We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 120
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by GarethB View Post
    *sigh*

    This has gone on for far too long, so I'm going to settle the issue once and for all.

    1: The Witch King of Angmar
    2: Groucho
    3: Harpo
    4: Chicko
    5: Zeppo
    6: Gummo
    7: Larry
    8: Curley
    9: Moe

    I hereby declare the matter resolved, closed and ended!
    Awww Shemp didn't make the cut? I know he came a little late to the party but I always kinda liked the guy...
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Land of Entrapment (come on vacation, leave on probation)
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Simarillion or Quenta Simarillion was wirtten not even by Tolkien although his son used plenty material from his father,
    I must take issue w/ this statement. Chris Tolkien never, to my knowledge, claimed authorship of The Silmarillion. He, w/ (I believe) some help from Guy Gavriel Kay edited the extensive notes of his father and cobbled them together into the finished product.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Duathrandir View Post
    I must take issue w/ this statement. Chris Tolkien never, to my knowledge, claimed authorship of The Silmarillion. He, w/ (I believe) some help from Guy Gavriel Kay edited the extensive notes of his father and cobbled them together into the finished product.
    Correct! Written by JRR Tolkien, edited by Christopher Tolkien. S'what it says on my copy anyway.

    Oh and Chris did have assistance with the editing from Guy Gavriel Kay as well.
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  4. #79
    Er-Murazor (the Witch-king, of Númenórean race)
    Dwar
    Ji Indur
    Akhorahil
    Hoarmurath (Númenórean)
    Adunaphel (female Númenórean)
    Ren
    Uvatha
    Khamûl, the Black Easterling

  5. #80

    Wow ...

    I actually have to quote myself to cut past pages of hyperbole and return to the actual issue at dispute,

    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    The Nature of Magic in Middle-Earth

    In short, this is all chain-of-being stuff, empowerment by divine (or sublime) right: white wizards are entitled, or enlightened, while black sorcerors are thieves, cheats and usurpers (if not, indeed, mere charlatans).

    ...

    All of Tolkien's Middle-Earth literature is saturated with this stuff.
    Any who do not know what "chain-of-being" is, go to Wikipedia and look it up; any who do not apprehend what does, and what does not, constitute a crime "against the natural order", according to the Nordic model, look it up; anyone who does not know what/how themes in English Literature (from all eras) provide self-acknowledged influences on JRRT's writing, look up the professor's bio, and read the critical works provided by CT.

    Otherwise,

    Stone of Erech: the pagan kings had sworn their oath to Isildur over the Stone; the Stone had been rescued from the Downfall by Isildur, personally; we do not need a molecular analysis of the Stone, or Mandos' fingerprints. Need references? Look them up: point out my error.

    The Flood at Rivendell drowned the horses, and robbed the Nazgul of their "shapes", so that they could not continue to pursue their errand, but had to return to Mordor, first; Elrond states that he summoned the Flood because the river is under his command; Gandalf states that he added the horses as "a touch" in order to perhaps offer a different explanation for the appearance of the flood; the horses of the Nazgul went mad and cast themselves into the flood, to get away from the fire-wielding charge of Glorfindel and Aragorn. Look it up: point out my error.

    Gandalf, on the Bridge, delivers the "You shall not pass" speech; it speaks for itself. Look it up: point out my error.

    The Sons of Feanor instigated the Kinslaying, and participated in it, when they seized the ships at Alqualonde; the terms of the Oath of the Silmarils invoked blasphemy against the Rights of the Valar; the burning of the stolen Teleri ships broke an oath made to the House of Fingolfin; Celegorm seizes Luthien, but this dastardly scheme is foiled by Huan. This is becoming a mantra: look it up; point out my error.

    Re-read the steps of Orthanc. If necessary, return to Gandalf's reappearance in Fangorn (the "yes, you may still call me Gandalf", and "I am Saruman: Saruman as he should have been" bits). You guessed it: look it up; point out my error.

    It has been previously asserted that JRRT's works are inconsistent, when it comes to magic. This is not true. They are completely consistent, in terms of the chain-of-being foundation. The only inconsistencies to be identified involve comparing stuff that is "LotR-compliant" to stuff that is not "LotR-compliant"; JRRT evidently wished everything (that was to belong to LotR's Middle-Earth) to be "LotR-compliant", but was unable to complete the task.

    I am now beginning to wonder about Chinese puzzle boxes, "tu quoque", and the "fallacy fallacy" fallacy.

    HoG

    P.S. I find myself acutely reminded of a skit on SNL, in which an exasperated William Shatner exhorts an audience of Trekkies to "get a life"; ironically, telecast of the skit incited a riot of indignation ...

