|
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
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Please answer
| Please answer [message #231888] |
Do, 02 März 2006 18:31 |
|
1- Why were the rings even made ?
2- A lot of power was stored in each of the rings . Where did all that
power come from?
3- What advantage did the Elves see in making of the rings which they
agreed for its manufacture.Why did they want powers in the rings?
4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
can control without the 'one ring'.
So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
of and how can he rule the world?
|
|
|
| Re: Please answer [message #231889 ] |
Do, 02 März 2006 19:30 |
|
"Sith Lord" <sithlordvarun [at] gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141320664.725491.107040 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> 1- Why were the rings even made ?
The elves were saddened by the changes inherent in the passing of
time, but they didn't yet want to leave middle earth and return to
Valinor. The elvish rings were made to preserve middle earth as they
experienced it.
> 2- A lot of power was stored in each of the rings . Where did all
> that power come from?
Who knows? There are theories that at least the One's power came
partly from the part of himself that Morgoth put into the world.
> 3- What advantage did the Elves see in making of the rings which
> they agreed for its manufacture.Why did they want powers in the
> rings?
See above. They wanted to hold back the passage of time, as seen in
Rivendell and Lorien.
> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to
> Sauron now?
> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine
> he
> can control without the 'one ring'.
> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so
> scared
> of and how can he rule the world?
Even without the other rings, the One would help Sauron dominate and
control other beings. The other rings would presumably amplify the
One's power on the ringusers, but the One by itself was powerful
enough to be useful.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| The One Ring - Please answer [message #231906 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 00:06 |
|
"Sith Lord" <sithlordvarun [at] gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1141320664.725491.107040 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
> can control without the 'one ring'.
> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
> of and how can he rule the world?
As Tang said, his power of domination would become greater. Also, he
would know all that had been achieved with the Three, which would add to the
disaster for the Free Peoples, and it would have been better if they had
never been.
When Sauron made the One and the wielders of the Three became aware of
it, they took them off and ceased to wield them. Otherwise he would have
known all that were done with them as well as become able to dominate the
bearers. This was his main plan: to dominate the Elves of Eregion, foiled
because they resisted by taking them off and hiding them. This angered him
so much that he went to war against the Mírdain of Eregion, seeking to take
all the rings and to kill those who had refused to become his sock puppets.
The Three remained idle until Sauron lost the One. When this happened the
Three became free, and were used. But they were free only as long as the
One did not return to Sauron - or to another great one who got it and
managed to make it wholly his, usurping Sauron's place.
BTW, how comes it that a Sith lord pleads? Shouldn't the word "please"
enter his ears only, not leave his lips? :-)
Cuervo.
|
|
|
| Re: Please answer [message #231911 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 02:43 |
|
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:31:04 -0500, Sith Lord <sithlordvarun [at] gmail.com>
wrote:
> 1- Why were the rings even made ?
> 2- A lot of power was stored in each of the rings . Where did all that
> power come from?
/tongue in cheek/
Rods and Rings used to be symbols of kingly power (this is where the word
"rule" comes from, it refers to the rod.) So this metalomorphized concept
of the Ring has somewhat of a silly quality to it. Rings are probably an
allegory for some sort of political force, or maybe even something like
religion. So these religions were made of words, stories and rituals, or
perhaps oligarchic circles of power who maintained order in society by
controlling it.
Each race has its own set of rings (religions), some continents have more
rings (religions) than others (9 vs 3), which enable those in power to
control the people. Then the Dark Lord made one religion to dominate all
the others...
> 3- What advantage did the Elves see in making of the rings which they
> agreed for its manufacture.Why did they want powers in the rings?
> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
> can control without the 'one ring'.
> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
> of and how can he rule the world?
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231913 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 03:11 |
|
>> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
>> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
>> can control without the 'one ring'.
>> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
>> of and how can he rule the world?>
one othe rthought that crossed my mind ... by Sauron regaining the one ring,
by default he knows that no one else has it
ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
ring?
chris hoelscher
>
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231917 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 03:29 |
|
Chris Hoelscher wrote:
> ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
> ring?
thrown an incredible party.
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231921 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 09:49 |
|
|
Bullshit!
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231923 ] |
Fr, 03 März 2006 10:34 |
|
Chris Hoelscher wrote:
> ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
> ring?
Silly little man. One Ring Gives You Wings!!! (flies off)
(One Ring Energy Ring is bottled under the authority of Morgoth.com)
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231944 ] |
Sa, 04 März 2006 01:48 |
|
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:11:25 UTC, "Chris Hoelscher"
<chrishoelscher [at] insightbb.com> wrote:
> ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
> ring?
>
>
Well, it would have had the power to go against Sauron, in my opinion.
On the other hand, a being of it's power who has hidden for thousands
of years, and before that being just a servant of Morgoth, doesn't
appear to be a being to spend much time with the outside world.
Though possesion of the ring could have changed things. Look at how
Sam had ideas of grandeur.
Sauron may have gone underground for lengths of time, but he had
excuses, such as shock at losing a ring, bodily destruction, etc.
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #231950 ] |
Sa, 04 März 2006 18:03 |
|
Kevin K wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:11:25 UTC, "Chris Hoelscher"
> <chrishoelscher [at] insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
> > ring?
> >
> >
>
>
> Well, it would have had the power to go against Sauron, in my opinion.
