Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

"And forth went Morgoth, and he was halted by the elves. Then went Sauron, who was stopped by a dog and then aged men. Finally, there came the Witch-King, who destroyed Arnor, but nobody seems to remember that."

-A History of Villains

Is that actually a published book? Whoever wrote it obviously has no clue what he's talking about.

Morgoth was originally more powerful than all the other Valar combined. He was later diminished and defeated, as all enemies eventually were in Middle-earth, but that does not mean he was not the greatest being Middle-earth had ever seen. Huan was a very powerful creature, possibly Maiarin, with destiny on his side. Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur and their armies are not "aged men." Sauron had some bad luck with his opponents, but he was unequivocally the most powerful of Melkor's servants. The Witch-King, on the other hand, was nothing before being enslaved by Sauron, and even then he fled twice from Glorfindel. He didn't even make Gandalf flinch in their encounter, and a little Rohan woman told him to kiss off. He was then obliterated by an ancient dagger held by a Hobbit.

While I'm at it, I may as well address some of your post. First, there's no reason to believe dragons had any real spiritual power. Glaurung might be an exception, but he also might have just benefited from Morgoth exerting influence at the time of his havoc-wreaking. Second, Tulkas captured Morgoth after he had been significantly weakened. More than creating an exception to my explanation above, this gives us a better concept of Tulkas' true strength. Third, Shelob is just a distant relative to Ungoliante, not Ungoliante herself. The latter was incredibly powerful, the former was a big fat spider. Not only that, but Sting was a pretty excellent little blade, imbued with an ancient power.

And finally for good measure, I'll reiterate that Gandalf never broke a sweat in front of the Witch-King, and nobody's ever been able to produce any piece of text or any compelling argument to indicate otherwise, whereas everything Tolkien ever wrote about Gandalf supports that he was far superior to the Nerd-King.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Morgoth was originally more powerful than all the other Valar combined. He was later diminished and defeated, as all enemies eventually were in Middle-earth, but that does not mean he was not the greatest being Middle-earth had ever seen.

But he was still defeated, which was my point about stated "power levels" not telling us who'll win.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Huan was a very powerful creature, possibly Maiarin, with destiny on his side.

Dude, in the end Huan was a dog, and Sauron lost the fight and the island by his own stupidity. I'm mocking Sauron in my sig, and I feel secure in saying that many fans agree that Sauron could have handled the whole thing much better. Just because the mightest wolf will kill him doesn't mean that he's invincible until that wolf shows up.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur and their armies are not "aged men."

If I recall, Elendil was old even for a Numenorean. Also, I believe it was mentioned somewhere that Gil-Galad paled in comparison to the High-elf kings of the First Age. Also, my sig is a joke. Don't take it seriously.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Sauron had some bad luck with his opponents, but he was unequivocally the most powerful of Melkor's servants.

It becomes hard to believe that, or to fear the strength of Morgoth's servants, if the most powerful servant failed miserably time and time again. Honestly, would you think a boxer who lost far more often than he won was one of the best?

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Witch-King, on the other hand, was nothing before being enslaved by Sauron

However, he did take out Arnor and at the very least led his forces. In LOTR, he's the closest we come to an active enemy from Mordor. Sauron's just sitting in his tower the whole time.

Originally Posted by obloquy

and even then he fled twice from Glorfindel.

The first time, the realm of Angmar was doomed and there was nothing left to save, and he also was likely going to be assaulted by the remaining forces of Gondor's army, which would be annoying to deal with while fighting Glorfindel. Also, the second time he was pursuing the Ring, and a fight with Glorfindel could have allowed Frodo to escape to Rivendell.

Originally Posted by obloquy

He didn't even make Gandalf flinch in their encounter,

He didn't flinch either.

Originally Posted by obloquy

and a little Rohan woman told him to kiss off.

He told that to Gandalf also. Feanor made a vow against Eru, yet we all know that Eru is far mighter than any other character.

Originally Posted by obloquy

He was then obliterated by an ancient dagger held by a Hobbit.

Hobbits are very stealthy creatures, the blade was packing extremely powerful magic made specifically to kill the Witch-King, and Eyown would have died if it weren't for that. Also, in the books, there was no one-liner before stabbing: Eyown made haste in her move, so we don't know if he still could have done something, or if he was paralyzed like in the movie.

Originally Posted by obloquy

While I'm at it, I may as well address some of your post. First, there's no reason to believe dragons had any real spiritual power. Glaurung might be an exception, but he also might have just benefited from Morgoth exerting influence at the time of his havoc-wreaking.

I'm not talking about spiritual power. It's a stinkin' dragon. Those things are giant, powerful, breathe potent blasts of fire and some can even fly. They don't need spiritual power to be tough. Turin could have all the spirit he wanted, but if Glarung bit his head off he'd be dead.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Second, Tulkas captured Morgoth after he had been significantly weakened.

In the majority of discussions on the subject (even here) I've seen, the majority of the poster replies always state that Morgoth's Ring happened after that, and since the details didn't go any deeper, I was confused about that. At least that's cleared up. I do think that Morgoth's former place of mightest is deserved if that happened after Morgoth's Ring, yet after he made his ring his rank is lost.

Originally Posted by obloquy

More than creating an exception to my explanation above, this gives us a better concept of Tulkas' true strength.

Well, not really. He managed to take out an exhausted Morgoth, so we don't know if that was with every ounce of his strength and skill.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Third, Shelob is just a distant relative to Ungoliante, not Ungoliante herself. The latter was incredibly powerful, the former was a big fat spider. Not only that, but Sting was a pretty excellent little blade, imbued with an ancient power.

