|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girdle of Melian
Lorien
Oct 28 2014, 12:14pm
Post #1 of 10
(722 views)
Shortcut
|
|
3 Questions I Would Like Answers/Opinions On...please :)
|
Can't Post
|
|
1) Some say that they can choose to manifest their full Maiar power if their lives are threatened directly (like when Gandalf faced the Balrog - are the Balrogs also restricted when they assumed bodies?). Tolkien wrote their bodies are subjected to the effects of aging, wear and tear, etc., and obviously evident when Gandalf died from his injuries fighting the Balrog, and obviously making great effort avoiding being killed during battles with Orcs, etc., so which is which? Are the restricted or not? If not, why did not Saruman leave his body when he turned evil - couldn't he have been more powerful than Sauron if he did that when Sauron did not even have the one ring yet? More importantly, if he had access to full Maiar powers - could he have not resisted being enslaved by Sauron when he still did not have the ring yet? Yes, they are not allowed to confront power with power - directly - but yet by helping the fellowship, fighting against the orc/nazgul, etc., doesn't that in a way really translate to fighting Sauron, eventually? I mean, if Sauron got the One Ring, and Gandalf was the only one left alive, and Sauron confronts him, will he just let him stab him since his mission failed?
2) Who created the prophecy (sorry, I'm not that all familiar with the books) that the Nazgul cannot be killed by any man? Or was that through Sauron's power? So Eown coincidentally killed him out of a grammatical error in the "saying."?
3) Were Elven women trained for fighting like the men? Will Elves follow their leaders simply based on how wise they are and their royal lineage?
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 28 2014, 12:54pm
Post #2 of 10
(515 views)
Shortcut
|
2) Who created the prophecy (sorry, I'm not that all familiar with the books) that the Nazgul cannot be killed by any man? Or was that through Sauron's power? So Eown coincidentally killed him out of a grammatical error in the "saying."?
Glorfindel (a mighty Noldorin Elf who lived in Rivendell in Frodo's day) spoke the prophecy -- but it is a prediction: the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man, and ultimately did not: Eowyn was not a man, and Merry (who gave crucial aid) was not a Man but a Hobbit. There's even a footnote in Appendix A where the Rohirrim consider both Eowyn and Merry to have fulfilled Glorfindel's prophecy.
Yes it's technical. But again it has to do with fulfilling a prophecy, not who could or could not kill the Nazgul-lord.
3) Were Elven women trained for fighting like the men? Will Elves follow their leaders simply based on how wise they are and their royal lineage?
That's two questions 
Concerning the 'training' of Elven-women at least, Tolkien is silent as far as I know.
But concerning actual fighting and war, it was the Elven-men who bore arms at need. However the Elven-woman or Nissi could fight valiantly, but fought in 'dire straights and desperate defense'. According to Laws And Customs Among The Eldar, although that's my briefer version.
Tolkien-written examples of this include (in my opinion) Idril, who seemed ready to defend herself, at least, should Gondolin fall (although the text here was written fairly early in Tolkien's life, admittedly), and Galadriel defending her kin against the attacking Noldor at Swanhaven, in the First Age (this was not taken up for Christopher Tolkien's constructed Silmarillion, if anyone looks for this detail there).
(This post was edited by Elthir on Oct 28 2014, 1:08pm)
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Oct 28 2014, 6:18pm
Post #3 of 10
(462 views)
Shortcut
|
|
'Maia' is not a power rating with rules and toolkit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It seems like your questions under (1) are about the limits of action for the Wizards in LotR. The overall thrust seems to be, since at times they displayed very great powers in battle or in domination (i.e., Gandalf against the Nazgul or the Balrog; Saruman in building the domain of Isengard), why couldn't they do so against Sauron in the War of the Ring?
One thing to remember is that Sauron is in fact very much stronger in spirit and skill than any of the Wizards. "Access to full Maiar powers" does not have any real meaning in Tolkien's works, when we remember that the term refers to all of of the Ainur (spirit-creatures of Eru's will and love) who are not of the Valar. Tolkien suggests in several places that the beings included in the term Maiar have a very wide range of talents, powers, inclinations, and incarnations.
Another thing is the fundamental principle that the spirit and the body of an incarnated being should remain together. Even Sauron, whose spiritual power approached that of the Valar, sought reincarnation after each succeeding defeat, even at the cost of taking on a body that was hideous in appearance. Thus it would not occur to Saruman to "leave his body" to defeat Sauron's unreconstructed spirit in the early years of the Istari's mission.
Lastly, the whole point of the Istari is that they are the Valar's way of combating Sauron without repeating the mistakes made in the First and Second Ages, when the Powers used massive physical force (warfare and cataclysm) to destroy Morgoth and Sauron. The Istari may have a great amount of power inherent in their original natures as people of the Valar, but Tolkien emphasizes in several places that they were forbidden to use that power to confront Sauron or his minions directly in combat, or even as leaders in combat. Rather they were expected to use their wisdom and magics to unite and lead the Free Peoples to resist the Dark Lord themselves, out of free will. So of course, as you say, that is "fighting" Sauron, but it is the opposite of fighting Sauron in the way that has been tried in the past, pitting power directly against power.
