what did the ring tempt Frodo with?
Henrik Larsen
otherwise tempted, like Samwise the Great Gardener, Smeagol the Great
with plenty of fish on his plate, Boromir og Denethor saving Gondor,
Gandalf and Galadriel conqueroring Sauron and healing Middleearth,
Saruman bigger and badder than Sauron etc.
But why did _Frodo_ at last claim the ring? Yes, I know the ring was
evil and tricked him into doing it, but what did he _believe_ he would
achive by doing so?
-Henrik
Brian E. Clark
> Yes, I know the ring was evil and tricked him into doing it,
> but what did he _believe_ he would achive by doing so?
<Shrug>
Peace. An end to conflict. Victory over the drawn-out internal
battle -- Frodo versus the Ring -- that his normal self knew it
had no power to win. A return to the Shire and normal comforts.
The restoration of normality.
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
____________________________________________________
Axial tilt is the reason for the season.
Jeff Haas
br...@look.in.signature.for.real.address (Brian E. Clark) wrote:
>Henrik Larsen <myc...@get2net.dk> wrote,
>
>> Yes, I know the ring was evil and tricked him into doing it,
>> but what did he _believe_ he would achive by doing so?
>
><Shrug>
>
>Peace. An end to conflict. Victory over the drawn-out internal
>battle -- Frodo versus the Ring -- that his normal self knew it
>had no power to win. A return to the Shire and normal comforts.
>The restoration of normality.
And also the desire for a complete sentence? ;-)
Actually, I was just wondering where you got that info. I can't remember
reading it anywhere, (although perhaps I have and I forgot...).
--
Jeff
J.R.R. Tolkien FAQE is currently under construction, but submissions are
still welcome; please see: http://www.cse.unl.edu/~haas/faqe_info.html
Chris Beck
SDROTH wrote:
> Another question is why exactly the ring was so tempting. . . . was it just the
> magic?
>
Yah, I think so.
> Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal, it's not very useful, it's
> rare, and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble.
Well, gold and diamonds are rarer, which is usually a good predicter of value.
Also, gold does not tarnish whereas silver does, it is a better conductor of heat
and electricity, and can be beaten into leaf which was excellent for plating things
before we came along with electrochemistry ... as for aesthetics, I agree with you
about the metals (my own personal favs are white gold and platinum), but lots of
people actually prefer gold. As for diamonds, they can be pretty darn snazzy
looking. It's easier to cut a nice looking sapphire, but a top of the line diamond
is, well, top of the line.
> Silver, IMHO, is a
> far better metal, and useful. The same applies to diamonds. They're useful,
> but not as beautiful, IMHO, as a pearl, a ruby, or a garnet.
>
> -Kazul
--
Fortune Greats: "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and
robbers there will be." -- Lao Tsu
SDROTH
magic?
I'm sure I'm seeing a connection where there is none, but wasn't the ring gold?
And hasn't gold been sort of a "One Ring" for mankind? We desire it, it
causes trouble. . . . like the ring.
Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal, it's not very useful, it's
rare, and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble. Silver, IMHO, is a
James Kuyper
Gold is a pretty metal, for most people. Gold and silver both share the
property of being very resistant to corrosion, making them both very
useful for jewelry and for coins. Finally, gold is an very good
conductor, making it useful in electronics. I once attended a seminar
where they described a high-energy particle detector where the detector
elements were flat artificial diamonds, and the wires connecting them
were gold - my first thought was "jewelry!". Incidentally, the skilled
labor to design and construct the device cost far more than the raw
materials.
Benny Geys
>Another question is why exactly the ring was so tempting. . . . was it just
the
>magic?
>
>
>I'm sure I'm seeing a connection where there is none, but wasn't the ring
gold?
> And hasn't gold been sort of a "One Ring" for mankind? We desire it, it
>causes trouble. . . . like the ring.
>
>Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal, it's not very useful, it's
>rare, and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble. Silver, IMHO, is
a
>far better metal, and useful. The same applies to diamonds. They're
useful,
>but not as beautiful, IMHO, as a pearl, a ruby, or a garnet.
>
Indeed.
I guess rarity is the answer here. People always seem to want something
someone else can't have. I'm sure that if horse dung got extremely rare,
people would want to decorate their houses with it.
This reminds of the books from Weis & Hickman. In 'DragonLance' the currency
is in steel, because it can be used to forge weapons. In 'Elven Star' (Death
Gate Cycle) the whole world is covered by an incredible thick forest. Cities
and the like exist in the top level of the trees. They pay with stones. Or
actually the paper equivalent of stones, since they are extremely rare.
Sunset Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
T.E.U.N.C.
softrat
>Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal,
That's a matter of opinion. I think that you are in the minority
here. IMHO only silver is more beautiful but it tarnishes and becomes
very ugly. Gold doesn't tarnish.
> it's not very useful,
Contrariwise, it is extremely useful in the electronics industry
because is conducts very well and does not tarnish. It is also the
most malleable and ductile of metals. Them little black things in your
computer are stuffed with gold wire (and silicon and plastic and
oxygen, ...). Its major use is in jewellery and currency. If your gold
appears to tarnish, it's due to dirt on the surface or the alloy metal
(probably copper).
> it's rare,
Very rare, thus more desirable.
> and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble.
Only because it is very desirable.
the softrat
---
"I am a man of immense learning and no culture."
softrat
>On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:33:40 +0100, in
><743j44$da...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Benny Geys wrote:
>
>>I guess rarity is the answer here. People always seem to want something
>>someone else can't have. I'm sure that if horse dung got extremely rare,
>>people would want to decorate their houses with it.
>
>You don't know how right you are - the winner of the Turner Prize for
>modern art in England was announced last night. The artist that won is
>known to decorate his work with dried elephant dung.
<inflamatory remarks>
Seems fitting for most modern 'art'. What's the matter with donkey
dung? Too alliterative (hence, learned) for them?
</inflamatory remarks>
Actually I do like _some_ modern art (post-1900), but not much.
And especially not post WW II.
Brian E. Clark
> And also the desire for a complete sentence? ;-)
Well, I know that you know better, for the benefit of those
still suffering 'neath the English teacher's whip: It's a
lie that sentence fragments have no place in good writing.
Where conversational flow is desired -- as is sometimes the
case on the Usenet -- partial sentences more closely match
the phrasings and stops of spoken discussions. All that's
left is to provide an example. Like this one. :)
---
Graham Lockwood
>Jeff Haas <jha...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote,
>
>> And also the desire for a complete sentence? ;-)
>
>Well, I know that you know better, for the benefit of those
>still suffering 'neath the English teacher's whip: It's a
>lie that sentence fragments have no place in good writing.
>Where conversational flow is desired -- as is sometimes the
>case on the Usenet -- partial sentences more closely match
>the phrasings and stops of spoken discussions. All that's
>left is to provide an example. Like this one. :)
Not true! None of it!
BTW, have you ever noticed that advertisers seem to be overly fond sentence
fragments? For example, Kodak has a slogan: "Take pictures. Further."
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Keeper of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
Brian E. Clark
> Actually, I was just wondering where you got that info. I can't
> remember reading it anywhere, (although perhaps I have and I forgot...).
I didn't read it in the texts, of course. That's why I
inserted the "<shrug>" before my response, to signal that
what followed amounted to speculation.
Rather, I tried to infer what the Ring may have promised
Frodo. I based my guess on Frodo's words (especially those
made as he and Sam drew ever closer to Orodruin) and on the
promises the Ring made to others who were tempted. Gandalf
needed power to aid the free peoples, and thus would the
Ring offer him that power, or so he said. Boromir craved the
strength to halt Mordor's advance against his homeland, and
the Ring seemed to him a weapon providently provided for
just that purpose. Sam saw a vision of the world in bloom.
So I asked myself, "What was Frodo's burden?" To some
degree, surely, he felt pressure to complete his mission and
secure the peace in Middle Earth. But by and large, growing
greater by degrees, Frodo's burden devolved to resisting the
Ring itself. Thus did Frodo face a double temptation, for in
no other person was the unremitting exhortation of the Ring
the primary evil to be thwarted. Power to resist the Ring
was the power Frodo lacked, and he knew it, and the Ring
itself promised a cure to his deficiency. I imagine two
paradoxical urgings slowly destroying Frodo's mind: The
self-destructive (and not inappropriate) musings that his
agonies would cease if only he relented and claimed the
Ring, plus the Ring's constant whisper that in seizing the
Ring he would gain the mastery over it, and thus not fail at
all. Mastery of the Ring became a means to regaining his
mastery of himself.
But remember: <Shrug>. :)
--
James Kuyper
>
> Jeff Haas <jha...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote,
>
> > And also the desire for a complete sentence? ;-)
>
> Well, I know that you know better, for the benefit of those
> still suffering 'neath the English teacher's whip: It's a
> lie that sentence fragments have no place in good writing.
> Where conversational flow is desired -- as is sometimes the
> case on the Usenet -- partial sentences more closely match
> the phrasings and stops of spoken discussions. All that's
> left is to provide an example. Like this one. :)
I must be still under that whip. I find that when people write that way,
it sounds to me like they're not capable of fully coherent thought.
Brian E. Clark
> I must be still under that whip. I find that when people write
> that way, it sounds to me like they're not capable of fully coherent
> thought.
You're right: You've not crawled outside the reach of the
lash. ;-) A good artist knows when to draw outside the
lines.
Julian Wilson
>
> Brian E. Clark wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Haas <jha...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote,
> >
> > > And also the desire for a complete sentence? ;-)
> >
> > Well, I know that you know better, for the benefit of those
> > still suffering 'neath the English teacher's whip: It's a
> > lie that sentence fragments have no place in good writing.
> > Where conversational flow is desired -- as is sometimes the
> > case on the Usenet -- partial sentences more closely match
> > the phrasings and stops of spoken discussions. All that's
> > left is to provide an example. Like this one. :)
>
> way,
> it sounds to me like they're not capable of fully coherent thought.
Possibly. Of course, if you're a mathematician like me, you will have
long since lost the ability to think in coherent English without
considerable effort :) The technical language known as mathematics tends
to encourage partial sentences. Luckily, mathematics does have some
postive things going for it.
Julian
(a lurker speaks)
Me
SDROTH wrote:
> Another question is why exactly the ring was so tempting. . . . was it just the
> magic?
>
> I'm sure I'm seeing a connection where there is none, but wasn't the ring gold?
> And hasn't gold been sort of a "One Ring" for mankind? We desire it, it
> causes trouble. . . . like the ring.
>
> Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal, it's not very useful, it's
> rare, and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble. Silver, IMHO, is a
> far better metal, and useful. The same applies to diamonds. They're useful,
> but not as beautiful, IMHO, as a pearl, a ruby, or a garnet.
>
>
"Ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. Gold, when the ancients first discovered
it, had a property that must have seemed almost magical or divine: it never
corroded or tarnished; in fact, it never reacted with any agent then known. In
other words, it seemed "immortal." Also, like the other "precious" metals, silver
and copper, it was found in native (metallic) form, it could be beaten or drawn to
an amazing thinness, it was astonishingly heavy, and when pure had an unusual
almost waxy feel. There may also have been mystical associations with the Sun.
Stefan Wils
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:33:40 +0100, in
> <743j44$da...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Benny Geys wrote:
>
> >I guess rarity is the answer here. People always seem to want something
> >someone else can't have. I'm sure that if horse dung got extremely rare,
> >people would want to decorate their houses with it.
>
> You don't know how right you are - the winner of the Turner Prize for
> modern art in England was announced last night. The artist that won is
> known to decorate his work with dried elephant dung.
>
> John Wright
Yeah, and what's wrong with human dung ?
--
Stefan Wils (stefa...@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be)
Homepage : http://www.ruca.ua.ac.be/~s975034
manfredi...@operamail.com
sdr...@aol.com (SDROTH) wrote:
> Another question is why exactly the ring was so tempting. . . . was it just the
> magic?
>
> I'm sure I'm seeing a connection where there is none, but wasn't the ring gold?
> And hasn't gold been sort of a "One Ring" for mankind? We desire it, it
> causes trouble. . . . like the ring.
>
> Why *do* people love gold? It's an ugly metal, it's not very useful, it's
> rare, and it is the cause of an awful amount of trouble. Silver, IMHO, is a
> far better metal, and useful. The same applies to diamonds. They're useful,
> but not as beautiful, IMHO, as a pearl, a ruby, or a garnet.
>
>
Gold has always been used (when available) as a valuable currency because it
was scarce. Unless you want to exchange one good directly with something else
(barter) you need a medium good that will mantain its value as much as
possible. Also, you want something that cannot be "counteirfeit" so if you
just pick a common rock it will have no value because everybody can just bend
their knees and get another one as good as yours. That was why the most
important coins were made in gold in the past, you were able to use that coin
to pay for goods in every country regardless of its origin because of its
intrinsic value,
Silver was used as well but being less rare its value was less (same example
of the stone apply). Actually is interesting to note that in the XVII century
the value of gold in Europe dropped drammatically as an effect of the immense
increase of the quantity of gold available thanks to the newly "discovered"
colonies in America. Again, gold was becoming more common thus less valuable.
