|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Dec 30 2014, 5:04pm
Post #1 of 27
(1124 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gondor defence against wraiths and demons
|
Can't Post
|
|
Gondor hold the frontlines against Mordor for many years. Gondorian soldiers would have no problem defending Osgiliath and other areas from Sauron's orcs and trolls. But what about the nazguls? Did they have any weapons against them? I remember the northern kingdom Arnor had those blades that were made from Numenor. Swords from Westerness. Anybody think they used it against the nazguls?
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Dec 31 2014, 8:32am
Post #2 of 27
(931 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They didn't appear to have much of a defense.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When the Nazgul attacked Faramir's troop they seemed pretty defenseless until Gandalf came to their rescue.
Apparently the Nazgul weren't fully activated until Sauron realized the One Ring had been found (after Gollum had been tortured). Even in their first appearances in FotR they do not seem particularly powerful or effective. It's not until the opening phases of the actual War of the Ring that they were seen riding the Fell Beasts and terrifying people from the air.
It was certainly a sword from Westernesse that brought down the Witch King, but it wasn't wielded by a Gondorian. 
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Dec 31 2014, 2:08pm
Post #3 of 27
(917 views)
Shortcut
|
In my opinion the barrow daggers were especially effective against the Nazgul, but other weapons could harm them...
... and in saying that I am aware* of the often quoted passage about the blades given in The Return of the King after the Nazgul-lord was vanquished. Also. "Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless." JRRT, letter 210
Tolkien wrote more about their power in another posthumously published text: "All except the Witch-king were apt to stray when alone by daylight; and all, again save the Witch-king, feared water, and were unwilling, except in dire need, to enter it or to cross streams unless dryshod by a bridge. Moreover their chief weapon was terror. This was actually greater when they were unclad and invisible; and it was greater also when they were gathered together."
JRRT Unfinished Tales, Part 3, Ch 4, The Hunt for the Ring: Other Versions of the Story
That cited, I don't know how well this all fits with what Tolkien published in The Lord of the Rings (I would have to check and ponder, which sounds like work, if fun work), but anyway.
*and I'm aware of the passage where Gandalf talks about the Nazgul and arrows! Which admittedly burns the edges of my toast somewhat, or at least requires 'explanation' if my stance be 'true', in any event.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 31 2014, 2:23pm)
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 31 2014, 3:20pm
Post #4 of 27
(897 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No time for the really fun work, but there are citations ... and then there are citations
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just a note on the sometimes misreported idea that most of the Nazgul were shy of water, as apparently postulated by JRRT in the passage you quoted from Unfinished Tales' "The Hunt for the Ring," in the secondary manuscript B. The editor, Christopher Tolkien, comments on this passage directly after it finishes:
My father nowhere explained the Ringwraiths fear of water. In the account just cited it is made a chief motive in Saurons assault on Osgiliath, and it reappears in detailed notes on the movement of the Black Riders in the Shire: thus of the Rider (who was in fact Khamul of Dol Guldur, see note 1) seen on the far side of Bucklebury Ferry just after the Hobbits had crossed (FotR I 5) it is said that 'he was well aware that the Ring had crossed the river; but the river was a barrier to his sense of its movement', and that the Nazgul would not touch the 'Elvish' waters of Baranduin. But it is not made clear how they crossed other rivers that lay in their path, such as the Greyflood, where there was only 'a dangerous ford formed by the ruins of the bridge' (UT, p. 264). My father did indeed note that the idea was difficult to sustain. (CT, UT 344, bold by squire)
"Difficult to sustain"...but not difficult to remember and cite with overly sure authority once Tolkien's unpublished and speculative idea has entered our heads. Most of Tolkien's posthumously published writing, so skillfully edited by CT, is like this: it is part of a manuscript tradition compiled by the author over decades of reflection, in which he tries out various ideas by writing them down in his authoritative voice. It interacts uneasily with the published text of The Lord of the Rings, as you note in your post: for there is no way for us to be sure how much of Tolkien's later explanations and elaborations on the LotR story were also in his head when he published the book itself. Of course, it doesn't really matter, with every word of the Middle-earth corpus being entirely fictitious from start to finish (as all but the most rabid fan must acknowledge).
