Merry''s treacherous attack - Page 2

Millane · 11-07-2002, 07:03 AM

no i dont think that the way merry kills the witchking, opposed to killing him in a one-on-one duel, should make it any less good... I think that he could manage even that is a tremendous acheivement... i think that killing someone in the heat of battle not in a duel would be harder.. in battle there is more distractions more dangerous from being killed by someone other than your opponent (remember there are flying arrows and i bet if an orc had of come bye he wouldnt have minded taken a shot at poor ol merry) in a duel it is just the same minus the distractions and outside threats...
GO MERRY!!!

Sminty_Smeagol · 11-07-2002, 10:20 AM

Merry is merry, sam is sam. And I haven't read LOTR in a year (and have only read it once), and I am not sure of the situation, but the way it sounds, the witchking was pretty much in mid blow when merry attacked him. If he had shouted, surely the witchking would not have stopped the momentum and turned around... he would have killed eowyn and the nturned around.

I may be entirely incorrect, but please forgive as I have only read the books once, and that was a year ago.

Lefty Scaevola · 11-07-2002, 10:37 AM

What high battlefield dignity could Angmar claim, who was attempting to torment Theoden, crushed under a horse shot by an arrow. In a melee, mano a mano duel are only by MUTUAL CHOICE, not a right or privilage.

Vronsky · 11-07-2002, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What high battlefield dignity could Angmar claim, who was attempting to torment Theoden, crushed under a horse shot by an arrow. In a melee, mano a mano duel are only by MUTUAL CHOICE, not a right or privilage.

Exactly, and both Sam and Merry had that very choice in that highly critical situation: Sam opted for the dual, Merry didn't, that's the difference in character.

bropous · 11-07-2002, 11:35 AM

Another point: Snaga is just a mortal Orc. The Witch King has a cloak of fear about him which caused the defenders of Osgiliath, brave and fearless to the man, to flee the bridge ad give up battle.

The Nazgul, as they flew over the fields of Pelennor, caused Gondorian warrior men to blanch and quail, and had Gandalf the White not faced the Nazgul Lord at the very gates of Minas Tirith the Mordorian forces would have had the first ring of the city's defenses.

Merry, RIGHT NEXT TO THE LORD OF THE NAZGUL, was feeling the full effects of this fear face-up, full-blast. It was all he could do to move, much less mount an attack.

Eowyn's head was MOMENTS from being separated from her curvaceous form. Merry had only that moment in which to act; he had not the luxury of saying, "Hey! Orc-breath! Turn your invisible arse around or I'll give you a dagger up the strap, you great flying git! Lay off the chick!" He saw the noble and brave Theoden die at the hands of this butcher, and here was Eowyn ready to depart the mortal coil as well. He snapped to that he had a blade in his hand, and he acted. Bravery is not just face-to-face fighting skill, as others have pointed out, it is having the strength of character to act in a way which provides positive result in a time of chaos and crisis.

You ask as to whether the Lord of the Nazgul should have died a more heroic death. Why? Was HE somehow an honorable creature? With his power, all he had do is lift a buttock and send some foul wind her way and Eowyn would have been unconscious. Yet he had to gloat, revel in his OWN cowardice using immense power to smite the almost defenseless, and in exercising his hubris he sowed the seeds of his own destruction.

"...the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil)...". THIS is why the Witch King dies in the manner in which he does: NOT because he is brought down by cowardice to teach us all that cowardice is what war really is, but to reiterate the central theme of the entire work.

That central theme is that the smallest person can make a difference. Actions by the weakest among us can bring down the greatest of those who place themselves above us, or who are placed there by us.

The Witch King comes to his end because he ignores that which he deems too insignificant for his attention.

One is reminded of the old Norse tale of the goddess Frigg who sought to ensure her son Balder would not be slain by a weapon as foretold by the Norns (Norse gods, while powerful and long-lived, were actually capable of being killed). The Norns (Norse fates) also said that when Balder died, the apocalyptic end of the world, Ragnarokk, would be unleashed. She went to every living thing on Earth, and got each living thing to swear that NO weapon would ever be fashioned from it. In her travels, she passed some mistletoe hanging in a tree. She thought about it, and decided that mistletoe was too scrawny and weak to ever present ANY threat of use as a weapon, and went about her business wihtout getting its oath as well. Well, the evil god Loki saw this, and hating Balder, he fashioned an arrow from the mistletoe and brought it back to Asgard, the home of the Norse Gods.

