Split Personality?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

the killing of Angmar.

Who is Angmar?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation.

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

This is exactly the type of thing I come back to again and again. When its in the books everyone reads it and says "okay". But put this in the movies and its page after page of contemptuous posts showing how it is impossible by all the known laws of man and nature.

That's typical of ancient heroes - Arthur is credited with killing five hundred men in one battle.

I hope that happened in a book so its accepted as believable. If you put that in a movie, of course it would be ridiculous and attacked to no end.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation. Anyway, He killed 70 trolls because Tolkien says he did. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Tsk, tsk!

Davem, you cannot argue from the authority of Tolkien, when Tolkien's right to authority is being called into question. That simply won't do.

There are ways to argue how this may have been possible for Húrin--some more spectacular and others not. First of all, trolls are not necessarily particularly fast-moving, and Húrin would have the advantage there. Secondly, he may have been better armoured. Thirdly, given the size of the trolls, it may have been impossible for more than three or four to get close to him at the same time, so he wouldn't have been fighting off seventy SIMULTANEOUSLY. Fourthly, we don't have exact details about terrain and where the bodies of his kinsmen and former enemies fell. Those trolls are big guys, you kill a couple and you've got some decent cover.

Certainly a spectacular feat, but not necessarily an impossible one. I would say that killing seventy orks would have been a greater feat, provided one had the strength and knowledge of how to properly kill trolls, which it would seem inductively that Húrin had.

Now, whether or not one finds Húrin's feat worthy of automatic belief or not is another matter--this may be rather subjective. Personally, I think that Davem is getting close to an important issue in saying that Húrin was the "greatest hero of the First Age". The manner in which the Silmarillion is presented affects the way it is received. The remoteness of the events written about, and their presentation as legends rather than the more immediate view of the Lord of the Rings can lead to easier acceptance and belief, or so I have found.

Originally Posted by davem

Many ancient battles were lost by superior forces to numerically inferior ones. And I think you're forgetting the morale destroying effect of the killing of Angmar. The point is the forces of Mordor went in expecting a walkover & found themselves being hit from all sides by forces they were not expecting. Add to that the death of the Witch King & consequent loss of a controlling hand, & its entirely likely that they would start to panic, become confused & go to pieces. At that point it would have become a walkover for an organised force under the command of experienced leaders like Aragorn, Eomer & Imrahil.

I would also add that we are not given much comparative literature regarding the training, discipline, and equipment of the forces--though what we are given would indicate that the armies of the West had, in general, higher quality soldiers. Certainly, the soldiers of Gondor, particularly those of Minas Tirith and Dol Amroth, with the legacy of Númenor, have reason to be thought as having the superior arms and armour--certainly we are told that the enemies of the West did not have comparable cavalry. With regards to discipline, the West similarly has the upper hand after the fall of the Witchking, since Sauron's armies are held together primarily through fear, and the removal of the Witchking is the removal of central order.

Of course, that merely speaks as to whether the Battle of the Pelennor is plausible. I think it is quite clear that it is. The matter under discussion here is immediate believeability. Like Davem, I had absolutely no trouble reading about the battle and the victory by the smaller force, since apart from numbers it seemed apparent to me that they had advantages in many other respects.

[obloquy]

I am glad to have the opportunity to link to one of my favorite articles on this site.

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Who is Angmar?

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

Originally Posted by StW

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

No, its accepting the only source of evidence we have. If we accept that Hurin is the greatest warrior of the First Age then we'd expect him to be able to perform pretty spectacular feats. As there are no contradictory reports the incident merely has to be logically possible, which Formy has shown it to be. We know for a fact that it is logically impossible for a man on fire to run 3 miles - even one of Numenorean descent. I accept Hurin killed 70 trolls because its not logically impossible for him to do that. In fact, I'd suggest its actually more likely that he did it, given that if he hadn't done it no-one in their right mind would have believed the story that he had........

