Are women just bored of the rings?

[Storm Raven]

The two are synonymous. The latter is a more modern way of saying the same thing as the former. It's not Tolkien's style, that's all.

No they aren't. Saying that they are doesn't make it so. If Tolkien had meant to use the meaning you think shoudl be there, he would have written the passage differently.

You keep working on a "what if" basis. "What if" Merry wasn't there is a pointless question. Both Merry and Eowyn were required to be at the scene for it to resolve the way it did. Trying to figure out what would have happened if one or the other was absent is silly, since the only person who can tell us that has been dead for many years. The end result is that Eowyn killed the Witch-King with an assist from Merry. Had either not been there, it is likely (although not certain) that the battle would have gone differently.

 

[Storm Raven]

Merry got him in the Wraithly Hamstring, bringing him to his knee's. Merry also was reduced to worthlessness by the stroke, but there's no indication that the Witch King was about to jump up and do something.[/b]

He didn't get the chance, since Eowyn almost immediately whacked him through the "head". But had this not happened, remember the fords at Rivendell. All of the nazgul were completely physically destroyed, and yet reformed within days, whole and unharmed. I don't think the Witch-King would have been more than inconvenienced by Merry's stroke had Eowyn not been present.

Did Merry get felled by the Witch King explosion? or was he still conscious...

Merry was laid low by the black breath. There was no Witch-King explosion in the books.

It's all impossible to tell really. It does seem very unlikely that Eowyn could have beat the Witch King alone. She didn't really seem to have any skill at arms, just dodging the killing blows and not even very effective at that.

Other than, for example, single handedly killing the fell beast the Witch-King rode on, and having the force of will to stand and fight him at all.

Also, isn't the line that the Witchking will not fall to Man? He fell to Merry, Eowyn just finished him off. In the other thread, it comes up that Man in most of the Saga means "human" not "male".

Man can mean either. In many cases it is used to distinguish between elf, dwarf, orc, and human, but in the context of the prophecy (given by Glorfindel, an elf) it seems clear that he doesn't mean "human", since he (an elf) declines to chase the Witch-King on the basis that no man can kill him.

The Hobbit (being no Man) felled the witchking with a sword specificially forged to fight the forces of the Witchking.

The hobbit harmed the Witch-King, which is always possible, no matter your sex, with a weapon forged by forces opposed to Angmar.

I think the credit is more for him than Eowyn, but Eowyn's part is important also.

Without Eowyn, the Witch-King would have been back on the battlefield as soon as he could get a new mount (just as the nazgul were back in action as soon as they got new mount after the ford at Rivendell). Merry helped Eowyn, but his help would have been useless without her involvement.

 

[diaglo]

[/b]

Okay. Imagine Eowyn isn't there, but Merry is. How does the story turn out then?

I'll give you a hint: Wounding the Witch-King in the leg doesn't kill him. Further, the Witch-King can reform himself if he is not properly killed, and come back. Merry, being male, could not destroy the Witch-King, merely wound him.

Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.

edit: but it was Eowyn who would've gained the xps in 1edADnD.

 

[diaglo]

EDIT: and -for the purposes of race ("mankind" v. male)- according to Tokien's letters, hobbits are considered human.

but what about the powers of the ent water...the age of the character (in terms of his fellows, both he and pippin were considered young (again not '"men" at the beginning)...and the fact they considered themselves hobbits and not "men"

 

[kengar]

Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.

edit: but it was Eowyn who would've gained the xps in 1edADnD.

It was a knife in the book, but -on a hobbit- it was the size of a sword. Much like Sting with Bilbo, in the Hobbit.

 

[Storm Raven]

Merry is not a "Man". and he was armed with the proper sword in the book.

Merry was a man for the purposes of the prophecy. If you go back to the original prophecy, if your interpretation was true, then Glorfindel (an elf, and not a "man") could have offed the Witch-King centuries earlier when he made the prophecy that the Witch King would not be "felled by the hand of man".

