How did Sauron do it...
teepee
Tolkien had given much thought to how it worked. I like to think he did.
How did Sauron bind all the other rings to the One Ring? I can understand
how he did with those he had a hand in making, but he also did so with the
Three, which he had no hand in. And how did he contrive that the Three lost
their power when the One died? And why did the destruction of the One
destroy Sauron. Fourthly how is it that Sauron can use his power and yet not
dissipate it as Morgoth did?
I was trying to imagine how it might be so, and obviously some of it is a
bit speculative to say the least, though I think there's hints and
statements that support most if the thesis scattered through the books. SO
some of what follows is me, and some is fairly established.
The One plainly contains great power, power which Sauron can commune with
somewhat whether the ring was on his finger or not. It's as though Sauron
had placed the larger part of himself in a higher realm where it could reach
where it needed to, whether it be the mind of an Orc or the bricks of the
Dark Tower or back to the Dark Lord. But this realm is itself a power
source, ensuring that the power that was transmitted through a ring does not
ever dissipate so long as it has access to that realm. Thus neither Lorien,
Rivendell nor Mordor are ever subject to the dissipations of time. This
realm, one might assume, is the same realm that Frodo and the mortal Nazgul
see and inhabit.
The One, it seems to me, had been placed at the Gateway of this realm. Once
placed thus, no other power could go in or come out of that realm except via
it. In order to achieve this, Sauron placed so much of his power into the
One in order to achieve this that it essentially was him. Only (most of) his
consciousness remained in the physical world. The consciousness was able to
draw on the power of the ring, albiet imperfectly, because of this
communion, even if he didn't possess it, unless another diverted that power
to themselves. Those who held the other rings were also drawn into this
realm in order to commune with the power of that realm via their rings. But
because that power went via the gateway where the One sat, whoever held the
One could sense the thoughts and deeds of the other ring holders,and even
control them.
When the One was destroyed a number of things happened. Sauron died, because
he was the One. All that was left behind was his utterly powerless
consciousness to gnaw the shadows. His constructions that were magical in
nature and relied on the One for architectural solidity all collapsed.
Others which he possessed but did not build, such as Minas Morgul, did not.
Secondly the gateway collapsed. Elrond and Galadriel could therefore no
longer draw on the ever renewing power of the higher realm. But because they
had not built their realms on magic, merely used it to preserve and glorify,
their homes did not perish immediately, but ran out of steam and faded into
normalacy over a period of years. The Nazgul had long been drawn into that
other realm body and soul, so when the gateway collapsed, they were trapped
there forever. Likewise those parts of Frodo and Bilbo's souls that had been
drawn into that realm were lost to them.
A number of questions arise. Most important, why did Sauron think the ring
had been used by Aragorn. Surely he would have felt such a use instantly, or
was his commune withthe ring much less perfect than we might suppose.
Secondly, how did Sauron control the Nazgul without holding the One? He must
have included some additional controls in those rings that were not in the
Three? Or had he corrupted them so much while he held the One that he could
still control them while not wearing it.
Thirdly, how did this gateway get opened in the first place? It seems a bit
odd that Celebrimbor could do such a thing on his own. And why then could
Saruman not open it. Would he not have had access to the wisdom of both Aule
and Celebrimbor back in Valinor, who could have told him how to do it. Was
there but one gateway possible? One feels there must have been another such
gateway in Valinor, which is why Frodo needed to go there to find healing,
and why all the High Elves left Middle Earth when the One perished.
Finally, could Gandalf have used his ring to find the One many years earlier
if he chose if he'd known, given that he might have been able to sense its
holder's mind? Would Saruman have done such a thing had he been given an
Elven ring, since his ringlore was great? Why did Saruman not therefore bend
his efforts to getting a ring? Why did he not take Gandalf's when he
captured him, since we know Saruman suspected him of possessing it? Would
have been easier than dredging rivers.
Just stuff I think about now and again. Probably not worth the paper it's
not written on.
Stan Brown
You raise some interesting points, much of which I've snipped. I have
comments on a few selections:
> Likewise those parts of Frodo and Bilbo's souls that had been
> drawn into that realm were lost to them.
I am not at all sure about that. As far as I can recall, Frodo seemed
to be completely healed spiritually. After the Ring went into the
fire, we read, "there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself
again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will,
nor madness, nor any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the
dear master of the sweet days in the Shire." I can recall at Frodo
had periodic bouts of sickness and pain on the anniversaries of his
ordeals, but as far as I can recall he was spiritually whole again.
Am I missing something?
> Secondly, how did Sauron control the Nazgul without holding the
> One?
