Did Aragorn make the right choice? [Archive] - Page 2

Ancalagon

03-19-2002, 12:52 AM

I suppose there comes a point where you become so engrossed in semantics that you lose sight of the realities of humanity and instinctiveness.

We all agree that Frodo made his choice to go it alone, without the help of other members of the fellowship. He could not trust all of them and knew the devisions caused by the ring. Sam came along, more by default than anything, but much to Frodos joy.

Aragorn understood the choice made by Frodo, and accepted that fate had dealt him this hand. His aim was clear; 'The Company has played its part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left.'

Put yourself in Aragorns shoes, not just his, but those who remained with him. Pursue the Orcs or follow Frodo? To be honest, this simply reaches the stage of the debate as to which direction you would choose, not that which the author chose for his characters. I understand the arguements on all sides, yet I am firmly of the opinion that Frodo made Aragorns choice, in turn making the choice for all members that remained. This is where humanity comes into the fray; do you sacrifice 2 for the greater good, or do you accept that you have been already been sacrificed by the other 2 who have felt they can do better without you?

baraka

03-19-2002, 01:00 AM

Pursue the Orcs or follow Frodo? To be honest, this simply reaches the stage of the debate as to which direction you would choose, not that which the author chose for his characters. I understand the arguements on all sides, yet I am firmly of the opinion that Frodo made Aragorns choice, in turn making the choice for all members that remained. This is where humanity comes into the fray; do you sacrifice 2 for the greater good, or do you accept that you have been already been sacrificed by the other 2 who have felt they can do better without you?
I see that this can go on as a Endless debate.
I still think that there are 3 choices:
Follow S & F.
Follow M & P.
Divide and do both.
I´ll guess i will have to live with Aragorn´s intuition, although i would have send at least one member of the Co. after F & S.:)

Ancalagon

03-19-2002, 01:08 AM

Parrot

03-19-2002, 01:10 AM

Baraka,
I have not seen the movie because it was only in my podunk town for two days and my kids were sick (little monkeys).

baraka

03-19-2002, 01:15 AM

Then we are agreed; personal choice rules this decision. So Frodo and Aragorn were right after all, because they were the ones faced with the choice, we just read about it, after the fact!
baraka bows to the LOTR loremaster and mod. Ancalagon. You are right, in the book, the story ended ok.:)
I have not seen the movie because it was only in my podunk town for two days and my kids were sick (little monkeys).
There are other ways to view it without going to the movies. You could download the "movie" in the internet. (Not the same quality, but definitely good enough). I´m not saying that you do that, but it´s an option.:)

Harad

03-19-2002, 01:30 AM

Statement of the problem: Frodo required guidance to complete the quest.

1. Frodo chose to forsake Aragorn's guidance (and was forced to Gollum for guidance).

2. Aragorn chose to allow Frodo to proceed without any known guidance.

These are both leaps of faith. IMO a hero or a story, that follows logical precepts (e.g. the CoE is an application of logic), should not make leaps of faith alone, until all other options have been exhausted.

baraka

03-19-2002, 04:35 AM

Frodo chose to forsake Aragorn's guidance (and was forced to Gollum for guidance).
He really didn´t have any other choice. (Frodo)
Aragorn chose to allow Frodo to proceed without any known guidance.
This is the part that bothers me. Didn´t Aragorn knew that Gollum was following them?
Why didn´t it enter into his mind to split the Fellowship,so that one part follows M & P, and the other follows F & S.:)
To me, leaving F & S alone to resume the "quest" alone is "baffling":confused:

Goro Shimura

03-19-2002, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Harad
Statement of the problem: Frodo required guidance to complete the quest.

1. Frodo chose to forsake Aragorn's guidance (and was forced to Gollum for guidance).

2. Aragorn chose to allow Frodo to proceed without any known guidance.

These are both leaps of faith. IMO a hero or a story, that follows logical precepts (e.g. the CoE is an application of logic), should not make leaps of faith alone, until all other options have been exhausted. I think you've got it, Harad. The characters are making a leap of faith-- as opposed to relying on logic alone. You dislike Tolkien because he expresses a world view that is antagonistic towards the one you prefer to uphold. This conversation necessarily leads back to a question of Religion. (Though I realize that you'd rather not discuss that.)

But I think I must point out that the decision of the CoE was a leap of faith as well. It would take a miracle for their plan to succeed. (I believe there were several...)

Harad

03-19-2002, 05:02 AM

You dislike Tolkien because he expresses a world view that is antagonistic towards the one you prefer to uphold

wrong... again.

I like Tolkien's books even though I don't believe in Elves. Tolkien is quite happy to employ logic most of the time. CoE is an exercise in logic. The participants discuss options in an intelligent manner and decide on the course of action most likely to succeed.

Grond

03-19-2002, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Harad
wrong... again.

I like Tolkien's books even though I don't believe in Elves. Tolkien is quite happy to employ logic most of the time. CoE is an exercise in logic. The participants discuss options in an intelligent manner and decide on the course of action most likely to succeed. And when all is said and done, we are lead to the inexplicable conclusion that had they followed the logic of the CoE to a tee, the quest would more likely have failed. As was said in the book, all options appeared hopeless, the one chosen by the Author is the one that always works out.

I have a question that has not been queried yet. Let us suppose that the Fellowship had not been divided and after the fight near Amon Sul, Boromir was killed but Frodo and Sam had stayed by the boats. If Frodo had decided to go on to Mordor with only Sam to accompany him, would Aragorn have respected his decision and let him go alone? If he hadn't, would Frodo have been double suspicious of Aragorn and broken the Fellowship on his own later? Just some hypotheticals. :)

Harad

03-19-2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Grond
[B]And when all is said and done, we are lead to the inexplicable conclusion that had they followed the logic of the CoE to a tee, the quest would more likely have failed.

I don't understand what you mean. Didnt the Fellowship follow the will of CoE to the maximum extent that they could, and didnt the Quest succeed?

with only Sam to accompany him, would Aragorn have respected his decision and let him go alone? If he hadn't, would Frodo have been double suspicious of Aragorn and broken the Fellowship on his own later? :)

Yes, I think in the case of a reasoned face-to-face that Aragorn would have respected Frodo's desire to go alone, perhaps because of the reason you cite. However, and correct me if this is wrong--is there ever any hint in the book of Aragorn succumbing to the power of the Ring? In the authoritarian world of JRRT, Frodo outranked Aragorn as far as the Quest was concerned so Aragorn had to respect his decision. However, if Aragorn was really committed he should have given some darn good arguments to Frodo, as to why Aragorn's assistance would have been invaluable.

Grond

03-19-2002, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Harad
I don't understand what you mean. Didnt the Fellowship follow the will of CoE to the maximum extent that they could, and didnt the Quest succeed?Harad, I am amazed at your change of opinion. I will not go back and find the quote but your clear argument all along is that had Aragorn performed his duty in the quest as laid out in the CoE, he would have had to have followed Frodo. Is your opinion different now or have I missed something?Originally posted by Harad
Yes, I think in the case of a reasoned face-to-face that Aragorn would have respected Frodo's desire to go alone, perhaps because of the reason you cite. However, and correct me if this is wrong--is there ever any hint in the book of Aragorn succumbing to the power of the Ring? In the authoritarian world of JRRT, Frodo outranked Aragorn as far as the Quest was concerned so Aragorn had to respect his decision. However, if Aragorn was really committed he should have given some darn good arguments to Frodo, as to why Aragorn's assistance would have been invaluable. I agree with these assertions, and had Frodo waited, the story may well have taken a totally different plotline and still ended with success at the Cracks of Doom.

Harad

03-19-2002, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Grond
Harad, I am amazed at your change of opinion. I will not go back and find the quote but your clear argument all along is that had Aragorn performed his duty in the quest as laid out in the CoE, he would have had to have followed Frodo. Is your opinion different now or have I missed something?I

Sorry to get your hopes up...In the CoE Aragorn did not agree to go to the Cracks of Doom. Only after Gandalf fell, did he take up that responsibility. Rightly so, IMO.

Aldanil

03-19-2002, 07:02 AM

And further, what if our Author, far from manipulating the actions and motives of his characters to arrive at some preconceived notion of the entertaining fiction he was predetermined to tell, and so let reason and logic go begging, was instead laboring with considerable difficulty, through long stretches of uncertainty during which he sometimes found himself "dead stuck", to complete (using his own terms, not to invent, but discover) a tale that might stand as "true" myth, expressing his deepest hopes and highest aims as an artist of "sub-creation" whose painstakingly constructed story nevertheless more than once took him entirely by surprise? When the Fellowship split at Parth Galen in the novel's first drafting, he thought that it would only require another two or three chapters to bring Frodo and Samwise to the Cracks of Doom. Shows ya what he knows!

It has been told elsewhere that when the hobbits first met that dark and mysterious stranger in the inn at Bree, the author had no more idea than they did just who he might be. This experience, of his story "revealing" to its recorder what had been until then obscure, of having some particular detail of narrative or character suddenly come clear in his imagination and so allow him to continue, was repeated again and again in the dozen-year course of the Tale's creation. The one most reliant upon "intuition" (literary, moral, mythopoeic, or otherwise) was Tolkien himself.

lilhobo

03-19-2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Harad

I don't understand what you mean. Didnt the Fellowship follow the will of CoE to the maximum extent that they could, and didnt the Quest succeed?

Yes, I think in the case of a reasoned face-to-face that Aragorn would have respected Frodo's desire to go alone, perhaps because of the reason you cite. However, and correct me if this is wrong--is there ever any hint in the book of Aragorn succumbing to the power of the Ring? In the authoritarian world of JRRT, Frodo outranked Aragorn as far as the Quest was concerned so Aragorn had to respect his decision. However, if Aragorn was really committed he should have given some darn good arguments to Frodo, as to why Aragorn's assistance would have been invaluable.

god darn it!!! :D :D :D...the reason why Frodo made the decision to go it alone was because he loved the others, and didnt want them to have to bear the burden for him. Or have the ring tear them apart. Instead, instead he made the burden his own. Sam came along and he was relieved to have sam along. If Aragorn came to catch up with him, frodo would have wanted Aragorn to come for the ride too! thats why he made the decision on his own thats why he s appointed the ring bearer, for his sacrifice and decisiveness! forget about Gollum at that point, forget the ending.....the decision to accept the burden as his own ONLY made Frodo a hero and saved him from his "weakness" later on!

Aragorn respected the decision of the "ringbearer": that is the logic! And Aragorn was to be proven correct in all decision.

CoE decided that the 9 walkers were to take on the 9 riders till they got to Mount Doom. If Aragorn had gone with Frodo, then Frodo's courage would have been diminished and then Aragorn would have had to bite off his finger anyway and thrown him in as well.

