Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Two Dark Lords
Two Dark Lords [message #184418] Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 08:15
Sean  
In his Council at Rivendell, Elrond said:

If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow
the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then
set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord
would appear.

Say the story has gone another way and it is the last extremity;
the armies of Mordor are closing in and Sauron himself is about to
seize the Ring from Frodo. Unless Gandalf takes action now,
the Enemy will recover it to the ruin of all.

Gandalf is in an awful dilemma. If he refrains from wielding the Ring
then Sauron wins. Using it himself, to assume supreme command of
the Allied Forces he can defeat Sauron's forces even though this
violates his Prime Directive... or does it? Isn't his mission
to unite the Free Peoples in opposition to the Enemy?

Anyway, say he appeals to the rest of the Company for their
advice. Legolas, representing the Elves, Gimli for the Dwarves,
Aragorn and Theodden for Men, Frodo for the Hobbits, Treebeard
for the Ents and Gwaihir for the Eagles all say 'yes'; preferring
what seems to them the lesser of two evils.

Gandalf uses the Dark Arts to win the campaign. Sauron is overthrown
(but of course not destroyed) and his army scattered. Gandalf wields
the Ring, in fact he has acquired power too great and terrible.
And yet he has only to take a stroll down to Mt. Doom and drop in
the Ring, except that he hasn't the strength of will -- because
over him the Ring has gained a power still greater and more deadly.

Now there are two Dark Lords. Sauron remains very powerful;
he can still torture and destroy the very hills...(?)

Do the two Dark Lords end up locked in unending battle, while
Middle Earth becomes a wasteland worse than the Western Front
in 1918? Or does Gandalf become the Supreme Dark Lord? What is
life in ME like under him; is it any better or worse than under
Sauron?

Sean
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184428 ] Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 18:16
onq  
Sean wrote:
>
> In his Council at Rivendell, Elrond said:
>
> If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow
> the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then
> set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord
> would appear.
>
> Say the story has gone another way and it is the last extremity;
> the armies of Mordor are closing in and Sauron himself is about to
> seize the Ring from Frodo. Unless Gandalf takes action now,
> the Enemy will recover it to the ruin of all.
>
> Gandalf is in an awful dilemma. If he refrains from wielding the Ring
> then Sauron wins. Using it himself, to assume supreme command of
> the Allied Forces he can defeat Sauron's forces even though this
> violates his Prime Directive... or does it? Isn't his mission
> to unite the Free Peoples in opposition to the Enemy?
>
> Anyway, say he appeals to the rest of the Company for their
> advice. Legolas, representing the Elves, Gimli for the Dwarves,
> Aragorn and Theodden for Men, Frodo for the Hobbits, Treebeard
> for the Ents and Gwaihir for the Eagles all say 'yes'; preferring
> what seems to them the lesser of two evils.
>
> Gandalf uses the Dark Arts to win the campaign. Sauron is overthrown
> (but of course not destroyed) and his army scattered. Gandalf wields
> the Ring, in fact he has acquired power too great and terrible.
> And yet he has only to take a stroll down to Mt. Doom and drop in
> the Ring, except that he hasn't the strength of will -- because
> over him the Ring has gained a power still greater and more deadly.
>
> Now there are two Dark Lords. Sauron remains very powerful;
> he can still torture and destroy the very hills...(?)
>
> Do the two Dark Lords end up locked in unending battle, while
> Middle Earth becomes a wasteland worse than the Western Front
> in 1918? Or does Gandalf become the Supreme Dark Lord? What is
> life in ME like under him; is it any better or worse than under
> Sauron?
>
> Sean

Gandalf comments on Isengard fighting Mordor in the Chapter entitled "The
White Rider":

'It is a pity that our friends lie in between,' said Gimli. 'If no
land divided Isengard and Mordor, then they could fight while we watched
and waited.'

'The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,'
said Gandalf. 'But Isengard cannot fight Mordor, unless Saruman first
obtains the Ring. That he will never do now. He does not yet know his
peril. There is much that he does not know. He was so eager to lay his
hands on his prey that he could not wait at home, and he came forth to
meet and to spy on his messengers. But he came too late, for once, and
the battle was over and beyond his help before he reached these parts. He
did not remain here long. I look into his mind and I see his doubt. He
has no woodcraft. He believes that the horsemen slew and burned all upon
the field of battle; but he does not know whether the Orcs were bringing
any prisoners or not. And he does not know of the quarrel between his
servants and the Orcs of Mordor; nor does he know of the Winged
Messenger.'

Note that he refers to "the victor", singular.

Gandalf the White, or Saruman the White before his staff was broken,
wielding the One, would therefore stand a chance of defeating Sauron. But
Sauron would not stand in the field alone and armies would be required to
fight the Nazgul, Orcs and Trolls. But this thing would not be certain.

