Gandalf is a fraud?!

[Groin Redbeard]

This guy’s theory about how Gandalf obtained Narya is absurd! Cirdan gave it to him out of his own free will. I'm not sure if this guy is implying that Cirdan was leaving when he gave Gandalf the ring because he clearly wasn’t, he said that he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thranduil.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

In fact, didn't he only leave Middle-earth in the year 62 (I think) of the Fourth Age with Sam?

[Groin Redbeard]

[/B]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In fact, didn't he only leave Middle-earth in the year 62 (I think) of the Fourth Age with Sam?

Yes, I remember that! He left of the last ship built in Mithlond. Good one, Eönwë!

Though I'm sure that Lord_Kimboat would argue that Gandalf cleverly gave Cirdan the slip and escaped to Valinor and Cirdan set out in pursuit with the mighty Samwise. All of his arguments seem to be like that.

In all the commotion I clean forgot to welcome the newcomer. Welcome to the Barrow Downs, Lord Tataraus!

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

This guy’s theory about how Gandalf obtained Narya is absurd! Cirdan gave it to him out of his own free will. I'm not sure if this guy is implying that Cirdan was leaving when he gave Gandalf the ring because he clearly wasn’t, he said that he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thraundil.

I have a feeling he did not read the appendices or any books beyond The Hobbit and the LotR Trilogy. I knew his theory was flawed, I justed wanted see it debunked. I find it quite humorous actually to think of Gandalf that way because it is so unexpected.

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a Quenya word with English rules, it makes me cringe.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a quenya word with english rules, it makes me cringe.

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)



And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

You are absolutely correct that Rohirrim is of course a substantive, but all grammars leak and some require a bit more bailing than others. When Gandalf says of the People of The Mark, "the Rohirrim, the Horse-lords, do not sleep," is he being descriptive or derivative?

As for this Quenyan/Sindarin thing, would it be a tad too post-modern to suggest that a possible course would be to import the most common name into all the languages? Yes, I know this flies in the face of Tolkien's delight in many-named things, but such a habit has an etymological pedigree. After all, the English language gobbled up many a word from other languages and did English them and in doing so could overlook inflection. And while English took Eskimo from French and Spanish, at least in official Canadian English that word is now eschewed in favour of the Native People's own word for themselves, Inuit. Other countries may, however, lag behind in this recognition. We could perhaps go with Markist I suppose or Markic or even Riddermarket.

Or would that be Eorlingian?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

You could say I delight in stirring the melting pot of language.

[Eönwë]

I think the reason thr rings were given to Cirdan, Galadriel and Elrond, was because they were probably the wisest elves left in middle-earth (Anyone who has survived 15,000 and gets messages from Ulmo must be a good choice; a powerful ruler like Galadriel, who also happens to be wise, though slightly headstrong is good; and Elrond, well, Elrond is just simply wise).

And as for why not Celeborn. Would you trust anyone whose name is Teleporno?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Oh, I've had some rather violent disagreements with Mr. Martinez elsewhere on the net. I don't necessarily agree with all his postulations, but he can be very thought provoking (I mean, after all, he's not as bad as David Day). I merely invoked his name as a more accessible scholar, as most of his material resides on the internet.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Gandalf wasn't maybe lying about his encounter with the balrog - that has been proved unprobable already - but can we take all what Tolkien's characters say as true? This was discussed somewhere some time ago, but it is a very intriguing topic. Tolkien fans are probably the least critic fans in the world when it comes to evaluating whether the heroes of the story are being completely honest or not.

Strangely enough, it seems Tolkien could not always vouch for the veracity of his own written material, as if the books had taken on a life of their own. Cases in point would be the origin of Orcs and the fate of the Blue Wizards.

I suppose one could say that LotR and the Silmarillion are legends and fables of a long-vanished Middle-earth, not unlike one could argue the historical fine points of the Bible, or dismiss it utterly (and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist). Or one could say that The Hobbit and LotR were written by the 'winners' of the war, and therefore the true story of the losing side was buried under a great, mouldering pile of propaganda. Thus, one could say that the Dunlanders were a people oppressed by a more powerful neighbor (like the English of the Normans, or the Irish of the English), and that the National People's Front of Dunland was merely seeking their rightful independence from subjugators and usurpers.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, LotR is, although in arguable fashion, written by Frodo Baggins so basically it's from his perspective. He might have exaggerated things or simply not remembered them totally correctly. Nevertheless, we can expect quite high accuracy from it as Frodo is a first-hand narrator in many cases, and we can consider his nature quite honest.