He controlled them because he had their Nine Rings. I cite some
references in
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q79-SauronHeld
> Thirdly, how did this gateway get opened in the first place? It
> seems a bit odd that Celebrimbor could do such a thing on his own.
Celebrimbor didn't make the Three on his own till after he'd made the
Nine and the Seven under Sauron's guidance. He used that knowledge to
make the Three. Whether the One operated as a gateway or there was a
different mechanism, Celebrimbor used what he had learned from
Sauron, so the Three were under the control of the One.
> Would he not have had
> access to the wisdom of both Aule and Celebrimbor back in Valinor,
> who could have told him how to do it.
Remember that this was black magic. Aulė would certainly not have
helped. For that matter, when Saruman was in Valinor, he would not
have wanted to acquire that power. He gradually went bad when in
Middle-earth.
As for Celebrimbor, he was born in Middle-earth, wasn't he? So he
would have been in Mandos, not Valinor, when he had knowledge of
Ring-making. And we can be pretty sure that he would know the folly
and danger of trying to recover that knowledge, so he also would not
have helped Curunir, even if Curunir had one to Mandos to speak with
him (which I think unlikely).
> Finally, could Gandalf have used his ring to find the One many
> years earlier if he chose if he'd known, given that he might have
> been able to sense its holder's mind?
Well, maybe, but it's a moot point. If I remember the sequence of
events correctly, Gandalf didn't first know that the One had been
found and then eventually figure out that Bilbo had it. Rather, like
all the Wise he thought it was still lost (though it would eventually
be found). He knew Bilbo had a small-r ring the same year Bilbo found
it --even if Bilbo had said nothing he would have hard it from the
Dwarves. Then as Gandalf observed Bilbo over the years he gradually
came to realize that Bilbo's ring was the One Ring, and *that* told
him that the One had been found.
> Why did [Saruman] not take Gandalf's when he captured him, since we
> know Saruman suspected him of possessing it? Would have been easier
> than dredging rivers.
This is addressed (not resolved) in
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Saruman
You might have something to add.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Bill O'Meally
> I am not at all sure about that. As far as I can recall, Frodo seemed
> to be completely healed spiritually.
At first he did. But I wouldn't say he was *completely* healed. He bore
the scars of carrying the Ring even after it was destroyed, and his
disquiet continued to grow.
I see what you are trying to say as far as what the OP was asking. Bilbo
did not surrender to the Ring, but was nevertheless scarred from his
time in posessing it. Frodo did not succumb to it until the very end of
his endurance, but for very different reasons as did the Men who became
the Nazgul. As a result he seemes to have been more damaged than Bilbo
was. Neither had "lost their souls" in the end as the Nazgul did.
After the Ring went into the
> fire, we read, "there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself
> again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will,
> nor madness, nor any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the
> dear master of the sweet days in the Shire." I can recall at Frodo
> had periodic bouts of sickness and pain on the anniversaries of his
> ordeals, but as far as I can recall he was spiritually whole again.
> Am I missing something?
_Letter_ #246 (my favorite!) offers a lot of insight as to Frodo's
'wholeness' after the Ring's destruction. I'll just provide a few
quotes:
"He appears at first to have had no sense of guilt...; he was restored
to *sanity* and peace. But then he thought he had given his life in
sacrifice: he expected to die very soon. But he did not, and one can
observe the disquiet growing in him. Arwen was the first to observe the
signs, and gave him her jewel for comfort, and thought of a way of
healing him." p327
"... it was not only nightmarish memories of past horrors that afflicted
him, but also unreasoning self-reporoach: he saw himself and all that he
done as a broken failure." p328
Add to this, "... he was tempted to regret its [the Ring's] destruction,
and still to desire it". p328
Hence, his need to pass into the West for healing, a purgatory as well
as a reward.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The wise will remove "se" to reach me. The foolish will not!)
Sean
> When the One was destroyed a number of things happened. Sauron died
This might not be the right term. Sauron had already lost
his bodily form in the wreck of Numemor -- and yet apparently
he still had fingers, if Isildur could amputate one.
Also it seems he occupied a position in space (Dol Guldur, then
Barad-dur).
> Secondly, how did Sauron control the Nazgul without holding the One?
The Great Rings were dangerous for mortals.
> Why did Saruman not... take Gandalf's when he
> captured him, since we know Saruman suspected him of possessing it?
Saruman knew that if he tried, Gandalf would set his hair on fire.
