Split Personality?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I cannot see how it is logically possible for a single man, who had been fighting all day and was armed with a borrowed orc axe and was completely alone and surrounded by opposing forces, to kill seventy enemies (and apparently more additional orcs). Heck, that's almost as many as Legolas and Gimli together killed during the entire battle at the Hornburg.

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation. Anyway, He killed 70 trolls because Tolkien says he did. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

And there are other cases, too - six thousand Rohirrim, six or seven thousand men of Gondor and several thousand more reinforcements with Aragorn somehow manage to defeat a force of eighteen thousand Haradrim, countless thousands of orcs and trolls, and many other evil men. The victory at the Pelennor seems a miracle to say the least.

Many ancient battles were lost by superior forces to numerically inferior ones. And I think you're forgetting the morale destroying effect of the killing of Angmar. The point is the forces of Mordor went in expecting a walkover & found themselves being hit from all sides by forces they were not expecting. Add to that the death of the Witch King & consequent loss of a controlling hand, & its entirely likely that they would start to panic, become confused & go to pieces. At that point it would have become a walkover for an organised force under the command of experienced leaders like Aragorn, Eomer & Imrahil.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

the killing of Angmar.

Who is Angmar?

[davem]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Who is Angmar?

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

Originally Posted by StW

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

No, its accepting the only source of evidence we have. If we accept that Hurin is the greatest warrior of the First Age then we'd expect him to be able to perform pretty spectacular feats. As there are no contradictory reports the incident merely has to be logically possible, which Formy has shown it to be. We know for a fact that it is logically impossible for a man on fire to run 3 miles - even one of Numenorean descent. I accept Hurin killed 70 trolls because its not logically impossible for him to do that. In fact, I'd suggest its actually more likely that he did it, given that if he hadn't done it no-one in their right mind would have believed the story that he had........

[Sauron the White]

You miss my point which was one of using circular logic rather than what Tolkien actually said. Which is it
a- Hurin was the greatest warrior of his age because he killed 70 trolls
b- Hurin killed 70 trolls and was proven the greatest warrior of his age

You were using the proof of one statement to proof the validity of the other. Formendacil seemed to sense this also and provided a more rational and logical explaination consistent with Tolkiens statement of fact.

That is all I was trying to get you to see.

We know for a fact that it is logically impossible for a man on fire to run 3 miles

Once again please repeat after me. A book is one thing while a film is another things. Apples and cinder blocks.

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

This just reminds me that some people having too much knowledge of the books was their greatest handicap in enjoying the films. That, and their preconceived attitudes and prejudices.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Apples and cinder blocks.

...at the atomic level are much the same. At some level we are talking about the same things.

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

Initially for me that was the case. Too many years of reading the books to see it otherwise. But then I studied the films using the films as a reference, and many exits from the secondary world appear, such as Gandalf suggesting in Hollin to take the Ring past Saruman, and Saruman's fireball, which would have been useful if he were ever attacked by creatures made of wood.

This just reminds me that some people having too much knowledge of the books was their greatest handicap in enjoying the films. That, and their preconceived attitudes and prejudices.

Not so. Here at the Downs, that's mostly the case, but my illiterate sister - she can read, but never would bore herself with reading LotR - was confused by some of the movie, and she, unlike me, did not have every piece of dialogue stuck in her head.

Note about Huin: (1) The trolls were to capture, not kill him, and (2) trolls not being very bright, fell for the 'toll booth' trick as seen in Blazing Saddles, and with the appropriate delay time between trolls, Hurin wasn't too hard put to it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You miss my point which was one of using circular logic rather than what Tolkien actually said. Which is it
a- Hurin was the greatest warrior of his age because he killed 70 trolls
b- Hurin killed 70 trolls and was proven the greatest warrior of his age

You were using the proof of one statement to proof the validity of the other. Formendacil seemed to sense this also and provided a more rational and logical explaination consistent with Tolkiens statement of fact.

That is all I was trying to get you to see.

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....

You are using information from the book to show how the film was in error. Not fair or proper. If one were being fair, I would think you would only use the information from the movie to show if that film world of LOTR was proper or not. In fact, the film shows Denethor in full run for a period of just ten seconds. Over the years we have seen lots of people in films on fire for much longer periods than that. Very believable in the context in which it was shown.

It has also established, by a number of shots - both long shots of the City showing the hallows' location, & general shots of characters walking about infront of the citade, the distances involvedl. We can see how long the distance from the Citadel to the spot at the end of the precipice where the bit of wall has been taken to feed the ballistae. One could not run even that distance in a few seconds - particularly not if one was engulfed in flames. I'm still amazed, btw, that being so completely engulfed in flames he managed to miss the tree & the ornamental fish pond both.....

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - very good point about Hurin slaying so many trolls because they were sent to capture him. Also the Saurman fireball trick --- never wondered before why he did not use it against the Ents- interesting.

davem - yes, I remember the stills that Knight of Gondor used on page 1 of the Denethors Plunge thread to show just what you are referring to with the establishing shots. And yes, they were in the movie. And they were in previous scenes. Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

Again, we can get out all the charts, graphs, diagrams, stills, maps and other devices to show that Jackson had it wrong. Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Seems like hundreds of millions of people had no problem with it.

My willing suspension of sub-created belief while watching RotK in the cinema was continuously interrupted by five girls two rows down from me whose sole enjoyment was to experience the disruption of said belief and to laugh uproariously at the ridiculousness of it all.

Their antics couldn't help but suggest to me that at least some of those millions might have gone to the movie/s with similar intent. I can only hope that the object of their derision was PJ and not Tolkien.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

Does this mean that you still don't get it? I'm not sure about others, but I think I can safely say that davem and I are saying that one has to willingly suspend disbelief because it is constantly disrupted in the movies.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Only problem as I see it is that in the infamous Denethor flaming run scene HE DOES NOT RUN THE DISTANCES SEEN IN THOSE ESTABLISHING SHOTS. We do not see them at all. What we do see in a flaming steward running through the doors and then down the causeway off the edge. It takes ten seconds.

So did he teleport from the Hallows to a point five feet from the edge? Did a passing Nazgul pick him up & drop him there, or did he hop onto one of the ballistae & get catapulted the three miles?

Or you can use the same thing that you use to onjoy the books - namely your willing suspension of disbelief.

I honestly couldn't see why I should have made the effort. Tolkien never required that of me.....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

It may be circular logic, but its perfectly logical - for a warrior to be considered the greatest he must perform some spectacular feat(s) of warrior stuff (I think that's the technical term, otherwise I'm sure Oblo will correct me...). Killing 70 trolls is more likely to be a simple fact, because, as I pointed out in my last post, its not the kind of thing you'd invent & expect people to believe. It must be true because, frankly, if it wasn't no-one (let alone a historical chronicler) would make it up. In fact, quite probably the chronicler himself felt it was a bit much (rather like claiming that Glorfindel actually killed the Balrog by hiding behind a rock & jumping out suddenly, shouting Boo! thereby causing it heart failure. Killing 70 trolls is so fantastic it must be true....

Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?

Regarding texts of old heroes, what about all that was written about the life of J.C.? I've read a book about his life, and I'm suspicious about much that was attributed to him. Supposedly he came from a divine lineage, was known far and wide throughout the ancient Mediterranean region, has had a large impact on our lives even today down through the centuries (we see his mark on the calender at least one a year) and his death, having been betrayed by someone in his closest circle, is still remembered even today and purportedly was marked by signs and wonders.

Of course I'm talking about (Gaius) Julius Caesar.

Did he really kill an elephant? Did a lion whelp when he died? Did shooting stars also mark his death? Just what did he say when he crossed the Rubicon?

And I won't annoy our British cousins with tales about our father, General George "cherry tree chopping, never lying" Washington. Must be true, whatever was writ.

My questions regarding Hurin are thus:

• Who observed his deeds and how reliable is this observer? How reliable is the observation? Could seven become seventy due to a transcription error (if only that would happen with my paycheck)?

• Is there any independent corroboration of the facts? Did Melkor have a ledger that states that 70+ trolls lost capturing Hurin?

• How did each troll die? Did they die from Hurin's direct action, or is Hurin credited with the kill when others in his command actually help kill or actually killed the troll? Commanders are always given the credit, and when we're lucky, the blame when something happens under their command.

