How did Sauron do it...

In message
<news:1193678203.812908.308380@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
JimboCat <103134.3516 RemoveThis @compuserve.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>

[...]

> Oh, indulge away! I'm pretty sure the various Morambar/FAQ-hater/
> Menelvegor factions will provide substantial discounts on
> indulgences <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences> in return
> for pledges of support. <g>

Praise Morambar! Praise UFAT! Praise TEUNC! Praise me! . . ..

Oooops!

<snipping lots of good agreement>

>> though I don't think I'd put artefacts hallowed by Varda within
>> the 'natural order' of Middle-earth
>
> No? Then wouldn't you have to remove such things as the stars, the
> sun, and the moon from the natural order?

Well, I suppose I could try to defend these as being outside Arda,
but that wouldn't really address the issue. It would probably have
been better for me to say that such artefacts could, /potentially/,
'violate' this 'natural order' -- not that they do so automatically.

Creating the stars, while being Varda's primary responsibility, is
something I'd definitely put beyond the 'natural order' -- i.e. say
that it is, even when looked at from within Middle-earth,
'supernatural'.

The main problem is that we're dealing with the application of
'natural' and 'supernatural' (and what might lie between these)
within Middle-earth, not as these words would apply in our primary
world.

I'd agree that the Art of the Elves isn't really 'supernatural' as
such (I'd still prefer to call it 'magic', though), but anything that
requires a power that can only come from outside Eä is something I
would prefer to call supernatural. Grace is a perfectly normal thing
in Middle-earth, an integral part of the way 'things' work, but it is
nevertheless a supernatural intervention and as such not a part of
the purely natural order of Arda, even if part of the way things
function.

In the old mythology, the Sun and the Moon would probably be
supernatural (I'm not entirely sure of the objects themselves after
their creation. Their creation was obviously supernatural, but what
about their maintenance -- did that require any kind of supernatural
power? Of course, the ships with the two Maiar would in any case do).
That would of course mean that they would not be part of the 'natural
order' either -- rather like the way the Sun and the Moon were not
really part of the natural order in the old Norse mythology. Once
the Sun and the Moon became the objects we know then to be, they
would cease to be supernatural (I do think this happened at the time
of the Downfall).

The stars would always be different, I think, since I don't think
that it required any further power or attention from any Ainur?

Whether it is possible to come up with a clear-cut way to
distinguish, I don't know. I do think that when Varda hallowed the
Silmarils, she probably allowed them to break the normal rules for
objects in Middle-earth: the Silmarils had abilities that were only
possible because they had a direct divine source (Varda).

<snip>

> Nope: I just can't accept that. I must insist that magic is part
> of the natural order of Middle Earth,

It is important, IMO, to distinguish here between 'magic' and
'magic'

The magic of Elves, Dwarves and Men is, of course, a part of the
'natural order', but the divine interventions, whether by Ainur or
directly by Eru, are 'supernatural' and as such, IMO, not a part of
the natural order (though possibly quite frequent and in some periods
almost common-place).

I'd agree that the product of the supernatural interventions can
enter into the natural order (Arda itself . . .), but this is not a
given thing and where the supernatural power continues to be
effective (such as the hallowing of the Silmarils), that effect will,
IMO, remain supernatural and not a part of the natural order.

> though its "proper place" is in the past, and whatever might be
> left of it in these latter days of the post-fourth age is faded
> and diminished to a mere feeling in the hearts of fallible
> mortals such as we.

And that, of course, applies both to the magic that is part of the
natural order of Arda and the direct presence of supernatural beings
(even in the much lessened forms of the incarnate Istari and
similar): both of these kinds of power have long since faded from
these lands, inhabited by mortal Men.

<snip>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)

In message
<news:1193934770.798767.52810@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
JimboCat <103134.3516.RemoveThis@compuserve.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I'd agree that the Art of the Elves isn't really 'supernatural' as
>> such (I'd still prefer to call it 'magic', though), but anything
>> that requires a power that can only come from outside Eä is
>> something I would prefer to call supernatural. Grace is a
>> perfectly normal thing in Middle-earth, an integral part of the
>> way 'things' work, but it is nevertheless a supernatural
>> intervention and as such not a part of the purely natural order of
>> Arda, even if part of the way things function.
>
> Ah, you are always so sensible Troels. Not to mention logical,
> conciliatory and just plain nice.

<blushing>

I've heard it said about Danes (mostly by ourselves) that we aren't
very good at giving or receiving praise (I suppose it's natural that
the two should go together), but thank you in any case for the kind
words.

