# Gurthang, The Talking sword of Turin Turamber



## elffriend

Gurthang,, "Death Iron" was the name given by Turin to the black sword formely known as Anglachel. the black sword had formely belonged to Beleg Cuthalion, but in Turins hand the sword had taken Belegs life.
Having just been reading the Sil again, a thought came to me, when Turin realises that he is cursed, he wishes to die, and he speaks to Gurthang, and Gurthang replies, now i know it says in the book :


> And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer,"yea i will drink thy blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly"


Yet I wonder was it really the sword speaking, or was Turin in such a state of anguish that he wanted his life to end, but felt that to take his own life was wrong, but if the sword took his life, he was not to blame. Another thing was the voice of the sword that Turin heard, actually the sword speaking, was it possibly the voice of Eorl or maybe even Morgoth, that spoke.


----------



## Flame of Udûn

Well, I don't see why Eorl or Morgoth would call Beleg his master, especially Eorl who did not yet exist! The sword actually spoke, in my opinion. (Cf. the troll's purse in _The Hobbit._)


----------



## elffriend

Sorry typo, I meant Eol, the dark elf, he forged Anglachel the black sword from meteroic iron.


----------



## Saermegil

I'm pretty sure Gurthang spoke,because it was a sentient sword. I think even Tolkien said that it was sentient in one of his letters. Could someone provide a quote?


----------



## Turin

No I don't have a quote, sorry, but I also believe that it was the sword that spoke, not Morgoth or Eol.


----------



## Grond

Turin said:


> No I don't have a quote, sorry, but I also believe that it was the sword that spoke, not Morgoth or Eol.


I'm quite sure that the sword spoke. After all, a purse spoke in The Hobbit. 

P. S. There is no quote. Turin is only mentioned once in the entirety of the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and only fleetingly.

Cheers,

grond


----------



## Lhunithiliel

I wish to believe it was the sword itself that spoke.

Take that from it and it looses its mythical existence that makes it so special.


----------



## Lantarion

Um no I'm pretty sure it's the sword itself; Tolkien's universe has many such instances where non-humanoid or non-biological entities use voice (Huan, Glaurung, Gurthang, Gwaihir etc.), it's a powerful symbolic and litereary effect. It's really a central effect used by Tolkien to create a mythical or legendary atmosphere in his works.
Although you may have a point about Túrin's anguish, I don't think you should read too much psychological metaphors into Tolkien's work as he hated allegory..


----------



## Tarlanc

Actually, I don't think Gurthang was able to speak. In Tolkiens Mythology there is magic, that's true, but there aren't any beings strong enough to give reason to a thing.
I mean, when Aule created the dwarves, he was able to fashion bnodies that could move and speak on his demand. But they could not act independently. They had no reason.
So how could Ëol, an Elf, create a lifeless thing with an own will? He was not nearly as skilled as Aulë. Why should he manage to do something not even a Valar may achieve?

I think it was just Túrins insanity that made him hear the words of the sword. It was his wish to hear an affirmation of the sword that made him hear it. He wanted someone or something to agree with him on his suicide. And because no one else was there, Gurthang spoke to him. But a man, almost killed by the blood of a dragon, scarceley awakened from consiouslessness and noticing the death of his sister might well have some hallucinations.
Thogh this interpretation denies a lot of the magic and the romantic of this scene, I am aware of that. But that's the way I see it.


----------



## Grond

Tarlanc said:


> Actually, I don't think Gurthang was able to speak. In Tolkiens Mythology there is magic, that's true, but there aren't any beings strong enough to give reason to a thing.
> I mean, when Aule created the dwarves, he was able to fashion bnodies that could move and speak on his demand. But they could not act independently. They had no reason.
> So how could Ëol, an Elf, create a lifeless thing with an own will? He was not nearly as skilled as Aulë. Why should he manage to do something not even a Valar may achieve?
> 
> I think it was just Túrins insanity that made him hear the words of the sword. It was his wish to hear an affirmation of the sword that made him hear it. He wanted someone or something to agree with him on his suicide. And because no one else was there, Gurthang spoke to him. But a man, almost killed by the blood of a dragon, scarceley awakened from consiouslessness and noticing the death of his sister might well have some hallucinations.
> Thogh this interpretation denies a lot of the magic and the romantic of this scene, I am aware of that. But that's the way I see it.


Your "self-described", lifeless thing was actually made of an un-earthly metal which fell from the sky. We know not whence it came or what "un-earthly" attributes it may have had. By stating that the sword didn't speak, you disclaim much of Tolkien's mythology that is already considered canon. (ie. speaking Dogs, werewolves, et. al... not to mention my aforementioned reference to the purse that gave Bilbo away in the Hobbit.) The way you "see" it is certainly now the way Tolkien planned for you to read it. Check out the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien from your local library and read it and you'll see where most of us are coming from.


----------



## Tarlanc

The purse in the Hobbit may also be an exception. You have to keep in mind that the Hobbit was not actually a part of Tolkiens Mythology (as outlined then in the Lost Tales) until he made the connection to his Mythology with the LotR.
Hobbits, Stone Giants, Smaug (a self consciuos Dragon af flesh and bone), Bëorn, the enchanted deer and the trolls that turned to stone were actually never really explained in Tolkiens later works on his Mythology. They are part of a children story which has not that much to do with Arda.
At the time he wrote the Hobbit, there weren't any places like Mirkwood, the Shire, Rivendell... or figures like Wizards, Wargs or Goblins mentioned in his Lost Tales or the earliest Draft of the Quenta Silmarillion. He may have made them fit afterwards, but he did not succed to do tihs with every new item. And the talking pusre may just be one of the things he never was able to explain in terms if the Silmarillion.

As Tolkien puts forth in 'Myths Transformed', an essay publishd in HoME10, (which I for myself regard as more consistent and more refined than the several notices drwan from the lessters by eager readers), no one was able to put a soul to a thing (be it lifeless or an animal) but Eru himself. Only Eru had the power to give a _fea_ to somehting.
This is illustrated by his late images of the Orcs (mindless animals with the will of their master leading them, reeling off speeches long ago recorded by Sauron or Morgoth), Huan and the Eagles (Animals given a limited ability to speak what their masters wanted them to say) and so forth.
Never has anyone but Eru been able to put reason to a thing. And Eru gave reason alone to the Elves, Men, Dwarves and eventually Ents.

And According to 'Myths transformed' it is absoultely unthinkable that Ëol, an Elf, was able to give his sword reason. Unless he captured an Ainur in the shape of this sword. For Ainur, of course, were gifted with reason and could take on the form af any being. Be it a Werewolf, a giant spider or something else.


----------



## Lantarion

Tarlanc: You seem to be of the opinion that reason and speech are completely unconnected; that a talking sword is fine, unless it has a mind. But the fact is that speech is not possible without a mind. Orcs certainly had minds, that is unbdisputable, as they were mockeries of Men (or of Elves, whichever one you prefer ) and had all the biological traits of humanoids; their minds were not identical to those of Men or Elves, they had been corrupted by Melkor from the beginning; but that does not mean they did not possess minds and thus the ability for both speech and free will. Their 'free will' was only affected by their inherent lust for destruction and evil.
And you cannot say that the fact that Anglachel was forged from a 'fallen star', i.e. meteorite, and the fact that it had the apparent capacity for thought and self-awareness (because speaking was not the only feat that this sword accomplished) do not coincide or have anything to do with one another. Only two blades were forged from that celestial metal, Anglachel and Anguirel; and part of the reason that Anglachel could speak was, IMO, linked to Melkor's curse of the House of Húrin, the wiles of Glaurung and Túrin's bitterness. I might even put forth that the metal which Gurthang was made of had the ability to amplify and/or incarnate or manifest feelings and spiritual traits. 
So in this sense you have a point, and it is an interesting observation on its own as well, that Túrin's guilt and woe were a part of the words which Gurthang spoke to him. But I am 100% against your claim that Glaurung did not have a mind and did not have capacity for independent thought, at least in light of all that I know now.


