|
On January 05 2013 07:19 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 07:15 Dunmer wrote:On January 05 2013 07:09 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:27 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:15 solidbebe wrote:On January 05 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 06:02 solidbebe wrote:On December 30 2012 10:26 sambo400 wrote: Its always easy to spot a Tolkien noob when they point out the Eagles could just carry every character around everywhere they need to go, as if they were some freeking WoW mount or something. So why cant they? The Eagles are meant to be somewhat aloof and nebulous in motivation, sort of like a benevolent manifestation of Nature. There is a reason that Gandalf is always the one to call upon the Eagles in the LOTR trilogy and "The Hobbit", for I do not think the likes of hobbits, humans, and dwarves of the 3rd age know how to call their name. Yeah so why doesn't gandalf call the eagles for them? Because the Eagles are the sort to only assist when the situation is exceedingly dire. In terms of the history of Middle Earth, the Eagles have only intervened in events of dramatic importance, as they were originally sent to Middle Earth with the intent to keep distant watch over the newly landed Noldor (elves). Furthermore, Tolkien includes the difficulty in translating the motivations of divine and Natural forces in his works quite often, with lower beings almost always having trouble understanding exactly why the Valar, Maiar, and beings like the Eagles act the way they do. So why are they used to save a bunch of dwarves looking to get back their gold? And why weren't they used to safely transport the ring to mount doom in the first place? That seems like a pretty important event. 1. Gandalf is basically an angel to watch over the people of middle earth and help them much like the eagles themselves, gandalf was about to die so they helped him. 2. Again they are there to help people not save them while the people do nothing, also try fighting fell beast with people on your back. The eagles strength over them is that they are agile and can maneuver better. This is impossible if someone is on your back and can fall off. Ah it's just not really convincing me, but then again I haven't read the books so I can't really comment on it.
yo solid!
LotR is not simply about returning the ring to Mordor. It's about Middle Earth reuniting and bringing about a new age. The long journey forms ties, companionship, trust which are strong bonds that will help shape the new age after Sauron. If you just drop the ring off without anyone noticing, none of that would have happened. This long struggle that united Dwarves, humans, elves, hobbits, ents (.....) really is what brings about a new age. The fact that not brutal force won the war but a small hobbit who took responsibility. That all sets an example and is in strong contrast to everything Sauron stands for. That's why the eagles would have been of no good in that scenario. Also, they represent something natural, something fundamental like the feeling of love (or pride might be more fitting here). They are not simply convenient cargo birds. You might have noticed that they always appear in dire situations where fundamental values are at stake (or were at stake. Then they are somewhat of a reward for your hardship).
|
Well yeah, that's the thematic justification, if not the literal justification. Like Gollum being the one who actually finishes the quest.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Or, to put it another way, the Ring amplifies existing power, it doesn't add a flat power bonus.
Is it amplification as well when it gives the carrier invisibility ? Hobbits don't have any power whatsoever that could be amplified.
As for orcs piling to block the entry, that's exactly what I had in mind. Of course, it's all about numbers, and I don't think Tolkien ever bothered to do the math, but it's not that obvious Sauron could achieve that. If I remember well it takes about two days to Frodo and Sam to reach Mount Doom after they last see an Orc camp ? Granted, Orcs run faster, and they wouldn't be exhausted, but if the Eagles approach Mordor at the right angle it would take at most, twenty, thirty minutes to reach their goal ?
Also, if they send one Eagle and Sauron has no Nazgul available, his first decision wouldn't be to order everyone to rush to Mount I-regret-I-left-it-unguarded. When Sauron learns of enemies entering Mordor, he feels very concerned, as evidenced by the talks between the Orcs that Sam eavesdrops. Yet the last thing that comes to his mind apparently is to send a dozen of Orcs to watch the entry of Mt Doom just for the few weeks remaining before his total victory. I must say, that's one thing in the book that puzzles me (not that it's that kind of matter that gives LOTR its great qualities).
You might have noticed that they always appear in dire situations where fundamental values are at stake (or were at stake. Then they are somewhat of a reward for your hardship).
That's a beautiful way to look at it, but not very realistic. I wouldn't put the victory against Sauron in jeopardy just because I would want to shun dirty moves. And if Iluvatar and the Valar really want the races of Middle-Earth to unite and bond through sharing hardships and fighting common battles, couldn't they have devised something by themselves ? As someone previously said, Sauron is the result of Iluvatar and his Valar screwing up. It feels a bit hypocritical to adress the situation in that fashion : " Yes, it's totally our fault, but not only do we expect you to solve the situation by yourselves, we also task our emissary in Middle-Earth to make sure you choose the most difficult, and noble, ways, because who cares about the survival of one's whole race when one has the prospect to make new friends ?
|
On January 05 2013 20:36 Kyrillion wrote: As someone previously said, Sauron is the result of Iluvatar and his Valar screwing up.
