# 'Why I hate 'Lord of the Rings' '



## kingpaul (Dec 23, 2003)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3718931/


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 23, 2003)

Nothing like seeing someone play 'justify my existance.'


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 23, 2003)

So he's saying it sucks because of the way it ws originally written. OK, this guy needs to stop pretending to be a critic, get a life, and move out of his mother's basement already.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Well, IMO he does have a point about Islidur and Elrond inside Mt. Doom. Why did'nt Elrond just get a running start and push Him in? Thats the one big mistake the movie makes. Because it was inside the volcano and he could have done something right there, but it was Elronds fault that the ring survived, and he let evil survive as well. I heard in the books, the scene takes place outside the volcano.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

But at least he's witty.  

“Queer Eye for the Hobbit Guy.”

"Merry and Pippin, the Cheech and Chong of Middle Earth"


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Well, IMO he does have a point about Islidur and Elrond inside Mt. Doom. Why did'nt Elrond just get a running start and push Him in? Thats the one big mistake the movie makes. Because it was inside the volcano and he could have done something right there, but it was Elronds fault that the ring survived, and he let evil survive as well. I heard in the books, the scene takes place outside the volcano.



But see, if Elrond had pushed him in, he might have fallen in after Isildur.  And then he wouldn't have been able to open the Rivendell Marriott.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> But see, if Elrond had pushed him in, he might have fallen in after Isildur.  And then he wouldn't have been able to open the Rivendell Marriott.




  Was Arwen born yet when that happened? She could have done it.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 23, 2003)

And this guys claims to have read and liked the books?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 23, 2003)

Easy, folks.  The man is allowed to have his opinion.  He didn't like it.

But you know what I think of that?  It's just sad.  Sad, because I had such a great and heartfelt time watching them that I will always hold a special place for them.  In a time where there is little to smile about, I got to marvel at the things shown to me and it was a happy time and a great ride.

As films, they weren't perfect - but so what?

I pity this man because he wasn't able to experience the same thing that I did.  Too bad for him.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Dec 23, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Easy, folks.  The man is allowed to have his opinion.  He didn't like it.



Yeah, but he says he will stick to criticizing the movies:


> –- let’s stick to the movies for the sake of time and space --



but then complains:


> But the myth itself is long and repetitive. Boromir, “Fellowship’s" most interesting character, is predictably sent packing.
> ...
> Even Gandalf’s supposed death at the hands of the Balrog, a winged yet surprisingly flightless demon, is lessened when he returns in “The Two Towers,” proclaiming, “I was sent back.” That’s a convention known as deux ex machina, or hand of god, and I wish it would’ve sent me back home.




Unless I'm not remembering correctly, these plot twists are taken directly from the books.  How is this a problem with the films?


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 23, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> Unless I'm not remembering correctly, these plot twists are taken directly from the books. How is this a problem with the films?



I guess he has a problem with both.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 23, 2003)

Apparently so. Now me I've READ the books like many of you. Hell when I first heard that they were going to do a live action movie on the trilogy I was like most, skeptical and unbelieving. Then I saw the Fellowship. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't visionary. But it WAS great, inspiring and felt like "THIS is the version of Tolkien that some read to me!" It was indeed listening to a great storyteller tell a classic in his own sense of self. You felt. You saw. You believed. And while it wasn't faithful to every element of Tolkien's Middle Earth, it was STILL Middle Earth. And while the Two Towers had some troubles, I felt it was still Middle Earth. And I'm sure I'll feel the same way with Return of the King. My point is this: Give me THESE movies any day of the week than some crappy cop drama that I can predict any day. I may have known the book, but I felt the joy again from when I first read the series.


----------



## Psion (Dec 23, 2003)

> LOTR was one of my primary adolescent obsessions.




Problem identified. LotR purist.

We've all heard this before. We even have native versions of him. 



> Later, Elrond, a powerful elf, and Isuldir, the man who gained possession of the Ring, stand before a fissure in Mount Doom, the only place it can be destroyed. At the last moment, Isuldur refuses to toss it in -- and Elrond lets him walk.




Oh yes, because we know that at all junctures in history, all people do the EXACT right thing. That is SUUUUCH a plot hole.

Yes, that is me mocking.

Let's just say I think if you are going to poke some holes in the logic of a movie, you have to display some yourself.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *Yeah, but he says he will stick to criticizing the movies:
> 
> but then complains:
> 
> Even Gandalf’s supposed death at the hands of the Balrog, a winged yet surprisingly flightless demon, is lessened when he returns in “The Two Towers,” proclaiming, “I was sent back.” That’s a convention known as deux ex machina, or hand of god, and I wish it would’ve sent me back home.*





Which is an odd criticism at any level, since Gandalf was essentially sent back _by God_. Complaining about the hand of God being involved when the hand of God is _supposed_ to have been involved in a situation is plain silly.

It also shows that despite his professed love of the books, he just didn't understand what he was reading.



> *Unless I'm not remembering correctly, these plot twists are taken directly from the books.  How is this a problem with the films?*





Yes. The "problems" he identifies are drawn directly from the books. His "problems" with them appear to stem from an abject lack of understanding of the books though.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *Well, IMO he does have a point about Islidur and Elrond inside Mt. Doom. Why did'nt Elrond just get a running start and push Him in? Thats the one big mistake the movie makes. Because it was inside the volcano and he could have done something right there, but it was Elronds fault that the ring survived, and he let evil survive as well. I heard in the books, the scene takes place outside the volcano.*





He only has a point if you fail to understand the nature of the Ring and morality in Middle Earth. Isildur claimed the Ring as weregeld for the death of his father: payment for the loss of a loved one from the offender. That means that the Ring was justly his. Elrond could not try to take it away from Isildur without being guilty of an evil act. He could try to persuade Isildur to _voluntarily_ give it up, but to take it by force, or force him to give it up against his will, would corrupt Elrond in the attempt.

And once Elrond had become corrupted, the Ring would use that wedge to fill Elrond with a desire for the Ring himself. Trying to "flying drop kick" Isildur into the lava would fill Elrond with a desire for the Ring before he could complete the attempt, and he would be driven to seize it for himself rather than destroy it. No matter your original intentions, to take the Ring by force gives it a wedge into your soul and allows it to corrupt you into desiring its power.


----------



## clark411 (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven's dead on.

Tolkien is very much about walking the fine line.  Hobbikses seem to have an easier time of it due to their lack of perspective (and being as tough as old tree roots as well in their corruptability stat).

Beyond this, primary characters in Tolkien tend to make mistakes that matter- something pretty odd in much of modern heroic super fantasy.  Classical characters aren't infallible- they screw up.  Gandalf takes years upon years to spot the Ring.  He lets a young Hobbit who knows nothing of Moria decide their fate in the Mountains.  The Elves and Humans let Mordor mass an army 20,000 strong AND let them sally forth before they get in gear.  

I'm amazed at any critic who would assume that Tolkien's work is flawed for following such a theme.  What exactly does it take to qualify as a critic these days?  A working knowledge of the entire run of MST3K?


----------



## Welverin (Dec 23, 2003)

clark411 said:
			
		

> What exactly does it take to qualify as a critic these days?  A working knowledge of the entire run of MST3K?




At least that would show some taste.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 23, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> At least that would show some taste.




And some entertainment.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Trying to "flying drop kick" Isildur into the lava...




That is the funniest mental image I've had in a long time. A real Smith meets Elrond moment.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]And once Elrond had become corrupted, the Ring would use that wedge to fill Elrond with a desire for the Ring himself. Trying to "flying drop kick" Isildur into the lava would fill Elrond with a desire for the Ring before he could complete the attempt, and he would be driven to seize it for himself rather than destroy it. No matter your original intentions, to take the Ring by force gives it a wedge into your soul and allows it to corrupt you into desiring its power.



Aye, and since Elrond wields one of The Three, this would be an unmitigated disaster.  He would have a leg up on power, so to speak, just as Galadriel or Gandalf would.  And he knows who wields the other two.  Bad.  Very bad.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 23, 2003)

Ok, so Elrond sees him walking away with the Ring, then realizes that Isildur is going to keep it.  He knows it must be destroyed, but if he goes to stab Isildur through the back then push him in the lava he's going to be corrupted by the ring and want it, even though he's pushing a man into lava to destroy it and hasn't touched it?  Why wasn't he corruped with lust for the ring while he was leading him into the heart of the volcano?

I don't buy that.  Me and everyone were talking about that right after the movie, why didn't Elrond take care of buisness?  Is was obvious that Isildur was a slave to the ring the moment he touched it, Elrond should have done something, and since he didn't he is partially responsible for Sauron's evil living on.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> Elrond could not try to take it away from Isildur without being guilty of an evil act. He could try to persuade Isildur to _voluntarily_ give it up, but to take it by force, or force him to give it up against his will, would corrupt Elrond in the attempt.