This concept is amplified in the chapter "The Last Debate"; -

'Concerning this thing, my lords, you now all know enough for the
understanding of our plight, and of Sauron's. If he regains it, your
valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete
that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. If it is
destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can
foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the
strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made
or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever,
becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but
cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world will
be removed.

'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a
servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of
the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein
we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those
who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have
is not ours to rule.

'Now Sauron knows all this, and he knows that this precious thing
which he lost has been found again; but he does not yet know where it is,
or so we hope. And therefore he is now in great doubt. For if we have
found this thing, there are some among us with strength enough to wield
it. That too he knows. For do I not guess rightly, Aragorn, that you have
shown yourself to him in the Stone of Orthanc?'

'I did so ere I rode from the Hornburg,' answered Aragorn. 'I deemed
that the time was ripe, and that the Stone had come to me for just such a
purpose. It was then ten days since the Ring-bearer went east from
Rauros, and the Eye of Sauron, I thought, should be drawn out from his
own land. Too seldom has he been challenged since he returned to his
Tower. Though if I had foreseen how swift would be his onset in answer,
maybe I should not have dared to show myself. Bare time was given me to
come to your aid.'

'But how is this?' asked Éomer. 'All is vain, you say, if he has the
Ring. Why should he think it not vain to assail us, if we have it?'

'He is not yet sure,' said Gandalf, 'and he has not built up his
power by waiting until his enemies are secure, as we have done. Also we
could not learn how to wield the full power all in a day. Indeed it can
be used only by one master alone, not by many; and he will look for a
time of strife, ere one of the great among us makes himself master and
puts down the others. In that time the Ring might aid him, if he were
sudden.'


So to think there would be two Dark Lords is wrong in primciple. If
Sauron won, he would regain his Dark Lord status.

If Sauron lost the Battle for the Ring, while his spirit could not be
destroyed while the Ring remained in existence, his "remade" body could
be broken as happened previously, and his spirit - in its then weakened
state - could have been held in some sort of captivity by the victor.

The irony would be that the mind of the victor would soon be so corrupted
by the Ring that he would to all intents BE Sauron, and Sauron's spirit
would be a broken thing, distraught at seeing the Precious Ring on
another Istari's hand, an Istari moreover in prime physical condition
whose body had never been destroyed.

FWIW

M.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184433 ] Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 20:11
elendur  
<< Do the two Dark Lords end up locked in unending battle, while
Middle Earth becomes a wasteland worse than the Western Front
in 1918? Or does Gandalf become the Supreme Dark Lord? What is
life in ME like under him; is it any better or worse than under
Sauron? >> Sean

I realise that this forum invariably reinvents the wheel by steadfastly
ignoring the secondary literature, but Tom Shippey deals well with this
problem of Evil in his JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century, see index
entries for: Evil, including: Boethian versus Manichean, also: the Ring
and Evil.
Is Evil just the absence of Good or something in its own right?
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184440 ] Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 21:35
Steve Morrison  
elendur wrote:
> << Do the two Dark Lords end up locked in unending battle, while
> Middle Earth becomes a wasteland worse than the Western Front
> in 1918? Or does Gandalf become the Supreme Dark Lord? What is
> life in ME like under him; is it any better or worse than under
> Sauron? >> Sean
>
> I realise that this forum invariably reinvents the wheel by steadfastly
> ignoring the secondary literature, but Tom Shippey deals well with this
> problem of Evil in his JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century, see index
> entries for: Evil, including: Boethian versus Manichean, also: the Ring
> and Evil.
> Is Evil just the absence of Good or something in its own right?

Remember what JRRT said at the end of Letter #246 (to Eileen Elgar):

"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He
would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have
continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his
subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have
remained great)."
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184441 ] Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 21:38
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184449 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 00:29
Christopher Kreuzer  
elendur <elendur [at] arcor.de> wrote:
> << Do the two Dark Lords end up locked in unending battle, while
> Middle Earth becomes a wasteland worse than the Western Front
> in 1918? Or does Gandalf become the Supreme Dark Lord? What is
> life in ME like under him; is it any better or worse than under
> Sauron? >> Sean
>
> I realise that this forum invariably reinvents the wheel by
> steadfastly ignoring the secondary literature

Oh, not at all. Some people here do read the secondary literature. And
would love to discuss some of it. Which bits of the secondary literature
have you read? (There _is_ rather a _lot_ of it!)

> but Tom Shippey deals
> well with this problem of Evil in his JRR Tolkien: Author of the
> Century, see index entries for: Evil, including: Boethian versus
> Manichean, also: the Ring and Evil.
> Is Evil just the absence of Good or something in its own right?

