Elrond remaining in Rivendell
Christopher Kreuzer
of Healing' and when Aragorn assesses the hurts done to Faramir, Eowyn
and Merry, he says "Would that Elrond were here, for he is the eldest
of all our race, and has the greater power."
My question, obvious from the subject line, is why did Elrond stay in
Rivendell and send forth his sons (or rather, they went forth
themselves, "desiring to go to the war"), but not come forth himself?
Was the idea to stay and protect Arwen his daughter? In 'The Last
Debate', Elrohir says (in response to Gandalf's and Aragorn's speeches
setting forth what needs to be done): "From the North we came with
this purpose, and from Elrond our father we brought this very counsel.
We will not turn back." And in the chapter 'The Passing of the Grey
Company', Elrohir says "I bring word to you from my father", all
indicative of Elrond remaining engaged with the struggle, but not
actively taking part himself.
This is in contrast to Elrond's actions during the time of the Last
Alliance, when he was "the herald of Gil-Galad and marched with his
host" (from 'The Council of Elrond'). Maybe, though, the answer comes
in what Elrond says later in that chapter: "Never again shall there be
any such league of Elves and Men; for Men multiply and the Firstborn
decrease, and the two kindreds are estranged."
But is that just a weak excuse or a valid reason for Legolas to be the
only representatives of Elves to take part in the battles down south
in Gondor? Would the presence of Elrond have unbalanced things in
terms of the story Tolkien was trying to tell? Elves did fight, as we
see when we hear later of the battles in Lothlorien and Mirkwood, led
by Thranduil and Celeborn, but it seems only in defence of their own
lands or retaking land that was once theirs?
The same goes for Glorfindel. Gandalf says (when the Fellowship are
named, in 'The Rings Goes South') that Glorfindel "could not storm the
Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in
him", but surely he would have been among those that Gandalf said (in
'The Last Debate') are "worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights
apiece". Furthermore, as Gandalf said to Frodo in 'Many Meetings':
"you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side: one of the
mighty of the Firstborn. He is an Elf-lord of a house of princes.
Indeed, there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of
Mordor, for a while".
Does the fact that Elrond carried Vilya, mightiest of the Three Rings,
influence the reasons for him staying in Rivendell? Picture the scene
before the Black Gate of Mordor in the chapter 'The Field of
Cormallen', where "all about the hills the hosts of Mordor raged".
Gandalf is there "white and cold, and no shadow fell on him". Aragorn
is there "silent and stern, as one lost in thought of things long past
or far away; but his eyes gleamed like stars that shine the brighter
as the night deepens". So why not have Elrond and Glorfindel there,
doing their bit to keep Sauron distracted as long as possible? I was
going to put Galadriel there as well, but that seemed a step too far!
I suppose it does all come down to the Elves fading and passing away,
and Men (and Hobbits) being the ones to usher in the new age (with a
little bit of help and advice from Gandalf), but it does seem a little
bit forced. Boromir would certainly have demanded everyone be there
who could, but Gandalf is guiding Men into this new age, not the
Elves. And the whole story arc sees Aragorn grow into his kingship,
and Men and Hobbits defeat the Dark Lord, and the Dominion of Men
begins. So I suppose having Elves there would spoil that symbolism.
But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond? Are we
to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
fight in Rivendell?
Christopher
Michael Cole
[SNIP]
> But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
> couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond? Are we
> to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
> fight in Rivendell?
whippersnappers have a go.
--
Michael Cole
sean_q
> But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
> couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond?
> Are we
> to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
> fight in Rivendell?
Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords
in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor.
We might now hope to return [presumably to Rivendell] from
the victory here only to ruin and ash.
Earlier on, Elrond admits that if worse comes to worst he hasn't
the means to resist Sauron:
What power still remains lies with us, here in Imladris, or with
Cirdan at the Havens, or in Lórien. But have they the strength,
have we here the strength to withstand the Enemy, the coming
of Sauron at the last, when all else is overthrown?"
"I have not the strength," said Elrond; "neither have they."
And with his sons gone to war in the South, Elrond would have
even less. But *someone* had to stay in Rivendell to defend
the place... and Arwen.
SQ
Stan Brown
>
> on 10/09/2011, Christopher Kreuzer supposed :
>
> > couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond? Are we
> > to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
> > fight in Rivendell?
>
> Maybe just old age. They've already had their turn - let the young
> whippersnappers have a go.
My opinion, FWIW, is that Elrond needed to stay in Rivendell and keep
some fighters with him because he had no way to know Rivendell would
not be attacked by Orcs and trolls from the north and the Misty
Mountains. L�rien actually was attacked, so I think hindsight shows
it was prudent to plan for the defense of Rivendell.
Another reason, I think, is that the war against Sauron was really
not the Elves' affair. The Dominion of Men was coming, and they knew
it. Yes, Elrond and Galadriel offered help and counsel, but they
fought only defensively. It was Men who left their homes to fight
Sauron, and Gondor bore the brunt of his attacks. (L�rien was the
exception, I know.) Elrond sent his sons, but technically they were
half-Elven, and they also recognized a family connection with Aragorn
so they may even have persuaded him to let them go to the war.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
sean_q
>> But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
>> couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond?
>>
>> to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
>> fight in Rivendell?
Among many cares he [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous
state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron
was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough,
to attack Rivendell. [LoTR, Appendix A]
I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
particular time (circa 2941 TA). Perhaps as a preemptive strike
to divide his enemies (ie, to ensure that the Last Alliance was
truly the last) and to eliminate the Rangers, especially Aragorn
who, although only 10 years old at the time was still a candidate
for uniting the Free People against him.
However, the War of the Ring happened 77 years later and the DL's
priorities had shifted after he learned of the Ring being found.
So of course eventually the DL would have moved on Rivendell after
the setback at Bruinen if he thought the Ring was still kept there,
but once it moved South his attention naturally went with it.
SQ
Stan Brown
> I forgot to mention this part:
>
> Among many cares he [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous
> state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron
> was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough,
> to attack Rivendell. [LoTR, Appendix A]
>
> I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
> particular time (circa 2941 TA).
I don't think that's what the passage says. Gandalf knew that Sauron
intended to attack Rivendell at some unspecified later date, when
Sauron felt strong enough.
That's how I read it anyway.
sean_q
>> I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
>> particular time (circa 2941 TA).
> I don't think that's what the passage says. Gandalf knew that Sauron
> intended to attack Rivendell at some unspecified later date, when
> Sauron felt strong enough.
(c. 2941 TA) was planning to attack Elrond ASAP.
We knew that Sauron targeted Aragorn specifically:
But he was called Estel, that is "Hope", and his true name and
lineage were kept secret at the bidding of Elrond; for the Wise
then knew that the Enemy was seeking to discover the Heir of
Isildur, if any remained upon earth.
Apparently by the time Aragorn meets the Hobbits in Bree the secret
is already out:
"I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to
study you first, and make sure of you. The Enemy has set traps
for me before now."
I'm more certain about it by now. As you pointed out recently,
the Elves defended themselves but were less aggressive than Men
in going on the offensive. Rivendell was an important operational
base for the Dunedain in the North, and destroying (or even
investing) it would have hurt them badly. A heavy stroke, possibly
a decisive one in Sauron's favor:
But Ivorwen, his wife, who was also foresighted, answered:
"The more need of haste! The days are darkening before the storm,
and great things are to come. If these two [Aragorn's parents]
wed now, hope may be born for our people; but if they delay,
it will not come while this age lasts."
SQ
David Bent
know there was any descendant of Isildur until that point.
"To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I
deem; for he knew it not till now." Return of the King
So it appears that Sauron couldn't have targeted Aragorn specifically as
he didn't know he existed.
D. Marrold Bent
Steve Morrison
> On 9/11/2011 6:38 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
>>> particular time (circa 2941 TA).
>
>> I don't think that's what the passage says. Gandalf knew that Sauron
>> intended to attack Rivendell at some unspecified later date, when
>> Sauron felt strong enough.
>
> To clarify: I'm not certain why the DL at that particular time
> (c. 2941 TA) was planning to attack Elrond ASAP.
>
> We knew that Sauron targeted Aragorn specifically:
>
> But he was called Estel, that is "Hope", and his true name and
> lineage were kept secret at the bidding of Elrond; for the Wise
> then knew that the Enemy was seeking to discover the Heir of
> Isildur, if any remained upon earth.
>
> Apparently by the time Aragorn meets the Hobbits in Bree the secret
> is already out:
>
> "I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to
> study you first, and make sure of you. The Enemy has set traps
> for me before now."
That seems hard to reconcile with what Aragorn said after using
the Palant�r:
He drew a deep breath. �It was a bitter struggle, and the
weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the
end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will
find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he
saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will
aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know
that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I
deem; for he knew it not till now. The eyes in Orthanc did not
see through the armour of Th�oden; but Sauron has not forgotten
Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his
great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed;
for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty
yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him.�
Although if "he knew it not till now", why did he set traps for
Aragorn? Simply because he was the leader of the D�nedain?
sean_q
> Aragorn after he takes control of the palantir says that Sauron didn't
> know there was any descendant of Isildur until that point.
>
> "To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I
> deem; for he knew it not till now." Return of the King
>
> So it appears that Sauron couldn't have targeted Aragorn specifically as
> he didn't know he existed.
SQ
Chris Hoelscher
"sean_q" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message
news:XW8bq.6038$Rq3....@newsfe13.iad...
knowing who he was ... Would not Sauron (or an agent thereof) gotten reports
of ANY man or elf who has harrassing the bad guys and tried to waylay him?
would even knowng his true name have revealed his ancestry ?
sean_q
> The Enemy may have indeed set traps for Thorongil<sp?> without in fact
> knowing who he was ...
a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
Not his favorite kind of people, being descended from the Faithful
who had opposed his voice in King Ar-Pharazon's ear and then
a real nuisance all through the TA.
He re-entered Mordor, and hid there for a time in silence.
But his anger was great when he learned that Elendil whom he
most hated, had escaped him, and was now ordering a realm
upon his borders.
Not only that, this Strider had escorted the 4 hobbits including
the Ring-bearer from Bree to Rivendell and helped fend off
5 of his Wraiths. Who was this joker, anyway? Surely Sauron
would have wondered, besides being seriously annoyed at the guy.
SQ
sean_q
> But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
> couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond?
Because he ruled rather according to the wisdom that Denethor spoke:
from the rear, driving his forces in a mood for battle on before.
He would not come save only to triumph over the Enemy when all was won.
He used others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise.
SQ
Clams Canino
"sean_q" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message news:Nshbq.30178$qy6....@newsfe07.iad...
> Because he ruled rather according to the wisdom that Denethor spoke:
> from the rear, driving his forces in a mood for battle on before.
>
> He would not come save only to triumph over the Enemy when all was won.
> He used others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise.
Theoden showed us what happens when the King is put into play.
-W
tenworld
> On 9/9/2011 4:43 PM, Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> > But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
> > couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond?
>
Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could. But besides
needing to defend Rivendale, I think Elrond knew that Men must win
this round with minimal help. Didnt he tell Aragon he could wed Arwen
only if he reclaimed the throne of Gondor? More than one marriage
has failed when the in-laws do too much meddling.
Stan Brown
> I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider" was
> a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the line of Elendil -- had not
perished with Arvedui, last King of Arthedain?
Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador, or
west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at world
domination, I would make it my business to have an extensive spy
network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems to have neglected
intelligence gathering almost completely. And it can't be because he
was relying on Saruman, for their alliance (or Saruman's subjection)
was comparatively recent.
Michael Ikeda
news:MPG.28d85c768...@news.individual.net:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0800, sean_q wrote:
>> I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider"
>> was a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in
>> exile).
>
> *Did* he? Did Sauron have any certain knowledge that the last
> of the Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the line of Elendil
> -- had not perished with Arvedui, last King of Arthedain?
Arvedui. However, I also suspect that he thought that the Rangers
were of Numenorean descent.
>
> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in
> Eriador, or west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were
> aiming at world domination, I would make it my business to have
> an extensive spy network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems
> to have neglected intelligence gathering almost completely. And
> it can't be because he was relying on Saruman, for their
> alliance (or Saruman's subjection) was comparatively recent.