----------



## Grond

Tarlanc said:


> The purse in the Hobbit may also be an exception. You have to keep in mind that the Hobbit was not actually a part of Tolkiens Mythology (as outlined then in the Lost Tales) until he made the connection to his Mythology with the LotR.
> Hobbits, Stone Giants, Smaug (a self consciuos Dragon af flesh and bone), Bëorn, the enchanted deer and the trolls that turned to stone were actually never really explained in Tolkiens later works on his Mythology. They are part of a children story which has not that much to do with Arda.
> At the time he wrote the Hobbit, there weren't any places like Mirkwood, the Shire, Rivendell... or figures like Wizards, Wargs or Goblins mentioned in his Lost Tales or the earliest Draft of the Quenta Silmarillion. He may have made them fit afterwards, but he did not succed to do tihs with every new item. And the talking pusre may just be one of the things he never was able to explain in terms if the Silmarillion.
> 
> As Tolkien puts forth in 'Myths Transformed', an essay publishd in HoME10, (which I for myself regard as more consistent and more refined than the several notices drwan from the lessters by eager readers), no one was able to put a soul to a thing (be it lifeless or an animal) but Eru himself. Only Eru had the power to give a _fea_ to somehting.
> This is illustrated by his late images of the Orcs (mindless animals with the will of their master leading them, reeling off speeches long ago recorded by Sauron or Morgoth), Huan and the Eagles (Animals given a limited ability to speak what their masters wanted them to say) and so forth.
> Never has anyone but Eru been able to put reason to a thing. And Eru gave reason alone to the Elves, Men, Dwarves and eventually Ents.
> 
> And According to 'Myths transformed' it is absoultely unthinkable that Ëol, an Elf, was able to give his sword reason. Unless he captured an Ainur in the shape of this sword. For Ainur, of course, were gifted with reason and could take on the form af any being. Be it a Werewolf, a giant spider or something else.


And the commentary on Fea and Hroar was directed at Middle-earthly spirits and not with unearthly spirits. I do not for one second believe the Sword had a hroar and it wasn't necessary that it have a fea either. It could have simply been an unclothed Ainur/Maiair who chose to reside (or was taking a ride) on the meteorite when it came to earth. I don't know. But I also think that it would be totally "un-Tolkien like" for him to have meant for Gurthang's statement to be something other than that which it was protrayed. For him to expect the reader to "understand" the theory you have put forth would have been "allegorical"... something Tolkien dispised. The following quote is from the Grey Annals of HoME XI and were completed in the early 1950's.


> _from HoME XI, War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals,_"
> §346 Then he fled from them like the wind, and they were amazed, wondering what madness had seized him; and they followed after him. But Túrin far out-ran them, and came to Cabad-en-Aras, and heard the roaring of the water, and saw that all the leaves fell sere from the trees, as though winter had come. Then he cursed the place and named it Cabad Naeramarth, and he drew forth his sword, that now alone remained to him of all his possessions, and he said: 'Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?'
> §347 And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: 'Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly.'
> §348 Then Túrin set the hilts upon the ground, and cast himself upon the point of Gurthang, and the black blade took his life. But Mablung and the Elves came and looked on the shape of the Worm lying dead, and upon the body of Túrin, and they were grieved; and when men of Brethil came thither, and they learned the reasons of Túrin's madness and death, they were aghast; and Mablung said bitterly: 'Lo! I also have been meshed in the doom of the Children of Húrin, and thus with my tidings have slain one that I loved.'
> §349 Then they lifted up Túrin and found that Gurthang had broken asunder. But Elves and Men gathered then great store of wood and made a mighty burning, and the Worm was consumed to ashes...


As you can see, this is pretty much verbatim from the Silmarillion and conveys to me a clear and concise thought with no hint of allegory. The blade spoke!


----------



## Tarlanc

Grond said:


> It could have simply been an unclothed Ainur/Maiair who chose to reside (or was taking a ride) on the meteorite when it came to earth. I don't know. But I also think that it would be totally "un-Tolkien like" for him to have meant for Gurthang's statement to be something other than that which it was protrayed.


If ist was an Ainu residing in the blade, then I absolutely agree with you that the blade may have spoken. Be it that the Ainu was in the meteorite or later captured by Ëol in the blade.

But without a fea inside the Sword could not have possibly been able to speak. And Ëol just did not have the power to give a fea to a thing.

As for the connection of speech and reason: In Tolkiens Mythology it was perfectly possible for something to reel off some recorded speech without having a fea. In late conceptions the Orcs were nothing but mindless animals which spoke what Melkor or Sauron made them say. They had neither a free will nor the ability to think. This conception goes IMO back on the fact that the heroes of Tolkiens World slaughtered Orcs for sport. They had no respect of the life of Orcs. For a Christian it was probably unconfortable to have heroes slaughtering feeling people. So the Orcs were degraded to animals. Beings not able to decide whether they wanted to be good or bad. This legitimated the slaughtering.

Even Anglachel might have reeled off some words. But it could never have told Túrin of his deeds and felt pleasure in killing him without a fea. That's my point.


----------



## jallan

Computer programs have been created that can engage in seemingly intelligent dialogue with a human being without there being any _spirit_ involved. Orcs might be conceived as doing the same.

While Orcs and animals may not, in Tolkien's metaphysics, have indwelling _fëar_, but they have something about them that makes them live and allows them to act and react and to understand some speech of humans even though physically incapable of reproducing it. Whatever that might be called might also made part of a normally inanimate object in a fantasy.

Objects do sometimes speak in old tales (with no metaphysic to explain it). Legolas in some sense hears the stones of Eregion speak:


> ‘To the end of the journey – in the end,’ said Gandalf. ‘We cannot look too far ahead. Let us be glad that the first stage is safely over. I think we will rest here, not only today but tonight as well. There is a wholesome air about Hollin. Much evil must befall a country before it wholly forgets the Elves, if once they dwelt there.’
> ‘That is true,’ said Legolas. ‘But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them: 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.’


Gandalf speaks of the country not forgetting the Elves and Legolas then speaks in a way that indicates this is not just a metaphor.

In a fantasy all things many tend to be more alive than in reality. That a troll’s wallet speaks is the same kind of thing. 

That _The Hobbit_ was written as a children’s story does not in itself discredit any of its details. Glaurung in the story of the Children of Húrin is just as self-conscious and just as able to speak as is Smaug in the _Hobbit_. Beren and Lúthien, with the aid of enchanted pelts, can change their shapes just as Beorn does. Finrod by illusion gives the appearance of Orcs to Beren and himself and the accompanying Elves. _Stone-giants_ are no more improbable than stone-trolls or Ents or Huorns.

The One Ring has a will and speaks but certainly contains neither _fëa_ or _ëala_. But there is an appearance of spirit of some kind in it.

In Tolkien’s original account of the death of Túrin no-one was nearby to hear either Turin’s words or the words of the sword. In the later account Mablung and a party of Elves are introduced as chasing after Túrin, probably to explain how the details of Túrin’s death were known including the speaking of the sword. Perhaps a Man would would not have heard the voice of the sword in the same fashion as only Legolas (and perhaps Gandalf) would be able to hear the lamenting of the stones. Perhaps Túrin himself did not hear it. But Mablung might hear it.

That J.R.R. Tolkien did not in published writings address the metaphysics of the speaking sword doesn’t indicate that he thought the voice imaginary. I can speculate that Túrin imagined the voice and that Túrin’s spirit was then in such a heightened state that Mablung and the Elves also heard it by a kind of telepathy. I don’t think Tolkien would have approved of this kind of rationalization.

One might also remember that the acount of Túrin supposedly derives from the poet Dirhavel rather than from omniscient knowledge. But I don’t see that as an excuse to remove elements of seeming fantasy from the account since Dirhavel himself lives in a world where such elements exist.