>
> On the other hand, a being of it's power who has hidden for thousands
> of years, and before that being just a servant of Morgoth, doesn't
> appear to be a being to spend much time with the outside world.
> Though possesion of the ring could have changed things. Look at how
> Sam had ideas of grandeur.
>
> Sauron may have gone underground for lengths of time, but he had
> excuses, such as shock at losing a ring, bodily destruction, etc.
While the Balrog might've tried to take on Sauron, had it obtained the
Ring, it would probably be similar to what would've happened if Gandalf
wielded the Ring against the Dark Lord, the outcome of which is
unclear, as Tolkien makes clear in letter 246:
'Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an
emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal
spirit taking a visible physical form.'
'Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not
contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was
placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side
the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior
strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps
also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will
in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would
have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him
it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and
all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the
end.'
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232011 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 15:01 |
|
"Chris Hoelscher" <chrishoelscher [at] insightbb.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:hBNNf.1565$oL.84 [at] attbi_s71...
>
>
> ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of
> the ring?
If the Balwog had been ELmer Thudd, he could have said, Weeell, at least
I´ve got ONE wing
Nils Gustaf
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232051 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 15:42 |
|
Chris Hoelscher wrote:
> >> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
> >> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
> >> can control without the 'one ring'.
> >> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
> >> of and how can he rule the world?>
He created the ring by putting a lot of his life force in it. With it
on his finger, it amplifies his power beyond its natural level,
especially when it comes to dominating others. With it in existence
but with nobody having mastered it and he not being in posession of it,
he is in rapport with it and still has access to his normal level of
power. If destroyed, the large part of his life force is destroyed,
and he no longer possesses sufficient power to generate a new body when
his is destroyed (which is what happens in the book when Frodo destroys
the ring and Sauron's tower collapses under him). If someone else (and
it needs to be a fairly powerful person, such as Gandalf or an Elf
ruler, not a mere human) masters the ring, they tear Sauron's power
away from him, and he shrivels to a hopeless wimp, just as though the
ring were destroyed
>
> one othe rthought that crossed my mind ... by Sauron regaining the one ring,
> by default he knows that no one else has it
>
> ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the
> ring?
If I were Sauron, I'd have worried about that a lot. A Balrog is
definitely powerful enough to take over the ring, although his talents
and inclinations might not lie in that direction.
>
> chris hoelscher
> >
Eric Root
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232057 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 20:00 |
|
eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
> Chris Hoelscher wrote:
> > >> 4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?
> > >> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he
> > >> can control without the 'one ring'.
> > >> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared
> > >> of and how can he rule the world?>
>
> He created the ring by putting a lot of his life force in it. With it
> on his finger, it amplifies his power beyond its natural level,
> especially when it comes to dominating others. With it in existence
> but with nobody having mastered it and he not being in posession of it,
> he is in rapport with it and still has access to his normal level of
> power. If destroyed, the large part of his life force is destroyed,
> and he no longer possesses sufficient power to generate a new body when
> his is destroyed (which is what happens in the book when Frodo destroys
> the ring and Sauron's tower collapses under him). If someone else (and
> it needs to be a fairly powerful person, such as Gandalf or an Elf
> ruler, not a mere human) masters the ring, they tear Sauron's power
> away from him, and he shrivels to a hopeless wimp, just as though the
> ring were destroyed
True, except:
1. Frodo didn't destroy the Ring.
2. It is unikely an Elf-lord could master the Ring, and questionable
whether Gandalf could. It seems Tolkien never fuly decided on this
issue.
> > chris hoelscher
> > >
>
> Eric Root
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232073 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 01:03 |
|
In article <1142017210.583579.41360 [at] j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
>> He created the ring by putting a lot of his life force in it. With it
>> on his finger, it amplifies his power beyond its natural level,
>> especially when it comes to dominating others. With it in existence
>> but with nobody having mastered it and he not being in posession of it,
>> he is in rapport with it and still has access to his normal level of
>> power. If destroyed, the large part of his life force is destroyed,
>> and he no longer possesses sufficient power to generate a new body when
>> his is destroyed (which is what happens in the book when Frodo destroys
>> the ring and Sauron's tower collapses under him). If someone else (and
>> it needs to be a fairly powerful person, such as Gandalf or an Elf
>> ruler, not a mere human) masters the ring, they tear Sauron's power
>> away from him, and he shrivels to a hopeless wimp, just as though the
>> ring were destroyed
>True, except:
>
>1. Frodo didn't destroy the Ring.
>
>2. It is unikely an Elf-lord could master the Ring, and questionable
>whether Gandalf could. It seems Tolkien never fuly decided on this
>issue.
I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:
1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have
found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of
providence was required.
2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use
the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude
them into thinking they could.
I know these positions can be argued using writings published after
Tolkien died, but I have to say both positions strongly contradict
the impression I got while reading the book, both originally (many
years ago), and again recently (after I had become aware of these
arguments). In addition I think that both positions, if accepted,
significantly weaken the story.