Interesting that both Bilbo and Frodo should have written (ostensibly) their memoirs in third person narrative (whether third person omniscient or limited could be argued), rather than in first person narrative, which is the case for most autobiographies. I suppose it would be considered a limited third person narrative, in that we know far more of the Hobbits' thought processes; however, that is not always the case.

[Nerwen]

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

He is not joking, with all rebuttals and challenges to his theory he hasn't yet retracted it and its been a couple days now. Anyone (at least on that forum) who puts up jokes and far-fetched theories is found out and admitts to it with the first day usually.

[The Sixth Wizard]

and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist

I can be an Ardan agnostic? Sweet.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with.

Huh? I really must work on my reputation.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?

Or, like some here, is he stirring the pot, winding up those of us who will fanatically defend Tolkien at all costs, regardless of the silly statements we have to make (at times) in order to do so?

What better fun than to see a straw man thrown into a hornet's nest?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

But he didn't hide it - it didn't do much besides vanish fear and despair and get people going. Plus Gandalf, being the obvious fraud that he was, wanted people to think that it was he that was the world's greatest cheerleader.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thraundil.

Careful there. Thought that it was spelled Thranduil. And though I too see spelling errors and grammatical pretzels as icky, I've learned that for some, writing in this tongue that I should know better than I do may be a very impressive feat in itself.

And Welcome! Lord Tataraus. Hope to read your, and not others, opinions soon.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

This guy's an idiot.

Ahem...better manners and arguments make the Downs a better place. (alatar goes to look up a better word than 'better.')

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by alatar

And Welcome! Lord Tataraus. Hope to read your, and not others, opinions soon.

Thank you (and Groin Redbeard) for the welcome!

I waited a bit to see what other's responses are before giving my opinion.

Firstly, while I do not wish to call anyone an idiot, it seems to be unfortunately appropriate. Lord_Kimboat is obviously not very well versed in Tolkein's work nor D&D despite his confidence. Coming from a RPG background I have the advantage of seeing more flaws in Kimboat's theory than others on this forum. Unfortunately, my knowledge of LotR is a bit rusty, its been awhile since last reading it (I've been working my way through The Silmarillion most recently).

So, my rebuttal paragraph by paragraph:

First Post:
(The first paragraph isn't very relevant so I'll skip it.)

1) Kimboat shortly describes "...how noble and righteous everyone and thing is." I do not agree with this statement, Aragon for one was an exceptional and likable man even without his hereditary lordliness. As Kimboat noted, Sam is most likely so loyal to Frodo for cultural reasons, but I also believe they were honest friends especially after traveling together for so long and Frodo being noticeably hindered by the Ring. There were many examples of not-so-noble characters. Many men were corrupt such as Wormtongue and Denethor and even Theoden wasn't always that "...noble and righteous..." as I recall.

2) Here is Kimboat's first sign of ignorance. Apparently he missed the entire discussion beforehand were it was concluded that magic in Middle-Earth is more subtle than in D&D-type fantasy. Additionally, he seems to think that any respectful magic-user would spam his spells at every little opportunity which is not a view supported by most fantasy works. Most such magic-users are wise and intelligent enough to realize it might be better to save their magic for when it is truly needed. I would also refute the idea that Gandalf "...isn't afraid to bluff people..." My interpretation of Gandalf was that he was always concerned about the knowledge he gave out, he was disturbed by the fact that he did not tell Frodo that the quest would most likely destroy him. Gandalf just doesn't strike me as being able to truly lie to people, he is too trusting and kind, he even tried to talk Saruman out of joining with Sauron even though it was obviously in vain.

3) This is one point that I can't really refute with anything except that Gandalf just doesn't seem the type. His character does not suggest that he would lie about something like that or even that he could. He was very devoted to the Fellowship and would have joined up with them, if only to ease their pain, if he could have done so.