I
Manfred22
-~-~-~-~-~-~
I do not agree with your opinion but I am willing to fight for your righ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael Pettersen
: But why did _Frodo_ at last claim the ring? Yes, I know the ring was
: evil and tricked him into doing it, but what did he _believe_ he would
: achive by doing so?
I think there are a few clues that Frodo's corruption is through the lust
for power. Here are two that come to mind: (1) He asks Galadriel why he
cannot see the thoughts of the other ring-bearers. That shows that he's
been thinking about it, and it's not exactly a nice question--it's close
to asking her why he can't control her through her ring, if not quite so
baldly put. (2) He does in fact use the Ring to control
Gollum--indirectly, by threatening him with it, and possibly directly (if
inadvertantly) when he tells Gollum that he will be cast into the pit of
Doom if he touches him again.
This is consistent with what we know of the temptation the Ring has for
others: Galadriel, Gandalf, Boromir, Sam, all would use the Ring for its
power: initially to do good, but the lust for power is corrupting.
However, we see less and less of Frodo's point of view as the story
progresses, so it's not entirely clear what is the precise effect of the
Ring on him.
--
Mike Pettersen
Michael Martinez
>(2) He does in fact use the Ring to control
>Gollum--indirectly, by threatening him with it, and possibly directly (if
>inadvertantly) when he tells Gollum that he will be cast into the pit of
>Doom if he touches him again.
The Ring made this threat, not Frodo. Although Tolkien attributes the
voice to the Ring, some people feel that Frodo is somehow speaking through
it.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Michael Pettersen
: In article <74k1tj$i...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Pettersen) wrote:
: >(2) He does in fact use the Ring to control
: >Gollum--indirectly, by threatening him with it, and possibly directly (if
: >inadvertantly) when he tells Gollum that he will be cast into the pit of
: >Doom if he touches him again.
: The Ring made this threat, not Frodo. Although Tolkien attributes the
: voice to the Ring, some people feel that Frodo is somehow speaking through
: it.
I infer that this passage has been debated to death, so I won't discuss
it here. However, there's another passage where Frodo says he will use
the Ring to make Gollum throw himself into the fire:
`I did not mean the danger that we all share,' said Frodo. `I mean a
danger to yourself alone. You swore a promise by what you call the Precious.
Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it
to your own undoing. Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself
to me just now, foolishly. _Give it back to Smeagol_ you said. Do not say
that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it
back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never
get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the
Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you,
you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast
yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care,
Smeagol!' (_The Two Towers,_ "The Black Gate is Closed;" II, 248 in the
1965 HMCo edition)
In neither this passage nor the other is Gollum actually _commanded_ to
throw himself into the fire; it is merely prophesied. However, I am
certain that Tolkien intended us at least to wonder if there was a cause
and effect relationship between the prophecy and its fulfillment: if
the Ring enacted Frodo's command even though he didn't utter it
explicitly. That is why I only said that it is _possible_ that Frodo
_inadvertantly_ used the Ring to command Gollum to cast himself into the
fire.
In any case, whatever you think of the passage where a voice speaks out of
the wheel of fire, my initial remark can be applied to the passage I've quoted
here.
--
Mike Pettersen
Michael Pettersen
: And yet Frodo never gave such a command -- nor was he wearing the Ring when
: it spoke to Gollum. Nor did either the Ring or Frodo command Gollum to
: cast himself into the fire.
I said that, didn't I? As I wrote, though you did not quote:
> In neither this passage nor the other is Gollum actually _commanded_ to
> throw himself into the fire;
--
Mike Pettersen
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
>: The Ring made this threat, not Frodo. Although Tolkien attributes the
>: voice to the Ring, some people feel that Frodo is somehow speaking through
>: it.
>
>I infer that this passage has been debated to death, so I won't discuss
>it here. However, there's another passage where Frodo says he will use
[some snippage for emphasis]
>You swore a promise by what you call the Precious.
>Remember that! It will hold you to it; but it will seek a way to twist it
>to your own undoing.
This is the important part that shows who is in control.
[snip]
>In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the
>Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you,
>you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast
>yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care,
>Smeagol!' (_The Two Towers,_ "The Black Gate is Closed;" II, 248 in the
>1965 HMCo edition)
[more snippage]
And yet Frodo never gave such a command -- nor was he wearing the Ring when
it spoke to Gollum. Nor did either the Ring or Frodo command Gollum to
cast himself into the fire.
GordonLew
>fire.
This is highly unlikely at the time Gollum cast himself into the fire he
possessed the ring. He might have been able to command frodo not the other way
around.
Feanole
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
>
>: it spoke to Gollum. Nor did either the Ring or Frodo command Gollum to
>
I was just emphasizing the obvious, since it was getting buried in all the
arguing.
So far, we've seen where J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that the Ring spoke to
Gollum. We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
words were not attributed to Frodo, nor the voice, and there is no textual
basis for saying otherwise.
We've seen where Frodo posed a hypothetical situation for Gollum which was
never realized -- we've also seen where Frodo in at least two passages told
Gollum that the Ring would hold him to his promise. And Frodo claimed the
Ring would twist Gollum's promise.
So far, all the evidence points to the Ring, not Frodo.
So, why argue about this?
Henrik Larsen
<19981209224406...@ng39.aol.com>...
>>That is why I only said that it is _possible_ that Frodo
>> into the fire.
>
>This is highly unlikely at the time Gollum cast himself into the fire
he
>possessed the ring. He might have been able to command frodo not
>the other way around.
Ok, this is strictly IMHO: Gollum might have possessed the ring for a
very long time, but he didn't seem to know the _exact_ nature of his
precious. Frodo on the other hand was perfectly aware of the potentials
in the ring (as well as he knew its history).
-Henrik
James Kuyper
>
> In article <74nf71$q...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Pettersen) wrote:
> >Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
> >
> >: And yet Frodo never gave such a command -- nor was he wearing the Ring when
> >: cast himself into the fire.
> >
>
> I was just emphasizing the obvious, since it was getting buried in all the
> arguing.
>
> So far, we've seen where J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that the Ring spoke to
No, he didn't. He said that voice came from the Ring, not that the Ring
was speaking.
> ... We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
No I didn't. I insisted that it could have been Frodo, not that it was
Frodo.
...
> So, why argue about this?
Because you keep insisting that the text you quoted says something which
it doesn't.
Michael Pettersen
: So far, all the evidence points to the Ring, not Frodo.
: So, why argue about this?
I haven't said a word about whether I believe the Ring spoke, or Frodo.
I recast my discussion in terms of the passage in Book IV, precisely
because I have zero interest in arguing about the passage in Book VI.
--
Mike Pettersen
GordonLew
>Ok, this is strictly IMHO: Gollum might have possessed the ring for a
>very long time, but he didn't seem to know the _exact_ nature of his
>precious. Frodo on the other hand was perfectly aware of the potentials
>in the ring (as well as he knew its history).
My point was that at the Time that Gollum fell into the crack of doom He was
holding the ring not Frodo. How can Frodo use the ring when Gollum possesses
it, as well as Frodo's finger.
Feanole
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> So far, we've seen where J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that the Ring spoke to
>> Gollum. ...
>
>No, he didn't. He said that voice came from the Ring, not that the Ring
>was speaking.
As long as the voice which comes from Frodo means that Frodo is speaking,
and the voice that comes from Gandalf means that Gandalf is speaking, there
is no reason to doubt that the voice which comes from the Ring means the
Ring is speaking.
>
>> ... We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
>
>No I didn't. I insisted that it could have been Frodo, not that it was
>Frodo.
I was not referring to you. Graham Lockwood was the person who originally
asserted that Frodo was speaking through the Ring.
>> So, why argue about this?
>
>Because you keep insisting that the text you quoted says something which
>it doesn't.
I keep insisting the text says what it says, which is that the voice came
from the Ring. The fact that some people want it to mean that Frodo was
speaking through the Ring doesn't make it so, or an ambiguous passage. It
would be just as ambiguous in every passage where Tolkien doesn't use the
word "said" in attributing something to one of the characters:
"Suddenly a song began: a cold murmur, rising and falling. The
voice seemed far away and immeasurably dreary, sometimes high
in the air and thin, sometimes like a low moan from the ground.
Out of the formless stream of sad but horrible sounds, strings
of words would now and again shape themselves: grim, hard, cold
words, heartless and miserable. The night was railing against
the morning of which it was bereaved, and the cold was cursing
the warmth for which it hungered. Frodo was chilled to the marrow.
After a while the song became clearer, and with dread in his
heart he perceived that it had changed into an incatation:
"Cold be hand and heart and bone,
and cold be sleep under stone:
never more to wake on stony bed,
never, till the Sun fails and the Moon is dead.
In the black wind the stars shall die,
and still on gold here let them lie,
till the dark lord lifts his hand
over dead sea and withered land."
Who said this? Tolkien doesn't attribute it to anyone with "said". Shall
we assume that the night and cold were singing together?
And it should come as no surprise that the Ring can speak. Other things
do in Tolkien as well: William's purse in THE HOBBIT speaks, Turin's sword
in "Narn i Hin Hurin" (or THE SILMARILLION) speaks, the watcher that Sam
passes by in Mordor while entering the fortress of Cirith Ungol shrieks.
Suddenly we must put our foot down and say, "No, the Ring cannot be
speaking. It MUST be Frodo?" Or we must conclude, "Well, it COULD be
Frodo because the Ring itself shouldn't be speaking?" Why?
The voice came from the wheel of fire. The wheel of fire was the Ring.
Tolkien attributes speech to Frodo immedidately before and after the Ring's
speech. He atttributes the voice to the Ring, therefore the Ring is
speaking. Q.E.D.
Graham Lockwood
How can Sauron command the Ringwraiths when he's not wearing the Ring?
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
Graham Lockwood
>In article <366FD392...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net>
wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>> ... We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
>>
>>No I didn't. I insisted that it could have been Frodo, not that it was
>>Frodo.
>
>I was not referring to you. Graham Lockwood was the person who originally
>asserted that Frodo was speaking through the Ring.
I was asserting that because I did (and still do) think that it was Frodo
speaking through the Ring. I see now that there are other conclusions that
can be drawn from that passage. I still think it was Frodo speaking but I
understand how you can think it was the Ring. Just because Tolkien
"disaccociated" the voice from Frodo doesn't mean that it wasn't Frodo's
voice. There are many times (notably the parley with Sauruman) when voices
seem to be described as independant entities. When I posted my original
argument, I really never thought of the possibility that it might have been
the Ring itself speaking. Now I know of that possibility but I still think
that my view of the text is most likely the correct one. I seriously doubt
that I, or anyone else, will ever convince you of the validity of that view
just as I seriously doubt that you, or anyone else, will convince me that it
was really the Ring speaking.
John R. Cooper
<gsl...@garnetdotacnsdotfsu.edu> wrote:
>How can Sauron command the Ringwraiths when he's not wearing the Ring?
I thought it was because he possessed their nine Rings of Power.
- John
Michael Martinez
>How can Sauron command the Ringwraiths when he's not wearing the Ring?
They were already enslaved to his will. The Ring primarily enhanced
Sauron's power -- increased his mastery over other beings. But the Nine
had already become his slaves in the Second Age.
Your question could, of course, lead to the age-old debate of where the
Nine Rings were. Tolkien says in some places the Nine held them, and in
some places they were held by Sauron. Of course, Gandalf discovered that
Sauron was gathering the Rings of Power again when he found Thrain in Dol
Guldur, so it could be that Sauron had at that time taken the Nine back
from the Nazgul.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <74oufu$b91$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <366FD392...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net>
>wrote:
>>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>{snip}
>>>> ... We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
>>>
>>>No I didn't. I insisted that it could have been Frodo, not that it was
>>>Frodo.
>>
>>I was not referring to you. Graham Lockwood was the person who originally
>>asserted that Frodo was speaking through the Ring.
>{snip}
>
>
>I was asserting that because I did (and still do) think that it was Frodo
>speaking through the Ring. I see now that there are other conclusions that
>can be drawn from that passage. I still think it was Frodo speaking but I
>understand how you can think it was the Ring. Just because Tolkien
>"disaccociated" the voice from Frodo doesn't mean that it wasn't Frodo's
>voice. There are many times (notably the parley with Sauruman) when voices
All the voices are attributed to a source in one way or another -- there is
no doubt about when Saruman speaks and there certainly should be no doubt
about when the Ring speaks. Frodo never uses the Ring to command Gollum or
anyone. He uses it to threaten Gollum and to secure promises from Gollum,
but Frodo distinctly avoids putting on the Ring from the time he meets
Gollum until the moment he claims it in Sammath Naur.
