Chapter of the Week LOTR Bk1 Ch2: The Shadow of the Past
Elwë Singollo
Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
To check out the other Chapters of the Week or to sign up to do a
chapter of your own, go to http://parasha.maoltuile.org
Chapter Summary :
_____________________
Time passed, and Gandalf visited Frodo several times before disappearing for
more than 9 years. Frodo was almost 50 when Gandalf reappeared one night
looking "older and more careworn".
The following day, Gandalf told Frodo that the ring Bilbo gave him was one
of the great rings of power. Although he was almost certain to know which
one of the great rings he was dealing with, Gandalf still had to conduct a
last test to confirm his darkest hypotheses. Taking the ring, he threw it
into the fire to Frodo's biggest surprise and displeasure. After a while, he
removed the ring from the fire and took it directly in his hand before
handing it to Frodo. The ring was undamaged and cold, and the hobbit noticed
that fine lines of fire "finer than the finest pen-strokes" appeared on the
surface of the ring, forming the following words : "One ring to rule them
all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness
bind them."
His test was positive, and Gandalf told Frodo that his ring was in fact the
Dark Lord's ring, also named the Master Ring or the One Ring. As Frodo
wanted to know how Bilbo came to posses this terrible ring, Gandalf
explained him all he was able to discover during the past few years:
At the end of the second age, during the last alliance of elves and men,
Sauron was defeated and the mighty ring was taken from him by Isildur, son
of the king Elendil. Isildur kept the ring, but was betrayed by it when he
was trying to escape an attack of orcs. The ring slipped from his finger
while he was swimming in the river Anduin. Isildur was killed, and the ring
was lost in the river. There it remained unfound during approximately 2460
years, before a hobbit-like creature named Déagol found it while fishing in
the river. His friend Sméagol wanted the ring for himself and therefore
killed Déagol and took the ring. Affected by this burden, he went hiding
from his people and from the sun into a cave under the misty mountains. The
ring prolonged his life and slowly destroyed him, transforming him into
Gollum, the creature Bilbo met during his quest to Erebor, about 480 years
after the ring was found in the river.
The story of the ring and Isildur was well-known, but until now, nobody knew
what happened to it after it fell into the Anduin. Gandalf explained to
Frodo that he spent much time trying to find Gollum, who was the only one
who could give him the needed information. But finding the creature was a
hard task, for after Bilbo took his precious from him, Gollum left the misty
mountains to try to catch the thief. Gollum was eventually caught by Aragorn
and brought to Gandalf, who questioned him. Besides the important
information about the ring, Gandalf learned that Gollum had been captured
and tortured by Sauron before Aragorn found him.
Because of the information Gollum may have given to the Dark Lord, it is not
safe for Frodo to remain in the Shire, because Sauron probably got from the
creature the names of Baggins and of the Shire. Frodo decides to leave
Bag-End; he is at the same time afraid to leave and excited to start an
adventure as Bilbo did, but he is quite reluctant to travel alone. A travel
partner is unexpectedly found when Gandalf notices that Sam Gamegee heard
the whole conversation that was supposed to remain secret. Sam is excited to
leave with his master and to get the chance to see some elves.
_________________________________________________________
Suggested Topics of disussion :
1) 17 years have passed between Bilbo's disappearance and the action of
this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he feels that this is a number
of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was the same age when he left with Gandalf and
the dwarves. Was Frodo expecting that something important was about to
change his life?
2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know that during his
long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas Tirith, where he read Isildur's
scroll, from which he learned that the one ring bore inscriptions that fire
can reveal. Knowing that Gandalf's main concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron
and the lost ring, why did he wait until he thought he had discovered the
one ring before gathering information on how to recognize it? Shouldn't he
have gone to Minas Tirith a long time ago, when the white council decided
that the ring was a matter of importance?
3) About the ring : "It did not seem always of the same size and
weight.", "It felt suddenly very heavy.", "It seemed to have become thicker
and heavier than ever" and so on. Are the changing proprieties of the ring
real or is the ring acting on the mind to make it think it changes shape and
weight? The verbs used in these sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the
ring was able to trick the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from
the finger (as it left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's
hand") would mean that it was really able to change its physical shape,
wouldn't it?
4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to have
its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to Gandalf, "It
could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If the ring
is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo while he
was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
5) Why did Bilbo and Sméagol want to be considered as the legitimate
owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to lie about what happened
in Gollum's cave? But if he told the truth, what would the difference be?
Bilbo was not afraid to be seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was
hired for that matter). But he wanted to be seen as the legitimate owner of
the ring, why that.
6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the effects of the
great rings than men (and maybe even elves and maiar). Might it be because
of the way of life of the hobbits, who want to live happily and quietly, and
who are not looking for power and domination?
7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly affected
by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring for several
centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time behaviour changed
after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious
uses."
Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why was he
attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he just deducted,
but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did Gollum expect to find
in Mordor?
9) Please feel free to add any topics you'd like to discuss
Now, let the discussion begin!
Elwë
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
> 2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know that
> during his long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas Tirith, where he
> read Isildur's scroll, from which he learned that the one ring bore
> inscriptions that fire can reveal. Knowing that Gandalf's main
> concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron and the lost ring, why did he
wait
> until he thought he had discovered the one ring before gathering
> information on how to recognize it? Shouldn't he have gone to Minas
> Tirith a long time ago, when the white council decided that the ring
> was a matter of importance?
I think that is explained satisfactorily in The Council of Elrond: It
was known, that Saruman was the ultimate authority on rings. It is in
a sense a simple matter of not duplicate someelses work. Saruman knew,
Saruman said the ring was lost; no reason to investigate any further.
> 3) About the ring : "It did not seem always of the same size
and
> weight.", "It felt suddenly very heavy.", "It seemed to have become
> thicker and heavier than ever" and so on. Are the changing
> proprieties of the ring real or is the ring acting on the mind to
> make it think it changes shape and weight? The verbs used in these
> sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the ring was able to trick
> the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from the finger (as
> it left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's hand")
> would mean that it was really able to change its physical shape,
> wouldn't it?
The answer, I think, is both. The ring clearly was able to change
form. It could slip of a finger (it "might suddenly slip off a finger
where it had been tight" -- A shadow from the Past), hence it could
clearly change its form. On the other hand Sam didn't feel the immense
weight of the Ring, when carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mount Doom
("to his amazement he felt the burden light. He had feared that he
would have barely strength to lift his master alone, and beyond that
he had expected to share in the dreadful dragging weight of the
accursed Ring. But it was not so ... Sam lifted Frodo with no more
difficulty than if he were carrying a hobbit-child pig-a-back " --
Mount Doom).
> 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems
> to have its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According
to
> Gandalf, "It could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned
> Gollum". If the ring is able to foresee its future , why didn't it
> try to abandon Frodo while he was going to Mount Doom? Staying with
> him was pure suicide, wasn't it? Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger
> than the ring's.
How could it? Gollum was wearing the ring on his finger (presumably)
when he lost, as was Isildur. Frodo had it in a chain around his neck.
<snip>
> 6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the effects of
> the great rings than men (and maybe even elves and maiar). Might it
> be because of the way of life of the hobbits, who want to live
> happily and quietly, and who are not looking for power and
domination?
"Not looking for power and domination" is the key point. It is after
all the explanation why Tom Bombadil isn't affected *at all*.
> 7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly
> affected by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring
> for several centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time
> behaviour changed after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to
> crooked and malicious uses."
> Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
Smeagol was a rotten egg? If I
remember correctly he wasn't very well liked even before the ring. He
was interested in finding out things. This turned to snooping (using
the Ring). And maybe telling. Etc.
Bilbo on the other hand was a gentlehobbit, and had no use for
anything but what he already had. Except maybe an adventure, and
Gandalf had already provided one to last him a lifetime.
> 8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why
> was he attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he
> just deducted, but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did
> Gollum expect to find in Mordor?
s/Bilbo went/Gollum went/
First of all, Gollum didn't know where the Shire was. Secondly he was
attrackted by the Evil of the place. How did this attraction work in
RL terms. I'm not sure, but it seems to be like the insideus workings
off the ring on your mind. ("wouldn't it be a good idea to go this
way?", "This way or that way, I don't know, but that way looks ...
fishier"), subtly changing your thinking, your purpose.
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
Christopher Kreuzer
> 2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know that
during his
> long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas Tirith, where he read
Isildur's
> scroll, from which he learned that the one ring bore inscriptions that
fire
> can reveal.
In fact, in the Council of Elrond, Gandalf reveals that when he was
trying to find Gollum (with Aragorn's aid), he remembered the words of
Saruman to the White Council about the One Ring: "...its maker set marks
upon it that the skilled, maybe, could still see and read." Gandalf then
reasoned that Isildur may have found out what these marks were, and so
Gandalf went to Minas Tirith and found that scroll. It is not entirely
clear why Gandalf did not go to Saruman then. Gandalf seems to think
that Saruman might know what the inscription says, but Gandalf wanted to
find the original documents that Saruman might have used to find out
about the Ring inscription. It looks like Gandalf was wary of Saruman
already...
> Knowing that Gandalf's main concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron
> and the lost ring, why did he wait until he thought he had discovered
the
> one ring before gathering information on how to recognize it?
Shouldn't he
> have gone to Minas Tirith a long time ago, when the white council
decided
> that the ring was a matter of importance?
It seems clear that Ring-lore was Saruman's area of expertise, and that
Gandalf would normally have deferred to him in this area. Indeed,
earlier in the Council he reports that Saruman said the Ring rolled down
the River to the Sea. Gandalf says: "There I was at fault. I was lulled
by the words of Saruman the Wise; but I should have sought for the truth
sooner, and our peril would now be less."
That's pretty conclusive! Gandalf messed up!!
> 3) About the ring :
The size/weight changes were probably both mental and physical effects.
> 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems
to have
> its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to Gandalf,
"It
> could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If
the ring
> is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo
while he
> was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
> Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
The Ring was IIRC on a chain. Not so easy to slip off! The Ring *did*
make enormous efforts to overcome Frodo's resistance to the Ring, and
eventually the Ring succeeded. Then Gollum and Fate stepped in.
> 7) Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
The differences between Gollum and Bilbo and Frodo. Gollum was probably
more inclined towards acts of evil. Bilbo and Frodo less so. I like the
suggestion in the film that Deagol also tried to murder Smeagol. Maybe
it is the presence of *two* people when the Ring is unclaimed. Obviously
you have to have someone there to murder and presumably once the Ring is
claimed the effect lessens. Bilbo is alone when he finds it. I presume
Isildur is as well, or at least Elrond and Cirdan don't try to murder
him. Gandalf would have been unlikely to try and kill Frodo to get the
Ring! The fact that Smeagol is capable of murdering Deagol (ie. Deagol
is not strong enough to fend him off) may also be important. If, say, a
man had found the Ring with Smeagol present (unlikely I know), would
Smeagol have been less likely to try and murder this hypothetical man
who has found the Ring?
> 8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why
was he
> attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he just
deducted,
> but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did Gollum expect to
find
> in Mordor?
There is a reference somewhere to the Dark Lord "drawing all evil things
to him." I think Gollum could be included in that. The quote is actually
in this very chapter, just after Gandalf tells of Gollum's capture:
"Alas! 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 goes on to say why
Gollum would go there: to get revenge, presumably on Bilbo.
> 9) Please feel free to add any topics you'd like to discuss
You forgot the 'Gandalf temptation' scene and the 'Pity' scene!!
10) What does Gandalf's reaction to Frodo's offer of the Ring tell us
about Gandalf and about the Ring?
11) Does Gandalf's sermon on Pity reveal the ending of the story? What
does Frodo's initial attitude towards Gollum tell us about Frodo?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Raven
news:9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com...
> Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
Eeek! Typpo tyop! :-)
> 1) 17 years have passed between Bilbo's disappearance and the action
> of this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he feels that this is a
> number of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was the same age when he left
> with Gandalf and the dwarves. Was Frodo expecting that something
> important was about to change his life?
I should say so. It is so described in the book. Perhaps not that he
was positively expecting Adventure to fall like sudden rain from the sky,
but that he was approaching his fiftieth birthday with an uneasy feeling, at
least in part because he knew that this was dear Bilbo's age when he had had
his adventure.
> 2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know that during
> his long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas Tirith, where he read
> Isildur's scroll, from which he learned that the one ring bore
> inscriptions that fire can reveal. Knowing that Gandalf's main
> concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron and the lost ring, why did
> he wait until he thought he had discovered the one ring before
> gathering information on how to recognize it? Shouldn't he have
> gone to Minas Tirith a long time ago, when the white council
> decided that the ring was a matter of importance?