I know that, but the fact still stands that a tired and starving hobbit from the Shire took on such a large and powerful beast in combat and won. If "initial stats" were to decide the fight, then Sam would likely have lost.

Originally Posted by obloquy

And finally for good measure, I'll reiterate that Gandalf never broke a sweat in front of the Witch-King,

The Witch-King didn't break a sweat either, in case you forgot.

Originally Posted by obloquy

and nobody's ever been able to produce any piece of text or any compelling argument to indicate otherwise, whereas everything Tolkien ever wrote about Gandalf supports that he was far superior to the Nerd-King.

That's a load of bull. Essex alone has produced enough texts to show that Gandalf wouldn't have won with ease, and your opinion is drastically effecting what you see as a "compelling arguement." I still remember you manipulating a quote from the books in an attempt to mislead me a year ago, so forgive me if your credibility is not so good in my view.

As a last comment, once again, that's low as heck as to insult my signature and call me stupid for it.

[Boromir88]

I disagree with this hole notion of Sauron being 'stupid.' Sauron never was a general, a leader, or a fighter, but in no ways does that make him stupid. Sauron was a brilliant tactician, deceiver, manipulator, and powerful enemy.

Have you forgotten that with words alone Sauron sent Numenor spiralling into chaos and destruction?

Have you forgotten that the Ring's will (which was Sauron's) was so powerful that no one had the strength to destroy it:

At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist...~Letter 246

The Ring was ultimately destroyed because of Eru's intervention. The Ring's power was so strong no one had the strength of will to destroy it.

Have you forgotten Sauron's brilliant strategy when it came to the War of the ring? His strongest enemy was Gondor, so it was Gondor who he would focus most of his strength on. What does Sauron do, fill Denethor's mind with dread and despair sending Gondor's ruler to madness. To prevent other 'outside help' coming to Gondor's aid and prevent the 'great alliance' that was gathered against him at the end of the Second Age; he had effectively tied up all of Gondor's possible allies.

Rohan was Gondor's strongest ally, he corrupts Saruman and gets Saruman to keep Rohan busy. Saruman (with Grima's help) corrupts Theoden, sends Rohan to it's near destruction...It's not Sauron's fault Saruman couldn't get the job done and do what he was supposed to.

From Dol Guldur Sauron attacks Mirkwood, keeping them occupied.

He sends an Easterling force to Dale and Erebor to keep the Dwarves and men there occupied.

Orcs from Moria assault Lorien to keep them occupied.

Sauron's strategy was a brilliant one. He isolated his strongest enemy (Gondor) from outside help and kept Gondor's allies from uniting together into a strong alliance. The only wrinkle in the plan was Saruman was unable to deal with Rohan...which isn't Sauron's fault.

So, as obloquy correctly observes, it's not Sauron was stupid, he was unlucky. Sauron never was a fighter, he never was a general, that we know...that does not mean he was stupid. Looking from a military perspective what he did during the War of the Ring was a brilliant strategy.

You have to recognize the extraordinary circumstances that took place to cause Sauron's defeat. The Ring's destruction didn't happen because Sauron was a fool, no it happened because of intervention by Eru. As constantly made clear there was no hope of a military overthrow of Sauron...so Sauron could of spent as many troops as he needed to. Yet he still devised a tactical plan that isolated his strongest enemy and prevented the Free Peoples from making this 'grand alliance.'

I would also have to say Sauron was a very powerful individual considering this:

Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself.~Appendix B: Tale of Years, The Great Years.

Sauron obviously was powerful enough to overthrow the power that dwelt in Lorien. Which is no small feat considering Galadriel was the most powerful of the Noldor (save for Feanor).

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I disagree with this hole notion of Sauron being 'stupid.' Sauron never was a general, a leader, or a fighter, but in no ways does that make him stupid. Sauron was a brilliant tactician, deceiver, manipulator, and powerful enemy.

However, there is the major topic of the fight with Huan, and often times he played right into the hands of others. While he did have some smarts, he also failed to use them in critical moments, which makes him a rather odd character.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Have you forgotten that with words alone Sauron sent Numenor spiralling into chaos and destruction?

I am aware, but Numenor appeared on a bad track without Sauron's help. In my opinion, he just sped up the process, putting himself in the way of danger and giving the elves and the survivors the right to place the blame on him, making himself a major target. If he sat idly by (say, didn't arrogantly proclaim himself king of the world) when Numenor fell, the survivors and the elves would be more depressed and broken in will.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Have you forgotten that the Ring's will (which was Sauron's) was so powerful that no one had the strength to destroy it:

I am aware of that also, but I don't see a will as his brain as well. It just seemed to be his desires.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The Ring was ultimately destroyed because of Eru's intervention. The Ring's power was so strong no one had the strength of will to destroy it.

I know, but having power is not a sign of intelligence. He did have power, yes, but he made some awful blunders.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Have you forgotten Sauron's brilliant strategy when it came to the War of the ring? His strongest enemy was Gondor, so it was Gondor who he would focus most of his strength on.

I know of that, but he did not use enough strength. The Morgul host (even though Pippin did stir problems) was sent early, and Mordor certainly had enough power to crush Gondor whenever, yet he never lent it to the Witch-King or sent it out.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What does Sauron do, fill Denethor's mind with dread and despair sending Gondor's ruler to madness.

I do admit, that was a good maneuver. However, that still doesn't cover up his poor choices.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

To prevent other 'outside help' coming to Gondor's aid and prevent the 'great alliance' that was gathered against him at the end of the Second Age; he had effectively tied up all of Gondor's possible allies.