>
bother with spies when I can SEE everything of importance myself?".
Christopher Kreuzer
the Appendices (Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). The bit about Elrond
bemoaning the fact that Isildur didn''t destroy the One Ring, was that
something over-emphasised or made-up for the Jackson films? I can't
remember off the top of my head, but I think the discussion goes
something like: (a) In the book, Elrond says Isildur should have cast
it into Orodruin; (b) But Elrond is silent on whether this is
something that Isildur should be censured for; (c) This becomes, in
the film, distorted in an Elrond that bears a grudge against Men. Or
something. As I said, I may be mis-remembering this.
Christopher
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador, or
> west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at world
> domination, I would make it my business to have an extensive spy
> network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems to have neglected
> intelligence gathering almost completely. And it can't be because he
> was relying on Saruman, for their alliance (or Saruman's subjection)
> was comparatively recent.
in the 'The Hunt for the Ring' section, but this is (more than usual)
a jumble of various drafts and planned storylines. Not sure how much
use that is. If you do accept it as admissible, that seems to indicate
what the Nazgul knew and didn't know, and they seem to have been
largely relying on Gollum's descriptions and such local spies and
knowledge as they could gather. I wonder if the Nazgul had clear
memories of these lands that they had visited many years before
(really, many, many years!).
Christopher
Christopher Kreuzer
> "sean_q" <no.s...@no.spam> wrote in messagenews:Nshbq.30178$qy6....@newsfe07.iad...
> > from the rear, driving his forces in a mood for battle on before.
>
> > He would not come save only to triumph over the Enemy when all was won.
> > He used others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise.
>
> Twas my take as well.
> Theoden showed us what happens when the King is put into play.
look what happened to Gil-galad. Cirdan as well was at the Battle of
the last Alliance when they marched in Mordor and laid siege to Barad-
dur. That conflict lasted years. This was a different sort of battle,
one trusting to stealth and secrecy, not might of arms (except to
distract). Cirdan stayed at the Havens. Elrond stayed in Rivendell.
Galadriel stayed in Lothlorien. It all makes sense. And Bilbo was in
Rivendell as well as Arwen. And as for Aragorn wishing that Elrond
could have been there to help him in the Houses of Healing, turned out
he didn't need help. Gandalf was roaming free with Narya, but that
Ring gave hope while the others of the Three Rings were used to
maintain and defend and prevent decay (though that didn't prevent the
Elves embarking on the Last Alliance).
Christopher
sean_q
>> I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider" was
>> a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
>
I don't know what Sauron knew for certain. Just hints and clues.
We know that "Dunadan" means "Numenorean" from Bilbo:
"_The_ Dúnadan," said Bilbo. "He is often called that here.
But I thought you knew enough Elvish at least to know dún-udan:
Man of the West, Númenorean.
However, not all of the Dunedain were necessarily Elendil's descendants.
And, possibly, not all of them were (or descended from) the Faithful,
either. During the 2nd Age the Numenorean kings built outposts in ME:
Moreover, after Minastir the Kings became greedy of wealth and power.
At first the Númenoreans had come to Middle-earth as teachers and
friends of lesser Men afflicted by Sauron; but now their havens
became fortresses, holding wide coast-lands in subjection. Atanamir
and his successors levied heavy tribute, and the ships of
the Númenoreans returned laden with spoil.
So I suppose that when Numenor sank some of Ar-Pharazon's men
(ie, not of the Faithful) happened to be on garrison or tribute
collection duty etc in Middle Earth and escaped the deluge.
For want of a better term I'll call them "Loyalists".
Some of the Faithful were also in ME. For instance the Chronology
in LotR Appendix B says:
2350 SA - Pelargir is built. It becomes the chief haven of
the Faithful Númenoreans.
Meanwhile, other Faithful were in Numenor itself (mainly in the west)
and managed to escape by ship when the island submerged.
I'm not clear on what happened to the Loyalists. With their Head of
State and island Homeland suddenly gone they were left with no one
to report to. Perhaps they pledged to Elendil, joining the Numenorean
realms in exile, Arnor and Gondor; at least, those who weren't tried
for war crimes. Perhaps others fled Elendil's realms to become
the Black Numenoreans.
Anyway, the point being that Sauron presumably knew all of the above.
Also I suppose he could distinguish between Numenoreans and
the "lesser men" of Middle Earth, having fought wars with them
during the Second Age. So when his spies and agents encountered
the Rangers I have to guess he knew who they were:
"...there are few left in Middle-earth like Aragorn son of Arathorn.
The race of the Kings from over the Sea is nearly at an end. It may
be that this War of the Ring will be their last adventure."
"Do you really mean that Strider is one of the people of the
old Kings?" said Frodo in wonder. "I thought they had all vanished
long ago. I thought he was only a Ranger."
"Only a Ranger!" cried Gandalf. "My dear Frodo, that is just what
the Rangers are: the last remnant in the North of the great people,
the Men of the West."
> ...that the last of the Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the line
about the Dunedain in the North but not that an heir of Isildur
was among them.
> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador, or
> west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at world
> domination, I would make it my business to have an extensive spy
> network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems to have neglected
> intelligence gathering almost completely. And it can't be because he
> was relying on Saruman, for their alliance (or Saruman's subjection)
> was comparatively recent.
"And there are some folk in Bree who are not to be trusted,"
he went on. "Bill Ferny, for instance. He has an evil name
in the Bree-land, and queer folk call at his house. You must
have noticed him among the company: a swarthy sneering fellow.
He was very close with one of the Southern strangers, and they
slipped out together just after your "accident". Not all of those
Southerners mean well; and as for Ferny, he would sell anything
to anybody; or make mischief for amusement."
"What will Ferny sell, and what has my accident got to do with him?"
said Frodo, still determined not to understand Strider's hints.
"News of you, of course," answered Strider. "An account of your
performance would be very interesting to certain people. After that
they would hardly need to be told your real name."
We know from the Tale of Years that Saruman began spying on Gandalf
as well as keeping agents in Bree and the Southfarthing around 2953.
However, the "certain people" mentioned above seem to be Sauron's:
"I do not know, but it seems clear to me that this is what
happened. Their Captain remained in secret away south of Bree,
while two rode ahead through the village, and four more invaded
the Shire. But when these were foiled in Bree and at Crickhollow,
they returned to their Captain with tidings, and so left
the Road unguarded for a while, except by their spies."
I suspect that some of the "dark things" in the following passage
are also in the DL's service:
"If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played
another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls
and bright swords do not stay.
You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom,
do you say? The North would have known them little but for us.
Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from
the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us.
What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be
in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if
the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?
"And yet less thanks have we than you. Travelers scowl at us,
and countrymen give us scornful names. "Strider" I am to one fat man
who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart
or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly."
SQ
tenworld
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0800, sean_q wrote:
> > I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider" was
> > a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
>
> *Did* he? Did Sauron have any certain knowledge that the last of the
> Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the line of Elendil -- had not
> perished with Arvedui, last King of Arthedain?
>
> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador, or
> west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at world
> domination, I would make it my business to have an extensive spy
> network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems to have neglected
> intelligence gathering almost completely. And it can't be because he
> was relying on Saruman, for their alliance (or Saruman's subjection)
> was comparatively recent.
>
had a lot of influence on the spies and he had his own agenda not
realizing he was already being controlled.
Paul S. Person
been so long since I read the book, that he may well have, and may
have done so exactly as you indicate.
The idea that Elrond holds a grudge against Aragorn is, as you note,
entirely PJ's. Just as the conditions for allowing the affianced pair
Aragorn and Arwen to wed cited are entirely JRRT's. The Elrond of the
film would /never/ have recognized their engagement, let alone allowed
the marriage to take place, had Arwen not turned. It is only when
faced with that fact that PJ's Elrond decides to give Aragorn a swift
kick in his hind end to see if he can be motivated to do something
worth while.
--
"I begin to miss Öjevind."
"I have missed him long since."
Jerry Friedman
> sean_q wrote:
> > On 9/11/2011 6:38 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
> >>> particular time (circa 2941 TA).
>
> >> I don't think that's what the passage says. Gandalf knew that Sauron
> >> intended to attack Rivendell at some unspecified later date, when
> >> Sauron felt strong enough.
>
> > To clarify: I'm not certain why the DL at that particular time
> > (c. 2941 TA) was planning to attack Elrond ASAP.
>
> > We knew that Sauron targeted Aragorn specifically:
>
> > But he was called Estel, that is "Hope", and his true name and
> > lineage were kept secret at the bidding of Elrond; for the Wise
> > then knew that the Enemy was seeking to discover the Heir of
> > Isildur, if any remained upon earth.
>
> > Apparently by the time Aragorn meets the Hobbits in Bree the secret
> > is already out:
>
> > "I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to
> > study you first, and make sure of you. The Enemy has set traps
> > for me before now."
>
> That seems hard to reconcile with what Aragorn said after using
>
> He drew a deep breath. It was a bitter struggle, and the
> weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the
> end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will
> find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he
> saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will
> aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know
> that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I
> deem; for he knew it not till now. The eyes in Orthanc did not
> Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his
> great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed;
> for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty
> yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him.
>
Maybe when Aragorn was fighting for Rohan and Gondor, or when Sauron
knew him only as someone who fought annoyingly well with Elladan and
Elrohir, or as a friend of Gandalf.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0800, sean_q wrote:
> > I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider" was
> > a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
>
> *Did* he? Did Sauron have any certain knowledge that the last of the
> Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the line of Elendil -- had not
> perished with Arvedui, last King of Arthedain?
>
> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador, or
> west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at world
> domination, I would make it my business to have an extensive spy
> network in enemy territory.
There's practically nobody west of the Misty Mountains and north of
Dunland. Spying on Elves and Dwarves seems difficult now that they've
learned not to trust Sauron, and spying on Bree and the Shire seems
pointless (until Sauron hears about it them from Gollum). He's got
Gondor and Rohan to worry about.
--
Jerry Friedman
sean_q
> I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word) that
> Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
Among other properties the Ring had incredibly strong mind-control
powers when matters came down to its self-preservation.
Isildur wrote, "But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing:
of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me,
though I buy it with great pain."
When Frodo was called upon to try melting it, "The gold looked very
fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour,
how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether
precious."
Frodo hadn't the strength of will to throw it even into his small fire.
Gandalf did have, but by his own admission even he, a powerful Wizard
would be mastered by the Ring's evil power before he could drop it
into the Crack of Doom, had he tried to wield it.
So no, I don't think Elrond held it against Isildur. Nor do I think
Elrond himself could have destroyed it either, if Gandalf speaks
the truth, and I think Elrond was wise enough to know it. Otherwise
he might have undertaken the Quest himself.
This wasn't just an plain old garden-variety magic ring; it had
the "best part of the strength that was native" to a powerful
and evil Maia, second only to Morgoth the Enemy.
For instance if I somehow bought Thor's hammer at a yard sale
in Oslo and tried using it to tap a picture-hanging tack
into the wall, I'd be lucky if the thing didn't demolish
the whole building. See _Farmer Giles of Ham_, where merely
brandishing a magic sword at a dragon was "quite enough"
to unleash its true power. Whereupon it delivered (or caused
the wielder to deliver) a crippling blow beyond his own
first intention.
How to neutralize such a magic token? It wasn't enough merely
to squirrel it away somewhere; Sauron was too powerful and
threatening even without the Ring on his hand.
Since it couldn't be destroyed by any strength of will, the Wise
had no choice but to rely on a long shot. A very long shot,
it seems, a fortuitous accident. However, the Wise, or at least
Gandalf, knew "There was more than one Power at work...
something else, beyond any design of the Ring-maker."
All they could do was give that other Power the best possible chance
to do its work. So they chose a "witless Hobbit", one with small
stature and therefore the one least vulnerable to corruption.
They knew even he would ultimately succumb. But it would be enough
if his free will took him only as far as the *Brink* of Doom before
claiming it as his own.
SQ
Michael Ikeda
news:Oy5cq.31703$qy6....@newsfe07.iad:
> On 9/12/2011 11:29 AM, tenworld wrote:
>
> > I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word)
> > that Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
>
> Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
> that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
>
of great strength of will might possibly HAVE been able to destroy
the Ring.
