Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Nazgul

Expand Messages
  • Michael Martinez
    ... I once read an essay on the loss of sense of self that comes of being victimized through domination. I suspect that Tolkien may have resorted to the third
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 8, 2001
      --- In mythsoc@y..., "Berni Phillips" <bernip@i...> wrote:
      >
      > From: "Ted Sherman" <tedsherman@h...>
      >
      >
      > > I find it odd that the Captain would referr to himself in the
      > > third person if the Nazgul is him; thus, I think the Nazgul is
      > > the beast and he is the Lord of the Nazgul because he controls
      > > (perhaps not the right word) the other wraiths and is master of
      > > their steeds.
      >
      > Oh, I don't know. Hulk always refer to self in third person. Hulk
      > smash now!

      I once read an essay on the loss of sense of self that comes of being
      victimized through domination. I suspect that Tolkien may have
      resorted to the third person for the Lord of the Nazgul because that
      is the only time where he actually speaks of himself, and since he
      has been utterly enslaved to Sauron's will for thousands of years,
      and is no longer a living man, he cannot possess a sense of self.

      It's just a passing thought. I've never really looked at that
      passage before, as far as assigning any significance to it.
    • Trudy Shaw
      ... From: Michael Martinez To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:29 AM Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul I once read an essay on the loss
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Michael Martinez
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:29 AM
        Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul



        I once read an essay on the loss of sense of self that comes of being
        victimized through domination. I suspect that Tolkien may have
        resorted to the third person for the Lord of the Nazgul because that
        is the only time where he actually speaks of himself, and since he
        has been utterly enslaved to Sauron's will for thousands of years,
        and is no longer a living man, he cannot possess a sense of self.


        Oh, Yes! I think I've always taken it this way subconsciously but never stopped to reflect on it. The only identity he has left is "the Nazgul." Interesting that he's also making it clear that he's not merely "_a_ Nazgul" but "_the_ Nazgul."

        The translation of the word makes it clear enough that the Nazgul are the Ringwraiths and not their steeds. They lose their horses just as the travelers arrive at Rivendell, and before the Council of Elrond they're "just" the Black Riders (or the Ringwraiths when Gandalf talks about them). By the time they return with their new steeds, the language used to talk about them has grown darker and more direct, but I don't see any other connection.

        This does relate to a question I've seen discussed but for which I've never found a satisfying answer. Why do the Ringwraiths seem less powerful at the beginning of the book than later on? When hobbits--including the Gaffer and Farmer Maggot--encounter the Black Riders in the Shire, the hobbits are afraid, but it's nothing like the terror the Ringwraiths incite in people later on. (They seem to get by without their "sniffing" later on, too.)

        1. Are they purposely holding back at first, wanting to retain some secrecy (as implied when one "laughs" at Farmer Maggot when he threatens him with his dogs)?

        2. Are the hobbits protected from the terror to a certain extent because they don't realize who or what the Black Riders really are (seems to hold true when a Nazgul darkens the sun over Minas Tirith; Pippin cowers against the wall while Beregond--who doesn't know what it is--only "feels" something)?

        3. Do the Ringwraiths grow in power as Sauron gathers his power back to himself (which Gandalf gives as the reason they're abroad again)?

        4. Are their earlier appearances "leftovers" from when the story was less dark (I believe that in earlier drafts, the Black Rider actually turns out to be Gandalf)?

        5. Any explanations other than 1-4 (which are the ones I've run across in the past)?

        Of course, it could be a combination of any or all of these. The notes I've put in parentheses seem to support each of them. I'd _like_ to ignore #4, as I hate having to admit to _any_ inconsistency in Tolkien's depictions of Middle-earth, but I suppose it's possible...




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Juliet Blosser
        ... When I read this passage, I took it to mean that the Captain was speaking as a puppet of Sauron--that Sauron s voice is simply using the Captain as a
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
          > >
          > > From: "Ted Sherman" <tedsherman@h...>
          > >
          > >
          > > > I find it odd that the Captain would referr to himself in the
          > > > third person if the Nazgul is him; thus, I think the Nazgul is
          > > > the beast and he is the Lord of the Nazgul because he controls
          > > > (perhaps not the right word) the other wraiths and is master of
          > > > their steeds.
          > >

          When I read this passage, I took it to mean that the Captain was
          speaking as a puppet of Sauron--that Sauron's voice is simply using
          the Captain as a vessel. I'm probably reading too much into it, but
          I don't see anything right off to contradict that idea.
        • NiffMarie@cs.com
          In a message dated 9/9/2001 5:44:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... How could that be? Could you explain further? That s fascinating. --Niff, infj
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
            In a message dated 9/9/2001 5:44:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            tgshaw@... writes:

            > 4. Are their earlier appearances "leftovers" from when the story
            > was less dark (I believe that in earlier drafts, the Black Rider actually
            > turns out to be Gandalf)?

