The Two Towers
Marko Amnell
second part of Peter Jackson's film adaptation of
Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS. I'm not sure everyone
would share my opinion, but I thought Gollum, the
little emaciated creature that stalks Frodo to try
to get the Ring back, stole the show. He definitely
got the most laughs when he argued with his evil
self about whether or not he should trick the hobbits
who've captured him. "Nasshty nasshty hobbitses!
Tricksy hobbitses! gollum! gollum!" Hilarious. In
one of the "making of" books about the movie that
I browsed through, one of the members of the visual
effects team that produced the final appearance of
Gollum said they tried to make him look like a
"60-year-old opium addict". Perfect.
And Sam, Frodo's plump little hobbit gardener had by
far the corniest line, with "There is good in the
world, and it's worth fighting for." Doesn't that
sound just like something Dubya would say?
Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
saved in the nick of time from certain death by
Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
the hobbits from the erupting volcano, why didn't
the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
inconsistency? Is it that the Nazgūl, mounted on
their flying steeds, would intercept the eagle-mounted
party? Still seems like a better bet than trudging
halfway across Middle Earth. They could always have
outmaneuvered the winged beasts. Well, who ever said
fantasy books were logical.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>inconsistency? Is it that the Nazgûl, mounted on
>their flying steeds, would intercept the eagle-mounted
>party? Still seems like a better bet than trudging
>halfway across Middle Earth. They could always have
>outmaneuvered the winged beasts. Well, who ever said
>fantasy books were logical.
In rec.arts.sf.written that question was hashed over extensively. The
conclusion IIRC was that neither Gwahir (the Eagle IIRC) nor Gandalf
could have destroyed the ring. They would have seized it and used it.
The hobbits were the best prospect as candidates for destroying the
ring, and even they were not adequate to the task; no one in Middle
Earth could destroy the ring; it was too powerful.
I fancy that the Council of Elrond knew quite well that Frodo was not
up to destroying the ring. Since the council was willing
none-the-less to send Frodo off on an apparent fool's errand, it seems
likely that they were, so to speak, acting on information received.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
Ronald O. Christian
>part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
>that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
>saved in the nick of time from certain death by
>Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
>of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
>the hobbits from the erupting volcano,
Um, no, Gandalf doesn't leave the battlefield. You seem to have
misinterpreted what you read.
>why didn't
>the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
>to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
>up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
>into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
>you can fly?
This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien. Try
the FAQ there.
Ron
-
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow
for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only
that which they defend."
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
Gregg Cattanach
news:f6852717.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Why didn't
> the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
> to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
> up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
> into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
> you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
> inconsistency? Is it that the Nazgūl, mounted on
> their flying steeds, would intercept the eagle-mounted
> party? Still seems like a better bet than trudging
> halfway across Middle Earth. They could always have
> outmaneuvered the winged beasts. Well, who ever said
> fantasy books were logical.
Read the FAQ: http://tolkien.slimy.com/
Irina Bondarenko Feeney
>
> And Sam, Frodo's plump little hobbit gardener had by
> far the corniest line, with "There is good in the
> world, and it's worth fighting for." Doesn't that
> sound just like something Dubya would say?
Followed by the little emaciated creature's "my precious" mantra. He kinda
got on my nerves.
Irina
Marko Amnell
> This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> Try the FAQ there.
Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
given below seem like lame excuses to me. I don't see why Frodo
couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
Crack of Doom on his own. Nor can I see how Sauron's forces
could have realistically stopped that eagle; and it seems
far-fetched to think that the eagle would have been so tempted
by the Ring's power that it would have tried to seize the
Ring during the flight to Mordor.
------
Here's the FAQ entry:
Why didn't they just have an Eagle fly the Ring to Mt. Doom?
This debate is most interesting when limited to "story internal"
arguments (i.e. "Otherwise it would be a dull book" is a cop-out).
One possibility is that there were no Eagles available when they
were needed. Another common argument is that Mordor was well defended,
while the Eagles were wary even of shepherds with bows. It may have
been an issue of secrecy: a group of Eagles far from the Misty
Mountains flying toward Mordor might well have drawn Sauron's
attention, and might have even hinted at the plan to destroy the
Ring. Some suggest that like the Istari, the Eagles were forbidden
by the Valar to help so directly. Another suggestion is that Frodo
may have needed the long journey to (hopefully) develop enough
strength of will to cast the Ring into the Fire. Many other
explanations are seen repeatedly as well. The question is quite
open, and some people don't think that there is any truly
convincing explanation.
Marko Amnell
>Marko Amnell wrote:
> > Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
> > part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
> > that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
> > saved in the nick of time from certain death by
> > Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
> > of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
> > the hobbits from the erupting volcano,
>
> Um, no, Gandalf doesn't leave the battlefield.
> You seem to have misinterpreted what you read.
I disagree, and the text of the novel seems to back up my
interpretation pretty clearly. Here's what Tolkien wrote:
"Then Gandalf, leaving all such matter of battle and command
to Aragorn and the other lords, stood upon the hill-top and
called; and down to him came the great eagle, Gwaihir the
Windlord, and stood before him.
'Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend,' said Gandalf.
'Thrice shall pay for all, if you are willing. You will not
find me a burden much greater than when you bore me from
Zirakzigil, where my old life burned away.'
'I would bear you,' answered Gwaihir, 'whither you will,
even if you were made of stone.'
'Then come, and let your brother go with us, and some
other of your folk who is most swift! For we have need of
speed greater than any wind, outmatching the wings of the
Nazgûl.'
'The North Wind blows, but we shall outfly it,' said
Gwaihir. And he lifted Gandalf and sped away south..."
So clearly Gwaihir the giant eagle lifts Gandalf up from
the battlefield and carries him away south to Mount Doom.
The quote also suggests that the fastest eagles fly faster
than the winged beasts that the Nazgûl use as steeds, since
Gandalf says that he has need of an eagle who is capable
of "outmatching the wings of the Nazgûl". So if one of the
fastest giant eagles had been assigned to carry the
ringbearer to Mount Doom in the first place, the Nazgûl
would have been too slow to catch him.
JeffC
"Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6852717.02121...@posting.google.com...
>
> part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
> that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
> saved in the nick of time from certain death by
> Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
> of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
> the hobbits from the erupting volcano, why didn't
> the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
> to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
> up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
> into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
> you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
> inconsistency?
The one true answer is that Tolkien did not wish it so, and the only answer
that makes sense in reality.
If you'd like an answer that makes sense in fantasy land, then here is mine.
There are 2 main reasons Frodo was chosen: he was less influenced by the
ring than others, and he could "slip in under the radar" by himself (or with
a companion or 2). A giant eagle could certainly not slide in under the
radar - it would draw attention to itself. Not only that, but I also think
it would have its hands more than full with the Nazgul, as you suggest.
Manwe Sulimo
> far the corniest line, with "There is good in the
> world, and it's worth fighting for." Doesn't that
> sound just like something Dubya would say?
>
I know we tend to pick on quite a few of our leaders, but anyone remember
Ernest Hemingway?
"The world is a wonderful place and worth fighting for" [ For whom the bell
tolls ] I am not really comparing the two men, but it is not such a silly
thing to say or think.
Aris Katsaris
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:8pj10voepjkf0og4n...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Dec 2002 10:59:35 -0800, marko_...@hotmail.com (Marko Amnell)
> wrote:
> >Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
> >part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
> >that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
> >saved in the nick of time from certain death by
> >Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
> >of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
> >the hobbits from the erupting volcano,
>
> Um, no, Gandalf doesn't leave the battlefield. You seem to have
> misinterpreted what you read.
Um, yes he does. "And he lifted up Gandalf and sped away south" etc,etc.
Aris katsa
Willo
>Ernest Hemingway?
>"The world is a wonderful place and worth fighting for" [ For whom the bell
>tolls ] I am not really comparing the two men, but it is not such a silly
>thing to say or think.
Hell, it even made it's way into a Matrix trailer.
"Tomarrow, the war could be over. Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that
worth dieing for?"
--
Will O'Hargan
"It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road, and if
you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."
Beaker
>
> Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
> given below seem like lame excuses to me. I don't see why Frodo
> couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
> of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
> Crack of Doom on his own.
Sauron had creatures that could fly. Maybe he could shoot bolts
of lightning out of his phantom arse for all I know. In any case,
flying a giant eagle into Mordor sounds about as subtle and
effective as flying the Spruce Goose into Baghdad.
--
> bkrrrrr, Director of Enlightenment \/ |\ _,,,---,,_ <
> CF++;TK++;TPI+++;A++;VF++;(v2.0) /\ PRrrr /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ <
> "I went to cyberspace and all I \/ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' <
> got was this stupid .sig" - Anonymous /\ '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL <
John Harkness
<jcon...@nc.rr.take.out.com> wrote:
>If you'd like an answer that makes sense in fantasy land, then here is mine.
>There are 2 main reasons Frodo was chosen: he was less influenced by the
>ring than others, and he could "slip in under the radar" by himself (or with
>a companion or 2). A giant eagle could certainly not slide in under the
>radar - it would draw attention to itself. Not only that, but I also think
>it would have its hands more than full with the Nazgul, as you suggest.
>
>
Sauron had radar? Kewl.
John Harkness
trotsky
I think the answer is simple: Gandalf doesn't want to use the eagles as
taxicabs out of respect, and only calls them into action when it's a
matter of life or death.
Lord Jubjub
Aris Katsaris
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:3e00f67a...@nntp.attcanada.ca...
How else would you characterize an All-seeing Eye?
Aris Katsaris
Tom Listmann
> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
> given below seem like lame excuses to me.
I never had a problem with this issue: I thought it was quite clear in
LOTR that Frodo, Bilbo and hobbits in general were the only creatures on
(in?) Middle Earth capable of carrying the ring without succumbing to
its powers. All other flora and fauna would try to use the ring to make
themselves all-powerful (The Carrot King! Lord of the Hamsters!), or
were easy prey for Sauron.
