Frodo's Illness
Tony
Tony
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
Bill O'Meally
> Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
He was starved, exhausted and his finger bit off.
--
Bill O'Meally
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Stan Brown
>
> On 2011-04-15 18:47:24 -0500, Tony said:
>
> > Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
>
> He was starved, exhausted and his finger bit off.
I think it's a little more complex than that. He was very ill
*before* the Ring was destroyed, because of being starved and
exhausted as you say. Some of the exhaustion was the mere physical
labor of traveling through Mordor, but more of it was the effort of
fighting the influence of the Ring hour after hour for months on end.
And immediately after the Ring was destroyed, I think he was actually
*better*:
"'Well, this is the end, Sam Gamgee,' said a voice by his side. And
there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself again; and in his
eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will, nor madness, nor
any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the dear master of the
sweet days in the Shire."
--
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
Morgoth's Curse
>On 2011-04-15 18:47:24 -0500, Tony said:
>
>> Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
>
>He was starved, exhausted and his finger bit off.
And he almost certainly had the worst case of blood-poisoning in
history. Gollum ate _orcs_; his mouth must have been a
bacteriologist's dream and a dentist's nightmare.
Morgoth's Curse
Morgoth's Curse
You need to define the time period that you have in mind. If you
mean immediately after the Ring was destroyed, then others have
already answered that question. If you are referring to the period
after he had returned to the Shire, then he was suffering from
post-traumatic stress syndrome.
Morgoth's Curse
Barry Schwarz
>Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
>
Having a finger bitten off by a creature whose saliva was probably as
contaminated as a kimodo dragon's?
The combined shock of an unplanned amputation and loss of mental
attachment to the ring?
Either of the above compounded by extreme exhaustion, breathing
volcanic fumes, the lingering affects of Shelob's sting, oxygen
deprivation from flying too high with the eagles, and/or malnutrition.
--
Remove del for email
John W Kennedy
And withdrawal.
--
John W Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
Bill O'Meally
> On 2011-04-16 10:34:16 -0400, Morgoth's Curse said:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:23:17 -0400, "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>>>> Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
>>> Was it because he became incomplete after the Ring was destroyed?
>>
>> You need to define the time period that you have in mind. If you
>> mean immediately after the Ring was destroyed, then others have
>> already answered that question. If you are referring to the period
>> after he had returned to the Shire, then he was suffering from
>> post-traumatic stress syndrome.
>
> And withdrawal.
And self-loathing.
Bill O'Meally
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:27:53 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote:
>>
>> He was starved, exhausted and his finger bit off.
>
> I think it's a little more complex than that. He was very ill
> *before* the Ring was destroyed, because of being starved and
> exhausted as you say. Some of the exhaustion was the mere physical
> labor of traveling through Mordor, but more of it was the effort of
> fighting the influence of the Ring hour after hour for months on end.
>
> And immediately after the Ring was destroyed, I think he was actually
> *better*:
>
> "'Well, this is the end, Sam Gamgee,' said a voice by his side. And
> there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself again; and in his
> eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will, nor madness, nor
> any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the dear master of the
> sweet days in the Shire."
Though it still took him about a fortnight on the Field of Cormallen
for him to recover.
Stan Brown
>
> On 2011-04-16 03:37:25 -0500, Stan Brown said:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:27:53 -0500, Bill O'Meally wrote:
> >>
> >> He was starved, exhausted and his finger bit off.
> >
> > I think it's a little more complex than that. He was very ill
> > *before* the Ring was destroyed, because of being starved and
> > exhausted as you say. Some of the exhaustion was the mere physical
> > labor of traveling through Mordor, but more of it was the effort of
> > fighting the influence of the Ring hour after hour for months on end.
> >
> > And immediately after the Ring was destroyed, I think he was actually
> > *better*:
> >
> > "'Well, this is the end, Sam Gamgee,' said a voice by his side. And
> > there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself again; and in his
> > eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will, nor madness, nor
> > any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the dear master of the
> > sweet days in the Shire."
>
> Though it still took him about a fortnight on the Field of Cormallen
> for him to recover.
You're right. By "better" I meant "improved", not "recovered". He
was unconscious for most of those fourteen days, if I remember right.
And even then he wasn't totally healed, as we learn from his
illnesses twice a year after he returned to the Shire.
Julian Bradfield
> You're right. By "better" I meant "improved", not "recovered". He
> was unconscious for most of those fourteen days, if I remember right.
Hm. I wonder what the Elves and Gondorians did in lieu of naso-gastric
feeding.
Bill O'Meally
And we won't even begin to discuss the sponge baths.
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
One other factor occurs to me: We know that the Ring prevented (or
suspended) aging and that Frodo had possessed the Ring for seventeen
years. Bilbo aged very quickly after the Ring was destroyed, so it
seems reasonable that Frodo's body also had to cope with a certain
amount of aging in the months after he was rescued from the slopes of
Mt. Doom.
Morgoth's Curse
Lewis
I don't think so. bilbo had the ring for 61 years, and he was an old hobbit
when he gave it up. Frodo is still quite young, and there is no evidence
the ring was in anyway slowing his aging.
--
this is not a signture
derek
<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:32:57 -0700, Barry Schwarz <schwa...@dqel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:47:24 -0400, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Why did Frodo become so ill after the Ring was destroyed?
>
> >Having a finger bitten off by a creature whose saliva was probably as
> >contaminated as a kimodo dragon's?
>
> >The combined shock of an unplanned amputation and loss of mental
> >attachment to the ring?
>
> >Either of the above compounded by extreme exhaustion, breathing
> >volcanic fumes, the lingering affects of Shelob's sting, oxygen
> >deprivation from flying too high with the eagles, and/or malnutrition.
>
> One other factor occurs to me: We know that the Ring prevented (or
> suspended) aging and that Frodo had possessed the Ring for seventeen
> years. Bilbo aged very quickly after the Ring was destroyed, so it
> seems reasonable that Frodo's body also had to cope with a certain
> amount of aging in the months after he was rescued from the slopes of
> Mt. Doom.
Ah. Very good. I find concepts like amputation and blood-poisoning
quite too mundane, but this one is certainly true. Notwithstanding
Lewis' point that Frodo is still very young, Frodo had had the Ring
for a third of his life. It's not like he suddenly became old, but
there is 17 years of aging to catch up on in a flash. Bilbo aged
rapidly after giving it up - and the Ring was still intact and working
on him!
Many of the other things that affected him affected Sam - exhaustion
(Sam did all the work at the end - he should be even more physically
exhausted), volcanic fumes, oxygen deprivation and malnutrition - only
Shelob's sting, the loss of his finger, the effect of the Ring and the
lingering effect of the Nazgul knife were unique. Any of those were
probably enough to flatten Big People.
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
I am not sure that you truly comprehend the power of the Ring. At
the Council of Elrond, Bilbo is 128 years old. Yet he is remarkably
spry and indeed the casual observer would think that he is only in his
50's. He composes epic songs and has long conversations with Frodo
and his friends. Only six months after the destruction of the Ring,
he has aged so much that he spends most of his time sleeping and only
leaves his room for meals. He is now forgetful and falls asleep
during brief conversations. It is true that he possessed the Ring
longer than Frodo had, but it also true that Frodo bore it when its
power was greatly increased as it neared Mordor and the Sammath Naur.