Like much of the magic in the book, the physical nature of the Nazgul is meant to be mysterious and unknowable by the reader; and like much of the magic in the book, it developed over years of composition through Tolkien's characteristic method of discovery by writing rather than thinking. Reverend, a long-late member of the Reading Room, once argued that the Balrog entered the Hall in Moria without wings, and left with them, giving the Balrog-wing debate a most satisfactory finality for those of us who want Tolkien's mysterious vagueness to remain vague. Similarly, the Black Riders' menace and vulnerability must shift as the story requires, from great at times to less at other times. It's inconsistent -- and makes the idea of 'canon' a joke that might have brought a grim smile to Tolkien's face - but as Walt Whitman once said, so what?
Did Merry's blade have some kind of magical power against the Witch-king that Eowyn's blade did not, or that Faramir's men had no access to? It seems unlikely -- but then the scene where Merry wounds the wraith is so completely satisfying, both as a climax to the gift of the knives back in the barrow, and following Gandalf's prophecy about the Witch-king's fate, that it seems misguided for us to try to find the Numenorean instruction-book for sword-smiths that the Rangers of Ithilien had, possibly, mislaid in Denethor's fabled hoard of records in tongues no longer understood, etc.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Dec 31 2014, 3:37pm
Post #5 of 27
(891 views)
Shortcut
|
... I had a vague memory of this section (you added) and so I attempted to not post the above as if it was fact, and admittedly I didn't go to the book to check that memory.
But that said, difficult to sustain is not necessarily impossible, especially considering Tolkien's 'in dire need'. And while I would normally say that 'in dire need' needs to be really dire, on the other hand they are under the will of Sauron to get the One, a very important task... but on the third hand I don't know how 'difficult' it would be to sustain...
... without doing that fun work I mentioned 
As I also noted, the passage where Gandalf seems to say that Legolas' arrows would be useless against the Nazgul (if not his winged steed) arguably goes against my theory -- but I pair this with Gandalf's earlier statement about the Ringwraiths and their Master.
The Wraiths are clearly taken out by physical water, and are said to fear fire, and in the drafts Tolkien even has the crash (to earth) of the Witch-king's steed 'kill' (take him out of the battle at least) the Wraith.
Anyway, for myself I think virtual 'invulnerability' creates a bit of a plot hole, as (I believe) is illustrated by the first post in this thread, so in attempt to answer this question -- which is admittedly playing 'the game', and in defense of which I think Tolkien himself sometimes played 'the game' as well -- I argue that regular weapons could harm the Nine.
That is, they are unlike the Dead that follow Aragorn, about which it is said, and in my opinion notably if brief, it was not known if their swords would bite. The Dead were ghosts instilling fear, but to me the Ringwraiths had a physicality of some sort, while being very much 'like' ghosts...
... normally invisible, fear-instilling for example.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 31 2014, 3:50pm)
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Dec 31 2014, 8:41pm
Post #6 of 27
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
If the nazguls were so a formiddable force, Sauron would have use them to scare off the whole garrison of Osgiliath, and perhaps rest of Minas Tirith soldiers, so he could send his whole army in. Instead, Gondor managed to hold the line against his forces in years. That means the gondorians didn't give in into their aura of terror so easily perhaps? Or the nazguls would rather run than fight, if they saw a whole legions of gondorian knights marching against them?
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Dec 31 2014, 10:52pm
Post #7 of 27
(846 views)
Shortcut
|
And it took the Nazgul 2 years to besiege Minas Ithil. If they were so scary, why didn't the Nine just fly into the city and scare everyone into running out the gate or jumping over the walls? They could take it in a day like that. So they were scary, but not *that* scary.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 31 2014, 10:55pm
Post #8 of 27
(863 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it important to consider the main weapon of the Ringwraith's--fear. Tolkien said of the Nazgūl:
'. . . their chief weapon was terror. This was actually greater when they were unclad and invisible; and it was greater also when they were gathered together.'
-(Unfinished Tales)
'The Nazgūl came again . . . like vultures that expect their fill of doomed men's flesh. Out of sight and shot they flew, and yet were ever present, and their deadly voices rent the air. More unbearable they became, not less, at each new cry. At length even the stout-hearted would fling themselves to the ground as the hidden menace passed over them, or they would stand, letting their weapons fall from nerveless hands while into their minds a blackness came, and they thought no more of war, but only of hiding and of crawling, and of death.
-( Return of the King)
Sauron never considered these--his most deadly and devoted servants--, to be foot soldiers waging a physical war. They were far more useful as generals, torturers, and ring-finders, though we know how that turned out! 
