We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,881

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Arasilion View Post

    And it appears that my memory of the events was almost spot on :-) Not that I'm bragging...


    ...much.
    ROFL, that gave me a good laugh. But on the serious side, you basically nailed it. Good job!
    [color=teal]Officer and Co-Founding Member,[/color] [url=http://www.kismetbp.com]Ring of Destiny[/url]
    [color=silver]Gladden server[/color]
    [i][color=yellow]Á auta mornië! i cala tula lennar! ("Flee, darkness! The light comes upon you!")[/color][/i]

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by MithrilSoul View Post
    Some really insightful comments on this very question can be found in the Tolkien Newsgroup FAQ, questions #2 (which deals with the power of Frodo's barrow-blade against the Nazgul) and especially #3 (which directly answers the question we have been debating).

    Obviously what is written there is still just opinion, but it includes comments from some of Tolkien's unpublished drafts of LoTR that are very interesting.
    I feel the much the same way about that that I do about the shards of Narsil conversation. It's all about finding rational internal justifications for something that just plain isn't perfectly rationally justified in the story, but rather serves a dramatic and aesthetic purpose. Even though it's Tolkien doing some of the justifying in this case, and he's pretty damn good at it.

  3. #28

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    MithrilSoul, thanks for posting that link. Before I check it out, however, as promised I am going to post my own answer to the question that I posed.

    My feeling is that the Nazgul are the most terrible and potent servants of arguably the greatest power currently residing in Middle-earth (meaning east of the sea). They were all once great warriors/kings/sorcerors and are now deadly wraiths. They are slaves to their rings (which Sauron holds) and absolutely dedicated to his will. Gandalf was hard pressed to withstand the Nazgul when they beseiged him at Weathertop, and Elrond stated something to the effect that he sent out such few of his people (e.g., Glorfindel) that might hope to ride out against the Nazgul. Thus, five of the Nazgul together led by the WK would have had no fear of four hobbits and a nameless Man trapped on Weathertop at night. They would not be unable to deal with resistance, even if the resistance should prove stouter than expected (and I do not believe that they would have been much taken by surprise by the resistance shown). In my opinion it would be true that the name of Elbereth would have some power in that context, but in my mind the crucial overriding factor is the presence of the One Ring that their master has commanded them to seize. With total victory literally within his reach, I cannot fathom how the Witch King, absent other considerations, would have failed to grab Frodo and run off with him (while the other Nazgul dealt with Frodo's companions) or even simply hacked off Frodo's hand and fled with the Ring. The course actually taken - withdraw and wait for the morgul wound to do its work - simply seems fraught with too much risk compared with the simple expediency of cutting off Frodo's hand and being done with it.

    With that perspective, I returned to the notion of the Ring as the critical factor. Would the Nazgul have the unfettered ability to act against the bearer of the One Ring? I believe that when Frodo, as the bearer of the Ring, defied the Nazgul by striking out at the WK with his blade and then calling upon Elbereth, the WK was limited in the extent of the direct action he could take against Frodo. I believe that it must have been very difficult for the WK to even have stabbed Frodo as he did. However, that wound given, the WK could then withdraw and wait for the deadly knife shard to do its work. Only after Frodo's will to resist was broken could the WK could seize the person of the Ring-bearer.

    That's my theory. Now I'm going to check out MithrilSoul's link and see how far I'm off. :0

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    139

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    That is actually a very interesting thought, Vilnas. I had never considered that.

  5. #30

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Having read the newsletter link that MithrilSoul provided, it seems safe to say that I have given much less weight to the nature of the blade that Frodo was carrying, the ability of the Witch King to recognize it's characteristics at a glance, and the fear such a blade would engender in the WK. Part of that is due to the evolution of the text from Tolkien's earlier conceptions - in my opinion much of his thinking on this really doesn't come through in what was ultimately published. However, some of the elements are certainly there, such as the glowing of the blade in the spirit world and the fact that two nazgul other than WK checked their advance when Frodo draws. I think I have also given more credit to the WK's arrogance and confidence in his powers (c.f. the confrontation between Gandalf and WK at the broken gate of Minas Tirith).

