|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 10 2008, 4:54am
Post #1 of 23
(2121 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Tower of Cirith Ungol I: "A remarkable case of the author nodding"
|
Can't Post
|
|
Welcome to this week's discussion of LotR, as we begin Book 6! Leaving us with that cliffhanger ending - what does it forbode, the eagles coming? Is Pippin gone for good? Is this the end for Aragorn and his troops? - we now return to pick up the trail of Frodo and Sam, eleven days earlier on March 14th.
When last we left them, Frodo was being carried by Orcs into the stronghold of Cirith Ungol. Sam followed behind, able to catch much of the convesation between Shagrat of Cirith Ungol and Gorbag of Minal Morgul, thanks to his wearing the Ring. But he misjudged distance and was knocked out when he slammed into the brazen doors of the fortress. ("Brazen" - love that word!) He now begins to recover, and Tolkien provides a refresher of what is happening at that moment with the remaining Fellowship members.
Do you find that summary helpful in establishing where we are in the story, or do you get disoriented by this sudden regression?
Realizing it would be hopeless to try to enter the Tower by these doors, Sam makes the decision to enter it from the outside, and climbs back over the stone door and heads down the tunnel and out. Coming to the cleft, seeing the crown of the path ahead of him and realizing his entering Mordor was "irrevocable", "Without any clear purpose he drew out the Ring and put it on again." Wait - put the Ring on? From Hammond and Scull's Companion: "A reader pointed out to Christopher Tolkien that Sam put on the Ring at the end of Book IV, and now 'put it on again', but there is no intervening reference to him taking it off. Christopher agreed that 'this does seem to be a most remarkable case of the author nodding'".
Did you notice this curious gaffe? Or, having left this thread of the story for so long, would you have noticed it, and does it really matter? When/where might Sam have removed the Ring, and why?
Sam feels the weight of the Ring - a physical burden - and "the malice of the Eye of Mordor, searching, trying to pierce the shadows that it had made for its own defence, but which now hindered it in its unquiet and doubt." There's that "hindrance" once more; but this time, it is caused by a device of the Enemy's own creation.
He hears the orcs fighting amongst themselves, and senses this as a call to action. "He took off the Ring, moved it may be by some deep premonition of danger, though to himself he thought only that he wished to see more clearly.
Why did Sam remove the Ring this time? Practicality? Instinct? A "nudge" from a Higher Power?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Nov 10 2008, 8:59am
Post #2 of 23
(1596 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"...the thing needed looking after;
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
it did not seem always of the same size or weight; it shrank or expanded in an odd way, and might suddenly slip off a finger where it had been tight.'
'Yes, he warned me of that in his last letter,' said Frodo, 'so I have always kept it on this chain.'
- The Shadow of the Past
But yes, Tolkien should have mentioned it (like he did at the end of A Knife in the Dark), and his not explaining this seems a case of negligence (I would have said someone cannot sleep or swoon with the Ring on - if not for Bilbo and the end of The Clouds Burst).
And no, I did not notice this gaffe until you pointed it out.
"I wonder if they think of us at all" - Sam
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Nov 10 2008, 3:13pm
Post #3 of 23
(1608 views)
Shortcut
|
the mention of the date (March 14) and the few looks back to the west helped position this part of the story.
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Nov 11 2008, 12:58am
Post #4 of 23
(1603 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you find that summary helpful in establishing where we are in the story, or do you get disoriented by this sudden regression?
Absolutely helpful-saved me yet another detour to have a look at the timeline.
Did you notice this curious gaffe?
Nope
Or, having left this thread of the story for so long, would you have noticed it, and does it really matter?
Nope and ummm...maybe.
When/where might Sam have removed the Ring, and why?
Hmmm...no mention of him taking it off between misjudging the distance (due to "some trick of the tunnel, or of the hearing which the Ring gave him...") and knocking himself silly. My best guess would be that he took off the Ring a few moments after he roused himself as he "struggled to steady himself and think." As he goes back over the door and onward, his vision seems "normal" at least no references to haziness here. I think Tolkien provided the reason for Sam's removing the ring in giving Sam that moment to think. I can't imagine that it fell off and Sam recovered it-that would have had to be explained, don't you think?
Why did Sam remove the Ring this time? Practicality? Instinct? A "nudge" from a Higher Power?
All of the above?