If "man" in that context meant "not human", then Glorfindel could have done the job then. But he determined that he could not, which means that "man" in the context of the propohecy means something different than "not human".

And Merry was armed with a dagger made by the foes of Angmar. The dagger had no special properties other than that.

 

[Storm Raven]

but what about the powers of the ent water

What about them? It didn't change their race or sex?

..the age of the character (in terms of his fellows, both he and pippin were considered young (again not '"men" at the beginning)

Actually, Merry and Pippen are both in their forties at the time of LotR, which makes them fully grown adult hobbits.

...and the fact they considered themselves hobbits and not "men"

Which is irrelevant for the purposes of the prophecy itself.

 

[Bob Aberton]

It's interesting the way Fate works in Tolkien's books. Basically, it's pointless to debate whether or not something would have happened differently had the conditions been different, because the event was fated to happen that way and thus the conditions would have been fated to be favorable to the event occurring.

In other words, it's pointless to debate whether or not Eowyn could have killed the Witch-King without Merry being there, because the way Fate works in Middle-Earth, there's no way Merry wouldn't have been there. Eowyn was meant to kill the Witch-King, and Merry was meant to be there to help. When the Witch-King himself first heard (and believed) Glorfindel's prophecy, he fulfilled it then and there. While he believed no man COULD harm him, Glorfindel actually said that no man WOULD harm him. And by believing the first interpretation to mean he was invulnerable, he faced Eowyn in combat, and was killed. If he had chosen to believe the second interpretation of the prophecy (that no man WOULD kill him), perhaps he would have been more cautious facing Eowyn. As it is, his belief in the prophecy was what caused it to come true (though not in the way the Witch-King hoped).

So in other words, what I'm trying to say is that the actual mechanics of the combat doesn't matter - Tolkien made a PC statement when he put it in black and white that the Witch-King was fated to be killed by Eowyn.

 

[Banshee16]

Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.

Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.

Source please. Given that my degree is in Psychology, I do believe I have some grounding in the topic. Women in fact initiate aggression with as high or higher degree of frequency than men do. It's not a popular opinion, but many studies have demonstrated this. Aggression by men tends to be more violent, and more physically destructive....but it's aggression in itself is not a predominently male only trait.

It's possible that war movies may appeal more to men than to women. But stating that the only act in the film by a female character to generate cheers was for a masculine act isn't quite correct. In fact, it's just another form of gender-typing.

I'm not innocent of those tendencies at times myself...but the aggression angle is one that I always found interesting, because these days we're socialized to believe that men are the source of most aggression, when in fact it is a human trait...not a male one.

Banshee16

 

[Zander]

Given that my degree is in Psychology, I do believe I have some grounding in the topic.

Given that I have two degrees in Psychology, I do believe I have more grounding in the topic. (I also have a degree in Politics & Sociology).

Women in fact initiate aggression with as high or higher degree of frequency than men do. It's not a popular opinion, but many studies have demonstrated this. Aggression by men tends to be more violent, and more physically destructive....but it's aggression in itself is not a predominently male only trait.

It should have been clear from the context that I meant physically aggressive. If not, please consider that to be my meaning.

It's possible that war movies may appeal more to men than to women. But stating that the only act in the film by a female character to generate cheers was for a masculine act isn't quite correct. In fact, it's just another form of gender-typing.

Gender types are not inherently false; some may be but not all are necessarily. Please see Teflon Billy's series of posts above.

I'm not innocent of those tendencies at times myself...but the aggression angle is one that I always found interesting, because these days we're socialized to believe that men are the source of most aggression, when in fact it is a human trait...not a male one.

I don't have easy access to an academic library but IIRC there's a strong relationship between male hormones and physical aggression. Examples can be found in people with endocrinal conditions, people who undergo gender re-assignment hormone treatment and in (non-human) animal models.