Balrog and the Ring
Andrew Solovay
>>While I agree that the Balrog would definitely have made use of the
>>Ring if it had come into possession of it, I doubt that it would have
>>done so because of any overall allegiance toward Morgoth, who after all
>>had been out of the picture for nearly two Ages. And even if the
>>Balrog *did* claim the Ring with the greater glory of Morgoth in mind,
>>it seems likely that the Ring would've soon twisted the Balrog's
>>intentions, as is its wont, into something else.
>
>Just a question from a newbie: The Ring itself exhibits some degree of
>consciousness as well. If the Ring had wanted the Balrog to find it, it
>would have "arranged" such to happen.
Hmmm... Well, there is that bit in Khazad-Dum when an Orc rushes into
the room, knocking aside both Aragorn and Boromir to stab at Frodo
(FOTR, p. 422 Ball.). Perhaps the Ring was trying to get itself lost
in Moria. If so, what would have happened? The Orcs would almost
certainly have found it and fought over it (looting bodies is the kind
of thing Orcs do). Perhaps one would have brought it out, and Sauron
could have sent the Nazgul for it; or perhaps Sauron would sense the
struggle, and send a Nazgul in. But more likely, IMHO, the Balrog
would have taken the Ring, and that would have been that for both
Sauron and the Free Peoples.
Would the Ring have realized this? We don't know just how aware, and
how intelligent, the Ring was. But perhaps it did know all this, and
decided to go with the balrog. After all, the Ring might well have
known that Frodo intended to destroy it, and it might not have been
happy about that. And it might not have been all that loyal to its
maker, after all.
And, of course, the Ring might have managed to get itself genuinely
lost (perhaps down the chasm of Khazad-Dum), in which case it might
have stayed put until Sauron conquered all of Middle-earth, and then
Sauron would be able to devote his full attention to finding the Ring.
But one never knows, do one?
--
Andrew M. Solovay
"I have been Foolish and Deluded,
and I am a Bear of No Brain at All." -- Pooh
Rex A Bean
>Hmmm... Well, there is that bit in Khazad-Dum when an Orc rushes into
>the room, knocking aside both Aragorn and Boromir to stab at Frodo
>(FOTR, p. 422 Ball.). Perhaps the Ring was trying to get itself lost
>in Moria. If so, what would have happened? The Orcs would almost
>certainly have found it and fought over it (looting bodies is the kind
>of thing Orcs do). Perhaps one would have brought it out, and Sauron
>could have sent the Nazgul for it; or perhaps Sauron would sense the
>struggle, and send a Nazgul in. But more likely, IMHO, the Balrog
>would have taken the Ring, and that would have been that for both
>Sauron and the Free Peoples.
>Would the Ring have realized this? We don't know just how aware, and
>how intelligent, the Ring was. But perhaps it did know all this, and
>decided to go with the balrog. After all, the Ring might well have
>known that Frodo intended to destroy it, and it might not have been
>happy about that. And it might not have been all that loyal to its
>maker, after all.
Since the Ring conspired to stay hidden with Gollum for so many years,
despite the fact that I think it was aware that Sauron
would have been searching for it, I think the Ring didn't want to
be worn by a powerful being as it would have probably been subject to
the other being's will, or at least fighting for control all the time.
I believe the Ring would have avoided the Balrog as it only wanted to be
worn by less powerful mortals that it could corrupt and bring under its own
control. If Sauron could control the Ring then the Balrog and any other
powerful immortal being would at least have an even bet on wresting
control over the Ring and the Nazgul. Especially if the being was innately
evil and thus did not provide any moral weaknesses for the Ring to exploit.
The Ring was probably confident that it could corrupt Frodo, as it did
Smeagol, before Frodo got to Mount Orodruin. The Ring in fact almost
succeeded except for Gollum's intervention. It was just "lucky?" Gollum
tripped and fell, on the rim of the volcano, or else the Ring would
probably have ended up back in Sauron's hands.
claudia mastroianni
>sol...@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>
>>But more likely, IMHO, the Balrog
>>would have taken the Ring, and that would have been that for both
>>Sauron and the Free Peoples.