No. Suaron is the product of free will, which Iluvatar gave to his creation. You have to look at Tolkien's Catholic faith and you will understand Middle earht a lot better.
|
Things to consider about the eagles:
No one is able to call them. No one is able to command them. The movie makes a wrong impression here. Whenever eagles show up, it is of their own will. I highly doubt they would have been able to call the eagles from the council in rivendell. Maybe Radagast could have called them, but he was not there. Also time was short, and it would have been uncertain whether the eagles agree or not.
About the One Ring:
I think it is one of "natural powers" of hobbits (and Smeagols river people were similiar to hobbits) is the ability to go unnoticed. Turning invisible is the next step to this.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
I assume they didn't agree. If it had been their will to do everything to help in the war, they would have flown to Rivendell right away to ask of what use they may be. At the very least, they would make excellent scouts. And I'm perfectly fine with them having their own agenda, I was merely assuming what would ensue if they accepted to carry the ring ( and someone had the idea).
No. Suaron is the product of free will, which Iluvatar gave to his creation. You have to look at Tolkien's Catholic faith and you will understand Middle earht a lot better.
I certainly don't understand Catholics very well, and the idea that creatures entirely made by God could have free will of their own (not that I reckon theologists have more clues on that one). Still, it seems a bit irresponsible to create Middle-Earth for Men to live in if you let evil warlords loose. Since all the Maiar and Valar are supposed to inhabit Valinor, isn't this a bit unfair that any creation of Iluvatar turned wild can just go build their own little Empire in the rest of the World with the rest of the World having almost no chance to defend themselves because they're several levels of power below ?
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 05 2013 18:46 Kyrillion wrote:Show nested quote +Sauron possessed at least one palantir which he could keep track of his land. If he saw eagles approach morder, he would've sent his nazgul after them. It's been a few years since I read the books, sorry if I miss something, but I still don't see how the eagle hypothesis would not work, provided they accept to intervene. First of all, the Nazgûl don't ride on flying creatures at the beginning on the books. Even if they already had had those at their disposal, I don't think Gandalf and the Elves would know, so an eagle drop should be an idea worth considering. And even if Sauron sees the raid coming, and the Nazgûl happen to be ready in Mordor (I'd have to reread Unfinished Tales but around the time the Fellowship still was in Rivendell the Nazgûl probably weren't back taking a break in Morgul) with flying mounts, would they win ? Assuming the Eagles have been reproducing for centuries and thousands of years, they could probably gather more than a dozen and overwhelm their opponents. ( Is it mentioned somewhere how many they are ? ) Show nested quote + - Well, first of all, they refused to be left behind or sent back. They said they would have to be tied up in a sack and carried back to stop them going with frodo and sam. I do not think the elves had a mind to do that. Also, gandalf vouched for them. He knew there was strength in hobbits that many overlooked. He foresaw that they would play important parts in the events to come.
Elrond and Elves in general did strike me as the serious type. I don't think they would let people enter the Fellowship just to be "nice" and because it would feel too cruel to put them in a sack (I would've done it). As for Gandalf's marvelous foreseeing, it didn't serve him a lot in dealing with Saruman's treachery so they should maybe be a bit cautious before taking his word the two hobbits are fated to play an important role at some point. Here's a snippet from the lotr wiki page on gwaihir (trivia section at the bottom):
It has been pointed out by several observers that the entire War of the Ring could have been over almost as quickly as it began if only Gandalf had requested that Gwaihir simply take the ring himself and delivered it to Mount Doom to have it destroyed. Whether or not this is a reasonable possibility is debatable, however, using logic, you can conclude that Sauron would have seen the ring and sent armies and the Nazgûl after him, thus eventually overpowering Gwaihir and ultimately giving Sauron the ring. This also is debatable because it is unknown how the wearing of the Ring on a claw or other appendage would affect an animal and Sauron's ability to see it with his Eye. It should also be understood that the mission to bring the One Ring to Mordor was appointed to Frodo by the White Council. Only Frodo alone should risk holding the Ring, thus it was not Gwaihir's mission, nor was it his burden, to carry either the Ring or the Ring Bearer. This is addressed in the video game Lord of the Rings: War In The North, when this is suggested by the party to Gandalf. Also, since a single poison arrow had nearly brought him down in the past, it would be reasonable to assume Gwaihir and the other eagles would be reluctant to fly over orc archers.
That succinctly explains why the council would've dismissed this idea, though you might still question whether the nazgul would've been on their winged creatures in time to stop them. But then again, we also don't know how quickly the council could've found the eagles and convinced them to take this burden on.
|
On January 05 2013 21:01 Kyrillion wrote:I assume they didn't agree. If it had been their will to do everything to help in the war, they would have flown to Rivendell right away to ask of what use they may be. At the very least, they would make excellent scouts. And I'm perfectly fine with them having their own agenda, I was merely assuming what would ensue if they accepted to carry the ring ( and someone had the idea). Show nested quote +No. Suaron is the product of free will, which Iluvatar gave to his creation. You have to look at Tolkien's Catholic faith and you will understand Middle earht a lot better. I certainly don't understand Catholics very well, and the idea that creatures entirely made by God could have free will of their own (not that I reckon theologists have more clues on that one).