Morgoth's Curse
Lewis
So you're saying if a child picked up the ring they would remain a child as
long as they possessed it? I don't think it works that way.
There is nothing in the books to suggest that Frodo at 50 was still the 33
year-old kid he'd been when he got the ring.
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
Tsk, tsk. Some friendly advice, Lewis: Never argue with a Tolkien
fan who keeps a leather bound copy of LoTR on his desk at all times.
From "The Shadow of the Past":
As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also showed signs
of good 'preservation'; outwardly he retained the appearance of a
robust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens. 'Some folk have
all the luck,' they said; but it was not until Frodo approached the
usually more sober age of fifty that they begin to think it queer.
From "Many Meetings":
Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection
of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young
nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire;
but the eyes looked out at him thoughtfully.
Morgoth's Curse
derek
> Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you're saying if a child picked up the ring they would remain a child as
> long as they possessed it? I don't think it works that way.
I think it works _like_ that. No he wouldn't remain a child forever,
but the aging is greatly slowed.
>
> There is nothing in the books to suggest that Frodo at 50 was still the 33
> year-old kid he'd been when he got the ring.
I don't think there's anything to suggest he isn't - but in fact, I
think there _is_ something to suggest that he doesn't seem to have
aged much past 33. Certainly at Eleventy One, Bilbo is widely
believed to have some magic keeping him young.
derek
<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Tsk, tsk. Some friendly advice, Lewis: Never argue with a Tolkien
> fan who keeps a leather bound copy of LoTR on his desk at all times.
At least, not one who knows where to find what he's looking for :-)
Lewis
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com>
> Tsk, tsk. Some friendly advice, Lewis: Never argue with a Tolkien
> fan who keeps a leather bound copy of LoTR on his desk at all times.
>
> From "The Shadow of the Past":
>
> As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also showed signs
> of good 'preservation'; outwardly he retained the appearance of a
> robust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens. 'Some folk have
> all the luck,' they said; but it was not until Frodo approached the
> usually more sober age of fifty that they begin to think it queer.
Aw crap, I forgot about that.
Never mind.
> From "Many Meetings":
>
> Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection
> of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young
> nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire;
> but the eyes looked out at him thoughtfully.
Well, that one is not a good support. He's lost weight, is exercising all
the time, etc. He looked young because he was fit.
Joanne Corsano
>suspended) aging and that Frodo had possessed the Ring for seventeen
>years.
Would this effect occur even if the possessor of the Ring never
actually put it on his finger?
-Joanne
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Drak Bibliophile
news:gd3nq6hqsiguum02q...@4ax.com...
Apparently it did.
IIRC Frodo carried it on his person for most of the time of his possessing
it and he never used it until after he left the Shire.
--
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins!
*
--------
*
Stan Brown
>
> >One other factor occurs to me: We know that the Ring prevented (or
> >suspended) aging and that Frodo had possessed the Ring for seventeen
> >years.
>
> Would this effect occur even if the possessor of the Ring never
> actually put it on his finger?
Most likely yes. We know from /The Hobbit/ that Gollum *almost*
never used the Ring, didn't even carry it with him, yet it still
preserved him for centuries.
JJ
wrote:
>
> IIRC Frodo carried it on his person for most of the time of his possessing
> it and he never used it until after he left the Shire.
>
> --
do it.
Tony
"Morgoth's Curse" <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
<snip>
> Only six months after the destruction of the Ring,
> he has aged so much that he spends most of his time sleeping and only
> leaves his room for meals. He is now forgetful and falls asleep
> during brief conversations. It is true that he possessed the Ring
> longer than Frodo had, but it also true that Frodo bore it when its
> power was greatly increased as it neared Mordor and the Sammath Naur.
>
> Morgoth's Curse
Let me introduce some other ideas. The person who was most changed after the
destruction of the Ring was Sauron. And why was that: He had imbued the Ring
with much of his natural power. Could it be that Frodo had inadvertently
deposited some of his power, some of his soul, if you will, into the Ring, and
so was fatally weakened after its destruction?
derek
> "Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Only six months after the destruction of the Ring,
> > he has aged so much that he spends most of his time sleeping and only
> > leaves his room for meals. He is now forgetful and falls asleep
> > during brief conversations. It is true that he possessed the Ring
> > longer than Frodo had, but it also true that Frodo bore it when its
> > power was greatly increased as it neared Mordor and the Sammath Naur.
>
> destruction of the Ring was Sauron. And why was that: He had imbued the Ring
> with much of his natural power. Could it be that Frodo had inadvertently
> deposited some of his power, some of his soul, if you will, into the Ring, and
> so was fatally weakened after its destruction?
While it could be - though I think it fairer to suggest the Ring might
have "drained" him, rather than that he would "deposit" anything - I
don't think you can say he was "fatally weakened". Anything the Ring
did to him stopped with the destruction of the Ring, but long before
that he was weakened by the Morgul blade, and it was that that he felt
every year on its anniversary.
Tony
"derek" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:1358e283-7c01-449e...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 6:44 pm, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Only six months after the destruction of the Ring,
> > he has aged so much that he spends most of his time sleeping and only
> > leaves his room for meals. He is now forgetful and falls asleep
> > during brief conversations. It is true that he possessed the Ring
> > longer than Frodo had, but it also true that Frodo bore it when its
> > power was greatly increased as it neared Mordor and the Sammath Naur.
>
> Let me introduce some other ideas. The person who was most changed after the
> destruction of the Ring was Sauron. And why was that: He had imbued the Ring
> with much of his natural power. Could it be that Frodo had inadvertently
> deposited some of his power, some of his soul, if you will, into the Ring, and
> so was fatally weakened after its destruction?
"While it could be -"
Okay. I agree.
"though I think it fairer to suggest the Ring might
have "drained" him,"
Does the Ring drain people, or does it stretch mortals, and corrupt everyone?
"rather than that he would "deposit" anything - I
don't think you can say he was "fatally weakened". Anything the Ring
did to him stopped with the destruction of the Ring, but long before
that he was weakened by the Morgul blade, and it was that that he felt
every year on its anniversary."
However, it was my understanding that Frodo had been essentially cured of that
hurt by Elrond. Sure, he was left with a certain "transparency," but nothing
that would, in itself, effect a fatal weakness. It stuck me that both Bilbo and
Frodo were rendered ineffectual after the Ring's destruction. Certainly, Sauron
was rendered ineffectual: that was the purpose of the Ring's destruction in the
first place. But it was as if, Bilbo and Frodo had lost their will to assert
themselves, their will to create. Had they lost their Yang, their masculine
will, their Evil, if you will? Had Frodo become incomplete: a fragmented self:
only the good, selfless portion of his personality remaining, unable to survive?
I believe their are textual references to support this conclusion.
derek
> "derek" <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1358e283-7c01-449e...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 6:44 pm, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Only six months after the destruction of the Ring,
> > > he has aged so much that he spends most of his time sleeping and only
> > > leaves his room for meals. He is now forgetful and falls asleep
> > > during brief conversations. It is true that he possessed the Ring
> > > longer than Frodo had, but it also true that Frodo bore it when its
> > > power was greatly increased as it neared Mordor and the Sammath Naur.