>...When I posted my original argument, I really never thought of the
>possibility that it might have been the Ring itself speaking. Now I
>know of that possibility but I still think that my view of the text
>is most likely the correct one. I seriously doubt that I, or anyone
>else, will ever convince you of the validity of that view just as I
>seriously doubt that you, or anyone else, will convince me that it
>was really the Ring speaking.
And I seriously doubt anyone will ever be able to show that Tolkien had
anything in mind other than that the Ring spoke for itself. Certainly the
texts don't support your view, which you are free to hold. The voice comes
from the Ring, it is a commanding voice, and Frodo cannot dominate the Ring
-- by this time he has come to be subservient to it, as was just pointed
out elsewhere in the thread. And to use the Ring Frodo would have to be
wearing it in any event, and this he was not doing when it spoke to Gollum.
>
>
>
> ||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
> |// // ||//
> (/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
> ||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
> |// and //|
> (/ Warden of the Keys //||
> || of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
>
>
--
Graham Lockwood
<36705075....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:56:54 -0000, "Graham Lockwood"
><gsl...@garnetdotacnsdotfsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>How can Sauron command the Ringwraiths when he's not wearing the Ring?
>
That may be. But then there's the question of what happened to the Nine
after Sauron was overthrown by the Last Alliance. He couldn't have been
wearing them because then Isildur would have presumably gotten them too. So
then the Nazgul must have had them (I can't imagine Sauron letting anyone
else have them). At some later point, Sauron "reembodies" himself and once
again is able to command the Nazgul even though he doesn't have *any* Ring
of Power.
Jeff Haas
(Michael Martinez) wrote:
{snip}
> "Suddenly a song began: a cold murmur, rising and falling. The
> voice seemed far away and immeasurably dreary, sometimes high
> in the air and thin, sometimes like a low moan from the ground.
> Out of the formless stream of sad but horrible sounds, strings
> of words would now and again shape themselves: grim, hard, cold
> words, heartless and miserable. The night was railing against
> the morning of which it was bereaved, and the cold was cursing
> the warmth for which it hungered. Frodo was chilled to the marrow.
> After a while the song became clearer, and with dread in his
> heart he perceived that it had changed into an incatation:
>
> "Cold be hand and heart and bone,
> and cold be sleep under stone:
> never more to wake on stony bed,
> never, till the Sun fails and the Moon is dead.
> In the black wind the stars shall die,
> and still on gold here let them lie,
> till the dark lord lifts his hand
> over dead sea and withered land."
>
>Who said this?
What I want to know is if *Tolkien* said this. I don't recognize this at
all. Where would I find this passage?
--
Jeff
J.R.R. Tolkien FAQE is currently under construction, but submissions are
still welcome; please see: http://www.cse.unl.edu/~haas/faqe_info.html
Jeff Haas
(LauraSM) wrote:
>>(Michael Martinez) wrote:
{snip}
>>>Who said this?
>>{snip}
>And then Jeff Asked:
>>
>>What I want to know is if *Tolkien* said this. I don't recognize this at
>>all. Where would I find this passage?
>Yes- It was said by the Barrow- wight.
Ah, that's not what I was looking for, but close enough for me to find the
passage. For those who are wondering, it is from FotR: Book I, Chapter
8: "Fog on the Barrow-Downs."
softrat
<gsl...@garnetdotacnsdotfsu.edu> wrote:
>John R. Cooper wrote in message
><36705075....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:56:54 -0000, "Graham Lockwood"
>><gsl...@garnetdotacnsdotfsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>How can Sauron command the Ringwraiths when he's not wearing the Ring?
>>
>> I thought it was because he possessed their nine Rings of Power.
>
>That may be. But then there's the question of what happened to the Nine
>after Sauron was overthrown by the Last Alliance. He couldn't have been
>wearing them because then Isildur would have presumably gotten them too. So
>then the Nazgul must have had them (I can't imagine Sauron letting anyone
>else have them). At some later point, Sauron "reembodies" himself and once
>again is able to command the Nazgul even though he doesn't have *any* Ring
>of Power.
>
>
> ||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
At least to me, 'possessed' does not mean 'wore'. _I_, for instance
possess a lot of things that I never thought of wearing, like my car
for example. I always assumed that Sauron had a few vaults tucked away
in Barad-dur for things like Rings of Power and the secret of Barlog
Wings (which disappeared with him). Otherwise there is scope for a
neat-o archeological expedition to Mordor, if one can find it.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
---
"The beatings will cease when morale improves!"
LauraSM
>{snip}
>> "Suddenly a song began: a cold murmur, rising and falling. The
>> voice seemed far away and immeasurably dreary, sometimes high
>> in the air and thin, sometimes like a low moan from the ground.
>> Out of the formless stream of sad but horrible sounds, strings
>> of words would now and again shape themselves: grim, hard, cold
>> words, heartless and miserable. The night was railing against
>> the morning of which it was bereaved, and the cold was cursing
>> the warmth for which it hungered. Frodo was chilled to the marrow.
>> After a while the song became clearer, and with dread in his
>> heart he perceived that it had changed into an incatation:
>>
>> "Cold be hand and heart and bone,
>> and cold be sleep under stone:
>> never more to wake on stony bed,
>> never, till the Sun fails and the Moon is dead.
>> In the black wind the stars shall die,
>> and still on gold here let them lie,
>> till the dark lord lifts his hand
>> over dead sea and withered land."
>>
>{snip}
And then Jeff Asked:
>
>What I want to know is if *Tolkien* said this. I don't recognize this at
>all. Where would I find this passage?
>
Yes- It was said by the Barrow- wight.
Laura
Frederic...@ift.ulaval.ca
: But why did _Frodo_ at last claim the ring? Yes, I know the ring was
: evil and tricked him into doing it, but what did he _believe_ he would
: achive by doing so?
A maybe related question : what did Galadriel tempt Frodo with?
BTW, you can replace "Frodo" by anyone who was tempted by Galadriel
What was the aim of Galadriel when she tempted the Felloship ?
Something like a will test?
I guess she was powerful enough to discover Boromir's secret will,
but as she didn't talk about that to noone from the fellowship
(AFAIK), I cannot see the point.
Or maybe she was wise enough to see that Boromir's behavior
would have been one of the key of the ring destruction ...
--
Les discussions sur les CGI, les SSI, et autres pages web, dynamiques
ou pas, sont plus appropries sur fr.comp.infosystemes.www.auteurs
.. /\
....//\\................................................................*
\\//**\\// Frederic "Edhil" Hermann |
/\*01*/\ http://wwwbacc.ift.ulaval.ca/~degel her...@ift.ulaval.ca|
//.\**/.\\ Edhil, One of the Last Mages... Binary Magus |
\/ \___________________________________________________________/
Michael Martinez
>Henrik Larsen <myc...@get2net.dk> a ecris le Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:57:38 +0100:
>
>: But why did _Frodo_ at last claim the ring? Yes, I know the ring was
>: evil and tricked him into doing it, but what did he _believe_ he would
>: achive by doing so?
At the very least, he would have believed he was preserving the precious
Ring from destruction. Tolkien basically put it this way: "he gave in,
ratted." He goes on to say elsewhere that Frodo basically had no time in
which to realize anything, and by the same token he could not have
conceived any real desire other than to preserve the Ring. The pressure
the Ring exerted on him at the end was enormous and overwhelming. It
simply wanted to be preserved, and he achieved that goal (though
ineffectually, since Gollum then took the Ring and fell into the Sammath
Naur, and expression of the Ring's will, or at least of total irony).
Tolkien does speculate that had Gollum not seized the Ring the Nazgul would
have confronted Frodo -- inviting him to look at his "new kingdom", buying
time for Sauron to come and take back what was his. Tolkien refers to
Frodo's return to sanity after the Ring is destroyed, so he is implying
that Frodo was at this point without sanity, and had he confronted the
Nazgul he would have been consumed with "great plans of reformed rule --
like but far greater and wider than the vision that tempted Sam" (when he
took up the Ring).
So, the short answer seems to be: nothing. Frodo at the moment he claimed
the Ring was no longer sane, no longer capable of rational thought, and was
consumed with the Ring's desire NOT to be destroyed.
>A maybe related question : what did Galadriel tempt Frodo with?
>BTW, you can replace "Frodo" by anyone who was tempted by Galadriel
>
>What was the aim of Galadriel when she tempted the Felloship ?
>Something like a will test?
>I guess she was powerful enough to discover Boromir's secret will,
>but as she didn't talk about that to noone from the fellowship
>(AFAIK), I cannot see the point.
>
>Or maybe she was wise enough to see that Boromir's behavior
>would have been one of the key of the ring destruction ...
Galadriel may have been "testing" the Company so as to learn their
strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps give what counsel and encouragement
she could. She warned Gandalf that Boromir was in peril. But she may
simply have been trying to separate the chaff from the wheat -- i.e., she
got Sam to think about Rose Cotton, but he resolved to go on with Frodo to
the end. It may be she was only hoping to encourage their resolve to do
the right thing.
"'Good night, my friends!' said Galadriel. 'Sleep in peace! Do
not trouble your hearts overmuch with thought of the road
tonight. Maybe the paths that you each shall tread are already
laid before your feet, though you do not see them. Good night!'"
Egbert Lenderink
>
> In article <74oufu$b91$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
> (Michael Martinez) wrote:
> {snip}
> > and cold be sleep under stone:
> > never more to wake on stony bed,
> > never, till the Sun fails and the Moon is dead.
> > In the black wind the stars shall die,
> > and still on gold here let them lie,
> > till the dark lord lifts his hand
> > over dead sea and withered land."
> >
> >Who said this?
> {snip}
>
> all. Where would I find this passage?
>
In LotR. Chapter "Fog on the Barrow Downs".
One of my favorite chapters, even though its subject is way off the main
plot line and seems to serve only to delay Frodo in coming to Bree (and
to give the reader the shivers, of course).
Egbert.
--
This message reflects my personal opinions only, not necessarily those
of the company I work for.
GordonLew
>is no reason to doubt that the voice which comes from the Ring means the
>Ring is speaking.
>
>
Do you think your television is doing the speaking not the actors? The voice
comes from the TV?
Feanole
GordonLew
>Do you think your television is doing the speaking not the actors? The voice
>comes from the TV?
I'd like to apologise for the tone, but not the content of that. I shouldn't be
sarcastic. I could have made the point in a nicer way. Sorry.
Feanole
Michael Martinez
>>Gandalf means that Gandalf is speaking, there
>>is no reason to doubt that the voice which comes from the Ring means the
>>Ring is speaking.
>
>comes from the TV?
So, are you saying that the One Ring was nothing more than a television
set? First it's a megaphone, now it's a television. What will it be
tomorrow?
James Kuyper
>
> In article <19981212002428...@ng28.aol.com>, gord...@aol.com (GordonLew) wrote:
> >>Gandalf means that Gandalf is speaking, there
> >>is no reason to doubt that the voice which comes from the Ring means the
> >>Ring is speaking.
> >
> >Do you think your television is doing the speaking not the actors? The voice
> >comes from the TV?
>
> So, are you saying that the One Ring was nothing more than a television
> set? First it's a megaphone, now it's a television. What will it be
> tomorrow?
Pay attention - no one said that it was a megaphone, a telephone, or a
television. Those were all merely analogies, to help make the
distinction between the location of a voice, and the identity of the
speaker.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>> set? First it's a megaphone, now it's a television. What will it be
>> tomorrow?
>
>Pay attention - no one said that it was a megaphone, a telephone, or a
>television. Those were all merely analogies, to help make the
>distinction between the location of a voice, and the identity of the
>speaker.
Pay close attention, James. The identity of the speaker is NOT in doubt.
The voice came from the Ring, the Ring spoke. Tolkien does not say that
Frodo spoke, he doesn't say that Sam perceived the voice to be Frodo's, he
does not say that it wasn't the Ring's voice, he doesn't say that Sam
wasn't sure of where the voice came from -- he says the voice came from the
fire. He identifies it as a different voice from Frodo's.
All the speculation and analogies in the world aren't going to change the
book.
James Kuyper
>
> In article <367273B9...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
> >Pay attention - no one said that it was a megaphone, a telephone, or a
> >television. Those were all merely analogies, to help make the
> >distinction between the location of a voice, and the identity of the
> >speaker.
>
> Pay close attention, James. The identity of the speaker is NOT in doubt.
It's very clear that you have no doubt.
> The voice came from the Ring, the Ring spoke.
He says only that the voice came from it. Claiming that he said the ring
spoke, and citing text where he didn't, doesn't make you right.
> ... Tolkien does not say that
> Frodo spoke,
And he doesn't say that the ring spoke.
