The Return of the King
discussion
Why didn't Gandalf take the ring to Mount Doom on the back of an eagle.
date
newest »
newest »
Trike wrote: "Andy wrote: "Basically, the eagles are not as all-powerful and resourceful as the movies make them appear. They have severe limitations when it comes to movement and being able to carry loads (they..."You should read the article. They can't carry large loads, nor are they near the ring for very long.
It's not a plot hole. It's a cheap way of trying to make the plot look nonsensical, and it's pretty hilarious that it would even be considered a flaw in the series.Think: if it was so obvious a solution, why wasn't it mentioned? Because Tolkien laid out his world and its history in such a way that simply calling an eagle like a TAXI or some other non-majestic beast of burden was just not ever an option. And to top it all off, Gandalf even says in the Hobbit that the eagles are their own people and they don't do others' work for them.
Still so funny that this tiny question is the only thing people fixate on to make Lord of the Rings look bad: the lack of a ludicrous solution to the destroying-the-ring problem. Why can't people find something more substantial? Maybe Tolkien's work is really as well-written and thought up as I think it is.
That's not the only issue people have with LotR (lack of women, for example), but the eagle thing is what this thread is about. Everything you said has been rebutted. It really is just a plot hole. I don't get why that makes people lose their minds.
Because it has been rebutted doesn't substantiate the criticism. As for my mind, it is securely attached inside my skull.
If one is immune to reason and treats the book as Holy Writ, then sure.But for reasonable people? Plot hole.
Also for reasonable people: no big deal. Because its not the word of God, it's just a book written by a guy.
Your plot hole cries have been debunked. No one here is calling the book holy and you calling it "no big deal" sounds hypocritical considering you keep returning to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "plot hole" some more. It's rather amusing.
Something not explained to the fullest detail does not a plothole make.Also adding that the explanation is pretty well implied and easy to figure out.
Since Tolkien himself called it a plot hole --You know what? Forget it. There's no amount of reason or letters from JRR that can persuade you True Believers that this is a small plot hole. It doesn't ruin the story and if he had remembered to use the eagles it wouldn't have ruined the story that way, either. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
I will say this, though: you should only read about fantasy worlds, not live in them.
It's a small plot hole in the sense that he could have written the history of the world he created so the all-seeing eye wasn't perhaps so all-seeing and the Eagles did whatever Gandolf bid and the Nazgul didn't exist, etc ad nauseam.
Trike wrote: "You know what? Forget it. There's no amount of reason or letters from JRR that can persuade you True Believers that this is a small plot hole. ."Amusingly passive-aggressive.
I am always open to reason, however every time I hear this "plot hole" argument it seems to come from people with only a passing understanding of the concept and a somewhat smug desire to appear smart.
Now the using of the Eagles to allow for a bit of a deus-ex movement of characters in the story when necessary may indeed be somewhat clumsy, but I would still reason that it is not a "plot hole".
It is specifically stated in the story that the idea that someone would destroy the precious ring had not even occurred to Sauron because of his own selfish nature. It is also stated that the Ring has a presence that can be sensed by other means than simple sight. It is also shown that Sauron has adopted the form of a great eye, has the power to drive entire nations by his will alone, and is so awful that no one can contend with his will face to face.
So into that the two plans are;
1) Sneak a Hobbit in "under the radar" while distracting Sauron by making it appear that someone may have his precious Ring and focussing his attention on them so he moves armies and beasts to capture it.
2) Get someone to carry it to Mordor on an Eagle with the force of will to fight off the simultaneous will of the Ring which is determined not to be destroyed and to return to Sauron, while also alerting Sauron to the plan by flying directly toward him in plain sight with all of Sauron's will that can drive legions of orcs and nations of men joining with the Ring's will with the soul purpose to preserve it and deliver it to Sauron. The Eagles may fly fast, but Sauron would not even need the Nazgul, as knowing all he needs is his Ring for ultimate victory, he would forget about all his armies and plans long enough to break the mind of either the Eagle or more likely the Ringbearer themselves. Especially as Gandalf points out, the kind of being capable of opposing Sauron's will for any length of time would be most easily corrupted by the lure of the Ring.
Plan 1 is the plan of a desperate and dangerous fool, though more of the original meaning of a fool being someone who thinks the unthinkable.
Plan 2 is the plan of an idiot.
The real reason why the eagles didn't carry them to Mordor is that the eagles, like the ents, didn't believe the war for the ring would affect them and didn't want to waste time helping Frodo because they couldn't understand that they would become effected as well.
Bob wrote: "The real reason why the eagles didn't carry them to Mordor is that the eagles, like the ents, didn't believe the war for the ring would affect them."Unfortunately that argument is rather undermined by the Eagles coming to Gandalf's aid to retrieve Frodo and Sam.
Again the real reason is quite simple, the last thing you want to do is to give away to the enemy that you've decided to destroy the Ring by flying it straight toward the "giant eye" in plain view. Assuming the Eagle could withstand the presence of the Ring, it is fairly certain that it would be able to do that and withstand Sauron's will for the time it would take to fly over his borders in plain sight.