Being practical--twice now his hearing has deceived him-due to the Ring? And he knows his vision is being effected. Instinct-nudge combined (conscience)-after all he has witnessed Frodo's experiences and he has been in the presence of Elrond, Galadriel, and others.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 11 2008, 1:36am
Post #5 of 23
(1606 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a good possibility, that the Ring re-sized itself and slipped off Sam's finger.
Where would it end up? Not in his pocket; but also not on the floor somewhere, where some orc could pick it up, and after a few fights for possession, it would have found its way back to Sauron.
The Ring was kept on a chain, I assume one thin enough to not impede its being slipped onto a finger. No matter its size (within reason), it would have stayed on the chain around Sam's neck.
So your idea that the Ring could come off on its own makes a good UUT (Utterly Unsupportable Theory, a time-honored tradition on these Boards).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 11 2008, 1:38am
Post #6 of 23
(1582 views)
Shortcut
|
Timewise, that is; I'm also appreciative of these moments when Tolkien pauses in the narrative to put the entire story in perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 11 2008, 3:01am
Post #7 of 23
(1569 views)
Shortcut
|
in picking up on Sam's clearer sight. You've also got a good UUT (see definition in my reply to sador above): Sam took it off while he was deciding on his next course of action, and this fact was inadvertently left out of the narration.
As to why Sam removed the Ring the second time - yes, I tend to go with "all of the above" as well, this is a complex moment!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Nov 11 2008, 5:36am
Post #8 of 23
(1580 views)
Shortcut
|
Does that mean that throughout this entire time, pursuing orcs, Sam dangled his hand up near his throat? The chain-bit always felt kind of awkward to me. Did the chain have a latch for easy removal and reattachment? Yet why would the elves put it on such a clasp? And which of the elves did Elrond trust to chain the ring in the first place?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Nov 11 2008, 9:03am
Post #9 of 23
(1582 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting comment by C. Tolkien
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
about "the author nodding", because the "author" of this part of the story must be Sam, and he was certainly out of it for a while there! 
There are two moments when Sam might have taken the Ring off, but not mentioned it in the emotion of the moment. One is as he wakes, as others have mentioned. Another is at the end of book IV, when he chases after the orcs, brandishing Sting and yelling. "No one heeded him. The great doors slammed to." But Sam was trying to be noticed - so maybe he took off the Ring then to try to reveal himself, right before he hit the gates and fell to the ground. Either way, he forgot to mention the Ring at this point, because other more urgent things were in his mind. (In fact, the Ring's only importance, once Sam is chasing after the orcs, is the way it enhances his hearing and makes him misjudge distances - a very odd property that Frodo has never mentioned, as far as I recall. Did it work this way in The Hobbit at all?)
The idea that Tolkien saw his tale as being told by its protagonists, and not necessarily all known even to him, gets some support from this Letter (#268), quoted a while back in a discussion you may remember, about whether Shadowfax went on the ship with Gandalf:
"I feel it is better not to state everything (and indeed it is more realistic, since in chronicles and accounts of 'real' history, many facts that some enquirer would like to know are omitted, and the truth has to be discovered or guessed from such evidence as there is). ... A chronicler winding up a long tale, and for the moment moved principally by the sorrow of those left behind (himself among them!) might omit mention of the horse..."
And so might a chronicler omit mention of taking off the Ring, in the throes of such a moment of high emotion as this one. Whether the error is really Tolkien's or Sam's, it seems like a very natural mistake to make. And if Tolkien stands by his assertion that this is the story as told by his "chroniclers", how can he go wrong? 
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Nov 11 2008, 9:37am
Post #10 of 23
(1579 views)
Shortcut
|
Frodo felt his hearing was much improved, and hears Gollum's footsteps by vitrue of his keen hearing,
Also, in 'Lothlorien' he hears Gollum, while Gimli (who seems to pride himself on his hearing) does not.
(which makes it even more odd that he didn't hear Boromir's horn - and when he was on Amon Lhaw, no less!)
"I wonder if they think of us at all" - Sam
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 11 2008, 1:26pm
Post #11 of 23
(1593 views)
Shortcut
|
I've wondered about that, too: who was it, who put the Ring on a chain around Frodo's neck while he slept, and how could he not have been "tempted" by it? Was there a clasp? How thick was the chain? Of what metal? How long was it: did it have to be removed from the neck before being put on, or could one wear it on its chain without looking like one's arm was in a sling?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Nov 12 2008, 12:51am
Post #12 of 23
(1583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
help me with the Ring-thing...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Let's see: it's been hanging on a chain placed around Frodo's neck, back in Rivendell, right?
