FAQ of the Rings -- updates and new Qs
Stan Brown
these new questions:
Why were Frodo's and Bilbo's clothes invisible while they
wore the Ring?
Well then, why were the Black Riders' clothes visible?
Gandalf bore the Ring of Fire, so that's how he made his
fireworks, right?
How was the One Ring like Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen?
I have also added a primitive time line for the bearers of the Three
Rings, shown that Cirdan didn't use the Ring he bore, added a bit
more on the powers of the Three Rings and corrected a misleading
summary of an article Conrad Dunkerson posted.
As always, comments and corrections are most welcome.
In progress: "Was the One Ring sentient?"
--
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
Cave Troll
|At http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#RevHist
[snip]
|As always, comments and corrections are most welcome.
Your Ring site continues to be interesting. CAVE TROLL
did find a factual error though. In the section comparing
LotR to the Nibelungen you say:
"Sméagol killed his brother Déagol to get the Ring,
then took it and hid in caves under the Misty
Mountains for many years."
Deagol is, of course, NOT Smeagol's brother, but a
dear, dead -friend-. :)
FROM LotR: The Shadow of the Past.
'He had a friend called Déagol, of similar sort,
sharper-eyed but not so quick and strong. On a time
they took a boat and went down to the Gladden Fields,
where there were great beds of iris and flowering
reeds. There Sméagol got out and went nosing about the
banks but Déagol sat in the boat and fished. Suddenly
a great fish took his hook, and before he knew where he
was, he was dragged out and down into the water, to
the bottom. Then he let go of his line, for he thought
he saw something shining in the river-bed; and holding
his breath he grabbed at it.
And from the Arda site:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/d/deagol.html
CAVE TROLL quotes the entire 'fish story' bit since
he finds it odd. Are we to believe the ring had a hand
in the actions of the fish? Ulmo, Mr. Water God, would
seem involved with events on The Great River, but surely
Ulmo didn't want The Ring found...then again...
<shrug> Or just a 'fluke' experience?
====================================================================
"The poor, confused cave troll. He doesn't know what he's doing.
He just never had the proper guidance." -- Elijah Wood
====================================================================
Cave Troll
Hmm, one more 'Brother' error. :)
Site sez:
"Fafner killed his brother Fafner to get the Ring, then
took it and hid in a cave for many years."
CAVE TROLL not real up on Wagner, but it seems Fafner's brother's
name wasn't also Fafner, but instead was Fasolt.
see:
http://users.utu.fi/hansalmi/wagner/rhein.html
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>In progress: "Was the One Ring sentient?"
Will that also cover the FAQ "Did the Ring speak at Mt. Doom?"
Morgoth's Curse
Chris Kern
>How was the One Ring like Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen?
I find many of the entires in this section to be, to put it blunty,
nonsense.
#1 - I don't see any similarity between renouncing love to gain
ultimate power, and training your will to domination to control
others.
#2 is fine, except that the source of the curse and evil is different,
as is the effect.
#3 - As Cave Troll has pointed out, Smeagol and Deagol were not
brothers, and the entire circumstances behind the two killings were
completely different. Fafner and Fasolt were given the ring of the
nibelungs, among other things, as payment for bulding Wotan's palace,
whereas Deagol just found the One Ring in the river. Fasolt felt
entitled to the ring because he did not want the gold, he would have
rather taken the goddess Freya for himself (which was the original
promised reward, but Wotan was forced to give them the ring instead
because the gods needed Freya's apples of life to stay young)
#4 - You even say here that the One Ring does not give wealth. So why
is this even here? The section is not "How were any of the Rings like
Wagner".
#5 - What similarity? Sauron made the One Ring, Wotan did not make the
nibelung ring. Also, Sauron is trying to take the Ring back through
military might and conquest, as well as domination of the will of the
ring-bearers, whereas Wotan has to raise an "untainted" hero to slay
Fafner in order to gain the nibelung's ring again (I believe this is
due to a prophecy).
#6 - Most of that is not similarity, neither the elves nor Valar die
in LotR.
In short, I think that whole section should be removed, or restored to
its former state.
-Chris
Stan Brown
Yes. I don't intend on doing a separate treatment on that point, but
will link to the treatment in Steuard's FAQ.
(Steuard and I have been corresponding. We both recognize areas of
overlap and want not to increase them.)
Stan Brown
>Stan wrote:
>|At http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#RevHist
>[snip]
>|As always, comments and corrections are most welcome.
>
>Your Ring site continues to be interesting. CAVE TROLL
>did find a factual error though. In the section comparing
>LotR to the Nibelungen you say:
>
>"Sméagol killed his brother Déagol to get the Ring,
> then took it and hid in caves under the Misty
> Mountains for many years."
>
>Deagol is, of course, NOT Smeagol's brother, but a
>dear, dead -friend-. :)
Stan thanks you for the correction, and blushes at his own error.
>CAVE TROLL not real up on Wagner, but it seems Fafner's brother's
>name wasn't also Fafner, but instead was Fasolt.
Stan exclaims "D'oh!" Stan originally wrote that Fasolt killed
Fafner, realized at once that that was backward, but unaccountably
made only half a correction. He thanks you for this correction also.
Stan Brown
>On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 13:04:29 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
>posted the following:
>
>>How was the One Ring like Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen?
>
>I find many of the entires in this section to be, to put it blunty,
>nonsense.
Thanks for your comments. The factual errors about Deagol and Fasolt
have already been corrected, and I'll take the rest under
advisement.
>In short, I think that whole section should be removed, or restored to
>its former state.
Help me out here. The difference between removing it and restoring
it to its former state would be what, exactly?
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.171a4629c...@news.odyssey.net...
> Gandalf bore the Ring of Fire, so that's how he made his
> fireworks, right?
> Some people think so, but Tolkien never says as much. In fact, he
> seems to suggest the opposite: "the Three Rings were precisely
> endowed with the power of preservation" [L #144 (177)], but fire
> is destructive.
"Fireworks have no special relation to me. They appear in the books
(and would have done even if I disliked them) because they are part
of the representation of Gandalf, bearer of the Ring of Fire, the
Kindler: the most childlike aspect shown to the Hobbits being
fireworks."
Letters #301
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>Chris Kern <ke...@grinnell.edu> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>In short, I think that whole section should be removed, or restored to
>>its former state.
>
>Help me out here. The difference between removing it and restoring
>it to its former state would be what, exactly?
I recalled it being in there before in a much shorter form with only
Tolkien's statements. But I guess IDNRC, perhaps I was projecting.
In any case, it seems like the little table could be used as proof
against similarities :)
Is that such a FAQ anyway?
But in any case I spent 30 minutes reading the entire FAQ again
because I found it so interesting.
-Chris
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#3-Fireworks
>
>> Gandalf bore the Ring of Fire, so that's how he made his
>> fireworks, right?
>
>> Some people think so, but Tolkien never says as much. In fact, he
>> seems to suggest the opposite: "the Three Rings were precisely
>> endowed with the power of preservation" [L #144 (177)], but fire
>> is destructive.
And Conrad produced a quote that goes the other way:
>"Fireworks have no special relation to me. They appear in the books
>(and would have done even if I disliked them) because they are part
>of the representation of Gandalf, bearer of the Ring of Fire, the
>Kindler: the most childlike aspect shown to the Hobbits being
>fireworks."
>Letters #301
Could we have some more discussion on this point, please? I'm
willing to change the FAQ entry, and I'd like to know more. What are
the relationships or fire, fire-WORKS, and the Red Ring? Why does
Gandalf always seem to use his staff to make fire?
Josep
>>> seems to suggest the opposite: "the Three Rings were precisely
>>> endowed with the power of preservation" [L #144 (177)], but fire
>>> is destructive.
Not necessarily. Aragorn says somewhere in "At the sign of the Prancing
Pony" (at the very end of it) or "A knife in the Dark" somethign about
fire being the Rangers' friend in the wilderness.
Also in the Redhorn Pass, the Company has to choose between fire and
death.
