One more quick comment...
Quote:
|
If we take onboard the argument that the Ring itself has some kind of sentience
|
I always found it interesting that the Ring seemed to be aware of Isildur's intentions with the Ring.
Quote:
When he at last felt free to return to his own realm he was in haste, and he wished to go first to Imladris; for he had left his wife and youngest son there, and he had moreover an urgent need for the counsel of Elrond.......
I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.~Unfinished Tales; The Disaster of Gladden Fields
|
And in
Note 24, CT remarks:
The pride that led him to keep the Ring against the counsel of Elrond and Cirdan that it should be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin
It's always been fascinating that the Ring seemed to be aware that Isildur was of no use to it and was about to take it [the Ring] directly into danger (the Keepers of the Three)...therefor Isildur is quickly dealt with before he can reach Rivendell.
Raynor, I don't think anyone is arguing that Gollum is not a cannibal and did not eat human (at least Orc) flesh...but
Lal and
Mith are saying that 'tales' are just that...'tales.' Which makes them rumours and not something that can be definitively said as 'fact.'
I'm reminded of the Salem Witch Hunt in the U.S. where a whole town was after anyone who showed signs of witchcraft. The hysteria it caused was shocking, yet you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it. I mean accusations were so weak...an accusation such as 'She was walking by and my cow was struck down by a disease' could put someone in court, accuse them of witchcraft, and send the person to the noose. 'Tales' and such of witchcraft (or in this case the disappearance of babies), could lead to hysteria and a gross misinterpretation of the actual 'facts.'
TM, and while it's true many tales do have a bit of truth to them, the tales can become completely distorted as it passes from one person to the next (especially if the people are filled with hysteria). Even such things as 'eyewitness testimony' may not hold up in court...as eyewitness testimony has been proven (through several psychological studies) to be flat out wrong sometimes. Such little and trivial things as saying
'bludgered' instead of
'hit' can effect the actual accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. (And these are presumably the people who witnessed a crime happening! Not a group of hysteric villagers that have children supposedly disappearing).