Tom
Francis A. Miniter
Rivendell that the destruction of the ring is to be seen as a test for
the mortal race of men. Even if the eagle theory were feasible, it
would deprive mortals of the opportunity and need to prove themselves
worth of existence.
Francis A. Miniter
rick++
in this film. Gimli was second with his humor.
I was a tighter paced movie than the first. Only six new characters
instead of twenty or so in the first.
Two voice-over/lectures. Usually mean something didn't quite
gell in the screen-play or editing.
Tom Listmann
> Gandalf says that he has need of an eagle who is capable
> fastest giant eagles had been assigned to carry the
But at this point in the book the Näzgul are dead, so the eagle has a
clear path to Mount Doom. Earlier, when all the Näzgul were out and
about, they could easily concentrate all nine of 'em to protect Mount
Doom. The speed of the eagles would be of little use in a limited no-fly
zone around Mount Doom. Also, keep in mind that the Näzgul are armed and
the eagles aren't.
Tom
John Harkness
>Can Gollum get an Oscar? Definitely the most interesting character
>in this film. Gimli was second with his humor.
>
It's a really interesting question, actually, because the performance
was created by a real actor then digitized into Gollum...
Technically possible, I suppose, but it won't happen -- it's like the
great voicework performances in Disney films the last few years --
Williams in Aladdin, Goodman in Monsters, Inc. It's not "real" acting
unless we can see the actor sweat.
John Harkness
Sean O'Hara
>
> Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
> > This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> > Try the FAQ there.
>
> Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
> given below seem like lame excuses to me. I don't see why Frodo
> couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
> of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
> Crack of Doom on his own. Nor can I see how Sauron's forces
> could have realistically stopped that eagle;
Well, see, Sauron's forces have flying beasties of their own.
and it seems
> far-fetched to think that the eagle would have been so tempted
> by the Ring's power that it would have tried to seize the
> Ring during the flight to Mordor.
>
The Eagle's in LotR are sentient creatures, almost entirely
unlike the ones in the real world. They have souls of a type
similar to Gandalf's, and would thus be open to the temptation.
--
Sean O'Hara
Endy9
news:facman-350E3F....@news.ucsc.edu...
The two reasons a Hobbit was chosen were resistance to the ring, which
others have detailed AND stealth. As soon as Sauron knew the plan was to
fly the ring to Mt. Mordor not only would he have sent the Nazgul to oppose
the Eagle but he would have sent all his ground forces to guard every gap in
the mountain top. It wasn't described as an open volcano, and Frodo slipped
in through a fissure as I remember.
--
Dennis/Endy
Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are. (John Wooden)
--
http://home.attbi.com/~phleblori1/endy9/index.htm
--
Endy9
news:tj5M9.268435$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
I thought it was a great line and Sean Austin delivered it well.
Aris Katsaris
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E010BF6...@attglobal.net...
> In addition to the other comments, there is the determination made in
> Rivendell that the destruction of the ring is to be seen as a test for
> the mortal race of men.
I don't remember any such determination... Not in the film and certainly
not in the books.
Aris Katsaris
Lord Jubjub
Tom Listmann <fac...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
One BIG point that everyone seems to be missing. Eagles can't fly
forever. Gwaihir specifically tells Gandalf that he could only fly him
from Orthanc (where he was imprisoned) to Edoras. This is a relatively
short distance.
It would have taken at least five or six hops for the eagles to get from
Rivendell to Mordor and would have required at least two or three days
of recuperation between hops. Once the got south and east of the Misty
Mountains, Sauron would have easily been able to spot the invaders and
put troops all along the likely path to make it difficult for the eagles
to stop and rest.
pHotEK
split personality. That was impressive.
trotsky
Endy9 wrote:
> "Manwe Sulimo" <manwe-...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:tj5M9.268435$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>>"Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
>>
>>>And Sam, Frodo's plump little hobbit gardener had by
>>>far the corniest line, with "There is good in the
>>>world, and it's worth fighting for." Doesn't that
>>>sound just like something Dubya would say?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I know we tend to pick on quite a few of our leaders, but anyone remember
>>Ernest Hemingway?
>>"The world is a wonderful place and worth fighting for" [ For whom the
>
> bell
>
>>tolls ] I am not really comparing the two men, but it is not such a silly
>>thing to say or think.
>
>
> I thought it was a great line and Sean Austin delivered it well.
Or Astin as the case may be.
the softrat
of the posters in RABT.
the softrat "Wannabe orcodentist"
==>Bakshi is Better!<==
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
A mind is a terrible thing.
DJ Cashman
Gollum didn't get on my nerves nearly as much as a certain other
*ahem* computer-generated character from Star Wars Episodes 1/2,...
Destiny
lol!
Damn that was funny hehehhe
Also maybe JRR Tolkien just didn't want the eagles to fly the ring and
whoever to Mordor??
D
Destiny
union when it came to Combat Pay? Either that or he wanted to see what
would happen if Frodo and Sam had to trek the whole way?
just a thought
D
Paul Schneider
> fastest giant eagles had been assigned to carry the
You forget the Lord of the Rings. He was the most powerful being in
Middle Earth. He RAISED the mountains of Shadow - they didn't exist
before then.
Although in Jackson's movie he is some disembodied eye, in the books
it is not so.
He would have spotted the ring flying into Mordor easily. He could
then have had Mount Doom erupt, destroying the chamber where it was
made or dominated the mind of the eagle and had it land at Baradur
instead or raise great winds forcing the eagle to land or induce mind
numbing fear into the eagle, etc.
Sauron is poorly described in the books but have no doubt that he was
powerful.
Paul
Steve Hayes
And he got on Frodo's nerves and Sam's nerves. He was a getting on nerves kind
of guy.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
>Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
>> This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien.
>> Try the FAQ there.
>
>Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
>I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
>there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
>given below seem like lame excuses to me. I don't see why Frodo
>couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
>of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
>Crack of Doom on his own. Nor can I see how Sauron's forces
>could have realistically stopped that eagle; and it seems
>far-fetched to think that the eagle would have been so tempted
>by the Ring's power that it would have tried to seize the
>Ring during the flight to Mordor.
It's a literary convention. The deus ex machina comes at the end.
Bernard El-Hagin
So the potential rules of Sauron in Middle-earth is not a matter of
"life or death"? Hmmm...
Cheers,
Bernard
LITTLE LOCUS
Marko Amnell wrote:
>
> Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
> > This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> > Try the FAQ there.
>
> Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
> given below seem like lame excuses to me. I don't see why Frodo
> couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
> of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
> Crack of Doom on his own. Nor can I see how Sauron's forces
> could have realistically stopped that eagle;
(snip)
Sauron himself could. We're talking not about some petty warlord or hat-trick
evil wizard; we're talking about the very Dark Lord, the current god-like
incarnation in Earth of absolute evil, wielding powers far beyond those of
mortals, etc etc fill-a-whole-page-of-it. You (or Frodo) go flying straight to
his main window (literally: the Cracks of Doom, where the Ring was to be thrown,
was straight in front of his own window of his fortress), and hel'ss take action
personally and instantly. Quite forcefully, too.
IOW: Eagles don't make sneak attacks. Hobbits on foot do :)
Yet IOW: You Yanks should remember that F-117s are a modern convenience that
wasn't available on medieval/fantasy times, unlike ground-to-air Death Rays,
whose knowdledge has been lost somewhere betwen that time and our own ;-)
L.L.
--
"We must. We can. We will".
(Christopher Reeve)
Ronald O. Christian
I don't suppose there's *any* chance of going back to tits?
Ron
-
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow
for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only
that which they defend."
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
Ronald O. Christian
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
>news:8pj10voepjkf0og4n...@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Dec 2002 10:59:35 -0800, marko_...@hotmail.com (Marko Amnell)
>> wrote:
>> >Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
>> >part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
>> >that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
>> >saved in the nick of time from certain death by
>> >Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
>> >of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
>> >the hobbits from the erupting volcano,
>>
>> Um, no, Gandalf doesn't leave the battlefield. You seem to have
>> misinterpreted what you read.
>
>Um, yes he does. "And he lifted up Gandalf and sped away south" etc,etc.
>
>Aris katsa
Eesh, really? I don't remember that at all. Time to dig out my copy
of Return of the King.
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>I did think it was really amazing what they did with Smeagol and his
>split personality. That was impressive.
Best part of the movie. Amazing, since one would think that kind of thing
might not be particularly "cinematic." But they really nailed it.
--Kevin
Michael Black
news:20021219122756...@mb-fm.aol.com...
Don't forget Andy Serkis' brilliant voice acting with that role. What he
really did was quite outstanding. Hell, if anyone deserves an oscar, it'd
be him.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jordan Lund
> In rec.arts.sf.written that question was hashed over extensively. The
> conclusion IIRC was that neither Gwahir (the Eagle IIRC) nor Gandalf
> could have destroyed the ring. They would have seized it and used it.
> The hobbits were the best prospect as candidates for destroying the
> ring, and even they were not adequate to the task; no one in Middle
> Earth could destroy the ring; it was too powerful.
I always assumed that the Ring takes ones deepest desires and makes
them come to life, only with a corrupted touch. In the case of Hobbits
all they really want is to be left in peace with lots of food. There's
not much there for the ring to work with which is why they are safer
bearers than anyone else.
I seem to recall Tolkein's response to "Well why didn't they just fly
there..." was something along the lines of "The Eagles are a noble
race, not a taxi service..."
- Jordan
RogerM
> I did think it was really amazing what they did with Smeagol and his
> split personality. That was impressive.
>
It got too silly for me to take it seriously.
--
Real time doesn't have a pause key.
"Slow and steady" actually has a very poor winning percentage re: races.
"all you do is mate and sleep and eat and mate and...where do I sign up? -
Homer Simpson
God isn't dead, but he did just buy a condo in Florida.
Kevin Skinner
>
>> I did think it was really amazing what they did with Smeagol and his
>> split personality. That was impressive.
>>
>
>It got too silly for me to take it seriously.