  I never said anything about Elrond taking the ring from Isildur. All Elrond had to do was push Isildur over the edge, into the lava, He does not even have to touch the ring. They were right there, inside Mt. Doom. If Elrond knew how corrupting and evil the ring was, He should have done something, but He let him walk away.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't buy that. Me and everyone were talking about that right after the movie, why didn't Elrond take care of buisness? Is was obvious that Isildur was a slave to the ring the moment he touched it, Elrond should have done something, and since he didn't he is partially responsible for Sauron's evil living on.



Well, Isildur never actually used the ring for evil, so perhaps Elrond thought he'd find a way, once he got the help of the other bearers of the three rings.  Remember, Isildur was pretty powerful, in his own right.

Ignoring that, however, we have plenty of reasons right in the film to dictate that behavior.  We see Gandalf reach for the ring, clearly tempted for a moment...and he resists.  Elrond never touched the ring, presumably for the same reason.  Moreover, we see several instances where the ring clouds the thoughts of those near it, particularly when they become violent or angry.  Boromir loses control of himself temporarily, when his emotions overcome him, and the ring twist him.  He regrets it later, but during the event, he isn't aware of it.  Aragorn considers it, as well, when Frodo leaves the fellowship.  Galadriel makes it clear that if she dared take the ring, she'd lose all sense of self, and from both her and Gandalf's reactions, it would happen almost instantaneously.

Elrond clearly knew the risk involved, and knew what would happen if Isildur fought him for the ring.  It could have gone very badly, very quickly.  Was it a potential mistake?  Sure.  But hindsight is always 20/20.  And from the context of the films, Elrond needs to be pushed in to doing much of anything other than shutting down Rivendell and shuffling his people to the Grey Havens, his only real concern.  The second two films only reinforce all these themes.

There's nothing wrong with someone disliking the films for any number of reasons.  I think he chose some poorly thought out arguments, myself (as there are better ones to make), but to each his own.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I never said anything about Elrond taking the ring from Isildur. All Elrond had to do was push Isildur over the edge, into the lava, He does not even have to touch the ring. They were right there, inside Mt. Doom. If Elrond knew how corrupting and evil the ring was, He should have done something, but He let him walk away.



Oh, I don't disagree with you.  I think it's problematic myself.  I was just trying to come up with a way that this could have happened without Elrond being a coward or a slacker.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I never said anything about Elrond taking the ring from Isildur. All Elrond had to do was push Isildur over the edge, into the lava, He does not even have to touch the ring. They were right there, inside Mt. Doom. If Elrond knew how corrupting and evil the ring was, He should have done something, but He let him walk away.




Pushing Isildur into the lava would have been _murder_. That's evil, a mortal sin in fact. Forming the intent to do that in close proximity to the Ring would have corrupted Elrond. It would have then transformed the corruption in his heart worked by his desire to commit murder into a desire for the power of the Ring.

You don't have to touch the Ring for its power to work upon you. It corrupted Boromir and he saw it once and never held it. The Ring corrupts those who would do evil, even if they don't know what they are doing is evil (Boromir, for example, thought that he would be doing good by using the Ring for the defense of Gondor).

Elrond forming the intent to commit murder in the proximity of the Ring would have been enough to corrupt him and bring him under its power.

Finally, note that I included both Elrond _taking the Ring_, and _forcing Isildur to give it up_. Forcing Isildur to give the Ring up against his will (which includes, murdering Isildur) was included in my initial answer.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Ok, so Elrond sees him walking away with the Ring, then realizes that Isildur is going to keep it.  He knows it must be destroyed, but if he goes to stab Isildur through the back then push him in the lava he's going to be corrupted by the ring and want it, even though he's pushing a man into lava to destroy it and hasn't touched it?  Why wasn't he corruped with lust for the ring while he was leading him into the heart of the volcano?




Forming the intent to commit an evil act (such as _murder_), in the presence of the Ring corrupts those who do so. Simply leading Isildur inside Mount Doom is not in and of itself an evil act. While the Ring will still corrupt by its presence even if you avoid doing evil things, its power will work on you more slowly. Let me reiterate this: _you don't have to touch the Ring for it to work its corrupting influence upon you_. But if you do something evil while using it, or while near it, its power to corrupt is magnified tremendously, and will consume you immediately.

Further, it is made clear in the books that the more powerful you are, the _more corrupting the Ring is for you_. Elrond was one of the most powerful individuals alive in Middle Earth during the time of the Last Alliance (superseded only by Cirdan, Galadriel, Gil-Gilad, Sauron, and Elendil, and maybe Thingol and Celeborn). For him, the Ring is especially corrupting. Deciding to actually murder Isildur while within the presence of the Ring would have been all the wedge the corrupting power of the Ring would have needed to overwhelm Elrond.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Elrond was one of the most powerful individuals alive in Middle Earth during the time of the Last Alliance (superseded only by Cirdan, Galadriel, Gil-Gilad, Sauron, and Elendil, and maybe Thingol and Celeborn).



Thingol had been dead for centuries at the time of the Last Alliance. Maybe you're thinking of Thranduil?


----------



## Salthanas (Dec 23, 2003)

I think that if Elrond had decided to kill Isildur in order to destory the ring he probably would have ended up killing him and keeping the Ring himself. Contemplating such an act would have made him very vulnerable to the Rings influence and would probably result in him taking action that does not actually result in the Rings destruction.

Anyway the most obvious reason I can think of that he does'nt simply stab him in the back is that they are friends. I think most people would find it hard to stab a friend in the back or push him to his doom particularly if that friend in question is one you have fought alongside with ,even moreso if that friend happens to be the King of Gondor who just happens to have a massive army camped below you


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Pushing Isildur into the lava would have been _murder_. That's evil, a mortal sin in fact.




 One of the themes of LotR is sacrifices must be made for the greater good. Elrond pushes Islidur into the lava, the ring is destroyed. Elround walks out of the crack of doom and says that Islidur sacrificed Himself to save all of Middle Earth. End of problem
  BTW, in the movies, Boromir accually saw the ring twice in FoTR movie, once at the concil, and when they are going up the mountin and Frodo falls, Boromir picks up the chain with the ring on it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> Thingol had been dead for centuries at the time of the Last Alliance. Maybe you're thinking of Thranduil?




Yeah. I got my elvish kings mixed up there.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *One of the themes of LotR is sacrifices must be made for the greater good. Elrond pushes Islidur into the lava, the ring is destroyed. Elround walks out of the crack of doom and says that Islidur sacrificed Himself to save all of Middle Earth. End of problem.*




_Self_-sacrifice. But pushing someone else into a pit of lava isn't sacrifice. It is murder. Whether or not Elrond could convince the armies of elves and men who survived the Last Alliance that Isildur had "sacrificed" for the cause, that doesn't change the fact that killing Isildur would have been murder.

The fact that gollum convinced himself that Deagol stole the ring from him and he had every right to kill Deagol to "take it back" doesn't change the fact that Smeagol murdered Deagol. It is the intent that counts, not the end result.

You are trying to make an "ends justifies the means" argument in favor of Elrond pushing Isildur into Mount Doom's fire. But that doesn't work in Tolkien. Means matter. Evil means lead inevitably to evil ends. Committing murder to try to destroy the Ring would result in being corrupted by and dominated by the Ring.



> *BTW, in the movies, Boromir accually saw the ring twice in FoTR movie, once at the concil, and when they are going up the mountain and Frodo falls, Boromir picks up the chain with the ring on it.*





The "Frodo falling" scene is Jackson's invention. Since we are talking about Tolkien's narrative as much as Jackson's, the fact that Boromir only saw it at the Council is relevant. But even still. Whether he saw it once or twice, the Ring works its power on Boromir despite being separated from it most of the time. The Ring corrupts, even if you don't touch it. In the movies, Aragorn is tempted by it, and he _never_ touches the thing.


----------



## kengar (Dec 23, 2003)

Couple of things to keep in mind re: Isildur, Elrond & the Ring.

While Elrond probably had Vilya at that point, it wouldn't have been for long (maybe even only for a couple hours). He got it after Gil-Galad was killed fighting Sauron. Elrond was Gil-Galad's herald and Gil-Galad was the previous keeper of Vilya.

The other thing is that -regardless of the morality of the situation- I doubt that Elrond _could_ have pushed Isildur & the Ring into the fire. Remember:

_"Ash nazg durbatuluk"_

*"One Ring to Rule them All"*

If Elrond had attacked, Isildur -using the Ring- could have broken Elrond's mind and/or commanded him into the Fire. The Ring doesn't only turn you invisible, remember. It is the Ring of POWER. You rarely see Frodo do anything like that because he's doing his best NOT to use the Ring at all. 