----------



## Lantarion

Tarlanc, although I admire your will to rationalize everything in Arda according to what little information we can glean from allusions and hints left by Tolkien of the nature of Eä itself, but it seems that there are simply some things which only retain their magic and appeal when they are _not_ thoroughly explained. Tom Bombadil, Glaurung and the dragons are examples of these, and personally I would rather never know any true answer to their mysteries unless the Professor himself decided to introduce and unveil them.


----------



## Tarlanc

The professor himself _did_ unveil a part of it. At last I am home an dhave my books at hand. So I can give the key quote of my arguments:



> In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or _fëa_. The Orcs were _beasts_ of humanizzed shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records', set in them by Melkor.
> [...]
> The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no _fëar_
> 
> _from: Myths Transformed, Morgoth's Ring (HoMEX)_



Thus it was possible to make an animal speak without giving it a fëa. But because Swords do not have a mouth to speak, I saaume it would not have worked with Anglachel.


----------



## jallan

Tarlanc, you are trying to use what Tolkien wrote to disprove what Tolkien wrote which is a dubious method of interpretation.

The stones that Legolas heard lamenting had no mouths either. Old Man Willow speaks intelligibly to Merry without a mouth.

Dogs do not have vocal organs and tongue of the proper shape and do not have sufficient conscious control over them to be able to speak. Therefore Huan should not have been speak. The same is likely to be true of eagles. At least I’ve never heard of anyone teaching an eagle to speak as one can teach a parrot or crow to speak.

Tolkien, if asked, might have had an explanations for all these: possibly tentative ones rather than definitive ones. One can imagine Tolkien saying that Elven creators were able to put some of their own spirit into the creations which at times therefore responded like living things: e.g. the hithlain rope which unknotted itself when required.

Or Tolkien might have said, as he said about Tom Bombadil, that they were enigmas. That Tolkien does not provide an explanation of a particular phenomena that occurs wthin his tales and perhaps would not himself have been able to explain that phenomena does not mean Tolkien would not consider that phenomena as unreal within his tales.

Old Man Willow did speak intelligibly to Merry. The One Ring had a will of its own. Anglachel was once was heard to speak by Mablung and his Elves and probably also by Túrin.

How these things could be are not explained. How there can be diamond studs that open and close by themselves and a rope of hithlain that unknots itself when required is not explained.

To claim that because Tolkien did not explain the speaking sword therefore that sword could not have spoken is an argument from silence. Many things are unexplained by Tolkien in surviving writings. Also, it contains the unwarrented assumption that an explanation on the physical level is necessary. In stories what happens is usually primary and background explanation secondary and of minor importance.

Tolkien did not and could not set up a complete metaphysical structure to explain everything in his tales. I doubt he wished to.


----------



## Lantarion

Absolutely excellently put jallan! 


jallan said:


> Tolkien did not and could not set up a complete metaphysical structure to explain everything in his tales. I doubt he wished to.


And I think that at least _some_ things should be left un-rationalized; otherwise, where is the wonder and the mystery?


----------



## Tarlanc

OK, got the point.
_beati pauperes spiritu_

Let's ignore Tolkiens explanations


----------



## jallan

Let’s not make too much of a problem about things that Tolkien did not chose to explain. Tolkien simply didn’t try to explain many things in his legendarium in existing texts.


----------



## Snaga

But not explaining the unexplained in Tolkien's work would put so many people on this board out of business!

I see no reason to discount the 'Turin's delusion' theory. This isn't an attempt at allegory: I found that comment strange. Gollum talks to himself: but is Stinker really not the same person as Slinker? Is Stinker a manifestation of the power of the Ring over a part of his mind? Is he schizophrenic? Psychological explanations are legitimate, as long as care is taken to accept their limits. It is only one level of explanation. It might provide an interesting account of the individual character, but doesn't tell us about the wider world.

The example of Legolas and Gandalf talking about Hollin is interesting. I felt they were talking figuratively, but the fact that they are not mortals makes that open to doubt. That ambiguity works well in hinting at a supernatural world that is not open to us.


----------



## jallan

Snaga posted:


> But not explaining the unexplained in Tolkien's work would put so many people on this board out of business!


But definitively explaning the unexplained in Tolkien's work would also put so many people on this board out of business.


> I see no reason to discount the 'Turin's delusion' theory.


I see no reason to accept the ‘Turin's delusion’ theory.

If Tolkien had so intended he could have said that Túrin heard the voice speak in his earlier version or have introduced that scene with some such introduction as ’And those who tell the tale say ‚ indicating we are now possibly outside primary narrative. In his later version Tolkien could later have had Túrin repeat aloud what the sword seemed to say to him so that Mablung and the Elves might hear.


> This isn't an attempt at allegory: I found that comment strange. Gollum talks to himself: but is Stinker really not the same person as Slinker?


Yes. But a different side to that person.


> Is Stinker a manifestation of the power of the Ring over a part of his mind?


Yes, in part.


> Is he schizophrenic?


You make the common error of confusing _schizophrenia_ with _dissociative identity disorder_ formerly called _multiple personality disorder_. It is increasingly believed that _dissociative identity disorder_ is almost entirely created by doctors in patients. Hollywood directors mostly don’t know that. See the Charlie Kaufmann’s film _Adaptation_ for much joking on that point. See Jackson’s film for standard clichés.

Also Gollum may have had two sides to his personality before he took the Ring if Tolkien did not err and Gandalf did not err in representing Sméagol as saying when he first saw the Ring: “Give us that, Déagol, my love.”.


> Psychological explanations are legitimate, as long as care is taken to accept their limits.


A truism that no-one has denied. What is being denied is that Tolkien intended the speaking of Anglachel to occur only in Túrin’s mind and that such an interpretation should arise from the text without an unduly forced effort to read it into the text.


> It is only one level of explanation.


Another truism that none have denied.


> It might provide an interesting account of the individual character, but doesn't tell us about the wider world.


We know that Túrin feels guilt about the deaths of Beleg and probably also for the death of Brandir. A magic sword in Túrin’s possession might in part be echoing such feelings.

But to deny that the speaking of the sword occurs on the primary factual level of the story is to deny the story as told, a bald attempt to substitute under the guise of interpretation what a reader would prefer in place of what an author actually wrote. It is like imaging in a standard presentation of _Macbeth_ that the witches are only in Macbeth’s mind because one does not want to believe in such things even in a tale. Some critics like to diminish tales in that way, to make them mean what they would like them to be. But Macbeth remains a tale where the climax occurs when supernatural prophecies come true regardless of what some might wish.

The speaking of the sword occurs without any suggestion of subjectivity and without suggestion that it is a less credible part of the tale in any of the variant texts of the incident. This is a story that also contains a speaking dragon and a curse and a spell that causes amnesia. From Tolkien’ first version in _The Book of Lost Tales 2_: “... and often that blade leapt in his hand of its own lust, and it is said that at times it spake dark words to him.”. Tolkien here does set-up to prepare the reader for the speaking of the sword in the climax.

In _Unfinished Tales_, “Of Túrin Turambar” a different set-up occurs. When Beleg first obtains it Melian says: “There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long.”. Beleg foolishly takes it. Later when Beleg attempts to cut Túrin’ fetters with Anglachel the blade conveniently slips and pricks Túrin’s foot, and Túrin suddenly awakening seizes Anglachel from Beleg his owner and slays Beleg with Anglachel.

In Nargothrond Gwindor speaks to Túrin of Anglachel: “This is a strange blade, and unlike any that I have seen in Middle-earth. It mourns for Beleg even as you do.” This is certainly not metaphorical in intent. The emphasis is on the strangeness of the blade mourning Beleg’s death, the king of strangeness that Tarlanc wishes to remove from the tale.

Twice Tolkien indicates there is spirit of a kind in the sword. To ignore this is to deny the text.


> The example of Legolas and Gandalf talking about Hollin is interesting. I felt they were talking figuratively, but the fact that they are not mortals makes that open to doubt. That ambiguity works well in hinting at a supernatural world that is not open to us.