>
> > Let me introduce some other ideas. The person who was most changed after the
> > destruction of the Ring was Sauron. And why was that: He had imbued the Ring
> > with much of his natural power. Could it be that Frodo had inadvertently
> > deposited some of his power, some of his soul, if you will, into the Ring, and
> > so was fatally weakened after its destruction?
>
> "While it could be -"
>
> Okay. I agree.
>
> "though I think it fairer to suggest the Ring might
> have "drained" him,"
>
> Does the Ring drain people, or does it stretch mortals, and corrupt everyone?
I don't know that it does - but you said Sauron "deposited" his power
in the Ring, which is certainly true but indicates volition. That was
the case with Sauron but not with Frodo. The Ring may have taken
something from Frodo, but he never _gave_ anything to it. So I'm not
saying the Ring _does_ drain people; I'm saying that if your
hypothesis is at all true, that must be the mechanism.
>
> "rather than that he would "deposit" anything - I
> don't think you can say he was "fatally weakened". Anything the Ring
> did to him stopped with the destruction of the Ring, but long before
> that he was weakened by the Morgul blade, and it was that that he felt
> every year on its anniversary."
>
> However, it was my understanding that Frodo had been essentially cured of that
> hurt by Elrond. Sure, he was left with a certain "transparency," but nothing
> that would, in itself, effect a fatal weakness.
No, I think it's clear that all Elrond did was prevent it being fatal
(I don't think either the loss of the Ring or the wound were "fatal" -
or he would never have taken to the sea) - but that he couldn't cure
it.
> It stuck me that both Bilbo and
> Frodo were rendered ineffectual after the Ring's destruction. Certainly, Sauron
> was rendered ineffectual: that was the purpose of the Ring's destruction in the
> first place. But it was as if, Bilbo and Frodo had lost their will to assert
> themselves, their will to create. Had they lost their Yang, their masculine
> will, their Evil, if you will? Had Frodo become incomplete: a fragmented self:
> only the good, selfless portion of his personality remaining, unable to survive?
> I believe their are textual references to support this conclusion.
I think you have _something_ there, but I'm not sure you can find
references to support a conclusion :-)
Joanne Corsano
>> it and he never used it until after he left the Shire.
>Only occasionally - to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses! Merry saw him
>do it.
That was Bilbo, not Frodo. Merry saw Bilbo disappear to avoid the
S-Bs.
I would like to know when Frodo first put the Ring on his finger. The
first time we see him do so is in the house of Tom Bombadil. But did
he ever put it on his finger while still in the Shire, during the 17
years he had it in his possession?
Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to this
question?
Paul S. Person
<joa...@picturelake.com> wrote:
>>> IIRC Frodo carried it on his person for most of the time of his possessing
>>> it and he never used it until after he left the Shire.
>
>>Only occasionally - to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses! Merry saw him
>>do it.
>
>That was Bilbo, not Frodo. Merry saw Bilbo disappear to avoid the
>S-Bs.
>
>I would like to know when Frodo first put the Ring on his finger. The
>first time we see him do so is in the house of Tom Bombadil. But did
>he ever put it on his finger while still in the Shire, during the 17
>years he had it in his possession?
>
>Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to this
>question?
I suppose this is a matter of canonicity.
In the early version of /LOTR/, Frodo puts on the Ring to have some
fun with Farmer Maggot (if I remember the name correctly). But not in
the published version.
--
"'If God foreknew that this would happen,
it will happen.'"
Matthew Woodcraft
> I would like to know when Frodo first put the Ring on his finger. The
> first time we see him do so is in the house of Tom Bombadil. But did
> he ever put it on his finger while still in the Shire, during the 17
> years he had it in his possession?
>
> Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to this
> question?
I think there's no clear statement either way. When Frodo first gets the
ring, Gandalf tells him several times not to use it (though once he only
says "very seldom"), and it would be simplest to assume he took that
advice.
But later Gandalf and Galadriel both speak as if Frodo had worn it
earlier (Gandalf's "again" in his letter, and Galadriel's "since you
knew what you posessed"). And in Tom Bombadil's house the description
doesn't feel like it's the first time (you might expect a description of
what being invisible felt like, and whether it was what Frodo expected).
-M-
Joanne Corsano
>that it was every explicitly said that he had. However, there is no
>indication the first time he does were it in the course of the book that
>it is the first time.
>
>> Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to this
>> question?
>
It's my instinct that Frodo never used the Ring during those 17 years.
Although neither Frodo nor Gandalf knew how dangerous the Ring was
when Gandalf rode off after Chapter 1, he did warn Frodo not to take
the Ring lightly. Frodo was a sober hobbit, and he was aware that
there was trouble brewing in Middle-Earth at the time (even without
knowing too many of the specifics until Gandalf's return). I think
it's consistent with Frodo's character that he would have been
cautious enough about the Ring to resist its use.
In any case, I find it odd that JRRT wouldn't have mentioned it in the
narrative somewhere, if Frodo indeed did use the Ring during those
years. In my opinion the story flows well with his first use of the
Ring taking place in the house of Bombadil, where the immense
strangeness of Middle-Earth begins to be revealed to him.
Didn't anyone ever ask JRRT about this? I haven't read all of the
letters or other primary sources, so if there is a comment from the
author somewhere about this, that would put the question to rest.
Troels Forchhammer
first time I lost my work in a computer crash :-( Hopefully that'll
mean that my response will be even better thought out this time
round ;-)
In message <news:r4lrr6lmj5jda2ufl...@4ax.com>
Joanne Corsano <joa...@picturelake.com> spoke these staves:
>
Lewis wrote:
>>
>> In message <t47gr6pua1o045h7e...@4ax.com>
>> Joanne Corsano <joa...@picturelake.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to know when Frodo first put the Ring on his
>>> finger.
>>
>> It is certainly implied that he had worn it before, but I do not
>> recall that it was every explicitly said that he had.
I am curious about your certainty here -- mostly, of course, because
I don't feel at all certain about it ;-) Where do you think that it
is 'certainly implied' that Frodo had worn the Master Ring on his
finger before doing so in the house of Tom Bombadil?
>> However, there is no indication the first time he does were it in
>> the course of the book that it is the first time.
Formally this is of course bordering on an example of denying the
antecedent, which is a logical fallacy -- absense of evidence is not
evidence of the absense. _However_, I do agree that there are
situations where the expectation of evidence would be such that the
absense of evidence does confirm[#] the absense, and under normal
circumstances, I would even agree that this could very well be such
a situation: the wearing of the Master Ring for the first time
would, I think, be of such momentuous importance that it should
merit a mention.
When I qualify this, 'under normal circumstances', it is due to our
knowledge of the (sub-)creational process leading to the final text.
As Paul has already pointed out, Frodo does, in the earlier
versions, wear the One Ring rather perfunctorily -- he puts on the
Ring to be invisible when the rider approaches in the woods of the
Shire (at that point the rider is Gandalf) and he puts it on again
when they meet farmer Maggot.
