Chapter of the Week - The Hobbit Chapter 6
Trade Surplus
Chapter Summary
Having escaped the goblins, Bilbo manages to find Thorin and Co. in a dell
not far from the Back Door, on the East side of the mountains. He tells them
the story of how he got out but doesn't mention the ring. Gandalf returns
the favour by telling Bilbo the story of how he rescued them all from the
Great Goblin. Knowing that the goblins will soon be after them, they march
quickly away from the mountains.
At a clearing in the woods they hear wolves howling all around them and
climb trees for safety. The wolves see Bilbo and Dori and smell out the
others, putting a guard on all the trees. Gandalf overhears the wolves
talking about a planned raid with the goblins against the men of the vale.
He starts tossing burning fir cones down at the wolves but the guards stay
at their posts until the goblins arrive. The goblins, who are not afraid of
fire, guide the fires to the base of the trees containing the Dwarves,
Gandalf and Bilbo.
Things are looking bad for the whole company and Gandalf even contemplates a
kamikaze jump from his tree when the eagles swoop down and rescue them all.
The eagles take them to their eyrie where Bilbo at last gets something to
eat.
Questions
- The picture 'The Misty Mountains looking West from the Eyrie towards
Goblin Gate'. Is that hunk of rock in the centre of the picture meant to be
the Eyrie or is the viewer meant to be standing on the Eyrie and looking
West? Is the Goblin Gate actually shown in the picture?
- "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
- Gandalf gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows when Bilbo
told his tale. Did Gandalf know something in particular or did he just
suspect Bilbo of lying from his body language? Is this bit in the original
or was it added later to make the ring seem more suspicious?
- The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
communication with the Lord of the Eagles, perhaps by the same telepathy we
see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf? How
did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
Magically enhanced supermoth maybe?
Trade.
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
> of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
> for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
see also benjamin franklins remarks on eagles
eagles in their natural state are bullies and muggers
they may look magnificent but their bahevior is pragmatic
using their size and strength to survive rather than acting noble
i would say jrrt was just deaing with the reality of eagles
> - The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
> only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
> goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
> communication with the Lord of the Eagles, perhaps by the same telepathy we
> see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf? How
> did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
> Magically enhanced supermoth maybe?
i would put it down to coincidence
they enjoyed harrassing orcs
put their involvement was a chance meeting on the road
chance as they say in middleearth
Michael O'Neill
>
> > - "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
> > other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
> > of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
> > for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
>
> see also benjamin franklins remarks on eagles
> eagles in their natural state are bullies and muggers
>
> they may look magnificent but their bahevior is pragmatic
> using their size and strength to survive rather than acting noble
> i would say jrrt was just deaing with the reality of eagles
What about Bald Eagles?
M.
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
they beat up owls to get enough money for the rogaine subscriptions
AC
Trade Surplus <trades...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 'Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire'
<snip>
> Questions
>
> - The picture 'The Misty Mountains looking West from the Eyrie towards
> Goblin Gate'. Is that hunk of rock in the centre of the picture meant to be
> the Eyrie or is the viewer meant to be standing on the Eyrie and looking
> West? Is the Goblin Gate actually shown in the picture?
I always took that to be the eyrie, myself.
>
> - "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
> other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
> of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
> for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
Actually, this is the only reference I can think of where eagles are
described in that manner. If I were to take a guess, I think Tolkien is
drawing a line between these eagles (which may or may coincindentally
resemble the eagles of Manwe), and the lesser, non-talking varieties.
>
> - Gandalf gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows when Bilbo
> told his tale. Did Gandalf know something in particular or did he just
> suspect Bilbo of lying from his body language? Is this bit in the original
> or was it added later to make the ring seem more suspicious?
Don't know whether it is original or not, but Gandalf always seems a bit
more aware than those around him. In LotR we are told that Gandalf
eventually got the truth out of him, so Gandalf obviously felt something
wasn't right. Part of it, I suppose, is the idea that a single Hobbit could
get from the bowels of the mountains to the goblin gate in one piece.
>
> - The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
> only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
> goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
> communication with the Lord of the Eagles, perhaps by the same telepathy we
> see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf? How
> did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
> Magically enhanced supermoth maybe?
I don't think that Gandalf contacted the eagles. Gandalf was prepared for
an impressive and fatal pyrotechnic display when the eagles came along. My
hunch about the Eagles is that they were always keeping an eye on things.
--
Aaron Clausen
Henriette
> 'Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire'
>
> Chapter Summary
> The eagles take them to their eyrie where Bilbo at last gets something to
> eat.
>
The chapter ends with Bilbo dreaming he is wandering in his own house
into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not
find nor remember what it looked like. Does anyone have any idea what
this fragment is referring at? The Ring? The treasure under the
Mountain? Yet something else? Or is it just a meaningless
dreamfragment?
Henriette
AC
Come to think of it, I don't know what that refers to. Again, can anybody
with an original edition or the Annotated Hobbit tell us whether that was
present or not. If it wasn't present, then my hunch is that it must be
something to do with the Ring.
--
Aaron Clausen
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> 'Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire'
>
> Chapter Summary
> Having escaped the goblins, Bilbo manages to find Thorin and Co. in a dell
I have sometimes wondered if finding the Dwarves and Gandalf in their
hideout should be accounted among Bilbo's *real* accomplishments, given
his less than perfect skills in woodcraft (w.t.e. of stealthy movement).
> ... He tells them
> the story of how he got out but doesn't mention the ring. Gandalf returns
> the favour by telling Bilbo the story of how he rescued them all from the
> Great Goblin. ...
The scene with Dori, Gandalf etc. retelling the story of their escape
grates my sense of things natural, and feels a bit contrived.
[...]
> At a clearing in the woods they hear wolves howling all around them and
> climb trees for safety. The wolves see Bilbo and Dori and smell out the
> others, putting a guard on all the trees. Gandalf overhears the wolves
> talking about a planned raid with the goblins against the men of the vale.
Just what exactly *are* wargs, after all? I admit that werewolves do
resemble faintly the hereditary "werebear" Beorn - it's the next chapter
- about whom it is said that bear-man-bear transformation is an art.
[...]
> Things are looking bad for the whole company and Gandalf even contemplates a
> kamikaze jump from his tree when the eagles swoop down and rescue them all.
> The eagles take them to their eyrie where Bilbo at last gets something to
> eat.
>
> Questions
[...]
> - "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
> other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
> of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
> for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
Do you think that eagles carrying stones are cruel by nature or,
OTOH, are just "doing their job"?
[...]
> - The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
> only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
> goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
> communication with the Lord of the Eagles, perhaps by the same telepathy we
> see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf?
> ... How did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
Galadriel (on scrambler): Eagle-1, this is Houston^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLorien.
Air cover requested. Over.
Landroval: Houston^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLorien, this is Eagle-1. A squadron is on
its way, ETA +20. Over.
Galadriel: Eagle-1, darn you, it's too late you freaky featherless
bastard! I'll order you in sauce. Over.
> Magically enhanced supermoth maybe?
ROTFL. Why did not they fly the supermoths instead of those wicked
eagles?
Archie
--
Time is never fully on your side.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Trade Surplus <trades...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>'Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire'
>
>Goblin Gate'. Is that hunk of rock in the centre of the picture meant to be
>the Eyrie or is the viewer meant to be standing on the Eyrie and looking
>West? Is the Goblin Gate actually shown in the picture?
I sure can't see it. I thought that chunk of rock was the Carrock,
but when I look at the back of the book, at the second map
"Wilderland", I see that the Eyrie is apparently _in_ the Misty
Mountains. So now I'm confused about the geography.
>- "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
>other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the service
>of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
>for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
We are told that some of each kind, even bids and beasts, fought on
either side.
>- Gandalf gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows when Bilbo
>told his tale. Did Gandalf know something in particular or did he just
>suspect Bilbo of lying from his body language? Is this bit in the original
>or was it added later to make the ring seem more suspicious?
/The Annotated Hobbit/ has no special marks for this passage, so I
conclude that it is original has been unchanged since the beginning.
I thought (and think) that Gandalf was simply skeptical about Bilbo
doing so much, having suddenly turned from a meek hobbit into a
hero. Yes, Gandalf believed that Bilbo had more about him than
showed on the surface, but he may have been surprised that Bilbo had
grown so much so quickly.
>- The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
>only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
>goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
>communication with the Lord of the Eagles,
It's possible -- anything is possible -- but I don't see a need to
bring that in. Why not just accept the mechanism as Tolkien gave it?
> perhaps by the same telepathy we
>see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf? How
>did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
In /The Hobbit/ there are purely natural explanations for both
appearances of the Eagles. As for LotR (strictly off topic for this
thread), recall that before riding to Isengard Gandalf had
specifically asked Radagast to have the birds keep watch, and
Radagast had agreed. So the appearance of Gwaihir is not really a
deus ex machina.
--
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/tech/faqget.htm
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Trade Surplus <trades...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I have one: Why couldn't Gandalf see Bilbo while he was wearing the
Ring?
We know that the Dwarves were not in full sunlight since the sun was
already behind the Misty Mountains (see beginning of chapter). So I
have no problem with Bilbo getting past the sentry. But how was he
able to get right into the middle of the party without Gandalf
spotting him?
(As to why Gandalf _should_ have been able to spot him, recall the
scene at the Ford of Bruinen, where Frodo saw Glorfindel as he was
"on the Other Side", where Frodo himself was through the Morgul-
knife, and where the Ring puts mortals. Since Glorfindel lived "at
once in both worlds", surely Gandalf did too.)