I do not understand how Gandalf or Legolas can be speaking _figuratively_. What is figurative about grass and trees having forgotten the Elves while the stones remember? It might possibly be figurative if we were told of seeing old ruins meaning that remnants of Elvish activity still remain in the stones but not in the trees and grass where the Fellowship were walking. But no ruins are mentioned.

The words reveal that there is a supernatural world perceived by Elves and not normally seen by humans. This is not hinting any more than it is hinting when Glorfindel says he sees marks on the hilt of the morgûl blade which may be invisible to the others.

There is only ambiguity for one reads rationalistic explanation into the text despite its plain words. Reading what one wants to read instead of the words that are written is hardly a good way to interpret a work either as intended or according to the text being read.

You can of course read any work as you wish to read it, putting your own perceptions and own ideas over what the writer actually says. Sometimes one finds oneself almost forced to read a work that way, for example in an historical novel where the reader may sometimes know more about parts of the history than the author does.

But that still becomes an interpretation forced on a work rather than an interpretation arising from a work.


----------



## Tarlanc

jallan said:


> I see no reason to accept the ‘Turin's delusion’ theory.


I do see one: *The guy talked to his sword!*

I mean, the Elves and Wizards may have learned to listen to the voices of nature. the understand the earth and the living things and thus feel it when the earth is wounded by a war or something else. It may well be possible that they hear Yavannas very lamenting in the grass when it is trampled by heedless Orcs. As they hear Ulmos whisper in the voice of a stream or river.
Legolas surely has a deep understanding of earth and rock and thus feels that the stones tell of times long forgotten. That they tell these things to everyone that may hear it.
But that does not mean that the stones chat and talk to each other and to the Elves walking by and that they answer questions. They just tell of times forgotten. But do you really think that they talked? That the big grey one said: 'Hey Legolas, old chum. Back again, eh? Must be ages since we've last met. I lay over there on the hill, then. But some stupid Orc kicked me down some 50 years ago. Now I lie in this pitt over here. Darned luck!'

Even Aragorn could hear the lamenting of the earth which was trampled ba the Uruks. But just because he knew how to listen to the voice of the earth. He felt the grass recovering from bein trampled, he felt the living earth damaged and stones lay around with the earthy side up, which meant that they had been kicked around. He felt the earth upset and thus knew which way the Uruks had taken and how fast they were marching. But the earth did not IMO literally talk to him. He did not stand there and ask 'Hey Erath, seen any Uruks araound here'
'Ah yes, mister Aragorn, they just passed by some days ago. Quite heavy shoes they wore. Trampüled the nice flowers down. And this stone over there they trampled down. Uh, that hurts.'

But Túrin really talked to his sword. He asked a thing that hung lifeless on his belt for years for its opinion. And this is to me a clear sign of beginning delusion. And that he heard the sword talk of its past owners and agreeing to Túrins suicide is just some more evidence for Túrin gone nuts.


----------



## jallan

Tarlanc posted:


> But that does not mean that the stones chat and talk to each other and to the Elves walking by and that they answer questions. They just tell of times forgotten. But do you really think that they talked? That the big grey one said: 'Hey Legolas, old chum. Back again, eh? Must be ages since we've last met. I lay over there on the hill, then. But some stupid Orc kicked me down some 50 years ago. Now I lie in this pitt over here. Darned luck!'


Of course not. Stretching what I said and what Tolkien wrote to such lengths is absurd and doesn’t do anything for your argument.


> Even Aragorn could hear the lamenting of the earth which was trampled by the Uruks. But just because he knew how to listen to the voice of the earth. He felt the grass recovering from bein trampled, he felt the living earth damaged and stones lay around with the earthy side up, which meant that they had been kicked around. He felt the earth upset and thus knew which way the Uruks had taken and how fast they were marching. But the earth did not IMO literally talk to him. He did not stand there and ask 'Hey Erath, seen any Uruks araound here'


Nowhere is it said that Argorn could hear the lamenting of the earth. Nowhere is it said the earth talked to him. Perhaps you mean this passage:


> ‘Where sight fails the earth may bring us rumour,’ said Aragorn. ‘The land must groan under their hated feet.’ He stretched himself upon the ground with his ear pressed against the turf. He lay there motionless, for so long a time that Gimli wondered if he had swooned or fallen asleep again. Dawn came glimmering, and slowly a grey light grew about them. At last he rose, and now his friends could see his face: it was pale and drawn, and his look was troubled.
> ‘The rumour of the earth is dim and confused,’ he said. ‘Nothing walks upon it for many miles about us. Faint and far are the feet of our enemies.’


There is nothing supernatural about this. Aragorn uses a common tracking technique to search for sounds 
of trampling beasts or men, sounds which travel through the ground better than through air. The proverbial phrase “Keep your ear to the ground!” comes from this well-known practice.


> But Túrin really talked to his sword. He asked a thing that hung lifeless on his belt for years for its opinion. And this is to me a clear sign of beginning delusion. And that he heard the sword talk of its past owners and agreeing to Túrins suicide is just some more evidence for Túrin gone nuts.


Melian finds malice in the sword and says that dark heart of Eöl still dwells in it. Was she insane? Was she wrong?

Gwindor finds the blade strange because he hears it mourning for Beleg. Was he insane? Was he wrong?

The words of the sword could only have been passed on by Mablung and his Elves. Were they insane? Were they wrong?

Tolkien’s telling is quite clear. You are at liberty to dislike it. But Tolkien’s words confute your attempt to deny it. In both early and late writing Tolkien makes it clear that Anglachel is an uncanny and strange sword with life of a kind in it before he tells of Túrin’s death. Why did Tolkien do this if nothing were to come of it, if the speaking were to be only imaginary.

The speaking of Anglachel is intended as a climax. It was heard by Mablung. There are more things in heaven and Middle-earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Tarlanc.


----------



## Garwen

*Turin's talking sword*

Remember that its a mythology. Any thing can happen, swords can talk and this sword was forged from metal that fell from the sky which made it even more special.


----------



## Snaga

jallan said:


> But definitively explaning the unexplained in Tolkien's work would also put so many people on this board out of business.


The definitive explanation not likely. Explanations that are unprovable and yet may fit the facts are still possible.



> A truism that no-one has denied. What is being denied is that Tolkien intended the speaking of Anglachel to occur only in Túrin’s mind and that such an interpretation should arise from the text without an unduly forced effort to read it into the text.


You make the common mistake of confusing a truism for something that is merely true. The original post by elffriend said nothing about authorial intent, and nor did I. You believe the interpretation arises from an "unduly forced effort" - but it seems more likely that this was a spontaneous consideration by elffriend. By the way, how much effort is undue? If it goes beyond agreeing with you, no doubt. Not everyone wants to read mindlessly, although we've all done it.


> We know that Túrin feels guilt about the deaths of Beleg and probably also for the death of Brandir. A magic sword in Túrin’s possession might in part be echoing such feelings.


So you suggest a telepathic speaking magic sword? Or just a highly intuitive speaking magic sword?



> But to deny that the speaking of the sword occurs on the primary factual level of the story is to deny the story as told, a bald attempt to substitute under the guise of interpretation what a reader would prefer in place of what an author actually wrote. It is like imaging in a standard presentation of _Macbeth_ that the witches are only in Macbeth’s mind because one does not want to believe in such things even in a tale. Some critics like to diminish tales in that way, to make them mean what they would like them to be. But Macbeth remains a tale where the climax occurs when supernatural prophecies come true regardless of what some might wish.


Not at all. You conflate "the story as told" with what "occurs on the primary factual level". They are not necessarily the same.



> The speaking of the sword occurs without any suggestion of subjectivity and without suggestion that it is a less credible part of the tale in any of the variant texts of the incident. This is a story that also contains a speaking dragon and a curse and a spell that causes amnesia. From Tolkien’ first version in _The Book of Lost Tales 2_: “... and often that blade leapt in his hand of its own lust, and it is said that at times it spake dark words to him.”. Tolkien here does set-up to prepare the reader for the speaking of the sword in the climax.