Sean_Q_
Derek Broughton
> Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:47:18 +0100 from teepee <nom...@nomail.com>:
>
> You raise some interesting points, much of which I've snipped. I have
> comments on a few selections:
>
>> Likewise those parts of Frodo and Bilbo's souls that had been
>> drawn into that realm were lost to them.
>
> I am not at all sure about that. As far as I can recall, Frodo seemed
> to be completely healed spiritually. After the Ring went into the
> fire, we read, "there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself
> again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will,
> nor madness, nor any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the
> dear master of the sweet days in the Shire." I can recall at Frodo
> had periodic bouts of sickness and pain on the anniversaries of his
> ordeals, but as far as I can recall he was spiritually whole again.
> Am I missing something?
>
I think so. I don't recall the actual speech Frodo gave Sam when he took
the boat from the Grey Havens, but he didn't sound spiritually healed to
me.
--
derek
Troels Forchhammer
<no....@no.spam> spoke these staves:
>
> teepee wrote:
>>
>> When the One was destroyed a number of things happened. Sauron
>> died
>
> This might not be the right term. Sauron had already lost
> his bodily form in the wreck of Numemor -- and yet apparently
> he still had fingers, if Isildur could amputate one.
I guess one could say that Sauron 'died' in the same sense as the
Elves did, but unlike them Sauron was able to rebuild his bodily form
and did so several times.
Early on he was capable of changing it at will -- thus he assumed the
form of the giant wolf when fighting Huan and the fair form of
Annatar when seducing the Elvensmiths of Eregion.
After the Drowning he lost his ability to assume a 'fair form', but
though that particular body was killed (and hence lost -- probably
with a loss of the associated innate 'energy'), he could rebuild a
body in a few years when he returned to Mordor.
When Isildur cut the Master Ring from his hand at the end of the
Second Age, the same thing happened again, and he lost that body.
This time, however, it took him much longer to rebuild a new body (it
is not entirely clear when he had fully 'taken shape' again, but he
definitely had a physical body when Gollum was captured). Some of the
factors known or believed to contribute to this lengthened time are
the further loss of innate energy from loosing a second[1] body, and
the absence of the One Ring, which meant that there were enhancements
he missed, though he could still access that part of his own power
that he had externalized in the Ring). Possibly other factors played
a role (perhaps he felt that it would have encumbered him needlessly
to rebuild a body too early in the Third Age?), but most likely the
two former reasons are the most important.
[1] In some texts (e.g. the Ósanwe-kenta) Tolkien also states that
Sauron's bodily form was killed (or destroyed, if you will) when
he was defeated by Lúthien and Huan, but this is not the way it's
told in /The Silmarillion/. Has anyone made a thorough study of
how Tolkien described this incident over time -- to see if it is
a matter of early vs. late views?
> Also it seems he occupied a position in space (Dol Guldur, then
> Barad-dur).
At least one of the times when Gandalf went to Dol Guldur, Sauron had
not yet assumed a physical form, but his spirit-form was also
localized and could flee from Dul Guldur (giving rise to the long
peace).
>> Secondly, how did Sauron control the Nazgul without holding the
>> One?
>
> The Great Rings were dangerous for mortals.
Again I think that we have to say that we cannot, ultimately, know
for sure.
It seems that the Nine Rings to which the Nazgûl were enslaved were,
at the time of the War of the Ring, in Sauron's physical possession,
and that he could exert some influence over them through those (this
is particularly clear in "The Hunt for the Ring" from UT and the RC).
It is, however, not clear when he gathered these Rings to himself,
and if he hadn't gathered them before the end of the Second Age, how,
then, did he control the Ringwraiths enough to get their Ring out of
them?
>> Why did Saruman not... take Gandalf's when he captured him, since
>> we know Saruman suspected him of possessing it?
>
> Saruman knew that if he tried, Gandalf would set his hair on fire.
;-)
I think that there are several possible reasons, and that it's quite
likely to have been a combination. Listing the first that come to
mind:
1) Saruman wasn't yet fully bad and he quailed at this act -- wanting
to postpone it as long as possible. (Saruman having second
thoughts is suggested in one version of "The Hunt for the Ring" in
UT.)
2) Saruman knew that it would take him a lot of time to get the Ring
(the Three were, themselves, invisible, though they didn't confer
invisibility upon their wearers). Holding Gandalf for a few months
would, he may have hoped, speed up the part of the process that
would need his personal attention.
3) Saruman still hoped to be able to persuade Gandalf to work for him
and therefore didn't want to alienate Gandalf more than he already
had.
4) Saruman didn't dare to hold or use one of the Rings that were
subject to the One -- should Sauron regain the Master Ring,
Saruman's mind would lay open to Sauron . . .