    HoG

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Enrico411 View Post
    Er-Murazor (the Witch-king, of Númenórean race)
    Dwar
    Ji Indur
    Akhorahil
    Hoarmurath (Númenórean)
    Adunaphel (female Númenórean)
    Ren
    Uvatha
    Khamûl, the Black Easterling
    This is, I believe, the list compiled and published by Iron Crown Enterprises for their table-top RPG Middle-Earth Role Playing: it is almost-entirely a non-JRRT construction.

    The most JRRT himself ever elocuted was that three of the Ringwraiths had been Numenorean; the identity of "Khamul the Easterling" as the Witch-King's lieutenant consistently recurs, without disputation, in notes/glosses, but never appears in any "canon" published form.

    HoG

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    Stone of Erech: the pagan kings had sworn their oath to Isildur over the Stone; the Stone had been rescued from the Downfall by Isildur, personally; we do not need a molecular analysis of the Stone, or Mandos' fingerprints. Need references? Look them up: point out my error.
    I already have done. The problem with what you're saying is that there's this big round stone from Numenor which going by what you're saying would somehow be defying the legitimate authority of a Vala who, moreover, was granted that authority by Iluvatar himself. How could anything from Numenor have such an effect, all by itself? Whereas what I was saying is that the Stone may simply be a hallowed spot in which to swear a solemn oath, which would make breaking such an oath even more likely for the Powers to heed Isildur's curse and smite the Oathbreakers. It would be bizarre for anything for Numenor to have the power to defy the fate of Men in any way when we know from the Akallabeth that the Numenoreans were never successful in coming up with anything in that regard.

    The Flood at Rivendell drowned the horses, and robbed the Nazgul of their "shapes", so that they could not continue to pursue their errand, but had to return to Mordor, first; Elrond states that he summoned the Flood because the river is under his command; Gandalf states that he added the horses as "a touch" in order to perhaps offer a different explanation for the appearance of the flood; the horses of the Nazgul went mad and cast themselves into the flood, to get away from the fire-wielding charge of Glorfindel and Aragorn. Look it up: point out my error.
    What purpose would such a 'different explanation' serve? Who would it be intended for? There's no time for the Ring-wraiths to be thinking of explanations for anything; it appears to be distraction, pure and simple, to hold their attention for a few crucial seconds. Plus you seem to have forgotten that three of the Nazgul had nearly reached the opposite bank and were immediately overwhelmed by the flood, rather than needing to be driven into it.

    Gandalf, on the Bridge, delivers the "You shall not pass" speech; it speaks for itself. Look it up: point out my error.
    Your error is insisting on one particular reading of it which is not well supported by the text. There is no talk of 'true' or 'false' fire, more dark and light if anything (i.e. different aspects of the same thing) and the implication is more one of approximate parity than anything else. Hence 'You cannot pass!' rather than threats of destruction that the Balrog would have been even less likely to take seriously.

    The Sons of Feanor instigated the Kinslaying, and participated in it, when they seized the ships at Alqualonde; the terms of the Oath of the Silmarils invoked blasphemy against the Rights of the Valar; the burning of the stolen Teleri ships broke an oath made to the House of Fingolfin; Celegorm seizes Luthien, but this dastardly scheme is foiled by Huan. This is becoming a mantra: look it up; point out my error.
    I see crimes, but not necessarily 'against nature'. Again, your error is insisting on one particular reading that isn't well supported.

    Re-read the steps of Orthanc. If necessary, return to Gandalf's reappearance in Fangorn (the "yes, you may still call me Gandalf", and "I am Saruman: Saruman as he should have been" bits). You guessed it: look it up; point out my error.
    Insisting that it's all about reincarnation rather than reincarnation AND the granting of Saruman's former authority in his stead. It's not as if the two were so inextricably linked that he could only have been sent back like that.

    It has been previously asserted that JRRT's works are inconsistent, when it comes to magic. This is not true. They are completely consistent, in terms of the chain-of-being foundation. The only inconsistencies to be identified involve comparing stuff that is "LotR-compliant" to stuff that is not "LotR-compliant"; JRRT evidently wished everything (that was to belong to LotR's Middle-Earth) to be "LotR-compliant", but was unable to complete the task.
    Simply not credible. He admitted a general lack of complete consistency on his part, so for you to stand up on your soapbox and proclaim anything as problematic as his portrayal of magic to be 'completely consistent' lacks all conviction. Claiming absolute consistency demands equally absolute proof, which you just don't have.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The axe was the weapon the Sindar preferred at the time, and Tuor had been brought up by them ('fostered by the Grey-elves of Mithrim'). 'Dramborleg' is a Sindarin name. More likely it's Elvish, then, yes?