Fire is therefore ambivalent.It is the case with Tolkien (see the flame
of Anor and the Flame of Udűn facing each other on Durin's bridge) and it
has also been the case in other myths (the Egyptians, for instance, had
Bast, a cat-headed goddess, that represented the positive aspect of the
Sun -heat,plant growth, light-, and Sekhmet, the lion-headed goddess,
that was a god of war an also en embodiment of the "bad" aspects of the
Sun - burning heat and so)
Pep
Conrad Dunkerson
> Could we have some more discussion on this point, please? I'm
> willing to change the FAQ entry, and I'd like to know more. What are
> the relationships or fire, fire-WORKS, and the Red Ring?
Well, throwing the 'textual history' argument into the mix, it is
worth noting that Gandalf's connection with fireworks and 'special
study of fire magics' predates any mention of him having a Ring and
indeed even the existence of the Three Rings. Thus, they were not
included BECAUSE of Narya, but Tolkien's statements in Letter #301
would seem to indicate that they are at least 'consistent' with his
use of Narya.
I would argue that the three rings very much WERE dedicated to
preservation, but that they were also 'elemental' in nature. Why give
something the name 'Ring of Fire' if it has nothing to do with fire?
Ditto for 'Ring of Air' and 'Ring of Water' (the translations of
'Vilya' and 'Nenya'). Consider Narya's status as 'the Kindler' and
its reputed powers of strengthening the wills of others (as Gandalf
did with Theoden, the defenders of Minas Tirith, and quite possibly
certain hobbits)... a sort of 'preservation' type effect, resisting
weariness and fear. Just the sort of thing the Elves were trying to
do - and tied to the 'inner fire' of individuals. We don't get the
same sort of clues about the natures of the other two Rings (though
there was a quite a bit about Galdriel's in the drafts - it went
through several changes but was consistently elemental in nature), but
I would suspect they were similar. Elemental forces (and air and
water are every bit as destructive as fire in their own ways), but
specifically focused on 'preservative' and 'healing' aspects. The
purpose of a blow-torch is constructive in nature, but it can
certainly be turned to violent uses. Ditto for the Rings. Gandalf
could make fire in a blizzard to keep companions from freezing to
death... or in a battle to fry some werewolves (using the same phrase
for both, and just a few pages apart).
> Why does Gandalf always seem to use his staff to make fire?
Gandalf tends to do alot of things with his staff. At which point the
question centers on the nature of the >staff< rather than the Ring.
If it was a 'conduit' or 'focus' it might just be part of the WAY
Gandalf does 'magic' while Narya is part of the POWER he draws upon to
do so. Or vice versa. The staff being involved doesn't mean the Ring
wasn't. Gandalf visibly used his staff in 'healing' Theoden, but that
scene also perfectly fits the described powers of Narya.
Textually, Gandalf was always associated with fire. Right back to The
Hobbit. Mytho-historically he had no such connection in origin (he
was not a 'fire Maia' to all appearances) and only developed those
skills in Middle-Earth, after he had received Narya. Given the
textual history it was natural that Tolkien would choose to allocate
the Ring of Fire to Gandalf once he had decided that Gandalf would
have a Ring. And I think from that connection and the statements in
Letter #310 we have to accept that the Rings DID have tangible
'elemental' aspects - focused towards their primary purpose of healing
and preserving, but also applicable in other ways.
Stan Brown
>preservation, but that they were also 'elemental' in nature. Why give
>something the name 'Ring of Fire' if it has nothing to do with fire?
>Ditto for 'Ring of Air' and 'Ring of Water' (the translations of
>'Vilya' and 'Nenya'). Consider Narya's status as 'the Kindler' and
>its reputed powers of strengthening the wills of others (as Gandalf
>did with Theoden, the defenders of Minas Tirith, and quite possibly
>certain hobbits)...
Well yes, but that is a _metaphorical_ use of fire. Gandalf is not
setting literal fire to Théoden! And anyway, it was his staff he
used; otherwise why make such a fuss about keeping it with him and
not leaving it with Aragorn's sword and Gimli's axe and Legolas'
bow?
What would Elrond be doing with air with the Blue Ring, or what
would Galadriel be doing with water (unless you count her Mirror, I
suppose)?
I'm trying to arrive at a better formulation, but I don't see how
the above questions can be answered consistent with "yes, the Ring
of Fire made actual fire."
Conrad Dunkerson
> Well yes, but that is a _metaphorical_ use of fire.
Was it?
Seriously. The 'spark of life' in Tolkien's mythology is called 'the
Secret Fire' and 'the Flame Imperishable'. If >that< is not
metaphorical then the Ring might very well serve to strengthen that
'fire' within an individual. If it IS metaphorical then I would argue
that the two are both referencing the same metaphor. :)
> Gandalf is not setting literal fire to Théoden!
If it is the 'Secret Fire' through which Eru gives true 'life' and
'will' to his children then Gandalf was 'stoking' that fire in
Theoden. Even ifs this had no 'metaphysical' relation to the
'element' of fire it certainly had a >cultural< connection for the
Noldor (consider 'Feanor') and thus would be entirely reasonable for
them to build both into the Ring. Consider Manwe's connections with
'Air' and the wisdom and far sight he was known for (like Elrond) or
Ulmo's connections with 'Water' and the prophecies and visions he was
known for (like Galadriel). I would suggest that there were possible
connections between certain 'elements' and other attributes.
Obviously numerous counter-examples could be found and this is well
into the realm of speculation, but then ANY >detailed< analysis of the
powers of the Rings is going to be speculative by default.
> And anyway, it was his staff he used; otherwise why make such a fuss
> about keeping it with him and not leaving it with Aragorn's sword and
> Gimli's axe and Legolas' bow?
I would agree that he certainly used the staff (though I have seen it
argued otherwise), but that does not mean he ONLY used the staff. In
fact, he certainly didn't. He also used his own 'power' - Tolkien
states in one of the letters that 'Gandalf the Grey' could not have
done what 'Gandalf the White' did with Theoden; he didn't have the
power until after his death and return.
I assume the Ring was also in use because it is more than once
described as having the power to 'kindle hope and courage' - which is
EXACTLY what Gandalf was doing there. In any case, the Rings all
enhanced the 'power' of their wearer's, so it would likely have played
a part in most exercises of power which Gandalf made.
> What would Elrond be doing with air with the Blue Ring, or what
> would Galadriel be doing with water (unless you count her Mirror, I
> suppose)?
Well, as I noted before, the assignment of the Three and their
descriptions was a VERY late addition. It doesn't appear in any of
the notes until the last chapter of the book, and even then my
recollection is that it was added after the fact. I think there may
have been one passing speculative reference to Elrond having a Ring
before then and none for Gandalf. There was quite a bit about
Galadriel's Ring but it changed several times. I recall that it was
the 'Ring of Earth' for some time and may have had something to do
with the physical enchantment of Lorien.
What I am getting at here is that the lack of clear 'elemental powers'
of the Three in the story does not preclude Tolkien from having
intended such powers. The details of the Rings were created after the
story was written. Virtually everything to be found about the
specific powers of the Three came after LotR. As such I would argue
that if Tolkien gave them elemental names he probably intended
elemental connections - particularly since he once indicated so
specifically in Narya's case.
> I'm trying to arrive at a better formulation, but I don't see how
> the above questions can be answered consistent with "yes, the Ring
> of Fire made actual fire."
Well, setting aside that almost all uses of power by Elrond, Galadriel
and Gandalf were written prior to the decision on what Rings they held
there ARE some correlations;
Gandalf: Obviously he used fire frequently. I don't think anyone
would argue that if there is one element Gandalf showed an affinity
for it was fire. Most of this was written before Narya was assigned
to him, but after that Tolkien specifically tied Gandalf's fireworks
and such to the Ring.
Galadriel: There is the fog she raised to hide the ride of Eorl to
Gondor's aid, the fact that Nenya specifically increased her 'sea
longing', the seemingly 'enchanted' rivers of Lorien (admittedly along
with everything else there), and of course the Mirror. Nowhere near
as pronounced as Gandalf's case, but again I'd argue that if there
were one element Galadriel showed an affinity for it was water. The
runner-up would probably be earth (the enchanted land of Lorien, Sam's
dirt, et cetera)... but those items were first written while Tolkien
had her bearing the 'Ring of Earth'.
Elrond: Not much to work with here. The only 'magical' things he ever
does are the flood, healing, and a little telepathy. As such the
flood (as the only example involving an element) would tend to imply
water rather than air, but I'd suggest that we just don't see enough
of Elrond's 'power' to have much idea what he did with Vilya one way
or the other.