            How could that be? Could you explain further? That's fascinating.

            --Niff, infj
            NiffMarie@...
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            "Anyone who has a library and a garden wants for nothing."
            Cicero
          • Trudy Shaw
            ... From: NiffMarie@cs.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul In a message dated 9/9/2001
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: NiffMarie@...
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:34 PM
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul


              In a message dated 9/9/2001 5:44:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              tgshaw@... writes:

              > 4. Are their earlier appearances "leftovers" from when the story
              > was less dark (I believe that in earlier drafts, the Black Rider actually
              > turns out to be Gandalf)?

              How could that be? Could you explain further? That's fascinating.


              I'm afraid that, for now, I'll have to use that time-honored response, "I'm sure I read it somewhere." Maybe in the recent Mythlore article about the plot twists Tolkien (thankfully) discarded during the process of writing LotR? It would have been around the same early stage in the writing as when Frodo was named "Bingo" and used the Ring to play tricks on Farmer Maggot.

              Gandalf wasn't a "bad guy" in the scene. The hobbits were frightened by the approach of a rider who, when he got closer, they could see was Gandalf. Somewhat similar to what happens when Merry meets them at the ferry in the published story.

              -- Trudy



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Janet Croft
              I think you re on to something with #2. Perhaps in an analog to how the Ring affects the Ringbearers, repeated exposure to the Ringwraiths lessens one s
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 10, 2001
                I think you're on to something with #2. Perhaps in an analog to how the Ring
                affects the Ringbearers, repeated exposure to the Ringwraiths lessens one's
                resistance to them, making them more fearful. The Orcs of Mordor, for
                example, are more afraid of them than the Orcs of Isengard.

                Janet
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Trudy Shaw [mailto:tgshaw@...]
                Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 4:44 PM
                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul



                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Michael Martinez
                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:29 AM
                Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul



                I once read an essay on the loss of sense of self that comes of being
                victimized through domination. I suspect that Tolkien may have
                resorted to the third person for the Lord of the Nazgul because that
                is the only time where he actually speaks of himself, and since he
                has been utterly enslaved to Sauron's will for thousands of years,
                and is no longer a living man, he cannot possess a sense of self.


                Oh, Yes! I think I've always taken it this way subconsciously but never
                stopped to reflect on it. The only identity he has left is "the Nazgul."
                Interesting that he's also making it clear that he's not merely "_a_ Nazgul"
                but "_the_ Nazgul."

                The translation of the word makes it clear enough that the Nazgul are
                the Ringwraiths and not their steeds. They lose their horses just as the
                travelers arrive at Rivendell, and before the Council of Elrond they're
                "just" the Black Riders (or the Ringwraiths when Gandalf talks about them).
                By the time they return with their new steeds, the language used to talk
                about them has grown darker and more direct, but I don't see any other
                connection.

                This does relate to a question I've seen discussed but for which I've
                never found a satisfying answer. Why do the Ringwraiths seem less powerful
                at the beginning of the book than later on? When hobbits--including the
                Gaffer and Farmer Maggot--encounter the Black Riders in the Shire, the
                hobbits are afraid, but it's nothing like the terror the Ringwraiths incite
                in people later on. (They seem to get by without their "sniffing" later on,
                too.)

                1. Are they purposely holding back at first, wanting to retain some
                secrecy (as implied when one "laughs" at Farmer Maggot when he threatens him
                with his dogs)?

                2. Are the hobbits protected from the terror to a certain extent because
                they don't realize who or what the Black Riders really are (seems to hold
                true when a Nazgul darkens the sun over Minas Tirith; Pippin cowers against
                the wall while Beregond--who doesn't know what it is--only "feels"
                something)?

                3. Do the Ringwraiths grow in power as Sauron gathers his power back to
                himself (which Gandalf gives as the reason they're abroad again)?

                4. Are their earlier appearances "leftovers" from when the story was
                less dark (I believe that in earlier drafts, the Black Rider actually turns
                out to be Gandalf)?

                5. Any explanations other than 1-4 (which are the ones I've run across
                in the past)?

                Of course, it could be a combination of any or all of these. The notes
                I've put in parentheses seem to support each of them. I'd _like_ to ignore
                #4, as I hate having to admit to _any_ inconsistency in Tolkien's depictions
                of Middle-earth, but I suppose it's possible...




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Stolzi@aol.com
                Trudy is correct; the unknown rider=Gandalf draft is discussed in David Bratman s Rejected Plot Twists essay, which may be found in a recent MYTHLORE.
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 10, 2001
                  Trudy is correct; the "unknown rider=Gandalf" draft is discussed in David
                  Bratman's "Rejected Plot Twists" essay, which may be found in a recent
                  MYTHLORE.