Applying a similar method, we might equally interpret Turin projecting his own desire for violence onto his sword. Considering his reaction to Saeros' mockery in Doriath, that would make sense.



> In _Unfinished Tales_, “Of Túrin Turambar” a different set-up occurs. When Beleg first obtains it Melian says: “There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long.”. Beleg foolishly takes it. Later when Beleg attempts to cut Túrin’ fetters with Anglachel the blade conveniently slips and pricks Túrin’s foot, and Túrin suddenly awakening seizes Anglachel from Beleg his owner and slays Beleg with Anglachel.
> 
> In Nargothrond Gwindor speaks to Túrin of Anglachel: “This is a strange blade, and unlike any that I have seen in Middle-earth. It mourns for Beleg even as you do.” This is certainly not metaphorical in intent. The emphasis is on the strangeness of the blade mourning Beleg’s death, the king of strangeness that Tarlanc wishes to remove from the tale.
> 
> Twice Tolkien indicates there is spirit of a kind in the sword. To ignore this is to deny the text.


Again not true. What you say as "certainly not metaphorical in intent" is actually merely not metaphorical in your interpretation. 



> I do not understand how Gandalf or Legolas can be speaking _figuratively_. What is figurative about grass and trees having forgotten the Elves while the stones remember? It might possibly be figurative if we were told of seeing old ruins meaning that remnants of Elvish activity still remain in the stones but not in the trees and grass where the Fellowship were walking. But no ruins are mentioned.


LOL!


----------



## Grond

Snaga said:


> The definitive explanation not likely. Explanations that are unprovable and yet may fit the facts are still possible.


Possible but highly unlikely given Tolkien's writing style. ie. the purse talked, Huan talked, the Ring had a 'will' of it's own to a certain degree. Was the sword a sentient entity?? Not likely. Was it, through some metaphysical anomoly created by Tokien, able to "inherit" some of its maker's (Eol) evil nature? Was it able to "sense" that it had unjustly drank of innocent blood? Was it able to "feel" the wrongs committed by Turin and "avenge" the deaths of those unjustly killed? The answer to this, IMHO, is a resounding YES! Not only did it speak to Turin but it also broke under him as it took his life's blood. This ending (the blade's breaking after it took Turin's life) is the main reason I feel Tolkien intended for this entire story to be taken as "real" and not imagined in his... or anyone else's head.


Snaga said:


> You make the common mistake of confusing a truism for something that is merely true. The original post by elffriend said nothing about authorial intent, and nor did I. You believe the interpretation arises from an "unduly forced effort" - but it seems more likely that this was a spontaneous consideration by elffriend. By the way, how much effort is undue? If it goes beyond agreeing with you, no doubt. Not everyone wants to read mindlessly, although we've all done it. So you suggest a telepathic speaking magic sword? Or just a highly intuitive speaking magic sword?


Actually, I think we merely suggest a sword in the exact context in which the author wrote of it. You see it one way and I see it another. I think my way is more along the writing style of the author... but I could be wrong.


Snaga said:


> Not at all. You conflate "the story as told" with what "occurs on the primary factual level". They are not necessarily the same.


Please provide illustrations where the author has done that which you assert. I haven't given this a lot of thought, but for the most part (given my limited recollection) Tolkien pretty much meant what his character's said.


Snaga said:


> Applying a similar method, we might equally interpret Turin projecting his own desire for violence onto his sword. Considering his reaction to Saeros' mockery in Doriath, that would make sense.


It would make sense but, again, the author has license to interject the very feelings/methods you attempt to convey and TOLKIEN DOES NOT DO IT! That doesn't mean we can say you're wrong with 100% clarity. I do think it means those of us who believe the story as written have a more "logical" basis for our assumptions. (Of couse, that is assuming a "speaking sword" is at all logical. )


Snaga said:


> Again not true. What you say as "certainly not metaphorical in intent" is actually merely not metaphorical in your interpretation.


It is certainly not metaphorical in intent in my own opinion which may or may not have value. 

In conclusion, you say "poe taw toe" and I say "pa tay toe". I'm right!!


----------



## Snaga

I'm not really too bothered about Tolkiens intent Grond. I don't think that matters too much. When I sit and read, I don't have Tolkien sat next to me to interpret for me. The question of what it means to readers is much more interesting.


----------



## Grond

Snaga said:


> I'm not really too bothered about Tolkiens intent Grond. I don't think that matters too much. When I sit and read, I don't have Tolkien sat next to me to interpret for me. The question of what it means to readers is much more interesting.


LOL! I understand you perfectly! I just don't think JRRT would feel the same.


----------



## jallan

Snaga posted:


> You make the common mistake of confusing a truism for something that is merely true. The original post by elffriend said nothing about authorial intent, and nor did I. You believe the interpretation arises from an "unduly forced effort" - but it seems more likely that this was a spontaneous consideration by elffriend.


Spontaneous considerations may be incorrect (just as they may be correct). I’ve misread and misunderstand text where later closer reading made plain that I had misunderstood or where information from outside the text makes it plain I have done so, e.g. sometimes simply looking up a word in a dictionary or knowing a little more about the history of the period in which a story is set or reading other writing by the same author or by reading other contemporary texts.

“Unduly forced effort” _in the extreme_ refers to attempting to make a text mean what one wants it to mean against what it obviously does mean. One sometimes finds this in religious interpretations of religous texts, both by believers and non-believers. One sometimes finds it in writing of historians attempting desperately to make sense of history from a few sources. One finds it in axe-grinding attempts to prove something from material that in fact doesn’t support the conclusions of the interpreter, e.g. that the Book of Ezekiel speaks of the landing of a flying saucer. One finds it in literary critics attempting to prove a meaning in the text that most others do not see there.


> By the way, how much effort is undue? If it goes beyond agreeing with you, no doubt.


Of course. If it goes beyond convincing evidence it is undue forcing of evidence. I must be convinced if I am evaluating any argument that the conclusions are correct or that the conclusions might be correct or that they are possible or are very dubious or are obiviously wrong or that I don’t know enough to judge and so forth. Further argument and further evidence may change my opinon. This is very trivial stuff, Snaga, all quite normal.

How else are arguments conducted and conclusions reached by anyone?

For example, it is unconvincing to me to see _The Lord of the Rings_ as an allegory of World War II. It is unconvincing that Tolkien’s Elvish passages in _The Lord of the Rings_ make coherent sense when interpreted as Hebrew.

I’ve also myself read things into texts that I later found to be unduly forced, reading what I wanted to read rather than what the text meant.


> Not everyone wants to read mindlessly, although we've all done it.


Do you mean no-one wants to read mindlessly or that only some people don’t want to read mindlessly (which is what the first half of your statement literally means)? Here I don’t know what you mean, since in some cases I personally do want to read mindlessly, at least at some levels.


> So you suggest a telepathic speaking magic sword? Or just a highly intuitive speaking magic sword?


Either or neither or both at once. The text doesn’t explain so on that point interpretative options are open. I have no idea what kind of spirit might inhabit a sword in Tolkien’s lengendarium and how much it might be independent and how much it might speak in echoing its owner. I feel the speaking is supposed to be mysterious and be somewhat shocking.

(In Tolkien’s source for the speaking sword, the _Kalevala_, it is not so. (See The Death of Kullervo for the speaking sword.) In the _Kalevala_ it is not especially unusual for things most of us consider to be inanimate to speak. But in Tolkien’s legendarium it is unusual. Accordingly Tolkien provides some setup to justify it without fully explaining it.)


> Not at all. You conflate "the story as told" with what "occurs on the primary factual level". They are not necessarily the same.


Not necessarily. But they are the same within Shakespeare’s _Macbeth_. The prophecies are made and they come true. Two points of climax occur with the statements “I looked toward Birnum, and, anon, methought, the wood began to move” and “Despair thy charm, And let the angel whom thou still hast served / Tell thee Macduff was from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripped”.

