The White Council

Re: The Three.... again

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : I agree with the Don. Tolkien's world, although may not be our own (I say may, although I believe it was conveyed to be at least based on our world), follows our laws of physics, and is essentially OUR world. Sure, it doesn't have peacocks, and it may not be EXACTLY our world, BUT, Tolkien follows our rules of thermodynamics, and LOGIC. Your arguments have been noted, and it seems to me, that they are based on the "fact" that we (or, I) don't know enough about Middle-Earth to make any claims as to what should, or shouldn't have happened.... : : Well, that's an invalid argument, as this whole message-board is basically designed as a forum of people, discussing Middle-Earth. AND noting any possible inconsistancies. : : There are many "Problems" with some things that have happened in Middle-Earth, things which work well for a story, but logically may be fallacies on the part of Tolkien, not thinking his universe through. No one is blaming him, I mean, come on! He has created an Universe with more depth than ANY other person. But even our learned JRR is highly fallible, and I think that the fading of the Three falls under this heading. : : Your argument, on the other hand, is that "It's HIS universe, so what he says must be true" Sure, I understand that, but there are many, many postings, and also other whinges about scenes and ideas in books not making sense. : : One posting I myself have had, was the issue that Beren was able to hold a Silmaril without being burnt, even though it states EXPLICITLY that any mortal hands will suffer. Why is this? Well, I think it's just an oversight. Sure, it sounds great in the book, and some of the magic would have been lost if Beren was an Elf, and not a man, BUT, the argument remains. Not everything Tolkien puts down should be held as logical. I am merely using several analogies, or ideas, to try and prove that THEORETICALLY, under the laws of logic, IMHO, the Three shouldn't have faded.

: : Gandalf : I was going to write comments on a couple of points in your message, but since I couldn't come up with a good way of expressing my thoughts (an all too frequent problem) and basically agree with you anyway, I'll just include my BTW-question: : Are you the Gandalf of TORN? : -Foradan

: Oh, and this. All through this Ring discussion, (I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to reread everything to figure out) has your main point been along the lines that "I don't agree that the Three should have failed" or that "Tolkien should have said more clearly why the Three should fail (but I agree that it was the Right Thing to happen)"?

Sorry, no, I'm not the Gandalf of TORN (What's TORN?) I am usually known as BelegStrongbow, or failing that, Azrael, on the various chatrooms, ICQ, and game sites (I love chess).

Thank you for putting the arguments so succinctly. I agree that in order for the story to work, the Three HAD to fail. This fits well with the overall plot. However, as you say, Tolkien should have thought more clearly about WHY they failed. Sure, he cannot cover every base, so that is certainly excusable. However, from what is given, I strongly suggest that logically, under those given conditions, the Three WOULDN'T have failed.

So yes to your second suggestion. I think that the Rings HAVE to fail, to give the plight of the elves any credibility at all. BUT I think that Tolkien left an unfinished job as to explaining why they failed. Under the given circumstances, they should have worked.

Gandalf