True, but time itself was tying them up also. The elves were much weaker of will and wanted to be by themselves or to travel to the West. They were not as critical as they were in past times. As easily seen in LOTR, the time of men had come, and the elves were shadows of the world.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Rohan was Gondor's strongest ally, he corrupts Saruman and gets Saruman to keep Rohan busy. Saruman (with Grima's help) corrupts Theoden, sends Rohan to it's near destruction...It's not Sauron's fault Saruman couldn't get the job done and do what he was supposed to.

That is true, but Saruman did not have much time or freedom to prepare. The hosts of Dol Guldur could have been used to help instead of being thrown against the isolated Lothlorien.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

From Dol Guldur Sauron attacks Mirkwood, keeping them occupied.

Yes, but the elves were quite isolated and rather weak-willed in that time, and the hosts of Dul Guldur would have been better-used to assault the elves only if they took action to help man. Keeping the elves busy was not as important as it might have been in the First or Second Age.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He sends an Easterling force to Dale and Erebor to keep the Dwarves and men there occupied.

I honestly don't recall that, but that does seem smart, seeing as how Erebor might be one of the few dwarven kingdoms not content to flee beneath their mountains, and Dale seems like it would quickly help Gondor.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Orcs from Moria assault Lorien to keep them occupied.

Well, like I said earlier, Lorien wasn't very interested in the world, so it wouldn't have taken that much attention to trouble them. The hosts that attacked Lorien may have been better off assisting the hosts that tried to do Saruman's work.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Sauron's strategy was a brilliant one. He isolated his strongest enemy (Gondor) from outside help and kept Gondor's allies from uniting together into a strong alliance. The only wrinkle in the plan was Saruman was unable to deal with Rohan...which isn't Sauron's fault.

Actually, more forces from Moria could have helped Saruman, and seeing as how it is implied that the Corsair forces could have won at the Pelenor, Rohan didn't turn out to be as mighty as it might have been.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, as obloquy correctly observes, it's not Sauron was stupid, he was unlucky. Sauron never was a fighter, he never was a general, that we know...that does not mean he was stupid.

I know that too. However, Sauron's brain failed him at the most critical of times over and over again, which seriously damages his image of being a wise and mighty foe.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Looking from a military perspective what he did during the War of the Ring was a brilliant strategy.

Not that brilliant, but some brain-power was used.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

You have to recognize the extraordinary circumstances that took place to cause Sauron's defeat The Ring's destruction didn't happen because Sauron was a fool, no it happened because of intervention by Eru. As constantly made clear there was no hope of a military overthrow of Sauron...so Sauron could of spent as many troops as he needed to. Yet he still devised a tactical plan that isolated his strongest enemy and prevented the Free Peoples from making this 'grand alliance.'

I know all of that. I am simply pointing out key flaws in his actions, and the key flaw in his plans was a sudden disinterest in locating the Ring once his wars began, as well as his severe arrogance as to the possibility of the Ring being destroyed. After Eru himself sank Numenor and split the world in two you'd think that at the very least he would have had some concern of divine intervention, even if it was a psychopath falling over. He also was dreadfully afraid of someone using the Ring against him, which is very confusing considering that his will would prevail over the weilder and they wouldn't be able to use its full force. Is it possible that he forgot its potency, could the Ring have been more easily mastered than one thought, or was this a plothole?

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Sauron obviously was powerful enough to overthrow the power that dwelt in Lorien. Which is no small feat considering Galadriel was the most powerful of the Noldor (save for Feanor).

I know that he was powerful, but his lack of brain-power was his major fault. While he could have caused Lothlorien to fall, he might have made a serious error or fail to use his power effectively, thereby causing him to fall instead.

Just because it could have happened, doesn't mean it would have happened.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Going back a bit to the original topic, what about Feanor? I doubt anyone in Middle Earth had a stronger will than he, but he was destroyed in the height of his glory by mere Balrogs .
As we hear, the will was not overthrown, but he was killed by phisycal means, namely a whip from another Balrog. If we go by the hypothesis that if you are strong in will you are inpregnable to physical hurt, how is this possible?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Save for possibly Eru or Tom, it isn't. Middle-Earth is odd and mysterious, but in the end if a guy with a powerful will gets his head cut off, he is dead. While the will of a person stands out, it does not grant them any extreme powers or immortality. Examples; Feanor died, Morgoth was defeated, Sauron was defeated, Thingol (who seemed pretty intent on those Silmarils at the time) was taken out by Dwarves, a balrog killed Glorfindel, Hurin was still taken captive, the Witch-King was taken out by Merry and Eyown, Frodo still suffered wounds, etc. Will is important, but not that effective.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

There was a letter I read from the early '50s wherein Tolkien makes no distinction between the two degrees which led me to believe that he had not fully fleshed out the topic at that point, but he may only have been simplifying the explanation for his correspondent.

Whilst I have no way of knowing which letter you meant, I've managed to track down some references to incarnation. The earliest I could find was from 1957, but I didn't go very far back into the 1940s; if the letter was earlier, then it probably remains to be found.

According to the mythology of these things... though of course a creature, [Sauron] belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it.

...

They were self-incarnated, if they wished; but their incarnate forms were more analogous to our clothes than to our bodies, except that they were more than are clothes the expression of their desires, moods, wills and functions.

...

After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the downfall of Númenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the realization of its imagination).

Extracts from letter #200, to Maj. R. Bowen, 25 June 1957

I give the comments on Sauron's re-incarnation after the War of the Last Alliance since I believe it may be of some interest in this debate, particularly since it has a bearing on the respective places of will, spirit and body in Tolkien's cosmogony.