As it stood, Frodo was able to achieve his task with a little help and all ME recognise Frodo as its saviour!

only Frodo was left to heal the pain of his weakness!!!

lilhobo

03-19-2002, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Not having seen the movie, I probably shouldn’t ask a spoiler like this but…. Is Aragorn’s choice in the movie version basically the same and just resolved better thru the face-to-face with Frodo or are other variables/considerations introduced to make it more palatable?

they tried to make it more palatable but it failed miserably and just prolonged the movie!

Aragorn asks where the ring was,
frodo tells him to stay away
aragorn tells him he would have gone to the ends of the earth with frodo (so theres doubt as to Aragorn's real reason here regarding harad's assertions :D )
Orcs appear so they are separated
Merry and Pippin guess Frodo's decision to go it alone
M & P does a brave thing to allow frodo to carry out his decision

Frodo does a hmmimg and ahhing at the river, and goes solo

Aragorn does an americanzism "Pearl Harbour BS", "lets hunt some owcs" :D :D

long winded leading to nothingness

Greenwood

03-19-2002, 03:24 PM

Quote by Harad
These are both leaps of faith. IMO a hero or a story, that follows logical precepts (e.g. the CoE is an application of logic), should not make leaps of faith alone, until all other options have been exhausted.

.....

Tolkien is quite happy to employ logic most of the time.

But Tolkien does not employ logic all of the time. At many crucial junctures Tolkien's Middle-earth characters follow their intuition, gut-feeling, whatever you want to call it. It is part of the accepted logic of this world. Some examples:

1) Frodo, Sam and Pippin back in the Shire here hoofbeats behind them on the road. They wonder if it is Gandalf trying to catch up to them, but Frodo "even as he said it, he had a feeling that it was not so, and a sudden desire to hide from the view of the rider came over him." Following Frodo's "sudden desire" they hid and escaped their first encounter with a Nazgul.

2) On the journey to Rivendell, at the Bridge of Mitheithel, Aragorn finds a beryl, placed there by Glorfindel, but Aragorn does not know this at the time. Aragorn follows his intuition that it is a sign that the bridge is safe to pass.

3) At the Council of Elrond, Boromir tells that he has come all this way in search of Rivendell because of a dream that he and his brother each had.

4) Also at the Council of Elrond, after Frodo says he will take the Ring to Mordor, Elrond says: "If I understand aright all that I have heard, I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will."

5) Before they enter Moria, Aragorn warns Gandalf that his heart fears for Gandalf's safety there.

6) In Moria, when they come to a crossroads with three passages after spending the night contemplating, Gandalf chooses the right-hand passage because he does not like the smell of the left-hand passage and he does "not like the feel of the middle way". Gandalf follows his intuition.

I will leave it there, only giving examples from FOTR. The point is that Aragorn following his heart in making his decision at Parth Galen is completely in keeping with the nature of the world Tolkien has created. Prth Galen is a little late to demand a rigorous standard of the application of pure logic by the characters in the book.

Much has also been said of Frodo needing guidance and that Aragorn should have taken that into account. But that ignores the fact that both Gandalf and Aragorn have come to respect the abilities and resourcefulness of hobbits, particularly when the hobbit's name is Baggins. :) It is obvious at Rivendell that Aragorn has known and respected Bilbo for many years and has great affection for him. It has also been obvious that Aragorn thinks highly of Frodo. Aragorn has also heard Elrond, his surrogate father and among the wisest of the wise, say to Frodo: "I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will."

Quote by Harad
However, and correct me if this is wrong--is there ever any hint in the book of Aragorn succumbing to the power of the Ring?

It is the internal logic of the story that no one, with the exception of old Bombadil, is immune to the power of the Ring. Hobbits just seem to have a somewhat greater resistance than men. If Aragorn had accompanied Frodo, the internal logic of the story demands that he succumb to the temptation of the Ring sooner or later, even as Frodo does in the end. This knowledge of eventually succumbing to temptation, as his ancestor Isildur did, can be assumed to have been part of Aragorn's "heart speaking clearly".

Harad

03-19-2002, 03:59 PM

You have a too restricted view of "logic" Greenwood. Logic is not only applied if there is "certainty" involved. Logic is applied in the absence of all the facts needed to make a decision. In that case the best decision based upon available information is used.

Just to mention the first 2 instances you cite as "not logic."

1. Frodo hides when he feels that a rider is a risk. Frodo is told that it is dangerous to have the Ring. He reasons that its better safe than sorry. Hide and if its someone friendly, no harm is done. This is logical.

2. Aragorn finds a gem which doesnt belong on the path. He considers what it could mean. Since that gem is a symbol for himself, and he knows that his allies would know that, he concludes that they are leaving him a message. Since his and their concern for the moment is safe passage, then the message is that there is safe passage ahead. A clear application of logic.

Greenwood

03-19-2002, 04:38 PM

Frodo hides when he feels that a rider is a risk. Frodo is told that it is dangerous to have the Ring. He reasons that its better safe than sorry. Hide and if its someone friendly, no harm is done. This is logical.

Frodo hides because he "feels" it is not Gandalf approaching. He hides because of a "sudden desire to hide". There is no logic here, just intuition and feeling.

Aragorn finds a gem which doesnt belong on the path. He considers what it could mean. Since that gem is a symbol for himself, and he knows that his allies would know that, he concludes that they are leaving him a message. Since his and their concern for the moment is safe passage, then the message is that there is safe passage ahead. A clear application of logic.

When Aragorn reports finding the stone in the mud on the bridge he says: "Whether it was set there, or let fall by chance, I cannot say; but it brings hope to me." He is going by his intuition, not logic. Logic would argue for extreme caution. Frodo is already wounded and Aragorn knows they are pursued. The fate of Middle-earth depends on his decision. Back at the Prancing Pony, Aragorn told the hobbits that he had to study them first and make sure of them before revealing himself. Aragorn says: "The Enemy has set traps for me before now." The stone could have been set on the bridge by the Nazgul as a trick to draw them out into the open and trap them. Deceit is a main weapon of the Enemy. Logically, extreme caution should have prevailed and Aragorn should have considered the bridge a possible trap. He did not. He went with his intuition in a clear violation of logic.

Eonwe

03-19-2002, 05:01 PM

Aragorn would have had to bite off his finger anyway and thrown him in as well.

LOL

(Aragorn with blood streaming out of his mouth)
I'b sowwy Frobo, I ded what I habd to doob.

Harad

03-19-2002, 05:13 PM

Frodo was overly cautious--not logic.
Aragorn was not overly cautious-not logic.

You have it every way.

In both cases the reasoning that is done, the weighing of evidence and consequences, is an application of logic. Your view of logic is too limited.

Greenwood

03-19-2002, 06:43 PM

Your view of logic is too limited.

Does that mean that your more expansive view of logic includes the use of intuition? :confused:

Harad

03-19-2002, 07:34 PM

Logic without a complete set of specifications, rarely given, does not allow a definitive conclusion. Then one has to make a best choice based upon all available inputs. "Intuition" or "experience" are inputs. Even physicists use principles such as "Occam's razor" which is not strictly required.

Grond

03-19-2002, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Harad

Sorry to get your hopes up...In the CoE Aragorn did not agree to go to the Cracks of Doom. Only after Gandalf fell, did he take up that responsibility. Rightly so, IMO. Harad, you have changed your argument, you sly devil. All you talked about on pages 1 - 9 of this thread was the "Quest". The "Quest" was given by the CoE so you are splitting hairs. Also, again I reiterate that Gandalf and later Aragorn were the guides of the "Quest". It's leader was always Frodo, otherwise the Council would have chosen someone else to bear the burden of the Ring.

Harad

03-19-2002, 08:03 PM

Grond:

`For the rest, they shall represent the other Free Peoples of the World: Elves, Dwarves, and Men. Legolas shall be for the Elves; and Gimli son of Glóin for the Dwarves. They are willing to go at least to the passes of the Mountains, and maybe beyond. For men you shall have Aragorn son of Arathorn, for the Ring of Isildur concerns him closely.'
`Strider!' said Frodo.
'Yes,' he said with a smile. `I ask leave once again to be your companion, Frodo.'
`I would have begged you to come,' said Frodo, 'only I thought you were going to Minas Tirith with Boromir.'
`I am,' said Aragorn. `And the Sword-that-was-Broken shall be reforged ere I set out to war. But your road and our road lie together for many hundreds of miles. Therefore Boromir will also be in the Company. He is a valiant man.'

I never argued with the sense of the quote above. I don't know what you are referring to when you say:

Harad, you have changed your argument

You will have to be more explicit for me to defend myself.

Greenwood

03-19-2002, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Harad
Logic without a complete set of specifications, rarely given, does not allow a definitive conclusion. Then one has to make a best choice based upon all available inputs. "Intuition" or "experience" are inputs. Even physicists use principles such as "Occam's razor" which is not strictly required.

Aragorn used the "inputs" of his "intuition" and "experience" to arrive at his decision to go after Merry and Pippin which he saw as his best choice based on all he knew and felt. Where, therefore is your problem? Even the famous twenty-twenty vision of hindsight validates Aragorn's decision since everything worked out. If you wish to say that if you were in Aragorn's position your decision would have been different, I can understand and accept that. Each person's "intuition" and "experience" is different. The problem we have had on this thread is your insistence that Aragorn should have made a different decision given what you think he knew. I know you will probably object that what you have said is that Aragorn did not have enough justification (in your view) for his decision, but since you have now allowed for the inclusion of "intuition" and "experience" as factors in Aragorn's decision, your earlier argument is now untenable. You cannot know all of Aragorn's 87 years of experience and thus you cannot refute his intuition based on that experience.

BTW, can you point out a single equation in physics that includes Occam's Razor? Or are you going to stretch the view of parsimony to include physical constants as some form of Occam's Razor.

Harad

03-19-2002, 10:12 PM

You miss the forest for the trees. All of physics is based upon the principle that the simplest explanation for a phenomena that is consistent with all the facts is the best. I am amazed that you do not know this.

According to Greenwood-logic, logic can never be used in the real world except for mathematical proofs. If you are driving in a car, how do you avoid other traffic? You must be paralyzed since you do not have all the information needed to make Greenwood-logical decisions: what is the other driver thinking, what is the coefficient of friciton between the tires and the road given the precise atmospheric conditions.

The book maintains an internal logic throughout. The CoE sets up a situation, reasons the possible solutions, and attempts to carry out the solutions. One premise is that the Ring must be destroyed: nothing else will matter if this is not accomplished. This is an axiom.

Aragorn violates that axiom with rationalizations.

