Post by Andorinha on Jan 18, 2009 12:04:39 GMT -6
Huan
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 30 in Discussion
(Original Message) Sent: 5/21/2002 1:27 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 5/24/2002 9:47 AM
Hope this helps, Huan is the voice of the Valar that Beren and Luthien would have not heard had it not been for this dog. Tolkien puts these two lovers into an impossible situation to defeat a Valar and steal back a Simaril. In the Tale it would appear that had Thingol allowed it, Melian would have helped in this quest. But as it was written Huan was the device of Tolkien's choice and just as the Eagles were a device to allow escape out of impossible odds, Huan is a device that allowed Luthien to hear the voice and will of the Valar of the Light. In this way Tolkien has set the stage for the strange second chance that Beren and Luthien get which is exclusive to all the unions of Eldar and Edan. Huan was a vassel of the Valar, and just as the Eagles served Manwe, Huan served the Valar and gave forshadow to all of their deaths including his own. Besides the Lay of Leithiane and the charachter of Huan was written well before the time of Scobby doo's creation so I see little likness in the two.
Namarie,
Iarwain
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLord_Algamesh
Sent: 6/1/2002 10:47 PM
I guess I would like to address this as well.
To begin with, I don't think we can equate Huan with any sort of dog that we have ever seen. This being was born in Valinor under the lordship of Oromë and I really think that a deity would make sure that his hunting companion was of far greater intellect than our run-o-the-mill hound. In fact, I would go as far to believe that Huan may have been a physical incarnation of a Maia ... probably not, but who knows what Tolkien had in mind when he was devising this character (Which brings up another point, do you think that all the divine beings were bipedal?)? We know that Huan doesn't age and that his life is important enough for a prophesy to be tagged to it (By the way ... was this another Mandos mandate? I wasn't clear on who foretold Huan's death).
I really don't find any silliness in this business with Huan. I guess one could envision him as being goofy but he never says "Rut-Row" in my imagination . Did anyone find the Eagles and their vocal abilities to be "too far out" for this tale? Interesting point-counterpoint maybe?
Algamesh
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 6/3/2002 6:43 AM
Regarding Huan, he is not the only talking animal. As Algy pointed out, there are the Eagles, and also Smaug. )Although to call as glorious and terrifying a beast as a dragon a "talking animal" seems odd.)
Anyway, Huan was the dog of Orome, before he was given to Celegorm. Orome, the Hunter, was also called the Tamer of Beasts. And, "Celegorm went rather to the house of Orome, and there he got great knowledge of birds and beasts, and all their tongues he knew." So it makes perfect sense to me that his dog would speak.
What troubles me about Huan is he transferred his allience from Orome to Celegorm, and then from Celegorm to Luthien. Now this was for the higher good, but rather undog-like behavior, in particular when he jumped on Celegorm when he was about to spear Beren. I think poor Huan was a conflicted hound.
What I object to is the TALKING SWORD!! That's Turin's sword Gurthang, that speaks to him. That's the only 'talking object' I can think of off hand, and I felt that was jarring.
Zaube
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 30 in Discussion
From: Eleandune
Sent: 6/5/2002 2:34 PM
I guess the talking sword does seem a little far fetched, but in Middle Earth, weapons tend to be treated like characters in the story and even sentient beings. Some swords glow when danger is near (Sting, for example), just about every weapon has a name, and often weapons are spoken to (like in the Hobbit, Bard talks to his arrow before killing Smaug). So as weird as it seems, weapons are kind of like people and even friends in a lot of these stories.
Eleandune
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 30 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 6/10/2002 6:49 PM
Don't forget, too, The Silmarillion is a mythology, and lots of strange things happen in myths. The Sun is a charioteer, for example. Also, in the Bible, mountains shout, waves clap their hands, etc. Keeping in mind that Sil is myths helps me accept the magical fantastic things like talking dogs and glowing swords.
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber Sent: 6/11/2002 6:21 AM
Good points from both of you, and hopefully these thoughts will allay my annoyance! Can either of you, Eleandune or Sparrow, think of any other unusual speaking objects?