    Even though Professor Tolkien doesn't seem to have ever given any suggestion that Frodo as the defiant Ring bearer was a consideration for the events at Weathertop, I hope you won't hold it against me if I retain it as part of my personal explanation of those events. I still don't find the situation satisfactory without that factor, even in light of the quasi-official explanation.

  6. #31

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilnas View Post
    With that perspective, I returned to the notion of the Ring as the critical factor. Would the Nazgul have the unfettered ability to act against the bearer of the One Ring? I believe that when Frodo, as the bearer of the Ring, defied the Nazgul by striking out at the WK with his blade and then calling upon Elbereth, the WK was limited in the extent of the direct action he could take against Frodo. I believe that it must have been very difficult for the WK to even have stabbed Frodo as he did. However, that wound given, the WK could then withdraw and wait for the deadly knife shard to do its work. Only after Frodo's will to resist was broken could the WK could seize the person of the Ring-bearer.
    I think that this is key.... I do not think that ANY of the Nazgul can take possession of the Ring, themselves, nor can they TAKE the Ring from someone carrying it, given their nature--in the end they are actually servants of the Ring, not of Sauron.

    Their purpose here is to get Frodo somewhere that Sauron can take the Ring from him... and thus they seek to control him, indirectly, via the Morgul blade.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000000005da/01001/signature.png]Kosomok[/charsig]

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,881

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Kosomot View Post
    I think that this is key.... I do not think that ANY of the Nazgul can take possession of the Ring, themselves, nor can they TAKE the Ring from someone carrying it, given their nature--in the end they are actually servants of the Ring, not of Sauron.

    Their purpose here is to get Frodo somewhere that Sauron can take the Ring from him... and thus they seek to control him, indirectly, via the Morgul blade.
    The more I think about it, the more I think you are right. Even when Tolkien addressed what would have happened had Gollum not been present at the crack of doom basically follows what your said. For Tolkien said all the Nazgul and Sauron himself would have "flown" to where Frodo was. If the Nazgul arrived first, they would have pretended to bow down to their new "lord," and done all they could to entice him away from the fire ("come outside, my lord, and see all your kingdom spread out before you!" that sort of thing)(exact words are mine, but the idea is JRR's). Then they would have waited and when Sauron arrived Frodo would have been destroyed.

    But the question is...why would (up to) 9 Nazgul not simply pounce on Frodo, kill him, and take the ring from his finger? Makes no sense, unless...they were powerless to do so.
    [color=teal]Officer and Co-Founding Member,[/color] [url=http://www.kismetbp.com]Ring of Destiny[/url]
    [color=silver]Gladden server[/color]
    [i][color=yellow]Á auta mornië! i cala tula lennar! ("Flee, darkness! The light comes upon you!")[/color][/i]

  8. #33

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Thank you gentlefolk for your support of my ideas regarding the Weathertop dilemma.

    For anyone interested in playing along further with my little game, I have another puzzle for which it took me awhile to produce an answer I was happy with. As before, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts, and my personal solution will follow tomorrow or the next day after people have had a chance to post:

    The fall of the northern kingdom and the death of Arvedui was roughly contemporaneous (in historical terms) with the disappearance of Earnur, who went to his fate without establishing an heir to the southern kingdom. Why did none of the northern Dunedain chieftains prior to Aragorn go south to stake his claim to the throne of Gondor? The northern kings were the "elder" line and should have been able to press a valid claim to the southern kingship, particularly in the absence of any southern heir.

  9. #34

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    That is interesting. I can come up with a few ideas. For one the Witch King was driven from Angmar but not powerless and the North Kingdom was very defeated at that point. It would be tough to press a claim when you look more like a wandering vagabond than a King. The heirs of Elendil needed to lie low for a while or else the Witch King would not give up the intention of wiping them out.

    As for Gondor - no one was sure what happened to Earnur and doubtless held out hope for his return some day until so much time went by he couldn't possibly be alive anymore. In the meantime the Stewards were under orders to run the kingdom until his return. They would not have accepted just anyone's word that they were the true King without definitive proof. Arvedui had already attempted to claim the throne of Gondor but this claim was ignored by Gondor at the time. Perhaps it was deemed to be too soon to try again and a forced takeover was out of the question. Gondor was too strong and it would not befit a descendant of Elendil to force his rule on his own people.