Bear in mind too, that what's on screen in that sequence is a loose interpretation of the events concerning the Last Alliance & the fall of Sauron. I don't recall exactly how it went down in the books, but I'm pretty sure it didn't get to the point that Elrond & Isildur were both standing at the edge of the lava.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But pushing someone else into a pit of lava isn't sacrifice. It is murder.




  It is obvious that Elrond knew the power of the ring that Islidur got. If Elrond would sacrifice Isildur to the lava, its still a sacrifce for Middle Earth, the fact that Isildur does not want to be sacrificed does not lessen the fact that it would have been one. The way they should have done the scene was Elrond trys to push him, they fight, Elrond gets knocked out and then Isildur leaves. But Elrond does NOTHING, he had the chance to destroy evil forever and he let it live.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 23, 2003)

Did Elrond and Isildur ever, by the books, make it into Mt. Doom together?  I don't have my books (loaned them out) so am not sure.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Did Elrond and Isildur ever, by the books, make it into Mt. Doom together?  I don't have my books (loaned them out) so am not sure.




  I belive the scene with them inside Mt. Doom  took place outside the Mt. in the books. But in the movie, they are right there, inside. Elrond would have done something IMO. He talks about "men failing" when it is entirely his fault the ring was not destroyed then. Elrond knew what a evil power the ring was, and he was passionate about getting it destroyed, but does not take any action when he has the chance.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 23, 2003)

SR: I see what you are getting at.   But if Elrond told him that he had to throw the ring in, there can be no other choice if the evil was to be destroyed, then Isildur says No...well at that point he is a servant of the enemy.  By refusing to destroy the ring he was aiding the enemy of the free peoples of Middle Earth.  PJ should have done that scene differently seeing as it's pretty much just summed up in the Silmarillion, he had a lot of leeway.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> SR: I see what you are getting at.   But if Elrond told him that he had to throw the ring in, there can be no other choice if the evil was to be destroyed, then Isildur says No...well at that point he is a servant of the enemy.  By refusing to destroy the ring he was aiding the enemy of the free peoples of Middle Earth.  PJ should have done that scene differently seeing as it's pretty much just summed up in the Silmarillion, he had a lot of leeway.




No, since the ring was Isildur's by right, it would have been unjust to take it from him, or force him to give it up against his will. That is why the claim of weregeld is so important. Isildur's claim to the Ring is one of proper, legal, and just ownership. Depriving him of it without his consent is an evil act in and of itself.

Killing Isildur to deprive him of his rightful property (compensation for the death of his father no less), would have been murder, no matter how you cut it. No matter whether you think the end would have justified the means or not, in Middle Earth, the ends matter. And doing something unjust, or evil in the presence of the Ring would have corrupted Elrond.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *It is obvious that Elrond knew the power of the ring that Islidur got. If Elrond would sacrifice Isildur to the lava, its still a sacrifce for Middle Earth, the fact that Isildur does not want to be sacrificed does not lessen the fact that it would have been one.*





And it is still murder. You can cloak it in pretty phrasing all you want, but killing someone because they won't give up their justly claimed property is still murder. And murder, attempted muyrder, or even the _intent to commit murder_ (or any other sinful act) opens your soul to the corrupting power of the Ring. Elrond would not have "won", even if he killed Isildur, he would have been dominated by the Ring and then _he_ would have been the new Dark Lord.



> *The way they should have done the scene was Elrond trys to push him, they fight, Elrond gets knocked out and then Isildur leaves. But Elrond does NOTHING, he had the chance to destroy evil forever and he let it live.*




Because he understands the power of the Ring, and you, clearly, do not. Trying to take the Ring from Isildur, or kill him with the Ring, would have left not only Isildur potentially corrupted, but would have also corrupted Elrond. And Elrond knew it. He knew that doing this would have led to open war between the armies of men and elves as Isildur and Elrond vied for control of the Ring, and Sauron would have gained immediate victory even in defeat.

As it was, the next great war over the Ring was postponed for several thousand years. Are you certain that Elrond acted wrongly? By refusing to be drawn into an immediate struggle over the Ring that would have inevitably led to immediate war between former allies and a new Dark Lord within days (and no one left to oppose him), his actions postponed war for about 4,500 years.

Your "solution" would have resulted in disaster. That is why Elrond is wise, and you aren't.


----------



## kengar (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your "solution" would have resulted in disaster. That is why Elrond is wise, and you aren't.




I'm not a moderator, but play nice Storm Raven.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 23, 2003)

So Isildur had the right to hold onto a ring of total evil, which by the future of the world hangs in the balance?  Elrond putting down Isildur after Isildur refused to do the only right thing to me would have been like a cop shooting a criminal.   It's not the ends justify the means to me, it's Elrond doing the right thing. . No matter what "right" he has to this piece of pure evil, he has a moral obligation to destroy it.  But he was weak, and Elrond should have done the right thing and killed this new servant of Sauron and destroyed the ring.  You speak of murder when I speak of lawful homicide.  When Isildur decided to keep the ring he threw in his lot with Sauron, regardless of him realizing it at the time.   He enabled with his greed and weakness Sauron to live on and cause untold horror, evil, and death.   Isildur bears to blood of thousands on his hands.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> But he was weak, and Elrond should have done the right thing and killed this new servant of Sauron and destroyed the ring.



But the beauty of Tolkien's creation is that Elrond couldn't have destroyed the Ring. If he had killed Isildur in its name, it's a safe bet that Elrond would have claimed the Ring and through him, it would have weld a power "too great and terrible to imagine". Wether Elrond let Isildur live or not, there was no right decision, and both choices lead to the same future.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> Elrond would not have "won", even if he killed Isildur, he would have been dominated by the Ring and then _he_ would have been the new Dark Lord.




  OK, say the power of the ring does overcome Elrond and he gets angry and pushes Islidur over the edge and into the lava. Since Islidur still had the ring, THE RING WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND ITS POWER GONE ONCE IT HITS THE LAVA. Again, i'm not talking about any of the stuff in the books, I'm talking about the scene in FotR movie with them in the crack of doom, Elrond had a chance and let evil continue by doing nothing.


----------



## kengar (Dec 23, 2003)

Is the issue at this point the movies/story or comparative morality?   

As far as the films OR the books are concerned, the fact is that Isildur kept the Ring and thus it was still around come the end of the Third Age for the hobbitses to deal with. The scene in the film was a simplification of a relatively undefined part (as per the books) of after the battle with Sauron.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> OK, say the power of the ring does overcome Elrond and he gets angry and pushes Islidur over the edge and into the lava. Since Islidur still had the ring, THE RING WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND ITS POWER GONE ONCE IT HITS THE LAVA. Again, i'm not talking about any of the stuff in the books, I'm talking about the scene in FotR movie with them in the crack of doom, Elrond had a chance and let evil continue by doing nothing.



But, with this intent now being acted upon, Elrond, under the Ring's influence, would have, probably, tried to gain the ring for himself instead of destroy it.  This is one of the reasons the Ring became heavier for Frodo as he approached Mt. Doom; the Ring knew Frodo was trying to destroy it and didn't wat to cease to exist.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *OK, say the power of the ring does overcome Elrond and he gets angry and pushes Islidur over the edge and into the lava. Since Islidur still had the ring, THE RING WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND ITS POWER GONE ONCE IT HITS THE LAVA.*





You just don't get it do you?

Once Elrond formed the intent to kill Isildur, the Ring would have power over Elrond. The instant Elrond decided "hey, I'll just push Isildur off the cliif", but EVEN BEFORE HE ACTED, the Ring gets its chance and Elrond becomes corrupted by it.

INTENT MATTERS. GET IT? IF ELROND HAD DECIDED TO KILL ISILDUR AT THAT MOMENT THE RING WOULD HAVE DOMINATED HIM EVEN BEFORE HE COULD ACT ON THAT DECISION.

The Ring _wouldn't_ have been destroyed, because by forming an evil intent, Elrond would have fallen under its sway and been consumed by a desire to own the Ring, rather than push Isildur into the fire.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> So Isildur had the right to hold onto a ring of total evil, which by the future of the world hangs in the balance?  Elrond putting down Isildur after Isildur refused to do the only right thing to me would have been like a cop shooting a criminal.   It's not the ends justify the means to me, it's Elrond doing the right thing. . No matter what "right" he has to this piece of pure evil, he has a moral obligation to destroy it.  But he was weak, and Elrond should have done the right thing and killed this new servant of Sauron and destroyed the ring.  You speak of murder when I speak of lawful homicide.  When Isildur decided to keep the ring he threw in his lot with Sauron, regardless of him realizing it at the time.   He enabled with his greed and weakness Sauron to live on and cause untold horror, evil, and death.   Isildur bears to blood of thousands on his hands.




