XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <1abre89rr8eo8dtg86cfj6vahp0uoek1b2@4ax.com>,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > >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.   
   > >   
   > >One should try to match the timeframe from the books to the movies   
   > >though, for obvious reasons - but this entire premise has some real   
   > >problems even in the scope of the movies. Even the movies identifies   
   > >the Nazgul as men fallen after having been given the rings, but this   
   > >new information seems to suggest that one of these men were slain and   
   > >buried - not actually turned into a nazgul by the power of the ring -   
   > >but rather coming back as a ghost in Dol Goldur... Huh.   
   >   
   > That is definitely what the conclusion of the White Council in the   
   > movie is.   
   >   
   > I may be wrong, but I believe that Saruman provided the dubious   
   > information that the Witch King was dead and buried. Since he is   
   > clearly the same Saruman as in /LOTR/, and so is (as established in   
   > /LOTR/) in league (in the firm) with Sauron, it is possible that he is   
   > lying through his teeth to protect his master (in the firm), Sauron.   
   > Only time (that is, the next two films) will tell.   
      
   It's weird trying to assume things about the intentions in the movies   
   while at the same time knowing about the "facts" from the books.   
   Saruman was plotting to get the ring, yes. Not yet in league with   
   Sauron. And even if the moviemakers saw it as such - how would Saruman   
   hope to dupe the three oldest and wisest people in Middle Earth about   
   the faith of the Nazgul?   
      
   I mean, It's not like the Nazgul were unknown to these people, and the   
   council even first thought that the evil in Mirkwood was one or   
   several of the Nazguls. While not even these may have known exactly   
   who the Nazgul were, they were fully aware of their existance and the   
   history and relation to Sauron. Saruman trying to fool them would be   
   in vain.   
      
   > This, of course, is /definitely not/ what JRRT had in mind!   
      
   Of course not. Even though it's sometimes hard to see exactly what   
   Tolkien had in mind as well :)   
      
   > It is Radagast who identifies his attacker as a "ghost" and the   
   > vaguely-seen figure as a necromancer. Given his character in the film,   
   > it seems quite possible that he was mistaken. There is, for example,   
   > no reason to believe he even knows what a ring-wraith is, let alone   
   > could recognize one if it rose up at attacked him. As a (hobbled)   
   > Maia, however, he would be able to see both worlds.   
      
   It is 100% certain that Radagast would have known and been able to   
   identify one of the Nazgul, for that very reason. It's not just a   
   matter of just visually confirming an identify for one of the Istari.   
   We don't know much about Radagast, but he is a Maia nonetheless, so a   
   ring wraith under his nose wouldn't really go undetected as a "ghost".   
      
   > JRRT's Radagast is not nearly so silly, but I don't recall off-hand if   
   > he ever encountered a ring-wraith, let alone the Witch King, and so   
   > would have been able to recognize him if he did encounter him.   
      
   There is nothing that suggests that he did meet a Nazgul. In fact - as   
   far as I can remember - there is nothing that suggests that Gandalf   
   has met one either. Both would both know *about* them and be able to   
   identify them when near (much like how Gandalf identifes, or senses,   
   the Balrog in Moria).   
      
   > In JRRT's subcreation, by this time, the White Council had long been   
   > aware of the presence at Dol Guldor and had concluded that it was,   
   > most likely, the Witch King. Since this is in the Tale of Years in the   
   > Appendices to the book /LOTR/, it is odd that the film does not simply   
   > follow the licensed material on this point but instead diverges from   
   > it.   
      
   On one hand I think they don't have the resources (or rather,   
   prioritize the resources required) to make everything as story-literal   
   as possible to the books, and at one hand I really think some   
   story-elements are just easier for a broader audience than having   
   character say things that are more correct, but warrants further   
   explanation.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)