How will Merry slay the Witch-King?

[Tar-Palantir]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IronParrot
[B]No change is necessary.

It's not like the movie is going to, in any case, pause in a freeze-frame when Merry takes a slice at the Witch-King and bring in a little voice-over that says, "No other sword could have delivered such a bitter wound, yada yada yada"...

It's a detail that can't be described visually, so it probably won't be described at all. Seeing how they weren't at the Barrow-downs, they know nothing of Angmar, the audience knows nothing of Angmar (from the film) and thus, the captain of the Nazgul probably might not even be referred to as the Witch-King of Angmar at all, who knows.]


Well, since you started with the sarcasm, pardon me if I give a little in return. But it's not like any movie translates details from a book in that way. If it is a detail that cannot be described visually, then it can still be information given to the audience by a character in the movie. The reader learns it from the author, but the movie-watcher learns it from say Gandalf or Aragorn or Eomer as they muse over how a hobbit could have been instrumental in destroying this King of the Nazguls and discover out-loud that it is because of the blade of Westernesse.

And the Lord of the Nazgul does not have to be referred to as the Witch-King and there need be no information about Angmar for the audience still to think to themselves, "how did this little hobbit do in this powerful character with such a little balde in the back of the knee?"

BTW - I did not associate him with Angmar or the Witch-King either when I first read that part as that info is not even given to the reader until the Appendix.

[elvendrummer87]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hmm.

I always thought that Merry's blade broke the spells, so that Eowyn *could* deal the death blow.

That's what I always thought. As much as I'd like to give her the credit, Eowyn only finished him off, in my opinion. I think that when the prophecy or whatever you wanna call it said that a man couldn't kill him, it meant a human- as in mankind. That's what I gathered anyway

[Gerbil]

Yep, both those factors helped. I think the movie will focus on Eowyn's attack because PJ has some kind of fascination with 'strong' female characters (see Arwen).

Does anyone here have a psychology degree?

If so, don't suppose you fancy analysing PJ and his obsession with dominant women (mother wore the trousers in his family), as well as a triangle with Aragorn and 2 birds (fantasy due to him being ugly and not getting much female attention), not to mention him making all the men 'well-rounded' (spoilt for interpretations really ) and stupid...

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by elvendrummer87
That's what I always thought. As much as I'd like to give her the credit, Eowyn only finished him off, in my opinion. I think that when the prophecy or whatever you wanna call it said that a man couldn't kill him, it meant a human- as in mankind. That's what I gathered anyway

So what would have happened if Eowyn had not been around to strike the blow? Would the Witch-King have hence-forth remained 'mortal' so anyone could twat him? Or was there more magic that only allowed a 'non-man' to kill him?

Once again I see Tolkien's love of the small and ignored affecting things massively. Unlike Frodo+Ring though, here Merry's efforts are virtually ignored (by readers too it seems!) in favour of the 'symbolic' twatting by Eowyn.

Let's not forget, after all, that the Nazgul are 'neither living nor dead', but wraiths - I don't see how this has to do with 'magic' that Merry's sword 'cancels' out making them inherently mortal again to be sliced 'n diced by the nearest woman with weapon. Since Merry's blade is created to FIGHT these kind of enemies (obviously by magic) then a quick hack to the heel would probably be enough - kind of equivalent to the sword they stab Frodo with earlier - only a small wound is enough to finish the job.

Anyone got a relevant quote from the book to help here? I'm relying on memory - never a good idea with me

[Tar-Palantir]

Gerbil writes, [Anyone got a relevant quote from the book to help here? I'm relying on memory - never a good idea with me]

I think you're right. I looked up the passage yesterday, and I would give quotes if I had the book with me, but I don't. If I remember correctly though, it is obscure enough to miss or misinterpret, but I do think it credits Merry and not Eowyn.

But I do think that, right or wrong, a quotation is needed to settle the issue.

[Beleg Strongbow]

hmmm. Good topic! Mind if I jump in a bit?
*doesn't wait for answer*
I do think that it was Merry who did the Lord of Angmar in.

Unable to supply quotes I am reduced to feebly protesting that I believe something is said about "unkit the spell that twisted those undead sinews" ? I may be combining and mixing portions of the book there. Alas, I have no quotes to offer, as I post during school (I'm taking a test right now!).

But quotes may not be necessary in a movie sense (after all, that's what this forum is, right?). PJ does seem to like the gender equality concept (Arwen vs Glorfindel). It would also be much easier to explain the "woman vs man thing" --in dialouge between Eowyn and the Witch-King-- than it would be to explain Angmar and the blades that were forged there long ago.

So, my bet is that Eowyn will get most, if not all, of the credit. Let's hope she does it well.

By the way, the sentence about the sword is one of my favorite in the Return of the King. Something like "But proud would he have been to know of its fate who forged it long ago, for it was made in the kingdom of Arnor when the Dunedain were young, and chief among its foes was the realm of Angmar." (I'm really just guessing at it there.) The inverted sentence order makes it read very well, in my opinion.

[Gerbil]

The inverted sentence order makes it read very well, in my opinion.