It was because of their love of Eä, and because of the part they had played in its making, that they wished to, and could, incarnate themselves in visible physical forms, though these were comparable to our clothes (in so far as our clothes are a personal expression) not to our bodies. Their forms were thus an expression of their persons, powers, and loves. They need not be anthropomorphic (Yavanna wife* of Aulë would, for instance, appear in the form of a great Tree.) But the 'habitual' shapes of the Valar, when visible or clothed, were anthropomorphic, because of their intense concern with Elves and Men.

[Tolkien's footnote given below]

* It is the view of the Myth that in (say) Elves and Men 'sex' is only an expression in physical or biological terms of a difference of nature in the 'spirit', not the ultimate cause of the difference between femininity and masculinity.

Letter #212 to Rhona Beare. Draft continuation of Letter #211 (14 October, 1958)

These two expressions of the relationship between the naturally discarnate and their bodies seem to spring from a concept that had found its way into the Silmarillion material as early as the late 1930s, albeit in a very inchoate and undeveloped form.

But others, and among them were many of the wisest and fairest of the Ainur, craved leave of Ilúvatar to enter into the world and dwell there, and put on the form and raiment of Time...

Now the Ainur that came into the world took shape and form, such even as have the Children of Ilúvatar who were born of the world; but their shape and form is greater and more lovely and it comes of the knowledge and desire of the substance of the world rather than of that substance itself, and it cannot always be perceived, though they be present. And some of them, therefore, took form and temper as of female and some as of male.

HoME V, The Lost Road and Other Writings. Ainulindalë.

Footnote 19 to p. 162 of my 1993 HarperCollins paperback edition ends with the statement: "This is the first statement in my father's writings concerning the 'physical' (or rather 'perceptible') form of the Valar, and the meaning of gender as applied to them."

I only give the HoME reference since it appears to mark a terminus post quem for Tolkien's thoughts on incarnation. It would appear that a kernel of his ideas concerning the spirit and the body existed prior to the composition of LR and that it developed significantly during the writing of this work.

I must apologise in advance if the following veers too far off-topic. Debate continued in the thread that gave rise to this one, but remained as off-topic for Movies as before. I've therefore decided to respond here to various points related to this debate so as to allow that thread to get back on track.

Originally Posted by Saucie

But isn't that rather the point being made in this discussion? That, regardless of the relative "power" of the combatants, there is always remains the possibility that "circumstances" will allow the weaker to prevail. In any confrontation, it is not a foregone conclusion that the higher in relative (natural) power will gain the victory.

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand. The most extreme example of the weaker apparently overcoming the strong is surely Frodo's destruction of the Ring, which unbodies a Maia to the extent that he cannot re-form his hröa. Of this action, Tolkien had the following to say.

There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story.

...

But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

Extracts from Letter #191 (draft) to Miss J. Burne (emphasis mine).

It seems clear to me that Tolkien meant characters like Frodo to be reliant in the end on divine providence, as enabled by their own virtuous actions, for which we need an evil that cannot be resisted. The idea that W-K could expect the same sort of help against Gandalf seems to me quite unlikely.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But in the context of the work, lack of victory would have made all ennoblement equal to zero. If they failed, there won't be any noble or sanctified beings - you cannot divide these two.

But that would be to argue that the physical world is the only meaningful plain of existence in Eä, which it clearly isn't. Tolkien is quite clear that the soul has an existence separate from the body and a life that outlasts it; therefore every spiritual development has meaning even, one might say especially, after death. In any case, the unqualified statement that failure will result in no noble or sanctified beings cannot possibly be true: the Valar are sanctified and noble beings, as are the Eldar in Aman. Besides, in Tolkien's model of courage nobility is valuable irrespective of its success in material terms, as I pointed out in my last post on the Movies thread.

Originally Posted by me

Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies

Originally Posted by Raynor

Aren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue?

No, and the two examples I gave on the other thread ought to have clarified my point beyond misunderstanding. Whilst to overturn something is to affect it dramatically, one can affect something dramatically without overturning or defeating it. The key word here is unassisted: Frodo and Sam are aided in their quest by most of the warriors of Middle-earth at one time or another; Merry comes by his sword with the assistance of Tom Bombadil, and he and Éowyn assist one another in the destruction of the Witch-King. Unassisted also carries the deliberate qualification that Eru's interference can be traced throughout the victories against the odds in LR.

The involvement of Eru in the victories of the weak is not a puppet show. The mercy inherent in assistance is earned only by supreme resistance to evil and overwhelming courage, and Tolkien's whole approach to the issue is designed to underline the idea that Providence cannot simply be relied upon, but manifests itself when strength has been exhausted in its service. The relationship between providence and free will has been debated in English since the language first existed, and T.A. Shippey refers to Alfred the Great's addition to his translation of De Consolatione Philosophiae (an excellent starting point) in his own examination of the theme in LR. To be brief, Alfred wrote:

Ac ðæt ðætte we hatað Godes foreþonc ond his forsceawung, þæt bið þa hwile þe hit ðær mid him bið on his mode ær ðæm þe hit gefremede weorðe, þa hwile ðe hit geþoht bið. Ac siððan hit fullfremed bið, þonne hatað we hit "wyrd"

But that which we call God's providence and his foresight, that exists as long as it is there with Him in His mind before it is brought about, as long as it is thought about. But when it is accomplished, then we call it "fate".