Which reminds me. I must bump Shippey's books up my re-reading list.
Thanks!
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184456 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 02:18
Yuk Tang  
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:HJnnf.7633$iz3.4023 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> elendur <elendur [at] arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>> I realise that this forum invariably reinvents the wheel by
>> steadfastly ignoring the secondary literature
>
> Oh, not at all. Some people here do read the secondary literature.
> And would love to discuss some of it. Which bits of the secondary
> literature have you read? (There _is_ rather a _lot_ of it!)

I recommend Steuard Jensen's and Stan Brown's Frequently Asked
Questions, and Christopher Kreuzer's Extensively Answered Questions.


Frequently awestruck, ymt.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184458 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 02:42
Stan Brown  
Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:31 GMT from Sean <no.spam [at] no.spam>:
> Gandalf uses the Dark Arts to win the campaign. Sauron is overthrown
> (but of course not destroyed) and his army scattered. Gandalf wields
> the Ring, in fact he has acquired power too great and terrible.

We are told by Tolkien that if someone else masters the Ring, for
Sauron it will be as if it had been destroyed. If Gandalf used the
Ring to defeat Sauron, he would have had to master it and therefore
Sauron would already have been reduced to the same nothingness that
happened when the Ring was destroyed in "real" life.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184465 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 07:11
Sean  
Steve Morrison wrote:

> Remember what JRRT said at the end of Letter #246 (to Eileen Elgar):
>
> "Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He
> would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have
> continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his
> subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have
> remained great)."

Why would this have been far worse? I _think_ I'd prefer to be
merely yelled at and called a Tom-fool of a Took than to be born
away to the Houses of Lamentation. Surely Sauron's victory would
have been the start of a new Dark Age, make more sinister and
perhaps more protracted by the lights of perveted necromancy.

Sean
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184466 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 07:44
Sean  
Sadok wrote:

> : Gandalf is in an awful dilemma.
>
> Not the least of which being how to swipe the Ring from Frodo
> before Sauron does.

Frodo had already offered it to Gandalf (at Bag End) when he felt
threatened by it. In this scenario Frodo perceives the Red Eye
on the very point of seeing him at last... and knowing that if he
hesitates more than a moment he'll be under Sauron's control,
unable to withhold the Ring from him and, in his terror, essentially
choosing Gandalf rather than Sauron to be the next Dark Lord.

I have had (thankfully) only a few moments when my life was in
real danger. Here's one -- I was driving around with my kid brother
in my newly-acquired Land Rover; kind of showing off what it
would do. I drove through a creek and up a very steep hill.
Part way up I powered out (in 2nd), so disengaged the clutch
so as not to stall the motor and put on the brakes.

They had absolutely no effect. No matter how hard I pushed the brake
pedal I continued to accelerate (very rapidly) backwards.

This was about the worst possible occasion to discover that my
Land Rover's brakes didn't work when wet.

I can remember thinking *very* quickly. In far less time that it
took to write this paragraph, I considered my options,
made a decision and acted on it. For one thing I realized right
away that steering backwards down a long steep hill was too risky;
I knew we'd end up rolling for sure (and perhaps get badly hurt
or worse). Did I mention that there was no roll bar? (Just a very
insubstantial aluminum roof). Within milliseconds I knew with total
certainty what I had to do: simultaneously I revved up the motor
(to match my speed), put the transfer case into low range, shifted
the gearbox into reverse and let out the clutch. The motor slowed us
right down and I was able to back down the hill in a controlled way.

Whew.

So here's Frodo, and the Quest has failed. The Ring will prevail
after all, but with whom? Sauron, or Gandalf's Dark Side. He has
only a moment to choose, and his gut feeling is...
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184484 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 14:44
Derek Broughton  
Stan Brown wrote:

> Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:31 GMT from Sean <no.spam [at] no.spam>:
>> Gandalf uses the Dark Arts to win the campaign. Sauron is overthrown
>> (but of course not destroyed) and his army scattered. Gandalf wields
>> the Ring, in fact he has acquired power too great and terrible.
>
> We are told by Tolkien that if someone else masters the Ring, for
> Sauron it will be as if it had been destroyed. If Gandalf used the
> Ring to defeat Sauron, he would have had to master it and therefore
> Sauron would already have been reduced to the same nothingness that
> happened when the Ring was destroyed in "real" life.
>
I can see the possibility (despite Tolkien's own opinion) of Sauron
surviving somebody else seizing the ring, but I wouldn't expect him to have
any more individuality than one of the Ring Wraiths. He put his essence
into that ring - if someone else mastered it, they would have mastered
Sauron.
--
derek
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184490 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 18:12
Sean  
Derek Broughton wrote:

> I can see the possibility (despite Tolkien's own opinion) of Sauron
> surviving somebody else seizing the ring, but I wouldn't expect him to have
> any more individuality than one of the Ring Wraiths. He put his essence
> into that ring - if someone else mastered it, they would have mastered
> Sauron.

Sauron may have put the better part of his strength into the Ring,
but not necessarily his personality. Also, there is Another Power
at work in it, beyond the designs of its maker.