Yet in the Shire, Frodo wore the chain on his belt:
Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt
Perhaps Sam wore the ring that way, the way Frodo wore it back in the Shire? If so, he could easily slip it on and off his finger without removing it from the chain.
I may have overlooked an obvious point ruling out Sam wearing the chain on his belt, though.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"If any one had begun to rehearse a History, say not I know it well; and if he relate it not right and fully, shake not thine head, twinkle not thine eyes, and snigger not thereat; much less maist thou say, 'It is not so; you deceive yourself.'"
From: Youth's Behaviour, or, Decency in Conversation amongst Men, composed in French by Grave Persons, for the use and benefit of their Youth. The tenth impression. London, 1672
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 12 2008, 2:23am
Post #13 of 23
(1553 views)
Shortcut
|
took the Ring off of Frodo, "he bent his own neck and put the chain upon it"; then later he was "drawing out the chain and taking the Ring in his hand" before putting it on. By this, I'm assuming that he pulled the chain out of his shirt, but kept it still around his neck.
I'm guessing that the chain had to be a considerably long one for that hand to not be encumbered by it, especially when he's running and then pulling out Sting! But it does seem very awkward.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Nov 12 2008, 5:08am
Post #14 of 23
(1561 views)
Shortcut
|
Welcome to this week's discussion of LotR, as we begin Book 6! Leaving us with that cliffhanger ending - what does it forbode, the eagles coming? Is Pippin gone for good? Is this the end for Aragorn and his troops?
For all of its deep philosophical and psychological significance, The Lord of the Rings is one rattlin' good tale! This is the stuff that separates great authors like Tolkien from the chaff!
Do you find that summary helpful in establishing where we are in the story, or do you get disoriented by this sudden regression?
Depends - if I'm reading directly from Book IV (which I was last time), then it's not necessary, but nonetheless.
Did you notice this curious gaffe? Or, having left this thread of the story for so long, would you have noticed it, and does it really matter? When/where might Sam have removed the Ring, and why?
I did notice this the last time through - the most likely explanation is an error on Tolkien's part, I think. It doesn't really matter, though.
Why did Sam remove the Ring this time? Practicality? Instinct? A "nudge" from a Higher Power?
All of the above, perhaps? For all his being simple and uneducated, Sam is neither stupid nor foolish. Sam was there at Weathertop, and understands that Sauron and his servants can see you more clearly if you are wearing the Ring than if you are not, and by now Sam does realize that he is on the boundaries of Mordor, and is about to walk in. I don't think it requires help from a Higher Power to figure out that he better take the Ring off, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get some. He's got the star-glass now, too, remember.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Nov 13 2008, 2:32pm
Post #15 of 23
(1554 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you find that summary helpful in establishing where we are in the story, or do you get disoriented by this sudden regression?
I find it helpful.
Did you notice this curious gaffe? Or, having left this thread of the story for so long, would you have noticed it, and does it really matter? When/where might Sam have removed the Ring, and why?
No, I never noticed it on multiple readings. Nor, apparently, did Tolkien in multiple revisions, despite all the letters sent to him by fans. Which, to me, makes it rather unimportant. Sam certainly could have removed the Ring after the orcs left, it makes sense for him to do so, and I've always assumed he did so, even if the narrator forgot to mention it. It's a fair nitpick, but it's a nitpick, with little relevance to the story. I'm much more interested in why the Nazgul fled Weathertop, or why Bombadil is so flamboyantly magical, or why the Enemy never seizes the high ground, or how Aragorn governs without taxes or tribute, or who enforces Bilbo's will, or why Legolas doesn't take all the watches since he doesn't have to sleep, or who washes the laundry and cleans the floors in Rivendell, or where Bilbo gets his money that didn't come from Smaug's treasure, or where the orcs of Moria get their food, or where Aragorn's ancestors got their wives, or any of numerous other questions that are not as easily answered or as unimportant to the story.
Why did Sam remove the Ring this time? Practicality? Instinct? A "nudge" from a Higher Power?
Tolkien leaves the answer ambiguous. Even if it is a premonition, it's unclear whether it was sent or based on intuition. It could just be a logical reaction to the palpable "malice of the Eye of Mordor." I happen to believe that the Higher Powers are involved and interested in every step of Sam's journey, and certainly capable of giving Sam a nudge, but Tolkien, as usual, leaves open other possibilities.