>
>>Would the Ring have realized this? We don't know just how aware, and
>>how intelligent, the Ring was. But perhaps it did know all this, and
>>decided to go with the balrog. After all, the Ring might well have
>>known that Frodo intended to destroy it, and it might not have been
>>happy about that. And it might not have been all that loyal to its
^^^^^
!!!
>Since the Ring conspired to stay hidden with Gollum for so many years,
>despite the fact that I think it was aware that Sauron
>would have been searching for it, I think the Ring didn't want to
>be worn by a powerful being as it would have probably been subject to
>the other being's will, or at least fighting for control all the time.
I think the Ring didn't see an opportunity to leave Gollum until Bilbo
came along. I'm pretty sure Gandalf said this to Frodo or to the Company
at Rivendell, when he was tracing the history of the Ring. Before Bilbo,
its only alternative to Gollum would have been a Goblin -- not much of a
trade. I don't believe the Ring has such control over its wearer as to
make Gollum hide away all that time. That was Gollum's nature. All the
Ring could do is inspire greed, to ensure being picked up at all, and then
wait for an opportunity to move on.
>I believe the Ring would have avoided the Balrog as it only wanted to be
>worn by less powerful mortals that it could corrupt and bring under its own
>control. If Sauron could control the Ring then the Balrog and any other
>powerful immortal being would at least have an even bet on wresting
>control over the Ring and the Nazgul. Especially if the being was innately
>evil and thus did not provide any moral weaknesses for the Ring to exploit.
Hmmm. I've always thought of the Ring as, I guess, an extension of Sauron's
subconscious. He couldn't become directly aware of its location or
"actions," but it could not "rebel" against him. It had no self with
which to rebel. The only reason it did not go to Sauron before Bilbo
came along is because it did not have that much control over Gollum.
I don't think there is any question of "loyalty" or disloyalty, though.
It was homing on Sauron automatically, but with little brainpower.
I just don't believe the Ring was thinking politics when it changed
wearers!
Claudia
ma...@husc.harvard.edu
Frank Crary
>>Since the Ring conspired to stay hidden with Gollum for so many years,
>>despite the fact that I think it was aware that Sauron
>>would have been searching for it, I think the Ring didn't want to
>>be worn by a powerful being as it would have probably been subject to
>>the other being's will, or at least fighting for control all the time.
>I think the Ring didn't see an opportunity to leave Gollum until Bilbo
>came along. I'm pretty sure Gandalf said this to Frodo or to the Company
>at Rivendell, when he was tracing the history of the Ring. Before Bilbo,
>its only alternative to Gollum would have been a Goblin -- not much of a
>trade.
Actually, Gandalf's opinion was that "an orc would have suited it
better." The only reason it wanted to leave Gollum was that, by
the time Sauron reestablished himself, Gollum had become too settled
to ever leave his caves (as long as he had the ring and his fish...)
There was only a period of a hundred years or so (I.e. after Sauron
reappeared) By that time, Gollum was almost never leaving his lake
(once every decade or two, perhaps?) and then only to catch orcs in
the nearby tunnels. Even when he did so, he was rarely took the Ring.
I don't think the Ring was waiting for a non-orc to take it away
(how would it know such were around, with enough advance warning
to slip off Gollum's finger at the right place and time?) I think
it was just taking its first oppertunaty to be found, and the
fact that Bilbo and not an orc found it was "the strangest coincidence
in the entire history of the Ring."
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Allen D. Carley
on around it, It did seem to possess an intelligence and an ego.
In Moria, when it realized that it was among friends (i.e. orcs, creatures
of the enemy) It might try to manipulate events so it would fall into the
hands of one and thus come eventually to Sauron. My guess as to the ring's
loyalty (and as I say this is only a guess) is that it was loyal to to
person of highest power who not only worked with the same overall spirit
as the ring, but who also needed the ring as a power base. Its ego would
not let it just be another piece of jewelry for any master and its nature
would not let it work for good without attempting to corrupt it. Following
this logic, when the ring found out that a Balrog was present, which it
might have realized before Gandalf did, It would do anything to stay out
of the hands of such a being. A being of such power that the ring, while
a nice boost, would not be considered its most priceless treasure. Even
if Sauron was more powerful then the Balrog, he had an emotional attachment
to the ring that made it priceless to him. Also, the Balrog didn't seem
to be upwardly mobile. I mean, here it is, a spirit of the old world, and
yet, its hanging around Moria, captaining orcs. I mean sure he had the
flash, but he had no future, and the ring might have known this. Sauron
on the other hand was going for ruler of the world. If you were the ring,
who would you pick?