[Sauron the White]

You miss my point which was one of using circular logic rather than what Tolkien actually said. Which is it
a- Hurin was the greatest warrior of his age because he killed 70 trolls
b- Hurin killed 70 trolls and was proven the greatest warrior of his age

You were using the proof of one statement to proof the validity of the other. Formendacil seemed to sense this also and provided a more rational and logical explaination consistent with Tolkiens statement of fact.

That is all I was trying to get you to see.

We know for a fact that it is logically impossible for a man on fire to run 3 miles

Once again please repeat after me. A book is one thing while a film is another things. Apples and cinder blocks.

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

This just reminds me that some people having too much knowledge of the books was their greatest handicap in enjoying the films. That, and their preconceived attitudes and prejudices.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

I guess so, since both Wellington and Angmar are places and not individuals. Still, when you use Wellington as a personal name (meaning any one of the line of dukes, I assume), you're using a place name that was derived from a surname of the individual, which is a bit different than using Angmar as a personal name for the Witch-King, since Angmar means, according to the article I just linked "iron home."

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Apples and cinder blocks.

...at the atomic level are much the same. At some level we are talking about the same things.

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

Initially for me that was the case. Too many years of reading the books to see it otherwise. But then I studied the films using the films as a reference, and many exits from the secondary world appear, such as Gandalf suggesting in Hollin to take the Ring past Saruman, and Saruman's fireball, which would have been useful if he were ever attacked by creatures made of wood.

This just reminds me that some people having too much knowledge of the books was their greatest handicap in enjoying the films. That, and their preconceived attitudes and prejudices.

Not so. Here at the Downs, that's mostly the case, but my illiterate sister - she can read, but never would bore herself with reading LotR - was confused by some of the movie, and she, unlike me, did not have every piece of dialogue stuck in her head.

Note about Huin: (1) The trolls were to capture, not kill him, and (2) trolls not being very bright, fell for the 'toll booth' trick as seen in Blazing Saddles, and with the appropriate delay time between trolls, Hurin wasn't too hard put to it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You miss my point which was one of using circular logic rather than what Tolkien actually said. Which is it
a- Hurin was the greatest warrior of his age because he killed 70 trolls
b- Hurin killed 70 trolls and was proven the greatest warrior of his age

You were using the proof of one statement to proof the validity of the other. Formendacil seemed to sense this also and provided a more rational and logical explaination consistent with Tolkiens statement of fact.

That is all I was trying to get you to see.

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

It has also established, by a number of shots - both long shots of the City showing the hallows' location, & general shots of characters walking about infront of the citade, the distances involvedl. We can see how long the distance from the Citadel to the spot at the end of the precipice where the bit of wall has been taken to feed the ballistae. One could not run even that distance in a few seconds - particularly not if one was engulfed in flames. I'm still amazed, btw, that being so completely engulfed in flames he managed to miss the tree & the ornamental fish pond both.....

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - very good point about Hurin slaying so many trolls because they were sent to capture him. Also the Saurman fireball trick --- never wondered before why he did not use it against the Ents- interesting.

davem - yes, I remember the stills that Knight of Gondor used on page 1 of the Denethors Plunge thread to show just what you are referring to with the establishing shots. And yes, they were in the movie. And they were in previous scenes. Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

Again, we can get out all the charts, graphs, diagrams, stills, maps and other devices to show that Jackson had it wrong. Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

My willing suspension of sub-created belief while watching RotK in the cinema was continuously interrupted by five girls two rows down from me whose sole enjoyment was to experience the disruption of said belief and to laugh uproariously at the ridiculousness of it all.

Their antics couldn't help but suggest to me that at least some of those millions might have gone to the movie/s with similar intent. I can only hope that the object of their derision was PJ and not Tolkien.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Does this mean that you still don't get it? I'm not sure about others, but I think I can safely say that davem and I are saying that one has to willingly suspend disbelief because it is constantly disrupted in the movies.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

So did he teleport from the Hallows to a point five feet from the edge? Did a passing Nazgul pick him up & drop him there, or did he hop onto one of the ballistae & get catapulted the three miles?

