XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies   
      
   In message    
     Sandman  wrote:   
   > In article <87r4lvg027.fsf@swing-shift.time-tripper.com>,   
   >  Rich Carreiro  wrote:   
      
   >> "Raven"  writes:   
   >>   
   >> > skrev i meddelelsen   
   >> >news:de5ef97c-4b9a-44f2-91b3-ff8eb72d7db3@googlegroups.com...   
   >> >   
   >> >> He's already heir to the North Kingdom, long before the time of   
   >> >> LOTR, so yes, he can use the northern palantirs   
   >> >> (if any still exist - they're probably buried in that mythical   
   >> >> Witch-King's-tomb, just to keep an eye on him).   
   >> >   
   >> >  The Witch-king has no tomb.  He was the Chief of the Nazgûl, that   
   >> >Éowyn slew.   
   >>   
   >> I think Derek is snarking on the Hobbit movie, where it was stated   
   >> that the Witch-King was a live man at the time of Angmar vs. the   
   >> Northern realms, and was killed, and was buried, along with his   
   >> sword, in a deep, special, unopenable tomb.   
      
   > Yeah, that's odd. I kind of got the idea from the movie that the   
   > Wicth-King was a live man, defeated in the battle of Angmar, buried -   
   > and now is brought back as a ghost in Dol Goldur to "fight" Radagast,   
   > conveniently losing his morgul blade that he kept as a ghost since it   
   > was buried with him a thousand years earlier.   
      
   Yeah, that seems to be the revised mythos. I consider it to be a gross   
   error, but ti seems to make some sense to the majority of the audience.   
   Undead spirits seem much more understandable.   
      
   --   
   "As God as my witness, I though turkeys could fly," Arthur Carlson, WKRP   
   in Cincinnati   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)