Allen--bred in mockery of myself--time paradoxes are wonderful, aren't they?
Andrew Solovay
>
>Actually, Gandalf's opinion was that "an orc would have suited it
>better."
This wasn't Gandalf's opinion, it was Frodo's joke (see FotR, p. 87
Ball.). Gandalf retorted that the affair was "no laughing matter", and
that Bilbo was meant to find the ring "and not by its maker".
Chris DuPuis
a lesser member of the gods (the Maiar and the Valar both started out
as the Ainur). Interestingly enough, Sauron was also a Maia, as were
Gandalf, Sauron, Radagast, and the two blue wizards who travelled to
the East. The Balrogs were lured into the path of evil by Morgoth, and
among them Gothmog was the most powerful warrior, while Sauron was the
most intelligent, cunning, and devious (Gothmog was killed by Ecthelion
in the Battle of Gondolin). However, of all the Maiar, Gandalf was the
wisest (he was known as Olorin before he was sent to Middle-Earth).
Anyway, the point of this is that if the Balrog in Moria had taken
the ring, he would have been MORE powerful than Sauron was, because
he would have his own power in addition to the greater part of Sauron's
power, which was present in the ring. Needless to say, this would be bad.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Christopher DuPuis | Don't try to have the last word. |
go...@ugcs.caltech.edu | You might get it. |
living in a Yellow Submarine| -Robert A. "Beast" Heinlein |
Joseph Dzikiewicz
> The Balrog in Moria (indeed, all Balrogs at that) was a Maia,
>a lesser member of the gods (the Maiar and the Valar both started out
>as the Ainur). Interestingly enough, Sauron was also a Maia, as were
>Gandalf, Sauron, Radagast, and the two blue wizards who travelled to
>the East. The Balrogs were lured into the path of evil by Morgoth, and
>among them Gothmog was the most powerful warrior, while Sauron was the
>most intelligent, cunning, and devious (Gothmog was killed by Ecthelion
>in the Battle of Gondolin).
The implication here seems to be that Sauron is a balrog. But, while all
balrogs are evil Maiar, not all evil Maiar are balrogs. In particular,
balrogs are a specific type of Maiar, those who are fire spirits and who
followed Melkor. Sauron is a Maia of Aule the crafts-Vala. Fallen, yes.
Balrog, no.
(Incidently, not all fire Maiar are balrogs either. The sun is shepherded
around by a fairly decent fire Maia.)
John A. Murphy
IMHO the ring does not think as such. It made its owner want to be alone
and to covet and worship the ring. Gollumn was a prime example of what
someone would become if they had the ring long enough.
It had a way of betraying its wearer at times. Remember though that when
the ring fell from Golumns hand, it couldn't have "known" that Bilbo was
coming. Just part of the mystic luck that surrounded the ring.....or destiny.
Murf
--
j...@philabs.philips.com John A. Murphy (better known as Erin's dad)
345 Scarborough Road
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 One one-trillionith of a surprise: picaboo
(914)945-6216
Dale Stephenson
>Hmmm. I've always thought of the Ring as, I guess, an extension of Sauron's
>subconscious. He couldn't become directly aware of its location or
>"actions," but it could not "rebel" against him. It had no self with
>which to rebel. The only reason it did not go to Sauron before Bilbo
>came along is because it did not have that much control over Gollum.
>I don't think there is any question of "loyalty" or disloyalty, though.
>It was homing on Sauron automatically, but with little brainpower.