Stan Brown
>The chapter ends with Bilbo dreaming he is wandering in his own house
>into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not
>find nor remember what it looked like. Does anyone have any idea what
>this fragment is referring at? The Ring? The treasure under the
>Mountain? Yet something else? Or is it just a meaningless
>dreamfragment?
I think "looking for something" is a meaningless dream-fragment.
I've had similar dreams, where I knew very urgently that I had to
get to a particular place but had no idea why -- and that didn't
seem strange.
Wandering the rooms of his house sounds like homesickness. Tolkien
makes a point again and again of how much Bilbo wishes he were back
home.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, <put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru>
wrote:
>Just what exactly *are* wargs, after all?
Warg : wolf :: Eagle : eagle
Wargs are wolves that are self aware. I don't think there's any need
to think of them as werewolves, just as Tolkien's Eagles need not be
thought of as shape-shifters. Middle-earth seems to hold both Wargs
and wolves; but the only eagles we see are the sentient sort.
Are all Wargs evil, like all Orcs? Certainly we've never seen a Warg
that wasn't.
Trade Surplus
> Why couldn't Gandalf see Bilbo while he was wearing the Ring?
>
> We know that the Dwarves were not in full sunlight since the sun was
> already behind the Misty Mountains (see beginning of chapter). So I
> have no problem with Bilbo getting past the sentry. But how was he
> able to get right into the middle of the party without Gandalf
> spotting him?
The dell the Dwarves were in was surrounded by bushes. Those bushes could
well have blocked Gandalf's line of sight. Since the Dwarves didn't react as
though Bilbo appeared from mid-air I presume that he took off the Ring just
as he stepped out of the bushes, making it appear as though he had merely
sneaked up through the undergrowth. Presumably Gandalf couldn't see Bilbo
because he was hidden by the bushes rather than because he was 'invisible'.
Trade.
Nucleon
Could it be the pocket-handkerchief he left?
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
Torvalds, explaining SCO's actions: "They are smoking crack."
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> In article <MPG.19ebf29fa0...@news.mtu-net.ru> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, <put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru>
> wrote:
> >Just what exactly *are* wargs, after all?
>
> Warg : wolf :: Eagle : eagle
between 'Warg' and 'Sauron's hound' in the FotR - equality, subset,
superset, intersection, neither?
> Wargs are wolves that are self aware. I don't think there's any need
> to think of them as werewolves, just as Tolkien's Eagles need not be
> thought of as shape-shifters. Middle-earth seems to hold both Wargs
> and wolves; but the only eagles we see are the sentient sort.
BTW, are sentient Foxes a separate race?
> Are all Wargs evil, like all Orcs? Certainly we've never seen a Warg
> that wasn't.
When one lives with wolves, one howls like a wolf. (A Russian proverb)
We can't blame carnivores for eating their prey, can we? And Orcs & Wargs
look like a truly symbiotic relationship.
Archie
--
"Education is like a communicable sexual disease:
it disqualifies you from certain jobs,
and you have the urge to pass it on."
Terry Pratchett
Flame of the West
> I have one: Why couldn't Gandalf see Bilbo while he was wearing the
> Ring?
>
> We know that the Dwarves were not in full sunlight since the sun was
> already behind the Misty Mountains (see beginning of chapter). So I
> have no problem with Bilbo getting past the sentry. But how was he
> able to get right into the middle of the party without Gandalf
> spotting him?
>
> (As to why Gandalf _should_ have been able to spot him, recall the
> scene at the Ford of Bruinen, where Frodo saw Glorfindel as he was
> "on the Other Side", where Frodo himself was through the Morgul-
> knife, and where the Ring puts mortals. Since Glorfindel lived "at
> once in both worlds", surely Gandalf did too.)
That is a very good question. Someone ought to start
keeping track of these good questions.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Henriette
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:03:35 -0700, Henriette wrote:
> >
> > The chapter ends with Bilbo dreaming he is wandering in his own house
> > into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not
> Could it be the pocket-handkerchief he left?
LOL. The dreamfragment *may* have something to do with the
pockethandkerchief or the Ring. It is also possible indeed that JRRT
wants to stress the fact that Bilbo is homesick, but I cannot believe
it is a meaningless set of sentences. Thank you AC, Stan and Nucleon
for your suggestions!
Henriette
Raven
news:MPG.19ec544476...@news.mtu-net.ru...
> When one lives with wolves, one howls like a wolf. (A Russian proverb)
We have a similar. "You must howl with the wolves that you are among."
Voron.
Dirk Thierbach
> In article <Kg5gb.9281$6_1....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Trade Surplus <trades...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> I have one: Why couldn't Gandalf see Bilbo while he was wearing the
> Ring?
> But how was he able to get right into the middle of the party
> without Gandalf spotting him?
While Gandalf was arguing with the dwarves, he was sitting in the
"bushes at the edge of the dell", so Gandalf either couldn't see him,
or he was busy arguing and didn't pay attention. When Bilbo steps into
the middle of the party, he takes the ring off very quickly and
announces himself. So even if Gandalf sees him a few seconds before
the rest of the dwarves do (assuming he isn't looking the other way,
or still busy with the argument), he would be as surprised as the rest
of them.
So one *can* construct a natural explanation. Of course, Tolkien could
have just forgotten this detail, but I suppose when asked, he would have
come up with something similar.
- Dirk
jallan
> In article <Kg5gb.9281$6_1....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Trade Surplus <trades...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> Since Glorfindel lived "at
> once in both worlds", surely Gandalf did too.)
Could be. But ring magic is made complicated enough by Tolkien that we
don't *know* that Glorfindel could necessarily see an invisible
Ring-bearer. Maybe you had to be mostly in the other world, not
half-in-half. Maybe the wraith-world overlaps with but is not quite
the same as the other world lived in by Glorfindel.
From _The Lord of the Rings, chapter 1:
<< 'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down
in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. ...' >>
This *strongly suggests* Gandalf could not see Bilbo when Bilbo was
wearing the Ring.
Jim Allan
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> But how was [Bilbo] able to get right into the middle of the party
>> without Gandalf spotting him?
>
>While Gandalf was arguing with the dwarves, he was sitting in the
>"bushes at the edge of the dell", so Gandalf either couldn't see him,
>or he was busy arguing and didn't pay attention. When Bilbo steps into
>the middle of the party, he takes the ring off very quickly and
>announces himself. So even if Gandalf sees him a few seconds before
>the rest of the dwarves do (assuming he isn't looking the other way,
>or still busy with the argument), he would be as surprised as the rest
>of them.
I think your point is well taken, as is the similar point f Trade
Surplus.
Flame of the West
> << 'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down
> in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. ...' >>
>
> This *strongly suggests* Gandalf could not see Bilbo when Bilbo was
> wearing the Ring.
Or maybe he didn't want passersby to think he was
talking to himself.
Dr. Ernst Stavro Blofeld
<pins>
> Questions
>
> - The picture 'The Misty Mountains looking West from the Eyrie towards
> Goblin Gate'. Is that hunk of rock in the centre of the picture meant to
be
> the Eyrie or is the viewer meant to be standing on the Eyrie and looking
> West? Is the Goblin Gate actually shown in the picture?
I would think it's the Eyrie. The steepness would help to make it hard for
the Goblins to get at.
> - "Eagles are not kindly birds. Some are cowardly and cruel." Is there any
> other mention anywhere of eagles being cruel? Were any eagles in the
service
> of Morgoth or Sauron? Can we at least assume that some cruel eagles fought
> for Sauron at the Last Alliance?
Yes, as someone else said, a few of each species were on both sides.
> - Gandalf gave Bilbo a queer look from under his bushy eyebrows when Bilbo
> told his tale. Did Gandalf know something in particular or did he just
> suspect Bilbo of lying from his body language? Is this bit in the original
> or was it added later to make the ring seem more suspicious?
According to others it's an original statement, so I think it's just Gandalf
knowing better than the Dwarves how hard it would be for Bilbo to escape
without extra help.
> - The narrator (Bilbo) says that the eagles were alerted by the fire and
> only rescued the company when they saw them trapped by their enemies, the
> goblins. Is it possible that in reality (I know) Gandalf was somehow in
> communication with the Lord of the Eagles, perhaps by the same telepathy
we
> see at the end of LotR between Elrond, Galardriel, Celeborn and Gandalf?
How
> did the wise generally contact the eagles when they needed their aid?
> Magically enhanced supermoth maybe?
Seems like a lucky coincidence. The book has a lot of that.
I've got a couple of questions too:
- The fire from the burning pinecones stuck to the Warg's fur and spread on
contact. It could be "magical fire" but it also sounds like napalm, no?
- If Gandalf made his suicidal leap, would Eru have reincarnated him like He
did after the battle with the Balrog in LOTR? If not, that would have been a
big departure from the Great Song as we know it.
--
Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Lord Pęlluin,) Ph.D., Count of Tolfalas
Dr. Ernst Stavro Blofeld
<pins>
> The chapter ends with Bilbo dreaming he is wandering in his own house
> into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not
> find nor remember what it looked like. Does anyone have any idea what
> this fragment is referring at? The Ring? The treasure under the
> Mountain? Yet something else? Or is it just a meaningless
> dreamfragment?
I was thinking of posing this question too. Maybe it was the handkerchief,
or maybe looking for things was something he did all the time at home, or
maybe he's looking symbolically for the end of the adventure?
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
> I have one: Why couldn't Gandalf see Bilbo while he was wearing the
> Ring?
<snip>
> (As to why Gandalf _should_ have been able to spot him, recall the
> scene at the Ford of Bruinen, where Frodo saw Glorfindel as he was
> "on the Other Side", where Frodo himself was through the Morgul-
> knife, and where the Ring puts mortals. Since Glorfindel lived "at
> once in both worlds", surely Gandalf did too.)