To understand the Catholic conception fo free will, you may look here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat
Still, it seems a bit irresponsible to create Middle-Earth for Men to live in if you let evil warlords loose. Since all the Maiar and Valar are supposed to inhabit Valinor, isn't this a bit unfair that any creation of Iluvatar turned wild can just go build their own little Empire in the rest of the World with the rest of the World having almost no chance to defend themselves because they're several levels of power below ?
No. Here again. Look at his Catholic faith, you may read Peter Kreeft's Philosophy of Tolkien or Bradley Birzer's JRR Tolkiens Sanctifying Myth. If you have a some knowledge of the Catholic teachings you can defenitely understand Middle earth better. You surely can not explain everything, but some very important elements.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Interesting, but it's just speculation, just like we're doing.
Nothing proves Sauron would have had the time to send armies.
I have no idea what particular effect wearing the ring on a claw would have but certainly not more than Frodo wearing it around the neck (he could grasp a chain attacked to the ring in his claw if it's somehow less detectable). Sauron would see an Eagle and may, or may not, be struck with anguish and understand it would be carrying the ring. He could also, since it apparently at no point ever struck his mind that his enemies might seek to destroy the Ring, mistake the Eagle's flight for mere scouting.
As for carrying the Ring being Frodo's quest, it's not a very good explanation. He's only linked to the Ring because his uncle happens to have found and more or less stolen it. They could equally well have picked Aragorn, who is Isildur's heir. Sauron never plays by the rules, in the books. He turns Saruman to his side, corrupts Rohan's King, indulges in torture to extort much information from Gollum as he can, tries to undermine Gondor's power by abusing its King's weakness. Frodo may be less sensitive to the Ring's corruptive power but so would the Eagles be. Finally, Orc archers are very mighty if they can shoot at an Eagle flying 1500 metres above the ground.
Edit : very interesting link (Gwaihir). I had forgotten Eagles are mortal (that's why Thorondor is not there any more in LOTR). But since Gwaihir and Landroval are his scions, it means Eagle reproduce like normal animals. Since they don't seem to have lots of predators in Middle-Earth, their population should have at least 15 or 20 individuals. Much enough to destroy 9 Nazgûl.
|
They could send a dozen eagles, eleven being decoys. Have them fly at very large heights, they can't easily be spotted that way. Have the elves think of a magic potion or spell or paint or whatever to hide them from sight. They could have sent them anyway as scouts or used them to defend against nazgul in the wars. The fact the eagles intervene to save frodo or gandalf when it's necessary seems a bit dumb if they don't want to take the next step and actually help in the war effort. They're a very good resource to have, why doesn't anyone try and convince them? What do the eagles think is going to happen once Sauron controls middle-earth? --------
On January 05 2013 18:23 Frieder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 12:21 Grumbels wrote: Tolkien's stories fall apart quickly when you start to ask too many questions.
This is not to say that his universe isn't well thought out, just that it's not realistic (some people don't understand this and pretend it's not fantasy). ad 1) No, they don't. You only start to really understand them clearly, if you ask questions. What you felt during reading, you will understand with reason. For a lot of misunderstandings Jacksons sometimes weired adaptation is the cause. ad 2) Tolkien's stories are not fantasy. They are myth. It's our own world (!), in which the stories Tolkien tells us take place. You may read Tolkien's Mythopoeia http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html Tolkien's writing is inspired by myths, but his work spawned the fantasy genre. I suppose the stories work better as myths, with, for instance, how Gandalf always senses that "gollum might play a bigger part in this", or how technology never improves and the ancient world was more advanced, which is a theme that often comes up in myths.
What I hoped to do was ask more critical questions that expose that the narrative is held together by bandaid and that it only works if you take it as a myth, not as alternate history. I suppose I used the wrong word by saying it's not reality, but fantasy, but I guess I meant it is mythical fantasy literature versus more realistic fantasy literature (like ASOIAF). Which imo makes the obsession with the details of his works by the fans a bit odd: what value does knowing some obscure elvish hero have if the world does not really make a lot of sense?
|
A blind fear and a deadly cold came upon them. Cowering they looked up. A vast winged shape passed over the moon like a black cloud. It wheeled and went north, flying at a speed greater than any wind of Middle-earth.
It is two hundred leagues or more in straight flight from Barad-dur to Orthanc, and even a Nazgul would take a few hours to fly between them.
So they're flying maybe 40, 50, 70 miles an hour tops. There's no reason to think that eagles fly at supersonic speeds either.
Sauron's side army was enough to take out Minis Tirith. He build a superweapon to take the front gate. I'm sure his main forces could handle a dragon, let alone an eagle. Mordor's surrounded by a tall mountain range. There are watchers and guardposts everywhere, and there's armies and scouts marching inside and outside. No gondar scout had even scaled the mountain in years, that's how guarded they were. They will definitely see them, and if anything puts on the ring, he can feel their power nearby (Frodo).
Remember Legolas saw the eagle at Emyn Muil.