  Very well put, I totally agree.


----------



## kengar (Dec 23, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> But, with this intent now being acted upon, Elrond, under the Ring's influence, would have, probably, tried to gain the ring for himself instead of destroy it.  This is one of the reasons the Ring became heavier for Frodo as he approached Mt. Doom; the Ring knew Frodo was trying to destroy it and didn't wat to cease to exist.




and -like I said earlier- attacking the wielder of the One Ring is not a smart move. Especially if they know what it is they've got and are willing to use it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 23, 2003)

My difference from some may be that I don't see Isildur as a good guy, after he grabbed the ring he became a tool of evil, of the evil ring.   There is no means to justify.  Evil is on the verge of destruction, at least Sauron's evil, but this wonderful prince decideds, "hell I sure love this ring of pure evil, I'll keep it and obsess over it...", well in my book he became the enemy at that moment.  His lawful right to own the ring is overruled by the lawful right of the world to protect itself from the evil he is enabling. 

P.S. If an Orc was standing there with the ring in the same situation would Elrond have let him walk out with it?   After all if he tried to push the Orc in he would have been corrupted right?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *So Isildur had the right to hold onto a ring of total evil, which by the future of the world hangs in the balance?*





Yes, because Isildur claimed it as weregeld, a right granted to those who have had a relative killed by another. Isildur's ownership was just, which meant he _might_ have been able to avoid the corruption of the Ring.

(Note, everyone who comes into possession of the Ring by "unjust" means, such as Gollum, become _instantly_ corrupted by it.) Taking the Ring by force, or trying to deprive its owner by force corrupts _you_, such that _you_ will change your mind from wanting to destroy it to wanting to own it.



> *Elrond putting down Isildur after Isildur refused to do the only right thing to me would have been like a cop shooting a criminal. It's not the ends justify the means to me, it's Elrond doing the right thing. No matter what "right" he has to this piece of pure evil, he has a moral obligation to destroy it.*




A cop shooting a criminal _is_ an ends justify the means argument. You commit an evil act (killing someone) for a good end (stopping a criminal). The right thing to do would be for Isildur to voluntarily destroy the Ring, but trying to compel him to do this, or trying to kill him to do it, would be evil no matter how you cut it.



> *But he was weak, and Elrond should have done the right thing and killed this new servant of Sauron and destroyed the ring. You speak of murder when I speak of lawful homicide.*




But in a world where God makes the rules, there is no lawful homicide. Elrond isn't a cop, he's an elf-lord, and has to follow the rules of morality set forth by God, and killing another being in an effort to deprive them of their rightful property is murder.

Your problem is that you just don't understand Tolkienian morality (and to some extent, the part of Catholic morality that Tolkien used as the basis for his story).



> *When Isildur decided to keep the ring he threw in his lot with Sauron, regardless of him realizing it at the time. He enabled with his greed and weakness Sauron to live on and cause untold horror, evil, and death.*




Thousands of years later.



> *Isildur bears to blood of thousands on his hands.*





Yes, he does. But that is Isildur's sin. Trying to force the issue would have corrupted Elrond, and initiated a brand new sin on his part. And then _Elrond_ would have had the blood of thousands on his hands. Fighting sin with sin never works in Tolkien, it only leads to ruin and death. The entire history of the Silmarillion is littered with the broken corpses of those who sought to fight sin with sin and were corrupted and drawn into the camp of evil.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 23, 2003)

Never mind the fact that, among other things, the RING would have acted of it's own accord.  We see it do this several times in the movies, in fact.  It was no accident that it failed Isildur when it did, no accident that it was found by someone who could be manipulated into moving it without it's enemies catching note of it, no action of chance that Gollum 'lost' it, nor an off chance that it fell from Bilbo when he fell down the mountain...getting itself closer to someone to take it and who it could work it's power on.  It's even likely that it clouded Gandalf's mind on several occasions such as when he put it in the envelope, making him choose to waste valuable time researching it.

And, while we're on the subject of Isildur...he was standing further up the bridge, away from the edge like Elrond was.  Elrond would have had to run Isildur down to even think of throwing him into the lava...not an easy task.  Remember, Isildur wasn't just some schmoe from around the block...he was a mighty warrior of the Last Alliance, and the man who had just put Sauron down.  I'm not saying Elrond wasn't powerful, or couldn't beat Isildur...just that it's not some simple hand-waving task.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Dec 23, 2003)

I don't think that Elrond has Improved Bull Rush or Improved Grapple...

Would you be willing to take that AoO from Isildur holding the One Ring?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 23, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *My difference from some may be that I don't see Isildur as a good guy, after he grabbed the ring he became a tool of evil, of the evil ring. There is no means to justify.*




But you still use ends to justify the means. Murder remains murder. How you come to claim the Ring (or deal with the current owner of the Ring) determines how quickly it gains power over you.



> *Evil is on the verge of destruction, at least Sauron's evil, but this wonderful prince decideds, "hell I sure love this ring of pure evil, I'll keep it and obsess over it...", well in my book he became the enemy at that moment.  His lawful right to own the ring is overruled by the lawful right of the world to protect itself from the evil he is enabling.*




That's not the way the law of the cultures Tolkien was dealing with worked. The right of Kings was strong. The rights of weregeld were so powerful that nature respected them (there are instances where a powerful individual claims weregeld over a natural thing that killed their kin and the beast or feature acquiesces to their claim). Isildur is a king, chosen by the hand of God. His rights predominate. God chose him to make decisions, and through his decisions, God's will is expressed.



> *P.S. If an Orc was standing there with the ring in the same situation would Elrond have let him walk out with it? After all if he tried to push the Orc in he would have been corrupted right?*





It depends. Trying to force the issue with the bnearer of the Ruling Ring corrupts your soul. If an orc held the Ruling Ring at that moment, and Elrond tried to kill him and take it (whether to destroy it or not) he would have been consumed by its power. Trying to take it would have likely destroyed Elrond. Do you think he would have tried under those circumstances?

That's what makes the Ring so dangerous. Trying to claim it _no matter the reason_, whether to keep it, use it for good, or destroy it, will destroy the individual claiming it. That's why Frodo's possession of the Ring, coming in the fomr of a voluntary inheiritance, makes him uniquely suited to carry it and avoid being corrupted by it too quickly.


----------



## KenM (Dec 23, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, he does. But that is Isildur's sin. Trying to force the issue would have corrupted Elrond, and initiated a brand new sin on his part. And then _Elrond_ would have had the blood of thousands on his hands.




  IMO if you KNOW something/ someone is evil and do nothing to stop it, that makes you just as evil as the person commiting the evil. So the blood is on Elrond's hands as well.
  Say you had a chance to destroy someone evil, and you do not, then that person goes out and commits unspeakible acts. But your soul is pure becuase you did not try to stop it? I don't think it works that way. You did nothing, that makes you partly responsable.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 23, 2003)

I do get what you are saying, but don't agree with the morality of it.  The realities of the ring sure, but that morality is f%!&@d up IMO.   

It's not a problem in the book though, just the movie since they go into detail about the event.


----------



## Corinth (Dec 23, 2003)

If Elrond were to shove Isildur into the fires of Mount Doom, then he wouldn't be committing murder; that would be an act in the defense of the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth because he would've acted to destroy the One Ring.  The One Ring is an aspect of Sauron, and therefore is a part of him, so destroying the One Ring (even at the cost of Isildur's life, and likely Elrond's as well) is a good act.  Issues of property don't matter when the freedom of the entire host of the Free Peoples is on the line: freedom is more important than property.


----------



## Bob Aberton (Dec 23, 2003)

> I do get what you are saying, but don't agree with the morality of it. The realities of the ring sure, but that morality is f%!&@d up IMO.
> 
> It's not a problem in the book though, just the movie since they go into detail about the event.




It doesn't matter if that morality is f%!&@d up IYO, or IRL.  It's the way morality works in Tolkien.  It shouldn't be a problem in the movies either, since the movies, like the books, use Tolkien morality.  The only reason it's a problem to you is that you either can't or won't stop insisting on using RL morality in a most definately un-RL world.  Tolkien's world has a different set of rules than this world, and if you don't apply Tolkien's rules to Tolkien's world, then it will _never_ make sense to you.

Besides which, it's not a given that Elrond _could_ push Isildur in if he wanted to.  Isildur, as has been stated many times before, is no pushover.  He and Elrond would have to fight.  If Isildur and Elrond fought for the Ring, so would their armies.  And it then wouldn't matter whether or not Sauron wasn't present to enjoy it, he would have won.  Because, as has been stated before, either Men or Elves would be destroyed, and either Elrond or Isildur would rise as the new Dark Lord.