(This post was edited by Curious on Nov 13 2008, 2:33pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Nov 13 2008, 2:40pm
Post #16 of 23
(1524 views)
Shortcut
|
Does that mean that throughout this entire time, pursuing orcs, Sam dangled his hand up near his throat?
No.
Did the chain have a latch for easy removal and reattachment?
Yes.
Yet why would the elves put it on such a clasp?
To keep it safe. Elvish clasps do not come undone, and Elvish chains do not break.
And which of the elves did Elrond trust to chain the ring in the first place?
You may be thinking of the movie, when Gandalf was afraid to even touch the Ring. In the book Gandalf touched it briefly, and Elrond, Gandalf, Sam, or one of the other elves could have touched it briefly to put it on the chain.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Nov 13 2008, 2:46pm
Post #17 of 23
(1560 views)
Shortcut
|
I've wondered about that, too: who was it, who put the Ring on a chain around Frodo's neck while he slept, and how could he not have been "tempted" by it?
Again, in the book Gandalf briefly held the Ring in Bag End without succumbing to temptation, and Elrond, Gandalf, Sam, or another elf could have done the same while putting the Ring on the chain.
Was there a clasp?
Yes.
How thick was the chain?
Probably not thick at all, and quite light, but marvelously strong.
Of what metal?
Mithril would do the job, in the hands of Noldor jewelers.
How long was it: did it have to be removed from the neck before being put on, or could one wear it on its chain without looking like one's arm was in a sling?
I don't think anyone wore it while it was still on the chain. But I don't think the chain had to be removed from the neck, either. Just find the clasp and unclasp it.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Nov 13 2008, 4:29pm
Post #18 of 23
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
One of my favorite games is filling in the gaps, so I have some of my own answers to these, which may or may not hold water, but which at least satisfy me:
I'm much more interested in why the Nazgul fled Weathertop,
Aragorn chose to encamp there because of the virtue left in the land by his ancestors. As we've discussed elsewhere, good and evil can saturate lands in Middle Earth. The ancestral connection could make Aragorn especially powerful here, and the Witch King especially weak. Even so, the call of the Ring made the Ringwraiths gamble on Aragorn not knowing how to connect with that ancestral power, but he must have done so in the nick of time.
or why Bombadil is so flamboyantly magical,
Because he is perfectly and completely in tune with the land. Which also creates his chief tactical drawback: he cannot leave his land.
or why the Enemy never seizes the high ground,
Saruman in Orthanc comes to mind. Also goblins occupying mountains. And Caradhras was the high ground.
or how Aragorn governs without taxes or tribute,
Does he really? Maybe they just don't call it taxes. Maybe everybody who wants the perks of government, like roads to their village or a fire department, send "gifts" to express "gratitude." Ingrates are on their own. Being left on one's own in a wide and hostile world means becoming an "outlaw", someone that no one is obliged to defend or help in any way, a state of punishment that most people in such a society would greatly fear. But without a point blank statement that he did not levy taxes, I would tend to believe that he did.
or who enforces Bilbo's will,
Since the Shire has a mayor, and adoption requires the signature of seven witnesses in red ink, and they have sherriffs (who mostly tend the straying of animals more than of people, but only because of the low crime-rate--they're qualified to collar the rare scofflaw) I would presume that they have a judge or two and all the rest of the underpinnings of a legal system. If one sees bread, one may presume the existence of flour or some equivalent.
or why Legolas doesn't take all the watches since he doesn't have to sleep,
Elves sleep. In the Silmarillion exhausted elves suffered a terrible attack in their sleep. Legolas can simply get by without sleep longer than the others. Thus, when the others suffered unusual exhaustion, he did take all of the watches. But he still needs sleep sooner or later. His long endurance amounts to a resource that you do not want to expend until you need it.
or who washes the laundry and cleans the floors in Rivendell,
Elves, of course. But they have more fun than we do while doing it. Remember Sam chatting with an elf about rope-making? Or earlier, saying, "If I could grow an apple like that, I'd call myself a gardener!" Leave it to Sam to realize that some elf actually had to do the labor in the orchard to help produce the apple. The point is, elves do work. The "tra-la-la-lally" scene in "The Hobbit" coincided with a holiday--for which you can be sure some elves spent all day in the kitchen baking.