----
And let me ask for those of you who read the books, what do you think the most important part of the Two Towers and the Hobbit were? In my opinion, it definitely wasn't Helms Deep or the battle of the 5 armies, or ancient lore, it was the painful endless slog up the mountains of Mordor and Bilbo walking through the sweltering secret tunnel into the dragon's lair. That writing reflects the mood and the experience of the adventure much more than any other point.
Magic and wizards are just fancy backdrops to highlight the very human experiences of the hobbit. Somewhere Tolkien wrote that Sam is the closest to the main character/point of view of the lord of the rings.
|
On January 05 2013 22:36 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +A blind fear and a deadly cold came upon them. Cowering they looked up. A vast winged shape passed over the moon like a black cloud. It wheeled and went north, flying at a speed greater than any wind of Middle-earth.
Show nested quote +It is two hundred leagues or more in straight flight from Barad-dur to Orthanc, and even a Nazgul would take a few hours to fly between them.
And let me ask for those of you who read the books, what do you think the most important part of the Two Towers and the Hobbit were? In my opinion, it definitely wasn't Helms Deep or the battle of the 5 armies, or ancient lore, it was the painful endless slog up the mountains of Mordor and Bilbo walking through the sweltering secret tunnel into the dragon's lair. That writing reflects the mood and the experience of the adventure much more than any other point.
This. The parts that gave me most pleasure reading in LotR involved Frodo, Sam and Gollum on their long journey. It is debatable whether or not having an eagle drop the ring would make more sense. However, even the things that make more sense fail sometimes, and others that make less sense win or prevail. Perhaps Gandalf, or Galadriel or someone else could have foreseen this was the only way the ring would actually get a chance at being destroyed. And it makes for a much more interesting and deep story, so i'm happy it is the way it is, and in the end it makes more sense this way for this reason.
Concerning the hobbit, the part that i actually enjoyed the most was mirkwood forest, the mystical animals, the escape from the elves, and the arrival to the lonely mountain. A book to be pleasurable to read doesn't need to focus on the end, but on the path (like life), that's why it's good it took so long for the ring to be destroyed.
|
Zzz... For an atheist view on free will, read here:
http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/free-will-vs-dertemanism/
No. Here again. Look at his Catholic faith, you may read Peter Kreeft's Philosophy of Tolkien or Bradley Birzer's JRR Tolkiens Sanctifying Myth. If you have a some knowledge of the Catholic teachings you can defenitely understand Middle earth better. You surely can not explain everything, but some very important elements.
To fully understand and have knowledge of the atheist view, read this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8uyfn/after_revealing_to_my_wife_i_am_atheistagnostic/
Did you read either of the two above links? Well then what makes you think we'd read yours. Linking to stuff isn't going to make people read it. If they're Catholics, they'll read it to reinforce their own views. If they're non-Catholic, they're not going to read it because they know it'll be biased and uninformative. The best way to discuss issues in a forum is to put your view forward and debate each poster's posts individually, rather than just linking to crap that they're not going to read and presuming you've refuted their arguments because you were too lazy to properly address what the other poster has written.
Edit: Formatting quotes.
|
On January 05 2013 14:41 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 12:21 Grumbels wrote:Tolkien's stories fall apart quickly when you start to ask too many questions. + Show Spoiler +- Apparently you need the heat of a volcano to destroy the ring, but then there must be other technologies to generate heat which can destroy the ring. Gandalf is an expert in fire and light magic, why can't he think of something?
- Why don't the eagles just fly the ring into the volcano to begin with?
- Why is the council at Rivendell dumb enough to allow Merry & Pippin to join the fellowship?
- Why, in a cave full of goblins who all would have been eager to send the ring off to Sauron, was the ring found by a hobbit of all beings - after the ring supposedly had a will of its own.
- Why did Bilbo age after taking the ring, he clearly looks a lot older than when he found it.
- Why was Isildur's death a 'betrayal by the ring' when he was just ambushed by orcs and killed. No supernatural events necessary to explain that.
- Why didn't anyone ever do something about the millions of orcs that apparently populate middle-earth?
- Why does Gandalf bother with the quest to dispose of Smaug with stated reasoning being to remove a powerful potential ally from Sauron, when the orcs and goblins and so on are clearly a greater threat? why does he enlist a small group of dwarfs for this task when there is a human village + army right next to Smaug? can't he ask them?
- Why doesn't Gandalf use his magic powers right away when people are getting into dangerous situations?
- What does Gandalf actually do? He occasionally partakes in some important quest (the hobbit, lotr), but otherwise trails off to do nothing in particular for what seems hundreds of years, if middle-earth history is to be believed. Most of the other Istari seem similarly useless: the main task of the Istari is to protect middle-earth against Sauron, so it makes no sense that Saruman can simply state that the necromancer isn't worth checking out. It's literally his purpose in life to follow up on such clues. I know he's secretly evil, but the fact the others let him get away with blatantly sabotaging their efforts is a joke. Radaghast is similarly useless and two other wizards have disappeared randomly.