The Ring's hold over a person seems to grow stronger over time.
And Isildur had just acquired it.
Stan Brown
> On 9/12/2011 11:29 AM, tenworld wrote:
>
> > I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word) that
> > Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
>
> Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
> that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
person. Bilbo resisted for 50 years, though it was starting to gain
the ascendant. I can't accept that Isildur's will was obliterated in
a few hours (or less). He kept the Ring because he was proud and did
not want to be led by Elves.
derek
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:30:49 -0800, sean_q wrote:
> > On 9/12/2011 11:29 AM, tenworld wrote:
>
> > > I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word) that
> > > Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
>
> > Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
> > that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
>
> Oh, please. It takes time for the Ring to get its full hold over a
> person. Bilbo resisted for 50 years, though it was starting to gain
> the ascendant. I can't accept that Isildur's will was obliterated in
> a few hours (or less). He kept the Ring because he was proud and did
> not want to be led by Elves.
his cousin. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the Ring had
the power to prevent Isildur destroying it in the first few hours of
his possession. Bilbo "resisted", but he never once tried to destroy
it. Frodo tried - and failed (though admittedly he had it far longer
than Isildur).
Erik Trulsson
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:30:49 -0800, sean_q wrote:
>> On 9/12/2011 11:29 AM, tenworld wrote:
>>
>> > I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word) that
>> > Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
>>
>> Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
>> that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
> Oh, please. It takes time for the Ring to get its full hold over a
> person. Bilbo resisted for 50 years, though it was starting to gain
> the ascendant. I can't accept that Isildur's will was obliterated in
> a few hours (or less). He kept the Ring because he was proud and did
> not want to be led by Elves.
even said something to that effect). Bilbo found it lying on the ground.
Frodo was given it. Isildur as well as Smeagol/Gollum used violence to
take it from its previous owner (Sauron and Deagol respectively.)
Isildur's will may not have been obliterated quite that fast, but he
quickly found excuses for why he should not destroy the Ring.
First of all he possibly did not really believe that the Ring was as
dangerous as as it was. Secondly a natural reluctance to destroy a
precious work of art, which the Ring is. Thirdly a desire to take the Ring
as (partial) payment for the recent death of his father.
All of these (and quite possibly more, like not wanting to take orders from
the Elves) would have been encouraged and strengthened by the Ring.
Also remember how reluctant Sam was to hand back the Ring to Frodo after
having held it for only a brief time - and Sam was probably far more
difficult for the Ring to manipulate than Isildur would have been.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr...@student.uu.se
Christopher Kreuzer
over others in the chapter 'The Shadow of the Past'. That has at least
one of the references you were thinking of, where Gandalf is quite
explicit in saying that how one acquired the Ring influenced the end
result, though there may be other such passage elsewhere as well:
"Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the
end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."
This follows the famous 'Pity and Mercy' bit when Frodo wishes that
Bilbo had killed Gollum.
Christopher
Michael Ikeda
news:190b8d09-1d4a-4819...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.
com:
the influence of the Ring.
I do suspect that there was at least the possibility of choice at
that point--that someone else coming into possession of the Ring at
that time (or even perhaps Isildur if he had known that destroying
the Ring was also the only way to permanently destroy Sauron) might
have destroyed the Ring.
Stan Brown
[on ability to destroy or give away the Ring]
> even said something to that effect). Bilbo found it lying on the ground.
> Frodo was given it. Isildur as well as Smeagol/Gollum used violence to
> take it from its previous owner (Sauron and Deagol respectively.)
acquire it -- but that means he had murdered Déagol before ever
touching the Ring, after having just seen it for a few minutes. I
think that says a lot more about Gollum than it does about the Ring.
Unless you think the Ring chose Sméagol over Déagol? That seems
pretty far fetched to me. We understand that in some sense it was
always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that it
could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
Of course there's no indication Gollum ever tried to destroy the Ring
or get rid of it in any fashion. Apart from anything else, it was a
useful tool in catching food.
A new thought: Gandalf knew that Frodo could not destroy the Ring.
In Frodo's own home, in Book I Chapter 2, Frodo is unable to put the
ring into the hearth fire. When Gandalf sent Frodo to the Black Land
to throw the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom, the idea that Frodo
would ever have been able to destroy it was *really* nuts. I suspect
that Gandalf had planned all along to accompany Frodo, and if
necessary, to take the Ring by force and destroy it.
What do y'all think?
Clams Canino
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> Unless you think the Ring chose Sméagol over Déagol? That seems
> pretty far fetched to me. We understand that in some sense it was
> always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that it
> could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
It may have well picked up on Smeagol's flawed character.
-W
Paul S. Person
1) Get Frodo, plus Ring, really near to the Cracks of Doom (if that's
the wrong term, I apologize, but it has been a /long/ time since I
read the book -- perhaps too long).
2) Push him in.
It is, after all, the simplest plans that often work the best.
derek
> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > Unless you think the Ring chose Sm agol over D agol? That seems
> > always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that it
> > could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
>
> I'm not so sure. I think the Ring chose it's own ilk when possible.
> It may have well picked up on Smeagol's flawed character.
find a new "host", when it slipped off his finger for Bilbo to find.
It may not have been able to "choose its own ilk" there, but it knew
that Bilbo was the only creature around who might get it closer to
Sauron.
It did the same with Isildur - it may not have actually chosen
Isildur, but it would certainly have preferred Isildur to the others
present who might have taken it in hand - and yet when it came to it,
Isildur didn't advance its agenda, so it slipped off his finger at an
inopportune time (if you're Isildur - not so inopportune for the
Ring).
Taemon
> "I begin to miss Öjevind."
> "I have missed him long since."
T.
Stan Brown
> Gandalf's plan was
> another, and it had to do with his trust in Providence. He knew full well
> that if the Ring never came near the Cracks of Doom no miracle could have
> caused it to fall into the Fire, short of eg. Ulmo or Aulë grabbing it and
> dealing with it personally, sort of thing.
> If it came near the only place where it could be unmade, the chance of
> such a miracle would be present.
I think this is much more in the spirit of the book than what I
proposed. Thanks!
derek
Taemon
T.
Geza Giedke
> On Sep 16, 12:32 pm, "Clams Canino" <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> Unless you think the Ring chose Sm agol over D agol? That seems
>>> pretty far fetched to me. We understand that in some sense it was
>>> always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that it
>>> could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
>>
>> I'm not so sure. I think the Ring chose it's own ilk when possible.
>> It may have well picked up on Smeagol's flawed character.
>
> Yes. I think it chose Smeagol, but made a mistake, so it chose to
> find a new "host", when it slipped off his finger for Bilbo to find.
> It may not have been able to "choose its own ilk" there, but it knew
> that Bilbo was the only creature around who might get it closer to
> Sauron.
i very much doubt this: any Orc would have been better in this respect
(getting the Ring to Sauron). Recall that according to Gandalf "another
Power was at work there". Moreover,
I think the "choosing" part is much less active: the Ring clearly has
influence not only on its bearer (cf. Boromir, the Orc in the Tower of
Cirith Ungol, Grishnakh, Saruman) and I think the Smeagol/Deagol affair
just showed that Smeagol was much more open to the Ring's temptation
than Deagol - and hence the more promising target for the Ring.
> It did the same with Isildur - it may not have actually chosen
> Isildur, but it would certainly have preferred Isildur to the others
> present who might have taken it in hand - and yet when it came to it,
> Isildur didn't advance its agenda, so it slipped off his finger at an
> inopportune time (if you're Isildur - not so inopportune for the
> Ring).
certainly Isildur was the most promising target around at Orodruin after
Sauron's defeat. It is not so clear to me why the Ring did not stay with
him - he probably would have become a quite powerful Dark Lord himself
and might have saved the Ring a couple of boring centuries before Sauron
would be back to take over...
I somehow did not get the impression that the Ring was explicitly doing
Sauron's bidding but just advanced his own agenda of world domination.
(except that Isildur's end is an argument against that view - unless
already here "another Power" is at work, saving Isildur from a terrible
fate and laying the groundwork for Frodo's quest)
regards
Geza
--
Now come ye all,
who have courage and hope! My call harken
to flight, to freedom in far places!
Lays of Beleriand
Stan Brown
> derek schrieb am 17.09.2011 03:19:
> > It may not have been able to "choose its own ilk" there, but it knew
> > that Bilbo was the only creature around who might get it closer to
> > Sauron.
>
> i very much doubt this: any Orc would have been better in this respect
> (getting the Ring to Sauron). Recall that according to Gandalf "another
> Power was at work there".
"'What, just in time to meet Bilbo?' said Frodo. 'Wouldn't an Orc
have suited it better?'
"'It is no laughing matter,' said Gandalf. 'Not for you. It was the
strangest event in the whole history of the Ring so far: Bilbo's
arrival just at that time, and putting his hand on it, blindly, in
the dark.
"'There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying
to get back to its master. ...
"'Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of
the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also
were meant to have it. And that maybe an encouraging thought.'"
derek
derek
>
> > On Sep 16, 12:32 pm, "Clams Canino" <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> wrote:
> >> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> >>> Unless you think the Ring chose Sm agol over D agol? That seems
> >>> pretty far fetched to me. We understand that in some sense it was
> >>> always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that it
> >>> could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
>
> >> I'm not so sure. I think the Ring chose it's own ilk when possible.
> >> It may have well picked up on Smeagol's flawed character.
>
> > Yes. I think it chose Smeagol, but made a mistake, so it chose to
> > find a new "host", when it slipped off his finger for Bilbo to find.
> > It may not have been able to "choose its own ilk" there, but it knew
> > that Bilbo was the only creature around who might get it closer to
> > Sauron.
>
> i very much doubt this: any Orc would have been better in this respect
> (getting the Ring to Sauron). Recall that according to Gandalf "another
> Power was at work there". Moreover,
Of course it was, but do you doubt the Ring was trying to return to
its maker? If you do, there's no point in continuing the discussion
because we have no common ground to work from. If you don't, then you
have to wonder _why_ it didn't slip off Gollum's finger and have an
Orc find it. The simple fact would seem to be that an Orc was no more
likely to return it to Sauron than Gollum,. For two reasons: they
didn't like to leave their caves much more than Gollum did, and they
were _corrupt_ - they would want the Ring for their own, just as
Gollum did. Certainly "another power" is at work - that other power
is making sure it's _Bilbo_ who finds the Ring. Imagine what might
have happened if one of the Dwarves had been the one... But that
power is subtle - it places a character who is _able_ to make the trek
to return the Ring to Sauron, into a place where the Ring can find
him. It doesn't promise the Ring that it will be able to have its way
with that character.
> > It did the same with Isildur - it may not have actually chosen
> > Isildur, but it would certainly have preferred Isildur to the others
> > present who might have taken it in hand - and yet when it came to it,
> > Isildur didn't advance its agenda, so it slipped off his finger at an
> > inopportune time (if you're Isildur - not so inopportune for the
> > Ring).
Is that not exactly what I said about Gollum?
> I somehow did not get the impression that the Ring was explicitly doing
> Sauron's bidding
Absolutely not. The Ring has some limited sentience - I think that
much is obvious - but its "agenda" has nothing to do with Sauron's
bidding, it is merely an automaton with a limited number of goals, the
most important of which is to return to its rightful owner.
Geza Giedke
> On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, Geza Giedke <joed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> derek schrieb am 17.09.2011 03:19:
>>> Yes. I think it chose Smeagol, but made a mistake, so it chose to
>>> find a new "host", when it slipped off his finger for Bilbo to find.
>>> It may not have been able to "choose its own ilk" there, but it knew
>>> that Bilbo was the only creature around who might get it closer to
>>> Sauron.
>>
>> i very much doubt this: any Orc would have been better in this respect
>> (getting the Ring to Sauron). Recall that according to Gandalf "another
>> Power was at work there". Moreover,
>
> Of course it was, but do you doubt the Ring was trying to return to
> its maker? If you do, there's no point in continuing the discussion
> because we have no common ground to work from. If you don't, then you
little reason to doubt this; though I am not 100% convinced that it
wanted to be back to Sauron specifically or just any sufficiently
powerful owner - I always thought the Ring would have been fine with
Gandalf, Galadriel or Saruman as well.