The description of the episode in which Frodo puts on the Ring stems
all the way back to the very first drafts. In his commentary to the
first draft, Christopher Tolkien writes
The episode of Tom and the Ring is told in virtually the
same words as in FR, the only and very slight difference
being that when Bingo put on the Ring Tom cried: ‘Hey, come
Bingo there, where be you a-going? What be you a-grinning
at? Are you tired of talking? Take off that Ring of yours
and sit down a moment. We must talk a while more . . .’
Against this my father wrote later: ‘Make the seeing,
clearer’, and substituted (after ?where be you a-going?'):
‘Did you think I should not see when you had the Ring on?
Ha, Tom Bombadil's not as blind as that yet. Take off your
golden Ring, and sit down a moment.’
_The Return of the Shadow_, 'The First Phase', ch. VI 'Tom
Bombadil', p. 123
Now, despite leaving hardly a word unconsidered, we also know that
Tolkien didn't always bring his text in full accordance with the
later versions of the story. One of my favourite examples are the
remnants in the published text of the story of the hobbit ranger,
Trotter, who had been caught by Black Riders and tortured by them in
Moria.
With all this in mind, I am not sure that the lack of any mention in
the text of this being the first time ever when Frodo puts on the
One Ring in the house of Tom Bombadil really does indicate anything
more strongly than the other -- that it confirms or disconfirms one
proposition more than it does the other.
[#] Confirm is here used in the Bayesian sense which means that the
observation of a lack of evidence increases the likelihood of
the absense of the thing.
>>> Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to this
>>> question?
I don't remember seeing a discussion of this point previously, and a
brief search hasn't turned up anything on this exact point. Given
also that nobody appears to have weighed in with references to 'ye
olde diskussions' in which the law was laid down, I am arrogant
enough to at least doubt that any such consensus exists ;)
>> That he used it, but infrequently, in keeping with Gandalf's
>> direction.
>
> It's my instinct that Frodo never used the Ring during those 17
> years.
Yes, that would also be my instinctive reaction, but I am not aware
of any evidence to suggest this other than my own interpretation of
Frodo's personality -- the only evidence either way is the resolute
silence with which the matter is dealt ;-)
> Although neither Frodo nor Gandalf knew how dangerous the Ring was
> when Gandalf rode off after Chapter 1, he did warn Frodo not to
> take the Ring lightly.
Yet the warning is not as dire as _I_ had remembered it:
But if you take my advice you will use it very seldom, or
not at all. At least I beg you not to use it in any way
that will cause talk or rouse suspicion. I say again: keep
it safe and keep it secret!
The middle sentence here, 'at least I beg you ....' does soften the
tone of the warning, and I admit that I had forgotten that part. The
focus is now on secrecy rather than use: the more serious (and
immediate) danger appears to lie in anyone discovering the ring
rather than in using it. This would _probably_ still prevent Frodo
from using the Ring as Bilbo did as a means to escape unwanted
meetings in the road -- at least I think so.
> Frodo was a sober hobbit, and he was aware that there was trouble
> brewing in Middle-Earth at the time (even without knowing too many
> of the specifics until Gandalf's return). I think it's consistent
> with Frodo's character that he would have been cautious enough
> about the Ring to resist its use.
I think it comes down to the good old-fashioned criminal questions
of motive and opportunity. If we rule out such situations as
revealed the Ring to Merry (when Bilbo used it to escape the
Sackville-Bagginses), it becomes, I think, a question of whether
Frodo ever had the motive to use it at a point when there was also
an opportunity.
Could he have worn the Ring simply out of curiosity -- to watch
himself disappear in the mirror, just to try it?
> In any case, I find it odd that JRRT wouldn't have mentioned it in
> the narrative somewhere, if Frodo indeed did use the Ring during
> those years.
Unfortunately that argument works both ways, and if not for the
history of the text, I would agree with Lewis that it would be even
more odd if he hadn't mentioned it if Frodo did indeed put it on his
finger for the first time on-stage in the house of Tom Bombadil.
> In my opinion the story flows well with his first use of the Ring
> taking place in the house of Bombadil, where the immense
> strangeness of Middle-Earth begins to be revealed to him.
One thing that one might look at is Frodo's own reaction when he
does wear the Ring for the first time in the story:
Merry turned towards him to say something and gave a start,
and checked an exclamation. Frodo was delighted (in a way):
it was his own ring all right, for Merry was staring
blankly at his chair, and obviously could not see him.
I am here thinking especially of the reassurance 'it was his own
ring all right', which could indicate that Frodo had had similar
personal experiences with the Ring that he could compare with. On
the other hand I have previously ruled out precisely this type of
experiences (that would definitely go against the advice to 'keep it
secret' and not rouse suspicion), and so I am inclined to think that
this is a relic of the first phase story in which Frodo did indeed
use the Ring on-stage before reaching Tom Bombadil's house. In the
later story we might imagine that Frodo is thinking of the reactions
to Bilbo's disappearance at the Party and Bilbo's stories of his
disappearances (and appearances) during his adventure.
> Didn't anyone ever ask JRRT about this? I haven't read all of the
> letters or other primary sources, so if there is a comment from
> the author somewhere about this, that would put the question to
> rest.
I have, to the best of my recollection, not encountered any
discussion of this specific point by neither J.R.R. or Christopher
Tolkien. I think we must consign ourselves to the fact that this is
ultimately an unanswerable question -- wouldn't it be fun if we have
witnessed the genesis of a new debate to supplement (I have, alas,
no hopes of supplanting) the great debates about Balrog wings, Ring
sapience, and other ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>The description of the episode in which Frodo puts on the Ring stems
>all the way back to the very first drafts. In his commentary to the
>first draft, Christopher Tolkien writes
> The episode of Tom and the Ring is told in virtually the
> same words as in FR, the only and very slight difference
> being that when Bingo put on the Ring Tom cried: ‘Hey, come
> Bingo there, where be you a-going? What be you a-grinning
> at? Are you tired of talking? Take off that Ring of yours
> and sit down a moment. We must talk a while more . . .’
> Against this my father wrote later: ‘Make the seeing,
> clearer’, and substituted (after ?where be you a-going?'):
> ‘Did you think I should not see when you had the Ring on?
> Ha, Tom Bombadil's not as blind as that yet. Take off your
> golden Ring, and sit down a moment.’
>_The Return of the Shadow_, 'The First Phase', ch. VI 'Tom
>Bombadil', p. 123
And, going all the way back to the first drafts, we have Frodo (Bingo)
using the Ring at Farmer Maggot's [sp?]. Of course, this did not
happen in the published text. So the answer depends, in part, on what
texts are being considered.
Troels Forchhammer
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:02:00 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The description of the episode in which Frodo puts on the Ring
>> stems all the way back to the very first drafts. In his commentary
>> to the first draft, Christopher Tolkien writes
>> The episode of Tom and the Ring is told in virtually the
>> same words as in FR,
>> _The Return of the Shadow_, 'The First Phase', ch. VI 'Tom
>> Bombadil', p. 123
>
> And, going all the way back to the first drafts, we have Frodo
> (Bingo) using the Ring at Farmer Maggot's [sp?].
And he also put it on to hide from the rider in the woods. In the
first version, this turned out to be Gandalf, and becoming invisble
was more a way of playing a prank on Gandalf. Later this got changed
to a Black Rider and Gildor warned Frodo against using the Ring to
escape the Riders again. Only after the full danger of the Master
Ring was realized were these instances removed.