When you couldnt justify the logic of the decision you changed to an argument that it wasnt logic, but intuition. When I said that you shouldnt use intuition to trump logic, you said the book never uses logic.

What next?

Greenwood

03-19-2002, 10:54 PM

If you are driving in a car, how do you avoid other traffic? You must be paralyzed since you do not have all the information needed to make Greenwood-logical decisions: what is the other driver thinking, what is the coefficient of friciton between the tires and the road given the precise atmospheric conditions.

Actually things like braking distance (one of the important driving factors affected by the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road) have been learned through experience. Experience also gives you a "feel" for the road. Accidents usually happen because you or the other driver do something unexpected, or something breaks.

The book maintains an internal logic throughout.

The book does indeed maintain an internal logic throughout and characters trusting their feelings at crucial moments in the story is part of that internal logic. Aragorn does exactly that in his decision.

When you couldnt justify the logic of the decision you changed to an argument that it wasnt logic, but intuition. When I said that you shouldnt use intuition to trump logic, you said the book never uses logic.

I, and the majority of people posting on this thread, have justified Aragorn's decision in a number of ways, including logic; you just don't happen to like those arguments. That is fine, if you left it at that. The reason the thread drags on is your insistence that this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of right and wrong and that you are right.

As for bringing intuition into the discussion, you did that when you posted the following: "Logic without a complete set of specifications, rarely given, does not allow a definitive conclusion. Then one has to make a best choice based upon all available inputs. "Intuition" or "experience" are inputs." I merely pointed out that Aragorn used his "intuition" and "experience" in his decision; something which you said he was allowed to do.

Please show me a post of mine where I said the book never uses logic.

Harad

03-19-2002, 11:02 PM

But Tolkien does not employ logic all of the time. At many crucial junctures Tolkien's Middle-earth characters follow their intuition, gut-feeling, whatever you want to call it. It is part of the accepted logic of this world. Some examples:

You didnt say "never." You said as above, followed by examples of the use of logic that werent Greenwood-logic, but logic nonetheless.

The reason the thread drags on is your insistence that this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of right and wrong and that you are right.

This seems to be your mantra. Show me were I stated your mantra.

Grond

03-19-2002, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Harad
This seems to be your mantra. Show me were I stated your mantra. Harad, your actions YELL your mantra from the highest hilltops. We hear it in every post you make. And you were right, I misread a prior post of yours...you are still a sly devil but you have not changed your position.

Harad

03-19-2002, 11:12 PM

Well then I dont understand the nature of discussion.

Do I contend that other are NOT ENTITLED to their opinions?

Do others like Greenwood ever waver in their opinions? See this thread or UvsU-Hai for an example of inflexible and unmoving stances.

So what exactly is the issue?

If I take a few positions they are because I have thought about them for a long time. If others take many positions and change some of them because they were not strongly held or considered, what is the connection?

Grond

03-19-2002, 11:35 PM

No Harad, you simply maintain that our opinions supporting Aragorn's decision are based on minimal logic and you completely discount all arguments as not being compelling and having no merit. I know you'll challenge me to come up with some and I will if you do... but more of the problem is in the way you seem to raise your self above everyone else on the forum. Your portray yourself as an intellectual dynamo and the rest of us (myself in particular) feel that you simply feel that we are all morons and are total idiots to even argue an opinion contrary to yours. We present truths from the book and they are discounted as being the fiction of the author. We present explanations which appear logical to us and you renounce them. You claim you are not making personal attacks and yet I have highlighted numerous occurrences. I suggest that you push yourself back from your keyboard and take a good look at your reflection in your monitor. You have attempted to belittle a teenager in HLGStrider and offended most of the rest of us. I can put it no plainer.

Many of us moderators have appreciated the intelligence and different viewpoints you have brought to this forum. Most of these debates have caused much deep thought but they have also brought significant controversy and discord. You need to evaluate whether you really want to continue this trend. It will get you nothing but trouble.

HLGStrider

03-20-2002, 12:13 AM

Elgee is leaving this discussion due to the fact that after being gone a day it has adavanced three or four pages and she is confused... got to go.

Rangerdave

03-20-2002, 12:43 AM

This may be completely irrelevant, but I ahev (ahev? make that have) always looked on Aragorn's decision to track Merry and Pippin as the tactically sound choice. I came to this decision in no small part due to my own military service. Granted I never had to make choices that would save or doom the entire world, but I have had men's life in my hands.

First, let’s examine the situation.
1. Sam and Frodo were in a perilous situation indeed. They had slipped across the river into the Black Land.
2. Boromir; one of the best Swordsmen in the West, lays dead.
3. Merry and Pippin have been captured by the Uruk Hai (sp?)
4. Each member of the fellowship has full knowledge of Frodo's mission.
5. The wisest member of the Fellowship is presumed dead. (Gandalf)

Now, what action is most necessary for the completion of the mission?
Although the depths of Saruman’s betrayal are not yet known, it is obvious that he is seeking the ring independently. His capture of the Hobbits would not yield up to him his prize, but it would give him the nearly exact location of the One Ring. Never being one for Subtlety or Delicacy in his actions. Saruman would have sent a large expeditionary force to capture Frodo and the ring. This massive movement of (white hand) Orcs to the east would have quickly alerted the Enemy to Saruman's intentions. This is almost a certainty.

Sam and Frodo's journey will be set with all sorts of dangers that Aragorn could not foresee, but at that time, he knew that the two still walked freely towards Mount Doom. And Hobbits, as we all know, can move with incredible stealth when the situation demands it.

Now, the choice to be made is: Do you follow Sam and Frodo into Mordor and defend them from both the assembled forces of Mordor and Orthanc that would most certainly be moving towards battle in the exact location you know the ring to be? Or do you pursue the orcs that have captured Merry and Pippin and hopefully deny Saruman valuable intelligence that will most probably doom the quest?

All in all I would agree with Aragorn's decision to face the danger that is certain rather than rush to aid Frodo in dangers that are uncertain. Given the situation and the information at hand. Aragorn made the right choice, however painful that choice may have been.

I must say that this was a fantastic tactical question. Hopefully I have avoided the trap of knowing how the story ends. All leaders must gamble with the future in war, and as a veteran of the Great War (World War I) Tolkien knew this all to well. This of all the passages in the Lord of the Rings shows the author's true knowledge of how painful and uncertain command can be.

I applaud the responses to this question that came before, and I hope that this answer is worthy of their like.

Thank you for your time.
Rangerdave

Eonwe

03-20-2002, 12:46 AM

thanks for contributing Rangerdave and WELCOME! :)

Ancalagon

03-20-2002, 01:55 AM

Rangerdave, welcome and well met my friend; entirely agree with your post on the grounds of tactical response. However, one wonders what tactical ideas Tolkien gleaned from the likes of Field Marshall Lord Kitchener or General Sir Douglas Haig. Both of whom were responsible for the single heaviest losses suffered by the British Army that Tolkien fought for.

Haig in particular had as much tactical ability as a steamroller on ice. Which leads me to wonder what Tolkien would have made of this approach when he employed tactics to his own descriptive battles. Just a mere pondering.

lilhobo

03-20-2002, 02:09 AM

i didnt get the feeling tolkien was at all concerned with war tactics but rather the human chararcterization of his characters...that doesnt sound right but i am in a hurry

Grond

03-20-2002, 02:24 AM

Rangerdave, thank you for your solid contribution to this subject. We welcome you to our forum.

Greenwood

03-20-2002, 05:53 AM

Welcome to the Forum Rangerdave. The only thing I would add to your analysis is that Aragorn did not know for sure, at the time of his decision, that Merry and Pippin were being taken to Saruman. There was still a possibility that they might be taken directly to a representative of Sauron. Of course, this in no way weakens your point, but rather strengthens it.

Harad

Thank you for admitting that I never said "Tolkien never uses logic."

Harad

03-20-2002, 06:05 AM

Rangerdave:
Thanks for your comments:

Saruman would have sent a large expeditionary force to capture Frodo and the ring. This massive movement of (white hand) Orcs to the east would have quickly alerted the Enemy to Saruman's intentions. This is almost a certainty.

1. Aragorn could not know that is where M&P were being taken.

2. Saruman could not control events in his own neighborhood. He was preparing for war in Rohan. He wouldnt and couldnt send a force across Rohan into Mordor. Saruman too would not want to alert Sauron as to what was happening. Far from being a certainty, for Saruman to be able to cause mischief in Morrrdorr while events were proceeding in Rohan, is a longshot.

3. F&S needed guidance across the Emyn Muil and Dead Marshes. Without Gollum, someone that could never be anticipated as a guide, they would have foundered. Aragorn knew then, but chose to throw the dice that SOMEHOW they would succeed.

Greenwood

03-20-2002, 06:30 AM

1. Aragorn could not know that is where M&P were being taken.

As I pointed out in my post, that just strengthens Rangerdave's point.

2. Saruman could not control events in his own neighborhood. He was preparing for war in Rohan. He wouldnt and couldnt send a force across Rohan into Mordor. Saruman too would not want to alert Sauron as to what was happening. Far from being a certainty, for Saruman to be able to cause mischief in Morrrdorr while events were proceeding in Rohan, is a longshot.
Aragorn could not know any of this when he made his decision. You are arguing from knowledge gained from reading The Two Towers. As you pointed out in one of your posts, Aragorn did not have a copy of TTT.

3. F&S needed guidance across the Emyn Muil and Dead Marshes. Without Gollum, someone that could never be anticipated as a guide, they would have foundered. Aragorn knew then, but chose to throw the dice that SOMEHOW they would succeed.

Frodo and Sam were making their way through the Emyn Muil just fine without Gollum's help. In fact they were only able to capture him because he fell off a cliff that they had negotiated with relative ease with the use of their elven rope. You do not know that they could not have equally been able to find there way through the Dead Marshes without Gollum. By this time they are two very well traveled hobbits.

Harad

03-20-2002, 06:41 AM

And as I pointed out, as long as M&P did not go to Morrdorr, their fate could not, under any reasonable circumstances influence the Quest, because of the time scales involved.

Saruman had never sent a force across Rohan other than Ugluk's (soon-to-be-decimated) raiding party. To have Aragorn believe that the arm of Saruman reached into Morrdorr, is stretching (the arm) a bit much. As long as Aragorn is thinking ahead to M&P being taken to Isengard, how about letting him think ahead to Saruman's possible reactions?

F&S had made eggzactly one trip. From the Shire to Parth Galen. To say that they could have negotiated the Emyn Muil and Dead Marshes is wishful thinking in the "leap of faith" category. Aragorn (and Gollum) had negotiated the Dead Marshes and knew how difficult that was.