Exactly, Gary, and never mind as to whether Sauron would have guessed the true intent of the Eagles flying straight to Mt. Doom-once he saw the ring or knew of its ethereal presence he would have zoomed on it with all the forces of the air he had at his disposal. That would have been the Nazgul, and the hordes of foul fowl flying in the air that were in the dark lord's legions. Remember at one point the fellowship taking cover when the birds flew overhead. And yes, his will being so strong, perhaps he would have dominated the Eagles mindset. No, an aerial ploy would have been disastrous. I can't see anyone plausibly arguing that strategy unless they seriously misjudged Sauron's powers.And those who argue that as the fault of the novel, need to recognize how just powerful Sauron was.
Geoffrey wrote: "And those who argue that as the fault of the novel, need to recognize how just powerful Sauron was. "Indeed. It is also an interesting catch-22 for the "Eagle Gambit". It does not really matter whether Sauron even had the Winged Nazgul or any other flying servant ready. The person would be exposed to the direct gaze and unfettered will of Sauron the Great. It would take a being of a power equivalent to Galadriel, Gandalf or the heroes of old like Gil-galad, to withstand his will long enough to reach Mount Doom.
But wait, that person would have to be contending with the will of the Ring at the same time, a power that had an ability to corrupt in direct proportion to the power of the bearer.
So anyone riding the Eagle with the will to defy Sauron to his face (eye) and reach Mordor with the Ring would fall to the Ring's corruption long before they got there. Anyone mundane enough to resist the Ring's power would fold like a pack of cards in a hurricane to Sauron's command to instead hand the Ring and ultimate victory over to him.
And the reason that the hobbits were a good choice was that unlike men, wizards, orcs, dwarves or elves, they had no thirst for power. Remarkable little critters, weren't they? Wish we had some like them around.
Geoffrey wrote: "Remarkable little critters, weren't they? Wish we had some like them around. "What a bunch of tiny incorruptible little people with kind hearts and a joy in growing things, eating and drinking? They would be terrible politicians to suffer under!
Crap! Phat phingers strike again . . . :-)
Howard wrote: "Crap! Phat phingers strike again . . . :-)"No, the rule of Trump the Golden will last 900 years...
“My armor is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault! The beauty of me is that I’m very rich.”
Geoffrey wrote: "And the reason that the hobbits were a good choice was that unlike men, wizards, orcs, dwarves or elves, they had no thirst for power. Remarkable little critters, weren't they? Wish we had some lik..."Remember the rhyme? Hobbits didn't get any rings- maybe that's why they were strong from the beginning.
They didn't get any rings because they were the oddball critters out of play of Middle Earth domination. No one knew what to make of them in so many instances throughout the 4 novels. The Ents didn't get rings either and look how strong they ended up.
probably because if they did, they eye of sauron would see and its too dangerous in mordor
If I remember correctly the Lady Galadrial answered this question wehn she turned down the ring. Gandalf would have recognized the same issue...It is a ridiculous question based on an absurd premise. Carry on.
It doesn't make a good story, that's why. There would be no fellowship, and no hobbits, maybe just a mention of them as gandalf was on the backs of one of the eagles.
Allow me to present my reasons.1: Gandalf knew he couldn't resist the temptation of the Ring. That is why he gave it to Frodo.
2: He didn't control the eagles he was just friends with a few important ones. I doubt he could have convinced them to carry Frodo, since they were all hiding up in their nests.
3: Saruman was still in power until the third book. He would have put a stop to it. At the very least he would have made it extremely difficult for them to make it all the way to Mount Doom.
Elizabeth wrote: "This question has bugged me ever since I read LOTR. If the eagles can travel into Mordor to save Frodo and Sam, why couldn't they have carried them to Mount Doom with the ring? Some good answers he..."Well hang on; do we know how far the eagles traveled? Maybe that species of giant eagle only lived in that area close to Mordor anyway.
Everybody is talking about 'the lesson' of the story. But Tolkien HATED allegory. With a passion. He was NOT trying to teach us lessons, just tell a good story ...
For one thing, then the books would have been a short essay basically, and the eagles are free, they are not just for riding in these books, like a horse is.
because Gandalf doesn't like long road trips- Gandalf actually staged his whole fight with the Balrog in the mines of Moria so that he could avoid the long journey to mount doom.
Because nobody would read the 32-page pamphlet called, "Gwaihir saves the day!"
niceeeeeeeeeeee book
I know this is pretty much a dead topic now, but something I haven't seen is the simple idea that Mordor has access to long range weapons and could easily shoot down the eagles.Also, Fell Beasts exist.
Gandalf admitted that the ring was wayyy too strong for him, like he quite literally acted like it was hardcore Molly. and if frodo and sam flew there Sauron and Saruman's army could've easily spotted them because there wasn't much activity in the sky and its literally in plain sight.. the eagles would've easily been able to be shot down.
Why didn't Gandalf just put frodo on an eagle and fly together?
Book wrote: "Why didn't Gandalf just put frodo on an eagle and fly together?"
It’s amazing this thread is still going on. In one of his letters Tolkien himself said it was an oopsie, then rationalized it later. Telling people this is a tiny plot hole causes them to lose their minds for some baffling reason. It’s like how Trekkies hate to be reminded their favorite franchise is no more scientifically accurate than Star Wars. Heads explode when one simply points out the obvious.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Return of the King (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (other topics)The Return of the King (other topics)
yeah...I just let my nerd flag fly...didn't I?