and tax collectors?
Robinsons
> It is much, much, much more than this. March 25th was freqnuently
> celebrated as the New Year in pre-CHristian and post-CHristian
> Anglo-Saxon tradition. Regardless of whether it was or not, though, it
> was also the day of the creation of humanity and the fall, the day of
> the first Passover in Exodus, typologically important, the day of the
> Annuciation, the day of the Crucifixion, and in some medieval
> commentators the day on which the world would end. It is indeed an
> auspicious day!
Or at least Tolkien believed so. But all these dates were tied together
artificially by medieval commentators. I mean, March 25 did not exist at
the time of Exodus, although I'm sure the Spring solstice did. However
according to the modern calendar that's March 21. Does the Bible say
"four days after the Spring solstice"? Because otherwise I don't believe
anyone who says they know the date of the first Passover.
As for Annunciation, biblical literalists may have a problem with that
because shepherds did not "watch their flocks" in mid-winter, even in
the mediterranean climate of Israel/Palestine. For a long time March
25 was assumed to be the date of Christ's birth, IIRC -- which was also
an attempt to tie in with the Anglo-Saxon solstice, presumably because
mid-winter was less amenable to celebrations that far north than it was
in Rome. And as for the day the world would end, "none will know the
day or the hour"...
I can't get into this theory that liturgical dates
are numinous, even in fantasy fiction, it rubs me the wrong way.
I mean, numinous objects, numinous locations, prophecies, situations --
that makes sense to me.
Numinous dates (that happen every yeer, whether or not something
significant or often enough, unhappy, occurs on them, such as a
massacre) is sort of like the Zodiac where everyone born in a
certain year or month is supposed to be of some significance.
"Mythologically implausible, Captain."
--Brian
Phlip
> I thought there was supposed to be no allegory whatsoever in
> Lord of the Rings. Is Tolkien saying that putting LOTR in the
> Real world means that important Christian dates and theological bits
> HAVE to have meaning in this antediluvian setting? Again, seems
> like kind of un unusual (and unique) redefinition of allegory.
Absolutely. No other cultures celebrate Rebirth in mid-winter (on the first
day the sun can be seen returning), and no other cultures celebrate Renewal
in Spring (the time to, uh, plant crops, right?).
Further, none of those other cultures draw from the same wellsprings of
Nature and of human circadian rhythms and such.
It's all a big X-tian allegory! Just like that Narnia stuff !!
Speaking Clock
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>> It is much, much, much more than this. March 25th was freqnuently
>> celebrated as the New Year in pre-CHristian and post-CHristian
>> Anglo-Saxon tradition. Regardless of whether it was or not, though,
>> it was also the day of the creation of humanity and the fall, the
>> day of the first Passover in Exodus, typologically important, the
>> day of the Annuciation, the day of the Crucifixion, and in some
>> medieval commentators the day on which the world would end. It is
>> indeed an auspicious day!
Of course it is - it's my birthday! All that other stuff is just part
of the game plan to make all who love me despair.
--
Lady Speaking Clock
Robinsons
> > Personally, I think the reasons are mostly story-external
>
> That was my first thought as well -- the prime motive would have been
> the overall calendar of the story.
>
> Also I suspect that the characters would value the intelligence
> gained higher than the delay -- Boromir and the Hobbits excepted (and
> Gimli), the decision-makers of the company has spend decades
> (Aragorn) or millennia (Gandalf, Legolas and Elrond even ages)
> fighting Sauron, so they're not likely to grow impatient all that
> fast. We can, of course, discuss the worth of waiting a bit,
> increasing both the danger and the knowledge needed to avoid that
> danger -- there's a Danish proverb, "rather the devil you know, than
> the one you don't".
The movie solved this problem in excellent fashion by establishing
that the Fellowship at first intended to take the Gap of Rohan,
because an ascent of Caradhras in mid-winter otherwise makes no
story-internal sense. Even the most experienced climbers simply
DO NOT do such things (read Into Thin Air, Shackleton's Expedition,
or several recent accounts of miraculous escapes from the Andes
to find out why.)
And purists trashed them for diverging from the text, even suggesting
that not mentioning Rohan (or mentioning it in clumsy exposition
at the Council) would have been preferable to showing the Fellowship's
strategy visually and making sense of their otherwise irrational
decision in the process.
Another aspect of LOTR that you just have to take on faith is the
assumption that both the White Mountains and Misty Mountains were
impassible for miles in Winter, which I guess is not beyond the
range of geological implausibility. The text seems to imply that
Ents, at least, could cross the mountains into Dunland, but doing
so would take the Ringbearer through potentially hostile populated
territory on both sides of the mountain range. Rohan and Gondor
themselves were avoided, as the book makes clear that a decision
to avoid Gondor was debated and postponed till Rauros, and a
decision to avoid Rohan was made early on.
> > (though it is fun trying to think through the story-internal
> > reasons).
>
> Sometimes I think the best way to approach a story-internal
> explaination is to go by the way of the story-external . . .
>
> In a number of situations, Tolkien's personal idiosyncrasies affected
> both how the characters act (the more ennobled the character, the
> closer they will act to what Tolkien thought they ought to), but also
> through the basic causality of Middle-earth (governed, if you need a
> story-internal explanation for that, by Eru).
Yes, but there's no point arguing "facts" about the plot points in
the story then (which is probably just as well, since it's more
fun to argue about stuff where people do not or can't insist
"Tolkien clearly says that thus-and-such happened and I believe him")
I mean, can't have it both ways, right? If folks are going to debate
Tolkien's story-internal justifications for every plot point, or plot
hole, then any attempt to rely on story external justifications
is really to deny the validity of the whole discussion.
(unless Tolkien intended liturgical dates to have physical significance
in antediluvian Middle-Earth, which I think is a naive sort of theology
masquerading as allegory, but Tolkien probably felt that way; in which
case the date theory is story-internal.)
> You could be right, though I think the significant dates: leaving
> Rivendell on 25 December and the downfall of Sauron on 25 March (the
> Annunciation Day of the Virgin Mary) are the primary motivation for
> the pacing. When Tolkien wrote the first versions of the early
> chapters, he didn't really know where he was heading, and once he got
> the story under control, the setting out on Frodo and Bilbo's
> combined birthday (Bilbo's birthday was established already in /The
> Hobbit/) was probably already too fixed in his mind to be changed.
> That would introduce the need for a prolonged pause somewhere
> (basically he had three months too much to fit things before 25
> March), and Rivendell and Lothlórien were the only really fitting
> places for that (before Rivendell the Hobbits had the Ringwraiths on
> their heels, and after the breaking it would have complicated matters
> unnecessarily to have to halt all groups.
IOW, Tolkien bending over backwards to include symbolism that
is not intended to be allegorical in any way, shape or form.
<snip christian holiday comparison>
Are these Christian holidays, medieval holidays, or Catholic holidays?
Still, it shows the problem trying to make dates have any independent
meaning.
> Though the latter produces two more matches, I think it is more
> significant that, in the former, the downfall of Sauron co-incides
> with the Annunciation -- in both cases this date is allowed to herald
> the beginning of a new age (the Fourth Age or the Age of Christ).
(1) The Fourth Age can't be the Age of Christ.
(2) As a Christian myself, I prefer my fantasy non-allegorical, thank
you. I'm glad Tolkien ordinarily agreed... but on some matters
he could not resist injecting his own specific theological dogma
into a fictional setting which is about on par with state sponsored
religion -- it cheapens both parties. After all, Middle-Earth did
not exist, except in Tolkien's head, and there is no reason to
insist that events on Earth must also occur alongside fictional
events in Middle Earth. Especially since a fundamentalist reading
of the Bible (and of Tolkien's mythos) are both provably false,
so it makes no sense to project certainty onto either. Hence I
think the whole accurate dates/liturgical thing was a failing of
Tolkien's that consumed quite a bit of his time to no good effect.
Even in myth, the notion of numinous dates does not work except
in the context of some sort of specific prophecy, and even then
dates are rarely repeated, because that's just silly.
> > But we mostly have to speculate about what Sauron was up to.
>
> Which might be exactly what the decision-makers in Rivendell were not
> willing to do -- for them the increased danger could have been a
> cheap price for the reduced uncertainty (I'll admit that, put like
> that, the idea looks rather attractive to me <G>).
Except the uncertainty increases the longer they wait in both locations.
More players have the opportunity to put pieces on the board in response
to rumors that the ring is at large.
Why not catch the Nazgul when they are back on their heels, so to speak?
Sure, set out after some strategic delay so that the Enemy cannot time
your whereabouts with any precision on the assumption that you did not
stay in Rivendell (a reasonable assumption if Sauron imagines the RIng
may have been siezed by one of the parties there, who would have
presumably left in a huff, or perhaps that the Ringbearer succumbed to
the Morgul knife and fled Rivendell as a wraith!)
> Even if they knew that the Nazgūl had been bereft of mounts and
> clothes and thus were powerless for the while, there was still a need
> to know the situation they were travelling into. Rivendell could very
> well have been under surveillance by other spies than the Ringwraiths
> and the Company needed to know before they left.
Why not simply set out with a travelling cordon of scouts, and use
the other elves as decoy Fellowships? Send out decoys the same way
Gandalf predicted the extra two Hobbits would muddy the waters
successfully. I mean, their whole strategy is based on Sauron
not knowing the intent of the Fellowship, so he would have to guess
their intent in order to focus on them. Also, why ave Gandalf
(a walking lantern of power) accompany the Fellowship thru the wild
into Mordor? Did Gandalf forsee he would have to separate from
Frodo for his mission to be a success, or that Aragorn and the others
would succumb to the Ring's lure if they followed him too far? That
is why an oath would have been disastrous. Why not send Gandalf out
with, say, Boromir, Merry and Pippin, on horseback, accompanied by
Elves, at stand-off distance "over the horizon" from the rest of the
Fellowship, as if they might be travelling in different directions?
and again, use the other scouts as decoys.
--Brian
Robinsons
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that if
we're assuming it's not allegory, Tolkien's insistence on matching
the dates in the (patently inaccurate and revised over the centuries)
liturgical calendar is unecessary. At least the Solstices are a
measurable alternative and theologically neutral, even for a Catholic.
Getting into precise dates that are supposed to have some larger
significance in the context of the story doesn't work for me unless
the author is seeking to include measurable natural phenomena.
Of course, Tolkien was writing before it was common knowledge that
liturgical dates were rather clumsily ret-conned, but I'm sure he
was aware of that. Why not just use Midsummer, Midwinter, etc?
Or if liturgical dates are supposed to have significance in
ancient Earth, why not the dates of First Age events? It's
boring (and unrealistic) if everything interesting further
back in time is supposed to have happened on the same dates
as well, which I guess Tolkien would have said. I mean, how
boring would it be for the world to end on the same date as
the (fictionalized) date of the Annunciation? That would
imply it's all a farce, since there's no reason to have faith
that the liturgical calendar is accurate. Is God in the habit
of recycling due to a date shortage?
--BEr.
Robinsons
It's your birthday, and You didn't get us anything?
:-)
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> to me it is clear that by "other
> side" Gandalf is referring to the spirit world, or to beings that
> inhabit the spirit world as well as the physical world. I mean,
> Elves don't start physically glowing like radioactive embers when
> they visit Aman, do they?
Not just due to physical proximity. But they do seem to "absorb" some of the
light and grow spiritually, and afterwards they do show forth this effect:
"...they were a mighty people, the elder children undying of Eru Iluvatar,
but new-come from the Blessed Realm, and not yet weary with the weariness of
Earth. The fire of their hearts was young..." (Of the Flight of the Noldor)
> I imagine the "light of the Eldar" is a purely spiritual thing,
> reflecting only the spiritual power they have gained from dwelling in
> the light of the Trees, which is presumably, also mostly spiritual
"...the Valar summoned the Quendi to Valinor, there to be gathered at the
knees of the Powers in the light of the Trees for ever..." (Of the Coming of
the Elves)
This has always been, for me, the clearest indication that the Valar meant
the Elves to be gathered to do some sort of homage. Though I've always
wondered why Tolkien says _knees_ here, and not feet?
> (Tolkien confirms that
> the light of the trees is not, cannot have been as intense as the
> light of the sun, the fruit of Telperion which was described as
> "marred" (mutated?)
I thought it was the other way around?
"But neither the Sun nor the Moon can recall the light that was of old, that
came from the Trees before they were touched by the poison of Ungoliant That
light lives now in the Silmarils alone." (Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding
of Valinor)
Christopher
Robinsons
> > The story-internal reason is explained quite thoroughly in
> > the first pages of chapter 3. They have to scout the area
> [...]
>
> On the afternoon after the Council, Gandalf told the hobbits:
>
> 'Some of the scouts have been sent out already. More will
> go tomorrow. Elrond is sending Elves, and they will get in
> touch with the Rangers, and maybe with Thranduil's folk in
> Mirkwood. And Aragorn has gone with Elrond's sons. We
> shall have to scour the lands all round for many long
> leagues before any move is made. So cheer up, Frodo! You
> will probably make quite a long stay here.'
> [Gandalf, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South']
Well, looking at the quote, it does make more sense when you read
it than when you just think about it. Also, considering my "decoy
Fellowship" solution, I realized something: It might tip off the
Enemy that the Fellowship was departing Rivendell at a specific time.
Presumably the scouts were sent in tiny groups -- militarily
expendible -- so as not to send a signal to Sauron that a protected
caravan was in the area, were any of the scouts to be discovered.
But this was something that made me twinge just a little when I
first read it, now that I remember it.
The part about Aragorn and Elrond's sons -- hardly an expendable
party -- makes the whole scout strategy seem almost as dangerous
as sending the Ringbearer to Lorien early -- sans Fellowship even --
as Gandalf did with Pippin -- to present a decoy, get the hell
out of dodge, not for any strategic location but to remove Sauron's
knowledge of the Ring's general whereabouts! The Fellowship could
the be assembled in secret at rendezvous points, "special-forces style"
to prevent a travelling caravan of potentially squabbling warriors.
Perhaps Elrond would have refused to do so precisely because the
Ring would have served as some sort of "evil beacon" and brought
his sons to harm, whereas they were safer on an ordinary scouting
mission. In this sence, the military strategy is different than
ordinary "insertion" of secret agents into enemy territory -- more
like smuggling radioactive materials that may alert enemies to
your whereabouts more than if you were unaccompanied and alone
in the wilderness. (It is worth pointing out here that Frodo and
many other people in the mythology were never safer than when
he was unaccompanied, alone and silent, or accompanied only by Sam,
since it's hard to track such a person but presumably the risk was
too great since you want at least some capability to neutralize
any enemy that discovers your whereabouts. Any lone figure in
the wilderness might not be assailed but could probably be tracked,
and reported on, as in the case of Gollum.)
We know that Gandalf's route into Mordor was kept a secret from all
but perhaps Aragorn, but would Gandalf want Aragorn to accompany
Frodo as far as Mount Doom? I think if he had led Frodo over the
passes of Ered Lithui, either Aragorn or Frodo would have died.
Aragorn would have had to separate himself from Frodo in order
to provide a decoy, and he could not have been captured alive...
> The main point of contention, as I understood it, seemed, however, to
> be rather the justification for sending the scouts out for such long
> errands, rather than to scout the immediate area and leave it at that.
>
> The main purpose, in any case, seemed to be to account for all the
> Ringwraiths, although the reports also take note of wolves and other
> spies of the Enemy, and the spies can be expected to have been looking
> for any and all hostile activity.
Well, they obviously didn't have much success at their scouting, since
wargs, crebain etc. did discover and assail them in the wilderness.
Couldn't a few scouts have accompanied the party at stand-off distance
to neutralize ground-based enemy intelligence, like a fleet of ships?
Then they could have sent Frodo with a smaller party until they were
sure they had obfuscated his location. As for the Ringwraiths, it
seems to me that if they had stayed in the area "unhorsed" they could
have kept Frodo bottled up there indefinitely until help arrived.
> Story-internally, the whole question is a matter of balancing the
> increased risk due to waiting with the increased risk due to lack of
> knowledge; and /not/ the actual risks, but the potential risks.
>
> It is, of course, possible to criticize the decision-makers for erring
> on the side of caution, but that would at most be a criticism against
> their evalutation of the situation (made, naturally with the usual
> hindsight), but I don't see how one can claim it an error of the
> narrative: these people have been working against Sauron patiently for
> millennia, the Ring has been lying about in the Shire for the last
> sixty years, and a general feeling that it is better to walk into a
> known danger than an unknown danger is, within the structure of the
> story and the personalities of the main characters (in particular
> Elrond and Gandalf) not only understandable, but, IMO, natural.
Sure, but not always wise. As it turns out, the notion of a fellowship
of Nine trying to infiltrate Mordor without raising attention by relying
on the months-old reports of scouts, chiefly looking for Nazgul, is not
plausible in terms of story mechanics. We know that the Ring would have
turned some of the others against Frodo or used them to alert the Enemy
to his whereabouts (Sam almost does this, as does Frodo himself, and
Gandalf would easily have done so in Mordor; perhaps Gandalf intended
all along to participate in the War in order to provide a diversion,
since military strategy doesn't seem to be in his brief as a Wizard.
If I were writing the story I would say that in a sense Gandalf "failed"
as much as Radagast or the other wizards, had he not fallen, by turning
into a military/advisor figure to the remaining Western realms whose
survival was, frankly, not essential to saving Middle Earth (as Gandalf
pointed out to Denethor).
> Personally I think I'd prefer their approach; I would definitely prefer
> not to walk into the wild without knowing what awaited me (especially
> if I had been overtaken and attacked by Ringwraiths en route to
> Rivendell).
As pointed out, if the wraiths WERE out there, such caution is
sufficient to keep Frodo bottled up in Mordor, whereupon you
HAVE to assume Sauron thinks you'll throw caution to the winds
and get the Ring to a safe place, location unknown, otherwise
Sauron WOULD have put a cordon around Rivendell and they would
have had to strike out ANYWAY against the very same dangers
they unscucessfully tried to avoid, right?
So Sauron is assuming that they would do the opposite of what
they wanted to do, in order to decieve him... so he withdrew
the Ringwraiths, calling them back to Mordor, because he knew
that the Ring would leave Rivendell regardless of the risk,
otherwise he could keep them bottled up there... This is getting complicated.
To paraphrase _The Princess Bride:_
"I knew you knew I would think that. You just violated one of the TWO RULES!
First, never start a land war in Asia; and more important,
Don't cross a Maiar Spirit when DEATH is on the line!
Ha ha ha ha! <URK>"
> >> Do we know how long it took the unhorsed Ringwraiths to get back
> >> to Mordor? Are they constrained to traveling at speeds of an
> >> on-foot human, or can they magic themselves around?
>
> The implication is, I think, that they are forced to travel at foot and
> possibly at a rather slower speed than normally hiking humans (their
> sight was impaired, preventing them from travelling very fast and
> probably preventing them from travelling at all during the middle of
> the day). That is what I get of Gandalf's comment:
>
> I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were
> scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they
> could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.
> [Gandalf, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South']
>
> >> Also, are they crippled in any other way than being essentially
> >> blind?
>
> We cannot know for sure. There's a lack of consensus regarding the
> exact interpretation of what exactly a 'wraith' is -- is it,
> physically, completely equivalent to Frodo's experience when he puts on
> the Ring, only permanent? In that case they would not be otherwise
> crippled, although one might say that this was quite enough.
Well, Bilbo was able to get around alright, more or less... Then again,
he never really uses the ring in broad daylight, only in situations where
a normal person's vision would be impaired, such as caves... perhaps this
is why the Nazgul prefer the cover of darkness?
> >> Do they have a direct mental connection with Sauron, or do they
> >> have to communicate via traditional means?
>
> Another good question to which there is no definite answer. In some
> situations where direct communication would have been a huge advantage
> (in particular during book I[*]) they do act as if there is no means
> for such direct communication, but upon Sauron's realisation of his
> danger when Frodo claimed the One Ring in the Sammath Naur, they react
> swiftly and unerringly to his desire for them to travel to Mount Doom.
I think whoever did the Ring FAQ speculated that Sauron can transmit
but not receive, thereby indicating that the Nazgul did not wear their
own Rings.
In which case the question must be asked WHY? Why would Sauron limit
the effectiveness of his best servants? Mordor equivalent of denying
body armor to his troops, maybe? He clearly wasn't making more Nazgul
with the rings, or he would have done so. And gathering the rings
to him simply to accumulate their power sounds like an archaic explanation
from early in the history of the story, since the later accounts of how
the Rings work imply that the One was all that really mattered.
Had Sauron attempted to access the power of the Nine he would have had
to either be wearing the One, or de-wraithify the existing Nazgul.
The mechanics and basic idea of the One Ring don't seem to account
for enslaving multiple Ring-bearers per ring, which seems more like
something out of Pirates of the Carribbean.
> [*] There is also the except from "The Hunt for the Ring" published in
> Hammond and Scull's /Reader's Companion/, where it is, IMO, clear that
> it would have been very natural for the Witch-king to ask his master
> for advice after the failed attack on the party at Weathertop.
Hmm, which raises the question why they were such poor strategists.
Had they assumed caution on the Allies' part they should have kept
the Fellowship bottled up in Rivendell for as long as possible.
