|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dreamflower
Lorien
Aug 5 2014, 8:03pm
Post #51 of 59
(208 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's a decent story-internal explanation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In other words, it's an explanation within the world of the story, and all things considered, it's not too implausible. Is it probable? Personally, I don't think so, but if I read a fanfic based on that theory, I could suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy it if it were also well-written.
It's likely not an explanation that ever occurred to PJ, and it is not a story-external explanation of why he chose to use that plot element. The truth is that the Nazgul are problematical even in book-verse*. and even more so in movie-verse now that PJ decided to bring them into TH.
*I say this because their behavior in the book is at odds with what we are told of them. They are supposed to be so terrible, yet they pursue Frodo from the Shire to Rivendell, and fail to capture him; they seem far less powerful and more inconsistent then than later. Also, their mere presence in the South incapacitates others and spreads the Black Breath, while in the Shire they are able to speak with and carry on conversations with some hobbits. My story-internal explanation is that the further they were from Sauron, the less they were able to act because they were enslaved, they lacked the initiative to go beyond what Sauron had explicitly instructed them to do. But that too is a story-internal explanation with no real evidence to back it up--it's just my headcanon.
|
|
|
Elciryamo
Rivendell
Aug 6 2014, 3:39am
Post #52 of 59
(197 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm afraid I don't quite follow
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I will have to do some more digging in to Tolkien's letters and gain a better understanding of the Nazgul and their development. Obviously, they are a fictional creation, so internal consistency is not always a requirement for the sake of the story, Of course, it would be nice if there was that consistency but I can give it a pass ;)
I'm still trying to understand what external explanation that PJ would use beyond the idea that the Nazgul are in the world so they are in the movie. I'm really confused by the idea that they are not consistent across the films, in their behavior, action or presentation. They simply are a part of Sauron's return to power, his influence being felt as he reforms himself.
Sorry if I missed anything :/
|
|
|
dreamflower
Lorien
Aug 6 2014, 12:56pm
Post #53 of 59
(194 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Story-internal, story-external
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose it's because the differences between those factors is somewhat of a bee in my bonnet. I find it fascinating the way such things affect a story.
Story-external are the factors that cause an author or creator to choose to include certain elements in a story. For example, it is possible that one story-external factor was PJ's wish to include the Nazgul because they had played a large part in LOTR, and he wanted another element to tie the two movies together. If that was a factor, it had nothing to do with the story itself.
Story-internal is when you explain things using only the elements within the story itself; in other words, the sort of explanation that would be made by someone who lived in Middle-earth, and did not know anything about the author's creative process (because the author is outside the story).
A good story-internal explanation can find a logical in-world reason for the inconsistencies within the story. But it doesn't explain why the author/creator made choices that resulted in the inconsistencies in the first place.
Only the author/creator can know all the story-external reasons a choice was made. But there can be as many story-internal explanations as there are readers/viewers, because everyone will come up with their own "headcanon" when they read/watch the story.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 6 2014, 1:32pm
Post #54 of 59
(189 views)
Shortcut
|
Since it isn't stated when the saying that "no man can kill him" came about, in the films, that could have actually occurred because of the events here I.e. The fact that they thought he was dead but was just resting!
|
|
|
Elciryamo
Rivendell
Aug 6 2014, 10:35pm
Post #55 of 59
(185 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand how both are supposed to work
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What I am afraid I don't understand why there is an inconsistency between TH and LOTR. The W-K is supposed to be the personification of fear and dread, to the point of being almost silent, very much like how they are in FOTR at Weathertop, surrounding the hobbits.
In the films, the fear and dread that they inspire is the screech that is produced, and now is more of a hallmark of their presence in the films.
The Hobbit simply gives more history to the Nazgul. That they were buried does not contradict that, at least in my view.
I guess I'm wondering why there appears to be a contradiction, when the full story is likely somewhere in between.
I suppose it's because the differences between those factors is somewhat of a bee in my bonnet. I find it fascinating the way such things affect a story.
Story-external are the factors that cause an author or creator to choose to include certain elements in a story. For example, it is possible that one story-external factor was PJ's wish to include the Nazgul because they had played a large part in LOTR, and he wanted another element to tie the two movies together. If that was a factor, it had nothing to do with the story itself.
Story-internal is when you explain things using only the elements within the story itself; in other words, the sort of explanation that would be made by someone who lived in Middle-earth, and did not know anything about the author's creative process (because the author is outside the story).
A good story-internal explanation can find a logical in-world reason for the inconsistencies within the story. But it doesn't explain why the author/creator made choices that resulted in the inconsistencies in the first place.