Quercus

03-20-2002, 02:22 PM

Why didn’t Aragorn follow Frodo? Because JRRT was very fond of an odd little personality, named Gollum, that he had created back in The Hobbit, and he wanted to develop him further. With Aragorn in the way it would have been difficult for
Gollum to have become the indispensable character that he turned out to be.

There is no shame in this. An author certainly has the prerogative to do what they want with their characters, and there is no doubt that Tolkein did a WONDERFUL job with all of his characters. However, (dare I say it?) it is possible that sometimes even the BEST stories may have a weak spot here and there, which is, in my opinion. the most logical explanation for Aragorn’s illogical decision.

I think this is pretty much what Harad has been saying all along , and again, I must agree. If I am wrong in interpreting Harad’s thoughts, I’m sure he’ll let me know about it.

lilhobo

03-20-2002, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Quercus
However, (dare I say it?) it is possible that sometimes even the BEST stories may have a weak spot here and there, which is, in my opinion. the most logical explanation for Aragorn’s illogical decision.

what???????? :eek:

it might have been illogical but human decision that Aragorn made. And yet its what the author intended, he got rid of gandalf and then he got rid of Boromir.....like duh!!! Merry and Pippin were in the process of being getting rid of, "the fellowship has played its part". Does it ring a bell??

Harad has finally understood what he meant all along by Tolkien writing the story just so to make it a masterpiece!! lol :D :D :D

Harad

03-20-2002, 03:59 PM

Quercus,

You are absolutely right in interpreting what I said. It makes up for all the mis-interpretation. Thanks.

It may be a subtle instance of the "failure to success" theme. Aragorn succumbs to a bit of self-serving thinking, not living up to the standards of perfect nobility. Yet it just shows his human side, and leads to the positives that you mentioned.

Greenwood

03-20-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote by Harad
And as I pointed out, as long as M&P did not go to Morrdorr, their fate could not, under any reasonable circumstances influence the Quest, because of the time scales involved.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of his decision Aragorn did not, and could not, know for sure that Merry and Pippin were not being taken to Mordor.

Quote by Harad
Saruman had never sent a force across Rohan other than Ugluk's (soon-to-be-decimated) raiding party. To have Aragorn believe that the arm of Saruman reached into Morrdorr, is stretching (the arm) a bit much. As long as Aragorn is thinking ahead to M&P being taken to Isengard, how about letting him think ahead to Saruman's possible reactions?

Once again you are arguing from hindsight gained from reading the books. Aragorn does not know at the time of his decision that M & P are definitely being taken to Isengard. As for Saruman's reach, how does Aragorn know that Ugluk's party is the only Isengard force to have traveled this far? (Aragorn certainly does not know that Ugluk's group is "soon-to-be-decimated"). The Fellowship has just been waylaid by orcs at least some of whom are surmised to be in the employ of Saruman. Very strong evidence indeed that Saruman's reach does extend this far, perhaps further.

Quote by Harad
F&S had made eggzactly one trip. From the Shire to Parth Galen. To say that they could have negotiated the Emyn Muil and Dead Marshes is wishful thinking in the "leap of faith" category. Aragorn (and Gollum) had negotiated the Dead Marshes and knew how difficult that was.

But Frodo and Sam were negotiating the Emyn Muil without Gollum's help until they captured him. As for marshes, as I pointed out they had crossed the Midgewater Marshes with Aragorn so they have some marsh experience. As for Gollum's much vaunted marsh crossing abilities, how much experience did he have before his first crossing of the Dead Marshes? He made it alone and he was a hobbit who had spent 500+ years in a cave and hated the daylight! If Gollum could make it alone, why is it impossible to think that Frodo and Sam couldn't make it. Admittedly, it might have taken longer, but they are clearly not considered impenetrable.

Bill the Pony

03-20-2002, 05:04 PM

To have Aragorn believe that the arm of Saruman reached into Morrdorr, is stretching (the arm) a bit much.
I still think it is a pretty big leap of faith to assume Saruman would just do nothing, when the only info Aragorn has about Saruman's current situation is that he wants to have the Ring.

I decided I did not want to be in this discussion anymore, but this quote caught my attention, becasue shows exactly where the difference in thinking is. Harad tends to think pessimistic, people can not do things: F&S can not negotiate the dead marshes on their own, Saruman can not do anything with the knowledge where the ring is. Whereas I tend to think positively: they can do it. F&S can negotiate dead marshes on their own (I think, even without Gollum they would have at least made that), and Saruman can act on the info about the Ring. So it all comes down to the question: is the glass half full or half empty. My guess is that Aragorn would say it's half full, and Harad would say it's half empty. (or maybe he would say the glass is too big.. )

Harad

03-20-2002, 05:48 PM

Harad tends to think pessimistic

I apply my understanding of the situation whether pessimistic or optimistic. For example, I optimistically feel that Aragorn would have helped F&S in the Quest. Others, pessimistically, feel that he would not.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of his decision Aragorn did not, and could not, know for sure that Merry and Pippin were not being taken to Mordor...

A mishmash of contradictory ideas. They are going to Isengard..they are not..they know..they do not know.

What they know is that a band of orcs took M&P. They also know that the orcs march quickly away from the river. If this is the direction to Morrrdorr, then the world has certainly changed.

Admittedly, it might have taken longer

Not only might is have taken longer, but it might have taken TOO long. Or they might have been waylaid by a spirit in the Dead Marshes, something they didnt have to face in the other marshes, and something which sucessfully waylaid them in the barrow downs. This was a race against time, but Aragorn decided to throw the dice, instead of putting up his best effort to speed things along.

Greenwood

03-20-2002, 08:01 PM

For example, I optimistically feel that Aragorn would have helped F&S in the Quest. Others, pessimistically, feel that he would not.

I do not remember anyone here claiming that Aragorn would not have helped Frodo and Sam if he had gone with them, I certainly have never said this, and this has never been the question here. The question has been whether Aragorn's decision was justifiable in the context of the LOTR and what was known to him at the time. The vast majority of people here seem to feel that his decision was a reasonable one.

A mishmash of contradictory ideas. They are going to Isengard..they are not..they know..they do not know.

What they know is that a band of orcs took M&P. They also know that the orcs march quickly away from the river. If this is the direction to Morrrdorr, then the world has certainly changed.

What is contradictory? A band of orcs took Merry and Pippin. At the time of Aragorn's decision he has not made any attempt at tracking the orcs. All he has done with Gimli and Legolas is see to Boromir's "Viking funeral". The tracking does not take place until after Aragorn's decision. At the time of his decision, Aragorn does not know which way the orcs are taking Merry and Pippin. You continue to argue this point from hindsight, as you have from the beginning.

Not only might it have taken longer, but it might have taken TOO long. Or they might have been waylaid by a spirit in the Dead Marshes, something they didnt have to face in the other marshes, and something which sucessfully waylaid them in the barrow downs. This was a race against time, but Aragorn decided to throw the dice, instead of putting up his best effort to speed things along.

Might have taken "TOO long" for what? The Battle of Helm's Deep? The Pelennor Fields? All of these were successfully fought and won by the good guys with no help from the actions of Frodo and Sam. Yes, things would have gone badly for many of our heroes if Frodo and Sam had gotten to Orodruin a couple of days later, but Sauron would still have been overthrown. In any event, you are once again arguing from 20 x 20 hindsight.

And where is there any evidence of barrow-wight like spirits in the Dead Marshes?

Harad

03-20-2002, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Bill the Pony

Ah, so Aragorn himself thinks he can be of no use to Frodo. That's the exact argument a number of people have made, and now he makes it himself.
So Aragorn perceives his choice as: go after Frodo and be useless, or go after M&P, rescue them and so help the quest AND be save two friends from torture and death.

Well Greenwood????????????????????????????????????

Sam looked back and found that Frodo had lagged again. He could not see him. He went some paces back into the darkness, not daring to move far, or to call in more than a hoarse whisper. Suddenly he stumbled against Frodo, who was standing lost in thought, looking at the pale lights. His hands hung stiff at his sides; water and slime were dripping from them.
`Come, Mr. Frodo! ' said Sam. 'Don't look at them! Gollum says we mustn't. Let's keep up with him and get out of this cursed place as quick as we can - if we can! '
`All right,' said Frodo, as if returning out of a dream. 'I'm coming. Go on!

Well Greenwood?????????????????????????????????

Rangerdave

03-20-2002, 09:16 PM

Oh my!

this has turned out to be a very heated disscussion indeed.
Thank you all for your welcome. especially to Harad, Greenwood and Ancalagon for me additional views to add to my general understanding of Aragorn's situation.

To AncalagonHowever, one wonders what tactical ideas Tolkien gleaned from the likes of Field Marshall Lord Kitchener or General Sir Douglas Haig I think this plays to both the tactical and emotional brillance of this scene. Tolkien did indeed witness some of history's most needless slaughter in the Somme. I think this is one of the reasons he presents Aragorn as a Forward leader. Lord Kitchener and General Haig always remained far behind enemy lines directing others to die for them. Aragorn in contrast raised his sword on the leading edge of battle.

So to the original question. I belive that one can come to a tactically sound course of action when motivated by pure intentions. Love of the Hobbits played just as much a part in his decission to go west rather than east. But regardless of his motives, the decission was the correct one. And what Aragorn considered to be the best of limited and desperate options.

RD

Harad

03-20-2002, 09:39 PM

Its an "interesting" decision no doubt.

Its interesting to me that some people defend it on logical grounds, some on tactical grounds, some on the grounds of faith, and some on combinations of these, which sometimes shift as points are being made.

I think its the wrong decision on logical or tactical grounds, but I cant argue with faith. For the latter, Aragorn had faith or "intuition" that Frodo should go it alone despite the fact that Aragorn could have helped him.

Or alternatively, Aragorn did his best but because he was human, he made an inferior decision. Why? Because he misevaluated the pressure points of the situation. He had two options. He choses following M&P. This option was doomed to failure (yes he couldnt KNOW this) and was in the wrong direction to influence the Quest (he could know this). Nevertheless its the kind of a mistake that even the best of humans could make. To choose an option that fails is by defition, "a mistake." There may be other, unintended mitigating results, but that doesnt alter the original fact.

I now realize that the trouble I have responding to the "decsion-defenders" is I do not know what grounds they stand on. Therefore, to be fair, state on which grounds you stand...and stay there.

Grond

03-20-2002, 09:43 PM

How about the position that the author wrote it that way and that it is a great book that has sold millions of copies. And more importantly, it is believeable. Granted, it would have been believeable had he gone after F&S to the abandonment of M&P but either choice is believeable. I personally don't think I have to offer any greater defense than that.