It makes no sense if they can transmit as well as receive, although
it would if the Witch-King alone had a ring on his finger, perhaps.
(which might also explain his power being increased on the battlefield
later -- I wonder if Tolkien ever thought of this as an explanation
for the fluctuating nature of the threat he posed.)
> Ultimately I don't think the Ringwraiths had any means to communicate
> directly to Sauron, although Sauron seems to have been able to
> communicate at least simple ideas/desires to the Ringwraiths.
"Khamul! A Monte Cristo and Coffee, NOW!!"
"I called you 30 minutes ago, I KNOW you're still out dispatching
Hobbits. Tell the Witch-King I ain't paying for it if it's late!
End of Transmission."
"And a Danish! And Onion Rings! Over and Out."
> >> And do they good guys know the answers to these questions?
>
> Gandalf certainly gives the impression of knowing quite well the answer
> to some of them, and most likely to them all, and he is very firm in
> his assessment of their need to have the reports from the scouts from
> "the lands all round for many long leagues": "we must find out for
> certain," he said about knowing the fate of the Ringwraiths.
Fair enough. But if the Ringwriths withdrew, it always seemed to me
that they were expecting the Ringbearer or his successor to strike out
in a risk taking fashion, so they might as well do do accordingly,
unless they are trying to play mind games with Sauron like the
Sicilian in _Princess Bride_. Which, as the Sicilian would tell you,
is always a mistake.
> >> If I were an unhorsed Ringwraith, I might try to high-tale it to
> >> Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
> >> reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
>
> The impression I get from Gandalf's descriptions is that the
> Ringwraiths were rather helpless until they could return to Sauron
> specifically, or at least "for a while less dangerous", but the
> implication of his explanations, as quoted above and below, is, IMO,
> that the Nazgūl, if they had been robbed of both clothes and horses,
> would not be able to hunt the company until they had been to see Sauron
> himself.
>
> 'If that is so, it will be some time before they can
> begin the hunt again. Of course the Enemy has other
> servants, but they will have to journey all the way to
> the borders of Rivendell before they can pick up our
> trail. And if we are careful that will be hard to find.
> But we must delay no longer.'
> [ibid.]
Hmmm..............
--Brian
Robinsons
> Sure, but not always wise. As it turns out, the notion of a fellowship
> of Nine trying to infiltrate Mordor without raising attention by relying
> on the months-old reports of scouts, chiefly looking for Nazgul, is not
> plausible in terms of story mechanics.
The story mechanics Tolkien set up, I mean.
In other words, Gandalf was fallible. His intention in setting up the
Fellowship would not have worked barring fortuitous circumstances,
as actually happened, which could not be counted on and would inevitably
require misfortune. Without misfortune occurring, you'd have a multi-racial
travelling circus heading towards Mount Doom. Look how much notice people
took of just Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli in Rohan.
> As pointed out, if the wraiths WERE out there, such caution is
> sufficient to keep Frodo bottled up in Mordor,
In Rivendell, I mean.
> whereupon you
> HAVE to assume Sauron thinks you'll throw caution to the winds
> and get the Ring to a safe place, location unknown, otherwise
> Sauron WOULD have put a cordon around Rivendell and they would
> have had to strike out ANYWAY against the very same dangers
> they unscucessfully tried to avoid, right?
>
> So Sauron is assuming that they would do the opposite of what
> they wanted to do, in order to decieve him... so he withdrew
> the Ringwraiths, calling them back to Mordor, because he knew
> that the Ring would leave Rivendell regardless of the risk,
> otherwise he could keep them bottled up there...
>
> To paraphrase _The Princess Bride:_
>
> "I knew you knew I would think that. You just violated one of the TWO RULES!
>
> First, never start a land war in Asia; and more important,
>
> Don't cross a Maiar Spirit when DEATH is on the line!
>
> Ha ha ha ha! <URK>"n
Robinsons
> Unrelated to Andrew's comments, someone mentioned that Dec. 25 as
> Christmas was unimportant in the story, but I disagree. The mythic
> moment of Dec. 25 not only as Christ's birthday but in Mithraism as an
> important day, as part of the Yule feasts from pre-Christian times, as
> the celebration of the return of light after the shortest day of the
> year (the 25th is generally recognized as the first day on which one
> actually notices the increased length of the day)...so in both Christian
> and pre-Christian senses, it was an important day and it is on this day
> that the hope of Middle Earth sets out from Rivendell.
Midwinter's day, yes. I agree.
December 25 -per se-, I disagree, since such a date didn't used to exist.
Unless it means "four days after Midwinters day" which in reality just
meand the medieval scholars thought "25" was a nice round number and "21"
was inauspicious for some reason.
Which is one of the reasons attaching mystical importance to liturgical
dates set down by real-world scholars in a work of fiction takes me out
of the story. If it were supposed to be an allegory, I wouldn't mind.
Well, no, I would, because timing up dates like that is heavy handed
symbolism that doesn't tell the reader much. It's like those people
say: It's not the anniversary that's important, it's -what happened-
on the anniversary that matters." Which is irrelevant in a
Middle Earth -- or any pre-modern -- context where the whole calendar
system was different and the dates don't line up.
That's just my opinion.
--Brian
Robinsons
<snip>
Excellent points. I wish I'd thought of them.
Brian
Robinsons
> If I were an unhorsed Ringwraith, I might try to high-tale
> > it to Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
> > reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
>
> One assumes that the wraiths think they can find reinforcements at
> Moria. As for any force coming out of dol guldur, that would be spotted
> by the ever vigilant eyes of aladriel and her people, and so warning
> sent to Rivendell. And Sauron doesn't entirely trust Saruman by this
> point either. That pretty much limits one's options.
>
> And what reinforcements? As Gandalf says, there is power in Imladris to
> resist all the forces of MOrdor for a time, eventually it would fall.
> I. E. Such reinforcements would need to be a huge and sizeable army to
> take Rivendell and that would take time to assemble, equip, and outfit
> for a long siege in the north. So the best they could do was send
> spies, assuming they could communicate with others besides Sauron to
> send the spies, and what would the spies do? Sauron's assumption will
> be that Elrond or Gandalf will try and master the Ring and then come
> against him. So why waste resources sending them North? Kill Gondor
> now, neutralize or destroy Lothlorien so that by the time Elrond comes
> with what force he has, he will simply be overwhelmed. Of course later
> intelligence changes this perception, but this early in the game that's
> probably what Sauron and the Nine are thinking.
Also good points. I'm not entirely convinced but it could be
Sauron's reasoning. Then again, why didn't the Nazgul keep them
bottled up in Rivendell?
I guess that's a bit too bang-on-the-nose predictable tactical strategy,
even in real life. I mean, it's not like we kept Al-Zarqawi bottled up
in his valley in a similar situation.... (rolls eyes and considers the parallels...)
Considering that Gandalf or Elrond might have tried to master the Ring,
however, gives a reason why leaving some of the Nazgul behind to bottle
the Ring up there until help arrived would be pointless; not simply because
Sauron was anticipating that the Ringbearer would strike out to an
unknown safe house as soon as possible, although it's fair to ask, if
the Witch-King felt that they, the Nazgul, could not keep a watch on
the Ringbearer in their current state, why Gandalf thought they could.
--BEr.
Phlip
> The part about Aragorn and Elrond's sons -- hardly an expendable
> party -- makes the whole scout strategy seem almost as dangerous
> as sending the Ringbearer to Lorien early -- sans Fellowship even --
> as Gandalf did with Pippin -- to present a decoy, get the hell
> out of dodge, not for any strategic location but to remove Sauron's
> knowledge of the Ring's general whereabouts! The Fellowship could
> the be assembled in secret at rendezvous points, "special-forces style"
> to prevent a travelling caravan of potentially squabbling warriors.
Nice. A Hezbollah Fellowship. ;-)
> As for the Ringwraiths, it
> seems to me that if they had stayed in the area "unhorsed" they could
> have kept Frodo bottled up there indefinitely until help arrived.
The Ringwraiths' radiation of fear was greater when they travelled
uncloaked. That's militarily useless; it would drive all living things
before them, give away their position, and generally make stealth
impossible.
Robinsons
> But do they really have to go back to Mordor? We don't know what forces
> Sauron may have elsewhere. In another post you reject my notion of
> getting reinforcements from Dol Guldur because they would need an army
> to besiege Rivendell. And you say that Sauron would not waste spies
> because he would expect Elrond or Gandalf to master the ring and come
> against him. I agree that this is what Sauron would think, but I
> suspect that he would still want to have spies watching the enemy's
> movements. Besides, we know that the crebain *were* sent to spy on
> them. Also, when the Fellowship reaches Lorien, Haldir tells them that
> a great troop of Orcs recently went toward Moria. I assume that these
> were sent as a direct reaction to the news about the ring. Sauron was
> definitely turning some of his attention Northwards.
As I mentioned in another post, the Nazgul were out-bluffed from the
get-go. Had they stayed even one or two "wounded" Nazgul in the area,
where scouts could percieve them, they could have kept tabs on the
Rngbearer, keeping him bottled up in whichever valley he was hiding
in, assuming they don't know exactly where Rivendell was located.
Or at least Gandalf seems to think so. This would have messed up
their plans, but then, Sauron or the Witch King would have to assume
that the Ringbearer would either bide his time in Rivendell, or strike out
for a safe-house, and given the location of the spies on the road south
and east, you have to assume the latter was a serious consideration.
So in whatever state they were in the Nazgul clearly did not
consider themselves in a position to intercept or percieve the
Ringbearer's whereabouts, should he strike out for a safe-house.
Gandalf was not so sure about this, but nevertheless, they were
out-bluffed, perhaps because they were separated on the banks
of the (semi-enchanted) River.
> And were these things necessarily set in motion by Sauron himself? I
> think the Witch King especially, but really any of the nazgul, would
> have the authority to mobilize whatever resources they saw fit and send
> them straightaway toward Rivendell, while, perhaps, others of the Nazgul
> carried the news to Sauron himself. I think Sauron would be actually be
> mad if all nine Ringwraiths came crying back to him, leaving the ring in
> the wild without even making an attempt to keep tabs on it, and wasting,
> basically, two months so that Sauron himself could authorize things that
> the Ringwraiths should have done in the first place.
Hee hee. Yes, Tolkien missed a chance to riff on all sorts of serial
adventure stories by avoiding any glimpse of what Sauron is doing or
thinking.
Sauron: "You... LET THEM GO?? Lurtz! Come here!"
"Master?" <urk>
Sauron: "Next time, it will not be some underling I kill, Witch-CAPTAIN...
it will be you."
But Lord Sauron, there are so many... uncharted settlements. It could
be smugglers, it could be..."
"That is Rivendell. I am sure of it. Do not fail me again, Witch-CORPORAL Angmar!"
",ulp> Yes, m'lord."
> Also, does Sauron actually know where Rivendell is? My assumption
> (although I don't remember if this has support) has been that they knew
> only very generally where Rivendell was. And the only thing that the
> Nazgul know about the ring at this point is that it was last seen at the
> Fords of Bruinen in the company of hobbits, a human, and an elf-lord.
> They may be en route to Rivendell, or to Lorien, or to Gondor. All the
> more reason, I would say, for the Fellowship to leave earlier than
> later. If spies start sweeping the land, they may find Rivendell and
> put it under surveillance. Spies would likely start sweeping out around
> the Fords, so get as far away from there as possible! If the Fellowship
> leaves before any surveillance is enacted, it becomes incredibly
> difficult to find them, because it is so very hard to locate a small
> party in the wild, especially if you don't know for sure where they are
> going.
This is exactly my thinking.
Now if the Fellowship were really devious, they would strike out to the
south-east, into the wild, and bivouack in a safe house set up by the
Rangers. Surely they existed? I realize that area was not entirely
unpopulated, presumably settled by peoples who were less than friendly
to Rangers (e.g. the ruffians and Dunlendings and some of the Bree-folk
and people from Sarn Ford) but surely they had the equivalent of
Henneth Annun somewhere out there in the vast regions of Enedwaith and
Minhiriath. From there, they could be stocked with horses and fan out
in small groups, under cover of travelling company of Rangers, dwarves,
what have you.
> Again, the only thing the Nazgul know at this point is that a small band
> of hobbits, one human, and one elf lord are traveling in the wilderness
> with the ring. And this elf lord is not using the ring! So, at this
> point, I don't think Sauron would be content to just kick back and wait
> for one of his enemies to master the ring and come challenge him.
Again, shades of pulp sf/fantasy serials. "Ha ha, I knew you would
master the Ring! Everything is as I forseen it. Now, strike me down,
if you dare..." "Never! I'm not like you, Sauron!" "So be it... Ringbearer!"
> Whether or not the Ringwraiths could have found aid in Moria or Dol
> Guldur, if I were Elrond making strategic decisions, I would have
> assumed that if a Nazgul could reach one of them, that they could muster
> spies, and try to lock down some of the mountain passes. So I would
> count on about 4 weeks of relatively smooth sailing, after which time I
> would expect spy networks to be deployed, and forces to begin being
> mobilized. So I would like to have the Fellowship through the mountains
> by then. I would expect heightened patrols on the mountains, and that
> would really be the only place where it could be hard to slip a small
> party through unnoticed.
Well, the mountains were probably ALREADY on high alert, and that is a
problem, made worse by the advance decision to scale Caradhras (the movie
repairs this somewhat, but I always thought that in the books they only
decided to scale Caradhras because of the crebain, as depicted in the
movie, then I realized... no wait... the road south was their fall-back,
wasn't it, after they failed on Caradhras, and THEN they were turned back
by Wargs. So it's not much different from what you see in the movie, actually.
Regarding the passes, keep in mind that the Nazgul thought Shire was in the
vales of Anduin, where, after all, Hobbits had been living last time anyone
bothered to report on their whereabouts, or that of the Ring. And they scouted
all up and down the east side of the range before they found someone capable
of telling them where the Shire was located. Presumably they would have
mobilized the passes then.
Then again, why wouldn't Sauron, an immortal, have a spy capable of informing
him that Arvedui had ceded a million acres of prime land on the edge of Lindon
to an itinerant band of pygmies? Wouldn't this be of interest to the
Necromancer? I have to suspect that nobody knew about the Shire because
they were more squatters than anything else, and there seems to have been
a news blackout after the fall of Arvedui's government.
This also raises the question why take the risk of going over the mountains
(probably only ungurarded by Orcs due to the severe weather) and into Lorien
(where Frodo almost gave away the Ring to Galadriel) when they could have
bivouacked the Ring in the wilds of southern Eriador, far from the spies
the Nazgul left behind, and rode through Gondor in small groups? Were they
more afraid of the Men of the White Mountains (allegedly Woses) than orcs
along the heavily guarded Anduin? Or did they just want to avoid Minas
Tirith and didn't want to break the news to Boromir?
> So we allow a month for the spy to get back and report that the pass is
> clear. Then another month for the Fellowship to reach that pass. A lot
> can change in two months.
>
> If a small party encountered an army on the pass, they have a reasonable
> chance of seeing signs of the army and hiding. At this point all the
> Ringwraiths know is that a small party has the ring, so if they find any
> allies, they will surely tell them to be on the look out. We know that
> Aragorn and Elrond's sons went to Lorien during the scouting phase. I
> think the ring should have gone with them.
Good points. But then, we wouldn't have a story. I mean, no REAL wizard
would have taken a Ring of Power into the dungeons of Moria... would they?
I mean, they KNEW an army of orcs was in there, so why take all the trrouble
to avoid such an army earlier, when they could have used subterfuge out in
the open, engaged the orcs with Elvish archers and slipped through under
cover of attack? Perhaps I'm channelling Michael Mann's _Last of the Mohicans_
a bit too much here...
> > 4) planning and gathering stores for a long trip
>
> Aragorn and Elrond's sons set out for Lorien with less than one day for
> packing or planning. I don't think it would have been a problem to
> outfit the others on such short notice. The reforging of the sword
> seems to have taken no more than seven days. I don't know what other
> planning needs to have been done at that stage. It doesn't sound like
> much long-term thought was given to the ultimate end of the quest.
Well, Sauron obviously thought that if they took the Ring anywhere,
it might be to Lindon, where the Three were distributed. But they
also foreclosed the west route because by the time they sailed to
Mordor, the Ring might be lost at sea (not good) or Mordor would
already have conqured much of Middle Earth. Which makes one wonder:
Why did Gandalf wait so long and allow Frodo to wait six months
before leaving the Shire, knowing the military threat posed by
Sauron? Did Saruman have to tell him about Sauron's military
capability, not just about the nine? And would it have been more
difficult to destroy the Ring if they had to slip thru a war-torn
defeated Gondor and into a Mordor emptied of its troops? Or would
Sauron have turned his attention to internal affairs once the troops
have been mobilized, set a watch on Mount Doom and all his other
fortifications to prevent internal uprisings (as we see in
ROTK) while the bulk of his troops were out ant about?
BEr.
Robinsons
>
> Robinsons wrote:
>
> > The part about Aragorn and Elrond's sons -- hardly an expendable
> > party -- makes the whole scout strategy seem almost as dangerous
> > as sending the Ringbearer to Lorien early -- sans Fellowship even --
> > as Gandalf did with Pippin -- to present a decoy, get the hell
> > out of dodge, not for any strategic location but to remove Sauron's
> > knowledge of the Ring's general whereabouts! The Fellowship could
> > the be assembled in secret at rendezvous points, "special-forces style"
> > to prevent a travelling caravan of potentially squabbling warriors.
>
> Nice. A Hezbollah Fellowship. ;-)
Hmm, Katyusha rockets does sound vaguely Quenya... and Sting missiles?
Aragorn, the Lion of the Panjshir - er - Imladris.
And Gandalf DOES blow up a bridge while infiltrating Mujahedeen - er -
Periannath over international borders.
> > As for the Ringwraiths, it
> > seems to me that if they had stayed in the area "unhorsed" they could
> > have kept Frodo bottled up there indefinitely until help arrived.
>
> The Ringwraiths' radiation of fear was greater when they travelled
> uncloaked. That's militarily useless; it would drive all living things
> before them, give away their position, and generally make stealth
> impossible.
Really? Why does this make me laugh? :-D
I could see a Monty Python skit now, featuring the Black Rider, unhorsed
(with only coconuts to guide him) and unclothed (brr!) desperately looking
for someone to fight. "Oi! Oi! Cheerio! I'll get you, you hear me!
You... lily-livered... cowards! Wherever you are! Come back! Come back
or I shall taunt you a second time! Ow! I bumped into a shrubbery!"
--BEr.
Phlip
>> The Ringwraiths' radiation of fear was greater when they travelled
>> uncloaked. That's militarily useless; it would drive all living things
>> before them, give away their position, and generally make stealth
>> impossible.
>
> Really? Why does this make me laugh? :-D
It answers your other post asking why Nazgul didn't stay in the area,
hidden, waiting for all the silly scouts to do their thing, and then ambush
the Nine Walkers.
Robinsons
>
> Robinsons wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > to me it is clear that by "other
> > side" Gandalf is referring to the spirit world, or to beings that
> > inhabit the spirit world as well as the physical world. I mean,
> > Elves don't start physically glowing like radioactive embers when
> > they visit Aman, do they?
>
> Not just due to physical proximity. But they do seem to "absorb" some of the
> light and grow spiritually, and afterwards they do show forth this effect:
>
> "...they were a mighty people, the elder children undying of Eru Iluvatar,
> but new-come from the Blessed Realm, and not yet weary with the weariness of
> Earth. The fire of their hearts was young..." (Of the Flight of the Noldor)
Yes, I agree. I was just pointing out that they did not glow physically,
in the physical world; the "nuclear Galadriel" scene from the movie is
best understood as a manifestation of something Frodo alone can see.
My contention is that all mortals in the books have some small degree
of "second sight" where they might percieve an "inward glow" about
people such as Galadriel or Frodo (or anyone with power, really, if
they have the Ring on). Just to a much more limited extent, since
their spirits are veiled in mortal bodies and not bound to the circles
of the world, whereas Elves exist on both planes at once. Etc.
Otherwise mortals would find nothing distinctive about Elves from
Aman, and nothing interesting in the idea of "spiritual power",
if it was something that could only be percieved with the aid of a
Ring, like x-rays or auras or what-not.
In other words, the wraith-world/spirit world is not completely occult.
> > (Tolkien confirms that
> > the light of the trees is not, cannot have been as intense as the
> > light of the sun, the fruit of Telperion which was described as
> > "marred" (mutated?)
>
> I thought it was the other way around?
>
> "But neither the Sun nor the Moon can recall the light that was of old, that
> came from the Trees before they were touched by the poison of Ungoliant That
> light lives now in the Silmarils alone." (Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding
> of Valinor)
I thought so too, until I read something, somewhere, that said (perhaps in HoME)
what I suspected all along... which always irked me and ruined the great
descriptions in BoLT for me, until I discovered Tolkien agreed with me all along,
or at least, at the point he wrote this explanation. It said that the concept
of a physically shining Gold Tree more intense than the sun would have been
unworkable.