First of all, it doesn't seem to me that anybody in the book ever
expressed any doubts about whether it would be possible (not
necessarily easy, but *possible*) for Frodo to destroy the Ring,
provided of course he managed to make it to Mount Doom. Any such
doubts would have been extremely important -- undercutting the
entire logic of the Quest -- and as such I would have expected them
to be voiced. My impression was always that Frodo *could* have
thrown the Ring into the fire if he had not been so weakened by
the long journey, and I think the story is stronger that way. The
thing is, if you accept that from the beginning it was never possible
for Frodo to complete his Quest by his own strength, then his
failure is no longer really a failure. I think the story has more
resonance if Frodo *truly* fails where he might have succeeded,
and yet, providentially, the Quest succeeds anyway.
Second, it always seemed very clear to me that, in the understanding
of the wise, *many* characters in the book -- not just Gandalf,
but Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, even Aragorn, and even Boromir (but
not Frodo or Sam) -- could in fact have effectively used the Ring
against Sauron. Sauron's fear of this was an important element in
the plot, but if this was not possible then what did Sauron have
to be afraid of? And beyond that, what nobility is there in
renouncing the use of a corupt weapon that you can't use? It's
just a better story if the possibility of overthrowing Sauron was
*real*, but renounced anyway.
As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But
they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,
some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in
the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
--
John Brock
jbrock [at] panix.com
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232074 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 01:16 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien John Brock <jbrock [at] panix.com> wrote:
<good stuff snipped>
> As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But
> they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,
> some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in
> the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
If your interest is literary in nature, then the book
definitely should be given priority.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232075 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 04:17 |
|
John Brock wrote:
> In article <1142017210.583579.41360 [at] j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
> stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >eroot [at] swva.net wrote:
>
<snip>
> I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:
>
> 1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have
> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of
> providence was required.
>
> 2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use
> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude
> them into thinking they could.
>
> I know these positions can be argued using writings published after
> Tolkien died, but I have to say both positions strongly contradict
> the impression I got while reading the book, both originally (many
> years ago), and again recently (after I had become aware of these
> arguments). In addition I think that both positions, if accepted,
> significantly weaken the story.
>
> First of all, it doesn't seem to me that anybody in the book ever
> expressed any doubts about whether it would be possible (not
> necessarily easy, but *possible*) for Frodo to destroy the Ring,
> provided of course he managed to make it to Mount Doom. Any such
> doubts would have been extremely important -- undercutting the
> entire logic of the Quest -- and as such I would have expected them
> to be voiced.
Well, it depends on how you interpret things. One could argue that the
repeated thread of 'Gollum still has a part to play,' is a hint at
Frodo not being able to destroy the Ring himself.
My impression was always that Frodo *could* have
> thrown the Ring into the fire if he had not been so weakened by
> the long journey, and I think the story is stronger that way. The
> thing is, if you accept that from the beginning it was never possible
> for Frodo to complete his Quest by his own strength, then his
> failure is no longer really a failure. I think the story has more
> resonance if Frodo *truly* fails where he might have succeeded,
> and yet, providentially, the Quest succeeds anyway.
Not even the Wise can see all ends. It was their best chance, and it
would have been left up to speculation except Tolkien states that he
couldn't (apart from the suggested 'suicide' storyline) in Letter #246.
He also discusses why this isn't exactly a failure...Frodo did what he
could, and more than anyone could expect of him. Ignoring the Letter
for a moment, one could consider Frodo's reaction to Gandalf throwing
the Ring into the fire at Bag End. Even at that early stage, Frodo had
a hard time letting someone else (and not just anyone else, but Gandalf
himself) even touch the Ring. And then he pretty much freaks when the
wizard throws it into the fire. I'm not so sure that Frodo would have
been able to destroy the Ring even at that stage, had he been in
Orodruin instead of the Shire. Isildur sure couldn't after an even
(much) shorter period of possession.
> Second, it always seemed very clear to me that, in the understanding
> of the wise, *many* characters in the book -- not just Gandalf,
> but Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, even Aragorn, and even Boromir (but
> not Frodo or Sam) -- could in fact have effectively used the Ring
> against Sauron. Sauron's fear of this was an important element in
> the plot, but if this was not possible then what did Sauron have
> to be afraid of? And beyond that, what nobility is there in
> renouncing the use of a corupt weapon that you can't use? It's
> just a better story if the possibility of overthrowing Sauron was
> *real*, but renounced anyway.
I always felt the 'renouncing of the weapon' was more indicative of
Wisdom (knowing they could not use it to 'good' ends) than nobility.
Some of the Wise may have been deceived into thinking they could usurp
Sauron had they taken the Ring, but Tolkien states that none of them,
save possibly Gandalf, could. And even then, once Sauron was gone, the
bearer would become as terrible (or even moreso) than the Dark Lord
himself. As for what Sauron had to be afraid of...well, just because
nobody could succeed in wresting the Ring from him doesn't mean he
knows that.
I'm not sure Tolkien ever addressed what would happen if Saruman,
Radagast or the Balrog obtained the Ring. Probably the same conclusion
he had for Gandalf.
>
> As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But
> they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,
> some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in
> the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
Of course LOTR is canonical, but I think we have to also say that
Tolkien's Letters, in which he addresses some of these issues directly,
are to be taken with as much priority.
> John Brock
> jbrock [at] panix.com
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232078 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 06:42 |
|
John Brock wrote:
> Second, it always seemed very clear to me that, in the understanding
> of the wise, *many* characters in the book -- not just Gandalf,
> but Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, even Aragorn, and even Boromir (but
> not Frodo or Sam) -- could in fact have effectively used the Ring
> against Sauron. Sauron's fear of this was an important element in
> the plot, but if this was not possible then what did Sauron have
> to be afraid of? And beyond that, what nobility is there in
> renouncing the use of a corupt weapon that you can't use? It's
> just a better story if the possibility of overthrowing Sauron was
> *real*, but renounced anyway.