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

I honestly couldn't see why I should have made the effort. Tolkien never required that of me.....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....

Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?

Regarding texts of old heroes, what about all that was written about the life of J.C.? I've read a book about his life, and I'm suspicious about much that was attributed to him. Supposedly he came from a divine lineage, was known far and wide throughout the ancient Mediterranean region, has had a large impact on our lives even today down through the centuries (we see his mark on the calender at least one a year) and his death, having been betrayed by someone in his closest circle, is still remembered even today and purportedly was marked by signs and wonders.

Of course I'm talking about (Gaius) Julius Caesar.

Did he really kill an elephant? Did a lion whelp when he died? Did shooting stars also mark his death? Just what did he say when he crossed the Rubicon?

And I won't annoy our British cousins with tales about our father, General George "cherry tree chopping, never lying" Washington. Must be true, whatever was writ.

My questions regarding Hurin are thus:

• Who observed his deeds and how reliable is this observer? How reliable is the observation? Could seven become seventy due to a transcription error (if only that would happen with my paycheck)?

• Is there any independent corroboration of the facts? Did Melkor have a ledger that states that 70+ trolls lost capturing Hurin?

• How did each troll die? Did they die from Hurin's direct action, or is Hurin credited with the kill when others in his command actually help kill or actually killed the troll? Commanders are always given the credit, and when we're lucky, the blame when something happens under their command.

• What species of trolls were these? If they are like the ones encountered by Bilbo, then it's one level of heroism; if it's PJ's Battle trolls (and isn't PJ's the definitive word? ), then taking more than one down single-handedly is more than enough for one man to be the best? Seventy at that point might as well be a gagillion for the impact that more than two makes on my non-heroic brain (I killed seven flies once in one day, without an axe, but seeing Aragorn bested by one, I cannout fathom seven let alone seventy).

It's been said that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' In my head I've watched every painful swing of Hurin's, right down to his last when he is finally overwrought and overrun, and is dragged, struggling, to the Hells of Iron, but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?.

Hurin killing 70 trolls seems at first sight 'fantastic' but it is not logically impossible, or, given his reputation, even 'possible but unlikely'. Is it more likely that a chronicler just made it up? It seems to me that if someone was just making up the number they would have gone for a smaller one (to make it more 'acceptable' why not 7?) or a much larger one (to emphasise Hurin's victory - why not 100?). The examples you cite are either logically impossible, or at the very least infinitely improbable.

So, again, Hurin could have killed 70 trolls. Any chronicler who simply wanted to have his account accepted without question would have said 7. One who wanted to present him as a superhero would have said 100, or 1000.

(Or, stepping outside the Legendarium, one could argue that Hurin killed 70 trolls because Tolkien said he did, & Tolkien is the only source we have, or can have. - which is equally 'circular logic'. Its a fact Hurin killed 70 trolls for the same reason that there are dragons in M-e is a fact - because Tolkien says so)

but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

I'm not. I just got caught up in this one. I can only think that anyone who doesn't, or can't, believe that Hurin killed 70 trolls is going to have a major problem with about 100% of the Legendarium. If you hold Hurin's killing of the Trolls may have been made up, or seriously exagerated, then you put the same question-mark over every single event in the stories - maybe Glorfindel didn't kill the Balrog on his own, maybe Turin didn't take down Glauring single-handedly.......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Hurin killing 70 trolls seems at first sight 'fantastic' but it is not logically impossible, or, given his reputation, even 'possible but unlikely'. Is it more likely that a chronicler just made it up?

Again, who recorded the event? If our answer is 'Tolkien,' I argue no further. But in the heat of battle things can become confused, and some men count each enemy head twice, or something.

It seems to me that if someone was just making up the number they would have gone for a smaller one (to make it more 'acceptable' why not 7?) or a much larger one (to emphasise Hurin's victory - why not 100?). The examples you cite are either logically impossible, or at the very least infinitely improbable.