It is a common belief many share, that the Nazgul were invincible and proof against any weapons of Men, Dwarves of Elves. This reasoning leads to questions as to why they did not simply walk into Gondor, The Shire, or any other place, and kill as they wished. In attempting to answer these questions we put too much strain, I think, on the fictional reality of Middle-Earth. Much like the perennial question, 'Why didn't the Eagles fly the Ring to Mordor?', this also, in addition to being anti-climatic, goes against the authors purpose for the Nazgul. They are there to inspire fear and terror in our minds as the stalk the Frodo and his friends. Tolkien himself cautions us against pressing these issues too closely, however, I think we can shed a bit of light on the weaknesses of the Nazgul. They were in some drafts, fearful of water. In addition, the loss of their steeds and clothing crippled them severely. Their bodies might be immortal, but they are still reliant upon vulnerable things to channel anything besides blind terror-- a great weapon in and of itself.
I hope I don't sound condescending or snobbish. Simply put: the characters are here to serve the purpose of the story. We flatter Tolkien to see it as anything more than a clever tale, but even flattery can be carried too far.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Dec 31 2014, 10:55pm
Post #9 of 27
(845 views)
Shortcut
|
...that since they tended to get lost and wander around they probably scared off just as many Mordorians as Gondorians so it all evened out.
******************************************
The tremendous landscape of Middle-earth, the psychological and moral universe of The Lord of the Rings, is built up by repetition, semi-repetition, suggestion, foreshadowing, recollection, echo, and reversal. Through it the story goes forward at its steady, human gait. There, and back again.
-Ursula K. LeGuin, Rhythmic Patterning in The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 31 2014, 11:10pm
Post #10 of 27
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We could debate cases like this forever...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It would be a fun exercise, and I do have fan-theories on these topics, however, as I replied to VictarionGreyjoy further up-thread, sometimes we have to seek a literary explanation rather than a literal one.
Now, for my theories:
The Nazgul were not invincible, and they knew it. They owed their immortality and power to their rings and ultimately to Sauron himself. Now Sauron was not an eternal being either, and he owed his creation to another higher power, and I think he knew it too. Morgoth was so full of himself, and the Valar got involved. Sauron turned Numenor against Aman and the Big Man stepped in. I think he knew that he was toeing a thin line of what Eru would, or would not accept in the name of free will and the choice of his children. Thus, they all knew that nothing could last forever, and there was always the possibility for their destruction. It is said that Sauron pondered these possibilities endlessly 'An eye/malice that does not sleep', or something like that. In the end, it was a possibility that he did not consider that brought about his ruin. Where am I going with this? Just indulge my rambling a bit more, please. So, knowing they were immortal but not invincible, they had a healthy amount of fear as to the weapons that might be brought against them. Ina world of magic and Elves, almost anything can happen. How could they know that there wasn't another way to kill, or at least trap them? If we seek a literal answer, we must acknowledge what we do not know and the possibility for an anti-wraith weapon being found or developed.
In addition, they are said to have a few weaknesses:
Water
Fire
Destruction of their clothing
Sunlight
A non-corporeal form that needs an intermediary to interact with the real world.
So with some combination of these weaknesses, I'm sure something might be devised to cripple them.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 12:00am
Post #12 of 27
(825 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*Bows in acknowledgement of the great compliment*
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Really, much of this is what I've picked up from my time hanging about in the RR, as other more learned and articulate posters, {yourself for one}, have discussed and debated these same issues.
So I must thank all of you in return.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 1 2015, 12:01am)
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Jan 1 2015, 12:01am
Post #13 of 27
(829 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The impression I got from reading the books
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
was that the wraiths were kind of noncorporeal bloodhounds in the early chapters, then, as Sauron put forth his power to dominate the world, the wraiths gained power, becoming much more dangerous in the physical sense.
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 12:15am
Post #14 of 27
(1059 views)
Shortcut
|
I do recall a reference to the servants of Sauron growing in strength as he did so, but I never recall any of them engaging in physical battle to over-master one of those on the side of good.
As cited in my reply to Victariongreyjoy, the main purpose of the Nazgul was fear, in both an in-universe and plot sense. The history of the Nazgul is hidden and dark, but I do not think that their modus operandi would change much. Indeed barely changes in the scope of Lotr. At first they are 'blood-hounds', as you aptly describe them, but later they are used as part of a psychological warfare against Gondor. Terror is their main weapon, and the only exception is the Witch-King, but he occupies a position above all the rest, possessing great inherent powers and acting as an opposite to Gandalf.