This fails to differentiate between using the Ring _directly_, in a
one-on-one duel with Sauron, and using it to build up armies, then
defeat Sauron in battle. Letter #246 says in part:
In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy
now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with
great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of
war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force.
Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not
contemplated.
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232086 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 14:06 |
|
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock
<jbrock [at] panix.com>:
> I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:
>
> 1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have
> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of
> providence was required.
>
> 2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use
> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude
> them into thinking they could.
>
> I know these positions can be argued using writings published after
> Tolkien died,
Tolkien was pretty clear about this in Letter 246. To the best of my
knowledge, though the letter may have been published after he died it
was written before he died. :-)
(BTW, he did _not_ say none of the characters could have defeated
Sauron with the Ring; in fact he said Gandalf might have face to
face, and possibly Elrond or Galadriel by amassing military force
with the power of the Ring.)
> First of all, it doesn't seem to me that anybody in the book ever
> expressed any doubts about whether it would be possible (not
> necessarily easy, but *possible*) for Frodo to destroy the Ring,
> provided of course he managed to make it to Mount Doom. Any such
> doubts would have been extremely important -- undercutting the
> entire logic of the Quest -- and as such I would have expected them
> to be voiced.
I think for exactly that reason -- that they would undercut the logic
of the quest -- the Wise would _not_ voice such doubts. (And the
others, like Gimli and Legolas and maybe even Aragorn, might not have
such doubts.)
> Second, it always seemed very clear to me that, in the understanding
> of the wise, *many* characters in the book -- not just Gandalf,
> but Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, even Aragorn, and even Boromir (but
> not Frodo or Sam) -- could in fact have effectively used the Ring
> against Sauron.
Again, Letter 246.
> Sauron's fear of this was an important element in
> the plot, but if this was not possible then what did Sauron have
> to be afraid of?
My understanding of Sauron is that he was not mentally stable. He was
driven in large part by what we would now call a major neurosis.
Many people in Real Life are afraid of things for no objective
reason, either because they don't have all the facts or because their
minds are not working right. Sauron certainly had all the facts about
the Ring, but he may not have known everything about the capacity of
Elves like Galadriel and Dunedain like Aragorn(*). Beyond that,
though, his mental processes were just twisted.
Many of us have mislaid our car keys. Think of that frantic feeling,
even though you _know_ you'll find them soon, and allow it to grow
for 3000 years. :-)
(*) AFAIR, Sauron didn't even know Aragorn, the Heir of Isildur,
existed until the War of the Ring.
--
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: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232094 ] |
Sa, 11 März 2006 21:41 |
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock
> <jbrock [at] panix.com>:
<snip>
> (*) AFAIR, Sauron didn't even know Aragorn, the Heir of Isildur,
> existed until the War of the Ring.
Not until Aragorn looked into the palantir did Sauron know that an Heir
of Isildur yet lived, and it really worried the hell out of him. (He
must've known there was a pesky Ranger about, however, as he had set
traps for him before. I supposized that this was perhaps an
inconsistency, but was convinced by the arguments presented that the
Dark Lord could have just been setting traps for a Ranger, not knowing
who he was).
>
> --
> 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: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232098 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 03:46 |
|
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC), jbrock [at] panix.com (John
Brock) posted the following:
>I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:
>
>1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have
> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of
> providence was required.
This is stated unequivocally by Tolkien in a letter.
>2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use
> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude
> them into thinking they could.
This is also stated unequivocally, although as someone else pointed
out, he says Gandalf might do it hand-to-hand, and Elrond or Galadriel
might be able to do it with military might.
>\My impression was always that Frodo *could* have
>thrown the Ring into the fire if he had not been so weakened by
>the long journey, and I think the story is stronger that way.
Tolkien's opinion is the reverse; that the willpower and strength
Frodo gained from his journey were necessary for him to even reach the
chamber of fire without succumbing to the Ring's lure.
>As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But
>they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,
>some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in
>the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the
letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or
your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence
-- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I
was thinking when I wrote the book."
-Chris
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232100 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 05:12 |
|
Chris Kern wrote:
> If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the
> letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or
> your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence
> -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I
> was thinking when I wrote the book."
What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
portrayed the Ring as unusable. I agree with the OP that the story makes
no sense if the Ring of Power were, in fact, unusable, and it contradicts
references within the story to boot. --Ber
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232109 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 18:36 |
|
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
> What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
> portrayed the Ring as unusable.
I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined
the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the
knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly
written "a lot".
--
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: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232110 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 19:43 |
|
Robinsons wrote:
> Chris Kern wrote:
>
> > If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the
> > letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or
> > your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence
> > -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I
> > was thinking when I wrote the book."
>
> What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
> portrayed the Ring as unusable. I agree with the OP that the story makes
> no sense if the Ring of Power were, in fact, unusable, and it contradicts
> references within the story to boot. --Ber
And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone
might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
Gandalf makes a comment about what would happen if they let Saruman and
Sauron fight it out ('the winner would emerge stronger than either and
free from doubt.' or something like that), but again, this is hardly
conclusive evidence that the Ring would be usable TO DEFEAT SAURON (as
the Ring, in both book and movie, is used quite often for other
purposes). In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could
speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could
apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two
others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to
use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).
