 by -
Broc
(Mon Feb 17 08:25:41)
|
|
Tolkien writes, using a technique called "duality," or "dualism."
That is to say, for every force or action or power, there is a counter force, power or action.
For example:
...There are nine Nazgul and nine Companions
...Old Tom Bombadil is counterbalanced by Ungoliant [represented in LOTR by Shelob]
...Cirdan's ring of Fire [given to Gandalf] is used to combat the Eye of Fire
What other duality do you see?
~ Broc
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 08:38:06)
|
|
Well, there is true duality in matter and spirit throughout the books. The One Ring itself makes it's wearer exist in the spirit world. The wraiths exist in the spirit world while the Fellowship exists in the land of the living.
I'm not seeing how Bombadil is counterbalanced by Ungoliant, though. Can you explain that one.
|
|
|
| by -
Darth_Imrahil
(Mon Feb 17 08:38:25)
|
|
 UPDATED Mon Feb 17 08:39:14 |
Just a few I thought of quick:
Nobility vs. Ambition (personified in Aragorn v Isildur)
Orcs created from Elves
Trolls created as opposites to Ents
Boromir to Faramir (at least in the book)
Nature vs. Industry
________________________________________________________________________________
"last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth..."
|
|
|
Speculatively...was Isildur's flaw ambition or arrogance?
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Both. If not in equal amounts, it's more ambition.
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
I don't know...I think I tend to lean more toward arrogance. Remember when Elrond told Isildur to throw the Ring in the Fire...Isildur did not say, "No, I want it. It will help me rule a larger kingdom..." To me that would represent ambition. He said something to the effect of, "I will not throw it in the Fire. It is Precious to me. I will take it home and it will be an heirloom of my family." That seems more like greed or arrogance.
Thoughts?
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
He said something to the effect of, "I will not throw it in the Fire. It is Precious to me."
I don't know if I would consider that greed or arrogance. The ring had taken a hold of Isildur already. I think he just did not have a strong enough character to be resilient to the ring's power, and it was able to gain control of him that soon.
"I will take it home and it will be an heirloom of my family."
That line says to me that he was not being greedy, because he didn't really want it for himself. He wanted it for his family and the heirs of Gondor.
I think Isildur was very ambitious in the fact that he wanted to use the ring to rule a larger kingdom, but I don't think his greed was completely his fault. I think a lot of it had to do with the sheer evilness (is that a word?) of the ring itself.
"Let us always meet each other with smile, for the smile is the beginning of love" 
|
|
|
Interesting thoughts, but the kingdoms were set, ruled by him, his brother and his father. That is why I do not see where he would increase the size of his kingdom, and what leads me to the thoughts of arrogance...
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Smeagol and Gollum?
Also elf-lords (such as Elrond and Glorfindel) are able to exist in both the "seen" physical and "unseen" spirit worlds at once.
Also (I'm not sure if I can express this adequately, but...)
there is fighting for what you believe in (e.g. the hobbits fighting for the Shire, the fellowship joining the armies of Rohan and Gondor, etc) versus fighting simply to serve a master (the orc armies lose the will to fight as soon as the ring is destroyed).
"One day, son, all this will be yours."
"What... the curtains?" 
|
|
|
Hey Broc, while I'm thinking of it, Ridley Scott's film "Legend" (at least the Amerian cut) is so jam-packed for duality, it's almost silly.
At some point you just want to scream "OK, I get the point! Good and evil, light and dark, night and day!" There are probably two dozen examples.
Nonetheless, love the film or hate it, it will teach duality.  
________________________________________________________________________________
"last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth..."
|
|
|
phraseology...keep it simple...
Free choice vs. slavery
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Perhaps the most innocent of M-E (a hobbit) vs. the greatest evil in M-E (Sauron the Maia)
The humble wizard (Gandalf) vs. the prideful one (Saruman)
The nobility of the rangers vs. the baseness of the Wild Men
"Remember what John & Paul said"
"The Apostles?"
"No, The Beatles. All you need is love"
|
|
|
I think, moving from the literal to the philosophical, that the destruction of nature versus the protection of nature is a theme that came up more than once. It's in both the dichotomy of dwarves and elves and of Saurman and the Ents. It plays again when he discusses the encroachment of Mordor on Ithilien. Being a student of ancient and earth-based religions, in which dichotomy is a central theme, maybe I just see it everywhere. Nature is all about duality (male/female, day/night, winter/summer, etc.) so any work that has nature as a character (as I believe Tolkien's does) would weave these elements in somehow.
And in that way, perhaps Eowyn represents a merging of the duality, because she has qualities of both. (That's probably a stretch. I'm just thinking out loud now.)
Dark and light may be way too obvious, but for examples: the darkness that falls over Pelinnor fields, and then is pushed back, the darkness of Cirith Ungol, fought back by Galadriel's light, etc.
I think Gollum/Smeagol is a great example too (someone already mentioned this). It takes all the themes of good versus evil in the books and winds them into one, conflicted character. I think that's brilliant (not that we didn't already know Tolkien was brilliant).
|
|
|
Another thought merging my nature theme with Rosabel's (I think?) talk about restoration versus innovation--nature versus industrialization. This may be more of what people have imposed on the books rather than what was in them themselves (I haven't read them in a while). Sauruman and Sauron were tearing things down to build more. Dwarves mine to gain more riches. People like Hobbits, Ents, Elves, etc., on the other hand, are the ones who work with nature, rather than against it.
|
|
|
The faithful servant (Sam) vs. the treacherous servant (Grima).