Alfred, froforboc (De Consolatione Philosophiae), ch. 39 (my translation)

But 'fate' is an imperfect translation of OE wyrd. Shippey argues that a better one would be "luck", saying:

People can 'change their luck', and can in a way say 'No' to divine Providence, though of course if they do they have to stand by the consequences of their decision. In Middle-earth, one may say, Providence or the Valar sent the dream that took Boromir to Rivendell. But they sent it first and most often to Faramir, who would no doubt have been a better choice. It was human decision, or human perversity, which led to Boromir claiming the journey, with what chain of ill-effects and casualties no one can tell. 'Luck', then, is a continuous interplay of providence and free will, a blending of so many factors that the mind cannot disentangle them...

The Road to Middle-earth, 3rd ed. p.173.

The point being that in this as in other great philosophical questions, Tolkien had found a middle ground that gave equal importance to both extremes. I think that it demeans his subtlety to suggest that a story in which the good must give credit to their creator for their victories on his behalf (he says in Letter #183 that "[The conflict] is about God, and His sole right to divine honour") is in some way a meaningless parade of automata.

Originally Posted by me

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But this is a strawman of my argument.

Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum of your argument that "Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong." As far as I can see this says quite clearly that the weak can destroy something which is not indestructible, and my analogy was simply provided to demonstrate how something can be beyond the powers of the weak to defeat (the weak in my example being me and the strong Dover Castle) without being indestructible. If the original argument has proven to be a straw man I did not make it so.

Originally Posted by me

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT

Originally Posted by Raynor

Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.

Whilst you are quite welcome to do so, Raynor, you might wish to consider another post of mine on the subject, which is based on the arguments of the very critics to whom Mr. Abrahamsen refers. With all due respect to the Valar Guild, they have yet to be acknowledged as an authority on Germanic philology; and with all due respect to Mr. Abrahamsen, a degree in English/American studies and Rhetoric from the University of Wisconsin in Madison does not equip one to comment on the finer points of Old English semantics. Nor does it trump the PhD and Chair held by Helmut Gneuss, who mentions the interpretation given in Abrahamsen's essay precisely never in his exhaustive semantic analysis of the word ofermod. The nearest any commentator appears to have got to an interpretation 'supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form' is Professor J. B. Bessinger's vague description of the term as 'a traditional heroic fault'. In any case this entire point is redundant, since Abrahamsen (or should I call him 'Dreamlord'?) only mentions this supposed meaning of ofermod in the introduction to an argument which accepts Tolkien's view, supported by Gneuss' later work, that the word means 'pride', specifically sinful pride or Latin superbia. The entirety of his approach to Túrin and Fëanor is based on this negative interpretation, and he throws in his rather clumsy reference to the vast body of research on ofermod in acknowledgement of a wider debate, of which he says himself "This is obviously not the place to settle that linguistic difference of opinion."

Of course, I'm no more than an apprentice philologist, but I think you'll find me a more reliable source in this instance than Wikipedia.

[Raynor]

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand.

However, the divine always has a hand, as seen in Manwe's vision from the Silmarillion, or from Tolkien's notes in the Athrabeth. The question is whether this 'hand' significantly reduces, or if it nulifies, the value of the weak's contribution to victory. I hold that it doesn't.

In any case, the unqualified statement that failure will result in no noble or sanctified beings cannot possibly be true: the Valar are sanctified and noble beings, as are the Eldar in Aman.

My position is that in a complete reign of evil there exists no free will, and therefore no ennoblement or sanctification. The same would be true for Arda if evil wins, or for any extent of this hypothetical reign - Ea or beyond it.

Whilst to overturn something is to affect it dramatically, one can affect something dramatically without overturning or defeating it.

I disagree that a policy which is 'dramatically affected' remains the same or can produce the same effects as initially.

The mercy inherent in assistance is earned only by supreme resistance to evil and overwhelming courage

If I understand you correctly, you presume that divine internvetion occurs only when it is earned. I know of no such principle in Tolkien's work. Eru acts according to his own plans; "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves" (Athrabeth).

my analogy was simply provided to demonstrate how something can be beyond the powers of the weak to defeat (the weak in my example being me and the strong Dover Castle) without being indestructible.

However, this discussion is about confronting another person, not an object. I don't want to venture into other analogies, however possible or impossible they may seem.

I think you'll find me a more reliable source in this instance than Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was not my source, not that it matters. You should look at the very post you yourself linked, since among the meanings appears "great, high courage", "great courage", which is similar to what I quoted, and which refutes your previous statement that "in no way does [ofermode] equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT".

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Going back a bit to the original topic, what about Feanor? I doubt anyone in Middle Earth had a stronger will than he, but he was destroyed in the height of his glory by mere Balrogs .
As we hear, the will was not overthrown, but he was killed by phisycal means, namely a whip from another Balrog. If we go by the hypothesis that if you are strong in will you are inpregnable to physical hurt, how is this possible?

I think my use of the word "will" may be misunderstood. In my post above, I call spiritual power "will" because it is a clearer term than "power." I explained it there, but I do not mind going over it again here. In Tolkien, creatures whose nature is immaterial are described as "great" or "powerful." The nature of this greatness and power is vague: for example, how can "great" mean merely large, or how can "powerful" mean merely strong? Certainly the spiritual stature of an eala translates into these and other (physical) parameters when they take on corporeal shape, but these beings are great and powerful on the spiritual plane first and foremost, meaning that the terms defining their stature are not only relevant of embodied ealar. So we have to consider what this power might mean in a metaphysical sense, which I have defined as the force of will. When not embodied physically, a contest between two beings involves the clash of their wills, one finally overcoming the other. Tolkien put this event into human terms when he described the Music. Sound is produced and perpetuated by physical means and is thus a phenomenon native to the physical plane; the "Music of the Ainur" must therefore be a name applied to some metaphysical interplay of wills, which was experienced by the Ainur as one of the Children experiences music. Melkor's voice (again, a human term applied to something else) overpowered the others and created discord, the effect of which was disharmony in the physical manifestation of that "music."