> have to wonder _why_ it didn't slip off Gollum's finger and have an
> Orc find it.
make any use of Gollum anymore" Gandalf says somewhere). But getting
lost is not easy if you're somebody's precious so he took the first
chance he got; later, the Ring also tried to leave Bilbo (who warned
Frodo that it "needed looking after") but Bilbo was careful enough to
not lose it. The Ring could try to slip of and tempt people to take it
but it had no say in who found it, I think.
> The simple fact would seem to be that an Orc was no more
> likely to return it to Sauron than Gollum,. For two reasons: they
> didn't like to leave their caves much more than Gollum did, and they
> were _corrupt_ - they would want the Ring for their own, just as
> Gollum did.
quickly making its way to Sauron: some Orc or Troll chieftain setting
himself up as a Lord and ruling with the power of the Ring would have
caught Sauron's attention pretty quickly if he were not drawn to Mordor
before (Gollum was drawn there even without the Ring once Sauron had
risen again) I suspect none of the bad guys were strong and power-hungry
enough to have any chance against Sauron even with the Ring (maybe
Saruman, possibly the Balrog, Smaug - I doubt it).
> Certainly "another power" is at work - that other power
> is making sure it's _Bilbo_ who finds the Ring. Imagine what might
> have happened if one of the Dwarves had been the one... But that
> power is subtle - it places a character who is _able_ to make the trek
> to return the Ring to Sauron, into a place where the Ring can find
> him. It doesn't promise the Ring that it will be able to have its way
> with that character.
possibly the only person find it who is (by his lack of ambition, good
heart, and stubbornness) capable of keeping it safe and secret, giving
the Wise time to take counsel and come up with a plan.
The capability of _Bilbo_ to bring the Ring to Mordor is IMHO not part
of anybody's calculations (and its actually debatable whether he had the
capability at all...)
>>> It did the same with Isildur - it may not have actually chosen
>>> Isildur, but it would certainly have preferred Isildur to the others
>>> present who might have taken it in hand - and yet when it came to it,
>>> Isildur didn't advance its agenda, so it slipped off his finger at an
>>> inopportune time (if you're Isildur - not so inopportune for the
>>> Ring).
>
> Is that not exactly what I said about Gollum?
soon - before having exploited all the possibilities in dominating a
powerful Numenorean...
>> I somehow did not get the impression that the Ring was explicitly doing
>> Sauron's bidding
>
> Absolutely not. The Ring has some limited sentience - I think that
> much is obvious - but its "agenda" has nothing to do with Sauron's
> bidding, it is merely an automaton with a limited number of goals, the
> most important of which is to return to its rightful owner.
most powerful (and evil or corruptable) owner, with Sauron being the
best target at present; but I'm not sure if it would have slipped of
Saruman's finger (Gandalf or Galadriel when they hypothesize about
taking the Ring never mention that they'll lose it to Sauron but only
that they'd become evil themselves
Steve Morrison
> yes, I didn't question this; I was just wondering why it left Isildur so
> soon - before having exploited all the possibilities in dominating a
> powerful Numenorean...
fact given up on trying to use or even keep the Ring:
There was a pause, though the most keen-eyed among the Dúnedain
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 in 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.'
Of course, this contradicts Gandalf's statement that Bilbo was the
first to give up the One Ring of his own free will. Story-internally,
Gandalf would not have known the details of Isildur's final moments;
but all this depends on taking material in /UT/ as canonical.
sean_q
>> Surely, by the time of the War of the Ring, Elrond understood
>> that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
>
> Oh, please. It takes time for the Ring to get its full hold over a
> person.
Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work
on its keeper at once.
SQ
Morgoth's Curse
>sean_q wrote:
>> On 9/11/2011 6:38 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not certain why the DL planned to attack Elrond at that
>>>> particular time (circa 2941 TA).
>>
>>> I don't think that's what the passage says. Gandalf knew that Sauron
>>> intended to attack Rivendell at some unspecified later date, when
>>> Sauron felt strong enough.
>>
>> To clarify: I'm not certain why the DL at that particular time
>> (c. 2941 TA) was planning to attack Elrond ASAP.
>>
>> We knew that Sauron targeted Aragorn specifically:
>>
>> But he was called Estel, that is "Hope", and his true name and
>> lineage were kept secret at the bidding of Elrond; for the Wise
>> then knew that the Enemy was seeking to discover the Heir of
>> Isildur, if any remained upon earth.
>>
>> Apparently by the time Aragorn meets the Hobbits in Bree the secret
>> is already out:
>>
>> "I did not intend to tell you all about myself at once. I had to
>> study you first, and make sure of you. The Enemy has set traps
>> for me before now."
>
>That seems hard to reconcile with what Aragorn said after using
> He drew a deep breath. ‘It was a bitter struggle, and the
> weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the
> end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will
> find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he
> saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will
> aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know
> that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I
> deem; for he knew it not till now. The eyes in Orthanc did not
> great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed;
> for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty
> yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him.’
>
>Although if "he knew it not till now", why did he set traps for
My interpretation is that Sauron _feared_ that a heir of Elendil
existed (a fear that was quite valid as it provided a symbol for his
enemies to rally around), but did not have any _proof_ until Aragorn
showed him Narsil. Since the only the Heir of Isildur would possess
the shards of Narsil and wield it when it was reforged, this was
indeed a serious blow to his plans. That was why he struck so quickly
at Gondor--he had to destroy that realm before the heir of Isildur
arrived and men flocked to his banner as they had during the Last
Alliance.
It is crucial to recall that Sauron's primary strategy during the
Third Age was to divide and conquer--to sow distrust and discord
wherever and whenever possible. His failure to do so before he
attacked Elendil had cost him the Ring and he was determined not to
make that mistake again.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
<chrisk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 7:38 am, "Clams Canino" <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>> "sean_q" <no.s...@no.spam> wrote in messagenews:Nshbq.30178$qy6....@newsfe07.iad...
>> > Because he ruled rather according to the wisdom that Denethor spoke:
>> > from the rear, driving his forces in a mood for battle on before.
>>
>> > He would not come save only to triumph over the Enemy when all was won.
>> > He used others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise.
>>
>> Twas my take as well.
>> Theoden showed us what happens when the King is put into play.
>
>Still, Elrond did go forth before, as Gil-galad's herald. But yeah,
>look what happened to Gil-galad. Cirdan as well was at the Battle of
>the last Alliance when they marched in Mordor and laid siege to Barad-
>dur. That conflict lasted years. This was a different sort of battle,
>one trusting to stealth and secrecy, not might of arms (except to
>distract). Cirdan stayed at the Havens. Elrond stayed in Rivendell.
>Galadriel stayed in Lothlorien. It all makes sense. And Bilbo was in
>Rivendell as well as Arwen. And as for Aragorn wishing that Elrond
>could have been there to help him in the Houses of Healing, turned out
>he didn't need help. Gandalf was roaming free with Narya, but that
>Ring gave hope while the others of the Three Rings were used to
>maintain and defend and prevent decay (though that didn't prevent the
>Elves embarking on the Last Alliance).
It is possible that Elrond believed or at least suspected that
his presence would do more harm than good. With the singular
exception of Thrainduil and the Elves of Mirkwood, men and Elves had
not interacted for many centuries prior to the War of the Ring.
Remember that even in Gondor's loyal ally Rohan, men were glad when
the sons of Elrond had departed with the Grey Company to seek the
Paths of the Dead.
And some said: 'They are Elvish wights. Let them go where they
belong, into the dark places, and never return. The times are evil
enough."
["The Passing of the Grey Company"]
Last, but not least, we should recall that Elrond was fully aware
that Aragorn intended to claim the throne of Gondor. Elrond's
presence might very well prove more detrimental than beneficial:
Consider Denethor's hostility toward Gandalf which was based on the
surmise that Gandalf intended to supplant him with Aragorn. Elrond
had no authority to forbid Gandalf from participating in the war, of
course, but he could refrain from personally participating in the
politics of Gondor. The best that he could do to aid his foster son
was to send his own sons as well as protect Arwen.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
much Sauron's survival was connected to the existence of the Ring?
Remember that Elendil and Isildur believed that Sauron had perished
once when Numenor was destroyed and that the Elves tried to conceal
the existence of their rings as long as possible. Isildur may very
well have believed that the Ring was merely a weapon of war that
allowed Sauron to dominate his servants in which case simply taking it
from him was sufficient to render him powerless. It's interesting to
speculate on whether Elrond shared the full truth with Isildur--or
whether he even knew it himself. The Wise may not have known of the
true power of the Ring until long after it was lost.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>On Sep 12, 12:14 am, sean_q <no.s...@no.spam> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 4:43 PM, Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> > But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
>> > couldn't have come south to the wars with the sons of Elrond?
>
>I think Elrond still held a grudge (maybe not the right word) that
>Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
wore and used Vilya? If anything, Elrond understood Isildur's choice
better than anyone else in Middle-earth except perhaps Galadriel.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
<chrisk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But are there story-internal reasons why Elrond and Glorfindel
>to suppose that they had their own battles or potential battles to
>fight in Rivendell?
Apart from the question of why Elrond himself chose not to
participate, I think that sending Elrohir and Elladan was all of the
military assistance that he could provide without leaving Rivendell
defenseless. I would be very surprised if the total population of
Rivendell exceeded two thousand Elves at the time of the War of the
Ring. I doubt that Elrond could field more than a small company of
trained and armed warriors. As Boromir observed at the Council of
Elrond: "The might of Elrond is in wisdom not weapons, it is said."
Morgoth's Curse
tenworld
pain the next 3000 years by not destroying the ring (including the
death of Elrond's wife)
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>> Why would Elrond bear a grudge against Isildur when he himself
>> wore and used Vilya? If anything, Elrond understood Isildur's choice
>> better than anyone else in Middle-earth except perhaps Galadriel.
>>
>Vilya was not evil as the One Ring was, and Isildur caused a lot of
>pain the next 3000 years by not destroying the ring (including the
>death of Elrond's wife)
of the problem. They wanted the best of both worlds: To enjoy the
beauty of Middle-earth and the serenity of Valinor. That was how
Sauron snared them and why he had forged the Ruling Ring. The Elves
should have destroyed their Rings as soon as they became aware of
Sauron's purpose, but to do so would have been to renounce their
desire to live in Middle-earth. If they could not bring themselves to
destroy the Three, then how could Elrond blame Isildur for his failure
to destroy the Ruling Ring (which was much more powerful than the
Three.) Elrond was doubtless dismayed and indeed angered at first,
but as he wielded Vilya over the centuries he would have eventually
perceived that the destruction of the Ring (at least at the moment
that he claimed it) was too great a challenge for a man like Isildur.
That was precisely why the Wise eventually recognized that only a
person of lesser stature (so to speak) had a chance of destroying the
Ring. Otherwise Elrond or Gandalf or Galadriel would have considered
it their personal duty to bear it to the Crack of Doom.
Incidentally, Celebrian was only wounded and not slain. She
forsook Middle-Earth for Valinor in 2510 and was eventually reunited
with Elrond when he too departed from Middle-earth in 3021 or a mere
511 years later.
Morgoth's Curse
O. Sharp
> [...] The Elves
> Sauron's purpose, but to do so would have been to renounce their
> desire to live in Middle-earth. If they could not bring themselves to
> destroy the Three, then how could Elrond blame Isildur for his failure
> to destroy the Ruling Ring (which was much more powerful than the
I agree completely that - unlike the psychotic, bad-tempered Movie-Elrond
- the wise, descended-from-Man, related-by-blood-to-Elendil-and-Isildur
Book-Elrond bore no "grudge" against Isildur for his failure to destroy
the One. Yes, he thought it was a bad decision on Isildur's part, but it's
clear he wasn't scowling about Those Mannish Bastards for the next 3,000
years.
I am somewhat curious, though, about the statement that the Elves "could
not bring themselves to destroy the Three". Did they ever even consider
doing so? Would there even be a reason, in their eyes, to consider it?
The Three were never sullied by Sauron, and the Elves thought there was
even a possibility that destroying the One "would then [set the Three]
free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that [Sauron]
has wrought" (Elrond, at the Council). Did the Elves ever even consider
unmaking the Three? If so, is there a cite somewhere that I'm missing?