Sean
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184495 ] Di, 13 Dezember 2005 21:26
Raven  
"Sean" <no.spam [at] no.spam> skrev i en meddelelse
news:439E6B8C.BAB45822 [at] no.spam...

> Steve Morrison wrote:


> > "Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He
> > would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have
> > continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his
> > subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have
> > remained great)."

> Why would this have been far worse? I _think_ I'd prefer to be
> merely yelled at and called a Tom-fool of a Took than to be born
> away to the Houses of Lamentation. Surely Sauron's victory would
> have been the start of a new Dark Age, make more sinister and
> perhaps more protracted by the lights of perveted necromancy.

I suppose that if Gandalf had used the Ring to defeat Sauron, a lot of
people would have been borne away to the Houses of Lamentation for their
own, Ilúvatar's and society's good. Imagine a Cultural Revolution/Killing
Fields/Gulag on steroids, though more strongly centrally controlled, wedded
to all the religiously pretexted tortures and massacres throughout history,
where people have been put to abominable suffering by persecutors who
thought/think that they were/are labouring for the glory of God.
Lots of horrible tyrants throughout time have tried to lead the people to
a greater and better future, persecuting with hatred all who were or were
suspected of opposing their Good Work. I imagine Gandalf might have become
like that.
<"kill them all. mandos will sort them.">

Wu[1] Ya[1].
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184508 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 02:23
Noh Phu Ling  
Sadok wrote:
>
>
> : Gandalf is in an awful dilemma.
>
> Not the least of which being how to swipe the Ring from Frodo before Sauron
> does.

Yet, when Frodo freely offers the Ring, Gandalf, horror-struck, recoils
as if burnt and says he DARE NOT take it.

Pete

--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184519 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 14:45
onq  
Raven wrote:
>
> "Sean" <no.spam [at] no.spam> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:439E6B8C.BAB45822 [at] no.spam...
>
> > Steve Morrison wrote:
>
> > > "Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He
> > > would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have
> > > continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his
> > > subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have
> > > remained great)."
>
> > Why would this have been far worse? I _think_ I'd prefer to be
> > merely yelled at and called a Tom-fool of a Took than to be born
> > away to the Houses of Lamentation. Surely Sauron's victory would
> > have been the start of a new Dark Age, make more sinister and
> > perhaps more protracted by the lights of perveted necromancy.
>
> I suppose that if Gandalf had used the Ring to defeat Sauron, a lot of
> people would have been borne away to the Houses of Lamentation for their
> own, Ilúvatar's and society's good. Imagine a Cultural Revolution/Killing
> Fields/Gulag on steroids, though more strongly centrally controlled, wedded
> to all the religiously pretexted tortures and massacres throughout history,
> where people have been put to abominable suffering by persecutors who
> thought/think that they were/are labouring for the glory of God.
> Lots of horrible tyrants throughout time have tried to lead the people to
> a greater and better future, persecuting with hatred all who were or were
> suspected of opposing their Good Work. I imagine Gandalf might have become
> like that.
> <"kill them all. mandos will sort them.">
>
> Wu[1] Ya[1].

I believe the relevant quotation is:

"Kill them all. God knows his own."

M.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184520 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 14:52
onq  
Sean wrote:
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> > I can see the possibility (despite Tolkien's own opinion) of Sauron
> > surviving somebody else seizing the ring, but I wouldn't expect him to have
> > any more individuality than one of the Ring Wraiths. He put his essence
> > into that ring - if someone else mastered it, they would have mastered
> > Sauron.
>
> Sauron may have put the better part of his strength into the Ring,
> but not necessarily his personality. Also, there is Another Power
> at work in it, beyond the designs of its maker.
>
> Sean

I think that comment by Gandalf in the LotR was a reference to the benign
influence Eru, or Fate or whatever.

However a reading of Tolkien's other writings might construe it t obe a
reference to the essence of evil residing in Gold after Morgoth's
dissemination of his substance into the Stuff of Arda.

I'm not sure the latter point is canonical or even based in the letters.

I seem to remember it from "Morgoth's Ring".

Sauron made for himself a Ring of gold into which he poured the greater
part of the strength that was native to him in the beginning, but all of
Middle-Earth was Morgoth's Ring.

In fact, I think Tolkien's later revisions seemed to allow Morgoth's and
the Valar's influence take on a more "cosmic" significance, with
Middle-Earth becoming only the chosen field of battle, not the only place
available to them, at least initially, until they expended their natures
in helping to form Arda as a whole, of which Middle Earth then seemed ot
be only a part.

FWIW

M.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184521 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 15:59
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184544 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 21:57
Raven  
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43A0220A.9F4F3A76 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> Raven wrote:

> > <"kill them all. mandos will sort them.">

> I believe the relevant quotation is:

> "Kill them all. God knows his own."