That's not evidential. What you or I believe to be what people would or would not do would be great discussion (of course ), but add not one jot to the stack of evidence. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

I'm not. I just got caught up in this one. I can only think that anyone who doesn't, or can't, believe that Hurin killed 70 trolls is going to have a major problem with about 100% of the Legendarium. If you hold Hurin's killing of the Trolls may have been made up, or seriously exagerated, then you put the same question-mark over every single event in the stories - maybe Glorfindel didn't kill the Balrog on his own, maybe Turin didn't take down Glauring single-handedly.......

Back to one of the origin points is that Tolkien's work rarely makes me think that Hurin could have done otherwise, and that's why it works. To me, what you state does happen, and I'm not using pretzel logic in that that maybe Hurin could have shone the last glint of sunlight off of his huge dwarven axe and turned the seventy to stone, and their heads fell off, and so technically he does behead them with an axe.

When in Arda, I'm a believer.

And just a thought: I find Legolas's count at Helm's Deep actually low.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

I'd be more inclined to put the round number down to it being something like a 'Company' of Trolls sent out specifically to capture Hurin, rather than a bunch of Trolls who just got together & decided to take him on. It seems they were obeying specific orders - to capture him. Hence, one assumes that witnesses would only have to see a Company of Trolls assaulting Hurin to know that there were 70 of them. One would only then have to see them all piled up to know he had slain 70 of them. Anything else, it seems to me, calls the exact number into question, & it may well have been a tale that 'grew in the telling', & the reality that he actually killed 27 of them - or 7.

[Lalwendë]

Well, this thread having a pop culture bent, I have some pop culture evidence for some matters at hand.

1. According to American Pie 2, there is this rule that guys have where if anyone asks how many girls they have 'romanced', they must multiply the number by three. Thus if they have 'known' three girls then they must up the number to nine. In the case of Hurin he probably slaughtered approx 23 trolls but the rules state he must multiply this by three.

Incidentally the reverse rule is true for girls...

2. According to an experiment undertaken by one Johnny Knoxville, it is impossible to live once set on fire, beyond about eight seconds as you inhale the fumes and so...you die. I suspect that many people watching the films will also have seen Mr Knoxville's experiment and will have known just how wrong Denethor's run was, and this is probably why the cinema was rocking with laughter at that point.

I happen to think PJ threw that scene in as a reference to his old humorous gore fests. There are no lawnmowers in Middle-earth but a flaming Steward was just as funny.

3. Alan Moore was quite happy to sell film rights to his books and then having nothing more to do with them, until a lawsuit over The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Now he is not so carefree.

[Sauron the White]

from Lalwende

According to an experiment undertaken by one Johnny Knoxville, it is impossible to live once set on fire, beyond about eight seconds as you inhale the fumes and so...you die. I suspect that many people watching the films will also have seen Mr Knoxville's experiment and will have known just how wrong Denethor's run was, and this is probably why the cinema was rocking with laughter at that point.

You must hang out in very weird communities. I saw ROTK eleven times in the theaters and not once was the cinema rocking with laughter at that point. Not once. I only hope the Johnny whatever reference was in jest and not serious. To consider that third rate celebrity an authority on anything would be a real stretch.

from Bethberry

My willing suspension of sub-created belief while watching RotK in the cinema was continuously interrupted by five girls two rows down from me whose sole enjoyment was to experience the disruption of said belief and to laugh uproariously at the ridiculousness of it all.

I think those same five girls disrupt lots of movies that are not kissing the collective behinds of the high school set. I truly support the death penalty for people that do that in a theater. No trial. No jury. A sniper next to the upper area of the screen who drill them with a bullet. An usher then hangs a sign around the offending corpse "I TALKED". It would be a good thing.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from Lalwende



You must hang out in very weird communities. I saw ROTK eleven times in the theaters and not once was the cinema rocking with laughter at that point. Not once. I only hope the Johnny whatever reference was in jest and not serious. To consider that third rate celebrity an authority on anything would be a real stretch.