There was a celebration going on there, as Frigg had returned and told her husband Odin that she had ensured Balder would never be killed by a weapon. All the Aesir (Norse gods) were taking turns throwing weapons at Balder, which just bounced off with no effect. they were all slamming down great quantities of mead, and having a great time, except for the blind god Hod. He could not see Balder so he could not join the game, and Loki came to him and told him he would help aim if Hod would like to shoot an arrow at Balder.

Hod accepted, and Loki guided him to the spot where Thor and Frey and other gods were throwing axes and spears and darts and shooting arrows at Balder, who was unharmed. Loki steadied the bow for Hod, who, laughing with joy because he was part of the game finally, drew back the string and let loose the arrow.

The arrow of mistletoe, which Frigg had determined too weak and insignificant to pose a threat, slammed right into Balder's throat and he was dead on the spot.

Vronsky · 11-07-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bropous

You ask as to whether the Lord of the Nazgul should have died a more heroic death. Why?

It would have made the triumph of 'Good' over 'Evil' more glorious and unquestionable, it's a stain on the major turning point of the epic. Unless T. tries to tell us something with it, of course

[/QUOTE]
That central theme is that the smallest person can make a difference. Actions by the weakest among us can bring down the greatest of those who place themselves above us, or who are placed there by us.
[/QUOTE]

But why insist to narrow the meaning of 'weak' down to physical weakness only. Weakness of character applies here just as well, as in Merry's case.

Millane · 11-08-2002, 12:41 AM

Quote:

It would have made the triumph of 'Good' over 'Evil' more glorious and unquestionable,

on the contrary it would have made the witchkings defeat a lot more questionable... a hobbit killing the lord of the nazgul in a duel... thats beleivable... i think that had tolkien written it any other way it would just have made it too unbeleivable to take serious...

Ocarina654 · 11-08-2002, 01:06 AM

i have not been on this board for quite a while. but heres wat i have to say! Merry killed the Nazgul because he had to. He was brave even going near it. most people would ran as soon as they saw it! Merry stabbed him in the knee!! if he hadn't Eowyn would be dead and all you Eowyn lovers would never love Eowyn. cause she'd be dead. Brop, very good! i think that hits the spot!

11-07-2002, 07:03 AM	#21
Millane The Dude Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: at the altar of my ego Posts: 1,685	no i dont think that the way merry kills the witchking, opposed to killing him in a one-on-one duel, should make it any less good... I think that he could manage even that is a tremendous acheivement... i think that killing someone in the heat of battle not in a duel would be harder.. in battle there is more distractions more dangerous from being killed by someone other than your opponent (remember there are flying arrows and i bet if an orc had of come bye he wouldnt have minded taken a shot at poor ol merry) in a duel it is just the same minus the distractions and outside threats... GO MERRY!!! __________________ Ill heal your wounds, ill set you free,

11-07-2002, 10:37 AM	#23
Lefty Scaevola AngAdan Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boerne, Texas Posts: 856	What high battlefield dignity could Angmar claim, who was attempting to torment Theoden, crushed under a horse shot by an arrow. In a melee, mano a mano duel are only by MUTUAL CHOICE, not a right or privilage. __________________ Gaius Mucius Scaevola Older, richer, and wiser than you "Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor, but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, ... And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me," Last edited by Lefty Scaevola : 11-07-2002 at 10:39 AM.