>
I kinda agree. It almost seemed like it was played for laughs in a way. I
dunno. Lots of folks laughed during it, anyway.
Paul Busby
Destiny <des...@allwest.net> pulled the chain then typed:
Quite. JRRT could have called it The Eagle has Landed & cut it down to 300
pages. So what if fiction is inconsistent with a large dose of artistic
licence. It's like taking a friend on a bike ride & being asked why the
shortest route isn't being taken. Hobbits on mountain bikes being taught how
to ride by Tom Bom!
--
The person who declared that everything was a lie was later found out to be
not telling the truth.
HHG
Chief Toaster Tester: alt.os.windows-xp
Milo D. Cooper
> trotsky wrote:
>> JeffC wrote:
>>> Marko Amnell wrote:
>>>
>>> Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
>>> part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
>>> that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
>>> saved in the nick of time from certain death by
>>> Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
>>> of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
>>> the hobbits from the erupting volcano, why didn't
>>> the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
>>> to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
>>> up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
>>> into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
>>> you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
>>> inconsistency?
>>
>> The one true answer is that Tolkien did not wish it so,
>> and the only answer that makes sense in reality.
Absolutely.
>> If you'd like an answer that makes sense in fantasy
>> land, then here is mine.
>> There are 2 main reasons Frodo was chosen: he was less
>> influenced by the ring than others, and he could "slip
>> in under the radar" by himself (or with a companion or
>> 2). A giant eagle could certainly not slide in under
>> the radar - it would draw attention to itself. Not
>> only that, but I also think it would have its hands
>> more than full with the Nazgul, as you suggest.
Of course, there is more than one eagle. There is an
entire race of them. If a whole flock of eagles bum-rushed
Mount Doom, the Nazgul would be f*cked.
> I think the answer is simple: Gandalf doesn't want to
> use the eagles as taxicabs out of respect, and only calls
> them into action when it's a matter of life or death.
Right, because saving Middle Earth from complete dominion by
a purely evil force, that's not a life-and-death matter.
I've heard that "Eagles are not taxis" explanation before
(apparently Tolkien's own response to this massive hole in
his plot), and no offense to Trot, but it never sounded like
anything more than utter bullsh!t.
The Eagles will take part in the Five Armies Battle (_The
Hobbit_), and they'll give Gandalf a lift from Orthanc, but
they won't take the One Ring to Mount Doom, or at least give
Frodo a lift all or part of the way there? Please.
It's an indefensible, gaping plot hole. To expound on
what JeffC wrote, the reason the Eagles took no part in the
transport of the ring was because Tolkien's story would have
taken about a third as long to tell.
Don't get me wrong, _The Lord of the Rings_ is great stuff,
and overall, I like it, despite this gigantic plot hole and
consistently poor characterization. I like _The Silmarillion_
even more. But face facts: Tolkien != infallible.
--
___________________________________________________
Milo D. Cooper http://www.miloonline.net/
Senior artist http://www.sigilgames.com/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Milo D. Cooper
> Lord Jubjub wrote:
>> Tom Listmann wrote:
>>> some dude wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
>>> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
>>> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
>>> given below seem like lame excuses to me.
>>
>> I never had a problem with this issue: I thought it was quite
>> clear in LOTR that Frodo, Bilbo and hobbits in general were the
>> only creatures on (in?) Middle Earth capable of carrying the ring
>> without succumbing to its powers. All other flora and fauna would
>> try to use the ring to make themselves all-powerful (The Carrot
>> King! Lord of the Hamsters!), or were easy prey for Sauron.
Hahahaha, Lord of the Hamsters, I like it.
> One BIG point that everyone seems to be missing. Eagles can't fly
> forever. Gwaihir specifically tells Gandalf that he could only
> fly him from Orthanc (where he was imprisoned) to Edoras. This is
> a relatively short distance.
>
> It would have taken at least five or six hops for the eagles to
> get from Rivendell to Mordor and would have required at least two
> or three days of recuperation between hops. Once the got south
> and east of the Misty Mountains, Sauron would have easily been
> able to spot the invaders and put troops all along the likely path
> to make it difficult for the eagles to stop and rest.
So set up relay points. There's a whole race of eagles; simply
station a bunch of them at mutiple points along the way to Mordor,
and have them hand the ring off to one another, taking whichever
routes appear to be unguarded by Sauron. Simple.
They could have *at least* taken the ring *part* of the way
there, either by carrying it themselves or by having a hobbit
carry it. That would have given Sauron far less time to muster
his forces and wreak havoc on everyone.
This plot hole is absolutely indefensible. It represents a
massive oversight on the part of the author. Accept it as such
and move on.
Milo D. Cooper
Paul Schneider wrote:
>>of "outmatching the wings of the Nazgûl". So if one of the
>>fastest giant eagles had been assigned to carry the
>>ringbearer to Mount Doom in the first place, the Nazgûl
>>would have been too slow to catch him.
>
>
> You forget the Lord of the Rings. He was the most powerful being in
> Middle Earth. He RAISED the mountains of Shadow - they didn't exist
> before then.
> Although in Jackson's movie he is some disembodied eye, in the books
> it is not so.
>
> He would have spotted the ring flying into Mordor easily. He could
> then have had Mount Doom erupt, destroying the chamber where it was
> made or dominated the mind of the eagle and had it land at Baradur
> instead or raise great winds forcing the eagle to land or induce mind
> numbing fear into the eagle, etc.
>
> Sauron is poorly described in the books but have no doubt that he was
> powerful.
None of that means that the Eagles couldn't have taken the
ring (or a hobbit carrying the ring) at least part of the way
to Mordor, thereby greatly cutting the time that Sauron had to
muster his forces.
It's a bottomless pit of a plot hole. Deal with it and
Anthony J. Bryant
> I went to the premiere of The Two Towers today, the
> second part of Peter Jackson's film adaptation of
> Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS. I'm not sure everyone
> would share my opinion, but I thought Gollum, the
> little emaciated creature that stalks Frodo to try
> to get the Ring back, stole the show. He definitely
> got the most laughs when he argued with his evil
> self about whether or not he should trick the hobbits
> who've captured him. "Nasshty nasshty hobbitses!
> Tricksy hobbitses! gollum! gollum!" Hilarious.
I can only assume you're kidding. I thought it was one of the
most sad parts of the film -- total pathos. I really felt for
Gollum, there, seeing what was going on inside his soul. I think
all Gollum needs are meds to control his paranoid bits and he'd
be fine, poor bastard. Damn, I'm not kidding... I was almost in
tears when Frodo betrayed him to Faramir, 'cause it was obvious
that Gollum had at that point *tried* to turn a new leaf. And I
can't help but think that if Frodo or Sam had just talked to him
in Osgiliath to *explain* what was going on (i.e., treat him like
a person) he wouldn't have turned again.. at least not so soon.
Tony
Francis A. Miniter
' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
" "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was
sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
Francis A. Miniter
Milo D. Cooper
> Anthony J. Bryant wrote:
>> Marko Amnell wrote:
>>
>> I went to the premiere of The Two Towers today, the
>> second part of Peter Jackson's film adaptation of
>> Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS. I'm not sure everyone
>> would share my opinion, but I thought Gollum, the
>> little emaciated creature that stalks Frodo to try
>> to get the Ring back, stole the show. He definitely
>> got the most laughs when he argued with his evil
>> self about whether or not he should trick the hobbits
>> who've captured him. "Nasshty nasshty hobbitses!
>> Tricksy hobbitses! gollum! gollum!" Hilarious.
>
> I can only assume you're kidding. I thought it was one
> of the most sad parts of the film -- total pathos.
He's not kidding. Lots of people laughed where I saw
the movie, too.
Gollum is a cartoon character in this movie. He is
physically designed that way, he moves that way, and he talks
that way. A Warner Bros. toon in several significant ways.
That is why people are laughing -- as intended.
Milo D. Cooper
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> None of that means that the Eagles couldn't have taken the
>> ring (or a hobbit carrying the ring) at least part of the way
>> to Mordor, thereby greatly cutting the time that Sauron had to
>> muster his forces.
>>
>> It's a bottomless pit of a plot hole. Deal with it and
>> move on.
>
> Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" (Ballantine Books Ed. page 343):
>
> ' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
> " "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was
> sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
What's your point?
He was sent *at that time* to bear tidings, not a burden. Nothing
more is suggested in that excerpt. It certainly isn't the same as,
"None of my race will ever carry people long distances for any reason."
In the Silmarillion, they do exactly this, apparently without even
being asked to do so, and for a far less urgent reason than to prevent
evil from taking over the world.
The Eagles themselves had a lot to lose if Sauron wound up running
the show. Mordor hardly qualifies as "the ends of the earth," anyway;
there a huge land mass to the east, indicated on the maps and written
of by the author several times.
Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame excuse
to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the way it is.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Milo D. Cooper <mi...@miloonline.net> wrote:
[Eagles not used as transportation]
> It's a bottomless pit of a plot hole. Deal with it and
>move on.
"'Shut up', he explained."
Yeah.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
trotsky
And the reason that everybody didn't die in the hundreds and hundreds of
years since the ring was cut from Sauron's hand was what, exactly?
That's a very weak argument. In fact, I think it was more like 2500 years.
> I've heard that "Eagles are not taxis" explanation before
> (apparently Tolkien's own response to this massive hole in
> his plot), and no offense to Trot, but it never sounded like
> anything more than utter bullsh!t.
Oh sure, "Milo", I'm sure it seems that way to you, but what does Otis
think?
> The Eagles will take part in the Five Armies Battle (_The
> Hobbit_), and they'll give Gandalf a lift from Orthanc, but
> they won't take the One Ring to Mount Doom, or at least give
> Frodo a lift all or part of the way there? Please.
>
> It's an indefensible, gaping plot hole. To expound on
> what JeffC wrote, the reason the Eagles took no part in the
> transport of the ring was because Tolkien's story would have
> taken about a third as long to tell.
