[The palantiri] are used four times in Tolkien’s work, with a very consistent pattern. The first occasion is when Pippin picks up the palantir thrown from Orthanc by Grima, and later sneaks a look at it when Gandalf is asleep. In the stone, he sees Sauron, and Sauron sees him. But though Sauron sees Pippin, he draws from this a wrong conclusion, namely that Pippin is the Ring-bearer, and has been captured by Saruman, who now has the Ring. The next day Aragorn, who has been given the stone by Gandalf, deliberately shows himself in it to Sauron, and once again Sauron draws the wrong conclusion: namely that Aragorn has overpowered Saruman and that he is now the owner of the Ring. It is fear of this new power arising which makes Sauron launch his premature attack, and Gandalf indeed realises that this was all along Aragorn’s intention. Gandalf further surmises that it was the palantir which was Saruman’s downfall. As he looked in it, he saw only what Sauron allowed him to see, and once more drew the wrong conclusion, losing heart and deciding that resistance would be futile. Both Sauron and Saruman have allowed what they see in the Stones to guide their decisions, and what they have seen is true; but they have seen only fractions of the truth.

Prof Tom Shippey, The Road To Middle-earth 3e Appendix C

The palantiri can be used either as surveillance devices, or as a communication network for telepathic transfer of thoughts.

I think the idea is that the master stone (which Denethor has at the time of LOTR) can survey in any direction,

So arguably, LotR is stylistically the weakest of Tolkien's books, but it actually is the best read - as it engulfs the reader, so that the stylistic creaks are ignored; as is the not-always logical choice of which character should "tell" the story and when. For instance, according to all internal evidence, Merry would be by far a better choice to narrate Treebeard, or Legolas The Grey Company - but Tolkien prefers the weaker, less knowlegeable Pippin and Gimli. But exactly for this reason, the reader's sense of wonder and awe increases.
And I prefer LotR by far to any of the better-narrated earlier and later works.

Saruman somehow fell, not to the temptation of the Ring as is replayed with so many of the other main characters in LotR, but to the mere idea of the Ring, for which the palantir becomes a proxy in that it becomes a substitute conduit for his subjugation by Sauron's evil will.

The role of the palantiri in communicating correct but misleading (or misinterpreted) information is a literary trope going back to the Greeks. In effect, they are a "high-tech" (thanks to that great engineer Fëonor) oracle.

Aragorn did not wrest the Ithil stone from Sauron, who was probably holding it in his hand. He wrested the Orthanc-stone from Sauron's gaze, severing the link established with Saruman ("and he was caught!" implies that Saruman couldn't ever look away again). No one actually found the Ithil stone.

Aragorn also does not dare try to repair the Anor stone, as Denethor has messed it up so badly no one can really use it anymore.

In this ‘Tale’, I notice that Tolkien is writing as if he is some sort of historian: he tells us that things aren’t known, or are assumed, as well as using the author’s prerogative to tell us that things are so. The writing reads to me more like the work of a modern historian, aware of the contradictions and limitations of historical sources. I see that as being in contrast to the ‘chronicler’ approach taken in The Disaster of the Gladden Fields (at least until one comes to the note on sources section). And it is different again to the tone taken in other Unfinished Tales - e.g. The Quest of Erebor is presented as Frodo’s memo of a conversation with Gandalf and others. It feels different, yet again, from The Hobbit or LOTR, where Tolkien starts with a ‘framing device’ - he pretends to be in the position of Editor, and that we are reading a version of a book written by hobbits, which he has somehow obtained and prepared for a modern English-speaking audience. The situation in The Hobbit is further complicated by the voice of the ‘avuncular narrator’ who steps in to make asides (in the first half of the book, at least), and LOTR has a variety of narrative styles. I wrote a symposium piece about these effects in The Hobbit and LOTR (http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=668923#668923 ) so will try not to repeat myself here! Your Symposium piece was full of insights on the Voice and the shadings it gives. I do love re-reading it! Interesting in the Palantiri section he is detailing events of the rather real-world parallel Holy Roman Empire, the reign of Gondor (in his-map-mind, anyway). Thus I find it interesting that he uses this pseudo-historical voice for this telling, since it is so entwined with the house of Elendil and the rulers of Gondor and Arnor. That bloodline was one of the things he seem to envision as coming forth to the modern world, so maybe the Voice here is rationally historical and peering just over the edge of legendarium and Real-Life?


But, especially as we come to the end of Unfinished Tales with this chapter, I thought we might want to discuss the various narrative positions (editor, chronicler, modern historian, storyteller) which Tolkien was choosing for the works in this collection: which of them work for you? Do you see them as different ways of telling the story? Is there an effect on ‘canon’ (should you feel that ‘canon’ is a useful concept): what I mean is, is Tolkien deliberately trying to step away from being the omnipotent narrator and therefore the source of true canonical knowledge about Middle-earth? If he is doing that, what does it achieve?Yes, the 'Wanderings of Hurin' have nothing on 'The Wanderings of Canon'. I agree with your construct here, and I do see them as different ways of telling the stories based on where they 'belong' in the purely fantastical-faerie-real world precourser continuum. The step-back into the historical voice I think brings this tale into our realm; I do believe that the bloodline and the tale of Aragorn/Elendil/Beren is one held in regard for how it enriches us materially, in this world, not just in the distant world of fantasy. Thus the step-back is like a nod to 'textbook' and patchwork quilt histories as they truly exist, and about as far as we get from the avuncular Hobbit narrator, or from the beginning of LOTR and thus to its evolution and maturing. I haven't waded in before on the whole 'canon' debate. Its a bi-dimensional thing for me I suppose: as a reader, I enjoy the writing in its existing form. As a more scholarly reader, and being a bit OCD for the affectionate scrutiny of it, I do like the detective work that the Unfinished nature and the contradictions give us - as a pastime, and as en exercise in comprehending what the author may have been thinking or feeling about aspects of the world. But to me, if JRRT wrote it, its canon. The literary puzzle is just a rather Picasso-esque multi planar work versus a flat picture to be assembled in one dimension.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the similarities and differences between Saruman and Denethor in all this.