I am of course pulling your chain

Not about the cinema laughing at Denethor though. Someone even yelled "Woo-hoo!" as he went over the edge.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I guess so, since both Wellington and Angmar are places and not individuals. Still, when you use Wellington as a personal name (meaning any one of the line of dukes, I assume), you're using a place name that was derived from a surname of the individual, which is a bit different than using Angmar as a personal name for the Witch-King, since Angmar means, according to the article I just linked "iron home."

It happened to be the case that Wellington's title was derived from his personal name (Wellesley), but by no means always, especially with older titles which referred specifically to a shire or manor; it was certainly common enough (just read your Shakespeare) to refer to the nobility by fief alone, as Norfolk, York, Albany, etc etc etc, which were entirely unrelated of course to the surnames Brandon or Plantagenet or de la Pole or Howard.

[alatar]

Sorry that this post is about Denethor's plunge and not Gollum, but I've already posted about running Dwarves in that thread, and seems that this thread is more about Denethor...

Faramir, having greeted his new King and having gotten plans started for marrying his wild shieldmaiden friend from the North, turns his thoughts backwards a bit, to those days just before the Battle of the Pellenor "Dad, you were a crazy ole coot sometimes, and had the table manners of an orc chieftain, but still I loved you."

Faramir walked the lower level of the city to the spot where poor old dad had met his abrupt end. Although the city was being repaired, still, some stains remained from those dark days. At one dark stain Faramir knelt down and set a round red tomato on the paving stones, marred and blackened from the war.

"Excuse me? Captain Faramir, can I help you?" A guard had walked up, checking on his lord.

"I'm fine. Just paying homage to my dear father, the late Denethor, the Soaring Steward." The guard looked a bit perplexed, then, being caught up mayhap in the jubilation of the Fourth Age, decided to speak further.

"Uh...Captain Faramir? Your father, sir, actually landed over there. I saw it myself with my very own eyes, thinking it some new devilry from Mordor. I think that on this particular spot a brave soldier met his demise by one of those Battle Trolls. Squished with a mace, he was."

...

PJ robs us, however briefly, of any chance of a scene where Faramir briefly laments the loss of his father. No glimpse down Rath Dínen, no blackened and burned room - and I'm not even going to mention the palantir - no tomb.

It's all Gandalf's fault as he had to cover up the scene where he assaulted the lord of the city. No body, no crime.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

What hasn't been brought up is that Tolkien was very unlikely to have agreed to the sale given his druthers. The fact was, he had just purchased a pricey house in the toney resort town of Poole, and then, after tying up all his liquid assets, was hit with an enormous tax bill at the confiscatory rates of 1960's Britain. He needed ready money and needed it fast.

[Sauron the White]

WilliamCH .. if you do find the support that goes with that story I would be most interested in reading it.

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

Only if you see the selling of something you think is worthless swampland for a good amount of money as possibly unethical or at the very least questionable.

[Morwen]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

I don't see why it should be.

The purchaser bought the film rights of a published work. Presumably, someone would have read it before money changed hands. If that's the case, Tolkien could not misrepresent what was being sold nor could the purchaser claim to be mistaken about the nature of what was being purchased. Tolkien may have thought the film rights were worthless but he isn't guilty of duping anyone. If people know that you are selling swampland and they agree to purchase it anyway, then good luck to them.

[alatar]

Just thought, while it was fresh in the mind to note that in the Christian Bible (Judges 15: 15-16) Samson kills a thousand men with a donkey mandible.

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them.
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."

How is this perceived? As an exact counting, or as a way of saying, 'more than would be considered normal'?

Note that we're not discussing religion, but I think the author's intent and precise history.

[littlemanpoet]

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them. That is not, however, what the LotR book lovers are saying about the Lotr movies. The secondary world doesn't come off because there are too many inconsistencies such that it doesn't work: some scenes and events in the movies don't accord with the laws in the world of the movies.