I wonder if they could speak, what the Silmarillions would say?
Zauber
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 30 in Discussion
From: MysticMagycPony
Sent: 6/16/2002 11:48 AM
When imagining a fantasy world, or writing a fantasy story, talking Kelvar and Olvar as well as talking objects made by those beings that inhabit the fantasy world should not be shocking or puzzling. Tolkien wrote a story that would entertain and puzzle adults as well as children.
In nursery rhymes that pre-date our beloved Tolkien, even geese talked, and children lived in giant shoes. Having little people again in my life in the form of grandchildren help me to see that anything is possible in your imagination. It's a bit like living in two separate worlds. One of REALITY that is not changed, and one of FANTASY where ANYTHING is POSSIBLE!
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 30 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 6/16/2002 4:47 PM
That's true, MMP, of nursery rhymes and fairy tales. But one of the things I have always loved about Tolkien is his strict attention to internal consistency. Although his world changed, as he created, and the layers of creation lead to some inconsistencies, on the whole it was a world which which followed its own rules.
I much prefer that over the "anything goes" approach of "Alice and Wonderland." "Alice" is quaint, and fun, and causes the reader to say "Ah-ha." But once the novelty is worn off, there's nothing left.
Tolkien has a purpose and meaning to everything in his world. Readers of the Hobbit might experience ME as similar to Wonderland, with surprises around every corner. LOTR is similar, but begins to reveal the underlying unity of the world. Silmarillion pulls it all together. For example, ents aren't just a curiosity, they have a particular function in the cosmology of ME. Gandalf isn't just a "wizard." He is a Maiar on specific assignment to ME. That's the source of his power. As Galadriel tries to explain to Sam, there is no "magic" in ME. There is power, and some beings have more power than others. But it isn't magic. It is all explainable.
Few other fantasy writers have even attempted the level of internal consistency that Tolkien's writings have. I don't know of any that have achieved it.
I think Huan's speaking is adequately explained in that he is a hound of the Valar. The talking sword is another story...
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 30 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 6/17/2002 5:07 AM
About the talking sword....and though I don't believe this was Tolkien's intention...I see it as a madman (Turin) hearing voices in his head instead of a "talking sword".
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 6/17/2002 6:51 AM
I agreee MegN, abou Tolkien's attention to consistency, and I think this is what gives such weight and reality to his fantasy. It truly is a Real World. And in that world he had created thus far, the sword speaking is jarring. Be sure to see Karro's message under Week Seven -- Turin, for more on this matter. It will be interesting to do further research.
And DaleAnn, If Turin hallucinated the sword's voice, do you think he also did that with Huan, or that Huan actually spoke?
Zauber
__________________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 6/17/2002 7:15 PM
I have to agree with DaleAnn, Turin has lost everything except the Sword, his only constant allie and his fortune has at last been laid out. He turns to his sword and asks if it will drink his blood, and what he hears is his own voice within his head that says verily. As to Huan, Turin never encountered him and it was Beren and Luthien whom heard the words of the Hound of the Valar and they were by no means imagined.
Namarie Eldameldor,
Iarwain
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 30 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 6/18/2002 1:59 AM
Hmmmm... this discussion has developed a twist I did not expect! Turin as "hallucinatorily inclined" -- hearing voices out of a supposedly inanimate object! DA and Iarwain, are you two sure you want to read that sort of "modern psychiatric" interpretation into the tale here? Was Turin speaking only with himself?
Upon what is such an interpretation based - intuition? I have read enough of your posts, both of yours', to have a good deal of trust in your intutions and interpretations... but I need some logical arguments here before I can abandon my own intuitive responses to this passage. I have always read this entire tale of Turin as a somewhat "primitive" epic venture, not in keeping with the more refined heores and deeds of Tolkien's later tales, and so I found the ancient, and primeval motif of a "speaking sword" quite a fitting one just here. I interpret this device quite "literally," by gum and by gosh, the sword spoke, I was there, afterall, and I heard it too, kind of a husky, dusky, smoky voice! My books are unavailable til the 20th, but as I recall there are several passages in the Turin chapter that seem to be establishing a deliberate line of evidence that defines this particular sword as special enough to possess a "persona" of its own. From that first animistic step, giving the sword a spirit, the eventual voice it finds in which to converse with Turin seems no big second step at all.