In fact, this draft (possibly a re-working of the Book of Lost Tales Material)
describes the fruit of Telperion (or was it Laurelin?) had absorbed some of the
poison, and become distorted (^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mutated?) and shone both
less fair and MUCH BRIGHTER MORE INTENSE physically than the tree that produced it,
so that none (including Morgoth) could withstand it up close, except for fire
spirits; and it could not stay in Aman; and how Yavanna despaired at this,
for it would wither all the plants and trees due to its concentrated energy,
and how this had both good and bad consequences, etc.
And of course the fruit that produced the Moon was marred and shone LESS bright
than the Tree that produced it. And of course their light is primarily PHYSICAL,
since neither Elves nor humans seem to get much of a spiritual bonus from
travelling under the light of the Sun.
So this leads me to believe that the intensity of the light of the two trees
was primarily on a different "wavelength", i.e. spiritual, and NOT as bright
as the Sun physically.
Like a UV lamp. Well, not really. ;-)
Aman as the world's greatest tanning salon... :-p
--Brian
Robinsons
> Robinsons wrote:
>
> >> The Ringwraiths' radiation of fear was greater when they travelled
> >> uncloaked. That's militarily useless; it would drive all living things
> >> before them, give away their position, and generally make stealth
> >> impossible.
> >
> > Really? Why does this make me laugh? :-D
>
> It answers your other post asking why Nazgul didn't stay in the area,
> hidden, waiting for all the silly scouts to do their thing, and then ambush
> the Nine Walkers.
You mean the ssssillly Enlish-types with their outrrrrrageous rrring?
No, no, my contention was precisely that the Nazgul knew the Elves would
find them, and that they could keep Frodo or his successor bottled up in
Rivendell by bluffing them until additional forces could arrive (at the
behest of those Ringwraiths without such initiative.)
Trust me, Sauron would have been pleased at such perpicaciousness on the
part of the Nazgul, which is the only yardstick for judging the success
or failure of such a strategy. As mentioned, it would have kept the Ring
bottled up in Rivendell precisely because they knew the Elves were watching.
--BEr.
Phlip
> Trust me, Sauron would have been pleased at such perpicaciousness on the
> part of the Nazgul, which is the only yardstick for judging the success
> or failure of such a strategy. As mentioned, it would have kept the Ring
> bottled up in Rivendell precisely because they knew the Elves were
> watching.
One wonders exactly how they reported back to the Boss how bad they screwed
up - within centimeters of the Ring, several times, don't have it. Oops.
Robinsons
Phlip wrote:
> Emma Pease wrote:
>
> > Few questions
> >
> > 1. Were the crebain sent by Sauron's request or was it Saruman acting
> > on his own.
>
> A couple months earlier, Nazgul paid Saruman a visit, and he witnessed
> first-hand the full horror of service to Mordor.
>
> Sauron wants Saruman to force the Nine Walkers into some hard situation,
> where the Ring might betray them (a plot that eventually worked!), and he
> wants them east of the mountains.
>
> Question: What would happen if the Balrog got the Ring??
Nothing good for anyone else. Why would the Balrog give it up?
OTOH, how would he wear it? On his wing-tips?
> Sauron doesn't want the Ring in the Gap of Rohan, because Saruman might get
> it, and Sauron knows he might not get it back.
Yep.
> Sauron and Saruman are communicating at this point (right?), but Sauron
> doesn't want Saruman to see thru Sauron's plots. So the most likely
> interpretation is Sauron let Saruman think the Nine Walkers must be located,
> and kept out of the Redhorn Pass.
>
> Does Saruman think this will send the Ring into the Gap of Rohan? The best
> interpretation is Sauron wants to force the Ring into Moria, but Saruman
> thinks that forcing them out of the Redhorn Pass will send them to the Gap.
I disagree. I think Saruman is looking out for himself and trying to find
out what's going on and if anyone is leaving Rivendell in any direction
where Saruman posesses intelligence. Why Sauron would want to keep them
west of the mountains is beyond me, however. That part of the books
(the notion of Sauron controlling Smaug, the Balrog, or weather on Caradhras)
strikes me as slightly implausible. With that kind of power Sauron wouldn't
need the Ring, as some reviewers of the movie -- where Saruman is doing the
weather -- commented. I prefer the notion that the mountain is acting on its
own because Sauron has alerted all evil beings to keep the Ring out of, say,
Lothlorien.
> So when one of the Nine Walkers - Gandalf? - says "Sauron's arm has grown
> long indeed", he means all the signs point to Saruman doing Sauron's dirty
> work, for him.
I'm not so sure.
> And who is waiting - trapped - in Moria??
Another question is what would the Balrog DO with the Ring? I mean
what do balrogs do? Dragons seem more apt to control things, sit on
heaps of treasure, and dominate the minds of others. They've always
been portrayed like that in literature. But demons... just kind of
go around wreaking havoc, whipping people and what not. I have visions
of the Balrog leading an army of flying monkeys into battle, all
curiously immoble except for their flapping wings... ;-p
> > Note that Saruman is likely to know of Boromir's mission including the
> > riddle but when does Sauron learn of it?
>
> Probably straight from Saruman.
Why would Saruman provide intelligence to Sauron that hurts his chances
of intercepting the Ring? Saruman sees himself as a business partner,
not a servant. He has his own pad, and his own army, and like many
non-evil business partners in real life, is wont to keep secrets if it
furthers his ability to strike out on his own.
> Another background story - Saruman and Sauron probably have a network of
> spies in Gondor...
Yes, that seems obvious, not to mention Denethor probably siezing the ring.
> > Saruman is also more likely
> > to guess what the council might decide (i.e., not to wield the ring
> > but destroy it).
>
> I really doubt this. Nobody but the Nine knew the Quest, and certain nobles.
I don't. Saruman was the smartest person in Middle Earth, by some accounts.
He definitely wouldn't tell Sauron if he knew, because it gave him an
advantage -- he wouldn't want the Quest to succeed, he wanted to intercept
them before the Ring gets to Sauron, which is where we leave him thinking
his Orcs (and not Grishnakh and co.) have seized the two hobbits, the only
ones he knows about. But nobody knows what happened to that Orc-band and
he could probably guess that Sauron is pissed.
Also, another HUGE plot hole in the books that nobody ever talks about, is
why "some nobles" like Theoden, and Imrahil would be granted knowledge of
the Quest. Seems awfully snooty and aristocratic, considering that Theoden
was practically under Saruman's sway when Gandalf decided to divulge this
information to him simply to cheer him up and "heal" him. Which is what
did it, not just the power of his staff or whatever. And Imrahil? The
Wise don't keep good security in mind; just look at the Council of Elrond.
> Sauron weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice, but a
> single feather, such as Saruman's deepest secret (or Saruman blabbing) would
> have tipped the balance instantly in the correct direction. The Quest works
> because the Ring's own powers give the Bearer, and his helpers, so many
> opportunities to mislead Sauron.
Perhaps. I agree there's no reason to think Saruman knew what they were
up to, but Saruman probably knew Gandalf well enough to know that Gandalf
would not take the ring, say, to Denethor. And yet Ugluk is to set a watch
on the river, and endeavor to intercept the Ring before Grishnakh does...
> Note that when Frodo wore the Ring, after Boromir's attack, and Sauron
> nearly spotted him, he was still on the West side of the Anduin.
Yes, imagine what would have happened if all Nine had made it to the
Ered Lithui, if that is where they were headed. Had they been discovred
so near to Mordor, or even expecting that they WOULD be discovered,
a diversion would have had to be set up. Some of the more powerful
members of the Fellowship would have to die.
I think the scene from the movie where Aragorn "lets Frodo go" is pretty
true to what would have happened in the books had they made it into Mordor.
Aragorn would have either died at the hands of Sauron or siezed the Ring
from Frodo (probably after Frodo had claimed it for his own.)
Gandalf would have been a fool to accompany Frodo that far, and it's
uncertain if the Ring was not working on him, convincing him to remain
attached to Frodo, protecting him, not to sacrifice his mission "except
at the uttermost end of need" if they were discovered, whereupon Gandalf
might simply convince Frodo to hand the Ring over, as he did to Galadriel.
and say "it's a fair cop".
At least that is how I imagine the Ring might have been working on Gandalf,
which is probably why he elected to go through Moria, with the foreknowledge
that he would die there.
> > 3. Did Saruman use Radagast to get the crebain to spy for him? And
> > what happened to Radagast?
>
> That has to be a FAQ. Maybe he became a woodland spirit, as he obviously
> wanted to be all along.
And the other wizards? I wonder if they became Voodoo Spirits (Loa)
or something.
Perhaps they appear in Pirates of the Carribbean 3, set in the historical
Far East?
> And note we never meet Radagast, though he appears in both Hobbit and LotR.
> His failure to grow into the Istari role is a quiet sadness behind others'
> valor.
I wonder what the relationship was between Beorn and Radagast?
> (And 2,000 years living in Middle-earth and he never heard of the Shire? How
> oblivious can a "wizard" be??)
Well obviously it went by different names. Since the Hobbits were for all
intents and purposes a clan-based society, with high technology, high yield
agriculture, and local government but limited political or social organization,
similar to the higlands of Papua New Guinea or the peoples of the Great Rift
in Africa, it is worth suggesting that there was a media blackout over the
area after Arvedui died, like over modern-day Somalia. I am inclined to believe
the hobbits were actually squatters, the Middle-Earth equivalent of gypsies
(although history does not tell of pygmies displacing big folk in real life.)
However, there had been a recent famine and plague -- I wonder what Tolkien
would have explained the Shire's stability had he read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_...
perhaps the soil was unsuited to agriculture except for hobbit oriented crops
such as pipeweed that others were unfamiliar with, like taters? After all,
hobbits were used to living in hills, like, well, hillbillies, who lived on
poor soil that no one else wanted. Being small in stature, it would be ideal
for their purposes and they would have exported a fair amount of pipeweed to
the people that DID smoke it. There's plenty of lovely rural areas with
poor soil, where colonists (e.g. Big Folk) are unable to eke out a living due
to their unfamiliarity with the land. Such as Dartmoor, where Alan Lee lives.
--Brian
Robinsons
> We don't know what happened to Radagast, though in one of the letters
> Tolkien intimates that he believes that all the wizards save Gandalf
> failed in their missions. It is likely that Sauron or Saruman had
> Radagast done in, but we are never told.
It is my belief that all the wizards would have failed in their mission
had Gandalf not died. That is the real reason he fell in Moria, for he
doubtless foresaw the same thing Aragorn did.
Gandalf knew he would have had two options:
1) Forsake the Quest at the Falls of Rauros, or on the marches of
Mordor, in order to rally the human kingdoms milirarily, as he
later did as Gandalf the White for entirely different reasons
(having been granted additional foreknowledge of what would
happen by Eru). Gandalf certainly cared about the human kingdoms,
but to take this route as Gandalf the Grey, would have been a
failure. It would have broken his commitment not to meet power
with power (as he did outside Helm's Deep and again at the gates
of Minas Tirith), it might risk his commitment to Frodo (without
additional foreknowledge of what would happen that he certainly
did not have as "the Grey", he would have been a fool to tell
Theoden about the Quest, and might not have succeeded in casting
out Grima if he had, thereby betraying the Quest). In short,
Gandalf as military leader would have been a betrayal of his
role as one of the Istari, but not as Gandalf the White, because
he was sent back with a different focus. Albeit the same objective,
to defeat Sauron... his "task". But had he survived Moria and left
Frodo to lead armies of Men and/or become a king's counsellor, it
would be relinquishment of his mission as Gandalf the Grey every
bit as much as Radagast ever did.
2) Continue with Frodo to fulfill his quest, and stay ture to his own
mission as Grey Wizard, whereupon his presence in Mordor would have
betrayed Frodo to the enemy, forcing Gandalf to "request" the Ring
from Frodo, which under the circumstances Gandalf might actually do.
He was, after all, not trusting of his own ability to carry the thing.
It stands to reason that he, like Denethor, would have been tempted to
prefer himself as Ringlord to Sauron as Ringlord, given an absolute
choice (though Denethor actually prefered himself as Ringlord to the
destruction of Gondor, a more selfish motive.)
The same thing would have happened to Aragorn, only, I suspect, in a
crueler fashion. Aragorn would have not attracted as much attention
(being a Ranger) and might have gotten as far as Mount Doom before
having to make a choice between fleeing to his death (with or without
the Ring, or to provice a diversion)
or siezing the ring from Frodo, as Gollum did after Frodo claimed it.
Aragorn probably would have also been forced into a situation
where he would have had to dispatch Gollum, as Faramir almost did...
creating an ugly scenario.
Bran
Robinsons
> Robinsons wrote:
>
> > Trust me, Sauron would have been pleased at such perpicaciousness on the
> > part of the Nazgul, which is the only yardstick for judging the success
> > or failure of such a strategy. As mentioned, it would have kept the Ring
> > bottled up in Rivendell precisely because they knew the Elves were
> > watching.
>
> One wonders exactly how they reported back to the Boss how bad they screwed
> up - within centimeters of the Ring, several times, don't have it. Oops.
Sauron reaches for a cruel weapon from his weapon rack, turns to the
Witch-King and then -- without warning -- thrusts it into the innocent
underling standing next to him!
You would think the Witch-King would be too proud to report back directly
and would PREFER to remain in the area of Rivendell, like any good commander
of ancient times who wanted to keep his head, thereby managing to look loyal
AND avoiding Sauron's wrath at the same time!
Sun Tzu would have said so...
"When Instructions are given, but not understood, the commander is at fault."
"When Instructions are understood, but not followed, the officer is at fault.
Off with their heads!"
Not to mention, perhaps they all retired to Minas Tirith and sent some
unfortunate underling to Sauron to report on how badly wounded they were,
and recuperating in the Numenorean Steam-Baths of Minas Morgul.
"Mr. Witch-King, yess? Failed to report in? The Hobbit... where is he?"
"They have an aversion to water... some might call it... a phobia.
It's the only place I can get any peace and... quiet. Master Baggins...
I wish there was some... other way of doing this, but... there is no time.
The answer to everything you need to know... is in this Ring. Put it on!!
It controls the machines underneath Barad-Dur. You have the power...
to become... one of them!"
OK, enough Dark City references.
--BEr.
Robinsons
> I was in a motorcycle accident at Easter; my right arm and
> shoulder still ache sometimes, and the Nazgul weren't even
> involved (I hope).
"Black Riders! Get down!"
VROOM -- VROOM!
(Guitar music solo)
// Get yer fell beast runnin' -- head out on the highway! //
// Lookin' for adventure -- and whatever rings come our way! //
// Yeah nazgul gonna make it happen -- take the world in a cruel embrace //
// Fire all of our rings at once and -- explode into space! //
// My Master cried -- the day I was born -- because he knew --
// I was Bad to the bone //
// Bad to the bone -- b-b-b-b-bad... //
// Cause I'm -- Bad Company -- of Nine, and I don't know why! //
// Cause I'm -- Bad Company -- of Nine, till the Day I die! //
"Don't follow me, baby. You don' want no Nazgul for a boyfriend."
VROOM -- VROOM!
The end
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>> Yes and no. I'd like to take a moment to address both internal and
>> external reasons before the internal ones are disimssed out of hand.
>>
>> Haste makes waste. Is "haste" in fact desireable?
>> 1) How long? Well, it takes the Fellowship about 4 weeks (Dec. 25 to
>> Jan 17, with a couple extra days double back to Moria's entrance) to
>> get to Lorien, about half way from Rivendell to Mordor. On foot, it
>> would take another 3-4 weeks to get to Mordor. The Nazgul are not
>> supernatural, they travel quickly, but not like the wind. Even when
>> air born it nonetheless takes them several hours to fly from Mordor to
>> Isengard. The wraith are not going to travel by water, and must also
>> find a place they can ford the river (they don't float above the water
>> for example). So even if they traveled more quickly than the
>> fellowship, the best time they could make back to Mordor is 6 weeks,
>> and probably closer to 8.
>
>
> But do they really have to go back to Mordor? We don't know what forces
> Sauron may have elsewhere.
Yes we do. We know he has forces in Moria, small though they be, and in
Dol Guldur. We know he has an ally in Isengard. At some point he had
sent forces north and east to be ready to attack Dale and the Lonely
Mtn, and that would prob be about this time (takes awhile for a sizeable
force to march that far). And we know from Elrond's scouts that there
are no forces known on the Rivendell side of the Misty Mtns and
Lothlorien seems to report no major troop movements northward in their
area. Good thing they sent scouts out to ascertain that instead of
blundering into a battalion of orcs in Hollin, eh?
As for the Nazgul going back to Mordor, yes, they do. Gandalf tells us
that though disrobed and horseless the Nazgul still exist and must
return to their master to take shape again. But even if not, how many
orcs or anyone else are going to obey a disembodied voice that carries
with it great, overpowering fear ordering one in the dark to go and do
something? Not many.
In another post you reject my notion of
> getting reinforcements from Dol Guldur because they would need an army
> to besiege Rivendell. And you say that Sauron would not waste spies
> because he would expect Elrond or Gandalf to master the ring and come
> against him. I agree that this is what Sauron would think, but I
> suspect that he would still want to have spies watching the enemy's
> movements.
Palantir? How are the spies to report, as you point out, such
information will be months old by the time it reaches Sauron. I mean if
you are criticizing Elrond and Gandalf for waiting for spies to return
from Lorien (a min. 6 weeks round trip), but think that Sauron wants
spies about Rivendell whose "news" will be at least twice that old and
through hostile territory before it reaches him? That seems strategic
to you?
Besides, we know that the crebain *were* sent to spy on
> them.
No, we don't. We SUSPECT (as do the characters) that the crebain were
sent to SPY THEM OUT, not SPY ON THEM.
Also, when the Fellowship reaches Lorien, Haldir tells them that
> a great troop of Orcs recently went toward Moria. I assume that these
> were sent as a direct reaction to the news about the ring.
Very possibly, but again, note how late in the game this is. Sauron has
not likely known about the events of Oct. 20 very long in Jan and still
hasn't had much time to react. Even so, the Fellowship would have
escaped the mere orcs, it was the balrog that was already there that was
the problem.
Sauron was
> definitely turning some of his attention Northwards.
Sauron's attention had long been on that area. Remember that he keeps
constant watch on Lorien, and Mordor orcs have been in Moria for more
than 30 years already by the time the Fellowship attempts to go through.
That some reinforcements have arrived and very probably in reaction to
the news of the Fords debacle, is still no more than a token force, and
certainly not evidence of any change in strategy or increased focus on
the north.
>
> And were these things necessarily set in motion by Sauron himself? I
> think the Witch King especially, but really any of the nazgul, would
> have the authority to mobilize whatever resources they saw fit and send
> them straightaway toward Rivendell, while, perhaps, others of the Nazgul
> carried the news to Sauron himself.
Perhaps, but does this seem likely to you, given what you know of
Sauron? And again, who is going to listen to a bodiless voice? And
again why send forces to Rivendell when whatever news they may have will
be 6 weeks old by the time it gets to Sauron, much less for him to react to?
I think Sauron would be actually be
> mad if all nine Ringwraiths came crying back to him, leaving the ring in
> the wild without even making an attempt to keep tabs on it, and wasting,
> basically, two months so that Sauron himself could authorize things that
> the Ringwraiths should have done in the first place.
Well, according to the story this is what happened, so.....
>
> Also, does Sauron actually know where Rivendell is? My assumption
> (although I don't remember if this has support) has been that they knew
> only very generally where Rivendell was. And the only thing that the
> Nazgul know about the ring at this point is that it was last seen at the
> Fords of Bruinen in the company of hobbits, a human, and an elf-lord.
Yes, they know where Rivendell is. In Appendix A "It is said that
Rivendell was besieged" by Angmar and its allies.
That's what they know, but they can surmise that an elf lord who has
lived in the Blessed Realm and the hobbits known to be associates of
Gandalf are taking the ring to Gandalf and Elrond, known friends and
partners against Sauron. Not hard to figure that out.
> They may be en route to Rivendell, or to Lorien,
The logical place to eventually go is Lorien, as both sides know.
Galadriel is Sauron's chief adversary next to Gandalf. But if they're
making for Lorien and crossing the ford of Bruinen, then they're
stopping at Rivendell first, as noted above, they know where its at.
or to Gondor. All the
> more reason, I would say, for the Fellowship to leave earlier than
> later.
And walk into a potential army of orcs in the meantime, which they could
have avoided with proper intelligence. End of story.
If spies start sweeping the land, they may find Rivendell and
> put it under surveillance. Spies would likely start sweeping out around
> the Fords, so get as far away from there as possible!
As Gandalf points out, anyone hunting them will have to start at
Rivendell anyway, and as I've pointed out, they have some time.
If the Fellowship
> leaves before any surveillance is enacted, it becomes incredibly
> difficult to find them, because it is so very hard to locate a small
> party in the wild, especially if you don't know for sure where they are
> going.
Yes, but it is also incredibly hard to get any news of just what's ahead
of you and what to avoid etc. Danger enough with intelligence,
absolutely ridiculous to try without intelligence.
>
> Again, the only thing the Nazgul know at this point is that a small band
> of hobbits, one human, and one elf lord are traveling in the wilderness
> with the ring. And this elf lord is not using the ring! So, at this
> point, I don't think Sauron would be content to just kick back and wait
> for one of his enemies to master the ring and come challenge him.