Furthermore, the Ring would not stand idly by and let itself be destroyed.  It has a mind of its own.  The only reason it hadn't already dominated Elrond was because he knew what it was, and he never touched it.  But if he tried to murder Isildur, then rest assured that whoever won would end up claiming the Ring, regardless of their original intentions.  Gollum murdered the Ring's rightful owner (Deagol, at the time).  Look what happened to him; before he even put his hands on Deagol's neck, the Ring had claimed him.  By the time Deagol was dead, it was already "The Precious."  The same would have happened to Elrond, only on a larger scale.

But, like I said before, if you still insist on blocking your ears and bashing your heads against the wall, by all means keep at it.  Keep in mind, though, no matter how much you argue, you're never going accept the course of events as they are unless you apply TOLKIEN'S RULES to TOLKIEN'S WORLD.

Apologies if you don't like my tone.  But for the past two pages or so, you've just been repeating the same thing over and over again, and completely ignored the points made by the "other side."  It's getting a little frustrating...


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 23, 2003)

Hey StormRaven, want a stick to beat yourself over the head with? It's gotta be less painful than what I'm watching in this thread.

Can I add my voice to the chorus saying, "People, your ideas on what is or isn't moral are BESIDE THE POINT. This is Tolkien's world and it plays by Tolkien's rules. You can disagree with those rules, but you can't fault his world for playing by them." So if you want to say, "I think the end justifies the means in my world," go right ahead. But it doesn't in Middle-Earth.

And IN ANY EVENT, the fact that Elrond did not murder Isildur is in no way shape or fact

A LOGICAL ERROR.

It may or may not be a bad move on Elrond's part, but it's not a logical error on either Tolkien's or Jackson's part. It's simply the action a character takes -- whether a character behaves intelligently or not has nothing to do with the logic of the story that character inhabits.

The Ents popping out of Fangorn as though they'd just been hiding around the nearby tree trunks waiting for Treebeard to notice the devastation -- THAT was a logical hole. But Elrond deciding not to murder someone -- that's a character decision. And not many people make decisions based purely on logic.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 23, 2003)

Well, first of all, by the morality put forth here all characters in the LotR except for Frodo maybe are murderers, because they kills Orcs etc. Only because these orks etc. don't wear the One Ring do they not become corrupted, right? If so, that's a silly morale to me.
Second, some fanwank if you really need an explanation other than maybe "It's Elrond's action, he makes a mistake, but it's what he does, and perhaps is." Isildur wielded the Ring of Power (as has been said, perhaps Elrond simply didn't dare to attack the Ringbearer while wearing his own ring and not being really used to its power). The Ring can act on its own. Perhaps it had enough influence on Elrond the other Ringbearer that he could keep him from attacking? Not really dominating Elrond, but having him refrain from aggressive actions?


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

Berandor:

Exactly. I'm not sure if killing Orcs counts as murder (Orcs are different), but certainly no shortage of Men were killed by the "good guys" at Pelennor, and yes, that would have been an act of evil by Tolkien's standards -- but one CAN be absolved of evil acts in Tolkien's view (remember, we're dealing with a Catholic here).

The difference between smiting Southrons on Pelennor and pushing Isildur into the Fire is the Ring -- the former, while evil, is not necessarily all that dangerous for, say, Aragorn, while the latter is almost certain to destroy Elrond immediately.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 24, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Well, first of all, by the morality put forth here all characters in the LotR except for Frodo maybe are murderers, because they kills Orcs etc. Only because these orks etc. don't wear the One Ring do they not become corrupted, right? If so, that's a silly morale to me.



There's a big difference between murdering someone for the Ring of Power and defending yourself against orcs who are attacking you with murderous intent.  If you don't see a difference between the two, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I can't recall a single incident where the Fellowship or Free Peoples initiates a senseless attack of murderous violence, but plenty of cases where they defend themselves from such attacks.


----------



## Berandor (Dec 24, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between murdering someone for the Ring of Power and defending yourself against orcs who are attacking you with murderous intent.  If you don't see a difference between the two, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I can't recall a single incident where the Fellowship or Free Peoples initiates a senseless attack of murderous violence, but plenty of cases where they defend themselves from such attacks.



 Well, he wouldn't attack him for the Ring, only because of the Ring. And I mainly refer to the example that even if an orc had wielded the ring at that point, attacking or even killing him would have been murder.
The other things, I can agree on, actually.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

WizardDru, I respectfully disagree.

Killing people is murder in Middle-Earth, regardless of when where or how it's accomplished. Even in self-defense. It may be _necessary_, but it remains evil. It may not be _as evil_ as senseless mayhem, but it's still evil.

The good guys do what they must, but they don't kid themselves that it's a _good_ act.

The proof of Aragorn's kingship isn't his prowess in battle -- it's in his healing touch.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 24, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> WizardDru, I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Killing people is murder in Middle-Earth, regardless of when where or how it's accomplished. Even in self-defense. It may be _necessary_, but it remains evil. It may not be _as evil_ as senseless mayhem, but it's still evil.
> 
> ...



Lose that extra d. 

I can accept that it's an evil act in Tolkien's world.  But I'm not sure that I really see examples where Tolkien enforces that edict, per se.  The Fellowship carves a swath through the south, but I don't really see Legolas, Gimli or Faramir suffering for fighting the good fight...unles they're redeemed by the selfless nature of their actions at the same time as they transgress, per se.

However, one thing that should be reinforced is the Right of Kings.  Remember, Isildur cursed a whole race of men for not showing up at the Last Alliance.  That certainly reinforces Isildur's power.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

Doh! Misspelling wizards' names -- never a good idea.



Yeah, I'm probably over-stating it -- more accurate would be to say that nowhere does Tolkien say that killing in self-defense ISN'T evil. And the possibility that Aragorn et al were committing evil acts in killing folks at Pelennor and elsewhere (though I don't think anywhere else were Men among the bad guys) can exist without bankrupting the story's basic morality.

AND the sensible nature of Elrond's decision not to commit evil in the presence of the Ring.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 24, 2003)

Folks, I could be wrong, but...

At that point, weren't Elrond and Isildur ignorant of the ring's corruptive nature? After all, only Sauron had ever worn it at that point. All they knew was that it contained a large chunk of his magical power, and he could use it to control anyone wearing one of the Nine Rings.

Thus, Elrond wanted it destroyed, simply because it was a Thing Of Evil ™. At that point, he had no clue it would possess its bearer. He wanted to cast it back into Mt. Doom because it had been Sauron's focus of power... but he had no real reason to believe it could be used by anyone else.

Elrond could not have done anything else. There was no reason to attack Isildur based on what he knew, and Isildur had traditional right of ownership for the ring now. I doubt he used his powers of foresight in that few seconds... who would? And so, he had no idea the path he was setting the world on.


----------



## KenM (Dec 24, 2003)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Folks, I could be wrong, but...
> 
> At that point, weren't Elrond and Isildur ignorant of the ring's corruptive nature? After all, only Sauron had ever worn it at that point. All they knew was that it contained a large chunk of his magical power, and he could use it to control anyone wearing one of the Nine Rings.
> 
> ...




  Don't know if they explain it in the books. I got the sense Elrond knew what it was when he said the line " I was there when the will of men failed" in the movie, not sure if that was the excat line.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 24, 2003)

Thing about Tolkien's world is that there IS a definate Evil and Good. Orcs...are Evil. Simple as that. Killing them isn't murder because they are simply Evil. There aren't shades of Grey. Southrons and other of the Evil Men ARE Evil. Why? Dedicate yourself to Evil in a Black and White world, and you ARE Evil. So, it isn't murder.

Yes, this makes no sense in RL, but this isn't RL. This is Tolkien's Fantasy world. I'm not going to elabroate on the whole Isildur thing, because Storm Raven nailed it...at least three times.


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Dec 24, 2003)

There's a very simple reason Elrond didn't destroy the ring when he had the chance: he hadn't been upgraded into Agent Smith yet.  

Seriously tho, I agree Elrond didn't want to take away the freedom of choice from Isildur, especially by an act of aggression, and the ring may have already tainted the human. If Elrond took the ring, he too would be tainted (definitely if he took it by force) and Isildur would lust after the ring much like Bilbo did after giving it to Frodo. Gollum, Bilbo and eventually Frodo were 'addicted' to the One Ring and like an addiction, only the person with the problem can solve it. 

Also, IMO Elrond didn't take the ring for a similar reason Galadriel didn't when Frodo offered it to her: power corrupts. And what's the road to hell paved with?

We now return you to the regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.


----------



## RedShirtNo5 (Dec 24, 2003)

_"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."_ 



I know Gandalf's comment was in the extended FotR DVD, but I don't remember whether it was in the theatrical release.