    How's that for starters ? Can't wait to see everyone else's ideas.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilnas View Post

    The fall of the northern kingdom and the death of Arvedui was roughly contemporaneous (in historical terms) with the disappearance of Earnur, who went to his fate without establishing an heir to the southern kingdom. Why did none of the northern Dunedain chieftains prior to Aragorn go south to stake his claim to the throne of Gondor? The northern kings were the "elder" line and should have been able to press a valid claim to the southern kingship, particularly in the absence of any southern heir.
    Here's my thoughts on it:

    Thirty years before the fall of the North Kingdom, Arvedui had claimed the throne of Gondor on the basis of his lineage, his marriage to the previous Gondorian king's daughter, and the absence of a direct descendent of Anarion's line. He was rejected at that time in favor of Earnil. (RotK, appendix A, iv.)

    After the disappearence of Earnur, Tolkien says this about claims to the crown of Gondor:
    So it was that no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow, and all feared the memory of the Kin-strife, knowing that if any such dissension arose again, then Gondor would perish.
    I think that sentence would apply as well to any of the dispossessed heirs of Isildur in light of the prior rejection of Arvedui.

    I have some other ancillary ideas too, but that's the main one.

  11. #36

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilnas View Post
    Thank you gentlefolk for your support of my ideas regarding the Weathertop dilemma.

    For anyone interested in playing along further with my little game, I have another puzzle for which it took me awhile to produce an answer I was happy with. As before, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts, and my personal solution will follow tomorrow or the next day after people have had a chance to post:

    The fall of the northern kingdom and the death of Arvedui was roughly contemporaneous (in historical terms) with the disappearance of Earnur, who went to his fate without establishing an heir to the southern kingdom. Why did none of the northern Dunedain chieftains prior to Aragorn go south to stake his claim to the throne of Gondor? The northern kings were the "elder" line and should have been able to press a valid claim to the southern kingship, particularly in the absence of any southern heir.
    Politics, pure and simple.... the nobility of Gondor were unwilling to accept Arvedui's claim, despite it's merits, in favor of a more local and familiar candidate.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000000005da/01001/signature.png]Kosomok[/charsig]

  12. #37

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Thank you. Those were my conclusions as well. The bottom line would seem to be that if Gondor rejected the claim of a direct heir in the male line to Isildur at the time when he (Arvedui) was still the king of Arnor, then it is difficult to imagine that they would have accepted a Dunedain chieftain with no throne of his own. The sense I had from the Appendix A text on this point was that there was also significant "cultural" snobbery involved on the part of the Gondorian Dunedain with respect to their "wild northern cousins" (my quote marks for effect, not actual quotes from the text. I also considered the notion that the Stewards may not have wanted to give up power if they could get away with it, even if they didn't feel strong enough to simply declare the line of kings ended and take the throne directly. Also, as time went on the nobles of Gondor would likely have become jealous of their relative power in the absence of a king, and so would have been lukewarm to accept one of the northern chieftains. As you said, it was all about politics.

    I have one more question I would like to pose, and unfortunately in this case I have no ready answer of my own to offer. I fear this is a difficult nut to crack and may just have to be understood in the context of the author's needs in telling a story, rather than as something explicable within the framework of that story:

    Why was Sauron permitted to remain free in Middle-earth after the conclusion of the War of Wrath?