See above.
>
>> Part of the evidence for this is that it is not until the crebain spot
>> them, 3 weeks out from Rivendell, that we have the first evidence that
>> Sauron knows what happened back in Oct--almost 3 months before. So if
>> we assume that the crebain are from Isengard and only took a day or
>> two to fly from Isengard to Hollin, and that Saruman sent the crebain
>> in response to a palantir communication with Sauron, it woulld seem
>> that the earliest that Sauron knew of what happened in Oct is Jan 8 or
>> 9. They had time.
>
>
> Whether or not the Ringwraiths could have found aid in Moria or Dol
> Guldur, if I were Elrond making strategic decisions, I would have
> assumed that if a Nazgul could reach one of them, that they could muster
> spies, and try to lock down some of the mountain passes. So I would
> count on about 4 weeks of relatively smooth sailing, after which time I
> would expect spy networks to be deployed, and forces to begin being
> mobilized. So I would like to have the Fellowship through the mountains
> by then. I would expect heightened patrols on the mountains, and that
> would really be the only place where it could be hard to slip a small
> party through unnoticed.
Were I Elrond I wouldn't expect anything, since the passes have been
held against them before and the Gap is closed to them. Best find out
what is in the passes before sending the Ring out into the Wild.
> Indeed, we have a large company of orcs entering Moria in early January.
> If a Nazgul arrived in Dol Guldur in the beginning of December, that
> would fit with the timing of these reinforcements entering Moria.
That's an awfully long time to get from Dol Guldur to Moria! Gollum
does it in a matter of a few days, a little longer for a large troop but
hardly over a month! And as we've seen that troop of orcs wasn't
sufficient to stop the 9, much less a force from Rivendell or Lorien.
>
> One could also say that the trouble on Caradhras may have been due to
> this heightened security in the area, if one were to put malice intent
> in the storms.
Probably not. The suggestion in the end is that it was the mountain
itself that defeated them, with a will of its own, not at the behest of
Saruman or Sauron.
> And the crebain and other creatures may have been searching for quite
> some time prior to seeing the Fellowship.
Maybe, and they may have left that morning after tea. What we do know
is that this is earliest we see any sign of the Enemy stirring after
Oct. 20.
> Sauron may not have known what happened until Jan 8 or 9, but the Nazgul
> knew and could make these sorts of decisions on their own.
Where do we see them doing this? Where do they make decisions indepent
of Sauron?
>
>> Had they left earlier, would it have been better? As it turned out,
>> probably, but only because there were no surprises: but they didn't
>> know that. That's why they sent out scouts and waited for them to
>> reutrn, so that there was less channce of running int surprises on the
>> way.
>>
>> 2)The "road" to take: there are many, many choices of how to get from
>> Rivendell to Mordor, even if one is going to do so quickly. They can
>> only determine what is the best path if they some knowledge of the
>> roads . It can be safely assumed from the beginning that they will
>> make for Lothlorien as the first stage, but how to get there? Cross
>> the Misty Mtns toward East and then head down the Anduin? Or follow
>> the river on foot? Through Hollin to the Dimrill Stair? What if
>> Saruman has an army on the pass? Follow the Loudwater to the
>> Greyflood and then up the Sweetwater? All unknown factors until
>> someone goes to take a look and report back.
>
>
> So we allow a month for the spy to get back and report that the pass is
> clear. Then another month for the Fellowship to reach that pass. A lot
> can change in two months.
Yep. But better knowing that than walking into a prepared trap.
>
> If a small party encountered an army on the pass, they have a reasonable
> chance of seeing signs of the army and hiding.
Like Bilbo and the Dwarves in The Hobbit no doubt, or Elrond's wife
whose name escapes me at the moment.
At this point all the
> Ringwraiths know is that a small party has the ring, so if they find any
> allies, they will surely tell them to be on the look out.
See above, they can certainly surmise more than that.
We know that
> Aragorn and Elrond's sons went to Lorien during the scouting phase. I
> think the ring should have gone with them.
Then you know more than the author. Me, I prefer planning and knowledge
before stepping off the cliff.
>> Further, the scouts can't report to the Fellowship en route unless the
>> course is decided BEFORE the scouts set out (a foolish choice if you
>> ask me) since they have to find them in a trackless wilderness (not
>> quite the easy task). They couldn't find Aragorn with 4 hobbits in
>> wilderness close to home, much less Aragorn and Gandalf leading a
>> company where there is no road. So that option is out. The scout's
>> have to go out, report back, and then decisions are made about what
>> route and what supplies. Operating from knowledge is always better
>> than not.
>>
>> 3) Frodo--Frodo needs to heal, as has been mentioned. He had a
>> shoulder wound, with a tip of a knife approaching his heart. He needs
>> to walk across the equivalent of Europe, over trackless wilderness,
>> with a pack, with little food or fire or comforts, in winter, through
>> many dangers. 2 months is not too long to expect for that, as someone
>> like Tolkien who saw enough wounded in both wars would know.
>
>
> Except that there is really no evidence that the injury was bothering
> Frodo to such an extent. To all appearances he recovered quite rapidly.
> True, this would be very strenuous walking, and recovery time might be
> needed, but this isn't mentioned as one of the considerations.
Walking about Elrond's house, or taking an afternoon to hike a bit in
the valley with one's friends when one can sit and ahve a jaw and a bit
of a snack and something hot packed by the elves is a whole lot
different than walking for two months straight with a backpack, sleeping
night after night on the cold, hard ground, and potentially walking into
battle situations. Apples and oranges.
>> 4) planning and gathering stores for a long trip
>
>
> Aragorn and Elrond's sons set out for Lorien with less than one day for
> packing or planning.
All three of whom have spent years of their lives in the wilderness and
know how to travel light and live off the land, unlike four hobbits in
the party.
I don't think it would have been a problem to
> outfit the others on such short notice. The reforging of the sword
> seems to have taken no more than seven days. I don't know what other
> planning needs to have been done at that stage. It doesn't sound like
> much long-term thought was given to the ultimate end of the quest.
Perhaps not, but one has to make it to Lothlorien before one can decide
what to do next. And there was more than one road to take to get there,
each fraught with various perils and dangers.
>
>> 5) Weather--while weather is a concern it is also a cover. Cold
>> weather and bad weather will be unpleasent for the Fellowship but will
>> be equally unpleasent and cold for anyone or thing tracking them or
>> attempting to find them. Bad weather will also serve to obscure their
>> trail. (Again drawing analogies to my mountain experience, storms
>> generally come in late fall and early winter and in spring; it gets
>> bitterly cold in Dec and Jan, but not many storms during that time of
>> year. I suppose it depends on the time of year and the climate, but I
>> suspect that it isn't that different in England)
>
>
> I think it is stretching to imply that the colder weather would be
> better than warmer.
Really? So you would choose to be out in a blizzard with 30+ mph winds
whipping snow horizontally into your face at a balmy 22 degrees F rather
than a beautiful, sunny day with only an occasional gust of breeze at 0
degrees? Yep, balmy 22 is much better......
I would much rather be outdoors walking in the
> beginning of November than in the beginning of January. Neither is
> likely to be pleasant, but I think the safest choice of weather,
> regardless of the validity of any of my other points, is that earlier is
> better.
Suit yourself. I'd rather be out and be cold than caught in a major
storm, no matter how warm that storm might be every day of the week.
Phlip
>> Question: What would happen if the Balrog got the Ring??
>
> Nothing good for anyone else. Why would the Balrog give it up?
Sauron > Balrog + Ring?
> Also, another HUGE plot hole in the books that nobody ever talks about, is
> why "some nobles" like Theoden, and Imrahil would be granted knowledge of
> the Quest. Seems awfully snooty and aristocratic, considering that
> Theoden
> was practically under Saruman's sway when Gandalf decided to divulge this
> information to him simply to cheer him up and "heal" him. Which is what
> did it, not just the power of his staff or whatever. And Imrahil? The
> Wise don't keep good security in mind; just look at the Council of Elrond.
Gandalf constantly has to balance motivating the leaders and keeping the
Secret from spreading too far.
For example, Gandalf at the Last Council can finally risk telling all the
generals about the Quest - a miniature Council of Elrond - but what the hell
do the generals tell their troops? You just won the biggest battle in the
3rd Age, but we need you to sacrifice yourselves for no apparent reason in a
strategically impossible mission?
> Perhaps. I agree there's no reason to think Saruman knew what they were
> up to, but Saruman probably knew Gandalf well enough to know that Gandalf
> would not take the ring, say, to Denethor. And yet Ugluk is to set a
> watch
> on the river, and endeavor to intercept the Ring before Grishnakh does...
Hypothesis. Sauron let Grishnakh hear just enough about the Ring that he'd
covet it. He hopes, if Saruman's troops get hobbits first, than G will pinch
the Ring and dash east with it.
> I wonder what the relationship was between Beorn and Radagast?
I'm currently inking the play "The Frogs" by Aristophanes, which full of
gay-jokes. Please don't go there. ;-)
> However, there had been a recent famine and plague -- I wonder what
> Tolkien
> would have explained the Shire's stability had he read _Guns, Germs, and
> Steel_...
The Hobbits' agrarian culture derived from the early Arnor culture, which
itself derived from Eldar mentors visiting Numenor. So the GGS situation is
Valar invent the best agricultural system and hand it down, eventually, to
the Gaffer, and everyone else must scrounge with incomplete and unbalanced
ecologies.
Robinsons
> As for the Nazgul going back to Mordor, yes, they do. Gandalf tells us
> that though disrobed and horseless the Nazgul still exist and must
> return to their master to take shape again. But even if not, how many
> orcs or anyone else are going to obey a disembodied voice that carries
> with it great, overpowering fear ordering one in the dark to go and do
> something? Not many.
As I was saying -- the whole narration of the Nazgul returning to Mordor
is pure Monty Python. They alone could have done it justice.
Good thing Tolkien left that part of the tapestry for other hands to fill...
------SCENE 24--------
NAZGUL: YOU... ORC.
MORIA ORC: Wot's that? The name's RICHARD.
NAZGUL: Richard. Obey me. You shall go to Lugburz...
MORIA ORC: And I'm not orc. I'm a GOBLIN.
NAZGUL: Well you looked like an orc. Goblin then. Tell your master...
ORC #2: At's not true, Richard. Goblins are -smaller-.
You're more of a HOBgoblin - IF that. Ooo, Look
over 'ere, there's some LOVELY filth down here!
MORIA ORC: Ow can you tell if I'm a goblin? Why, I can carry
two coconuts from 'ere to Mo'dor, IF I 'ere so inclined.
UNCLOTHED, I might add, in full daylight. Uruk-'ai's
more like it... Same species, different variety!
NAZGUL: Enough! I am your worst nightmare. None can escape
my overpowering fear. You shall obey me or you will perish.
MORIA ORC: Who's speaking to me? Sheila, is that you?
ORC #2: Oh, it's just your imagination, Dick. You keep pretending
to argue with Mr. Balrog. Balrog this, Balrog that! Ever
since 'e was appointed Chair-rog of the Week -- over your
objections, I might add...
NAZGUL: Shut up. I am an unclothed undead spirit from the underworld.
MORIA ORC: Oh, right! lis'en 'ere to this one, then! Undead spirit
an' all. Wooo! I don't believe in undead spirits. Ello!
I can't hear you!
NAZGUL: I am one of Sauron's most powerful servants. Tell him that the
Ringbearer is in Rivendell and unhorsed us and unclothed us.
We seek shelter in the castle of Minas Morg-AAARGH. By the
grace of the Dark Lord, We have found the One Ring!! Go and
tell your master...
ORC #2:
We don't AVE a master. We're an AUTONOMOUS EVIL KLEPTOCRACY that take
turns once a week, pillaging Moria, except bi-weekly, when we appoint...
NAZGUL: As Lord of the Ringwraiths, I command you to shut up!
MORIA ORC: Lord of the whot?
NAZGUL: The ringwraiths.
MORIA ORC: You expect me to obey an invisible voice just because some
watery elf threw a river at you? Supreme power derives from
the will of the EVIL MASSES, not some preposterous
jewelry-dispensing ceremony!
NAZGUL: Very well then, Orc! I shall not slay thee in thy turn.
I will bear thee away to the Houses of Lamentation, beyond
all darkness, where thy undead flesh shall be naked before
the Lidless Eye...
MORIA ORC: Right. NOW we see the VIOLENCE inherent in the system!
Didn't I tell you, Shiela? Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help, I'm Being Posessed!
NAZGUL: Oh, bother.
Robinsons
> > Also, another HUGE plot hole in the books that nobody ever talks about, is
> > why "some nobles" like Theoden, and Imrahil would be granted knowledge of
> > the Quest. Seems awfully snooty and aristocratic, considering that
> > Theoden
> > was practically under Saruman's sway when Gandalf decided to divulge this
> > information to him simply to cheer him up and "heal" him. Which is what
> > did it, not just the power of his staff or whatever. And Imrahil? The
> > Wise don't keep good security in mind; just look at the Council of Elrond.
>
> Gandalf constantly has to balance motivating the leaders and keeping the
> Secret from spreading too far.
>
> For example, Gandalf at the Last Council can finally risk telling all the
> generals about the Quest - a miniature Council of Elrond - but what the hell
> do the generals tell their troops? You just won the biggest battle in the
> 3rd Age, but we need you to sacrifice yourselves for no apparent reason in a
> strategically impossible mission?
Certainty of death? Small chance of success? ... What are we waiting for?
The problem with commanding troops is that without a clear military edge,
veteran troops who seek death in battle are likely to develop a taste for
survival after having experienced it one too many times in spite of theimselves. ;-)
> Hypothesis. Sauron let Grishnakh hear just enough about the Ring that he'd
> covet it. He hopes, if Saruman's troops get hobbits first, than G will pinch
> the Ring and dash east with it.
Good point. Sauron knows he can easily find and overpower an orc with the Ring,
especially an orc he's met personally. All he has to say is "Find me the orc
who looks like that guy from _Rocky Horror Picture Show_. He has something of
mine, and I want it back. I remember... doing the Ring-warp..."
> > I wonder what the relationship was between Beorn and Radagast?
>
> I'm currently inking the play "The Frogs" by Aristophanes, which full of
> gay-jokes. Please don't go there. ;-)
Frogs? The movie had moths, what next?
"So, Gandalf, you sought to lead them through the Dead Marshes.
And if you fail, where then do you go?
If the Frogs defeat you, will you risk a more dangerous road?"
> > However, there had been a recent famine and plague -- I wonder what
> > Tolkien
> > would have explained the Shire's stability had he read _Guns, Germs, and
> > Steel_...
>
> The Hobbits' agrarian culture derived from the early Arnor culture, which
> itself derived from Eldar mentors visiting Numenor. So the GGS situation is
> Valar invent the best agricultural system and hand it down, eventually, to
> the Gaffer, and everyone else must scrounge with incomplete and unbalanced
> ecologies.
Or the Hobbits were simply resistant to unchecked venereal disease. ;-)
Of course, Tolkien DOES say that the hobbits are bound to fade away
and flee the intrusion of Big Folk, just like all pygmies in the face
of more technologically advanced Iron-Age societies, only to be feared,
persecuted, and eventually revered as mythical aboriginal figures. The
fruits of English colonialism and native exploitation of resources
thus explain why Hobbits are so popular in England and the continent!
Saruman just saw it coming before Gandalf did. Best to set aside some
reservations for the Little Folk, with the proper easements for natural resource
exploitation, of course, to ensure their continued financial well-being.
Gambling is another excellent source of income to account for the increased
demand for social services in the face of the devastating Brandywine Flood,
brought on by soil subsidence in the pipeweed- and oil-rich Southfarthing, with its
endless refineries... And they thought the levees could protect them!
Well, at least it's an opportunity to give the remaining hobbits a better life
in Minas Tirith, where their children gan get an education and not spend all
their time behind Farmer Maggot's barn, huffing paint fumes... One thing we
know is that they can't afford to remain in the Shire, the property values are
just too high. Close to the Sea and all.
--Brian
Speaking Clock
Of course I did - I put a whole raft of stuff up for grabs, including
umbrellas and ink pots. They're probably doing the rounds so if you
wait long enough, I'm sure you'll get something in the end.
--
Speaking Clock
Andrew F. Donnell
> No, no. I said Christmas was unimportant in _Christian tradition_. At
> least the priests of my childhood continually stressed that it was merely
> adopted to supplant the pagan yule celebrations, and that Christ's birth
> was far less important than his death.
I agree with you that Christ's birth really shouldn't be considered to
be more important than his death, but, in popular culture (at least in
America), Christmas is a much bigger holiday than Easter. Almost
everybody celebrates Christmas, and the celebrations are frequently the
most lavish and extravagant celebrations of the year. Far less people
celebrate Easter, and those celebrations are generally much more low-key.
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> Emma Pease wrote:
>
>>Few questions
>>
>>1. Were the crebain sent by Sauron's request or was it Saruman acting
>>on his own.
<snip>
> Does Saruman think this will send the Ring into the Gap of Rohan? The best
> interpretation is Sauron wants to force the Ring into Moria, but Saruman
> thinks that forcing them out of the Redhorn Pass will send them to the Gap.
>
> So when one of the Nine Walkers - Gandalf? - says "Sauron's arm has grown
> long indeed", he means all the signs point to Saruman doing Sauron's dirty
> work, for him.
If this is what you are referring to:
----------
As Caradhras turns nasty:
'I wonder if this is a contrivance of the Enemy,' said Boromir. 'They
say in my land that he can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow
that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many
allies.'
'His arm has grown long indeed,' said Gimli, 'if he can draw snow down
from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.'
'His arm has grown long,' said Gandalf.
----------
No where is Saruman implicated here. Boromir suggests that the malice
of the mountain may have been incited by Sauron. Gimli is incredulous.
Gandalf seems to side with Boromir, but I wonder if Gandalf is just
being whiny, since they didn't follow his suggestion and go through the
mountain; the pass turns ugly, so now he's pouting and saying I told you
so. Later they seem to conclude that the storm was wrought by the
mountain of its own will, without Sauron's prompting. It's never really
established either way though, and it would fit with the idea of Sauron
bending his malice north, and if not directly causing the storm, at
least awakening the latent malice of the mountain.
>>Note that Saruman is likely to know of Boromir's mission including the
>>riddle but when does Sauron learn of it?
>
> Probably straight from Saruman.
>
> Another background story - Saruman and Sauron probably have a network of
> spies in Gondor...
Why should either of them know? I do not doubt that there is a network
of spies in Gondor, but I imagine that the contents of the dreams were
known only to very few (maybe not more than Denethor, Faramir, and Boromir).
<snip>
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> The implication is, I think, that they are forced to travel at foot and
> possibly at a rather slower speed than normally hiking humans (their
> sight was impaired, preventing them from travelling very fast and
> probably preventing them from travelling at all during the middle of
> the day). That is what I get of Gandalf's comment:
>
> I think that we may hope now that the Ringwraiths were
> scattered, and have been obliged to return as best they
> could to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.
> [Gandalf, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South']
<snip>
> The impression I get from Gandalf's descriptions is that the
> Ringwraiths were rather helpless until they could return to Sauron
> specifically, or at least "for a while less dangerous", but the
> implication of his explanations, as quoted above and below, is, IMO,
> that the Nazgūl, if they had been robbed of both clothes and horses,
> would not be able to hunt the company until they had been to see
> Sauron himself.
>
> 'If that is so, it will be some time before they can
> begin the hunt again. Of course the Enemy has other
> servants, but they will have to journey all the way to
> the borders of Rivendell before they can pick up our
> trail. And if we are careful that will be hard to find.
> But we must delay no longer.'
> [ibid.]
I guess I missed the implication that they must return to Sauron before
being able to do anything else. None of the other descriptions really
explain this, though.
'You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that,' said Gandalf. 'The power of
their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. We hope that
they were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less
dangerous."
It sounds like the only handicaps they have are the loss of horse, which
essentially blinds them and slows them down, and the loss of their
robes, which implies that they are just a disembodied voice and a
nameless fear, so that would cripple their ability to interact with
others. The horse, I would agree, cannot be replaced until they get
back to Mordor. But for clothes, I would think they can find something
to reattire themselves. This would at least give them the ability to
interact with Sauron's forces in Moria or Dol Guldur. Is there more
that needs to be done to re-energize them? Do they need to see their
master so that he can press the "reset" button? Maybe they do, Gandalf
sounds like he knows (although he really only says that "we hope").
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> It is my belief that all the wizards would have failed in their mission
> had Gandalf not died. That is the real reason he fell in Moria, for he
> doubtless foresaw the same thing Aragorn did.
I recall no indication that Gandalf had any foreknowledge of his death,
or that he willingly sought it out. He broke the bridge under the
Balrog, but left his own part intact so that he could continue on with
the fellowship.
