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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Nazgul

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > >
      > > 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 2 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 16 , Sep 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- 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 4 of 16 , Sep 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 16 , Sep 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 16 , Sep 12, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 16 , Sep 13, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- 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 12 of 16 , Sep 14, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- 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.