Indeed. Religious certainty to the degree of despising all with
differing beliefs is arrogant beyond arrogance. If God exists, which I
hope, I should not be surprised if he is displeased with those who try to
command him.

Jon Lennart Beck.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184546 ] Mi, 14 Dezember 2005 23:01
danhenry  
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:42:34 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:31 GMT from Sean <no.spam [at] no.spam>:
>> Gandalf uses the Dark Arts to win the campaign. Sauron is overthrown
>> (but of course not destroyed) and his army scattered. Gandalf wields
>> the Ring, in fact he has acquired power too great and terrible.
>
>We are told by Tolkien that if someone else masters the Ring, for
>Sauron it will be as if it had been destroyed. If Gandalf used the
>Ring to defeat Sauron, he would have had to master it and therefore
>Sauron would already have been reduced to the same nothingness that
>happened when the Ring was destroyed in "real" life.

Except, did destroying the Ring kill Sauron, or just make it impossible
for him to come back when his tower fell on him? I think by the time
Sauron had a body again, he didn't need to even remotely draw on the
Ring's energy to just continue existing. I think if he retreated bodily,
he could maybe create a Two Dark Lords situation for some time, but in
the end, there could be only one. And then Sauron would be gone forever,
with Evil Gandalf in charge (or Sauron triumphant and with Gandalf
delivering the Elves to him in his army, preventing even their escape).
So, long term I agree, but I think there could be an intermediate time
of two established Dark Lords.

I think that it's pretty clear that even if a mortal *did* master the
Ruling Ring, Sauron could still kick his butt and take it back
one-on-one, that just mastering the Ring wasn't enough to toast him. The
equation with the Ring being unmade was the specific case of losing a
direct battle with Gandalf+Ring. But if Gandalf had mastered the Ring to
battle Sauron, obviously that alone is not enough to destroy Sauron, or
the visualized confrontation would be impossible.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #184590 ] Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 07:03
Trek Barnes  
"Sean" <no.spam [at] no.spam> wrote in message news:439E6B8C.BAB45822 [at] no.spam...
> Steve Morrison wrote:
>
>> Remember what JRRT said at the end of Letter #246 (to Eileen Elgar):
>>
>> "Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He
>> would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have
>> continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his
>> subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have
>> remained great)."
>
> Why would this have been far worse? I _think_ I'd prefer to be
> merely yelled at and called a Tom-fool of a Took than to be born
> away to the Houses of Lamentation. Surely Sauron's victory would
> have been the start of a new Dark Age, make more sinister and
> perhaps more protracted by the lights of perveted necromancy.
>
> Sean

I don't have my copy of Letters handy, but I believe Tolkien explains it by
saying while Sauron left Good and Evil as two opposites, Gandalf by Doing
Good with the Wrong means, would have corrupted it, so that Good and Evil
would have been far less definable to the average Middle-Earthian.

___________________________________
Trek Barnes
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #196874 ] Mi, 04 Januar 2006 20:42
bc  
> Except, did destroying the Ring kill Sauron, or just make it
impossible
> for him to come back when his tower fell on him? <SNIP>
>
> --
> R. Dan Henry
> danhenry [at] inreach.com

destroying the Ring destroyed Sauron's body and the power he required
to recreate another body. Contrary to popular opinion, the cause of
Sauron's death wasn't Barad-dur falling on him, but rather he dies from
extreme heat; indeed he reduced to ashes. Everything made by the Ring
also shared its fate.
Let's look at the evidence: after the Ring is destroyed, the Nazgul
catch fire and burn away, walls "crumbled and melted", great spires of
smoke billowed up from the plane, indicating great heat. Also there is
material in Unfinished Tales that the Palantiri are unbreakable except
perhaps by great heat. The Palatir of Barad-dur is never recovered, as
it surely would have been by Aragorn if it was merely caught in a
collapse. And not to mention the story of what happens to the statue's
animator in "The Faithful Stone", from UT, who uses the same method
Sauron used to infuse "life" into his creation but also shared its
injury.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #196925 ] Sa, 07 Januar 2006 10:34
danhenry  
On 4 Jan 2006 11:42:50 -0800, "BC" <aqua [at] aloha.net> wrote:

> > Except, did destroying the Ring kill Sauron, or just make it
>impossible
>> for him to come back when his tower fell on him? <SNIP>
>>
>> --
>> R. Dan Henry
>> danhenry [at] inreach.com
>
>destroying the Ring destroyed Sauron's body and the power he required
>to recreate another body. Contrary to popular opinion, the cause of
>Sauron's death wasn't Barad-dur falling on him, but rather he dies from
>extreme heat; indeed he reduced to ashes. Everything made by the Ring
>also shared its fate.

Sauron was not made by the Ring. The Ring was made by Sauron.