    As for Boromir: 'the sword rang, glanced aside, and fell from his shaken hand. The blade was notched.'. It didn't just glance off, it was a solid blow with all his strength behind it but the blade not only failed to cleave the Troll's hide, it was notched in the process. Then up comes Frodo and stabs the Troll in the foot with Sting, which goes through its hide like a hot knife through butter. Boromir's sword evidently wasn't all that.
    Tuor was fostered by the Sindar, speaks Sindarin, gives his axe a Sindarin name and this makes it Sindarin?, Feanor and Galadriel are Sindarin names, Glamdring is Sindarin, do you suggest these are Sindar of origin?, your logic is as usual impeccable.

    Angrist broke, Narsil broke, Anglachel broke, Boromirs sword broke too, aswell as being notched by the troll, swords breaking has little to do with the quality of the smith, are you saying that every troll that died on the Pelenor fields and battle of Moranon had to be killed by a magic weapon?.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthaur View Post
    Tuor was fostered by the Sindar, speaks Sindarin, gives his axe a Sindarin name and this makes it Sindarin?
    Tuor was fostered by the Sindar, who used axes in war themselves. I'm saying that it would hardly be surprising given that he'd spent so much time with Elves and even married one (and he was ultimately allowed to sail into the West with her, too).

    Angrist broke, Narsil broke, Anglachel broke, Boromirs sword broke too, aswell as being notched by the troll, swords breaking has little to do with the quality of the smith, are you saying that every troll that died on the Pelenor fields and battle of Moranon had to be killed by a magic weapon?.
    I'm saying that Boromir's sword apparently isn't of anything like the same quality as Sting. I can't see why you find it at all surprising that Boromir's sword might be lacking when compared to one made by Elves.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Enrico411 View Post
    Er-Murazor (the Witch-king, of Númenórean race)
    Dwar
    Ji Indur
    Akhorahil
    Hoarmurath (Númenórean)
    Adunaphel (female Númenórean)
    Ren
    Uvatha
    Khamûl, the Black Easterling
    I'm curious where these names came from? The only ones I have found are the Witch King and possibly Khamul. And I'm not even sure I remember exactly what source references them either.
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

  11. #86

    Um, bambubambubambu ...

    Quote Originally Posted by bambubambubambu View Post
    I'm curious where these names came from?
    Me, top of this page.

    HoG

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Duathrandir View Post
    I must take issue w/ this statement. Chris Tolkien never, to my knowledge, claimed authorship of The Silmarillion. He, w/ (I believe) some help from Guy Gavriel Kay edited the extensive notes of his father and cobbled them together into the finished product.
    Yes this is what I meant, Tolkien son compiled and edited lots of material that makes him kinda like an Author himself as he dictated what should have been in the Silmarillion, the author is J.R.R Tolkien no doubt but was his son who actually published the book.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And again, you've entirely misunderstood what I've been saying. You're hopeless.
    Why the insult rad? I know context is important that is why the Hobbit is important to LOTR...nuff said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    This seems to be a comprehension (nor just not-reading, or it-all-going-over-your-head problem on your part). As I said: LOTR was written to fit in with Tolkien's other tales as they existed at the time. I don't need to be told that all that material went through assorted versions because hey, guess what? I've got HoME, the books Chris Tolkien put together over the course of years, to tell me that.
    Well you should know by having HoME that his opinion just like it appears in video interview. Is that most books are made to be in compilance with LOTR (not Hobbit) or been LOTR centric, LOTR was made differently to the hobbit and the style changed so its tied-in with the hobbit but LOTR is prevalecent in lore, Hobbit was just a Chindren's book but still the story is relevant to LOTR which is the most important part in lore been then trilogy and appendices.

    No on both accounts. I mentioned Malbeth the Seer myself, earlier on, and I don't see prophecy as being magic because it's far more likely to be divine inspiration. It's a gift, not any sort of mechanistic magic.
    Its not specified anywere its divine inspiration, so it might be just plain magic, prophecy is rare but the whole people decendant of numenor with still good linage had it...its hereditary magic it seems.

    Aragorn was more than merely human because of his ancestry, so not an example that applies to others. That ability was specifically said to be unique to the Line of Kings - 'and thus shall the rightful king be known'.
    are you saying this is a divine inspiration awell? I call BS on you, this is innate magic ability on the line of the kings nuff said.