I wonder ...
While wearing the Ring Frodo was "half in the wraith-world," but I don't
know how he was affected at the time at the Ford in this respect (while it
is said that the purpose of wounding him with a Morgul blade was to make
him a lesser wraith under their control, it doesn't specifically say how
far into the wraith world he had come at the time). It is probably a good
guess that he was quite far gone (though not as far as when wearing the
Ring since he was still visible).
The point of this is to suggest that Frodo's transferral to the Unseen
world was gradual when it was caused by his wound. That shows that
presence in the Unseen world isn't a question of none, half or full only -
there is a continuum from no presence to fully present.
Now, it is clear that Frodo, both while wearing the Ring and under the
influence of his wound at the Ford, /but not prior to the confrontation at
the Ford/, could see people in the Unseen world. Somewhere close to the
Ford he must therefore have passed the limit where he was sufficiently
present in the Unseen world to actually see things in that world.
Now, to come back to the question, itn't is possible that, as a result of
his transformation to the Istar, Gandalf's presence in the Unseen world
was reduced sufficiently to prevent him from actually seeing in that
world?
It would have been interesting to know if anyone but Bombadil (and the
wraiths) were able to see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring - I think
that neither Galadriel nor Glorfindel would have been able to do so; their
presence in the Unseen world isn't strong enough.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> wraiths) were able to see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring - I think
> that neither Galadriel nor Glorfindel would have been able to do so; their
> presence in the Unseen world isn't strong enough.
i can see many people who cannot see me
seeing is not a reflexive relation
TT Arvind
> Now, to come back to the question, itn't is possible that, as a result of
> his transformation to the Istar, Gandalf's presence in the Unseen world
> was reduced sufficiently to prevent him from actually seeing in that
> world?
This is a point I have made earlier. The counter to that is asking how
Gandalf could then explain what Frodo saw at the ford. It is possible
that he "remembered" what the spirit world looked like from his pre-
Istari days, but that isn't wholly convincing.
--
Meneldil
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Dirk Thierbach
> In article <tghb51-...@ID-7776.user.dfncis.de> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> But how was [Bilbo] able to get right into the middle of the party
>>> without Gandalf spotting him?
>> While Gandalf was arguing with the dwarves, he was sitting in the
>> "bushes at the edge of the dell", so Gandalf either couldn't see him,
>> or he was busy arguing and didn't pay attention. When Bilbo steps into
>> the middle of the party, he takes the ring off very quickly and
>> announces himself. So even if Gandalf sees him a few seconds before
>> the rest of the dwarves do (assuming he isn't looking the other way,
>> or still busy with the argument), he would be as surprised as the rest
>> of them.
> I think your point is well taken, as is the similar point f Trade
> Surplus.
And in the same line of thought, one can explain as well Gandalf's
remark "Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.". How could he
know? If he has seen Bilbo in the "spirit-world" shortly before he
took off the ring, it would be pretty obvious to him that Bilbo has
found one of the rings somewhere. But Gandalf being Gandalf, he plays
along -- after all, now Bilbo has now an increased reputation with the
dwarves, and he wouldn't want to spoil that.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> This is a point I have made earlier. The counter to that is asking
> how Gandalf could then explain what Frodo saw at the ford.
[...]
It is, in my experience, perfectly possible to know what something
will look like without actually recalling having seen it oneself.
The problem would of course then be the source of that knowledge -
since the Three don't confer invisibility they probably don't give
the ability to see the wraith world either, and that puts the only
possible source of such knowledge several thousand years before the
emergence of the Istari in Middle-earth ...
Still, I think the evidence pointing at Gandalf not being able to
see someone wearing the One is quite strong - stronger, IMO, than
the objection to him remembering that Calaquendi appear as glowing
figures 'on the other side'.
Other possibilities would include dismissing the evidence that he
can't see someone wearing the One, that he could see Glorfindel as
a glowing figure, but not someone made invisible by a Ring, or that
Narya (and in that case probably all of the Three) gave the ability
to see into the wraith world, but that he wasn't wearing it at the
time. Of these I still prefer the one I suggested in the previous
post, though there might of course be other explanations,
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dr. Ernst Stavro Blofeld
>- The fire from the burning pinecones stuck to the Warg's fur and spread on
>contact. It could be "magical fire" but it also sounds like napalm, no?
Or sticky sap from the pine cone, perhaps?
It is true that zebras make hoofbeats. But (outside of Africa) when
you hear hoofbeats "zebra" should probably not be your first
thought.
I doubt Tolkien had ever heard of napalm in 1937, but if you
suggested the correspondence to him I think he would reject it just
like allegories of the Ring and atomic bombs.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Troels Forchhammer
>Now, to come back to the question, itn't is possible that, as a result of
>his transformation to the Istar, Gandalf's presence in the Unseen world
>was reduced sufficiently to prevent him from actually seeing in that
>world?
Maybe -- we're both speculating here, obviously, because Tolkien
didn't tell us. My hunch is that Gandalf was not limited in
_perception_ but in _action_. Remember that he answered Frodo
without hesitation when Frodo asked about the appearance of
Glorfindel on the other side. Gandalf didn't have to search his
memory for 200-year-old knowledge (as he did with other things
sometimes); that at least suggests that he knew from more recent
sight.
>It would have been interesting to know if anyone but Bombadil (and the
>wraiths) were able to see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring - I think
>that neither Galadriel nor Glorfindel would have been able to do so; their
>presence in the Unseen world isn't strong enough.
Now you've got me really confused. Did you mean to say Glorfindel
there. If he looks like a great shining white figure in the other
world, how can you say his "presence wasn't strong enough"?
And Galadriel's lineage was at least the equal of his, almost
certainly greater. She herself was great among the Noldor, and had
lived in Valinor _and_ been instructed by Melian later in Middle-
earth. If anyone could see in both worlds, it would have been
Galadriel, sorely?
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>can't see someone wearing the One,
Which evidence?
I'd love to know where Tolkien tells us that Gandalf can't see
someone wearing the One. I thought we had that earlier in this
thread, at Bilbo's reunion with the Dwarves and Gandalf after
escaping from goblin tunnels, but that has been quite properly
demolished.
So which evidence is there?
Henriette
> "Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
>
> <pins>
>
> > The chapter ends with Bilbo dreaming he is wandering in his own house
> > into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not
> > find nor remember what it looked like. Does anyone have any idea what
>
(snip)
Yet another possibility!
Henriette
Jette Goldie
> In article <KGOgb.46274$6C4.45785@pd7tw1no> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dr. Ernst Stavro Blofeld
> <eblo...@SPECTRE.org> wrote:
> >- The fire from the burning pinecones stuck to the Warg's fur and spread
on
> >contact. It could be "magical fire" but it also sounds like napalm, no?
>
> Or sticky sap from the pine cone, perhaps?
>
> It is true that zebras make hoofbeats. But (outside of Africa) when
> you hear hoofbeats "zebra" should probably not be your first
> thought.
>
> I doubt Tolkien had ever heard of napalm in 1937, but if you
> suggested the correspondence to him I think he would reject it just
> like allegories of the Ring and atomic bombs.
Tolkien may not have heard of "napalm" in 1937, but you can
bet your boots he'd heard of "Greek Fire".
Google it.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
ste...@nomail.com
: In article <aZPgb.1125$hz.2...@news2.nokia.com> in
: rec.arts.books.tolkien, Troels Forchhammer
:>It would have been interesting to know if anyone but Bombadil (and the
:>wraiths) were able to see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring - I think
:>that neither Galadriel nor Glorfindel would have been able to do so; their
:>presence in the Unseen world isn't strong enough.
: Now you've got me really confused. Did you mean to say Glorfindel
: there. If he looks like a great shining white figure in the other
: world, how can you say his "presence wasn't strong enough"?
I do not know if this has been brought up in the thread yet.
but Bombadil clearly could see Frodo when he had the Ring on,
and there was no apparent change in how Bombadil appeared to
Frodoe while he was wearing the Ring.
Stephen
boggit
<ste...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:bm1q04$5em$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Do you imply that the ring alters the perceptions of the viewer rather than
the being wearing the ring.
Nucleon
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ebbf21...@news.odyssey.net>...
> From _The Lord of the Rings, chapter 1:
>
> << 'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down
> in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. ...' >>
>
> This *strongly suggests* Gandalf could not see Bilbo when Bilbo was
> wearing the Ring.
>
> Jim Allan
I don't think the suggestion is so strong. Consider someone saying, "I'm glad
to find you presentable." To me, that doesn't mean they didn't know where
I was before, they're just glad I'm presentable now. It almost implies
that they found me before, but I wasn't presentable, so they didn't talk
to me then.
--
Nucleon, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
The ability to monopolize a market is insignificant next to the power of the
source.
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> wrote in message
No. But when you are wearing the ring, you are in the Unseen world,
where Glorfindel appears as a great shining white figure. In
the normal world Glorfindel does not appear that way. Bombadil
apparently appears the same in both worlds.
Stephen
Stan Brown
>
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<MPG.19ebbf21...@news.odyssey.net>...
Why is an attribution to me in here? I did not write any of the
quoted words, did not even quote them in a previous article?
>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:11:23 -0700, jallan wrote:
>> From _The Lord of the Rings, chapter 1:
>> << 'I am glad to find you visible,' replied the wizard, sitting down
>> in a chair, 'I wanted to catch you and have a few final words. ...' >>
>> This *strongly suggests* Gandalf could not see Bilbo when Bilbo was
>> wearing the Ring.