    Sauron was described in the Silmarillion as Morgoth's right hand and scarcely less a force of evil than his master. After the armies of the Valar overthrow Morgoth, Sauron submits himself to Eonwe. Eonwe, a Maia, feels that he does not have standing to pass judgment on a member of his own order and commands Sauron to present himself to the Valar in Aman for judgment. For one reason or another, Sauron breaks his word to Eonwe and instead hides himself in Middle-earth, at which point the Valar LET HIM GO. I am having great difficulty understanding how the Valar, having been moved at last to take action against Morgoth, would permit Sauron to go free to continue his master's evil works in Middle-earth. I can understand that a balrog or two may have been overlooked, or that the Valar would have chosen not to eradicate all of the orcs, trolls and other lesser servants of Morgoth. However, Sauron is so clearly identified as a force of evil in his own right that I do not understand how the Valar could have permitted Sauron his freedom. I have also struggled with a rationale for the Valar previously abandoning Middle-earth to Morgoth, and no doubt the reasons are similar in both cases. However, with respect to Sauron, we are talking about a situation in which the Valar in fact just acted to remove Morgoth, so I cannot understand why they would have left the job incomplete in such an obvious respect. Further, at that point the Noldor exiles have been pardoned, so to the extent the misdeeds of the Noldor under Feanor had been a factor in the choices made by the Valar vis a vis the struggle against Morgoth, that consideration would have become moot.

    As always, I welcome your thoughts.

  13. #38

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    That is a tough one. The big question would have been where to look for him ? They just destroyed Beleriand in taking down Morgoth, do they now break the rest of Middle-earth looking for Sauron ? The Valar were intended to be protectors of Arda, not destroy it and many innocents in the process. Another thought, Sauron didn't become a real threat until he suckered the elves into ring making and ensnared them along with the seven and the nine. If they could have resisted, Sauron might still have built Mordor and rallied Orcs and other evil creatures but had much less power over the free peoples. History is full of "could of" "should have" examples viewed in hindsight. Like you say, sometimes you need a good story more than complete rationalization of it.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  14. #39

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    You're just testing us aren't you .... likely a Turbine Dev in disguise...
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    My opinion, in short, is that it wasn't within the purview of the Valar to directly police Middle-earth, except insofar as it was necessary to capture Morgoth, who had (besides everything else) committed heinous crimes against the Valar themselves, in their own realm, and while on "probation". None of this applied to Sauron.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sínomë Neldoreth
    Posts
    180

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Keep in mind that the Valar were not omniscient and evil things did slip from under their wrath, Yrch, Valaraukar, and Sauron being among many things that ended up coming to hurt Arda once again. Yet, in the end they knew that these evils would be dealt with at some point in the song of Eru set out before them.

  17. #42

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Once the Valar withdrew to Aman, they becane exceptionally reluctant to interfere directly in Middle-Earth. This seems to be a result of the apparent futility of contending with Melkor directly--the conflict between Melkor and the Valar in the Beginning was both long and did much to alter Arda from it's original conception (at least insofar as the Valar perceived it).

    It is the role of the Valar to shape and guide, not to control or police... to attempt toactively control and police is the first step down the path that Melkor trod.

    The destruction of Utumno and attendant dislocations probably reinforced this proclivity on their part... emember that this was undertaken only to protect the Eldar and it was decided to bring the Eldar West, anyway, for their "protection."

    The destruction of the Trees and theft of the Jewels was another severe dislocation, when coupled with the rash behavior of Feanor.. after this, only certain of the Valar are involved in Middle-Earth and one gets the sense that their involvement is kind of under the table--and is more intended that things take their intended course than it is out of any sense of active conflict.

    The interaction of the Valar with Middle-Earth seems primarily directed at ensuring that things turn out as they should turn out, either through direct knowledge of the Song or as "unintended consequences." ACTIVE agency on their part is very limited... because it is the peoples of Middle-Earth who must make the moral decisions, not the Valar--the Valar are not really ethical actors, they are too bound up in their own nature and roles to be so. Melkor did not really have a choice, it was his nature to be as he was and he filed the role set for him (otherwise, why would he be so much more powerful than the other Valar, that he could contend with them equally for so long). The Valar do not even directly intercede with the rebellion of Numenor.. it is not the Valar that act in that case, it is Iluvatar... just as it is Iluvatar who intercedes after Gandalf's death--and likely in the small chances that bring the Ring to Bilbo (and then Frodo) in the first place.

    The War of Wrath occurs because things have disintegrated to the point that they MUST act or the Song will be broken--the embassy of Earendil is the trigger, not so much because of its content or the fact that he begs for their aid, but because it is the awaited sign that it is time to act. The Valar act only at the last resort.