> ... he doesn't say that Sam perceived the voice to be Frodo's,
And he doesn't say that Sam percieved the voice to not be Frodo's.
> ... he
> does not say that it wasn't the Ring's voice,
And he doesn't say that it was the Ring's voice.
> ... he doesn't say that Sam
> wasn't sure of where the voice came from -- he says the voice came from the
> fire. He identifies it as a different voice from Frodo's.
He doesn't identify it as a different voice from Frodo's. Even if he
did, that would be consistent with the Ring's nature as a transmitter of
Frodo's will.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> In article <367273B9...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net>
> wrote:
>> >Pay attention - no one said that it was a megaphone, a telephone, or a
>> >television. Those were all merely analogies, to help make the
>> >distinction between the location of a voice, and the identity of the
>> >speaker.
>>
>> Pay close attention, James. The identity of the speaker is NOT in doubt.
>
>It's very clear that you have no doubt.
Where does Tolkien express doubt? Cite something for crying out loud.
Refer to the text.
>> The voice came from the Ring, the Ring spoke.
>
>He says only that the voice came from it. Claiming that he said the ring
>spoke, and citing text where he didn't, doesn't make you right.
There is no difference. The voice came from the Ring, not from Frodo, not
from Gollum, not from Gandalf -- from the Ring.
>> ... he doesn't say that Sam
>> wasn't sure of where the voice came from -- he says the voice came from the
>> fire. He identifies it as a different voice from Frodo's.
>
>He doesn't identify it as a different voice from Frodo's. Even if he
>did, that would be consistent with the Ring's nature as a transmitter of
>Frodo's will.
The Ring NEVER transmits Frodo's will. EVER. There is not one passage
anywhere in the book where the Ring transmits Frodo's will. Frodo was not
master of the Ring. Tolkien made this point very clear in his letters. He
could not make the Ring do anything. The Ring was acting on its own.
Lars Haugseth
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
> In article <3672A682...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
> >
> >He doesn't identify it as a different voice from Frodo's. Even if he
> >did, that would be consistent with the Ring's nature as a transmitter of
> >Frodo's will.
>
> The Ring NEVER transmits Frodo's will. EVER. There is not one passage
> anywhere in the book where the Ring transmits Frodo's will. Frodo was not
> master of the Ring. Tolkien made this point very clear in his letters. He
> could not make the Ring do anything. The Ring was acting on its own.
I would say he made this point pretty clear in the book itself.
The Fellowship of the Ring, page 242:
"'Hurray!' cried Pippin, springing up. 'Here is our noble cousin! Make
way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!'
'Hush!' said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch.
'Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should
not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of
the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out
over the world! We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting
dark.'"
--
Lars Haugseth
Mary Gentle
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
<snip>
> [more snippage]
>
> And yet Frodo never gave such a command -- nor was he
>wearing the Ring when it spoke to Gollum. Nor did either
>the Ring or Frodo command Gollum to cast himself into the
>fire.
It happened by accident, by chance - and we know Gandalf's
opinion of that.
Mary Gentle
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
<snip>
> The voice came from the wheel of fire.
<snip>
But 'from' has two possible meanings here. It could be used
in the sense that means 'from the person speaking', _or_
'from that apparent source', as with Moses' burning bush.
Just to say that Tolkien says the above doesn't crystallise
the interpretation on one side or the other. Whether he
intended the reader to think the voice was Frodo's, or that
of the ring, he could still have written 'the voice came from
the wheel of fire' and been correct.
Mary
Michael Martinez
There is no interpretation necessary, and I've certainly offered none.
Tolkien attributes the voice to the Ring and not to Frodo, and he says in
more than one place that Frodo was not commanding or using the Ring.
It should be sufficient that the author himself speaks against such
interpretations -- that Frodo is somehow using the Ring -- but apparently
not.
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>There is no interpretation necessary, and I've certainly offered none.
I think we have a new variant of Godwin's Law.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
Baba ganoosh ganache Ganesh!
Baba ganoosh ganache!
--culinary cheer for the elephant god
Michael Martinez
>In article <7561ob$2kh$3...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>
>>There is no interpretation necessary, and I've certainly offered none.
>
>I think we have a new variant of Godwin's Law.
Any disagreement where Michael Martinez cites Tolkien inevitably leads to
the assertion that Michael is being interpretive and his subsequent denial
of interpretation?
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <PXvd2.1109$qF5.2...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>, co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>In article <7561ob$2kh$3...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is no interpretation necessary, and I've certainly offered none.
>>
>>I think we have a new variant of Godwin's Law.
>
>Any disagreement where Michael Martinez cites Tolkien inevitably leads to
>the assertion that Michael is being interpretive and his subsequent denial
>of interpretation?
No, I was thinking more along the lines of, "As soon as Michael
Martinez dismisses all disagreement by saying that he's merely citing
the text and not interpreting it, the thread is effectively over."
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them."
--Melinda Shore
Michael Martinez
>In article <7562il$2kh$7...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>In article <PXvd2.1109$qF5.2...@lwnws01.ne.mediaone.net>,
> co...@ursolaris.spdcc.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote:
>>>In article <7561ob$2kh$3...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
>>>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>There is no interpretation necessary, and I've certainly offered none.
>>>
>>>I think we have a new variant of Godwin's Law.
>>
>>Any disagreement where Michael Martinez cites Tolkien inevitably leads to
>>the assertion that Michael is being interpretive and his subsequent denial
>>of interpretation?
>
>No, I was thinking more along the lines of, "As soon as Michael
>Martinez dismisses all disagreement by saying that he's merely citing
>the text and not interpreting it, the thread is effectively over."
Perhaps you should review Godwin's Law again. I take the following text
from a convenient Web site located at
(http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jarg320.old/g/GodwinsLaw.html):
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically
lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus guarantees
the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
The tradition in the Tolkien groups appears to be that as soon as anyone
takes a discussion to the personal level, they have lost the argument and
therefore are venting their frustration at the person upon whom they wish
to blame their complete and utterly dismal failure.
Coren's Law might be stated thus:
As a Tolkien news group discussion grows longers, the probability
that someone will interject an off-topic insult approaches one.
Martinez' Law might be stated thus:
As a Tolkien news group discussion becomes more off topic,
the probability that those who initially derailed the
discussion will deny all responsibility and seek to blame
someone else approaches one.
The Usenet Law of Interpretation can be stated thus:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of one
person alleging that another's statement is merely an
interpretation approaches one.
And, finally, the Usenet Law of Misinterpretation can be stated thus:
As a Usenet discussion grows increasingly more frustrating for
any individual, the probability that that individual will
misinterpret and misapply Godwin's Law approaches one.
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>And, finally, the Usenet Law of Misinterpretation can be stated thus:
>
> As a Usenet discussion grows increasingly more frustrating for
> any individual, the probability that that individual will
> misinterpret and misapply Godwin's Law approaches one.
Well, I won't deny that I find debating with you to be frustrating, but
probably not for the reason that you suppose.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Compared to my lover, toilet paper looks trivial, but I have
no intention of giving it up."
--John Whiteside
Michael Martinez
>You've got to understand - Michael sees the text more clearly than many
>of the rest of us. Where we see textual ambiguity, he sees the One True
>Meaning, with no possibility of any other meaning. Unfortunately, the
>world contains a few merely mortal people like myself, who sometimes
>have trouble seeing this One True Meaning.
Gosh! A flame! A personal attack!
Unprovoked! Uncalled for!
Filled with cheap shots, sad bitterness, and pathetic attempts at sarcasm!
Michael O'Neill and SuzieFlame must have reached out and touched your soul.
The inspiration you have found in their insipid parries and feints must
have rung loudly in your ears, compelling you to start yet another flame
war.
Why am I not surprised?
Okay, everyone -- it's official. James wants another flame war in the
group. Who will be next? Step right up. Unload your venom on
rec.arts.books.tolkien. Obvioulsy that is what James wants.
Let's all get together and have a nice, happy flame war.
Don't forget the marshmellows. With such uncannily brilliant repartee like
the above, we're sure to have a roaring blaze filling the bandwidth any
year now!
John Savard
>What I want to know is if *Tolkien* said this. I don't recognize this at
>all. Where would I find this passage?
That was back in the first book, where the Barrow-Wight had captured
Merry and Pippin.
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
>So far, we've seen where J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that the Ring spoke to
>Gollum. We've seen where some readers insist it was Frodo, even though the
>words were not attributed to Frodo, nor the voice, and there is no textual
>basis for saying otherwise.
I shall have to re-read the passage. I do not recall the Ring talking
at any time.
At the end, near the Crack of Doom, Frodo could no longer resist the
pull of the Ring, and so he puts it on. He talks - his voice changed
by the Ring, his will perverted by the Ring - of wielding the ring.
While wearing the Ring, of course, he is _invisible_, so Sam only
*hears a voice* and sees the Ring in the direction of that voice.
But that the voice that warned Gollum that if he again touched _Frodo_
he would be cast into the Crack of Doom came from the lips and tongue
of Frodo - maddened though Frodo was by the Ring - is something which
I had never had cause to doubt.
The words "If you touch me again" were, after all, said after Gollum
attacked Frodo. We aren't told that Gollum managed to touch the Ring.
Was the Ring pretending to be Frodo?
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
James Kuyper
...
> At the end, near the Crack of Doom, Frodo could no longer resist the
> pull of the Ring, and so he puts it on. He talks - his voice changed
> by the Ring, his will perverted by the Ring - of wielding the ring.
> While wearing the Ring, of course, he is _invisible_, so Sam only
> *hears a voice* and sees the Ring in the direction of that voice.
Not quite, Sam sees a figure robed in white, holding the Wheel of Fire
at it's breast. I've always understood the figure to be Frodo, even
though he wasn't, to ordinary vision, wearing white at the time. I
understood the Wheel to be the Ring, and the voice to be Frodo's as
conveyed through the Ring. However, none of those identifications are
unambiguously true or false, Michael's opinion to the contrary
notwithstanding.
...
> The words "If you touch me again" were, after all, said after Gollum
> attacked Frodo. We aren't told that Gollum managed to touch the Ring.
> Was the Ring pretending to be Frodo?
We aren't told that he didn't touch it either. I think it would be
difficult to take a person's finger, without ending up touching the Ring
on that finger. Since gaining hold of the Ring was his purpose for
taking the finger, I think it's a near certainty that he touched it a
some point in the process.
The voice's words are unfortunately equally plausible for Frodo or for
the Ring itself.
Michael Martinez
>But that the voice that warned Gollum that if he again touched _Frodo_
>he would be cast into the Crack of Doom came from the lips and tongue
>of Frodo - maddened though Frodo was by the Ring - is something which
>I had never had cause to doubt.
The voice does not warn Gollum against touching Frodo. Frodo is not
mentioned or referred to.
>The words "If you touch me again" were, after all, said after Gollum
>attacked Frodo. We aren't told that Gollum managed to touch the Ring.
>Was the Ring pretending to be Frodo?
Have you forgotten how long Gollum held the Ring? The Ring had plenty of
reason to not want Gollum to touch it again. And Tolkien stated
specifically that Frodo could not command or control the Ring -- he could
not have made the voice come from the Ring.
Michael Martinez
>Not quite, Sam sees a figure robed in white, holding the Wheel of Fire
>at it's breast. I've always understood the figure to be Frodo, even
>though he wasn't, to ordinary vision, wearing white at the time. I
>understood the Wheel to be the Ring, and the voice to be Frodo's as
>conveyed through the Ring. However, none of those identifications are
>unambiguously true or false, Michael's opinion to the contrary
>notwithstanding.
And what, pray tell, is Michael's opinion? I've stated no opinion and
certainly haven't been asked for my opinion.
Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring and stated unequivocably that
Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING. And yet you
persist in your efforts to persuade one and all that there is valid reason
to doubt that the voice belonged to the Ring. What is the valid reason
that Tolkien overlooked?
There is simply no plausibility in the "Frodo spoke through the Ring"
scenaio. To do so he would have had to command or control the Ring,
something Tolkien specifically denied happened.
Frederic...@ift.ulaval.ca
: In article <74oufu$b91$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
: Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
: <snip>
:> The voice came from the wheel of fire.
: <snip>
the question is : Was all the ring of power able to speak?
Michael Martinez
>"Mary Gentle" <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> a ecris le Tue, 15 Dec 1998
> 14:44:27 GMT:
>: In article <74oufu$b91$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
>: Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>: <snip>
>:> The voice came from the wheel of fire.
>: <snip>
>
>the question is : Was all the ring of power able to speak?
Tolkien seemed to think so. He gave it a voice. He also gave it a purpose
(to try to get back to its master, Sauron). We are, after all, talking
about a Ring which had decided to leave Isildur and Gollum, and which in
the end conquered Frodo.