Judging by Gandalf's own tale, he simply didn't think of it before.
Perhaps because he thought, as Saruman had instructed him, that the Ring had
been lost forever, and therefore didn't bother to seek this ringlore.
Gandalf's concern was Sauron, and only when he suspected that the Ring was
still around did he take a more active interest in it.
He saw how Bilbo's ring affected him, and became uneasy. His suspicions
that Saruman had misled him (in origin he thought that Saruman had done so
unintentionally) grew, and he pondered how to find out more. Then, "Aha!"
> 3) About the ring : "It did not seem always of the same size and
> weight.", "It felt suddenly very heavy.", "It seemed to have become
> thicker and heavier than ever" and so on. Are the changing
> proprieties of the ring real or is the ring acting on the mind to make
> it think it changes shape and weight? The verbs used in these
> sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the ring was able to trick
> the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from the finger (as it
> left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's hand") would
> mean that it was really able to change its physical shape, wouldn't
> it?
I would say both. It is able to change its apparent weight and size, but
it is also able to change its physical size - or we'll have to contend that
it changes the diameter of the finger that it's on. Or perhaps that it
induces the bearer to unwittingly shove it off his finger himself, without
trace of memory of this after. Or is able to become perfectly slippery,
zero friction, at will.
> 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to
> have its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to
> Gandalf, "It could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned
> Gollum". If the ring is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to
> abandon Frodo while he was going to Mount Doom? Staying with
> him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
> Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
Isildur lost it when he wore it on his finger. So did Gollum. So did
Bilbo at the Back Door of the Goblins, though luckily for him it only
slipped back into his pocket.
Frodo wore it on a chain which he kept around his neck. The Ring was not
able to slip off that, since it was unable to break itself open. If Frodo
had worn the Ring frequently without the chain then rest assured the Ring
would have slipped off, unless Frodo had kept his attention on it
constantly, which would have been impossible.
> 5) Why did Bilbo and Sméagol want to be considered as the legitimate
> owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to lie about what happened
> in Gollum's cave? But if he told the truth, what would the difference be?
> Bilbo was not afraid to be seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was
> hired for that matter). But he wanted to be seen as the legitimate owner
> of the ring, why that.
Bilbo didn't agree that stealing was a legitimate way to aquire true
ownership. He went with the Dwarves as their burglar because he would then
be trying to retrieve items which properly belonged to them in the first
place. If he had succeeded at stealing William's purse, then possibly he
would not really have considered it and its contents properly his own.
Remember how he spent the Trolls' gold so freely in gift - he didn't feel
that it properly belonged to him as it came from robbers.
Nor did Bilbo apparently believe that finder's keeper's. If the Ring
properly belonged to Gollum, which is what he knew (or believed) by the time
he told his lie to the Company, then by rights he ought to have given it
back to Gollum at once. Interesting to see Gollum's reaction if this had
happened - Bilbo giving the Ring back would perhaps have allayed all
Gollum's hate and suspicion that Bilbo would try to steal it, while the Ring
by its nature and the hold it had on Gollum would have sought to inflame him
with a killing-rage against Bilbo.
But Bilbo wanted to own it for himself, and to convince himself and
everybody else who knew about it that this was so. Yes. His very own.
Right. Freely and honestly given in free gift. Quite. No doubt.
Absolutely none. And it might as well have been this that Gollum would have
promised him anyway if he had not guessed that Bilbo also needed to be shown
the way out. Evidently. Quite. Oh yes.
> 6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the effects of the
> great rings than men (and maybe even elves and maiar). Might it be because
> of the way of life of the hobbits, who want to live happily and quietly,
> and who are not looking for power and domination?
I should suppose that it was part of the nature of Hobbits. In their
social life this psychological makeup manifested itself in a lack of
ambition to mind other people's business. Holding the Ring, it manifested
itself in giving the Ring less to work with in its attempt to dominate them.
> 7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly
> affected by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring
> for several centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time
> behaviour changed after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge
> to crooked and malicious uses."
> Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
Individual difference. Presumably Lotho, had he found the Ring, would
have become much like Gollum, or Sandyman if he had found it. Bilbo and
Frodo, like most Hobbits, were much nicer persons than Sméagol, Lotho Pimple
and Ted Sandyman.
Also, much is made in the book about how Gollum began his ownership of
the Ring, namely by murder, and how Bilbo did, by an act of mercy and pity.
Gandalf more or less flatly states that Bilbo would have turned come off
worse had he slain Gollum in the Goblins' caves.
> 8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why was he
> attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he just
> deducted, but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did
> Gollum expect to find in Mordor?
Apparently he didn't go to Mordor by his own plan and choice. Sauron had
just declared himself there, and become much more active - including at
sending out evil vibes that affected Gollum greatly. This was before he had
learnt from bitter experience the hideous peril that awaited all that
entered Mordor, so after he was permitted to "escape" he would be able to
refuse the subliminal summons.
Eware.
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com:
> Suggested Topics of disussion :
>
> 1) 17 years have passed between Bilbo's disappearance and
> the action of this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he
> feels that this is a number of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was
> the same age when he left with Gandalf and the dwarves. Was
> Frodo expecting that something important was about to change
> his life?
Frodo was hoping for an adventure, and as he approached 50, he
began to realize that any adventuring he might do should be done
soon. I think he also was feeling the effect of the Ring's desire
to return to Sauron; this may have made itself manifest in an
unconcious "knowing" that he would be going on a venture soon.
>
> 2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know
> that during his long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas
> Tirith, where he read Isildur's scroll, from which he learned
> that the one ring bore inscriptions that fire can reveal.
> Knowing that Gandalf's main concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron
> and the lost ring, why did he wait until he thought he had
> discovered the one ring before gathering information on how to
> recognize it? Shouldn't he have gone to Minas Tirith a long
> time ago, when the white council decided that the ring was a
> matter of importance?
>
He had plans to check further, but Saruman told the Council (as we
later find out) that the Ring had long ago gone to the ocean deeps,
swept away by Anduin. It wasn't until a ring that had odd powers
was found that Gandalf really began to think Saruman was wrong.
> 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring
> seems to have its own will and to be able to leave its bearer.
> According to Gandalf, "It could make no further use of him,
> (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If the ring is able to foresee
> its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo while he was
> going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't
> it? Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
>
The Ring had a will, yes, but not a cognizant, intelligent or aware
will. More like power calling to power; the Ring was part of
Sauron, and without its master was not complete - just as Sauron
was not complete without the Ring.
> 5) Why did Bilbo and Sm‚agol want to be considered as the
> legitimate owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to
> lie about what happened in Gollum's cave? But if he told the
> truth, what would the difference be? Bilbo was not afraid to be
> seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was hired for that
> matter). But he wanted to be seen as the legitimate owner of
> the ring, why that.
>
The lure of the Ring caused each, in his own way, to need to be the
sole owner of it. Smeagol/Gollum and Bilbo probably felt the pull
of the corrupting power of the Ring, and knowing if they were not
seen as legitimate bearers, the Ring would be taken from them, they
each had to concoct a plausible reason as to how they got the Ring.
Smeagol committed 2 evil acts to get the Ring - he stole it from
Deagol, and killed Deagol to get the Ring. His later actions of
using the Ring to spy on his fellows and steal from them, combined
with long years of the the evil influence of the Ring, caused him
to become the wretched creature he was in LoTR.
Bilbo didn't commit an evil act to get the Ring, or keep it. He
didn't actually steal the Ring,although, since he then found out
who the "real" owner was, and could have returned it, he could be
seen as a thief. And as his subsequent use of the Ring was
minimal and fairly innocent the evil influence did not affect him
as strongly.
> 6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the
> effects of the great rings than men (and maybe even elves and
> maiar). Might it be because of the way of life of the hobbits,
> who want to live happily and quietly, and who are not looking
> for power and domination?
>
Could very well be. The Ring seemed to act on the inner desires of
the bearer - fed the inner fires, so to speak.
> 7) But Sm‚agol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was
> greatly affected by the ring. One explanation is that he had
> born the ring for several centuries before Bilbo took it. But
> even his short-time behaviour changed after he killed D‚agol:
> "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses."
> Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come
> from?
>
Again, the Ring seemed to act on the inner desires of the bearer -
fed the inner fires, so to speak. Smeagol began with inordinate
desire to have the Ring and the Ring enhanced this; that Smeagol
killed Deagol to get the Ring was part of this influence. Smeagol
used the Ring for getting things he wanted - knowledge and items he
felt should have been his. His actions to get the Ring, and his
lack of remorse afterwards, shows that he no conscience to prevent
him from doing evil if he could get away with it. The Ring just
enhanced his inner badness.
Bilbo didn't have the same inner needs, and he had a conscience
that demanded he do the right thing. The Ring would eventually
have corrupted h im, just as it did Smeagol, and as it was starting
to when he left the Shire (he was nearly unable to leave the Ring
behind).
> 8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived,
> why was he attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire,
> which he just deducted, but he preferred to go towards danger.
> Why? What did Gollum expect to find in Mordor?
>
He started to head to the Shire, then suddenly turned and went
south. It seems to me that Sauron was calling for the Ring, or the
Ring bearer, and Gollum was so very ensnared in the influence of
the Ring that he had no choice.
--
mc
Stan Brown
>Knowing that Gandalf's main concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron
>and the lost ring, why did he wait until he thought he had discovered the
>one ring before gathering information on how to recognize it? Shouldn't he
>have gone to Minas Tirith a long time ago, when the white council decided
>that the ring was a matter of importance?
Remember that Saruman was the White Council's investigator into
Ring-lore. While Gandalf had a small doubt about Saruman, at this
point Saruman still seemed to be working for the Council. Also there
didn't seem to be particular urgency because Bilbo was showing no
ill effects. "The lore of the Elven-rings, great and small, is
[Saruman's] province. He has long studied it, seeking the lost
secrets of their making; but when the Rings were debated in the
Council, all that he would reveal to us of his ring-lore told
against my fears. So my doubt slept - but uneasily. Still I watched
and I waited. And all seemed well with Bilbo."
>3)The verbs used in these sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the
>ring was able to trick the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from
>the finger (as it left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's
>hand") would mean that it was really able to change its physical shape,
>wouldn't it?
Yes, I think so.
>4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to have
>its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to Gandalf, "It
>could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If the ring
>is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo while he
>was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
>Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
Even assuming the Ring has a will, there's not a lot it can do when
a chain is threaded through it and then worn securely around Frodo's
neck. (Movie-Frodo apparently wore it outside his clothes, which
would have been amazingly silly.)
>5) Why did Bilbo and Sméagol want to be considered as the legitimate
>owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to lie about what happened
>in Gollum's cave? But if he told the truth, what would the difference be?
Now you're sounding like a modern person. Even as recently as when
Tolkien wrote, even very bad people worried about their reputation.
The _name_ of thief was a source of deep shame, and neither Bilbo
nor Gollum wanted to bear it even though they both had earned it.
>Bilbo was not afraid to be seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was
>hired for that matter).
That's different, because they hired him to get back their own stuff
and give it to them, not steal it and keep it for himself. Remember
that "burglar" in the sense he used it was explicitly equated to
"expert treasure-hunter" in Chapter 1 of /The Hobbit/.
>6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the effects of the
>great rings than men (and maybe even elves and maiar). Might it be because
>of the way of life of the hobbits, who want to live happily and quietly, and
>who are not looking for power and domination?
I think so. Also Tolkien had to some extent romanticized the "stout
yeomen" of England, and saw Hobbits as similar to them: honest,
slow-thinking maybe but not stupid, and pretty much immovable in
defense of their homes.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
AC
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:31:39 GMT,
Elwë Singollo <elwe.s...@doriath.me> wrote:
> Chapter of the Week: The Lord of the Rings, Book 1
> Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
<snip excellent synopsis>
> 3) About the ring : "It did not seem always of the same size and
> weight.", "It felt suddenly very heavy.", "It seemed to have become thicker
> and heavier than ever" and so on. Are the changing proprieties of the ring
> real or is the ring acting on the mind to make it think it changes shape and
> weight? The verbs used in these sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the
> ring was able to trick the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from
> the finger (as it left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's
> hand") would mean that it was really able to change its physical shape,
> wouldn't it?
I think it could both affect the bearer's mind and change it's physical
properties. It had betrayed Isildur and Smeagol. As well it could feel
like a burden, as it did when Frodo entered Mordor, which was obviously a
psychic effect.
>
> 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to have
> its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to Gandalf, "It
> could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If the ring
> is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo while he
> was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
> Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
I really don't think the Ring was at all sentient. I've described its
actions before as a sort of automatic homing mechanism that Sauron probably
put in the Ring on the off chance that he lost it.
