Round 8: Tolkienology vs. Scholars

[Niniel]

Here is the judging thread for the round 8 debate between Tolkienology and Scholars. The debate is here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=13374&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)
The judges are:
-Rhiannon for the Guild of Outcasts
-Gothmog for Ost-in-Edhil
-Omnipotent_Elf for the Guild of Elves
-ithrynluin for the neutrals
-myself for the Periaur.
Good luck and wisdom to the judges!

[Rhiannon]

Congratulations on an excellent debate, everyone! Very interesting and informative.

Both sides made good points, but I'm going to give my vote to the Guild of Tolkienology: I felt that they most directly answered the question, backed themselves up more thoroughly, and of course there were Lhunithiliel's excellent closing arguments.

Well done, all!

[Niniel]

Huh? I just noticed the title of the thread says Round * instead of Round 8... maybe a mod can change it if he/she feels it's important... might cause confusion now.

[omnipotent_elf]

first of all congradulations to both teams

untill reading the closing statements, i was going to give a draw.
However, with credit to Lhunithiliel's excellent closing arguments, i am going to give my vote to the guild of tolkienology.

again, great debate all, you debated hard and well, and showed me ideas i dont think i would have considered.
thankyou for that

[Gothmog]

As usual when these two teams debate, the headaches increased in direct proportion to the number of posts (not to mention the length of said posts. :) ).

However, I have read through the arguments and I congratulate both teams. Very good arguments on both sides

It started off with good arguments on both sides. Then Lhun. came in with her first post. Unfortunately for the GoT this tended to push me in favour of GoS as she showed that the preparation for the war needed much time but failed to show that the Istari could have done better without restrictions.

GoT and GoS spent much time in this debate arguing as how effective such Unrestricted Istari would be and even brought into question just how restricted the Istari actually were. I was not convinced by either side.

But then Elfarmari posted.
At the time the Istari came, Sauron was still without physical form, and the One Ring was still hidden. Would it have been possible for the Istari to discover the One Ring? Would even unveiled Maiar be able to find the location of Isildur's demise and find the ring hidden at the bottom of the river? I would think the answer would be no. Even if the Istari were able to defeat Sauron in his invisible form in a short time, the Ring would have still remained. and at the end of her postThese were not really victories in the fight against Sauron, as Sauron was not completely vanquished. Only by destroying the Ring as well as Sauron himself could Sauron be utterly destroyed. and then in her last post.The Istari were not to diminish Sauron, they were to defeat him. Had unveiled Maia taken the Ring, the war against Sauron would not have been over: Sauron would live on in his Ring. The GoT posted nothing to convince me that Elfamari's points were wrong.

I therefore give my vote in favour of The Guild of Scholars. And once more my congratulations to both teams for an interesting and informative debate.

[Ithrynluin]

Niniel originally chose Idril as the neutral judge, but since I am enamoured of this topic (and other similar ones), I begged Idril to let me have it, so here I am. :)

Eriol opened up with a good post, and made a couple of points that made sense - unveiled Istari would have had the means to efficiently counter Sauron, and oust him much sooner than they actually did.

One thing worth considering here is how the peoples of Middle Earth would have taken this domineering attitude. Denethor did not appreciate Gandalf's presence as it is, and he was veiled. Would Elves, Men and Dwarves be willing to relinquish control and become cannon fodder for a couple of Maiar? Would this attitude maybe even lead to war?

On another note, how much could even unveiled Maiar accomplish against Sauron who had immense armies at his disposal? Wasn't the plan to defeat Sauron by force doomed from the start (unless, of course, a huge army was brought out of Valinor)?

Originally posted by Eriol
Consider: Gandalf alone remained faithful, and he managed to do it almost by himself. If there were five faithful unveiled Maiar in action, what chance would Sauron have?


But how much did Gandalf accomplish by sheer force? Sauron's demise was achieved by secrecy.

Originally posted by Eriol
Whether or not this limitation is inherent to their incarnate forms or a simple command is not important; it may be added to incarnation as the two major modes of limitation of the Istari which are to be discussed in the debate; unless there are other limitations which escaped me in this opening post.


This is something I have been pondering for a long time now. Was this limitation only 'moral' - as in 'Don't defy this raiment you've been given, don't try to make full use of your powers, have faith in the Valar and Eru', or was it 'actual' - that the bodies of the Istari really acted as restrictions to them being able to use their full power? Perhaps I'll start a thread on this. ;)

Maedhros responds with an interesting counter argument:

Originally posted by Maedhros
Why would one think that unrestricted maiar would be more effective in the fight against Sauron? How could one make both Elves and Men fight against Sauron if not because they believed it to be the right thing to do? Why would revealing themselves in their majesty would help them in achieving this?
The Valar had tried that before to make the Elves go with them to Valinórë, and while some of them did eventually go, some of them didn’t (a very big part of the Elves). If the great Valar failed to do that, why would lesser Maiar succeed? It of course makes no sense, and that is why the Valar used those restrictions.


