XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > 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' :)
Well, the difference between Nefertiti and a common rock, I'd say.
> Clearly there is a difference -- the rightful user can use it far
> more easily and effectively, but as with so much else, the palantÃri
> can also be used by other than a rightful user.
Guesses and guesses :)
> 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.
Tolkien meant that someone defeating Sauron would win the rings
allegiance, and the most probable person to be able to do that was
Gandalf. This is at odds at the more common usage of "rightful
ownership" or "rightful usage" that we're talking about. In contrast
to the Palantiri (and other items that are to be used by specific
people), the one ring doesn't have any line of heritage or "rightful"
user but Sauron in that it is his ring. I'm just being semantic about
word usage here so we don't muddy the water TOO much :)
> >>
> >>
> >> 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. :)
>
> 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).
Which is my point. Tolkiens stories are quite consistent. Most of the
things that are in odds with each other comes from Tolkiens non-story
texts, where he tries to explain something that invalidates something
other and makes something that story-internal works but
Tolkien-internal does not.
> 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).
Which, of course, none should. We in AFT and RABT to enjoy discussing
them all the same, though. :)
> 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 palantÃr 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.
With regards to the one ring, I'm with you. Not in the terms of your
degree of "right", but the larger your knowledge about the workings of
the ring, the more you can use it.
But, the palantir was not the ring. As far as we know, they
facilitated the user to see and communicate with other stones. They
had no more power than that. In fact, Gandlaf explicitly states that
Saruman or Sauron neither had the power to create a palantir, nor the
power to make them lie and show false images. We know that Saurons
magic can be used through the stone to some extent, but it is pretty
certain that he doesn't use any force of the stones themselves to do
this. I.e. Sauron would have that magic over you if you met him face
to face as well, the stone was just able to somehow transmit this
force to the other end. This was Saruman and Denethor possessed with
Sauron, as well as Pippin - only to a somewhat lesser extent.
> 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.
Agreed - only in my interpretation, this is not a force from the
stones themselves. The heir to Isildur has the willpower to withstand
the mental power of Sauron to a greater degree than Saruman and
Denethor (possibly, for all we know, it could have taken a lot longer
for them to have been subverted).
This display of force may have been identical with or without the
stone. I.e. Saruman and Denethor would have fallen had they phsyically
met with Sauron and Aragorn might have prevailed, in very much the
same way.
> 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 ;-)
Haha, well isn't that what we all do - only we have different takes on
what that logic is :)
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