The hypothesis is not that spiritual power results in invulnerability. The idea expounded above is that this overpowering will on the spiritual plane translates into a mastery over the physical: not only the physical material that comprises the body of the eala, but also, evidently, that which he wishes to exert power over, such as electricity, fire, water, doors, weapons. This means that in order for a powerful embodied spirit to be in physical danger, he must be confronted by a being with a greater mastery of the physical--that is, a being with a more powerful spirit. So no, of course Gandalf was not invulnerable. Neither was the Balrog, though it was, in Gandalf's words, "a foe beyond any of [the Fellowship]."

Originally Posted by 1,000 Reader

Save for possibly Eru or Tom, it isn't.

Why might it be possible for Eru? According to you and Essex, spiritual power has nothing to do with physical vulnerability. So, God or not, if someone sneaked up on Eru and planted a dagger in his heart while he was sleeping, he would be toast. If you would like to propose an exception for Eru you are going to need an argument to back it up. How, exactly, might Eru's physical manifestation be fundamentally different from other embodied spirits?

Why might it be possible for Tom? I would really love to see some support for this suggestion. Even if you could make a case for Tom being invulnerable, which you cannot, you would not be able to claim that his invulnerability was an exception to nature's law rather than evidence of its functioning as I have outlined.

Originally Posted by 1,000 Reader

Middle-Earth is odd and mysterious, but in the end if a guy with a powerful will gets his head cut off, he is dead. While the will of a person stands out, it does not grant them any extreme powers or immortality...Will is important, but not that effective.

You wholly misunderstand the topic post.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

However, the divine always has a hand, as seen in Manwe's vision from the Silmarillion, or from Tolkien's notes in the Athrabeth. The question is whether this 'hand' significantly reduces, or if it nulifies, the value of the weak's contribution to victory. I hold that it doesn't.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes and that we agree on this point. I argued in my posts in Movies that the divine will is essential to victory, but I have also argued that this does not nullify the actions of the 'good' or the 'weak'. Eru is absolutely central to LR:

The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person to be an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-king, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

Letter #183: Notes on W.H. Auden's review of The Return of the King (c.1956)

Since Eru is central to the entire question it makes sense that he would support those who remained faithful to him in their struggle. However, since Morgoth had corrupted the very substance of Arda they fought at a disadvantage, their inherent qualities being insufficient to victory. They are therefore reliant on divine intervention for ultimate victory, but this does not devalue their struggle, in fact it lends it nobility. Their only source of hope in their battle is estel ('trust'); like Andreth they have no recourse to amdir, which would be supported by the knowledge of greater strength or ultimate victory.

The second author's note to the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth stresses the great importance of estel to the Eldar:

[The Elves] knew themselves to be limited by Arda; but the length of its existence they do not seem to have known. Possibly the Valar did not know. More probably they were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

HME X. Athrabeth, p.338.

What the Athrabeth makes abundantly clear is that belief in Eru and trust in Him are the two most important qualities, in fact the only two qualities demanded of the Children of Ilúvatar; but it also makes clear that these were the most difficult qualities to sustain in Arda Marred. Significantly the major factor in Gandalf's strategy against Sauron is estel: the hope that something will turn up; the trust in Providence.

I further suggested that free will and divine intervention must meet one another half-way. In both of these points I am supported by Tolkien, as luck would have it in the same letter. As seems so often to be the case, it concerns Frodo and the pivotal moment at the Sammath Naur.

...we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of its limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached. [Tolkien continues in a footnote]: No account is here taken of 'grace' or the enhancement of our powers as instruments of Providence. Frodo was given 'grace': first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete surrender; and later in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his endurance of fear and suffering. But grace is not infinite, and for the most part seems in the Divine economy limited to what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task appointed to one instrument in a pattern of circumstances and other instruments. [End of footnote]

Nonetheless I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' situations: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world - in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking point.

Letter #246: to Mrs. Eileen Elgar (drafts). September, 1963.

Frodo has succeeded because he was lent 'grace': his inherent powers were amplified by divine will so that he could succeed in his quest; but even in this letter, Tolkien is walking a tightrope between Providence and free will, because he makes the amount of divine assistance only make up the difference between the power required to do something and the chosen instrument's inherent ability to do it. If Frodo had fallen short of his utmost powers, the grace appointed to him would have been insufficient, and his quest would have failed.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My position is that in a complete reign of evil there exists no free will, and therefore no ennoblement or sanctification. The same would be true for Arda if evil wins, or for any extent of this hypothetical reign - Ea or beyond it.

You seem to be suggesting that Sauron or Morgoth can institute a complete reign of evil if successful. Are you sure that this is possible in Tolkien's universe? Surely for that to happen Absolute Evil, with which Tolkien denied having any dealings, would have to establish absolute power over Arda in despite of Eru, which your own quotation from the Athrabeth ("He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves") refutes. What Tolkien meant in this quotation is, I think, that no individual is capable of preventing the fulfillment of Eru's will, not that an individual cannot refuse Providence. Providence is the assistance received in the struggle to fulfill the divine will as its instrument, such as was granted to Frodo as described in Tolkien's letter quoted above. Providence can always find another instrument, just as the refusal of Faramir's dream, and the replacement of him with Boromir still results in the reduction of Sauron. How matters would have transpired had Providence been heeded no-one can tell.

Furthermore, given its context and the general tone of the Athrabeth, I should say that this quotation also suggests that no-one can wrest Arda from Eru's ultimate authority. At another point, Finrod says:

'... Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him.