    And now you're just repeating yourself; I talked about shape-shifting earlier. And sorry, but 'experts in rituals to counter evil rituals'? What? I said that there's that one proven example of Dunedain magic (the Barrow-blades) myself but as I also said, that was just the one example and from at least sixteen hundred years in the past, with no indication there was ever more than just one guy who was able to make things like that and it looks very much like a lost art.


    Gandalf's sword had been made by the Elves of Gondolin, and Narsil was made by the famous Dwarf-smith Telchar. 'Nuff said.
    Its not entirely lost like everything in Third age of men, they had it in them and they sometimes used them.

    I was wrong in Anduril-Narsil, I stand corrected thanks for pointing out.
    Last edited by Al.; Dec 04 2012 at 02:28 PM.

  14. #89

    Radhruin_EU,

    The First Age: Age of the Straw Man;
    The Second Age: Age of the "fallacy fallacy" fallacy;
    The Third Age: Age of Straw Man teaming-up with Red-Herring to run around the barn!

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I already have done. The problem with what you're saying is ...
    ... that I never said it. Presumably, everything I don't say causes you distress.


    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    What purpose would such a 'different explanation' serve? Who would it be intended for? There's no time for the Ring-wraiths to be thinking of explanations for anything.
    Um, gee, maybe it's not a good idea to explicitly reveal to Sauron that this particular river valley is commanded, hence invested, by one of the High Lords of the Eldar, namely heir to the Kingships of both the exilic Noldor AND the Sindar of Doriath (and, so, of all Sindar); the Wise could only hope that Sauron's knowledge was no better than Boromir's, rumour of a secret valley called Rivendell, and an Elf-Lord maybe-named Elrond, but lacking any specific information; Gandalf's presence, and interference, already had been revealled at the attack on Weathertop.

    In any event, you say nothing against the fact that Gandalf states that "another explanation" was his reason for adding the horses! Was the above JRRT's thinking when he wrote these passages? We can assume, yes: it's called, "continuity". Why did you run around the barn?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    it appears to be distraction, pure and simple, to hold their attention for a few crucial seconds.
    A "distraction" that drowned all of their horses and cast them miles downstream, and robbed the Nazgul of their shapes, which forced them to abandon their errand; yes, I agree that they were very-likely distracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Plus you seem to have forgotten that three of the Nazgul had nearly reached the opposite bank and were immediately overwhelmed by the flood, rather than needing to be driven into it..
    No, I didn't forget; what relevance does this "criticism" possess? BTW, here you say, "overwhelmed" and "flood", where earlier you said, "pure and simple distraction". I say, "pure and simple distraction, teeming with Red Herrings".


    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Your error is insisting on one particular reading of it which is not well supported by the text. There is no talk of 'true' or 'false' fire, more dark and light if anything (i.e. different aspects of the same thing) and the implication is more one of approximate parity than anything else. Hence 'You cannot pass!' rather than threats of destruction that the Balrog would have been even less likely to take seriously..
    The implication is that the Balrog can not prevail against a Servant of the Secret Fire: Gandalf is declaring himself, and his office, and stating his convictions. The reason why the Balrog, otherwise an equal ("flip a coin"), can not prevail can be painlessly extrapolated. Now, please enlighten me because I am curious: why do you explicitly mention that this is not a "Yo' Momma" ghetto-fight-trashtalk speech? Is it because such speeches never occur anywhere in Tolkien; have we found another red-herring?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I see crimes, but not necessarily 'against nature'. Again, your error is insisting on one particular reading that isn't well supported.
    Refer to my last post on this subject, and acquaint yourself with the concepts I mention in the very first paragraph: you are prevaricating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Insisting that it's all about reincarnation rather than reincarnation AND the granting of Saruman's former authority in his stead. It's not as if the two were so inextricably linked that he could only have been sent back like that.
    You've sent the Straw Man behind the barn again, herr Herring. Also, why are you now stipulating that Saruman's authority might have anything to do with it? Regarding the "absence of an inextricable link", justify this point of view; where does the narrative declare this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Simply not credible. He admitted a general lack of complete consistency on his part, so for you to stand up on your soapbox and proclaim anything as problematic as his portrayal of magic to be 'completely consistent' lacks all conviction. Claiming absolute consistency demands equally absolute proof, which you just don't have.
    It is credible: JRRT, himself, revised The Hobbit. One might also refer to JRRT's ongoing language-refinement, which has been, to a degree, continued by CT: JRRT and CT both assert that the baseline for comparison is always LotR; both admit that the work of revision was never adequately completed.

    Yes, it is consistent, and believable: throw any event of Middle-Earth Tolkien-Magic you want at me, I will point to its chain-of-being foundation.