Or are you asking if all the Rings (the great Rings, presumably: the Three,
the Seven, the Nine, as well as the One) were able to speak? To that
question I don't believe there is a definite answer. But the other Rings
lacked the one thing which the One Ring possessed: a substantial part of
Sauron's native strength.
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <759soe$9pf$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
>In article <367863EA...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net>
wrote:
>>Not quite, Sam sees a figure robed in white, holding the Wheel of Fire
>>at it's breast. I've always understood the figure to be Frodo, even
>>though he wasn't, to ordinary vision, wearing white at the time. I
>>understood the Wheel to be the Ring, and the voice to be Frodo's as
>>conveyed through the Ring. However, none of those identifications are
>>unambiguously true or false, Michael's opinion to the contrary
>>notwithstanding.
>
>And what, pray tell, is Michael's opinion? I've stated no opinion and
>certainly haven't been asked for my opinion.
>
>Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring
NO! Sam attributed the voice to the ring. Tolkien had Sam see a vision where
the voice was coming through the 'wheel of fire'. The lack of any reaction
or acknowledgement towards such a strange occurence, the lack of this being
repeated, the fact that through 4 books such a thing didn't happen before or
since, AND the fact that it would be quite strange to have the ring speak in
that single time (and not the most dramatic it could have used) alone, seems
to indicate the exact opposite you are saying. The Ring didn't have a voice.
>and stated unequivocably that
>Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
No, but the Ring could use him. The Ring was speaking, only in the same way
we can say that heroic addiction speaks through the addicts.
>And yet you
>persist in your efforts to persuade one and all that there is valid reason
>to doubt that the voice belonged to the Ring. What is the valid reason
>that Tolkien overlooked?
That *you* overlook. Perhaps, that all the thing was a vision? Frodo wasn't
wearing white. The Ring wasn't a wheel of fire (except in Frodo's mind). The
Ring wasn't speaking. What makes *you* think that all the rest were just
metaphors, and the voice coming from the Ring wasnt?
>There is simply no plausibility in the "Frodo spoke through the Ring"
>scenaio. To do so he would have had to command or control the Ring,
>something Tolkien specifically denied happened.
Actually I always felt that the Ring was speaking through Frodo. Through his
metaphorical vision Sam saw what was happening. That the ring was
controlling Frodo, than in essense the voice came from the Ring.
Don't you find it strange that the Ring speaks only through a vision?
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris wrote in message <75b0o0$rbi$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>...
>
>No, but the Ring could use him. The Ring was speaking, only in the same way
>we can say that heroic addiction speaks through the addicts.
Ugh! I obviously meant heroin, and generally drug addiction.
Joseph Slone
<snip>
> Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring and stated unequivocably that
> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
<snip>
> There is simply no plausibility in the "Frodo spoke through the Ring"
> scenaio. To do so he would have had to command or control the Ring,
> something Tolkien specifically denied happened.
Until I saw this, I was leaning towards the "Frodo spoke through the Ring" camp.
The only way that Frodo could talk through the ring would be if he had control
of the ring. Turning invisible is not controlling the ring. It is not as if Frodo,
Bilbo, Gollum, or Isildur (sp?) told the ring to turn him invisible. After all Bilbo
and
Gollum didn't even know what the ring was. I *suspect* that if you placed the ring
on an monkey's finger that it would turn the monkey invisible.
How could a ring talk? How could a ring change size and weight? How could a
ring decide to drop off of a finger?
**** Warning Pure Speculation Ahead ****
I wonder if the ring would actually have allowed Frodo to control it. Most of the
knowledge
of the wise about the one is from their knowledge of the three rings (Plus Saruman's
Skill).
The One was Sauron's alone. Could the ring have been able of letting a Ring Wielder
think
that he was controlling it, but instead trick the R.W. into taking the ring to
Sauron?
-- Joe Slone
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <759soe$9pf$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <367863EA...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net>
>wrote:
>>>Not quite, Sam sees a figure robed in white, holding the Wheel of Fire
>>>at it's breast. I've always understood the figure to be Frodo, even
>>>though he wasn't, to ordinary vision, wearing white at the time. I
>>>understood the Wheel to be the Ring, and the voice to be Frodo's as
>>>conveyed through the Ring. However, none of those identifications are
>>>unambiguously true or false, Michael's opinion to the contrary
>>>notwithstanding.
>>
>>And what, pray tell, is Michael's opinion? I've stated no opinion and
>>certainly haven't been asked for my opinion.
>>
>
NO! Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring! No interpretation
necessary.
>>and stated unequivocably that
>>Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
>
>No, but the Ring could use him. The Ring was speaking, only in the same way
>we can say that heroic addiction speaks through the addicts.
The Ring spoke. That's enough for me.
>>And yet you
>>persist in your efforts to persuade one and all that there is valid reason
>>to doubt that the voice belonged to the Ring. What is the valid reason
>>that Tolkien overlooked?
>
>
>That *you* overlook.
All I've done is cite Tolkien, who disagrees with the notion that Frodo was
using the Ring. If I've overlooked some relevant passage, one need only
cite it.
>>There is simply no plausibility in the "Frodo spoke through the Ring"
>>scenaio. To do so he would have had to command or control the Ring,
>>something Tolkien specifically denied happened.
>
>
>Actually I always felt that the Ring was speaking through Frodo. Through his
>metaphorical vision Sam saw what was happening. That the ring was
>controlling Frodo, than in essense the voice came from the Ring.
Frodo didn't speak, the Ring did. The voice came from the Ring. Frodo
spoke before and after the Ring.
>Don't you find it strange that the Ring speaks only through a vision?
I don't see where the Ring spoke through a vision.
Michael Martinez
>How could a ring talk? How could a ring change size and weight? How could a
>ring decide to drop off of a finger?
The same way a purse could talk, or a sword. There are "magical" devices
in Tolkien's world which talk. The Ring is not unique in that respect.
Joseph Slone
> In article <36790ADB...@kdp01.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, Joseph Slone <jsl...@kdp01.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
> >How could a ring talk? How could a ring change size and weight? How could a
> >ring decide to drop off of a finger?
>
> The same way a purse could talk, or a sword. There are "magical" devices
> in Tolkien's world which talk. The Ring is not unique in that respect.
>
Exactly!
-- Joe Slone
William C. Hicklin
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <367863EA...@wizard.net>, James Kuyper <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote:
> >Not quite, Sam sees a figure robed in white, holding the Wheel of Fire
> >at it's breast. I've always understood the figure to be Frodo, even
> >though he wasn't, to ordinary vision, wearing white at the time. I
> >understood the Wheel to be the Ring, and the voice to be Frodo's as
> >conveyed through the Ring. However, none of those identifications are
> >unambiguously true or false, Michael's opinion to the contrary
> >notwithstanding.
>
> And what, pray tell, is Michael's opinion? I've stated no opinion and
> certainly haven't been asked for my opinion.
>
> Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring
And this is precisely where "opinion" or "interpretation" comes in. Tolkien *said*
"out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice." He did *not say* "the Ring spoke"
or any such thing.
> and stated unequivocably that
> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
Where pray tell is this unequivocal statement? Letter No. 1398 "On Mount Doom, Frodo
did not use the Ring and could not use it?" It's not there. What we have is the
fact that Frodo was clutching the Ring at his breast, "beneath the cover of his
leather shirt," coupled with the *opinion* that use of the Ring requires the wearing
of it. This latter we do not know to be true in all cases, and moreover there is no
excluding the possibility, since we are looking at this scene from Sam's viewpoint,
that Frodo did in fact put a finger through the Ring.
> And yet you
> persist in your efforts to persuade one and all that there is valid reason
> to doubt that the voice belonged to the Ring. What is the valid reason
> that Tolkien overlooked?
>
> There is simply no plausibility in the "Frodo spoke through the Ring"
> scenaio. To do so he would have had to command or control the Ring,
> something Tolkien specifically denied happened.
There is no such specific denial. Not by Tolkien. Only by Martinez.
--
Windows 95 - Now Windows is even more bloated and crash-prone than ever
before. Windows 95 is a 32 bit extension and graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an
8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2
bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Lady Galadriel
there is no
>excluding the possibility, since we are looking at this scene from Sam's
viewpoint,
>that Frodo did in fact put a finger through the Ring.
No WAY. Remember what happens inside Mount Doom when Frodo actually DOES
put on the ring, Sauron is suddenly aware of him, and "all the devices of
his enemires were at last laid bare."
If Frodo had actually born the ring prior to what Sam DID see inside Mount
Doom, they would have never made it that far. Besides, Frodo was visible at
all times.
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <75b7m7$tkp$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>...>>NO! Sam attributed the voice to the ring.
>
>NO! Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring! No interpretation
>necessary.
There's no interpretation. That passage is from the point of view of Sam.
Sam heard the voice coming from the Ring.
>>No, but the Ring could use him. The Ring was speaking, only in the same
way
>>we can say that heroic addiction speaks through the addicts.
>
>The Ring spoke. That's enough for me.
Wow! Then you believe addictive substances speak? The ring didn't have any
reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
wanted.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <75b7oq$tkp$2...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>In article <36790ADB...@kdp01.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, Joseph
Slone <jsl...@kdp01.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>How could a ring talk? How could a ring change size and weight? How
could a
>>ring decide to drop off of a finger?
>
>The same way a purse could talk, or a sword. There are "magical" devices
>in Tolkien's world which talk. The Ring is not unique in that respect.
Yes, there are, but the purse talks in the same page it appears in. The
sword talks when asked a direct question. Sam sees the ring "talk" only
through a vision, and the ring had no reason to do so at that time. Nor is
it repeated in the four books it appears in.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>>
>> Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring
>
>And this is precisely where "opinion" or "interpretation" comes in.
>Tolkien *said* "out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice."
>He did *not say* "the Ring spoke" or any such thing.
Okay. Let's assume one must interpret what the wheel of fire is. If the
wheel of fire doesn't have to be the Ring, what else can it be? If you
can't suggest anything plausible, then what need is there for
interpretation? Simply identifying the wheel as the Ring is trivial.
>> and stated unequivocably that
>> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
>
>Where pray tell is this unequivocal statement?
I've already cited this, on December 15 in the "Ringbearers" thread, Bill:
"Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind:
in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical
or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been,
but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the
Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much
time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a
case is the same) before it could control him; before his will
and arrogance could grow to a statue in which he could dominate
other major hostile wills. Even so for a long time his acts
and commands would still have to seem 'good' to him, to be
for the benefit of others beside himself."
(From THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN, Letter #246)
"...so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring" and "he
needed time...before he could control the Ring..." make it pretty clear
Frodo had not used the Ring and had no control over it.
What we have is an unequivocable statement from Tolkien that Frodo did not
have control over the Ring, and an unequivocable statement from Tolkien
that Frodo had not attempted to USE the Ring.
As for whether one must WEAR the Ring in order to use it -- that would
seem in any other company a trivial matter, but we have the following
passages which indicate that is precisely what is required:
"There was a pause, though the most keen-eyed among the Dunedain
said that the Orcs were moving inwards, stealthily, step by step.
Elendur went to his father, who was standing dark and alone, as
if lost thought. '*Atarinya*,' he said,' what of the power that
would cow these foul creatures and command them to obey you? Is
it then of no avail?'
"'Alas, it is not, *senya*. I cannot use it. I dread the pain
of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend
it to my will. It needs one greater than I now know myself to
be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the
Three.'"
(From "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" in UNFINISHED TALES)
Of course, all the Elven keepers took of their Rings when Sauron put on the
One, so they were obviously wearing them. And then there are Gandalf's
words to Frodo:
"'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die,
but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues,
until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses
the Ring to make himself invisible, he *fades*: he becomes in
the end invisible permanently...."
(From "The Shadow of the Past" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
How does one use a Ring to make himself invisible? By wearing it -- on a
finger, if we must be so precise. Frodo was never invisible while wearing
the Ring on a chain, was he?
Of course, Frodo himself believed he had to be wearing the Ring in order to
use it:
"'I did not mean the danger that we all share,' said Frodo. 'I
mean a danger to yourself alone. You swore a promise by what
you call the Precious. Remember that! It will hold you to
it; but it will seek a way to twist it to your own undoing.
Already you are being twisted. You revealed yourself to me
just now, foolishly. *Give it back to Smeagol* you said. Do
not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You
will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you
to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last
need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious
mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you,
you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or
to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command.
So have a care, Smeagol!'"
(From "The Black Gate Is Closed" in THE TWO TOWERS)
"...If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey...." is a pretty
telling statement. Frodo couldn't command Gollum without wearing the Ring.
Tolkien said Frodo didn't use the Ring. Tolkien said Frodo hadn't
mastered the Ring.
So, again, we see why it was not Frodo speaking through the Ring --
according to Tolkien (not Martinez) Frodo was not wearing it, could not
command it, had made no attempt to use it -- and therefore Frodo could not
be speaking through it.