    Suaron is, ina sense, a small evil in comparison to Melkor--while he is very powerful from our perspective, remember that he is, in the end, not a Valar. The ability of teh Children to resist him is much greater than their ability to resist Melkor... indeed, Sauron is defeated (although not destroyed) several times... he cannot contend with Numenor at its height (directly) and Elves and Men are able to defeat him at the end of the Second Age.

    The Valar MUST act against Melkor because he cannot be defeated by mortal agency. Sauron is a different story and so, in a sense, he is "off-limits."

    All of these events, actions and non-actions are at the core of the central qiuestion of the nature and necessity of Evil... why does it exist and why is it permitted to exist. That is a very large and difficult question to which theology has no.... satisfactory answer.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000000005da/01001/signature.png]Kosomok[/charsig]

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Great post, Kosomot.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ohio, where we never have any adventures or do anything unexpected
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Kosomot View Post
    All of these events, actions and non-actions are at the core of the central qiuestion of the nature and necessity of Evil... why does it exist and why is it permitted to exist. That is a very large and difficult question to which theology has no.... satisfactory answer.
    I think Tolkien does a fairly good job of examining (and possibly answering) these questions. Why evil is permitted to exist, we really cannot say apart from the possibility of it having some unseen purpose in the Music of the Ainur (i.e. the plans of Eru). However, Tolkien does seem to have thought very deeply about the other question: Why does evil exist? His conclusion seems to be that evil originates from a misplaced desire to do good. As he states in Letter 131:
    The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem : that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others* — speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans — is a recurrent motive.
    Here is another excellent, though less extreme, example:
    Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err; [. . .] Aulë, for instance, one of the Great, in a sense 'fell'; [. . .] Being the greatest of all craftsmen he tried
    to make children according to his imperfect knowledge of their kind. [. . .] Aulë had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Ilúvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made.
    This idea is also to be found in the actions of Boromir. It is only through his desire to aid his kingdom that he is lead into a 'fall', wherein he momentarily betrays Frodo and The Fellowship.

  20. #45

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Reddhawk View Post
    I think Tolkien does a fairly good job of examining (and possibly answering) these questions. Why evil is permitted to exist, we really cannot say apart from the possibility of it having some unseen purpose in the Music of the Ainur (i.e. the plans of Eru). However, Tolkien does seem to have thought very deeply about the other question: Why does evil exist? His conclusion seems to be that evil originates from a misplaced desire to do good. As he states in Letter 131:Here is another excellent, though less extreme, example:This idea is also to be found in the actions of Boromir. It is only through his desire to aid his kingdom that he is lead into a 'fall', wherein he momentarily betrays Frodo and The Fellowship.
    In the mythos, Evil apparently HAS a purpose--within a deistic construct, nothing exists without reason--and THAT is the Problem of Evil, in the end...

    My reading of Melkor/Morgoth's intentions and motivation is different.. I don't really see a "good" aspect to it at any stage--I do not see it arising from a desire to do good, but solely to possess, control and dominate. Tolkien's description of Melkor and his psychology/motivations is not (to my recollection) ever tempered by possible considerations of good motives.

    No one, to my knowledge has ever provided a good rationale for the existence of evil within a monotheistic context--the implications of such arguments are generally either that the deity in question either lacks intelligence or omnisicence or compassion--or is just a heartless bstd, after all. In the end, Evil MUST (in these settings) be ALLOWED to exist, the seeds for it must be present and the opportunity, which means that it is an intentional part of the design ITFP.

    Do a few moments of beauty or heroism justify the sufferings of the multitudes? Only, I think, if you are psychotic. Sorry, getting on a rant here
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000000005da/01001/signature.png]Kosomok[/charsig]

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ohio, where we never have any adventures or do anything unexpected
    Posts
    4,646

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by Kosomot View Post
    My reading of Melkor/Morgoth's intentions and motivation is different.. I don't really see a "good" aspect to it at any stage--I do not see it arising from a desire to do good, but solely to possess, control and dominate.
    Well, I never exactly said that was true of Morgoth, only that, by and large, the origins of evil seem to be rooted in good intentions. Personally, I can rationalize Morgoth's case by saying that his disruptions during the Music of the Ainur were born out of his desire to emulate Eru. Of course, you can just as easily say that it was jealousy, plain and simple, and nothing more. At any rate, concerning Morgoth, you are right.