I'm all curious. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@panix.com I'm _certain_ there's no citation of Elrond's
scientific attempt to have his blood screened to remove
all the Mannish DNA from it. :)
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote, in part:
>> [...] The Elves
>> should have destroyed their Rings as soon as they became aware of
>> Sauron's purpose, but to do so would have been to renounce their
>> desire to live in Middle-earth. If they could not bring themselves to
>> destroy the Three, then how could Elrond blame Isildur for his failure
>> to destroy the Ruling Ring (which was much more powerful than the
>> Three.) [...]
>
>I agree completely that - unlike the psychotic, bad-tempered Movie-Elrond
>- the wise, descended-from-Man, related-by-blood-to-Elendil-and-Isildur
>Book-Elrond bore no "grudge" against Isildur for his failure to destroy
>the One. Yes, he thought it was a bad decision on Isildur's part, but it's
>clear he wasn't scowling about Those Mannish Bastards for the next 3,000
>years.
>
>I am somewhat curious, though, about the statement that the Elves "could
>not bring themselves to destroy the Three". Did they ever even consider
>doing so? Would there even be a reason, in their eyes, to consider it?
>The Three were never sullied by Sauron, and the Elves thought there was
>even a possibility that destroying the One "would then [set the Three]
>free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that [Sauron]
>has wrought" (Elrond, at the Council). Did the Elves ever even consider
>unmaking the Three? If so, is there a cite somewhere that I'm missing?
>I'm all curious. :)
Celeborn" in Unfinished Tales, it is related that:
Sauron himself departed from Eregion about the year 1500, after
the Mirdain had begun the making of the Rings of Power. Now
Celebrimbor was not corrupted in heart or faith, but had accepted
Sauron as what he had posed to be; and when at length he discovered
the existence of the One Ring he revolted against Sauron, and went to
Lorinand to take counsel once more with Galadriel. They should have
destroyed all of the Rings of Power at this time, 'but they failed to
find the strength.' Galadriel counselled him that the Three Rings of
the Elves should be hidden, never used and dispersed, far from Eregion
where Sauron believed them to be.
It is rather sad to reflect that with this decision Celebrimbor
effectively condemned nine men to thousands of years of slavery as the
Nazgul. Even if he could not bring himself to destroy the Three, he
should have at least destroyed the Nine and the Seven and deprived
Sauron of the additional power.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
>o...@panix.com I'm _certain_ there's no citation of Elrond's
> scientific attempt to have his blood screened to remove
> all the Mannish DNA from it. :)
did not hire you as a script consultant while filming the movies. ;-)
Morgoth's Curse
Stan Brown
> I am somewhat curious, though, about the statement that the Elves "could
> not bring themselves to destroy the Three". Did they ever even consider
> doing so? Would there even be a reason, in their eyes, to consider it?
> The Three were never sullied by Sauron, and the Elves thought there was
> even a possibility that destroying the One "would then [set the Three]
> free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that [Sauron]
> has wrought" (Elrond, at the Council). Did the Elves ever even consider
> unmaking the Three? If so, is there a cite somewhere that I'm missing?
> I'm all curious. :)
>
Three. They put them away as soon as they became aware of the One.
I'm not sure it was a good idea for them to keep the Three, though.
After all, what if Sauron had captured one or more of them. Even if
they were not originally evil, hey were subject to the One and I'm
sure he would have found a way to use them to evil effect. Imagine
the Anduin rising up and destroying Osgiliath and the townlands of
Minas Tirith, for instance.
In a letter somewhere, I believe Tolkien says that the Elves' motive
in making the three was to arrest the natural* order of change in
Middle-earth, and to that degree their motive was not good. I wonder
if the Three had a hold on the Elves to the extent that it didn't
occur to them to destroy them, just to make certain that Sauron could
never get hold of them.
Or perhaps they did *want to destroy them, but no longer possessed
the means to do so. Weren't Celebrimbor's forges destroyed?
Morgoth's Curse
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Or perhaps they did *want to destroy them, but no longer possessed
>the means to do so. Weren't Celebrimbor's forges destroyed?
(short of actually tossing one into the Cracks of Doom.)
Morgoth's Curse
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
wrote:
>
> >Or perhaps they did *want to destroy them, but no longer possessed
> >the means to do so. Weren't Celebrimbor's forges destroyed?
>
> I suspect that only Celebrimbor knew how to destroy the rings
> (short of actually tossing one into the Cracks of Doom.)
the first 1.5 millennia of the Third Age, when Mordor was basically
empty and secured by Gondorian strongholds.
Noel
Morgoth's Curse
unwillingness of the elves to surrender their treasures: Pride that
was not all that different from Isildur's pride.
Morgoth's Curse
Stan Brown
the third as well. In those days, could the Elves have foretold that
Sauron would rise again, and if so would they have destroyed the
Three against such a possibility? I don't know about the first, but
I seriously doubt the second.
Troels Forchhammer
sean_q <no....@no.spam> spoke these staves:
>
> On 9/12/2011 3:14 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:09:45 -0800, sean_q wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the DL at least knew (from his spies) that "Strider" was
>>> a Ranger, ie one of those pesky Dunedain (Numenoreans in exile).
>>
>> *Did* he? Did Sauron have any certain knowledge...
>
> I don't know what Sauron knew for certain. Just hints and clues.
We do not know for certain -- neither what Sauron certainly know nor
what he guessed ;-)
It is, however, in my opinion a reasonable guess that Sauron knew
/about/ this "Strider" character -- knowing that he was one of the
leaders of the Rangers and also (of this I am far more confident)
that the Rangers were the remnants of the Dúnedain of the North
Kingdom. It is also, in my view, /likely/ that Sauron was uncertain
about the fate of the line of Elendil, but that he knew that it had
survived until the death of Arathorn II or thereabouts (let's not
quibble too much about the exact point -- I'd say he lost track of
them at some point after Arathorn I, most likely, IMO, after the
death of Arathorn II). It is, however (and still in my estimate),
unlikely that Sauron guessed that this Strider was of the line of
Elendil.
<snip>
>> ...that the last of the Dúnedain -- or at least the last of the
>> line of Elendil -- had not perished with Arvedui, last King of
>> Arthedain?
>
> He knew that the Royal Line had ended in the South. And must have
> known about the Dunedain in the North but not that an heir of
> Isildur was among them.
I believe that Sauron knew that the line of Elendil had survived in
the North long after the death of Arvedui. The whole line of
chieftains made no secret of their heritage in the naming of all the
kings, since they all contain the ar- element used by the royal
family since Argeleb I who took the throne of Arthedain in 1349 in
token of their claim to the throne of all Arnor.
If anything it would be the absence of any clear leader using a name
beginning with Ar- that would confuse Sauron, and this appears to
have happened only with the death of Arathorn (and Aragorn's use of
various other names in all his dealing with outsiders).
>> Sauron seems remarkably ill informed about the doings in Eriador,
>> or west of the Misty Mountains generally. If I were aiming at
>> world domination, I would make it my business to have an
>> extensive spy network in enemy territory. But Sauron seems to
>> have neglected intelligence gathering almost completely. And it
>> can't be because he was relying on Saruman, for their alliance
>> (or Saruman's subjection) was comparatively recent.
The history of the chieftains of the Rangers show also a history of
fighting against Sauron's spies. Though not quite so obvious as east
of the Misty Mountains, it seems clear to me that Eriador was
nonetheless also watched. Sauron's agents, however, would mostly
have been quite obvious -- you can't hope to hide an orc in Bree, for
instance, and so they may not have had a chance to get close to any
of the Rangers and learn what name this "Strider" was using among his
own people.
> He seems to have agents in Bree at any rate:
Most of the agents here were, if I recall correctly, originally
agents of Saruman who were turned to Sauron's use by their fear of
the Nazgűl. 'The Hunt for the Ring' contains, if memory serves, an
account of how the Ringwraiths caught the Southerner that leaves the
Prancing Pony together with Bill Ferny already before he reached Bree
and found that he was one of Saruman's agents. They then turned him
to their own service.
<snip quotation>
> We know from the Tale of Years that Saruman began spying on
> Gandalf as well as keeping agents in Bree and the Southfarthing
> around 2953. However, the "certain people" mentioned above seem to
> be Sauron's:
Indeed, but this is /after/ the Ringwraiths came north in search of
the One Ring in the summer of 3018. I know of no evidence that
Sauron employed Men as spies for him in Eriador before that point.
> I suspect that some of the "dark things" in the following passage
> are also in the DL's service:
Indeed.
> "If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played
> another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls
> and bright swords do not stay.
And surely some of these evil things are more than that -- I think it
is well nigh certain that some of them were also in the direct employ
of Sauron and thus served as his spies.
> "Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of
> foes that would freeze his heart or lay his little town in ruin,
> if he were not guarded ceaselessly."
Except for the "lay his little town in ruin" I would have said that
this surely must refer to the wights of the barrows, but this would
be the only indication of aggressive (outside their own territory of
the Barrow Downs) plans of the wights. It could, I suppose, still
refer to the wights, but I am by no means sure about it -- for all I
know, it could refer to something else entirely. (Of course the
wights were also in the service of Angmar and through him of Sauron,
but as far as we know, there was no communication between the wights
and any other agents of Sauron until the Witch-king came to the
Downs.)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:30:49 -0800, sean_q wrote:
>>
>> On 9/12/2011 11:29 AM, tenworld wrote:
>>>
>>> that Aragon's ancestor did not destroy the ring when he could.
>>
>> that Isildur had no choice in the matter.
>
> Oh, please. It takes time for the Ring to get its full hold over
> a person. Bilbo resisted for 50 years, though it was starting to
> gain the ascendant. I can't accept that Isildur's will was
> obliterated in a few hours (or less). He kept the Ring because he
> was proud and did not want to be led by Elves.
on this . . . (searching -- yes, found it! -- 'a while back' in this
case means 7 years ago, buy hey! ;-)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.books.tolkien/W5kqKpWARv8/hb2qrOzSvj0J>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/6356wc7>
The URL should take you to the top of that particular part of the
thread -- incidentally the thread inevitably veered to the question
of whether the Master Ring was sapient ;-)
The point here is that the Ring /did/ have an immediate, or almost
immediate, effect on Bilbo -- fast enough that we may presume that
something similar happened to Isildur. In 'The Shadow of the Past'
Gandalf explains
I wondered often how Gollum came by a Great Ring, as
plainly it was - that at least was clear from the first.
Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had 'won' it,
and I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth
out of him, I saw at once that he had been trying to put
his claim to the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with
his 'birthday present'. The lies were too much alike for
my comfort. /Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power that
set to work on its keeper at once/.
(LotR, I,2 - emphasis added)
Larry, I can see, argued that I interpreted the 'at once' too
literally, but I don't see why we should bother overmuch that
Gandalf's empirical evidence refers to a few hours, when we can see
Isildur acting in a very similar manner after merely a few minutes
of possession (though he is rather more clever about it and makes a
claim that doesn't involve a lie as such).
I will maintain my claim about the effects the Ring has for making
its new bearer wish to put their claim to it beyond doubt, and for
making it impossible for anyone except with a very strong will to
destroy it; these effects are, in my opinion, effective immediately
on (or within minutes of) taking possession of the Ring, while other
effects appear only gradually.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
sean_q
> I remember having a longish conversation a while back that touched
> on this . . . (searching -- yes, found it! -- 'a while back' in this
> case means 7 years ago, buy hey! ;-)
>
And I took part in that conversation. Reading the comments I made
they seem like yesterday -- and it's been SEVEN years? Tempus fugit.
So *now* can I marry Rachel?
SQ
Troels Forchhammer
>
> they seem like yesterday -- and it's been SEVEN years? Tempus fugit.
And because I am a very curious guy (I'm allowed to -- it says so on my
certificate: "when you're educated as an experimental physicists you
are allowed to be more curious than others" -- true!), and since there
is no "sean_q" in that discussion, would you mind telling us what nom
de plume you were using at the time?
--
Troels Forchhammer
In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192
Troels Forchhammer
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:12:03 +0000 (UTC), Erik Trulsson wrote:
>>
> [on ability to destroy or give away the Ring]
And perhaps more generally on the way possession, and the taking of
it, of the Master Ring influences the actions and choices of the
bearer . . .
