Talk:Witch-king of Angmar/Archives/2009/August

Who attacked the Prancing Pony?

The article currently states: In LOTR "The Fellowship of the Ring", as in Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated adaptation, they attack the Prancing Pony inn of Bree themselves and wreck the hobbits' rooms, whereas in the book their local accomplices do the deed.

Local accomplices? I think most readers (including 2 movie directors) interpret the attack as the work of the Nazgul. I'd like to see some other sourcing to say it wasn't. I can find nothing in the text stating it was NOT the Nazgul. Before the attack, Strider suggests that they will not 'openly attack' the a well-lighted place where there are many people. But sneaking into bedrooms in the middle of the night is not an 'open attack'. Granted, there is nothing that explicitly states it WAS them, but in the Tale of Years the attack on the Pony is lumped together with the attack on Crickhollow, supporting the idea that it was the other group of Ringwraiths. Bflood (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've elminated this graph. The topic is mentioned on the 'Nazgul' page, where it's better described and sourced. As it's unclear that the Witch-King participated (even IF the Nazgul were the attackers), seems unnecessary on this page. Bflood (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fate of the Witch-King's ring

The entry currently states: "The fate of the Witch King's ring is not clear, it was not reported to have been recovered at the battle site..." Of course not, he did not wear it. Sauron held the nine rings:

"The Nine he had gathered to himself; the Seven also, or else they are destroyed. The Three are hidden still." - Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring. (Galadriel says something similar)
"They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and the most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he now himself held..." -Unfinished Tales
"They would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor command of his that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills..." -The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter #246

The nine rings given to Men were buried in the wreck of Barad-dur, shorn of their power (like the Three). This is a non-debate and the graph should be eliminated. Bflood (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a real inconsistency, as Gandalf says at the Council of Elrond, "The Nine the Nazgûl keep." This one sentence may be a mistake on Tolkien's part, though. I agree that the paragraph doesn't need to be in this article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, given multiple other citations, within LOTR and in other writings, I would go with the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (Also, the ring was never found, no mention of Frodo seeing the rings on the wraiths' hands, etc.) But we agree - this is a small point that doesn't belong in the article. Bflood (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! (Now that no one has objected.)

By the way, have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Fiction? It suggests that we avoid writing about fiction from an "in-universe" point of view. I agree with this philosophically: aside from things that are clear in the text (and sometimes not even for them), there's no "fact of the matter" in fiction. What objectively exists is the contradiction of one sentence with several others, not some real location of the Nine Rings that we can come to a conclusion on from the evidence. (On the other hand, I have enjoyed writing some possibly excessive plot summaries from an in-universe point of view.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've had other changes simply reversed (on the Gollum page, fer instance). Anyway, it's done now. I've eliminated the graph. I think the discussion of the Nine's rings would be more appropriate to the 'Nazgul' page anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflood (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 August 2009 Bflood (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a change this big on the Talk page was a good way to handle it, I think. Also, if people revert your changes, you can (calmly) explain your reasons on the Talk page. Incidentally, I didn't see your log-in name in the history of Gollum. People may take your ideas more seriously now that you're not so anonymous. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)