A bigger theme would be "proper" rule vs. "unlawful" rule. There are many rulers in LOTR - Aragorn, Theoden, Elrond, Celeborn/Galadriel, all the way down to Ghan-Buri Ghan, and the mayor of the Shire. We have these characters, just rulers, whose people are happy and completed by them. Then we have the "unjust" rulers, the chief of whom, of course, is Sauron. These are the tyrants, ruling by force or usurpation. Saruman is another, who seizes a role that is not properly his - immediate disorder follows. I'm not sure just where to class Denethor; he is not a usurper, though his son Boromir hints that really he deserves to be king. But he has forgotten his primary obligation, to keep the throne prepared for the return of the king, and he loses his way in the end.
|
|
|
Frodo and the One Ring...
Hobbits represent what is innocent and good in Middle Earth and the ring represents what is evil and corrupt.
Galadriel says even the smallest person [hobbit] can make a difference[for good] and Boromir mentions all this trouble of a little thing [the ring]
Peace and blessings
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Mon Feb 17 12:18:56)
|
|
You guys are great!
Keep commenting -- I'll annotate your results/comments when the thread finally runs out of steam.
Please look for the more "hidden" stuff [Bombadil/Ungoliant], which may be hard to put together, as they don't appear side-by-side.
Look for parallel plot structures, parallel "power" modalities, parallel characterizations.
Another perspective: subtle parallel religious connotations. Example: trinitarian references...
Thanks for your contributions --
~ Broc
|
|
|
Everyone's come up with some really great stuff! Cool thread.
The most obvious holy trinity I see is the three elvish rings (at least, that's what popped to mind first). They're one of the few things that seems untouched by evil.
When you first said "religious" I thought "devil" (for some reason), and that led me to the fallen angel concept, both with Melkor (not technically in the books) and Saurman (ironically, the white). Was Sauron a fallen angel? I don't remember. Has anyone read The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie? All about fallen angels, angels turning into devils, etc. It's fascinating.
This may be a bit too on the nose (i.e. so obvious as to lose meaning), but there's the power structure between Sauron and Saruman, attacking Gondor from two sides, the two towers, etc. There's also two nations of men (Denethor/Theoden, Eomer/Faramir, etc.), and Merry and Pippin spliting off into each of them.
Ok, those were all the opposite of what you just asked for ("hidden" stuff). Thinking out loud again. Hmm, this is fun. I'll keep pondering.
Ooh, something else I thought of before I post this. I was thinking about the eye of Sauron (of all things he could be, Tolkien chose an eye), and how sight is so important in certain parts of the book, i.e. the ability of Sauron to see different things, the things you see (and that see you) when you wear the ring, the watchtowers that come up now and again, the palantirs, etc. On the other hand, it is said that the ring blinds you to yourself. For example, the ringwraiths are blind because they are slaves to the ring (may also have something to do with being disembodied  ). And when you put it on, youre invisible (geez, wrote this whole paragraph and forgot that part--guess I should throw it in--seems to be an interesting sight issue). So sight and blindness seem to be key, somehow. Might tie in again to my earlier post about light and darkness, too.
Interesting that Gollum can see in the dark. Then again, for me, Gollum is the personification of the dualism throughout.
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Mon Feb 17 13:48:50)
|
|
Quick response -- thanks for the post.
I have some thoughts on "trinity" and other religious references, which I'll develop a bit more before sharing, but you hit on someything that just popped into mind: The All-Seeing Eye of God
It's Judaic, primitive Christian, Masonic -- even on the US dollar bill! Yep!
Thanaks for pondering. Please keep posting.
~ Broc
|
|
|
I was literally just thinking aloud. Wish I could sit and work these things out, but that's too easy an excuse not to do homework.
This is fun, though. It's like a "what would we have discussed if we studied LOTR in college" kind of post (for those of us who didn't, of course).
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Mon Feb 17 14:10:18)
|
|
Due in large part to the impetus created by the films, LOTR will be studied as great literature within another generation. Tolkien just hasn't been dead long enough!
That's the trouble with being a great artist -- ya gotta die first!
|
|
|
That's the trouble with being a great artist -- ya gotta die first!
Yeah, that tends to help.
Also might have helped if I had taken some English classes.....
|
|
|
Tolkien is studied! I've heard of college courses on Middle-earth being offered (though I won't be in college until next year, so I haven't had a chance to take them!) My brother is in college; I think he's the one who told me about them. I'll see if I can find out where they are.
|
|
|
Speaking of the dollar bill...not quite duality...but let me work through it...
e pluribus unum...from many, one.
That describes the Fellowship...Elf, Dwarf, Man, Hobbit, Wizard, united for a common purpose. They also get help from others of their own kinds (ie the Good Peoples...) and others, like Ents getting into the picture, the Elves of Lothlorien, etc.
The primary "gruntwork" force of the "bad guys" is made of orcs, really the anti-life... They live to kill and destroy, but even though all are orcs, their cause is weakened by internal squabbling. No unity. Look at the two factions which kidnapped M&P. They were destroyed, in part by a better military force, in part because they could not cooperate. The Orcs who had Frodo (Shagrats force and Gorbags force) literally destroyed each other, allowing Sam to free Frodo.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
| by -
Kalliopé
(Mon Feb 17 14:08:31)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Feb 17 14:10:16 |
Maybe it´s just me.....
Faramir/Eowyn
He feels rejected by his father for being a captain with the tendency for lore/education (preserving the house/history);
She feels rejected by her uncle (father figure here) for being a woman (who are thought to be resposible to preserve the house/history) with the tendency (HA! what an understatement!) to fight...
And they end up together representing the Ying/Yang or merger... at least that´s what I like to think of them.... but maybe it´s just me.
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Mon Feb 17 14:11:24)
|
|
Hmmm... Good thought... I'll spin my wheels about that...
Thanks!
