In the fellowship of the ring, outside the west gate of Moria, the fellowship are attacked by some strange creature which "had tentacles that were pale green and luminous and had gripping fingers at the ends". This creature was the Watcher, that lived in a lake formed by the damming of the Sirannon.
Its origin is unknown which i find rather strange, but what i think is one of the most unusal things is that it grabbed Frodo first with it tentacles, the ring-bearer. how did it single him out from the rest of the fellowship? what are your opinions on the creatures origins?
__________________
"Baggins has left. He is coming. He is not far away. I wish to find him. If he passes can you tell me? I will come back with gold"
there is no proof for its origins, not even slight, so any idea about it would be a pure speculation. as gandalf says: “'What was the thing, or were there many of them? ' 'I do not know,' answered Gandalf, 'but the arms were all guided by one purpose. Something has crept, or has been driven out of dark waters under the mountains. There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.'” Many might say it had something to do with the nameless things under Moria, or with the balrog, but there is absolutely NO proof. And personally I doubt our opinions matter...it is the opinion of the master that matters. One could say he was a mythological creature or simply another mistery in the story, but speculation doesn't help with anything. And as to why it singled out Frodo, I think this is a clear mystery that Tolkien willingly left out. In the story Gandalf asks himself the same question, and the answer is again simple, there is nor will there be any answer. No proof that the ring attracted the creature (though it might be possible) or that Sauron had commanded it to do it.
Many might say it had something to do with the nameless things under Moria, or with the balrog, but there is absolutely NO proof....in the story, but speculation doesn't help with anything.~TM Speculation can be very useful, Tolkien purposefully left the story unfinished, so he could let his readers form their own opinions on his world and watch his books grow. Which is why he so strongly detested using allegories, as allegories sets strict limits on what Tolkien is actually meaning, and Tolkien didn't want that. Which is probably what makes me love LOTR and Tolkien so much, is the freedom of the reader. While, I agree in that with speculation there is no absolute answer...but bottomline is Tolkien didn't tell us everything, and if someone can back up their "speculation" with support, I see no reason to think that it's hogwash and should be disregarded.
Whatever, there is on the Watcher is as TM states speculation, and nothing definite. I happen to think that as Gandalf says that the watcher was guided towards Frodo, was pulled to the Ring. For as we also see in Moria the Orc captain pushes his way through Boromir and Aragorn and goes right after Frodo. These two coincidences of both creatures going after Frodo suggests that they were pulled by the Ring.
__________________
I am Lórien, Lord of Dreams, my true name is 'Irmo' in Quenya.
I personaly think that the watcher was under some certain exturnal influence and thats why he attacked the ring bearer. The same thing with the orc chieftan that was mentioned earlier. Although, it is true what Boromir said about tolkien leaving certain things open for us to think for oursleves. I like the way tolkien does that its just, it makes me eager for more middle-earth knowledge and makes me more interested.
__________________
"Baggins has left. He is coming. He is not far away. I wish to find him. If he passes can you tell me? I will come back with gold"
Personally I would say the Watcher in the Water merely picked up Frodo by coincidence. Like the Balrog, Shelob and the Dragons in the far north I very much doubt that Sauron had any influence over the Watcher in the Water, despite what quotes might hint.
no, I never said that a link between the watcher and sauron was probable or even very possible. I'd rather say that it was the ring. We clearly know from all books that the ring had a power of attraction also on animals and simple creatures. For example there is a quote about a crayfish that found the ring while still in the Anduin. "But a fish took the ring and was filled with madness, and swam upstream, leaping over rocks and up waterfalls until it cast itself on a bank and spat out the ring and died. " (HOME - Return of the Shadow)
That is the only example that came into mind, but Khamul gives another example - also in Moria Frodo was immediately attacked. It is a good guess to say that the ring exerted its power on these creature because it wanted to get back to its master as soon as possible.
If so then it would realise that the Ring in the grasp of an animal is much more unlikely to reach its master than in the hands of Humans, Elves dwarves etc.
I would rather say that the Watcher picked Frodo becuase he would fit in his mouth like the other hobbits. If this is the case then the probability is lowered from 1/9 to 1/4.
wrong mouthofsauron. the will of an animal is a lot easier to control then the will of a hobbit. imagine the ring beeing taken by the orc in Moria. It could easily control the orc and make him go towards Mordor where the Nazgul would get the Ring from him. Or a bird that the Ring would ensnare and make it fly to Mordor. this of course never happened because the ring was always in the Anduin.
then how do you explain the very many quotes: "the Ring desired to go in man hands again" easy, because it could control men easier then hobbits. that is what happened to Boromir.
Incorrect. We are not talking about an Orc (thus being a child of Eru), I was talking about an Animal - Orcs are not animals however ghastly they appear.