Certainly no one has been able to cite even one passage which suggests
otherwise. Such a citation would have prevented this pointless bickering
and rendered all the semantic wriggling unnecessary in EVERYONE'S eyes a
long time ago. But no such passage exists.
That's the point.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <75b7m7$tkp$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>NO! Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring! No interpretation
>>necessary.
>
>
>There's no interpretation. That passage is from the point of view of Sam.
>Sam heard the voice coming from the Ring.
And Tolkien wrote the passage.
>>>No, but the Ring could use him. The Ring was speaking, only in the same
>>>way we can say that heroic addiction speaks through the addicts.
>>
>>The Ring spoke. That's enough for me.
>
>
>Wow! Then you believe addictive substances speak? The ring didn't have any
>reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
>wanted.
The Ring most certainly did have reason -- it wanted to get back to Sauron
and Gollum had stated clearly he didn't want that to happen.
Michael Martinez
Sam does not have "a vision" -- he sees with "other vision". And he HEARS
the Ring talk -- Tolkien doesn't say he heard with "other hearing", or had
"a hearing". The Ring spoke, just as the purse spoke, and the sword.
Michael Martinez
And Frodo was grasping the Ring through a leather shirt anyway -- it's
highly doubtful he could have gotten a finger into it. The passage says
only "clutchig his hand to his breast, so that beneath the cover of his
shirt he clasped the Ring."
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <75bi5e$4k2$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>In article <75bgqm$8i1$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>Wow! Then you believe addictive substances speak? The ring didn't have any
>>reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
>>wanted.
>
>The Ring most certainly did have reason -- it wanted to get back to Sauron
>and Gollum had stated clearly he didn't want that to happen.
Neither did Frodo want that to happen - and Frodo wanted to *destroy* the
ring. The ring has no reason to choose Frodo over Gollum, in fact I'd say
the exact opposite.
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <75bi5e$4k2$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>In article <75bgqm$8i1$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>NO! Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring! No interpretation
>>>necessary.
>>
>>
>>There's no interpretation. That passage is from the point of view of Sam.
>>Sam heard the voice coming from the Ring.
>
>And Tolkien wrote the passage.
In "Dumbo", the little elephant saw a choire of pink ones dancing all around
him. Disney wrote that. Did Disney suggest that pink elephants were really
dancing around him?
![[opinion]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVd8VWV9-NxWrPUcvjwsLLxw_gtoxFVuEQiyYUwYbVPV_E4yA=s40-c)
[opinion]
way of figuring out anything is to go over the whole thing line by line
and interpret what it might be saying. The below is what I came up with
when I tried to do this. THESE ARE MY INTERPRETATIONS!! though I did try
to keep myself open to other ways of seeing it, I do have previous
feelings about this section and some have been reinforced and some
questioned.
Anyway, sorry it is so long, especially the middle part when dealing with
the actual speaking part.. Please remember that at least some of this is
strictly "devil's advocate, could be seen that way sort of thing". It
also evolved as it went along (Gosh, how long have I been doing this
thing??)
I would like it if you could look over it, amend what is contradicted
later in the interpretation, add any other possibilities. We can lick
this one : ).
One point I would like to make is the similarity between this work and
historical research. In both cases there is limited information from
biased sources. We are trying to stitch the in-between parts based on
what has been said, by whom, in what context, etc.. In many cases, you
never know the right answer, you just have evidence (maybe even strong
evidence) but it is only a piece of the puzzle, not the answer. There may
not be one puzzle in the end that you can make with all of the pieces.
The quote begins:
"Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of Emyn Muil,
This refers to "the taming of Smeagol":
...
'No! not on it,' said Frodo, looking down at him with stern pity.
'All you wish is to see it and touch it, if you can, though you
know it would drive you mad. Not on it. Swear by it, if you will.
For you know where it is. Yes, you know Smeagol. It is before
you.'
For a moment it appeared to Sam that his master had grown and
Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow, a mighty lord who hid his
brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet a little whining dog.
Yet the two were in some way akin and not alien: they could reach
one another's minds. Gollum raised himself and began pawing at
Frodo, fawning at his knees.
'Down! down!' said Frodo. 'Now speak your promise!'
...
"Sam saw these two rivals with other vision.
Sam sees the two figures somehow differently than (say) a minute ago. The
two figures are interpreted to mean Frodo and Gollum. I am being pedantic
on this (and the following) point(s) because although these figures take
the place of the two characters, because of the "other vision", it can be
taken that they are merely being represented by the figures and are not
objectively identical. As in the taming quote, it has already happened
(and referenced here) that Sam has seen and interpreted certain scenes
between the two. Although standing up straight and cowering in fear can
give the impression of growing and shrinking, if that was to be made
clear, then the text would (should?) have read differently. If it is not
to be taken literally, then also this scene also should be taken
figuratively.
To respond to recent posts. If you go to see a movie, do you not also
hear the soundtrack. Or is this not implied? There is nothing to suggest
that a hallucinogenic-type vision cannot be accompanied by sound, here or
anywhere else.
A crouching
shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing,
a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled
with a hideous lust and rage;
This is an image of the figure of Gollum that seems less of the external
person and more of the internal being. This figure is broken in spirit
but mad with desire. These characteristics are described physically, not
as appearance, but substance. Perhaps as a vision of what his essence
might appear. You could argue that this is a literary twist where what
seems is made to be.
and before it stood stern,
untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white,
This is an image of the figure of Frodo that compares interestingly with
the figure in the taming quote. I'd like to make a comparison between the
appearance of the first "vision" ("brightness [hid] in grey cloud") and
this one ("robed in white") as perhaps relating to the power that the
ring has over him. Or perhaps a quote which I will now butcher ("madness
is a clarity I cannot afford"), suggesting he was mad.
Also, there is a another contrast in that in the first, Frodo shows
"stern pity" vs the figure "untouched now by pity".
And, of course, (as has been pointed out) Frodo was not wearing white
before and presumably not after. So something is being interpreted or
imagined by Sam here.
but at
its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire
there spoke a commanding voice.
I could point out that the figure is referred to as "it", which suggests
it is not altogether a person. The "wheel of fire" is almost unanimously
accepted as the one ring. This because of its placement on the figure
relative to the ring on Frodo, and the coincidental use of the word
"ring" : ). In any case, it is an image of the ring. As has be pointed
out before, the ring has not been know to speak, it also has not been
known to sprout fire from it. But, if there are intelligent humans
depicted in this book, well, I guess anything is possible : ). Also,
pedantically, the voice does not come from the ring, but "out of the
fire". As I think I have shown before, there has already been interpreted
action in this passage, and I don't think it stopped there.
Actually, come to think of it. It has been pointed out that if it were
Frodo doing something with the ring, he would have needed to be touching
it (perhaps even on the finger, though that could have just been for the
invisibility ability, but there is no way of finding out), and that Frodo
was merely clasping the ring through his leather shirt. How is it that
the figure is holding the wheel of fire. Either Frodo got the ring out,
his leather shirt was temporarily disintegrated(actually since we don't
know what he was wearing afterwards, it might not have been temporary),
there is some connection to the ring without it being worn on the finger,
or Sam is imagining(or whatever word works for you along the same lines)
it.
As far as the "on the finger" theory, just because someone as unlearned
as Frodo assumed it needed to be on his finger to use is no defense
against this. It also proves nothing that Isildur doesn't like to touch
it. In fact, if it had power without putting it on the finger, then it
would explain why he didn't like to touch it at all (the same with some
of the council members). The invisibility is one aspect of it. I could
not explain why it only works when on the finger versus held bare in the
palm (or on a toe for that matter). It is the only evidence of any of
the rings powers, so it probably has to be worn on the finger to be used,
but one point doesn't make a trendline. Its only a theory, but one you
cannot disprove, just suggest against. In any case..., does the ring have
any effect on the figure of Frodo at all? (not a rhetorical question) Is
he controlled by it? Was he able to use it for more than invisibility at
this point? Now, it will go without saying that Frodo could not use the
ring.., but in what sense? Can't use all of the power in it (certainly),
can't use some of it after studying it for a long while (very possible),
can't use any other ability no matter how long he tried (who knows?).
There is no basis for deciding this. The quote from Tolkien's letter used
to support this position that Frodo could never have used the ring, only
states that he could not control it (or vice versa). You can easily start
something that you cannot control (this thread for example, or nuclear
devices), so I don't think he would need to be in control of it to do
anything with it. Same vice versa, the ring might not necessarily need to
be in control of Frodo to get him to do something that he wants to do
perhaps.. Also, since I opened this particular can of worms, (a) Gollum
is less than a "major hostile will" and (b) would you suggest that Gollum
being dead could not be seen as a general improvement for Middle Earth.
It is true that wisdom speaks with a different voice, but then again we
are not always with wisdom (perhaps especially after months on the road
and in the middle of Moria, etc...).
The voice itself can be up for debate. It is common to refer to
something's voice when not referring to sounds made by it (voice of
reason) or able to be made by it individually(a people's voice). This
isn't very important if it is a "vision" as I would tend to define it.
This is (of course) where the real question is. The text does suggest
that whatever was in the wheel of fire spoke. The question is whether it
is (a) literal truth (Frodo gets change of outfit, the ring displays two
new abilities) (b) poetic license on Sam's imagination's part (c)
historical shading (how much later was it till they wrote it down? : )
(the inevitable d) the result of too much pipe weed.
"'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me
ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire
of Doom.'
Here is a textural change which suggests either some sort of change has
come over Frodo (going from "stop touching me" to "go throw yourself in
hole") or this is a foreshadowing event in Sam's vision. The sources of
the change could be (a) the ring announces itself, draining Frodo of
energy (see below) (b) the ring takes over Frodo somehow as it changes
his demeanor, etc... (c) Frodo sets in motion something within the ring
(perhaps by his anger at Gollum), Frodo is perhaps open to the rings
influence like he has never been before (strength to keep a door closed
is strength itself), probably losing himself partially(or whatever) in
the process, and following the combined will of himself and the rings
(even if it is 99 to 1, it is still a mix).
Petty, petty semantics, but I was thinking about the word "yourself"...
It seems to be a bit redundant if the sentence is merely saying that you
will be cast into the fire of doom. It could be seen as, "as I have the
intention of casting something into the fire of doom, if you touch me,
may you also be cast there . I could be imagining..
"The crouching shape backed away, terror in its blinking
eyes, and at the same time insatiable desire.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
"Then the vision passed and Sam saw Frodo standing, hand
on breast, his breath coming in great gasps, and Gollum
at his feet, resting on his knees with his wide-splayed
hands upon the ground.
Well, here is some evidence that something actually happened. Frodo is
presumably gasping harder than before the "vision". Frodo has apparently
not changed from before, he is not holding the ring.
"'Look out!' cried Sam. 'He'll spring!' He stepped
forward, brandishing his sword. 'Quick, Master!' he
gasped. 'Go on! Go on! No time to lose. I'll deal
with him. Go on!'
Phallic imagery : ).
"Frodo looked at him as if at one now far away. 'Yes,
I must go on,' he said. 'Farewell, Sam! This is the
end at last. On Mount Doom doom shall fall. Farewell!'
He turned and went on, walking slowly but erect, up
the climbing path."
That first sentence is a little confusing... Is he at one with his
purpose (according to the council)? Or is he at one with the ring? Though
Frodo is susceptible to those far away looks, at this point, he has to be
out of it somehow. I don't think he would have thought to go the crack if
Sam didn't tell him. What he says to Sam seems to suggest that he means
to do his "rightful" purpose, but with no hope for himself. (Either that
or he was meaning to take on Sauron on Mount Doom : ). (not impossible
but not likely (the delusion, the delusion, jeez))). Hats off to him, if
at this point the only thing he is thinking (assuming he is capable of
rational thought) is to go on with him, though I suspect something else
is afoot (like too tired to think, just get it over with and I can get
some rest).
McREsq
>>reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
>>wanted.
>
>The Ring most certainly did have reason -- it wanted to get back to Sauron
>and Gollum had stated clearly he didn't want that to happen.
That doesn't prove it has reason. Salmon "must" swim upstream, it's not a
conscious choice. The ring certainly was drawn back to its creator, but that
doesn't mean it had a mind and was self-aware or sentient.
Russ
Aris Katsaris
Michael Martinez wrote in message <75bi8p$4k2$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>
>Sam does not have "a vision" -- he sees with "other vision". And he HEARS
>the Ring talk -- Tolkien doesn't say he heard with "other hearing", or had
>"a hearing". The Ring spoke, just as the purse spoke, and the sword.
What a coincidence that Sam hears the Ring "speak" only at the one time he
Jouni Karhu
>In article <3679127D...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>> and stated unequivocably that
>>> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
>>
>>Where pray tell is this unequivocal statement?
>
>I've already cited this, on December 15 in the "Ringbearers" thread, Bill:
>
> "Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind:
> in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical
> or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been,
> but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the
> Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much
Frodo did use the Ring, although unwittingly, in the Prancing Pony.