>
> 5) Why did Bilbo and Sméagol want to be considered as the legitimate
> owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to lie about what happened
> in Gollum's cave? But if he told the truth, what would the difference be?
> Bilbo was not afraid to be seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was
> hired for that matter). But he wanted to be seen as the legitimate owner of
> the ring, why that.
I don't think it was quite the overt an effect. In all three cases before
Frodo's inheriting it (Isildur, Smeagol and Bilbo) they wanted to claim it
as their own very clearly. Isildur took it as an heirloom, and Bilbo and
Smeagol claimed it as a gift.
>
> 6) Apparently, the hobbits are more resistant to the effects of the
> great rings than men (and maybe even elves and maiar). Might it be because
> of the way of life of the hobbits, who want to live happily and quietly, and
> who are not looking for power and domination?
To a degree I think that is true. There was also a core of indominability
in Hobbits. For the most part they weren't easily daunted or dominated, and
this seems to have been the key to their resistance of its effects.
>
> 7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature,
He wasn't Hobbit-like. He was a Hobbit. The Shire had already been founded
by the time Deagol spotted it in the Anduin.
>and he was greatly affected
> by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring for several
> centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time behaviour changed
> after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious
> uses."
> Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
I don't really see any difference. Unlike Bilbo, but like Lotho Baggins and
a few other Hobbits we see, Smeagol was a bit of a sneaky fellow to begin
with.
>
> 8) After Gollum went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why was he
> attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he just deducted,
> but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did Gollum expect to find
> in Mordor?
As I recall, Gandalf said he was drawn to Mordor. I don't think it was
actually a conscious decision
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Elwë Singollo
>
> The size/weight changes were probably both mental and physical effects.
>
> make enormous efforts to overcome Frodo's resistance to the Ring, and
> eventually the Ring succeeded. Then Gollum and Fate stepped in.
But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would then be
possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the chain
and then take back its original shape. That would not be in contradiction
with what is written wouldn't it? Maybe the ring did wrongly foresee that
Frodo would fail once in Mordor, and therefore stayed with him, hoping to
get back to his master.
> > 8) After Bilbo went to Dale, and learnt where Bilbo lived, why
> was he
> > attracted towards Mordor? The ring was in the Shire, which he just
> deducted,
> > but he preferred to go towards danger. Why? What did Gollum expect to
> find
> > in Mordor?
>
> There is a reference somewhere to the Dark Lord "drawing all evil things
> to him." I think Gollum could be included in that. The quote is actually
> in this very chapter, just after Gandalf tells of Gollum's capture:
>
> "Alas! 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 goes on to say why
> Gollum would go there: to get revenge, presumably on Bilbo.
>
Well, I read this actually :-). But why were the evil things attracted to
him? Apparently, Mordor's call was greater than the ring, so what was the
reason behind this force drawing evil things towards Mordor? I don't think
it was Gollum's intention to put himself to Sauron's service...
> You forgot the 'Gandalf temptation' scene and the 'Pity' scene!!
>
> 10) What does Gandalf's reaction to Frodo's offer of the Ring tell us
> about Gandalf and about the Ring?
>
> 11) Does Gandalf's sermon on Pity reveal the ending of the story? What
> does Frodo's initial attitude towards Gollum tell us about Frodo?
It does not reveal it, but it is a hint. The first time you read the story,
you can not guess the end from Gandalf's words. But if you know what happens
at the end, this sure is a serious hint...
Elwë
Elwë Singollo
"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> a écrit dans le
message de news:7pXQb.21092$Un6....@news.get2net.dk...
> "Elwė Singollo" <elwe.s...@doriath.me> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com...
>
> > Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
>
> Eeek! Typpo tyop! :-)
Oooops, Sorry!
> > 4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to
> > have its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to
> > Gandalf, "It could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned
> > Gollum". If the ring is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try
to
> > abandon Frodo while he was going to Mount Doom? Staying with
> > him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
> > Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
>
> Isildur lost it when he wore it on his finger. So did Gollum. So did
> Bilbo at the Back Door of the Goblins, though luckily for him it only
> slipped back into his pocket.
> Frodo wore it on a chain which he kept around his neck. The Ring was
not
> able to slip off that, since it was unable to break itself open. If Frodo
> had worn the Ring frequently without the chain then rest assured the Ring
> would have slipped off, unless Frodo had kept his attention on it
> constantly, which would have been impossible.
Why is the ring unable to break itself open? If we agree that the ring can
change its physical shape, then that would be possible. It is not possible
to break the ring, but if the ring itself decides to do so, that should be
possible...
Elwė
Henriette
> Chapter 2 - The S[h]adow of the Past
>
Well done Elwë and very timely, thank you!
> The ring was undamaged and cold, and the hobbit noticed
> that fine lines of fire "finer than the finest pen-strokes" appeared on the
> surface of the ring, forming the following words
here *I* would have added: in the language of Mordor, in Elvish
letters:
>: "One ring to rule them
> all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness
> bind them."
But this is hardly meant as criticism, more to show how different
people have a different focus.
>
> 4) (snip) If the ring
> is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo while he
> was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't it?
> Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
As for this point, I second what Christopher says in this thread: the
Ring *did* fight to stay away from Mt Doom!
> 7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly affected
> by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring for several
> centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time behaviour changed
> after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious
> uses."
> Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
>
Here I agree with the one who argued that Bilbo was a gentle-hobbit
and Sméagol was someone "whose head and eyes were downward".
> 9) Please feel free to add any topics you'd like to discuss
>
* "For sport killing nothing that lived", it says about Hobbits in "On
Hobbits", remember? Now what does our Sam say one evening in The Green
Dragon?
"My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes
up to the Northfarthing for the HUNTING".
* I thought this quote sociologically interesting about, as Gandalf
calls them, a "little people" presumably "of hobbit-kind":
"There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and
wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk,
stern and wise in old lore, such as they had". This lady, Sméagol's
grandmother, is several pages later explicitly called "Matriarch".
* Gandalf says it is an encouraging thought, something is at work
which makes, Frodo was *meant* to have the Ring, as *Bilbo* was meant
to find the Ring "and *not* it's maker". Frodo does not understand
this, neither do I, but Gandalf quickly changes topic. Bluffing again?
Henriette
Marc Nauwelaerts
news:4014c646$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch:
>
> Why is the ring unable to break itself open? If we agree that the ring
> can change its physical shape, then that would be possible. It is not
> possible to break the ring, but if the ring itself decides to do so,
> that should be possible...
>
> Elwë
>
>
Maybe because it is a far more radical change to break open a ring,
ceasing then to be a ring, than to undergo a small change of size,
allowing it to slip from the wearer's finger.
I have always thought that the ring is more subtle in its influence and
actions than just sprouting wings to fly away, Balrog-like.
Regards,
Marc
Pradera
loosely:
>> The Ring was IIRC on a chain. Not so easy to slip off! The Ring *did*
>> make enormous efforts to overcome Frodo's resistance to the Ring, and
>> eventually the Ring succeeded. Then Gollum and Fate stepped in.
>
> But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would
> then be possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip
> from the chain and then take back its original shape. That would not
> be in contradiction with what is written wouldn't it? Maybe the ring
> did wrongly foresee that Frodo would fail once in Mordor, and
> therefore stayed with him, hoping to get back to his master.
If it could do that, it could transform itself into a helicopter and fly
to Mordor, as well. It wouldn't be a Ring anymore. It is nowhere written
that in can change _shape_. A ring is a ring, whether small or big. When
broken, it becomes something else. I don't think it's possible.
--
Pradera
---
The Greatest Tolkien Fan Ever(tm)
Books are books, movies are movies, PJ's LotR is crap.
http://www.pradera-castle.prv.pl/
http://www.tolkien-gen.prv.pl/
Troels Forchhammer
Christopher Kreuzer <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
> "Elwë Singollo" <elwe.s...@doriath.me> wrote
>>
<snip>
> It looks like Gandalf was wary of Saruman already...
In 'The Shadow of the Past' Gandalf says about Saruman, "His knowledge
is deep, but his pride has grown with it, and he takes ill any
meddling." Of course he also says about consulting Saruman that,
"something always held me back" but on the conscious level I think it
is likely that Gandalf didn't want to upset Saruman with any "meddling"
(his wariness could, I think, be subconscious - parallel to his
premonition about Bilbo when setting up the Quest of Erebor).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Troels Forchhammer
Elwë Singollo <Elwe.S...@doriath.me> enriched us with:
>
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> 11) Does Gandalf's sermon on Pity reveal the ending of the story?
>
> It does not reveal it, but it is a hint. The first time you read the
> story, you can not guess the end from Gandalf's words. But if you
> know what happens at the end, this sure is a serious hint...
There is of course also the incident where Gandalf asks Frodo to throw
the Ring into the fire (where it had already been), and Frodo fails.
And Gandalf's words about Gollum having "some part to play yet, for
good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo
may rule the fate of many - yours not least'.
Taken together I think these statements quite clearly predicts the end,
but, as you say, to the reader who already knows the end.
In the light of what Tolkien has said in various letters about the
roles of Frodo and Gollum at the end, might this be his way of guiding
our interpretation of the ending?
Troels Forchhammer
Raven <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
>
> "Elwë Singollo" <elwe.s...@doriath.me> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> action of this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he feels that
>> this is a number of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was the same age when
>> he left
>> with Gandalf and the dwarves. Was Frodo expecting that something
>> important was about to change his life?
>
> I should say so. It is so described in the book. Perhaps not
> that he was positively expecting Adventure to fall like sudden rain
> from the sky, but that he was approaching his fiftieth birthday with
> an uneasy feeling, at least in part because he knew that this was
> dear Bilbo's age when he had had his adventure.
In various letters we learn how Frodo recieved a grace at various
points in the story: to accept the quest and in the end.
In this chapter we also have the motif of some other, supposedly
higher, will meaning Bilbo to find the Ring and Frodo to get it (though
it is no consolation to Frodo).
There are other instances that might be interpreted as Frodo and Sam
getting some kind of help from outside themselves (speaking words they
don't understand etc.)
Could Frodo's growing restlessness be of the same order - a premonition
that something is about to happen delivered by the same will that has
chosen him? His restlessness definitely helps him accept the need to
leave the Shire - we see how, "as he was speaking a great desire to
follow Bilbo flamed up in his heart -"
Stan Brown
>I really don't think the Ring was at all sentient. I've described its
>actions before as a sort of automatic homing mechanism that Sauron probably
>put in the Ring on the off chance that he lost it.
I have something of the same idea. I think of animals like ants
being attracted to certain scents -- "tropism" is the word, I think.
Rhiannon S
>From: held...@hotmail.com (Henriette)
>Date: 26/01/2004 08:55 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com>
> "For sport killing nothing that lived", it says about Hobbits in "On
>Hobbits", remember? Now what does our Sam say one evening in The Green
>Dragon?
>"My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes
>up to the Northfarthing for the HUNTING".
>
But the shire is a rural economy, they might not hunt for sport, but almost
certainly they would for food. Pheasants, pigeons, deer etc are all still food
items in parts of the UK.
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: depends on what you want it changed into!
Stan Brown
>But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would then be
>possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the chain
>and then take back its original shape. That would not be in contradiction
>with what is written wouldn't it?
I think that is pushing "what is written" very far. It's not in
contradiction to say that the Ring could transform itself into a
two- or four-legged creature and walk to Sauron, but that seems
equally far fetched.
The Ring is a ring, magical but still a ring. If it had the kind of
powers you suggest, it would have leaped off Gollum's finger at the
Sammath Naur.
Tamzin
"Elwë Singollo" <Elwe.S...@doriath.me> wrote in message
news:4014c4bd$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > > 3) About the ring :
> >
> > The size/weight changes were probably both mental and physical effects.
> >
> > The Ring was IIRC on a chain. Not so easy to slip off! The Ring *did*
> > make enormous efforts to overcome Frodo's resistance to the Ring, and
> > eventually the Ring succeeded. Then Gollum and Fate stepped in.
>
> But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would then
be
> possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the chain
> and then take back its original shape. That would not be in contradiction
> with what is written wouldn't it? Maybe the ring did wrongly foresee that
> Frodo would fail once in Mordor, and therefore stayed with him, hoping to
> get back to his master.
But then you might argue that it could change its form so that it no longer
resembled a ring at all. Or do you envisage a limitation on this ability?
Tamzin
Elwë Singollo
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> a écrit dans le message de news:
MPG.1a7effe35...@news.odyssey.net...