I think for me it comes down to;
Specific statements by Tolkien that a Ring had 'elemental' powers : 1
Specific statements by Tolkien that Rings did not have such powers: 0
Names of Rings: 'of Fire', 'of Water', 'of Air'
Given that it is only one 'unpublished' reference, the names, and the
fire/water affinities noted he could certainly have changed his mind,
but there is overall 'more evidence' FOR elemental powers than AGAINST
them. Though it is a 'very little' vs 'almost none' scenario.
Lisa Virmigle
> .... it is worth noting that Gandalf's connection with fireworks and 'special
> study of fire magics' predates any mention of him having a Ring .... Consider Narya's status as 'the
> Kindler' and
> its reputed powers of strengthening the wills of others .... a sort of 'preservation' type effect,
> resisting
> weariness and fear. Just the sort of thing the Elves were trying to
> do - and tied to the 'inner fire' of individuals.
<applauds> Well said!
On a tangent:
Much of the Elves' involvement with the War of the Ring is based on their experience with the Silmarils.
If only Olorin and Narya had been present at certain places in the _Silmarillion_ ...
Yours,
LV
TradeSurplus
>Much of the Elves' involvement with the War of the Ring is based on their
experience with the Silmarils.
>If only Olorin and Narya had been present at certain places in the
_Silmarillion_ ...
I guess if Nargothrond had taken part in the Nirnaeth it might have tipped
the scales. What other places do you think would benefit from a quick shot
of that Narya goodness?
Trade.
Mike Hennebry
If Sam had been thinking ahead, he might have pushed Frodo
into the volcano. The alternative might have been worse,
even for Frodo.
A less likely possibility is that Frodo could have beaten or
controlled the Nazgul. Frodo escapes Mordor and meets someone
(Galadriel?) who can take the ring from him and defeat Sauron.
This someone becomes a wraith. If this wraith with the ring
is less powerful than Saruon without the ring, the war isn't
over, but there is progress and JRRT would have had more
writing to do. Alternatively, this someone might have been
able to do what Isildur at least considered: throw it into
the fire.
Another possibility is that the Nazgul can't beat Frodo
directly, so they threaten Sam to get Frodo to take off the
ring. The threat works, but not as intended. To save Sam,
Frodo takes off the ring and tosses it into the volcano.
The least interesting possibility is that Sam talks Frodo into
changing his mind. It's your choice Mr. Frodo. I don't want
it. If you want the dark lord to get it, you just try to hang
onto his precious. If you don't want him to have it, throw it
into the fire.
This one finds it interesting that Gollum managed to bite
off the third finger without biting off any others. It's
possible, but the only way that I can think that it's
likely is if Hobbits have two unnumbered thumbs on each
hand.
--
Mike henn...@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"There are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't."
-- I. Forget
Simon J. Rowe
henn...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (Mike Hennebry) writes:
> If Gollum hadn't interfered, Sauron might still have lost.
Drivel, Tolkien made it quite clear that Gollum's role was crucial for
the destruction of the Ring.
> If Sam had been thinking ahead, he might have pushed Frodo
> into the volcano. The alternative might have been worse,
> even for Frodo.
There is no way Sam would have even contemplated doing this. Sam was
in all ways subservient to Frodo.
> A less likely possibility is that Frodo could have beaten or
> controlled the Nazgul.
No, again Tolkien made clear what would have happened in this
circumstance.
Letters 246
Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully
instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of
the Ring. ... Would they have been immune from its power if he
claimed it as an instrument of command and domination? Not
wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with
violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they
would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his
that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by
Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had
primary control of their wills. That errand was to remove
Frodo from the Crack. Once he lost the power or opportunity to
destroy the Ring, the end could not be in doubt
> Frodo escapes Mordor and meets someone
> (Galadriel?) who can take the ring from him and defeat Sauron.
Galadriel and all others capable of wielding the One have utterly
refused it.
> This someone becomes a wraith. If this wraith with the ring
> is less powerful than Saruon without the ring, the war isn't
> over, but there is progress and JRRT would have had more
> writing to do.
A little more writing but nothing pleasant. Sauron would have located
the One quickly and brought all force to bear as was said at the
'Council of Elrond'
What power still remains lies with us, here in Imladris, or
with Círdan at the Havens, or in Lórien. But have they the
strength, have we here the strength to withstand the Enemy,
the coming of Sauron at the last, when all else is overthrown?'
`I have not the strength,' said Elrond; `neither have they.'
> Alternatively, this someone might have been
> able to do what Isildur at least considered: throw it into
> the fire.
You still don't understand the modus operandi of the One Ring do you?
Anyone with the power to take it would be corrupted by it and unable
to destroy it.
> Another possibility is that the Nazgul can't beat Frodo
> directly, so they threaten Sam to get Frodo to take off the
> ring. The threat works, but not as intended. To save Sam,
> Frodo takes off the ring and tosses it into the volcano.
How would that work? Frodo gets aggressive with Sam in the Tower when
he finds he has it. Frodo would do nothing to save Sam if it came to a
choice between him and the Ring. Frodo has finally succumbed to its
influence, he has *failed* his mission.
'Mount Doom'
But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The
Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.
> The least interesting possibility is that Sam talks Frodo into
> changing his mind. It's your choice Mr. Frodo. I don't want
> it. If you want the dark lord to get it, you just try to hang
> onto his precious. If you don't want him to have it, throw it
> into the fire.
That would not have worked. The only way for the Ring to be destroyed
was by Gollum taking from Frodo and himself falling into the Cracks of
Doom. As Gandalf prophesied the fate of the Ring, Frodo and everyone
was tied up with Gollum.
> This one finds it interesting that Gollum managed to bite
> off the third finger without biting off any others. It's
> possible, but the only way that I can think that it's
> likely is if Hobbits have two unnumbered thumbs on each
> hand.
I don't see what's hard about it, Gollum grabbed Frodo's hand, felt
for the finger that had the Ring on it and pushed it into his
mouth. Frodo was at the end of his mortal strength and was matched
with Gollum's own driven desire for the Ring,
Simon
Mike Hennebry
Simon J. Rowe <sr...@mose.org.uk> wrote:
:In article <a92eck$6s4$1...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu>,
: henn...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (Mike Hennebry) writes:
:> If Gollum hadn't interfered, Sauron might still have lost.
:
:Drivel, Tolkien made it quite clear that Gollum's role was crucial for
:the destruction of the Ring.
:
:> If Sam had been thinking ahead, he might have pushed Frodo
:> into the volcano. The alternative might have been worse,
:> even for Frodo.
:
:There is no way Sam would have even contemplated doing this. Sam was
:in all ways subservient to Frodo.
Well, he certainly loved Frodo. The question is whether, absent
outside interference, e.g. Gollum, Frodo would have done what
Frodo would have asked or what would have been best for Frodo.
:> A less likely possibility is that Frodo could have beaten or
:> controlled the Nazgul.
:
:No, again Tolkien made clear what would have happened in this
:circumstance.
:
:Letters 246
:
: Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully
: instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of
: the Ring. ... Would they have been immune from its power if he
: claimed it as an instrument of command and domination? Not
: wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with
: violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive; they
: would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his
: that did not interfere with their errand - laid upon them by
: Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had
: primary control of their wills. That errand was to remove
: Frodo from the Crack. Once he lost the power or opportunity to
: destroy the Ring, the end could not be in doubt
Don't forget Sam. He is standing between Frodo and the Nazgul telling
Frodo not to trust them.
:> Frodo escapes Mordor and meets someone
:> (Galadriel?) who can take the ring from him and defeat Sauron.
:
:Galadriel and all others capable of wielding the One have utterly
:refused it.
The situation would have changed. Even if Frodo didn't attack,
Sauron knows where the ring is and can take it from the bearer.
:> This someone becomes a wraith. If this wraith with the ring
:> is less powerful than Saruon without the ring, the war isn't
:> over, but there is progress and JRRT would have had more
:> writing to do.
:
:A little more writing but nothing pleasant. Sauron would have located
:the One quickly and brought all force to bear as was said at the
:'Council of Elrond'
:
: What power still remains lies with us, here in Imladris, or
: with Círdan at the Havens, or in Lórien. But have they the
: strength, have we here the strength to withstand the Enemy,
: the coming of Sauron at the last, when all else is overthrown?'