-RedShirt


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 24, 2003)

RedShirtNo5 said:
			
		

> _"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."_
> 
> I know Gandalf's comment was in the extended FotR DVD, but I don't remember whether it was in the theatrical release.



It was certainly in both versions.  I loved that line.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 24, 2003)

Kesh said:
			
		

> *At that point, weren't Elrond and Isildur ignorant of the ring's corruptive nature? After all, only Sauron had ever worn it at that point. All they knew was that it contained a large chunk of his magical power, and he could use it to control anyone wearing one of the Nine Rings.*





No. The elves became aware of the nature of the Ruling Ring the minute it was forged. They hid their rings and refused to wear them as long as Sauron held his. Magic in Tolkien appears to leave a "footprint" that can be read and understood by those who are "wise" in its ways. As soon as Sauron completed his Ring and put it on, the great elven lords immediately understood the nature of Sauron's creation. I am reasonably certain that Gil-Gilad would have told this to Elrond before he passed on his elven ring to him.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 24, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *I do get what you are saying, but don't agree with the morality of it.  The realities of the ring sure, but that morality is f%!&@d up IMO.*





One thing to remember is that _any_ kind of violence, even if just, allows the Ring to wedge itself into your soul and corrupt you. Gandalf states at one point that had Bilbo killed Gollum when he found the Ring _even though Gollum probably deserved death_, the Ring would have siezed much greater control over Bilbo, and probably destroyed him.

Think of it this way: committing any of the "seven deadly sins" in the presence of the Ring allows it to enter your soul and corrupt you. Wrath is one of these sins. Whether that wrath is just or unjust, it is still a sin, and allows the Ring to corrupt you.

You may not _like_ how the Ring works, but you aren't intended to. It is an incredibly dangerous thing to deal with, since, in many cases, there are no good options. That's _the point_.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 24, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *IMO if you KNOW something/ someone is evil and do nothing to stop it, that makes you just as evil as the person commiting the evil. So the blood is on Elrond's hands as well.*





Except Isildur didn't actually do anything overtly evil at that point. He was killed and the Ring lost for millennia. Sauron was discorporeal for centuries on end and unable to work his will. Is that truly evil?

In any event, the point is that at that point in time, there was _nothing_ Elrond could do that would not have corrputed his own soul and caused him to lust for the Ring and set himself up as the new Dark Lord (Elrond is certainly powerful enough to do so). His choices were (a) convince Isildur to voluntarily give up the Ring, (b) failing that, let Isildur go and hope that the job can be finished later, or (c) try to take the Ring from Isildur and either become corrupted himself or drive Isildur to further corruption at which point either he or Isildur would st themselves up as the new Dark Lord.

Elrond was unable to accomplish the convincing option, and chose the option of _hope_. Staying uncorrupted prevented the immediate erection of a new Dark Lord and allowed Elrond to assist in the events that later resulted in the Ring's destruction.



> *Say you had a chance to destroy someone evil, and you do not, then that person goes out and commits unspeakible acts. But your soul is pure becuase you did not try to stop it? I don't think it works that way. You did nothing, that makes you partly responsable.*





This assumes that the "something" you could have done _would have been effective_. In Tolkien's world, when dealing with the Ring, the course you advocate would have destroyed Elrond. Basically, you would have had Elrond make the same mistake Isildur made, and have two powerful lords fighting over the Ring, becoming corrupted evil beings almost immediately. As I said before, Elrond chose to stay his hand rather than compound Isildur's error and prevented a war that would have only resulted in a new Dark Lord rising to replace Sauron with no one left to oppose the new evil. You would have caused this very thing with your rash and violent plan, which is why Elrond was counted as one of the wise, and you probably would not have been.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 24, 2003)

Oh well, I'm done with this thread.  I just have to accept the flaws in JRRT's work.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 24, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Oh well, I'm done with this thread.  I just have to accept the flaws in JRRT's work.*





Or, more appropriately, you have decided to accept the flaws in your understanding of theology and thre nature of sin in Tolkien's work.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 24, 2003)

Oh ye great and condecending Storm Raven.  Thou dids't not notice mine winky smiley in thine haste to speak down to me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 24, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Oh ye great and condecending Storm Raven.  Thou dids't not notice mine winky smiley in thine haste to speak down to me.




It's not condescension to point out the obvious.


----------



## theburningman (Dec 24, 2003)

I don't agree with his tone, but I have to agree with Storm Raven's arguments.

From a _purely_ Christian point of view, killing is wrong, period (there are no conditions given in "thou shalt not kill").  Even if you kill Adolf Hitler to prevent (or avenge) the Holocaust, you have still murdered.  There is no such thing as lawful homicide from the standpoint of Christian dogma.  Even if you later obtain forgiveness for such a sin, you can't use that eventual forgiveness to justify the murder.  It just doesn't work that way.

The way I look at it is this.  The only way the Ring _could_ have ever been destroyed is the way that it was destroyed.  Isildur had the chance to willingly destroy it and he failed because of the influence of the Ring.  Frodo had the chance to willingly destroy and he failed because of the influence of the Ring.  Had Sam been able to wrestle an invisible Frodo to the ground and take the Ring from him, he would have failed to destroy it _because of the influence of the Ring_.  Thus the tragic desire of Gollum to possess it was the only way that the Ring could be destroyed; he didn't want to destroy it, it just happened.

So basically the Ring is destroyed because fate just works out that way.  And that is the only way it could have happened.

When you think about, Frodo's quest actually failed.  If Gollum hadn't been there, Sauron would have regained the Ring.


----------



## jaldaen (Dec 24, 2003)

theburningman said:
			
		

> From a _purely_ Christian point of view, killing is wrong, period (there are no conditions given in "thou shalt not kill").  Even if you kill Adolf Hitler to prevent (or avenge) the Holocaust, you have still murdered.  There is no such thing as lawful homicide from the standpoint of Christian dogma.  Even if you later obtain forgiveness for such a sin, you can't use that eventual forgiveness to justify the murder.  It just doesn't work that way.




Actually from a Catholic point of view (which I consider a _purely_ Christian ;-)... Legitamate Defense is discussed in under Part III: Life in Christ, Section 2: The Ten Commandments, Article 5: The Fifth Commandent (found here: http://www.catholic.org/clife/catechism/) and describes what one (and the state) can do legitamately in defense of the common good and life according to the Church.

Of course what would be more interesting to find out is whether or not such concerns were considered by Tolkien when he wrote the LotRs Trilogy... I'm no Tolkien scholar, but I do know he was Catholic and it would be interesting to know what, if any, Catholic teachings might have been used by him in his portrayal of Middle Earth. I think the idea of just war is certainly there, which involves killing (or preferably incapacitating) others to defend the common good... Anyone have a good Tolkien resource that might have this information as I'm sure it would enlighten us all on the themes within the LotRs.

Happy Holidays!
Joseph Miller

PS: If the moderators decide this is too religious then please delete this post as it is meant only to provide further illumination of this particular issue and nothing else. Thanks ;-)

PPS: I also think Stormraven is right when he essentially says anyone who tries to take the ring by force would never let it go and even those who recieve it as a gift are in a near equal fix as their good intentions would be used to corrupt them.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

theburningman said:
			
		

> So basically the Ring is destroyed because fate just works out that way. And that is the only way it could have happened.
> 
> When you think about, Frodo's quest actually failed. If Gollum hadn't been there, Sauron would have regained the Ring.



It's not fate. It's _grace_. And you're quite right.

It's one of the most important facts of the whole story: FRODO FAILS.

In the end, he is unable to willingly destroy the Ring. Only through the action of grace is the Ring destroyed. Frodo had to be strong enough to bear it to the Cracks of Doom, but nobody is strong enough to give up the evil that is the Ring. Only through grace can we be redeemed. It's one of the key notions of LotR -- that without grace we cannot escape from evil.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 24, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Staying uncorrupted prevented the immediate erection of a new Dark Lord...



Right.

(desperately tries to control giggles)

Because no Dark Lord gets immediate erections from _corrupted_ elves....

(fails, giggles)


----------



## jaldaen (Dec 24, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's not fate. It's _grace_. And you're quite right.
> 
> It's one of the most important facts of the whole story: FRODO FAILS.
> 
> In the end, he is unable to willingly destroy the Ring. Only through the action of grace is the Ring destroyed. Frodo had to be strong enough to bear it to the Cracks of Doom, but nobody is strong enough to give up the evil that is the Ring. Only through grace can we be redeemed. It's one of the key notions of LotR -- that without grace we cannot escape from evil.