>
>I don't think the suggestion is so strong. Consider someone saying, "I'm glad
>to find you presentable." To me, that doesn't mean they didn't know where
>I was before, they're just glad I'm presentable now. It almost implies
>that they found me before, but I wasn't presentable, so they didn't talk
>to me then.
I agree with the latter poster, and I'll go further: one of the
meanings of "visible" is simply "available". Gandalf's comment
_could_ mean "I am glad to find you're not wearing the Ring", (which
is how I originally interpreted it) but it could also mean nothing
more than "I'm glad to find you at home and unoccupied."
I remember laughing in French class. One of dialogs had us
pretending call on a household. We were taught to ask "Madame est-
elle visible?" Some wag would inevitably answer "Non, elle est
invisible", but really the question simply meant "Is Madame
receiving visitors at present?"
Troels Forchhammer
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> Other possibilities would include dismissing the evidence that he
>> can't see someone wearing the One,
>
> Which evidence?
A contraction of "... the evidence that can be read to imply that ..."
as discussed elsewhere in this thread.
BTW - regarding one of these passages; the one Jim Allen brought up
about Gandalf being glad to find Bilbo visible, wouldn't he, based
on his general uneasiness about the Ring, have been glad that Bilbo
had taken off the Ring quickly regardless of whether he could actually
see Bilbo or not.
The other passage is of course the one from TH that initiated this
discussion. I don't doubt that Tolkien, when he wrote that passage,
intended Gandalf to not see Bilbo when Bilbo was wearing the Ring.
The question is whether he changed his own interpretation later, IMO.
TT Arvind
> No. But when you are wearing the ring, you are in the Unseen world,
> where Glorfindel appears as a great shining white figure. In
> the normal world Glorfindel does not appear that way. Bombadil
> apparently appears the same in both worlds.
IIRC, ordinary "material world" dwellers look dimmer and less distinct
when Frodo puts on the ring. Would the same have happened to Bombadil,
or would he have "looked the same", i.e. appeared as solid in the spirit
world too? I'd always assumed the former, but that would mean that
Bombadil can somehow see into the spirit world without existing there.
--
Meneldil
A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.
ste...@nomail.com
: žus cwęš ste...@nomail.com:
: --
: Meneldil
When is the fact that the material world looks dimmer first
mentioned in the Lord the Rings? I believe the first time
anyone uses the Ring in the book is when Frodo puts it on
in Bombadil's house, and there is no mention of anything
appearing different in any way. On weathertop the
wraiths become visible, but "everything else remained as before".
Does the idea that the world gets all grey and foggy when
you wear the ring appear before Sam's use of the Ring?
Stephen
TT Arvind
> Does the idea that the world gets all grey and foggy when
> you wear the ring appear before Sam's use of the Ring?
Not to my knowledge, but I don't have the books to hand. In any event,
why should the time when the idea first appears make a difference? If
the shift into the wraith world made things misty and vague for Sam, then
surely it must have done the same for every other mortal who wore it?
--
Meneldil
Sauron lived in the garden with a boat paddle.
- MegaHAL
ste...@nomail.com
:> Does the idea that the world gets all grey and foggy when
:> you wear the ring appear before Sam's use of the Ring?
: Not to my knowledge, but I don't have the books to hand. In any event,
: why should the time when the idea first appears make a difference? If
: the shift into the wraith world made things misty and vague for Sam, then
: surely it must have done the same for every other mortal who wore it?
: --
: Meneldil
I am just curious about the evolution of the idea. This is
not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is not necessarily
consistent. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the
earlier sections of the book that suggests that Tolkien at
that time imagined the ring making everything grey and indistinct,
and only added that idea later.
Stephen
johnj
> In article <MPG.19ebf29fa0...@news.mtu-net.ru> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, <put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru>
> wrote:
> >Just what exactly *are* wargs, after all?
>
> Warg : wolf :: Eagle : eagle
>
> Wargs are wolves that are self aware. I don't think there's any need
> to think of them as werewolves, just as Tolkien's Eagles need not be
> thought of as shape-shifters. Middle-earth seems to hold both Wargs
> and wolves; but the only eagles we see are the sentient sort.
>
> Are all Wargs evil, like all Orcs? Certainly we've never seen a Warg
> that wasn't.
>
Is the word 'warg' Old English or Anglo-Saxon? I know that the Swedish for
wolf is 'Varg'.
Öjevind Lång
news:3f85a030$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
[snip]
> Is the word 'warg' Old English or Anglo-Saxon? I know that the Swedish for
> wolf is 'Varg'.
I looked it up. Apparently, there was a cognate OE word "wearg", which meant
"thief". That was the original meaning of the Scandinavian "varg" too. In
fact, the Finns borrowed the word long ago, and there is, so I am told,
still a Finnish word "varas" which means "thief".
No doubt Tolkien knew of the OE "wearg", but his Wargs must have been
inspired by the meaning the word achieved in the Scandinavian languages.
Öjevind
zett
Well this is just rank speculation on my part, but two story internal
possibilities come to my mind. One, on Weathertop, maybe it is said
that everything besides the Nazgul remained the same because it was so
dark that Frodo didn't notice the vague shapes of the surroundings.
Or, the Ring only made the world appear grey and indistinct once it
was close to Mordor and that much more powerful.
Story external: I believe JRRT didn't think of the grey/vague
surroundings idea until he did write it.
TT Arvind
> I looked it up. Apparently, there was a cognate OE word "wearg", which meant
> "thief".
It was much stronger than just 'thief': "villain" or "evil person" would
be a better translation of its sense in relation to people. It was also
used in relation to other creatures - Caedmon and Bede use it to mean
monster, demon, and evil spirit. I think the adjectival form 'werg' is
used in Genesis to describe the serpent, and elsewhere for Satan. So
although I don't know of anywhere where it is specifically used to mean
'wolf', Tolkien was very close to the original Anglo-Saxon sense when he
used it for evil semi-sentinent wolflike beings.
--
Meneldil
Prospice tibi--ut Gallia, tu quoque in tres partes dividareis.
(Watch out--you might end up divided into three parts, like Gaul.)
TT Arvind
> This is not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is
> not necessarily consistent.
Story internally, it seems to me that the Ring's behaviour could only
change if it was endowed with sentinence of some sort (which takes us bac
to the "talking ring" debate), or if the attractive force of the wraith
world was somewhat stronger near Mordor. I don't think there's much
evidence for the latter, and it indicates a very different relationshp
between the wraith world and the physical world.
--
One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.
Öjevind Lång
news:MPG.19f09210e...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> þus cwæð Öjevind Lång:
>
> > I looked it up. Apparently, there was a cognate OE word "wearg", which
meant
> > "thief".
>
> It was much stronger than just 'thief': "villain" or "evil person" would
> be a better translation of its sense in relation to people. It was also
> used in relation to other creatures - Caedmon and Bede use it to mean
> monster, demon, and evil spirit. I think the adjectival form 'werg' is
> used in Genesis to describe the serpent, and elsewhere for Satan. So
> although I don't know of anywhere where it is specifically used to mean
> 'wolf', Tolkien was very close to the original Anglo-Saxon sense when he
> used it for evil semi-sentinent wolflike beings.
That's interesting information - thank you! Even so, he must also have known
that the Scandinavian cognate meant "wolf". So he combined what he knew of
OE "waerg" and ON "vargr".
Öjevind
TT Arvind
> That's interesting information - thank you! Even so, he must also have known
> that the Scandinavian cognate meant "wolf". So he combined what he knew of
> OE "waerg" and ON "vargr".
I agree. It's also quite a persuasive argument for the view that wargs
were fairly sentinent, perhaps even inhabited by evil spirits.
On a slightly different point, I have a nagging memory of having read or
heard that the modern Icelandic cognate (vargur?) has come to mean fox.
Do you know if this correct?
--
Meneldil
Scott's First Law: No matter what goes wrong, it will probably look
right.
Dirk Thierbach
> I am just curious about the evolution of the idea. This is
> not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is not necessarily
> consistent. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the
> earlier sections of the book that suggests that Tolkien at
> that time imagined the ring making everything grey and indistinct,
At already happens at Amon Hen, while Frodo is still wearing the Ring:
He saw as through a mist a wide flat circle [...]
He seemed to be in a world of mist in which there were only shadows:
the Ring was upon him.
And on Weathertop the description at least doesn't contradict this
effect:
Immediately, though everything else remained as before, dim and
dark, [...]
AFAIK, there is no description of the surroundings when Bilbo or Frodo
use the Ring before that.
> and only added that idea later.
Of course that's possible, but on the other hand there's no indication
that this idea was not there right from the start.
- Dirk
Sw...@nospam.com
When Bilbo put the ring on, we were following him pretty closely, and
he didn't even know that there was something different until (arrrghh
I cant remember who, either Gollum or Orcs) passed by him. From that
he deduced that he was invisible. There was no "gee, everything is
dim and misty" stuff, although to be fair, he was in a cave.
Swyck
Stan Brown
>When Bilbo put the ring on, we were following him pretty closely, and
>he didn't even know that there was something different until (arrrghh
>I cant remember who, either Gollum or Orcs) passed by him. From that
>he deduced that he was invisible. There was no "gee, everything is
>dim and misty" stuff, although to be fair, he was in a cave.
And with no source of light but the pale glow of Gollum's eyes.
If I were in near-pitch blackness, I don't see how the Ring could
make things look different. There's no difference in sight between a
black space and a black space with fog.
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:> I am just curious about the evolution of the idea. This is
:> not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is not necessarily
:> consistent. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the
:> earlier sections of the book that suggests that Tolkien at
:> that time imagined the ring making everything grey and indistinct,
: At already happens at Amon Hen, while Frodo is still wearing the Ring:
: He saw as through a mist a wide flat circle [...]