11-07-2002, 11:35 AM	#25
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Another point: Snaga is just a mortal Orc. The Witch King has a cloak of fear about him which caused the defenders of Osgiliath, brave and fearless to the man, to flee the bridge ad give up battle. The Nazgul, as they flew over the fields of Pelennor, caused Gondorian warrior men to blanch and quail, and had Gandalf the White not faced the Nazgul Lord at the very gates of Minas Tirith the Mordorian forces would have had the first ring of the city's defenses. Merry, RIGHT NEXT TO THE LORD OF THE NAZGUL, was feeling the full effects of this fear face-up, full-blast. It was all he could do to move, much less mount an attack. Eowyn's head was MOMENTS from being separated from her curvaceous form. Merry had only that moment in which to act; he had not the luxury of saying, "Hey! Orc-breath! Turn your invisible arse around or I'll give you a dagger up the strap, you great flying git! Lay off the chick!" He saw the noble and brave Theoden die at the hands of this butcher, and here was Eowyn ready to depart the mortal coil as well. He snapped to that he had a blade in his hand, and he acted. Bravery is not just face-to-face fighting skill, as others have pointed out, it is having the strength of character to act in a way which provides positive result in a time of chaos and crisis. You ask as to whether the Lord of the Nazgul should have died a more heroic death. Why? Was HE somehow an honorable creature? With his power, all he had do is lift a buttock and send some foul wind her way and Eowyn would have been unconscious. Yet he had to gloat, revel in his OWN cowardice using immense power to smite the almost defenseless, and in exercising his hubris he sowed the seeds of his own destruction. "...the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil)...". THIS is why the Witch King dies in the manner in which he does: NOT because he is brought down by cowardice to teach us all that cowardice is what war really is, but to reiterate the central theme of the entire work. That central theme is that the smallest person can make a difference. Actions by the weakest among us can bring down the greatest of those who place themselves above us, or who are placed there by us. The Witch King comes to his end because he ignores that which he deems too insignificant for his attention. One is reminded of the old Norse tale of the goddess Frigg who sought to ensure her son Balder would not be slain by a weapon as foretold by the Norns (Norse gods, while powerful and long-lived, were actually capable of being killed). The Norns (Norse fates) also said that when Balder died, the apocalyptic end of the world, Ragnarokk, would be unleashed. She went to every living thing on Earth, and got each living thing to swear that NO weapon would ever be fashioned from it. In her travels, she passed some mistletoe hanging in a tree. She thought about it, and decided that mistletoe was too scrawny and weak to ever present ANY threat of use as a weapon, and went about her business wihtout getting its oath as well. Well, the evil god Loki saw this, and hating Balder, he fashioned an arrow from the mistletoe and brought it back to Asgard, the home of the Norse Gods. There was a celebration going on there, as Frigg had returned and told her husband Odin that she had ensured Balder would never be killed by a weapon. All the Aesir (Norse gods) were taking turns throwing weapons at Balder, which just bounced off with no effect. they were all slamming down great quantities of mead, and having a great time, except for the blind god Hod. He could not see Balder so he could not join the game, and Loki came to him and told him he would help aim if Hod would like to shoot an arrow at Balder. Hod accepted, and Loki guided him to the spot where Thor and Frey and other gods were throwing axes and spears and darts and shooting arrows at Balder, who was unharmed. Loki steadied the bow for Hod, who, laughing with joy because he was part of the game finally, drew back the string and let loose the arrow. The arrow of mistletoe, which Frigg had determined too weak and insignificant to pose a threat, slammed right into Balder's throat and he was dead on the spot. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why did Saruman attack Rohan?	Gordis	Lord of the Rings Books	18	11-07-2007 09:18 PM
Pippin's stone and the attack at the Chamber of Marzabul	The Wizard from Milan	Lord of the Rings Books	20	01-19-2006 02:16 PM
Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of YODA!!!!!!!	Darth Tater	The Star Wars Saga	96	12-23-2002 05:25 AM
Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!)	BeardofPants	General Messages	32	08-13-2002 07:34 PM
Star Wars Episode II - Attack of the Clones	bmilder	The Star Wars Saga	38	09-10-2001 11:25 PM

11-07-2002, 10:20 AM	#22
Sminty_Smeagol Manic Cardboard-Box Dweller Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In a house Posts: 1,071	Merry is merry, sam is sam. And I haven't read LOTR in a year (and have only read it once), and I am not sure of the situation, but the way it sounds, the witchking was pretty much in mid blow when merry attacked him. If he had shouted, surely the witchking would not have stopped the momentum and turned around... he would have killed eowyn and the nturned around. I may be entirely incorrect, but please forgive as I have only read the books once, and that was a year ago.

11-08-2002, 01:06 AM	#28
Ocarina654 Sapling Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A box under the stairs in the corner of the basement half a block down the street from Jerry's Bait shop. You know the place. Posts: 13	i have not been on this board for quite a while. but heres wat i have to say! Merry killed the Nazgul because he had to. He was brave even going near it. most people would ran as soon as they saw it! Merry stabbed him in the knee!! if he hadn't Eowyn would be dead and all you Eowyn lovers would never love Eowyn. cause she'd be dead. Brop, very good! i think that hits the spot!