XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Sandman  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > In article ,   
   > Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> I think we are not even speaking about written law -- this 'law'   
   >> seems to have been inherent in the stones themselves, not just   
   >> something that had been written down -- these are somehow   
   >> magically enforced rules about who the 'rightful' king and   
   >> delegate might be (it would doubtlessly have been easier for the   
   >> Egyptians if Nefertiti's bust had appeared like a lump of common   
   >> rock to all by its rightful owner . . .).   
   >   
   > Which kind of suggests that only the ones given "authority" can   
   > see and use the stones properly, which we know isn't true.   
      
   That obviously depends on what you mean by 'properly' :)   
      
   Clearly there is a difference -- the rightful user can use it far   
   more easily and effectively, but as with so much else, the palantíri   
   can also be used by other than a rightful user.   
      
   This is very much the same as with the Master Ring -- only the   
   rightful owner could use it to full effect, while others might use it   
   to less effect according to their stature. In letter #246 Tolkien   
   describes in detail how only Gandalf could have hoped to actually   
   make the One Ring his own, i.e. wrest the 'rightful ownership', what   
   Tolkien calls the allegiance of the Ring, from Sauron.   
      
   >>    
   >>   
   >> With all the above in mind, I do think that Tolkien's explanation   
   >> makes good sense within the context of his Middle-earth.   
   >   
   > Yes, I have no problem with the concepts of right and "law" within   
   > the confines of Middle Earth and the fairytale of the books. The   
   > problem arises when common logic and parameters of the real world   
   > is applied, I suppose. :)   
      
   I am a physicist -- I have very little use for what people call   
   'common sense' or 'common logic' as these are generally highly   
   unreliable as guides even to the Primary World ;-)   
   (At least, common sense and common logic would never have got us to   
   the theory of relativity and to quantum physics -- both are so   
   counter-intuitive that they defy common sense. Beyond that, the   
   comment is, of course, meant to be humorous.)   
      
   It is one of the points that Tolkien makes in his 'On Fairy-stories'   
   essay that in a fairy-story (and /The Lord of the Rings/ is clearly a   
   fairy-story by Tolkien's definition in that essay) the author must   
   abide by the laws of the world that he creates -- he can invent   
   whatever oddities he wishes, but they and the story (and the   
   causation in the story) should remain consistent within themselves --   
   what he calls 'the inner consistency of reality'. As long as things   
   are internally consistent, the fairy-story can induce what he calls   
   Secondary Belief (or literary belief).   
      
   > Some questions shouldn't be asked :-D   
      
   "Though [Sauron was] reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark   
   wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the   
   One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely   
   depended." (/Letters/ #211)   
      
   Yes, I agree.   
      
   Tolkien's internal consistency is generally better (unless you start   
   looking at texts from different periods of the evolution of his   
   mythology) than for any other author that I know, but it is, of   
   course, not perfect, and some questions will be unanswerable (or have   
   unpleasant answers for those who wish to believe in complete   
   consistency).   
      
   In this case I am not sure that his description is inconsistent with   
   the general 'laws' governing Arda -- 'right' is, I think, neither   
   binary nor absolute, so the greater your right to use a palantír is,   
   the more you are helped in that use, though your command is unlikely   
   to be perfect. Conversely, the less right you have to use the Stone,   
   the more you are hindered, though you can always use it some little   
   bit. And of course your innate power of will also plays a part in   
   your degree of control.   
      
   This way Saruman might even have more right to use the stone than   
   Pippin (who has no control at all over it), but less than Denethor   
   (and much less than Aragorn). Sauron's use is hindered by his   
   unlawful possession of the Stone, but his will-power is such that he   
   can force the stone much better than Saruman, but not enough to   
   actually turn Denethor into a traitor against Gondor.   
      
   Aragorn is just exactly capable of wresting control of the stone he   
   uses from Sauron (with no question of trying to control the Ithil   
   stone that Sauron was using), so here we see that the opposing   
   effects of Aragorn's greater right and Sauron's greater power of will   
   are fairly well balanced.   
      
   I don't know if any of this makes sense to others than myself, but I   
   do think that the overall setup of the Seeing Stones seems fairly   
   consistent with the general laws governing Arda -- you might say that   
   I can make the problems disappear by applying Ardarin logic ;-)   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer   
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided   
       into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,   
       and (d) rocks.   
    - /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)