>
> Don't get me wrong, _The Lord of the Rings_ is great stuff,
> and overall, I like it, despite this gigantic plot hole and
> consistently poor characterization. I like _The Silmarillion_
> even more. But face facts: Tolkien != infallible.
Tolkien spent the better part of his life creating this mythos, and I
think it's really intensely lame to think that you have given more
thought to his world than he has. In fact, you claim to dislike my
explanation, and then come back with "the whole world has survived for
2500 years but it's a matter of life or death." Perhaps you can go back
to the drawing board and come back with a valid criticism?
trotsky
Sauron had 2500 years to "muster his forces". If you can explain the
specific intent of the knowledge that Gandalf had of Saruman's plans you
*might* have an argument. Odds are, though, you have no way of
knowing what Gandalf knew and when he knew it. And then you have to
explain how this knowledge is more important than Gandalf's not wanting
to use the eagles frivolously.
> This plot hole is absolutely indefensible. It represents a
> massive oversight on the part of the author. Accept it as such
> and move on.
You sound very full of yourself, Milo. Have you considered the
possiblity that you might be full of shit instead?
trotsky
Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>
>
> Paul Schneider wrote:
>
>>> of "outmatching the wings of the Nazgūl". So if one of the
>>> fastest giant eagles had been assigned to carry the ringbearer to
>>> Mount Doom in the first place, the Nazgūl would have been too slow to
>>> catch him.
>>
>>
>>
>> You forget the Lord of the Rings. He was the most powerful being in
>> Middle Earth. He RAISED the mountains of Shadow - they didn't exist
>> before then.
>> Although in Jackson's movie he is some disembodied eye, in the books
>> it is not so.
>>
>> He would have spotted the ring flying into Mordor easily. He could
>> then have had Mount Doom erupt, destroying the chamber where it was
>> made or dominated the mind of the eagle and had it land at Baradur
>> instead or raise great winds forcing the eagle to land or induce mind
>> numbing fear into the eagle, etc.
>>
>> Sauron is poorly described in the books but have no doubt that he was
>> powerful.
>
>
> None of that means that the Eagles couldn't have taken the
> ring (or a hobbit carrying the ring) at least part of the way
> to Mordor, thereby greatly cutting the time that Sauron had to
> muster his forces.
>
> It's a bottomless pit of a plot hole. Deal with it and
> move on.
Your plaintive bleatings have yet to establish how much of a factor time
was.
trotsky
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" (Ballantine Books Ed. page 343):
>
> ' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
> " "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was
> sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
Uh oh, it looks like Milo's toast.
cr
> ...
> Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
> part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
> that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
> saved in the nick of time from certain death by
> Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
> of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
> the hobbits from the erupting volcano, why didn't
> the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
> to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
> up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
> into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
> you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
> their flying steeds, would intercept the eagle-mounted
> party? Still seems like a better bet than trudging
> halfway across Middle Earth. They could always have
> outmaneuvered the winged beasts. Well, who ever said
> fantasy books were logical.
> ...
There have been very good and thoughtful analyses of this question in the
rec.arts.books.tolkien newsgroup, for years, long before these movies were
made. Suffice it to say that all long and intricate plots have holes. A
good writer's skill will deflect attention away from the holes. That's
not to say that your question exposes a hole, or not.
What about E.T.?
He could have just flown back to the ship when the men with the keychains
appeared. End of story. E.T. never would have needed to phone home.
-cr
Milo D. Cooper
>trotsky wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the answer is simple: Gandalf doesn't want to
>>> use the eagles as taxicabs out of respect, and only calls
>>> them into action when it's a matter of life or death.
>>
>> Right, because saving Middle Earth from complete dominion
>> by a purely evil force, that's not a life-and-death matter.
>
> And the reason that everybody didn't die in the hundreds and
> hundreds of years since the ring was cut from Sauron's hand
> was what, exactly?
Um, because (1) the ring was lost for a millennium or two, and then
(2) it waited in Gollum's possession while its master grew strong
enough to mount another assault. Is this a trick question?
>> I've heard that "Eagles are not taxis" explanation before
>> (apparently Tolkien's own response to this massive hole in
>> his plot), and no offense to Trot, but it never sounded like
>> anything more than utter bullsh!t.
>
> Oh sure, "Milo", I'm sure it seems that way to you, but what
> does Otis think?
I can't decide whether that's more or less funny than
Arnold's "she'll be back" line in the Terminator 3 trailer.
>> The Eagles will take part in the Five Armies Battle (_The
>> Hobbit_), and they'll give Gandalf a lift from Orthanc, but
>> they won't take the One Ring to Mount Doom, or at least give
>> Frodo a lift all or part of the way there? Please.
>>
>> It's an indefensible, gaping plot hole. To expound on
>> what JeffC wrote, the reason the Eagles took no part in the
>> transport of the ring was because Tolkien's story would have
>> taken about a third as long to tell.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, _The Lord of the Rings_ is great stuff,
>> and overall, I like it, despite this gigantic plot hole and
>> consistently poor characterization. I like _The Silmarillion_
>> even more. But face facts: Tolkien != infallible.
>
> Tolkien spent the better part of his life creating this mythos, and I
> think it's really intensely lame to think that you have given more
> thought to his world than he has.
*Shrug* Am I supposed to care what you think? *I* think
it's even lamer that anyone is above your criticism if he
just spends a really long time working on something.
Presumably, if someone spends most of his life writing why
all Eskimoes should be killed, then you won't have a
problem with his works.
> In fact, you claim to dislike my explanation, and then come
> back with "the whole world has survived for 2500 years but
> it's a matter of life or death." Perhaps you can go back
> to the drawing board and come back with a valid criticism?
I guess you need to explain to me what's invalid about
what I wrote. As I recall, Sauron *lost* the war when the
ring was cut from his hand. Perhaps you don't understand
that someone wanting to "dominate all life" makes opposing
him a life-or-death struggle.
Milo D. Cooper
> trotsky wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
"Frivolously"? He was sent to Middle Earth to help stop Sauron.
*That was his main reason for existing.* How is help from the
Eagles in doing this frivolous? What was more important than
stopping Sauron? WTF are you talking about?
The Eagles will take a dead guy from a field of battle to
his final resting place (_The Silmarillion_), but they won't
help stop a force of pure evil from ruling the entire world?
It's bullsh!t, straight up and wide open.
>> This plot hole is absolutely indefensible. It represents a
>> massive oversight on the part of the author. Accept it as such
>> and move on.
>
> You sound very full of yourself, Milo. Have you considered the
> possiblity that you might be full of shit instead?
No, but I have considered that you're a fan-boy. That
would explain a lot.
Milo D. Cooper
> trotsky wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>> Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" (Ballantine Books Ed. page 343):
>>
>> ' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
>> " "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was
>> sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
>
> Uh oh, it looks like Milo's toast.
Nah. Repost, since you apparently missed it the first time:
_________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> None of that means that the Eagles couldn't have taken the
>> ring (or a hobbit carrying the ring) at least part of the way
>> to Mordor, thereby greatly cutting the time that Sauron had to
>> muster his forces.
>>
>> It's a bottomless pit of a plot hole. Deal with it and
>> move on.
>
> Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" (Ballantine Books Ed.
> page 343):
>
> ' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
> " "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth.
> I was sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
What's your point?
He was sent *at that time* to bear tidings, not a burden.
Nothing more is suggested in that excerpt. It certainly isn't
the same as, "None of my race will ever carry people long
distances for any reason." In the Silmarillion, they do
exactly this, apparently without even being asked to do so,
and for a far less urgent reason than to prevent evil from
taking over the world.
The Eagles themselves had a lot to lose if Sauron wound up
running the show. Mordor hardly qualifies as "the ends of the
earth," anyway; there's a huge land mass to the east,
indicated on the maps and written of by the author several
times.
Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame
excuse to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the
way it is.
_________________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Jeff Inman
> Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame
> excuse to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the
> way it is.
You want a fictional world with mortal perils, yet to
prevail. You expect the author to deliver the heroes
from danger, yet not to do so with any tool that would
render the challenges moot. In short, it's a game.
You can't ask too many questions. It could end the
way of the Grimm's tale called "The Death of Little Hen":
"Then the little cock was left alone with the
dead hen, and dug a grave for her and laid her
in it, and made a mound above it, on which he
sat down and fretted until he died too, and then
everyone was dead."
You like that better?
ObMelancholyButTrue: _Beowulf_
Jeff
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> > trotsky wrote:
> >> JeffC wrote:
> >>> Marko Amnell wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, _The Lord of the Rings_ is great stuff,
> and overall, I like it, despite this gigantic plot hole and
> consistently poor characterization. I like _The Silmarillion_
> even more. But face facts: Tolkien != infallible.
What have you done, Milo?! Not everyone works in C/C++ here.
Fortran 90/95 says that ! is a comment sign.
<sigh>
Archie
kirk
> --
>
> Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame excuse
> to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the way it is.
Hmm. I don't see it as such a big deal. Have some imagination. It was
decided at the Council that the ring was to be sneaked into Mordor in
order to destroy it. Sauron assumes that they (Elves and Men) will
instead try and use it against him. This sets up the huge battle at
Minis Tirith at the end where the two armies meet for the final battle
-- all a ruse to distract Sauron and his forces while the hobbits dunk
the ring.
If they were to send out an eagle to drop the ring in, Sauron would
"see" it and put all his will toward stopping that eagle. He would
forget about mustering his other forces, he would forget about
fighting any of the major battles. All his effort would be bent on
stopping that eagle and getting the ring. The nazgul would intercept
(even if they are slower, a group of slower aircraft can manuver to
intercept a faster one given enough lead time), boulder-hurling trolls
would be placed around mount doom along with a host of orc archers.
And don't forget Sauron himself. He is credited (in the novels) with
possibly causing the snowstorm and avalanche on Cahadaras to stop the
fellowship; surely he could whip up a tornado, hurricane, or typhoon
to take care of an eagle. In my mind, it would be no contest and would
expose the location of the ring to Sauron -- exactly the opposite of
what the council wanted to do.
trotsky
"Milo's The Two Towers" does have a sort of ring to it.