Possibly Lucas' inspiration for Yoda? Now THAT would be ace

[Tar-Palantir]

Dude, you rock! LOL

Taking a test and posting here at the same time? I like your style. And your quotes are awesome. Did you just read it? Because I'm telling you I remember almost exactly the same wording. And my impression was that Merry delivered the death-blow too.

[Gerbil]

How can anyone be allowed to do a test and be online at the same time?
What's the test in? See who uses search engines most effectively to get the answer?

[olsonm]

The Witch King was still alive because of his ring. The spell that protected him from normal blades wasn't keeping him around. It was knitting his unseen sinews to his will. Meaning that his flesh could not be cleaved. Merry's sword is specifically described as having broken that spell. If Merry had stabbed him in a more vital place he would have killed him single-handedly. But the back of the knee isn't a mortal wound. Eowyn stabbed him in the head/neck, a much more fatal wound.

[Gerbil]

Can someone post up quotes please?

I follow your reasoning Olsonm but still come to a different conclusion given your comments:

You say the spell that protects the Witch King from normal blades

...was knitting his unseen sinews to his will

.
So if the spell is broken, then surely his unseen sinews are no longer controlled by his will and he's either killed as a result (spell broken - Merry did the job not Eowyn), or he's not killed (flesh is no longer 'his' but his spirit remains (in which case neither Merry nor Eowyn killed him and somewhere there's an evil spirit!). Since we know for a fact that the Nazgul died, my reasoning is that the first scenario must be true.

So I guess I want clarification on what Tolkien says Merry and Eowyn actually achieve, and also clarification on what the spell that Merry breaks is actually responsible for.

If, of course, there's simply a quote that says that the spell simply protects him from normal blades, then I guess I am wrong How that ties in with Mr W. King's claim no man can twat him, I dunno - possibly he's just being a bit cheeky?

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Gerbil
How that ties in with Mr W. King's claim no man can twat him, I dunno - possibly he's just being a bit cheeky?

Actually he say that; "No living man may hinder me." It was Glorfindel who foresaw that; "not by the hand of man will he fall." The spell is described as knitting his sinews to his will. But it's clear that it was his ring that was giving him continued existence; not his will. With the spell broken his sinews were no longer knitted to his will but his ring was still sustaining him.

So what does "knitted to his will mean"? The rings of power did not provide physical protection so I believe the spell, by knitting his sinews to his will, was a form of physical protection for the Witch King. With the spell broken he was just a man (with unnatural long life) and as such he was vunerable to a sword stroke. This is how I see it.

[azalea]

There was another thread in which this was discussed, but as the average reader (as opposed to being someone who actually knows what she is talking about), I always thought it was Eowyn that was the main cause of the demise of the Witch-King. That's just my opinion of course, but to me it seems that there was a reason that Tolkein went to the trouble of having her there. I think the "no living man" thing refered to her. I think Merry's blow threw him off kilter for enough time to allow her to do him in. So that it really became a combination kill. Someone who knows more than I do (I forget who or where) said that the Witch-King was indeed still alive as a spirit, kind of like the Nine at the river, until the Ring was destroyed, since his existence was so tied to the Ring. I don't know if there are any facts/ quotes that would verify that, but it seems plausible. So Merry and Eowyn "hinder" the Witch-King, but do not destroy him utterly. He just couldn't fight anymore.

[BeardofPants]

It was definately the combo of Merry and Eowyn working together that brought about the witchkings demise. No ordinary blade could have touched him otherwise.

[madeyejay]

The way I think is that if Merry would not have stabbed him first, Eowen could not have hurt him. We will never know, because it did not happen. Also, as readers we do not know the history of the blade before that moment, do we? I think it will happen somewhat as it does in the book, then while recoveringsomeone will tell Merry the history of the blade Aragorn gave him.

[Gerbil]

Trouble is, I can't see how us finding out about the blade after the event would work.
I can't imagine PJ (or anyone else for that matter) doing something in an action sequence that made people go 'eh?' and have it explained after. Either they'll explain it before, or not at all.

At this rate, Merry won't have anything to do with it. That'll teach him to steal Gandalf's fireworks.

[madeyejay]

I disagree, I think it will work. You will be left to wonder for a while. Of course it will be done visually cool to take your mind off of it. Then while they are talking over the near dead hobbit, Aragorn will tell where the blade was from and those who have never read the books will go, Oh, I see. Just my thought.

[olsonm]

I don't know if they'll say anything about the blade but I expect that Merry and Eowyn will play the same role in the WK's demise as they do in the book. Eowyn about to be killed by the WK, Merry stabbing him, which gives Eowyn an opening.

[Nurvingiel]

Merry creates the opening for Eowyn's fatal blow, that's how I read the battle.

Don't forget that the Witch-King said something like "Haha! No man can slay me!"
The Eowyn said something like "Well I'm a woman so you're going down!"

That's not an exact quote from the book...

But it's an important factor!

Maybe the spell that made him immune to getting killed hinged on the fact that it had to be a man.

Just goes to show, it never pays to generalize.

[BeardofPants]

Well, we'd have to assume then, that Eowyn had a special blade geared towards hitting a wraith, because as far as I know, no ordinary blade could touch him.