One main point that seems to be overlooked here is that it isn't
exaclty common knowledge that the Ring cannot be used; it requires
great Wisdom, so I don't see how the fact that Sauron would most likely
ultimately destroy anyone claiming the Ring detracts from or
contradicts the story at all.
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232111 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 19:51 |
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
>
>>What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
>>portrayed the Ring as unusable.
>
>
> I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined
> the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
>
> That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the
> knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly
> written "a lot".
Well, there was one such objection, but the guy who made it had the
same problem with the books. You know, the "Boromir is the unsung
hero of LOTR and if all those stupid people had just gotten out of his
way and let him have the ring, he would have taken care of everyone
just fine" guy?
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232112 ] |
So, 12 März 2006 19:41 |
|
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500, Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> posted
the following:
>Chris Kern wrote:
>
>> If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the
>> letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or
>> your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence
>> -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I
>> was thinking when I wrote the book."
>
>What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
>portrayed the Ring as unusable. I agree with the OP that the story makes
>no sense if the Ring of Power were, in fact, unusable, and it contradicts
>references within the story to boot. --Ber
There are two separate things here.
The movie seemed to portray the Ring as *literally* unusable by
anybody but Sauron. That is, even if someone attempted to claim the
Ring, they could derive absolutely no power or benefit whatsoever from
it. This is false, and it is not what Tolkien's letters or the book
say.
The Ring is usable in theory, but its use has such a severe corrupting
effect that even if someone were able to use its power to overthrow
Sauron, they would simply become a dictator in his place. Tolkien
even thought that Gandalf-as-dictator would be worse than Sauron.
The problem is that as soon as someone claims the Ring (as opposed to
just putting it on), Sauron immediately knows exactly where they are,
and at that point they're pretty much screwed.
-Chris
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232114 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 00:50 |
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
> > What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
> > portrayed the Ring as unusable.
>
> I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined
> the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
I "joined the group", whatever that means, well before the movies
came out, so take your stuffiness away please.
> That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the
> knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly
> written "a lot".
"Alot" is a perfectly permissible variant.
Brian
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232115 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 00:54 |
|
"Michelle J. Haines" wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
> >
> >>What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
> >>portrayed the Ring as unusable.
> >
> >
> > I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined
> > the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
> >
> > That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the
> > knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly
> > written "a lot".
>
> Well, there was one such objection, but the guy who made it had the
> same problem with the books. You know, the "Boromir is the unsung
> hero of LOTR and if all those stupid people had just gotten out of his
> way and let him have the ring, he would have taken care of everyone
> just fine" guy?
That was not me, but that's not what I meant. Y'all misinterpreted
my statement. I agree with the previous poster that if the Ring is
not usable, it cuts off the entire story at the knees, at least in
terms of a work of literature.
(I accept that many anti-literarians read Tolkien for "escape" alone
and do not believe in looking for moral reasoning or message within.)
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232116 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 00:58 |
|
Chris Kern wrote:
> There are two separate things here.
>
> The movie seemed to portray the Ring as *literally* unusable by
> anybody but Sauron. That is, even if someone attempted to claim the
> Ring, they could derive absolutely no power or benefit whatsoever from
> it. This is false, and it is not what Tolkien's letters or the book
> say.
Agreed.
> The Ring is usable in theory, but its use has such a severe corrupting
> effect that even if someone were able to use its power to overthrow
> Sauron, they would simply become a dictator in his place. Tolkien
> even thought that Gandalf-as-dictator would be worse than Sauron.
Agreed.
> The problem is that as soon as someone claims the Ring (as opposed to
> just putting it on), Sauron immediately knows exactly where they are,
> and at that point they're pretty much screwed.
In the movie version. In the book version it's a bit more unclear.
Certainly Sauron would know that the Ring had been claimed; he was
afraid that Aragorn had the Ring. Otherwise it takes us back to square
one implying the Ring was entirely impractical even for a would-be
alternative Dark Lord!
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232120 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 01:17 |
|
"stevehim [at] yahoo.com" wrote:
> And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone
> might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
So who cares? This reduces the Ring to the level of a D&D "object of power"
that must be destroyed / placed in the center of the pyramid / returned to
the fairy princess etc. removing anentire layer of complexity from the
story with respect to the intentions of the wearers.
To PJ's credit, he was not consistent and the gentleman (Ottohyur?)
who argued that the movie failed to show the true danger of the Ring's usability,
was vociferously challenged by others on this NG (many of whom disliked the movie
far more than Ottohyur did) but felt that the danger of the Ring as an object
of real temptation (not false temptation) was adequately covered.
> Gandalf makes a comment about what would happen if they let Saruman and
> Sauron fight it out ('the winner would emerge stronger than either and
> free from doubt.' or something like that), but again, this is hardly
> conclusive evidence that the Ring would be usable TO DEFEAT SAURON (as
> the Ring, in both book and movie, is used quite often for other
> purposes).
From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit overboard in
that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little too powerful, forcing
the story to resolve in one of only two ways: complete victory by Sauron or
prompt destruction of the Ring.