Attempting to wish away the witches as psychological allegory wishes away important plot elements. It misreads the work, denies its own voice. On the other hand interpreting Banquo’s ghost as an hallucination doesn’t go against the grain of Shakespeare’s play.


> Applying a similar method, we might equally interpret Turin projecting his own desire for violence onto his sword.


And it would go against the words of the old tale which here are clear that the sword leapt from its scabbard of its own accord. That it spoke to Túrin is at this point in the tale only rumour. But it sets the groundwork for the final speaking of the sword without trivializing the motif. Only at Túrin’s death does Tolkien show the sword speaking.

The late version uses the mourning of the sword heard by Gwindor instead, something less trivializing than the idea that Túrin’s sword often talks to him.


> Again not true. What you say as "certainly not metaphorical in intent" is actually merely not metaphorical in your interpretation


Of course. If you think my interpetation is wrong, give reasons. Gwindor says: “This is a strange blade, and unlike any that I have seen in Middle-earth. It mourns for Beleg even as you do.” So, for example find a similar case of supposed metaphor in any author. But I see no metaphor in part because I see nothing to be metaphorical about. How does a sword mourn metaphorically? In a metaphor one thing stands for another. I see nothing that can stand for another thing here.


> I'm not really too bothered about Tolkiens intent Grond. I don't think that matters too much.


And there it is. Snaga doesn’t care for the meaning in a text. If the text reads _white_ and Snaga feels it makes more sense to Snaga to read _black_ then Snaga will so read it. Doesn’t matter to Snaga at all. Then Snaga wants his observations to be taken seriously.


> When I sit and read, I don't have Tolkien sat next to me to interpret for me.


It is more important, when one doesn’t have the writer beside one to question, which one usually doesn’t have with books, that one interprets the writing with care.

Writing and spoken messages mostly have meanings. Meanings are encoded in language as mesages, generally produced to pass on those meanings. The first task of the reader or listener is to properly decode the messages to determine meaning.


> The question of what it means to readers is much more interesting.


But from Snaga’s previous statements the intent of what those readers say should also be of little importance to Snaga.

Commentary on Tolkien shouldl matter only as far as what that commentary means to readers, not on what it tells about Tolkien. And so for commentary by readers on that commentary.

Snaga denies communication. Why is Snaga attempting to communicate?


----------



## Snaga

jallan said:


> Snaga denies communication. Why is Snaga attempting to communicate?


You did well to extract that meaning. Bravo! You have proven my point most admirably!


----------



## Lantarion

Haha reading that passage from the _Kalevala_ in English really reminds me how much more beautiful it is in Finnish..


----------



## jallan

Snaga posted:


> You did well to extract that meaning. Bravo! You have proven my point most admirably!


And so Snaga may misreads me and maybe no.

The moral: go not to Snaga for counsel for he will say there is no correct point of view except that there is no correct point of view which is Snaga’s proposed correct point of view which is therefore not correct.

And yet, in the tale the sword speaks and other people’s messages more often contain meaning, sometimes even rational meaning.


----------



## Confusticated

Hmm just found this.

Not only did Legolas hear stones, but stone heard Gandalf... opening and shutting spells on doors. Does the fact that such spells exist in the language of orcs indicate orcs have fear? I believe so. Anyhow! Do stone and swords hear sound or produce sound like voices? I don't believe so. I think it is a communication on a spiritual level which makes these interactions possible. Did the sword make a sound? No, but Turin heard it speak... through something like Telepethy.

At least, I find this as likely as a Dirhavel invention, a Turin halluciation, but more so than a sword speaking aloud.

In this case it would probably be some bit of himself that Eol put into the sword which communicated with Turin. 

Maybe even Eol's fea showed up at the scene! 

PS: I think Palantiri work in similar way!


----------



## Snaga

jallan said:


> Snaga posted:And so Snaga may misreads me and maybe no.
> 
> The moral: go not to Snaga for counsel for he will say there is no correct point of view except that there is no correct point of view which is Snaga’s proposed correct point of view which is therefore not correct.
> 
> And yet, in the tale the sword speaks and other people’s messages more often contain meaning, sometimes even rational meaning.


Congratulations. You have constructed an argument to attribute to me that you are able to defeat. Feeling good?


----------



## jallan

Nóm posted:


> Does the fact that such spells exist in the language of orcs indicate orcs have fear? I believe so.


I think you are referring to the Balrog’s counterspell to Gandal’s closing spell. Who knows what language the Balrog was using or whether the Balrog was even using language?

The Ring inscription itself was in the Black Speech and probably could be called a spell. Tolkien doesn’t appear to use any particular theory of magic and doesn’t attempt explain how magic works so one really can’t classify such things in Tolkien.

But as to Orcs having _fëar_, it would not impossible, so far as I can see, for Orcs to learn spells as they learn language in general and to speak such spells, whether they had _fëar_ or not. Also, even when Tolkien was considering the possiblity that Orcs in general might not have _fëar_, he imagined a class of Orcs who were in fact Maiar incarnated in Orc form.


> Do stone and swords hear sound or produce sound like voices? I think it is a communication on a spiritual level which makes these interactions possible. Did the sword make a sound? No, but Turin heard it speak... through something like Telepethy.


There is that Troll purse. The Barrow-wight speaks in some fashion. Old Man Willow speaks intelligibly to Merry. From the chapter “The Tower of Cirith Ungol”:


> Then they ran. Through the gate and past the great seated figures with their glittering eyes. There was a crack. The keystone of the arch crashed almost on their heels, and the wall above crumbled, and fell in ruin. Only by a hair did they escape. A bell clanged; and from the Watchers there went up a high and dreadful wail.


Who can say what of this speaking is produced by telepathy and what is produced by normal vibrations of the air? Dogs are normally not physically capable of speech, just as chimpanzees are not (though chimpanzees can learn to speak using sign language). Does Huan speak telepathically also? Do the eagles speak telepathically?

Tolkien doen’t tell us so there is no definite answer.

I think Huan and the Eagles are most reasonably imagined to speak with physical voices. At the other extreme Legolas is best imagined to be picking up a kind of psychic residue from the stones of Eregion. But Elvish psychic residue would be emotional and responsive, as was the hithlain rope and Galadriel’s mirror.

The sword is somewhere between the stones heard by Legolas and talking animals, perhaps about the same level as the Barrow-wight. But of course it is not impossible that an Elf could construct stones that speak even if that was not the norm and not impossible that beast-formed Maiar might be able to also speak telepathically.


> At least, I find this as likely as a Dirhavel invention, a Turin halluciation, but more so than a sword speaking aloud.


As to Dirhavel, one could have great fun trying imagining how Dirhavel had embellished and reworked the facts he had gathered. But still, within Dirhavel’s story, which is all we have, the sword speaks and exactly the same questions arise.

Hallucination fails (unless some kind of mass hallucination) as Mablung and his Elves apparently hear the voice. I say _apparently_, only because Tolkien does so indicate specifically. But then Húrin must have heard it. Someone heard it otherwise its speaking would not be known.

I don’t think this is pressing the text too hard. Medieval tales and Icelandic sagas often take great pains to make clear how a story has been transmitted and so Tolkien might be expected to be careful about such things. I believe he is careful about such things. (Admittedly there are at least two occasions in _The Lord of the Rings_ where we are told of things that Frodo could not have known first-hand or reasonably learned second-hand.)

_How_ the sword speaks then is of little importance. I can imagine telepathy. I can imagine vibrations generated within the sword. In either case a voice was _heard_ since _hearing_ occurs in the mind.


> In this case it would probably be some bit of himself that Eol put into the sword which communicated with Turin.
> 
> Maybe even Eol's fea showed up at the scene!


That doesn’t fit well. Eöl was unlikely to mourn for Gwindor or Brandir.

But just as Elves of Lothlórien put some kind of Elvish spirit into a rope of hithlain so Eöl would have put some form of spiritual power into the sword. That seems to be what Elves normally do. There may also have already been some power innate in the meteoric iron from which it was made or it may have been more able to take a spiritual imprint. It’s a _spooky_ sword in fuller sense than normally used for the word _spooky_.