Now, based on your two converging opinions I guess I'll have to re-check my thinking and look for rational-logical ways of defending my ancient and largely unquestioning belief that "Anglachel-Gurthang" did indeed speak to Turin.
Zauber - check out the "Talking Purse" in William's pocket, ("Hobbit") would this qualify as a precedent for a "talking object?"
______________________________________________
Reply
Recommend Message 14 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber Sent: 6/18/2002 6:35 AM
BINGO! Karo, yes, William's purse definately counts as a precedent for talking objects. I hadn't thought of that, and it's interesting (to me) that the purse didn't bother me at all, whereas the sword did. My best resort to this situation is to ponder these messages and consider each varying idea, and then see how I react to the sword on our next reading of the Silmarillion. (I haven't the heart to go through Turin's saga once again so soon.)
In any event, I am following the leads to information about the Kalevala, (under Turin, Karo6, 6/16) and wonder if when we finish exploring Tolkien (HAH!) we might consider a group reading of the Kalevala? Anyway, for those interested, www.edj.net/ms2012/fiftyrunos.htm has a summary of the Kalevala, including the information about Kullervo, who's life corresponds to Turin's in some ways. The summary is interesting in that I can see elements that Tolkien used, and would like to at some point explore this further. There are also parallels between the Kalevala and the Welsh Mabinogian which I found fascinating.
Now that I've put this here, I realize it should be under Turin.
Zaube
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 6/18/2002 10:09 PM
Karo6,
I'm always pleased to read your insight, glad to have you back. As to the sword talking, yes I could be mistaken. Though I'm not really sure that Tolkien's intent was to make this sword so sentient. Let's take the history of the blade into account before we go comparing it to magical Troll purses, which are of course always worth pinching but are another matter all together.
Anglachel was originally called Gurthang before it's reforging at Nargothrond. The blade was originally forge by Eol the dark Elf and given to Elwe(Thingol) as payment to live in Nan Elmoth. This sword was forged with a meteoritic metal causing it's black color. In fact I believe the metal was referred to as galvorn a black metal created by Eol for making armors.
It was Beleg whom first weilded Gurthang and he recieved it from Thingol's armory in Menegroth. He took it as a weapon to help him in his search for the now missing Turin. He had little fear of this weapon, and it seems never to have talked to him in any of his endevours, but Melian had warned him that the malace of Eol was about the blade. So when he was trying to free Turin from his orc bonds and cut Turin's arm with the blade, Turin took the sword and slayed Beleg before he knew whom it was cutting the bonds. Perhaps this is the malace Melian forsaw, yet she did not mention if the blade was sentient.
So now this blade has come to Turin, and with it he does deeds of both renown and despicability. Yet no mention of it telling him what to do, or of he talking to it. And when he arrives at Nargothrond the battered blade is reforged so that no longer is Eol's spells the only ones about this blade but the spells of the smith's of Nargothrond are a part of it as well. Yet not any of the smiths mention the blade complaining about the heat or the added burden of spells upon it.
So before we get to the moment of truth, the moment in which the voice is heard, which I think I will leave for DaleAnn, I think we have to ask. Was Eol so great a Teleri Elf as to forge a sentient blade? And if so why is there no mention of Anglachel's sister blade Anguirel being sentient or talking to Eol during his adventures in Gondolin.
Now mind you this is pure speculation on my part, and yes the blade could have been magic and it might have spoken to Turin, or Glaurungs blood upon the blade could have enchanted for one more bit of mischief. But as I read the tale I felt it was Turin's own mind and tortured soul talking to him through the blade and not the blade itself.
Hope this helps Karo6, or at least opens some more thoughts on the subject.
Namarie Urulo'ki Karo6
Iarwain
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 30 in Discussion
(Original Message) Sent: 5/21/2002 1:27 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.
