No Living Man

[narfforc]

It is the prophecy of Glorfindel that is misleading, what we are all looking for is him to say "Not by the hand of A man will he fall", therein lies the confusion , Man is not Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Troll, Istari, Ent etc (Hobbits are deemed to be of the family of men, as are the Druedain), Should Glorfindel have said: "Only by the hand of a female of the race of Man will he fall" , then we would all be happy. Man can mean the whole race, A man is male. When Glorfindel speaks the prophecy is he thinking that Man is too weak to destroy this being, is he wrong, was he thinking of Man at the time of The Battle of Fornost or Man for all time?, not all prophecy comes true.

"Remember that the mirror shows many things, and not all have yet come to pass. Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them.

Fate in this sense cannot be written in stone, what Glorfindel did not say is as important as what he did

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Should Glorfindel have said: "Only by the hand of a female of the race of Man will he fall" , then we would all be happy. Man can mean the whole race, A man is male.

*Imagines* "Only by the hand of a midget wielding some old rusty blade will he fall!" prophesied Glorfindel.

Hello guys (and gals)!
I might point out that to be entirely technical: the sword itself is instrumental to WK's downfall.

So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westerness. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdown when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

It remains to be questioned what did Glorfindel meant when he said the WK will "fall"? "Fall" can also be explained as drop. And Lo! Did he fall when that little knee-stabber struck!

So as not to split hairs, I suggest that we do not take the prophesy literally...

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Hey, it was Merry and the Barrow Sword that killed him, not Eowyn.

And while Hobbits are related more closely to men than elves or dwarves, they aren't men. Eowyn is a woman, but she's of the race of men.

Merry killed him. Tolkien was pretty damn descriptive, Merry's blade unraveled the sinews of his existence. Then Eowyn practically drove her blade into thin air (as opposed to phantom face).

He was already falling apart at the seams when she stabbed him, she just sped up the process a little bit, with some extra damage.

Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."

He LITERALLY fell because Merry stabbed his knee. Anyway, Glorfindel didn't really say "Not by the hand of man will he die." Just fall. And Merry did just that, knocked him down.

And anyway, I can't actually remember any instance of the quote from the movie;

The one who they say can't be killed by the hands of any living man.

So, it's a moot point.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

I just realised that it is difficult to understand how old Witchking just fall like that. To be precise, observe:

There were nine Ringwraiths during the attack on Weathertop. All nine escaped unscathed. But look at the situation:

At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard himself crying aloud: O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! At the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder.

Same kind of sword, same race of hobbit, different results.

Frodo probably missed... Which is extremely ironic: considering the fact that if he did strike, the story could probably have ended a few chapters earlier...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Ironic indeed, Crispy. You've made me laugh. But I like the line of thought that Keeper has shown: by the hand of a hobbit did the Wikkie fall. By the combined hands of a hobbit and a woman did he actually "die" (sort of... you know. )

So, like we've been discussing, Glorfindel's prophecy

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."

is kind of... loopholed. Very open to changes. Example: what would have happened if a crow (they like shiny things) had swiped Merry's sword and, finding it too heavy, dropped it as it was flying over the Witchking's head? Not by the hand of man... it's by the claw of a bird, that the Witchking would be stabbed. Entertaining notion, yes?

And at this point, we aren't really worried about pure and simple death, because as we've been shown, bad guys never seem to actually die. But if Glorfi's prophecy was so open to interpretation, wouldn't there be a chance for the Dead Army to swarm him like they did to that poor innocent Oliphaunt in the movies?

Fea

PS: yes, I am dogging the Dead Army. It's my thread and I can.

[Aiwendil]

Feanor of the Peredhil wrote:

is kind of... loopholed. Very open to changes. Example: what would have happened if a crow (they like shiny things) had swiped Merry's sword and, finding it too heavy, dropped it as it was flying over the Witchking's head? Not by the hand of man... it's by the claw of a bird, that the Witchking would be stabbed. Entertaining notion, yes?

I must say that this line of inquiry seems pointless to me. Glorfindel made a statement about what would happen, not what could happen. In the event, that statement turned out to be true. I don't understand what a "loophole" is in the context of such a statement, nor why he would want to avoid them.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

I see it as quite possible that Glorfindel's "prophecy" came to the Witch-King's attention and that he misinterpreted it as a condition rather than an instance of foresight.

Actually, once the prophecy has been made, presuming that everyone agrees it is true, it seems to me that there is no difference between condition and foresight. If Glorfindel has made the prophecy, then the Witch-king knows that he will not be killed by a living man. The reason people get confused by this is, I think, that to state it that way is to reverse the causality. Properly, one might say that if the Witch-king was killed by a living man, Glorfindel would not have made the prophecy.

The confusion that so often surrounds this prophecy is, I think, the same as the confusion that surrounds the issue of the "counterfactual" in philosophy of meaning and philosophy of science. It is my opinion that you get into trouble anytime you closely consider a statement of the form "if X had happened then Y" when in fact X did not happen.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally stated by Aiwendil

I don't understand what a "loophole" is in the context of such a statement, nor why he would want to avoid them.

I'm not saying that Glorfindel should avoid loopholes, but that the stating of the prophecy leaves room for several possibilities. Not that he should or shouldn't have spoken exactly as he did, simply that he did, and that's that. Once it's decided whether or not the prophecy can be taken differently than is commonly accepted, we can continue on to discuss just what *could* have happened.

I must say that this line of inquiry seems pointless to me.

And is there point to spending years arguing about pointy Elf ears and Balrog wings? Debate is simply "what if", and my debate is saying "Well, what if the prophecy could have been taken differently? Could the story line have changed?" No point, as you would have it, simply intellectual debate on random possibilities based on the text.

Fea