: `I have not the strength,' said Elrond; `neither have they.'
Again, a different situation. Elsewhere it was written that for another
to control the One Ring, would have the same effect on Saruon as its
destruction. There would be no further need to withstand Sauron. The
need would be to withstand the One Ring's new bearer.
:> Alternatively, this someone might have been
:> able to do what Isildur at least considered: throw it into
:> the fire.
:
:You still don't understand the modus operandi of the One Ring do you?
:Anyone with the power to take it would be corrupted by it and unable
:to destroy it.
That is not entirely clear. It has been made clear that how and why
one obtains the One Ring and what one does with it is important.
:> Another possibility is that the Nazgul can't beat Frodo
:> directly, so they threaten Sam to get Frodo to take off the
:> ring. The threat works, but not as intended. To save Sam,
:> Frodo takes off the ring and tosses it into the volcano.
:
:How would that work? Frodo gets aggressive with Sam in the Tower when
:he finds he has it. Frodo would do nothing to save Sam if it came to a
:choice between him and the Ring. Frodo has finally succumbed to its
:influence, he has *failed* his mission.
:
:'Mount Doom'
:
: But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The
: Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end.
Frodo might have been right. He might have been wrong.
Frodo would not have given the ring to Sam, but Sam was
still significant to him. Frodo apologized to Sam *after*
claiming the ring and before Gollum bit him.
:> The least interesting possibility is that Sam talks Frodo into
:> changing his mind. It's your choice Mr. Frodo. I don't want
:> it. If you want the dark lord to get it, you just try to hang
:> onto his precious. If you don't want him to have it, throw it
:> into the fire.
:
:That would not have worked. The only way for the Ring to be destroyed
Frodo wouldn't destroy something he loved if he couldn't have it himself?
Why not? It's not unknown among humans.
Lisa Virmigle
TradeSurplus wrote:
True.
If only I had a copy of _The Silmarillion_ on my desk, I could answer your
question. I only had the vague sense than in LOTR when folks need cheering up
there is some kind of divine intervention: Gandalf shows up, or they burst
into Elvish, or they suddenly see a star, or remember they're carrying the
phial etc. In the _Silmarillion_ occasionally they have the luck to be
counseled by Melian or have Ulmo arise from the waters ("Pelops? Here's how
you win the chariot race ... Oh! Sorry -- wrong coastline...") -- but usually
they have to put up with companions who are in no better straits than they are
("I'm just a thrall from the dungeons." -- "Well, I guess we'll all get eaten,
eventually." etc.)
If anyone can answer TradeSurplus' question -- or support my musing on the
topic -- then chime in!
Yours,
LV
Morgoth's Curse
This question has been debated here in the past. While some (such as
Russ) will tell you otherwise, my own opinion is that reinforcements
from Nargothrond & Doriath would not have changed the outcome of the
battle. Recall that even without the aid of Nargothrond & Doriath,
the Eldar nearly had the numbers to win the battle. They lost only
because the treachery of the Easterlings destroyed their battle plan
and enabled Morgoth to divide and destroy their armies. I doubt
whether even Gandalf's presence would have made much difference. He
was present at the Battle of the Five Armies, after all, and the good
guys almost lost that one.
By the way, Lisa, I haven't seen you here before. Let me be the first
to welcome you to the Tolkien newsgroups. We all hope that you will
become a frequent poster here! :)
Morgoth's Curse
Simon J. Rowe
henn...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (Mike Hennebry) writes:
> Well, he certainly loved Frodo. The question is whether, absent
> outside interference, e.g. Gollum, Frodo would have done what
> Frodo would have asked or what would have been best for Frodo.
I think you meant to put a Sam in there somewhere. Anyways Tolkien
made the situation very clear (take a look at the thread 'Bilbo is the
better hobbit?'), Frodo had failed and it was only the intervention of
Gollum, itself a product of Frodo's pity and mercy that allowed the
Quest to succeed.
> Don't forget Sam. He is standing between Frodo and the Nazgul telling
> Frodo not to trust them.
I don't think it would have made any difference if Gandalf, Elrond and
Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had been standing there, nothing could have
been said to Frodo to make him surrender or destroy the Ring. Only by
extreme force could It have been removed from him, exactly what Sauron
would have done within minutes of him finding out that Frodo was at
Sammath Naur.
>:You still don't understand the modus operandi of the One Ring do you?
>:Anyone with the power to take it would be corrupted by it and unable
>:to destroy it.
>
> That is not entirely clear. It has been made clear that how and why
> one obtains the One Ring and what one does with it is important.
It is very clear, Letters 109
You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you
like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all
attempts to defeat evil power by power.
and Letters 131
Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who
used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of
any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect
it.
> Frodo might have been right. He might have been wrong.
> Frodo would not have given the ring to Sam, but Sam was
> still significant to him. Frodo apologized to Sam *after*
> claiming the ring and before Gollum bit him.
No, Frodo knew. He was the only one other than Isildur to have stood
in the heart of Mordor holding the One Ring struggling to destroy
it. He knew he was unable to do so.
> Frodo wouldn't destroy something he loved if he couldn't have it himself?
> Why not? It's not unknown among humans.
Yes, but there is no situation comparable to standing in Sammath Naur
after bearing the Ring for months, at the end of your physical and
mental strength having been starved for weeks. The Author made it
quite clear in Letters 246
I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last
moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum -
impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist,
certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment,
and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could
and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence)
and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest
could be achieved.
It took all of Frodo's strength and willpower to bring the Ring to
Mount Doom, he was capable of *nothing* beyond that. It was Grace that
permitted his mission to succeed, no other party could have changed
the inevitable outcome if Gollum had not fallen in.
Simon
Conrad Dunkerson
news:a92eck$6s4$1...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> If Gollum hadn't interfered, Sauron might still have lost.
Tolkien considered this possibility (earlier in the same letter #246
mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and concluded that the most likely
course would have been that Frodo would have claimed the Ring, but
then realized that he could not keep Sauron from taking it - and so,
being unable to part with it, he could have thrown himself into the
fire to prevent Sauron from recovering the Ring. If he hadn't then
Sauron would have sent the Nazgul and/or come himself and the situation
would have become fairly hopeless.
> This one finds it interesting that Gollum managed to bite
> off the third finger without biting off any others. It's
> possible, but the only way that I can think that it's
> likely is if Hobbits have two unnumbered thumbs on each
> hand.
My reading was always that Gollum did not so much just 'chomp' at
Frodo's hand, but actually sought out the invisible ring finger by
touch and bit that one specifically.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:iwct8.5007$sL6.7...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Drivel, Tolkien made it quite clear that Gollum's role was crucial
> for the destruction of the Ring.
No, in the same Letter #246 you quote Tolkien says that if Gollum
had not intervened at the end Frodo might still have destroyed the
Ring - by casting himself voluntarily into the fire. He couldn't
let go of the Ring, but he COULD have destroyed it along with himself.
> Galadriel and all others capable of wielding the One have utterly
> refused it.
Even Boromir was 'capable' of wielding the Ring, just not as much so
as some of the others.
Simon J. Rowe
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> "Simon J. Rowe" <sr...@mose.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:iwct8.5007$sL6.7...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
>> Drivel, Tolkien made it quite clear that Gollum's role was crucial
>> for the destruction of the Ring.
>
> No, in the same Letter #246 you quote Tolkien says that if Gollum
> had not intervened at the end Frodo might still have destroyed the
> Ring - by casting himself voluntarily into the fire. He couldn't
> let go of the Ring, but he COULD have destroyed it along with himself.
Frodo too would then probably, if not attacked, have had to
take the same way: cast himself with the Ring into the abyss
Tolkien paints this as the logical step if Frodo was given time,
which given the location was never going to be available.
I know in this context Tolkien means being attacked by Gollum but the
Nazgul were only minutes from Mount Doom, would there have been time
for Frodo to rationalise over the dilemma he was in? Would the Nine
hang around until he'd made up his mind?
I think that impact of claiming the Ring would have stalled him until
they were able to deal with him in the manner set out in the Letter.
I think the chance to cast himself in would have been slimmer than
Gollum grabbing an invisible hand, biting a finger off and falling in
(and the story would have lost it's proper ending).
In closing I take Frodo's own words as my guide
But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring.