(No pun intended.)
smw
>
>>You can't ask too many questions.
...
My students always have trouble with Oedipus' reaction to the oracle. If
he believed it, so the objection goes, he shouldn't have tried to avert
it. If he didn't, why leave Corinth?
That's a good question, of course, and one that should be asked, and it's
important to have an answer. But just as important to realize that it is
what it is.
Jeff Inman
And also important to realize that part of what made that
oracle the right one was that Oedipus would react in the way
he did. His character is part of the equation. But the
oracle is part of the equation, too. Humans and gods bound
together in a web.
Jeff
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Marko Amnell" <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6852717.02121...@posting.google.com...
> Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
> > This is a frequently asked question in rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> > Try the FAQ there.
>
> Thanks. After reading what the FAQ had to say I conclude that
> I fall into the final category of people who "don't think that
> there is any truly convincing explanation." All the reasons
> couldn't have flown on the back of a giant eagle up to slopes
> of Mount Doom, and then entered the passage that leads to the
> Crack of Doom on his own. Nor can I see how Sauron's forces
> could have realistically stopped that eagle; and it seems
> far-fetched to think that the eagle would have been so tempted
> by the Ring's power that it would have tried to seize the
> Ring during the flight to Mordor.
Eagles were always something of a Deus es BigAss Bird in Tolkien,
so it's best not to get too caught up in trying to make a lot of sense out
of it. But if you want to try, one of the more obvious explanations
is that while Sauron's minions might not have been able to stop an
eagle heading for Mt. Doom, Sauron himself might very well have
been able to do so. Tolkien never quite seems to have decided just
what form Sauron takes, and in the process of writing about him
Sauron seems to "lose his physical shape" more than once, only to
be able to regain it. Sauron, much like Morgoth before him, is a very
nebulous character. Nobody really knows the full extent of his powers,
for all we can tell, he might have been able to blast an eagle out of
the sky with a lightning bolt. As the characters themselves say in the
book, the only real hope is through secrecy, and a big bird carrying
a hobbit flying over Mordor would have probably attracted some
attention over at Barad-Dur.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Jordan Lund" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92dbefbe.02121...@posting.google.com...
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote in message
news:<3e00cc4b...@news.sbtc.net>...
>
> > In rec.arts.sf.written that question was hashed over extensively. The
> > conclusion IIRC was that neither Gwahir (the Eagle IIRC) nor Gandalf
> > could have destroyed the ring. They would have seized it and used it.
> > The hobbits were the best prospect as candidates for destroying the
> > ring, and even they were not adequate to the task; no one in Middle
> > Earth could destroy the ring; it was too powerful.
>
> I always assumed that the Ring takes ones deepest desires and makes
> them come to life, only with a corrupted touch. In the case of Hobbits
> all they really want is to be left in peace with lots of food. There's
> not much there for the ring to work with which is why they are safer
> bearers than anyone else.
Elrond seemed to think it was pretty much a crap-shoot no matter
who they bet on, and that the Hobbits had as much chance as anyone
else. But I have to admit, somewhere at the back of his mind had
to be the thought "Frodo, the Dark Lord? Hah. We could kick
his ass and take the ring if it came to that..."
>
> I seem to recall Tolkein's response to "Well why didn't they just fly
> there..." was something along the lines of "The Eagles are a noble
> race, not a taxi service..."
>
> - Jordan
Sounds like the "gentle Medievalist" was having a bad morning.
RstJ
Dave Lister
could Jackson fuck up so horribly? None of the grandeur of the first
film, massive deviation from the book to no point whatsoever, some sappy
crap with Arwen and an out of character performance of Elrond. Elves
fighting at Helm's Deep, Ents deciding not to go to war, Faramir deciding
to take the ring, I mean WHAT THE FUCK? Hasn't Jackson read the fucking
books? And what was that shit about Aragorn falling of a cliff? Why
wasn't Eomer at Helm's Deep? What happened to the trees that ate the orcs
at Helm's Deep? Would it really have been that difficult to just stick to
the story??
It wasn't even any good as a movie just taken on its own merits. Jackson
you loser.
--
Oh, to have a President with a 75+ IQ instead of GW Bush,
who says:
"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've
read, I understand reality. If you're asking me
as the president, would I understand reality, I do."
"...when I put my hand on the Bible, I will
swear to not, to uphold the laws of the land"
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Kevin Skinner" <ucfk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021219190728...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >pHotEK wrote:
> >
> >> I did think it was really amazing what they did with Smeagol and his
> >> split personality. That was impressive.
> >>
> >
> >It got too silly for me to take it seriously.
> >
>
> I kinda agree. It almost seemed like it was played for laughs in a way. I
> dunno. Lots of folks laughed during it, anyway.
It was funny. I thought it was a great way to play it for some laughs
while making him in a way even more pathetic. Ironic that the shrivelled
remains of a hobbit should be in so many ways more "human" than any
of the healthy ones, but there you have it. In a lot of ways, Gollum is
far more important to the Story of the Ring than Frodo is.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3E02A9A5...@indiana.edu...
There's only so much they could explain, however. If Gollum ever
figured out they were planning on destroying the ring, he'd have
a freak out. Well, a bigger freakout. And they couldn't let him run
free either. He gets bagged again, and Sauron knows exactly who
to look for and where to look for them. There was also the problem
of him making a break for it and getting shot dead by Faramir's
merry men. Yeah, Frodo sold him out. But he didn't have any choice.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"kirk" <hed...@cs.utk.edu> wrote in message
news:6fda79d0.02122...@posting.google.com...
You can chase this one round and round just like the question of why
the hell the Balrog *fell* from the bridge (or even needed it in the first
place) since he was a winged creature and could presumably fly. Tolkien's
eagles tend to show up when he needs them and stay in the background
the rest of the time. Some might call it a plot hole, some (like myself)
follow your explanation--Sauron would have been able to stop any
eagle (or pack of them) with relative ease. While I've never liked
Tolkien's "they're not taxis" explanation, I'm sure he probably considered
the issue in more depth when he was writing the books. It was probably
obvious enough to him (for whatever reason) why the eagles couldn't
fly the ring into Mordor and have done with it. He just didn't put it in
the book. If he could see this thread, he'd probably laugh.
But man, I'd like to see his post on the subject :)
RstJ
Milo D. Cooper
> Jeff Inman wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame
>> excuse to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the
>> way it is.
>
>
> You want a fictional world with mortal perils, yet to
> prevail. You expect the author to deliver the heroes
> from danger, yet not to do so with any tool that would
> render the challenges moot. In short, it's a game.
> [...]
Of course. However, I can reasonably expect the creator of
the game to adhere to his own rules.
If "the Eagles aren't taxicabs," as Tolkien himself reportedly
claimed, then why have they taken that role at least twice in
the author's own stories -- once of their own volition, once by
request -- for reasons far less crucial than keeping pure evil
from taking over the world?
Bullsh!t. It's all an oversight of the highest order.
Milo D. Cooper
> kirk wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Tolkien screwed up big time, *and* came up with a very lame excuse
>> to try to cover his colossal blunder. That's just the way it is.
>
> [blah blah blah]
> If they were to send out an eagle to drop the ring in, Sauron would
> "see" it and put all his will toward stopping that eagle.
> [blah blah blah]
I've already answered this several times.
Even if you want to make a bunch of assumptions about what
Sauron could do to prevent an aerial drop-off (which you
wouldn't have to do, if Tolkien had had his head on straight
and written in some air defense at Mount Doom), there is still
the question of why the Eagles didn't at least carry the ring
(or the ring bearer) *part* of the way to Mordor. A hell of
a lot of ground could have been covered in a far shorter
amount of time, and a lot fewer people would have died.
Just give up, people. It's a gigantic plot hole. Period.
Noldor
>
> Just give up, people. It's a gigantic plot hole. Period.
You are a broken record. Try some of this on for size. Why didn't eagles
fly the hobbits from the Shire to Rivendell? Gandalf from Orthanc to the
Shire? Aragorn and Gandalf to find Gollum? Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas to
find Pippen and Merry? The Rohirrim to the Pellenor? The Entwives to
Fanghorn? Gandalf's letter from Bree to the Shire for Butterbur? The Grey
Company to the Fords of Isen? The Ents to Isengard? Aragorn, Merry, Sam,
Frodo, Pippen, Gimli, Legolas and Boromir away from Amon Hen? Or 100 other
things that would have saved lives?
Get the picture? The eagles -could- have done everything, just as
Eru -could- have done everything and the Valar -could- have done everything,
are all these things plot holes? Would you prefer a book of eagles flying
people around? How about Gandalf uses that staff of his and blasts twenty
thousand or so orcs into oblivion instead of all those pesky battles? Then
the ents can knock down the black gate and divert the Aunduin to flood
Mordor. Does that theory make for a "gigantic plot hole"? Lots of
stuff -could- happen.
Facts are nobody on our side has been to Mordor for a long long time,
flying in on eagles with the ring would be insanely reckless. Having Frodo
take the ring would also seem insanely reckless to everyone with less
intelligence and insight than Gandalf has. But Gandalf knows a bit more than
everyone else and Frodo's journey, mentally, emotionally and physically is
what the book is about - hope, faith, courage and will. Can't get that from
eagles dive bombing the ring into a volcano. The Eagles served their purpose
and so does Frodo so what's the problem?
-Matthew-
Marko Amnell
> > but I thought Gollum, the little emaciated creature
> > that stalks Frodo to try to get the Ring back, stole
> > the show ... one of the members of the visual effects
> > team that produced the final appearance of Gollum said
> > they tried to make him look like a "60-year-old opium
> > addict"
>
> Caliban from the tempest is his inspiration. One should
> note that the old Marvel Comics morlock series had a
> character ( Called calaban as it turns out!) who looked
> very like the Gollum in this movie. If I were Marvel
> Comics, I would sue!