: He seemed to be in a world of mist in which there were only shadows:
: the Ring was upon him.
Thanks. I forgot about that passage.
: And on Weathertop the description at least doesn't contradict this
: effect:
: Immediately, though everything else remained as before, dim and
: dark, [...]
It does not contradict it, but it does not support it either.
"Everything else remained as before".
: AFAIK, there is no description of the surroundings when Bilbo or Frodo
: use the Ring before that.
:> and only added that idea later.
: Of course that's possible, but on the other hand there's no indication
: that this idea was not there right from the start.
: - Dirk
Bilbo never mentioned being in a world of mist and shadows.
The drafts make it clear that Tolkien had no idea what
the Ring was when he first started writing LotR, so I highly doubt that
the idea of the world being all misty and grey while you were invisible
was there right from the start.
Stephen
ste...@nomail.com
:>When Bilbo put the ring on, we were following him pretty closely, and
:>he didn't even know that there was something different until (arrrghh
:>I cant remember who, either Gollum or Orcs) passed by him. From that
:>he deduced that he was invisible. There was no "gee, everything is
:>dim and misty" stuff, although to be fair, he was in a cave.
: And with no source of light but the pale glow of Gollum's eyes.
: If I were in near-pitch blackness, I don't see how the Ring could
: make things look different. There's no difference in sight between a
: black space and a black space with fog.
But Bilbo used the ring in all sorts of lighting conditions,
and never once was there any hint that at any time the
world became dim and misty.
Stephen
Krikkit
<snip>
> In /The Hobbit/ there are purely natural explanations for both
> appearances of the Eagles. As for LotR (strictly off topic for this
> thread), recall that before riding to Isengard Gandalf had
> specifically asked Radagast to have the birds keep watch, and
> Radagast had agreed. So the appearance of Gwaihir is not really a
> deus ex machina.
>
I thought that the Eagles actually was Bilbo's invention, due to him
writing down a tale for children, which should be mainly dumbed down in
the more gory aspects. Because, I thought, it would have been unfitting
to describe what actually happened, which perhaps it was in any case
because of it's severity. And perhaps Bilbo didn't really want to reveal
how he became somewhat battle- hardened and changed like he is after
this point in the story. The same thing happens in the battle of five
armies, and I thought, the Eagles aren't real, Bilbo is inventing an
excuse for not telling about how he actually was hanging onto a goblin's
ear by his teeth in a bloodrage. Or stabbing them in the knees from
behind to get at their hearts. Also, note how Beorn is suspiciously
content with Gandalf cutting off his story by simply saying "and then
the Eagles saved us" when things is about to get interesting, just as if
two "professionals" are talking about their trade. And how exactly does
Eagles manage to speak common with their beaks? That's right, they
can't. It's all Bilbos lies. And Frodo covers for him by introducing
Radagast, "Gandalf's good friend", in LoTR. ;)
jj
Sigvaldi Eggertsson
> þus cwæð Öjevind Lång:
> > That's interesting information - thank you! Even so, he must also have known
> > that the Scandinavian cognate meant "wolf". So he combined what he knew of
> > OE "waerg" and ON "vargr".
>
> I agree. It's also quite a persuasive argument for the view that wargs
> were fairly sentinent, perhaps even inhabited by evil spirits.
>
> On a slightly different point, I have a nagging memory of having read or
> heard that the modern Icelandic cognate (vargur?) has come to mean fox.
> Do you know if this correct?
"Vargur" can mean both "wolf" and any animal of prey.
Dirk Thierbach
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
> : ste...@nomail.com wrote:
> :> I am just curious about the evolution of the idea. This is
> :> not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is not necessarily
> :> consistent. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the
> :> earlier sections of the book that suggests that Tolkien at
> :> that time imagined the ring making everything grey and indistinct,
> : Of course that's possible, but on the other hand there's no indication
> : that this idea was not there right from the start.
> Bilbo never mentioned being in a world of mist and shadows.
Yes. My point is that one should be careful about using negative
information. "It's not mentioned, so he didn't have the idea at the
time" is a dangerous argument.
> The drafts make it clear that Tolkien had no idea what the Ring was
> when he first started writing LotR, so I highly doubt that the idea
> of the world being all misty and grey while you were invisible was
> there right from the start.
I didn't mean to say "it's not right there from the start", I said
that we *don't know* (just by looking at LotR) if it isn't.
I got curious and looked it up in HoME, and surprisingly, there's a
passage that explicitely describes the effects:
Yes, if the Ring overcomes you, you yourself become permanently
invisible -- and it is a horrible cold feeling. Everything becomes
very faint like grey ghost pictures against the black background in
which you live; but you can smell more clearly than you can hear or
see.
This passage is found on a manuscript page after the conversation
between Bingo (> Frodo) and Gildor.
Christopher Tolkien tries to date it in the following way:
Now at some very early stage my father wrote a chapter, without
number or title, in which he made use of the passage just given [the
one I quoted]; and this is the first drafting of (a part of) what
ultimately became [...] 'The Shadow of the Past'. As I have noticed,
in the second of these two passages marked 'About Ring-wraiths' it
is not clear who is speaking. It may be Gildor, or it may be
Gandalf, or (perhaps most likely) neither the one nor the other, but
indeterminate; but in any case I think that my father decided when
writing the draft text of the second chapter that he would not have
Gildor discussing these matters with Bingo [...], but would reserve
them for Gandalf's instruction [...] Whether he wrote this text at
once, before going on to the third chapter [...], seems impossible
to say; but the fact that Marmaduke is mentioned shows that it
preceded 'In the House of Tom Bombadil', where 'Meriadoc' and
'Merry' first appear.
So at any rate, it is quite early, before Weathertop, long before Amon
Hen, and it's even before Tom Bombadil, where we have no descriptions
of the effects of the ring from the viewpoint of the wearer, either.
- Dirk
Kristian Damm Jensen
news:MPG.19f0943b5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> žus cwęš ste...@nomail.com:
> > This is not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is
> > not necessarily consistent.
>
> Story internally, it seems to me that the Ring's behaviour could only
> change if it was endowed with sentinence of some sort (which takes us bac
> to the "talking ring" debate), or if the attractive force of the wraith
> world was somewhat stronger near Mordor.
Or simply that the ring was stronger, which we certainly know it was.
<snip>
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
Krikkit
<snip>
> So at any rate, it is quite early, before Weathertop, long before Amon
> Hen, and it's even before Tom Bombadil, where we have no descriptions
> of the effects of the ring from the viewpoint of the wearer, either.
>
Um. Given that the ring changes the wearer's nature slowly over time, it
seems at least plausible that his perception will change similarly? The
passage quoted above: "..if the ring overcomes you..." might suggest the
same. And since this fits pretty well with the story, if this combined
effect will become stronger as Sauron grows in power, there's no reason
to imply that Tolkien is using this as an escape in a way more obvious
than any other fantastic element in the books. Though, if so inclined,
there is nothing to contradict that Tolkien didn't sit down one day
while writing LoTR and though: "yes, shadows would fit nicely with the
ring's power. Funny I didn't think of that before". But it is worthless
info in any way, and of no value as "evidence", of which the story-
internal explanations should work indifferent. imho.
jj
ste...@nomail.com
:> :> I am just curious about the evolution of the idea. This is
:> :> not the real world, so the Ring's behavior is not necessarily
:> :> consistent. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the
:> :> earlier sections of the book that suggests that Tolkien at
:> :> that time imagined the ring making everything grey and indistinct,
:> : Of course that's possible, but on the other hand there's no indication
:> : that this idea was not there right from the start.
:> Bilbo never mentioned being in a world of mist and shadows.
: Yes. My point is that one should be careful about using negative
: information. "It's not mentioned, so he didn't have the idea at the
: time" is a dangerous argument.
I am quite sure that if at the time of writing The Hobbit
Tolkien actually imagined that Bilbo say a world of mist
and shadows while invisible, he would have mentioned it.
It is an important point, especially considering the amount of time
that Bilbo spends invisible. Bilbo fights off the spiders while
invisible, and seems to have no difficulty seeing them, even
from a considerable distance. He has no problems finding his
way around the Elven-king's hall. The ring occluded Sam's
vision to the point that he took it off at a time when being
invisible would be extremely useful.
:> The drafts make it clear that Tolkien had no idea what the Ring was
:> when he first started writing LotR, so I highly doubt that the idea
:> of the world being all misty and grey while you were invisible was
:> there right from the start.
: I didn't mean to say "it's not right there from the start", I said
: that we *don't know* (just by looking at LotR) if it isn't.
Of course we do not know just by looking at it. But if it
was, I think it is a careless omission to not mention it
at Bombadil's house, or at Weathertop.
: I got curious and looked it up in HoME, and surprisingly, there's a
: passage that explicitely describes the effects:
:
: Yes, if the Ring overcomes you, you yourself become permanently
: invisible -- and it is a horrible cold feeling. Everything becomes
: very faint like grey ghost pictures against the black background in
: which you live; but you can smell more clearly than you can hear or
: see.
This is probably the germ of the idea, but I think the key word
there is "overcomes". This is describing what happens when
you become permanently invisible. There is no evidence
that Bilbo ever experienced this, and the fact that Gandalf
has to explain this suggests that at the time Tolkien imagined
that Bilbo never experienced this.
Stephen
Dirk Thierbach
> Um. Given that the ring changes the wearer's nature slowly over time, it
> seems at least plausible that his perception will change similarly?
That's possible, but it means adding more assumptions, and non sunt
multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. It's much more probable that
Tolkien's idea changed over time (as Stephen already suggested), and
that we can now point to the place where this idea came into being. I
thought that was what Stephen wanted to know.