                  Diamond Proudbrook
                • David S. Bratman
                  The suggestion that the Nazgul speaking in the third person is evidence of his dehumanization or enslavement by Sauron is an interesting one, but not I think
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 12, 2001
                    The suggestion that the Nazgul speaking in the third person is evidence of
                    his dehumanization or enslavement by Sauron is an interesting one, but not
                    I think one that holds up. Other characters without this problem also
                    refer to themselves in the third person. Examples:

                    1) "Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked."

                    2) "Under their shadow Elessar, the Elfstone son of Arathorn of the House
                    of Valandil Isildur's son, heir of Elendil, has nought to dread!"

                    Putting these three examples together, I'd begin to generalize that
                    Tolkien's characters tend to speak in the third person at solemn moments of
                    heightened emotion.

                    Ted: I was fascinated by your guess that by saying "Come not between the
                    Nazgul and his prey," the Witch-King is referring to his steed. I can
                    understand why you thought that, but it never occurred to me that this
                    could be anything but the Witch-King talking in the third person. Did you
                    imagine that he would stand mutely by while the pterodactyl (or whatever it
                    is) killed Theoden and Eowyn?

                    Trudy: Tolkien had a lot of trouble working out exactly how powerful the
                    Nazgul are. See "Unfinished Tales" for much of the workings behind this.
                    His main point was that they worked more by fear than by actual physical
                    power, but I think all four of your explanations apply to an extent.

                    Niff: Re the Black Rider turning out to be Gandalf in the early draft -
                    remember that as the hobbits walked through the Shire, neither they _nor
                    (in the first instance) the author_ knew where Gandalf was. So when a
                    rider suddenly appears in Tolkien's mind as he writes, he immediately
                    assumes it's Gandalf. (Even in the final book, the hobbits think at first
                    that it might be Gandalf.) But he only got a few paragraphs into it before
                    realizing this was wrong. So then he was still left with the question of
                    where Gandalf was, plus the new one: if this isn't Gandalf, who is it? It
                    took him quite a while to answer these questions, and the answers opened up
                    new depths in the story. Anyway, that's the summary of what I wrote about
                    this in the article Mary referred to.

                    David Bratman
                  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                    In a message dated 09/12/01 7:18:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes:
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                      In a message dated 09/12/01 7:18:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      dbratman@... writes:

                      << Putting these three examples together, I'd begin to generalize that
                      Tolkien's characters tend to speak in the third person at solemn moments of
                      heightened emotion. >>

                      Yes, this whole discussion sort of mystifies me. I had thought that speaking
                      of oneself in the third person was an established style. Perhaps for formal
                      or serious moments. And perhaps we have pretty much lost it and forgotten
                      it, as we've lost the use of thee and thou.

                      Lizzie
                    • Michael Martinez
                      ... evidence of ... but not ... also ... A device does not have to be used in the same way for each character. That would be rather boring. There may be
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                        --- In mythsoc@y..., "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@s...> wrote:
                        > The suggestion that the Nazgul speaking in the third person is
                        evidence of
                        > his dehumanization or enslavement by Sauron is an interesting one,
                        but not
                        > I think one that holds up. Other characters without this problem
                        also
                        > refer to themselves in the third person. Examples:
                        >
                        > 1) "Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked."

                        A device does not have to be used in the same way for each
                        character. That would be rather boring.

                        There may be insufficient evidence to support the contention that the
                        Nazgul's use of the third person was intended to convey his
                        dehumanization. But such a usage cannot be disproven by contrary
                        examples from characters who are not Sauronic slaves.

                        And if there are so few examples of characters speaking in the third
                        person at periods of heightened emotion (Gandalf's speech to the
                        Balrog should have qualified for such usage, but he referred to
                        himself in the first person), then I would say that there is
                        insufficient evidence to support a contention of generality.

                        At the very least, this device was used by Tolkien similarly to his
                        device of the Eagles: sparingly. He may have desired nothing more
                        than to slip in a little variety.
                      • Stolzi@aol.com
                        In a message dated 9/13/01 7:02:03 AM Central Daylight Time, ... of ... You re not going to have Sauron to kick around any moooooooore.......... Diamond
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                          In a message dated 9/13/01 7:02:03 AM Central Daylight Time,
                          ERATRIANO@... writes:

                          > << Putting these three examples together, I'd begin to generalize that
                          > Tolkien's characters tend to speak in the third person at solemn moments
                          of
                          > heightened emotion. >>

                          "You're not going to have Sauron to kick around any moooooooore.........."

                          Diamond Proudbrook
                        • David S. Bratman
                          ... I wouldn t call it a device - that s too close to a gimmick or a verbal tick, which would be more than boring, it would be annoying, if more than one
                          Message 12 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                            At 06:35 AM 9/13/2001 , Michael Martinez wrote:

                            >A device does not have to be used in the same way for each
                            >character. That would be rather boring.