Personally, I do think Sauron put enough into the ring that it *did* have some
self, and it *would* prefer someone it could dominate -- especially someone
powerful -- to its former master Sauron. (If Sauron's personality was in
it, I can't see it being a willing servant :->) I wonder why the Ring got
heavier and harder to bear as it approached Sauron -- the one place it
*should* have been trying to go. And as for having a self:
"Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two
rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow
of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with
a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity,
a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. *Out
of the fire* there spoke a commanding voice.
'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be
cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'" (ROK, p.221)
This, I believe, was the words of the *ring*. And when Gollum *did* touch
the ring again, he *was* cast himself into the Fire of Doom.
So oft evil betrays itself.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (st...@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic
"It is considered good to look wise, especially when not
overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Mark Landin
Gollum, etc.
1) The Ring had much of Sauron's innate power in it. Thus, as soon as someone
touched it, the Ring would begin to assert itself. No sentient being thus
affected would consider the Ring just another piece of jewelry for very
long.
2) The Ring inevitably corrupted people, or brought out their "dark side". In
the case of hobbits, their dark side may be no worse than hermitage and
deceit as opposed to egomania and cruelty. Given the conjecture that
Gollum was a hobbit or a close cousin to Hobbits, maybe that's just as
bad as Gollum got --- UNTIL the Ring was stolen. Then his craving for it
led him out of his cave and into more dastardly deeds as he pursued Frodo.
3) The Ring was naturally attracted to powerful beings just as strongly as
powerful beings were tempted by the Ring. A Balrog could probably NOT re-
sist trying the sucker on, and would probably eventually challenge Sauron
himself. As far as the Balrog being content with staying in Moria com-
manding Orcs, consider the last thing the Balrog probably saww above-
ground: the assembled host of the Vala flying in and kicking the crap
out of Morgoth. I'd hide too. But with the Ring.....
4) The sequences of who found the Ring at what time is what you call destiny.
5) IMHO the Ring is semi-aware of its surroundings: it is sensitive to other
sources of power (in fact, it would need to have some kind of ability like
that to control the other Rings which were being worn by others), and of
course the biggest Power source in Middle Earth was Sauron. Sauron could
perhaps "call" to the Ring from a distance, and so once he had declared
himself, the Ring "felt" his presence and decided it was time to hit the
raod again. Again, consider the forces of destiny at work.
6) Personally, I think Tom Bombadil was a Maia. Notice that the Ring had no
power over him. I don't think Tolkien would leave that unique/powerful a
being lying around without him/her fitting into the Ainu somewhere. Not all
the Maia were necessarily interested or impressed with Ea anyway. Maybe
Tom was just a visiting Ea to see what all the talk was about, but since
he was not intimately associated with Ea like the Vala were, he was not
as vulnerable Ea's laws (physical or mogical) as the Vala or the Children.
I believe either he (or Gandalf) chanracterized him as not having to much
interest in these matters (regarding the Ring).
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------** Mark C. Landin Northeastern State University ** lan...@cherokee.nsuok.edu Tahlequah, OK **------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
brod...@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
>
>1) The Ring had much of Sauron's innate power in it. Thus, as soon as someone
> touched it, the Ring would begin to assert itself. No sentient being thus
> affected would consider the Ring just another piece of jewelry for very
> long.
>
'hobbits' are fishing in the water, one finds a ring, and he is then promptly
murdered by his friend for it. Smeagol never 'touched' the ring _before_
becoming an asshole.
post continues ...
>2) The Ring inevitably corrupted people, or brought out their "dark side". In
> the case of hobbits, their dark side may be no worse than hermitage and
> deceit as opposed to egomania and cruelty. Given the conjecture that
> Gollum was a hobbit or a close cousin to Hobbits, maybe that's just as
> bad as Gollum got --- UNTIL the Ring was stolen. Then his craving for it
> led him out of his cave and into more dastardly deeds as he pursued Frodo.
>
If Smeagol _was_ a 'hobbit' (or related to them) (as I believe, MHO), flipping
out and murdering a friend was definitely 'worse than hermitage and deceit.'
He was worse than 'just as bad as Gollum got' before he even touched the ring.