> Though, if so inclined, there is nothing to contradict that Tolkien
> didn't sit down one day while writing LoTR and though: "yes, shadows
> would fit nicely with the ring's power. Funny I didn't think of that
> before".
The quotation (and some of the context in HoME, which I didn't quote)
shows that something like this actually happened, just at a very early
stage. You should read up the full development in HoME, it's quite
interesting.
> But it is worthless info in any way, and of no value as "evidence",
> of which the story-internal explanations should work indifferent.
Maybe I don't really understand what you want to say, but we are not
talking about story-internal explanations (which are not conclusive, that's
the point); we're talking about evidence for the story-external
development of the idea. And in this respect, I don't think the quote is
worthless, on the contrary.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> : I didn't mean to say "it's not right there from the start", I said
> : that we *don't know* (just by looking at LotR) if it isn't.
> But if it was, I think it is a careless omission to not mention it
> at Bombadil's house, or at Weathertop.
The author's opinion about what is a "careless omission" and your's
(or mine) may not be the same :-) After all, Tolkien was writing a
book, not an essay about the effects of the ring. And he did mention
the effects at Weathertop (though the words he use make it ambigous).
He also did use other expressions that are ambigous and caused a
lot of (IMHO silly) debate (think of the Balrog's wings).
So I don't think it's a good idea to base an argument on omissions or
expressions that are not definite enough, or on your or mine idea what
Tolkien "ought" have written under such an such an assumption. The
best we can do in such situations is to say that we don't know for sure.
> Of course we do not know just by looking at it.
Then we agree on the main point. Good. :-)
> : Yes, if the Ring overcomes you, you yourself become permanently
> : invisible -- and it is a horrible cold feeling. Everything becomes
> : very faint like grey ghost pictures against the black background in
> : which you live; but you can smell more clearly than you can hear or
> : see.
> This is probably the germ of the idea, but I think the key word
> there is "overcomes".
I don't think it is. At this stage, Tolkien made far greater changes
than just subsuming the description of non-permanent invisibility
under the description of permanent invisibility. I think the key is
that here for the first time the effects of being invisible are
described, in the same way as Sam experiences them when putting on the
ring.
> There is no evidence that Bilbo ever experienced this,
And there is no evidence to the contrary (see above).
> and the fact that Gandalf has to explain this suggests that at the
> time Tolkien imagined that Bilbo never experienced this.
Careful, don't jump to conclusions. That passage never made it into
the chapter, and it is not clear if Gandalf or Gildor is talking here,
and at any rate, he would explain it to Frodo, not to Bilbo, who in
both cases never has used the ring so far. It may also be just a draft
with information Tolkien put (as he often did) in form of a dialog.
But since you said
> :> :> I am just curious about the evolution of the idea.
I think it's at least a puzzle piece that suggests that the idea
was there quite early, even if it may not have been in the final form
(of which there is no evidence either: It doesn't say that the
visual effects do not apply to the non-permanent invisibility).
But the idea was there certainly earlier than in the explicite
descriptions we have of Sam wearing the Ring.
For external evidence of the evolution of the idea it is probably
the best we can find. The internal evidence is non-conclusive.
- Dirk
TT Arvind
> Or simply that the ring was stronger, which we certainly know it was.
Why would that make a difference? The ring shifted the person out of the
physical world and into the spirit world even when it was far away from
Mordor. Surely the look and feel of the spirit world should be
independent of the Ring?
--
Meneldil
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Kristian Damm Jensen
> žus cwęš Kristian Damm Jensen:
>
> > Or simply that the ring was stronger, which we certainly know it was.
>
> Why would that make a difference? The ring shifted the person out of the
> physical world and into the spirit world even when it was far away from
> Mordor. Surely the look and feel of the spirit world should be
> independent of the Ring?
You are changing the point of argument here. Stephens point, to which I
responded, was that the rings behaviour migth not be consistent. You
analysed possible courses for this, and rejected the possibilities you saw.
I pointed out a third possibilty.
Now it seems you are denying even the possibility of such variations.
But anyway I will present you with a possible way to explain why the Ring
influences your perception of the spirit world. The Ring shifts you into the
spirit world. we don't know how, we don't know much about the spirit world
at all. But since the Ring controls you entry, I find it entirely possible
that it - so to speak - can filter any input to your senses.
Krikkit
> Krikkit <jostein...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Um. Given that the ring changes the wearer's nature slowly over
>> time, it seems at least plausible that his perception will change
>> similarly?
>
>
> That's possible, but it means adding more assumptions, and non sunt
> multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.
.. do not construct more dependencies than needed? Never count predators
higher than to ten at a time? (Sorry, I really have no idea what that
meant.) :)
> It's much more probable that Tolkien's idea changed over time (as
> Stephen already suggested), and that we can now point to the place
> where this idea came into being. I thought that was what Stephen
> wanted to know.
>
Well, then I was mistaken about what you were trying to do. I
read this as suggesting that there were no "logical" explanation for the
ring's changes. So, therefore a story- external explanation must be
necessary for explaining why Tolkiens descriptions in the books differ,
and all viable story- internal explanations would not only be
speculation, but simply incorrect compared to the "true" idea at the
time of writing. My mistake.
>> Though, if so inclined, there is nothing to contradict that Tolkien
>> didn't sit down one day while writing LoTR and though: "yes,
>> shadows would fit nicely with the ring's power. Funny I didn't
>> think of that before".
>
>
> The quotation (and some of the context in HoME, which I didn't quote)
> shows that something like this actually happened, just at a very
> early stage. You should read up the full development in HoME, it's
> quite interesting.
>
It appears so.
>> But it is worthless info in any way, and of no value as "evidence",
>> of which the story-internal explanations should work indifferent.
>>
>
>
> Maybe I don't really understand what you want to say, but we are not
> talking about story-internal explanations (which are not conclusive,
> that's the point); we're talking about evidence for the
> story-external development of the idea. And in this respect, I don't
> think the quote is worthless, on the contrary.
>
I agree. Then it is obviously about the only valuable source of material
there is. And what I meant was that a story- internal theory on some
kind of phenomena should usually be indifferent of whatever changes and
rewrites was made on the books somewhere before completion. So the
drafts and rewrites would not say anything about how good a story-
internal theory is. And naturally the final product would not be a very
good source for finding story- external explanations (unless it was
written with references on each page to the authors diary). I guess
we're not really that much in disagreement after all, then.
jj
TT Arvind
> Now it seems you are denying even the possibility of such variations.
I didn't mean to deny the possibility of variations in the power of the
ring (which quite obviously does vary). I meant to say that I don't see
any reason why a ringwearer's perceptions of the spirit world should
change.
That having been said, one possibility suggested by your post which I
should not have rejected is that the spirit world actually becomes
mistier and darker the closer you get to Mordor or when you actually
experience Sauron's power.
--
Meneldil
Leibowitz's Rule: When hammering a nail, you will never hit your finger
if you hold the hammer with both hands.
Jim Deutch
>I am quite sure that if at the time of writing The Hobbit
>Tolkien actually imagined that Bilbo say a world of mist
>and shadows while invisible, he would have mentioned it.
I agree with you on that.
>It is an important point, especially considering the amount of time
>that Bilbo spends invisible. Bilbo fights off the spiders while
>invisible, and seems to have no difficulty seeing them, even
>from a considerable distance. He has no problems finding his
>way around the Elven-king's hall.
And that is good evidence for your point.
>The ring occluded Sam's
>vision to the point that he took it off at a time when being
>invisible would be extremely useful.
But that is not, I think. IDHTBIFOM, but I'm sure there was a
suggestion that he was inspired by an outside Power (Galadriel,
Gandalf, Eru Himself?) to take off the Ring, and that the thought "no
use blundering about in a fog: best see the worst" was merely the
mechanism of that inspiration.
Jim Deutch
--
"AFAICS there's precisely one property that is uniquely human.
We seem to be the only species that is forever frantically clutching
at straws trying to find the one thing that uniquely sets us apart
from other species." - mVg
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> That's possible, but it means adding more assumptions, and non sunt
>> multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.
> .. do not construct more dependencies than needed? Never count predators
> higher than to ten at a time? (Sorry, I really have no idea what that
> meant.) :)
That's Occams Razor. I don't know the usual english translation, but
it's roughly 'do not multiply entities beyond necessity', meaning 'the
theory with the lowest number of assumptions is (usually) the right one.'
- Dirk
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> > Krikkit <jostein...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Um. Given that the ring changes the wearer's nature slowly over
> >> time, it seems at least plausible that his perception will change
> >> similarly?
> >
> >
> > That's possible, but it means adding more assumptions, and non sunt
> > multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.
>
> .. do not construct more dependencies than needed? Never count predators
> higher than to ten at a time? (Sorry, I really have no idea what that
> meant.) :)
Archie
--
"I have told my sons that they are not under any
circumstances to take part in massacres, and that
the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them
with satisfaction or glee."
Kurt Vonnegut, _Slaughterhouse-Five_
ste...@nomail.com
: On 13 Oct 2003 15:33:48 GMT, ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:>I am quite sure that if at the time of writing The Hobbit
:>Tolkien actually imagined that Bilbo say a world of mist
:>and shadows while invisible, he would have mentioned it.
: I agree with you on that.
:>It is an important point, especially considering the amount of time
:>that Bilbo spends invisible. Bilbo fights off the spiders while
:>invisible, and seems to have no difficulty seeing them, even
:>from a considerable distance. He has no problems finding his
:>way around the Elven-king's hall.
: And that is good evidence for your point.