Whether all this hangs together consistently throughout, is another question! But as a principle, it drives the story's main points regarding the wizards: Gandalf refuses the Ring and conceives the plan of destroying it rather than using it; Saruman falls into evil by becoming a warlord, and eventually is ruined by this departure from his mission; only when Gandalf is sent back to life after death does he assume a role like that of general-in-chief in the War. Even then he does not over-rule the Kings and Lords of the West, nor does he lead troops in battle. Rather he continues to advise and inspire, and saves his powers for confrontations with his equals such as the Witch-King.
The idea of Gandalf duking it out with Sauron in a one on one is, I think, entirely outside of Tolkien's conception; the story is simply not meant to be thought of in that way. But if you are interested, look at the passage in Tolkien's letter #246 where he speculates on the outcome of a confrontation between Sauron (without the Ring) and Gandalf (with the Ring)!
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.
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Oct 29 2014, 1:49am
Post #4 of 10
(429 views)
Shortcut
|
|
All "gods" are not created equal...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your first question assumes that all Maiar (or Valar or the Ainur in total) or created equally and therefore have pretty much the same powers. But the differences between the Ainur are similar to the differences between Elves, Men, Dwarves and all other living things. Some Maiar were craftsman, some were musicians, some were wise, some were known for strength in arms.
Your question is akin to saying why can't Mozart defeat Clausewitz in war? Mozart was a great artist and Clausewitz was a great general. Their talents were different. The Maiar were of the same order, but their talents differed in degrees. Some were stronger or wiser or smarter than others. They were "immortal" so people view them as being all-powerful. But immortality isn't necessarily synonymous with omnipotence.
We should view the Ainur as we do the pantheon of Greek or Roman gods (or any other human mythology). Of course there are paradoxes; for example who would win a battle between Loki and Thror since technically both are invincible. But just because two beings are immortal doesn't mean they have the same strengths or talents or weaknesses.
(This post was edited by HeWhoArisesinMight on Oct 29 2014, 1:50am)
|
|
|
Girdle of Melian
Lorien
Oct 29 2014, 10:12am
Post #5 of 10
(408 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the Clarification...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That makes sense of Mairs having differences amongst them..I kind of see them as Angels (lol).
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Oct 29 2014, 12:09pm
Post #6 of 10
(444 views)
Shortcut
|
1) Some say that they can choose to manifest their full Maiar power if their lives are threatened directly (like when Gandalf faced the Balrog - are the Balrogs also restricted when they assumed bodies?). Tolkien wrote their bodies are subjected to the effects of aging, wear and tear, etc., and obviously evident when Gandalf died from his injuries fighting the Balrog, and obviously making great effort avoiding being killed during battles with Orcs, etc., so which is which? Are the restricted or not? If not, why did not Saruman leave his body when he turned evil -
I think others have made the point that the Istari are not Maiar but came (or, more properly, were sent) to ME on a specific mission, and they were sent as incarnate beings specifically so that they followed "rules" of incarnation. When they are killed, they die. They cannot leave their bodies behind and then return. That Gandalf did so after the fight with the Balrog was a grace, granted to him so he could continue his mission. Tolkien talks about this in Letters (don't have citation at this moment) where he says Gandalf "really died" because otherwise, it would be cheating "the rules".
Also, at the end when Saruman is killed, that's it. His spirit dissipates and is gone. Truly gone, I think, not wandering around somewhere. He's not going to get that same grace to return, bad boy that he was.
2) Who created the prophecy (sorry, I'm not that all familiar with the books) that the Nazgul cannot be killed by any man? Or was that through Sauron's power? So Eown coincidentally killed him out of a grammatical error in the "saying."?
Prophecies don't cause things to happen, they just foretell.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Oct 29 2014, 12:30pm
Post #7 of 10
(408 views)
Shortcut
|
"an seileachan"
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Oct 29 2014, 2:06pm
Post #8 of 10
(435 views)
Shortcut
|
Your answer to no. 2. Well done!
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 29 2014, 2:25pm
Post #9 of 10
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
So Eown coincidentally killed him out of a grammatical error in the "saying."?
Just to blather on about the grammar: I think Tolkien's choice is interesting here. He both chooses man (lower case) but does not use the article 'a man'. Why?
I think because that's the best compromise considering Tolkien has to write the prophecy (as readers have to read it). What he wants is ambiguity here, due to the spoken word (Glorfindel did not speak English, but he spoke his prophecy).
Working with English when you say the word man or Man it sounds the same, which is the required ambiguity for the prophecy to work for both a woman (not a man) and a Hobbit (not a Man).
Compare Macbeth believing that he cannot be killed by any man born of a woman (although again I would emphasize it's a prediction not a protection) -- seems secure enough if it 'must' come true, but Macduff was 'from his mother’s womb Untimely ripped', so he was not 'born of woman' in a sense -- at least not in some more normal sense, that is, he was not 'born' in the more usual way.
Prophecy can be like that: tricky!
(This post was edited by Elthir on Oct 29 2014, 2:39pm)
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Oct 29 2014, 9:51pm
Post #10 of 10
(472 views)
Shortcut
|
I wasn't actually trying to be clever, just pointing out that sometimes people might interpret prophecies as causing future events, but they don't. They are just forecasts or predictions of the future based on some mystical (or other) insight. They don't cause the future event to occur.
But thanks for the compliment. :-)
a.s
"an seileachan"
|
|
|
|
|