I just want to say that this is an extremely good point and goes well with Catholic teaching (more beautifully put elsewhere, but grabbled by my words of straw): That men (and hobbits ;-) can only get so far ourselves and only through the fostering of faith, hope, and charity can we put ourselves into a position to do the right thing... and it is God's grace that gives us that extra little shove to get rid of the evil that corrupts us ;-)

Happy Holidays!
Joseph


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 26, 2003)

I've come to this discussion late, but want to say a few things. 

First off, Storm Raven is right on all points.

Secondly, in the movies it's more or less luck that allows Isildur to cut the ring off, but in the books, I think its more clear that Isildur (with the aid of a couple folks, I think) defeats Sauron in combat, and then cuts the ring from his hand.

So, in other words, we have one of the most powerful warriors in all of Middle-Earth, AND he's got the One Ring.  Do you really think Elrond would have stood a chance?

Lastly, of course,  (in the books) Isildur was nowhere near Mt. Doom when he (entirely lawfully) claimed the Ring.  So the "drop kick into the lava" option was never open to Elrond in any case.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

Yea, I have to agree. Essentialy Elrond took a calculated risk. He felt the risk of trying to take any additional action at that point was greater than the risk of Issy doing immediate evil with the ring. 
  Ooo memory flash. CIRDAN was there as well(in the book). and it was outside the mountain. It would have been a THREE way fight for the ring. And Cirdan is also a Ringbearer, and one of the most powerful elves alive.
  But yes even in the movie...Elrond runs at Issy...Elrond starts hearing the Ring's voice in his head...Elrond tries to take the ring from Issy...etc etc...end of the world.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

> Which is an odd criticism at any level, since Gandalf was essentially sent back by God. Complaining about the hand of God being involved when the hand of God is supposed to have been involved in a situation is plain silly.
> 
> 
> > I thought the exact same thing myself. It is Deus Ex Machina...literaly! and in a way that fits the logic of the story perfectly. I agree this guy just has no idea whats happening in the story..


----------



## KenM (Dec 27, 2003)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> So, in other words, we have one of the most powerful warriors in all of Middle-Earth, AND he's got the One Ring.  Do you really think Elrond would have stood a chance?




  My problem with the scene in the movie is that Elrond does not do anything. Since they were right there, inside the mountin, it makes sense to me at least, that He should have tried something, but He lets Isildur walk away.
     What PJ should have done, is had the two fight, Elrond gets knocked out, Isildur walks away. This would have also added to the tension between the elves and the humans.  I never said that Elrond would have won if he tried something, I just think that at that point, that character would have done more then to let Isildur just walk.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 27, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> What PJ should have done, is had the two fight, Elrond gets knocked out, Isildur walks away. This would have also added to the tension between the elves and the humans.  I never said that Elrond would have won if he tried something, I just think that at that point, that character would have done more then to let Isildur just walk.




Elrond can't win in any conceivable outcome of that battle.  It's vital to remember that Isildur is not utterly corrupted by the Ring.  He can't bring himself to destroy it, but he never uses it for evil.

If Elrond fights Isildur and wins, he claims the Ring, and it's Elrond the Dark lord.

If Elrond fights Isildur and loses, he's pushed Isildur over the edge to Evil, and it's Isildur the Dark Lord.

Either way, it's new Dark Lord time, _right now_, and the forces of good are likely destroyed.

Elrond does all he can do within the limits of honor and morality, and Isildur ignores his advice.  I really don't feel there is anything else he could have done that would not have had disastrous results.


----------



## Dispater (Dec 27, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> My problem with the scene in the movie is that Elrond does not do anything. Since they were right there, inside the mountin, it makes sense to me at least, that He should have tried something, but He lets Isildur walk away.
> What PJ should have done, is had the two fight, Elrond gets knocked out, Isildur walks away. This would have also added to the tension between the elves and the humans.  I never said that Elrond would have won if he tried something, I just think that at that point, that character would have done more then to let Isildur just walk.




IMO If PJ did a pitched fight btw. Elrond and Isildur it would ruined that whole scene. Besides, if Elrond at this stage attacks, Isildur would only have used the ring and escaped, which would have corrupted him further.


----------



## KenM (Dec 27, 2003)

Dispater said:
			
		

> IMO If PJ did a pitched fight btw. Elrond and Isildur it would ruined that whole scene. Besides, if Elrond at this stage attacks, Isildur would only have used the ring and escaped, which would have corrupted him further.




  That is fine too, my problem is the lack of action that IMO Elrond should have taken.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 27, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> That is fine too, my problem is the lack of action that IMO Elrond should have taken.



In other words, you understand that it would have disrupted the story and you understand that it didn't make sense within the greater context of the story as presented in either the movie or the book and created a whole new series of plot contextual problems....you just wish he had filmed it differently entirely.


----------



## KenM (Dec 27, 2003)

I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story. The fact that he basically lets evil survive, when they were inside the crack of doom and then he blames men for failing is my problem. He knew what the ring was, he saw it already corrupting Isilidur, PJ should have had Elround try something and get knocked out or something. Like someone else said, that fact that in the books, that scene takes place away from Mt. Doom makes it work in the books.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 27, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.




I think this is the biggest point. You DON'T think it would change things...but pretty much everyone else here agrees that it most definatly WOULD, and has given a lot more reasons that follow the themes of the books(which are also the themes of the movies).

Please please please...don't let this be the next long running disagreement. We got over the Eagles, now lets not start a new one so soon!


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 28, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I think this is the biggest point. You DON'T think it would change things...but pretty much everyone else here agrees that it most definatly WOULD, and has given a lot more reasons that follow the themes of the books(which are also the themes of the movies).




frankly, some people here have been scrambling for a No Prize to avoid accepting that there could have been a plot hole in the movie... not even the book, but the way the movie adapted it. (I mean aside from the part where they say the ring has fallen out of all living memory and gandalf has to research it in dusty manuscripts when his elf buddy has the whole thing still on the tip of his tongue...   ) the fact that they are in the majority is not a relevant to whether thay are in the right.

One of the themes of the movies, and the books is that they are FICTION. What fiction means is that someone wrote it all down, made it up, thought of it. That person may or may not have had a lot of outside editing, but they certainly didn't submit it for peer review over the course of a few decades, or wait to publish until a lot of people with too much free brain power for their own good picked it apart and compared and contrasted every line. The makers of the movie similarly wanted to create something that looked good, sounded good and played well in peroria. 

What does it mean? It means that plot holes will be there. Mistakes will be there. Inconsistancies and logical gaps will occur over the course of three (and a half and a prequel) books and more will creep in when those books are adapted to look good on screen. Its no big deal. Obsessively finding and pointing them out tends to make you look like you have too much time on your hands and maybe take fiction a little too seriously, and contorting your logic into a 'fix' and attacking people who do notice them makes you look defensive of your tastes and like you take your fiction way too seriously.

While I'm not really enthusiastic about RotK (I'll wait for the DVD when PJ's signature swoops don't make me airsick) this little rant isn't about tolkien or this work in particular, its about the kind of fan obsession that almost ruined my apprication of Babylon 5 (church of joe gets on my nerves) and is rapidly souring the casual enjoyment I take from these films. If you like to nitpick, enjoy the little incogruities. If you don't like to nitpick, just say "Cause then there's be no story" and go back to enjoying the work. If you're a backseat director, discuss ways in which the scene could have been shot that eliminate the issue entirely. But I've had more reasonable discussion of contridictions in real life religious texts than I'm seeing over a minor adaptation flaw in an otherwise well received movie....

hmmm... I'm glad I never posted my casual musings on the idiocy of the horn codes in Fire and Ice...   

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Dec 28, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.




nah, easy, peasy. elrond stands at the edge imploring the king to throw the ring in. King never steps right to the edge, refuses and turns to walk away. Elrond starts to move after him to try to convince or force him, the ring flashes and Elrond gasps, stumbles and looks after the king with dispair as he continues out. Elrond shows more dedicaton to his cause, the ring's power and sense of self preservation is made clear, nitpickers have nothing to talk about, fanboys obsess over the layers of meaning and intent within the scene... everyone's happy.

It only would have changed the story if the director wanted it too, which he clearly wouldn't. 

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *That is fine too, my problem is the lack of action that IMO Elrond should have taken.*





But the action you think Elrond "should have taken" would have necessarily led to a _worse_ result than Isildur holding the ring peacefully for a time. And Elrond knew this, which is why he stayed his hand.

Basically, you are saying "Elrond should have done something the character knew was immensely stupid, becauser that's what KenM would have done".


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *(I mean aside from the part where they say the ring has fallen out of all living memory and gandalf has to research it in dusty manuscripts when his elf buddy has the whole thing still on the tip of his tongue...   )*





Gandalf was reaearching things Elrond didn't know about the ring, like the fact that the text written on it becomes clear when heated. If you had paid attention to the movie, you would have known this.