Of course, they are a physical menace, (slashing up bolsters in the Pony, the Weathertop Battle, and the flight to the ford of Bruinen) or else they would not play such an effectively haunting role, but by choice (Sauron's or Tolkien's, take your pick) they do not lead any charges or conduct assassinations in Middle-Earth.
Really, I think that any reference to them engaging in a battle of swords and axes would noticeably decrease their silent menace and mystique. If they can both haunt your mind and batter your body, don't they seem a little too invulnerable? I think their remote threat serves only to increase the terror they inflict on their enemies and in our own minds. I think that the effectiveness of Sauron as a villain ,despite his actual presence in battle, works for the same reason. A remote evil that cannot be entirely fathomed, but whose effects from a distance cause goosebumps. Not a fellow you'd like to meet in person!!
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 1 2015, 12:21am)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 1 2015, 12:19am
Post #15 of 27
(823 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"they had a healthy amount of fear as to the weapons that might be brought against them."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes, and it says a lot about them that one of them was scared off just by Gildor's company. If they are invincible dreadnaughts, that shouldn't have happened.
One thing that resonates in my mind when I read anything of Tolkien's is what he said about Melkor: "alone of the Valar he knew fear." [when Fingolfin challenges him to a duel] I think it's a character of evil in ME that while it inspires fear, it is subject to fear also. And for another example, think how scary the Balrog was, even scaring troops on his own side, but like any bully facing stiff resistance, he eventually *ran away* from Gandalf.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 1 2015, 12:22am
Post #16 of 27
(818 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that's where the movies may muddy the water
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When the Nazgul in the movies fly into Minas Tirith and pick people off the walls and throw them around with impunity, one is tempted to wonder why they don't just land and open the doors from the inside, or land and ran amok with impunity. The book Nazgul flew overhead out of bowshot and principally acted to demoralize the troops. (And they were quite effective at it, too.)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 12:26am
Post #17 of 27
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
If Sauron had appeared in front of the Morannon to fight Aragorn (As was planned in the films at one point) it would incalculably lessen his power to instill indescribable fear in our hearts. Sometimes it's the battle not fought that is the hardest won.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2015, 4:04am
Post #18 of 27
(817 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I like much of what you say...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is a common belief many share, that the Nazgul were invincible and proof against any weapons of Men, Dwarves of Elves. This reasoning leads to questions as to why they did not simply walk into Gondor, The Shire, or any other place, and kill as they wished. In attempting to answer these questions we put too much strain, I think, on the fictional reality of Middle-Earth.
... but here I would ask: is it too much strain to say that the Nine had invisible bodies that could be killed, or hurt by regular weapons? I suppose it's subjective, but...
... one problem I see is Gandalf's statement to Legolas about his arrows, but it is also Gandalf who had much earlier noted (after the flood) "You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that," said Gandalf. "The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him."
... suggesting, in my opinion, that they can be defeated, taken out of the battle at hand, slain in one sense but not ultimately slain (like regular Men) as long as the One exists.
I'm not sure why Gandalf would be speaking to Legolas in this sense here, admittedly (I mean it would still have been great if he had shot the Wraith, I would think), but it's a possibility. With the Witch-king his 'possible' return was made a non-issue due to the destruction of the One, but his defeat in the War was still huge, a great blow to the Enemy to see such a captain undone.
For clarity, I'm not arguing that Tolkien didn't employ the Wraiths to good literary purpose, as you describe, but that need not change if this answer is considered true... it's just a way to head off the 'invulnerability' problem: that is, they are not invulnerable in the first place.
We know the Witch-king feared Boromir for example (not the Boromir of the Nine Walkers). Why? I suggest that this Boromir possessed notable will as well as physical strength...
... and if you fend off the unreasoning fear, then you have a chance.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jan 1 2015, 4:19am)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 2:53pm
Post #19 of 27
(789 views)
Shortcut
|
I had not thought about those passages you cite, but perhaps I can propose a couple of solutions. One literary; one within the bounds of Middle-Earth.
For the purpose of the tale, the Nazgul were kept alive. They could have died earlier, but Tokien decided against it. Perhaps because it makes the Witch-King's defeat less dramatic in that an un-defeatable evil is vanquished. (The whole 'not by hand of man' thing) At some times it appears they are indestructible, but at others they seem vulnerable. How do we resolve this?
Now as to these seeming contradictions, or else, over-powered villains, I'd say that some of these issues are part of what is inherent in the art of story-telling. Lord of the Rings is very much concerned on one level with Good vs. Evil, and as soon as we know Frodo is the hero, we know he (or at least his cause) will succeed and Sauron will lose. The challenge to the story-teller is to tell the story with a predictable 'Good wins' ending, but in an interesting way, getting us to the predictable resolution in an unexpected manner.