The transition from Bilbo's magic trinket to the sinister Master Ring
was gradual, and though the later concept did occasion some changes
to the earlier chapters, some passages were left as they were in the
earlier versions, and were thus written with a far more frivolous
approach to the ring in mind.
> Of course, this did not happen in the published text. So the answer
> depends, in part, on what texts are being considered.
Yes, that too -- though I don't doubt that the question referred to
the published text ;)
Sometimes we also need to look also at the history of the text in
order to evaluate the intentions behind the published words.
--
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)
Steuard Jensen
the earliest post in the thread that I can see. I'm clearly missing a
lot of context, but hey.]
In message <Xns9EE8B771...@130.133.4.11>, Troels Forchhammer
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> Joanne Corsano <joa...@picturelake.com> spoke these staves:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> Joanne Corsano <joa...@picturelake.com> wrote:
>>>> I would like to know when Frodo first put the Ring on his finger.
>>>> [...] Is there a generally accepted consensus as to the answer to
>>>> this question?
> I don't remember seeing a discussion of this point previously, and a
> brief search hasn't turned up anything on this exact point. Given
> also that nobody appears to have weighed in with references to 'ye
> olde diskussions' in which the law was laid down, I am arrogant
> enough to at least doubt that any such consensus exists ;)
I do recall the point coming up before, but I'm quite certain that
there was no consensus at the time. My gut feel was (and is) strongly
that Frodo *must* have at least tried out the Ring once or twice
between Bilbo's departure from the Shire and his own. But other
knowledgeable people (Conrad Dunkerson, maybe?) seemed just as
gut-level confident that he wouldn't have done so.
>> ...when Gandalf rode off after Chapter 1, he did warn Frodo not to
>> take the Ring lightly.
> Yet the warning is not as dire as _I_ had remembered it:
>
> But if you take my advice you will use it very seldom, or
> not at all. At least I beg you not to use it in any way
> that will cause talk or rouse suspicion. I say again: keep
> it safe and keep it secret!
I can assure you that my own reaction to that advice (even without the
softening middle sentence) would unquestionably include at least one
or two quiet tests to see for myself that the Ring worked as
advertised! Nothing in this warning or in Bilbo's stories of the Ring
suggests that merely trying it out in secret could be harmful.
> Could he have worn the Ring simply out of curiosity -- to watch
> himself disappear in the mirror, just to try it?
To me, the thought that this is even a question suggests that human
personalities must be more diverse than I'd ever guessed. How could
simple curiosity *not* be an obvious motive? It's a friggin' magic
ring! :) (Or at least, Bilbo claimed it was: could the old hobbit have
kept the real one and switched it out for a fake at the last minute?
How could I know without at least one test?)
[Now I want to write a variant or parody of Book 1 in which Frodo and
his companions brave untold dangers to bring the Ring to Rivendell
safely, only to learn when they finally arrive that Bilbo had brought
the *real* Ring there with no trouble at all years before.]
> One thing that one might look at is Frodo's own reaction when he
> does wear the Ring for the first time in the story:
>
> Merry turned towards him to say something and gave a start,
> and checked an exclamation. Frodo was delighted (in a way):
> it was his own ring all right, for Merry was staring
> blankly at his chair, and obviously could not see him.
>
> I am here thinking especially of the reassurance 'it was his own
> ring all right', which could indicate that Frodo had had similar
> personal experiences with the Ring that he could compare with.
As you've noted, this example really does read naturally as a
description of Frodo confirming that the Ring works the same way it
has before, rather than Frodo experiencing invisibility for the very
first time. I recognize that this isn't the only possible reading, but
the phrase "it was his own ring all right" feels much more natural to
me as a double check than as a new discovery.
> On the other hand I have previously ruled out precisely this type of
> experiences (that would definitely go against the advice to 'keep it
> secret' and not rouse suspicion),
Certainly *this* type of experiment would rouse suspicion, but I'm
sure that any one of us could come up with half a dozen ways of trying
out the Ring that *wouldn't* run such risks in as many minutes. ("Take
a walk on a little-used path through the woods, and put on the Ring at
some point when nobody else is in sight. Walk to the home of a friend
who likes to sit on his front step for a smoke. Smile and wave.")
("Invite a friend over for tea. Wait for them beside your front door.
If they ignore you and ring the bell, slip around the corner behind a
garden hedge, take off the Ring, and come back out to greet them.")
("Stand still in the middle of the road. Be ready to step quickly
aside if approaching travelers don't notice you're there.")
>> Didn't anyone ever ask JRRT about this?
> I have, to the best of my recollection, not encountered any
> discussion of this specific point by neither J.R.R. or Christopher
> Tolkien.
I would say the same. Based on the discussions I've seen of the
question on these groups, I half suspect that nobody ever asked
because everyone thought the answer was obvious... even if those
"obvious" answers were all different!
Steuard Jensen
Chris Hoelscher
>> himself disappear in the mirror, just to try it?
this question has puzzled me for some time - is the (human) wearer of the
one ring, invisible to all others, invisible to him/her self? whilst wearing
the ring, you would see things in the sub-creation phantom ring-world, but
would that include the person wearing the one ring (yourself?)
Chris Hoelscher
I refuse to repeat gossip - so listen carefully the first time
Paul S. Person
<chrisho...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>> Could he have worn the Ring simply out of curiosity -- to watch
>>> himself disappear in the mirror, just to try it?
>
>this question has puzzled me for some time - is the (human) wearer of the
>one ring, invisible to all others, invisible to him/her self? whilst wearing
>the ring, you would see things in the sub-creation phantom ring-world, but
>would that include the person wearing the one ring (yourself?)
I tend to the theory that the reason the wearer vanishes in this world
is, in fact, because he is now in the other.
IIRC, we are told at some point that Elf-lords who have been to the
True West exist in both worlds simultaneously.
Troels Forchhammer
>
I asked whether Frodo, out of curiosty, could have tried to put on
the Ring to see himself disappear in the mirror.
>> this question has puzzled me for some time - is the (human) wearer
>> of the one ring, invisible to all others, invisible to him/her
>> self?
Actually I suspect he isn't, though I don't remember any definite
statements to that effect. As you say,
>> whilst wearing the ring, you would see things in the sub-creation
>> phantom ring-world,
No matter how one interprets the invisibility effect of the Rings of
Power (and this question has been hotly discussed in these groups), I
think it is firmly established that once you are made invisible, you
can see that which is normally invisible. This would imply that the
invisible person can also see himself.
This, however, does not necessarily imply that you would be able to
see your image in a mirror -- I have previously described it as
functionally equivalent to two polarizations, so if the mirror
remained attuned / polarized to the Seen, then it would possibly not
reflect the light of the Unseen.
While Steuard is doing his alternative book 1, I am tempted to write
the story of how Frodo tried the Ring before the mirror and found
that he didn't turn invisible . . . ;)
>> but would that include the person wearing the one ring
>
> I tend to the theory that the reason the wearer vanishes in this
> world is, in fact, because he is now in the other.
>
> IIRC, we are told at some point that Elf-lords who have been to
> the True West exist in both worlds simultaneously.
