XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
      
      
   > Second, trying to use the book to explain the film is pointless. It   
   > does not matter what the book says, the film is clearly not following   
   > the book.   
      
   But it's based on it - and whatever information the movie does not   
   provide about a specific subject can only be filled in with   
   information from the books - albeit at sometimes with some problems at   
   times.   
      
   > >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".   
   >   
   > I am speaking here of Radagast as depicted in the movie, not as   
   > envisioned by JRRT. A Maia who talks about "magic" and "spells" might   
   > well believe a ring-wraith was a ghost.   
      
   Hmm, did Radagast talk about magic and spells? He stated that the evil   
   force in Mirkwood was "witchcraft", which sort of echoes the entire   
   "witch king".   
      
   > And, indeed, it is not clear what the difference would be. Of course a   
   > ghost is a spirit that still hangs around, while a wring-raith is a   
   > spirit that is held, but they are both spirits and may well look the   
   > same, when seen briefly, to a Maia.   
      
   But it's unreasonable to assume that one of the Istari wouldn't be   
   able to identify one of the Nazgul when standing in front of it.   
      
   > >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).   
   >   
   > Before Gandalf met them on Weathertop, of course, you are correct --   
   > there is no indication that he had met any of them before that.   
      
   Gandalfs meets them at weathertop? What am I missing here? When Frodo   
   was at Weathertop, Gandalf was held in Orthanc. As far as I know, the   
   first time Gandalf saw a Nazgul was at Bruinen when passing the flood   
   over them to protect Frodo and Glorfindel.   
      
   > He may, however, have met Balrogs, depending on just what he was doing   
   > at the end of the First Age.   
      
   Well, as Maia he may have met them as spirits many times, but as   
   Balrogs he had not, since he was not in Middle Earth until the third   
   age.   
      
   > Alternately, he may have recognized the Balrogs because Balrogs are,   
   > in fact, Maiar. Wring-raiths are not Maiar, but the captive spirits of   
   > Men.   
      
   Well, everyone seems well aware of the presence of the Nazgul. The   
   riders of Rohan feels a blind fear and deadly cold when a Nazgul flies   
   far above them. Gandalf easily identifies this as a Nazgul. And at the   
   black gate, only Legolas could see the nazgul above, but all could   
   feel their dread. A Maia, and definitely an Istari would be able to   
   identify this as a Nazgul immediately.   
      
   > >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.   
   >   
   > I don't honestly see how having Saruman say "perhaps one of the Nazgul   
   > has occupied Dol Goldur" instead of introducing the burial of the   
   > Witch King would require any further explanation.   
      
   Well, I didn't mean only this specific line, of course. What I mean is   
   that in the scope of the movies - the lord of nazgul being a man who   
   was slain and buried works just fine.   
      
   > /TH:1/ pretty much depends on the audience's memory of the characters   
   > of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, and Gandalf the Grey, not to mention   
   > Bilbo and his Party, since it spends no time developing those   
   > characters or events, so expecting people to know what a Nazgul is   
   > would fall in line with the rest of the film.   
      
   I agree :)   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)