~ Broc
|
|
|
How about continuity with the past and innovation? A lot of LOTR deals with a sense of "restoration". Aragorn is not only the king, he's the *returned* king, his kingdom is the restored kingdom of Gondor. He doesn't conquer new lands - he returns the land to what it was before and had fallen away from. Theoden regains his hold on sanity and his ability to rule, so that he becomes again the king he was before Grima poisoned his mind. At the end, the Shire is returned as much as possible to the way it was before. Saruman, as Sauron's proxy, is not only destructive, he is evil in his creation of new, unnatural things, like the uruk-hai. He knocks down the old structures of the Shire, and builds newfangled, ugly ones. "Restoration" is not always successful, though. Balin tries and fails to restore Moria. The elves have no hope of restoring their kingdoms, and are resigned to leaving middle earth.
Another contrast is between the good characters who accept limits and the evil ones who don't. Aragorn and the Rangers submit to being treated as dangerous outlaws by the people of Bree; when Aragorn returns as king, he voluntarily refrains from entering the Shire, because of the agreements made long ago (this is in the book, but probably will not be in the movie). Gandalf is content to let the hobbits see him as an eccentric old man who has a way with fireworks. When he gets angry with Bilbo in FOTR and overawes him with a glimpse of his real power, it only lasts for a moment. You get the impression that he's even a bit sorry that he had to resort to such a tactic - he definitely doesn't make a habit of it. During his conversation with Treebeard, when the Ent is sympathizing with Saruman for fighting to the last, Gandalf points out that it makes a difference what one fights for, and that Treebeard is not plotting to overrun the world with his trees and stamp out other living things. Treebeard also accepts the limitations of the world.
The evil characters do not. Saruman is irked that Gandalf doesn't approve of his use of a palantir - "Why? Why shouldn't WE be allowed to use them?" He's not just ambitious, he recognizes no proper limit to what he's entitled to do. He and Sauron together would leave nothing untouched or taken over. Boromir starts going wrong when he can't accept the limitations of the quest - Denethor is too jealous of his own power and authority; in the end, he even arrogates the power of life and death over himself and his son.
|
|
|
i never noticed the dualism, although now that you mention it, i see it. i did wonder about the nine nazgul and the fellowship of nine though.
|
|
|
A number of examples given in this thread are not, IMHO "dualism", but balance.
For example, good vs evil is not dualism as good and evil are just opposite ends of the same scale. You can't have a story about evil if there is no good to compare it to, it loses relativity. Similarly, progress vs preservation or nature vs industry are not dualism either but the extremes of the same concept..
I think a good example of dualism is Broc's first one of 9 companion and 9 nazghul.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
I see Strider/Aragorn/Elessar as three personifications of one being. (trinitarian reference?) Each name seems to imply something different about the man.
I know he also went by the names Estel and Thorongil but these seem more like aliases than personification.
________________________________________________________________________________
"last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 18:01:20)
|
|
The definition of dualism:
1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
Notice the bit about good and evil?
|
|
|
What is your reference? I still hold to my assertation that good vs evil is not duality, as they are not two distinct things, just the same thing separated by degrees. Also, if you have, say, 10 people, all of differing degrees of goodness or evil, where is the duality there? Is it then Decality?
I will concede that there could be duality if one character displays elements of good and evil, both within one character.
I could be wrong, but that's highly unlikely :-)
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 18:34:01)
|
|
Webster's dictionary is my reference http://www.m-w.com/dictionary. Duality is not just within one character, although it can be represented as such. It isn't about 10 people having varying degrees of goodness or evil, but rather the existence of the opposing forces of good and evil themselves, among other things.
|
|
|
Oh, Webster's. You should try using a proper dictionary.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 19:12:00)
|
|
All dictionaries define dualism in this way. Face it, you were utterly wrong when you said that dualism is not about good and evil. It's the most common and purest definition of the word.
|
|
|
You've read all dictionaries? Impressive!
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 21:55:09)
|
|
Point out a dictionary that doesn't mention good and evil for dualism. It's the most fundamental meaning of the term. If you're going to criticize someone for what they say, then you should be more carefull. As it is, you criticized this person for pointing out the most obvious and literal application of the word. You know this to be the case, but you're too much of an ass to admit it.
|
|
|
If you're going to join in adult conversations, you should behave with a little more maturity.
You made the statement "All dictionaries define dualism in this way" which is patently absurd. You haven't read every dictionary any more than I have, so who is the ass?
You also said "you criticized this person for pointing out the most obvious and literal application of the word". Obvious to whom? You? I suppose we all have to agree because you say so. I didn't criticize anybody, you fool. Reread my post. I expressed an opinion, just as everybody else does here all the time. I even said it was an opinion. I offered my reasoning behind that opinion for discussion. Its called "contributing".
"Face it, you were utterly wrong..." I'm often wrong, I'm often right. It doesn't matter about wrong and right, we are offering up thoughts and opinions here with the purpose, I believe, of stimulating intellectual discussion, and sometimnes just for a bit of fun. If you have such a strong need to always be right, you might consider seeking professional help.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Feb 17 22:46:51)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 00:27:01 |
Good versus evil is among the most primary applications of the term dualism. As I said, point out a dictionary that doesn't mention good and evil with regards to dualism. I doubt you'll find one. Suggesting that Webster's Dictionary isn't worthy, is idiotic at best.
|
|
|
See the post later in this thread from ladyl 915. There's one example.
I'm not going to argue this with you any more. You're ignorant, intolerant and rude. Just go away.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
mug-wumpus
(Tue Feb 18 19:36:29)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 23:04:06 |
Huh? If you followed ladyl915's link you might notice that this definition of dualism also cites good and evil as an example. See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dualism
I've been following this debate since last night, and I would hardly characterize Aule's posts as ignorant, intolerant, or rude. The way I see it, you made a point to which Aule made a counter-argument, and when he pressed you on it you did not provide any substantive support for your argument but instead got frustrated and started calling names.