Greenwood

03-20-2002, 10:13 PM

Harad

Thank you for supplying Bill the Pony's post. I had forgotten it. I repeat, however, I never said any such thing and obviously I never supported that position since I didn't remember it being advanced. The point remains: "The question has been whether Aragorn's decision was justifiable in the context of the LOTR and what was known to him at the time. The vast majority of people here seem to feel that his decision was a reasonable one."

As to the lights in the Dead Marshes, flickering marsh gases hardly compare to barrow-wights. Even Gollum says you cannot "touch" the visions of dead warriors seen in the muck. There is no evidence of any tangible evil spirit in the Dead Marshes. A Barrow-wight who captures living hobbits, imprisons them underground and is evidently about to decapitate said hobbits before it is stopped is a rather formidable threat. Certainly greater than some glowing lights and insubstantial visions of corpses.

Its interesting to me that some people defend it on logical grounds, some on tactical grounds, some on the grounds of faith, and some on combinations of these, which sometimes shift as points are being made.

What is interesting is that Aragorn's decision can be defended on all these grounds. That seems to be one of the problems you are having. :)

Harad

03-20-2002, 10:34 PM

I am not having any problems. Are you?

A proposition, any proposition CAN be defended on any grounds. That is never in question. Whether the defense is substantial is the question. To judge whether the defense is subtantial can not be left to the either side in the argument.

I do not remember anyone here claiming that Aragorn would not have helped Frodo and Sam if he had gone with them, I certainly have never said this, and this has never been the question here.

1 out of 3 IS a good percentage in major league baseball.

`Yes, yes,' said Gollum. `But slowly, very slowly. Very carefully! Or hobbits go down to join the Dead ones and light little candles. Follow Sméagol! Don't look at lights!

I just dont have your certainty Greenwood about unknowns.

Suddenly he stumbled against Frodo, who was standing lost in thought, looking at the pale lights. His hands hung stiff at his sides; water and slime were dripping from them.
This does not sound to me like a tourist happily gazing at xmas lights.

aragil

03-20-2002, 10:54 PM

I'd just like to point out that there was more than one route from Parth Galen to Mordor. Frodo and Sam chose the most physically demanding route- down the Emyn Muil and then across the marshes. A much less demanding route would have been back North along the river, and then out around the Emyn Muil and marshes. Alternatively, if the Hobbits didn't want to backtrack to the North they could have climbed down along the West side fairly easily (as the U-h did), and then crossed the Anduin further south and come along the west side of the marshes. In fact, Aragorn could have been thinking that this was the direction that the Orcs were taking M&P- on their way to Mordor. Aragorn mentions he had never seen the U-h before, so he could not know how superior they were to the Moria runts or that they were commandeering the whole operation off to Isengard.

Harad

03-20-2002, 11:06 PM

And how long before Aragorn was sure that they werent going to Morrdorrr? I estimate about 2 hours. Remember the Orcs were motoring at about Toyota Corolla speeds so they would be very far from any reasonable path East and South.

Ged

03-20-2002, 11:36 PM

Reading this thread, I begin to understand why I LIKED the movie interpretation. ("Liked", not "preferred", by the way. I judge the film and the book separately.)

In the book Aragorn has to make a decision whether to follow M&P or to try to catch up with F&S. Whether or not he made the right decision has been the subject of many a thread on this site. Even Aragorn himself was unsure about his choices that fateful day.

In the film, he KNOWS that Frodo intends to go on alone. He could have tried to persuade him to "let" him come along, but he is wiser than that. He has some of Gandalf's wisdom: sometimes it is the weak and the meek who are destined to decide the fate of us all. This was brought out very well in the movie I believe.

Harad

03-20-2002, 11:48 PM

He could have tried to persuade him to "let" him come along, but he is wiser than that

Plus, just the time when he might have tried persuasion, is when a gazillion orcs attack, and Aragorn prepares to sacrifice himself (if needed) for Frodo to escape.

Greenwood

03-21-2002, 01:07 AM

`Yes, yes,' said Gollum. `But slowly, very slowly. Very carefully! Or hobbits go down to join the Dead ones and light little candles. Follow Sméagol! Don't look at lights!

Sounds like Gollum is quite reasonably warning against quicksand and the like, not evil spirits akin to barrow-wights.

Quoted by Ged
I LIKED the movie interpretation. ("Liked", not "preferred", by the way. I judge the film and the book separately.)

Ged

I too liked the movie interpretation. I thought it handled the breaking of the Fellowship extremely well with Aragorn, Merry and Pippin all being shown willing to sacrifice themselves so that Frodo could escape and continue the quest. I thought Boromir's charge in to save Merry and Pippin and his death was done extremely well. I was more moved toward Boromir than I ever was in the 20+ times I have read LOTR in the nearly 40 years since I first read it. As you say, however, I look at the film and movie seperately and while I liked the film version I also have absolutely no problem with the book's version of Aragorn's decision. (I do agree with Harad on one point. I always questioned Frodo putting the Ring back on after leaving Amon Hen.)

Harad

03-21-2002, 01:24 AM

But no, Gollum had a claim on him now. The servant has a claim on the master for service, even service in fear. They would have foundered in the Dead Marshes but for Gollum. Frodo knew, too, somehow, quite clearly that Gandalf would not have wished it.

Grond

03-21-2002, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Harad
But no, Gollum had a claim on him now. The servant has a claim on the master for service, even service in fear. They would have foundered in the Dead Marshes but for Gollum. Frodo knew, too, somehow, quite clearly that Gandalf would not have wished it.Foul, no fair, call the guards!!! It's okay for you to use the author's words in an attempt to negate our argument but you won't allow us to use his words to further our argument. That's just a tad bit of a double standard Harad. But very sly, I'll give you that. :)

Harad

03-21-2002, 01:44 AM

"Sly" "clever" such accusations!

How about tricksey?

I can quote the book without fear of argument from the side that "accepts." Or you can argue that Frodo was mistaken. Chose your poison.

Grond

03-21-2002, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Harad
"Sly" "clever" such accusations!

How about tricksey?

I can quote the book without fear of argument from the side that "accepts." Or you can argue that Frodo was mistaken. Chose your poison. Since we can now use words from the author's mouth to support our case, I give you Aragorn again, for the fourth or fifth time on this thread, saying,
... "if I seek [Frodo] now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part"

Good decision, bad decision, wrong decision, right decision? I don't know. It is Aragorn's decision, er... um... I mean JRRT's decision through Aragorn... just like your quote is made by Frodo, er... um... I mean JRRT through Frodo.

Harad

03-21-2002, 03:30 AM

Good or bad, its a decision. "The Company has played its part" is an opinion, used to justify his decision. I don't buy the opinion, so I don't buy the decision. One reason for this is that it negates his just-prior intention to accompany Frodo. Worse it serves his originally stated goal. Bottom line is that the Fellowship was created to help the Ringbearer, not to save M&P.

I don't see any of these objections to Frodo's quote. Frodo does not use his opinion to eschew actions with regards to Gollum, rather as a justification FOR an obligation. It is not self-serving.

baraka

03-21-2002, 04:52 AM

Bottom line is that the Fellowship was created to help the Ringbearer, not to save M&P.
I understand the decision, although i don't like the idea of leaving F & S alone. Why couldn´t Aragorn, send either Gimli or Legolas to go and follow Frodo, he didn't even asked them if they wanted to do so! It turned all right in the end, it's just not seems a good choice to me.:) Just my opinion.

lilhobo

03-21-2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Harad
Good or bad, its a decision. "The Company has played its part" is an opinion, used to justify his decision. I don't buy the opinion, so I don't buy the decision. One reason for this is that it negates his just-prior intention to accompany Frodo. Worse it serves his originally stated goal. Bottom line is that the Fellowship was created to help the Ringbearer, not to save M&P.

I don't see any of these objections to Frodo's quote. Frodo does not use his opinion to eschew actions with regards to Gollum, rather as a justification FOR an obligation. It is not self-serving.

"if I seek [Frodo] now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part"

this is gonna go on and on and on just for the sakes of harad and baraka. Aragorn just gave you his logic !!! NOT his opinion, his reasons for doing things that he proposed! the company has played its part, Frodo doesnt want you come any more.

NOONE is going after Frodo and Sam!!!

Grond

03-21-2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Harad
Good or bad, its a decision. "The Company has played its part" is an opinion, used to justify his decision. I don't buy the opinion, so I don't buy the decision. One reason for this is that it negates his just-prior intention to accompany Frodo. Worse it serves his originally stated goal. Bottom line is that the Fellowship was created to help the Ringbearer, not to save M&P.

I don't see any of these objections to Frodo's quote. Frodo does not use his opinion to eschew actions with regards to Gollum, rather as a justification FOR an obligation. It is not self-serving. Harad, "...they would have foundered in the Dead Marshes..." is merely an opinion as well. No one knows what would have happened had they not stumbled onto Gollum. You're argument is just as circular as you claim ours to be. Whether the author has Aragorn make a statement of opinion or whether the author himself quotes an unknown, it is not factual. It is all fiction and with the author's own hand, a different plot could have been written and followed.

You would have me believe that if JRRT had simply stated in narrative that Aragorn had made the right decision rather than having Aragorn quote it, then it would have been fact? I'm just too dense to understand the argument. The way I see it, you are using an opinion to justify an action, just as you claim we are.

Harad

03-21-2002, 06:15 PM

These are the questions.

1. Did Aragorn make the right decision?

2. Did Gollum provide essential help to Frodo?

There are two different consistent responses.

A. Accept what is written in the book. In that case you accept Aragorn's argument that the "Company has played its part" and you further accept Frodo's opinion that Gollum was essential. Then you must conclude that Aragorn allowed events to proceed such that Frodo would not have gotten through the Dead Marshes without Gollum, an eventuality that could only be described as a "leap of faith" on Aragorn's part.

B. Question all such opinions in the book. Then we are PERFECTLY justified in doubting Aragorn's self-serving conclusion.

Grond

03-21-2002, 07:04 PM

Once again, I must conclude that I'm just too dense to grasp your point. It is an anti-leap of faith to conclude that Frodo would not have made it through the Dead Marshes without Gollum's help. There is no actual evidence as to what would have happened had Frodo and Sam not met Gollum.

There is no actual evidence that Aragorn would have been able to help Frodo and Sam succeed in their quest had he found them. It would have simply made a different story.

"The Company has played its part" and "they would have foundered in the Dead Marshes but for Gollum" are both statements of presumption from the author wherever they were spoken and in whatever form. I fail to see the difference that you see so clearly.

