What's this--this thread has gone 22 hours without a post?! We can't let that happen--we must keep it going!

So, is no one stunned over the suggestion that the Nazgul were no longer wearing their rings? (see Unfinished Tales discussion a few posts back). I was pretty blown away by that when I first read UT. I had always assumed that if you took a Nazgul's ring off, they would die and crumble into dust, since they're thousands of years old and the ring is what keeps them "alive." Apparently they can draw somewhat on the power of their rings even without wearing them, even as Sauron is still sustained by the continued existence of the One, prior to its destruction.

Good one, Olorin.

I wasn't exactly blown away by the revelation, since it kinda made sense given how Sauron's relationship with his own Ring worked. I guess the important thing here is that wearing the Nine was necessary insofar as it allowed Sauron to dominate and corrupt not only their minds, but to extend their lives unnaturally into the realm of living death. I theorize that once that threshold was crossed, the One's hold was so complete that wearing the Nine became needless. Perhaps (and this is a theory only,) continued possession of the Nine would give the Nazgul more power and autonomy of will than Sauron was willing to concede, even to his most powerful and trusted servants, and thus he took them away. It is also possible that if an enemy were to somehow take one of the Nine rings from a Nazgul and destroyed that ring, that that particular wraith would then also be destroyed, the spell broken. A good way to safeguard against this would be to simply keep the Nine rings secure at Barad-dur.

Here's one thing that always really bothers me: did the Witch-king really die when 'slain' by Eowyn? I'm well aware of the prophecy surrounding him, but since the One Ring was still intact at that point, and the Witch-king's own ring was safe back at the Dark Tower, could the WK's spirit truly be vanquished? The description of his demise makes it almost sound like his spirit is sent back to Barad-dur without form, rather than being completely destroyed. Of course, once the One falls into the lava, the WK would be gone for good along with the other eight Nazgul. What do you guys think?

I'd have to agree...i dont think the witchking was ultimately "destroyed" until the one ring was destroyed. maybe if Sauron got the ring back, he could have brought Witchking back, maybe WK went into a limbo, well they were already in a limbo b/t life and death, but maybe this was somewhere else? i dunno, its only a thought.

Everytime Sauron was defeated and reduced to shadow, the same would happen to the Ringwraiths. When he reappeared, so did they. I think if Sauron had not been defeated, it is not altogether impossible that the WK might have returned, even without Sauron regaining the One.

On the question of Aulë's Maiar being more easily swayed by darkness, I think perhaps it comes from the fact that their main sphere of influence was that of creating and crafting things. It was only when this skill ran contrary to the Music of the Ainur, in which Eru pretty much dictated what was to be that things began to go wrong, starting with when Melkor stepped in with ideas of his own. Likewise, when Aulë made the dwarves, he knew he was doing wrong but did it anyways. And again, with Morgoth, every creation of his was basically a twisted and corrupted version of something already in existence. By this it seems that Tolkien somewhat equated crafting and the desire to create to be a corrupting influence and the source of evil, and that follows since Tolkien himself was very much against science and machinery. That is probably why Aulë's servants were more susceptible to evil. It should be noted that Saruman was chosen to lead the Istari because his mind was most like that of Sauron's. What a mistake that was. :rolleyes_

In one of his letters, Tolkien described the WK's status at the time of the battle at the Black Gate as having been "reduced to impotence." So the theory that his spirit still lingered seems to have validity. I would imagine he would have been summoned back to Sauron and "severely reprimanded" for letting his body be destroyed. Could the WK have crafted himself a new body, once in the presence of his ring? I doubt it. Could Sauron have created a new one for him? Perhaps. In any case, the One was destroyed and all nine Nazgul were then destroyed. I imagine their spirits, as those of all mortal men, would still have been subject to being summoned to Mandos, then dismissed out of the world after a period of time.

Regarding the ready corruptibility of Aule's Maiar, I believe that's Tolkien telling us, again, that technology is bad. Remember, Aule and his people were the engineers, the carpenters, the mechanics of Arda--they were the makers and crafters. Why the Dwarves remained relatively incorruptible is a good question. Their bodies were made by Aule, but the souls came from Eru. So I suppose their love of jewels and precious metals, and the work of their hands, came from Aule, but their more noble aspects came from Eru. Since all the Ainur ultimately came from Eru, I don't know why his influence would not have protected them from corruption if it could protect the Dwarves. Perhaps because the Dwarves are only "children" in the eyes of the higher powers, but the Ainur are e xp ected to know the difference between right and wrong, and make the right choice? Like I say, a good question.

Regarding why Sauron took the 9 rings back, beyond Val's very good e xp lanation, I always assumed the reason why he was "gathering all the rings to his own hand" was to bolster and stabilize his own power, in the absence of the One.