You may disagree with the characterization of good and evil as a dichotomy, but that doesn't change the fact that theology and moral philosophy have defined good and evil as dualistic for centuries. More to the point, Tolkien's portrayal of good and evil IS dualistic, as the original poster noted. Characters in LOTR do not inherently contain varying degrees of good and evil within them; rather good is corrupted when it comes in contact with evil. That goes for Saruman, who comes under Sauron's sway through looking into the palantir; and Isildur, Boromir, Gollum, and even Frodo, due to the influence of the One Ring.
|
|
|
I followed ladyl 915's link to DUALITY as you suggested and this is what I found
2 entries found for duality.
du·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-t, dy-)
n.
The quality or character of being twofold; dichotomy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]
duality
\Du"al"i*ty\, n. [L. dualitas: cf. F. dualit['e].] The quality or condition of being two or twofold; dual character or usage.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
No mention of good or evil there I'm afraid. You must have a later version of the internet than I do.
You accuse me of providing no substantive support for my arguments, yet it was Aule who pasted quotes from somewhere without reference then made absurd, unsupportable statements about the contents of all dictionaries. My arguments unsupported? HA! I didn't start the name calling either.
Speaking of absurd unsupportable statements..."Characters in LOTR do not contain varying degrees of good and evil within them". Would you care to back this up with some support? or am I the only one you require to do this?
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Feb 18 20:18:58)
|
|
Try this link, from the same site. It's the meaning of the word dualism, which duality refers to:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dualism
Look it up in any dictionary. I'd be surprised if you didn't find good and evil represented in the definition of dualism. The point is that you told someobody that good and evil are not examples of dualism, unless it is represented within one person. Dualism is actually a doctrine that says that the universe is governed by the concepts of good and evil. I simply pointed that out.
|
|
|
Since Broc asked the question, perhaps he could clarify exactly what he is looking for? 
To be honest, I thought we were all talking about parallelism. 
________________________________________________________________________________
"last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth..."
|
|
|
| by -
mug-wumpus
(Tue Feb 18 22:22:56)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 23:02:05 |
Strangely enough, Aule, that was EXACTLY the same link that I originally posted, which takes one to the same definition of dualism with good and evil as an example!
5 entries found for dualism.
du·al·ism
P
Pronunciation Key (d-lzm, dy-)
n.
1.The condition of being double; duality.
2.Philosophy. The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter.
3.Psychology. The view that the mind and body function separately, without interchange.
4.Theology.
a.The concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil.
b.The concept that humans have two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual.
dual·ist n.
dual·istic adj.
dual·isti·cal·ly adv.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]
dualism
P
dualism: log in for this definition of dualism and other entries in Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, available only to
Dictionary.com Premium members.
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
dualism
\Du"al*ism\, n. [Cf. F. dualisme.] State of being dual or twofold; a twofold division; any system which is founded on a double principle, or
a twofold distinction; as: (a) (Philos.) A view of man as constituted of two original and independent elements, as matter and spirit. (Theol.)
(b) A system which accepts two gods, or two original principles, one good and the other evil. (c) The doctrine that all mankind are divided by
the arbitrary decree of God, and in his eternal foreknowledge, into two classes, the elect and the reprobate. (d) (Physiol.) The theory that
each cerebral hemisphere acts independently of the other.
An inevitable dualism bisects nature, so that each thing is a half, and suggests another thing to make it whole. --Emerson.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
dualism
n : the doctrine that reality consists of two basic opposing elements, often taken to be mind and matter (or mind and body), or good and evil
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
dualism
dualism: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary
|
|
|
Ok, let me clear this up for you...
The link suggested to us was for DUALITY. You have looked up DUALISM. The content I pasted was the entire, unedited entry for DUALITY, which I found by following the link given to us, as was suggested.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Wed Feb 19 15:47:58)
|
|
Yes, but you originally said that good and evil were not examples of DUALISM. That's what this has been about.
|
|
|
I can accept that. I wasn't really objecting to your definition, just your agression and your debating style
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Wed Feb 19 15:53:05)
|
|
I only started out attempting to correct a misconception. You then demanded to know what my reference was, and when I told you it was Webster's Dictionary, you suggested that it wasn't a valid reference. That's clearly stubborn and argumentative. That's where any aggression came from.
|
|
|
There you go again, you disagree with me, so I have a misconception. I expressed a personal opinion, and put it out for discussion. Stop with the "I'm right and you're wrong" stuff will ya?
I didn't DEMAND a reference, I asked. What's your reference, I asked. Sheesh, don't be so damned defensive all the time. If you can't handle being asked a few simple questions, like you're reference when you paste a quote without the reference, then maybe a public chat board is not the right place for you.
And by the way, I don't think much of Webster's. It's ok, there are a lot out there that are worse. The trouble with it is that its American, and you guys have been murdering the language for years. (One question, how does Webster's say that the word "aluminium" should be pronounced?)
You say I'm stubborn and argumentative. Well, that's just...er...true!, but stubborn and argumentative came from me, agression came from you. I'm not responsible for your agression, you are.
Just when we were getting down to some proper debate...
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
The trouble with it is that its American, and you guys have been murdering the language for years.
agression 
Keep them satellites out Directv/Am i watchin it or is it watchin' me -Jill Scott
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Wed Feb 19 17:46:12)
|
|
Hey, you were the one calling someone else wrong for using good and evil as an example of dualism. I just pointed out your error.