_____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 5/24/2002 9:47 AM
Hope this helps, Huan is the voice of the Valar that Beren and Luthien would have not heard had it not been for this dog. Tolkien puts these two lovers into an impossible situation to defeat a Valar and steal back a Simaril. In the Tale it would appear that had Thingol allowed it, Melian would have helped in this quest. But as it was written Huan was the device of Tolkien's choice and just as the Eagles were a device to allow escape out of impossible odds, Huan is a device that allowed Luthien to hear the voice and will of the Valar of the Light. In this way Tolkien has set the stage for the strange second chance that Beren and Luthien get which is exclusive to all the unions of Eldar and Edan. Huan was a vassel of the Valar, and just as the Eagles served Manwe, Huan served the Valar and gave forshadow to all of their deaths including his own. Besides the Lay of Leithiane and the charachter of Huan was written well before the time of Scobby doo's creation so I see little likness in the two.
Namarie,
Iarwain
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameLord_Algamesh
Sent: 6/1/2002 10:47 PM
I guess I would like to address this as well.
To begin with, I don't think we can equate Huan with any sort of dog that we have ever seen. This being was born in Valinor under the lordship of Oromë and I really think that a deity would make sure that his hunting companion was of far greater intellect than our run-o-the-mill hound. In fact, I would go as far to believe that Huan may have been a physical incarnation of a Maia ... probably not, but who knows what Tolkien had in mind when he was devising this character (Which brings up another point, do you think that all the divine beings were bipedal?)? We know that Huan doesn't age and that his life is important enough for a prophesy to be tagged to it (By the way ... was this another Mandos mandate? I wasn't clear on who foretold Huan's death).
I really don't find any silliness in this business with Huan. I guess one could envision him as being goofy but he never says "Rut-Row" in my imagination . Did anyone find the Eagles and their vocal abilities to be "too far out" for this tale? Interesting point-counterpoint maybe?
Algamesh
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 6/3/2002 6:43 AM
Regarding Huan, he is not the only talking animal. As Algy pointed out, there are the Eagles, and also Smaug. )Although to call as glorious and terrifying a beast as a dragon a "talking animal" seems odd.)
Anyway, Huan was the dog of Orome, before he was given to Celegorm. Orome, the Hunter, was also called the Tamer of Beasts. And, "Celegorm went rather to the house of Orome, and there he got great knowledge of birds and beasts, and all their tongues he knew." So it makes perfect sense to me that his dog would speak.
What troubles me about Huan is he transferred his allience from Orome to Celegorm, and then from Celegorm to Luthien. Now this was for the higher good, but rather undog-like behavior, in particular when he jumped on Celegorm when he was about to spear Beren. I think poor Huan was a conflicted hound.
What I object to is the TALKING SWORD!! That's Turin's sword Gurthang, that speaks to him. That's the only 'talking object' I can think of off hand, and I felt that was jarring.
Zaube
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 30 in Discussion
From: Eleandune
Sent: 6/5/2002 2:34 PM
I guess the talking sword does seem a little far fetched, but in Middle Earth, weapons tend to be treated like characters in the story and even sentient beings. Some swords glow when danger is near (Sting, for example), just about every weapon has a name, and often weapons are spoken to (like in the Hobbit, Bard talks to his arrow before killing Smaug). So as weird as it seems, weapons are kind of like people and even friends in a lot of these stories.
Eleandune
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 30 in Discussion
From: sparrow
Sent: 6/10/2002 6:49 PM
Don't forget, too, The Silmarillion is a mythology, and lots of strange things happen in myths. The Sun is a charioteer, for example. Also, in the Bible, mountains shout, waves clap their hands, etc. Keeping in mind that Sil is myths helps me accept the magical fantastic things like talking dogs and glowing swords.
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber Sent: 6/11/2002 6:21 AM
Good points from both of you, and hopefully these thoughts will allay my annoyance! Can either of you, Eleandune or Sparrow, think of any other unusual speaking objects?
I wonder if they could speak, what the Silmarillions would say?