As I read that statement, the two worlds in which the calaquendi
exist at once are the world of Aman and the world of Middle-earth --
to me it doesn't read naturally as a reference to the Seen and the
Unseen, which I hold should, in this statement, be read as collective
plurals -- all that which is seen and all that which is invisible.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
- /Eric/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer
Steuard Jensen <ste...@slimy.com> spoke these staves:
>
> [My newsserver inexplicably reset itself not too long ago, so this
> is the earliest post in the thread that I can see. I'm clearly
> missing a lot of context, but hey.]
Context is for sissies anyway ;-)
> In message <Xns9EE8B771...@130.133.4.11>, Troels
> Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
[Gandalf's warning to Frodo right after Bilbo left in 'A Long
Exptected Party']
>> But if you take my advice you will use it very seldom, or
>> not at all. At least I beg you not to use it in any way
>> that will cause talk or rouse suspicion. I say again: keep
>> it safe and keep it secret!
>
> I can assure you that my own reaction to that advice (even without
> the softening middle sentence) would unquestionably include at
> least one or two quiet tests to see for myself that the Ring
> worked as advertised!
I am fairly certain that my own reaction would have been similar --
it's a magic ring that will turn me _invisible_ for crying out loud!
There's no way I would have refrained from testing it ;)
On the other hand, I can, as a theoretical exercise, entertain the
idea that Frodo is less curious that I am -- he does strike me that
way.
Frodo assures Gandalf (in 'The Shadow of the Past') that he had
'always kept it on its chain' based on Bilbo's warnings in his last
letter. I am not sure if this is an indication of anything, but the
fact that Frodo has kept the ring on his person _could_ be
suggestive.
> Nothing in this warning or in Bilbo's stories of the Ring suggests
> that merely trying it out in secret could be harmful.
I agree.
>> Could he have worn the Ring simply out of curiosity -- to watch
>> himself disappear in the mirror, just to try it?
>
> To me, the thought that this is even a question suggests that
> human personalities must be more diverse than I'd ever guessed.
> How could simple curiosity *not* be an obvious motive? It's a
> friggin' magic ring! :)
:-) Exactly!
> (Or at least, Bilbo claimed it was: could the old hobbit have
> kept the real one and switched it out for a fake at the last
> minute? How could I know without at least one test?)
It would be unlikely in the extreme that Frodo was not curious, I
agree, and this was not what I meant to question -- the question that
I wanted to raise was rather whether he, based on Gandalf's warnings,
was able to resist giving in to his curiosity, something that would
depend on how he understood Gandalf's warnings.
> [Now I want to write a variant or parody of Book 1 in which Frodo
> and his companions brave untold dangers to bring the Ring to
> Rivendell safely, only to learn when they finally arrive that
> Bilbo had brought the *real* Ring there with no trouble at all
> years before.]
;-) I'd like to read that.
>> One thing that one might look at is Frodo's own reaction when he
>> does wear the Ring for the first time in the story:
[...]
>
> As you've noted, this example really does read naturally as a
> description of Frodo confirming that the Ring works the same way
> it has before, rather than Frodo experiencing invisibility for the
> very first time.
Yes -- and of course when it was first written, that was certainly
also the case.
> I recognize that this isn't the only possible reading, but the
> phrase "it was his own ring all right" feels much more natural to
> me as a double check than as a new discovery.
Yes. He had of course at least one prior experience with somebody
turning invisible by the aid of the Ring -- he had seen almost one
gross of hobbits gape at the place where Bilbo had been . . .
Who knows -- he might even be recalling Merry's blank gaze from
seventeen years earlier ;-)
My own instinctive reaction, as I said, was that Frodo did _not_ test
out the Ring in these seventeen years, but this is certainly not a
strongly held opinion (as I hope I also managed to convey earlier).
My son (16) who is currently reading the story himself for the first
time has the same instinctive reaction.
This said, however, I also see some compelling reasoning behind the
other position. In particular your call for common human experimental
curiosity strikes a very sensitive nerve ;) also I think an argument
could be made that it would be part of the basic lure of the Ring to
want to actually wear it.
> Based on the discussions I've seen of the question on these groups,
> I half suspect that nobody ever asked because everyone thought the
> answer was obvious... even if those "obvious" answers were all
> different!
I wonder how many of our discussions here that this could apply to
;-)
Certainly the years since Tolkien's death have seen a rapid
development in our means to reach out and communicate with others who
appreciate Tolkien's writings. The various tales about the workings
of the Tolkien interest groups in the days before his death (here I
am e.g. thinking of Charles Noad's excellent historical review in
_Amon Hen_ 50) speak of a time when debates would be very local and
rarely would involve more than a haldful of people.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
O. Sharp
> [...] I
> think it is firmly established that once you are made invisible, you
> can see that which is normally invisible. This would imply that the
> invisible person can also see himself.
"At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard
himself crying aloud: _O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!_ At the same time he struck
at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt
a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder. Even as he
swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider
leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.
With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword, reached to slip the Ring
from his finger; but, both his hands being invisible to him, he couldn't
find it, and still invisible he slipped into unconsciousness."
Uhm, yeah; doesn't sound quite right. :)
...Feel free to paint me in the "didn't think Frodo had ever tried it on"
camp. O'course, as has been noted, this is likely one of those topics
where everyone _knows_ What The Facts Are until we get together and
compare notes. :) For instance, I was quite startled to discover many
people think of Sauron as having two eyes; I had presumed he had lost
one, possibly in the final battle against the Last Alliance, and that
(for those, like Gollum, who had physically encountered him, at least)
the phrase "the Eye of Sauron" was something more than metaphor. It
startled the heck out of me when I suggested Sauron would not have
stereoscopic vision and other people disagreed with me over this
"obvious fact". :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
o...@panix.com "Chapter 12: Flight To The Ford
"When Frodo came to himself he saw the others still
blindly groping around the ground vainly seeking for him.
'I think the Riders must've carried him away with them,'
Pippin cried. 'It's been two days now...'"
Stan Brown
> In message <news:tdgat6li2cf3275e9...@4ax.com>
> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 May 2011 09:59:52 -0400, "Chris Hoelscher"
> > <chrisho...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> this question has puzzled me for some time - is the (human) wearer
> >> of the one ring, invisible to all others, invisible to him/her
> >> self?
>
> Actually I suspect he isn't, though I don't remember any definite
> statements to that effect. As you say,
>
> >> whilst wearing the ring, you would see things in the sub-creation
> >> phantom ring-world,
>
> No matter how one interprets the invisibility effect of the Rings of
> Power (and this question has been hotly discussed in these groups), I
> think it is firmly established that once you are made invisible, you
> can see that which is normally invisible. This would imply that the
> invisible person can also see himself.
Yes, but he may not be able to see the *mirror*. Remember that when
Sam put on the Ring in the pass of Cirith Ungol, hearing was
sharpened but sight (or ordinary objects) was dimmed. Tolkien makes
it sound like a thickish fog (which also does sometimes make faraway
noises sound near).
"At once he was aware that hearing was sharpened while sight was
dimmed, but otherwise than in Shelob's lair. All things about him now
were not dark but vague; while he himself was there in a grey hazy
world. ..."