By the way, I'm not American.
|
|
|
Listen, I think you've got me all wrong. You keep accusing me of saying and doing things I haven't done or said. My first post that got you so fired up was not criticizing anybody, it was questioning the definition of the terminology, something nobody had done up till then, and something that should be done at the very beginning of every discussion of this kind. Here is the post, please tell me where I called the guy wrong (FYI "IMHO" stands for "in my humble opinion")
________________________________________________________________________________
A number of examples given in this thread are not, IMHO "dualism", but balance.
For example, good vs evil is not dualism as good and evil are just opposite ends of the same scale. You can't have a story about evil if there is no good to compare it to, it loses relativity. Similarly, progress vs preservation or nature vs industry are not dualism either but the extremes of the same concept..
I think a good example of dualism is Broc's first one of 9 companion and 9 nazghul.
________________________________________________________________________________
I disagreed with some assumptions, but that's what this board, in fact all boards, are about. You seem to get bent out of shape whenever I disagree with you. From what I've seen of you so far, you'd better get used to it. We don't seem to agree on much.
PS Sorry for calling you American, that was unforgivable.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Wed Feb 19 21:37:51)
|
|
Yeah, but what does does FYI stand for?
In this instance, I simply read a statement wherein you were telling someone or some people that good and evil was not an example of dualism. This was stunning news to me, so I looked it up. I posted the definition in order to inform, not to take you down or anything of the sort. Looking back at it, I can see how the "Notice the bit about good and evil" was a bit sarcastic, but I didn't really intend that when I said it.
It was only after you dismissed Webster's dictionary as a valid reference that I got my back up. At this point, it seemed that you were arguing only to be disagreeable and not for whatever it is you believe. I can't stand that. It serves no purpose but to aggravate.
Debate for the sake of debate is pointless. You say that you want to debate. Great! I love a good debate, but only if the person you are debating with is willing to concede points in the face of logical arguments and incontrovertible evidence. I've had some great debates with people on this board who held the opposite opinion to mine, and we are great friends. I'd love to be proved wrong here, but I can't imagine a worthwhile debate with someone who won't concede a point which is proven by virtually every acknowledged authority available.
You're right - I've noticed that we generally disagree. But that's okay with me. I've read quite a bit that you've posted, and not said a thing. I didn't say anything because it didn't seem to me that you were somebody that would actually listen. It seemed to me that you were just someone here to state whatever controversial opinion you had. I have seen some good stuff that you've posted - even stuff I've disagreed with, but still thought was well put. But, in general, I see a desire for shock factor and opposition on your part.
I'd be happy to debate a relevant topic with you, as you seem intelligent, but only if you are willing to do so in a civil manner and not argue despite being proved wrong.
|
|
|
Aule
Fine with me on all counts. If I seem flippant its because I am, if I seem intelligent I am If I seem provocative I'm that too! Nastyboy is complex, most people are. I do enjoy a debate, an exchange of ideas call it what you will, and don't be mistaken, I will listen, I can be moved from my soapbox, I am a confident person, though, so your reasoning has to be good.
I know we've diagreed, but we've also agreed at times. I accuse you of what you accuse me of however. You did say you'd read every dictionary, you do make absolute statements, and when i point this out you refuse to budge, so people in glass houses etc etc.
I have a fairly dark sense of humour, which I sprinkle through even the most serious discussion, and I use ridicule as an argumentative device fairly often, probably too often, so when you read my posts, be on the lookout for the serious bits, the funny bits with underlying purpose and the straight sarcasm. Don't ever insult me though, that tends to tick me off, as you would have noticed. i try to give it straight back, too, so everybody, if you feel the need to insult me you better have thick skin.
I am provocative on purpose, I like to rattle people's cages, because people behave differently when you do that. I do it to get a better picture of the person I'm talking to. Its too easy, in this kind of forum, to hide behind a facade. If I can get people outside of their comfort zone their more likely to reveal their true nature. I'm sure you've read posts of mine that are non-provocative. its a ploy, nothing more. (Here's a tip, it works, too!)
By the way, if you're not American, why do you quote an American dictionary?
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Wed Feb 19 22:16:46)
|
|
Okay, I'm cool with that. I've always said that you can never truly call a person a friend until you've had occasion to disagree with them. So, let's start over, and understand that we often disagree, and try to be civil.
I tend to take the direct approach, and take people according to the way they present themselves. So, if someone presents themselves intentionally to get a response, I take them at face value. I tend to like to know that what my friends are saying to me is what they really feel and believe. Keep in mind that there are many people here, and that there will be many interpretations of what you have to say.
I quoted an American dictionary because it's the first recognizable one I came to when I searched for the definition. The Oxford dictionary requires that you pay a subscription price.
|
|
|
If money was your motivation then I fully understand.
I think we've killed this discussion now. I'll see ya round the board
Ciao.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Lianachan
6 days ago (Mon Jul 14 02:48:17)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Jul 14 02:52:52 |
You didn't call him American, you said Webster's was American!
Didn't notice this discussion at the time, sadly. Really enjoying following it. Can't wait to see where it goes!
EDITED IN: Just fizzles out, having acheived nothing :(
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."- Charles Chaplin
|
|
|
"Aluminum"- just the way it's properly spelled. Aule's not an American, but I am.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
mug-wumpus
(Tue Feb 18 22:49:31)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 22:59:18 |
To clarify: I was trying to address NastyBoy's suggestion that Tolkien's characters could be seen on a continuum of good and evil, as though goodness and evilness were somehow a property or a quality they possessed individually. I don't think the varying degrees of struggle between good and evil in protagonists such as Saruman, Gollum, or Frodo are inherent within their character as individuals, but rather originate from contact with evil as an external force in the world (represented by Melkor/Sauron/the One Ring), as you put it. Individuals may have qualities that make them more or less vulnerable to the effects of evil (e.g. Boromir's "arrogance"), however.