> Gandalf knew he would have had two options:
>
> 1) Forsake the Quest at the Falls of Rauros, or on the marches of
> Mordor, in order to rally the human kingdoms milirarily, as he
> later did as Gandalf the White for entirely different reasons
> (having been granted additional foreknowledge of what would
> happen by Eru). Gandalf certainly cared about the human kingdoms,
> but to take this route as Gandalf the Grey, would have been a
> failure. It would have broken his commitment not to meet power
> with power (as he did outside Helm's Deep and again at the gates
> of Minas Tirith),
What did he do outside Helm's Deep? He fought, but did he use any
supernatural power? (Maybe he did, I don't remember). And there are
examples of his fighting power with power as Gandalf the Grey. The
balrog, for example. And he also uses magic against the wargs, and the
Nazgul on Weathertop.
<snip>
Andy
Andrew F. Donnell
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
>>Larry Swain wrote:
>>But do they really have to go back to Mordor? We don't know what forces
>>Sauron may have elsewhere.
>
> Yes we do. We know he has forces in Moria, small though they be, and in
> Dol Guldur. We know he has an ally in Isengard. At some point he had
> sent forces north and east to be ready to attack Dale and the Lonely
> Mtn, and that would prob be about this time (takes awhile for a sizeable
> force to march that far). And we know from Elrond's scouts that there
> are no forces known on the Rivendell side of the Misty Mtns and
> Lothlorien seems to report no major troop movements northward in their
> area. Good thing they sent scouts out to ascertain that instead of
> blundering into a battalion of orcs in Hollin, eh?
>
> As for the Nazgul going back to Mordor, yes, they do. Gandalf tells us
> that though disrobed and horseless the Nazgul still exist and must
> return to their master to take shape again.
It is true that I missed Gandalf's saying that they had to go back to
Mordor. I had interpreted it as "they are weak and have to lick their
wounds for a while" rather than actually physically see their master to
be "reset" in some way. Getting new horses, yes, they'd have to go back
to Mordor for that. But I had thought they could still interact with
the physical world, even if essentially blind. Maybe they can't--maybe
their physical aspect was destroyed in the river and they exist only in
the spirit realm?
> But even if not, how many
> orcs or anyone else are going to obey a disembodied voice that carries
> with it great, overpowering fear ordering one in the dark to go and do
> something? Not many.
That is basically how the Nazgul commanded orcs in other situations.
The presence of a black robe to give them some shape seems like one of
the less important characteristics of a Nazgul. Whoever is in charge at
Dol Guldur probably know enough about the Nazgul to recognize one when
they feel it. Especially since three of the Nazgul had been in charge
of Dol Guldur for the past 70 years (since 2951). The occupants should
know immediately who it is, and they should jump to do the Nazgul's
bidding. Moreover, the Nazgul should already have some fairly well
established spy networks, and it would be easy enough to shift their
focus out of Mirkwood and away from Lorien and over to Rivendell. Maybe
they even have one of the unaccounted for palantiri?
>>In another post you reject my notion of
>>getting reinforcements from Dol Guldur because they would need an army
>>to besiege Rivendell. And you say that Sauron would not waste spies
>>because he would expect Elrond or Gandalf to master the ring and come
>>against him. I agree that this is what Sauron would think, but I
>>suspect that he would still want to have spies watching the enemy's
>>movements.
>
> Palantir? How are the spies to report, as you point out, such
> information will be months old by the time it reaches Sauron. I mean if
> you are criticizing Elrond and Gandalf for waiting for spies to return
> from Lorien (a min. 6 weeks round trip), but think that Sauron wants
> spies about Rivendell whose "news" will be at least twice that old and
> through hostile territory before it reaches him? That seems strategic
> to you?
Crebain, hawks, wargs, and other creatures were spying the land. These
spies can travel much quicker than humanoid spies. A network of birds
could keep tabs on people they found in the wild, and also spare a few
individuals to make regular reports to whomever they must report to,
Saruman or someone in Moria or Dol Guldur, and from there the news could
make it to Sauron. By the time Sauron got it, yes, it would be out of
date, but at the closer staging point, someone would have a fair idea of
where the fellowship is and where it is going.
And by the time we get to Hollin, it is implied that a flying Nazgul is
in the area (at least that's how I read it):
----------
After the crebain:
Frodo looked up at the sky. Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass over
the high stars, as if for a moment they faded and the flashed out again.
He shivered.
'Did you see anything pass over?' he whispered to Gandalf, who was just
ahead.
'No, but I felt it, whatever it was,' he answered. 'It may be nothing,
only a wisp of thin cloud.'
'It was moving fast then,' muttered Aragorn, 'and not with the wind.'
----------
The reference to feeling it instead of seeing it implies to me that it
is a Nazgul. So they delayed to find out if there are any Nazgul in the
area, but there delay was too long, giving at least one of the Nazgul
time enough to make its way back to Mordor and get a flying mount
(which, according to Gandalf, could cover the two hundred leagues from
Barad Dur to Orthanc in a few hours, so could certainly have made it's
way up north by this time).
And even out of date news would be useful to Sauron, so that he can try
to get a feel for the general strategy. He would know if a small party
seems to be making for Lorien, or if they go to Gondor instead, or if an
army sets out from Rivendell, etc. so that he can keep track of the
movements of his enemies, and even if he sits back and waits for someone
to claim the ring and come calling, he wants to know who and where so he
can prepare.
<snip>
> And
> again why send forces to Rivendell when whatever news they may have will
> be 6 weeks old by the time it gets to Sauron, much less for him to react to?
Because decisions can be made by others than Sauron, and if the spy
network can keep tabs on enemy movements until his more trusted
employees, the Nazgul, get back up to speed, that would be very useful
information. When the Nazgul can return in force to one of the staging
points, it will be much more useful to have whatever commander is there
be able to say "We've seen a small party leave Rivendell and have been
tracking them South through Hollin. They attempted the pass through
Caradhras, but turned back. We lost them somewhere near Moria." It is
better than having them go back and pick up a months old trail at Rivendell.
<snip>
>>Also, does Sauron actually know where Rivendell is? My assumption
>>(although I don't remember if this has support) has been that they knew
>>only very generally where Rivendell was. And the only thing that the
>>Nazgul know about the ring at this point is that it was last seen at the
>>Fords of Bruinen in the company of hobbits, a human, and an elf-lord.
>
> Yes, they know where Rivendell is. In Appendix A "It is said that
> Rivendell was besieged" by Angmar and its allies.
>
> That's what they know, but they can surmise that an elf lord who has
> lived in the Blessed Realm and the hobbits known to be associates of
> Gandalf are taking the ring to Gandalf and Elrond, known friends and
> partners against Sauron. Not hard to figure that out.
OK, I did not recall that the location of Rivendell was known to the
enemy.
>> If spies start sweeping the land, they may find Rivendell and
>>put it under surveillance. Spies would likely start sweeping out around
>>the Fords, so get as far away from there as possible!
>
> As Gandalf points out, anyone hunting them will have to start at
> Rivendell anyway, and as I've pointed out, they have some time.
And if a Nazgul could make it to Dol Guldur by, say, the beginning of
December, they could probably get birds and other spies deployed to
Rivendell within a couple weeks. That would be before the party leaves.
That they did not see spies right away means that something had to
take longer, so maybe you and others are right that the Nazgul had to
return to Sauron before they could do anything (or maybe, just being
crippled by loss of horse, it took the Nazgul longer to reach Dol Guldur).
Even so, saying they had time just isn't true: in the event, the
Fellowship *was* observed by crebain spies, and wargs. The malice of
Caradhras may have been awakened by the will of Sauron. They
encountered trouble in Moria that they might have missed had Moria not
been under a heightened state of security. I see no reason that Tolkien
would have mentioned the reinforcements arriving in Moria just before
the Fellowship got there, if not to imply that that is one of the
reasons they ran into so much trouble.
If the Fellowship left sooner they could have missed all these problems,
at the unlikely risk of running into crippled, horseless Nazgul. I'd
take that risk.
<snip>
>>Indeed, we have a large company of orcs entering Moria in early January.
>> If a Nazgul arrived in Dol Guldur in the beginning of December, that
>>would fit with the timing of these reinforcements entering Moria.
>
> That's an awfully long time to get from Dol Guldur to Moria! Gollum
> does it in a matter of a few days, a little longer for a large troop but
> hardly over a month! And as we've seen that troop of orcs wasn't
> sufficient to stop the 9, much less a force from Rivendell or Lorien.
So maybe I was wrong about the possibility of Nazgul stopping in Dol
Guldur prior to going back to Mordor, otherwise the force would have
been mobilized sooner. But still, this troop of orcs was sufficient to
rile up the Balrog, and end up costing Gandalf his life.
>>One could also say that the trouble on Caradhras may have been due to
>>this heightened security in the area, if one were to put malice intent
>>in the storms.
>
> Probably not. The suggestion in the end is that it was the mountain
> itself that defeated them, with a will of its own, not at the behest of
> Saruman or Sauron.
It is also suggested that Sauron *did* have the power to influence the
weather. It sounds like this is the same pass that the scouts took to
go to Lorien two months earlier. The mountain seemed content to
completely ignore them then. Why suddenly flare up for these nine
people if it ignored three people previously? It strikes me that
something greater was at work than the simple will of the mountain. I
don't think Sauron specifically called down that storm, but if he was
putting forth more of his will in the north, it would make sense that
this would awaken the latent malice of Caradhras.
>>And the crebain and other creatures may have been searching for quite
>>some time prior to seeing the Fellowship.
>
> Maybe, and they may have left that morning after tea. What we do know
> is that this is earliest we see any sign of the Enemy stirring after
> Oct. 20.
And if this is the earliest that they have been searching, if the
Fellowship left, say, a month earlier, they would have completely missed
them.
>>Sauron may not have known what happened until Jan 8 or 9, but the Nazgul
>>knew and could make these sorts of decisions on their own.
>
> Where do we see them doing this? Where do they make decisions indepent
> of Sauron?
They must be making independent decisions all the time, unless they have
a direct line of communication with Sauron (which we've established they
probably don't). Otherwise how could Sauron have them ruling Dol Guldur
or even Minas Ithil, or have them out hunting the ring, or leading
armies against Minas Tirith.
<snip>
>>So we allow a month for the spy to get back and report that the pass is
>>clear. Then another month for the Fellowship to reach that pass. A lot
>>can change in two months.
>
> Yep. But better knowing that than walking into a prepared trap.
By your own arguments, a prepared trap could not have been put in place
until early January, long after the scouts have been through, but just
in time for the fellowship to walk into it. An army, yes, or some other
force that was wandering through the wilderness, or getting ready to
attack Rivendell, but not a trap prepared to snare the ring.
<snip>
>>Aragorn and Elrond's sons set out for Lorien with less than one day for
>>packing or planning.
>
> All three of whom have spent years of their lives in the wilderness and
> know how to travel light and live off the land, unlike four hobbits in
> the party.
And there is no indication that it took two months to gather food and
other supplies. They did not cater to the hobbit's ideas of
comfort--that may have taken longer, and would have taken a fleet of
ponies to carry. They took as much as they could carry, and outfitted
one pony. Even if they had to tailor make warm weather gear for the
hobbits, I suspect that they could have been fully equipped and ready to
go in one week's time. Also, there is no indication that the hobbits
really did any preparation, in terms of preparing for the strenuous road
ahead, or some of them, even looking at a map!
>>I think it is stretching to imply that the colder weather would be
>>better than warmer.
>
> Really? So you would choose to be out in a blizzard with 30+ mph winds
> whipping snow horizontally into your face at a balmy 22 degrees F rather
> than a beautiful, sunny day with only an occasional gust of breeze at 0
> degrees? Yep, balmy 22 is much better......
The weather possibilities seem like a lose-lose decision, and there is
no indication that they took it into account in their decision making
one way or the other.
Andy
Phlip
> I agree with you that Christ's birth really shouldn't be considered to be
> more important than his death, but, in popular culture (at least in
> America), Christmas is a much bigger holiday than Easter. Almost
> everybody celebrates Christmas, and the celebrations are frequently the
> most lavish and extravagant celebrations of the year. Far less people
> celebrate Easter, and those celebrations are generally much more low-key.
Clue: The original Gospels describe a birth in Summer. (Shepherds tending
their flocks, inns without vacancies, etc.) Rebranding the birth as a
Yule-tide event was the early church's Nordic adaptation.
Hmm. Nordic. What famous author does that remind us of?
Andrew F. Donnell
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
>>I agree with you that Christ's birth really shouldn't be considered to be
>>more important than his death, but, in popular culture (at least in
>>America), Christmas is a much bigger holiday than Easter. Almost
>>everybody celebrates Christmas, and the celebrations are frequently the
>>most lavish and extravagant celebrations of the year. Far less people
>>celebrate Easter, and those celebrations are generally much more low-key.
>
> Clue: The original Gospels describe a birth in Summer. (Shepherds tending
> their flocks, inns without vacancies, etc.) Rebranding the birth as a
> Yule-tide event was the early church's Nordic adaptation.
I agree that Jesus was probably not born on December 25. My post had
nothing to do with the actual historical details of the birth. I merely
mentioned that the holiday of Christmas is celebrated more widely and
with more extravagance than Easter.
For an interesting discussion of the inn, and some thoughts about the
cultural background of the birth in the manger:
http://www.cccb.edu/fincher/bailey1979.pdf
This doesn't really address the issue of the date of birth, but it is
still interesting (I think).
Andy
Larry Swain
Thanks!
Larry Swain
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>We don't know what happened to Radagast, though in one of the letters
>>Tolkien intimates that he believes that all the wizards save Gandalf
>>failed in their missions. It is likely that Sauron or Saruman had
>>Radagast done in, but we are never told.
>
>
> done in. Tolkien is rather clear about Radagast's failure:
> "Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he
> was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured
> of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and
> forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."
This is what I was referring, which come to think of it isn't in the
Letters after all.
> Radagast became more interested in "nature" than in opposing
> Sauron, and so failed in his mission.
Which doesn't mean he still was not a potential threat to Sauron and/or
Saruman.
There does not seem
> to be either the opportunity or the motivation for Sauron
> or Saruman to kill Radagast.
Motivation is simply that he was an Istari who wasn't serving either
Sauron or Saruman, and so always a potential threat. Opportunity, they
had plenty of that, esp. between July and the end of the year before
things got really going in the war.
Larry Swain
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>
>> When the Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian in
>> 1752, [...] the 25th March jumped to being the 6th of
>> April. And in England they year still /does/ start on
>> the 6th of April. But only the tax year, which no one
>> sees as a moment of eucatastrophe.
>
>
> Does this have anything to do with April 15, the last day of
> the fiscal year in the US? Why is money the last thing to be
> tied to a liturgical calendar? Seems questionable that that
> is the one thing people are most "pious" about.
>
>
>>And noting that the Company of the Ring set out from Rivendell on the
>>25th of December:
>> The main action of /The Lord of the Rings/ takes place,
>> then, in the mythic space between Christmas, Christ's
>> birth, and the crucifixion, Christ's death.
>>[ibid.]
>>
>>Though Shippey refuses to make any conclusions with respect to Frodo
>>based on this, I still think that he implies that it is deliberate
>>from Tolkien's hand that the main part of the Quest (the more serious
>>part, one might say) takes place in this mythic time-span.
>
>
> I thought there was supposed to be no allegory whatsoever in
> Lord of the Rings. Is Tolkien saying that putting LOTR in the
> Real world means that important Christian dates and theological bits
> HAVE to have meaning in this antediluvian setting? Again, seems
> like kind of un unusual (and unique) redefinition of allegory.
I think you've misunderstood allegory vs. symbolism. The use of "mythic
time" in Tolkien is symbolic, not allegory, which is a particular and
specialized type of symbolic literature. But not all symbolism is allegory.
> Did Tolkien have some evidence for believing that litirgical dates
> were numinous in and of themselves, and therefore warrant inclusion
> in any fictionalized setting based on this planet?
But they aren't just "liturgical" dates but also had significance in
pre-Christian beliefs. Read "On Fairy Stories".
>
> The fact that we don't know the real date of the Annunciation or
> Christmas (and it was changed around for quite some time) makes this
> a bit problematic.
No, it has no effect on this at all. It might or might not have an
affect on one's belief system or in reconstructing the historical issues
surounding Christ's life or something; but it has no effect whatsoever
on whether Tolkien believed, or whether Tolkien made use of those dates
to lend greater meaning and symbolism in LoTR.
> I'm assuming that for Tolkien, the Fourth Age ended with Noah's Ark,
> thereby setting the stage for the fictionalized point of departure
> (where history and accurate geography begins.)
No, I don't think Tolkien's ages correspond with the typical ages as
laid out by medieval thinkers such as Bede. Inspired by them certainly,
but not imitative of them nor following them.
IF WE MUST make correlations I would say that Tolkien's First Age ended
with the Flood and the changing of the world with the ouster of Melkor.
From that point though, the ages inmedieval thought and in Tolkien are
difficult if not impossible to relate to one another. For example the
second age extends from Noah to Abraham in medieval thought, but in
Tolkien the Second Age is over 3400 years long and ends with the
overthrow of Sauron, but after the world was remade in the Akallabeth so
that it was round. So, the Fall of Numenor and the Flood might be
equated, but the ages don't line up there. And so on....
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>
>>celebrated as the New Year in pre-CHristian and post-CHristian
>>Anglo-Saxon tradition. Regardless of whether it was or not, though, it
>>was also the day of the creation of humanity and the fall, the day of
>>the first Passover in Exodus, typologically important, the day of the
>>Annuciation, the day of the Crucifixion, and in some medieval
>>commentators the day on which the world would end. It is indeed an
>>auspicious day!
>
>
> artificially by medieval commentators.
Sure, but so?
I mean, March 25 did not exist at
> the time of Exodus, although I'm sure the Spring solstice did.
Again, so?
However
> according to the modern calendar that's March 21. Does the Bible say
> "four days after the Spring solstice"? Because otherwise I don't believe
> anyone who says they know the date of the first Passover.
Again so? I don't mean to be flip, but all of this is really immaterial
to Tolkien's use of these dates and they symbolic meanings.
<snip>
>
> I can't get into this theory that liturgical dates
> are numinous, even in fantasy fiction, it rubs me the wrong way.
> I mean, numinous objects, numinous locations, prophecies, situations --
> that makes sense to me.
Which I find odd. You can accept the numinous in all respects except
time? What makes the concept of numinous time so much more difficult to
accept in Tolkien than numinous objects? Than prophecy? Than magical
objects? I don't see it, it seems to me that if you accept one, that
you should at the very least consider accepting the others.
> Numinous dates (that happen every yeer, whether or not something
> significant or often enough, unhappy, occurs on them, such as a
> massacre) is sort of like the Zodiac where everyone born in a
> certain year or month is supposed to be of some significance.
>
> "Mythologically implausible, Captain."
Sorry, but mythology often works on the Zodiac, or the conjunctions of
times that have significance. That Tolkien's mythology consciously does
this shouldn't be a surprise.
Troels Forchhammer
Robinsons <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
>
> Larry Swain wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Midwinter's day, yes. I agree.
>
> December 25 -per se-, I disagree, since such a date didn't used to
> exist.
When the mid-winter festival was settled for the 25th of December in
the Julian calendar (introduced in 46 BC) it was actually the shortest
day. Since, however, the Julian calendar didn't match the length of the
year (an error of about three days in 400 years), it had shifted these
three to four days at the point when the Gregorian and Julian calendars
were matched for (the year 325 AD when Jesus' birthday was settled at
the famous church meeting at Nicea).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Smile
a while
ere day
is done
and all
your gall
will soon
be gone.
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snip>
> As I was saying -- the whole narration of the Nazgul returning to
> Mordor is pure Monty Python. They alone could have done it
> justice.
<snip>
LOL!
That was one I could understand and appreciate ;)
(I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I love Monty Python)
Larry Swain
No, they still exist in the physical world, but they're invisible and
have no weapons other than the fear that is part of their nature. So
running into anyone who isn't going to run away in utter horror at their
presence and be able to command them to do anything is unliely.
>
>> But even if not, how many orcs or anyone else are going to obey a
>> disembodied voice that carries with it great, overpowering fear
>> ordering one in the dark to go and do something? Not many.
>
>
> That is basically how the Nazgul commanded orcs in other situations.
Where specifically do we see a naked, invisible Nazgul giving orders
that are then carried out? I don't recall such a situation and would
love to read one.
The
> presence of a black robe to give them some shape seems like one of the
> less important characteristics of a Nazgul.
It is, just like if one were a general or an admiral in a real military,
the clothes would not be as important as other factors....but then, if
the admiral is naked one can still see him, and while one may be
revolted, one doesn't run from the room in utter terror at one knows not
what.
Whoever is in charge at Dol
> Guldur probably know enough about the Nazgul to recognize one when they
> feel it.
Perhaps, but then what? A siege isn't in the offing. Spies? Ok, who
or what? Dol Guldur seems mostly populated by orcs, good fodder for the
battlefield, but not so good at being spies I think. So that's out.
Wargs are inappropriate spies, though good hunters if you are trying to
find someone. Birds? Who can command the birds of Mirkwood? Certainly
not the Nazgul--all creatures save those specially bred fear them, so
that's out, and there's no evidence that there was some wizard wandering
about Mirkwood who served Sauron. Easterlings and Haradrim? Possibly,
but they aren't quite made for the North, completely out of their
reckoning in terms of terrain, weather, what to expect, how to survive
etc. Dunlanders? Possibly, but they seem all to be with Saruman.