So the mirror itself would be part of the "grey hazy world". That
means that reflections of even ordinary visible objects would be
obscured or unseeable. But the Ring-wearer's body was *not* in the
same world of the mirror, so it seems reasonable that it might cast
no reflection.
So I think that a Ring-wearer would be able to see his own body if he
looked directly at it, but that he probably could not see reflections
of it in a mirror. A possible exception might be if he was standing
in a *very* strong light, like midday sun. Remember from /The
Hobbit/ that only in full sunlight is a Ring-wearer's shadow visible.
Perhaps such a strong light would also make the reflection bright
enough to be seen.
Stan Brown
> exist at once are the world of Aman and the world of Middle-earth --
> to me it doesn't read naturally as a reference to the Seen and the
> Unseen, which I hold should, in this statement, be read as collective
> plurals -- all that which is seen and all that which is invisible.
But how do you reconcile that with Glorfindel's appearance? While
Frodo was wearing the Ring at the Ford of Bruinen, he was clearly
*not* in the world of Aman. Yet he saw Glorfindel as a great shining
warrior.
I think Occam's Razor suggests that the other world of the Calaquendi
is the same as the other world of a Ring-wearer. Otherwise, why
would Frodo have been able to see Glorfindel any differently from any
other object of the visible world?
Stan Brown
> I am fairly certain that my own reaction would have been similar --
> it's a magic ring that will turn me _invisible_ for crying out loud!
> There's no way I would have refrained from testing it ;)
"Plus, how dangerous can it really be? Uncle Bilbo used it for 60
years and it doesn't seem to have hurt him. That Gandalf is just an
old fussbudget."
Frodo at age 33 was perhaps a *bit* more sober than Moxie and Pepsi,
I mean Merry and Pippin, on the Ring-quest. But their curiosity got
them into *lots* of trouble. I think Frodo's curiosity would have
led him to try the Ring at least once, and probably to escape an
unwelcome visitor.
Stan Brown
> development in our means to reach out and communicate with others who
> appreciate Tolkien's writings. The various tales about the workings
> of the Tolkien interest groups in the days before his death (here I
> am e.g. thinking of Charles Noad's excellent historical review in
> _Amon Hen_ 50) speak of a time when debates would be very local and
> rarely would involve more than a haldful of people.
That brings back memories.
In the 1980s and early 1990s I subscribed to /Beyond Bree/, the
newsletter of the Tolkien SIG of an international organization. The
editor used a light hand, so AFAIK anything that was on topic would
get published in the monthly issues. (I believe she did compress or
eliminate contributions that were duplicates of already-published
ones.)
So these debates were international (though primarily US, because the
cost of mailing outside US and Canada made subscriptions quite
expensive). I remember a long-running discussion over whether Elves
used stirrups, and an ongoing thread about "how I started with
Tolkien".
But imagine Usenet where you send a contribution and a month or more
elapses before the other subscribers of he newsgroup see it!
I myself was a sort of proto-Google (or proto-Altavista, for old
Usenet hands). For some years I laboriously indexed the previous
year's issues so that we could find discussions on particular topics
or any more-than-passing mention of a character or object.
Alas, in one of my changes of residence I had to sacrifice huge
amounts of books and other printed matter, including my file of back
issues and indexes. According to the newsletter's Web site (yes, it
still publishes, and still on paper), back issues are available in
print; but there's no mention of their having been digitized.
Stan Brown
> " ... With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword, reached to slip
> the Ring from his finger; but, both his hands being invisible to
> him, he couldn't find it, and still invisible he slipped into
> unconsciousness."
>
> Uhm, yeah; doesn't sound quite right. :)
Well, no. Our kinesthetic sense lets us know where our various body
parts are without looking for them. You can clasp your two hands
together without seeing them. Only if someone is severely impaired
does that sense desert them.
That's why one standard test for drunkenness is to see if you can
stretch out your arm and then touch your finger to your nose without
looking.
I realize you were being jocular, but the kinesthetic sense is
interesting because it's not one of the classic five.
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 20:09:52 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> As I read that statement, the two worlds in which the calaquendi
>> exist at once are the world of Aman and the world of Middle-earth
>> -- to me it doesn't read naturally as a reference to the Seen and
>> the Unseen, which I hold should, in this statement, be read as
>> collective plurals -- all that which is seen and all that which
>> is invisible.
>
> But how do you reconcile that with Glorfindel's appearance? While
> Frodo was wearing the Ring at the Ford of Bruinen, he was clearly
> *not* in the world of Aman. Yet he saw Glorfindel as a great
> shining warrior.
Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other
side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn.
Gandalf doesn't say that Frodo himself was 'upon the other side' --
nor even that Glorfindel was. He says that Frodo was able, 'for a
moment' to see Glorfindel appear as he would appear upon the other
side. The statement can be read to mean that Frodo could see
Glorfindel in the same way as he would be seen had they both been on
the other side, or it can be read to mean that Frodo was himself
briefly on the other side, and obviously I will contest that the
former is the more natural reading ;-)
> I think Occam's Razor suggests that the other world of the
> Calaquendi is the same as the other world of a Ring-wearer.
Occam's Razor says that one should not multiply the entities more
than necessary -- the key word here is _necessary_. Einstein said
much the same when he said that 'Everything should be made as simple
as possible, but not simpler.' The reading that you suggest is, in
my opinion, not logically consistent and so it is necessary to
introduce more entities.
> Otherwise, why would Frodo have been able to see Glorfindel any
> differently from any other object of the visible world?
I'm afraid that's one of these 'all-or-nothing' questions, and it's
getting a bit late ;)
The end result is that in this post, you'll get nothing but
references to earlier posts that include all that there is (which is
not the same as 'everything').
I've tried to describe my ideas in earlier threads, and though my
ideas are still not set in stone, most of what I have said earlier
is still valid. I am working on a more coherent and self-sustained
presentation, but that is not a priority project at the moment, so
it is likely to be a while before that turns up anywhere.
In the meantime, here are the primary earlier expressions of my
thoughts:
2009-12-28 "A few questions occur"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.fan.tolkien/AAoakVuvoOI/UwwFELJJgdgJ
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rzvs74
2010-01-03 "A few questions occur"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.fan.tolkien/AAoakVuvoOI/5j7a09QPL48J
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3e7sdrq
2010-05-03 "Morgul knives and wraiths"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.books.tolkien/I7CmBq7hXpM/e2i3EtLdSrIJ
http://preview.tinyurl.com/44ns2ts
Feel free to challenge my position -- I'm likely to learn something
from that ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time
of payment draws near.
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> Certainly the years since Tolkien's death have seen a rapid
>> development in our means to reach out and communicate with others
>> who appreciate Tolkien's writings. The various tales about the
>> workings of the Tolkien interest groups in the days before his
>> death (here I am e.g. thinking of Charles Noad's excellent
>> historical review in _Amon Hen_ 50) speak of a time when debates
>> would be very local and rarely would involve more than a haldful
>> of people.
And often no more than a *handful* even ;-)
> That brings back memories.