> It seems "Elwė Singollo" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would then
be
> >possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the
chain
> >and then take back its original shape. That would not be in contradiction
> >with what is written wouldn't it?
>
> I think that is pushing "what is written" very far. It's not in
> contradiction to say that the Ring could transform itself into a
> two- or four-legged creature and walk to Sauron, but that seems
> equally far fetched.
>
> The Ring is a ring, magical but still a ring. If it had the kind of
> powers you suggest, it would have leaped off Gollum's finger at the
> Sammath Naur.
>
> --
Indeed, I went too far, but if it wanted to, the ring would probably have
found a way to live Frodo. But I think Christopher and Aaron are right : The
ring probably didn't have the power to foresee its fate. It was only able to
feel if it was on its way to Mordor. Therefore, the ring remained with
Frodo, for he was taking it exactly where the ring was drawn to. At the last
minute, when it realized it was in great danger, it influenced Frodo's mind
to be saved. Luckily, Gollum was there.
Elwė
Elwë Singollo
"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Elwë Singollo" <elwe.s...@doriath.me> wrote in message
news:<9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com>...
>
> > Chapter 2 - The S[h]adow of the Past
Shame on me...
> Well done Elwë and very timely, thank you!
>
> > The ring was undamaged and cold, and the hobbit noticed
> > that fine lines of fire "finer than the finest pen-strokes" appeared on
the
> > surface of the ring, forming the following words
>
> here *I* would have added: in the language of Mordor, in Elvish
> letters:
>
> >: "One ring to rule them
> > all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the
darkness
> > bind them."
>
> But this is hardly meant as criticism, more to show how different
> people have a different focus.
Actually, I wrote in in my first summary. Then I realized that it was waaaay
too long, and I had to remove sentences in order to keep the length of my
synopsis between acceptable limits. This should not have been cut, though,
together with the fact that Gandalf didn't want to pronounce the words in
the original language...
> > 7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly
affected
> > by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring for several
> > centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time behaviour
changed
> > after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious
> > uses."
> > Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
> >
> Here I agree with the one who argued that Bilbo was a gentle-hobbit
> and Sméagol was someone "whose head and eyes were downward".
I must admit that I don't fully understand the meaning of this sentence.
Before your quote, we learn the following about Sméagol :"The most
inquisitive and curious-minded of that familly was called Sméagol. He was
interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed
under trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased
to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening
in the air : his head and eyes were downward" Leaving aside the part you
quoted, this description suggest that Gollum is someone curious and who
wants to learn how nature is working, though rather interested in the
"below-ground science". I don't see anything mean or evil in that behaviour.
Nevertheless, the last part of the sentence sort of imply that this is not a
proper way of behaving. Any thoughts?
Elwë
Jon Meltzer
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns947C7E18CE430p...@130.133.1.4...
> If it could do that, it could transform itself into a helicopter and fly
> to Mordor, as well. It wouldn't be a Ring anymore.
And, if it did transform itself into a helicopter, the Eagles would pursue
it.
Jon Meltzer
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZY9Rb.7738$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
> In 'The Shadow of the Past' Gandalf says about Saruman, "His knowledge
> is deep, but his pride has grown with it, and he takes ill any
> meddling." Of course he also says about consulting Saruman that,
> "something always held me back" but on the conscious level I think it
> is likely that Gandalf didn't want to upset Saruman with any "meddling"
> (his wariness could, I think, be subconscious - parallel to his
> premonition about Bilbo when setting up the Quest of Erebor).
It's Gandalf's own pride, too. He'd rather go to Minas Tirith and do the
research himself than go to Saruman and get lectured to as an inferior; and,
instead, would rather that Saruman ask him for help, which is what later
(via Radagast) did happen.
AC
Elwë Singollo <elwe.s...@doriath.me> wrote:
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> a écrit dans le message de news:
> MPG.1a7effe35...@news.odyssey.net...
>>
>> powers you suggest, it would have leaped off Gollum's finger at the
>> Sammath Naur.
>
> found a way to live Frodo. But I think Christopher and Aaron are right : The
> ring probably didn't have the power to foresee its fate. It was only able to
> feel if it was on its way to Mordor. Therefore, the ring remained with
> Frodo, for he was taking it exactly where the ring was drawn to. At the last
> minute, when it realized it was in great danger, it influenced Frodo's mind
> to be saved. Luckily, Gollum was there.
There is no doubt that the Ring was largely responsible for Frodo's failure.
But I really don't think it was even sentient in that fashion so it could
think "Akk! Going to die. Change mortal's mind and make it claim me!"
which is how I read what you wrote above.
Frodo's failure was due to his long struggle with the Ring. The Ring was
exerting influence, but not in the way you suggest. It wasn't commanding
Frodo, so much as the "aura" for lack of a better word) became so strong
that, after his long rejection of the temptation, he no longer had the will
left to refuse. He did indeed fail, which means that it was more than the
Ring controlling his mind, but his failure was understandable, and there
could have been no other outcome.
Bob F.
news:7e9c827c518e7504...@news.teranews.com:
.
>
> I must admit that I don't fully understand the meaning of this
> sentence. Before your quote, we learn the following about Sméagol
> :"The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that familly was called
> Sméagol. He was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep
> pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunneled into
> green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves
> on trees, or the flowers opening in the air : his head and eyes were
> downward" Leaving aside the part you quoted, this description suggest
> that Gollum is someone curious and who wants to learn how nature is
> working, though rather interested in the "below-ground science". I
> don't see anything mean or evil in that behaviour. Nevertheless, the
> last part of the sentence sort of imply that this is not a proper way
> of behaving. Any thoughts?
>
> Elwë
>
>
I think you could look at this passage as being agnostic about Smeagol's
inherent goodness or evilness. However, I always thought about it in terms
of what Tolkien loved. So, to me, by saying that Smeagol had ceased to
look at the trees and the beauty of those things in the light, he was
casting Smeagol in a negative way. I always felt that the above passage
was clearly pointing to Smeagol's tendency towards anti-social behaviour.
The Ring was able to turn him so quickly because of this.
Bob
Christopher Kreuzer
> The Ring is a ring, magical but still a ring. If it had the kind of
> powers you suggest, it would have leaped off Gollum's finger at the
> Sammath Naur.
Ahem! Gollum's finger? :-)
Methinks you meant Frodo's lonesome finger.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Could Frodo's growing restlessness be of the same order - a
premonition
> that something is about to happen delivered by the same will that has
> chosen him? His restlessness definitely helps him accept the need to
> leave the Shire - we see how, "as he was speaking a great desire to
> follow Bilbo flamed up in his heart -"
That has always leapt out at me as well. It does seems a possible
candidate as a sort of intervention to strengthen this emotion. YMMV.
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote
> > If it could do that, it could transform itself into a helicopter and
fly
> > to Mordor, as well. It wouldn't be a Ring anymore.
>
> And, if it did transform itself into a helicopter, the Eagles would
pursue it.
And the Balrogs!
Raven
news:be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> * "For sport killing nothing that lived", it says about Hobbits in "On
> Hobbits", remember? Now what does our Sam say one evening in The Green
> Dragon?
> "My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes
> up to the Northfarthing for the HUNTING".
There's a difference between killing animals for sport and killing them
for food, though some might see them as equally bad. Killing animals for
sport is when your objective is the thrill of the hunt or the glory of the
trophies taken. Tolkien stated that Hobbits did not do this; but they did
kill animals for the purpose of eating them. Both as farmers, killing
domestic animals, and as hunters.
Raafje.
Raven
news:4014c4bd$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would then
> be possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the
> chain and then take back its original shape.
I am able to expand and contract my chest somewhat. I am not able to rip
it open, exposing the innards of my lungs, and then close it again with no
ill effects.
Keep in mind that there is a prefectly reversible process by which any
ring may expand somewhat, then contract. Heating and cooling. We know that
the Ring was able to soak up a lot of heat and not become perceptibly
warmer; after it was taken from Sauron's fiery hand it retained its burning
heat for a long time. It was able to survive heat that would melt iron. It
must have had some special powers as regards heat. This might be tied to
the mechanism by which it changed size.
Holló.
Ian
news:MPG.1a7eff571...@news.odyssey.net...
> It seems "AC" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >I really don't think the Ring was at all sentient. I've described its
> >actions before as a sort of automatic homing mechanism that Sauron
probably
> >put in the Ring on the off chance that he lost it.
>
> I have something of the same idea. I think of animals like ants
> being attracted to certain scents -- "tropism" is the word, I think.
That's the word. So - the Ring, and Smeagol/Gollum are...Saurontropic? Good
term!
-Ian
Count Menelvagor
> * Gandalf says it is an encouraging thought, something is at work
> which makes, Frodo was *meant* to have the Ring, as *Bilbo* was meant
> to find the Ring "and *not* it's maker". Frodo does not understand
> this, neither do I, but Gandalf quickly changes topic. Bluffing again?
[Take two]
He's referring, somewhat indirectly, to providence. Compare Tom
Bombadil's "if chance you call it" and Elrond's "You have come and are
here met, by chance a it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather
that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must
find counsel for the perils of the world."
zett
> * "For sport killing nothing that lived", it says about Hobbits in "On
> Hobbits", remember? Now what does our Sam say one evening in The Green
> Dragon?
> "My cousin Hal for one. He works for Mr. Boffin at Overhill and goes
> up to the Northfarthing for the HUNTING".
But if Hal ate what he killed, then it would not be killing just for
sport.
[snip]
> * Gandalf says it is an encouraging thought, something is at work
> which makes, Frodo was *meant* to have the Ring, as *Bilbo* was meant
> to find the Ring "and *not* it's maker". Frodo does not understand
> this, neither do I, but Gandalf quickly changes topic. Bluffing again?
>
> Henriette
I think foresight was on Gandalf, I don't think he would bluff about
something so serious. Someone who values the virtues of pity and
mercy so much- it makes sense to me to think he also holds faith in
the Allfather.
Stan Brown
Well, possession is nine tenths of the law. After he bit it off,
Gollum owned the finger. :-)
But you're right, I should have said "Frodo's finger." Somehow I
thought Gollum had triumphantly put the Ring on his biologically own
finger; but the text indicates otherwise.
Troels Forchhammer
Bob F. <littlem...@yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I think you could look at this passage as being agnostic about
> Smeagol's inherent goodness or evilness.
<snipping other comment, which I also agree with>
There's a bit about Sméagol's pre-Ring attitudes in Tolkien's letters:
[Letters #181, 1956]
"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 son of thief before it crossed his
path."
[Letters #214, 1958-59]
"Being a mean little soul he grudged it. Sméagol, being meaner
and greedier, tried to use the 'birthday' as an excuse for an
act of tyranny. 'Because I wants it' was his frank statement
of his chief claim."
The main statement here is of course that Sméagol was "a mean son of a
thief before [the One Ring] crossed his path."
Troels Forchhammer
Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> He's referring, somewhat indirectly, to providence.
<snipping examples>
And Elrond's comment to Frodo in the Council:
'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I
think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if
you do not find a way, no one will.'
I think the reference to providence, when taking it all together, isn't
very indirect at all ;-)
Troels Forchhammer
Elwë Singollo <elwe.s...@doriath.me> enriched us with:
>
> Chapter of the Week: The Lord of the Rings, Book 1
> Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
<snip>
Excellent introduction, Elwë, thanks.
(This chapter has always, to me, been one of the key chapters to the
understanding of the tale as a whole).
> 9) Please feel free to add any topics you'd like to discuss
The characterisation of Sam in this chapter:
We meet him on-stage for the first time in this chapter. First in the
Green Dragon in Bywater where he is portrayed as, at least as seen by
the other Hobbits, a dreamer and somewhat gullible (do we here see the
reason why his Gaffer in the first chapter felt the need to assert that
Bilbo meant no harm in teaching Sam his letters?)
In the end of this chapter we meet him again. This time he's been caught
by Gandalf at listening to Frodo and Gandalf's conversation:
"Eavesdropping, sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There
ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."
To this Gandalf rightly replies, "Don't be a fool!"
Sam now cries, "Don't let him hurt me, sir! Don't let him turn me into
anything unnatural! My old dad would take on so. I meant no harm, on my
honour, sir!"
And when finally condemned to join Frodo Sam springs "up like a dog
invited for a walk."
All in all I think that Sam is presented here as somewhat foolish and
quite simple-minded (even if he is also a dreamer) while at the end of
the book he has definitely grown - perhaps even more than Frodo (though,
starting from a lesser position he doesn't, IMO, quite reach Frodo's
ennoblement).