5) Saruman didn't really care for one of the unsullied Rings -- he
wouldn't be able to turn them to his own purposes anyway.
I'm sure that other arguments can be imagined -- but I think this
suffices to show that it doesn't have to be an unreasonable idea.
Of course there is also the whole issue of literary necessity -- not
to mention the question of whether Gandalf's Ring (in the sense of
the special status a keeper of one of the Three) was envisioned when
Tolkien wrote about Gandalf's capture.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
teepee
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>
> I am not at all sure about that. As far as I can recall, Frodo seemed
> to be completely healed spiritually. After the Ring went into the
> fire, we read, "there was Frodo, pale and worn, and yet himself
> again; and in his eyes there was peace now, neither strain of will,
> nor madness, nor any fear. His burden was taken away. There was the
> dear master of the sweet days in the Shire." I can recall at Frodo
> had periodic bouts of sickness and pain on the anniversaries of his
> ordeals, but as far as I can recall he was spiritually whole again.
> Am I missing something?
What I think is significant is that his bouts of sickness were associated
with emoies of the stabbing with the Morgul Knife. Which as we know, was
made only to draw its victims into the realm of the rings. And note Frodo's
words - "I am wounded....it will never really heal." And later at the
Havens, the emphasis to Sam "You cannot always be torn in two...but I have
been too deeply hurt."
>> Why did [Saruman] not take Gandalf's when he captured him, since we
>> know Saruman suspected him of possessing it? Would have been easier
>> than dredging rivers.
>
> This is addressed (not resolved) in
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Saruman
> You might have something to add.
Ineteresting but I would favour a much simpler explanation. Saruman thought
the One had been recovered. Putting on one of the Three would have revealed
his thoughts and plans to whoever had it. Having been caught out by the
Palantir already, Saruman would have been doubly wary of such things. And he
might have thought that trapping Gandalf thus but leaving on his ring would
attract the attention of the Ring Bearer (as indeed it did - Frodo saw him
in a dream) and cause him to reveal himself. The ring Saruman himself wore
might have been part of some abortive scheme in this regard - perhaps it
would have alerted him to traffic between Narya and the One in some fashion.
teepee
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote
>>
>> This might not be the right term. Sauron had already lost
>> his bodily form in the wreck of Numemor -- and yet apparently
>> he still had fingers, if Isildur could amputate one.
>
> I guess one could say that Sauron 'died' in the same sense as the
> Elves did, but unlike them Sauron was able to rebuild his bodily form
> and did so several times.
I think Sauron was different from other Maiar once he forged the ring. It's
clear that even Morgoth suffered from the disappation of his power over the
ages. Thanks to the One, Sauron remained as strong as ever despite his many
defeats. I believe this was because he was able to put his essential self
inside the One and project it into a dimension where he was ever renewed in
power. Destroying his physical form did not harm his essential self within
the Ring, whereas, conversely, destroying the Ring certainly destroyed his
physical form.
In a sense the idea that Sauon did not appear in the book in person is
wrong. Frodo carried him around his neck.
Glenn Holliday
> In message <news:kh%Li.29960$x%6.5499@pd7urf2no> Sean
> <no....@no.spam> spoke these staves:
>> teepee wrote:
>>> Why did Saruman not... take Gandalf's when he captured him, since
>>> we know Saruman suspected him of possessing it?
>> Saruman knew that if he tried, Gandalf would set his hair on fire.
>
> likely to have been a combination. Listing the first that come to
> mind:
> I'm sure that other arguments can be imagined -- but I think this
> suffices to show that it doesn't have to be an unreasonable idea.
>
useful to Saruman, so he may not have desired to possess them.
(Though he was still studying Ringlore, and one of the Three would
have been a very interesting example to study.)
But I've always thought he would have wanted to deny its use to
Gandalf. I can only think he was not able to immediately take it
from Gandalf by force, which you hinted it. As the Wicked Witch
of the West said, these things take time, and must be done
delicately.
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
Bill O'Meally
And why
> did the destruction of the One destroy Sauron.
Unlike Morgoth, who disseminated his power into more or less all matter,
Sauron put all his eggs in one basket, *concentrating* most of his
native power into the Ring. Destroying the Ring was nigh fatal to
Sauron. To use the same MO to destroy Morgoth (at least without
destroying Arda) would have been impossible. "The whole of
'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring". (MR p400)
Fourthly how is it
> that Sauron can use his power and yet not dissipate it as Morgoth did?