I never did catch the early days of Tolkien fandom -- I was merely
reading the books until some day in 2001 (not long after Google had
acquired what remained of Deja.com (the earlier dejanews.com) (oh
dear -- this means that my 10th anniversary at AFT & RABT must be
coming up soon -- just googled it and it appears the anniversary will
be on September 25, and you are of course all invited <GG>). I had
been on usenet briefly from a university account in the latter half
of the eighties (any posts by me from that time are mercifully not
archived!), but I never got familiar enough with it to really find
the topics that would interest me, and so I stayed away all through
the nineties.
Looking for the the date of the Deja takeover by Google, I ran across
a few pearls from the way-back-when that I might as well share since
we're now reminiscing . . . :-)
"DejaNews considered harmful"
<http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/dejanews.html>
I am particularly struck by the statement that 'Usenet, as a
discussion system, is not meant to be a permanent medium of record;
it's a chat-room system.' I dare say that this has changed since
then, and possibly exactly /because/ of the archiving: there are
still the occasional frolicsome chat-room type post (and our 20+
questions threads might also be seen as belong to that trend), but
the more on-topic discussions often have a quality of also speaking
to the archive.
For an argument for the opposite position, lamenting the loss of
posts prior to the Dejanews archives, see this discussion from
shortly before the turn of the millennium:
<http://www.intercom.co.cr/internet/research/1999/0831.htm>
> In the 1980s and early 1990s I subscribed to /Beyond Bree/, the
> newsletter of the Tolkien SIG of an international organization.
> The editor used a light hand, so AFAIK anything that was on topic
> would get published in the monthly issues. (I believe she did
> compress or eliminate contributions that were duplicates of
> already-published ones.)
Charles Noad's article includes some delightful descriptions of early
fanzines that were stencilled and / or circulated (such as /The
Middle Earthworm/) in the late sixties / early seventies.
<snip>
> Alas, in one of my changes of residence I had to sacrifice huge
> amounts of books and other printed matter, including my file of
> back issues and indexes.
A pity, but all too often a result of moving. It makes one wonder
about how much material was lost in the various moves that Tolkien
underwent after he retired . . .
I look forward to the time when all the kids have moved out -- I hope
to get myself a 'den' for my Tolkien passion, where I can have all my
books standing next to my PC ;) But I fear the day when we will move
to something smaller . . .
> According to the newsletter's Web site (yes, it still publishes,
> and still on paper), back issues are available in print; but
> there's no mention of their having been digitized.
Yes, I have often considered getting a subscription -- the electronic
subscription is no more than $10 per year, which seems good value for
the money. I have, however, not really looked into the back issues
thing, though I do remember running across some references to
articles in /Beyond Bree/ a couple of times elsewhere, so it might
become relevant.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Troels Forchhammer
Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com>
spoke these staves:
>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Tsk, tsk. Some friendly advice, Lewis: Never argue with a
> Tolkien fan who keeps a leather bound copy of LoTR on his desk at
> all times.
Well . . . not unless you have your own (though mine is not leather
bound) and know your way about in it ;)
Still, I'm not going to argue the point -- merely expand a bit on it
;)
>> So you're saying if a child picked up the ring they would remain a
>> child as long as they possessed it? I don't think it works that
>> way.
Well, certainly not 'as long as they possessed it'. As seen in both
Gollum and the Ringwraiths, it was not without penalty to possess the
Ring -- at some point some other effects would set in.
Another question is how it would affect a _child_ specifically.
Frodo, at 33, must be considered a young adult -- physically this
would be the peak of his body, and so there is no discussion that the
Ring would prevent ageing -- after all '[t]he chief power (of all the
rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change'
viewed as a regrettable thing)' (/Letters/ no. 131 to Milton Waldman,
probably late 1951) and once you have reached your physical peak,
ageing is a kind of decay of the body. But this also casts some doubt
on how it would affect a child, since the growth of a child can
hardly be called decay. Elsewhere, however, Tolkien describes the
negative side of this Elvish motive, calling the Elves 'embalmers'
who 'tried to stop [Middle-earth's] change and history, stop its
growth, keep it as a pleasaunce' (/Letters/ 154, to Naomi Mitchison,
Sept. 1954).
Ultimately I am not sure what the effect would be on a child, but I
do think that it is at least as likely as not that the child would
grow until they reached the peak of their physical fitness after
which there would be no more ageing.
<snip>
> From "Many Meetings":
>
> Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner
> reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably
> like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his
> uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked out at him thoughtfully.
I agree with Lewis that this is not as strong as the passage from
'The Shadow of the Past', but when taken in context with the earlier
passage, I think it is clear that there is more to it than mere
slimming up and exercise -- Frodo now looks just like he did when he
received the Ring.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
Azrael
-=> Troels Forchhammer wrote to alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts. <=-
TF> Looking for the the date of the Deja takeover by Google, I ran across
TF> a few pearls from the way-back-when that I might as well share since
TF> we're now reminiscing . . . :-)
TF> "DejaNews considered harmful"
TF> <http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/dejanews.html>
TF> I am particularly struck by the statement that 'Usenet, as a
TF> discussion system, is not meant to be a permanent medium of record;
TF> it's a chat-room system.' I dare say that this has changed since
TF> then, and possibly exactly /because/ of the archiving: there are
TF> still the occasional frolicsome chat-room type post (and our 20+
TF> questions threads might also be seen as belong to that trend), but
TF> the more on-topic discussions often have a quality of also speaking
TF> to the archive.
TF> For an argument for the opposite position, lamenting the loss of
TF> posts prior to the Dejanews archives, see this discussion from
TF> shortly before the turn of the millennium:
TF> <http://www.intercom.co.cr/internet/research/1999/0831.htm>
It was certainly a rather naive statement. Anything posted on a public
network should be considered permanently archived for all practical
purposes.
I believe google did archive pre dejanews usenet. The sources were
NetNews CDs (there used to be a company that would allow you to subscribe
to usenet via CD. Whenever they had enough to fill a CD, they would send
it out) and Henry Spencer's UTZOO NetNews archive (which can also be
found at http://www.skrenta.com/rt/utzoo-usenet/ in text format and at
http://www.megalextoria.com/usenet-archive/ in html format - rather
poorly organized in both cases).
Google has these archived but whether or not you can find messages
from then is another story. From what I remember dejanews was
far better at organizing and searching usenet than google and
it's crappy and mostly broken system.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
Megalextoria
Forum: http://www.megalextoria.com/forum
Computer & Video Games: http://www.megalextoria.com/Games
Space News: http://www.megalextoria.com/space
News & Politics: http://www.megalextoria.com/politics
... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
* Dinosaur Act 2 - West Melbourne, Florida - telnet://dinosaur-act.ath.cx
Odysseus
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
> I tend to the theory that the reason the wearer vanishes in this world
> is, in fact, because he is now in the other.
I can't reconcile that with the fact that Ring-wearers still interact
with objects in this world -- seeing them (albeit hazily) included --
and are still perceptible by means of the other ordinary senses. Another
problem for me is that one's clothing and accessories also become
invisible: I conceive the other world as accessible to the spirits of
sentient beings, and to the psychic 'energy' imbued in magical objects,
but not as a physical place into which a material object could move.
> IIRC, we are told at some point that Elf-lords who have been to the
> True West exist in both worlds simultaneously.
IMO that supports the notion that the invisibility and 'otherwordliness'
effects of the Ring are separate.
--
Odysseus