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Not exactly sure what you're saying, but my point is that the Samson story doesn't stick out in my head, and isn't featured large in skeptics criticisms with all things religious as it seemingly 'fits.' Whether it were 100 or a thousand, the point is made that Samson put a big hurt on the enemy and did so by himself. And his weapon of choice I assume was also chosen to humiliate his enemies and to show how weak they were. Hope that that's more clear.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

I will try with an example.

I just finished reading the final Harry Potter novel (I'll give nothing away here). While reading it, I never came across anything that didn't fit the logic of the story and world. That is to say, I was in the milieu and the story never set anything up that contradicted the milieu. Rowling was quite consistent from beginning to end of the entire project, as far as I can tell. Her ability to do this was an achievement that Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories (a very important essay about writing myth and fantasy that ought to be read by anyone who wants to discuss such things), denoted as successfully subcreating a secondary world; the proof of her success is that it engenders Secondary Belief in her readers. If, at any point, Rowling had written anything in her story such that, say, Newtonian Physics overruled wandlore, it would have contradicted the entire milieu and the "spell" of Secondary Belief would have been broken. At this point I would have had to choose to adopt Suspension of Disbelief in order to overlook the contradiction and try to re-enter the milieu.

In the first case, there is an organic belief occurring such that the reader and writer are more or less communicating mind-to-mind, as it were. In the second, the organic connection has been broken, and the reader must make a conscious effort of the will to make work of interacting with the "breached edifice", trying to ignore the breach.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it.

Sorry, I was referring without naming to a specific school of thought, often called on these "the literati", who confronted Tolkien upon the original publication of the works. They did and still do look down their noses at fantasy and myth as not worthy of their consideration as serious literature, because it does not fit the rules they believe every work of literature ought to follow, by which they mean the modern novel with its flawed characters, relative morality, in-the-head characterization, etc. Be sure that I'm not condemning the modern novel; what I don't appreciate is the out of hand rejection of myth and fantasy because the literati refuse to countenance it, demanding it to fit their own terms.

I can see from what I've just written that you would criticize me of doing the same thing to Jackson's movies as opposed to Tolkien's books. But there is a seminal difference: Tolkien didn't buy the rights to Hemingway, for example, in order to write LotR.

Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

One would be foolish to deny such a possibility.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Morwen]

Quote:
Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?
Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Perhaps I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

[Sauron the White]

This has been brought up before, and I must say the answer has always struck me as --- to be frank --- just full of it. Self serving and mealy mouthed drivel trying to justify an obvious defect. So, again, the one huge flaw that is at the heart of the book LOTR (and thus the film also).

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Now, as usual, some will start to post about the legions of powerful Elves who once roamed Middle-earth in massive numbers and were the main obstacle to Sauron at the time he had the ring in the Second Age. So what? That does not cut it for me. If Sauron and that darn ring were so incredibly powerful, he should have been able to deal with them and come out on top. And okay, the Elves are waning in the Third Age, but Men are on the rise. Perhaps not legions of Numenorians, but armed and trained men.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

The book is flawed in its very premise. The film has the same flawed premise. And I love them both.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

That's not true. Sauron ruled all of the Great Lands save Lindon and Rivendell for nearly two millenia- his lordship was only broken by Ar-Pharazon.

[Sauron the White]

So its not true that the Last Alliance marched right into his own backyard, called him out and cut the ring from his hand? Lot of good it did him then. Why is that fact being ignored?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

He just needed a few thousand years to contemplate how to best use it, as it's been said about new Ring Lords. Did Sauron simply overreach?

[Morwen]

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Yes, the Ring is cut from Sauron's hand. Does Tolkien at any point claim that the One Ring makes the wearer invulnerable? In all that we are told about the properties of the Ring, are we ever told anything to suggest that the Ring gives one invincibility? If it is that the Ring and the Ring alone supposedly made Sauron invincible then to have it cut from his hand would be illogical within the context of the story. Tolkien would have established a rule (Ring = invincibility) that he then proceeds to disregard. But if Tolkien never established such a rule, then where is the flaw?