>> It seems to depend in part on how you acquired the Ring (and I
>> thnk Gandalf even said something to that effect). Bilbo found it
>> lying on the ground. Frodo was given it. Isildur as well as
>> Smeagol/Gollum used violence to take it from its previous owner
>> (Sauron and Deagol respectively.)
>
> I think Gollum goes against your argument. Yes, he used violence
> to acquire it -- but that means he had murdered Déagol before ever
> touching the Ring, after having just seen it for a few minutes. I
> think that says a lot more about Gollum than it does about the
> Ring.
I, on the other hand, think it says something significant about both
;-)
Sméagol, though already a 'mean sort of thief' before Déagol ever
came across the Ring, would not have killed his friend for any old
gold ring found in the water: it was, in my opinion, a combination of
the two -- of the powers of the One Ring and the specific
vulnerability of Sméagol, that caused the murder of Déagol.
Another factor that /possibly/ helps Sméagol and Bilbo is the
resilience of Hobbits. Gandalf expresses some surprise that Gollum
had not become a wraith and that there was still some small hope of
healing (we see it come to balance on a knife's edge before the oaf
speaks up in a scene reminiscent also of Tulkas driving Fëanor to
reject Yavanna's request for the Silmarils after the darkening of
Valinor), and he seems convinced that Hobbits have a toughness that
protects them against the ruining of the person that is the effect of
the Ring. This effect is only demonstrated as a long-term effect,
but it might also give an extra edge against the immediate effect of
the Ring -- in particular if you have obtained it without taking it
with violence from the former owner.
> Unless you think the Ring chose Sméagol over Déagol? That seems
> always "trying" to get back to its Master, but I can't think that
> it could make fine character distinctions between two Stoors.
to me that it works by making itself extremely desirable -- not only
by appearing to be a thing of surpassing beauty, but also by working
on more base desires, in particular the desire for more /power/ --
more power than is, so to speak, your birthright.
We know that actually seeing the Ring, and, even worse, touching it,
makes a difference, but though I am not sure how exactly this works,
it seems to me that it only increases the attraction and desirability
of the Ring in the mind of the watcher / 'toucher'.
The way that this, then, works in the mind of the individual person
depends on the make-up of that person. Bombadil had absolutely no
desire for any more power than what was his in the beginning, and so
the Ring has no influence over him, but Sméagol, who had already
become a mean-spirited character, was affected far more strongly by
the Ring than was Déagol. /Not/, in my opinion, because the Ring made
a conscious choice to trap Sméagol, but because he was far more
susceptible to its general influence. This, in my thinking, is how
the Ring 'chooses' someone: the more mean-spirited and power hungry a
person is from the beginning, the stronger an effect the Ring will
have immediately, and the stronger the person is, the chance does he
stand of seizing the Ring even against competition. This way we get
a natural selection model that ensures that the Ring goes to the
character with the optimal mix of innate power and pre-existing evil.
In letter #181, Tolkien explained
The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean
soul of Sméagol. But he would have never had to endure it
if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed
his path.
My own view of the Ring has been slowly approaching Tom Shippey's
description of the effect of the Ring as an addiction -- an evil
influence that works through the evil and the weaknesses of the
people around it, and which will inevitably grow on the mind of
anyone possessing it (with the possible exception of Tom B. over whom
the Ring had no hold at all). I really don't think the Ring actively
controls the minds of others -- Sam's visions, for instance, come
from Sam and they arise as his mind is trying to justify his taking
that extremely attractive and desirable object: /me/ wants!
> A new thought: Gandalf knew that Frodo could not destroy the Ring.
> In Frodo's own home, in Book I Chapter 2, Frodo is unable to put
> the ring into the hearth fire. When Gandalf sent Frodo to the
> Black Land to throw the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom, the
> idea that Frodo would ever have been able to destroy it was
> *really* nuts. I suspect that Gandalf had planned all along to
> accompany Frodo, and if necessary, to take the Ring by force and
> destroy it.
Hmm . . . I'm not sure, though I suppose it's possible.
Gandalf surely could not have forced Frodo to destroy the Ring -- not
without turning to evil himself, at least.
Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo,
cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I
could not 'make' you - except by force, which would break
your mind.
(LotR, I,2 'The Shadow of the Past')
The big question is whether Gandalf would have been able to take the
Ring by force, and against the will of Frodo, and still be able to
throw it into the fire (and whether he believed himself to be so
able). I don't doubt that Gandalf would be able to throw the Ring
into the fire if he was given it on the edge of the fire, but taking
it by force would probably leave him more vulnerable to its lure to
power, and possibly put the outcome in doubt.
I am more inclined to believe that Gandalf had no specific plans --
that he simply trusted his gut feeling that this was /right/ and that
providence would make sure that the Ring was destroyed unless the
people involved strayed too far from the side of Good.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
- Piet Hein, /Originality/
sean_q
> since there
> is no "sean_q" in that discussion, would you mind telling us what nom
> de plume you were using at the time?
Regards, Seamus Padraig O'Caoindealbhain
aka Sean Patrick Quinlan
Stan Brown
> In message <news:MPG.28db18f3...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
> > gain the ascendant. I can't accept that Isildur's will was
> > obliterated in a few hours (or less). He kept the Ring because he
> > was proud and did not want to be led by Elves.
>
> I remember having a longish conversation a while back that touched
> on this . . . (searching -- yes, found it! -- 'a while back' in this
> case means 7 years ago, buy hey! ;-)
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.books.tolkien/W5kqKpWARv8/hb2qrOzSvj0J>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/6356wc7>
half an hour and getting maybe 10% of the way through it.
Could you perhaps summarise, or at least give a more specific
reference?
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> I remember having a longish conversation a while back that
>> touched on this . . . (searching -- yes, found it! -- 'a while
>> back' in this case means 7 years ago, buy hey! ;-)
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.books.tolkien/W5kqKpWARv8/hb2qrOzSvj0J>
>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/6356wc7>
>
> It's a really long thread, and frankly I gave up after reading for
> half an hour and getting maybe 10% of the way through it.
>
> Could you perhaps summarise, or at least give a more specific
> reference?
The link should open at a post by Larry dated Sun, 12 Sep 2004
02:36:35 -0500 (Message-ID 4143FC83...@operamail.com) in
response to a post by yourself. Larry's text starts with "Well, sort
of. That is, while it is true that Elrond and Cirdan argued against
his taking it" ('his' - Isildur and 'it' = the Ring).
I am afraid that even this sub-thread takes up several hundred posts
(the end of the sub-thread is several screens further down where I
respond to the same post that Larry did[*]
I'll have to look around to see where the relevant part of the
argument is made, but the parts that I recall are around the ability
of the Ring to influence a new possessor at once. As I recall it, I
argued that Isildur's claim of weregild is similar to the claims of
Bilbo and Gollum when they attempt to put their right to possess the
Ring beyond question (the 'birthday present' and the 'won in a
riddle-game' explanations respectively). The argument was that it
didn't matter that Isildur's claim surely wasn't a lie but rather
was at least a semi-valid legal argument (possibly Isildur's claim
was perfectly legal -- all I know is that in the Danish regional
laws, the earliest, IIRC, from the thirteenth century, weregild
(/mandebod/) is payable for an unjust killing, not for killing
someone in war).
This, again trusting (possibly in vain) my faltering memory from
seven years ago, led to the counter argument that the legality of
Isildur's claim /does/ make a difference (because no lie is involved
it cannot be taken as a sign of any 'unwholesome' influence).
The question of whether Isildur's claim was part of the same pattern
as Gollum's and Bilbo's ended, I think, in the question of whether
that view is too reductionist -- unfortunately something that I
think is primarily a matter of taste: on one hand you need to take a
reductionist approach to see patterns, but on the other hand one
must take care not to ignore significant differences, but whether a
particular set of differences are 'significant' is, unfortunately,
not something that can be objectively resolved.
Another side-argument then focused on how quickly a new possessor
was influence by the Ring, and here I cited Gandalf saying that it
had an unwholesome influence 'at once', which was countered with
the, perfectly correct, observation that Gandalf's 'at once' was
based on Bilbo's actions several hours after finding the Ring.
Obviously more than this was discussed (just as, equally obviously,
arguments were repeated time and again), but this is the part that I
recall (except from the inevitable discussion of the level of
sapience in the One Ring).
Today I suppose I would phrase things differently -- focusing less
on the agency of the Ring and more on the agency of the possessor:
if all that the Ring did was to make itself overwhelmingly
desirable, then the logic reaction by anyone coming into possession
of it would be to make as strong a claim as possible of ownership,
even if it includes lying. The unwholesome influence is merely to be
so desirable and attractive as to waken in the new possessor such
strong feelings of desire, greed, and jealous possessiveness. This
effect, however, I believe was immediate. This obviously means that
I still do think that Isildur's claim is part of the pattern.
[*]
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.books.tolkien/W5kqKpWARv8/p60MstThUAoJ>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/64jt9so>
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum ishi krimpatul.
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Stan Brown
> I'll have to look around to see where the relevant part of the
> argument is made, but the parts that I recall are around the ability
> of the Ring to influence a new possessor at once. As I recall it, I
> argued that Isildur's claim of weregild is similar to the claims of
> Bilbo and Gollum when they attempt to put their right to possess the
> Ring beyond question (the 'birthday present' and the 'won in a
> riddle-game' explanations respectively). The argument was that it
> didn't matter that Isildur's claim surely wasn't a lie but rather
> was at least a semi-valid legal argument (possibly Isildur's claim
> was perfectly legal -- all I know is that in the Danish regional
> laws, the earliest, IIRC, from the thirteenth century, weregild
> (/mandebod/) is payable for an unjust killing, not for killing
> someone in war).
That's true also in early English law. Wergild or weregild for a
king was "so high that no one could possibly pay it", according to
Charles Rembar in /The Law of the Land/, but it was a definite
amount, not subject to the whims of the current occupant of the
throne. I saw some claims in the thread that Isildur as king had the
right to set the amount of the wergild for his dead father, but that
is quite wrong under English law and, I suspect, under N�men�rean law
as well. Kings of England did not make new law (in theory), but were
subject to the laws of the realm as they had been known since time
immemorial. I suspect that N�men�rean kings were the same. If there
was any N�men�rean law of wergild -- and we have no evidence that
there was -- then Isildur would have no right to set or alter the
amount, especially not on the spur of the moment in battle. So I am
afraid that his claim of "wergild was as spurious as Gollum's claim
of a birthday present.
There was also the claim that Isildur acquired title to the Ring as
spoils of war. This seems more plausible, but also falls to the
ground when examined. If the Ring belonged to Isildur, then on his
death is belonged to his heir, and so on down the line to Aragorn.
Yet Aragorn explicitly disclaimed ownership, which means that Aragorn
at least did not believe the Ring had ever belonged to Isildur.
As Aragorn said, the Ring belonged to Sauron and always had; Frodo
was merely "holding" it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Troels Forchhammer
started to set down a few thoughts about the nature of the One Ring
before moving on to answer the specific points in the discussion,
but this has grown almost into a separate essay on the Ring.
However, I will keep it all in the message -- my understanding of
the Master Ring has changed gradually, and this is as good a place
as any to attempt to set down my current ideas on this subject.
In message <news:9ec0oc...@mid.individual.net>
Geza Giedke <joe...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
> derek schrieb am 26.09.2011 03:25:
>>
>> On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, Geza Giedke <joed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> derek schrieb am 17.09.2011 03:19:
>>>>
[...] I had no conscious notion of what the Necromancer
stood for (except ever-recurrent evil) in /The Hobbit/, nor
of his connexion with the Ring. But if you wanted to go on
from the end of The Hobbit I think the ring would be your
inevitable choice as the link. If then you wanted a large
tale, the Ring would at once acquire a capital letter; and
the Dark Lord would immediately appear. As he did, unasked,
on the hearth at Bag End as soon as I came to that point.
J.R.R. Tolkien to W. H. Auden, June 1955 (/Letters/ #163)
When casting about for a link between /The Hobbit/ and the sequel,
Tolkien quickly settled on Bilbo's ring, and in stages turned it
into this pervasive agent of evil that is the One Ring, the Master
Ring that was made to forcibly dominate all the owners of the other
nineteen Great Rings of Power.