- How are orcs created to begin with? Morgoth was supposedly unable to create anything, unlike the other valar, so he couldn't create his own race of minions and had to corrupt the already existing elves. The current orcs obviously have nothing to do with elves and are a race of their own. In the movies they are sculpted out of earth, but isn't that a power that only the valar possess?
- Why didn't any of the many elves that fled middle-earth to live with the valar manage to convince them to please get rid of Sauron for them? After all, Sauron is clearly their responsibility, since he's a relic dating from the Morgoth civil war.
- Saruman is the greatest of the Istari, they might be forbidden to use the full extent of their power by valar decree, but when he turned evil, why didn't he try to tap into the full range of his power? In the end, when his army is gone, he is depicted as a kind of pathetic old man that's just powerful enough to control the shire.
- Why, if middle-earth is so vulnerable that a wounded evil spirit who has lost much of his power can simply gather up some orcs and make a very strong attempt at world-domination, didn't any villain do it before?
- Why can't the elves recreate powerful artifacts from earlier generations? In real life, technology advances and doesn't get worse, although I understand that in myths it's the opposite.
- And for that matter, why does the powerful bloodline of the Numeroreans nearly die out? In real life, if you have a group of people that live 400 years and which are generally stronger and smarter, then you will come to dominate whatever society you're part of. Its almost complete disappearance fits thematically, but actually makes no sense.
- The ring turns Frodo invisible, clothing and all, but for the ring wraiths they have special cloaks which don't get this effect. All very convenient for making them look more epic, but makes no sense. how come old corpses have super combat powers anyway?
- How does ring ownership actually work? Does Frodo get the effects if he keeps it in an envelope somewhere?
- Who invents a ring anyway that turns you invisible? The nine were human princes or kings, so how come they could be seduced by a ring that would turn you invisible? It seems like a goofy power that's only there because that happened to be the power of Bilbo's ring, so Tolkien was stuck with it.
This is not to say that his universe isn't well thought out, just that it's not realistic (some people don't understand this and pretend it's not fantasy). I think you are confusing Tolkien's work with Jackson's alterations. I will attempt to answer your questions, as best as I can. + Show Spoiler +- It's made pretty clear that heat alone, however strong, will not destroy the ring. It's the connection (seemingly magical) between the ring and fire in which it was forged which allows it to undo the thing. It is said dragonbreath would be enough to destroy rings of power, but gandalf speculates that for the one ring, not even ancalagon (the greatest dragon in the history of arda) would not be able to destroy it.
- The eagles aren't on anyone's speed dial. They are not some goodly creatures only to be summoned up whenever the good guys need them (I blame this misconception on Jackson and his idiotic moth idea). They are descendants of messengers of the chief of the valar (gods). They were originally sent out to middle earth to watch and observe. Direct intervention has never been their thing, especially so after thousands of years has changed their ways. Even if Gandalf, Elrond, or even Galadriel herself had somehow tracked the eagles down and asked them to fly to morder, they would not accept, at least willingly. And if you recall, the events of the war of the ring unfolded rather quickly. Gandalf simply did not have time to spend looking for them, on the chance that they might accept. Even if they had somehow accepted, we(as in the readers) know it wouldn't have been an easy road. Sauron possessed at least one palantir which he could keep track of his land. If he saw eagles approach morder, he would've sent his nazgul after them.
- Well, first of all, they refused to be left behind or sent back. They said they would have to be tied up in a sack and carried back to stop them going with frodo and sam. I do not think the elves had a mind to do that. Also, gandalf vouched for them. He knew there was strength in hobbits that many overlooked. He foresaw that they would play important parts in the events to come.
- The ring might've had a will of its own, but we don't know that for sure. Gandalf only speculates as to whether it might've had. I always saw it more as a primal desire, only strong enough to mess with chance & cause freak incidents. As for Bilbo finding the ring, it is said in the hobbit that orcs and goblins stayed away from where gollum dwelt, for he murdered them and ate them. That explains why it wasn't picked up by them. And why is it so hard to believe that bilbo happened to chance upon the ring? If you think these coincidences and chance events in fiction are too convenient, you should look at the stuff that happens in real life.
- You mean in the film? Well, obviously it's because the actor has aged, and they didn't want to pull a Clu on the character. In the books, it is clearly shown that his aging slowed down after coming into possession of the ring, and it came back rapidly as soon as it left him.
- As I've already said, how the ring works is still a mystery. It might've not had a direct hand in Isildur being ambushed, but it could also have drawn the orcs to it. It could also just be a reverse rabbit's foot.
- Most orcs fled to the deep and remote places of the world after Sauron was defeated at the end of the second age. And the heavy casualties suffered by the alliance meant they did not have the time nor the resources to somehow track them all down and rout them. Also, after the fall of gil-galad and elendil/isildur, the alliance all but disbanded. Most though the threat over. And after many years of peace, why would they actively hunt them down? It is in Men's nature to accept what they see in front of their eyes.