Then this:

Originally posted by Maedhros
Why would unrestricted maiar would be more faithful to the War against Sauron than with their restrictions?


Here I would say that it was much more difficult to carry out orders and stay true to the mission when you had numerous things that come of mortal flesh to worry about. The Istari were susceptible to fear, temptation,..etc. and this was a big factor in some of the decisions they made. Unveiled Maiar would have it easier.

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
It is so clearly stated! The Istari were NOT sent to fight Sauron! Nor it was expected from them to throw down one king (whoever) and provide ruling for another!

They had the task of uniting the races of ME. Their main task was to spread the “seeds” of “good” and thus “cure” those mental “wounds” that evil (Melkor first and Sauron later) had inflicted upon the once healthy and friendly social environment in which the Children of Eru used to live.

And all that needed time! Long were the years in which evil in ME was left untaken care for!
If the war against it was for this reason prolonged it is only a side effect, which of course is both – a logical consequence and an inevitable one (see above reasons).

All this is besides the point unfortunately.

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel

Now… What is there to be seen and learnt, that would concern our debate?
The very essence of the word “war”! It clearly states that this phenomenon is time-absorbing and time-involving.

Further on, taking into consideration the events as described in the book, it’s simple to see and agree on, that the war itself in the meaning of direct military strikes took not too much time in comparison to the period of the events that preceded those battles!

And that preliminary period was the one when the Istari did their work under the limitations imposed on them.
Should they’ve come to ME in forms and with powers others than the ones imposed upon them, should they’ve come in the form of glorious and invincible warrior-kings then it would’ve quickly led to direct military actions = war.

But that war would’ve been completely meaningless! That war would’ve been a battle between powers that did not belong to ME. That war would’ve not changed the situation, for one evil representative would’ve been thrown down only to be in time replaced by another one (as Maedhros commented in his post and provided marvellous quotes).
Was that the purpose of sending the Istary to ME?

Not at all!



Again, besides the point of this debate! The aftermath of Sauron's overthrow is not to be considered here. You did not touch upon the issue of whether unveiled Istari would have made short work of Sauron. Actually, you make it sound like sending them would INDEED have made the war against Sauron shorter! It is important that both teams try to get a firm grasp over the question itself.

Baragund makes a good suggestion that the limiting the Istari actually made the war as short as possible:

Originally posted by baragund
The valiant deeds of Frodo, the Fellowship and the events leading up to the assembly of that famous group were inspired, coordinated, encouraged and cajoled by Gandalf, the only Istari to remain true to his mission. This approach turned out to be way more effective than some kind of new War of Wrath with the Istari descending to ME in all their unveiled glory.

Looking at the matter this way, the Istari coming in a humble form and using the power of persuasion to inspire the free peoples of ME to undertake the task of willingly destroying the Ring SHORTENED the war against Sauron by bringing it to it’s only possible successful conclusion.

One of the biggest arguments in GoT's favour:

Originally posted by Eriol
and I think that the “diminishing of the wit” that Manwë said would accompany the incarnation can’t be overlooked).

Being clad in flash, the Istari had to learn much anew... and this undoubtedly slowed down the process of vanquishing Sauron.

The debate continues with similar points being made by both teams (albeit some issues you guys discussed were needless and too far removed from the topic).

Originally posted by Maedhros
The Istari were send to ME to resist Sauron because he was a maiar of greater powers than the Men or Elves in ME. If the Istari would have defeated Sauron but one of them would have taken his place instead, then they would have accomplished nothing. Suppose that Sauron was defeated, and that Saruman would have taken his place as the New Lord, do you think that Gandalf would have said: “Well, Sauron is defeated, my work is done?” Of course not, it makes no sense whatsoever.

All true, without a doubt. The war on Sauron, however, would undeniably have lasted much shorter. But perhaps this is the fault of the question itself.

Originally posted by Elfarmari

The Istari were not to diminish Sauron, they were to defeat him. Had unveiled Maia taken the Ring, the war against Sauron would not have been over: Sauron would live on in his Ring. There was no direction to the Istari to destroy Sauron's body and call it quits.

Elfarmari introduces a great and fresh argument to the debate. But this argument rests on the 'fact' that the unveiled Istari would surely have fallen to the Ring's temptation and usurped the Dark Lord's place. Except that this is not 'fact' but sheer speculation. Who's to say that Frodo would not have been the person to bear the Ring? The unveiled Istari might have cleared the road, so to speak, for a small and humble person carrying the ring, to throw it into Orodruin...