[alatar]

And just what was PJ's Sauron going to do with the Ring anyway, lacking even a lid within which to place it (piercing an eyelid - ouch!)?

[Sauron the White]

The flaw is a simple one. If Sauron gets the ring then he can rule the world and end all proper civilization. However, he once had the ring, attempted to do just that and was unsuccessful. The ring did not give to Sauron in the Second Age what the Free Peoples fear he will get by obtaining the ring in the Third Age. He had the ring. It failed to deliver. In fact, he had the ring right there in the Barad-dur in his own kingdom of Mordor and the Last Alliance came there, defeated his armies, then laid siege to his fortress for seven full years. What good did the ring do for him in that time? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But the whole premise of LOTR is that if Sauron gets the ring its all over but the dying... and that will soon follow.

But that was not true. Sauron had the ring, did some bad things with it on his finger .... but, in the end, had his sorry behind kicked and he vanished with the winds after it was cut off.

So much for the power of the ring on Saurons hand.

I see this as a huge flaw. I could have accepted the idea that there is this powerful being who is just inches away from total domination of all creatures if he can just get his hands on this powerful weapon. Of course, he has never had his hands on this powerful weapon but now must obtain it. But that is not the case. Sauron is NOT going after some powerful weapon that will tip the scales completely in his favor. He is simply trying to recover what was once his. In fact, the power in the ring was power that came from him in the first place.

[alatar]

• It was an arm's race - predator and prey sort of thing. If Sauron regained the One Ring, the prey may not have the time to adapt.

• It was just PR/spin. The Wise, seeing Sauron rising again and contesting their hold on the world, decided that whipping up the troops with, "If he regains the Ring, then we'll have to go back there again and cut off another finger, and wasn't it so boring the first time?" wouldn't be as successful at raising an army as it was the first time.

• Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The flaw is a simple one. If Sauron gets the ring then he can rule the world and end all proper civilization. However, he once had the ring, attempted to do just that and was unsuccessful. The ring did not give to Sauron in the Second Age what the Free Peoples fear he will get by obtaining the ring in the Third Age. He had the ring. It failed to deliver. In fact, he had the ring right there in the Barad-dur in his own kingdom of Mordor and the Last Alliance came there, defeated his armies, then laid siege to his fortress for seven full years. What good did the ring do for him in that time? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But the whole premise of LOTR is that if Sauron gets the ring its all over but the dying... and that will soon follow.

But that was not true. Sauron had the ring, did some bad things with it on his finger .... but, in the end, had his sorry behind kicked and he vanished with the winds after it was cut off.

So much for the power of the ring on Saurons hand.

I see this as a huge flaw. I could have accepted the idea that there is this powerful being who is just inches away from total domination of all creatures if he can just get his hands on this powerful weapon. Of course, he has never had his hands on this powerful weapon but now must obtain it. But that is not the case. Sauron is NOT going after some powerful weapon that will tip the scales completely in his favor. He is simply trying to recover what was once his. In fact, the power in the ring was power that came from him in the first place.

When Sauron puts the One Ring on his finger and the Elves realise that they have been betrayed they take off their rings , as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age. The concern that presents itself at the end of the Third Age is that if Sauron gets back his Ring all the work done by the Three would be laid bare. It compounds the problem that the Free Peoples have, that they cannot mount the kind of force sent against Sauron at the end of the Second Age. They are far more vulnerable at the end of the Third Age than they were in the second and it makes sense that they should be more worried about Sauron getting back his Ring. While the Ring may not render him invulnerable, the chances of repeating the feat of Isildur are slim. They may have defeated Sauron once while he bore the Ring. But that victory came at great cost and they, realistically, were skeptical of being able to do so again.

As for why Sauron wants the Ring back, this is an object as you note into which he had put the greater part of his power. Even though he may not have foreseen that his enemies would attempt to destroy it, he would not have been anxious to have one of them show up wielding it. Is it not prudent for him to guard against this?