As a literary device, the Master Ring is, in my not so objective
opinion, a stroke of genius. The best evidence for the complexity of
this image of evil is perhaps the many and long discussions that
readers of Tolkien's works have had over the nature of its agency.
If we take a step back from the world of the story and consider the
role of the Ring in the book, it has an odd duality. On one hand it
is certainly the plot device that gets the story going -- the
MacGuffin -- but at the same time there is no denying that the Ring
is attributed a high level of agency. 'A Ring of Power looks after
itself, Frodo. /It/ may slip off treacherously,' says Gandalf, and
The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had
slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a
chance came it caught poor D�agol, and he was murdered; and
after that Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make
no further use of him: he was too small and mean; and as
long as it stayed with him he would never leave his deep
pool again. So now, when its master was awake once more and
sending out his dark thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned
Gollum. (/LotR/ book 1 ch. 2 'The Shadow of the Past')
Many other examples can be found in which the Ring is attributed
with the ability to /will/ something, to make /choices/ and have
strategies to pursue long-term goals. This level of agency is
normally associated with the characters in the story, and so it can
be argued that the One Ring, in addition to being the MacGuffin that
gets the plot moving (many times, even), attains a role as one of
the characters of the tale. The One Ring is even more of a character
than is its master, Sauron, in /The Lord of the Rings/, and I think
it can be argued that the Ring serves as a proxy for Sauron;
ensuring the menacing presence of the Dark Lord as a character in
the tale, while at the same time allowing the actual character of
Sauron to remain unseen -- if one would make such argument, the
presence of Sauron as an /active/ character in the story is achieved
in part through the Master Ring, which expresses Sauron's close-up
agency, and in part by the device of the 'Eye of Sauron' -- the
symbol for Sauron's ability to see what goes on far away.
The focus here is, however, on the One Ring itself and the manner of
its agency within Tolkien's story.
The natural focus of discussions has often been to compare the
agency of the Ring to that of Men: how does the Ring, as an agent,
differ from the working of a Man as an agent within Tolkien's world?
I have myself previously argued that the One Ring be able to not
only perceive its surroundings (sentience), but also that it be able
to think (sapience) and to have a will. Even if we do not allow the
One Ring a /free/ will, then this model would make it functionally
the mental equivalent of a Man or an Elf in Tolkien's work: any
difference being one of /degree/ rather than one of /kind/. I no
longer think that the Ring has a mind of its own in quite this way,
but the image of the Ring as a character in the book is, I believe,
so strong that it has the power to make us imagine the Ring as
having an almost human-like mind of its own.
Tom Shippey describes the effects of the Ring as an addiction, and
Tolkien, when describing the final effect of the Ring on Frodo in
the Sammath Naur, invokes the line of the Lord's Prayer to 'lead us
not into temptation,' and he speaks of the 'lure to power' of the
Ring and of Tom Bombadil's immunity to the power of the Ring as a
result of his renouncement of power. These descriptions lead to a
picture of a Ring whose power for corruption is to tempt with a
power that is greater than your native power. Appearance also does
seem to be important: I cannot recall anyone who is corrupted by the
Ring without seeing it first (Galadriel is /tempted/ by its power
though we don't know if she has ever actually seen it), and Sam
seems to be right when he claims about Boromir that 'From the moment
he first saw it he wanted the Enemy's Ring!' However, the main
power seems to be temptation: temptation with power ('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-d�r.') -- the One Ring has the ability to appear
surpassingly desirable and attractive to anyone who would like more
power than they have, and resisting this temptation is a continuous
process that slowly erodes the will. The images of greatness that
appear to be part of the temptation ('Samwise the Strong', '/The/
Gollum') do not, in my opinion, come from the Ring, but from the
mind of the person so tempted; and Ring does not exert any
mind-control over its keeper or others: it is always the temptation
to use the Ring, the desire for the extra power that it will bring
that preys on the mind of the keeper.
If we look at the history of the Ring leaving its current keeper,
then it seems fairly short-sighted. Leaving Isildur did, of course,
get him killed, but it also landed the Ring in the river for about
2500 years, and leaving Gollum only to lie in the dark of the
tunnels was probably not the best strategy either: odds were that it
would quickly find its way back to Gollum.
For me the key question is how the One Ring decides to leave its
current keeper?
When we look through the passages suggesting that the Ring is an
active agent in the story, this is the most forceful when dealing
with it leaving its current keeper -- in particular Isildur and
Gollum.
But we also hear that the Ring wasn't trustworthy for Bilbo either
-- he told Gandalf and warned Frodo that 'he had found out that the
thing needed looking after; it did not seem always of the same size
or weight; it shrank or expanded in an odd way, and might suddenly
slip off a finger where it had been tight.'
Perhaps the Ring was merely making random attempts at leaving any
owner that was not Sauron -- the frequency of these could be
influenced by Sauron 'sending out his dark thought' (being a
physicist I am trying to put this on some kind of a formula, the
probability of the Ring slipping off at any given minute while worn
depends on the signal strength of the dark thought detection, the
speed at which the Ring is borne closer to Sauron, and possibly on
certain physiological markers in the wearer such as e.g. stress
level). The observed behaviour of the Ring can certainly be
explained by such an algorithm, and this would have the advantage of
not having to attribute to the One Ring any capacity for rational
thought (the most advanced 'intelligence' built into the Ring would
then be associated with its ability to detect the various
parameters).
However, even if such an explanation satisfies the need to explain
the behaviour of the Master Ring, and it does so without resorting
unnecessarily to a capacity for rational thought, it is perhaps less
satisfying with respect to explaining the implications of active
agency of the Ring: the agency that is associated with its attaining
a role in the narrative suitable for a character.
If we look at Tolkien's other works, this attribution of agency to
inanimate objects isn't unique in kind, even if the agency
attributed to Master Ring is the strongest by far.
The sword that kills Beleg and T�rin is, from the outset, attributed
a certain degree of agency when Melian explains its malice, saying
that '[t]here is malice in this sword.' and further that 'It will
not love the hand that it serves; neither will it abide with you
long.' And of course the blade 'slipped in [Beleg's] hand, and
pricked T�rin's foot' which cost Beleg's life. The main passage,
however, is when T�rin asks the blade to take his life, and the
sword, now named Gurthang, answers him, saying 'Yes, I will drink
your blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the
blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay you swiftly.'
In a lighter vein we, or rather Bilbo, found in a troll's pocket the
purse that would ask him, ' 'Ere, 'oo are you?' causing the troll to
notice with near-catastrophic results. And in /The Lord of the
Rings/ Legolas acts as the mouthpiece of the stones of Hollin, 'Only
I hear the stones lament them: /deep they delved us, fair they
wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone./ They are gone.
They sought the Havens long ago.'
Of these examples, Anglachel / Gurthang is, of course, the more
interesting: here the attribution of agency is also clear, and it is
reenforced with the attribution of speech, which makes the sword
appear, as does the One Ring, as a character in the story.
In both cases we are, I believe, dealing with examples of
antropomorphisms, which are quite common in Tolkien's work, though
mostly it is animals that are attributed human characteristics --
Huan, the Great Eagles (from Thorondor through Gwaihir and Landroval
to the other, unnamed, eagles), Felar�f, R�ac, the thrush that
speaks to Bard, the Wargs etc. etc. In 'On Fairy-Stories' Tolkien
gives an explanation for the antropomorphic animals, saying that
There are profounder wishes: such as the desire to converse
with other living things. On this desire, as ancient as the
Fall, is largely founded the talking of beasts and
creatures in fairy-tales, and especially the magical
understanding of their proper speech.
('On Fairy-Stories' - 'Recovery, Escape, Consolation')
But though Tolkien does not speak of it in the essay, and it is much
rarer in his work, we also get a few instances where we witness, not
Man holding converse with inanimate objects, but where the inanimate
objects are given a voice, or are given agency. Yet there are many
who will argue that Tolkien didn't intend that Gurthang 'really'
spoke (for some appropriate value of 'really' that refers to that
which is true within Tolkien's sub-created history), of that Legolas
'really' heard the stones of Hollin lament the Noldor that had lived
there.
I do not mean to imply that we are, through the agency of the One
Ring, allowed a glimpse of the evil of gold in Middle-earth (even
with the statement in /Morgoth's Ring/ that gold, more than any
other substance, carried the Morgoth-element), but rather that, like
Melian saying that Anglachel bore the dark heart of its maker, its
malice being a reflection of E�l's malice, so is the agency and evil
of the Master Ring a reflection, an extension, of the agency and
evil of Sauron. The Ring is not directly controlled by Sauron, but
it is only through the One Ring that we get an impression of the
evil of Sauron and his power to corrupt even good intentions to
evil.
>>>> Yes. I think it chose Smeagol, but made a mistake,
[...]
>>>> but it knew that Bilbo was the only creature
[...]
>>>
>>> i very much doubt this: any Orc would have been better in this
>>> respect
[...]
>>
>> Of course it was, but do you doubt the Ring was trying to return
>> to its maker?
>
> well, Gandalf says it was trying to get back to its maker, so
> there's little reason to doubt this; though I am not 100%
> convinced that it wanted to be back to Sauron specifically or just
> any sufficiently powerful owner - I always thought the Ring would
> have been fine with Gandalf, Galadriel or Saruman as well.
All of this seems to me to accept pretty much at face value the
antropomorphic attribution of agency to the Ring -- and to even
attribute to it the capacity for highly rational and abstract
thought. As indicated above, I don't think that this is a
reasonable description of the 'actual' capabilities of the Ring.
Without wanting to get too philosophical at this point, I do not
think the Ring was capable of /will/ as such: it had /purpose/, but
in the same way as advanced computer software may be said to have
purpose, but not /will/ which I would, free or unfree, associate
with the mental capacity of the human mind to make choices based on
the ability to imagine a desired future state as the outcome of the
immediate choice.
That the Ring slipped off Gollum's finger at that precise moment
where it would land in a place where it would be found by Bilbo,
that was a matter of providence (or the Will of Eru if we have to
give the agency a name). There can be no doubt that there was a
high probability of the Ring slipping off Gollum's finger due to a
combination of specific parameters, but the exact timing was not, I
think, finally decided by the Ring itself.
>> If you don't, then you have to wonder _why_ it didn't slip off
>> Gollum's finger and have an Orc find it.
>
> I think, the Ring simply sensed it was time to move on
Something of that sort. I find it very difficult to believe that the
Ring would have a real understanding of the future, or that it had
any capacity for abstract 'thought' (such as working based on a
mental image of a not yet achieved, but desirable, future state).
The Ring would, I believe, react to the 'here and now' -- and
possibly including a limited history: such as e.g. whether the
current keeper, over the past month, had brought the Ring closer to
the Sammath Naur or to its master.
[...]
> The Ring could try to slip of and tempt people to take it but it
> had no say in who found it, I think.
I agree.
<snip>
>> The simple fact would seem to be that an Orc was no more likely
>> to return it to Sauron than Gollum,. For two reasons: they didn't
>> like to leave their caves much more than Gollum did, and they
>> were _corrupt_ - they would want the Ring for their own, just as
>> Gollum did.
>
> I think any Orc (or any evil creature) would have led to the Ring
> quickly making its way to Sauron: some Orc or Troll chieftain
> setting himself up as a Lord and ruling with the power of the Ring
> would have caught Sauron's attention pretty quickly if he were not
> drawn to Mordor before (Gollum was drawn there even without the
> Ring once Sauron had risen again)
Of course Gollum was lured there because of what he had become by
possessing the Ring for so long, but I do agree.
Mordor draws all wicked things, and the Dark Power was
bending all its will to gather them there. The Ring of the
Enemy would leave its mark, too, leave him open to the
summons. (Gandalf, /LotR/ I, 2 'The Shadow of the Past')
It is unlikely that an Orc or Troll in possession of the Ring would
have long escaped the summons.
> I suspect none of the bad guys were strong and power-hungry enough
> to have any chance against Sauron even with the Ring (maybe
> Saruman, possibly the Balrog, Smaug - I doubt it).
Tolkien at least makes it very clear that of the good guys only
Gandalf had a chance, so I think you're right in limiting it.