Other humans? Possible, but again we're not told that such are present
or being used in Dol Guldur.
Sauron's plan seems to be to divide and conquer. Elves, dwarves, and
men are all fairly well estranged form one another. Conquer Gondor,
overrun Lorien, keep Dain and Brand busy, and once the south is taken
care of (Saruman has Rohan tied up), the North will be easy, just a
matter of time. The presence of te ring at Rivendell makes sauron move
quicker than he intended in an effort undoubtedly to shorten the time
the upstart has to master the ring. But that's what he fears--someone
matering the ring against him. He has no reason to be overly concerned
with any military force Rivendell might muster. nor is he afraid that
they will try and destroy the ring. There are 3 options from Sauron's
point of view. Either Elrond and/or Gandalf in Rivendell will try and
Master the Ring, and that will be but an island soon and Sauron will
crush them before that happens, and there will be none left to aid them.
Or they will send the Ring to Galadriel in Lorien and she will try and
master it, but they already have Lorien under heavy surveillance. Or
they will send the ring to Gondor and an upstart will challenge him
there, and guess what? They have Rohan and Gondor under heavy surveillance.
So what good will sending spies to Rivendell do, even from Dol Guldur?
They have to go all the way back to Rivendell to pick up the trail, if
they even can, so say 3 1/2-4 weeks from Dol Guldur. That puts them at
Rivendell in early Jan. Say they are lucky enough to pick up the trail
right away, and send word. Word gets back to Dol Guldur in early Feb.
They find the campsite in Hollin and send word back, that gets there
about Feb 7. They track them to Caradhras and send word back, Feb 9.
By this point of course they already know that hobbits in the company of
men, dwarf, and elf have traveled through Moria where Gandalf fell and
that this company entered Lorien and has not come out. What good is
there then in sending spies to Rivendell to tell them what they already
know and have known for some time? Seems a waste of man power to me.
Especially since three of the Nazgul had been in charge of Dol
> Guldur for the past 70 years (since 2951). The occupants should know
> immediately who it is, and they should jump to do the Nazgul's bidding.
> Moreover, the Nazgul should already have some fairly well established
> spy networks,
They do, on Lorien, Rohan, and Gondor. It doesn't seem that Sauron was
concerned much yet with the North and Elrond.
and it would be easy enough to shift their focus out of
> Mirkwood and away from Lorien and over to Rivendell.
Not really--Rivendell is 3 weeks travel over unpopulated wilderness and
a mountain range away, not an easy shift.
Maybe they even
> have one of the unaccounted for palantiri?
Introducing as facts that which is not in evidence. And if they did,
they wouldn't need to send spies now, would they?
>
>>> In another post you reject my notion of
>>> getting reinforcements from Dol Guldur because they would need an
>>> army to besiege Rivendell. And you say that Sauron would not waste
>>> spies because he would expect Elrond or Gandalf to master the ring
>>> and come against him. I agree that this is what Sauron would think,
>>> but I suspect that he would still want to have spies watching the
>>> enemy's movements.
>>
>>
>> Palantir? How are the spies to report, as you point out, such
>> information will be months old by the time it reaches Sauron. I mean
>> if you are criticizing Elrond and Gandalf for waiting for spies to
>> return from Lorien (a min. 6 weeks round trip), but think that Sauron
>> wants spies about Rivendell whose "news" will be at least twice that
>> old and through hostile territory before it reaches him? That seems
>> strategic to you?
>
>
> Crebain, hawks, wargs, and other creatures were spying the land.
Really? When coming south on the north and west side of the Misty Mtns,
we're told by Elrond's scouts that wolf/warg parties are hunting farther
up the river. The group of enchanted wolves that the Fellowship
encounters had probably been out for months hunting. They seem to have
been wanting to kill the Fellowship, not capture some of its members and
tell them about the Ring or anything else. So we can discount the wargs
as "spies" in that sense. Hawks? We know nothing of the hawks. It is
said that hawks were seen flying, and that may suggest spying, and that
may suggest hunting. It isn't known by the Fellowship or by us.
Nor is it known in any absolute sense that the crebain are spying
either, though this is the stated belief of Aragorn: "I do not know what
they are about: possibly there is some trouble away south from which
they are fleeing (me: and which we find out later in the book is
precisely true, for Saruman has been busy destroying forest land and
gearing up for war in a very serious way and in imitation of Sauron
blighting the landscape around Isengard), but I think they are spying
out the land." So it is Aragorn's belief, but neither he nor we KNOW
that this is the case. And if spying out the land, they aren't doing a
good job since after flying over Hollin, they go NORTH and WEST...away
from Hollin, away from Rivendell, and more toward where the Ring is
known to have already left--toward the Shire and Bree. So there is some
doubt as to both whether these are truly spies in that sense and
certainly doubt as to their effectiveness. It should also be noted that
once the crebain fly over, we hear no more of birds flying overhead, so
this doesn't indicate to me any sort of consistent use of birds etc to
spy out the land.
These
> spies can travel much quicker than humanoid spies. A network of birds
> could keep tabs on people they found in the wild,
A hawk or eagle, certainly, if they were willing to work for Saruman or
Sauron. But we have no such indication that they did, nor that Sauron
had an army of birds or other flying creatures suitable for spying.
and also spare a few
> individuals to make regular reports to whomever they must report to,
> Saruman or someone in Moria or Dol Guldur,
So the more people you have, the more likely you have detection. If you
need your spy and a troop of runners to make long journey's back and
forth, you need a permanent camp, which the enemy is undoubtedly going
to find, and so nullifies its effectiveness.
and from there the news could
> make it to Sauron. By the time Sauron got it, yes, it would be out of
> date, but at the closer staging point, someone would have a fair idea of
> where the fellowship is and where it is going.
See above: 3 choices: Stay in Rivendell, go to Lorien, go to Gondor.
>
> And by the time we get to Hollin, it is implied that a flying Nazgul is
> in the area (at least that's how I read it):
Many do, but I don't think so, and have not thought so in this forum
previously.
>
> ----------
> After the crebain:
>
> Frodo looked up at the sky. Suddenly he saw or felt a shadow pass
> over the high stars, as if for a moment they faded and the flashed out
> again. He shivered.
> 'Did you see anything pass over?' he whispered to Gandalf, who was
> just ahead.
> 'No, but I felt it, whatever it was,' he answered. 'It may be
> nothing, only a wisp of thin cloud.'
> 'It was moving fast then,' muttered Aragorn, 'and not with the wind.'
>
> ----------
>
> The reference to feeling it instead of seeing it implies to me that it
> is a Nazgul.
No, I don't think Gandalf would make such an error. Besides, you can
feel or sense clouds crossing the moon or sun without looking up and
seeing it do so. It is in any case a surprising comment from Aragorn
and the author: clouds often move in a different direction than wind on
the ground as anyone who has spent time outdoors much knows,
particularly around mountains or large bodies of water which affect wind
at all sorts of levels. Aragorn and Gandalf would both know this, and
so Aragorn's observation here seems odd to me.
MOre to the point though, later in BOok II on the river you'll recall
that we do indeed have a Nazgul fly overhead, and what accompanies that
flyover is FEAR: "A sudden dread fell on the company." There is no such
fear or dread in the quote you provide, which rather suggests that
whatever it was it was not a flying Nazgul.
> And even out of date news would be useful to Sauron, so that he can try
> to get a feel for the general strategy.
You don't think he already has a general feel?
He would know if a small party
> seems to be making for Lorien,
So he watches the passes (Moria, the Gap, Bilbo's) and Lorien
or if they go to Gondor instead,
the Gap, even he knows going down the Greyflood and around would take
too long.
or if an
> army sets out from Rivendell, etc. so that he can keep track of the
> movements of his enemies,
Elves have been dwindling for millenia as Sauron well knows, whatever
army Rivendell has left is no match for the forces that Sauron has at
hand (recall that even after Pelennor Fields, with a large army on the
road from Rohan, forces at Dol Guldur attacking Lorien, and forces in
the North attacking Thranduil and Dale and the Lonely Mtn, that Mordor
is still full of troops, enough to more than take care of the Captains
of the West and later, Rivendell. Rivendell may be able to resist for a
long siege, but eventually it would fall. That doesn't mean that
Rivendell is able to mount an army that would be any appreciable threat,
much less make the trek to Lorien or Gondor to be of any significant help.
and even if he sits back and waits for someone
> to claim the ring and come calling, he wants to know who and where so he
> can prepare.
He does. He knows who the powers arrayed against him are (except
Aragorn, I think that was a surprise to him.) But considering that he
and Galadriel have been enemies for 3 ages of the world; and considering
that he knows the history of Numenor as well as Aragorn does, he knows
who the Half-Elven brothers are and that Elrond, whom the W-K has
besieged before, and whose forces made up part of the W-K's force at
Fornost when the W-K left the North and the prophecy that even the W-K
knows was uttered...I think Sauron knows very well who is in Rivendell.
ANd he certainly knows Gandalf and who Gandalf is, Saruman undoubedly
helped there, if Sauron had any real doubts about it. Quite a lot of
knowledge in fact, so why does he need spies on Rivendell to tell him
news that is weeks, nay months old?
> <snip>
>
>> And again why send forces to Rivendell when whatever news they may
>> have will be 6 weeks old by the time it gets to Sauron, much less for
>> him to react to?
>
>
> Because decisions can be made by others than Sauron, and if the spy
> network can keep tabs on enemy movements until his more trusted
> employees, the Nazgul, get back up to speed, that would be very useful
> information.
Really? Who else in Sauron's organization makes such decisions? Where
do we see Sauron distributing power to any but the Nazgul and they are
utterly controlled by their rings?
When the Nazgul can return in force to one of the staging
> points, it will be much more useful to have whatever commander is there
> be able to say "We've seen a small party leave Rivendell and have been
> tracking them South through Hollin. They attempted the pass through
> Caradhras, but turned back. We lost them somewhere near Moria."
How is that useful 4 weeks after the event, when they already know that
that same party is in Lorien, and lost Gandalf?
>
>>> If spies start sweeping the land, they may find Rivendell and
>>> put it under surveillance. Spies would likely start sweeping out
>>> around the Fords, so get as far away from there as possible!
>>
>>
>> As Gandalf points out, anyone hunting them will have to start at
>> Rivendell anyway, and as I've pointed out, they have some time.
>
>
> And if a Nazgul could make it to Dol Guldur by, say, the beginning of
> December, they could probably get birds and other spies deployed to
> Rivendell within a couple weeks.
Why do you think the birds are ready to bear news to Nazgul? We know
that all creatures fear them, save those specially bred for them. So
what birds? Are you saying that Sauron has a special aviary a la Harry
Potter for messenger birds? And neither orcs nor men are specially
noted for communing with animals (save Radagast the Wizard). So just
who is going to commune with the beasties on Sauron's behalf or the
Nazgul's? Saruman? Saruman needs Radagast to do that for him.
> Even so, saying they had time just isn't true: in the event, the
> Fellowship *was* observed by crebain spies, and wargs.
You don't know that. You know that crebain flew overhead, we don't know
that they were even spies. You know that the wargs are hunting farther
up the river than before the Fellowship is even determined to go, not
necessarily hunting the Ring so much as hunting the living and spreading
terror. There's no evidence that they were "spies" and reported back to
Saruman or Sauron that they saw Gandalf the Grey and 8 others one of
them a Ring-bearer. The crebain in fact fly AWAY from Isengard when
they fly over the Fellowship.
The malice of
> Caradhras may have been awakened by the will of Sauron.
Maybe. Maybe not.
They
> encountered trouble in Moria that they might have missed had Moria not
> been under a heightened state of security.
What heightened sense of security? That fresh troops were sent is true,
but we aren't told why. It may be in response to the Ring and the
episode at the Ford, it may just be preparations for war on Lorien. In
any case, the Fellowship had all but escaped the orcs, the problem
wasn't the orcs, but the Balrog of Morgoth. If there was any
"heightened sense" it was because Pippin early on alerted the orcs to
their presence.
I see no reason that Tolkien
> would have mentioned the reinforcements arriving in Moria just before
> the Fellowship got there, if not to imply that that is one of the
> reasons they ran into so much trouble.
He didn't. He mentioned them arriving before the fellowship AFTER the
Fellowship has passed through in a context of increased vigilance on the
part of the elves because of that troop of orcs as well as wolves
howling on the borders of the woods. So if you want to claim that
wolves howling on the borders of Lothlorien is also a response to the
Fellowship, I'd say that you are overreading here.
>
> If the Fellowship left sooner they could have missed all these problems,
> at the unlikely risk of running into crippled, horseless Nazgul. I'd
> take that risk.
Be my guest. But you are judging their actions from hindsight of 20/20.
Supposing you didn't know the end of the story and the details you do,
and you do know that you have armies to get past and the 9 Riders
gathered in force against you somewhere out there, then would you take
the risk? I wouldn't, I would want to find out as much as I could
BEFORE setting out, rather than trusting to luck, particularly since the
fate of the world rests on keeping that Ring from Sauron...let's not
have them stride into his arms, eh?
>
> So maybe I was wrong about the possibility of Nazgul stopping in Dol
> Guldur prior to going back to Mordor, otherwise the force would have
> been mobilized sooner. But still, this troop of orcs was sufficient to
> rile up the Balrog, and end up costing Gandalf his life.
You're assuming that the balrog was not already "riled up". We don't
know what its relationship with Sauron was, although it seems to have
been a close one since orcs from Moria join up quickly and easily with
orcs from Isengard and Mordor to take the hobbits suggesting a rather
close relationship, that and Sauron sending troops into Moria in the
first place. So the balrog was likely a "secret weapon" Sauron had
intended to unleash on Lorien (Let Galadriel deal with that monster from
the First Age! Ha!) and catch the Galadrim in a classic pincer:
attacked by a Nazgul and a huge force from Dol Guldur and while busy
fighting there, taken from Moria by a balrog and the troops sent to it
from behind. Gandalf solved that little problem. All that to say, it
was already "riled up" and ready.
>>> One could also say that the trouble on Caradhras may have been due to
>>> this heightened security in the area, if one were to put malice
>>> intent in the storms.
>>
>>
>> Probably not. The suggestion in the end is that it was the mountain
>> itself that defeated them, with a will of its own, not at the behest
>> of Saruman or Sauron.
>
>
> It is also suggested that Sauron *did* have the power to influence the
> weather.
It could be read that way. But a) Gandalf's comment may be read only as
repeating what he has said several times before, Sauron's arm has grown
long, without him saying that he agrees that Sauron called forth a snow
storm from the north brought it down secretly along the mountains so
that the Fellowship camped at their feet don't notice a major storm
above them, and then waits until they are some way up their ascent to
unleasch it. B) as Troels points out, if he had that kind of power, he
hardly needs the Ring, much less the huge armies he has. He needn't
even use armies, he can starve, flood, and use tornadoes, hurricanes,
and blizzards to cow his enemies into submission. C) Later, at Pelennor
Fields, Sauron isn't even able to generate continuous cloud cover for
his troops. and most importantly to my reading anyway, d) "Caradhras
had defeated them." Last sentence of the chapter. Note it says
Caradhras, not Sauron.
It sounds like this is the same pass that the scouts took to
> go to Lorien two months earlier. The mountain seemed content to
> completely ignore them then.
It seems to like elves, Legolas was unbothered by the storm whereas
everyone else in the company was.
Why suddenly flare up for these nine
> people if it ignored three people previously?
Meanness: "Caradhras was called the Cruel and had an ill name, long
years ago when rumour of Sauron had not been heard in these lands."
It strikes me that
> something greater was at work than the simple will of the mountain.
Not me.
I
> don't think Sauron specifically called down that storm, but if he was
> putting forth more of his will in the north, it would make sense that
> this would awaken the latent malice of Caradhras.
Why do you think the ill will of Caradhras was latent? And why wouldn't
Sauron's "attention" or his will be focused on the north since he knows
his one ruling ring has been in the Shire and that he has sent his 9
most trusted and most feared servants to fetch it...so why wouldn't his
attention and will be focused there as much BEFORE Oct. 20 and during
the months of no news as AFTER Dec. 25? Seems to me that on your
reading of more being at work for the Fellowship than for Elrond's sons
you have to explain why the "latent ill-will" remained latent when they
crossed with Sauron's will looking northward for his Ring, so closely
within his grasp, and did not remain latent later still looking
northward for his Ring.
>
>>> And the crebain and other creatures may have been searching for quite
>>> some time prior to seeing the Fellowship.
>>
>>
>> Maybe, and they may have left that morning after tea. What we do know
>> is that this is earliest we see any sign of the Enemy stirring after
>> Oct. 20.
>
>
> And if this is the earliest that they have been searching, if the
> Fellowship left, say, a month earlier, they would have completely missed
> them.
Maybe. Maybe not. If as you say they had been searching for quite some
time, they wouldn't have missed them, quite easily done. But we still
don't know that they were spies, Aragorn's belief notwithstanding, and
if spies, they weren't seen apparently.
>>> Sauron may not have known what happened until Jan 8 or 9, but the
>>> Nazgul knew and could make these sorts of decisions on their own.
>>
>>
>> Where do we see them doing this? Where do they make decisions
>> indepent of Sauron?
>
>
> They must be making independent decisions all the time, unless they have
> a direct line of communication with Sauron (which we've established they
> probably don't). Otherwise how could Sauron have them ruling Dol Guldur
> or even Minas Ithil, or have them out hunting the ring, or leading
> armies against Minas Tirith.
But in every case they seem to be following a particular plan laid out
in some detail so that whatever decisions they are making, are small
ones, and sending spies to alert Rivendell to their watch, er., I mean
to send spies to Rivendell to watch for teh Ring, is a big decision.
Only desperation drove them to send Grishnakh and he probably doesn't
know quite what the Ring is, and seems to be fairly high up, as he knows
about Gollum, probably serving in the Tower itself.
> <snip>
>
>>> So we allow a month for the spy to get back and report that the pass
>>> is clear. Then another month for the Fellowship to reach that pass.
>>> A lot can change in two months.
>>
>>
>> Yep. But better knowing that than walking into a prepared trap.
>
>
> By your own arguments,
But we aren't talking about my arguments, we're talking about yours
here, unless you have decided to agree with me. In any case, while a
trap couldn't have been put into place until early Jan, Elrond and
Gandalf don't know that, that;s why they sent out scouts and waited for
them to return before sending the Ring forth.
a prepared trap could not have been put in place
> until early January, long after the scouts have been through, but just
> in time for the fellowship to walk into it. An army, yes, or some other
> force that was wandering through the wilderness, or getting ready to
> attack Rivendell, but not a trap prepared to snare the ring.
> <snip>
>
>
>> All three of whom have spent years of their lives in the wilderness
>> and know how to travel light and live off the land, unlike four
>> hobbits in the party.
>
>
> And there is no indication that it took two months to gather food and
> other supplies.
They didn't start to gather and prepare much until the scouts were back
and decisions were made which path to take. Traveling down the river on
the eastern side of the Misty Mtns would necessitate different clothing
and different supplies than being on the West. Taking the roads would
necessitate different supplies than going cross country etc....
They did not cater to the hobbit's ideas of
> comfort--that may have taken longer, and would have taken a fleet of
> ponies to carry.
So? I think you are missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Its a
whole lot different to be a "Ranger" who needs little in the way of
supplies and a civilian out for a long hike, even if the civilian is
"roughing it". The hobbits are civilians. Even Boromir as a soldier is
better than the hobbits, but he's not a wilderness sort, having spent
his life largely defending a large city.
They took as much as they could carry, and outfitted
> one pony. Even if they had to tailor make warm weather gear for the
> hobbits, I suspect that they could have been fully equipped and ready to
> go in one week's time.
Which is about right. The scout's return in mid-December, all the
information is gathered, maps consulted, decisions made, say all done by
the 17th, oh gee, eight days before the 25th, about a week.
Also, there is no indication that the hobbits
> really did any preparation, in terms of preparing for the strenuous road
> ahead, or some of them, even looking at a map!
It was largely done for them, sure, so what? Elrond's going to send
them off with the clothes they have on and say "Oh well, should have
thought of that boys. So sorry!" Once again, for the record, the
amount of preparation needed for a person accustomed to spend months at
a time in the wilderness is significantly less than the amount of
preparation needed for 9 people most of whom are not so accustomed. I'm
not sure why that is so difficult to grasp.
>>> I think it is stretching to imply that the colder weather would be
>>> better than warmer.
>>
>>
>> Really? So you would choose to be out in a blizzard with 30+ mph
>> winds whipping snow horizontally into your face at a balmy 22 degrees
>> F rather than a beautiful, sunny day with only an occasional gust of
>> breeze at 0 degrees? Yep, balmy 22 is much better......
>
>
> The weather possibilities seem like a lose-lose decision, and there is
> no indication that they took it into account in their decision making
> one way or the other.
I disagree, I think there is evidence that they considered the weather
and took it into account:
"Winter deepens behind us,"he said quietly to Aragorn. "The heights
away north are whiter than they were; snow is lying far down their
shoulders....We may well be seen by watchers on that narrow path, and
waylaid by some evil; but weather may prove a more deadly enemy than
any. What do you think of your course now, Aragorn?"...."I think no
good of our course from beginning to end, as you know well, Gandalf,":
ansewred Aragorn. A"And perils known and unknown will grow as we go on.
