RE: [mythsoc] it's not in Tolkien
- At 10:51 AM 5/7/2007 -0500, Croft, Janet B. wrote:
>In two key instances when Frodo doesn't quite have both feet firmly plantedYes, that's fine; that's not where the problem lies. The Eye is, in Donald
>in the real physical world, Sauron appears to him as an Eye - in the Mirror
>of Galadriel and at Amon Hen. It might have been more accurate, then, to say
>that on the non-physical plane (the wraith-world, as Gandalf called it in
>Rivendell), the essence of Sauron (for Frodo at least) is represented by a
>single, all-dominating Eye and/or the effect of its gaze. This is reinforced
>by Tolkien's use of the single eye in the heraldry of Mordor and in his
O'Brien's words, "the image of the will of Sauron."
>(Pippin also experiences Sauron's gaze, but does notPippin's account is interesting, because he describes what he actually sees
>say if he has one eye or two -- however, what Pippin sees in the palantír
>sounds likelier to be Sauron's actual physical form, not his psychic
in the palantir up until Sauron comes, at which point he describes nothing
visual at all. It leaves me with the impression that there was no visual
manifestation, just a palpable presence. That is surely a legitimate
matter to hold different opinions on. But if Jackson had depicted Sauron
as a physical humanoid being with a certain stance or dressed a certain
way, and a Tolkien scholar had copied that description, we'd have the same
error we have here.
>If you consider "disembodied state" to be shorthand for "as he appears onUnfortunately that doesn't work. "Disembodied" is a past participle, to
>the non-physical plane" rather than "like Voldemort, he's been having a spot
>of trouble manifesting physically lately," then it makes perfect sense.
have had one's body removed. The word "reduced" in the same sentence only
reinforces this. It shows not only that Harl is thinking of Jackson's
image, not Tolkien's, but that it left her with the impression of Sauron as
losing power, of being restricted. Whereas the whole point is that Sauron
is gaining power.
>(From Merlin's comments, it seems Jackson preferred the secondNo, it would not have been. Sauron may have lost his body, but there's no
>interpretation; and as Jason just pointed out, this would have been accurate
indication that the rebuilding process included a stage as a giant bouncing
eyeball, even if the Eye were the starting point. My mind turns to the
creation of Dr. Manhattan in the graphic novel "The Watchmen." That's
science fiction bzzz-zap, not Tolkien, in the same way that lembas is not a
food concentrate. The Eye is not an eyeball: it's the evocation of gaze,
not a physical object.
>However, I should have made it clearer that this was how I readThat's the very problem, that this is how it was intended to read. Harl
>it and how it was intended to be read - mea culpa.
absorbed Jackson's image so thoroughly that she probably never realized
that she absorbed it, that it came from him and not from Tolkien.
>Overall, despite that lapse on my part, I feel what the essayist had to sayOh yes, the essay had some interesting things to say, especially in terms
>provided a valuable perspective on the films and a locus for some of the
>discomfort some viewers feel with the adaptation. I'll certainly be
>"watching" the films differently (if I ever watch them again...)
of how watching the films makes you feel like Sauron. That explains a lot
of my discomfort. And I don't mind the special pleading to excuse Jackson,
because at least unlike the Eye bit this is conscious, and Harl only brings
it up to contrast with deeper, more fundamental problems with the
- David Bratman
- --- In email@example.com, David Emerson
>which a man from our present day
> >There was once a science-fiction story in
> >wakes up in the distant future and asks for ahamburger. The futurians
> >reply, "A hamburger is a citizen of theGerman city of Hamburg. Were you
> >cannibals in those days?"Kennedy being a jelly doughnut?
> Does this have something to do with John F.