PDA

View Full Version : Witch King

Ardeth Bay
10-06-2005, 10:43 AM
When Grond breaks the Gate of Minas Tirith, Angmar is described as riding in on a horse.
When he attacks Theoden, he is on the fell beast.
When does this change occur, because the transition isn't mentioned in the book.
Essex
10-06-2005, 11:17 AM
So the WK leaves Gandalf behind:The darkness was breaking too soon, before the date that his Master had set for it: fortune had betrayed him for the moment, and the world had turned against him; victory was slipping from his grasp even as he stretched out his hand to seize it. But his arm was long. He was still in command, wielding great powers. King, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgūl, he had many weapons. He left the Gate and vanished.Tolkien vaguely describes the WK moving to his Fell Beast, inasmuch as the text in bold below.Upon it sat a shape, black-mantled, huge and threatening. A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazgūl. To the air he had returned, summoning his steed ere the darkness failed, and now he was come again, bringing ruin, turning hope to despair, and victory to deathbefore the darkness failed - therefore STRAIGHT after the cock had crowed, because Dawn was arriving, and the darkness was 'failing'.
(of course you can read 'darkness has failed' as NOTHING to do with the Dawn of course, but then that's one of the reasons we have so many 'arguments' over what Tolkien's point was in certain parts of the book.......) ;)
luthien-elvenprincess
10-06-2005, 07:24 PM
Ardeth Bay, a warm welcome to the Downs! There is a thread in Novices and Newcomers entitled "Why did the Blank Captain Switch Rides?" that might interest you.
obloquy
10-06-2005, 11:13 PM
Angmar is not the Witch-King's name. Welcome to the Downs.
The Saucepan Man
10-07-2005, 02:15 AM
Angmar is not the Witch-King's name. Welcome to the Downs.True. But it is nevertheless perfectly acceptable to refer to him as Angmar, as one might refer to the Duke of York as York or the Earl of Gloucester as Gloucester.
obloquy
10-07-2005, 09:39 AM
disagreed.
The Saucepan Man
10-07-2005, 10:42 AM
Disagreement noted and reciprocated. ;)
obloquy
10-07-2005, 11:41 AM
We should be politicians. KEKE
Kath
10-07-2005, 11:46 AM
True. But it is nevertheless perfectly acceptable to refer to him as Angmar, as one might refer to the Duke of York as York or the Earl of Gloucester as Gloucester.
Indeed. Shakespeare did it and since he is supposed to be a pioneer of the English language I think we can use his example!
obloquy
10-07-2005, 11:59 AM
Indeed. Shakespeare did it and since he is supposed to be a pioneer of the English language I think we can use his example!

That may be true, but Tolkien never used Angmar as a personal name.
The Saucepan Man
10-07-2005, 12:17 PM
That may be true, but Tolkien never used Angmar as a personal name.That may be true, but it doesn't follow that we can't.
Gurthang
10-07-2005, 12:18 PM
That may be true, but Tolkien never used Angmar as a personal name.

Right. It is not the Witch King's formal name, but the name of his land.

Yet we all knew who Ardeth Bay was referring to. And in a not completely formal setting, such as here on the 'Downs, it should be perfectly acceptable.
Estelyn Telcontar
10-07-2005, 12:20 PM
Please agree to disagree on that point and proceed with some actual discussion on the topic - thank you! Any further posts arguing the point will be deleted without notice.