Stan Brown
>
>The characterisation of Sam in this chapter:
Thanks for pointing this out, Troels. I always tend to focus on the
"lore", but I think you're exactly right: this is where Sam's
character is set up, the humble beginnings from which he grows very
great.
Bill O'Meally
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eZqRb.7808$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
> [Letters #181, 1956]
> "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 son of thief before it crossed his
> path."
<snip>
> The main statement here is of course that Sméagol was "a mean son of a
> thief before [the One Ring] crossed his path."
Do you have a translation of _Letters_? It states he's a mean *sort* of
thief in my book, without going into detail about his parents'
occupation. :-)
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
Henriette
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eZqRb.7808$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
>
> > thief before [the One Ring] crossed his path."
>
> Do you have a translation of _Letters_? It states he's a mean *sort* of
> thief in my book, without going into detail about his parents'
> occupation. :-)
Bill, you write this because you do not pay attention to our
Scandinavian language threads. In Denmark someone like Gollum is
called a "mean son of a thief" ( I know English has it's own
expressions), so the translator gave credit to that.
Henriette
Henriette
> (snip)This should not have been cut, though,
> together with the fact that Gandalf didn't want to pronounce the words in
> the original language...
Yes, that I always found a creepy line: "the language of Mordor which
we will not utter here"......
>
> (snip), we learn the following about Sméagol :"The most
> inquisitive and curious-minded of that familly was called Sméagol. He was
> interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed
> under trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased
> to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening
> in the air : his head and eyes were downward" Leaving aside the part you
> quoted, this description suggest that Gollum is someone curious and who
> wants to learn how nature is working, though rather interested in the
> "below-ground science". I don't see anything mean or evil in that behaviour.
> Nevertheless, the last part of the sentence sort of imply that this is not a
> proper way of behaving. Any thoughts?
>
Objectively, I cannot find fault with Gollum in this quote either, but
"my heart tells me" that "ceasing to look up at the hill-tops, or the
leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air" and directing
one's head and eyes downward, is meant to mean a "low" form of
behavior.
Henriette
Bill O'Meally
"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be50318e.0401...@posting.google.com...
O...kay. <scratches head> I'm not sure if you're joking. I guess if
Tolkien had written that Smeagol was a mean "son of a bitch" it might be
translated that way. Does it really say "mean son of a thief" in the
Danish version???
Henriette
didn't he, so he had money to go to a supermarket. So what did he go
a-hunting for, if not for the glory of shooting some bullets into some
scared furry animal?
> Raafje.
Oh shaddap (pulls a *big* feather out of Raafje).
Henriette
Henriette
> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in message news:<be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > * Gandalf says it is an encouraging thought, something is at work
> > which makes, Frodo was *meant* to have the Ring, as *Bilbo* was meant
> > to find the Ring "and *not* it's maker". Frodo does not understand
> > this, neither do I, but Gandalf quickly changes topic. Bluffing again?
>
> [Take two]
? To tango?
>
> He's referring, somewhat indirectly, to providence. Compare Tom
> Bombadil's "if chance you call it"
I never dreamt I would live to see the times that *you* would quote
Tom Bombadil.
> and Elrond's "You have come and are
> here met, by chance a it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather
> that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must
> find counsel for the perils of the world."
This shows how far I have drifted away from my Christian upbringing,
because I hadn't considered this. But now that you mention it, I see
no other explanation.
Amazing how Providence works It's will in mysterious ways, when all It
had to do was look at the Ring and will it, and the Ring had crumbled
to ashes.
Henriette
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
> Bill, you write this because you do not pay attention to our
> Scandinavian language threads. In Denmark someone like Gollum is
> called a "mean son of a thief" ( I know English has it's own
> expressions), so the translator gave credit to that.
He is? I didn't know that!
I've never heard that expression used
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
ste...@nomail.com
: We meet him on-stage for the first time in this chapter. First in the
: Green Dragon in Bywater where he is portrayed as, at least as seen by
: the other Hobbits, a dreamer and somewhat gullible (do we here see the
: reason why his Gaffer in the first chapter felt the need to assert that
: Bilbo meant no harm in teaching Sam his letters?)
: In the end of this chapter we meet him again. This time he's been caught
: by Gandalf at listening to Frodo and Gandalf's conversation:
<snip>
: All in all I think that Sam is presented here as somewhat foolish and
: quite simple-minded (even if he is also a dreamer) while at the end of
: the book he has definitely grown - perhaps even more than Frodo (though,
: starting from a lesser position he doesn't, IMO, quite reach Frodo's
: ennoblement).
He is also presented as someone who does not change in 14 years.
The Sam we see in the Green Dragon is 14 years younger than the
Sam Gandalf catches eaves-dropping.
Stephen
Taemon
> Amazing how Providence works It's will in mysterious
> ways, when all It had to do was look at the Ring and will it,
> and the Ring had crumbled to ashes.
Obviously you have no idea of the Greater Plan in which all the
hurt and suffering is a necessity because it provided (!) the
participants with knowledge that the Allmighty could have given
them for free since It is all-powerful - wait. That wasn't how it
worked. You twisted everything, you daughter of a thief!
T.
aelfwina
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> in <7pXQb.21092$Un6....@news.get2net.dk>,
> Raven <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
> >
> > "Elwë Singollo" <elwe.s...@doriath.me> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:9355844effebebcd...@news.teranews.com...
> >>
> >> 1) 17 years have passed between Bilbo's disappearance and the
> >> action of this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he feels that
> >> this is a number of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was the same age when
> >> he left
> >> with Gandalf and the dwarves. Was Frodo expecting that something
> >> important was about to change his life?
> >
> > I should say so. It is so described in the book. Perhaps not
> > that he was positively expecting Adventure to fall like sudden rain
> > from the sky, but that he was approaching his fiftieth birthday with
> > an uneasy feeling, at least in part because he knew that this was
> > dear Bilbo's age when he had had his adventure.
>
> In various letters we learn how Frodo recieved a grace at various
> points in the story: to accept the quest and in the end.
>
> In this chapter we also have the motif of some other, supposedly
> higher, will meaning Bilbo to find the Ring and Frodo to get it (though
> it is no consolation to Frodo).
>
> There are other instances that might be interpreted as Frodo and Sam
> getting some kind of help from outside themselves (speaking words they
> don't understand etc.)
>
> Could Frodo's growing restlessness be of the same order - a premonition
> that something is about to happen delivered by the same will that has
> chosen him? His restlessness definitely helps him accept the need to
> leave the Shire - we see how, "as he was speaking a great desire to
> follow Bilbo flamed up in his heart -"
Could this "great desire" have been Gandalf's ring at work? Perhaps it's
the "flamed up in his heart" phrase that makes me wonder...
Barbara
TT Arvind
> > and Elrond's "You have come and are
> > here met, by chance a it may seem. Yet it is not so. Believe rather
> > that it is so ordered that we, who sit here, and none others, must
> > find counsel for the perils of the world."
>
> This shows how far I have drifted away from my Christian upbringing,
> because I hadn't considered this. But now that you mention it, I see
> no other explanation.
Not even synchronicity? <gapes in wonderment>
--
Meneldil
Would a fly without wings be called a walk?
Troels Forchhammer
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eZqRb.7808$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
>>
>> [Letters #181, 1956]
>> "if he had not become a mean son of thief before it crossed his path."
> Do you have a translation of _Letters_? It states he's a mean *sort* of
> thief in my book
No, my copy is in English and it also says "sort" - my finger must have
slipped (Freudian slip? ;-) and I failed to notice it when I copied it
to the next paragraph - sloppy!
Fortunately the meaning doesn't change all that much ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snip>
> He is also presented as someone who does not change in 14 years.
> The Sam we see in the Green Dragon is 14 years younger than the
> Sam Gandalf catches eaves-dropping.
No. The episode with Sam and Ted Sandyman in the Green Dragon
happen on the same night Gandalf reappears.
Sam's home trip from the Green Dragon is described. "He walked home
under the early stars through Hobbiton and up the Hill, whistling
softly and thoughtfully."
The next paragraph starts, "It was just at this time that Gandalf
reappeared after his long absence." Sam probably reaches Bag Row
three when Gandalf is sitting in Bag End chatting away with Frodo
(eventually - probably after Sam had got to bed - scaring Frodo
with strange hints only to say that "such matters were best left
until daylight" ;-)
--
______ | Troels Forchhammer
___/L_][_/(__ | Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
(___{__{__{___7 |
`(_)------(_)-' | My other .sig is a Rolls ...
Jette Goldie
> "Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in message
them
> > for food, though some might see them as equally bad. Killing animals
for
> > sport is when your objective is the thrill of the hunt or the glory of
the
> > trophies taken. Tolkien stated that Hobbits did not do this; but they
did
> > kill animals for the purpose of eating them. Both as farmers, killing
> > domestic animals, and as hunters.
> >
> But cousin Hal had a regular job at Mr. Boffin's at Overhill ,now
> didn't he, so he had money to go to a supermarket. So what did he go
> a-hunting for, if not for the glory of shooting some bullets into some
> scared furry animal?
Hobbits don't have supermarkets and some foodstuffs are
only available in the wild. I sincerely doubt that any Hobbit
farmer was raising venison or grouse, pheasant or quail -
even hare. Sam seems to have had a liking for "coney" -
factory farmed rabbits or hunted?
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:>
: <snip>
:> He is also presented as someone who does not change in 14 years.
:> The Sam we see in the Green Dragon is 14 years younger than the
:> Sam Gandalf catches eaves-dropping.
: No. The episode with Sam and Ted Sandyman in the Green Dragon
: happen on the same night Gandalf reappears.
: Sam's home trip from the Green Dragon is described. "He walked home
: under the early stars through Hobbiton and up the Hill, whistling
: softly and thoughtfully."
: The next paragraph starts, "It was just at this time that Gandalf
: reappeared after his long absence."
I think I have always read that passage incorrectly. It says
"It was just at this time that Gandalf reappeared after his long absence.
For three years after the party he had been away."
I had read this that the long absence was the threes years after the
party. The paragraph then continues to describe Gandalf visiting
Frodo on and off over a period of years.
Stephen
Bruce Tucker
> It seems "Elwë Singollo" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >But if we admit that the ring can change its physical form, it would
then be
> >possible for him to "open" itself (ie locally melt) to slip from the
chain
> >and then take back its original shape. That would not be in
contradiction
> >with what is written wouldn't it?
>
> The Ring is a ring, magical but still a ring.
Absolutely. And the shape of a ring is a very significant one, beyond
the fact that it makes it convenient for wearing. It is a closed circle,
and the closure is vital: it is what allows the power in the Ring to be
bound up and contained within it. If the Ring ceased to be a ring, even
for a moment, it would destroy its own essential nature and unmake
itself.
And further, I think that even if it could reform itself afterwards, and
even if it possessed the consciousness to do such a thing and the
foreknowledge to know that it was possible, all of which are extremely
doubtful, it would no more do it than Gandalf, had he had a similar
foreknowledge, would have leaped off the pinnacle of Orthanc to his
death to escape from Saruman, hoping that his body would be tossed
outside on a rubbish-heap and he would then be sent back as Gandalf the
White to complete his mission.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Bruce Tucker
> >4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems
to have
> >its own will and to be able to leave its bearer. According to
Gandalf, "It
> >could make no further use of him, (.)so(.) it abandoned Gollum". If
the ring
> >is able to foresee its future , why didn't it try to abandon Frodo
while he
> >was going to Mount Doom? Staying with him was pure suicide, wasn't
it?
> >Apparently, Frodo's will was bigger than the ring's.
>
> Even assuming the Ring has a will, there's not a lot it can do when
> a chain is threaded through it and then worn securely around Frodo's
> neck.
That's the immediate, physical reason, but I think there is a thematic
one as well. The Ring betrayed and abandoned two previous owners, Gollum
and Isildur. Both of them claimed it as their own, used it, and, to a
degree, trusted it to keep them safe from their enemies. The Ring left
Gollum despite this trust, mostly because he had grown careless with it,
and killed Isildur precisely because of his trust in it.
Bilbo claimed, used, and trusted the Ring as well, but he resisted the
Ring's power long enough that he was able to give it away before it
betrayed him. Frodo never really claimed it as his own (it was, IIRC,
"Bilbo's ring" until he discovered its identity, and then "the Enemy's
Ring," the object of the quest) or trusted it, and used it only very
infrequently, until the end. Without his trust, there was no opportunity
for betrayal, for betrayal can only come with trust. When, in the end,
he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
Providence.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Igenlode Wordsmith
> Chapter of the Week: The Lord of the Rings, Book 1
> Chapter 2 - The Sadow of the Past
[snip]
> 5) Why did Bilbo and Sméagol want to be considered as the legitimate
> owners of the ring? Did the ring persuade Bilbo to lie about what happened
> in Gollum's cave? But if he told the truth, what would the difference be?