>The Palatir of Barad-dur is never recovered, as
>it surely would have been by Aragorn if it was merely caught in a
>collapse.

The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
much of this detail. (And it is unlikely that a stone so long in
Sauron's possession would be more useable than the one Denethor put his
mark on.)

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #196928 ] Sa, 07 Januar 2006 17:15
Stan Brown  
Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:34:20 -0800 from R. Dan Henry
<danhenry [at] inreach.com>:
> The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
> destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
> more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
> much of this detail.

I know that's what Tolkien said, but it never made sense to me. Why
should people be more afraid of a dead dragon than a live one? Even
Bilbo was less afraid of a POSSIBLY-dead one than a live one, when he
made his repeat journey down the tunnel from the "doorstep".

I picture the adolescent boys of Lake-Town having a standard rite of
passage of diving down to Smaug's corpse and bringing back a gem.
That seems less scary (to me) than diving off the high cliffs of a
quarry into the water, which real-world adolescent boys actually do.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #197007 ] So, 08 Januar 2006 23:10
bc  
R. Dan Henry wrote:
> >destroying the Ring destroyed Sauron's body and the power he required
> >to recreate another body. Contrary to popular opinion, the cause of
> >Sauron's death wasn't Barad-dur falling on him, but rather he dies from
> >extreme heat; indeed he reduced to ashes. Everything made by the Ring
> >also shared its fate.
>
> Sauron was not made by the Ring. The Ring was made by Sauron.

Yes, I made a mistake there. I should have said: "everything tied to
the One Ring."

> >The Palatir of Barad-dur is never recovered, as
> >it surely would have been by Aragorn if it was merely caught in a
> >collapse.
>
> The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
> destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
> more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
> much of this detail.

I haven't read "the Hobbit" in about 15 years. Where is it said that
the gems on Smaug's coat is never recovered?

> (And it is unlikely that a stone so long in
> Sauron's possession would be more useable than the one Denethor put his
> mark on.)
>
the Stone of Orthanc was perfectly usable. The Anor Stone only became
unusable after Denethor burned himself on his pyre while clutching it,
so that anyone who looked in it (without a very strong will of his own)
would only see 2 flaming hands.

Also there are these: "walls crumbled and melted.", the Nazgul
catching fire and burning away in midair, and the story in UT that I
described before concerning the Faithful Stone; and this passage that I
just found in the UT: "They were indeed unbreakable by any violence
then controlled by men, though some believed that great heat, such as
that of Orodruin, might shatter tham, and surmised that this had been
the fate of the Ithil-stone in the fall of Barad-dur.

-BC
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #218379 ] Di, 07 Februar 2006 07:58
danhenry  
On 8 Jan 2006 14:10:13 -0800, "BC" <aqua [at] aloha.net> wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> >The Palatir of Barad-dur is never recovered, as
>> >it surely would have been by Aragorn if it was merely caught in a
>> >collapse.
>>
>> The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
>> destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
>> more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
>> much of this detail.
>
>I haven't read "the Hobbit" in about 15 years. Where is it said that
>the gems on Smaug's coat is never recovered?

The near the end of "Fire and Water" (chapter 14): "They removed
northward higher up the shore; for ever after they had a dread of the
water where the dragon lay. He would never again return to his golden
bed, but was stretched cold as stone, twisted upon the floor of the
shallows. There for ages his huge bones could be seen in calm weather
amid the ruined piles of the old town. But few dared to cross the cursed
spot, and none dared to dive into the shivering water or recover the
precious stones that fell from his rotting carcase."

>> (And it is unlikely that a stone so long in
>> Sauron's possession would be more useable than the one Denethor put his
>> mark on.)
>>
> the Stone of Orthanc was perfectly usable. The Anor Stone only became
>unusable after Denethor burned himself on his pyre while clutching it,
>so that anyone who looked in it (without a very strong will of his own)
>would only see 2 flaming hands.

Yes, and Denethor's will, at least with regards to the Stones, was
greater than Saruman's. It was Saruman, not Denethor, who bowed to
Sauron. And Sauron's will was very great; it is unlikely that he would
not have put his mark on a Stone he had long used in one way or another.

> Also there are these: "walls crumbled and melted.", the Nazgul
>catching fire and burning away in midair

While diving towards Mount Doom, which is throwing up molten stone in a
huge eruption, which is a perfectly good way to burn up without any
magic at all. For that matter, while I believe the foundations of the
Dark Tower were ruined by the destruction of the Ring whose magic was
woven into them, the earthquakes that accompany the volcanic eruption
would provide a physical cause for the tower's fall as well. While it is
not a given that the destruction of the Ring destroyed Sauron's form, it
seems unlikely. While the Ring provided some form of "anchor" allowing
Sauron to reform again (or so some of the Wise speculate), Sauron did
not have the Ring available at that time and could not have used it in
the actual creation of his new body, so it can hardly be considered a
work of the Ring and has no obvious reason to be dragged down with it.
Sauron would permanently have lost the power he put into the Ruling Ring
upon its destruction, but he would still have retained considerable
power relative to an ordinary man.