P. S. Did Frodo and Sam make a logical choice in accepting Gollum's help? Think about that... Gollum, a known murderer of children and one of the most corrupt and despicable creatures in the world... and Frodo and Sam accept him as a member of the NEW Company whereas they reject help from the others. Now if you want to start a debate on the logic of that, you will find an ally in Grond.

Harad

03-21-2002, 07:14 PM

Grond:

I am not saying there is a difference. I am saying that your argument runs into trouble whether you accept BOTH statements or deny BOTH statements.

As far as the logic of accepting Gollum's help while denying Aragorn's help:

1. Aragorn's help was rejected when Frodo ran from Boromir & Sauron and was not thinking clearly about the consequences.

2. Gollum's help was accepted while F&S were in the midst of what was becoming clear to be a desperate situation.

The second was more logical than the first, because full consideration was given.

Rangerdave

03-21-2002, 07:56 PM

To Harad:

I yeild to the superior argument.
Each side has presented some very valid and pressing points in the discussion. Bravo to you all.

But I feel I must bring up a piece of advice my old Sergeant Major once told me.
"A leader can be right or he can be wrong, but he can never be indecisive."

The correctness or incorrectness of the decision is of less importance than the making of the decission.

The only wrong choice is the choosing not to choose.

RD

Grond

03-21-2002, 07:59 PM

I guess I just disagree with one of your basic premises Harad. I do not feel Frodo was making a snap decision to leave the Fellowship. The whole chapter leading up to his departure portrays him as being in deep thought about what course he should take. Beginning in the boats after leaving Lothlorien and continuing to the very point he is confronted by Boromir on Amon Hen, Frodo's thoughts had been on the direction of the quest.

I don't have my books with me, but am certain that the Party is aware of his dilemma. Samwise, Aragorn and Boromir all seem to have particular insight into Frodo's mind. I do not find it a leap of faith that the one most desirous of the Ring "went after it". I do not find it a leap of faith the he who knew Frodo best "went after him". I do not find it a leap of faith that the one who was most familiar with the quest would know when the time had come to "let it go". We just have different opinions on the logic. I let the story lead me to its internal logic. You seem to want logic to dictate the story. I still love the works. :)

Strider97

03-21-2002, 08:04 PM

Quote Harad "Accept what is written in the book. In that case you accept Aragorn's argument that the "Company has played its part" and you further accept Frodo's opinion that Gollum was essential"

It is completly logical to accept Aragorns decision to honor Frodo's decicion to not include any members of the company other then Sam when departing for Mordor and also validate Frodo's decision to allow Gollum to help him in the Dead Marshes and acknowlege that assistance as valuable. It is hard to argue the essential nature of Gollum's assistance. It would be pure speculation whether they would have made it or not without Gollum's assistance. Frodo was simply acknowledging the value of his service.

Your logic is circuitous on Aragorn making a leap of faith that F&S would not make it through the marshes without assistance from someone. You are arguing as you accuse us of doing from foreknowledge of events. You just as well might argue that Aragorn made a leap of faith that Faramir would be there to help them at the outskirts of Mordor. It all assumes information not in evidence at the time of Aragorn's decision. Your correlation is in error-

Harad

03-21-2002, 08:26 PM

Wha?

Lets simplify.

1. Aragorn asserts "The Company has done it job." He then leaves Frodo to navigate the Dead Marshes on his own, despite the fact that it is a known major obstacle and that Aragorn could have helped because he has already navigated the Dead Marshes. The "leap of faith" is that Frodo will find a way nonetheless.

2. You and Greenwood and whoever else is willing to sign on, argue that Frodo did not need Gollum to get thru the Dead Marshes, despite Frodo's ASSERTION to the contrary.

Where is my cirularity? Where is my foreknowledge?

The only contradiction is your accepting Aragorn's assertion at face value and denying Frodo's assertion.

Grond

03-21-2002, 08:39 PM

And at what point would the Company have served is useful purpose? At Mount Doom? At some point the Fellowship had to break. It was a foregone clonclusion in my mind as I read the book the first time. It was stated as such at the Council of Elrond.

Harad, had Aragorn stayed and gotten Frodo and Sam through the Dead Marshes, they would have then been faced with the Morannon... or Minas Morgul. Harad, obstacles existed from the start and Elrond had seen fit to have Frodo be responsible for the mission. On him alone was laid any responsibility.

I guess those of us who agree in the logic of Aragorn's decision are able to make the "leap of faith" necessary for the story to work.

Harad

03-21-2002, 08:50 PM

I guess those of us who agree in the logic of Aragorn's decision are able to make the "leap of faith" necessary for the story to work.

That is not an issue and never has been. If Aragorn made a decision based upon self-interest, what does that have to do with the story working?

If at Lorien, all the rest of the Company said to Frodo, "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" wouldn't that have satisfied the strictures of the CoE?

Just as was stated before Boromir's treachery:

I would choose Minas Tirith, but if he does not, then I follow him.'
`And I too will go with him,' said Legolas. `It would be faithless now to say farewell.'
'It would indeed be a betrayal, if we all left him,' said Aragorn. 'But if he goes east, then all need not go with him; nor do I think that all should. That venture is desperate: as much so for eight as for three or two, or one alone. If you would let me choose, then I should appoint three companions: Sam, who could not bear it otherwise; and Gimli; and myself. Boromir will return to his own city, where his father and his people need him; and with him the others should go, or at least Meriadoc and Peregrin, if Legolas is not willing to leave us.'

The only thing that interrupted these high-minded sentiments was the events of the next few minutes.

Grond

03-21-2002, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Harad
That is not an issue and never has been. If Aragorn made a decision based upon self-interest, what does that have to do with the story working?

If at Lorien, all the rest of the Company said to Frodo, "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" wouldn't that have satisfied the strictures of the CoE?

Just as was stated before Boromir's treachery:

The only thing that interrupted these high-minded sentiments was the events of the next few minutes. And the fact that Frodo had decided that the Ring was too great a task for any but himself. Aragorn was able to discern that by whatever means you wish to attribute it. Coulda been intuition, higher level consciousness or a hunch. But Aragorn, using all of the resources available, arrived at the conclusion that Frodo didn't want him and that the Quest of the Ring had left them.

We can and will accept your premise that this isn't strong enough evidence for you, but please, quit portraying our leap of faith has no basis in a logical decision. We have shown you time and time again, from different viewpoints and mind sets, that it is logical to us.

Tar-Palantir

03-21-2002, 09:29 PM

I'd have to gto with Grond on this one, Harad. My personal opinion is that Aragorn should have followed Frodo, but the Death March arguments seem to hold up better as a whole - "whole" being the operative word. In other words, I'm outta gas.

Harad

03-21-2002, 10:07 PM

Tar-Pal,
but the Death March arguments seem to hold up better as a whole

I would argue about this, probably, but I don't know what it means.

Grond,
but please, quit portraying our leap of faith has no basis in a logical decision. We have shown you time and time again, from different viewpoints and mind sets, that it is logical to us.

Believe whatever you want. People variously believe that decision was demanded by logic, that decision was based upon intuition, or both. Choose any or all. Be comforted by the large majority on your side.

Just one thing about logic. It is unforgiving. There might be a dozen reasons why something seems logical, but it only takes one non-compliant reason to knock it down.

baraka

03-21-2002, 10:15 PM

Ok, what i want to know is:
Why couldn't Aragorn send either Gimli or Legolas to go after Frodo and Sam. That way, Aragorn would have not seem to "abandon" the ringbearer in the quest to "save the whole world".

Harad

03-21-2002, 10:18 PM

Baraka:

I hear you. I agree with the last part of your sentiment. But for me, you don't send the "second team" to play when the Cup is on the line.

baraka

03-21-2002, 10:26 PM

But for me, you don't send the "second team" to play when the Cup is on the line.
At least the second team is going to play!:(

Parrot

03-21-2002, 10:28 PM

At what point was the consensus reached that pure logic and the scientific method were the only valid way to come to a “right” conclusion? This kind of reasoning might be mandatory in the laboratory but it is often just not practical in real-world (or even fictional) scenarios. I think this goes to RangerDave’s previous point about a leader needing to be willing to pull the trigger, even in the absence of empirical evidence.

The argument concerning the NECESSITY of rescuing M & P has basically been distilled to this point: “What did Aragorn KNOW about collusion between S & S and what communication abilities they might have?”

The answer is: He didn’t know one way or the other so he must make an assumption and act accordingly. It’s called “out-come based reasoning” (not necessarily logic). So what are his options:

Assumption 1:
Saruman is in league with, and can effectively communicate with Sauron.

Conclusion 1:
Secrecy being paramount, you pursue M & P in hopes of keeping the secret of the quest.

Possible Outcomes:
Best Case - The secret is kept, and the quest still has a chance.

Worst Case - The secret was never really in jeopardy, and Frodo’s chances are worse than if you were there, BUT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE.

Assumption 2.
Saruman is not in league with Sauron or at least has no fast enough means of communication to interfere.

Conclusion 2.
Don’t be concerned with Saruman, go after Frodo and directly aid the quest.

Possible outcomes:
Best Case – You are there with Frodo and the quest has a greater chance of success.

Worst Case – Saruman relays the intent of the quest, Mordor goes to defcon 5, Sauron scrambles the Nazgul, puts 12 battalions of orcs around the Cracks of Doom, and ANY HOPE OF SUCCESS IS GONE.

Harad’s proposal (as I understand it), following Occam’s razor, is that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Aragorn should assume that Saruman and Sauron are not in communication, and therefore the quest is not in jeopardy. This is great as long as you are right (Best Case of all possible outcomes), but if you are wrong, the jig is up, the news is out, and your quest is on the front page of the Mordor Times (the absolute, without-a-doubt, no question Worst Case of all the possible outcomes).

There is no level of confidence here, just options, both of which have the potential to blow-up in Aragorn’s face. In the absence of compelling information, he made the only decision that, whether his assumption was right or wrong, would ensure that the quest would have still have SOME chance to succeed. It’s called “Hope for the Best but Expect the Worst” it’s also called “COVER YOUR A**!” (a.k.a “Parrot’s Razor”).

(I based this post on the condition that the two courses of action are mutually exclusive, I have no problem with the idea that they might have split the fellowship Baraka.)

Harad

03-21-2002, 10:44 PM

Its always amusing to start a post disparaging logic and the scientific method, and then to attempt to use it for the rest of the post.

Rather than answer every point as I have dozens of times, I will only repeat that IMO (as always) Aragorn had 2 choices:

1. pursue a course of action with a bunch of "what-ifs" that might INDIRECTLY affect the Quest.

or

2. pursue of course of action that DIRECTLY affects the Quest--i.e. continue along with the Quest.

Parrot

03-21-2002, 11:01 PM

Happy to ammuse you since that's just what I was going for.