    There's a footnote I left out from Tolkien's original quote:
    The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem : that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others* — speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans — is a recurrent motive.
    Here's the part I didn't originally include:
    * Not in the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall, and hence the Elves (the representatives of sub-creation
    par excellence) were peculiarly his enemies, and the special object of his desire and hate – and open to his deceits. Their
    Fall is into possessiveness and (to a less degree) into perversion of their art to power.

  22. #47

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Thank you for your responses. I apologize for not following up on my own question. I keep starting and abandoning a post with my own thoughts on the matter, but have not been able to satisfactorily settle them yet. I hope to be able to post something coherent soon.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    608

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    I realize these questions have been put to bed in this thread, but I'm new and just read them the first time. I'm loving reading everybody's responses and really appreciate the links to other Tolkien sources. Thanks for filling my Sunday evening with great fun!

    At the risk of being a "Johny come lately" here are my two cents worth:

    Quote Originally Posted by PenrodBarker View Post
    Looking through the Appendix(The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen) in The Return of the King, it says that when Aragorn came of age:

    "Elrond called him by his true name, and told him who he was and whose son; and he delivered to him the heirlooms of his house."

    "'Here is the ring of Barahir,' he said, "'the token of our kinship from afar; and here also are the shards of Narsil."

    So Aragorn had them in his possession for many years, and would have awaited the day of their reforging. :
    I've not read that section in a long time, but I also got the impression that Aragorn had to prove himself to win Arwen's hand. Am I mis-remembering? (Have I been corrupted by PJ heresy?) If that was the case, then Elrond is very kindly saying to him, "You're all grown up now. You need to take your things and find your own way. Your time is coming. I'm not going to look after your things for you. You're welcome here, but you need to take your stuff and go."

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilnas View Post
    It is my belief that if the Nazgul knew that the true King of Gondor was present they would have done everything in their power to slay him. And what was the magnitude of the resistance? A call upon Elbereth, a feeble slash by a hobbit with a knife that caught the hem of a cloak, a man with two torches? ... The Ring is before him, held by a sniveling hobbit whom he has just gravely wounded.
    Is part of it the WK's underestimation of his prey? He knew little of hobits, and judging by the Shire he would think they were soft and easy pickings. He didn't know the man. Yet when the wraiths attack suddenly he's confronted with weapons of a previous age, the name of Elbereth, an attack on several fronts! He must have asked himself, "Do all the creatures of the Shire carry such weapons with them?" I know I've read accounts from WWII in which tank drivers started to receive machine gun fire and it stopped their advance. They backed right up! They knew the machine gun fire wouldn't hurt their tanks, but faced with a surprise attack and not knowing what else might be out there that could hurt them, the decided discretion was the better part of valour! Maybe that was why the WK retreated. He didn't expect any resistance from some tubby hobbits, but he got Elbereth, magic swords and an unfrightened human! Sometimes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Frodo was one little dog with a surprising amount of fight!

    Also, just as Aragorn wasn't ready to openly declare himself, the wraiths were "abroad" but not openly declaring themselves either. We forget that most of these great characters lived for hundreds of years. They had patience. They didn't want to act too quickly and get caught off balance. They were willing to bide their time. That's why Aragorn rushed from Gondo to confront Sauron in ROTK. He wanted to make Sauron think he had moved too quickly and in fact he was making Sauron strike too soon himself. There's a huge chess game going on throughout the story. That's why it's so epic and so very cool.

    I also really like the idea that as the ring bearer they couldn't hurt Frodo directly or take the ring by force. However, using the ring and "claiming" the ring seem to be different for Tolkien. Frodo may have put the ring on, but he didn't claim it as his own or to be its master (until the Cracks of Doom). Sam had such fantasies for a minute, but didn't actually claim the ring, he just used it.

