The Gift of Speech

[Mithalwen]

Perhaps not in general - but for me specifically maybe... my reply was intended as a personal response not a definitive statement. Mabe it is my increasing cynicism or a fascination with psychology that leads me to prefer this scenario - especially in the case of Turin. Nevertheless I have always found this one of the most powerful moments in the opus - and one of the most memorable - even though I don't feel it was literally the sword speaking.

[mark12_30]

"Only I hear the stones lament them: 'Deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us, but they are gone.' They are gone. They sought the havens long ago."

Are we accusing Legolas of a fevered imagination here? I'll buy Saucie's argument rather.

[burrahobbit]

Poetic and fevered are a bit different.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Perhaps not in general - but for me specifically maybe... I don't feel it was literally the sword speaking.

This is redolent of an argument that I have seen put forward to the effect that parts of The Hobbit (Stone Giants for example) were the result of Bilbo's over-active imagination.

What I don't understand is how proponents of this perspective can, in the context of a fantasy novel, accept that certain fantasy elements exist while needing to find a 'real life' explanation for others.

It's a fantasy world ...

[Mithalwen]

I would not put it as strongly as a fevered imagination - more a knowledge of the history of the place and a sensitivity to it . But if I think that the stones were speaking then I would say no. But this is my feeling .... I don't think it is a "right or wrong" issue. Just a question of how far you suspend your disbelief.

[Mithalwen]

This was a cross post but I think it still holds. And I am not arguing anything as such just saying my feeling about it - I an not forcing anyone to agree with it. But sice I am attacked for illogicality, I would say that , as someone who in general does not read fantasy books other than LOTR (and Pratchett though I see him more as a socio-political commentator who happens to use a created world for his setting cf Butler and Erewhon), one of the reasons that I love Middle Earth is that it is that Tolkien strived to make it coherent and to reconcile anomalies in the creation, eg Glorfindel. I suppose I prefer the explanations that gel with the "laws" of the created universe rather than say "it is fantasy, roll with it" . Also I feel that there is a sense in which the Silmarillion tales are "mythicised" and the Hobbit is "fairytale" whereas LOTR is history/documentary........... OK I am illogical ignore me....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But sice I am attacked for illogicality ...

Oh, but I'm not attacking you, Mithalwen. And I am the first to defend people's rights to their opinions (well, most opinions anyway). I am simply trying to understand your position, which I must admit to finding somewhat illogical. It seems to me that if one starts to question the veracity of matters that are presented as facts in a fantasy tale, then the question arises: where do you draw the line?

Taken to its extreme, this approach would have us dismissing both The Hobbit and LotR as the crazed ramblings of a few insane Hobbits. But then Hobbits are fantasy creatures, so where would that leave us ...?

I suppose I prefer the explanations that gel with the "laws" of the created universe rather than say "it is fantasy, roll with it" .

Well, I did offer some explanations that I feel work within the context of the world presented to us by Tolkien.

Also I feel that there is a sense in which the Silmarillion tales are "mythicised" and the Hobbit is "fairytale" whereas LOTR is history/documentary...

I can understand that as a reaction to their differing styles. But all three books are set in the same world, and they are very much inter-connected, particularly The Hobbit and LotR but also the Silm with both of them. So I do feel that, if one is to be treated as presenting the 'facts' about a particular period in Middle-earth's history, then the others should (in the absence of any inconsistencies) be treated in similar fashion.

Ulp! This is beginning to sound too much like an entry on the dreaded C-thread. I'd best stop before any of the other regulars catch on.

[burrahobbit]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The Hobbit and LotR but also the Silm with both of them. So I do feel that, if one is to be treated as presenting the 'facts' about a particular period in Middle-earth's history, then the others should (in the absence of any inconsistencies) be treated in similar fashion.

Truly, but there do seem to be certain inconsistencies, in relation to each other and with the Real World that they are explicitly set in, though in a fictional and more magical time period. In the real Real World swords don't talk. How can the two be reconciled? The certain strived for "realness" and the pure fantasy of talking things? A reasonable idea or two has come up in the topic (houseless spirits) but there are some others that could be put forward (see THE DRUEDAIN in UT).

noncomprehensive list of Things that talked:
eagles
thrush
gurthang
Ring
spiders
fox (thought)
trolls
William's purse
orcs

You may think that orcs is a strange addition to that list, but it goes right to the point of the topic. What is it that let's a Thing talk?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boroughobbit ;)

In the real Real World swords don't talk.

No, but cars do.

What is it that let's a Thing talk?

But we must first establish the nature of the Thing. Does it have sentience or is it a mere automaton programmed to respond in a certain way in specified circumstance (like a computer)?

I would regard Aghan's Faithful Stone (and William Huggins' purse for that matter) as falling in the latter category. But Gurthang appears to display a sentience that is independent of the one who made it.

The again, perhaps Eol had developed the craft of creating Artificial Intelligence.