    HoG

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Why the insult rad? I know context is important that is why the Hobbit is important to LOTR...nuff said.
    Not really, you don't or you wouldn't have just said that.

    Well you should know by having HoME that his opinion just like it appears in video interview. Is that most books are made to be in compilance with LOTR (not Hobbit) or been LOTR centric, LOTR was made differently to the hobbit and the style changed so its tied-in with the hobbit but LOTR is prevalecent in lore, Hobbit was just a Chindren's book but still the story is relevant to LOTR which is the most important part in lore been then trilogy and appendices.
    I've not been referring to the the story as a whole but some of the detail, in some cases it doesn't fit the context of LOTR because it obviously wasn't written to. A very simple proposition. Case in point: Thorin & Co., we're told, would have preferred to have had a Hero with them rather than a Burglar, but all the Heroes were off fighting in wars. Two obvious points there: which wars are those, from an LOTR point of view? And who on earth goes around calling themselves a Hero, capital 'H'? It's of no consequence in the playful original but looks odd when you try to look at in the serious context of LOTR. Things like this are why you can't simply take The Hobbit at face value; not everything is relevant. Some things belong purely to The Hobbit's native context, that of a stand-alone children's story.

    Its not specified anywere its divine inspiration, so it might be just plain magic, prophecy is rare but the whole people decendant of numenor with still good linage had it...its hereditary magic it seems.
    Oh, and I suppose that Sam and Frodo suddenly knowing just the right words to say at a couple of crucial moments was 'just plain magic', too. And never mind the subtle religious elements Tolkien included. All you're doing is pointing to anything out of the ordinary and trying to hold it up as an example of magic, without applying any thought at all.

    are you saying this is a divine inspiration awell? I call BS on you, this is innate magic ability on the line of the kings nuff said.
    I already said that was an innate 'magical' ability on account of his ancestry (being partly descended from Elves and a Maia obviously had its perks), but regardless it has no implications whatsoever for any other Man in Middle-earth. And you wonder why I think you're hopeless...

    Its not entirely lost like everything in Third age of men, they had it in them and they sometimes used them.
    Where? When? It never happens once in the whole of LOTR, even though there are full-scale battles with thousands of Men running around. If you're going to contend that Men among the Free Peoples had magic at that time, you need more than just wishful thinking. You need an example, but all we really have are some ancient blades (the secret of whose manufacture had evidently been lost long ago) and a bunch of sorcerers who serve the Enemy. There are no 'good' magicians in evidence among the Men of the Free Peoples.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    *Trash and trolling*
    It's been a while since we had someone like you round here. You might as well know now that none of that will cut any ice with me, so you might as well save yourself a bit of bandwidth as well as wear and tear on your keyboard and cut it out.

    ... that I never said it. Presumably, everything I don't say causes you distress.
    Oh, so you're saying you agree with me that it's not any power of the Stone that drove the curse?

    Um, gee, maybe it's not a good idea to explicitly reveal to Sauron that this particular river valley is commanded, hence invested, by one of the High Lords of the Eldar, namely heir to the Kingships of both the exilic Noldor AND the Sindar of Doriath (and, so, of all Sindar); the Wise could only hope that Sauron's knowledge was no better than Boromir's, rumour of a secret valley called Rivendell, and an Elf-Lord maybe-named Elrond, but lacking any specific information; Gandalf's presence, and interference, already had been revealled at the attack on Weathertop.
    Oh, so a river suddenly sprouts that sort of imagery and Sauron's not going to figure out that someone with power did it? And there weren't that many people with that sort of power to begin with. If the intent had been to hide that then they should have kept the flood looking entirely natural.

    A "distraction" that drowned all of their horses and cast them miles downstream, and robbed the Nazgul of their shapes, which forced them to abandon their errand; yes, I agree that they were very-likely distracted.
    Comprehension is either not your strong suit, or else you're too busy trying to troll me. The added visuals would have acted as a crucial momentary distraction to draw their attention away from Frodo (who was mere yards away from the Witch-king at that point) and make them pause in consternation, so that the Witch-king and his two companions would barely get chance to think "WTH?" before they got a faceful of raging torrent, and the others on the far bank wouldn't notice Glorfindel, Aragorn and the rest coming up behind them until it was too late.

    The implication is that the Balrog can not prevail against a Servant of the Secret Fire: Gandalf is declaring himself, and his office, and stating his convictions.
    Oh look, swiftly changing the goalposts. The specific point I was making was that your talk of 'false' and 'true' fire was baloney. What Gandalf was telling the Balrog was that its fire would do it no good at all, but then his fire-magic doesn't do him any good either since the Balrog's a fire-spirit. So, they're equal in that respect. What it comes down to is good old-fashioned violence, with Gandalf basically having to whittle the Balrog down to size with Glamdring, bit by bit over the course of days.