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again, it
weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to *rationalize*
taking the Ring from Frodo.
> In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could
> speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could
> apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two
> others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to
> use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).
Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was
based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring, then his feigned
posession of the Ring[bearer] is pure plot point of no thematic consequence
to the larger story, of interest only to fictional conquest strategy-gamers.
Aragorn might as well have picked up the Palantir and asserted that some guy
in Far Harad had the Ring, luggage mix-up, better send some troops to pick it up.
He could have run Sauron ragged!
> One main point that seems to be overlooked here is that it isn't
> exaclty common knowledge that the Ring cannot be used; it requires
> great Wisdom, so I don't see how the fact that Sauron would most likely
> ultimately destroy anyone claiming the Ring detracts from or
> contradicts the story at all.
It doesn't require great Wisdom if the reasons are entirely practical.
I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim
that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some
damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.
--Ber
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232124 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 01:44 |
|
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:50:41 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com>:
> > > What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it
> > > portrayed the Ring as unusable.
> >
> > I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined
> > the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
>
> I "joined the group", whatever that means,
Well, of course I can't know when you started _reading_ the group.
But according to Google your first post was Jul 1 2005.
--
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: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232125 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 05:08 |
|
Robinsons wrote:
> "stevehim [at] yahoo.com" wrote:
>
> > And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone
> > might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
>
> So who cares? This reduces the Ring to the level of a D&D "object of power"
> that must be destroyed / placed in the center of the pyramid / returned to
> the fairy princess etc. removing anentire layer of complexity from the
> story with respect to the intentions of the wearers.
I don't really understand what you mean here, or how it applies to what
I said.
> To PJ's credit, he was not consistent and the gentleman (Ottohyur?)
> who argued that the movie failed to show the true danger of the Ring's usability,
> was vociferously challenged by others on this NG (many of whom disliked the movie
> far more than Ottohyur did) but felt that the danger of the Ring as an object
> of real temptation (not false temptation) was adequately covered.
>
> > Gandalf makes a comment about what would happen if they let Saruman and
> > Sauron fight it out ('the winner would emerge stronger than either and
> > free from doubt.' or something like that), but again, this is hardly
> > conclusive evidence that the Ring would be usable TO DEFEAT SAURON (as
> > the Ring, in both book and movie, is used quite often for other
> > purposes).
>
> From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit overboard in
> that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little too powerful, forcing
> the story to resolve in one of only two ways: complete victory by Sauron or
> prompt destruction of the Ring.
Actually, I felt the Letter, while illustrating Sauron's power (and his
hold on the Ring compared to other potential Ringclaimers) still left a
tiny crack open. In any case, I don't think the aspect of the story
being zero-sum detracts from it at all. Sauron himself is not
tremndously present in the tale, so Tolkien illustrated his power
(considerable that it was) through the Ring, and the fact that nobody
could wield it against him.
> This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again, it
> weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to *rationalize*
> taking the Ring from Frodo.
Again, not all the characters know this fact, which you seem to
overlook. And again, the temptation of the Ring is certainly shown
throughout the story.
> > In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could
> > speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could
> > apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two
> > others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to
> > use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).
>
> Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was
> based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
> If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
I have heard this alleged before, that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the
Ring, but I don't know if it's really a fact. Certainly Sauron is
worried that someone has it and may rise against him, but I don't know
if it is ever stated that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring (he is
worried that an Heir of Isildur lives and has wrested the palantir from
him). If you (or anyone else) has conclusive evidence of this, it
would be appreciated.
> If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring, then his feigned
> posession of the Ring[bearer] is pure plot point of no thematic consequence
> to the larger story, of interest only to fictional conquest strategy-gamers.
You are assuming Sauron is the author or the erudite fan. He is not.
Powerful he is, omniscient he is certainly not.
> Aragorn might as well have picked up the Palantir and asserted that some guy
> in Far Harad had the Ring, luggage mix-up, better send some troops to pick it up.
> He could have run Sauron ragged!
Again, where is there evidence Aragorn claimed he had the Ring when he
used the palantir?
> > One main point that seems to be overlooked here is that it isn't
> > exaclty common knowledge that the Ring cannot be used; it requires
> > great Wisdom, so I don't see how the fact that Sauron would most likely
> > ultimately destroy anyone claiming the Ring detracts from or
> > contradicts the story at all.
>
> It doesn't require great Wisdom if the reasons are entirely practical.
??? I think it does require great Wisdom. For instance, Boromir isn't
all that Wise, and thinks he can wield the Ring against Sauron.
> I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim
> that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some
> damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.
I disagree, but to each their own.
> --Ber
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232126 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 05:59 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robinsons wrote:
>> Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was
>> based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
>> If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
> I have heard this alleged before, that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the
> Ring, but I don't know if it's really a fact. Certainly Sauron is
> worried that someone has it and may rise against him, but I don't know
> if it is ever stated that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring (he is
> worried that an Heir of Isildur lives and has wrested the palantir from
> him). If you (or anyone else) has conclusive evidence of this, it
> would be appreciated.
Gandalf seems pretty sure of it, and Gandalf knows a lot,
and is able to see far off. The whole strategy is based
on the idea that Sauron will think that Aragorn, or perhaps
Gandalf himself, has the Ring. From "The Last Debate"
'We must march out to meet him at once. We must
make ourselves the bait, though his jaws should close
on us. He will take the bait, in hope and in greed,
for he will think that in such rashness he sees the
pride of the new Ringlord: and he will say: "So!
he pushes out his neck too soon and too far."'