- Gandalf does not give a definitive reasoning as to why he instigated, or at least facilitated the quest of the mountain. It could be that he perceived smaug to be a threat and wanted to remove him from the picture, though he also doubts a weakened sauron would've had much control over a dragon as arrogant as smaug. As for the orcs and golbins, they weren't a big threat as long as there was none to unite them and drive them forward. So he was much more concerned about the necromancer than them. So why focus on smaug over orcs? Well, it could be that thorin was immovable in his desire to take his home back, and gandalf reluctantly helped him for fear of their utter failure without his help. If any group was adamant in warring against the orcs, I'm saure gandalf would have offered aid. And you give him too much credit. He is not so blindly loved and trusted that he can raise armies to war on a perceived threat. Let's not forget that Saruman was still the head of his order at this time. As for why he only gathered a small party for the quest? Well, first of all, it was not gandalf's party but thorin's. And give how stubborn he was concerning the treasures at erebor, I doubt gandalf could've openly convinced him to enlist help from elsewhere, at the expense of a part of his treasure.
- He does use them when it's absolutely necessary. There are constraints and limitations as to what he can do, and how much. It's not like he as an infinite mana hack enabled. If you read the books, whenever he or his companions are in grave peril, he does bust his mojo out.
- I don't really get your issue here. You are complaining that the way and actions of the istari was not perfect? Well, of course! They were not some robots or slaves. They all had their own motivations and dispositions, no matter what the reason for their coming to middle-earth was. They were not beyond corruption or being distracted/trapped by their fancies. After all, if the greatest of the valar, melkor, could fall, what makes you think the lesser maia, and indeed their earthly forms are immune? Their fall also highlights gandalf's faithfulness and loyalty. That he faced the same temptations and desires as they did, but remained true to the mission, just shows you how much affection he had for the people of middle earth. As for what he did during all those years, he was mainly a watcher and a helper. We forget that when he came to middle earth, it was a time of relative peace. Sauron had not yet come back in full, and the foul beasts stayed in their remote regions. There was no need for any great deed to be done, nor did he properly understand what was to come. Gandalf did all he could be travelling around the world and familiarising himself to the people of middle earth, so that when/if the time came, they would heed his warning. Gandalf knows the war cannot be won by him or his order. It is up to the peoples of middle earth to do that, and he did all he could to help them along. As aragorn says, he was the greatest mover of all things that was put into motion during the war against sauron.
- You are right in saying that melkor/morgoth did not have the power to create new beings, for the understanding of the flame imperishable was not in him. So, instead he took existing creatures, elves, dwarves, men, and other things to twist into his evil ways. You also say all other valar could create life, but those were different circumstances. They could only create with the help of iluvatar. As for what you see in the films, I do not think Jackson was showing that they were created from the earth, but bred and birthed in the deep places. No one really knows how orcs, goblins and etc., breed and multiply, but they certainly aren't magically carved from the earth.
- It is pretty impossible to truly comprehend how the valar think. They have always been reluctant to directly intervene. It took a titanic effort by earendil, and the prospect of morgoth's utter victory to rouse them. Even so, they did not come themselves, but sent their emissaries. Also, after the fall of numenor, they removed themselves from the circle of the world and further distanced themselves from middle earth. It doesn't mean they completely abandoned them. It was they who sent the istari to aid the people. Trying to understand why they were reluctant to help is like trying to understand why god, if he exists, doesn't just kill the devil and bring everyone to his utopia. It cannot be understood, or made sense of.
- It was not only the valar's decree that restricted them, but their earthly forms that they had to take in order to come to middle earth. And you cannot think of tolkien's wizards like your traditional ones. Whilst they possess some magical prowess, their true powers were more subtle. I'm sure this confusion is caused by the films, where saruman is shown to possess great magical power, but that was of a different kind in the books. His power was his voice, his speech, his ability to sway the hearts of men. That's what made him so great, and fearful. We also don't know if he, or any of the istari could've just shed their restrictions and regain their former powers. Perhaps it was impossible and that's why he was so interested in creating rings of power, and indeed finding the one ring. We can also note that Gandalf had to die and be sent back when his powers increased. That means perhaps their bodies act as their shackles.
- Huh? It takes more than just some villain to unite and dominate the wills of those foul creatures. Even the witch king of angmar did not have sufficient strength to completely destroy the north. You say Sauron was a weak spirit, but he was not so when he actually made open war on middle earth. He was returned to morder, his tower, barad-dur rebuilt, and his nazgul all serving under him. You really need to read the books.
- As you say, one of tolkien's main themes in his work is that power waxes throughout the passage of time. So, simply put: there was none to replicate or even surpass the deeds of feanor or celebrimbor. This is not hard to understand though. Middle earth and arda as a whole has been locked in an endless war. Death and destruction was frequent enough that no proper root in advanced culture or technology took place. Even when it was close to being so, it was ripped down by morgoth and his malice. The drowning of beleriand pretty much hit the reset button, and the people never fully recovered. Perhaps it is a different story in aman where the valar and other elves live.
- I guess you haven't read the silmarillion and the akallabeth. It explains how, and why numenor was destroyed. What escaped to middle earth was certainly not insignificant, but it simply did not compare to what numenor was. Gondor also suffered heavily at the hands of sauron, in terms of constant war and devastating plagues. They also, as we humans do, let their power and arrogance get the better of them. It actually makes perfect sense that numenor fell, and gondor was indeed declining. It perfectly reflects civilisations, empires and kingdoms from our own history.