I take it to mean destroying the Ring in any way including casting
himself into the Fire.
Simon
Mike Hennebry
my inferences about what was possible are based
on reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Absent Gollum, I think the most likely scenario
is that the Nazgul take Frodo, ring and all, to
Sauron. Sauron gets his ring and bad things happen
to Frodo. Sam might or might not be left to
dehydrate on Mt. Doom.
More pleasant scenarios were at least possible.
One result of not reading Tolkien's letters is that I had
never considered that Frodo might have thrown himself into
the fire.
In article <drxt8.8190$sL6.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>,
Simon J. Rowe <sr...@mose.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <a94kf2$pkl$1...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu>,
> henn...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu (Mike Hennebry) writes:
>
>> Well, he certainly loved Frodo. The question is whether, absent
>> outside interference, e.g. Gollum, Frodo would have done what
>> Frodo would have asked or what would have been best for Frodo.
>
>I think you meant to put a Sam in there somewhere. Anyways Tolkien
Yes, it should have read:
Well, he certainly loved Frodo. The question is whether, absent
outside interference, e.g. Gollum, Sam would have done what
Frodo would have asked or what would have been best for Frodo.
>made the situation very clear (take a look at the thread 'Bilbo is the
>better hobbit?'), Frodo had failed and it was only the intervention of
>Gollum, itself a product of Frodo's pity and mercy that allowed the
>Quest to succeed.
>
>> Don't forget Sam. He is standing between Frodo and the Nazgul telling
>> Frodo not to trust them.
>
>I don't think it would have made any difference if Gandalf, Elrond and
>Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had been standing there, nothing could have
>been said to Frodo to make him surrender or destroy the Ring. Only by
>extreme force could It have been removed from him, exactly what Sauron
>would have done within minutes of him finding out that Frodo was at
>Sammath Naur.
A crowd would certainly not have made it better. Ganging up on someone
rarely makes him more susceptible to one's argument.
The issue is not whether Frodo lusts for the ring, the issue is what
he is going to do about it. If Frodo loved the ring more than life,
and Frodo believed that the only way to keep the ring was to carry
it into the fire, he would carry it into the fire.
Lobelia S-B hollering, "Hey Frodo, the Nazgul are here. Come out
and give them your nice new ring," might have helped were she
available.
>>:You still don't understand the modus operandi of the One Ring do you?
>>:Anyone with the power to take it would be corrupted by it and unable
>>:to destroy it.
Isildur took the ring by force and so far as we can tell
was not corrupted by it. He was, as noted, unable to destroy it.
>> That is not entirely clear. It has been made clear that how and why
>> one obtains the One Ring and what one does with it is important.
>
>It is very clear, Letters 109
>
> You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you
> like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all
> attempts to defeat evil power by power.
I doubt Tolkien meant this as broadly as it is stated.
What was the inevitable fate that waited for the victors at the
Battle of the Five Armies?
It might even have been sarcasm. I have no context. Tolkien expressed
a "cordial dislike" for allegory.
>and Letters 131
>
> Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who
> used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of
> any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect
> it.
Had Frodo used it much? Did he use it in the Shire? He certainly
neglected it in the Shire.
Even Gollum neglected it. That's how Bilbo got it.
Gollum definitely used it.
>> Frodo might have been right. He might have been wrong.
>> Frodo would not have given the ring to Sam, but Sam was
>> still significant to him. Frodo apologized to Sam *after*
>> claiming the ring and before Gollum bit him.
Having reread this scene last night, I no longer characterize
Frodo's statement to Sam as an apology. It still shows that
Frodo regarded Sam as someone worth talking to.
>No, Frodo knew. He was the only one other than Isildur to have stood
>in the heart of Mordor holding the One Ring struggling to destroy
>it. He knew he was unable to do so.
>
>> Frodo wouldn't destroy something he loved if he couldn't have it himself?
>> Why not? It's not unknown among humans.
>
>Yes, but there is no situation comparable to standing in Sammath Naur
>after bearing the Ring for months, at the end of your physical and
>mental strength having been starved for weeks. The Author made it
>quite clear in Letters 246
That is a reson for believing that Frodo wouldn't throw the ring
into the fire. It is not a reason for certainty.
In any case, I think he still had the physical strength to fall down.
>
> I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last
> moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum -
> impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist,
> certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment,
> and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could
> and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence)
> and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest
> could be achieved.
>
>It took all of Frodo's strength and willpower to bring the Ring to
>Mount Doom, he was capable of *nothing* beyond that. It was Grace that
>permitted his mission to succeed, no other party could have changed
>the inevitable outcome if Gollum had not fallen in.
Note that the Council of Elrond was far more concerned with getting
Frodo to Mt. Doom than with whether Frodo could do the job when he
got there. The latter got no mention at all.
That said, I thought that they made a mistake by not sealing the ring
against at least accidental use. Its performance at Bree should have
told them that much.
--
Mike henn...@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
Iluvatar is the better part of Valar.
Steuard Jensen
<e1rcbuce2pad4h237...@4ax.com>:
> <Lisa.V...@libraries.claremont.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, Lisa, I haven't seen you here before. Let me be the
> first to welcome you to the Tolkien newsgroups. We all hope that
> you will become a frequent poster here! :)
She's been around for at least a little while already. :) Her first
post on RABT was on Jan. 4 of this year, and she's been posting
occasionally since then (though she doesn't seem to have said much
during March, so that may be why you don't remember her).
Ah, Google, enabler of stalkers everywhere. :) (It's also easier to
remember people when they work at your old college. :) )
Steuard Jensen
Lisa Virmigle
Morgoth's Curse wrote:
Aw, sheesh -- thanks. I didn't mean to stir up old debates about military
tactics. I was thinking more of Gandalf the Grey, a friend and giver of council,
than the warleader, the White. I'm not asking if Gandalf's presence and work as a
military strategist would have changed things in the _Silmarillion_, but if his
ability to encourage and inspire individuals would have. While the _Silm_ takes
place in a heroic age, closer to the Valar, being a hero in its Ages seems like a
harder and lonelier road than being a hero in LOTR. The pattern of comfort and
rescue (which LeGuin likened to a rockinghorse) regularly offered in LOTR, doesn't
seem to appear in the _Silm_. What if it had?
Yours,
LV
Lisa Virmigle
Steuard Jensen wrote:
> She's been around for at least a little while already ....
I'm as susceptible as a dragon to flattery. Hello from the realm of
unicycles!
(So, have anything to say about TradeSurplus' and my question?)
Yours,
LV
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3CB75E17...@libraries.claremont.edu...
> The pattern of comfort and rescue (which LeGuin likened to a
> rockinghorse) regularly offered in LOTR, doesn't seem to appear
> in the _Silm_. What if it had?
Turin would have been twice as effective and half as interesting. :)
Steuard Jensen
<3CB75F26...@libraries.claremont.edu>:
> unicycles!
And hello back to you! :) (A friend of mine at Harvey Mudd once tried
to teach me how to ride a unicycle, but I had a project due and asked
for a rain check, and then never got back to her about it. Ah well.)
> (So, have anything to say about TradeSurplus' and my question?)
I've been marking the relevant parts of this thread as unread for a
while now so I'd remember to come back to them, but I just haven't had
the time (nor do I now: it's late, and my wife probably wants to get
to bed :) ) (for the record, she's a Harvey Mudd alum, too). I _hope_
that I'll have a chance to respond this weekend. :)
Steuard Jensen
Stan Brown
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
General comment: I've delayed so long responding because I didn't
feel I understood what you wrote. I still don't feel I understand it
all, so please bear that in mind when reading my comments.
>qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown) wrote:
>
>> Well yes, but that is a _metaphorical_ use of fire.
>
>Was it?
>
>Seriously. The 'spark of life' in Tolkien's mythology is called 'the
>Secret Fire' and 'the Flame Imperishable'. If >that< is not
>metaphorical then the Ring might very well serve to strengthen that
>'fire' within an individual. If it IS metaphorical then I would argue
>that the two are both referencing the same metaphor. :)
But the Flame Imperishable is not what grants life, it's what grants
independent existence. Remember that Aulë made his Dwarves, and
without the F.I. they were just puppets of his thought, unable to
act independently. Granted, that episode doesn't explicitly mention
the Flame, so my interpretation can be dismissed if you wish.