• What species of trolls were these? If they are like the ones encountered by Bilbo, then it's one level of heroism; if it's PJ's Battle trolls (and isn't PJ's the definitive word? ), then taking more than one down single-handedly is more than enough for one man to be the best? Seventy at that point might as well be a gagillion for the impact that more than two makes on my non-heroic brain (I killed seven flies once in one day, without an axe, but seeing Aragorn bested by one, I cannout fathom seven let alone seventy).

It's been said that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' In my head I've watched every painful swing of Hurin's, right down to his last when he is finally overwrought and overrun, and is dragged, struggling, to the Hells of Iron, but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Your argument here is unconvincing. To say that because it is unbelievable and so over-the-top it must be true is ridiculous. We have many ancient texts that tell of all sorts of heroic and somewhat supernatural events, and I suspect that you don't believe a one of them, Hurin's stand being the exception.

Were the pyramids built by space aliens? Did Bigfoot vote in the last US of A Presidential election? Would intelligent beings travel light years in order to make designs in farmer's fields? What? Trans-galaxy travel and no Etch-a-Sketches?.

Hurin killing 70 trolls seems at first sight 'fantastic' but it is not logically impossible, or, given his reputation, even 'possible but unlikely'. Is it more likely that a chronicler just made it up? It seems to me that if someone was just making up the number they would have gone for a smaller one (to make it more 'acceptable' why not 7?) or a much larger one (to emphasise Hurin's victory - why not 100?). The examples you cite are either logically impossible, or at the very least infinitely improbable.

So, again, Hurin could have killed 70 trolls. Any chronicler who simply wanted to have his account accepted without question would have said 7. One who wanted to present him as a superhero would have said 100, or 1000.

(Or, stepping outside the Legendarium, one could argue that Hurin killed 70 trolls because Tolkien said he did, & Tolkien is the only source we have, or can have. - which is equally 'circular logic'. Its a fact Hurin killed 70 trolls for the same reason that there are dragons in M-e is a fact - because Tolkien says so)

but this won't convince anyone of anything, which I think is what we're trying to do here.

I'm not. I just got caught up in this one. I can only think that anyone who doesn't, or can't, believe that Hurin killed 70 trolls is going to have a major problem with about 100% of the Legendarium. If you hold Hurin's killing of the Trolls may have been made up, or seriously exagerated, then you put the same question-mark over every single event in the stories - maybe Glorfindel didn't kill the Balrog on his own, maybe Turin didn't take down Glauring single-handedly.......

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by davem

Bit like asking who is Wellington isn't it?

I guess so, since both Wellington and Angmar are places and not individuals. Still, when you use Wellington as a personal name (meaning any one of the line of dukes, I assume), you're using a place name that was derived from a surname of the individual, which is a bit different than using Angmar as a personal name for the Witch-King, since Angmar means, according to the article I just linked "iron home."

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation.

Isn't this some type of strange circular logic? Hurin is the greatest hero because of course he have killed 70 trolls. And of course he could have killed 70 trolls because he was the greatest hero.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

This is exactly the type of thing I come back to again and again. When its in the books everyone reads it and says "okay". But put this in the movies and its page after page of contemptuous posts showing how it is impossible by all the known laws of man and nature.

That's typical of ancient heroes - Arthur is credited with killing five hundred men in one battle.

I hope that happened in a book so its accepted as believable. If you put that in a movie, of course it would be ridiculous and attacked to no end.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

Hurin was the greatest (human) hero of the First Age - which surely makes it entirely possible that he could kill 70 trolls - in fact, the killing of 70 trolls would be exactly the kind of thing that would beget, & confirm, such a reputation. Anyway, He killed 70 trolls because Tolkien says he did. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

Tsk, tsk!

Davem, you cannot argue from the authority of Tolkien, when Tolkien's right to authority is being called into question. That simply won't do.

There are ways to argue how this may have been possible for Húrin--some more spectacular and others not. First of all, trolls are not necessarily particularly fast-moving, and Húrin would have the advantage there. Secondly, he may have been better armoured. Thirdly, given the size of the trolls, it may have been impossible for more than three or four to get close to him at the same time, so he wouldn't have been fighting off seventy SIMULTANEOUSLY. Fourthly, we don't have exact details about terrain and where the bodies of his kinsmen and former enemies fell. Those trolls are big guys, you kill a couple and you've got some decent cover.