:>The ring occluded Sam's
:>vision to the point that he took it off at a time when being
:>invisible would be extremely useful.
: But that is not, I think. IDHTBIFOM, but I'm sure there was a
: suggestion that he was inspired by an outside Power (Galadriel,
: Gandalf, Eru Himself?) to take off the Ring, and that the thought "no
: use blundering about in a fog: best see the worst" was merely the
: mechanism of that inspiration.
: Jim Deutch
I knew someone would bring that up. It may well be that
it was inspired by some outside influence, but Sam's
rational reason for it was to see more clearly.
"He took off the Ring, moved it may be by some deep
premonition of danger, though to himself he thought only
that he wished to see more clearly. 'Better have a look
at the worst,' he muttered. 'No good blundering about
in a fog'."
The fact that he may have been moved by some outside force
does not change the fact that he could not see clearly while
wearing the Ring. It is never suggested in the slightest
that Bilbo could not see clearly while wearing the Ring.
In the meanwhile I remembered a passage that makes it much
more clear that the whole "ring mists and shadows" idea
was not present when Tolkien wrote the scene in the House
of Tom Bombadil, or that he carelessly forgot about it.
"Frodo looked at it closely, and rather suspiciously (like
one who has lent a trinket to a juggler). It was the same
Ring, or looked the same and weighed the same: for that
Ring had always seemd to Frodo to weigh strangely heavy
in the hand. But something prompted him to make sure.
..... He waited for an opportunity .... then he slipped the
Ring on.
Merry turned towards him to say something and gave a start,
and checked an exclamation. Frodo was delighted (in a way);
it was his own ring all right, for Merry was staring blankly
at his chair, and obviously could not see him."
Frodo is not sure that it is his Ring until he sees that
Merry cannot see him. He does not recognize that he is
invisible, but must rely on the reactions of others. If
the Ring made the world appear full of mist and shadows,
Frodo would have known it was his Ring without having to
rely on Merry's reaction. Given that he was suspicious
about the Ring being his, any difference in how the Ring
affected him should have been commented on.
I believe that Tolkien's ideas of what the Ring was and did were
not fully formed when he wrote this scene, and he did not go back
and make it fully consistent.
What this means, and my original reason for entering this thread,
is it really is not possible to make any sort of conclusions
about the respective "presence" of Glorfindel and Bombadil in
the wraith world. The whole wraith world concept is missing
from the scene with Bombadil. Tom does not appear different on
the other side as Glorfindel did, but the world does not become
dim and shadowy either.
Stephen
Bruce Tucker
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Jim Deutch <10313...@compuserve.com>
wrote:
> : On 13 Oct 2003 15:33:48 GMT, ste...@nomail.com wrote:
> :>I am quite sure that if at the time of writing The Hobbit
> :>Tolkien actually imagined that Bilbo say a world of mist
> :>and shadows while invisible, he would have mentioned it.
>
> : I agree with you on that.
I'm with you both so far. Bilbo could see and hear normally wearing the
ring.
> :>It is an important point, especially considering the amount of time
> :>that Bilbo spends invisible. Bilbo fights off the spiders while
> :>invisible, and seems to have no difficulty seeing them, even
> :>from a considerable distance. He has no problems finding his
> :>way around the Elven-king's hall.
>
> : And that is good evidence for your point.
Again, agreed.
> The fact that he may have been moved by some outside force
> does not change the fact that he could not see clearly while
> wearing the Ring.
That much is explicitly stated.
> In the meanwhile I remembered a passage that makes it much
> more clear that the whole "ring mists and shadows" idea
> was not present when Tolkien wrote the scene in the House
> of Tom Bombadil, or that he carelessly forgot about it.
(snipping the scene)
> Frodo is not sure that it is his Ring until he sees that
> Merry cannot see him. He does not recognize that he is
> invisible, but must rely on the reactions of others.
That is true, and in fact this is written almost identically to the way
Bilbo discovers the Ring's power - he has no idea he is invisible until
Gollum fails so see him. Except Frodo is in a well lit room with several
people having a conversation, so it strains credulity to think he
wouldn't immediately notice or, as the narrator, comment on the change -
or at least fully satisfy his curiosty about the identity of the Ring,
without needing any confirmation from others.
> I believe that Tolkien's ideas of what the Ring was and did were
> not fully formed when he wrote this scene, and he did not go back
> and make it fully consistent.
Probably true.
> What this means, and my original reason for entering this thread,
> is it really is not possible to make any sort of conclusions
> about the respective "presence" of Glorfindel and Bombadil in
> the wraith world. The whole wraith world concept is missing
> from the scene with Bombadil. Tom does not appear different on
> the other side as Glorfindel did, but the world does not become
> dim and shadowy either.
I think this is probably the best story-external explanation.
I must say, however, that story-external explanations alone have never
fully satisfied me. If there's a seeming contradiction, I'd always like
to find a story-internal way to resolve it without inventing unnecessary
ideas.
Having noticed this contradiction in the operation of the Ring before
and thought about it at some length, I'd always come to the following
observations and conclusions. One, it's plain from what we know that the
Ring affects the nature of the wearer, not the perceptions of observers.
Two, the effects of the Ring on the perceptions of the wearer apparently
vary. Three, the operation of the Ring on the nature of the bearer
should not vary, except to grow more severe with increasing long-term
use; it's always the same Ring. Four, long-term use cannot account for
this change in perception, because it doesn't seem to affect Bilbo after
many uses over the years to nearly the degree it affects Sam on his
first use.
But what if it's not the effect of the Ring, but the nature of the
Unseen World that changes depending on the circumstances?
We know that the Nazgul cloak themselves in an almost palpable aura of
fear. We know that Sauron is often referred to as Shadow, and can cause
a physical darkness even in the visible world. When is the effect of the
Ring on the wearer's perception noticed? Not at all for Bilbo, when
neither Sauron nor the Nazgul are nearby or aware of him at all. Not in
Bombadil's house, where they are far off and in any case their evil
can't penetrate. Perhaps a bit on Amon Sul, when the Nazgul are
attacking. Dramatically more when Frodo is near death from the
Morgul-wound, and almost under the sway of the Witch-king. Greatly again
at Cirith Ungol, near to Morgul-vale and on the very borders of Mordor,
when the Enemy is actively seeking the Ringbearer. In other words,
almost directly in proportion to the degree the wearer is under Sauron's
or the Nazguls' power (or in their domain, at least) at that moment.
And where do we find a similar instance? When Merry is stricken with the
Black Breath, his perceptions are described in somewhat similar terms,
aside from the part about feeling uniquely visible.
What do I conclude from this? Without having to add, as I see it,
anything to the ideas we've been presented with, the following: the Ring
always works the same way: it takes the wearer out of the visible world
and into the Unseen World. What changes is that under normal
circumstances the Unseen world looks pretty much the same as the visible
world. When one of the Calaquendi such as Glorfindel is present, he
appears as a shining light in the Unseen World, but likewise, Sauron and
his more terrible servants cast a Shadow in the Unseen world that is
much more pronounced and dramatic in its effects than its counterpart in
the visible world. And when the wearer of the Ring is too close under
that Shadow, his perceptions are dimmed as if by a physical shadow, but
one which dulls hearing as well. It's the Shadow of the Enemy in the
Unseen World, not merely being there, that causes the sensation Sam
experiences (and Bilbo does not). Becoming a wraith would presumably
mean perpetual unlife under the pall of that Shadow.
Now whether Tolkien intended that to be the case, I don't know. But I've
never imagined that he assumed that wearing the Ring has the same effect
on Bilbo, even in Chapter 1, as it did on Sam and Frodo later in LotR. I
would think he'd at least have gone back and edited the first chapter or
two of Fellowship to make the Ring a bit less innocuous, even if it was
too late to do the same for TH, once he decided what the Ring really
was. After all, I just can't imagine Bilbo using the Ring to escape the
unwanted visitor quite so casually if it was as unpleasant and unnerving
an experience as Sam finds it to be at Cirith Ungol. From the fact that
he didn't, I can only assume that when Tolkien did later more fully
develop his ideas about the nature of the Ring and its effects, he still
intended that they not be quite so dramatic or terrifying for the wearer
under normal circumstances as they would be under the circumstances Sam
and Frodo faced in their worst straits.
Oh well. Just my $.02 and then some, and admittedly I haven't read
nearly as much of HoME as many posters here seem to have.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Krikkit
Uffda! Yes, I remember now. I always tend to choose the wrong fewest
assumptions, though, or disbelieve the conclusion on the ground that it
does use unargued (or exclusively argued) assumptions, so I never
thought very higly of Occam's genious. But, introducing new assumptions
not based on observations is not preferable in this case, of course.
Then again, what is observation? ;)
jj
ste...@nomail.com
: <ste...@nomail.com> wrote
<snip>
:> What this means, and my original reason for entering this thread,
:> is it really is not possible to make any sort of conclusions
:> about the respective "presence" of Glorfindel and Bombadil in
:> the wraith world. The whole wraith world concept is missing
:> from the scene with Bombadil. Tom does not appear different on
:> the other side as Glorfindel did, but the world does not become
:> dim and shadowy either.
: I think this is probably the best story-external explanation.
: I must say, however, that story-external explanations alone have never
: fully satisfied me. If there's a seeming contradiction, I'd always like
: to find a story-internal way to resolve it without inventing unnecessary
: ideas.
<snip>
: Oh well. Just my $.02 and then some, and admittedly I haven't read
: nearly as much of HoME as many posters here seem to have.
That is a fine story-internal explanations. However the problem
with story-internal explanations is that they can be used to
explain away any error or discrepancy in the text. They can be fun
to construct, but it is not our responsibility to fix the errors
in an author's work. Carried too far, we can explain any error
in any book or movie. No matter how nonsensical a scene, or
how gaping a plot hole, we can patch it up with enough creativity.