But more definite, I think, are Eru Ilúvatar's words when he changed
the Ainur's song into an objective reality: "Therefore I say: Eä!
Let these things Be! And I will send forth into the Void the Flame
Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the World, and the
World shall Be; ..."
Surely you don't think that Arda as a whole was intended to be
alive? I know Tolkien's own religion was not exactly in accord with
his fiction, but somehow I just can't see him incorporating some
sort of Gaia hypothesis into his legendarium. That each plant and
animal had its own valuable life, yes certainly; that creation
_as_a_whole_ was one organism is much harder to accept.
Look back a page or two: in commanding the Great Music in the first
place, Eru says: "Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I
have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a
Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame
Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this
theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, IF HE WILL."
(emphasis added) Again, I think what Tolkien is saying here is that
the F.I. grants independent existence: each Ainu is able to come up
with embellishments not given him by Eru, and is even able to stand
apart from the music.
Then there's Morgoth, who "had gone often alone into the void places
seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to
bring into Being things of his own." Note that word "things" --
surely if Tolkien had meant only living things he would have said
"creatures" or even "servants".
I think we have to conclude that the F.I. doesn't grant life
specifically, but existence independent of the creator's thought.
Because the World was kindled with the F.I., stones fall whether or
not Eru thinks to make each one fall when dropped; and living beings
can take decisions not planned by Eru.
>> Gandalf is not setting literal fire to Théoden!
>
>If it is the 'Secret Fire' through which Eru gives true 'life' and
>'will' to his children then Gandalf was 'stoking' that fire in
>Theoden.
Surely Théoden had _that_ fire from the day of his birth (or
conception :-)? Théoden had not ceased to have free will, he had got
out of the habit of making his own decisions. Wormtongue (or even
Saruman) would not have had the power to cozen Théoden if Théoden
opposed the process.
When Gandalf says to the Balrog that he is a servant of the Secret
Fire, I think he must mean the secret fire that is at the heart of
the world, i.e. the Flame Imperishable. But of course he does not
mean that he serves any sort of Fire -- it's a metaphor. Gandalf
means he serves Eru Ilúvatar's, to whom the Flame Imperishable
belongs. It's exactly like a criminal trial in the UK: Crown versus
Smith. Of course they do not mean a literal crown is a party to the
trial; it is that the crown is a metaphor for the sovereign who
wears it (and in turn, for the past couple of centuries, for the
actual government; but that' another story).
So much for what I think I understood of what you said. It's
possible that we're agreeing in different words to this point, but I
don't think so.
Come to think of it, this much really seems to deserve a new thread
or at least a new subject line, so let me start a new message here.
Stan Brown
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
[about the Secret Fire, a/k/a the Flame Imperishable?, see separate
response]
>Even ifs this had no 'metaphysical' relation to the
>'element' of fire it certainly had a >cultural< connection for the
>Noldor (consider 'Feanor') and thus would be entirely reasonable for
>them to build both into the Ring. Consider Manwe's connections with
>'Air' and the wisdom and far sight he was known for (like Elrond) or
>Ulmo's connections with 'Water' and the prophecies and visions he was
>known for (like Galadriel).
I'm not altogether sure I understand your analogy here, but _if_ you
are saying
Manwë/Air/Far sight therefore Elrond/Ring of Air/Far sight
and
Ulmo/Water/Prophecy therefore Galadriel/Ring of Water/Prophecy
then I would ask, what is the left side of the analogy to
Gandalf/Ring of Fire/Encouragement
Which Vala was concerned with fire, in the same way that Manwë was
with air and Ulmo with water? I can't think of one.
> I would suggest that there were possible
>connections between certain 'elements' and other attributes.
>Obviously numerous counter-examples could be found and this is well
>into the realm of speculation, but then ANY >detailed< analysis of the
>powers of the Rings is going to be speculative by default.
>
>qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown) wrote:
>> And anyway, it was his staff he used; otherwise why make such a fuss
>> about keeping it with him and not leaving it with Aragorn's sword and
>> Gimli's axe and Legolas' bow?
>
>I would agree that he certainly used the staff (though I have seen it
>argued otherwise), but that does not mean he ONLY used the staff. In
>fact, he certainly didn't. He also used his own 'power' - Tolkien
>states in one of the letters that 'Gandalf the Grey' could not have
>done what 'Gandalf the White' did with Theoden; he didn't have the
>power until after his death and return.
This would seem to argue against use of the Red Ring, since both
Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White had it. On the other hand--
>I assume the Ring was also in use because it is more than once
>described as having the power to 'kindle hope and courage' - which is
>EXACTLY what Gandalf was doing there. In any case, the Rings all
>enhanced the 'power' of their wearers, so it would likely have played
>a part in most exercises of power which Gandalf made.
This part I have to agree with. But note "kindle hope and courage";
this is using fire as a metaphor for certain emotions.
>What I am getting at here is that the lack of clear 'elemental powers'
>of the Three in the story does not preclude Tolkien from having
>intended such powers.
ell no, of course it doesn't. But our only evidence for what Tolkien
was _thinking_ is what he _wrote_. The logical leap from "Tolkien
might have meant X because he didn't say X was false" top "therefore
Tolkien did mean X" is an awfully large one -- too large, in fact.
Next thing you know, we have talking Rings on Mount Doom. :-)
> The details of the Rings were created after the
>story was written. Virtually everything to be found about the
>specific powers of the Three came after LotR. As such I would argue
>that if Tolkien gave them elemental names he probably intended
>elemental connections - particularly since he once indicated so
>specifically in Narya's case.
With the greatest possible respect, I submit that this is circular
reasoning. The only way to establish that "fire" was not a metaphor
is to show that the Red Ring made actual fire, _and_ that the other
two could not (otherwise fire is just a common power of the Three).
To say, "well it's called the Ring of Fire and fire is an element so
therefore it made fire" is begging the question. (I admit I'm
oversimplifying your argument, partly perhaps because I don't fully
understand it.)
The contrary hypothesis seems to me to have the virtue of
simplicity: the Three Rings were named based on the colors of their
gems, and all of them were about preserving things unstained and
rekindling new hope. Again, if Tolkien says otherwise somewhere then
of course I'll have to accept that; but I don't think it's quite
enough to argue that he merely didn't explicitly support my
hypothesis and therefore it is false.
>> I'm trying to arrive at a better formulation, but I don't see how
>> the above questions can be answered consistent with "yes, the Ring
>> of Fire made actual fire."
>
>Well, setting aside that almost all uses of power by Elrond, Galadriel
>and Gandalf were written prior to the decision on what Rings they held
>there ARE some correlations;
>
>Gandalf: Obviously he used fire frequently. I don't think anyone
>would argue that if there is one element Gandalf showed an affinity
>for it was fire. Most of this was written before Narya was assigned
>to him, but after that Tolkien specifically tied Gandalf's fireworks
>and such to the Ring.
Where did he say this? I remember that in /The Hobbit/ VI he said
Gandalf had made a "special study of bewitchments with fire and
lights". Granted, the Rings were created (story external) after /the
Hobbit/, but why would we think Gandalf's facility with fire and
smoke rings to be any different _in_kind_ from Thorin's, or from
Saruman's study of Rings? If you have a quote to show that Gandalf
actually used the Ring to make fire or fireworks, I'll happily
accept it; but failing that, why bring in an extra hypothesis?
>Galadriel: There is the fog she raised to hide the ride of Eorl to
>Gondor's aid, the fact that Nenya specifically increased her 'sea
>longing', the seemingly 'enchanted' rivers of Lorien (admittedly along
>with everything else there), and of course the Mirror.
I think "enchanted rivers" argues against the power of Galadriel's
Ring of Water, not for it. Remember that Elrond also had an
enchanted river, but his Ring was the Ring of Air. Now perhaps the
Three Rings could control physical forces for the purpose of
repelling invaders, preserving unstained lands, and so on. But the
ring identified as Ring of Water doesn't seem any different in this
respect from the one identified as Ring of Air.
For that matter, if it was Rings then the Ring of Water was _less_
effective than the Ring of Air in controlling rivers. Elrond was
able to prevent an invasion by the Black Riders; Galadriel was not
able to prevent an incursion by mere Orcs. That would argue pretty
strongly against any special power of the Ring of Water over water.