After that incident he realised the Ring's 'intentions', its wanting
to be used. Frodo's resisting using it does not equal him never using
it; 'resist' has several slightly differing meanings, after all.
>"...so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring" and "he
>needed time...before he could control the Ring..." make it pretty clear
>Frodo had not used the Ring and had no control over it.
Having no control over the Ring does not equal not being able to use
it. It can be argued that they are the same (which you are doing), but
it is not certain. With the Ring striving to control its wearer (not
at all unlike Sauron bent the vision of everyone using the Palantir
except Aragorn's), it would seem that it would not be safe to wear the
Ring and try to use it without control over it. One could presume, for
example, that once control over the Ring has been gained, one could
wear the Ring and not 'phase out' (become invisible). Also, there is
the element of having the objective of destroying the Ring. On the
Mount Doom, Frodo has pretty much given up that objective.
>What we have is an unequivocable statement from Tolkien that Frodo did not
>have control over the Ring, and an unequivocable statement from Tolkien
>that Frodo had not attempted to USE the Ring.
Unless there is another quote somewhere about this, no, we do not have
an unequivocable statement that he had not attempted to use the Ring.
He had resisted using it; slight difference, but it is there.
>As for whether one must WEAR the Ring in order to use it -- that would
>seem in any other company a trivial matter, but we have the following
>passages which indicate that is precisely what is required:
>
> "There was a pause, though the most keen-eyed among the Dunedain
> said that the Orcs were moving inwards, stealthily, step by step.
> Elendur went to his father, who was standing dark and alone, as
> if lost thought. '*Atarinya*,' he said,' what of the power that
> would cow these foul creatures and command them to obey you? Is
> it then of no avail?'
>
> "'Alas, it is not, *senya*. I cannot use it. I dread the pain
> of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend
At that time, the Ring still burned fearsomely hot, did it not? And
isn't this the reason for him not being able to use it for what is
asked as much as his lack of confidence in his will?
> "'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die,
> but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues,
> until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses
> the Ring to make himself invisible, he *fades*: he becomes in
> the end invisible permanently...."
> (From "The Shadow of the Past" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
>
>How does one use a Ring to make himself invisible? By wearing it -- on a
>finger, if we must be so precise. Frodo was never invisible while wearing
>the Ring on a chain, was he?
No, he was not. However, it may as well be that you must wear the Ring
only if you need to become invisible. And from the above quote it is
obvious that there is a connection between the Ring and its keeper
even though the keeper does not wear the Ring, a connection that
closing your fist around the Ring could well strengthen.
>Of course, Frodo himself believed he had to be wearing the Ring in order to
>use it:
>
>"...If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey...." is a pretty
>telling statement. Frodo couldn't command Gollum without wearing the Ring.
No, one does not follow the other. From the above, we only know that
Frodo could command Gollum wearing the Ring. This does not exclude the
possibility that Frodo could command Gollum -- especially after some
time has passed and Frodo's will has grown stronger, he has given up
the objective to destroy the Ring and is holding the Ring inside his
fist.
> Tolkien said Frodo didn't use the Ring. Tolkien said Frodo hadn't
>mastered the Ring.
Tolkien said only what you have quoted. The above is your
interpretation (although I agree with you in that Frodo had not yet
mastered the Ring).
>So, again, we see why it was not Frodo speaking through the Ring --
>according to Tolkien (not Martinez) Frodo was not wearing it, could not
>command it, had made no attempt to use it -- and therefore Frodo could not
>be speaking through it.
Then again, Frodo was the Ring's keeper, had worn it in close
proximity for a long time, had struggled with it for a long time and
had reached the highest level of mastery over it anyone ever had bar
Sauron, was giving up the idea of destroying it and thus very probably
making it easier to master its will. Therefore -- Frodo spoke, the
Ring providing him with the power to command (besides, wouldn't the
Ring have sounded muffled, given that it was inside Frodo's shirt and
his fist was closed around it? :)
>Certainly no one has been able to cite even one passage which suggests
>otherwise. Such a citation would have prevented this pointless bickering
>and rendered all the semantic wriggling unnecessary in EVERYONE'S eyes a
>long time ago. But no such passage exists.
>
>That's the point.
Maybe a part of the point, not all of it. The quotes you provide are
not conclusive, and your interpretation of them seems rather forced in
places.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <75bi5e$4k2$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <75bgqm$8i1$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
><kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
>>>wanted.
>>
>>The Ring most certainly did have reason -- it wanted to get back to Sauron
>>and Gollum had stated clearly he didn't want that to happen.
>
>
>ring. The ring has no reason to choose Frodo over Gollum, in fact I'd say
>the exact opposite.
Actually, since Gollum wanted to take the Ring away from Mordor, and Frodo
wanted to take the Ring into Mordor, the Ring had plenty of reason to want
to stay with Frodo. Tolkien himself noted that "at the last moment the
pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum -- impossible, I should have
said, for anyone to resist, certainly after long possession, months of
increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted." (From Letter 246).
The Ring had been tormenting Frodo for months, breaking down his will, and
at the last possible moment it succeeded with a massive all-out effort.
It would have gained nothing by allowing itself to go with Gollum. By
going with Frodo, it almost succeeded in returning to Sauron.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <75bi5e$4k2$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <75bgqm$8i1$1...@ns1.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
><kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>>NO! Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring! No interpretation
>>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's no interpretation. That passage is from the point of view of Sam.
>>>Sam heard the voice coming from the Ring.
>>
>>And Tolkien wrote the passage.
>
>In "Dumbo", the little elephant saw a choire of pink ones dancing all around
>him. Disney wrote that. Did Disney suggest that pink elephants were really
>dancing around him?
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is not "Dumbo". And Tolkien is not Disney. And Sam
didn't "have a vision", he "saw ... with other vision" an event which
actually occurred.
Michael Martinez
>>>Wow! Then you believe addictive substances speak? The ring didn't have any
>>>reason to tell Gollum not to touch it. That was what Frodo(ring-addicted)
>>>wanted.
>>
>>The Ring most certainly did have reason -- it wanted to get back to Sauron
>>and Gollum had stated clearly he didn't want that to happen.
>
>conscious choice. The ring certainly was drawn back to its creator, but that
>doesn't mean it had a mind and was self-aware or sentient.
I think you're confusing "reason" (intellect, reasoning ability) with
"reason" (motivation, cause). The Ring was trying to get back to Sauron
(according to Gandalf) and in choosing to leave Gollum (according to
Gandalf) it had made a decision. It also made a decision to stay with
Frodo.
The Ring expressed its own will on several occasions: when it chose to drop
off Isildur's finger, thus betraying him; when it chose to drop off
Gollum's finger; when it spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom; and when it
conquered Frodo at the end. There is at least one other passage indicating
that it acted with "will" when Frodo discusses with Gandalf how the Ring
would at times try to drop off a finger (and that is why Bilbo had put it
on a chain).
But my point above was that the Ring certainly did have a reason (a motive)
for telling Gollum not to touch it: it was trying to return to Sauron, and
the only bus going in Sauron's direction at the time was Frodo. Gollum
wanted to head the other way (with the Ring -- he was obviously unwilling
to let Frodo take it into Mordor).
Michael Martinez
Coincidence shouldn't have anything to do with it.
James Kuyper
...
> "Frodo looked at him as if at one now far away. 'Yes,
> I must go on,' he said. 'Farewell, Sam! This is the
> end at last. On Mount Doom doom shall fall. Farewell!'
> He turned and went on, walking slowly but erect, up
> the climbing path."
>
> That first sentence is a little confusing... Is he at one with his
> purpose (according to the council)? Or is he at one with the ring?
if at [some]one [who's] now far away."
Otherwise, a very interesting and well-argued set of ideas!
Jeff Haas
(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>In article <K+t31pAc...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Mike Kew
<Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This is quite unequivocally an instance of the Ring imparting some
>>sort of power to the holder when he's *not* wearing it.
>
>But Sam is not making use of the Ring's power. You've only shown how the
>Ring acts on its own, or simply by its nature enhances the fear of other
>creatures. Tolkien in fact stated that the Rings could work while not
>being worn (his statement concerns the Three Rings working in the Second
>Age after the War of the Elves and Sauron). He just doesn't say they can
>be USED without being worn (and in fact he says Frodo has not exercised his
>will in using the Ring).
Question: (I'm not arguing either point here; I'm still undecided)
Why would the Ring _want_ to avoid an Orc? Wouldn't it be more likely
that the Orc would try to use, and in so doing, draw the attention of
Sauron? If that happened, the Ring would be reunited with its master,
which is, after all, what it wants, right? Surely the Orc wouldn't have
sufficient power of will to keep it for his own. If I were the ring, and
wanted to let Sauron find me, I'd make myself known to that orc, and let
him hand me over (voluntarily or not) to a Nazgul, and that would be
that. Is there a reason it helped cloak Sam?
--
Jeff
J.R.R. Tolkien FAQE is currently under construction, but submissions are
still welcome; please see: http://www.cse.unl.edu/~haas/faqe_info.html
Jeff Haas
(Michael Martinez) wrote:
{snip}
>As for what the orc pereived, well, it had to cope with Sam in an Elven
>cloak (which made him hard to see), wielding an Elven sword (which was
>made to kill orcs and gave up a brilliant light when orcs were near), and
>clutching a "nameless menace of power and doom". Maybe the Ring didn't
>need to do anything at all. As Sam entered Mordor, it changed (according
>to the earlier passage) and increased in power.
Good call. I'd forgotten that there was more magic than just the Ring
involved here. The cape and the "sword" probably contributed more than
the Ring. Thanks. Even the bit about a "GREAT silent shape" could be
explained by the angle of the light and/or trick of the shadows.
Mike Kew
>However, it may as well be that you must wear the Ring
>only if you need to become invisible. And from the above quote it is
>obvious that there is a connection between the Ring and its keeper
>even though the keeper does not wear the Ring, a connection that
>closing your fist around the Ring could well strengthen.
To enlarge only on this point, note Sam's two encounters with orcs
in 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol'
First:
His will was too weak and slow to restrain his hand. It dragged
at the chain and clutched the Ring. But Sam did not put it on;
for even as he clasped it to his breast, an orc came clattering
down. Leaping out of a dark opening at the right, it ran
towards him. It was no more than six paces from him when,
lifting its head, it saw him; and Sam could hear its gasping
breath and see the glare in its bloodshot eyes. It stopped short
aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit
trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape,
cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light
behind; in the one hand it held a sword, the very light of which
was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but
held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom.
This is quite unequivocally an instance of the Ring imparting some
sort of power to the holder when he's *not* wearing it.
The second incident is similar:
[Sam] sprang out to meet Shagrat with a shout. He was no longer
holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing
menace to the slaves of Mordor...
So the power of the Ringbearer *is* enhanced, at least in the
perception of others, even when he's not wearing it.
--
Mike Kew
"Then there was a bit of trouble, but not enough."
Michael Martinez
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>>In article <3679127D...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>>> and stated unequivocably that
>>>> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING.
>>>
>>>Where pray tell is this unequivocal statement?
>>
>>I've already cited this, on December 15 in the "Ringbearers" thread, Bill:
>>
>> "Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind:
>> in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical
>> or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been,
>> but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the
>> Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much
>
>Frodo did use the Ring, although unwittingly, in the Prancing Pony.
>After that incident he realised the Ring's 'intentions', its wanting
>to be used. Frodo's resisting using it does not equal him never using
>it; 'resist' has several slightly differing meanings, after all.
Frodo had worn the Ring on several occasions: at Bree, at Weathertop, at
the Ford of Bruinen, on Amon Hen. But wearing the Ring to become invisible
is not the same as *using* the Ring to control other creatures. He never
tried to master any other wills.
>>"...so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring" and "he
>>needed time...before he could control the Ring..." make it pretty clear
>>Frodo had not used the Ring and had no control over it.
>
>Having no control over the Ring does not equal not being able to use
>it. It can be argued that they are the same (which you are doing), but
>it is not certain. With the Ring striving to control its wearer (not
>at all unlike Sauron bent the vision of everyone using the Palantir
>except Aragorn's), it would seem that it would not be safe to wear the
>Ring and try to use it without control over it. One could presume, for
>example, that once control over the Ring has been gained, one could
>wear the Ring and not 'phase out' (become invisible). Also, there is
>the element of having the objective of destroying the Ring. On the
>Mount Doom, Frodo has pretty much given up that objective.
Well, if you'd like, I can quote Tolkien again.
"...He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or
(which in such a case is the same) before it could control him;
before his will and arrogance could grow to a stature that he
could dominate other major hostile wills...."
Same source. He couldn't control the Ring, and it didn't control him until
he gave in at Sammath Naur, so he couldn't dominate other wills, let alone
other major hostile wills.