Not sure what you're asking here. Sauron and Morgoth had different
goals, therefore different MOs. As stated, Sauron concentrated his power
in a sort of all-or-nothing gamble, though he had enough hubris to feel
that this was a sure bet. Never did he consider that he might actually
lose the Ring, much less that it might be destroyed! Sauron was only
interested in creating order by dominating the *creatures* of
Middle-earth. Morgoth wanted control of *all matter*. To do so, he had
to disseminate a major part of his native power into, well, *everything*
and that's a tall order. The so called "Morgoth Element" is the stuff of
Arda Marred. Doing this was to a major detriment to his *personal*
power, but not to his *total* power. Tolkien at times used the term "The
Morgoth", which is the collective power of Melkor plus his minions. "The
Morgoth" contained the complete power that was inherent in the primeval
Melkor, which was formidable. However, if his armies could be defeated
piecemeal, or if Melkor could be separated from that element of his
power he was considerably weaker.
<snip>
> When the One was destroyed a number of things happened. Sauron died,
> because he was the One.
Careful. I think you are making a leap by saying that Sauron *was* the
Ring. I don't think Tolkien ever implied that. The Ring did not have
conscousness. It was not a being in and of itself. Sauron was.
All that was left behind was his utterly
> powerless consciousness to gnaw the shadows.
His spirit had fallen so low that its recovering again as it had in the
past seemed unlikely. In his later writings, Tolkien seemed to think a
lot about redemption (See 'Myths Transformed'). In writing about
Morgoth's and Sauron's falls, he discusses that the wicked spirit
becomes fixed in its ambitions which are now well beyond what it is
capable of achieving -- Morgoth because he was thrust out into the Void
with no contact with matter in which his power dwelt, and Sauron because
the greater part of his primeval power was destroyed with the Ring. In
striving for this now unattainable desire, the spirit does not tend to
itself, maintaining a state of impotency. It is only through repentence
and redemption that the spirit can lift itself out of that state of
impotency. (Well, Tolkien *was* a devout Catholic. :-))
<snip>
Sean
> The Ring did not have conscousness.
But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
(in a limited way) the means to attain it:
"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off
treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it... The Ring
was trying to get back to its master. It had slipped from
Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance came
it caught poor Deagol, and he was murdered; and after that
Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use
of him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed
with him he would never leave his deep pool again. So now,
when its master was awake once more and sending out his dark
thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum."
Sean_Q_
Dirk Thierbach
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote
>> I guess one could say that Sauron 'died' in the same sense as the
>> Elves did, but unlike them Sauron was able to rebuild his bodily form
>> and did so several times.
> I think Sauron was different from other Maiar once he forged the ring.
Why should he be? None of the "children" of Eru is able to change their
own nature. Eru alone could do that.
> It's clear that even Morgoth suffered from the disappation of his
> power over the ages.
Morgoth didn't "suffer" from it, he voluntarily dissipated his "power"
(or will, or substance, or whatever you like to call it) into all of
Arda, to taint it and so to create "Arda Marred".
Sauron, OTOH, "externalized" a substantial part of himself into the
Ring. (BTW, this is a common fairy-tale topic). This part of his "power"
was safe (as long as the Ring existed), and he could still use it.
But other parts of his "power" (namely those he used to built his
physical body) were not. They were used up every time his body was
destroyed.
> Thanks to the One, Sauron remained as strong as ever despite his many
> defeats.
No, he didn't. After each destruction of his body, Sauron is first
reduced to a mere "shadow" of himself. He can, more and more slowly
after each desctruction, rebuild himself, but some things are lost --
for example his ability to take on a "fair" shape is gone after his
first destruction.
> I believe this was because he was able to put his essential self
> inside the One
If you replace "essential" with "substantial part", then yes, this
is exactly what happens. In this way, it is *protected* from destruction.
But not renewed.
> and project it into a dimension
Why do you have to introduce vague ideas like "another dimension"?
It's enough to know that he put part of himself into the Ring. We don't
know *how* he did it, so any speculation about "extra dimensions" is
pretty futile.
> where he was ever renewed in power.
Again, why do you have to make this assumption? There's no need to
have his power renewed; it's enough if we assume it is protected
and *constant*.
> Destroying his physical form did not harm his essential self within
> the Ring,
Reformulation: Destroying his physical form only did harm that part of
his power he spent to build this physical form. It didn't harm the
rest of him (as the rest of Gandalf wasn't harmed when his physical
form was destroyed by the Balrog), and of course it didn't harm that
part that was externalized in the Ring.
> whereas, conversely, destroying the Ring certainly destroyed his
> physical form.
Reformulation: Destroying the Ring destroyed so much of Sauron's
power that not enough would be left to even sustain his physical form
(because he needed that little that was left to survive at all).