> PS: I think Palantiri work in similar way!


Good point. They certainly respond to wishes and thoughts of users (as does the mirror of Galadriel and the _hithlain_ rope). Elvish technology must be seen as not strictly physical in nature, as often (if not always) involving some kind of spirit.

Snaga posted:


> Congratulations. You have constructed an argument to attribute to me that you are able to defeat. Feeling good?


A weak response.

You have used the argument I attributed to you, as least as I understood your words.

Yet, since you aren’t bothered much by authorial intention in interpreting text, should it matter much to you if someone mistakes your intention?

I don’t feel that way myself. If I am misrepesenting you, perhaps by oversimplifying, then correct me.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

An interesting thread, and after sifting through three pages of the indisputable intellectual minds of Snaga vs. jallan, I find neither conclusion satisfying. It just sounds more of an intellectual battle with high-flown speech... who can outspeak the other so to speak (although Snaga is way more lighthearted about the whole matter whereas jallan actually seems to be taking offense... ). 

So I'm raising a different question that I thought of while reading about Eol and his smithery. He wore black armor made of meteorite I believe. So how do you think his armor acted/behaved, in regards to the sword? Did the armor speak like the sword? Did the armor have a mind? Did the armor cry out in pain when it smacked into the crevices of Gondolin?  

That is assuming that my memory is correct, and the armor was made of that meteoric stuff just like Gurthang.


----------



## Snaga

jallan said:


> A weak response.
> 
> You have used the argument I attributed to you, as least as I understood your words.
> 
> Yet, since you aren’t bothered much by authorial intention in interpreting text, should it matter much to you if someone mistakes your intention?
> 
> I don’t feel that way myself. If I am misrepesenting you, perhaps by oversimplifying, then correct me.


It was a weak argument! 

It doesn't bother me whether you understand me. Its of some interest to consider how wilful your misunderstandings are. I can't believe you really mean the things you say, so there's little point in arguing them or clarifying myself for your benefit. For example, you are pretending you don't understand the difference between intention and meaning. Very amusing! But hardly consistent with your insistence on a duty of care in "properly decoding" messages.

Yes Dain: I'm not upset, and I can't see why jallan is so agitated about this either.

LOL: maybe it was the armour all along. How can we be sure the sword spoke? Maybe the armour was a ventriloquist!


----------



## jallan

Dain Ironfoot said:


> He wore black armor made of meteorite I believe.


You are mistaken, as far as any text states. You are remembering the black metal _galvorn_ which Eöl devised and from which he made his armor.

But it is not clear that being forged from meteoric iron was necessarily the whole cause of the uncanniness of the sword Gurthang or at all the cause of its uncanniness. Tolkien doesn’t provide that answer.


Dain Ironfoot said:


> So how do you think his armor acted/behaved, in regards to the sword? Did the armor speak like the sword? Did the armor have a mind? Did the armor cry out in pain when it smacked into the crevices of Gondolin?


We are told nothing of the kind. At one level that is the only answer.

Gwindor finds Gurthang to be a strange blade because it mourns like a person. That is another answer, that Gurthang, in Gwindor’s experience is unusual in its level of awareness.

Also elements of fantasy are likely to arise from psychological responses to the environment. It is reasonably common in literature for someone to speak to a sword or another weapon. I can think of a number of instances. I can’t recall any case of someone speaking his armor. Swords are personalized more. Swords are often given names. I can’t recall any suit of armor with a name. Occasionally a helmet has a name. Accordingly it is more likely in fantasy that a sword would be endowed with independant personality than it would be for armor to be endowed with independant personality. That is an answer on another level still.

It is interesting that Michael Moorcock’s Elric fights with an enchanted black sword which also has a life of its own (though otherwise rather different from Tolkien’s black sword). Moorcock invented Elric and his sword long after Tolkien had created Túrin and his sword but before anything of Túrin’s tale was published.

I don’t know whether this is purely coincidental, but also don’t know of any common source. Cursed swords appear in Norse saga.


Snaga said:


> For example, you are pretending you don't understand the difference between intention and meaning.


No.

I am not pretending at all.

Decoding the meaning of a message depends on recognizing the context of the message and the form of the message. Is the message to be understood as a true anecdote, purposeful fiction, deliberate lying, satire, parody, irony, allegory, metaphor and so forth? Is this a serious message or a frivolous message, purportedly true or purportedly fiction?

It means properly recognizing and understanding references to material outside of the message.

Intent is part of the context of the message.


Snaga said:


> Very amusing! But hardly consistent with your insistence on a duty of care in "properly decoding" messages.


Totally consistent.

An example:


> “What a lot of things you use _Good morning_ for!” said Gandalf. “Now you mean that you want to get rid of me, and that it won’t be good till I move off.”


Gandalf has properly decoded the message, the meaning of which was not in the words at all.

That is standard linguistics.

It is not unusual when dealing with a text in a little-known language to be quite able to understand the intention and drift and implications of a passage though words and phrases are unknown or missing. On the other hand it is possible to seemingly understand almost every word and yet be unable to get any meaning from the passage, to understand its intent, e.g.


> Hey-diddle-diddle, the cat and the fiddle,
> the cow jumped over the moon.
> The little dog laughed to see such sport
> and the dish ran away with the spoon.​


This is likely enough originally a satirical rhyme or some sort of parody. But its original context has been lost. It was preserved for other reasons as happens with bits of rhyme or songs. Similarly people today often don’t pay much attention to the _meaning_ of song lyrics.

No message stands alone. It is meaning coded in an idiolect of the producer including references to matters known to the producer intended to be decoded by a receiver. Some things may be unsaid, not encoded, sometimes in error, sometimes because the producer assumes certain defaults. A receiver may have different defaults set.

Intent, especially when visible within the message, is sometimes as important as literal meaning, and may sometimes be more important in understanding the message’s communication than the words. Sometimes it is useful to ask what has the writer left out and why?

Of course intent varies in importance for a reader depending on what the reader wants to get out of a work. If all I want from a history text is to mine it for particular facts and dates and quotations from primary sources I may not care much about any particular bias of the author and any special intent in writing the text.

Often there is no particular _intent_ in the form of messages other than the form feels right to the producer, feels elegant or exciting or moving.

Now Grond provided an excellent post pointing out why examination of the context of the speaking sword indicates its speaking was literal in the text. You responded:


> I'm not really too bothered about Tolkiens intent Grond. I don't think that matters too much.


In fact Grond was speaking mostly not of intent but of manner of writing and of style and of context and so forth but used the words “Tolkien intended for this entire story to be”. You jumped on that and disregarded the rest.

Grond might just as well have said “this entire story should be” as far as his arguments went. His arguments did not depend on either visible or invisible intention other than the assumption the story as told was intended to be coherent and was not filled with unconnected blind motifs.

Context matters very much if you are concerned with decoding a text as completely and accurately as possible. Context includes but is not limited to intent of the author so far as that can be determined.

Snaga posted on 01-27-2004, 03:08 PM at 


> As it is not a minor continuity error, I find this explanation implausible. I accept that you don't like it, but I see no reason to believe that Jackson and his entire team would have made a monumental gaffe. It seems more likely to me that the scene is exactly as they intended, and that he was never aiming for the continuity that you desire.


For Snaga here it is important to believe that what appeared at this point of the film was _intended_.


----------



## Grond

I will merely restate for Snaga what I've already posted.


grond said:


> In conclusion, you say "poe taw toe" and I say "pa tay toe". I'm right!!


Snaga has already proven he is not going to give an inch and continues to defend a defenseless issue. I just can't fathom someone who rejects the author's intent, writing style and basic method of logic... especially when it is so plainly stated. There is no hyperbole here. There is no insinuation that the written words mean more or less than what they say... and yet we have someone wanting to "create" an idea (at the author's expense since it is his world) out of nothingness. 

These issues are why Grond has not posted on this thread since Snaga's initial attack on logic and why I won't post again. 