    Refer to my last post on this subject, and acquaint yourself with the concepts I mention in the very first paragraph: you are prevaricating.
    Read that &&&& already, just not buying it.

    It is credible: JRRT, himself, revised The Hobbit. One might also refer to JRRT's ongoing language-refinement, which has been, to a degree, continued by CT: JRRT and CT both assert that the baseline for comparison is always LotR; both admit that the work of revision was never adequately completed.
    That provides nothing to substantiate that Tolkien was absolutely consistent about magic. It's just waffle.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Dec 04 2012 at 05:17 PM.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Not really, you don't or you wouldn't have just said that.
    Ok, want it that way you will always be hopeless and miserable in mind and spirit.

    I've not been referring to the the story as a whole but some of the detail, in some cases it doesn't fit the context of LOTR because it obviously wasn't written to. A very simple proposition. Case in point: Thorin & Co., we're told, would have preferred to have had a Hero with them rather than a Burglar, but all the Heroes were off fighting in wars. Two obvious points there: which wars are those, from an LOTR point of view? And who on earth goes around calling themselves a Hero, capital 'H'? It's of no consequence in the playful original but looks odd when you try to look at in the serious context of LOTR. Things like this are why you can't simply take The Hobbit at face value; not everything is relevant. Some things belong purely to The Hobbit's native context, that of a stand-alone children's story.
    Taking the hobbit as face-value is not bad, sure it may hold difference with LOTR in some points but its mostly coherent link between the two. As it is The hobbit is not a stand alone story, the basic principles of Tolkien universe are there, dwarves, hobbits and goblins are introduced also Tolkien considered it part of his sub-creation universe he never said: "Don't take The hobbit as part of my sub creation world".

    You are just plain wrong, you just see what you want to see.

    Oh, and I suppose that Sam and Frodo suddenly knowing just the right words to say at a couple of crucial moments was 'just plain magic', too. And never mind the subtle religious elements Tolkien included. All you're doing is pointing to anything out of the ordinary and trying to hold it up as an example of magic, without applying any thought at all.
    Irrelevant comparison from your part, I don't think in OUR world or tolkien's world prophecy is just a religious thing, let me repeat it: prophecy is magic as prophecy is "seeing the future" or predicting it. Religion in most cases disproves any kind of prophecy except for few cases of those that "had divine inspiration", but in Tolkien sub-creation world a whole civilisation had that gift and was hereditary...so there it goes its not divine inspiration dunadan can foresee the future.

    I already said that was an innate 'magical' ability on account of his ancestry (being partly descended from Elves and a Maia obviously had its perks), but regardless it has no implications whatsoever for any other Man in Middle-earth. And you wonder why I think you're hopeless...
    yet its magic.

    Where? When? It never happens once in the whole of LOTR, even though there are full-scale battles with thousands of Men running around. If you're going to contend that Men among the Free Peoples had magic at that time, you need more than just wishful thinking. You need an example, but all we really have are some ancient blades (the secret of whose manufacture had evidently been lost long ago) and a bunch of sorcerers who serve the Enemy. There are no 'good' magicians in evidence among the Men of the Free Peoples.
    "Their ‘magic’ is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."

    J.R.R TOLKIEN on Magic of the late descendants of Elros of Numenor, AKA Gondor

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Ok, want it that way you will always be hopeless and miserable in mind and spirit.
    Couldn't you do better than "you too!"? Hopeless!

    Taking the hobbit as face-value is not bad, sure it may hold difference with LOTR in some points but its mostly coherent link between the two. As it is The hobbit is not a stand alone story, the basic principles of Tolkien universe are there, dwarves, hobbits and goblins are introduced also Tolkien considered it part of his sub-creation universe he never said: "Don't take The hobbit as part of my sub creation world".
    Taking The Hobbit at face value is not wise. And sorry, what's that about goblins? He says in the foreword that they're the same thing as Orcs, remember (and hence were not being introduced there at all); they're not all small in The Hobbit either. And no, it wasn't where the Dwarves were introduced either, just the idea of them having Norse names - something Tolkien actually said he didn't really approve of ('this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa') when compared to his other work but which he ended up stuck with for LOTR as well.

    You are just plain wrong, you just see what you want to see.
    Nah, you just don't want to hear it because it messes with your preconceptions.