> Bilbo was not afraid to be seen as a thief by the dwarves (actually he was
> hired for that matter).
He certainly didn't want to consider that he might have 'stolen' the
Arkenstone. He also tried to repay the Elvenking for the food he stole
while hiding in his halls. Bilbo doesn't seem to have been at all happy
with the idea of being called a thief...
[snip]
>
>
> 9) Please feel free to add any topics you'd like to discuss
Other thoughts:
Frodo assumes Bilbo is still alive because he has heard no news to the
contrary(?) But Bilbo was already elderly, in years if not in figure,
at the time when he left. In the natural state of affairs, the more
time that elapsed since he was last heard of the more probable it would
become that he had indeed died - of sheer old age. At what point, if he
had not left the Shire, would Frodo have been forced to decide that
Bilbo probably was dead after all?
Frodo is suspected of visiting Elves (as was Bilbo, apparently). Not in
Rivendell, clearly. What Elves? How did he know where to find them?
Seventeen years after the Birthday Party, when Frodo is 50, Pippin has
still not reached his majority. Surely he must have been very juvenile
to be a walking-companion for his older cousin at the start of this
chapter?
Many hobbits are literate (and enjoy a comprehensive postal service).
But they apparently don't employ either the elven-letters seen on the
Ring or the Dwarf-runes encountered in Moria. What script, one wonders,
*do* they use? (Presumably that of men in this Age... although I would
have assumed that Gondor, at least, kept its records in an elven hand.)
Birthday-presents: hobbits give other people presents on their
own birthdays. Yet we learn that Deagol has already given Smeagol a
present on the occasion of *Smeagol's* birthday. Customs have evidently
changed...
Why is Frodo, possessing the actual Ring, not drawn to Mordor like
Gollum, who retains only a memory of its possession? Or <evil thought>
- could it possibly be that *this* is the source of Frodo's increasing
restlessness, which he attributes to thoughts of Bilbo? The call of the
Ring? <grin>
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Bookwraith unabashed
When men are jaded in their emotions they demand monstrous things to arouse them
Henriette
> > Bill, you write this because you do not pay attention to our
> > Scandinavian language threads. In Denmark someone like Gollum is
> > called a "mean son of a thief" ( I know English has it's own
> > expressions), so the translator gave credit to that.
>
> O...kay. <scratches head> I'm not sure if you're joking. I guess if
> Tolkien had written that Smeagol was a mean "son of a bitch" it might be
> translated that way. Does it really say "mean son of a thief" in the
> Danish version???
I'm sorry Bill, I'll put :-) next time. I thought it was an obvious
joke, which you started with talking about "his
parents'occupation".....! But on re-reading my post I admit, it looks
almost serious to someone who does not realise I know not one word of
Danish....
Henriette
Henriette
> Obviously you have no idea of the Greater Plan in which all the
> hurt and suffering is a necessity because it provided (!) the
> participants with knowledge that
Another one with a Christian upbringing. This pops up far too easily....
> the Allmighty could have given
> them for free since It is all-powerful - wait. That wasn't how it
> worked. You twisted everything, you daughter of a thief!
>
Goed was die he?
H.
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
> Seventeen years after the Birthday Party, when Frodo is 50, Pippin
has
> still not reached his majority. Surely he must have been very
juvenile
> to be a walking-companion for his older cousin at the start of this
> chapter?
To be precise, Pippin was 11 at the time of the Birthday Party. I
think we can safely assume, that if Frodo and Pippin were close at
that time, Frodo would more likely have been a kind of honorary uncle
to Pippin, rather than a friend.
<snip>
> Why is Frodo, possessing the actual Ring, not drawn to Mordor like
> Gollum, who retains only a memory of its possession?
Gollum was evil.
> Or <evil thought>
> - could it possibly be that *this* is the source of Frodo's
increasing
> restlessness, which he attributes to thoughts of Bilbo? The call of
> the Ring? <grin>
The thought never occured to me before, but I think it could be.
Raven
news:be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in message
news:<0ufRb.3966$_g.2...@news.get2net.dk>...
> > There's a difference between killing animals for sport and killing
> > them for food, though some might see them as equally bad.
> > Killing animals for sport is when your objective is the thrill of
> > the hunt or the glory of the trophies taken. Tolkien stated that
> > Hobbits did not do this; but they did kill animals for the purpose
> > of eating them. Both as farmers, killing domestic animals, and as
> > hunters.
> But cousin Hal had a regular job at Mr. Boffin's at Overhill ,now
> didn't he, so he had money to go to a supermarket. So what did he go
> a-hunting for, if not for the glory of shooting some bullets into some
> scared furry animal?
I can respect, though disagree with, a vegetarian who opposes hunting for
food. A person who buys meat or raises animals for food on a farm is a
hypocrite if he opposes hunting for food. All three imply killing animals
for the purpose of eating their flesh. A vegetarian who opposes the killing
of animals for this purpose is not a hypocrite, he just has an opinion which
differs from mine.
> > Raafje.
> Oh shaddap (pulls a *big* feather out of Raafje).
Ouch!
Were you not a woman I would punch your arm for that!
One more thing: when I see the word "shaddap" on the Tolkien NGs I think
Suzieflame.
Marghvrantje.
Stan Brown
>When, in the end,
>he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
>(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
>abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
>fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
>Providence.
I'm not so sure Providence intervened, but then I'm a dyed-in-the-
wool materialist in real life. (I was talking with another adjunct
in the faculty room last night, and Tolkien came up, and we both
realized how, well, odd it was for folks who disbelieved any sort of
supernatural being to be talking quite calmly about Sauron ad other
Ainur as though they were real. But I digress.)
Stan Brown
>he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
>(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
>abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
>fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
>Providence.
This is an interesting point about trust.
I would add an additional explanation: as Sauron began the active
phase of the search for the Ring, Frodo was carrying it more or less
steadily toward Mordor and Sauron. Thus the Ring's "Sauronotropism"
would be passive because the action of its holder was taking it
closer to Sauron anyway.
Christopher Kreuzer
>
> Birthday-presents: hobbits give other people presents on their
> own birthdays. Yet we learn that Deagol has already given Smeagol a
> present on the occasion of *Smeagol's* birthday. Customs have
evidently
> changed...
Someone wrote to Tolkien with this very same question.
Tolkien's very comprehensive answer is given in Letter 214.
Well worth a read.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Guillaume Criloux
écrit :
>But cousin Hal had a regular job at Mr. Boffin's at Overhill ,now
>didn't he, so he had money to go to a supermarket. So what did he go
>a-hunting for, if not for the glory of shooting some bullets into some
>scared furry animal?
>
Isn't hunt for fun in popular classes a really recent hobby ? As
opposed to the hunts the nobles organised in middle-age.
>Henriette
Guillaume
Troels Forchhammer
aelfwina <aelf...@cableone.net> enriched us with:
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:_caRb.7741$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
>>
>> premonition that something is about to happen delivered by the same
>> will that has chosen him?
>
> Could this "great desire" have been Gandalf's ring at work? Perhaps
> it's the "flamed up in his heart" phrase that makes me wonder...
I suppose that is entirely possible as well. That his heart was kindled
by Narya. However, it seems that his restlessness had been growing for a
period before Gandalf's return, but after his last visit (nine years
previously). The sudden desire to follow Bilbo that flames up in his
heart could, I think, very well be the result of Narya - it would fit
well with Círdan's words as reported in the Tale of Years.
However, the basis, as I see it, for this sudden desire flaming up in
Frodo's heart; the slowly growing restlessness, the "regret that he had
not gone with Bilbo" and his feeling that "fifty was a number that he
felt was somehow significant (or ominous)" - all of these seems to me
to be unrelated to Gandalf. In particular the feeling of omen about the
number fifty appears to me to suggest something beyond a mere longing
for Bilbo.
aelfwina
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
So to carry the metaphor forward, it could have been that Frodo had already
laid the fire, and Narya could have been the spark that set it off? I've
found myself very curious about the workings of Gandalf's Ring during my
last re-read, trying to spot times when its influence might have been felt.
I don't *think* Gandalf would have used it to directly manipulate
anyone--that doesn't seem to be part of his personality--but to "bring out
the best" in someone, maybe. There had to be *some* reason Cirdan thought
Gandalf would need it.
Barbara
Troels Forchhammer
<snip>
> So to carry the metaphor forward, it could have been that Frodo had
> already laid the fire, and Narya could have been the spark that set
> it off?
Well, you won't get me to say that any of this is certain, but I do
think that it is very likely. Whether the fire had been laid by natural
emotional processes or if Frodo had got some help laying it, I don't
know either, but in the light of the times we know that he did receive
some special grace to continue/finish the quest, I would certainly not
rule out the possibility.
> I've found myself very curious about the workings of Gandalf's Ring
> during my last re-read, trying to spot times when its influence might
> have been felt.
The Siege of Gondor comes to mind as a good example ("Wherever he came
men's hearts would lift again, and the winged shadows pass from memory.")
Possibly the healing of Théoden, but the staff appear to play some role
in that as well.
There might be other instances that I don't recall right now.
> I don't *think* Gandalf would have used it to directly manipulate
> anyone--that doesn't seem to be part of his personality -- but to
> "bring out the best" in someone, maybe.
Yes, to give them the courage to do the right thing - if we hadn't
been told that Frodo received a special grace to accept the quest at
the Council of Elrond, that might have been another example, but who's
to say that this grace didn't work, in part, through Narya ;-)
Henriette
>
> I can respect, though disagree with, a vegetarian who opposes hunting for
> food. A person who buys meat or raises animals for food on a farm is a
> hypocrite if he opposes hunting for food. All three imply killing animals
> for the purpose of eating their flesh.
There are many ways in which one can kill an animal, and we (NL) have
strict laws for ways animals (for food) ought to killed. They are
supposedly more "humane" than other ways. Muslims and jews are allowed
ritual slaughter though.
> A vegetarian who opposes the killing
> of animals for this purpose is not a hypocrite, he just has an opinion which
> differs from mine.
Is it important for you to repeatedly stress that fact?
> Ouch!
> Were you not a woman I would punch your arm for that!
Were I not a lady, I would kick your bird ankle real hard!
> One more thing: when I see the word "shaddap" on the Tolkien NGs I think
> Suzieflame.
>
You really miss "her", don't you?
Henriette
Henriette
> >Henriette
>
> Guillaume
Nice names!
Henriette
Henriette
> žus cwęš Henriette:
>
> > This shows how far I have drifted away from my Christian upbringing,
> > because I hadn't considered this. But now that you mention it, I see
> > no other explanation.
>
> Not even synchronicity? <gapes in wonderment>
LOL! You have a good memory!
Well, now that you mention it.... All the events in Chapter 2
happening at the same time can hardly be called coincidence!
Henriette
Doug McDonald
>
> It seems "Bruce Tucker" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >When, in the end,
> >he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
> >(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
> >abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
> >fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
> >Providence.
>
> I'm not so sure Providence intervened,
However, Tolkien explicitly stated that God himself
set events in motion that would end exactly as they did.
Gandalf's return is explicitly described in the passive voice,
and that action, in the short time it took, could have been done
only by God himself. Frodo was "meant to have the Ring, and
not by its maker" is explicitly stated by Tolkien to mean the One.
The one may or may not have "intervened" at the instant of the
Ring's demise. It may have been sufficient for Him to choose Frodo
in the foreknowledge that he would, somehow, contrive events so that
the
Ring COULD ... and this is the important point ... not take
over events and save itself. This implies foreknowledge of Frodo's
compassion for Gollum.
Doug McDonald
Taemon
> Taemon:
> > Obviously you have no idea of the Greater Plan in which
> > all the hurt and suffering is a necessity because it
> > provided (!) the participants with knowledge that
> Another one with a Christian upbringing. This pops up far
> too easily....
Not at all. I always thought that was a quite stupid line of
reasoning. I was raised agnostic, by the way. I have a deep
hathred of religion, the roots of which I haven't been able to
discover yet. It is definitely not in my upbringing.
> > the Allmighty could have given
> > them for free since It is all-powerful - wait. That
> > wasn't how it worked. You twisted everything, you
> > daughter of a thief!
> Goed was die he?
Ik lach bulderend van het lachen onder de tafel. Jij schobbejak!
T.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Igenlode Wordsmith wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> - could it possibly be that *this* is the source of Frodo's
>> increasing restlessness, which he attributes to thoughts of Bilbo?
>> The call of the Ring? <grin>
>
> The thought never occured to me before, but I think it could be.