BTW, 
Thanks for the kind words jallan.


----------



## Dáin Ironfoot I

> _Originally posted by jallan_
> No.
> 
> I am not pretending at all.
> 
> Decoding the meaning of a message depends on recognizing the context of the message and the form of the message. Is the message to be understood as a true anecdote, purposeful fiction, deliberate lying, satire, parody, irony, allegory, metaphor and so forth? Is this a serious message or a frivolous message, purportedly true or purportedly fiction?
> 
> It means properly recognizing and understanding references to material outside of the message.
> 
> Intent is part of the context of the message.


Why do you space your writing so much? Its like a MSN convo!  Sentence here, three there, one here, one word there... Anyways, I figured I might have been wrong about the armor, I just thought it was involved with the meteorite (because I thought it was stated in the book first of all) and due to its black color. But I am willing to accept that you know much more than I do, so I wont bother to look for a quote that doesnt exist!  As for me, I have always thought the sword's speech to be an imagination of Turin's in his final surrender to madness. But I always like to look at both sides of the spectrum, and this is what I would say if I were advocating the sword speaking.

An interesting parallel I have noticed is between the One Ring and Gurthang. Notice how Frodo was more susceptible to the One Ring as he deteriorated in mind, body, and spirit with each step closer to Mordor, and the influence and voice of the Ring was more noticeable. Same could be said with Turin and Gurthang, with his madness after the slaying of Beleg (which could be referenced to that Lost Tales quote with the sword 'spake' dark words) up until the final straw at Glaurung's death which resulted in hearing the voice and suicide. Probably not as eloquent as jallan would put it, or hell, it probably doesn't even make sense.  It's actually more of a comparison thing, rather than proof...


----------



## Snaga

Grond said:


> I will merely restate for Snaga what I've already posted. Snaga has already proven he is not going to give an inch and continues to defend a defenseless issue. I just can't fathom someone who rejects the author's intent, writing style and basic method of logic... especially when it is so plainly stated. There is no hyperbole here. There is no insinuation that the written words mean more or less than what they say... and yet we have someone wanting to "create" an idea (at the author's expense since it is his world) out of nothingness.
> 
> These issues are why Grond has not posted on this thread since Snaga's initial attack on logic and why I won't post again.


An attack on logic? I'm not sure where I attacked logic. But I'm sorry if I caused you to vacate this thread prematurely. You shouldn't let this dispute between jallan and me stop you posting your opinions on the issue that this thread was originally about. I actually haven't been defending myself very much on this thread, despite jallan's admirable persistence. On the other hand if I make statement X, and jallan replies "ah-ha! you said Y, and Y is full of contradictions" I feel I am within my rights to point out that I didn't say Y.

At this stage I will only say that I believe that text may carry meaning that is only partially reflective of authorial intent. While jallan wishes to engage the text in an attempt to perfectly decode messages to uncover the intent of the author, whereas I am becoming ever more interested in the question how and why messages are in fact interpreted by readers, since the fact of the multiplicity of interpretations seems to me to indicate the imperfect (as opposed to impossible) nature of communication, and therefore the impossibility of certainty about authorial intent. This isn't illogical, but a change of focus. Nor is it to say there is no merit at all in looking at authorial intent, and in some case examining intent might be necessary (jallan cites an example of me discussing intent, if I recall correctly, in relation to the question of Jackson's competence).

I don't really have the time to address the argument in more detail at the moment, hence my somewhat sporadic and tongue-in-cheek replies to this thread. Its probably better to conduct it on another thread specifically created for the purpose, and at a later date when I have time for it. If jallan finds this acceptable, I'll create a thread in Related Topic for the purpose as soon as I am able to tackle the issue properly.

So... ahem... how about that crazy talking sword?

There were two black swords made by Eol. Was the other one cursed? Could it also talk?


----------



## jallan

Dain Ironfoot said:


> Why do you space your writing so much? Its like a MSN convo! Sentence here, three there, one here, one word there...


I find short paragraphs far more readible on a screen than long ones, and so follow my own taste in that matter when posting.


Dain Ironfoot said:


> As for me, I have always thought the sword's speech to be an imagination of Turin's in his final surrender to madness. But I always like to look at both sides of the spectrum, and this is what I would say if I were advocating the sword speaking.


Looking at both sides of a two-sided argument is the correct procedure. But on examination one side may turn out to be far more reasonable than the other. I had always considered the speaking of the sword as real within the story without, at least consciously, analyzing the text to determine why I had that impression. After the discussion in this thread and after considering another side I had not previously considered, I find my original impression to be confirmed.

I’ve also encountered occasions where what I had “always thought” about some text or other in Tolkien or other authors was shown by simple re-reading or commentary to be unequivocably incorrect.

For example, I had long thought that when Sam told Frodo in Rivendell that he had been learning the ways of the house and Frodo replied that he knew what Sam had been doing, that this was a jocular reference to Sam’s tendency to snoop and evesdrop as when he spied on Frodo at Bag End and later when he pretended to be asleep while Frodo spoke with Gildor. It was pointed out to me that Frodo has been told that Sam has spent most of his time sitting with Frodo and it was more likely that is what Frodo is referring to. I now consider my previous understanding incorrect ... after having looked at both sides.

If, after looking at the posts in this thread, you still believe that the voice from the sword is an hallucination or that the matter is actually ambiguous in the text (whether by accident or intent) when the text is read with full and complete attention and careful consideration of that issue, then you might post your reasons.


Dain Ironfoot said:


> Notice how Frodo was more susceptible to the One Ring as he deteriorated in mind, body, and spirit with each step closer to Mordor, and the influence and voice of the Ring was more noticeable. Same could be said with Turin and Gurthang, with his madness after the slaying of Beleg (which could be referenced to that Lost Tales quote with the sword 'spake' dark words) up until the final straw at Glaurung's death which resulted in hearing the voice and suicide.


In the case of Frodo his increased senstivity to the Ring and increasing union with it is supposed to be real in the text. There is nothing imaginary about Frodo’s perception of the Ring.

One might also suppose that the speaking of Glaurung is imaginary, that dragons have an hypnotic and mind-bespelling effect (pheromones?) which can lead to hallucination (and sometimes madness and amnesia). But is that the story Tolkien told?

I am aware of my own tendency at times to try to deny what a text says because I would prefer the author to have written differently.


Snaga said:


> At this stage I will only say that I believe that text may carry meaning that is only partially reflective of authorial intent.


Of course.

Authors may not encode perfectly, may purposely disguise their intent and may include meaning that they do not consciously know they intend. A normal authorial experience is for characters in a tale to come alive in the author’s mind and the author may record parts of a tale the author does not fully comprehend. I am fully and completely in agreement with Snaga here.


> While jallan wishes to engage the text in an attempt to perfectly decode messages to uncover the intent of the author, whereas I am becoming ever more interested in the question how and why messages are in fact interpreted by readers, since the fact of the multiplicity of interpretations seems to me to indicate the imperfect (as opposed to impossible) nature of communication, and therefore the impossibility of certainty about authorial intent.


Certainty or uncertainty about authorial intent is something to be decided on a case by case basis. Often it is ambiguous, even to the author. In other cases intent is very clear. Sometimes it is unimportant to whatever a reader is pondering. In other cases it is very important. It cannot always be convincingly determined. Sometimes it is obvious.


Snaga said:


> There were two black swords made by Eol. Was the other one cursed? Could it also talk?


Since Tolkien speaks no more of the other sword there is not much more to be said. It is likely that Tolkien planned to introduce the other sword into a revision of the story of Meiglin. The logic of this speculation is that it makes more sense that Tolkien introduced a sister sword Anguirel into the legendarium if he intended to use it. How he intended to use it I have no idea. I know of no parallels to incidents in the story of Meiglin in earlier works which involve an uncanny sword. If I found such a parallel I might not know if Tolkien had ever encountered that text. Even if I was able to be almost certain or completely certain that Tolkien had encountered the text, I could still not be certain that Tolkien planned to use it as a model.


----------