As I said, yours is a fine story-internal explanation, and does
seem to be consistent with what we are told about the Ring. However,
you are making assumptions about how things work, and one person's
definition of an unnecessary idea is not going to automatically be the
same as anothers.
Stephen
Brenda Selwyn
>Maybe -- we're both speculating here, obviously, because Tolkien
>didn't tell us. My hunch is that Gandalf was not limited in
>_perception_ but in _action_. Remember that he answered Frodo
>without hesitation when Frodo asked about the appearance of
>Glorfindel on the other side. Gandalf didn't have to search his
>memory for 200-year-old knowledge (as he did with other things
>sometimes); that at least suggests that he knew from more recent
>sight.
>"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>in <MPG.19edf56fd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
>> This is a point I have made earlier. The counter to that is asking
>> how Gandalf could then explain what Frodo saw at the ford.
>
>It is, in my experience, perfectly possible to know what something
>will look like without actually recalling having seen it oneself.
>
>The problem would of course then be the source of that knowledge -
Gandalf says that Frodo has talked long in his sleep, and it has not
been hard to read his mind and memory. If Frodo had mentioned a
glowing figure, Gandalf would have had plenty of chance to ask
Glorfindel what it might have been.
I'm not saying this is what happened necessarily, just that it might
be another possible explanation.
Brenda
--
*************************************************************************
Brenda Selwyn
"In England's green and pleasant land"
Dirk Thierbach
> Bruce Tucker <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> <ste...@nomail.com> wrote
>>> Frodo is not sure that it is his Ring until he sees that
>>> Merry cannot see him. He does not recognize that he is
>>> invisible, but must rely on the reactions of others.
For some reason up to now I never thought that Frodo is troubled that
it is not his Ring, though the text hints very strongly at this
interpretation. I thought that he is troubled because it didn't seem to
work when Tom put it on, so he wants to find out if it is still working,
or if it has somehow lost its magic abilities.
And, story-internally, even if the world shifted into gray, he wouldn't
know that he is really invisible himself unless someone looks at him.
Though, story-externally, it really looks like Tolkien had not thought
through all the consequences of his ideas with respect to this scene.
>>> What this means, and my original reason for entering this thread,
>>> is it really is not possible to make any sort of conclusions
>>> about the respective "presence" of Glorfindel and Bombadil in
>>> the wraith world.
While I agree about Tom, I think the "presence" of Glorfindel is made
clear enough in Gandalf's explanation in Rivendell, isn't it?
All of course under the (story-internal) assumption that the mechanism
of being invisible temporarily and being invisible permanently (or
becoming a wraith) is the same.
>> I must say, however, that story-external explanations alone have
>> never fully satisfied me. If there's a seeming contradiction, I'd
>> always like to find a story-internal way to resolve it without
>> inventing unnecessary ideas.
If you ignore the hints that Frodo may think that the ring is not the
same (but where should Bombadil suddenly get a substitute for the ring
from?), I think the above internal-explanation has at least the
advantage that it is a lot simpler than Bruce's.
> That is a fine story-internal explanations. However the problem
> with story-internal explanations is that they can be used to
> explain away any error or discrepancy in the text.
Not any error, but just those where there is no real contradiction
in what is told.
IMHO, it's a lot better to carefully treat story-internal and
story-external explanations as very different things, and accept that
it is quite possible that something that is story-externally an error
(or an oversight) at the time of writing can be story-internally
explained in a way that makes sense (or can even make everything more
interesting). And the creative process through which Tolkien created
the LotR seems to involve quite a few such "changes from hindsight",
so I don't see why we cannot do the same.
- Dirk
Stan Brown
>For some reason up to now I never thought that Frodo is troubled that
>it is not his Ring, though the text hints very strongly at this
>interpretation.
Can you say a bit more about what you mean, and perhaps point out
some of those hints?
Myself, I never noticed Frodo worry much about ownership. Before
"The Shadow of the Past" it was just a useful heirloom from his
"uncle" Bilbo; after that it was a perilous burden that he had to
keep safe and hidden.
Remember in the Council of Elrond he burst out to Aragorn "then it
belongs to you and not to me"? That doesn't sound like he's
troubled, so much as glad for an excuse to get rid of it.
Unfortunately Aragorn immediately disclaims it. :-)
ste...@nomail.com
:>For some reason up to now I never thought that Frodo is troubled that
:>it is not his Ring, though the text hints very strongly at this
:>interpretation.
: Can you say a bit more about what you mean, and perhaps point out
: some of those hints?
: Myself, I never noticed Frodo worry much about ownership. Before
: "The Shadow of the Past" it was just a useful heirloom from his
: "uncle" Bilbo; after that it was a perilous burden that he had to
: keep safe and hidden.
: Remember in the Council of Elrond he burst out to Aragorn "then it
: belongs to you and not to me"? That doesn't sound like he's
: troubled, so much as glad for an excuse to get rid of it.
: Unfortunately Aragorn immediately disclaims it. :-)
Frodo is not worried about ownership. He is worried that Bombadil
did not return the same ring that Frodo gave to him. Frodo hands
Bombadil his ring of invisibility, Bombadil plays with it a bit,
and then puts it on. When Bombadil fails to turn invisible, Frodo's
first thought is not that Bombadil must somehow be special and immune
to the Ring, but instead that Bombadil played some sort of sleight of
hand trick and replaced the Ring with a ring.
The post perhaps should have said 'the Ring', instead of 'his Ring',
but the meaning is clear enough as is.
Stephen
Dirk Thierbach
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> : Can you say a bit more about what you mean, and perhaps point out
> : some of those hints?
> Frodo is not worried about ownership. He is worried that Bombadil
> did not return the same ring that Frodo gave to him.
The key is how to interpret the last sentence in
Frodo looked at it closely, and rather suspiciously (like one who
has lent a trinket to a juggler). It was the same Ring, or looked
the same and weighed the same [...]. But something prompted him to
make sure.
From the context, a natural reading is "to make sure it was the same
Ring". I always read for some reason as "to make sure it still worked
as before."
- Dirk
ste...@nomail.com
: In rec.arts.books.tolkien Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
: : In article <i4c061-...@ID-7776.user.dfncis.de> in
: : rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
: :>For some reason up to now I never thought that Frodo is troubled that
: :>it is not his Ring, though the text hints very strongly at this
: :>interpretation.
: : Can you say a bit more about what you mean, and perhaps point out
: : some of those hints?
: The post perhaps should have said 'the Ring', instead of 'his Ring',
: but the meaning is clear enough as is.
: Stephen
Of course, in the book the Ring is referred to as 'his Ring'.
"Frodo was delighted (in a way); it was his own ring all right,"
So there is no reason not to say 'his Ring' instead of 'the Ring'
in this situation.
Stephen
Brenda Selwyn
>And in the same line of thought, one can explain as well Gandalf's
>remark "Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.". How could he
>know?
By Bilbo's being there. The phrase "to have more about him/her"
simply means not to be as stupid, useless and lacking in initiative as
who- or whatever he/she is being compared with. The fact that Bilbo
was standing there in front of them, alive and unharmed, was proof
enough of this.
Gandalf's queer look was, I think, due to his having a strong hunch,
but without concrete evidence, that Bilbo was not being completely
straight with them. He must have found Bilbo's story highly
implausible, plus, being a perceptive bloke, he could probably tell
from Bilbo's manner that he wasn't telling the whole truth. Maybe he
noticed that Bilbo never did tell the dwarves what he'd had in his
pockets. Whatever, I don't think at this point he had any idea how
Bilbo had actually escaped. And I don't read any more into it that
that.
Brenda Selwyn
>That having been said, one possibility suggested by your post which I
>should not have rejected is that the spirit world actually becomes
>mistier and darker the closer you get to Mordor or when you actually
>experience Sauron's power.
The Ring increases in perceived weight as Mordor is approached, so
perhaps its effects on perception increase also?
Dirk Thierbach
>>And in the same line of thought, one can explain as well Gandalf's
>>remark "Mr. Baggins has more about him than you guess.". How could he
>>know?
> By Bilbo's being there. The phrase "to have more about him/her"
> simply means not to be as stupid, useless and lacking in initiative as
> who- or whatever he/she is being compared with.
I am a non-native speaker of English, but I had the impression that
the phrase carries a double meaning -- the one you mention, and a more
literal meaning, which might escape the dwarves, but maybe not the
reader.
> Whatever, I don't think at this point he had any idea how Bilbo had
> actually escaped. And I don't read any more into it that that.
Of course there are several possible readings -- that's IMHO the
mark of a good book :-) And besides, IIRC the question "how could
he know" has been asked by someone else at the very beginning of this
thread.
- Dirk
Stan Brown
>> The phrase "to have more about him/her"
>> simply means not to be as stupid, useless and lacking in initiative as
>> who- or whatever he/she is being compared with.
>
>I am a non-native speaker of English, but I had the impression that
>the phrase carries a double meaning -- the one you mention, and a more
>literal meaning, which might escape the dwarves, but maybe not the
>reader.
I more or less agree with you. (Congrats on your English, by the
way; I took you for an educated native speaker.)
I think Tolkien deliberately intended the double meaning. But in my
opinion, Tolkien wanted Gandalf and the Dwarves both to think only
about the first meaning: Bilbo was not just a buffoon. My idea is
that Tolkien was winking at the reader, that at this point the
reader knew the secret but Gandalf and the Dwarves did not. Thus
Gandalf spoke truer than he knew: the second, unintended meaning of
his words was the Ring.