It is, of course, not fair to single me out -- I would say that this
applies to most regulars here, yourself included (there are those who
prefer a humorous approach, but I'm afraid that my sense of humour is
way to poor for that -- which is why I enjoy it all the more, though
unable to contribute in kind). And naturally none of us can claim to
succeed /always/, even where that is the aim.

> I bet you get yelled at a lot if ever you roam the Wild Lands of
> UseNet.

I guess I must have been restricting myself to the Civilized Lands of
Usenet -- I haven't really been yelled at all that often (getting
lightly flamed by the Softrat was, of course, an honour).

<snip>

>> Once the Sun and the Moon became the objects we know then to be,
>> they would cease to be supernatural (I do think this happened at
>> the time of the Downfall).
>
> I think so to, but I don't think it was a complete and instant
> break from the old to the new order -- Eru is rather subtler than
> that. After all, Elves (and perhaps even the occasional Mortal
> mariner) could still sail the Straight Road. By the end of that
> journey, I'd bet the Sun and Moon were once again filled with
> fruity goodness. It's all in your perspective, perhaps.

I agree entirely. This 'other side' -- or whatever we should call it,
this world in which the Elves could still find the Straight Path --
wasn't available to Men or Dwarves (except by some supernatural help
or grace), but it still existed (for some weird, other-worldly sense
of the present tense) and were accessible for Elves. This was also,
IMO, how Galadriel was able to capture the light of Eärendil's
Silmaril -- she had lived in Aman and therefore she, too, lived at
once in both worlds and could choose to see the light of a Silmaril
or the light of an ultra-hot ball of fusing gas reflected in a
sterile piece of rock . . .

<snip>

> Two messages up, you wrote
>
>> We each meet the book with different backgrounds, applying its
>> contents in different ways. This whole debate [...] I think is
>> not, in actual fact, decided by logical arguments, but by our
>> 'prior', which informed our initial reading.
>
> and though I find the discussions interesting, I just realized
> last night that in my initial reading I never even thought of any
> of these issues.

I think that is quite common. I don't think I consciously gave any
thought to most of the issues we discuss here, though if asked I
would probably have managed some kind of opinion on most of them. I'd
say that is part of how these things work -- that as we read and
become absorbed into the Secondary Belief, we provide the missing
bits ourselves without realizing that we do so (by which I refer not
only to realizing the source as being ourselves, but even to
realizing that there was 'something'). I suppose it's a tribute to
Tolkien's writing that it allow so many different 'fills' and yet
present itself as so very consistent.

> It never occurred to me that the Ring might truly be thinking (or
> at least discerning)

It is also of very great interest if it ever occurred to you that it
might truly be not thinking?

The case I would like to make in favour of discussing these subjects
is not that I wish to convince anyone that I am right -- or be
convinced that they are (beyond the level of mutually agreeing that
both views are possible), but rather that I believe that there is
something to be learned in investigating the differences: under what
preconditions does it become 'natural' to assume that the Ring was
non-sapient (and thus cannot be said to make decisions in a sense
implying more than when the same is said of a computer program[1]),
and under what conditions does the other view become natural?

It is not, however, out of some perverted desire to psychoanalyze
everybody, but because I think that there is something to be learned
about Tolkien by looking at the different views on his books, and how
he is read differently by different people.

I don't think it can be ruled out that I am completely off my dot in
this -- I don't hope so, but I do have some kind of idea that it will
somehow illuminate Tolkien to investigate these differences. I don't
think it is likely to help us divine Tolkien's actual intention
(assuming that he didn't intend it to be ambiguous), but still.

> or that it might have literally spoken to Frodo.

Frodo, Gollum or whoever -- no, that never entered into my mind
either, but I think it is interesting that some people read it that
way.

> I am perfectly comfortable with all these questionable elements
> being metaphorical in the context of a work of fiction (including
> the fox!), and that is pretty much the end of it as far as these
> debates go.

Insofar as they are meant to 'win' -- to convince others of the
correctness of one's own position (beyond a basic acceptance that it
is a 'reasonable' position, of course).

> They certainly do increase my understanding and appreciation of
> the books, but they very, very rarely make me change my mind on
> anything whatever. And I'm ok with that.

Precisely! That is what I mean. The form of the discussions is often
that of trying to convince the other -- or at least of attempting to
'prove' one's own position -- but that, for me, isn't really the main
point (even if I argue energetically in that way); the real gain is
in understanding the books and the author better.


[1] Seeing the announcement of this book
<http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470062045.html>
I naturally thought of our recent discussions here -- perhaps the
distinction really is more blurry than what we think
See also his earlier book
<http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/haikonen.html>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein