Split Personality?

[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.......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

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?

Again, who recorded the event? If our answer is 'Tolkien,' I argue no further. But in the heat of battle things can become confused, and some men count each enemy head twice, or something.

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.

That's not evidential. What you or I believe to be what people would or would not do would be great discussion (of course ), but add not one jot to the stack of evidence. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

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.......

Back to one of the origin points is that Tolkien's work rarely makes me think that Hurin could have done otherwise, and that's why it works. To me, what you state does happen, and I'm not using pretzel logic in that that maybe Hurin could have shone the last glint of sunlight off of his huge dwarven axe and turned the seventy to stone, and their heads fell off, and so technically he does behead them with an axe.

When in Arda, I'm a believer.

And just a thought: I find Legolas's count at Helm's Deep actually low.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

. Seventy to me sounds immediately suspicious as it's too 'round' of a number...not 68, 69 but 70? There's that magic number (at least in my culture) 7 again. Was 70 chosen to make some mythic point that escapes more causal readers like myself?

I'd be more inclined to put the round number down to it being something like a 'Company' of Trolls sent out specifically to capture Hurin, rather than a bunch of Trolls who just got together & decided to take him on. It seems they were obeying specific orders - to capture him. Hence, one assumes that witnesses would only have to see a Company of Trolls assaulting Hurin to know that there were 70 of them. One would only then have to see them all piled up to know he had slain 70 of them. Anything else, it seems to me, calls the exact number into question, & it may well have been a tale that 'grew in the telling', & the reality that he actually killed 27 of them - or 7.

[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."