Eriol's arguments were the strongest for the GoT, and they made GoT's case the stronger one. I also think that GoT had a rather easier side to argue, or at the least - they had a better grip on the wording of the question.

[Niniel]

Thanks guys for a good and interesting debate! It took me quite a while to read all this, but until far in the debate I was not yet convinced by either side. In the end the Scholars convinced me that the war was not prolonged by the limiting of the Istari's powers; since almost the only option they had was to let the peoples of ME deal with Sauron, not to defeat him themselves. Unveiling their powers would IMO only have led to a greater risk of one of the Istari taking Sauron's place.
So my vote goes to the Scholars; not that it matters since Tolkienology already has 3 votes.
That makes Tolkienology the winners! Yay and congrats for them!

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Niniel
Unveiling their powers would IMO only have led to a greater risk of one of the Istari taking Sauron's place.


But that was not the debate topic! The debate was limited within the confines of the war against Sauron, not a possible post-Sauronic dark lord. If you wanted to include this in your question you should have worded something like 'Did limiting the powers of the Istari prolong the war against Sauron and any other would-be dark lords'?

Would unveiled Maiar feel such a great urge to take the Ring? Or rather, would this urge be greater than with veiled Maiar? I don't think so, and Saruman is living proof of this.

[Niniel]

The urge would not be greater, but their powers to do something with it would have been greater if they were unveiled. I agree that the question was only whether the war against Sauron was prolonged or not; but it is not sure that if an Istari would have used the Ring he would have beaten Sauron so easily; it's just another 'what if' scenario like there have been many before. I was merely referring to the argument the Scholars used.
Anyway, let's not turn this judging thread into a new debate; if you like we can continue in another section (like the other debate subjects that are being re-debated).

[Ithrynluin]

Anyway, let's not turn this judging thread into a new debate;

This thread is designed for commentary on the debate. I don't see what's wrong or out of place in elaborating on one's thoughts right here.

The urge would not be greater, but their powers to do something with it would have been greater if they were unveiled.

If unveiled Maiar got hold of the One Ring, would they even have been tempted to the same degree that the veiled ones would? The Ring projects images of greatness into one's mind, it convinces the person it is targeting that they could do something great with it, something they would not be capable of doing otherwise. Now how many things were unveiled Maiar not capable of doing without the assistance of Sauron's ring, that would make them lust for the One incredibly?

[Niniel]

This thread is designed for commentary on the debate. I don't see what's wrong or out of place in elaborating on one's thoughts right here.
Ok then.
I just thought that if an unveiled Maia would get a hold of the Ring, his powers to do something with it would have been greater than if he was veiled; because their powers are greater anyway if they are unveiled than if they are veiled. I think that there are some things an unveiled Maia would not be able to do, but would with the assistance of the Ring; that might make the temptation to take is greater than if he was unveiled, but I don't think so, since the end result would be the same if he would take it. The images the Ring would give him would be the same, since his inherent power is the same whether unveiled or veiled. Maybe if he was veiled he would be unable to reach this end result, but the urge to take it would I think have been the same.
Am I making any sense here, cause I sound rather confused myself ???

[baragund]

Is it OK if I jump in on this discussion? I think I can answer Niniel's question but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the debators to get in on this. I think it's OK since the judging is closed out but I'll defer to the powers that be.

One of the points our side was trying to make (and apparently not well enough, whimper whimper) was that as long at the Ring existed, Sauron's spirit would endure, and the Ring (i.e. Sauron's spirit) would consume whoever tried to wield it. So if an Istari, veiled or unveiled, were to take the Ring, he could destroy Sauron's armies and any possible physical manifestation of Sauron himself, but he would eventually "become" the Dark Lord as he was consumed by the Ring.

Think of it as kind of like a demonic possession thing.

[Maedhros]

All true, without a doubt. The war on Sauron, however, would undeniably have lasted much shorter. But perhaps this is the fault of the question itself.
I think this is funny. What is the war on Sauron? The spirit only or what he represented. It is unfortunate the lack of vision but it is fair of course.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Maedhros
I think this is funny. What is the war on Sauron? The spirit only or what he represented. It is unfortunate the lack of vision but it is fair of course.
Ah! But if we take into consideration what Sauron represented - evil, then... I guess it is a sad but unarguable fact that the war is still going on ...
Don't you think?

[Snaga]

Perhaps this deserves a thread in the book forum?:)

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Maedhros
I think this is funny. What is the war on Sauron? The spirit only or what he represented. It is unfortunate the lack of vision but it is fair of course.

Ah, you know me, Maitimo, short-sighted as one of the Teleri! ;)