'More: even if Melkor (or the Morgoth that he has become) could in any way be thrown down or thrust from Arda, still his Shadow would remain, and the evil that he has wrought an sown as a seed would wax and multiply. And if any remedy for this is to be found, ere all is ended, any new light to oppose the shadow, or any medicine for the wounds: then it must, I deem, come from without.'

HME X, Athrabeth, p. 322

Tolkien himself once wrote to his son during the Second World War:

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'... All we know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general and so it is in our own lives.

Letter #64 to Christopher Tolkien, 30 April 1944. Emphasis mine

So nobility and sanctity are always important, if not vital, even in defeat. Moreover, Eru is considered capable of himself entering Arda to fight Melkor for control of it. In any case I just can't see how even Morgoth could rob another spirit of its free will, which is an inherent part of its nature as laid down by Eru. Even he has to resort to trickery and manipulation to get characters to do his will.

Wikipedia was not my source, not that it matters. You should look at the very post you yourself linked, since among the meanings appears "great, high courage", "great courage", which is similar to what I quoted, and which refutes your previous statement that "in no way does [ofermode] equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT".

I'm sorry for suggesting that. I lost my temper. Yes, I did miss that interpretation, which has indeed been put forward and quoted by Gneuss in his article. Then again, it appears at the beginning, where Gneuss identifies meanings that editors and other interpreters have put forward as a prelude to his main argument. That argument thoroughly refutes any such interpretation, since it reveals that it is not supported by linguistic evidence, only personal feelings about a text's meaning. Even were this not so, I would argue that "great, high courage" and "great courage" are not "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", which is far more eulogistic even than that already insupportably positive meaning. Similarity is not enough in this field; only exact correspondence of meaning will do, owing to the different nuances of meaning that two phrases invariably offer. As it happens, 'great courage' is the least supportable meaning for ofermod anyway, since the only evidence for it is a gut feeling that the Maldon poet would not have applied a term implying sinfulness to the hero of his work. As you will have noticed from the rest of my post, in all other situations in which the word occurs it does not mean 'courage', 'great courage', even 'over-courage' (in Old English ofer- is a prefix that denotes excess), but 'pride'. The sinful pride of Satan or the impenitent sinner. This is the interpretation that has the most linguistic evidence behind it, although it is still not a closed matter.

"Supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form" goes beyond the tenuous evidence and into the realms of fiction. Rico Abrahamsen has no qualifications in the field of Old English literature, and the chances are that he misremembered some old criticism or outdated research. Certainly he gives no citation, which is absolutely vital even if one makes no more than a vague reference to the Anglo-Saxonist equivalent of the Balrog wings debate. Without a reference to follow up, I can't respond to an argument, only a statement that is clearly not based on a full understanding of the issue, so my exasperation with the argument falls entirely on Abrahamsen's undeserving head. He did after all admit that the debate about ofermod was not an appropriate discussion for his paper, and the whole matter is a side-issue to his arguments.

The idea that ofermod can be used as shorthand for the Northern heroic theory of courage has no currency or validity whatsoever. This is what I meant by the phrase 'in no way does it equate to': if a word equates to an idea then they are interchangeable, and the one may stand for the other. Ofermod was never used in that way during the Anglo-Saxon period, and it has never been so used by any modern scholar. Since the theory itself is not widely known outside medieval literary studies, I'll give a very brief synopsis.

One of the most important themes identified by scholars in Anglo-Saxon poetry, a theme which extends beyond England throughout the Germanic world, is a particular approach to martial courage which is taken to be uniquely northern. In one introduction to the idea, Catherine O'Brien O'Keefe wrote:

The ethos of heroic life pervades Old English literature, marking its conventions, imagery and values. The touchstone of that life - as represented in Old English literature at least - is the vital relationship between retainer and lord, whose binding virtue is loyalty. Continuing loyalty is ensured in the lord's giving of treasure. Through gifts of worth, a lord enhances both his own reputation and that of his retainer, and he lays upon his man the obligation of future service. In the transaction of the gift, the object given - ring, armour, horse or weapon - becomes the material reminder of the retainer's reciprocal obligation, when war service or vengeance is required.

Katherine O'Brien O'Keefe: 'Heroic Values and Christian Ethics' in Godden and Lapidge ed. The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1998). pp. 107-8.

This idea of reciprocal loyalty and obligation runs through the whole corpus of Old English literature. Its phraseology and imagery are adopted into Christian works such as Andreas and Genesis B, into riddles and maxims from the Liber Exoniensis and into elegiac poems such as The Wanderer; and Tolkien followed W.P. Ker in singling out The Battle of Maldon as exemplary of the concept. At its most pronounced, the northern heroic theory of courage could demand retainers' very lives in defending or avenging their lord, but this sacrifice would always be bound up in the giving and receiving of gifts and reciprocal responsibility. Hence Tolkien says of it

The words of Beorhtwald [in The Battle of Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will. The poem as a whole has been called 'the only purely heroic poem extant in Old English'. Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put in the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards, only loyalty upwards.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: Ofermod in Tree and Leaf (HarperCollins, 2001).