Or, as letter #131 puts it:
There was another weakness: if the One Ring was actually unmade,
annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron's own being
would be diminished to vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a
shadow, a mere memory of malicious will.
> In a sense the idea that Sauon did not appear in the book in person is
> wrong. Frodo carried him around his neck.
No, Frodo carried a substantial part of Saurons power around his neck
(which is what gave the Ring some sort of consciousness of his own).
The Ring certainly wasn't Sauron himself (i.e., his central personality).
Otherwise Sauron would have known that Frodo was carrying it right into
Mordor.
- Dirk
Stan Brown
> I think Sauron was different from other Maiar once he forged the ring. It's
> clear that even Morgoth suffered from the disappation of his power over the
> ages.
It was not the passage of time that diminished Morgoth's powers.
Rather, he deliberately expended his power in infiltrating all the
matter of Arda.
The other Valar and Maiar did not lose power over time.
Sauron did not just lose power, he gained it, largely thanks to the
Ring.
Bill O'Meally
> Bill O'Meally wrote:
>
>> The Ring did not have conscousness.
>
> But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
> a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
> (in a limited way) the means to attain it:
A magnet attracted to iron seems to have a sense of purpose as well.
Does it have intelligence?
Dirk Thierbach
> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote
> <snip>
> Of course there is the standard way of reading the text. Sometimes it
> entertains to read it in other ways.
*Shrug* Of course it's entertaining to have wild ideas about
something, but if it just falls flat on its nose as soon as you start
to look a bit closer at it, then this limits the entertainment value
severely (at least for me).
I think it also makes communication easier if one marks wild speculations
clearly as such (then people like me won't be tempted to take them
seriously).
- Dirk
teepee
"Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote
> I think it also makes communication easier if one marks wild speculations
> clearly as such (then people like me won't be tempted to take them
> seriously).
Robert J. Kolker
> The One, it seems to me, had been placed at the Gateway of this realm.
The One is a Potterian Port-Key among other things.
Bob Kolker
teepee
"teepee" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote
>> This is addressed (not resolved) in
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Saruman
>> You might have something to add.
It also occurs that there was a crude level of communication between the
holders of the Three. Galadriel knew they fellowship was coming. She knew
Gandalf was not dead.
If Saruman had held Gandalf's ring, or taken it off Gandalf, or killed him,
he might have thought the other two would know immediately. That would have
cost him the element of suprise.
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
on its face in some way too, but you can tell me how.
It's as if Sauron taught Celebrimbor how to make computers
and operating systems, but Sauron designed them with hidden BDs
(back doors). Sauron worked the BD into his design so cleverly
that even when Celebrimbor designed the Three, he put in the BD
unbeknownst even to him.
When Sauron made the One, it immediately accessed the BD of
all the other computers and made them zombies. The first thing
he got the zombies to do was to capture the souls of the owners
and make the owners zombies of the computers. But the holders
of the Three shut down their systems before that could happen.
He then took the Nine from the Nazgul. That way, he could
control the Nazgul without even using the One, since they were
already zombies of the Nine. He tried to do the same with the
Seven.
Sauron also designed and programmed a lot of software for
the One, and changed his business practices so that he couldn't
function normally without the One. When he lost the One, he had
to go back to paper processes.
When Gollum, then Bilbo, then Frodo got a hold of the One,
they couldn't access all the higher-level functionality of it
because the operating system was too hard to use. (Must have
been something like Unix!) They could use it for a few simple
things that any high-powered computer could be used for, but not
for controlling the Three, for making minions do their bidding,
or anything like that.
The One had reprogrammed the Three so much that their
owners couldn't take out all the hooks without crashing the
system entirely. They knew that when the One was destroyed, it
would automatically use the BD to reformat the Three's hard
drives, but they couldn't do anything about that.
So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
office forevermore, died from sheer stress!
--Jamie. (efil4dreN)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
teepee
"Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
> So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
> Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
> office forevermore, died from sheer stress!
Burn the blasphemer!
Dirk Thierbach
> It also occurs that there was a crude level of communication between the
> holders of the Three.
This form of communication is called "Osanwe-Kenta", and is not
connected with the Three Rings. Tolkien wrote a well-known essay about
it. It's described directly in LotR, from the point of view of an
observer looking at Celeborn, Galadriel, Elrong and Gandalf:
If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard,
and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved
in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands. For
they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only
their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro.
- Dirk
Stan Brown
<omea...@wise.rr.com>:
> Sean wrote:
> > Bill O'Meally wrote:
> >
> >> The Ring did not have conscousness.