I suspect we are talking at different levels of analysis here.
|
|
|
Now we're getting down to it. Debate or discussion really is more fruitful without the insults, don't you think?
Its an inherent part of the Myth/Fairy Tale style of narrative that the characters are simple. By simple I mean that they are (usually) totally good or totally evil. The duality (yikes! that word!!) of good and evil within one character doesn't usually exist in this style of literature.
There are exceptions, but they are very few, and without doing tons of research, I'm thinking that these exceptions are in every single case caused by the ring. Isildur was a good guy, but the ring exerted its influence and he became evil. Boromir, while having character flaws, was good, and had a noble purpose, but once again the ring perverted his nobility.
Comments?
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien ed. Humphrey Carpenter. #154, To Naomi Mitchison, 25 September 1954
"...But the Elves are NOT wholly good or in the right..."
"...Men of Gondor were similar..." (to the Elves in their weaknesses)
"But in any case, this is a tale about a war, and if war allowed...it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs."
I would conclude from this that Tolkien felt it very appropriate to represent the duality of creation in his characters. In fact, in most myth, we encounter characters who are conflicted, driven by opposing forces, neither wholly good nor evil, but a battlefield of both. It is through the overcoming, or failure to overcome, the potential of evil within oneself that much of the drama in myth originates.
I have read myth for many years and have never agreed with theorists who describe the characters as essentially good or evil in themselves. If we think of the ancient Greek concept of "fatal flaw", which occurs in many of their myths and stories, it would appear that they also thought that great characters fought great internal schisms. I always regarded this as a representation of the duality of creation. Somehow, I always thought of dualism as a mainstay of myth and legend.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
More importantly, Tolkien himself said that not all characters are unmixed examples of either good or evil, some of them contain both good and evil characteristics, as I noted him saying so in one of his letters which I read last night. I'll cite the source this evening when I'm near my books again.
Boromir was one example and so were the Elves, of characters who contain both elements.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
mug-wumpus
(Tue Feb 18 22:32:58)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 23:10:02 |
If you had followed the link I posted to the same site for the word "dualism" (as opposed to duality") you would have noticed that good and evil were mentioned at least twice....
I don't believe my argument was absurd, or unsupported. I have clarified it in another post below in response to Aule.
|
|
|
Checked your link. Looks like dualism has different meanings based on what stand point you look at Tolkien's work. So looks like nobody is wrong except taking the issue to a personal level...  
Keep them satellites out Directv/Am i watchin it or is it watchin' me -Jill Scott
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Feb 18 20:51:39)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Feb 18 20:52:36 |
Nastyboy said: "For example, good vs evil is not dualism as good and evil are just opposite ends of the same scale.
All I did was point out that good versus evil is indeed an example of dualism - perhaps the most obvious example, particularly when referring to Lord of the Rings. Dualism is not necessarily about good and evil, but the term definitely covers this. Not to mention that "opposite ends of the same scale is dualism too".
|
|
|
I think its the "versus" part that doesn't ring true for me. Not good VERSUS evil, but good AND evil, coexistant. That more closely represents duality or dualism as I understand it. That's where I was trying to lead with my earlier comment about good and evil within a single character.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
I'm not taking sides...
duality: The quality or character of being twofold; dichotomy.
The quality or condition of being two or twofold; dual character or
usage.
www.dictionary.com
Keep them satellites out DirecTV/Am i watchin it or is it watchin' me -Jill Scott
|
|
|
Oh thanks, Muggy ... Now I'll spend the rest of the night trying to resolve the mind/body dualism question!
|
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Feb 17 22:52:03 |
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
I'm not really a "serious reader" but I love the movies.
How about Galadriel's mirror and Saruman's Palantir?
When will I begin to live again? -Moulin Rouge
|
|
|
Interesting question, Broc. I just replied to Aule's hyper-real world post with my opinion that the world Tolkien created was hyper-real because the hyper, or beyond-world was manifest in the real-time world. To expand on that here, in the context of dualism, what I am seeing in Tolkien's world is a place where the spiritual world is manifest in the material world.
For example, if we talk about life and death, we can associate the positive force of life with growth, change, continuity, freedom to expand. These things are represented in part by water, the spiritual element of life, in LOTR. The places where people are free, where they live and where they pursue the positive energy of creation is characterized by water symbols- rivers, streams, crossing waters, journeying down waterways, Galadriel's Mirror, the Window to the West, and so on. The creative force of the universe is represented by this living, nurturing, element.
Contrast Mordor, the place dominated by the negative or destructive force of the universe, Sauron. It is dry, bereft of life-giving water; what waters there are in Mordor have been polluted and become poisonous, the very opposite of what water is.
The dualities I'm describing here are both the manifestation in the real-time world of the struggle taking place on the spiritual level between creation and negation, existence and non-existence, and the real oppostion taking between these forces. In looking at the things listed in the earlier posts, it seems as though much of what Tolkien described through his story and his characters was the definition and further elaboration of this sort of duality. I'd love to see what others think of this theory.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
The concept of water has duality in LOTR. Yes, it has the "life-element" characteristics that you describe so well, but it has the opposite as well. The Ents use it as a destructive power against Orthanc. Sam almost drowns trying to reach Frodo when he leaves the company for Mordor. The river protects the hobbits from the Nazghul when they leave the Shire on the ferry, but Tolkien mentions that few hobbits can swim and some have drowned in that same river. The water spirits that Glorfindel summons are a power for good, but achieve that good by killing the ring-wraiths' horses.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
To say that water is symbolic of the life-element is not to say that it cannot simply be water, at times, or have it's strong force used in other ways. It is the symbol of the creative force in the universe, that doesn't mean that in creation there isn't some destruction. In fact, negation and creation to have to interface at times in order for the cycle of life to continue. Life-Death, creation-negation, are two sides of the reality. Sometimes, as in Sam's case, one must come out of the water and dry off in order to continue on. In other words, he needed to get out of the spiritual realm where he was lost, and get back to the real world where he could be less spiritual but more present. But he needed help doing so.