> *What does it mean? It means that plot holes will be there. Mistakes will be there. Inconsistancies and logical gaps will occur over the course of three (and a half and a prequel) books and more will creep in when those books are adapted to look good on screen.*




There may be plot holes, but Elrond failing to try to kill Isildur to take or destroy the One Ring isn't one of them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *I don't think having Elrond try something would have changed the story.*





Which means you didn't understand the story, or the nature of the One Ring.



> *The fact that he basically lets evil survive, when they were inside the crack of doom and then he blames men for failing is my problem.*




He blames the _will of men_ for failing, because Isildur didn't have the _will_ to destroy the Ring. The "one chance" Elrond speaks of is the chance to have the Ring destroyed _voluntarily_, anything else would subject those fighting over the fate of the Ring to the corrupting influence of the Ring.



> *He knew what the ring was, he saw it already corrupting Isilidur, PJ should have had Elround try something and get knocked out or something.*




Which would have been entirely out of character for Elrond, and made Elrond subject to the lust for the Ring displayed by (for example) Smeagol and Deagol when they start fighting over it. Elrond _knows_ the consequences of trying to take the Ring by violence, and thus _knows_ that it is a foolish thing to try. Unlike you.



> *Like someone else said, that fact that in the books, that scene takes place away from Mt. Doom makes it work in the books.*





The fact that others understand the nature of the Ring is why it works. The fact that you don't, and persist in coming up with D&D inspired notions of what to do in that situation only illustrates how little you understand of the Ring.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 29, 2003)

Another comment related to the subject of morality in Lord of the Rings: regarding Orcs as purely evil beings . . . Faramir (in the book) tells Frodo, "I would not ensnare even an orc with a falsehood."  Orcs may be irredeemably evil, but good does not disregard justice in dealing with evil; if it did, good would fall and become evil.  Gandalf says in the book, "Nothing is evil in the beginning, not even Sauron was so" (paraphrase).


It has been rightly commented on that Frodo does not destroy the Ring.  In the book, he stands upon the brink of the Crack of Doom and says, " I do not choose now to do the thing I came to do."  The key wording is "I do not choose" rather than "I choose not to do" indicating that Frodo's will has no control over the matter and his will has been subdued to that of the Ring.  Frodo claims the Ring as his own, and it is only the attack by Gollum that enables the Ring to accidentally be destroyed . . . "The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."


----------



## Numion (Dec 29, 2003)

Corinth said:
			
		

> If Elrond were to shove Isildur into the fires of Mount Doom, then he wouldn't be committing murder; that would be an act in the defense of the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth because he would've acted to destroy the One Ring.  The One Ring is an aspect of Sauron, and therefore is a part of him, so destroying the One Ring (even at the cost of Isildur's life, and likely Elrond's as well) is a good act.  Issues of property don't matter when the freedom of the entire host of the Free Peoples is on the line: freedom is more important than property.




I think that the ring wouldn't have seen anything more eagerly than have two of the greatest lords of middle earth in a combat over it _five minutes after it was acquired_. That's what the ring would want - to get noble people fight over it, lose their temper, act rashly (just like it did pretty quickly in the counsil of elrond). 

That is how the ring works. Elrond showed considerable power of will _not_ to start a ruckus over it at mt. Doom.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 29, 2003)

So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 29, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.



 Actually, I was wondering that too...but it looks like they all died.


----------



## ConnorSB (Dec 29, 2003)

maybe they just quickly and quietly faded away... or ran for the ships... Didn't gandalf say that "it is man alone who will fight the final battle."?


----------



## kengar (Dec 29, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.




Called away to the battles that took place in Mirkwood during the same time.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> Gandalf was reaearching things Elrond didn't know about the ring, like the fact that the text written on it becomes clear when heated. If you had paid attention to the movie, you would have known this.



I think the important part is that none of them had seen the ring for so long, they didn't know THIS was the ring of power. "There are many magic rings, none are to be taken lightly" (or whatever)



> There may be plot holes, but Elrond failing to try to kill Isildur to take or destroy the One Ring isn't one of them.




While Elrond shouldn't have slaughtered Isildur for the ring, he certainly shouldn't have just ignored it and forgotten the ring existed.

Isildur died, the ring was lost.... I guess the vaunted Elven Rangers can't watch one dern human?
"I was there when the Will of Man failed"
"And you're just now telling people this, 4,000 years afterwards!"


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 30, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.



How about the shaggy Hill-Men who sacked Rohan with Saruman's Uruk-Hai? Never seen again.

And whatever happened to those Easterlings who were last seen doing the Emerald City March into the Black Gates? Great costumes, great props, great eyeliner---gone, without a trace.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 30, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> So here's a question, gang: in the movie, what happened to the elven archers in Rohan who survived the storming of Helm's Deep? They would have come in handy in Gondor.



I was under the impression, in the movie, that all the Elves died on the deeping wall, save Legolas.  We never see a single one after Haldir goes down, that I recall.


----------



## kengar (Dec 30, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I was under the impression, in the movie, that all the Elves died on the deeping wall, save Legolas.  We never see a single one after Haldir goes down, that I recall.




Possibly. It's difficult to say what PJ intended people to think. There are several possible explanations: that all of them were killed is only one of them. As I mentioned before, in the books the elves are fighting the forces of Sauron in Lorien & Mirkwood while the battles you see on-screen are happening. Likewise there are dwarfs fighting alongside the men of Dale (near the Lonely Mountain of _the Hobbit_) against evil armies. The battles of Helm's Deep & Minas Tirith were only part of a larger war.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 30, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> Possibly. It's difficult to say what PJ intended people to think. There are several possible explanations: that all of them were killed is only one of them. As I mentioned before, in the books the elves are fighting the forces of Sauron in Lorien & Mirkwood while the battles you see on-screen are happening. Likewise there are dwarfs fighting alongside the men of Dale (near the Lonely Mountain of _the Hobbit_) against evil armies. The battles of Helm's Deep & Minas Tirith were only part of a larger war.



Yeah, and I've always considered that something of a mistake on Tolkien's part.  The Dwarves are drastically under-represented throughout the series as a race...partly owing, obviously, to the fact that they aren't one of Illuvatar's 'children', but Aule's....but it grates, just a tiny bit, that the Dwarves aren't seen as part of the War of the Ring on center stage, Gimli excepted.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 30, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Yeah, and I've always considered that something of a mistake on Tolkien's part.  The Dwarves are drastically under-represented throughout the series as a race...partly owing, obviously, to the fact that they aren't one of Illuvatar's 'children', but Aule's....but it grates, just a tiny bit, that the Dwarves aren't seen as part of the War of the Ring on center stage, Gimli excepted.




That's because dwarves are a dying race in Tolkien's works _and_ they have just recently fought two very bloody conflicts against the orcs of the north: the Dwarf and Orc Wars where Thorin Oakenshield got his name, and the Battle of Five Armies where the dwarves suffered heavy losses to Bolg's orcish horde.


----------



## kengar (Dec 30, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's because dwarves are a dying race in Tolkien's works _and_ they have just recently fought two very bloody conflicts against the orcs of the north: the Dwarf and Orc Wars where Thorin Oakenshield got his name, and the Battle of Five Armies where the dwarves suffered heavy losses to Bolg's orcish horde.




This is true. Had it not been for the massive defeat that the orcs suffered in the Battle of the Five Armies, the men of the West (and the elves) would have had another front to worry about in the War of the Ring. As it was, Mt. Gundabad & Mt. Gram were greatly reduced in population at the time of LOTR.


----------



## pezagent (Dec 31, 2003)

Thanks for that link, the article was *hilarious*. 

I think what scares me is when people take stuff like this too literally. I'm not sure who's the bigger killjoy--one who makes fun of something that takes itself too seriously or one who can't take a joke at all.

I will say this... in regards to my _dues ex machina_ er... _discussion_ he reminded me of the only point within the films where it is used--when Gandalf gets "sent back." Edit: Actually, scratch that... I don't agree with him... that Gandalf gets "sent back" isn't part of the plot, it's his explaination of what happened--what _actually_ happened is that he survived. Not an example of deus ex machina...


Very funny article. Totally.

/johnny


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2003)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's because dwarves are a dying race in Tolkien's works.



 No, it's because Tolkien hated those whiny little suckers. I refer you to Letter 1352, to Hubert Y. Packamanika, Dec 12, 1756, where he says:


			
				JRR Tolkien said:
			
		

> Those %&$#! dwarves, I wish I'd never included the little savages in the books. They suck. I'd drop-kick every one of those runts into the Cracks of Doom if I could.
> 
> And speaking of Cracks of Doom, do you think I should publish those sketches of Galadriel bathing?



Back to your regular discussions.


----------