Second Post:
1) I do not expect anyone to have much to say about this paragraph as it has to do directly with D&D mechanics, however this does proved another example of Kimboat's ignorance to those who are knowledgeable with such things. Kimboat uses one of the biggest misconceptions about D&D mechanical class balance within the gaming community. Many newer or less knowledgeable gamers think that the Bard is a wholly useless class as Kimboat so aptly describes. Among those more attuned to the topic of class balance, the Bard is one of the more powerful classes in the entire system. Additionally, the forum this was posted at has a reputation for being one of the more mature and knowledgeable ones in the overall gaming community which makes this statement even more ignorant.

2 and 3) These two paragraphs need no explanation. Any one who knows who Cirdan actually is would see the utter idiocy of this scenario. Additionally, the very power of the rings would prevent such thievery since the wearer can choose to hide its presence entirely.

4-7) as was mentioned by others, the poem is just that, a poem. Poems are famous for choosing their wording for poetic meter not for correctness. Additionally, the poem has been translated and in its original langauge the word that is translated into english as "king" might very well refer to a ruler of either sex. As for Elrond, well a kingdom is a nation ruled over by a hereditary house which is the case with Rivendell, they just call it by a different name. And as mentioned before, Gandalf was recorded as being gifted Cirdan's ring.

8) I can agree with this part.

9) I highly doubt Thranduil wants the ring that badly, it seems to bring more trouble than its worth and I doubt he would risk war with Rivendell (and possibly Lorien) when Sauron is the greater threat. Also, I thought that those at the council were summoned, not "happened to show up conveniently at the same time."

10) Legolas respected Gandalf and as I mentioned above, I doubt Thranduil was that envious of such a dangerous object.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

Additionally, he seems to think that any respectful magic-user would spam his spells at every little opportunity which is not a view supported by most fantasy works. Most such magic-users are wise and intelligent enough to realize it might be better to save their magic for when it is truly needed. I would also refute the idea that Gandalf "...isn't afraid to bluff people..."

Someone help me here...there's a scene in some fantasy book where an older wizard is teaching a young and thirsty apprentice, and says something like, "Sure, I could make it rain here, but that would take water from a place that truly needed it." The author's point, I think, was to be that one did not use magic in a juvenile fashion. Power, or the use of, has consequences.

Additionally, the poem has been translated and in its original langauge the word that is translated into english as "king" might very well refer to a ruler of either sex. As for Elrond, well a kingdom is a nation ruled over by a hereditary house which is the case with Rivendell, they just call it by a different name.

I think that the original Quenya has it as "Big Cheese."

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Someone help me here...there's a scene in some fantasy book where an older wizard is teaching a young and thirsty apprentice, and says something like, "Sure, I could make it rain here, but that would take water from a place that truly needed it." The author's point, I think, was to be that one did not use magic in a juvenile fashion. Power, or the use of, has consequences.

Sounds like "A Wizard of Earthsea", if you ask me.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Hee hee, "cast a low-level spell?" Does he think Gandalf's from Morrowind?!

[Thinlómien]

An interesting thread, and while I disagree with this Lord_Kimboat, I think this could spark interesting discussion (like it already has).

Gandalf wasn't maybe lying about his encounter with the balrog - that has been proved unprobable already - but can we take all what Tolkien's characters say as true? This was discussed somewhere some time ago, but it is a very intriguing topic. Tolkien fans are probably the least critic fans in the world when it comes to evaluating whether the heroes of the story are being completely honest or not.

Also, LotR is, although in arguable fashion, written by Frodo Baggins so basically it's from his perspective. He might have exaggerated things or simply not remembered them totally correctly. Nevertheless, we can expect quite high accuracy from it as Frodo is a first-hand narrator in many cases, and we can consider his nature quite honest.

But what about The Silmarillion then? Those are folk tales, hereditary knowledge and ballads. Yet we always consider them facts. It would be interesting to analyse the stories of the Sil the same way people analyse old mythologies and epic tales. But not on this thread, surely...

Originally Posted by alatar

After all is said and done, doesn't Gandalf dress Frodo and Sam just before they meet "King Aragorn?" That gets me, and maybe there're other examples, but we have this Fellow or Fraud, great and wise (or at least considered so) stooping to serve others. He rejects Saruman, who would not serve. Gandalf even pities those caught by Sauron. That's cool stuff.

I never before realised this was more fuel for the Jesus-Gandalf theory... But it is a beautiful scene in any case.

Lastly, I like this thread. It makes me like Gandalf even more than I usually do and it also makes me feel like reading Le Guin... *glares at Gwath*