    Irrelevant comparison from your part, I don't think in OUR world or tolkien's world prophecy is just a religious thing, let me repeat it: prophecy is magic as prophecy is "seeing the future" or predicting it. Religion in most cases disproves any kind of prophecy except for few cases of those that "had divine inspiration", but in Tolkien sub-creation world a whole civilisation had that gift and was hereditary...so there it goes its not divine inspiration dunadan can foresee the future.
    Where are you getting that from, that all Dunedain could see the future? And yes, religion holds legitimate prophecy to be divinely inspired... and Tolkien was a devout Catholic, who said he'd woven religious ideas into the story and its symbolism. Again, it's obvious you like things simple and nothing's more simple than pointing at things and saying "Magic." Even if it were true that Dunedain could all see the future, their abilities were all a gift from the Valar, a divine blessing, and from a religious standpoint such things are not considered to be magic.

    yet its magic.
    It's what you prefer to call magic. And again, so what? It says nothing about other Men.

    "Their ‘magic’ is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."

    J.R.R TOLKIEN on Magic of the late descendants of Elros of Numenor, AKA Gondor
    Note the inverted commas around the word 'magic'.

  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    Me, top of this page.

    HoG
    Many years ago there was a licenced pen & paper RPG version of Middle Earth produce by Iron Crown Enterprises.



    The nazgul names listed at the top of this page were used in that game and are not guaranteed to be 100% authentic.
    Therina - Hobbit Guard Rongo - Hobbit Warden
    Frood - Man Minstrel Garmun - Man Captain
    Zorosi - Dwarf Champ Froodaroon - Elf Hunter
    Southern Defenders - Arkenstone (formerly Elendilmir)

  20. #95

    Thankyou for the pic,

    Quote Originally Posted by GarethB View Post
    Many years ago there was a licenced pen & paper RPG version of Middle Earth produce by Iron Crown Enterprises.
    It seems this,

    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    This is, I believe, the list compiled and published by Iron Crown Enterprises for their table-top RPG Middle-Earth Role Playing: it is almost-entirely a non-JRRT construction.
    was inadequate.

    HoG

  21. #96

    Pucker-up, buttercup,

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It's been a while since we had someone like you round here. You might as well know now that none of that will cut any ice with me ...
    said the broken-nosed bully past his split lip. BTW, you might want to pick up some of your lost teeth, next lap around the barn.

    This, first, as it forms the sole basis of your "argumentation",

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Read that &&&& already, just not buying it.
    Specify which &&&& you "don't buy":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_being

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_order_(philosophy)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...isambiguation)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(literature)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R...27s_influences

    You have my permission to also "not buy" the Law of Gravity; and you treat me so harshly, as if I've never been magnanimous to you!

    Hitherto, I have been unaware that "what you don't buy" retroactively overwrites reality. Are you aware of your true stature and importance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Oh, so you're saying you agree with me that it's not any power of the Stone that drove the curse?
    No, precisely like all of the things I never said that you say I said, I am not saying this. Wow, I bet lots of people are surprised that I continue to not-say so much: I'm capable of an endless spam of non-spam!

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Oh, so a river suddenly sprouts that sort of imagery and Sauron's not going to figure out that someone with power did it? And there weren't that many people with that sort of power to begin with. If the intent had been to hide that then they should have kept the flood looking entirely natural.
    Again, in what must be a desperate act of deflection, you pretend to miss the point: Gandalf's presence in the region, and his interference with the Nazgul, was already known from the attack at Weathertop; Gandalf's intent is to hide Elrond's involvement. And you are still running around the barn: Elrond says what Elrond says, and Gandalf says what Gandalf says, and that's it. Except for you, who persists in going-on talking, emptily and needlessly, as I pointed-out on page 2 of this "discussion".

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Comprehension is either not your strong suit, or else you're too busy trying to troll me. The added visuals would have acted as a crucial momentary distraction to draw their attention away from Frodo (who was mere yards away from the Witch-king at that point) and make them pause in consternation, so that the Witch-king and his two companions would barely get chance to think "WTH?" before they got a faceful of raging torrent, and the others on the far bank wouldn't notice Glorfindel, Aragorn and the rest coming up behind them until it was too late.
    Don't attempt to insult my comprehension: you're the one who needs to re-read the narrative. What's with all the conjecture; you know, "would have acted as a distraction", "would barely get chance to think "WTH""? None of this conjectural garbage is even alluded to in the narrative, yet people are supposed to accept this, coming from you, over the declarative statements directly from the involved characters, as it was written in the original text by JRRT himself? Aside from simply more, pathetic, running around the barn, you're showing some impressively revolting cheek!

