LOTR: Return of the King.
- Thread starter London Geezer
- Start date
oh right, because i'm the one who isnt saying things like "i hope we can agree to disagree"...Randell said:
thanks for the substantiative rebuff though. Nice how you insult me without refuting anything, while at least my insult (calling someone a fanatic) is at least somewhat backed up and substantiated by the fact that the analogy is, indeed, flawed. Your insult is simply a straw man attack.
i suggest a mirror for you, because word games apparently excape you.
Althornin said:oh right, because i'm the one who isnt saying things like "i hope we can agree to disagree"...
thanks for the substantiative rebuff though. Nice how you insult me without refuting anything, while at least my insult (calling someone a fanatic) is at least somewhat backed up and substantiated by the fact that the analogy is, indeed, flawed. Your insult is simply a straw man attack.
i suggest a mirror for you, because word games apparently excape you.
Fanatic? Alrightee.
1) Tolkien's text is open to interpretation. Rugor brought up a great point in that as a philologist Tolkien most likely would've used a word other than bitter if he had truly intended to convey that Merry delivered the fatal blow that slew the Witch-King. One could also certainly interpret the unbinding of the spell that holds his sinews as weakening him, allowing him to become vulnerable for a fatal blow to be delivered. However, all this havering is, IMO, a moot point because. . . .
2) Tolkien obviously clarified the entire situation. Your interpretation doesn't mesh with the author's stated intent. At that point my "fanaticism" ends. Yours blithely ignores the author's intent by suggesting editorial shenanigans on the part of his estate's trustee, a trustee who has consistently been extremely hegemonic of said estate. Hell, had Tolkien not sold the film rights in the late 60s the Jackson movies would NEVER have been made so long as Chris is alive. I suggest you do a little research on the Tolkien estate's history since John's death, because as it stands now you obviously haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Althornin said:oh right, because i'm the one who isnt saying things like "i hope we can agree to disagree"...Randell said:
thanks for the substantiative rebuff though. Nice how you insult me without refuting anything, while at least my insult (calling someone a fanatic) is at least somewhat backed up and substantiated by the fact that the analogy is, indeed, flawed. Your insult is simply a straw man attack.
i suggest a mirror for you, because word games apparently excape you.
excuse me?
You say can we agree to disagree twice, then suggest if he can't see the flaw in his analogy John is a fanatic?
To refute John's point you liken Tolkiens paragraph about the provenance of the sword to a clear a statement as 'the carpet is blue. The only words Tolkien could have used that would have been that clear in your interpretation are along the lines of 'dealt a wound so bitter that destroyed the Lord of The Nazgul before Eowyn's sword struck home' (obviously I'm no wordsmith).
Mirrors needed everywhere methinks.
If Merry's blow was the killing one Tolkien would have said so. He describes it as breaking the spell that bound sinews to the Witch-Kings will. If you want to be particular it could even be argued that it refers only to the sinews in the back of the knee where the blow was struck. As it was, Merry wounded the Witch-King, and Eowyn delivered the finishing blow. He dissipated immediately after her blow was struck as described in the text describing the battle.
Merry hits, he suffers a butter wound, Eowyn hits he is dissipated. Remember the contentious sentence is several pages after the actual fight.
Merry hits, he suffers a butter wound, Eowyn hits he is dissipated. Remember the contentious sentence is several pages after the actual fight.
I wouldn't say not worth arguing over, but it certainly is fascinating how ... touchy people can get on the subject. You could almost get the impression this was a discussion about religion.
My take on the events leading to the Witch-King's death is basically identical to Rugor's. There is room for differing interpretations, but it requires being selective (picking one source and declaring the other not reliable) and/or bending Tolkien's words to mean something they weren't meant to IMHO.
My take on the events leading to the Witch-King's death is basically identical to Rugor's. There is room for differing interpretations, but it requires being selective (picking one source and declaring the other not reliable) and/or bending Tolkien's words to mean something they weren't meant to IMHO.
Heathen said:
Nice NWN reference. I think it was Boo (he went for the eyes).