- The nazgul are not invisible because they wear rings of power, though it might've started that way They have been wraiths for so long, it was completely changed their bodies. It is different to frodo putting on the one ring, which I might add is completely different to the rings sauron gave to the nazgul. They might've not made the wearers invisible at all. Also, the superpowers you speak of are mostly present in the film adaptations. In the books, the greatest power they employ is to strike fear in the hearts of men. Mostly they just ride around on their horses or winged creatures. You can also assume the rings grants them some preternatural power, though we do not know how much.
- Clearly not. Although how it exactly works is unexplained, I see it like this: if you claim ownership or the ring, than it starts to affect you.
- This actually made me laugh. We do not know if the invisibility is just a side effect of the power it contains. After all, the ring was made by sauron, for him alone. I doubt turning you invisible is all it does. As for the rings given to the nazgul, as I said before, we don't know exactly what it did. We can clearly see the rings of power are not to be trifled with though. Just look at the three elven rings and what they accomplished.
I'm not having a go at you here, but some of your complaints seem like you barely gave any thought to them, or did very little to find more information. It is also wise to completely separate Jackson's work from Tolkien's, as it is only his interpretation. I hope my answers have given you some insight, because I don't, for the life of me, can't figure out why I spent 10 minutes to write all that out. Anyways, PEACE! I should say that I did read all the books, but the films are more recent in my mind. In any case, I think my criticisms generally can be explained as follows:
There are a lot of things that fit thematically, but not in a literal sense. There are constant examples of plot developments or dialogue that works perfectly well if you view the works as myth, if you take a thematic, literary approach to them, but that fail when put under closer scrutiny.
A lot of Tolkien fans never accept this, they will insist that everything makes literal sense as well as thematic sense. Mind you that I love the books, I'm just a bit tired that whenever I make one mildly critical comment anywhere about Tolkien I'm assaulted by someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of his works that can quote line and verse where I transgressed, as if I'm some blasphemer. I had a fascination for the Harry Potter books when I was younger and a lot of LotR fans were upset at the popularity of that series, feeling they had to insist on the superiority of Tolkien, on how "people will eventually transition to more mature works", when LotR is just as full of silly contrivances as HP.
|
It's impossible to say how thing would work in a literal sense because we lack the "rulebook". You cannot just transport real word dynamics, or things from diferent fantasy worlds, and say that's how it should work in Middle-Earth. How magic actually works, what it means to have power, how strong someone is or was, etc. were ussually never really explained in the books, so assumings they would be able to, for example, destroy the ring with magic doesn't make more sense than believing they wouldn't and trusting what Gandalf says.
How fast Orcs grow, how well they are hidden and impossible to find, how much the population has knowledge of the "outside world" and why some parts of the world are not explored were never really well explained in source material.
Gandalf probally does a lot of very important things between the books, we were just never told what they were. The universe was a work in progress, there are very important events that are only scarcely mentioned and probally some others he thought about but could never write about.
These are just a few examples, but the biggest issue with this kind of logic is assuming you understand how the world works when he really don't, specially regarding magic. Magic is very subtle and treated in a very diferent way than in most fantasy worlds.
On January 05 2013 23:11 Miami Metro wrote:Zzz... For an atheist view on free will, read here: http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/free-will-vs-dertemanism/Show nested quote +No. Here again. Look at his Catholic faith, you may read Peter Kreeft's Philosophy of Tolkien or Bradley Birzer's JRR Tolkiens Sanctifying Myth. If you have a some knowledge of the Catholic teachings you can defenitely understand Middle earth better. You surely can not explain everything, but some very important elements. To fully understand and have knowledge of the atheist view, read this: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8uyfn/after_revealing_to_my_wife_i_am_atheistagnostic/Did you read either of the two above links? Well then what makes you think we'd read yours. Linking to stuff isn't going to make people read it. If they're Catholics, they'll read it to reinforce their own views. If they're non-Catholic, they're not going to read it because they know it'll be biased and uninformative. The best way to discuss issues in a forum is to put your view forward and debate each poster's posts individually, rather than just linking to crap that they're not going to read and presuming you've refuted their arguments because you were too lazy to properly address what the other poster has written. Edit: Formatting quotes.
The Catholic view on the world is relevant because Tolkien was catholic and a lot of his work is influenced by it. Some questions can be answered by drawing parallels to religion, a lot of things on Middle-Earth work like catholics believe the world works.
