The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-11-2007, 02:15 PM   #11
obloquy
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
obloquy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 941
obloquy has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to obloquy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
So that prior physical raiment is equivalent to being discarnate? It's a stretch that I have problems agreeing with.
It's not a stretch at all. Ealar who are capable of changing shape are obviously not bound to one physical shape, and are therefore still fundamentally discarnate. They could drop the shape altogether and function just fine as spirits, as they were originally created. Perhaps there are degrees of incarnation, where shapechanging is still possible but not total reversion to incorporeal existence, but this is speculation. In Sauron's case, he can still change his appearance until his "death" in Numenor, after which he is bound to one specific shape. This is incarnation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
Nice. First it is unqualified (with which I agree), now, it equals general power level. Well.... maybe. Greatest of the eldar remains an unqualified label and using it one way or the other, just because it suits in one particular debate, is an argument "from ignorance", a fallacy. We don't know what exactly Tolkien meant by it, so we can't use it as we see fit.
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I am using the expression exactly as I have always used it, and exactly as I understand it to be used by Tolkien. You're the one who called it "general" in your previous post. Are you saying it does not refer to power level? Because the term definitely does sometimes, and if it remains unqualified, we have to assume Tolkien means the same thing when using it in reference to Galadriel as he meant when he used it to describe Sauron's status among Morgoth's servants. In both cases it is unqualified, so in both cases its meaning must be considered all-inclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
If Gandalf's words are true, then his state was likely temporary and the WK would have been redressed eventually.
It's debatable. The point, however, is that Sauron is unaffected by the Witch-King's death (though perhaps he felt it), and therefore the relationship between the two is obviously not the same as Sauron's connection to his Ring.
obloquy is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.