Valkrist wrote:It should be noted that Saruman was chosen to lead the Istari because his mind was most like that of Sauron's. What a mistake that was. :rolleyes_

Where did you read that? I don't mean to ask it in a confrontational way (I think you know me better ), but I don't recall it off the top of my head.

lol... good question, I can't recall either, but I know it is somewhere. It does make sense because they were both Maiar of Aulë and if you were to send a resistance force against an enemy, you would want your leader to be the one whose mind could best understand that of the enemy. In that sense Saruman would be a wise choice because he should have had the advantage in anticipating Sauron's moves and finding a pattern to his actions. Think like your enemy.

Where the choice proves unwise of course is that too much of a similarity can also lead to the same basic flaw. I wonder if Curumo replaced Aulëndil (Sauron) as the chief of Aulë's Maiar once the latter fell from grace.

Another form of Maia that seemed to be more susceptible to corruption were those of Fire, or what would later become the Balrogs. Fire can again be equated with progress and technology because it lies at the root of man's inventions. In view of that, it is a good thing Arien didn't fall for Morgoth's song and dance, otherwise the sun could have come crashing down and made a big mess, and Morgoth would have loved that. :p

Valkrist wrote:lol... good question, I can't recall either, but I know it is somewhere.

Seems to me it would most likely be in the essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales. Bookwise, there's nothing I'd like more than to sit down and re-read everything Tolkien, from beginning to end. Unfortunately, that's not happening any time soon. I have SO many books I've bought and not yet read, an embarrassingly huge backlog. Compounding that is the fact that I only seem to find the merest scraps of time in which to read, usually when I go to bed, for about 10 minutes before I fall asleep. There are too many other demands on my free time--DVDs, Internet, you know, the usual suspects.

Valkrist wrote:I wonder if Curumo replaced Aulëndil (Sauron) as the chief of Aulë's Maiar once the latter fell from grace.

Was Sauron really the chief of Aule's Maiar, or was that merely one of his boasts, as was using the name Aulendil?

Valkrist wrote:Another form of Maia that seemed to be more susceptible to corruption were those of Fire, or what would later become the Balrogs.

Considering that fire was one of Gandalf's special talents, tho due perhaps in some capacity to Narya (tho I think that was more of a figurative than a literal fire), I always thought that had Olorin been seduced to the dark side, he'd have become a Balrog.

I've scanned the entire essay on the Istari in UT and the closest reference I can find in why Saruman was chosen to go in relation to Sauron is this:

"... each Istar was chosen by each Vala for his innate characteristics - perhaps even that they were members of the 'people' of that Vala, in the same sense as is said of Sauron in the Valaquenta that 'in his beginning he was of the Maiar of Aulë, and he remained mighty in the lore of that people.' It is thus very notable that Curumo (Saruman) was chosen by Aulë."

This is a very telling passage. Was Aulë perhaps trying to make for his failure in commanding Sauron's obedience by now putting forth Saruman as the leader of the Istari? It is certainly not a given, but it is possible that Aulë felt a small measure of responsibility for what had become of Sauron.

As for Sauron/Aulëndil being the chief of Aulë's people, I could find nothing specific, except that Galadriel did not trust him from the start and refuted his claim that he was part of Aulë's people back in Valinor. Chris Tolkien however goes on to note that this is by no means conclusive since Sauron had been seduced away from Aulë back during the making of Arda, well before the elves had come into being, much less gone to Valinor.

Based on that passage, I think your previous comment about Saruman being chosen for thinking like Sauron is a very reasonable paraphrase.

2 days with no posts ... have we run out of things to discuss.:confused1

BladeCollector wrote:2 days with no posts ... have we run out of things to discuss.:confused1

No, our energies have merely been diverted to Star Trek.

Excellent question!

High kingship of the Noldor in exile passed from Fëanor to his brother Fingolfin, upon the former's death. I say in exile, because the Noldor essentially became two sundered kindreds at this time. Technically, Finarfin remains High king of the Noldor, but only of those that remained in Aman. Because Fingolfin was eldest between himself and Finarfin, upon his death, kingship descended to the sons of Fingolfin, rather than the sons of Finarfin in Middle-earth. This is likely why Galadriel, being a daughter of Finarfin, does not have an official royal title among the Noldor. Some would argue that she is Queen of Lorien, but I think most of her subjects regarded her merely as Lady of the Wood, and Celeborn as Lord. Lorien was not a homogenous kingdom, but a realm of mixed elves.