Curiously, just a bit before saying this, Gandalf says.
'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.'
That seems a pretty clear statement that there are some,
at least Gandalf and Aragorn, who can wield the Ring
against Sauron. The reason that Sauron knows that
there are some among them who can wield the ring
is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
When Eomer asks why Sauron would not think it vain
to attack if they have the Ring, Gandalf says:
"'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.'"
The gist of all Gandalf's comments in the "Last Debate"
is that the Ring is very usable against Sauron. Tolkien's
letter does seem a bit at odds with the book on this point.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232127 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 06:17 |
|
stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Robinsons wrote:
> >> Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was
> >> based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
> >> If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
>
>
> > I have heard this alleged before, that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the
> > Ring, but I don't know if it's really a fact. Certainly Sauron is
> > worried that someone has it and may rise against him, but I don't know
> > if it is ever stated that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring (he is
> > worried that an Heir of Isildur lives and has wrested the palantir from
> > him). If you (or anyone else) has conclusive evidence of this, it
> > would be appreciated.
>
> Gandalf seems pretty sure of it, and Gandalf knows a lot,
> and is able to see far off. The whole strategy is based
> on the idea that Sauron will think that Aragorn, or perhaps
> Gandalf himself, has the Ring. From "The Last Debate"
> 'We must march out to meet him at once. We must
> make ourselves the bait, though his jaws should close
> on us. He will take the bait, in hope and in greed,
> for he will think that in such rashness he sees the
> pride of the new Ringlord: and he will say: "So!
> he pushes out his neck too soon and too far."'
This does not specify Aragorn. I have always thought that Sauron just
felt 'someone' had the Ring, but that leaves it open to multiple beings
who could pose a challenge to him, in his mind. I don't think we can
say, from this, that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
> Curiously, just a bit before saying this, Gandalf says.
> '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.'
And this reinforces the above point I made.
> That seems a pretty clear statement that there are some,
> at least Gandalf and Aragorn, who can wield the Ring
> against Sauron.
Well, it seems like a pretty clear statement that Sauron thinks someone
can wield the Ring, which is an important difference.
> The reason that Sauron knows that
> there are some among them who can wield the ring
> is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
Im not sure what you mean. All that Sauron gleaned from the palantir,
as far as I know, is that an Heir of Isildur lived, and he [Sauron] can
no longer use the palantir.
> When Eomer asks why Sauron would not think it vain
> to attack if they have the Ring, Gandalf says:
> "'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.'"
>
> The gist of all Gandalf's comments in the "Last Debate"
> is that the Ring is very usable against Sauron. Tolkien's
> letter does seem a bit at odds with the book on this point.
I still dont see this. I think Sauron thinks someone could usurp him,
but that is different from what would actually happen, from the mouth
of the omniscient (or near-omniscient) author. And most of the story
prior to that reinforces the Ring being unusable (or at least leading
to certain corruption if used).
> Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232128 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 06:26 |
|
Correcting something...sry.
stevehim [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
> > In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Robinsons wrote:
<snip>
> > Curiously, just a bit before saying this, Gandalf says.
> > '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.'
>
> And this reinforces the above point I made.
>
>
> > That seems a pretty clear statement that there are some,
> > at least Gandalf and Aragorn, who can wield the Ring
> > against Sauron.
>
> Well, it seems like a pretty clear statement that Sauron thinks someone
> can wield the Ring, which is an important difference.
I also think we have to differentiate between 'wield' and 'wield
successfully,' otherwise it does seem like Gandalf is implying that
someone could usurp Sauron. Or, possibly, Gandalf is misinformed. It
seems unlikely, but there are things he doesn't know, or at least
Gandalf the Grey didn't know (eg - the state of Moria). Plus, Tolkien
does leave room in his Letter for it to be wielded by a select few, but
Aragorn is, specifically, not among them.
<snip>
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232129 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 07:40 |
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Well, of course I can't know when you started _reading_ the group.
> But according to Google your first post was Jul 1 2005.
You rely on Google? Whatever. I'm not going to tell you how to
dig up all my old posts going back to 1999 just so you can berate
me for not being a "regular". I will give you a hint, however:
people's posting names and accounts change over a 6-8 year period.
I won't even get into whether involvement on other Tolkien forums
dating back to 1991 counts as transferrable credit hours. ;-)
(Perhaps only if they were "advanced placement" Tolkien forums
or "Baccalaureate" Tolkien forums, which leads me to wonder --
where do "postgraduate" Tolkien Usenet experts graduate to?)
--Ber
PS-- In case you didn't notice I was the person standing up for
Ottohyur ( I even remember his posting name!) who is the person
you and Michelle are recalling, I think.
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232130 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 09:49 |
|
Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> wrote:
> I will give you a hint, however: people's posting names and accounts
> change over a 6-8 year period.
Then maybe it would be better to keep one name, or even use your
complete real name instead of an invented one (as many others do), so
people know whom they are talking to.
> PS-- In case you didn't notice I was the person standing up for
> Ottohyur ( I even remember his posting name!) who is the person
> you and Michelle are recalling, I think.