It actually occurred to me while discussing the possible reasons for
Frodo's restlessness elsewhere in this thread.
I'll admit that I dismissed the notion for no other reason than I
didn't quite like it.
Oh, well. One can't be entirely objective all the time ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
-- (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Raven
news:be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
> There are many ways in which one can kill an animal, and we (NL) have
> strict laws for ways animals (for food) ought to killed. They are
> supposedly more "humane" than other ways. Muslims and jews are allowed
> ritual slaughter though.
Same here. Muslims are permitted halal-killing; Jews are permitted
Schćktning.
> > One more thing: when I see the word "shaddap" on the Tolkien NGs I
> > think Suzieflame.
> You really miss "her", don't you?
Not if you're ready to take his place.
Raaf.
Count Menelvagor
> It seems "Bruce Tucker" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >When, in the end,
> >he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
> >(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
> >abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
> >fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
> >Providence.
>
> I'm not so sure Providence intervened, but then I'm a dyed-in-the-
> wool materialist in real life. (I was talking with another adjunct
> in the faculty room last night, and Tolkien came up, and we both
> realized how, well, odd it was for folks who disbelieved any sort of
> supernatural being to be talking quite calmly about Sauron ad other
> Ainur as though they were real. But I digress.)
I'd say it was fairly certain that, within the context of the *story*,
Providence intervened, just as, within the narrative of "The
Magician's Nephew," Aslan sang Narnia into existence -- whether or not
that could have happened in real life. I suppose the equivalent for
me, on a much lower level, is Star Trek; I think Data is a fascinating
character, but I also believe he's pretty close to impossible.
Troels Forchhammer
Raven <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> enriched us with:
>
> "Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> There are many ways in which one can kill an animal, and we (NL) have
>> strict laws for ways animals (for food) ought to killed. They are
>> supposedly more "humane" than other ways. Muslims and jews are
>> allowed ritual slaughter though.
>
> Same here. Muslims are permitted halal-killing; Jews are permitted
And the most merciful (I prefer that to 'humane' - there is no reason to
be as cruel to animals as we are to humans ;-) is also allowed: with a
rifle in the woods ...
Henriette
> Not at all. I always thought that was a quite stupid line of
> reasoning. I was raised agnostic, by the way. I have a deep
> hathred of religion, the roots of which I haven't been able to
> discover yet. It is definitely not in my upbringing.
Deep hatred even! You must have been killed by Inquisition in one of
your past lives.
Maybe it will soften your mood to think of all the great works of
art/music/literature religion has brought forth and the comfort it has
given people.
> Ik lach bulderend van het lachen onder de tafel. Jij schobbejak!
>
We kunnen elkaar gerust voor rotte vis uitmaken, dat valt toch niemand
op.
(We can easily buy a rotten fish at the market, then give it to a
nobody).
H.
Bill O'Meally
"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be50318e.04012...@posting.google.com...
Sorry! My humor meter must be malfunctioning. :-)
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
-- The Wise will remove 'se' to reply; the Foolish will not--
Stan Brown
>> It seems "Bruce Tucker" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>And then I replied:
>> I'm not so sure Providence intervened,
Next, "Count Menelvagor" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>I'd say it was fairly certain that, within the context of the *story*,
>Providence intervened, just as, within the narrative of "The
>Magician's Nephew," Aslan sang Narnia into existence -- whether or not
>that could have happened in real life. I suppose the equivalent for
>me, on a much lower level, is Star Trek; I think Data is a fascinating
>character, but I also believe he's pretty close to impossible.
I don't know how you can rate those two as "fairly certain". There
is no doubt whatever that Aslan sang Narnia into existence: we
watched it happen, over the course of several pages IIRC. To call
that "fairly certain" is a gross understatement.
On the other hand, Tolkien gives us _no_ reason particularly to
think Eru had any involvement in the final confrontation between
Frodo and Gollum. If you believe Eru somehow moved Gollum to bite
off Frodo's finger and then made him fall in, you're entitled to
your opinion. But I can't see any way to call that "fairly certain":
"possible" seems more like it to me.
If I'm missing something in what Tolkien wrote, please enlighten me.
Taemon
> Taemon:
> > Not at all. I always thought that was a quite stupid
> > line of reasoning. I was raised agnostic, by the way. I
> > have a deep hathred of religion, the roots of which I
> > haven't been able to discover yet. It is definitely not
> > in my upbringing.
> Deep hatred even! You must have been killed by
> Inquisition in one of your past lives.
Bah ;-) But really, I keep wondering about it now and then. Why
this intense dislike? I've never been wronged by religion in any
way. Except of course by seeing intelligent and civilised people
throwing their education away at the first glimmer of doubt.
> Maybe it will soften your mood to think of all the great
> works of art/music/literature religion has brought forth and
the
> comfort it has given people.
Doesn't work. Worse, the fact that so much beautiful music has a
religious theme spoils that music for me. It's a shame, I know,
but I can't help it.
> > Ik lach bulderend van het lachen onder de tafel. Jij
> > schobbejak!
> We kunnen elkaar gerust voor rotte vis uitmaken, dat valt
> toch niemand op.
> (We can easily buy a rotten fish at the market, then give
> it to a nobody).
Alweer lig ik onder tafel. Je bent in vorm de laatste tijd!
(I will put it under my table. That way you won't see it!)
T.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> Deep hatred even! You must have been killed by Inquisition in one of
> your past lives.
you mean Taemon was a cat?
no, wait, that was curiousity. sorry.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Fools seldom defer.
Raven
news:E6pSb.8163$g4.1...@news2.nokia.com...
> And the most merciful (I prefer that to 'humane' - there is no reason to
> be as cruel to animals as we are to humans ;-) is also allowed: with a
> rifle in the woods ...
That's merciful only if the shot is true, or misses altogether.
Gavran.
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>It seems "Bruce Tucker" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>When, in the end,
>>he did claim the Ring, and attempt to use it to defeat his enemy
>>(Gollum), and trust that it would enable him to do so, it betrayed and
>>abandoned him at once, costing him a finger and nearly his life and the
>>fate of all Middle-earth as well, but for the intervention of
>>Providence.
>
>This is an interesting point about trust.
>
>I would add an additional explanation: as Sauron began the active
>phase of the search for the Ring, Frodo was carrying it more or less
>steadily toward Mordor and Sauron. Thus the Ring's "Sauronotropism"
>would be passive because the action of its holder was taking it
>closer to Sauron anyway.
Furthermore it's possible that there was some divine intervention at
work here too -- isn't there one letter where Tolkien attributes some
of Frodo's resistance of the Ring to that source (i.e. as an
"instrument of providence")?
-Chris
Henriette
> > I'm sorry Bill, I'll put :-) next time. I thought it was an obvious
> > joke, which you started with talking about "his
> > parents'occupation".....! But on re-reading my post I admit, it looks
> > almost serious to someone who does not realise I know not one word of
> > Danish....
>
> Sorry! My humor meter must be malfunctioning. :-)
It was fun being able to fool one of the funniest posters (you)! And
it's a good thing you pay attention to details (son of/sort of),
because otherewise I would still be wondering why Smaug says "I can
feel your hair".....
Henriette
Henriette
> Bah ;-) But really, I keep wondering about it now and then. Why
> this intense dislike? I've never been wronged by religion in any
> way. Except of course by seeing intelligent and civilised people
> throwing their education away at the first glimmer of doubt.
Maybe some things/something it says in the Bible? Maybe what people
make of what it says in any religious book? All the violence it has
inspired? Maybe a certain security some religious people radiate which
you think is based on nothing, but which you envy nevertheless?
>
> Doesn't work. Worse, the fact that so much beautiful music has a
> religious theme spoils that music for me. It's a shame, I know,
> but I can't help it.
That is really a pity. What if you think of some great personal
sacrifices people have made/make, to do good in honour of their God?
What if you do not think of God being a person?
>
> Alweer lig ik onder tafel. Je bent in vorm de laatste tijd!
Echt? (H. glimt een beetje. Bedankt!)
Edinburgh? (H. thinks it too far. Thanks anyway!)
H.
Henriette
>
> no, wait, that was curiousity. sorry.
Tamf, it is always a pleasure to see you pop up.
Taemon
> "Taemon"
> > Bah ;-) But really, I keep wondering about it now and
> > then. Why this intense dislike?
> Maybe some things/something it says in the Bible?
That came afterwards. I already hated it all before I began
reading the Bible. It only strengthened that feeling, I'm afraid
to say.
> Maybe what people make of what it says in any religious book?
All the
> violence it has inspired?
That might be part of it, but non-religious people can behave
pretty awful too. I dislike most religious texts but some of
Jesus' teachings I thought very profound and wise.
> Maybe a certain security some religious people
> radiate which you think is based on nothing, but which you envy
> nevertheless?
Actually I feel very comforted by the thought that when I die,
it's all over. But that might change when I'm old and dying; I'm
still young.
> What if you think of some great personal
> sacrifices people have made/make, to do good in honour of
> their God?
That I can respect. Although I approve of it more when it also
works out to the good of the people. People spending their life
in prayer might make a great sacrifice, but I consider such a
terrible waste.
> What if you do not think of God being a person?
I never do. It's not God I hate, since I don't believe in his
existence. It's neither religious people (though sometimes it is
their deeds). It is religion an sich.
> > Alweer lig ik onder tafel. Je bent in vorm de laatste
> > tijd!
> Echt? (H. glimt een beetje. Bedankt!)
> Edinburgh? (H. thinks it too far. Thanks anyway!)
Echt. En ik kan het weten want ik lees al jouw schrijfsels.
(Edinburgh. And I should know because I've been writing about
it.)
T.
Igenlode Wordsmith
On 27 Jan 2004 Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> "Eavesdropping, sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There
> ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."
>
> To this Gandalf rightly replies, "Don't be a fool!"
[snip]
> All in all I think that Sam is presented here as somewhat foolish and
> quite simple-minded
I'm almost certain that this remark is Sam being facetious (or 'dumb
insolence' as the Army would no doubt have termed it!) - he is
pretending not to understand on the spur of the moment in order to evade
the accusation, since he can't very well deny the fact of his presence,
having been caught. Gandalf tells him not to be stupid not because he
thinks the hobbit *doesn't* know what 'eavesdropping' means, but because
he is well aware that Sam *does* :-)
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Bookwraith unabashed
* It takes self-confidence to be able to accept criticism *
Bill O'Meally
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
>
> > Maybe some things/something it says in the Bible?
>
> That came afterwards. I already hated it all before I began
> reading the Bible. It only strengthened that feeling, I'm afraid
> to say.
There is a therapeutic tool called Voice Dialogue. Ofcourse I have no
intention at all to say you need therapy because you hate religion,
but it is a nice tool to play with. In your case, the therapist might
put down two chairs for you. In one, Taemon would sit. During
conversation, the therapist could invite you,"the part of you which
hates religion", to take place in the other chair and talk with that
part. It can generate amazing results, with people completely changing
attitude, expression, voice, etc., but it probably would not work for
you. For the same reason that you hate religion: you feel too
comfortable with your rational side.
>
> I dislike most religious texts but some of
> Jesus' teachings I thought very profound and wise.
Yes. Some texts annoy me too. How about this one in Genesis: "de mens
en zijn vrouw". ("Man and his wife", may not be the same. Maybe: the
human being and his wife).
>
> Actually I feel very comforted by the thought that when I die,
> it's all over. But that might change when I'm old and dying;
Wasn't it the old cynic Voltaire who completely switched sides on his
deatbed? Well, you may be surprised to find out what happens when you
die, but then you may not. I don't know.
>
> > Edinburgh? (H. thinks it too far. Thanks anyway!)
>
> Echt. En ik kan het weten want ik lees al jouw schrijfsels.
> (Edinburgh. And I should know because I've been writing about
> it.)
Ja, dat zei je al eens. Om een speciale reden, of pik je ze en passant
mee?
(Yes, you said so before. Any particular reason, or you just passed
there on your way? )
H.
Troels Forchhammer
Igenlode Wordsmith <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> enriched us
with:
>
> [repost]
> On 27 Jan 2004 Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> "Eavesdropping, sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There
>> ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."
>>
>> To this Gandalf rightly replies, "Don't be a fool!"
>> All in all I think that Sam is presented here as somewhat foolish
>> and quite simple-minded
>
> I'm almost certain that this remark is Sam being
I'm inclined to agree with you in this particular case, and perhaps
my use of "foolish" was a bit ill-considered.
My point, however, wasn't so much that Sam didn't know what "eaves-
dropping" means, but rather that he chose to counter the accusation
by playing the fool.