Back to the Noldor, Fingon becomes the next king after Fingolfin, and then Turgon after him, with Gil-galad becoming the final king. The sons of Fëanor had no claim to the crown at this point. The only one to survive was Maglor, and he did not present himself forth to claim the crown. Had he done so, it is doubtful the Noldor would have accepted him as king given the checkered past of Fëanor's line. As Gil-galad died presumably childless, the line of kings ends there. Why did Elrond not claim the title? I'm only speculating here, but first off, I don't think Elrond ever had any desire to rule. Secondly, his lineage was far too mixed up, including human blood even, for the Noldor to accept him as High king either. It is not known whether Gil-galad named a sucessor at all, but it doesn't seem likely as no other elven lord stepped forth to assume kingship. Truth be told, after the losses of the Last Alliance and the mass exodus from Middle-earth that followed at the beginning of the Third Age, Lindon couldn't really be considered a viable kingdom anymore. With the population dwindling daily, the need for a centralized monarchy became irrelevant and outmoded, as Cirdan's role as master of the Havens filled the last role of authority needed: that of seeing the elves safely off the continent and on their way to the West.

Valkrist wrote:This is likely why Galadriel, being a daughter of Finarfin, does not have an official royal title among the Noldor. Some would argue that she is Queen of Lorien, but I think most of her subjects regarded her merely as Lady of the Wood, and Celeborn as Lord.

Tolkien say e xp licitly (in Unfinished Tales) that Celeborn and Galadriel took no titles of King and Queen. He doesn't say why, but your reasoning is right on the money. The folks who made the movie, including Cate Blanchett and a few others, e xp licitly refer to Galadriel as the Queen of the Elves in interviews, but fortunately, this error was not carried over into the movie. Two things that were messed up in the gift-giving scene that bugged me: Blanchett slaughtered the pronunciation of Earendil (she said Elendil, and Jackson either didn't catch it or didn't think it worth fixing), and when she presents the daggers, she calls them the daggers of the Noldorin. It should have been either Noldorin daggers, or daggers of the Noldor--not that mishmash.

I always just assumed there were so few Noldor left in Middle-earth after the Second Age that a high king was not necessary. Galadriel could have called herself the High Queen, but it would have been meaningless. Plus, as you pointed out, her subjects were not Noldor. The Elves of Lorien were a mix of Sindar and Sylvan Elves, were they not?

You are correct, the population of Lorien consisted largely of Avari elves (silvan,) and a sizeable portion of Sindarin. To my knowledge, Galadriel was the only Noldo elf in that realm. I suspect the real reason she was so accepted as Lady of Lorien by those that there not technically her people was due to the fact that Celeborn was a Sinda.

I should note two things: as the last direct descendant of Finwë in Middle-earth (Maglor is missing and Elrond's claim is tenous at best,) Galadriel could technically be considered Queen of the Noldor. However, not only did she not seem to have any such ambitions, the title would have been a largely useless and empty one after Gil-galad's death. Also, Tolkien's elves seem to very patriarchal, so it is unknown whether a Queen would have been accepted anyway.

The other thing is that Lorien did have a king at one point: he was King Amroth, a Sindarin elf that ruled Lorien before the coming of Galadriel and Celeborn. I think it was in deference to the tragic circumstances surrounding Amroth's death that Galadriel and Celeborn did not presume to insult Amroth's people by crowning themselves monarchs of Lorien.

The backstory of Galadriel, Celeborn, and Lothlorien is pretty complex. In fact, CJRT refers to it as one of the most complicated parts of the mythos. It was constantly evolving up to the time of Tolkien's death. Tolkien never really settled on Celeborn's heritage and history--what branch of the Elves, when he and Galadriel met, etc. And in some conceptions, Amroth was their son! In others, he was the son of King Amdir of Lorien, who was killed at Dagorlad during the War of the Last Alliance. Whatever his parentage, the tale of Amroth and Nimrodel and their unfortunate love is very poignant.I often think that if Tolkien had been writing in the computer era, we wouldn't have all these variant versions of stories. He would have deleted the older versions, and there'd have been no 12-volume series of books for his son to publish. On the other hand, Tolkien was a notorious Luddite and undoubtedly would have avoided computers like the plague. What must he think of us discussing him over the Internet, if he's up there somewhere watching us!

Numenor53, just thought I'd point out one small mistake in your post: the dwarves that crafted the Nauglamir, slew Thingol, and sacked Doriath were from Nogrod, not Belegost.

Edit: Small correction to my statement: the Nauglamir is stated as being crafted by dwarves from both Nogrod and Belegost. However, the death of Thingol and the sack of Doriath are perpetrated by the dwarves of Nogrod only.

I guess the pronounciations depends on their personal accent (duh) i am sure they were told how to say it... but being from Southeast Texas... we make up our own pronounciations... for instance we would probably say for Isildur... Issle (rhymes with missile) door. guess we're a buncha hicks.