The will of a Hobbit would be far easier for the Ring to control back to Mordor than a watcher in the Water. If the watcher got the ring, there would be no chance for the ring to reach mordor. For starters it is highly likely that the watcher is water bound. Secondly there would be no chance of an orc going into the water to get it for he would be eaten by the watcher. Unless of course you have visions of grandeur that a cave troll would go into the water and wrestle the Watcher to retrieve the Ring?!
In short the Ring knew it was better off staying with Frodo than the watcher.
wrestle it? no, the ring could control the watcher. and that way the ring would be far away from Orodruin. and eventually the nazgul would find it and take it back. and don't only look at the example with the orc, it could have been any animal.
OK so lets assume that the Ring could partly control the Watchers emotions. How would the ring be able to come into the hands of something capable of delivering it to mt Doom? It could not control the watcher enough to make it give the ring to an orc, and even it if did there are still flaws. The Watcher would not give up the ring becuase it would be enamoured by it, he could still just eat the Orcs, and then if an orcs got it do you think it would take it to Mordor? No the Orcs would have it for himself.
__________________
Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!
the Nazgul could take it actually I think this possibility was unlikely. Maybe the ring didn't even want that the watcher attacked Frodo, maybe the attraction on the Watcher was not intended by the ring.
ok, still, the watcher chose Frodo because of the ring and because he was smaller. there was a kind of attraction by the ring, even though it was not wished.
can you provide a quote the watcher chose Frodo first because he was smaller and coult fit better in the watcher's mouth? actually, firstly, if the watcher was a squid like creature with tentacles, then it had no mouth but a very sharp beak so the whole better fitting in the mouth idea is nothing. no, I doubt that I can find a quote...
No but you could easily presume that frodo, being a Hobbit would fit far better than Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, Boromir or even a Dwarf as they are taller than hobbits and stockier.
no, you could not easily presume. ok, maybe you could. by the same logic you use, one could perhaps say that Aragorn was better to eat cause he was bigger and the watcher had more to eat.
as I said, the watcher probably had no mouth. squids and octopusses and all other cephalopodes HAVE NO MOUTHS. they have beaks. no teeth, just as large bird-like beak with which they cut the prey into pieces and eat. and in this case it's the same if he took Aragorn or Frodo.
no, no limited size... oh oh oh... if you have a beak, it's the same if you kill someone small or twice as large. and anyway, you could easily say that Frodo was not the best choice as maybe the Watcher wanted to eat a larger prey, get more food.
do you know how cephalopodes eat? first read a zoology book and then post here again. it doesn't fit it in the beak, it tears it to pieces. and yes, the fact it was squid like means it was a cephalopode (you can look on the net for what cephalopode means) and that it had a beak.
the only creatures with tentacles are cephalopodes. cephalopodes all have beaks,not mouths. I at least have science on my side, you have nothing. it is very unlikely that it had a mouth for the ideas I gave.
Hah. More jokes. Are you suggesting that Tolkien based the Watcher around those whatdoyou call em?
I think you will find that science is as good as nothing in a fantasy, and you have little of that to provide!
If you cannot provide quotation that they had beaks then you have NO evidence. Therefore i am right as everyone can presume it has a mouth as most animales do.
you don't even know what a cephalopode is...and you say that most animals have mouths. maybe but the watcher is not like most animals. and many creatures in lotr, such as mumakils or horses or all others are just like in our world. so personally, I am sure that the theory it was a cephalopode, as we are told it had tentacles, is a much better and probable one.
Quotes? They thing you most desperately desire others to present cannot be presented by yourself! Therefore you have NO proof so we must assume it was the same as any standard animal.
it was no standard animal. it had green tentacles. it lived in the water. it wasn't a normal animal, it was an animal of a special kind. I know I can't prove that it had a beak, but this makes more sense then that it had a mouth.
Why? Becuase it has tentacles? Again it proves nothing. as for 'It was aquatic' that is utterly irrelevent. Also saying it was a special kind of animal does not mean it has a beak. So what your saying is that all special animals of Tolkien world have a beak as standard? So the Balrogs, dragons, Ents, Trolls, Giants, Oliphaunts etc all had Beaks - can you quote this?
no, of course not. it had a beak, because it had tentacles, and it was cephalopode-like. now to me tentacles mean it was a cephalopode...but to you it could mean it is just a strange creature. so I can't prove you wrong, just as you can't prove me wrong.
What your basing that on is no proof at all the Might. What if I said that the Watcher was actaully Manwes brother on ME? You would say thats that is rubbish, but we have no proof of its origin so it could be. That is what your saying here. Becuase it has tentacles it must have a beak. No that is wrong, if you have not any proof of that then we must assume its got a mouth like most creatures.
__________________
Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva!
I am not wrong nor are you wrong in case you didn't notice. I speculate about it. you speculate it. none of us will ever know for sure who is right and who is wrong. I am just saying it is more likely it had a beak, you say it is more likely it had a mouth. and since I can't prove you wrong, nor can you prove me wrong from my point of view the discussion is over.