Only the author/creator can know all the story-external reasons a choice was made. But there can be as many story-internal explanations as there are readers/viewers, because everyone will come up with their own "headcanon" when they read/watch the story.
|
|
|
dreamflower
Lorien
Aug 7 2014, 2:48am
Post #57 of 59
(185 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's the implications of the scenes...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In LOTR, we are given a fairly straightforward rendering of what took place in the battle between the W-k and Eowyn and Merry. There are some minor alterations, but generally speaking the scene is between the arrogant wraith who states that he can't be killed by the agency of any "man" (failing to realize he's about to be done in by semantics) and the two not-men who will put an end to him. There's no hint of a being who is already dead and is now revived Clearly AT THAT POINT IN TIME, PJ was accepting of the book-verse version. The W-k of Angmar had never died because of the ring that he bore, but the ring had done its job in transforming him into a wraith. That was what the Nine were meant to do to Men: they kept them alive as they brought them into the wraithworld and under the sway of the One Ring.
Ten years later PJ finds himself making TH, and thinks it would be cool to use the Nazgul in it. Since we know that at one point Dol Guldur was in the command of one of the Nine, that's not too far-fetched to have them involved in some way. But for some reason (perhaps to do with Sauron's pseudonym of Necromancer) he decides that the W-k was dead and buried and brought back to life by Sauron. This is inconsistent with the portrayal in ROTK unless you really stretch things. The Morgul knife as evidence is very thin as well; from its very name, it implies something that originated in the Morgul Vale on the border of Mordor--far from Dol Guldur, and not a haunt of the Nazgul until after Sauron re-inhabits Mordor.
Things can be stretched, as you do with your theory, which can fit within a certain framework unless it is at some point contradicted by future events in BO5A. It can be a possible story-internal explanation. although one calling for an exercise of suspension of disbelief. (And nothing wrong with that, either, as ALL fantasy requires it.) By your theory, he would never have been dead, but only thought dead by others. The only thing I *think* that might make that problematic was how Aragorn described the Nazgul to the hobbits in Bree in the first movie. I wish I could recall his exact words, but I don't think he described them as having been resurrected. But he may have used the word "undead" in there somewhere. That word could have more than one interpretation, so it might favor your theory.
BUT, IMO, (and I have said all along that this is my opinion) the plot element of a W-k revived from the dead is still an inconsistency and a flaw--otherwise it would not need an explanation. It's not a fatal flaw, it doesn't "ruin the movie" or anything like that. But as a plot element, it makes me shake my head and wonder if PJ really thought it through. There are several such choices in all the movies. In anything that long and complex, it would be surprising if there weren't some flaws.
|
|
|
Elciryamo
Rivendell
Aug 7 2014, 5:18am
Post #58 of 59
(179 views)
Shortcut
|
But, I can understand the frustration. I guess I have several internal theories of why it is not a problem.
For Aragorn's line, it is as follows:
"They were once men. Great kings of men. Then Sauron the deceiver gave to them nine rings of power. Blinded by their greed, they took them without question, one by one falling into darkness. Now they are slaves to his will. They are the Nazgul, Ringwraiths, neither living nor dead. At all times they feel the presence of the Ring, drawn to the power of the One. They will never stop hunting you. "
He does not say the process of falling in to darkness, if they were regarded as dead and came back or anything like that. He merely notes that they are neither alive nor dead.
In the book, Frodo asks if they were destroyed by the river, but Gandalf informs him that they merely lost they physical form and will need time to bring themselves back-will have to look for the specific quote.
The morgul blades are actually not a reference to Minas Morgul but the fact that Agmar practiced black sorcery..
Reading Tolkien's letters and the Similarion, the W-K would eventually fade so he could not be seen my mortal eyes. Again, to me, this sounds like a gradual process, and Frodo appears to be succumbing but still visible. Again, a more death like state can appear and result in W-K being buried while still fading.
It might be a stretch, but I don't see it as an inconsistency because there is a lot of information that needs to be taken in.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 7 2014, 10:17am
Post #59 of 59
(174 views)
Shortcut
|
After all Tolkien himself describes the WK as "undead" at the very moment you describe.
Of course there is no suggestion of the back story suggested in the Hobbit films but equally I'm not sure the Nazgul fit particularly cleanly into the sort of fantasy categories which have become prevalent in the years since publication.
And in fairness the films aren't awfully specific either. As I recall they use terms like "fell" "buried" and "summoned" rather than "died" and "revived".
It's not straighforwardly a case of dead or alive in either the books or the films.
Also on "Morgul", this just means "black magic". The vale was named after the term but there isn't any reason to suppose it is exclusive or that the term is derived from the vale.
|
|
|
|
|