>, and the story in UT that I
>described before concerning the Faithful Stone; and this passage that I
>just found in the UT: "They were indeed unbreakable by any violence
>then controlled by men, though some believed that great heat, such as
>that of Orodruin, might shatter tham, and surmised that this had been
>the fate of the Ithil-stone in the fall of Barad-dur.

Or it might have fallen down one of the big cracks in the ground and
been lost that way.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #218380 ] Di, 07 Februar 2006 07:58
danhenry  
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:15:33 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:34:20 -0800 from R. Dan Henry
><danhenry [at] inreach.com>:
>> The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
>> destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
>> more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
>> much of this detail.
>
>I know that's what Tolkien said, but it never made sense to me. Why
>should people be more afraid of a dead dragon than a live one? Even
>Bilbo was less afraid of a POSSIBLY-dead one than a live one, when he
>made his repeat journey down the tunnel from the "doorstep".

Well, the deaths of Thorin and the Master of Lake-Town, both
attributable to lust for the dangerous dragon-treasure, might have
helped increase the fear. However, while *Bilbo* was brave enough to
dare the living dragon, the folk of Lake-Town avoided it, so they
wouldn't have to be *more* afraid to avoid the corpse.

>I picture the adolescent boys of Lake-Town having a standard rite of
>passage of diving down to Smaug's corpse and bringing back a gem.

Seems a foolish hobby if it means the town will shun you as cursed by
association with the dragon. The gem won't have any value if they're
regarded with superstitious dread -- no market.

>That seems less scary (to me) than diving off the high cliffs of a
>quarry into the water, which real-world adolescent boys actually do.

It's possible that their fear is not even unjustified; that area of the
lake might be toxic from the rotting dragon-carcass. And cliff-diving is
either socially-acceptable (or even approved of) -- not the case here --
or down out of sight of adults -- not really possible on an inhabited
lake in an area that is very low-traffic to begin with.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #218387 ] Di, 07 Februar 2006 17:25
Stan Brown  
Hmm -- not sure why we're reopening this after a month, wbut what the
heck, it's only electrons!

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:58:27 -0800 from R. Dan Henry
<danhenry [at] inreach.com>:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:15:33 -0500, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown [at] fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:34:20 -0800 from R. Dan Henry
> ><danhenry [at] inreach.com>:
> >> The gems in Smaug's "coat" are never recovered, although they are not
> >> destroyed. I expect the dread of Sauron's final resting place would be a
> >> more effective deterrent than dread of a dead dragon, so I don't think
> >> much of this detail.
> >
> >I know that's what Tolkien said, but it never made sense to me. Why
> >should people be more afraid of a dead dragon than a live one? Even
> >Bilbo was less afraid of a POSSIBLY-dead one than a live one, when he
> >made his repeat journey down the tunnel from the "doorstep".
>
> Well, the deaths of Thorin and the Master of Lake-Town, both
> attributable to lust for the dangerous dragon-treasure, might have
> helped increase the fear. However, while *Bilbo* was brave enough to
> dare the living dragon, the folk of Lake-Town avoided it, so they
> wouldn't have to be *more* afraid to avoid the corpse.

True, but the fear would be more inappropriate.

Forget dragons: consider alligators. A healthy fear of a live
unchained alligator makes sense; a sane person would normally avoid
the beast.(*) But to have the _same_ fear for a dead alligator, known
to be dead because it had been underwater for years and its corpse
was rotting -- that's just nuts.


(*) I'm talking about ordinary people, not those who have particular
reasons to deal with live alligators. Such people would still be
afraid but would have reason t overcome that feat, and presumably
special knowledge to reduce the risk to themselves. OTOH, I'm not
sure Steve Irwin _is_ entirely sane, given that he put his small
child at risk as well as himself.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224383 ] Mo, 13 Februar 2006 20:29
rdwillia  
In article <07fgu19vfebe8259r0eicb8t836pen7hca [at] 4ax.com>,
R. Dan Henry <danhenry [at] inreach.com> wrote:

>would provide a physical cause for the tower's fall as well. While it is
>not a given that the destruction of the Ring destroyed Sauron's form, it
>seems unlikely. While the Ring provided some form of "anchor" allowing
>Sauron to reform again (or so some of the Wise speculate), Sauron did
>not have the Ring available at that time and could not have used it in
>the actual creation of his new body, so it can hardly be considered a
>work of the Ring and has no obvious reason to be dragged down with it.
>Sauron would permanently have lost the power he put into the Ruling Ring
>upon its destruction, but he would still have retained considerable
>power relative to an ordinary man.