I didn't realize that. Interesting. Even though Tolkien
said he hated Shakespeare. I also found it interesting to
read about Tolkien's sources in mythology in TOLKIEN'S RING
by David Day. Norse mythology was the primary source, of
course, with the main Norse god Odin the inspiration for
*both* Sauron and Gandalf. The Vikings didn't have a clear
conception of good and evil, so a very crude over-
simplification would be to say that what Tolkien did was
basically to offer a Christian reinterpretation of the
Norse legends. The names of all the dwarves in THE HOBBIT -
Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur,
Dori, Ori, Oin and Gloin - were taken directly from
Iceland's 12th century PROSE EDDA saga.
Other aspects came from the Volsunga saga (about the hero
Sigurd the Dragonslayer), and the Nibelungenlied. Of course,
he was influenced by many other myths, including Beowulf.
Tom Shippey notes in his biography that the first fantasy
story Tolkien wrote in 1913 was based on the Kullervo
character in the Kalevala, the Finnish national epic
(which I've read in Finnish). This character later became
Turin Turambar in THE SILMARILLION (the hero who slays
the dragon Glaurung). Like Turin, Kullervo is indeed a
very "postmodern" figure with a morally ambiguous
personality and who is estranged from his own people.
Also, one of the two elven languages was modelled on
Finnish (the other on Welsh). Tolkien claimed that he
invented the languages of Middle-Earth first, and the
stories only came afterwards.
coyotes morgan mair fheal
> > note that the old Marvel Comics morlock series had a
> > character ( Called calaban as it turns out!) who looked
> > very like the Gollum in this movie. If I were Marvel
> > Comics, I would sue!
did hg wells publish his stories about morlocks and eloi
before or after jrrt?
trotsky
Noldor wrote:
> "Milo D. Cooper" <mi...@miloonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3E040D34...@miloonline.net...
>
>> Just give up, people. It's a gigantic plot hole. Period.
>
>
>
> You are a broken record. Try some of this on for size. Why didn't eagles
> fly the hobbits from the Shire to Rivendell? Gandalf from Orthanc to the
> Shire? Aragorn and Gandalf to find Gollum? Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas to
> find Pippen and Merry? The Rohirrim to the Pellenor? The Entwives to
> Fanghorn? Gandalf's letter from Bree to the Shire for Butterbur? The Grey
> Company to the Fords of Isen? The Ents to Isengard? Aragorn, Merry, Sam,
> Frodo, Pippen, Gimli, Legolas and Boromir away from Amon Hen? Or 100 other
> things that would have saved lives?
Hey, for that matter, why couldn't Gandalf have conjured magical jet
planes, hovercrafts, and helicopters? Why couldn't they just use a
giant slingshot to shoot the ring at Mt. Doom? Why couldn't Tolkien
just have written a really short story where the ring was dropped in Mr.
Doom by what's his name right after it was cut from Sauron's hand?
Pradera
>
> Hey, for that matter, why couldn't Gandalf have conjured magical jet
> planes, hovercrafts, and helicopters? Why couldn't they just use a
> giant slingshot to shoot the ring at Mt. Doom? Why couldn't Tolkien
> just have written a really short story where the ring was dropped in Mr.
> Doom by what's his name right after it was cut from Sauron's hand?
>
>
Actually, that was what he presented first to Stanley Unwin, as a sequel to
'Hobbit': 'Isildur, or there and back again (again): a short trip to Cracks
of Doom'.
The publisher was not pleased...
--
Pradera
---
"Good morning! How is everyone? Its now 6am. Time for sleepy heads to wake
up! Heres the list of your dead friends in the order they died..."
-Battle Royale
trotsky
"Milo D. Cooper" wrote:
>
> --
>
> >trotsky wrote:
> >> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
> >>> trotsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think the answer is simple: Gandalf doesn't want to
> >>> use the eagles as taxicabs out of respect, and only calls
> >>> them into action when it's a matter of life or death.
> >>
> >> Right, because saving Middle Earth from complete dominion
> >> by a purely evil force, that's not a life-and-death matter.
> >
> > And the reason that everybody didn't die in the hundreds and
> > hundreds of years since the ring was cut from Sauron's hand
> > was what, exactly?
>
> Um, because (1) the ring was lost for a millennium or two, and then
> (2) it waited in Gollum's possession while its master grew strong
> enough to mount another assault. Is this a trick question?
So, what, the ring was having a brain cramp the seventy or eighty years
it was in Bilbo's possession? (I'm guessing on the amount of time that
passed.) And then Frodo got it, and suddenly it was full speed ahead
for Sauron and thus the demise of all the nice creatures in Middle Earth
was imminent?
> >> I've heard that "Eagles are not taxis" explanation before
> >> (apparently Tolkien's own response to this massive hole in
> >> his plot), and no offense to Trot, but it never sounded like
> >> anything more than utter bullsh!t.
> >
> > Oh sure, "Milo", I'm sure it seems that way to you, but what
> > does Otis think?
>
> I can't decide whether that's more or less funny than
> Arnold's "she'll be back" line in the Terminator 3 trailer.
I don't know either, but suddenly a part from "The Last Boy Scout" comes
to mind:
Q: Why did the Milo cross the road?
A: Because his dick was stuck in a chicken.
> >> The Eagles will take part in the Five Armies Battle (_The
> >> Hobbit_), and they'll give Gandalf a lift from Orthanc, but
> >> they won't take the One Ring to Mount Doom, or at least give
> >> Frodo a lift all or part of the way there? Please.
> >>
> >> It's an indefensible, gaping plot hole. To expound on
> >> what JeffC wrote, the reason the Eagles took no part in the
> >> transport of the ring was because Tolkien's story would have
> >> taken about a third as long to tell.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong, _The Lord of the Rings_ is great stuff,
> >> and overall, I like it, despite this gigantic plot hole and
> >> consistently poor characterization. I like _The Silmarillion_
> >> even more. But face facts: Tolkien != infallible.
> >
> > Tolkien spent the better part of his life creating this mythos, and I
> > think it's really intensely lame to think that you have given more
> > thought to his world than he has.
>
> *Shrug* Am I supposed to care what you think?
Only those residing on Planet Milo can say for sure.
*I* think
> it's even lamer that anyone is above your criticism if he
> just spends a really long time working on something.
> Presumably, if someone spends most of his life writing why
> all Eskimoes should be killed, then you won't have a
> problem with his works.
I have *no* idea what the hell that means, but I think it's obvious to
most that the logical assumption is that Tolkien thought such things
through. I also think there's a running theme of Gandalf being well
liked by many because he shows all creatures respect, the concept of
which you seemed to gloss over. "Yes sir Mr. Eagle, the ring has been
hanging around for 2500 years, but Frodo's got it now and we need your
help RIGHT AWAY."
> > In fact, you claim to dislike my explanation, and then come
> > back with "the whole world has survived for 2500 years but
> > it's a matter of life or death." Perhaps you can go back
> > to the drawing board and come back with a valid criticism?
>
> I guess you need to explain to me what's invalid about
> what I wrote. As I recall, Sauron *lost* the war when the
> ring was cut from his hand. Perhaps you don't understand
> that someone wanting to "dominate all life" makes opposing
> him a life-or-death struggle.
It simply isn't an analogous situation to Gandalf's being imprisoned by
Saruman. I suppose it could be argued that this is subjective, but
again, I think I'll always give Tolkien the benefit of the doubt.
"Gaping plot holes" and "Tolkien" go together about as well as oil and
water.
trotsky
"Milo D. Cooper" wrote:
>
> --
>
> > trotsky wrote:
> > Sauron had 2500 years to "muster his forces". If you can explain the
> > specific intent of the knowledge that Gandalf had of Saruman's plans you
> > *might* have an argument. Odds are, though, you have no way of knowing
> > what Gandalf knew and when he knew it. And then you have to explain how
> > this knowledge is more important than Gandalf's not wanting to use the
> > eagles frivolously.
>
> "Frivolously"? He was sent to Middle Earth to help stop Sauron.
> *That was his main reason for existing.* How is help from the
> Eagles in doing this frivolous? What was more important than
> stopping Sauron? WTF are you talking about?
You don't seem to have a good grasp of Gandalf's character. He is
mindful and respectful and friends with many if not all the good
creatures of Middle Earth. This isn't some game of Dungeons and
Dragons. "Okay, if I roll a twenty all the Middle Earth creatures have
to do what Gandalf says." Hey, here's a weird one for ya: what if
Gwaihir said "No," the way Treebeard did when Merry and Pippin first
asked him for help?
> The Eagles will take a dead guy from a field of battle to
> his final resting place (_The Silmarillion_), but they won't
> help stop a force of pure evil from ruling the entire world?
> It's bullsh!t, straight up and wide open.
It's *fantasy*, dude, a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is
required. Tolkien telling a story the way he wants to tell it isn't a
"plot hole".
> >> This plot hole is absolutely indefensible. It represents a
> >> massive oversight on the part of the author. Accept it as such
> >> and move on.
> >
> > You sound very full of yourself, Milo. Have you considered the
> > possiblity that you might be full of shit instead?
>
> No, but I have considered that you're a fan-boy. That
> would explain a lot.
I've never even read the books. The only Tolkien I've read,
coincidentally, was "The Silmarillion". I like the movies quite a bit,
and was even a fan of the Bakshi version. But perhaps you can supply us
with a working definition of "fan-boy". "A guy that believes in gaping
plot holes is a fan boy". Hey, maybe you know where Yodas come from.
trotsky
"Milo D. Cooper" wrote:
>
> --
>
> > trotsky wrote:
> >> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> >>
> >> Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" (Ballantine Books Ed. page 343):
> >>
> >> ' "How far can you bear me?" I [Gandalf] said to Ghaihir.
> >> " "Many leagues," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was
> >> sent to bear tidings not burdens." '
> >
> > Uh oh, it looks like Milo's toast.
>
> Nah. Repost, since you apparently missed it the first time:
Milo, are you new to Usenet? My comment came before your reply, thus
"missing it the first time" isn't humanly possible in this universe.
You have chronology issues, dude.
dawn...@pacifier.com
"Dropped in Mr. Doom"? If you're going to habitually criticize everyone else's
typos, Greg, you better make sure your own posts are clean as a whistle.
Glass houses, babe.
Dawn
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
Perhaps. Or there are times when belief and disbelief are equally
impossible, even though either one could save you.
Jeff Inman
I think he took the oracle seriously, and tried to
outrun it.
Jeff
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> Actually, that was what he presented first to Stanley Unwin, as a sequel to
> 'Hobbit': 'Isildur, or there and back again (again): a short trip to Cracks
> of Doom'.
> The publisher was not pleased...
>
Archie
Bob
Amnell <marko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing occurred to me while reading the final
> part of the trilogy, THE RETURN OF THE KING. Given
> that at the very end of the quest Frodo and Sam are
> saved in the nick of time from certain death by
> Gandalf the Wizard, who swoops down to the slopes
> of Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle to save
> the hobbits from the erupting volcano, why didn't
> the Fellowship of the Ring save time and just fly
> to Mount Doom on the back of giant eagles, march
> up to the Crack of Doom, and toss the One Ring down
> into the lava in which it was forged? Why walk, when
> you can fly? Anyone have an answer to this apparent
> inconsistency? Is it that the Nazgūl, mounted on
> their flying steeds, would intercept the eagle-mounted
> party? Still seems like a better bet than trudging
> halfway across Middle Earth. They could always have
> outmaneuvered the winged beasts. Well, who ever said
> fantasy books were logical.
A rescue mission by a flock of eagles when Sauron's forces has been
routed is very different from a lone ring-bearing eagle trying to make
it to Mount Doom. Mordor was protected by air and land - the eagle
wouldn't get within spitting distance of Mount Doom.
One important facet of the books has been diminished in the movie -
Sauron cannot conceive of anyone wanting to destroy the Ring of Power -
he thinks the Council sent the Ring south be used in an attack against
Mordor. Hence his haste in pressing the attack before it can be used
against him.
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
Of course he took it seriously -- nonetheless, if he had fully believed,
running would have made no sense. The oracle doesn't say "you should
avoid doing x, it says, "you will do x." The future which will have been
no matter what. The play is a reflection on the nature of time, after all.
Of course, he could have killed himself. If he had cared enough to prove
the Gods wrong. As I said, he's suspended between belief and disbelief.
Not an uncommon dilemma, needless to say.
Adrian Whapkaplet
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:3E04A5CC...@email.com...
>
>
>
> You don't seem to have a good grasp of Gandalf's character. He is
> mindful and respectful and friends with many if not all the good
> creatures of Middle Earth. This isn't some game of Dungeons and
> Dragons. "Okay, if I roll a twenty all the Middle Earth creatures have
> to do what Gandalf says." Hey, here's a weird one for ya: what if
> Gwaihir said "No," the way Treebeard did when Merry and Pippin first
> asked him for help?
>
I've always thought that Gandalf and Elrond would dismiss it as the stupid
idea it is. What is the first sign that then enemy is searching for them
after the fellowship leaves Rivendell? Flocks of black birds watching them.
If these flocks of black birds saw Eagles flying people towards Mordor it
wouldnt take Sauron long to figure out what was up, and beyond that have his
flocks of birds attack the flying eagles forcing them to ground.
Jeff Inman
The future-perfect thing. I don't have a problem with
that. But he runs, anyhow. I don't think that that so
much calls into doubt whether he "believes". I guess
I'd have to agree that it suggests he thinks it might
be possible to outrun fate. That quality is, I think,
part of what makes the oracle relevant to him.
I don't think of it as a reflection on the nature of time,
but rather on the nature of self-knowledge. Reminiscent
of "On Truth and Lie outside the Moral Sense" [the way my
probably-bad translation has it]:
"And woe to that fatal curiosity which might one day
have the power to peer out and down through a crack
in the chamber of consciousness and then suspect that
man is sustained in the indifference of his ignorance
by that which is pitiliess, greedy, insatiable, and
murderous -- as if hanging in dreams on the back of
a tiger."
> Of course, he could have killed himself. If he had cared enough to prove
> the Gods wrong. As I said, he's suspended between belief and disbelief.
> Not an uncommon dilemma, needless to say.
Not uncommon. Just a minor dispute about whether the
way to describe it is as not-quite-fully-believing.
Divided against himself, or in denial, or something,
sounds more authentic to me. And that's not a judgement
of weakness, exactly, either, though he does seem weak
in other ways, which are I think what makes the oracle
work in the first place. It's an oracle for exactly him.
Still, another oracle (according to Sophocles) has it
that the nation that holds his tomb will be blessed
by it. Right? My interpretation of that -- Jungian,
I suppose -- is that the struggle with the results of
that "fatal curiosity" is ultimately something that
produces life.
[I just noticed that Graves makes a bunch of interesting
connections with the sacrifice of the old king at the
winter solstice. One tradition had it that the new king
was symbolically the son of the old, and that he took up
with the widow. This was then twisted to be a story about
a literal son. Probably blindingly obvious, so to speak.]
By the way, have you ever seen the movie "Angel heart"?
Jeff
liwei7448
Boromir played as less of a villan in the extended version, but I was
dismayed that Faramir was so reduced. What was Jackson looking to
achieve by bringing Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath?
Another sore point, besides the reduction of Gimli's character to a
mere clown, is the weakening of Aragorn's character. I understand the
need for adding romance and drama to a story lacking in these, but the
Eowyn/Aragorn thing is a bit much.
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
> smw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Perhaps. Or there are times when belief and disbelief are equally
>>>>impossible, even though either one could save you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think he took the oracle seriously, and tried to
>>>outrun it.
>>>
>>Of course he took it seriously -- nonetheless, if he had fully believed,
>>running would have made no sense. The oracle doesn't say "you should
>>avoid doing x, it says, "you will do x." The future which will have been
>>no matter what. The play is a reflection on the nature of time, after all.
>>
>
> The future-perfect thing. I don't have a problem with
> that. But he runs, anyhow. I don't think that that so
> much calls into doubt whether he "believes". I guess
> I'd have to agree that it suggests he thinks it might
> be possible to outrun fate. That quality is, I think,
> part of what makes the oracle relevant to him.
I still think there's a historical moment here, staged, dramatized -- a
transition. From belief to skepticism, from myth (via tragedy) to
philosophy, also from monarchy to the Athenian version of democracy.
> I don't think of it as a reflection on the nature of time,
> but rather on the nature of self-knowledge.
They're the same thing to me -- the tension between general and
particular self-knowledge, between "man is four-footed in the morning,
two-footed ...," and "I am the man who..." -- but both are linked to
time, and after the revelation, the chorus comments "Time the all-seing
one has caught you." Oedipus in putting himself in the position of his
own begetter fucks with time, something the Greek brings out not just in
the explicit reference to time but in phrases like ?"teknounta kai
teknoumenon" -- begotten begetter isn't the half of it, since it's with
"o tekna" that Oedipus starts out, addressing all of Thebes as his
children.
Reminiscent
> of "On Truth and Lie outside the Moral Sense" [the way my
> probably-bad translation has it]:
>
> "And woe to that fatal curiosity which might one day
> have the power to peer out and down through a crack
> in the chamber of consciousness and then suspect that
> man is sustained in the indifference of his ignorance
> by that which is pitiliess, greedy, insatiable, and
> murderous -- as if hanging in dreams on the back of
> a tiger."
Hey, a favorite passage. But does it really apply to Oedipus? Isn't that
Iocasta's line?
>
>
>>Of course, he could have killed himself. If he had cared enough to prove
>>the Gods wrong. As I said, he's suspended between belief and disbelief.
>>Not an uncommon dilemma, needless to say.
>>
>
> Not uncommon. Just a minor dispute about whether the
> way to describe it is as not-quite-fully-believing.
> Divided against himself, or in denial, or something,
> sounds more authentic to me.
Fine with me -- sounds pretty close to what I meant when I called it
suspended in-between -- didn't mean to suggest he was wishy-washy about
anything he does.
And that's not a judgement
> of weakness, exactly, either, though he does seem weak
> in other ways, which are I think what makes the oracle
> work in the first place. It's an oracle for exactly him.
Not sure about that. Perhaps I'm too Freudian. Seems that trying to
outrun the oracle is part of the genre.
> Still, another oracle (according to Sophocles) has it
> that the nation that holds his tomb will be blessed
> by it. Right?
Oedipus at Colonus -- he becomes Athen's guardian corpse. Might be a bit
of a sly critique of Sophocles' home-town, too. The longer I work on the
play, the harder to swallow the line of "pious Sophocles" becomes.
There's no anticipation of the Colonus plot in OtK, though. And the O at
Colonus is a very different character -- he keeps talking about how it
wasn't his fault, he didn't know, he shouldn't have been treated that
way, and as if there hadn't been enough trouble in his line, he curses
his sons to die by each other's hand.
It's important to keep in mind that there are quite a few tellings of
the myth where Oedipus does just fine, keeps the throne, dies
peacefully. I remember reading the "Phoenician Women" for the first time
-- the shock when it turns out that Oedipus is still around, mumbling
away inside the palace. In that one, Iocasta only kills herself after
her sons kill each other.
My interpretation of that -- Jungian,
> I suppose -- is that the struggle with the results of
> that "fatal curiosity" is ultimately something that
> produces life.
Nietzsche has a nice speculation on Colonus in Birth of Tragedy. Check
it out, I know you'll like.
> [I just noticed that Graves makes a bunch of interesting
> connections with the sacrifice of the old king at the
> winter solstice. One tradition had it that the new king
> was symbolically the son of the old, and that he took up
> with the widow. This was then twisted to be a story about
> a literal son. Probably blindingly obvious, so to speak.]
In a way. As you can imagine, a reading immensely useful to my project.
> By the way, have you ever seen the movie "Angel heart"?
No. Good?
>
Jeff Inman
> Jeff Inman wrote:
[snipped interesting discussion that seems to have wrapped up.]