But we must go on...."
This sounds to me that weather had been a consideration back at Elrond's
house and they decided that this was the best course, as it says
earlier, to escape the notice of unfriendly eyes.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>it to Dol Guldur, or Moria, or some other generally evil place to get
>>>reinforcements to Imladris as quickly as possible.
>>
>>One assumes that the wraiths think they can find reinforcements at
>>Moria. As for any force coming out of dol guldur, that would be spotted
>>by the ever vigilant eyes of aladriel and her people, and so warning
>>sent to Rivendell. And Sauron doesn't entirely trust Saruman by this
>>point either. That pretty much limits one's options.
>>
>>And what reinforcements? As Gandalf says, there is power in Imladris to
>>resist all the forces of MOrdor for a time, eventually it would fall.
>>I. E. Such reinforcements would need to be a huge and sizeable army to
>>take Rivendell and that would take time to assemble, equip, and outfit
>>for a long siege in the north. So the best they could do was send
>>spies, assuming they could communicate with others besides Sauron to
>>send the spies, and what would the spies do? Sauron's assumption will
>>be that Elrond or Gandalf will try and master the Ring and then come
>>against him. So why waste resources sending them North? Kill Gondor
>>now, neutralize or destroy Lothlorien so that by the time Elrond comes
>>with what force he has, he will simply be overwhelmed. Of course later
>>intelligence changes this perception, but this early in the game that's
>>probably what Sauron and the Nine are thinking.
>
>
> Also good points. I'm not entirely convinced but it could be
> Sauron's reasoning. Then again, why didn't the Nazgul keep them
> bottled up in Rivendell?
How could they, naked, weaponless except fear, horseless, and surely
detectable to Gandalf, Elrond, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and others in Rivendell.
> Considering that Gandalf or Elrond might have tried to master the Ring,
> however, gives a reason why leaving some of the Nazgul behind to bottle
> the Ring up there until help arrived would be pointless; not simply because
> Sauron was anticipating that the Ringbearer would strike out to an
> unknown safe house as soon as possible, although it's fair to ask, if
> the Witch-King felt that they, the Nazgul, could not keep a watch on
> the Ringbearer in their current state, why Gandalf thought they could.
Gandalf didn't know their current state, not until they had been sought
out and not found.
Larry Swain
Nope. When Christmas was made an official holiday in the late fourth
century, it had more to do with Roman religious holidays such as Sol
Invictus and Mithras rather than anything Nordic.
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>
>>Christmas was unimportant in the story, but I disagree. The mythic
>>moment of Dec. 25 not only as Christ's birthday but in Mithraism as an
>>important day, as part of the Yule feasts from pre-Christian times, as
>>the celebration of the return of light after the shortest day of the
>>year (the 25th is generally recognized as the first day on which one
>>actually notices the increased length of the day)...so in both Christian
>>and pre-Christian senses, it was an important day and it is on this day
>>that the hope of Middle Earth sets out from Rivendell.
>
>
> Midwinter's day, yes. I agree.
>
> December 25 -per se-, I disagree, since such a date didn't used to exist.
>
> meand the medieval scholars thought "25" was a nice round number and "21"
> was inauspicious for some reason.
Troels addressed this nicely for me. Thanks Troels!
> Which is one of the reasons attaching mystical importance to liturgical
> dates set down by real-world scholars in a work of fiction takes me out
> of the story.
So you think that Tolkien chose Dec. 25 and March 25 just 'cause? We
already know from Frodo's choosing of their joint birthday that there is
some significance to dates in the story.
If it were supposed to be an allegory, I wouldn't mind.
Why does symbolic meaning have to be allegorical?
> Well, no, I would, because timing up dates like that is heavy handed
> symbolism that doesn't tell the reader much. It's like those people
> say: It's not the anniversary that's important, it's -what happened-
> on the anniversary that matters." Which is irrelevant in a
> Middle Earth -- or any pre-modern -- context where the whole calendar
> system was different and the dates don't line up.
Then explain why Tolkien chose those dates to "translate" the calendar?
Larry Swain
>
> Also, another HUGE plot hole in the books that nobody ever talks about, is
> why "some nobles" like Theoden, and Imrahil would be granted knowledge of
> the Quest. Seems awfully snooty and aristocratic, considering that Theoden
> was practically under Saruman's sway when Gandalf decided to divulge this
> information to him simply to cheer him up and "heal" him. Which is what
> did it, not just the power of his staff or whatever. And Imrahil? The
> Wise don't keep good security in mind; just look at the Council of Elrond.
I don't find this a plot hole. If you are going to ask these people to
commit themselves and their forces to a cause, they deserve to know
something of the cause they fight, and why they shouldn't hold back and
just hole up and hope to ride it out. Answer: because there is no
riding it out if Sauon wins and has the Ring, so we must keep the Ring
from him by destroying it, and we're doing that by keeping his attention
on us so the secret destruction mission has a chance of succeeding.
>
>>Sauron weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice, but a
>>single feather, such as Saruman's deepest secret (or Saruman blabbing) would
>>have tipped the balance instantly in the correct direction. The Quest works
>>because the Ring's own powers give the Bearer, and his helpers, so many
>>opportunities to mislead Sauron.
>
>
> Perhaps. I agree there's no reason to think Saruman knew what they were
> up to, but Saruman probably knew Gandalf well enough to know that Gandalf
> would not take the ring, say, to Denethor. And yet Ugluk is to set a watch
> on the river, and endeavor to intercept the Ring before Grishnakh does...
Well, the "watch" that we see is actually on the east banks. Saruman
seems to have been instructed by Sauron to send a force down the west
bank so as not to fail to capture the hobbits on either side.
>
>>Note that when Frodo wore the Ring, after Boromir's attack, and Sauron
>>nearly spotted him, he was still on the West side of the Anduin.
>
>
> Yes, imagine what would have happened if all Nine had made it to the
> Ered Lithui, if that is where they were headed. Had they been discovred
> so near to Mordor, or even expecting that they WOULD be discovered,
> a diversion would have had to be set up. Some of the more powerful
> members of the Fellowship would have to die.
>
> I think the scene from the movie where Aragorn "lets Frodo go" is pretty
> true to what would have happened in the books had they made it into Mordor.
> Aragorn would have either died at the hands of Sauron or siezed the Ring
> from Frodo (probably after Frodo had claimed it for his own.)
>
> Gandalf would have been a fool to accompany Frodo that far, and it's
> uncertain if the Ring was not working on him, convincing him to remain
> attached to Frodo, protecting him, not to sacrifice his mission "except
> at the uttermost end of need" if they were discovered, whereupon Gandalf
> might simply convince Frodo to hand the Ring over, as he did to Galadriel.
> and say "it's a fair cop".
>
> At least that is how I imagine the Ring might have been working on Gandalf,
> which is probably why he elected to go through Moria, with the foreknowledge
> that he would die there.
>
>
>>>3. Did Saruman use Radagast to get the crebain to spy for him? And
>>>what happened to Radagast?
>>
>>That has to be a FAQ. Maybe he became a woodland spirit, as he obviously
>>wanted to be all along.
>
>
> And the other wizards? I wonder if they became Voodoo Spirits (Loa)
> or something.
>
> Perhaps they appear in Pirates of the Carribbean 3, set in the historical
> Far East?
>
>
>>And note we never meet Radagast, though he appears in both Hobbit and LotR.
>>His failure to grow into the Istari role is a quiet sadness behind others'
>>valor.
>
>
> I wonder what the relationship was between Beorn and Radagast?
Drinking buddies.
>
>
>>(And 2,000 years living in Middle-earth and he never heard of the Shire? How
>>oblivious can a "wizard" be??)
>
>
> Well obviously it went by different names. Since the Hobbits were for all
> intents and purposes a clan-based society, with high technology, high yield
> agriculture, and local government but limited political or social organization,
> similar to the higlands of Papua New Guinea or the peoples of the Great Rift
> in Africa, it is worth suggesting that there was a media blackout over the
> area after Arvedui died, like over modern-day Somalia. I am inclined to believe
> the hobbits were actually squatters, the Middle-Earth equivalent of gypsies
> (although history does not tell of pygmies displacing big folk in real life.)
> However, there had been a recent famine and plague -- I wonder what Tolkien
> would have explained the Shire's stability had he read _Guns, Germs, and Steel_...
HMM, we're told that one of the northern kings granted them the
Shire....not very gypsyish....
>
Troels Forchhammer
"Andrew F. Donnell" <donn...@gmail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
It is, throughout, not my mission to disagree or to claim as wrong
any conclusions, but rather to question any certainty that any
conclusion is the 'right one', or, indeed, even whether a right
conclusion can be reached.
> The faint hint of transparency that Gandalf sees is clearly a
> reference to the attempted wraithification, as it comes after
> Gandalf said that Frodo was "beginning to fade," and, but for
> their intervention, would have "become like they are...a wraith
> under the dominion of the Dark Lord." That it especially affected
> his left hand confirms that it is part of the injury.
I'm with you as long as that -- the 'hint of transparency' is clearly
a result of the Morgul-wound.
As for what this is, specifically, is not, IMO, entirely clear; it
might be a lingering partial 'fading', but I don't think that that is
in any way 'obvious', and I am far from convinced that it is
identical to the 'glass filled with clear light' (again, it might
very well be just that, I just don't see any convincing evidence
either way).
> So there is a faint part of him that is still (permanently?) faded
> into the spirit realm.
I reckon that this is very likely conclusion, though not the only
that I would classify in that way; which of course points to the main
point of my objections (if that is what we should call it): that
there are, IMO, no conclusions that stand out as obvoiusly more
probable than others and, indeed, in some aspects I don't see any
conclusion that strikes me as consistent with all the evidence.
Assuming, however, that you are right, it still leaves the question
of what, precisely, is meant by the 'wraith world'.
We have a number of words and phrases all obviously referring to some
location /outside/ the mundane world, but not necessarily all the
same (though that is perhaps the wrong way to look at it -- perhaps I
should say that they are not necessarily different?):
Blessed Realm -- Aman, Valinor: where the Valar are
Otherworld ("from Otherworld beyond the Sea")
Both worlds ("those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm
live at once in both worlds")
Other side ("as he is upon the other side: one of the mighty
of the Firstborn")
Wraith world ("you were half in the wraith-world yourself")
("being already on the threshold of their world")
Seen and Unseen ("those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm
live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen
and the Unseen they have great power")
Invisible world:
And finally [the Rings] had other powers, more directly derived
from Sauron ([...]): such as rendering invisible the material body,
and making things of the invisible world visible.
[Letter #131 To Milton Waldman, late 1951?]
Related to this, to my way of thinking, is the difference between the
planet Venus reflecting the light of the sun and the light of a
Silmaril on the brow of Eärendil sailing the skies in Vingilot.
I don't like to have too many other worlds 'out there', beyond our
normal reality -- it's simply too messy ;-)
There's a couple of passages where Tolkien is speaking about other
worlds in a more general way /Letters/ and in /On Fairy-stories/. I
don't know if any of them can enlighten what we're dealing with here,
though.
Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. [It is] the
abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use
specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or
unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell).
[Letter #183, Notes on W. H. Auden's review of RotK (1956)]
The gods may derive their colour and beauty from the high
splendours of nature, but it was Man who obtained these
for them, abstracted them from sun and moon and cloud;
their personality they get direct from him; the shadow or
flicker of divinity that is upon them they receive through
him from the invisible world, the Supernatural. There is
no fundamental distinction between the higher and lower
mythologies.
[/On Fairy-stories/, "Origins"]
Regardless of how many other worlds we might be dealing with in Arda,
I get the impression that we are dealing with, in some respect, this
'invisible world' (or 'worlds') of the Primary World of Eä.
Another possible reading is the doublet of unseen worlds mentioned in
the letter; representing Heaven and Hell. The Blessed Realm, Aman,
and the reality to which it is removed would, in that interpretation,
obviously represent Heaven, whereas the wraith-world Gandalf speaks
of obviously would represent Hell. In that particular interpretation
I would think that Frodo's experiences with closeness to Hell had
ultimately brought him closer to Heaven.
In the end, I cannot come up with any explanation that is better than
the others -- any explanation has its weaknesses. In particular the
world Frodo enters through the Ring and through the Morgul-wound, and
which is called by Gandalf the wraith-world, is obviously material
and corporeal for all its being invisible -- it is, IMO, not a
"spirit-world".
<snip>
> "He is not half through yet." Is he saying that Frodo is not half
> through the consequences of the morgul-knife wound?
I believe that this is so, but that would possibly disconnect the
"hint as it were of transparency" as a lingering effect of the not
yet fully healed Morgul-wound from the "glass filled with a clear
light", which is much later.
> As we know, it never fully healed, and he still felt pain,
'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly
cured,' said Gandalf.
I don't think that that is related. Physically Frodo is fully healed
when he leaves Rivendell, including the hint of transparency.
The pain he felt at the anniversaries of his three great woundings
("with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden.") was not, IMO,
meant to imply a lack of physical recovery.
> and was still at least partially subject to the will of the
> Witchking.
No. Frodo was, after his recovery in Rivendell /less/ subject to the
will of the Nazgűl than he were before.
The incident in the Morgul vale shows a stronger resistance -- the
command from the Witch-king receives "no longer any answer to that
command in [Frodo's] own will", and in the end he does /not/ succumb
to the command as he did at Weathertop, despite the fact that the
Witch-king is stronger than he was at Weathertop (at Weathertop "he
must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in
command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." /Letters/
#210).
<snip>
> It takes eyes that can see to notice this light--the eyes of
> those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm and live at once in
> both worlds, implying that it is definitely a light from the spirit
> world?
Is that why Sam can see this light -- as, I might add, the only
person we ever hear of as noticing this light (assuming that Gandalf
just theorized it, though I'm inclined to claim that Gandalf had
already noticed this light and merely theorized that it might remain
visible "for eyes to see that can").
> Clearly, it is not the same as that of an elf-lord, for Frodo
> never gains that kind of power.
The Noldor, outnumbered and taken at unawares, were yet
swiftly victorious; for the light of Aman was not yet
dimmed in their eyes, [...].
[Silm QS,13 'Of the Return of the Noldor']
[...] and they feared the Eldar and the light of their
eyes; [...].
[Silm QS,17 'Of the Coming of Men into the West']
There are other examples of this, but is it the same light that
becomes so obvious in Glorfindel when Frodo is on the threshold of
the wraith-world? This light is related to Aman, but Frodo has never
been to Aman (and is not one of the Firstborn), so what is the light
Sam sees? And was it visible to Sam precisely because it is of a
different kind -- of Middle-earth rather than of Aman?
My big problem is that whenever I've tried to find my way through
this particular tangle of questions, I've ended up with more new
questions than answered ones (the latter is usually equal to zero in
any case <G>).
> But, "There is power, too, of another kind in the Shire."
> I think I'm stretching to apply that statement to the light that
> Gandalf foresees for Frodo, but I wonder if it is a similar idea.
Yes, Frodo torching up is clearly a personal thing, not relying on
the "power of another kind in the Shire". Tolkien found "specially
moving" the "ennoblement of the ignoble" (/Letters/ #165) and that is
what we see happening to Frodo. Story-externally that is what this
light is: a symbol of Frodo's ennoblement. Story-internally, however,
I'm not sure exactly what it is (though it does seem related, but not
identical, to the Elven-light and the light from Gandalf the White).
<snip>
> It is, afterall, one of the major themes of the story that good
> does not prevail by strength and wisdom,
Strength and wisdom of a special kind, I'd say, but not 'power' --
and in particular not by power for domination or reforming reality.
> and that other virtues are chiefly important.
Definitely -- there's a reason why the last Alliance, even in
victory, was unsuccessful (one could say that Isildur lacked wisdom
of that particular kind that would have allowed him to ensure the
permanence of their victory and sacrifices).
<snip>
>> Personally I am not sure that Tolkien ever developed these
>> aspects (this 'light' issue, and all the Seen/Unseen, material
>> vs. wraith world stuff) into a consistent description -- it
>> appears to me to be used rather inconsistently.
>
> True. Maybe I'm trying to be too analytical....
Either that or we are not being analytical enough ;-)
Part of the problem, for me at least, is that I've come to expect
that Tolkien has a full and fully developed (and completely
consistent) explanation for just about everything, so I tend to
forget that he couldn't possibly do that for /everything/ :-/
There has been comments in the Silm CotW threads about the tension
between the mythical universe Tolkien was building upon and the
Christian morality he was also basing his stories upon. In some ways
I see the same tension here, only with no clear way out -- there is
no view that fits comfortably both with mystic neighbouring worlds of
the old stories and the Heaven, Earth and Hell view of Christianity.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein
Troels Forchhammer
Robinsons <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> a general feeling that it is better to walk into a known danger
>> than an unknown danger is, within the structure of the story and
>> the personalities of the main characters (in particular Elrond
>> and Gandalf) not only understandable, but, IMO, natural.
>
> Sure, but not always wise.
I didn't mean to imply that it was necessarily wise -- just that it
feels to me the natural decision for the characters of Gandalf and
Elrond in particular (them being the main decision-makers in this) --
they both strike me as types who would happily have sat around for
half a year waiting for the scouts to get back, only to rush the
company out of Rivendell the moment they had made their decision to
leave (the problem being to obtain the information on which to base
the decision rather than actually making up their minds).
As it turns out, I do actually agree with their decision to wait. I
think the potential dangers inherent in sending the Ring into the
unknown were greater than having to dodge or fight the early spies
that the enemies could launch (crebain, wolves etc.) In the end they
did have to face the unknown, but that was unavoidable -- the point
was to avoid it as long as at all possible.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
A common mistake people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams, /Mostly Harmless/
Troels Forchhammer
Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Robinsons wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Troels addressed this nicely for me. Thanks Troels!
My pleasure (and with the help of a very interesting article about
"Calendar Mechanics" in the 1998 University Almanac) ;-)
>> Which is one of the reasons attaching mystical importance to
>> liturgical dates set down by real-world scholars in a work of
>> fiction takes me out of the story.
>
> So you think that Tolkien chose Dec. 25 and March 25 just 'cause?
We can, at least, lay that particular idea to rest -- Tolkien did
choose these two dates 'intentionally', as he noted in "The
Nomenclature". As reprinted in /A Readers' Companion/ it reads:
*Midwinter only occurs once during the main narrative.
The midwinter festival was not an Elvish custom, and so
would not have been celebrated in Rivendell. The
Fellowship, however, left on Dec. 25, which [date] had
then no significance, since the Yule, or its equivalent,
was then the last day of the year and the first of the
next year. Though Dec. 25 (setting out) and March 25
(accomplishment of the quest) were intentionally chosen by
me.
["Nomenclature of /The Lord of the Rings/, /A Reader's Companion/]
>> If it were supposed to be an allegory, I wouldn't mind.
>
> Why does symbolic meaning have to be allegorical?
I think we should also be careful to apply Tolkien's comments about
disliking allegory only to the kind of allegory that he intended. At
least it is my impression that the word is commonly being applied to
techniques which are not what Tolkien intended when he firmly
rejected the presence of any allegory in /The Lord of the Rings/
(much, I think, in response to readers seeing allegories such as "The
Ring = Atomic Bomb").
His works were obviously heavily influenced by Christianity, the
moral and symbolism of Christianity, but there are no Christ-figures
anywhere in his works, nor are there any other intentional and direct
allegories of that kind.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality "ought to be".
- Richard Feynman
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
> because an ascent of Caradhras in mid-winter otherwise makes no
> story-internal sense.
Why on earth not?
We're not exactly talking about climbing here; they plan to take a
well-established, if, at places, narrow, path over the mountains. In
fact it was so well-known that they spoke of the "Redhorn Gate" and
even, on the other side, they hoped to come down by the Dimrill
Stair. Aragorn even comments, "I knew the risk of snow, though it
seldom falls heavily so far south, save high up in the mountains. But
we are not high yet; we are still far down, where the paths are
usually open all the winter." The risk of heavy snow (rather than
merely a bit of snow) was considered minimal.
<snip>
> Another aspect of LOTR that you just have to take on faith is the
> assumption that both the White Mountains and Misty Mountains were
> impassible for miles in Winter, which I guess is not beyond the
> range of geological implausibility.
You have to take in on Aragorn's word, to be precise:
Further south there are no passes, till one comes to the
Gap of Rohan.
> The text seems to imply that Ents, at least, could cross the
> mountains into Dunland,
Apart from using the Gap of Rohan (which was how they got to
Isengard)? Is it implied that they could cross the Misty Mountains
somewhere between Caradhras and the Gap of Rohan?
[Story-external explanations often leading to the story-internal]
> I mean, can't have it both ways, right?
No ;-)
As far as I am concerned it is completely possible to have it both
ways in this.
> If folks are going to debate Tolkien's story-internal
> justifications for every plot point, or plot hole, then any attempt
> to rely on story external justifications is really to deny the
> validity of the whole discussion.
Of course not. In a very large number of cases you can find both a
story-external explanation as well as a story-internal justification.