> Nowhere near
>as pronounced as Gandalf's case, but again I'd argue that if there
>were one element Galadriel showed an affinity for it was water. The
>runner-up would probably be earth (the enchanted land of Lorien, Sam's
>dirt, et cetera)... but those items were first written while Tolkien
>had her bearing the 'Ring of Earth'.
I think what Galadriel showed an affinity for was _technology_, not
any element. She was a Noldo, after all, second only to Fëanor
perhaps. The cloaks she gave the Company, the unsinkable boats, the
rope that came when called, the lembas that had infinite shelf life,
and her Mirror all bring Clarke's law to mind: Any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Note that none
of those things required the user to understand them, just as you
don't have to understand the internal combustion engine to drive a
car.
I think that what she used the Ring for was just what Tolkien said
it was for: to slow the progress of change seen as decay. It is very
hard for me to see how even her Mirror is related to that stated
principal function of the Three Rings.
>Elrond: Not much to work with here. The only 'magical' things he ever
>does are the flood, healing, and a little telepathy. As such the
>flood (as the only example involving an element) would tend to imply
>water rather than air, but I'd suggest that we just don't see enough
>of Elrond's 'power' to have much idea what he did with Vilya one way
>or the other.
And of course the telepathy was not Ring-related, or at least not
necessarily. You're familiar with the Osanwe-kenta (spelling?).
>I think for me it comes down to;
>Specific statements by Tolkien that a Ring had 'elemental' powers : 1
But where is there such a specific statement? You have said you
believe there is a connection, but have not quoted Tolkien saying so
(unless I missed it, in which case I apologize and ask you to point
it out again).
>Specific statements by Tolkien that Rings did not have such powers: 0
But this seems to me to be a false basis of reasoning. Tolkien also
did not say that the Rings did not have the power to transport their
bearers through time, yet I do not think you would argue that this
omission is any evidence at all that the Rings had such a power.
Absence of proof for is _not_ the same as proof against.
>Names of Rings: 'of Fire', 'of Water', 'of Air'
Granted the names, but given Tolkien's rich use of metaphor I think
we cannot jump to conclusions. Was the Flame Imperishable an actual
fire? I doubt it. Was Anduril (Aragorn's sword) and actual flame?
Certainly not.
In fact you _must_ accept a certain level of metaphor in the names
of the Rings. "Ring of Water" obviously doesn't mean it was made of
water. The question then becomes, which metaphors are in use. Unless
there is clear statement from the author, I think we need to apply
normal techniques of analysis, which means choosing the simplest
hypothesis first.
>Given that it is only one 'unpublished' reference, the names, and the
>fire/water affinities noted he could certainly have changed his mind,
>but there is overall 'more evidence' FOR elemental powers than AGAINST
>them. Though it is a 'very little' vs 'almost none' scenario.
This summing up puzzles me a great deal. From my perspective, there
is a great deal of evidence that can be explained without special
reference to any Ring having particular "elemental" powers, nothing
that can't, some direct evidence _against_ that hypothesis, and no
clear statement from the author.
All that said, I believe a FAQ should represent consensus. I hope we
can explore this further and reach one, or at least reach learly
enough stated positions that both could be represented in the FAQ of
the Rings.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I'm not altogether sure I understand your analogy here, but _if_ you
> are saying
> Manwë/Air/Far sight therefore Elrond/Ring of Air/Far sight
> Ulmo/Water/Prophecy therefore Galadriel/Ring of Water/Prophecy
Essentially, though with the caveat that this is quite speculative and
just in the nature of showing that there were some possible additional
correspondences;
> then I would ask, what is the left side of the analogy to
> Gandalf/Ring of Fire/Encouragement
> Which Vala was concerned with fire, in the same way that Manwë was
> with air and Ulmo with water? I can't think of one.
No Vala, but one Maia approaching the power of the Valar... Arien,
guardian of the Sun. Also somewhat known for bringing hope and
'encouragement'. There is also the direct connection where Gandalf
says that he is a 'wielder of the flame of the Sun' in the
confrontation with the Balrog.
> This would seem to argue against use of the Red Ring, since both
> Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White had it. On the other hand--
Hrrrrm? That Tolkien said Gandalf would have been unable to 'so deal
with' Theoden (and Saruman) prior to becoming 'the White' argues that
he did not ONLY use his staff (unless the whole reason he was 'the
White' was that his staff was somehow now 'more powerful'). If he
used more than the staff then he could also have used Narya. That
doesn't argue that he HAD to have used Narya, but it does indicate
that the show with the staff was not the full story. Adding in that
Narya enhanced his abilities in general makes its use that much more
likely... as does the fact that descriptions of its power match what
was done in that scene.
> But note "kindle hope and courage"; this is using fire as a metaphor
> for certain emotions.
Yet what I am arguing is that Tolkien used that particular element
'metaphorically' for those particular emotions frequently enough that
it might be argued that there was an intended deeper 'connection'...
either metaphysically or culturally for the Elves. To the point where
a 'magical' control of 'fire' would either automatically include the
ability to 'kindle hope and courage' (if metaphysical) OR the two
would naturally be linked together (if cultural).
> ell no, of course it doesn't. But our only evidence for what Tolkien
> was _thinking_ is what he _wrote_. The logical leap from "Tolkien
> might have meant X because he didn't say X was false" top "therefore
> Tolkien did mean X" is an awfully large one -- too large, in fact.
> Next thing you know, we have talking Rings on Mount Doom. :-)
Ha ha. If there WERE such a great leap of logic involved I'd agree.
However, I think that there is one reference which takes the 'leap'
out of it and makes it a much smaller step. See below.
> With the greatest possible respect, I submit that this is circular
> reasoning. The only way to establish that "fire" was not a metaphor
> is to show that the Red Ring made actual fire, _and_ that the other
> two could not (otherwise fire is just a common power of the Three).
> To say, "well it's called the Ring of Fire and fire is an element so
> therefore it made fire" is begging the question. (I admit I'm
> oversimplifying your argument, partly perhaps because I don't fully
> understand it.)
Again, you are missing the one reference I was basing this on. The
logic was not as above, but actually; 'Tolkien gave the Three
elemental names' + 'Tolkien indicated the Ring of Fire was used with
actual fire' = 'The Three must have been partially elemental in
nature'. The names alone are suggestive, but as you note not
conclusive.
> The contrary hypothesis seems to me to have the virtue of
> simplicity: the Three Rings were named based on the colors of their
> gems, and all of them were about preserving things unstained and
> rekindling new hope.
Both ideas have the virtue of simplicity. It is just as simple to
conclude that the gem colors were chosen to correspond to the intended
elements and that all the Rings had a purpose of preservation, but did
so in different ways.
> Again, if Tolkien says otherwise somewhere then of course I'll have
> to accept that; but I don't think it's quite enough to argue that he
> merely didn't explicitly support my hypothesis and therefore it is false.
I have not argued that. I have argued that the lack of any statement
by Tolkien indicating that the Three had no 'elemental properties'
leaves open the possibility that they did have such properties - which
I have further supported with other arguments.
> If you have a quote to show that Gandalf actually used the Ring
> to make fire or fireworks, I'll happily accept it; but failing
> that, why bring in an extra hypothesis?
You might not take it the same way, but the 'one reference' I keep
citing is actually something you quoted at the top of this thread;
> And Conrad produced a quote that goes the other way:
> "Fireworks have no special relation to me. They appear in the books
> (and would have done even if I disliked them) because they are part
> of the representation of Gandalf, bearer of the Ring of Fire, the
> Kindler: the most childlike aspect shown to the Hobbits being
> fireworks."
> Letters #301
Does this not indicate a specific connection between Gandalf's
fireworks and his being the bearer of the Ring of Fire? Even if you
parse the first half to refer to Gandalf alone and the Ring of Fire
reference to be a random addition - the second half clearly describes
fireworks as a 'childlike aspect' of 'the Kindler', which is another
name for Narya.
> I think "enchanted rivers" argues against the power of Galadriel's
> Ring of Water, not for it. Remember that Elrond also had an
> enchanted river, but his Ring was the Ring of Air.
I noted this in the Elrond section, but really it argues that Elrond
(and Gandalf, who did the horses and such) could ALSO affect
'water'... NOT that Galadriel could not or did not do a good deal of
'water magic'. Gandalf did 'water magic' in that one scene, but I'm
again going to argue that he used fire FAR more than any other
element.