> >
> > But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
> > a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
> > (in a limited way) the means to attain it:
>
> A magnet attracted to iron seems to have a sense of purpose as well.
> Does it have intelligence?
You're not serious, I assume. A magnet does not seem to me to have a
sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
to the ground.
Or have you been reading this page:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
Falling' Theory"
Troels Forchhammer
(Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message) spoke these
staves:
> Hey, I thought of a good analogy. It probably falls flat
> on its face in some way too, but you can tell me how.
<snip>
> So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
> Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
> office forevermore, died from sheer stress!
Heh heh! Nice one! ;-)
If I were to find an objection (as you invite to <GG>), it would be
related to the portrayal of the dependency of the Three, the Seven and
the Nine upon the One as a back-door -- it seems to me to go deeper
than that, and once Sauron had made the One these other Rings really
depended on the One; their powers could only exist while the One
lasted.
Staying in the computer system analogy, the other Rings of Power had
been hard-wired to only be able to use the power-supply from the One,
and once the One was shut down, the other Rings also shut down, because
their power-supply failed (no UPS for Elven Rings).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Prai Jei
<47002774$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org>:
> In quiet moments I sometimes like thinking about the One Ring, and whether
> Tolkien had given much thought to how it worked. I like to think he did.
>
> How did Sauron bind all the other rings to the One Ring? I can understand
> how he did with those he had a hand in making, but he also did so with the
> Three, which he had no hand in. And how did he contrive that the Three
> lost their power when the One died? And why did the destruction of the One
> destroy Sauron. Fourthly how is it that Sauron can use his power and yet
> not dissipate it as Morgoth did?
It all follows from the laws of quantum mechanics. Destruction of the set of
2N+1 rings immediately breaks the continuity with sets of higher
cardinality so that the set of 2N+3, 2N+5, etc. rings immediately lose
their power. It doesn't matter a who made a particular set of rings, those
rings rely on all sets of rings of lesser number (but greater power), right
down/up to the One, to be *there*.
So there must have been Five Rings somewhere, of which the histories of
Middle-earth are totally silent, otherwise the Seven and the Nine would not
have had any power. Were they made for the Ents?
Or perhaps they are still remembered in song. "On the fifth day of
Christmas..."
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Count Menelvagor
i'm reminded of one of the crackpot theories at the tolkien sarcasm
page: one OS to rule them all and in the darkness bind them!
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> If I were to find an objection (as you invite to <GG>), it would be
> related to the portrayal of the dependency of the Three, the Seven and
> the Nine upon the One as a back-door -- it seems to me to go deeper
> than that, and once Sauron had made the One these other Rings really
> depended on the One; their powers could only exist while the One
> lasted.
That's what Tolkien said on OtRoPatTA: "but secretly Sauron made One
Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to
be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should
last."
Bill O'Meally
> Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:49:36 -0500 from Bill O'Meally
> <omea...@wise.rr.com>:
>> Sean wrote:
>>> Bill O'Meally wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Ring did not have conscousness.
>>>
>>> But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
>>> a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
>>> (in a limited way) the means to attain it:
>>
>> A magnet attracted to iron seems to have a sense of purpose as well.
>> Does it have intelligence?
>
> You're not serious, I assume. A magnet does not seem to me to have a
> sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
> to the ground.
>
> Or have you been reading this page:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
> "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
> Falling' Theory"
--
Bill O'Meally
> You're not serious, I assume.
Sure I am. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.
A magnet does not seem to me to have a
> sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
> to the ground.
The operative word was "seem". What I was getting at was that the Ring
had no more intelligence in its attraction towards Sauron than a
magnet's attraction to metal.
>
> Or have you been reading this page:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
> "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
> Falling' Theory"
No, I haven't, but 'The Onion' is always a good read. One of my home
state's better exports -- that and cheese. :-)
Sean
> The operative word was "seem". What I was getting at was that the Ring
> had no more intelligence in its attraction towards Sauron than a
> magnet's attraction to metal.
Ah, but "Magic rings are - well, magical." And the One showed
considerably more sophistication of strategy than a magnet.
Once I used to play chess against a program called Sargon.
It was extremely aggressive, and really went for the jugular.
A chess-playing friend and I used to team up to play against it.
He was constantly anthropomorphizing the program: "It's up to
something." "It's obviously planning something devious."
"It's trying to lure us into a trap," etc. But it wasn't
really a mind, it was just a rule engine.
SQ
Troels Forchhammer
"Bill O'Meally" <omea...@wise.rr.com> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> What I was getting at was that the Ring had no more intelligence
> in its attraction towards Sauron than a magnet's attraction to
> metal.