Zauber
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 30 in Discussion
From: MysticMagycPony
Sent: 6/16/2002 11:48 AM
When imagining a fantasy world, or writing a fantasy story, talking Kelvar and Olvar as well as talking objects made by those beings that inhabit the fantasy world should not be shocking or puzzling. Tolkien wrote a story that would entertain and puzzle adults as well as children.
In nursery rhymes that pre-date our beloved Tolkien, even geese talked, and children lived in giant shoes. Having little people again in my life in the form of grandchildren help me to see that anything is possible in your imagination. It's a bit like living in two separate worlds. One of REALITY that is not changed, and one of FANTASY where ANYTHING is POSSIBLE!
____________________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 30 in Discussion
From: megn1
Sent: 6/16/2002 4:47 PM
That's true, MMP, of nursery rhymes and fairy tales. But one of the things I have always loved about Tolkien is his strict attention to internal consistency. Although his world changed, as he created, and the layers of creation lead to some inconsistencies, on the whole it was a world which which followed its own rules.
I much prefer that over the "anything goes" approach of "Alice and Wonderland." "Alice" is quaint, and fun, and causes the reader to say "Ah-ha." But once the novelty is worn off, there's nothing left.
Tolkien has a purpose and meaning to everything in his world. Readers of the Hobbit might experience ME as similar to Wonderland, with surprises around every corner. LOTR is similar, but begins to reveal the underlying unity of the world. Silmarillion pulls it all together. For example, ents aren't just a curiosity, they have a particular function in the cosmology of ME. Gandalf isn't just a "wizard." He is a Maiar on specific assignment to ME. That's the source of his power. As Galadriel tries to explain to Sam, there is no "magic" in ME. There is power, and some beings have more power than others. But it isn't magic. It is all explainable.
Few other fantasy writers have even attempted the level of internal consistency that Tolkien's writings have. I don't know of any that have achieved it.
I think Huan's speaking is adequately explained in that he is a hound of the Valar. The talking sword is another story...
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 30 in Discussion
From: DaleAnn
Sent: 6/17/2002 5:07 AM
About the talking sword....and though I don't believe this was Tolkien's intention...I see it as a madman (Turin) hearing voices in his head instead of a "talking sword".
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 6/17/2002 6:51 AM
I agreee MegN, abou Tolkien's attention to consistency, and I think this is what gives such weight and reality to his fantasy. It truly is a Real World. And in that world he had created thus far, the sword speaking is jarring. Be sure to see Karro's message under Week Seven -- Turin, for more on this matter. It will be interesting to do further research.
And DaleAnn, If Turin hallucinated the sword's voice, do you think he also did that with Huan, or that Huan actually spoke?
Zauber
__________________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 6/17/2002 7:15 PM
I have to agree with DaleAnn, Turin has lost everything except the Sword, his only constant allie and his fortune has at last been laid out. He turns to his sword and asks if it will drink his blood, and what he hears is his own voice within his head that says verily. As to Huan, Turin never encountered him and it was Beren and Luthien whom heard the words of the Hound of the Valar and they were by no means imagined.
Namarie Eldameldor,
Iarwain
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 30 in Discussion
From: Karo6
Sent: 6/18/2002 1:59 AM
Hmmmm... this discussion has developed a twist I did not expect! Turin as "hallucinatorily inclined" -- hearing voices out of a supposedly inanimate object! DA and Iarwain, are you two sure you want to read that sort of "modern psychiatric" interpretation into the tale here? Was Turin speaking only with himself?
Upon what is such an interpretation based - intuition? I have read enough of your posts, both of yours', to have a good deal of trust in your intutions and interpretations... but I need some logical arguments here before I can abandon my own intuitive responses to this passage. I have always read this entire tale of Turin as a somewhat "primitive" epic venture, not in keeping with the more refined heores and deeds of Tolkien's later tales, and so I found the ancient, and primeval motif of a "speaking sword" quite a fitting one just here. I interpret this device quite "literally," by gum and by gosh, the sword spoke, I was there, afterall, and I heard it too, kind of a husky, dusky, smoky voice! My books are unavailable til the 20th, but as I recall there are several passages in the Turin chapter that seem to be establishing a deliberate line of evidence that defines this particular sword as special enough to possess a "persona" of its own. From that first animistic step, giving the sword a spirit, the eventual voice it finds in which to converse with Turin seems no big second step at all.
