Yes so are other quotes. While using just the rotk and the appendices it is easy to take it either way. I have taken it as merry finally did battle. Just as pipen saved gandolf. It was to show that they were no longer the children that left the shire and it makes them saving the shire later on all the more believe able.Randell said:
LOTR: Return of the King.
- Thread starter London Geezer
- Start date
jvd said:
No - other quotes are not 'clear'. Nowhere is it unequivocably written that Merry alone killed the Withc-King, nowhere is it written by Tolkien that Eowyn did not harm the Witch-king. Tolkien talks of a 'bitter wound' dealt by Merry, not a mortal one, yet writes in the appendices Merry aids Eowyn in the casting down of the Witch-King - thus giving most credit to her.
She almost dies from the blow she struck, and is only healed in body by Aragorn and the herb Athelas because of who she struck. The appendices are clear, the intent is surely clear that 'no man' leads to a 'woman and a hobbit'. I can't believe people are arguing against crediting Eowyn with this feat.
Sure Merry and Pippin become great warriors by Shire standards because of their deeds, but that in no way diminishes Eowyn's role.
I'd say the line i quoted is not something that can be taken more than one way.John Reynolds said:
If other statments disagree, then how does one reconcile them?
I also stated that arguments could be made the other way - so what are you complaining about?
The author clearly states his case in the original text also - but lets just throw that out cause he says something else later!
Its a fantasy book, and personal interpretations are SUPPOSED to work into it, or you arent experiencing the work, you arent getting much out of it.
As for the "true source" comment, those works have been edited by his son. As such, i (and others) feel that they are not "true source". Pardon me for ahving a differing opinion on the matter.
sheesh.
See, this is hwere you are wrong.Randell said:
Read the quote given:
No blade other than Merry's westernesse blade would have broken the spell that knit the witch king together. IE, Merry killed it. QED.
Please, refute that line of text directly.
I have admited that the appendix can give rise to other interpretations (just as clearly stated as the line i quoted above) - but i dont see any refutation of that line.
Ok let's start by putting this sentence in context. It is part of a scene where Merry watches the blade fade away after the death of the Witch-King. The actual sequence of events in the novel is quite clear:
The Witch King broke Eowyn's shield and shield-arm with his mace, then stepped forwards to deliver the finishing blow. This was when Merry stabbed him, piercing the sinews behind the knee. As his shoulders bowed from the pain of Merry's blow she struck the Witch-King between helm and mantle after which he dissipated. At the time of her blow he was showing no sign of anything more than a bitter but non-fatal wound.
Now we can go back to examine the sentence above. The wound dealt by Merry with the sword of Westernesse is described as bitter. It is not described as fatal, mortal, or killing. Tolkien was a professor of philology at Oxford, a master of language, and a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary. The word bitter does not mean mortal, and someone with Tolkien's command of the english language would not have used it to mean mortal. If the wound were mortal he would have clearly said so: he didn't.
The next part of the sentence, "cleaving the undead flesh" is self-explanatory and I don't think needs any further comment. The last phrase is "...breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will." Merry struck the Witch-King in the back of the leg, and the blade was able to actually wound him because of its nature. The fact it was from Westernesse allowed it to work on both planes, and so it wounded the Witch-King and broke the spell that rendered him immortal. Once the spell was broken, Eowyn was able to strike the final, killing blow.
To use the terms of logic, Merry's attack with the blade of Westernesse was a necessary condition for the Witch-King's death, but not a sufficient condition. It was the combination which proved his bane, and Eowyn's was the killing blow.
What Rugor said.
Also, suggesting that Chris, as editor, has actually changed or tampered with his father's unpublished writings is ridiculous until proven otherwise. If anything Chris has always been overzealous in guarding his father's writings; the man loathes the Jackson films because they deviate from the books.
And while perhaps the actual text isn't as exactingly clear as it could've been, the fact that the freakin' author clarifies the situation elsewhere should end the discussion. Personal interpretation is fine and dandy, but when an author writes that the carpet in a room is red and a reader wants to argue that it's blue, and then defend that position under his right to personal interpretation, something's not right.
Edit: Tolkien never described the actual physical form Sauron was taking by the end of the Third Age, yet in his letters he made clear that Sauron was humaniod, appearing as a large, though not gigantic, man. A reader may choose to instead picture the Dark Lord in a more impressive form if that brings more enjoyment to them, but they should not argue the author's intent when it's so clearly stated.
Also, suggesting that Chris, as editor, has actually changed or tampered with his father's unpublished writings is ridiculous until proven otherwise. If anything Chris has always been overzealous in guarding his father's writings; the man loathes the Jackson films because they deviate from the books.
And while perhaps the actual text isn't as exactingly clear as it could've been, the fact that the freakin' author clarifies the situation elsewhere should end the discussion. Personal interpretation is fine and dandy, but when an author writes that the carpet in a room is red and a reader wants to argue that it's blue, and then defend that position under his right to personal interpretation, something's not right.
Edit: Tolkien never described the actual physical form Sauron was taking by the end of the Third Age, yet in his letters he made clear that Sauron was humaniod, appearing as a large, though not gigantic, man. A reader may choose to instead picture the Dark Lord in a more impressive form if that brings more enjoyment to them, but they should not argue the author's intent when it's so clearly stated.
Thank you John, someone with some sense.
I'm not partaking of this particular discussion anymore as this is beyond futile now.
I am however composing in my head my thoughts on the pluses and minuses of Jacksons films, I may write it down to see what you think.
I'm not purist enough to think he failed, they are good films but could have been better in some areas in adhering to the book IMO. Of course I'm no film director.
I'm not partaking of this particular discussion anymore as this is beyond futile now.
I am however composing in my head my thoughts on the pluses and minuses of Jacksons films, I may write it down to see what you think.
I'm not purist enough to think he failed, they are good films but could have been better in some areas in adhering to the book IMO. Of course I'm no film director.
That one will usually get you from behind while sitting on the throne.Heathen said:
pax said:
That was during the Second Age. He approached the elves as Annatar and became known as the Lord of Gifts. But Tolkien wrote that he lost the ability to appear fair toward the end of the 2nd Age.
jvd said:
No, Eowyn killed him as is clear from the text. The simple fact that Merry saved her life by attacking the Witch-King and wounding him first does not change the fact that her wound was the killing blow. To put it in hockey terms, Merry got the assist, Eowyn got the goal. The fact the goal could not have been scored without the prior assist doesn't give the goal to the assisting player.
Rugor said:
If merry did not destroy the spell eowyn could not have hurt the witch king. It was mery that killed him. It can even be argueed that once the spell was broken by merrys blade he was no longer the witch king but the original king who was once again mortal. We had this arguement in my class along time ago and my prof said he would never teach the class again cause we basicly didn't like anything he said (which was merry killing the witch king)
Can we agree to disagree on this?John Reynolds said:
Because to my eye, a verifiable source is needed, and thus proof lies on you.
The problem is the author wrote that the carpet in the room is blue, and later says "oops i meant red"....
I'd hope your fanatacism isnt so great as to not be able to see that your analogy is totally flawed.