Certainly a spectacular feat, but not necessarily an impossible one. I would say that killing seventy orks would have been a greater feat, provided one had the strength and knowledge of how to properly kill trolls, which it would seem inductively that Húrin had.

Now, whether or not one finds Húrin's feat worthy of automatic belief or not is another matter--this may be rather subjective. Personally, I think that Davem is getting close to an important issue in saying that Húrin was the "greatest hero of the First Age". The manner in which the Silmarillion is presented affects the way it is received. The remoteness of the events written about, and their presentation as legends rather than the more immediate view of the Lord of the Rings can lead to easier acceptance and belief, or so I have found.

Originally Posted by davem

Many ancient battles were lost by superior forces to numerically inferior ones. And I think you're forgetting the morale destroying effect of the killing of Angmar. The point is the forces of Mordor went in expecting a walkover & found themselves being hit from all sides by forces they were not expecting. Add to that the death of the Witch King & consequent loss of a controlling hand, & its entirely likely that they would start to panic, become confused & go to pieces. At that point it would have become a walkover for an organised force under the command of experienced leaders like Aragorn, Eomer & Imrahil.

I would also add that we are not given much comparative literature regarding the training, discipline, and equipment of the forces--though what we are given would indicate that the armies of the West had, in general, higher quality soldiers. Certainly, the soldiers of Gondor, particularly those of Minas Tirith and Dol Amroth, with the legacy of Númenor, have reason to be thought as having the superior arms and armour--certainly we are told that the enemies of the West did not have comparable cavalry. With regards to discipline, the West similarly has the upper hand after the fall of the Witchking, since Sauron's armies are held together primarily through fear, and the removal of the Witchking is the removal of central order.

Of course, that merely speaks as to whether the Battle of the Pelennor is plausible. I think it is quite clear that it is. The matter under discussion here is immediate believeability. Like Davem, I had absolutely no trouble reading about the battle and the victory by the smaller force, since apart from numbers it seemed apparent to me that they had advantages in many other respects.

[obloquy]

I am glad to have the opportunity to link to one of my favorite articles on this site.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

What hasn't been brought up is that Tolkien was very unlikely to have agreed to the sale given his druthers. The fact was, he had just purchased a pricey house in the toney resort town of Poole, and then, after tying up all his liquid assets, was hit with an enormous tax bill at the confiscatory rates of 1960's Britain. He needed ready money and needed it fast.

[Sauron the White]

WilliamCH .. if you do find the support that goes with that story I would be most interested in reading it.

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

Only if you see the selling of something you think is worthless swampland for a good amount of money as possibly unethical or at the very least questionable.

[Morwen]

Back to Tolkien and the film rights- I do recall, but can't locate, the reminiscence of one friend just after JRRT sold the film rights- the old boy was positively gleeful, convinced that no film could ever be made at least in his lifetime, and grinning like the cat who ate the canary (or sold it some worthless swampland).

So he had his cake and ate it too. Is this a problem?

I don't see why it should be.

The purchaser bought the film rights of a published work. Presumably, someone would have read it before money changed hands. If that's the case, Tolkien could not misrepresent what was being sold nor could the purchaser claim to be mistaken about the nature of what was being purchased. Tolkien may have thought the film rights were worthless but he isn't guilty of duping anyone. If people know that you are selling swampland and they agree to purchase it anyway, then good luck to them.

[alatar]

Just thought, while it was fresh in the mind to note that in the Christian Bible (Judges 15: 15-16) Samson kills a thousand men with a donkey mandible.

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them.
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."

How is this perceived? As an exact counting, or as a way of saying, 'more than would be considered normal'?

Note that we're not discussing religion, but I think the author's intent and precise history.

[littlemanpoet]

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them. That is not, however, what the LotR book lovers are saying about the Lotr movies. The secondary world doesn't come off because there are too many inconsistencies such that it doesn't work: some scenes and events in the movies don't accord with the laws in the world of the movies.

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Not exactly sure what you're saying, but my point is that the Samson story doesn't stick out in my head, and isn't featured large in skeptics criticisms with all things religious as it seemingly 'fits.' Whether it were 100 or a thousand, the point is made that Samson put a big hurt on the enemy and did so by himself. And his weapon of choice I assume was also chosen to humiliate his enemies and to show how weak they were. Hope that that's more clear.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?