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author
with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,
who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the
shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would
be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's
actually written is quite different).
- Dirk
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232131 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 11:12 |
|
In message <news:rl27121e0ahcfrlmbsp5tdv89581rln6ls [at] 4ax.com>
Chris Kern <chriskern99 [at] gmail.com> enriched us with:
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC), jbrock [at] panix.com (John
> Brock) posted the following:
>>
>> I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect
>> that:
>>
>> 1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have
>> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of
>> providence was required.
>
> This is stated unequivocally by Tolkien in a letter.
Not just in one letter, actually.
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap:
a person of greater native power could probably never have
resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less
power could not hope to resist it in the final decision.
(Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he
set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)
The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and
also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble
Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail
it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was
concerned.
[Letter #181, To Michael Straight (drafts) early 1956]
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and
the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it quite
impossible for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will,
especially at its point of maximum power, but that this
failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honoured
because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had
then done all that was within his utmost physical and
mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved - by
Mercy : by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and
forgiveness of injury.
[Letter #191, From a letter to Miss J. Bum (draft), July 1956]
By chance, I have just had another letter regarding the
failure of Frodo. Very few seem even to have observed it.
But following the logic of the plot, it was clearly
inevitable, as an event. And surely it is a more
significant and real event than a mere 'fairy-story' ending
in which the hero is indomitable? It is possible for the
good, even the saintly, to be subjected to a power of evil
which is too great for them to overcome - in themselves.
[Letter #192, From a letter to Amy Ronald, July 1956]
And of course letter #246, which has already been mentioned here. It
is available on Google here:
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/324eda917 6e604e7>
<http://tinyurl.com/f5sae>
The book, obviously, doesn't make much of this -- it allows the
reader to keep he hope (estel) until the last, even if the boulder-
sized hint is there already in 'Shadows of the Past' as Tolkien
himself notes (Frodo's inability to throw the Ring even into his own
fireplace).
I agree that it is not obvious in the book, but upon re-reading, I
think it can be seen that the plan would fail in that respect at
least.
>>2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use
>> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude
>> them into thinking they could.
>
> This is also stated unequivocally, although as someone else
> pointed out, he says Gandalf might do it hand-to-hand,
And presumably also e.g. Saruman (before his powers were removed).
But it is very clear that of humans /nobody/ could have witheld the
One Ring from Sauron, face-to-face.
In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature
could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no
one, not even Aragorn.
[Letter #246, To Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts), September 1963]
> and Elrond or Galadriel might be able to do it with military might.
Unfortunately the letter doesn't explicitly state whether that
strategy would have worked for Aragorn or Boromir. It is plain that
they would never have been able to confront Sauron directly, but
would they have been able to use it to defeat him militarily? Given
the history of Isildur's failure to use the Ring for anything at all
(except to become invisible), then it is, IMO, doubtful that even
Aragorn had the initial stature necessary to get enough power from
the Ring to succesfully conduct such a campaign, but that must remain
an opinion.
>> \My impression was always that Frodo *could* have thrown the
>> Ring into the fire if he had not been so weakened by the long
>> journey, and I think the story is stronger that way.
>
> Tolkien's opinion is the reverse; that the willpower and strength
> Frodo gained from his journey were necessary for him to even reach
> the chamber of fire without succumbing to the Ring's lure.
Yes, the ennoblement would have helped, though it also increased his
vulnerability to "the Ring's lure to power". It was always, at best,
a very delicate balance, and one that might just not work out: as it
were it proved impossible to find anyone who was weak enough to
resist the temptation of power and strong enough to retain the
strength of will at the end to resist it in the Sammath Naur.
--
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/
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232134 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 14:40 |
|
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:17:20 -0500, Robinsons <wrob [at] erols.com> posted
the following:
>"stevehim [at] yahoo.com" wrote:
>
>> And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone
>> might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
>This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again, it
>weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to *rationalize*
>taking the Ring from Frodo.
You're assuming the characters are omniscient -- they don't know it
can't be used successfully.
>> In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could
>> speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could
>> apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two
>> others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to
>> use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).
>
>Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was
>based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.
>If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
>If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring,
Aragorn cannot *defeat* Sauron with the Ring, but whether or not he
can hurt Sauron is not specified. Probably he can. In any case,
Sauron does not know about this.
>I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim
>that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some
>damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.
"some damage", sure. Complete defeat of Sauron -- maybe, but only if
it were someone like Gandalf or Elrond.
-Chris
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232135 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 16:40 |
|
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> stephen [at] nomail.com wrote:
>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim [at] yahoo.com <stevehim [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The reason that Sauron knows that
>> there are some among them who can wield the ring
>> is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
> Im not sure what you mean. All that Sauron gleaned from the palantir,
> as far as I know, is that an Heir of Isildur lived, and he [Sauron] can
> no longer use the palantir.
Gandalf explicitly states that the reason Sauron knows that
there are people with the power to wield the Ring against
him is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
Stephen
|
|
|
| Re: The One Ring - Please answer [message #232136 ] |
Mo, 13 März 2006 17:06 |
|
Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>
> I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author
> with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,
> who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the
> shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would
> be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's
> actually written is quite different).
Ah yes, thank you! I knew it was a Chris somebody! And obviously
felt too lazy to look it up.
Michelle
Flutist
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 14:11:09 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11382 Sekunden |