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Oh look, swiftly changing the goalposts. The specific point I was making was that your talk of 'false' and 'true' fire was baloney. What Gandalf was telling the Balrog was that its fire would do it no good at all, but then his fire-magic doesn't do him any good either since the Balrog's a fire-spirit. So, they're equal in that respect. What it comes down to is good old-fashioned violence, with Gandalf basically having to whittle the Balrog down to size with Glamdring, bit by bit over the course of days.
    I didn't change any goal-posts; nice try (read, fail). Simile and metaphor are wonderful things: as long as the semantic meaning remains uncompromised, the specific, literal usage doesn't matter. And, again you obtusely attempt to deflect the point: In the contest of, Flame of Anor v. Flame of Udun, Flame means nothing, while Anor v. Udun means everything, and Udun can not prevail. Wow, and you claimed to be upset because, earlier, I said you had to be spoon-fed...

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    That provides nothing to substantiate that Tolkien was absolutely consistent about magic. It's just waffle.
    No, it's the cigar: I always have the waffle after; a smoke and a pancake at breakfast, only. Explain this to me: it's valid for you to hijack JRRT's admissions of inconsistency (on language refinement and the allocation of names) to support your arguments about Middle-Earth magic but, somehow, it's invalid for me to refer to the same sources to report JRRT's lamentation that his desire to reconcile everything to LotR had never been satisfactorily realised; justify this posture.

    HoG

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Haing cut through all the waffling and attack-post stuff, HoG, that didn't leave much to reply to...

    Quote Originally Posted by Harper_of_Gondolin View Post
    Again, in what must be a desperate act of deflection, you pretend to miss the point: Gandalf's presence in the region, and his interference with the Nazgul, was already known from the attack at Weathertop; Gandalf's intent is to hide Elrond's involvement. And you are still running around the barn: Elrond says what Elrond says, and Gandalf says what Gandalf says, and that's it.
    Good, then you can post an actual quote or two, can't you. Don't even think of saying 'look it up' again.

    I didn't change any goal-posts; nice try (read, fail). Simile and metaphor are wonderful things: as long as the semantic meaning remains uncompromised, the specific, literal usage doesn't matter. And, again you obtusely attempt to deflect the point: In the contest of, Flame of Anor v. Flame of Udun, Flame means nothing, while Anor v. Udun means everything, and Udun can not prevail.
    What Gandalf says would not avail the Balrog was the Dark Fire, which one presumes is that shadow-and-flame thing the Balrog has about it. He can apparently withstand it (he isn't consumed by it) so he's just saying to the Balrog that once of its scariest powers isn't going to do it any good against him. Saying 'flame of Udun' is, as I said, just a poetical way to say 'Balrog'. I don't see this would-be contrast of yours as being direct, in the way you suggest. And 'Anor' means everything, does it? It only means 'the Sun', and I don't recall it being used as code for Aman anywhere so I don't see how he can be contrasting Udun with it as a place. Personally, I think that he's referring to that brilliant white light he uses later, the stuff the Ring-wraiths find so unpleasant.

    Explain this to me: it's valid for you to hijack JRRT's admissions of inconsistency (on language refinement and the allocation of names) to support your arguments about Middle-Earth magic but, somehow, it's invalid for me to refer to the same sources to report JRRT's lamentation that his desire to reconcile everything to LotR had never been satisfactorily realised; justify this posture.
    If there's any posing going on, it's very much from you. I already pointed out one detail in which we know Tolkien wasn't sure in his own mind: that he wanted to be able to write in a letter than Men 'as such' did not have magic, but then corrected himself (in a marginal note) after having recalled the business about the Barrow-blades. As you are claiming absolute consistency, even the least evidence of Tolkien's thinking lacking such consistency is enough to disprove the point. You're claiming something that he himself does not, so all you're doing is striking a pose. I can't see how his inability to reconcile everything to LOTR has anything to do with this, either.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Dec 06 2012 at 03:27 AM.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    263
    Don't mind Rad. He and some of the other 'purists' have their own specific definition of 'magic' that fits better for them with Tolkien's opinions on such matters.

    It is almost certainly best to agree to disagree on the subject as good luck getting any of them to accept any other definitions.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Torweld View Post
    Don't mind Rad. He and some of the other 'purists' have their own specific definition of 'magic' that fits better for them with Tolkien's opinions on such matters.

    It is almost certainly best to agree to disagree on the subject as good luck getting any of them to accept any other definitions.
    Don't mind Torweld, he's just bitter. Oh so very bitter

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    I like waffles but I'd rather have pancakes to be honest. Or biscuits...biscuits and gravy ftw!
    Today is a good day for Pie.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Burglars, for they are subtle and quick to shank you.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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