There are "What-ifs" no matter which way he goes, that is the whole point and no attempts at logic are going to resolve those what-ifs.

By directly affectly the quest he might very well indirectly doom the quest. But you're right (as always), since he doesn't know that for certain that should never enter his reasoning.

Harad

03-21-2002, 11:15 PM

no attempts at logic are going to resolve those what-ifs.

Logic never resolves anything. Its just a agreed upon arena for discussions.

I have tried to discover whether the rules of logic in ME are the same as ours. Nobody came up with any differences, although people got mad that I would ask.

On Regular Earth most would agree there is one set of logic that should be employed. Therefore whether we discuss internal ME logic or external applications of logic to ME we should be in the same arena.

If you argue that logic doesnt apply--e.g. events are ruled by intuituion or "leaps of faith" then you have left the arena. You are allowed to, of course.

Take the case of a soccer game. The goal is to get a goal. If one of your teammates has the ball there are different ways to approach the situation. You can attempt to accompany the teammate, perhaps as a decoy, perhaps to get the pass to score. That is an application of logic.

You can also attack the defenders, hoping to make the path easier for your teammates. Another application of logic.

Or you can run to the otherside of the field and start kicking your own goalie. Maybe if you do that the other team will be so astonished that they will let down their guards and you will score. Yet another application of logic.

One never knows, do one?

Ged

03-21-2002, 11:25 PM

I think what is missing from the comments in this thread is the acceptance that sometimes events can be overtaken by circumstances. What I mean is that changes can happen so quickly that "logic" and "what if" and even "intuition" go straight out of the window.

I would be hard pressed to find another character in LoTR who I would say was as level-headed as Aragorn - i.e. dependable and solid and unlikely to be "hasty". However, even he in those eventful few hours at Parth Galen doubted his own decisions. Under such circumstances it doesn't make sense to question whether he made the "right" decision or not.

He did what he felt was right at the time. That is all any of us can do. But Aragorn's heart was true. By following his heart and letting Frodo go (whether you look at the film OR the book) a sequence of events was then put into play which led to the eventual downfall of Sauron.

Rangerdave

03-21-2002, 11:25 PM

Harad’s proposal (as I understand it), following Occam’s razor, is that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Aragorn should assume that Saruman and Sauron are not in communication, and therefore the quest is not in jeopardy.
Where is the evidence that Aragorn has or has not any proof (or even reason to believe) that Saruman and Sauron are in (or not in) communication. And what more, what difference should that make to the arguement.

Aragorn certainly would not have the respective "phone bill" from these two, but he does understand the concept of observation. If Merry and Pippin would have been brought to Orthanc, Saruman would have moved a large force to recover the ring. Do you honestly think that Sauron would have needed direct communication with Saruman to reason out what the rogue wizard was after?

The whole point of going after Merry and Pippin was to keep Frodo and Sam hidden for as long as possible.

This may have been either a logical or emotional decission on Aragorn's point. But whether he followed his heart or mind, the result is the same.

To use your assumption theory, lets try this
Assumption 1: Merry and Pippin are captured:
Best case: They die on route to Orthanc and the location of the ringbearer is safe.
Worst case: Saruman discovers the name and location of the ringbearer and takes steps to capture the ring to assume power
Absolutely worst case: Saruman passes information gleened from the Hobbits to the Enemy.

So what are the conclussions.
1. If Merry and Pippin come to Saruman alive, one way or another Sauron will deduce the general location of the Ring.
2. Frodo and Sam are as far as anyone knows are still walking free whereas Merry and Pippin are not.

Logic, Honor, Compassion, Love and Duty all require the rescue of the captive Hobbits.

Just my thoughts
Please don't take offense as this was not my intention

RD

Harad

03-21-2002, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Rangerdave
So what are the conclussions.
1. If Merry and Pippin come to Saruman alive, one way or another Sauron will deduce the general location of the Ring.

If M&P come to Saruman, not a given, then Sauron may find out on some timescale. If he does find out, on the quickest time scale then the Quest would be endangered.

If because Frodo and Sam are not supported by Aragorn they are quickly captured by Sauron's forces, then the Quest is IMMEDIATELY ended.

Parrot

03-21-2002, 11:56 PM

No offense taken at all RangerDave, but I think you lost me or I lost you. I am arguing for the rescue of the hobbits also, because I believe the POTENTIAL for disaster if you don’t is just too great. The quote you pasted was my attempt to summarize Harad’s position as I understand it.

Ged, excellent point about changing circumstances. Once Saruman’s orcs attacked and it became apparent that he was making his own direct play for the ring, it was a whole new ballgame and what was maybe obvious before (taking Frodo to Mordor) is suddenly maybe not so obvious. Why does he want it? Is he working only on his own behalf? What might he do with knowledge? All must be considered in deciding the next move, at least as I see it.

Harad, I appreciate you arguing my points rather than just dismissing me. I REALLY do enjoy the give and take.

Parrot

03-22-2002, 12:01 AM

If Sauron finds out on any time-scale within say the next MONTH it's game over. If he knows they are coming to Mount Doom that sucker is going to be harder to get into than Britney's pants (sorry Mr. Moderator).

Harad

03-22-2002, 12:05 AM

If Sauron finds out on any time-scale within say the next MONTH it's game over.

Agreed. And IMO he's more likely to find out by capturing THE ACTUAL RINGBEARER, than a chain of events leading to information ABOUT THE RINGBEARER.

I am not saying that Aragorn made an unsupportable decision. I think it was a decision that was not the best decision, in part because it was made in haste and in part because it was self-serving. This fits in with the fact that every one of Tolkien's heros was flawed.

Parrot

03-22-2002, 12:18 AM

That's cool. I can live with that.

Harad

03-22-2002, 12:27 AM

[heart stops...pacemaker kicks in]

Ged

03-22-2002, 12:31 AM

Parrot,
That had me giggling. Hehehehehe!

Parrot

03-22-2002, 12:35 AM

Pacemaker? Well on second-thought maybe we should go on........

Greenwood

03-22-2002, 01:06 AM

Quote by Harad
If M&P come to Saruman, not a given, then Sauron may find out on some timescale. If he does find out, on the quickest time scale then the Quest would be endangered.

If because Frodo and Sam are not supported by Aragorn they are quickly captured by Sauron's forces, then the Quest is IMMEDIATELY ended.

Harad here plays his usual game of his side of the argument is definite and everyone else's is maybes. It is definite that M & P are in the hands of the Enemy. What Harad keeps conveniently ignoring/dismissing is that when Aragorn makes his decision he does not know whether M & P are being taken to Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul. There is absoultely no justification for Aragorn to assume a long delay in Sauron finding out the secret of the Quest as a result of M & P's capture. It would be monumentally foolish and militarily inept for Aragorn to make the assumption: "I don't have to worry about M & P spilling the beans and even if they do it will be too late for the Enemy to do anything about it." On the other side Frodo and Sam are in no immediate danger that Aragorn knows of. They went off together and it is obvious Frodo did not want any further help from the Fellowship. In fact, an argument could be made that all the local Enemy forces seem to have been content with their capture of M & P and have carried them off. The Enemy forces never saw Frodo and Sam. Aragorn knows that both Sauron and Saruman know that the Ring was carried by a hobbit. It is reasonable to believe instructions were specifically given to capture hobbits. That has now been done. If you are facing an even semi-thinking foe, might they wonder why you abandon two captured hobbits? Might they think that perhaps they have captured unimportant captives? By going after Frodo and Sam you are telling the other side that you consider their captives unimportant and the real game to be elsewhere. By going after Frodo and Sam you are drawing attention to them and as has been pointed out before, you cannot know what sort of reception you are going to get from Frodo if and when you catch up to him. He may indeed consider Aragorn's abandoning of M & P and pursuing of himself as a sign of the Ring's influence on Aragorn.

Harad loves to claim that Frodo made his decision to leave under duress. Harad also likes to cite parts of the debate of the Fellowship while Frodo is off alone, but Harad always stops short of Sam's contribution to that debate:
"And he isn't worrying about us either: whether we'll go along with him or no. He knows we mean to. That's another thing that's bothering him. If he screws himself up to go, he'll want to go alone. Mark my words! We're going to have trouble when he comes back. For he'll screw himself up all right, as sure as his name's Baggins."
"I believe you speak more wisely than any of us, Sam," said Aragorn. "And what shall we do, if you prove right?"
"Stop him! Don't let him go!" cried Pippin.
"I wonder?" said Aragorn. "He is the Bearer, and the fate of the Burden is on him. I do not think that it is our part to drive him one way or the other. Nor do I think that we should succeed, if we tried. There are other powers at work far stronger."

Sam knows Frodo best and knows he means to go alone. Aragorn recognizes this and and further states his believe it would be wrong to go against Frodo's decision. All this is stated before M & P's capture and Boromir's death. Aragorn's later decision is fully in keeping with this. Further, in the internal logic of the world of Middle-earth, a person's intuition or "heart" is a perfectly valid factor in weighing in on a decision. I listed half a dozen examples in an earlier post, including Aragorn's decision at the Bridge of Mitheithel on the way from Weathertop to Rivendell.

On the other side, Harad treats it as a certainty that Frodo and Sam will be quickly captured without Aragorn's help. But Aragorn does not know this nor could he know this. In fact it does not happen. Aragorn has every reason to respect Frodo's abilities by this time having spent everyday with him for the previous five months and under some of the most difficult conditions of both their lifes. Aragorn has also known Bilbo for years and knows how highly Gandalf rates Frodo. As I also pointed out earlier, Aragorn at the Council of Elrond heard Elrond, his respected foster father say that the Quest was appointed to Frodo and if he could not find a way, no one could. Thus we have both logical reasons and reasons of the heart (the latter being quite important in the world of Middle-earth) for Aragorn's decision.

Harad says that Frod and Sam could not have made it without Gollum. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is not. Frodo and Sam were making it through the Emyn Muil without Gollum's help. In fact they were doing so well alone they were able to capture him. Once Gollum was captured their choices were to kill him outright, leave him behind bound (which was the same thing as killing him) or take him along and make him help if possible. The last is what they did and is fully in keeping with the spirit of the book, though it is far from the most logical course of action. Of course, after they get through the marshes Frodo says they couldn't have done it without Gollum, but there is no real way for him to know this. One could take Harad's argument about Aragorn's decision and say that Frodo's statement was merely self-serving in that it was an after the fact justification for the somewhat irrational decision of leaving this murderous, villainous creature alive. A decision Frodo is now repeating.

Harad

03-22-2002, 01:15 AM

Without again repeating the arguments that Greenwood ignores, how about these?