<snip>
>>>> It did the same with Isildur - it may not have actually chosen
>>>> Isildur, but it would certainly have preferred Isildur to the
>>>> others present who might have taken it in hand - and yet when
>>>> it came to it, Isildur didn't advance its agenda, so it slipped
>>>> off his finger at an inopportune time (if you're Isildur - not
>>>> so inopportune for the Ring).
We can discuss how opportune the time was for the Ring -- it did end
up lying on the bottom of the River for about 2500 years which was
not so very fortunate. I think the 'decision' (decision is here
used to include also the working of e.g. a computer algorithm) to
leave its keeper was made exclusively based on current and past
data: there was, I believe, no element of prediction involved.
>> Is that not exactly what I said about Gollum?
>
> yes, I didn't question this; I was just wondering why it left
> Isildur so soon - before having exploited all the possibilities in
> dominating a powerful Numenorean...
One of the things that I do imagine the One Ring being capable of is
a very fine-tuned sensing apparatus, and I wouldn't be surprised if
the Ring knew that Isildur intended to hand it over to Elrond upon
arrival in Rivendell -- and that would have spelled the end of the
Master Ring.
>>> I somehow did not get the impression that the Ring was
>>> explicitly doing Sauron's bidding
>>
>> Absolutely not. The Ring has some limited sentience - I think
>> that much is obvious - but its "agenda" has nothing to do with
>> Sauron's bidding, it is merely an automaton with a limited number
>> of goals, the most important of which is to return to its
>> rightful owner.
>
> this I'm not fully convinced; I thought it's mainly trying to find
> the most powerful (and evil or corruptable) owner, with Sauron
> being the best target at present;
The description in letter #246 of the importance of the 'true
allegiance' of the Ring (again this antropomorphic implication of
agency) seems to contradict that:
One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed
in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one
side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the
other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in
possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by
long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating
inferiors. (/Letters/ #246 to Eileen Elgar, Sept. 1963)
The implication here is that the connection to Sauron was very
strong, and that it would require a very hard effort even by the
most powerful to 'reprogram' the Ring to acknowledge someone else as
its true master. This letter also details the strategies that others
would have followed as Ring-lords, and neither Elrond nor Galadriel
ever contemplated 'confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to
self,' but instead they would have proceeded as outlined also by
Boromir by building a huge, and fanatical, army with which to assail
Mordor.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
Of course -- within short time of posting, I of course discover an
error, and so I hurry to correct it.
> These descriptions lead to a picture of a Ring whose power for
> corruption is to tempt with a power that is greater than your
> native power. Appearance also does seem to be important: I cannot
> recall anyone who is corrupted by the Ring without seeing it first
Saruman . . .
> (Galadriel is /tempted/ by its power though we don't know if she
> has ever actually seen it), and Sam seems to be right when he
> claims about Boromir that 'From the moment he first saw it he
> wanted the Enemy's Ring!' However, the main power seems to be
> temptation: temptation with power
[...]
> the One Ring has the ability to appear surpassingly desirable and
> attractive to anyone who would like more power than they have,
I'm not sure what I was thinking . . .
The corrupting influence of knowing about the power of the Ring
obviously doesn't depend on seeing the Ring.
What appears to be the case is that those who do not know, or not
fully understand, the nature and full power of the Master Ring need
to actually see the Ring -- Sm�agol didn't know about any of the
powers of the Ring when he killed D�agol; all he knew was that he
simply /had/ to have that ring, and /nothing/, not even his friend
D�agol, could be suffered to hinder him.
The suggestion is that this power of the Ring to appear, even at
first glance, as surpassingly desirable is stronger the more
susceptible the person is to the, at that point uknown, lure to
power. Tolkien states that 'The domination of the Ring was much too
strong for the mean soul of Sm�agol. But he would have never had to
endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed
his path.' (/Letters/ #181) -- it is as if the promise of power is
felt rather than known; it is an important ingredient of the Ring's
attraction even for those who do not know of its power.
Saruman and Galadriel are tempted by their own knowledge of the power
that the One Ring can give them while Gollum is attracted by he
doesn't know what -- in between there is a range of possible
reactions including Boromir's.
> The images of greatness that appear to be part of the temptation
> ('Samwise the Strong', '/The/ Gollum') do not, in my opinion, come
> from the Ring, but from the mind of the person so tempted;
They rely, of course, on some knowledge of the powers of the Ring --
there is no record of Gollum having had any delusions of grandeur
before he left the mountains in search of the thief, Baggins.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Giving in is no defeat.
Passing on is no retreat.
Selves are made to rise above.
You shall live in what you love.
- Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/
Prai Jei
space-time continuum:
> however, is when Túrin asks the blade to take his life, and the
> your blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the
> blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay you swiftly.'
other legendary bad guys, from Efnissyen to Big Bad John, Kullervo does not
redeem himself in a final, fatal act of heroism - his life is all badness,
all tragedy.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Stan Brown
> The corrupting influence of knowing about the power of the Ring
> obviously doesn't depend on seeing the Ring.
>
> Saruman and Galadriel are tempted by their own knowledge of the power
> that the One Ring can give them while Gollum is attracted by he
> doesn't know what -- in between there is a range of possible
> reactions including Boromir's.
corrupted by the Ring. He became corrupt, and then when he found out
about the Ring he desired it as a means to the power he already
wanted. The difference is subtle, but I think important.
Boromir, on the other hand, *was* corrupted by the Ring. An
honorable man who didn't seek power beyond his position as heir to
Gondor, he fell under its influence without realizing that he was
doing so. Boromir's motives were good, in a sense: not dominion for
its own sake, but victory over Gondor's enemies so that Gondor could
have peace and prosperity. Of course, that was a cheat of the Ring:
if Boromir had actually used it Gondor would have had no peace; but
still the Ring worked on Boromir's good side. It tried something of
the same with Sam, but Sam's hobbit-sense preserved him.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Prai Jei
continuum:
> Boromir, on the other hand, *was* corrupted by the Ring. An
> honorable man who didn't seek power beyond his position as heir to
> Gondor, he fell under its influence without realizing that he was
> doing so. Boromir's motives were good, in a sense: not dominion for
> its own sake, but victory over Gondor's enemies so that Gondor could
> have peace and prosperity. Of course, that was a cheat of the Ring:
> if Boromir had actually used it Gondor would have had no peace; but
> still the Ring worked on Boromir's good side. It tried something of
> the same with Sam, but Sam's hobbit-sense preserved him.
King returned not, only to be told that in Gondor a thousand years would
not suffice? This incident immediately paints Boromir as rather ambitious.
The Ring would find an opening with Boromir and play upon this ambition,
whereas Faramir, the quiet intellectual type, had no such ambitions and was
able to resist the temptation to take the Ring - for he, like Gandalf and
Galadriel, could see the consequences of taking the Ring and had the moral
strength to refuse. "All shall love me and despair" said Galadriel,
envisaging a scenario reminiscent of so many dictators of our own day. That
is *not* the way to govern a people.
Stan Brown
>
> Stan Brown set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
> > Boromir, on the other hand, *was* corrupted by the Ring. An
> > honorable man who didn't seek power beyond his position as heir to
> > Gondor, he fell under its influence without realizing that he was
> > doing so. Boromir's motives were good, in a sense: not dominion for
> > its own sake, but victory over Gondor's enemies so that Gondor could
> > have peace and prosperity. Of course, that was a cheat of the Ring:
> > if Boromir had actually used it Gondor would have had no peace; but
> > still the Ring worked on Boromir's good side. It tried something of
> > the same with Sam, but Sam's hobbit-sense preserved him.
>
> Wasn't it Boromir who asked how soon the Steward could become King,
> if the King returned not, only to be told that in Gondor a thousand
> years would not suffice? This incident immediately paints Boromir
> as rather ambitious.
getting that answer. But I didn't mention it because we don't know
how serious the question was, nor how he reacted. He might simply
have been asking because he didn't understand why Rohan had a King
but Gondor only a Steward, and then when his father explained that
might have been the end of it for him. We just don't know.
But let's suppose that Boromir did want to be King of Gondor. That
still didn't make him evil. After all, he was the heir apparent to
supreme power in the realm; would it have changed anything really if
he called himself King rather than Steward? We do know that he
showed no inclination to lord it over neighboring countries.
Saruman's desire to rule realms was quite a different matter.
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> The corrupting influence of knowing about the power of the Ring
>> obviously doesn't depend on seeing the Ring.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Saruman and Galadriel are tempted by their own knowledge of the
>> power that the One Ring can give them while Gollum is attracted
>> by he doesn't know what -- in between there is a range of
>> possible reactions including Boromir's.
>
> I think there's a difference there, though. Saruman was not
> corrupted by the Ring.
that the Ring is no an active agent in the corruption as such. The
corruption is due to the desire for the Ring, but it comes from within,
from the person him- or herself.
> He became corrupt, and then when he found out about the Ring he
> desired it as a means to the power he already wanted. The
> difference is subtle, but I think important.
nature of the corruption, and the desire for the Ring and the desire
for its power cannot, I think, be separated in the way that you
suggest. Gandalf strongly suggests that the corruption of Saruman was
due to his long study of Ring-lore, and I think it was the very study
of the powers of the great Rings, and of the Master Ring in particular,
that aroused the desire for power in Saruman (and in particular the
desire for the One Ring). In other words, I believe that the desire for
power, the corruption, and particularly the slow surrender to the
Ring's lure to power, are all coeval, and it is, as I read it, indeed
his knowledge of the Rings of Power that corrupts Saruman.
> Boromir, on the other hand, *was* corrupted by the Ring. An
> honorable man who didn't seek power beyond his position as heir to
> Gondor, he fell under its influence without realizing that he was
> doing so.
better, I'd think you were describing Jackson's Boromir ;) Tolkien's
Boromir is extremely proud and seeks his own glory. Remember Faramir's
description of his own brother, whom he loved, and how Boromir would
have reacted to /Isildur's Bane/:
If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle. I can
well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often
rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and
his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be
allured by it. (/LotR/, IV, 5 'The Window on the West')
Again, it is, in my view, /not/ the Ring that corrupts Boromir: it is
Boromir that corrupts Boromir because he becomes enamoured with the
vision of himself as the powerful ruler, the Ringlord Boromir.
> Boromir's motives were good, in a sense: not dominion for its own
> sake, but victory over Gondor's enemies so that Gondor could have
> peace and prosperity.
Boromir. It always 'displeased him that his father was not king' and so
he asked Denethor 'How many hundreds of years needs it to make a
steward a king, if the king returns not?' -- ultimately, however,
Boromir wanted /himself/ to become the king of Gondor.
In the end Boromir realizes where his pride and his quest for glory has
taken him, but before that his pride leads to him through desire for
power to the madness for domination.
> Of course, that was a cheat of the Ring:
himself who was proud enough to believe that /he/ could control the
Master Ring against the advice of Gandalf and Elrond, that didn't come
from the Ring.
All of this is, I know, more or less the direct opposite of what I have
said earlier. I know that I have more or less made a complete about-
turn on this issue, but I have come to believe that my earlier
assessment of the level of direct agency by the One Ring was wrong: I
now advocate a far less directly active Ring.
The visions of grandeur that we see in Boromir, Gollum and Sam are not,
as I now believe, in any way induced by the Ring. The Ring never works
on the 'good side' of anyone -- a desire for greater power is /never/
in itself good, even when, as with Gandalf, it is a desire for power to
do good: Gandalf realizes that this desire should be rejected, Sam
realizes that he doesn't need all that power, and Boromir ultimately
realizes that his desire was evil, but in no case did the Ring /create/
the desire as such, nor did it work on what was good in the person, but
with where the person was found lacking -- in pride, thievery and
foremost in lust for power.
I imagine that encountering the Ring is rather like meeting with some
top people from the mafia that offer you the presidency of the USA and
a suitcase with a trillion dollars (rather a large suitcase, but you
know what I mean) -- they assure you that it is completely without any
obligations and all you have to do is to is to reach out for it. In a
normal life, this would be so incredibly unrealistic as to not matter
at all, but if you suddenly find yourself in the situation and you
become completely convinced that this is so, then the desire will seem
increased because the temptation is so much more acute.
In the same way it is a part of the power to temptation of the One Ring
that the person becomes convinced that it will give them an even
greater power than it really could -- /The/ Gollum or the victorious
Captain of the West.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.