    Sorry for the after the fact comments, but I love this thread!

    Has anybody noticed that not only did Aragorn not carry a "working" sword, but in The Hobbit the dwarves, who were setting out to reclaim their stolen treasure from a DRAGON, seem to have not taken weapons with them either? When they confront the trolls, Thorin is the only one not taken by surprise. But he doesn't seem to have a weapon- he grabs a fire brand! Seems very similar to Aragorn's technique. So I guess JRR liked this. However, I'm just disturbed that the dwarves don't seem particularly prepared to be travelling through dangerous places to fight a dragon....

  24. #49

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Quote Originally Posted by BlancoFallowhide View Post
    I realize these questions have been put to bed in this thread, but I'm new and just read them the first time. I'm loving reading everybody's responses and really appreciate the links to other Tolkien sources. Thanks for filling my Sunday evening with great fun!

    At the risk of being a "Johny come lately" here are my two cents worth:



    I've not read that section in a long time, but I also got the impression that Aragorn had to prove himself to win Arwen's hand. Am I mis-remembering? (Have I been corrupted by PJ heresy?) If that was the case, then Elrond is very kindly saying to him, "You're all grown up now. You need to take your things and find your own way. Your time is coming. I'm not going to look after your things for you. You're welcome here, but you need to take your stuff and go."



    Is part of it the WK's underestimation of his prey? He knew little of hobits, and judging by the Shire he would think they were soft and easy pickings. He didn't know the man. Yet when the wraiths attack suddenly he's confronted with weapons of a previous age, the name of Elbereth, an attack on several fronts! He must have asked himself, "Do all the creatures of the Shire carry such weapons with them?" I know I've read accounts from WWII in which tank drivers started to receive machine gun fire and it stopped their advance. They backed right up! They knew the machine gun fire wouldn't hurt their tanks, but faced with a surprise attack and not knowing what else might be out there that could hurt them, the decided discretion was the better part of valour! Maybe that was why the WK retreated. He didn't expect any resistance from some tubby hobbits, but he got Elbereth, magic swords and an unfrightened human! Sometimes it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Frodo was one little dog with a surprising amount of fight!

    Also, just as Aragorn wasn't ready to openly declare himself, the wraiths were "abroad" but not openly declaring themselves either. We forget that most of these great characters lived for hundreds of years. They had patience. They didn't want to act too quickly and get caught off balance. They were willing to bide their time. That's why Aragorn rushed from Gondo to confront Sauron in ROTK. He wanted to make Sauron think he had moved too quickly and in fact he was making Sauron strike too soon himself. There's a huge chess game going on throughout the story. That's why it's so epic and so very cool.

    I also really like the idea that as the ring bearer they couldn't hurt Frodo directly or take the ring by force. However, using the ring and "claiming" the ring seem to be different for Tolkien. Frodo may have put the ring on, but he didn't claim it as his own or to be its master (until the Cracks of Doom). Sam had such fantasies for a minute, but didn't actually claim the ring, he just used it.

    Sorry for the after the fact comments, but I love this thread!

    Has anybody noticed that not only did Aragorn not carry a "working" sword, but in The Hobbit the dwarves, who were setting out to reclaim their stolen treasure from a DRAGON, seem to have not taken weapons with them either? When they confront the trolls, Thorin is the only one not taken by surprise. But he doesn't seem to have a weapon- he grabs a fire brand! Seems very similar to Aragorn's technique. So I guess JRR liked this. However, I'm just disturbed that the dwarves don't seem particularly prepared to be travelling through dangerous places to fight a dragon....
    i might be mis-remembering, but i believe that not all of the nazgul were present then. it seems that they are only willing to risk battle when they are all gathered together

  25. #50

    Re: Question Re: the Shards of Narsil

    Also, in one of Tolkien's letters he says that the Nazgul would not be able to harm the one wielding the Ring. If Gollum hadn't fallen into the fire with it the Nazgul would have arrived, bowed to Frodo and encouraged him to come out to take his empire. After that Sauron would have arrived and settled the situation the only way it could possibly end.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload