|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Oct 14 2012, 11:58am
Views: 1287
Shortcut
|
...there were comments above about the Nazgul as willing servants of Sauron....this is the opposite to the real situation. They were utterly enslaved through their rings And you're right, calling the Nazgul "willing servants" is to ignore their backstory completely. I wasn't thinking of the backstory though, but of the story's present, after the Nazgul had long ago gone over completely to the "dark side", and had become trusted servants of Sauron. I'm no expert on the Appendices and other writings, that's for sure, but as far as I can see the Nazgul are long past feeling any reluctance about serving Sauron, and now feel entirely on his side. At least, if their thoughts at Crickhollow ("Let the little people blow! Sauron would deal with them later...") are more than just the invention of the narrator(s), then they suggest to me that the Nazgul feel themselves in sympathy with Sauron. You're right of course that they were "enslaved" long ago, but I think they now serve Sauron willingly, and out of more than just fear. In this they are very different from the orcs, who (as the hobbits see and hear at first hand) are always looking for ways to rebel, and are only kept in line by the fear that they are under constant surveillance by the impersonal, unknowable Eye. (Think East Germany, The Lives of Others, Nineteen Eighty-Four...)
That's what I noticed when I read the sections in which we overhear orcs' thoughts and behaviour. They never mention Sauron by name, and always call him the "Great Eye". It's almost a taboo, or a kind of group-think. It's different with other races - Sauron can't cow them in the same way because his "Eye" doesn't (yet) reach that far. So when talking to Dwarves, Men or whoever, Sauron's servants do present him as a personal Dark Lord and use his name accordingly.
So if Tolkien "goofed", I reckon he only goofed in not spelling out his thoughts completely in Aragorn's words. I find it hard to believe that an author would know his own characters so poorly that he would write something about one of them (and his chief villain at that!) that's just wrong. And I certainly don't buy answers that offend the conventions of storytelling (such as "the info was out of date", or "Aragorn doesn't know everything"), because whatever else he may be accused of, Tolkien is an excellent storyteller, and by storytelling convention, information that is given in this unqualified way is meant to be accepted by the reader as correct. Those kinds of explanations would only work if there was some payoff for them, which there isn't. By the law of Occam's Razor, then, I would argue that the simplest explanation is that Tolkien was writing something that did make sense in his own mind for Sauron's character, but that he never spelled out well enough to satisfy the nitpickers among us!
(Edited to add: sorry I got a bit far from my reply to your point, ElendilTheShort.  Some of the above is just meant as general rambling theorizing on the original topic...)
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Oct 14 2012, 12:06pm)
|
|
|
|
Subject
|
User
|
Time
|
A so called "inconsistency"
|
aruman
|
Oct 11 2012, 12:54pm
|
Your conclusion is what I've always thought myself.
|
CuriousG
|
Oct 11 2012, 4:28pm
|
|
Thanks...
|
aruman
|
Oct 11 2012, 6:04pm
|
|
Inconsistency is as inconsistency does
|
squire
|
Oct 11 2012, 6:41pm
|
|
Inconsistency vs. complexity
|
CuriousG
|
Oct 11 2012, 8:13pm
|
|
Exactly
|
aruman
|
Oct 12 2012, 1:34am
|
|
That's not what I would call complexity.
|
sador
|
Oct 12 2012, 12:41pm
|
|
"No doubt?" Really?
|
aruman
|
Oct 12 2012, 3:33pm
|
|
Plenty of doubt, when you think about it
|
CuriousG
|
Oct 12 2012, 7:10pm
|
|
technically, runes versus letters...
|
Elthir
|
Oct 13 2012, 10:24pm
|
|
Thank you!
|
aruman
|
Oct 14 2012, 4:51pm
|
|
What reason would Sauron have at that point...
|
mandel
|
Oct 11 2012, 11:56pm
|
|
Maybe
|
aruman
|
Oct 12 2012, 1:30am
|
|
From Parma Eldalamberon 17, Saura (Quenya) = foul, vile...
|
Tweezers of Thu
|
Oct 12 2012, 12:49pm
|
|
So, it's not his real name.
|
Elizabeth
|
Oct 12 2012, 8:47pm
|
|
By Jove, er, Jupiter, I mean...Zeus!
|
Tweezers of Thu
|
Oct 12 2012, 10:08pm
|
|
My take...
|
Morthoron
|
Oct 13 2012, 1:45am
|
|
This...
|
Tweezers of Thu
|
Oct 13 2012, 3:57pm
|
|
A Dark Lord by any other name...
|
Elthir
|
Oct 13 2012, 10:48pm
|
|
You might be right, i.e., . . .
|
Tweezers of Thu
|
Oct 15 2012, 1:25pm
|
|
My take on it as well and what is Aragorn's "real" name anyway?
|
telain
|
Oct 19 2012, 1:19pm
|
|
S is for Sauron
|
Elthir
|
Oct 19 2012, 6:09pm
|
|
true, true!
|
telain
|
Oct 20 2012, 11:25am
|
|
The meaning 'disgusting, foul, vile'...
|
Elthir
|
Oct 13 2012, 10:30pm
|
|
Thanks for the correction!
|
Tweezers of Thu
|
Oct 13 2012, 10:46pm
|
|
Another distinction
|
Phibbus
|
Oct 18 2012, 3:47am
|
|
Why do you assume the MoS was permitted to use the name?
|
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
|
Oct 20 2012, 12:49pm
|
|
Perhaps there is consistency
|
Plurmo
|
Oct 12 2012, 4:27am
|
|
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
|
FarFromHome
|
Oct 12 2012, 10:35am
|
|
It could have been
|
ElendilTheShort
|
Oct 13 2012, 8:36am
|
|
That would be me...
|
FarFromHome
|
Oct 14 2012, 11:58am
|
|
Can one be "willing" or "unwilling" when one no longer has a will?
|
squire
|
Oct 14 2012, 1:35pm
|
|
Good point
|
FarFromHome
|
Oct 14 2012, 8:21pm
|
|
I'm of the opinion loyalty must be a willing choice
|
ElendilTheShort
|
Oct 15 2012, 6:52am
|
|
A couple great points here
|
aruman
|
Oct 14 2012, 5:10pm
|
|
Question
|
aruman
|
Oct 14 2012, 5:19pm
|
|
Excellent question
|
CuriousG
|
Oct 18 2012, 8:13pm
|
|
The Difficulty of having a Lord one can't name...
|
Morthoron
|
Oct 19 2012, 3:49am
|
|
Very nice!
|
sador
|
Oct 21 2012, 8:25am
|
|
|
|