This was not a theory that was necessarily put into practice, but it does form a key element in the Anglo-Saxon literary world-view: the idea that heroic conduct is bound up in concepts of mutual loyalty and responsibility between fighting men. This is the Northern Theory of Courage: loyalty to the absolute limit of endurance and beyond, but carrying so many cultural overtones that one word could never sum it up. There can never be an equality of meaning between this concept and a single word of Old English, although many of them are directly related to it. Certainly if there were such a correspondance it would not be one that carries the negative connotations of ofermod; and all of the linguistic evidence points to it having this negative sense, no matter how many others it may also possess. When it comes to Tolkien, though, there is even less excuse for formulating such an equation. Tolkien flat-out stated that ofermod means 'pride':

To fela means in Old English idiom that no ground at all should have been conceded. And ofermod does not mean 'overboldness', not even if we give full value to the ofer, remembering how strongly the taste and wisdom of the English (whatever their actions) rejected 'excess'... But mod, though it may contain or imply courage, does not mean 'boldness', any more than Middle English corage. It means 'spirit', or when unqualified 'high spirit', of which the most usual manifestation is pride. But in ofer-mod it is qualified, with disapproval: ofermod is in fact always a word of condemnation. In verse the noun occurs only twice, once applied to Beorhtnoth, and once to Lucifer.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: ofermod (Tree and Leaf, footnote to p.146

Whatever the word and the theory respectively mean, to Tolkien ofermod (ofermode is the dative form, and the convention is to use nominatives when discussing words) meant 'pride' and the Northern Heroic theory of courage was exemplified by a man in whom pride was at its lowest. There is no way that he would conflate these two ideas in his writings, and I can think of no instance in which he does.

obloquy: These are great points; but if we take the speculations of the Athrabeth to their logical conclusion, the Elves and some of the Edain hold to some belief in the incarnation of Eru. Tolkien seems to have been unhappy with the obvious connection with the Christian story of the incarnation of Christ, but the parallels are striking. Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ? Would he have to obey the same physical laws as all inhabitants of Arda if he came into his own creation? The Athrabeth points out that Eru would need to be at once inside and outside Arda, thus being divided and presumably reduced in potency in the incarnate form; so it bears consideration that perhaps Eru incarnate could be stabbed in the back and physically killed.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Squatter

in fact the only two qualities demanded of the Children of Ilúvatar

I would agree with that, as long as the first quality, belief in Him, implies all the universe of moral values and actions.

Originally Posted by Squatter

he makes the amount of divine assistance only make up the difference between the power required to do something and the chosen instrument's inherent ability to do it.

I can only agree with this argument on the base that Eru has omniscience and knew in fact what will be the necessary amount of grace. However, I believe that a more accurate interpretation would be that Eru grants grace as the current circumstances require, and not more or for anything else (that is, grace is not established apriori at a fixed amount, if we can so speak). As we both have argued and quoted, He would not be deprived of his Children, no matter their shortfallings.

Originally Posted by Squatter

You seem to be suggesting that Sauron or Morgoth can institute a complete reign of evil if successful.

Yes. This is "theoretically" possible, since Gandalf states that:

Originally Posted by Last Debate, RotK

If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts.

You yourself have quoted that if Sauron won, he would have demanded absolute power over the world; also at the last debate, it is made clear that through military power Sauron cannot be defeated. So, while Sauron is not Absolute Evil (as stated in the letters), he could have, strictly military speaking, won.

Originally Posted by Squatter

if a word equates to an idea then they are interchangeable

I would express my reserve, although I have close to zero qualification in this field. In many languages, many words can have not one, but more, different meanings, a good amount of them dependant on the context. However, I will accept your interpretation and I will apologise in my turn for bringing it up, by presuming in the other thread that it was ofermode you had in mind.

Originally Posted by Squatter

Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ?

I wouldn't agree. I don't think he would require an embodiment; even the Valar have the ability to work many things with thought, rather than hand (cf Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor), and they may also send messages (as does Olorin, who sends fair visions, or promptings of wisdom, cf Valaquenta). Even so, there are examples of substances which cannot be destroyed, such as those of the halls of Mandos. All in all, it all comes down to power, of which Eru would have, arguably, in unlimited supply at an instant disposal, and he can, at least from outside, influence events to His own ends.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why might it be possible for Eru? According to you and Essex, spiritual power has nothing to do with physical vulnerability. So, God or not, if someone sneaked up on Eru and planted a dagger in his heart while he was sleeping, he would be toast. If you would like to propose an exception for Eru you are going to need an argument to back it up. How, exactly, might Eru's physical manifestation be fundamentally different from other embodied spirits?

Eru is the omnipotent creator of Middle-Earth, and his power is limitless. He is also the highest form of life in all ways in Tolkien's works, and we barely know anything about him. He created the Valar, sank Numenor, and is supposed to destroy Arda and purge it of Morgoth's will, and then remake it into a paradise. With such power, his will alone could likely grant invincibility to any physical form he takes, seeing as how he is so mighty.

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why might it be possible for Tom? I would really love to see some support for this suggestion. Even if you could make a case for Tom being invulnerable, which you cannot, you would not be able to claim that his invulnerability was an exception to nature's law rather than evidence of its functioning as I have outlined.

Tolkien wrote very little of Tom Bombadil other than the sheer power he held, his personality, and that he was an enigma. He is a complete mystery, yet we know that he has total mastery of the area he lives in, can easily take out Barrow-Wights, and was totally uneffected by the One Ring, showing that he possesses great strength in his spirit and will. As you yourself probably know, countless fans are puzzled by Tom Bombadil and constantly wonder what his nature is or where he came from. The reason Tom's will alone might be able to render him impervious to harm is because all that is known of him is that he has great power. He could be tougher than steel or as weak as grass; nobody knows, but he could be either.

Originally Posted by obloquy

You wholly misunderstand the topic post.

The topic is about power in Middle-Earth, and I've said that will is important but not
that important. How is that a misunderstanding? With the defeat of characters like Feanor by Gothmog and Thingol by the dwarves, will is clearly not all that matters in Tolkien's world. Gandalf and the Balrog fought each other with magic, but in the end it was the Balrog falling off an edge and hitting the side of the mountain that ultimately killed it.