I'll re-read Nietzsche on Oedipus.
> > By the way, have you ever seen the movie "Angel heart"?
>
> No. Good?
Well, yeah. I don't want to say too much about it.
Jeff
Milo D. Cooper
> Noldor wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Just give up, people. It's a gigantic plot hole. Period.
>
> You are a broken record. Try some of this on for size. Why
> didn't eagles fly the hobbits from the Shire to Rivendell?
> Gandalf from Orthanc to the Shire? Aragorn and Gandalf to
> find Gollum? Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas to find Pippen and
> Merry? The Rohirrim to the Pellenor? The Entwives to Fanghorn?
> Gandalf's lette0r from Bree to the Shire for Butterbur? The
> Grey Company to the Fords of Isen? The Ents to Isengard?
> Aragorn, Merry, Sam, Frodo, Pippen, Gimli, Legolas and
> Boromir away from Amon Hen? Or 100 other things that would
> have saved lives?
Who cares? If the Eagles had simply flown Frodo part or
all of the way to Mordor, probably *none* of the things you
mention would have been concerns (with the exception of the
irrelevant Entwives/Fanghorn point).
> Get the picture? The eagles -could- have done everything,
> just as Eru -could- have done everything and the Valar
> -could- have done everything, are all these things plot
> holes?
The tenet of non-direct interference practiced by Ilúvatar
and his Valar are patently established in _The Silmarillion_,
so no, the absence of direct aid from those parties is not a
plot hole. Besides, the gods *did* send help, in the form of
the Istari. They even sent one *back* after he was killed.
That's a sh!t lot more than the Eagles ever did.
> Would you prefer a book of eagles flying people around?
It isn't a question of preference. I'd prefer to eat
tulips instead of cockraoches, but that doesn't mean that I
like to eat tulips. The prospect of the eagles flying people
around doesn't make a big-ass plot hole any more attractive.
> How about Gandalf uses that staff of his and blasts twenty
> thousand or so orcs into oblivion instead of all those
> pesky battles? Then the ents can knock down the black gate
> and divert the Aunduin to flood Mordor. Does that theory
> make for a "gigantic plot hole"? Lots of stuff -could-
> happen.
Was Gandalf even capable of doing that? Again, though,
preference is not an issue. What's bad is bad.
> Facts are nobody on our side has been to Mordor for a
> long long time, flying in on eagles with the ring would be
> insanely reckless.
> [...]
Again: Even if you cling to the many unfounded
presumptions associated with "flying into Mordor is
suicide," there is still the question of flying *most* of
the way to Mordor, which would clearly not be suicidal,
and which would have saved a sh!tload of time and lives.
Milo D. Cooper
> trotsky wrote:
>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>> Milo D. Cooper wrote:
>>>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the answer is simple: Gandalf doesn't want to
>>>>>use the eagles as taxicabs out of respect, and only calls
>>>>>them into action when it's a matter of life or death.
>>>>
>>>> Right, because saving Middle Earth from complete dominion
>>>
>> >> by a purely evil force, that's not a life-and-death matter.
>>
>>>And the reason that everybody didn't die in the hundreds and
>>
>> > hundreds of years since the ring was cut from Sauron's hand
>> > was what, exactly?
>>
>> Um, because (1) the ring was lost for a millennium or two,
>> and then (2) it waited in Gollum's possession while its master
>> grew strong enough to mount another assault. Is this a trick
>> question?
>
> So, what, the ring was having a brain cramp the seventy or
> eighty years it was in Bilbo's possession? (I'm guessing on
> the amount of time that passed.) And then Frodo got it, and
> suddenly it was full speed ahead for Sauron and thus the
> demise of all the nice creatures in Middle Earth was imminent?
Obviously, yes. Bilbo was able to wear the ring without
the Eye of Sauron saying, "How ya doin'," so the Dark Lord
of volcano-land clearly wasn't powered up, yet. Then, he
gets powered up and he learns from Gollum that it's in the
Shire, and suddenly it's on for everyone in Middle Earth.
> [... childish response removed...]
>
>>> Tolkien spent the better part of his life creating this
>>> mythos, and I think it's really intensely lame to think
>>> that you have given more thought to his world than he has.
>>
>> *Shrug* Am I supposed to care what you think?
>
> Only those residing on Planet Milo can say for sure.
>
>> *I* think it's even lamer that anyone is above your
>> criticism if he just spends a really long time working on
>> something. Presumably, if someone spends most of his life
>> writing why all Eskimoes should be killed, then you won't
>> have a problem with his works.
>
> I have *no* idea what the hell that means,
It means that defending something simply because someone
spent a long time making it is lame.
> but I think it's obvious to most that the logical
> assumption is that Tolkien thought such things through. I
How is that logical? What sense is there in your
conclusion that someone who spends a long time creating
something complex is incapable of making a blunder in it?
> also think there's a running theme of Gandalf being well
> liked by many because he shows all creatures respect, the
> concept of which you seemed to gloss over. "Yes sir Mr.
> Eagle, the ring has been hanging around for 2500 years,
> but Frodo's got it now and we need your help RIGHT AWAY."
How would his saying that be a sign of disrespect?
What, I can't ask someone for help because I respect him?
Logically, the Eagles would have agrred to help if for no
other reason than to see to their own future well-being.
>> I guess you need to explain to me what's invalid about
>> what I wrote. As I recall, Sauron *lost* the war when the
>> ring was cut from his hand. Perhaps you don't understand
>> that someone wanting to "dominate all life" makes opposing
>> him a life-or-death struggle.
>
> It simply isn't an analogous situation to Gandalf's being
> imprisoned by Saruman.
Yeah, it's much, much worse. I guess the Eagles only
pitch in when it isn't that important. Some "noble" race.
> I suppose it could be argued that this is subjective, but
> again, I think I'll always give Tolkien the benefit of
> the doubt.
Yes, you clearly will.
> "Gaping plot holes" and "Tolkien" go together about as
> well as oil and water.
What's it like, lugging around that mental block?
Marko Amnell
> > The future-perfect thing. I don't have a problem with
> > that. But he runs, anyhow. I don't think that that so
> > much calls into doubt whether he "believes". I guess
> > I'd have to agree that it suggests he thinks it might
> > be possible to outrun fate. That quality is, I think,
> > part of what makes the oracle relevant to him.
>
>
> I still think there's a historical moment here, staged, dramatized --
> a transition. From belief to skepticism, from myth (via tragedy) to
> philosophy, also from monarchy to the Athenian version of democracy.
That, incidentally, is exactly Georg Lukacs's main argument in
"Integrated Civilizations", his essay on the development of
ancient Greek culture.
Sample quote:
"Just as the reality of the essence, as it discharges into life and
gives birth to life, betrays the loss of its pure immanence in life,
so this problematic basis of tragedy becomes visible, becomes a
problem, only in philosophy; only when the essence, having completely
divorced itself from life, became sole and absolute, the transcendent
reality, and when the creative act of philosophy had revealed tragic
destiny as the cruel and senseless arbitrariness of the empirical, the
hero's passion as earthbound and his self-accomplishment merely as
the limitation of the contingent subject, did tragedy's answer to
the question of life and essence appear no longer as natural and
self-evident but as a miracle, a slender yet firm rainbow bridging
bottomless depths." (p 184 of THE LUCKACS READER, ed. Arpad Kadarkay)
Marko Amnell
> Dear marko,
> All true. Gandolf looks much like Wotan in Wagner's Ring.
Also, the most obvious similarity of all: The world of
Norse mythology is called "Midgard", which means literally
"Middle-earth".
fanuidhol
>
> The tenet of non-direct interference practiced by Ilúvatar
> and his Valar are patently established in _The Silmarillion_,
> so no, the absence of direct aid from those parties is not a
> plot hole. Besides, the gods *did* send help, in the form of
> the Istari. They even sent one *back* after he was killed.
> That's a sh!t lot more than the Eagles ever did.
>
The answer I would give as to why the Eagle-Mt. Doom idea did not happen
is the attitude and nature of the Eagles themselves. For one thing, they
are a sentient, non-angelic race, and despite the fact that they're
Manwe's messengers to some extent (I admit I'm a bit rusty on my
Silmarillion though), I would regard Manwe ordering the Eagles to drop
the ring in Mt. Doom as a bigger plothole still, because (to my mind) the
Eagles were more independent from the Valar than the Maiar were.
In the Hobbit and LOTR, we get some kind of indication as to the nature
of the Eagles through Gwaihir, and the impressions I get are along these
lines:
* The Eagles are somewhat aloof in regards to paying attention to the
troubles of the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, not unlike how the
Elves would be aloof regarding the troubles of Hobbits in the Shire (only
moreso);
* The aid of the Eagles is not to be expected, or taken for granted, even
by Gandalf;
* The Eagles could only be 'called into action' by Manwe (my assumption,
someone correct me if I'm wrong), which would conflict with the non-
direct interference rule usually used (depending on your reading of
"direct"). I would guess that each of these points were probably
introduced by Tolkien in an attempt to explain why his deus-ex-machina
Eagles were only used on certain rare occasions.
Comments from Gwaihir regarding the physical limitations of the Eagles
("I was sent to bear tidings not burdens", etc.) not withstanding, my
thoughts from reading the books is that Gwaihir would simply not accept
the job. I would imagine that he would say that it was not his
task/concern, or that he would have the wisdom to know that the quest was
not for him to undertake (Elrond says the same at the Council, despite
the fact that Frodo is not the wisest, strongest, etc.: "I think that
this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way,
no one will"). In a way, it would be like asking Tom Bombadil to do the
job, though he has other reasons still for not doing it.
IMHO/YMMV of course, but I believe a story-internal explanation already
exists in the books, even if it is subtle or open to interpretation.
trotsky
I see. So it's inappropriate to truncate "drop the ring in the fires of
Mt. Doom" to "drop in Mt. Doom"? Methinks you're full of shit, Dawnie.
There are plenty of things about me to criticize, buy my attention to
detail isn't one of them. Please make a note of this.