There is an interesting water symbolism for the Hobbits. As you note, few of them swam or went boating. They stayed on their own side of the water, which says to me that the Hobbits were a bit stuck in place, not having the desire to try crossing the water and risk changing their Hobbit lives. They represent the static in the world, and yet, it was a Hobbit who took the great journey, crossed many waters and spiritual boundaries, entered the land of death and saved the world. He came back to his people to find them where he had left them, still on their own side of the waters.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Tue Feb 18 07:39:05)
|
|
I'm just getting back to the boards, after a long night off --
First -- thanks to everyone for imput. I see my thinking has been restricted -- you are opening up some windows for me.
Athene -- the water references you are making [above]: In light of Tolkien writing a "Catholic" book [which I'm taking the liberties to perceive as "traditional Christian"], you seem to be approaching the Christian concept of baptism.
Blood ritual we can deal with later.
Has any one noticed: throughout mythology, "baddies" seem to be allergic to water. Baum's witches, Tolkien's Nazgul, even the invaders in Signs. What is uit about these bad guys -- water thing?
|
|
|
The water reference also made me think of fire. A lot of the biggest evils are associated with fire: the Balrog, Sauron (ring has to be destroyed in a volcano), etc. Fire is the ultimate in destruction (but also in rebirth--it is fire that will destroy the ring but also bring peace to ME, Gandalf bears the ring of fire). Anyway, I think fire and water are both important elements, both individually and playing off of each other.
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Tue Feb 18 07:53:37)
|
|
Well, the fire image pervades mythology. But also, Christianity: baptism by water, by fire and b desire...
Another duality some just brought up on another thread --
Frodo the Nine-Fingered
Sauron the Nine-Fingered.
|
|
|
Water as a symbol of life and also of the passage between material and spiritual worlds is common to many religions. Water purification rites abound. Consider the Hindu custom of cremation on the banks of the sacred river. The rite of baptism as practiced in Christian churches is very similar to other water rites. Although Tolkien did write from his Catholic background, I find that he tends toward universal symbols in making his points.
As regards baddies and water-aversion- one supposedly can ward off evil by sprinkling holy water in its direction? Someone who belongs to a church that uses holy water in its rituals might want to fill me in on the nature of this belief.
I like the idea that water can overcome evil, if water is the symbol of life, of course, life should triumph over death.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Life never triumphs over death.
And the classic example of water overcoming evil? I'm melting, I'm melt-i-i-i-n-g... Dorothy destroying the wicked witch of the west.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu Feb 20 08:29:23)
|
|
Yeah! Baum really hit this one on the head, didn't he!
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
I think it is interesting that the Elves are immortal but are mortal in battle/wars.
Peace and blessings
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Tue Feb 18 07:40:58)
|
|
Yes, but Tolkien is very clear that there are different afterlives for Elves, men and... presumably... Hobbits..?
|
|
|
SPOILER
Saruman's wrecking the Shire and the three attacks on Lothlórien?
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
| by -
bhcpc
(Mon Feb 17 22:38:43)
|
|
A most intriguing duality is a duality to itself -- the gift of Iluvatar, the mortality of men. On one hand, it gives men a finite life span, so it's not viewed as a good thing. On the other hand, the spirits of men are not to be bound to the earth (Arda) and will leave it when they die, so not even Valar (the lords of Arda) can dictate the ultimate fate of any man; he only has to answer to Iluvatar (God).
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Tue Feb 18 07:42:39)
|
|
The Tale of Aragorn & Arwen leads us to understand this.
This is a good point, further reinforcing Tolkien's Judaic/Christian base for Arda.
|
|
|
Getting to the core of the duality issue is the prevelant theological concept of good vs. evil. Each embodiment of one having it's equal in the other. Zoroastrioanism first introduced this concept and the concept of a powerful evil "god" who does batttle with the good "God". Satan vs. God. Legions of Angels vs. Legions of Demons. Good and Evil being equal & constantly at war with the planet earth as their battleground. This concept was incorporated into the judeo-christian-islamic traditions and so passed down in our culture, filtering into our secular tales, because not only is it moral, but it is exciting. When both good and evil are of equal strength, you stay on the edge of your seat waiting to find out who wins.
Tolkien, pulling from the traditional mythical forms, is rife with this duality.
-Fallen Ainur to Valar
-Morgoth to Manwe
-Sauron to Gandalf the White
-Elves to Orcs (servants of light and servants of darkness)
-Denthor to Theoden (two old men at the end of their lives, choosing how to go out)
- Frodo to Saurman (this is a personal observation, each of them being a relatively new influnce of the story of the ring, and having such diferent desires of what to do with it.)
-Gladeriel to Shelob? (That's one to think about...)
-Nine riders to the Nine members of the Fellowship (though this was intentional in the story, Elrond put them together as such.)
-Samwise to Gollum (Smeagol killed to get the ring from his best friend, Sam gave it back)
-Aragorn to the Witch King (One king who did not fall under the rings sway and one who did)
These are just the more obvious mirror images I percieve. Not that each has to be a direct a nemesis of the other, but that they are characters who have reacted in opposing ways to similar circumsatnces in thier lives.