Originally posted by Greenwood
[B]
Harad here plays his usual game

attack

What harad keeps conveniently ignoring/dismissing is that when Aragorn makes his decision he does not know whether M & P are being taken to Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul.

I have addressed this issue over and over. Never enuf I suppose.

There is absoultely no justification for Aragorn to assume a long delay in Sauron finding out the secret of the Quest as a result of M & P's capture. It would be monumentally foolish and militarily inept for Aragorn to make the assumption: "I don't have to worry about M & P spilling the beans and even if they do it will be too late for the Enemy to do anything about it." On the other side Frodo and Sam are in no immediate danger that Aragorn knows of.

Aragorn has to judge which is more likely to result in Sauron finding out. A long chain of reasoning involving M&P or a direct capture of F&S. I believe the latter is the best bet.

Harad loves to claim that Frodo made his decision to leave under duress. Harad also likes to cite parts of the debate of the Fellowship while Frodo is off alone, but Harad always stops short of Sam's contribution to that debate:

untrue attack...I have written about Sam's opinion.

On the other side, Harad treats it as a certainty that Frodo and Sam will be quickly captured without Aragorn's help.

a fabrication...never said it...never will

One could take Harad's argument about Aragorn's decision and say that Frodo's statement was merely self-serving in that it was and after the fact justification for the somewhat irrational decision of leaving this murderous, villainous creature alive. A decision Frodo is now repeating.

one can stretch arguments beyond their breaking points too. Frodo's declaration about Gollum hardly fulfilled the ridiculous claims made above. What Greenwood ignores is THE CONTENT of Frodo's declaration. Talk about conveeeeeeeeeenience.

Ged

03-22-2002, 01:32 AM

Harad,
You said in the 2nd post of this thread:

And dont fall for the story that he knew what Saruman was going to do. He didnt (unless he had a copy of TTT). At worst he should have sent L&G after them and followed F&S. Gandalf said he would have. Since Gandalf had fallen, Aragorn should have taken his place.

So, to give you credit, you have been consistent.

What you are not seeing though is the simple fact that Frodo didn't WANT Aragorn to go with him. In this respect Aragorn didn't even have a "decision" to make. He either traipsed after an unwilling ringbearer, or accepted things and made the best of everything else.

With respect, I really don't think you are taking this point on board.

Greenwood

03-22-2002, 03:18 AM

Harad

My full sentence, which you conveeeeniently excerpted was: "Harad here plays his usual game of his side of the argument is definite and everyone else's is maybes." This is clearly a comment on your arguments, not a personal attack. (As is this comment.)

As for your next comment: "I have addressed this issue over and over. Never enuf I suppose." in regard to my saying: "What Harad keeps conveniently ignoring/dismissing is that when Aragorn makes his decision he does not know whether M & P are being taken to Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul." is ignoring it yet again. You continually talk about the time it would take for Merry and Pippin to be brought to Saruman, the time it would take for him to react, the difficulty of communication between Sarumand and Sauron, but you ignore the fact that at the time of his decision Aragorn did not know where Merry and Pippin were being taken. The one time you tried to address it you said that once Aragorn started tracking the orcs it was clear they were going away from the river and away from Mordor, but this too ignores the fact that this is after Aragorn makes his decision.

You say: "Aragorn has to judge which is more likely to result in Sauron finding out. A long chain of reasoning involving M&P or a direct capture of F&S." This ignores the fact that Merry and Pippin are already in the hands of the Enemy and Frodo and Sam clearly are not. The long chain of reasoning you refer to involves what may or may not befall Frodo and Sam. Merry and Pippin are already captured and it can be safely assumed that they will tell all as soon as they are questioned by higher authorities, i.e. Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul.

As to the debate between the Fellowship before Boromir's attack you have posted portions of it several times. On each occasion your selection of the passage has stopped before Sam's contribution. When I have posted Sam's contribution you hae dismissed it as a personal opinion and returned to your argument that Aragorn's decision was self-serving. You ignore the fact that the passage points to the fact that Frodo had already made his decision to go it alone. His decision was not made under duress.

Your response to my comment: "On the other side, Harad treats it as a certainty that Frodo and Sam will be quickly captured without Aragorn's help." was "a fabrication...never said it...never will". Shall we just look at the last time you said this: "If because Frodo and Sam are not supported by Aragorn they are quickly captured by Sauron's forces, then the Quest is IMMEDIATELY ended."

Harad

03-22-2002, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Greenwood
Harad
This is clearly a comment on your arguments, not a personal attack.

As I didnt say it was a personal attack (altho it probably is) that is an irrelvant return. Its an attack on something rather than an argument on subject.

As for your next comment: "I have addressed this issue over and over. Never enuf I suppose." in regard to my saying: "What Harad keeps conveniently ignoring/dismissing is that when Aragorn makes his decision he does not know whether M & P are being taken to Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul." is ignoring it yet again.

Aragorn makes a decision without knowing what the situation is. As I have said other times, within 2 hours he will know that M&P are not going to Morrrdorr. This is plenty of time to turn around and rejoin F&S. This is known as "scouting" the situation. I have said this several times but it appears to be missed each time. I wonder if it will missed this time?

You say: "Aragorn has to judge which is more likely to result in Sauron finding out. A long chain of reasoning involving M&P or a direct capture of F&S." This ignores the fact that Merry and Pippin are already in the hands of the Enemy

hoohoo..arguing in one paragraph that Aragorn can not know who has M&P and in the next they are "already in the hands of the Enemy.." It is too laugh, harshly.

and Frodo and Sam clearly are not.
F&S just crossed, on their own, to the East side of the Anduin, the outskirts of Sauron's domain. Who is reading ahead in the book to say "clearly are not" captured? What ouija board does Aragorn use to get this "clear" information. Truly absurd.

Merry and Pippin are already captured and it can be safely assumed that they will tell all as soon as they are questioned by higher authorities, i.e. Sauron, Saruman or a Nazgul.

Within 2 hours Aragorn would rule out any shortterm (and that's all that's important) problem with Sauron and the Nazgul--without reading ahead in the book. Furthermore the heroes M&P are made of sterner stuff in my opinion than in Greenwoods.

When I have posted Sam's contribution you hae dismissed it as a personal opinion and returned to your argument that Aragorn's decision was self-serving. You ignore the fact that the passage points to the fact that Frodo had already made his decision to go it alone. His decision was not made under duress.

Sam gives his opinion of Frodo's decision. He hasnt heard Frodo himself, of course. In that circumstance should the rest of the Fellowship including the future King of Middle Earth roll over like lap dogs and say: "Oh Sam Gamgee the Wise, you have spoken with crystal clarity. We will henceforward check our brains at the door. Despite the fact that Frodo needs our help to get to Morrrdorr, barring of course the eventuality that he will meet Gollum, tame Gollum, and use Gollum as a guide. Despite whatever our own independent experienced brains think we will accept the Gospel according to Sam Gamgee, and let, no encourage, Frodo to go alone. Not even you should go Sam Gamgee the Wise since Frodo wants to go alone."

Your response to my comment: "On the other side, Harad treats it as a certainty that Frodo and Sam will be quickly captured without Aragorn's help." was "a fabrication...never said it...never will". Shall we just look at the last time you said this: "If because Frodo and Sam are not supported by Aragorn they are quickly captured by Sauron's forces, then the Quest is IMMEDIATELY ended." [/B]

A good example of a disreputable debating technique is to lift a quote out of context. My lifted comments were juxtaposed with another supposition that Sauron would IMMEDIATELY learn of M&P.

I have again answered the lame arguments above. How long will it be before I am accused of ignoring them again? Not long is my guess.

Grond

03-22-2002, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Harad
...I am not saying that Aragorn made an unsupportable decision. I think it was a decision that was not the best decision, in part because it was made in haste and in part because it was self-serving. This fits in with the fact that every one of Tolkien's heros was flawed. Shirley my eyes deceive me, but it appears that Harad has thrown out a dog biscuit of compromise that I, too, can live with. Harad as you so aptly put in another post "[heart stops...pacemaker kicks in]". I am full willing to agree with your opinion.

Grond

03-22-2002, 05:26 AM

Calm down please. I note a nasty tone.

Aldanil

03-22-2002, 06:12 AM

If my mere reappearance doesn't further inflame the situation (and what kind of ego does this guy have, anyway?), might I suggest that peace and amity could be sustained were both sides in the thread willing to accept the plausibility and "logic" of the opposing position, rather than one repeatedly characterizing the other's arguments as being "lame", "disreputable", "irrel[e]vant", "absurd", "conveeeeenient", and "self-serving". The distinction may perhaps be proffered that the last term in the preceding list applies not to those who debate on his behalf, but to Aragorn himself; the disagreeably derogatory tone is of a piece with the rest.

Harad

03-22-2002, 06:34 AM

Ged:
I have addressed the issue of Frodo's idea of going alone before. This comes up in 2 places:

1. First there is Sam's opinion of Frodo's intention to go alone.

2. Then there is Frodo's action to hurry across the River alone with Boromir and Sauron on his tail.

Neither of these, IMO, excuse Aragorn from using his own better judgement, to realize that, as Elrond intended, the Fellowship was meant to assist Frodo for "however long [he has] the burden to carry," in the words of the then-absent Gandalf. Furthermore, if Frodo's intention to "go alone" was to be taken seriously, then why was Sam with him?

Aldanil:
If that is arbitration, then next a soccer fan will settle disputes between the home and opposing teams.

Greenwood

03-22-2002, 07:26 AM

Quote by Harad
Aragorn makes a decision without knowing what the situation is. As I have said other times, within 2 hours he will know that M&P are not going to Morrrdorr. This is plenty of time to turn around and rejoin F&S. This is known as "scouting" the situation. I have said this several times but it appears to be missed each time. I wonder if it will missed this time?

But it is not within two hours and that is what you keep ignoring! It is not until dawn of the next day that they come across the orcs bodies that resulted from the dispute between Ugluk and Grishnakh as to which way to go with their captives. Later that day when they discuss whether to travel by night or not Gimli raise the point of missing any tracks that might indicate the captives were taken off toward Mordor. Aragorn refers back to the discovery of the orc bodies when he says: "But if I read the signs back yonder rightly, the orcs of the White Hand prevailed, and the whole company is now bound for Isengard. Their present course bears me out." Dawn of the day after the breaking of the Fellowship at Parth Galen is far too late to change his mine and for Aragorn to now reverse course and head back to chase after Frodo and Sam. As RangerDave has said, the worst thing a military leader can be is indecisive.

Quote by Harad
hoohoo..arguing in one paragraph that Aragorn can not know who has M&P and in the next they are "already in the hands of the Enemy.." It is too laugh, harshly.

You are assuming that only Sauron is "the Enemy". In thi