In some cases all there is to find is the story-external explanation,
but one cannot reach that conclusion (whether temporary or permanent)
without at least attempting to discover a story-internal
justification as well.
And then there are the cases where the two melt together, because,
regardless of how we might try to look at it, ultimately LotR is a
piece of literature: a fiction that is governed not by its Author,
but by its author, and sometimes things can be the epitome of wisdom
in his world because that is what he thought would be wise, and
accordingly his world is arranged so as to make it the wiser course.
His view, if applied to a similar situation in the real world, might
not actually be the course of greater wisdom, but that doesn't change
that Tolkien's story-external idiosyncrasy has decided what is,
story-internally, the wisest course.
> (unless Tolkien intended liturgical dates to have physical
> significance in antediluvian Middle-Earth, which I think is a
> naive sort of theology masquerading as allegory, but Tolkien
> probably felt that way; in which case the date theory is
> story-internal.)
I wouldn't be too surprised if he would have somehow thought the
dates to hold significance before the fact (a very obscure case of
backwards causation, if you will <G>), but that was not really what I
was driving at.
I think that Tolkien himself would have thought it wiser to scout the
situation thoroughly before making a move, and therefore the
situation in Middle-earth, the whole fictionary causality of Middle-
earth, was arranged to make waiting the wisest course Gandalf and
Elrond could choose.
<snip>
>> Which might be exactly what the decision-makers in Rivendell were
>> not willing to do -- for them the increased danger could have
>> been a cheap price for the reduced uncertainty (I'll admit that,
>> put like that, the idea looks rather attractive to me <G>).
>
> Except the uncertainty increases the longer they wait in both
> locations.
Of course not. Had they waited any longer, that would have made the
scouts' missions pointless because the intelligence would have become
too old, but there was a window after the return of the scouts when
the uncertainty was significantly reduced.
Snipping other scenarios, which, for me, would not have worked as
well due to being 'out of character' for Gandalf and Elrond as I
interpret their characters. Obviously that is an extremely subjective
opinion.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Thus, the future of the universe is not completely
determined by the laws of science, and its present state,
as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his
sleeve.
- Stephen Hawking
Andrew F. Donnell
debating Nazgul, spies, rings, and other things....
Larry Swain wrote:
> Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>
>>Larry Swain wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
>>>
>>>>Larry Swain wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>>It is true that I missed Gandalf's saying that they had to go back to
>>Mordor. I had interpreted it as "they are weak and have to lick their
>>wounds for a while" rather than actually physically see their master to
>>be "reset" in some way. Getting new horses, yes, they'd have to go back
>>to Mordor for that. But I had thought they could still interact with
>>the physical world, even if essentially blind. Maybe they can't--maybe
>>their physical aspect was destroyed in the river and they exist only in
>>the spirit realm?
>
> No, they still exist in the physical world, but they're invisible and
> have no weapons other than the fear that is part of their nature. So
> running into anyone who isn't going to run away in utter horror at their
> presence and be able to command them to do anything is unliely.
When the Nazgul were clothed, the orcs and other individuals that the
Nazgul commanded at Dol Guldur did not run away in utter horror at their
presence. I presume that their presence is about the same now, so why
wouldn't they be able to command their old troops? If the only change
wrought upon the Nazgul in their defeat was the loss of their horses and
the loss of their robes, it should not affect their ability to manage
their troops. If whomever was placed in charge of Dol Guldur when the
Nazgul left suddenly felt their presence return, I don't think he would
run away in horror (he would know that might cost him his life!). He
may be horrified, yes, but I think he would come and present himself to
the Nazgul, and ask what their bidding is!
The only reason I can think of that they would *not* be able to command
their old forces is if their crippling included the loss of some
essential ability to project themselves in the physical world, if their
unclothing referred to the loss of some physical presence. To recover
that, they may need to return to their master in Mordor. Simple
invisibility, however, should not be that crippling. And if, in the
examples you gave, it is the simple invisibility that prevents them from
interacting with others, then how hard can it be to get another robe
somewhere! They could have taken one from a random passerby who had a
heart-attack as they approached, or, failing that, then they probably
had a closet full of them in their bedrooms at Dol Guldur! :-)
<snip>
Snipping quite a bit, including some interesting points about Sauron not
really having anyone able to efficiently spy on Rivendell (I think birds
would do, and I address them below), and that he shouldn't even really
bother to try to spy on them because:
> There are 3 options from Sauron's
> point of view. Either Elrond and/or Gandalf in Rivendell will try and
> Master the Ring, and that will be but an island soon and Sauron will
> crush them before that happens, and there will be none left to aid them.
> Or they will send the Ring to Galadriel in Lorien and she will try and
> master it, but they already have Lorien under heavy surveillance. Or
> they will send the ring to Gondor and an upstart will challenge him
> there, and guess what? They have Rohan and Gondor under heavy surveillance.
Do we know whether Sauron is completely confident in his ability to
destroy one of these fledgling ring-bearers? Tolkien thinks that
Gandalf, alone of the wise, had a chance of defeating Sauron (Letter
246). Does Sauron think himself completely invulnerable? Does he fear
Gandalf with the ring, or even Galadriel or Elrond with the ring?
If he sees any weakness in himself, it is imperative that he keep as
close of tabs on the ring as possible, and move as quickly as he can to
try to recover it before its new owner can master it. That would be his
highest priority, because it is the only real threat to his very
existence. The fact that he moves against Gondor earlier than he
originally planned suggests, to me, that he feared even Aragorn with the
ring. That may not have been fear for his life, however, as much as
fear of Aragorn building up an army and making it a long and drawn out
fight before Sauron could kill him and get the ring back.
>>Maybe they even
>>have one of the unaccounted for palantiri?
>
> Introducing as facts that which is not in evidence. And if they did,
> they wouldn't need to send spies now, would they?
You're right, pure speculation. I'll keep palantiri out it.
<snip>
>>These
>>spies can travel much quicker than humanoid spies. A network of birds
>>could keep tabs on people they found in the wild,
>
> A hawk or eagle, certainly, if they were willing to work for Saruman or
> Sauron. But we have no such indication that they did, nor that Sauron
> had an army of birds or other flying creatures suitable for spying.
Here are some quotes, other than the previously mentioned case of
Aragorn thinking that the crebain and hawks were spying:
Aragorn, as they discuss heading for Weathertop: "It commands a
wide view all round. Indeed, there are many birds and beasts in
this country that could see us, as we stand here, from that
hill-top. Not all the birds are to be trusted, and there are other
spies more evil than they are."
So Aragorn thinks that the enemy has spies among the birds. Moreover,
it is implied that these spies are in communication with the Nazgul.
Gandalf, at the council of Elrond, speaking about the Shire: "That
was seventeen years ago. Soon I became aware that spies of many
sorts, even beasts and birds, were gathered round the Shire, and my
fear grew."
These are probably Saruman's spies, but they include birds.
Gandalf, at the council of Elrond, speaking about his stop in Bree
as he followed the Hobbits: "I do not know, but it seems clear to
me that this is what happened. Their Captain remained in secret away
south of Bree, while two rode ahead through the village, and four
more invaded the Shire. But when these were foiled in Bree and at
Crickhollow, they returned to their Captain with tidings, and so
left the Road unguarded for a while, except by their spies."
Gandalf does not specify what manner of spies these are, but he clearly
believes that the Nazgul have deployed a spy network on the roads. The
human spies probably did not cover more than the immediate area of Bree,
so it seems like these are non-human spies.
Elrond, as the Fellowship is about to leave Rivendell: "You should
fear the many eyes of the servants of Sauron," he said. "I do not
doubt that news of the discomfiture of the Riders has already
reached him, and he will be filled with wrath. Soon now his spies on
foot and wing will be abroad in the northern lands. Even of the sky
above you must beware as you go on your way."
Elrond believes that Sauron has command of flying spies.
Eomer, to Aragorn when they meet in Rohan, about Saruman: "He walks
here and there, they say, as an old man hooded and cloaked, very
like to Gandalf, as many now recall. His spies slip through every
net, and his birds of ill omen are abroad in the sky."
Eomer believes that Saruman has command of bird spies.
So we have the testimonies of those accounted Wise and steeped in lore
of the enemy, that Sauron has command of flying spies, specifically
birds, and they believe that the Nazgul had control of these spies as
they were hunting for the hobbits en route to Rivendell, and they
believe that these spies will deployed to the North in specific response
to the debacle at the Fords.
<snip>
The Nazgul may have been flying higher in this instance, or, more
likely, it was veiling its aura.
Consider the Nazgul in the Shire and Bree--people do not really feel
them until they are rather near by, and the terror is much less than it
is when we see them later on. In the Shire, Frodo and company only feel
the Nazgul when it stops and sniffs at them, and even then the fear is
very mild. When it talks to Farmer Maggot, it is only Maggot's dog that
runs away. Maggot stands up to the Nazgul and basically tells it off.
At Bree, Merry only feels the Nazgul when it was in the shadows across
the road.
Contrast this with the later encounters, such as when there is a flyby
over Rohan, when the riders "cried out, and crouched, holding their arms
above their heads, as if to ward off a blow from above: a blind fear and
a deadly cold fell on them." Pippin hears the Nazgul cry in the as they
are hounding Faramir and co, "it was the same that he had heard long ago
in the Marish of the Shire, but now it was grown in power and hatred,
piercing the heart with a poisonous despair."
It seems that they could definitely modulate their fear aura. This does
not prove that the unidentified flying object in Hollin was a Nazgul,
but it allows for that to be a definite possibility.
<snip>
>>And if a Nazgul could make it to Dol Guldur by, say, the beginning of
>>December, they could probably get birds and other spies deployed to
>>Rivendell within a couple weeks.
>
> Why do you think the birds are ready to bear news to Nazgul? We know
> that all creatures fear them, save those specially bred for them. So
> what birds? Are you saying that Sauron has a special aviary a la Harry
> Potter for messenger birds? And neither orcs nor men are specially
> noted for communing with animals (save Radagast the Wizard). So just
> who is going to commune with the beasties on Sauron's behalf or the
> Nazgul's? Saruman? Saruman needs Radagast to do that for him.
I don't how the Nazgul command such spies, and who else among Sauron's
forces has such abilities. As I quoted above, those who are
well-steeped in the lore of the Enemy all believe that he has such
spies, and speak of the Nazgul as able to communicate with this spy network.
<snipping quite a bit>
>>If the Fellowship left sooner they could have missed all these problems,
>>at the unlikely risk of running into crippled, horseless Nazgul. I'd
>>take that risk.
>
> Be my guest. But you are judging their actions from hindsight of 20/20.
> Supposing you didn't know the end of the story and the details you do,
> and you do know that you have armies to get past and the 9 Riders
> gathered in force against you somewhere out there, then would you take
> the risk? I wouldn't, I would want to find out as much as I could
> BEFORE setting out, rather than trusting to luck, particularly since the
> fate of the world rests on keeping that Ring from Sauron...let's not
> have them stride into his arms, eh?
What do they know at this point: Nazgul are no longer riders, and,
therefore, are severely crippled. Elrond, Aragorn, and Gandalf are of
the persuasion that spies will be sent to Rivendell as soon as possible.
They intend to move the ring to Lorien in a small, relatively
vulnerable fellowship. This small fellowship has the advantage that it
is extremely difficult to track them in the wild. To utilize this
advantage, they must make it to the wild without being marked by spies.
They expect a highly mobile network of spying birds and other winged
creatures to make for Rivendell as soon as possible. Assuming the
Nazgul must make their way to Mordor, they have a two month head-start.
If the Nazgul did not have to go to Mordor, and could have gone to Dol
Guldur, they have a one month head-start. Spending two months scouting
the area is just playing it way too close for my taste. It is a
judgement call, and we disagree on the best course of action. Fair enough.
<snip>
>>don't think Sauron specifically called down that storm, but if he was
>>putting forth more of his will in the north, it would make sense that
>>this would awaken the latent malice of Caradhras.
>
> Why do you think the ill will of Caradhras was latent? And why wouldn't
> Sauron's "attention" or his will be focused on the north since he knows
> his one ruling ring has been in the Shire and that he has sent his 9
> most trusted and most feared servants to fetch it...so why wouldn't his
> attention and will be focused there as much BEFORE Oct. 20 and during
> the months of no news as AFTER Dec. 25? Seems to me that on your
> reading of more being at work for the Fellowship than for Elrond's sons
> you have to explain why the "latent ill-will" remained latent when they
> crossed with Sauron's will looking northward for his Ring, so closely
> within his grasp, and did not remain latent later still looking
> northward for his Ring.
Prior to the news about the Fords, all that Sauron knew was that a
backwards country bumpkin in the Shire had his ring and did not know
what it was. So he sent his most trusted servants to find out where the
Shire was and to retrieve his ring. Presumably a fairly simple matter.
After the report from the Nazgul, Sauron has learned that the Wise
have beaten him to it, and the ring is now in the hands of someone who
could potentially be a threat to him. This is much more serious, so it
would make sense that he turned more of his will toward the north.
Sending more orcs to Moria, sending enchanted wargs to Hollin (given
that these were not normal wargs, I think it is fair to say that they
were sent there by Sauron), sending spying birds into the land. It has
been said that Sauron's will could attract evil things to itself
(drawing Gollum to Mordor, for example), so if he is focusing more of
his attention to the north, it is reasonable that this could awakened,
or at least augment, some of the cruelty of Caradhras.
<snip>
>>They must be making independent decisions all the time, unless they have
>>a direct line of communication with Sauron (which we've established they
>>probably don't). Otherwise how could Sauron have them ruling Dol Guldur
>>or even Minas Ithil, or have them out hunting the ring, or leading
>>armies against Minas Tirith.
>
> But in every case they seem to be following a particular plan laid out
> in some detail so that whatever decisions they are making, are small
> ones, and sending spies to alert Rivendell to their watch, er., I mean
> to send spies to Rivendell to watch for teh Ring, is a big decision.
> Only desperation drove them to send Grishnakh and he probably doesn't
> know quite what the Ring is, and seems to be fairly high up, as he knows
> about Gollum, probably serving in the Tower itself.
Is it really a big decision to send spies to Rivendell? Gandalf says
the Nazgul sent spies into the wild around Bree, so why not send spies
to Rivendell. The elves are known enemies, so it is natural that they
would keep them under surveillance, so they won't need to let anyone
else into knowledge about the ring. If Sauron gave them authority to,
say, command entire armies in a war against Gondor, I'm sure he wouldn't
mind if they used spies that they already had access to and were using
in other areas to survey Rivendell.
<snip>
>>>All three of whom have spent years of their lives in the wilderness
>>>and know how to travel light and live off the land, unlike four
>>>hobbits in the party.
>>
>>And there is no indication that it took two months to gather food and
>>other supplies.
>
> They didn't start to gather and prepare much until the scouts were back
> and decisions were made which path to take. Traveling down the river on
> the eastern side of the Misty Mtns would necessitate different clothing
> and different supplies than being on the West. Taking the roads would
> necessitate different supplies than going cross country etc....
Agreed.
>>They did not cater to the hobbit's ideas of
>>comfort--that may have taken longer, and would have taken a fleet of
>>ponies to carry.
>
> So? I think you are missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Its a
> whole lot different to be a "Ranger" who needs little in the way of
> supplies and a civilian out for a long hike, even if the civilian is
> "roughing it". The hobbits are civilians. Even Boromir as a soldier is
> better than the hobbits, but he's not a wilderness sort, having spent
> his life largely defending a large city.
I think I am missing the point, but not deliberately I assure you.
>>They took as much as they could carry, and outfitted
>>one pony. Even if they had to tailor make warm weather gear for the
>>hobbits, I suspect that they could have been fully equipped and ready to
>>go in one week's time.
>
> Which is about right. The scout's return in mid-December, all the
> information is gathered, maps consulted, decisions made, say all done by
> the 17th, oh gee, eight days before the 25th, about a week.
So we are agreed that, if we subtract the time of scouting, preparation
for the trip took about a week.
>>Also, there is no indication that the hobbits
>>really did any preparation, in terms of preparing for the strenuous road
>>ahead, or some of them, even looking at a map!
>
> It was largely done for them, sure, so what? Elrond's going to send
> them off with the clothes they have on and say "Oh well, should have
> thought of that boys. So sorry!" Once again, for the record, the
> amount of preparation needed for a person accustomed to spend months at
> a time in the wilderness is significantly less than the amount of
> preparation needed for 9 people most of whom are not so accustomed. I'm
> not sure why that is so difficult to grasp.
I'm sure what exactly we are arguing about for this point. My original
contention was that the Fellowship could have left Rivendell on November
1. Among the reasons you gave to counter that was the issue of
gathering supplies. We have already established that this could be
accomplished in one week. Therefore, if they did not wait for the spy
reports, the fellowship could have left Rivendell on November 1.
<snip>
Andy
Öjevind Lång
news:uoidnQ_ZLKEuTW3Z...@rcn.net...
[snip]
> No, they still exist in the physical world, but they're invisible and have
> no weapons other than the fear that is part of their nature. So running
> into anyone who isn't going to run away in utter horror at their presence
> and be able to command them to do anything is unliely.
I agree. They needed a sort of physical garment (bodies, in fact, or at
least some kind of frame to hang their cloaks on) in order to make
themselves known, as apart from simply felt, and give orders.
>>> But even if not, how many orcs or anyone else are going to obey a
>>> disembodied voice that carries with it great, overpowering fear ordering
>>> one in the dark to go and do something? Not many.
>>
>> That is basically how the Nazgul commanded orcs in other situations.
>
> Where specifically do we see a naked, invisible Nazgul giving orders that
> are then carried out? I don't recall such a situation and would love to
> read one.
>
> The
>> presence of a black robe to give them some shape seems like one of the
>> less important characteristics of a Nazgul.
>
> It is, just like if one were a general or an admiral in a real military,
> the clothes would not be as important as other factors....but then, if the
> admiral is naked one can still see him, and while one may be revolted, one
> doesn't run from the room in utter terror at one knows not what.
If I saw a naked general or admiral, I would certainly run away in terror.
;o)
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
"Öjevind Lång" <bredba...@ojevind.lang> enriched us with:
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:uoidnQ_ZLKEuTW3Z...@rcn.net...
>>
[Ringwraiths robbed of robes and mounts}
>> No, they still exist in the physical world, but they're invisible
>> and have no weapons other than the fear that is part of their
>> nature. So running into anyone who isn't going to run away in
>> utter horror at their presence and be able to command them to do
>> anything is unliely.
>
> I agree. They needed a sort of physical garment (bodies, in fact,
> or at least some kind of frame to hang their cloaks on) in order
> to make themselves known, as apart from simply felt, and give
> orders.
As well as riding actual horses etc. etc. ;-)
In particular I do not think that the often-used euphemism 'spirit-
world' is misleading at best. The wraiths were never, in my opinion,
actually discarnated (except when the Witch-king was "reduced to
impotence" at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields), but as with someone
putting on the One Ring, their bodies had become shifted into this
wraith-world (without actually trying to understand what that is),
which is, obviously, still very close the usual visible world, so
that they were still under pretty much subject to the same material
'rules' as in the visible world (the only major differences seem
related to light).
>> It is, just like if one were a general or an admiral in a real
>> military, the clothes would not be as important as other
>> factors....but then, if the admiral is naked one can still see
>> him, and while one may be revolted, one doesn't run from the room
>> in utter terror at one knows not what.
>
> If I saw a naked general or admiral, I would certainly run away in
> terror. ;o)
But you would know why you ran ;-)
(Incidentally I'd be screaming in terror as I ran -- seeing an
admiral with his uniform on is quite enough for me, thank you <G>)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Giving in is no defeat.
Passing on is no retreat.
Selves are made to rise above.
You shall live in what you love.
- Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/
Larry Swain
Aw, Troels, I was all ready to whip this out if Robinsons said something
along the lines of "so what" to the dates....;) But thanks for posting
it! I think it illustrates my point nicely, they were deliberately
chosen dates, dates chosen for their significance and not just random,
even if that significance is different for elves or pre-Christian
humanity or what have you.
>
>>>If it were supposed to be an allegory, I wouldn't mind.
>>
>>Why does symbolic meaning have to be allegorical?
>
>
> I think we should also be careful to apply Tolkien's comments about
> disliking allegory only to the kind of allegory that he intended.
I guess that's what I'm driving at. It seems to me that too many
readers take his aversion to allegory as an aversion to any sort of
symbolism whatsoever.
At
> least it is my impression that the word is commonly being applied to
> techniques which are not what Tolkien intended when he firmly
> rejected the presence of any allegory in /The Lord of the Rings/
> (much, I think, in response to readers seeing allegories such as "The
> Ring = Atomic Bomb").
Exactly, an allegory of the type of Piers Plowman or Spenser's Faerie
Queene where everything in the story is a symbolic standin for something
in the real world--that's allegory and that's what Tolkien objected to
(I share the same distaste, though I like teaching parts of Piers Plowman).
>
> His works were obviously heavily influenced by Christianity, the
> moral and symbolism of Christianity, but there are no Christ-figures
> anywhere in his works, nor are there any other intentional and direct
> allegories of that kind.
>
Well, here we disagree. I think there are several Christ-figures as
long as we understand it as a TYPE rather than someone standing in for
Christ.