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
|
|
|
Gimli and Éomer nearly came to blows over this one:
Galadriel and Arwen
You have chosen the Evening; but my love is given to the Morning.--Gimli Glóinson.
|
|
|
Ok, I've been giving this some more thought (thank you so much, Broc, for making me see the story in a way I had never thought of, it's been a real mind-opener)
I was thinking about what you said concerning the "religious" elements in the story, especially the trinity. I'm not a religious person at all, so please excuse any mistakes or confusions on my part, but here's what I came up with:
There is what you could call a version of the "holy" trinity:
Father: i.e. God - must be Iluvatar
Son: the King of Men - Aragorn
Holy Spirit: the Maiar spirit - Gandalf
And also an equivalent "unholy" trinity:
Father: Melkor
Son: Sauron
Holy Spirit: Saruman
This was playing in my mind, when another trinity occurred to me. I'm not sure exactly how it would fit with the "Father, Son, Spirit" idea, but see what you think:
Aragorn
Frodo
Earendil
Earendil is the only embodiment of the ancient days of the Valar that is still present in middle-earth - he still sails as a star in the sky, bearing the Silmaril.
Aragorn, as the last in the line of the Numenorean kings, is a direct descendent of Earendil.
Frodo, as he walks into Mordor (the valley of the shadow of death?) bears the light of Earendil to keep him safe in the darkness.
There are so many elegant touches like this is the books (as has already been shown by all your previous posters), but they are so subtle. I have been reading LOTR for over twenty years, and it can still surprise me with something new. Thanks, Broc.
"One day, son, all this will be yours."
"What... the curtains?"
|
|
|
| by -
eli_eli123
(Wed Feb 19 10:50:24)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Feb 19 10:55:26 |
this isn't very accurate, because i don't have a copy of rotk w/ the appendices handy, but whaen i read the appendices i noticed that there were 3 assaults on lorien. there were another three assaults on isengard or minas morgul or something else like that. i just remember that there was a counterpart. i told you it wasn't too accurate!
-(eli)zabeth
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Wed Feb 19 13:37:30)
|
|
Thanks -- good observation
I'llcheck it out. Apreciate your help!
Best Wishes!
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
| by -
bhcpc
(Wed Feb 19 15:23:06)
|
|
This brings up another thing -- Tolkien likes odd numbers.
*One Dark Lord (One Ring)
*Three High Elven (Three Elven Rings)
*Five Istari, or wizards
*Seven Dwarf Lords, who got seven lesser rings
*Nine human Lords, who got the nine lesser rings => Nine Ringwraiths
*Of course, nine companions for the fellowship
There are many other examples. As eli already pointed out, three attacks, etc.
|
|
|
Actually, all these numbers have theological significance, probably because they are primes. They show up as important numbers in religions across the world.
One=Unity
Three=Maiden/Mother/Crone The Triple Goddess
Five=Five Wounds of Christ
Seven= Choirs of Angels
Nine=Completeness in the B'Hai religion
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
|
|
|
nine isn't a prime
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
So you're right, so it isn't...but it's still a "mystical number" in various religions.
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
|
|
|
| by -
bhcpc
(Wed Feb 19 15:57:59)
|
|
I thought about it too. In fact, not just in Christianity, prime numbers and nine are often very significant in many religions and mythlogy.
|
|
|
Triads are auspicious in feng shui, and nine, which is a triad of triads is most auspicious of all! To enhance prosperity, keep 9 one dollar bills in the part of your house corresponding to prosperity and wealth. Mine happens to be the desk in my study, and the bills sit under a chunk of amethyst crystal, also very auspicious. Doesn't work, but looks elegant...
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
hrm...My understanding is that Amythist is best for meditation. Have you tried Malachite?
Blessed Be!
Kip
He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
|
|
|
I find that for prosperity, keeping nine one dollar bills under a HUGE chunk of gold works best. Or a big fat diamond.
__________________________
Toss me…
|
|
|
They say diamonds are a girl's best friend.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Ah, but green is a tabu color for that corner of the house. Except for money of course, but I lay the bills portrait side up to reduce the green and use the power of the crystal to offset any bad chi. I also have a picture frame in the shape of a chinese coin, with the square center cutout, where I've framed a collector coin, minted in honor of the marriage of King Constantine of Greece. Yes, I am that old. As I said, this doesn't seem to be working, but it's fun and I'm happy with the decor.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu Feb 20 08:21:32)
|
|
Yes: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12 [tribes/apostles] and then again, the Big 13!
Neolithic Man built standing stones throughout the Near East and Europe [before megaliths] in semi-circles, and in circles, in groups of 3s, 5s, 7s, 9, and 11s, around a single center stone. Thousands of these have turned up in the levant.
Yes, Tolkien uses these numbers, as does Christianity.
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
Five can be elemental in earth religions too: some say earth, air, fire, water and spirit. Others use metal or wood, but it's usually some formulation of five or so.
And seven can be directions: north, south, east, west, up, down, within.
|
|
|
Following on from my previous thoughts, here are more examples of duality for you:
Frodo: Ringbearer, whose only wish is to destroy the Ring, at the last moment saves it for himself.
Gollum: Ringbearer, whose only wish is to save the Ring for himself, at the last moment becomes the agent of it's destruction.
Aragorn: King of Gondor, looks in the Palantir and wrests Sauron's will away from the Ring.
Denethor: Steward of Gondor, looks in the Palantir and is driven to madness and suicide.
Earendil: Represents the stars, the light which the Elves love above all things.
Sauron: Elf-bane, wants to "cover the land in a second darkness".
"One day, son, all this will be yours."
"What... the curtains?"
|
|
|
| by -
Broc
(Thu Feb 20 08:23:18)
|
|
Once more, thanks to all who have furthered this thread.
I'll collate and examine.
Best Wishes, Amigos!
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