or where Bilbo gets his money that didn't come from Smaug's treasure,
He was independently wealthy. Hobbiton accounted the Bagginses as well-to-do even before his father married the "fabulously wealthy" Belladonna Took. I personally think that the Bagginses dealt in real estate. They rented out Bagshot Row, for one thing, and Lotho wound up with way more real estate than anybody realized till they checked the books. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that the Tooks owe their wealth to the quality of their farmland, because Pippin referred to his father plowing. The Brandybucks, I expect, dealt in trade. In a wider world of the old days, it seems to me like a likely explanation for their move to the other side of the river, so as to deal with outsiders without said outsiders stepping into the Shire proper and upsetting the neighbors. Later, as the Shire became more insular, they had by then built up enough capital to deal entirely domestically. How could Merry surprise his friends with three bathtubs? Because, I think, he had access to bathtubs and all sorts of other durable goods, being in the business of transporting such goods from one end of the Shire to the other.
or where the orcs of Moria get their food,
Mushrooms, rats, underground fish, maybe even, on the top levels, earthen chambers from which one could dig turnips and carrots out of the roof, earlier planted at night in an outdoor foray.
or where Aragorn's ancestors got their wives
Unlike dwarves, Rangers have as many daughters as they do sons. And Rangers do not consist only of the royal line. Their families might lead nomadic lives, but that never stopped other nomadic people from having families.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Nov 13 2008, 8:04pm
Post #19 of 23
(1554 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aren't these questions more fun than
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
asking why Tolkien forgot to say that Sam took off the Ring?
I have my theories, and just lost a long, long post spelling them out.  I don't have time to recreate it now. But in short I do think there are many parts of his story and Secondary World Tolkien glosses over, and it is best not to examine those areas too closely, unless we just have fun continuing the game Tolkien started and filling in all the holes he left for us.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 14 2008, 12:11am
Post #20 of 23
(1536 views)
Shortcut
|
they're in the wrong chapter!
Okay, then: if orcs are supposed to have been made in mimicry of Elves, why are they so much shorter and squatter? What's a typical orc meal consist of? And why do we never see any females - or do we?
Questions, questions!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Nov 14 2008, 4:09pm
Post #21 of 23
(1528 views)
Shortcut
|
...doesn't providing a clasp leave the Ring handy for use? Why borrow trouble?
And yes, I wondered about the elves handling the Ring before the movie was a gleam in Peter Jackson's eye. Gandalf only handled it very briefly and very reluctantly.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Nov 14 2008, 4:26pm
Post #22 of 23
(1548 views)
Shortcut
|
Okay, then: if orcs are supposed to have been made in mimicry of Elves, why are they so much shorter and squatter?
Because they've been bred for tunnels. The smaller the tunnel, the less labor and expense involved in digging it. And/or, they might have become hunchbacked and bandy-legged from spending their whole lives crouching in said tunnels. Neither Morgoth nor Sauron cared about the comfort of their slaves.
What's a typical orc meal consist of?
The orcs who took Merry and Pippin captive served meat and grayish bread. The grayish bread might have been rye bread, rye growing under all kinds of inhospitable conditions. These orcs probably got their supplies from the slave-farms around the Sea of Nurnen. The meat was whatever they could grab, including enemies. The Uruk-Hai praised Saruman as a provider of "man-flesh." However, unlike the movie, book-orcs frowned on cannibalism; accusing the Uruk-Hai of eating orc-flesh sparked a brawl.
Independent orcs who do not receive goods from Nurn probably don't eat bread, unless they can steal it. They most likely get their carbs from mushrooms and starchy roots, and get most of their protein, like Gollum, from fish.
And why do we never see any females - or do we?
Female orcs might not differ from male orcs all that much in appearance, at least not in ways that one can distinguish in armor. Or they might not go to battle at all, or to any of the places where our heroes happened to see orcs. They might all stay at home laboring in sweat shops for the war effort.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Nov 14 2008, 4:41pm
Post #23 of 23
(1561 views)
Shortcut
|
they should have encased the Ring in concrete! Or, being elves, perhaps a beautiful but impenetrable crystal.
But maybe they didn't think they had the right. Even putting it on a chain meant taking a liberty with Frodo's property. And you know how reluctant Elves can be to interfere with the fate of mortals, at least during the Third Age.
I'm sure whoever put the Ring on a chain handled it briefly and reluctantly -- it could even have been Gandalf who did so.
|
|
|
|
|