So I think that the references to the invulnerability of the Nazgul are either purposeful foreshadowing, or clever misdirection to enhance the Witch-King's demise. Unlike the real world, where elements can interact more or less freely to any end, Tolkien is searching for a satisfying one. If he had written a truly realistic tale, Sauron would probably have won, but who wants that!
In-universe, I can think of a few theories to explain their sometimes ineptitude or hesitance to action. Perhaps it is true they could not be 'killed' or dispersed utterly by any of the Free Peoples, however, perhaps because they are tied to Sauron, they would only be scattered in spirit. Thus their power would need to be collected and shaped into a useable form again. I am taking Sauron as an example, and he decreased each time, so perhaps the Nazgul feared that, or else the power drain was on Sauron himself. So maybe the W-K was not 'killed' but dispersed into an impotent and infinitesimally powerful malice.
Another thing I think of is the possibility that they might be scattered and, relying on their Rings to keep them 'alive' (That term is a stretch), they would have to 're-spawn' (To use a net gaming term) near their ring, or the Ring to retake form. They probably didn't want that. After all, who likes a perennial 'Game-over' to remind you of your failings, and an irate boss to further expound on them.
In the end, I think Tolkien recognised these challenges ( or not) and attempted to create as plausible a story as possible, but one that still satisfied. (I recall references to their fear of water, fire, and sunlight in his notes-- possible elements introduced to attempt balancing the tale) Story-telling is much like a magic show and theatre SFX, they do it with lights, shadow, smoke, and mirrors. Tolkien has to set each scene for us, and he has so many more locations than any play. He must simultaneous direct and dress the stage, while considering the emotional impact of how it will fall out. In some instances we are to fear the Nazgul,so we do; In others we are to see the triumph of Good, so they wane in terror. He must also consider the implications of each scene on all those to follow, and try to make it as consistent as possible, so I can forgive him a few exposed wires if the tale hangs well together. (Oh dear! Was that a pun?)
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Jan 1 2015, 3:03pm)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 3:12pm
Post #20 of 27
(774 views)
Shortcut
|
Drat! I missed the edit window. Anyway....
To be perfectly clear: I do not discount any other forms of speculation, but (logically minded as I am) I tend to gravitate towards a more logic-based answer. These are most often found when we consider the tale just that: a story.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 3:19pm
Post #21 of 27
(780 views)
Shortcut
|
I've always noticed that many bullies who exude miasma inducing fear are simply externalising their own deep-seated insecurity. Indeed, as you say, once they meet stiff resistance (Perhaps of a fist to a nose) they run away, with their worst fears realised.
Not that I'd know anything about fists meeting noses! 
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 3:34pm
Post #22 of 27
(772 views)
Shortcut
|
I realise that could come across as a learned scholar. So, to clear up that possible misunderstanding....
I'm really just mashing my keyboard, typing whatever comes to mind. It makes sense to me, so I said it. I hope I don't come across with any authority at all in my speculations. I know that I've been intimidated in the past by the verbosity of other online big-talkers, but that's all I am: A Middle-Earth motor-mouth!
I just like to ramble. See my footer.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2015, 5:32pm
Post #23 of 27
(767 views)
Shortcut
|
... with much of that... never say 'all' in any case, a perilous remark on the interweb
But it just seems not that relatively complicated to me, in the internal context. I have more trouble explaining certain names on the Doors of Durin, for example!
A) The prophecy is a perfect example: it suggests invulnerability but it's really a prediction.
B) The digression about Merry's sword 'no other blade' is poetic but can easily refer to what happened -- especially since it's after the fact -- not what could happen (that is, no other blade, struck as Merry struck, even if delivered by Imrahil or Eomer, could have delivered such a bitter wound -- again a bitter wound despite being in the leg, as the reader is already aware).
C) The Witch-king's words to Eowyn: easily explained by hubris, and obviously reflects the prophecy.
C1) Tolkien did also explain, in a letter I believe, that the Witch-king was given more power before the War began (externally, for The Return of The King). Thus even stout Men of War flee from him, and his conceit grows: he fears nothing and lets Eowyn know it.
D) The (earlier) fear of Boromir. No evidence to think this Boromir had a special blade.
