Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Narsil

Revision as of 00:19, 11 December 2012 by KingAragorn Bot (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I read here a reference to Narsil being broken in two pieces and that this was altered by PJ for the movies. Is there any reference in the writings of JRRT to this? I don't recall such a thing, but that can be an omission on my part, of course. --Earendilyon 09:40, 9 March 2006 (EST)

A quick search through The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion did not bring any results but I did find The Thains Book states it was broken in two, and states sources though I know not which is in regards to Narsil. I say we keep it for now but it wouldn't hurt looking into more. --Hyarion 11:58, 9 March 2006 (EST)
I've scanned Unfinished Tales and The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien for information, but I only found references to 'the shards of Narsil', no mentioning of the number of shards. Maybe you could send an e-mail to The Thain's Book to ask where they got that infor from? [I surely hope not from PJ's abomination!] --Earendilyon 16:31, 11 March 2006 (EST)
Heh, well I know it's not from The Lord of the Rings (film series) as in the film it was broken into like 5 pieces or so. Which leads me to believe more-so that the correct answer is only 2 ;). For some reasong I think I remember reading in the [Minas Tirith forums that it was 2 as well, I'll do a quick search today. --Hyarion 16:37, 11 March 2006 (EST)
Maybe the 'two pieces of Narsil' theory was based on this passage in The Lord of the Rings, Ch. 10, Strider:
[Aragorn] drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt.
Though it doesn't state in so much words that there were just two pieces, one can perhaps read that into this passage; though the rest of the sword could be broken in several shards, of course. --Earendilyon 16:17, 12 March 2006 (EST)
I saw that one as well, I'm hoping there is another passage which is more specific as I wouldn't want to base the two-piece theory simply on that passage. If that is all we can find then we should probably change the passage to read "most likely two" or something similar. --Hyarion 16:24, 12 March 2006 (EST)