Sam is, IMO, being presented in this chapter as simpler and more
simple-minded than Frodo (and Bilbo for that matter), but also more
open-minded than the rest of the Hobbits, even if something of a
dreamer.
Later we get to see other sides of Sam, and we see him develop quite
a bit, and therefore I find it beneficial to understand where he is
coming from, and that is what I intended to highlight ;-)
Igenlode Wordsmith
> "Eavesdropping, sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There
> ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."
>
> To this Gandalf rightly replies, "Don't be a fool!"
[snip]
> All in all I think that Sam is presented here as somewhat foolish and
> quite simple-minded
I'm almost certain that this remark is Sam being facetious (or 'dumb
Taemon
> It can generate amazing results, with people
> completely changing attitude, expression, voice, etc., but it
probably would
> not work for you. For the same reason that you hate religion:
you feel
> too comfortable with your rational side.
Nevertheless, I like the idea. I don't mind hating religion; it
doesn't hurt me nor anybody else. It's the fact that I don't
understand where it comes from that bothers me. To talk with
it... I might try.
> Yes. Some texts annoy me too. How about this one in
> Genesis: "de mens en zijn vrouw". ("Man and his wife", may not
be the same.
> Maybe: the human being and his wife).
Did you read the beginning of the New Testament, the, er,
descent? of Jesus? It's hilarious. Read it, and tell me what you
think.
> Wasn't it the old cynic Voltaire who completely switched
> sides on his deatbed? Well, you may be surprised to find out
what
> happens when you die, but then you may not. I don't know.
I can't believe he did that, but it doesn't really matter to me
anyway. I don't know what will happen. I will find out eventually
:-)
> > Echt. En ik kan het weten want ik lees al jouw
> > schrijfsels. (Edinburgh. And I should know because I've
> > been writing about it.)
> Ja, dat zei je al eens. Om een speciale reden, of pik je
> ze en passant mee?
> (Yes, you said so before. Any particular reason, or you
> just passed there on your way? )
Wij zijn toch de Nederlanders hier. Er zijn er meer, maar wij
twee zijn de regulieren. Bovendien ben je grappig.
(We Dutch people are like that. Regularly writing about places
we've never been. Funny you have to ask.)
T.
(Rabt snipped because of increasing off-topicness)
Tamfiiris Entwife
> Tamf, it is always a pleasure to see you pop up.
i'm not a pop-up! i'm an unaffiliated dwagin!
and hopefully, i'll be able to participate in this wonderful thread when
i have things more under control...
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Hunting is no fun
when the rabbit has the gun.
Belba Grubb from Stock
>this second chapter. Frodo is almost 50 and he feels that this is a number
>of importance. Indeed, Bilbo was the same age when he left with Gandalf and
>the dwarves. Was Frodo expecting that something important was about to
>change his life?
Perhaps he just was ready to go now. The night of his departure from
Bag End, Bilbo had said that Frodo had offered to go with him, but
that Frodo didn't really want to leave the Shire yet, that he was
still in love with its "woods and fields and little rivers," and that
it was "time he was his own master now." Well, now Frodo had enjoyed
all that for 17 years; his love for Bilbo and desire to see him again,
and the call to Adventure that Bilbo had planted in him during their
long walks and talks in the Shire, were becoming stronger than his
desire for comfortable, traditional things. That he had reached the
same age as Bilbo had been when adventure had arrived for him was
significant perhaps because it was an echo of Frodo's kinship with the
old hobbit who had adopted him and regret that he had not followed
him. He was still the loving nephew wanting to be like his beloved
uncle.
And that Frodo was able to let Bag End go to the Sackville-Bagginses
showed that he had lost any real attachment to the place (unlike
Bilbo, who even in Rivendell later grumbled that his birthday was
hardly the day he would have chosen for letting the S-B's into Bag
End). Bilbo wasn't there any more, though he was sharply reminded of
his uncle upon seeing the old things in a new location (Crickhollow)
just prior to his own departure from the Shire.
>2) Even if it is not mentioned in this chapter, we know that during his
>long absence, Gandalf also went to Minas Tirith, where he read Isildur's
>scroll, from which he learned that the one ring bore inscriptions that fire
>can reveal. Knowing that Gandalf's main concern on Middle-Earth was Sauron
>and the lost ring, why did he wait until he thought he had discovered the
>one ring before gathering information on how to recognize it? Shouldn't he
>have gone to Minas Tirith a long time ago, when the white council decided
>that the ring was a matter of importance?
Well, as others have mentioned, for a long time he was uncertain that
it was the One Ring, and he still trusted, to some extent, what
Saruman told the counsel. Also, the thought of checking the old
scrolls of Gondor didn't occur to him until he and Aragorn were just
about stymied in their search for Gollum. Even then, his first
thought was of Saruman and his Ring lore. But at that point Gandalf
and Aragorn were already on the fences of Mordor, closer to Minas
Tirith than to Orthanc and time was of the essence, so the wizard went
to Gondor; had they been closer to Orthanc, he likely would have asked
Saruman.
>3) About the ring : "It did not seem always of the same size and
>weight.", "It felt suddenly very heavy.", "It seemed to have become thicker
>and heavier than ever" and so on. Are the changing proprieties of the ring
>real or is the ring acting on the mind to make it think it changes shape and
>weight? The verbs used in these sentences (seemed, felt.) make me think the
>ring was able to trick the mind, but the fact that it was able to slip from
>the finger (as it left Isildur for example "It had slipped from Isildur's
>hand") would mean that it was really able to change its physical shape,
>wouldn't it?
I agree with what Raven had to say about heating and cooling as far as
it slipping off the finger unexpectedly. It was, after all, just a
tool imbued with Sauron's will and strength. Some times, perhaps,
when that inherent will and strength felt a pull of some sort (and
this would have occurred even before Sauron heard about the Ring,
i.e., whenever Sauron or one of his servants called for it), they
might heat up the Ring just a tad, enough for it to expand a little
bit without actually feeling warmer than normal body temperature.
>4) "The ring left *him*" (Gandalf about Gollum). The ring seems to have
>its own will and to be able to leave its bearer.
...and, as Frodo would discover to his chagrin in Bree, able to climb
back onto the bearer's finger unexpectedly. But I don't know that it
could foresee the future -- its abandoning Gollum likely could be
explained by its attempting to respond to the calls of its Master. In
Gollum's case, the Ring would be able to distinguish the calls of
Sauron/Necromancer in Mirkwood as coming from a different location and
eventually, since Gollum's location never changed, it would leave
Gollum the only way it could: by falling off. It's notable that it
didn't fall off into the underground lake, but rather in a goblin
tunnel a very little bit closer to Mirkwood and in a way frequented by
those very prone to evil and Sauron's calls.
>7) But Sméagol was a hobbit-like creature, and he was greatly affected
>by the ring. One explanation is that he had born the ring for several
>centuries before Bilbo took it. But even his short-time behaviour changed
>after he killed Déagol: "He put his knowledge to crooked and malicious
>uses."
>Where does this big difference of the effect of the ring come from?
The ring gave him the power to act on his tendencies which before had
been kept under social constraints from his grandmother and his
relatives.
Barb
Belba Grubb from Stock
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>My point, however, wasn't so much that Sam didn't know what "eaves-
>dropping" means, but rather that he chose to counter the accusation
>by playing the fool.
>
>Sam is, IMO, being presented in this chapter as simpler and more
>simple-minded than Frodo (and Bilbo for that matter), but also more
>open-minded than the rest of the Hobbits, even if something of a
>dreamer.
>
>Later we get to see other sides of Sam, and we see him develop quite
>a bit, and therefore I find it beneficial to understand where he is
>coming from, and that is what I intended to highlight ;-)
Well, as we will learn at Crickhollow, Sam is actually helping Merry,
Fatty Bolger and Pippin keep a watch on Frodo as part of their little
"conspiracy of friends" but dries up as a source once Gandalf and
Frodo find him listening. Or does he? How else could Merry, Pippin
and Fatty know about the Ring and the quest if Sam hadn't told them
about the conversation in this chapter?
Barb
Belba Grubb from Stock
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>10) What does Gandalf's reaction to Frodo's offer of the Ring tell us
>about Gandalf and about the Ring?
"Give me the Ring for a moment." There he goes again, carefully
delineating the conditions under which he is to handle the Ring, so
the brief transfer does the least harm to either him or to Frodo.
Sure he wants it, as we see when Frodo asks if he will take the Ring:
he gets very emotional, doesn't he. Also we see here how important
Pity is to him, and how it can have pitfalls as well as good effects
(i.e., the way Bilbo's initial pity for Gollum affected his subsequent
ownership and release of the Ring).
>11) Does Gandalf's sermon on Pity reveal the ending of the story?
Not really, but it does point us in the right direction.
>What does Frodo's initial attitude towards Gollum tell us about Frodo?
That Frodo's delusional (as are most of us) when it comes to dealing
with the darker side of the world and of our own hearts. At first,
comfortable in Bag End, he denies "with some heat" that Gollum ever
had anything to do with hobbits. Only on the Emyn Muil later on,
after he has been exposed to the Ring (and to the perilous and
beautiful world outside the Shire) for some time and has seen the Eye
and sat on the Seat of Sight and "screwed himself up" to go to Mordor,
does he begin to understand what Gandalf means about Pity.
Yet he falls past that (though pity for Gollum finally awakens even in
Sam, right at the door of the Sammath Naur), once the Ring gives Frodo
power over Gollum; eventually he's down so low, he actually becomes
Gollum's rival for possession of the Ring...Frodo never would have
believed, that pleasant day of April 3018, that he would be involved
in a primal struggle with Gollum over the Ring before a year had
passed.
And having gone through that, he returns to Bag End without his
delusions, and is never comfortable there again. He's no longer
"simple," as are the rest of the inhabitants of the Shire. And so he
has to go away.
Barb
loisillon
cut
>
>
> Frodo is suspected of visiting Elves (as was Bilbo, apparently). Not in
> Rivendell, clearly. What Elves? How did he know where to find them?
that is not very clear. Hoever, we know that there are Elves in the
west of Eriador, and that some move towards the Havens. If they come
from Rivendell, they have to walk through the Shire. At the beginning
of its voyage, Frodo meets Glorfindel and other Elves in a forest in
the Shire, precisely. It is what enables him to escape the Black
Rider.
aelfwina
"Belba Grubb from Stock" <ba...@dbtech.net> wrote in message
news:sllq10la0qgmpmrb1...@4ax.com...
I think it was one of two possiblities (1) Sam thought it only fair to get
his fellow conspirators up to date *before* cutting himself off as a source
or (2) Merry, Fatty and Pippin tried to pump him, and he let just enough
information slip to put them on the right track. In either case, Sam was
obviously in *favor* of Frodo having more protection and companionship on
the road than only he could provide, and I think would have even been
willing to risk Gandalf's anger on his master's account.
Barbara
>
> Barb
>
Dr. Ernst Stavro Blofeld
discussions have left me with a better understanding of that book than I had
before, and the LOTR series promises to do the same. This thread leaves me
few uncovered points to comment on, but I'll try.
[Forgive the position of this post in the thread, my newsreader has long
since lost your original post.]
ISTM that there was a division of responsibilities among the Wise when they
came to M-E. Saruman was the Ring guy. Gandalf was mostly in charge of
rallying the Free Peoples against Sauron. Maybe Radagast was in charge of
healing the corrupted plants and animals. The other two, of whom we know
very little, were perhaps in charge of breaking up Sauron's alliances with
the Southrons and Easterlings. (Apparently not too successful.) Although
presumably at their meetings they were each expected to share such results
in their respective fields as the others wanted to know. But it seems quite
sensible to counterattack Sauron in multiple fields, with a specialist
dedicated to each field.
Again this chapter emphasizes the Shire's isolation. The Hobbits in spite of
their apathy know a few things about the growing troubles, (such things as
are shoved on their doorstep as it were,) and they observe the increasing
waves of refugees, but they still prefer to know as little as possible about
what's going on. (Even though they love to gossip from one end of the Shire
to the other about certain oddball Hobbits!) To me that foreshadows the
Shire becoming directly involved against its will in the WOTR before the end
of the story. No doubt JRRT would deny this, but some people may see a
parallel with the Neville Chamberlain government.
As AC pointed out, the Shire was already founded when Smeagol got the Ring,
but his folk were probably already dwindling, in spite of his "big,
prosperous family" (doesn't sound too dissimilar from the Bagginses!
Although, probably, no comparison in a material comfort sense.) I wonder how
much of the Hobbit diaspora was left outside the Shire, Bree and Staddle by
TA 3019?
--
Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Lord Pęlluin,) Ph.D., Count of Tolfalas