Now, based on your two converging opinions I guess I'll have to re-check my thinking and look for rational-logical ways of defending my ancient and largely unquestioning belief that "Anglachel-Gurthang" did indeed speak to Turin.
Zauber - check out the "Talking Purse" in William's pocket, ("Hobbit") would this qualify as a precedent for a "talking object?"
______________________________________________
Reply
Recommend Message 14 of 30 in Discussion
From: Zauber Sent: 6/18/2002 6:35 AM
BINGO! Karo, yes, William's purse definately counts as a precedent for talking objects. I hadn't thought of that, and it's interesting (to me) that the purse didn't bother me at all, whereas the sword did. My best resort to this situation is to ponder these messages and consider each varying idea, and then see how I react to the sword on our next reading of the Silmarillion. (I haven't the heart to go through Turin's saga once again so soon.)
In any event, I am following the leads to information about the Kalevala, (under Turin, Karo6, 6/16) and wonder if when we finish exploring Tolkien (HAH!) we might consider a group reading of the Kalevala? Anyway, for those interested, www.edj.net/ms2012/fiftyrunos.htm has a summary of the Kalevala, including the information about Kullervo, who's life corresponds to Turin's in some ways. The summary is interesting in that I can see elements that Tolkien used, and would like to at some point explore this further. There are also parallels between the Kalevala and the Welsh Mabinogian which I found fascinating.
Now that I've put this here, I realize it should be under Turin.
Zaube
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 30 in Discussion
From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 6/18/2002 10:09 PM
Karo6,
I'm always pleased to read your insight, glad to have you back. As to the sword talking, yes I could be mistaken. Though I'm not really sure that Tolkien's intent was to make this sword so sentient. Let's take the history of the blade into account before we go comparing it to magical Troll purses, which are of course always worth pinching but are another matter all together.
Anglachel was originally called Gurthang before it's reforging at Nargothrond. The blade was originally forge by Eol the dark Elf and given to Elwe(Thingol) as payment to live in Nan Elmoth. This sword was forged with a meteoritic metal causing it's black color. In fact I believe the metal was referred to as galvorn a black metal created by Eol for making armors.
It was Beleg whom first weilded Gurthang and he recieved it from Thingol's armory in Menegroth. He took it as a weapon to help him in his search for the now missing Turin. He had little fear of this weapon, and it seems never to have talked to him in any of his endevours, but Melian had warned him that the malace of Eol was about the blade. So when he was trying to free Turin from his orc bonds and cut Turin's arm with the blade, Turin took the sword and slayed Beleg before he knew whom it was cutting the bonds. Perhaps this is the malace Melian forsaw, yet she did not mention if the blade was sentient.
So now this blade has come to Turin, and with it he does deeds of both renown and despicability. Yet no mention of it telling him what to do, or of he talking to it. And when he arrives at Nargothrond the battered blade is reforged so that no longer is Eol's spells the only ones about this blade but the spells of the smith's of Nargothrond are a part of it as well. Yet not any of the smiths mention the blade complaining about the heat or the added burden of spells upon it.
So before we get to the moment of truth, the moment in which the voice is heard, which I think I will leave for DaleAnn, I think we have to ask. Was Eol so great a Teleri Elf as to forge a sentient blade? And if so why is there no mention of Anglachel's sister blade Anguirel being sentient or talking to Eol during his adventures in Gondolin.
Now mind you this is pure speculation on my part, and yes the blade could have been magic and it might have spoken to Turin, or Glaurungs blood upon the blade could have enchanted for one more bit of mischief. But as I read the tale I felt it was Turin's own mind and tortured soul talking to him through the blade and not the blade itself.
Hope this helps Karo6, or at least opens some more thoughts on the subject.
Namarie Urulo'ki Karo6
Iarwain