Gandalf the White wrote:No she didnt.
There is clearly an 'r' sound in there.
She says 'Ar-end-eel'. That's how I've always pronounced it .
I tought it was spot on . . .

I thought it was an L, not an R, but on closer listen, it's an R. However, it's still missing a syllable. The two dots over the first A indicate it is pronounced separately from the E; in other words, the first two letters are also the first two syllables of the word. I always pronounced it "ay ah REN dil."

Beyond that, I also thought the pronunciations were, by and large, perfect. There were some variations. Gandalf and Saruman pronounce "Caradhras" differently in FOTR, Saruman pronouncing it the way I always imagined, and Gandalf saying something that sounded like the biological term "carapace." As has been pointed out, they did have a bunch of language folks working on this--at least one professional linguist (David Salo) plus 2 dialog coaches, who might also be linguists.

Turgon wrote:The "e" at the beginning of Earendil should be similar to the e in the English word "end". The e should not be an "i" nor an "ey" This sound is followed by the a in "aisle" or even the Spanish "padre" (meaning "father"). Just listen how Saruman says "Gandalf" and "Caradhras" in the first film and how Gandalf pronounces the "a" in "Saruman". I think you got the rest of name right

I think Gandalf the White's confusion is coming from your reference to the word "aisle." I don't know about you, but I pronounce that word the same as "I'll" as in, "when I get done here, I'll have to go to the supermarket." The easiest way to get across what you're trying to say is probably the English word "father."

Turgon wrote:Maybe we should come up with some new topic, hehe. :p

Yes, it's very difficult to try to describe in writing how something's pronounced. There is a standard international phonetic alphabet, used for pronunciation guides in dictionaries, but most people wouldn't understand the symbols, and I doubt I could coax my computer into showing them anyway.

A very good source of guidance on pronunciation of Tolkien words is Tolkien himself. The LOTR appendix on this topic is rather difficult to understand sometimes, but then there are the recordings that Tolkien made. He was spending a weekend with friends one time back in the 50s and they'd just gotten a tape recorder (I can only imagine what a beast that thing must have been). He was intrigued by it, and after reciting the Lord's Prayer in Gothic into it to cast out any demons that might be lurking in it, he proceeded to read excerpts from the Hobbit and LOTR. I first encountered these as a boxed set of LPs back in the 70s, but I can happily report that due to all the hoopla from the movies, they were released on CD a couple of years ago. It's called The JRR Tolkien Audio Collection and is on the Caedmon label; the ISBN is 0694525707. The set (4 CDs, quite reasonably priced) is available online, as well as probably at your local, large, full-service bookstore. In addition to the afore-described readings by JRR, it has Christopher reading from The Silmarillion.

What happened... the thread kinda fizzled, someone is bound to know something else to discuss. this thread was a steamroller, lets keep it going.

I gotta question...

I did read some of LOTR, but I never got the barrow white chapter. Can someone describe what were those things the captured the hobbits?
-wormtongue

I've read some internet sites about Tom Bombadil.... that has to be one of the most interesting and mysterious characters in all of literature... i guess one discussion topic would be.. what was tom bombadil? as in species.

Ah... good ol' Tom B. :goofy_pur

Tolkien never did specify exactly what he was, because he declared at one point that Tom Bombadil simply... is. In truth, Tom was the literary incarnation of a raggedy old doll that his children used to play with. Tolkien's eventual inclusion of the character in his tale was meant in part to symbolize that somethings simply stand outside of the accepted and standard set of rules and conventions of normalcy. Tom's position on the One Ring was just as ambiguous as that which he was meant to represent: he did not care either way and he stood for that which could neither be tempted by corruption, nor driven to battle it.

Tolkien really left the character as an enigma because sometimes you just don't need to e xp lain certain things. Of course, he probably never anticipated how thorougly people would analyze his works one day, and thus, due to an ever-pressing need to catalog and categorize everything, many have tried to rationalize and classify where exactly Tom and his mate Goldberry fit into the hierarchy of Middle-earth. The most commonly accepted theory (though by no means proven,) is that they were both Maiar. These two in particular seem to have been more in touch with nature in its purest forms and thus did not actively participate in the affairs of the Valar and their other Maia brethren.

Another theory is that Tom was Eru himself. I'm not a fan of this one and neither are most people although this one seems to pop up a lot in discussions. I find it silly and difficult to prove for various reasons that should be fairly obvious. I think Tolkien very e xp licitly wrote these two as very separate entities, and their ideals, paths, and characteristics don't really align with one another. While Eru's role was that of active Creator and guardian, Tom's almost seems to be of that which stood passively outside the rules of creation.

Why didnt PJ put Tom in the movie, was he too mysterious and confusing for the average non-book reader to get, he seems like an important character to leave out completely, or was it for time and pacing of the film?