E) Gandalf's remarks after the flood: the reader might naturally assume such a force could 'kill' at least one of the wraiths but Gandalf seems to say 'not really'... and yet they are no threat for a while, and Sauron still lives. They seem defeated by a physical force.
F) Gandalf's remarks about the arrows: again this is the problematic one, as he seems to say even if you hit the Wraith it would not matter. Does Gandalf mean 'in the long run' he could return? Maybe, but if so, why say this at this point?
G) Why the wraiths seem to survive for thousands of years: again, Tolkien nicely leaves it vague: we don't know, in detail anyway, how they were used in all wars in earlier times (noting the Glorfindel example, however and for instance, where the Witch-king fled)...
... but if captains of various forces, they are not always in the fray, or need not always be, so to speak.
In the end I agee with the art of literature, the art of telling the tale, being foremost here -- my point is that 'invulnerability' is tough to write around, so arguably I think JRRT never really opens that door internally...
... he might 'seem' to, or even tease it, but even Sauron should fear Anduril, and that is why (at least partly why), internally, Sauron had rebuilt a 'killable' body by the time of the war before Minas Tirith. Sauron having a body is not a focus of the tale (Gollum's mention of his fingers is a slight reference), and the Dark Lord is in my opinion wisely kept 'off stage'...
... but internally it is not that difficult (again in my opinion) to take his killable body as a fact 'behind the art', so to speak.
Or something
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jan 1 2015, 5:45pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2015, 5:58pm
Post #24 of 27
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
my point is that 'invulnerability' is tough to write around, so arguably I think JRRT never really opens that door internally...
Or maybe better: when Tolkien seems to suggest invulnerability, he yet leaves a door open for another interpretation.
As, within the art of crafting the story, I'm guessing he is aware of the problem; in other words, the problem if he doesn't leave the reader another option.
Hmm. Maybe that was less clear of me!
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2015, 6:22pm
Post #25 of 27
(755 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree, and think it seems that way because of the vast anount of words we have expended on the subject.
A: I love your point on the 'prophecy'! It really isn't a 'guarantee' more than 'prognostication'. That's the thing about prophecies, we only know they are true when they happen! Even then, such Delphic utterances are often misconstrued. I see this fallacy played out in Sauron's attempted defeat of Huan at the bridge. He learned that even though you know what a prophecy says, it might only mean one thing.
Another point I see is the possibility for error. If we flatter Tolkien to give his world the scrutiny we might give the Primary World, we must also consider that such predictions could be wrong, and that our heroes themselves could be wrong. When a character says something, they don't necessarily have to speak the truth. Then we must use our own judgement to determine the point the author intended. (After al,l who believes the villain's monologue and self-justification?) I think one of the hallmarks of a good story is that it allows the readers to tease out the knotty problems for themselves, but does not leave it impossible to determine. So, Glorifindel could have just been voicing his own despair; not making a prediction that is one way to see it.
B: It is helpful to remember that this account is written, ostensibly, from a time after them event had occurred. Like any good story, it might very wel have been embellished-- if we follow the conceit that LotR is history. I can only recall the accounts of modern-day 'heroes' who say that during their personal crisis, they were scared to death, but to us, after the fact, it looks easy, heroic even. It also reminds me of a very tongue-in-cheek recipe to garner fame:
1. Do something incredibly hard.
2. Sweat youself silly while doing it.
3. When you're finished, sigh, and change your shirt (and maybe pants).
4. Say, 'It was nothing!', act nonchalant, and collect your fame!
C: Violent agreement with every word.
D: One of the stories I always lament as unfinished.
E-F: Gamdalf remarks here seem to more on the line of an au contraire to counter the reader's or hero's overconfidence. It seems that it is a bit of balancing on the author's part. The heroes need a small victory, but the time for their defeat is not yet come.
G-: Yes that vagueness is what allows us to do this speculating, as well as freeing him from having to work out the mechanics of the world in microscopic detail. No doubt he might have later revised the appendices, but I get the feeling that just publishing LotR was an ordeal of condensing his vast mythos into one book.
In the end, I applaud Tolkien for choosing the path he did. Not only did it save him years more of creation and revision, it also allows us to form out own ideas on the history and reasoning of Middle-Earth. I recall a comment where Tolkien despised fairy-stories that were locked down and defined to the last detail. His own tales seem more like Niggle's tree: always growing and deepening, but always leaving room on the edges for someone risks to embellish a little more.
I hope I have not bored you with my ramblings. A wise man once said that it is only right to seek revenge if boredom has been inflicted upon you.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
|
|
1