Although Sauron did not hold the Ring at the time, I don't think we can
assume that its power was not used in the creation of his latest body.
Tolkien notes in letter #131 that the Ring's power remained 'in rapport'
with its creator, and that as long as the Ring was intact and not mastered
my anyone else, Sauron was not 'diminished' (though he lacked the
'enhanced' power that actually wearing it provided). However, if the Ring
were destroyed 'Sauron's own being would be reduced to vanishing point,
and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will'.

Richard.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224405 ] Di, 14 Februar 2006 15:49
urban  
In article <dsqmmd$fm8$1 [at] newsserver.cilea.it>,
Richard Williams <rdwillia [at] anon.example.net> wrote:
>>power relative to an ordinary man.
>
>Although Sauron did not hold the Ring at the time, I don't think we can
>assume that its power was not used in the creation of his latest body.
>Tolkien notes in letter #131 that the Ring's power remained 'in rapport'
>with its creator, and that as long as the Ring was intact and not mastered
>my anyone else, Sauron was not 'diminished' (though he lacked the
>'enhanced' power that actually wearing it provided). However, if the Ring
>were destroyed 'Sauron's own being would be reduced to vanishing point,
>and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will'.

It might be noted that Sauron himself did not know (or refused to
believe) this. It seems that he long believed that the Ring had
been destroyed, which would imply that in his arrogance he believed
that he had taken shape again and grown entirely without the power
of the Ring. Sauron must have been a crashing bore at parties,
always talking about himself. Probably why nobody invited him.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224409 ] Di, 14 Februar 2006 18:01
stevehim  
"Gandalf the White, or Saruman the White before his staff was broken,
wielding the One, would therefore stand a chance of defeating Sauron.
But
Sauron would not stand in the field alone and armies would be required
to
fight the Nazgul, Orcs and Trolls. But this thing would not be
certain."

Isn't there a Letter (I have been told there is by several different
people at any rate...I really need to get that book) that states that
none, save perhaps Gandalf, could successfully wield the Ring against
Sauron in the end? So really only one being in ME would even stand a
chance of winning even if they claimed the Ring, and even that seems to
be in some doubt.
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224448 ] Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:48
Troels Forchhammer  
In message
<news:1139936482.171197.179490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"stevehim [at] yahoo.com" <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>

<snip>

> Isn't there a Letter (I have been told there is by several
> different people at any rate...I really need to get that book)
> that states that none, save perhaps Gandalf, could successfully
> wield the Ring against Sauron in the end? So really only one
> being in ME would even stand a chance of winning even if they
> claimed the Ring, and even that seems to be in some doubt.

I believe you are thinking of letter #246, which has fortunately been
posted in full on the group:

<news:LgaHb.66282$aT.995 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au>
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/324eda917 6e604e7>

I don't recall any other letter that has a more thorough discussion of
this possibility. Note that it is contemplating two different kinds of
confrontation: using the Ring to build armies strong enough to defeat
Sauron, and facing him directly, 'self to self' as he says.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224450 ] Mi, 15 Februar 2006 23:21
stevehim  
Thank you very much. That was supremely interesting, and far more in
depth than I had expected.


Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1139936482.171197.179490 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> "stevehim [at] yahoo.com" <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> enriched us with:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > Isn't there a Letter (I have been told there is by several
> > different people at any rate...I really need to get that book)
> > that states that none, save perhaps Gandalf, could successfully
> > wield the Ring against Sauron in the end? So really only one
> > being in ME would even stand a chance of winning even if they
> > claimed the Ring, and even that seems to be in some doubt.
>
> I believe you are thinking of letter #246, which has fortunately been
> posted in full on the group:
>
> <news:LgaHb.66282$aT.995 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au>
> < http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/324eda917 6e604e7>
>
> I don't recall any other letter that has a more thorough discussion of
> this possibility. Note that it is contemplating two different kinds of
> confrontation: using the Ring to build armies strong enough to defeat
> Sauron, and facing him directly, 'self to self' as he says.
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
>
> Love while you've got
> love to give.
> Live while you've got
> life to live.
> - Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/
Re: Two Dark Lords [message #224452 ] Do, 16 Februar 2006 09:24
Troels Forchhammer  
In message
<news:1140042100.850145.213950 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"stevehim [at] yahoo.com" <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>

<references to letter #246>

> Thank you very much. That was supremely interesting, and far more
> in depth than I had expected.

You're very welcome. In all fairness, letters like that are rare, but
there are a few others that also open up new vistas of Middle-earth.

I think that, for me, the most significant insight from reading letters
was to realise just how deeply rooted the mythology and story is in
Tolkien's religiousness.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/
Vorheriges Thema:OT - A Comment from Ralph Nader - America as Plutocracy
Nächstes Thema:Re: American soldiers are weak and cowardly - Here's the proof!
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 14:22:45 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09997 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered