[Inziladun]

Very nice responses.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

As far as the Dead Men of Dunharrow are concerned, there was, for all we know, only One who could (at least temporarily) deny them the Gift of Ilúvatar. So we should probably read Isildur's curse as an appeal to Eru, and suppose that Eru, judging that the appeal was justified, decided to grant it by fulfilling the curse.
I wonder, however, what part, if any, guilty conscience on the side of the Oathbreakers themselves played in this. If they felt - as well they might - that they had deserved Isildur's curse by breaking their oath, they may not have felt free to move on as long as they had unfinished business in this world. Again, Eru probably agreed with their judgement of themselves, but what if He hadn't?

Interesting notion about the Dead Men of Dunharrow possibly staying put on their own, out of a sense that Isildur was right to curse them, and they really had committed a serious sin by breaking an oath.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Mîm's curse, I think, is quite another matter. Implicit assent by the cursed person doesn't seem to have played any part in its fulfilment: even if Andróg felt any guilt about the slaying of Khîm, it's hard to conceive how this could have affected the manner of his own death. And as for intervention by Eru in this case, this is hard to reconcile with his portrayal in the Silmarillion as a remote deity who doesn't meddle with His creation except in special cases after a special appeal from the Valar. (Yes, I know, somebody's going to tell me that He pushed Gollum over the brink at Sammath Naur, and I concede that this reading is possible but would argue that it's not necessary.) So either Eru isn't quite as remote from His creation as we are led to believe, or there's something else at work here.

There's also that counterpoint to Mîm's curse, in which Andróg tries to return the favour:

'The curse of a Dwarf never dies, they say; but a Man's too may come home. May he die with a dart in his throat!'

In UT, an alternate version of Andróg's curse reads: 'May he lack a bow at need, ere his end'. Mím could well have wished for a bow as he faced an angry Húrin at Nargothrond.
If 'the curse of a Dwarf never dies' had become a saying in Middle-earth, maybe that speaks for Aulë having some unusual interest in his children, and interceding on their behalf on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Basically I think the thing is that it has to be "meant seriously", and also, it probably needs to have some "logical grounding". The first thing, in my opinion, would disqualify the quote presented by Inzil about Thorin, as there it was definitely spoken in affect and Thorin did not really sort of mean it. Or: he would probably say it differently had he not been in affect. Whereas many curses of course are spoken in affect - looking into old tales, that's actually when they are usually spoken - however I would think that at least in M-E, they might be disqualified if the person who spoke them would not say the some thing after it has calmed down. I.e. Mim would still want Andróg to die, but Thorin won't probably want his beard to wither (if nothing else then also for that it won't be a very effective punishment. If Thorin really hated Gandalf for what he did, he'd probably wish to Gandalf to get an apprentice who would prove as useless as Bilbo did to him, or something like that).

I mainly put Thorin's in there as an illustration that two Dwarves got two different results with their curses. Thorin's might not seem to be quite as seriously made as Mîm's, but then again Thorin did appear to be angry enough to toss poor Bilbo down the mountainside.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But here again we come to that Saruman was a Maia - so I think his curse, if it were to come into effect, would have its base not in the general "curse law", but in the same spirit as Morgoth's - in his own personal power. And this power he can use as he sees fit, also to bring harm upon the land. It is probable that his death would somehow "amplify" the power of the curse (because if Saruman had enough power to do such a thing while he was alive, there's no reason why he couldn't have been walking around Rohan cursing fields or something like that). I think that's also a thing present in the folklore and old tales which Tolkien possibly might have used, had he stumbled upon such a situation during his writing (and this curse of Saruman itself proves, in my opinion, that he actually would, because he used it here - only it didn't meet its end), like "and with his last words, the Dark Lord said: 'Now thou hast killed me, but here be my revenge: All thy kingdom shall fall into dust in a thousand years!'" And so it would eventually happen...

To me, Saruman's threat that:

'Whoever strikes me shall be accursed. And if my blood stains the Shire, it shall wither and never again be healed.'

was part empty threat, part truth.
Frodo divined which was which:

'Do not believe him! He has lost all power, save his voice, which can still daunt you and deceive you, if you let it.

But still, Frodo cautioned against killing Saruman.

'He was great once, of a noble kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against'.

Frodo perceived that Saruman had not the power to make the Shire 'wither', but striking him, one of the 'angelic' Maia, was an act that would probably not have been taken lightly by Higher Authority, since the Hobbits had it in their power to show him mercy, and their killing him would have been an act of pure revenge. I do think whoever hurt his body in that circumstance would have been 'accursed'.