To use the Ring for his own purposes, Frodo would have had to master it --
and yet Tolkien doesn't feel that Frodo ever mastered it. Quite the
opposite:
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love -- to save the world he
knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also
in complete humility, acknowledging that he was wholly
inadequate to the task. His real contract was only to do
what he could, to try to find a way, and to go as far on
the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He did
that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind
and will under demonic pressure after torment was any more
a *moral* failure than the breaking of his body would have
been -- say, by being strangled by Gollum, or crushed by
a falling rock."
Same source.
In a note earlier in the letter (#246, really only a draft) Tolkien writes:
"No account is here taken of 'grace' or the enhancement of our
powers as instruments of Providence. Frodo was given 'grace':
first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after
long resisting a complete surrender; and later in his
resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to
claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his
endurance of fear and suffering. But grace is not infinite,
and for the most part seems in the Divine economy limited to
what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task
appointed to one instrument in a pattern of circumstances
and other instruments."
He never attempted to claim the Ring until he stood at the very end of the
road. He was engaged in resisting its own will.
>>What we have is an unequivocable statement from Tolkien that Frodo did not
>>have control over the Ring, and an unequivocable statement from Tolkien
>>that Frodo had not attempted to USE the Ring.
>
>Unless there is another quote somewhere about this, no, we do not have
>an unequivocable statement that he had not attempted to use the Ring.
>He had resisted using it; slight difference, but it is there.
If not using the Ring is not an unequivocable statement, then what is? Try
equivocating with Tolkien's words rather than simply saying, "We do not
have an unequivocable statement". His will had been exercised in resisting
-- he had not exercised his will in using. He couldn't control it, and
therefore he couldn't use it.
>> "'Alas, it is not, *senya*. I cannot use it. I dread the pain
>> of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend
>
>At that time, the Ring still burned fearsomely hot, did it not? And
>isn't this the reason for him not being able to use it for what is
>asked as much as his lack of confidence in his will?
No. It was not still hot. Isildur wore it on a chain about his neck.
Something which burned him so badly when he first picked it up should have
burned him when he wore it about his neck. But in the note that Gandalf
found, Isildur wrote:
"It was hot when I first took it, hot as a glede, and my hand
was scorched, so that I doubt if ever again I shall be free of
the pain of it. Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth
to shrink, though it loseth none of its beauty nor its shape...."
He said he feared the pain of it -- and according to the story Isildur
cried out when he put the Ring on his finger. Yet we have two indications
that it is cooled by that time (which was more than a year after Sauron's
death anyway).
>> "'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die,
>> but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues,
>> until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses
>> the Ring to make himself invisible, he *fades*: he becomes in
>> the end invisible permanently...."
>> (From "The Shadow of the Past" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
>>
>>How does one use a Ring to make himself invisible? By wearing it -- on a
>>finger, if we must be so precise. Frodo was never invisible while wearing
>>the Ring on a chain, was he?
>
>No, he was not. However, it may as well be that you must wear the Ring
>only if you need to become invisible. And from the above quote it is
>obvious that there is a connection between the Ring and its keeper
>even though the keeper does not wear the Ring, a connection that
>closing your fist around the Ring could well strengthen.
No. The Ring cannot be used when its not worn. The Elven Rings had to be
worn to be used, and Sauron had to wear the One Ring in order to use it.
It therefore makes no sense to argue that anyone else could have made use
of the One while not wearing it.
Frodo's physical connection with the Ring was not enhanced in any way by
his clutching the Ring through his leather shirt. He was already in
contact with it underneath his shirt.
>>Of course, Frodo himself believed he had to be wearing the Ring in order to
>>use it:
>>
>>"...If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey...." is a pretty
>>telling statement. Frodo couldn't command Gollum without wearing the Ring.
>
>No, one does not follow the other...
It most certainly does.
>...From the above, we only know that Frodo could command Gollum wearing
>the Ring. This does not exclude the possibility that Frodo could command
>Gollum -- especially after some time has passed and Frodo's will has
>grown stronger, he has given up the objective to destroy the Ring and
>is holding the Ring inside his fist.
Frodo had not given up the objective of destroying the Ring when it spoke
to Gollum on Mount Doom. He did not give in to the Ring's will until the
very end, when he stood (alone, or so he thought) at Sammath Naur.
>> Tolkien said Frodo didn't use the Ring. Tolkien said Frodo hadn't
>>mastered the Ring.
>
>Tolkien said only what you have quoted. The above is your
>interpretation (although I agree with you in that Frodo had not yet
>mastered the Ring).
I am not interpreting anything. Interpretation is not a matter of
repeating what someone else has said. I have not tried to explain or
search for any deeper meaning behind Tolkien's words, nor have I tried to
translate them into another language.
>>So, again, we see why it was not Frodo speaking through the Ring --
>>according to Tolkien (not Martinez) Frodo was not wearing it, could not
>>command it, had made no attempt to use it -- and therefore Frodo could not
>>be speaking through it.
>
>Then again, Frodo was the Ring's keeper, had worn it in close
>proximity for a long time, had struggled with it for a long time and
>had reached the highest level of mastery over it anyone ever had bar
>Sauron, was giving up the idea of destroying it and thus very probably
>making it easier to master its will. Therefore -- Frodo spoke, the
>Ring providing him with the power to command (besides, wouldn't the
>Ring have sounded muffled, given that it was inside Frodo's shirt and
>his fist was closed around it? :)
No. The Ring spoke. Frodo spoke before and after the Ring, and the only
time when Frodo speaks with a clear and commanding voice is when Sam sees
him claim the Ring, and then Tolkien writes:
"Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear voice, indeed with a
voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use,
and it rose above the throb and turmoil of Mount Doom, ringing
in the roof and walls.
"'I have come,' he said. 'But I do not choose now to do what I
came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!'...."
Compare this with the two times Frodo spoke previously (during the
Ring-clutching incident):
"With a violent heave Sam rose up. At once he drew his sword; but
he could do nothing. Gollum and Frodo were locked together.
Gollum was tearing at his master, trying to get at the chain
and the Ring. This was probably the only thing that could have
roused the dying embers of Frodo's heart and will: an attack,
an attempt to wrest his treasure from him by force. He fought
back with a sudden fury that amazed Sam, and Gollum also. Even
so things might have gone far otherwise, if Gollum himself had
remained unchanged: but whatever dreadful paths, lonely and
hungry and waterless, he had trodden, driven by a devouring
desire and a terrible fear, they had left greivous marks on
him. He was a lean, starved, haggard thing, all bones and
tight-drawn sallow skin. A wild light flamed in his eyes,
but his malice was no longer matched by his old gripping
strength. Frodo flung him off and rose up quivering.
"'Down, down!' he gasped, clutching his hand to his breast,
so that beneath the cover of his leather shirt he clasped
the Ring. 'Down, you creeping thing, and out of my path!
Your time is at an end. You cannot betray me or slay me
now.'"
And:
"Frodo looked at Sam as if at one now far away. 'Yes, I must
go on,' he said. 'Farewell, Sam! This is the end at last.
On Mount Doom doom shall fall. Farewell!' He turned and
went on, walking slowly but erect, up the climbing path."
(From "Mount Doom")
Frodo doesn't speak with a clear and commanding voice. He is weak, only
barely roused by the attack from Gollum. He "gasps" his words to Gollum,
and just walks off from Sam.
>>Certainly no one has been able to cite even one passage which suggests
>>otherwise. Such a citation would have prevented this pointless bickering
>>and rendered all the semantic wriggling unnecessary in EVERYONE'S eyes a
>>long time ago. But no such passage exists.
>>
>>That's the point.
>
>Maybe a part of the point, not all of it. The quotes you provide are
>not conclusive, and your interpretation of them seems rather forced in
>places.
Again, there is no interpretation. I have refrained from interpretation
primarily because of these groundless allegations of interpretation.
Michael Martinez
>sort of power to the holder when he's *not* wearing it.
But Sam is not making use of the Ring's power. You've only shown how the
Ring acts on its own, or simply by its nature enhances the fear of other
creatures. Tolkien in fact stated that the Rings could work while not
being worn (his statement concerns the Three Rings working in the Second
Age after the War of the Elves and Sauron). He just doesn't say they can
be USED without being worn (and in fact he says Frodo has not exercised his
will in using the Ring).
Michael Martinez
>In article <75c8n8$udb$3...@camel15.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
>(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>>In article <K+t31pAc...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Mike Kew
><Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>This is quite unequivocally an instance of the Ring imparting some
>>>sort of power to the holder when he's *not* wearing it.
>>
>>But Sam is not making use of the Ring's power. You've only shown how the
>>Ring acts on its own, or simply by its nature enhances the fear of other
>>creatures. Tolkien in fact stated that the Rings could work while not
>>being worn (his statement concerns the Three Rings working in the Second
>>Age after the War of the Elves and Sauron). He just doesn't say they can
>>be USED without being worn (and in fact he says Frodo has not exercised his
>>will in using the Ring).
>
>Why would the Ring _want_ to avoid an Orc? Wouldn't it be more likely
>that the Orc would try to use, and in so doing, draw the attention of
>Sauron? If that happened, the Ring would be reunited with its master,
>which is, after all, what it wants, right? Surely the Orc wouldn't have
>sufficient power of will to keep it for his own. If I were the ring, and
>wanted to let Sauron find me, I'd make myself known to that orc, and let
>him hand me over (voluntarily or not) to a Nazgul, and that would be
>that. Is there a reason it helped cloak Sam?
Does the text indicate that the Ring was helping Sam intentionally?
Perhaps one of the more telling passages is this paragraph from "The Tower
of Cirith Ungol" (RETURN OF THE KING):
"His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there,
only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount
Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his
burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps
of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew,
and it became more fell, untameable save by some mighty will.
As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but
hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged,
as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a
vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He
felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the
Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge
the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows.
Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason.
Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong,
Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the
darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched
to the overthrow of Barad-dur. Ad then all the clouds rolled
away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of
Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought
forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it
for his own, and all this could be."
As for the passage Mike Kew cited, here is the paragraph again (with the
following paragraph):
"His will was too weak and slow to restrain his hand. It
dragged at the chain and clutched the Ring. But Sam did not
put it on; for even as he clasped it to his breast, an orc
came clattering down. Leaping out of a dark opening at the
right, it ran towards him. It was no more than six paces
from him when, lifting its head, it saw him; and Sam could
hear its gasping breath and see the glare in its bloodshot
eyes. It stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a
small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it
saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming
against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a
sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other
was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless
menace of power and doom.
"For a moment the orc crouched, and then with a hideous yelp
of fear it turned and fled back as it had come. Never was
any dog more heartened when its enemy turned tail than Sam
at this unexpected flight. With a shout he gave chase."
The Ring clearly is acting on Sam's will: "His will was too weak and slow
to restrain his hand." I suppose someone will say, "But that is only YOUR
interpretation." Ah well. So the Ring is acting on its own in this
passage.
As for what the orc pereived, well, it had to cope with Sam in an Elven
cloak (which made him hard to see), wielding an Elven sword (which was
made to kill orcs and gave up a brilliant light when orcs were near), and
clutching a "nameless menace of power and doom". Maybe the Ring didn't
need to do anything at all. As Sam entered Mordor, it changed (according
to the earlier passage) and increased in power.
Aaron Pound
> Tolkien attributed the voice to the Ring and stated unequivocably that
> Frodo HAD NOT USED THE RING and COULD NOT USE THE RING. And yet you
> persist in your efforts to persuade one and all that there is valid reason
> to doubt that the voice belonged to the Ring. What is the valid reason
> that Tolkien overlooked?
I'm confused in the debate here. Are we arguing whether Frodo put on
the ring at Mount Doom or whether he caused the ring to speak to Gollum
and pronounce his destiny to die in the fires of the mountain if he
touched the ring again?
I think it's clear Frodo wore the ring. Whether he was capable of
mastering I think is very doubtful.
Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
Michael Martinez
>(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>{snip}
>>As for what the orc pereived, well, it had to cope with Sam in an Elven
>>cloak (which made him hard to see), wielding an Elven sword (which was
>>made to kill orcs and gave up a brilliant light when orcs were near), and
>>clutching a "nameless menace of power and doom". Maybe the Ring didn't
>>need to do anything at all. As Sam entered Mordor, it changed (according
>>to the earlier passage) and increased in power.
>
>involved here. The cape and the "sword" probably contributed more than
>the Ring. Thanks. Even the bit about a "GREAT silent shape" could be
>explained by the angle of the light and/or trick of the shadows.
Well, just to lend myself to a little interpretation, we can also infer
that his emotional state was a bit rattled. He was one of only a few
survivors of what had just been a massive battle between two orc companies.
Any effect of the Ring in terms of projecting fear could have heightened
his reaction.