That is, at least, a debateable question ;-)
The One Ring may have been non-sapient, in which case the phrases that
suggest otherwise are simply antropomorphisms -- clearly that cannot be
ruled out. In that case the Ring can probably be likened to a very
clever piece of neural programming.
On the other hand, Tolkien /does/ attribute the One Ring with a will
and with desires, implying that the had a degree of sapience sufficient
for having a will and conscious desires.
I, on my part, am satisfied that the One Ring would at least have
passed the Turing test, in which case one can reasonably ask, 'does it
matter?' -- for all practical purposes the One Ring 'acts' in the book
as an individual 'character' with as much intelligence and personality
as e.g. the Witch-king.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan
Derek Broughton
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> You're not serious, I assume.
>
> Sure I am. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.
>
> A magnet does not seem to me to have a
>> sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
>> to the ground.
>
> The operative word was "seem". What I was getting at was that the Ring
> had no more intelligence in its attraction towards Sauron than a
> magnet's attraction to metal.
>
I thought it was a pretty good analogy.
>> Or have you been reading this page:
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
>> "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
>> Falling' Theory"
>
> No, I haven't, but 'The Onion' is always a good read. One of my home
> state's better exports -- that and cheese. :-)
Oh please. You need to try some real cheese. I can't believe the stuff
that impresses Americans. Does the Department of Homeland Security prevent
you getting the good stuff? otoh, the Onion's a hit :-)
--
derek
Larry Swain
> In message <news:4705adf7$0$19590$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> "Bill O'Meally" <omea...@wise.rr.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>What I was getting at was that the Ring had no more intelligence
>>in its attraction towards Sauron than a magnet's attraction to
>>metal.
>
>
> That is, at least, a debateable question ;-)
>
> The One Ring may have been non-sapient, in which case the phrases that
> suggest otherwise are simply antropomorphisms -- clearly that cannot be
> ruled out. In that case the Ring can probably be likened to a very
> clever piece of neural programming.
>
> On the other hand, Tolkien /does/ attribute the One Ring with a will
> and with desires, implying that the had a degree of sapience sufficient
> for having a will and conscious desires.
>
> I, on my part, am satisfied that the One Ring would at least have
> passed the Turing test, in which case one can reasonably ask, 'does it
> matter?' -- for all practical purposes the One Ring 'acts' in the book
> as an individual 'character' with as much intelligence and personality
> as e.g. the Witch-king.
>
My pets have desires and will and "act", is my dog sapient?
Troels Forchhammer
Larry Swain <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
On the sapience of the One Ring
>> I, on my part, am satisfied that the One Ring would at least have
>> passed the Turing test, in which case one can reasonably ask,
>> 'does it matter?' -- for all practical purposes the One Ring
>> 'acts' in the book as an individual 'character' with as much
>> intelligence and personality as e.g. the Witch-king.
>>
>
> My pets have desires and will and "act", is my dog sapient?
But if we get to the equivalence of animals, the question is one of
degree -- it is recognized that your pets are intelligent, just not
as much as yourself (I'll leave the question of whether they can be
sapient to those who are more knowledgeable on that than I).
The question has been raised before (on more than one occasion), and
I was trying to summarize rather than argue a point. In the end I
think it depends on what you read into Tolkien's descriptions: I
cannot think of a reasonable test that can be used to decide whether
or not they are antropomorphisms (usable in context, of course -- one
that will be able to give an answer based on the known texts).
Heck, some even insist that the Ring could /speak/ (as did Túrin's
sword, the Troll's purse and probably some other inanimate objects
that I've forgotten about) ;-)
Personally I am quite happy with Stan's summary in the Rings-FAQ:
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Sentient>
My choice of the Witch-king was very deliberate -- we hear of him
that he, as well as the other Ringwraiths, 'had no will but
[Sauron's] own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had
enslaved him, which Sauron held.' Yet the Ringwraiths are capable of
acting as independent agents carrying out Sauron's will -- but are
they intelligent? Can we think of a good test to discern between the
intelligence of the Ring (whether reality or antropomorphism) and
that of the Witch-king?
As implied above, I don't think it's possible to come up with a
definite answer, but for my own part, I believe that Tolkien did
indeed intend for the One Ring to possess some level of what we would
call 'intelligence' -- that it was self-aware (as an individual
entity separate from Sauron) and conscious of itself and of its
surroundings as being external to itself. None of this, obviously,
requires an intelligence greater that that of the more intelligent
animals.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no
basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony.
- /Monty Python and the Holy Grail/