> For that matter, if it was Rings then the Ring of Water was _less_
> effective than the Ring of Air in controlling rivers. Elrond was
> able to prevent an invasion by the Black Riders; Galadriel was not
> able to prevent an incursion by mere Orcs. That would argue pretty
> strongly against any special power of the Ring of Water over water.
The Orcs came from the 'land-bound' side, were beyond or on the
borders of the realm proper, and crossed only the tiny Nimrodel (which
was still notably bold). On the other hand, major assaults from
Sauron's forces at Dol Guldur were unable to break into Lorien across
the river - specifically because of the power of Galadriel and her
Ring (though not specifically because of the river).
Of Elrond;
> And of course the telepathy was not Ring-related, or at least not
> necessarily.
Right, neither the telepathy nor the healing nor the bit of prophecy
Elrond engages in are particularly unusual for Elves even without
Rings. The only really noteworthy bit of 'magic' we see him do is the
river, and I'd argue that as such we don't have a 'representative
sample' to work with.
I had written;
>> Specific statements by Tolkien that Rings did not have such powers:
0
> But this seems to me to be a false basis of reasoning. Tolkien also
> did not say that the Rings did not have the power to transport their
> bearers through time, yet I do not think you would argue that this
> omission is any evidence at all that the Rings had such a power.
> Absence of proof for is _not_ the same as proof against.
Absolutely, and if it were 'absence of proof' alone it would make
little difference one way or the other. However, I think that the
names are suggestive (though again, certainly not definitive) and the
fireworks reference the only item of semi-solid evidence in the whole
debate. Everything else is 'absence of proof' and 'possibility to
speculate', but that one item has the added 'weight' of 'non-canonical
once off suggestion'. :)
Hence my 'very little' vs 'almost none' summation.
> Granted the names, but given Tolkien's rich use of metaphor I think
> we cannot jump to conclusions. Was the Flame Imperishable an actual
> fire? I doubt it. Was Anduril (Aragorn's sword) and actual flame?
> Certainly not.
Uh oh. Again, I think it entirely possible that the Flame
Imperishable WAS a form of 'fire' and that Anduril WAS in some senses
tied to actual flame... it gives that impression on more than one
occasion. As you note, it is a matter of determining 'level of
metaphor' or precise intent... Anduril was not an open flame at all
times, but I do think that it could burn.
> In fact you _must_ accept a certain level of metaphor in the names
> of the Rings. "Ring of Water" obviously doesn't mean it was made of
> water. The question then becomes, which metaphors are in use. Unless
> there is clear statement from the author, I think we need to apply
> normal techniques of analysis, which means choosing the simplest
> hypothesis first.
Yes, but opinions as to what is the simplest hypothesis are invariably
founded based on other beliefs which are not shared amongst all
participants. I >am< choosing the simplest hypothesis; based on my
existing view of 'elemental affinities' in Middle-earth 'magic' the
simplest hypothesis is that the Three Rings were given names
referencing elements because they incorporated a degree of elemental
control.
> This summing up puzzles me a great deal. From my perspective, there
> is a great deal of evidence that can be explained without special
> reference to any Ring having particular "elemental" powers,
Which is an 'absence of proof' issue - many things happen without
mention of 'elemental powers'. This does not mean that 'elemental
powers' definitely do not exist, but it can serve as a contributing
argument against them.
> nothing that can't,
Here is the main point of disagreement. I believe that the fireworks
reference contradicts the 'nothing' - it IS a reference to 'elemental
powers'. And ergo I see it as 'general lack of mention BUT one
specific instance where it >is< stated'.
> some direct evidence _against_ that hypothesis,
I'm not sure what this refers to. The 'primary purpose of
preservation' issue? As I argued previously, I don't see that
contradicting the possibility of 'elemental powers' at all.... they
are either not part of the PRIMARY purpose, or the preservation was
achieved precisely through control of those elements.
> and no clear statement from the author.
The letter is not a clear statement that the Three had elemental
powers, but I believe it IS a clear statement that Narya was
associated with Gandalf's fireworks and that this forms a reasonable
basis for arguing that the Three had elemental names because they had
such powers.
Steuard Jensen
<MPG.1723b6f1c...@news.odyssey.net>:
> >The 'spark of life' in Tolkien's mythology is called 'the Secret
> >Fire' and 'the Flame Imperishable'.
> But the Flame Imperishable is not what grants life, it's what grants
> independent existence. Remember that Aulë made his Dwarves, and
> without the F.I. they were just puppets of his thought, unable to
> act independently. Granted, that episode doesn't explicitly mention
> the Flame, so my interpretation can be dismissed if you wish.
For the record, I agree with you on this one (as I mentioned in the
post/essay that I reference below). :)
> But more definite, I think, are Eru Ilúvatar's words when he changed
> the Ainur's song into an objective reality:
[snip Eru's words, mentioning the Flame Imperishable]
> Surely you don't think that Arda as a whole was intended to be
> alive?
Actually, I've seriously considered the idea in the past. One of my
first posts about Bombadil suggested that he _was_ the manifestation
of the living soul of Arda, given life and thought by the Flame
Imperishable. You can find that mini-essay in the (very incomplete)
list of archived Usenet posts on my web site, linked from the main
page at http://tolkien.slimy.com/. I still think that's a reasonable
basis for a "nature spirit" hypothesis; I don't recall whether I
mentioned the Flame Imperishable explicitly in my full Bombadil
essay.
In the end, I suspect that we're all just getting hung up on the
specific meaning of "alive". :) Conrad, could you clarify what you
meant by "spark of life"? I suspect you were thinking of something
more than a beating heart, but you presumably understand what you were
getting at better than I do. :)
Steuard Jensen
Mike Hennebry
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:"Mike Hennebry" <henn...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
:news:a92eck$6s4$1...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu...
:
:> If Gollum hadn't interfered, Sauron might still have lost.
:
:Tolkien considered this possibility (earlier in the same letter #246
:mentioned elsewhere in this thread) and concluded that the most likely
:course would have been that Frodo would have claimed the Ring, but
:then realized that he could not keep Sauron from taking it - and so,
:being unable to part with it, he could have thrown himself into the
:fire to prevent Sauron from recovering the Ring. If he hadn't then
:Sauron would have sent the Nazgul and/or come himself and the situation
:would have become fairly hopeless.
How the presence of the Nazgul would have affected Frodo would have
depended on the effect of the ring. Were Frodo exclusively in the-
ring-is-mine-and-you can't-have-it mode, the presence of the Nazgul
might have made Frodo throw himself into the fire sooner rather
than later. Had the ring also given him delusions of power, the
Nazgul would doubtless have gotten him. I think that Frodo's
statement to Sam before the fire was an expression of powerlessness.
He didn't yet have delusions of power.
:> This one finds it interesting that Gollum managed to bite
:> off the third finger without biting off any others. It's
:> possible, but the only way that I can think that it's
:> likely is if Hobbits have two unnumbered thumbs on each
:> hand.
:
:My reading was always that Gollum did not so much just 'chomp' at
:Frodo's hand, but actually sought out the invisible ring finger by
:touch and bit that one specifically.
It's not the search that I find interesting, it's the separating
the third finger from both the second and fourth fingers before
chomping. That seemed like a rather precise operation for someone
fighting like a mad thing. 'Tain't impossible, just improbable
enough to be interesting.
Russ
<jonme...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Is "The Flame Imperishable" the Holy Spirit?
Pretty clearly yes, in light of the Author's Notes and Commentaries to the
Athrabeth, which are found in HOME.
Russ
Russ
(Steuard Jensen) writes:
From my perspective, a 'nature spirit' hypothesis is tantamount to an 'Ainu'
hypothesis. Ainur are, after all, spirits. If Tom/Iarwain/Forn is the nature
spirit, then he is simply an incarnate or raimented Ainu.
<snip>
Russ
AC
>From my perspective, a 'nature spirit' hypothesis is tantamount to an 'Ainu'
>hypothesis. Ainur are, after all, spirits. If Tom/Iarwain/Forn is the nature
>spirit, then he is simply an incarnate or raimented Ainu.
I don't think one leads to the other. I think it quite conceivable
that Tom might an incarnated spirit created with Arda, rather than
before. Would this make him an Ainu?
---
AaronC