                            I wouldn't call it a "device" - that's too close to a gimmick or a verbal
                            tick, which would be more than boring, it would be annoying, if more than
                            one character used it. Rather, it's a stylistic trait in Tolkien, one
                            which is probably not unique to him. Other traits of formality in speech
                            may be noted in Tolkien that are used pretty much across the board for all
                            characters, notably a tendency to avoid contractions. This also is not
                            boring when many characters do it.

                            >There may be insufficient evidence to support the contention that the
                            >Nazgul's use of the third person was intended to convey his
                            >dehumanization. But such a usage cannot be disproven by contrary
                            >examples from characters who are not Sauronic slaves.

                            Indeed. Which is why I wrote "I think." But I was concerned merely to
                            reply to the suggestion that third-person was by itself an implication of
                            dehumanization. Clearly it is not.

                            And there are counter-examples on the other side, too. The Mouth of Sauron
                            is so dehumanized that he has forgotten his own real name, a fact the text
                            comments on. Yet he manages to refer to himself as "I" several times. And
                            the Witch-King says to Gandalf, "This is MY hour" (emphasis added), a
                            wording which might strike his Master as suspiciously arrogant.

                            >And if there are so few examples of characters speaking in the third
                            >person at periods of heightened emotion (Gandalf's speech to the
                            >Balrog should have qualified for such usage, but he referred to
                            >himself in the first person), then I would say that there is
                            >insufficient evidence to support a contention of generality.

                            Which is why I wrote "BEGIN to generalize" and "TEND to speak". This isn't
                            an automatic "circumstance A produces result B" situation; nothing in
                            Tolkien is. One could also suggest that the Battle at the Bridge was less
                            solemn (though at least as serious) an occasion as the others, but that's
                            dubious. (My wording was "solemn moments" rather than "periods".)

                            >At the very least, this device was used by Tolkien similarly to his
                            >device of the Eagles: sparingly. He may have desired nothing more
                            >than to slip in a little variety.

                            Probably so: Brian Rosebury's study of Tolkien notes his careful use of
                            word order, for instance, to avoid verbal fatigue. But variety under what
                            circumstances? I am merely suggesting that there are certain occasions at
                            which it tends to happen, while at others it would not be appropriate.
                            Tolkien had a good ear.


                            At 12:54 PM 9/13/2001 , Mary S. wrote:

                            >"You're not going to have Sauron to kick around any moooooooore.........."

                            Politicians, on the other hand (this references Nixon, and Dole was spoken
                            of earlier) seem to speak in the third person to make sure their names get
                            in the sound bites.

                            And comic book characters often speak in the third person because, comic
                            book words being mostly dialogue, it's an easy way to introduce them. Dave
                            Sim, back when he was good (which was a long time ago now), played many
                            amusing riffs on this and other forms of vocal self-reference in "Cerebus",
                            eventually settling on third-person as the mark of a country-bumpkin dialect.

                            Strangely, drama (whether stage plays, movies, or tv), though even more
                            dialogue-heavy than comic books, rarely has characters who talk this way.
                            I'm trying, but failing, to resist the temptation to say that this might be
                            because dramatists, even hack screenwriters, are usually better writers
                            than most comic book scripters ...

                            David Bratman
                          • michael@xenite.org
                            ... verbal ... more than ... one ... speech ... for all ... not ... I think we re approaching a middle ground on the Nazgul passage and I feel no compelling
                            Message 13 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                              --- In mythsoc@y..., "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@s...> wrote:
                              > I wouldn't call it a "device" - that's too close to a gimmick or a
                              verbal
                              > tick, which would be more than boring, it would be annoying, if
                              more than
                              > one character used it. Rather, it's a stylistic trait in Tolkien,
                              one
                              > which is probably not unique to him. Other traits of formality in
                              speech
                              > may be noted in Tolkien that are used pretty much across the board
                              for all
                              > characters, notably a tendency to avoid contractions. This also is
                              not
                              > boring when many characters do it.

                              I think we're approaching a middle ground on the Nazgul passage and I
                              feel no compelling need to make an issue of it. You make some good
                              points, and have given me something to think about.
                            • Trudy Shaw
                              ... From: michael@xenite.org To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:55 PM Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul I think we re approaching a
                              Message 14 of 16 , Sep 14, 2001
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: michael@...
                                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:55 PM
                                Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul


                                I think we're approaching a middle ground on the Nazgul passage and I
                                feel no compelling need to make an issue of it. You make some good
                                points, and have given me something to think about.



                                Since we're talking about JRRT here, I'd venture that the "middle ground" could very well be that he was aware of both possible meanings when he composed that particular piece of dialogue, and wrote it in a way that didn't rule out either one. Pure speculation, of course. -- Trudy



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.