Atheist views are irrelevant. Tolkien wasn't an atheist and Midde-Earth was not "atheist". This has nothing to do with which views are correct in the real world, but in Tolkiens world. Noone is arguing religion here.
|
On January 05 2013 23:11 Miami Metro wrote:Zzz... For an atheist view on free will, read here: http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/free-will-vs-dertemanism/Show nested quote +No. Here again. Look at his Catholic faith, you may read Peter Kreeft's Philosophy of Tolkien or Bradley Birzer's JRR Tolkiens Sanctifying Myth. If you have a some knowledge of the Catholic teachings you can defenitely understand Middle earth better. You surely can not explain everything, but some very important elements. To fully understand and have knowledge of the atheist view, read this: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8uyfn/after_revealing_to_my_wife_i_am_atheistagnostic/Did you read either of the two above links? Well then what makes you think we'd read yours. Linking to stuff isn't going to make people read it. If they're Catholics, they'll read it to reinforce their own views. If they're non-Catholic, they're not going to read it because they know it'll be biased and uninformative. The best way to discuss issues in a forum is to put your view forward and debate each poster's posts individually, rather than just linking to crap that they're not going to read and presuming you've refuted their arguments because you were too lazy to properly address what the other poster has written. Edit: Formatting quotes.
Your post has nothing to do with the topic. Talking about LOTR (and in this case the free will in Tolkien's work), who cares, what the atheist view on free will is? It has nothing to do with it. The only relevant view on free will in Tolkien's work, is the Catholic one. Yeah, the Catholic view on free will may not be true for you, not be true for many people. But for Tolkien the teachings of the Catholic Chruch were the Truth. People need to understand that Tolkien was "a Christian (which can be deduced from [his] stories, and in fact a Roman Catholic" and "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work". Tolkiens faith was a very important element in his life and it influenced massivly his work. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Catholicism is the truth, and I'm not saying that Tolkien had this attempt. But I try to point out that Tolkiens faith is important for his work. And some aspects of it you may understand better or at least easier if you have an idea about the teachings of the Church (e. g. in the post was the question about free will in LORT. Some people may not have an exact idea about what the Church teaches about free will so I linked to a source, where it is explained (better than I can, because I am not a theologian). And you can assume that the Catholic conception fo free will, was Tolkien's).
Sure, you can read Tolkien as an atheist, as an deist or as a pagan, and have a great plessure reading it and maybe also have some benefit from reading it, but I think if you are not counting in Tolkien's faith, you are missing something very important. And if you want a better understanding of Middle earth and e.g. you are searching for the ideas, Tolkien had his inspiration from, you will find a lot of sources, Nordic myths, old enlgish literature, but also, and most importantly, his Catholic faith, his worldview.
|
I don't get the silly eagle argument. It's clear that you cant just fly into Mordor, Gandalf's scared of going in there himself. We aren't told of all the agents of Mordor and all of the components of their armies, how do you know they don't have creatures or beings which can fly? Also how about the fact that the ring could have corrupted the eagles? perhaps the eagles are very susceptible to the rings power? Did you all miss the WHOLE point of lord of the rings? which was that ONLY frodo/hobbits could carry the ring, that's the whole point. Because hobbits go unnoticed, because they actually seem to have a magical power that allows this, also the ring has the least effect on them know to middle earth except for tom bombadill. Also what about the density of the air around mordor? surely an active volcano would change the air pressure, requiring a lot more lift to fly, possibly making it impossible or very difficult for the eagles to fly near the mountain (which makes the ending kinda meh, but i guess the lava has started flowing so maybe they are further from the centre and the air temperature hasn't risen enough to effect flight significantly at that point.) And what about magic, seems to be a lazy but easy device to break this whole idea, just assume there is some sort of magic in mordor that stops the eagles reaching the mountain in some way but not hobbits by foot. Perhaps the blue wizzards had been turned by sauron like saurman for all we know, they could have stopped the eagles, but were not in time to stop the hobbits because they went by undetected. Thery're are many ways in which the eagle plan doesn't work.
|
On January 05 2013 02:11 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 02:06 Pulimuli wrote:On January 05 2013 01:52 Saumure wrote:On January 04 2013 17:56 Xeris wrote: Yea it's pretty obvious that the 2nd movie will likely be the completion of the Hobbit and the 3rd movie will be 'bridging the gap' between the hobbit and lotr by adding Gandalf and the other Wizard's removal of Sauron from Dol Guldur. Are we sure that it is Sauron? Did not look like him in the movie... hate to spoil it for you but yes, the necromancer is Sauron i know the story -.- just saying, it looked like a nazgul + In the movie, Radagast found a blade that looks like a morgul blade. I know that in the books it was not him who went to Dol Guldur.
Yea pretty sure he got the morgul blade from a nazgul but the spirit that he "fought" wasnt the necromancer
|
I found a link:
It mentions some quotes by Tolkien:
The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being unfortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence.
The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of Gandalf by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of his escape.
The article goes into a lot of detail and I think it clearly shows this is a plot hole. I honestly don't mind, it doesn't discredit the books or anything. I just want Tolkien fans to admit its existence instead of coming up with absurd rationalizations.
|
On January 05 2013 20:36 Kyrillion wrote: Is it amplification as well when it gives the carrier invisibility ? Hobbits don't have any power whatsoever that could be amplified.
They're sneaky to the point of it actually being a supernatural gift. I mean, did you see how Bilbo slipped away from those goons in that massive cave system where everyone was captured? That's not normal.
|
|
|
|