XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > Which, of course, none should. We in AFT and RABT to enjoy
> > discussing them all the same, though. :)
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> As for the rest -- well, that is how I can make sense of that chapter
> from /Unfinished Tales/ in conjunction with the description of the
> palantíri in /The Lord of the Rings/. I will not claim that it is
> /perfectly/ logical (even internally), but I think there is a quite
> high degree of coherence and consistency. I didn't quote the whole
> essay (I am not sure that it would be within the limits of fair use),
> but the idea of /right/ as something that helps the user in some
> scalable way is very much what Tolkien is describing there.
>
> My example of the One Ring is of course flawed in that the allegiance
> of the Ring /could/ be wrested from Sauron whereas the rightful
> ownership of the palantíri was inalienably the Heir of Elendil's --
> there is some parallel in the way that the rightful owner can use the
> power of the One Ring more easily and fully than anyone else, but it
> was probably not a good parallel to make.
Which, of course, begs the question (just to drag this subject on for
another mile or two) just how this "right" or "authority" was made
aware to the stone itself. There are many items in Middle Earth that
holds special powers depending on whoever is using them. Aragorn warns
Hama (?) that only he can draw and use Andúril - any other would
actually die from using it. Hyperbole? Maybe, but it clearly points to
this being a possible fact for items in Middle Earth.
So the rightful heir to Isildur can draw the blade that was broken and
"fully" use the seeing stone. But then again - would that be true for
any seeing stone, or just the palantiri of the south kingdom? Would
Aragorn be able to fully use all seven?
Questions, questions. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