Maybe this is evidence that Smeagol _wasn't_ as related to the hobbits as
many (incl. Gandalf) believe? Maybe Smeagol was an asshole by nature? Maybe
the ring had more power than a lot of people here believe, identifying
Smeagol as a possible path back to Sauron and causing Smeagol's behavior?
(this I do not believe).
Lot's of questions, I have no answers ...
I've wondered about Smeagol and his murdering his pal since I first read LOTR.
Any comments?
Eric
Si Rowe
Well, being an asshole and being a hobbit aren't *neccesarily*
incompatible-- think of the Sackville-Bagginses! If Lotho (or, Illuvitar
forbid, Lobelia) got the Ring I could easily see a Gollum-like creature
as the eventual result...and it wouldn't take that long, either.
Yours, Si Rowe
________________________________________________________________________
Great powers they slowly brought out of themselves,| Si Rowe: Not just
and looking backward they beheld the elves | two Greek letters!
that wrought on cunning forges in the mind, |==========================
and light and dark on secret looms entwined. | <sir...@pop.cis.yale.edu>
--from "Mythopoeia" by J.R.R. Tolkien | -- "What, *never*?"
========================================================================
Yo-Yo of the net.trenchcoat.brigade needs to sleep... 8>:
Si Rowe
Well, being an asshole and being a hobbit aren't *neccesarily*
Frank Crary
>Well, being an asshole and being a hobbit aren't *neccesarily*
>incompatible-- think of the Sackville-Bagginses! If Lotho (or, Illuvitar
>forbid, Lobelia) got the Ring I could easily see a Gollum-like creature
>as the eventual result...and it wouldn't take that long, either.
Ted Sandiman is an even better example: Lobelia was greedy, and
Lotho power-hungry, but the miller's son was down right malicious.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Dane Johnson
>
> power over him. I don't think Tolkien would leave that unique/powerful a
> being lying around without him/her fitting into the Ainu somewhere. Not all
Why not?
Tolkien seems to have been guided more through the "growth" of the
narrative than by rigid structure. He had worked out _A_ hierarchy of
beings, but not all beings of power needed to fit in. Elrond and
Galadriel, as well as Celebrimbor, were all powerful individuals, yet
none were maia. Rivendell and Lothlorien were nearly as safe as Tom's
country, yet each was guarded by a non-Maia bearing a ring created by a
non-Maia.
Tom seems to have been put into the story because there was a place for
him to be. The character already existed in Tolkien's mind, as an
*independent* character.
I mean, maybe Tolkien did intend Tom to be of the Maia, but there is no
evidence saying he *is*, and there really are quite a few textual clues
that indicate he is something altogether different. I mean, the simple
fact that he seems beyond the ring (not so much "powerful" enough to
shrug it off, but simply beyond the ring's temptation) in a way that the
other Maia incarnate in Middle-earth are not suggests that he is unlike
them.
Anyway, why don't you think Tolkien would make a character that powerful
and not make him an ainur? (or is that aina? hmmmm...)
Dane
"It is with our judgements as our watches, none go alike, yet each
believes his own" -- Alexander Pope
David Smith
>>
>If Smeagol _was_ a 'hobbit' (or related to them) (as I believe, MHO), flipping
>out and murdering a friend was definitely 'worse than hermitage and deceit.'
>He was worse than 'just as bad as Gollum got' before he even touched the ring.
>Maybe this is evidence that Smeagol _wasn't_ as related to the hobbits as
>many (incl. Gandalf) believe? Maybe Smeagol was an asshole by nature? Maybe
>the ring had more power than a lot of people here believe, identifying
>Smeagol as a possible path back to Sauron and causing Smeagol's behavior?
>(this I do not believe).
Hmm. I don't think this is suggestive of anything. Remember, Bilbo *did*
threaten Gandalf when Gandalf insisted he leave the Ring for Frodo. Also, he
(Bilbo) referred to the Ring as "my precious" before he finally surrendered
the Ring. By the way, this is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence
in the whole trilogy (for me anyway) that Gollum and Bilbo were of the same
kind.
Dave
--
David A. Smith Thoroughly enjoying my role as a
das...@husc8.harvard.edu member of the loyal opposition for
Standard Disclaimers the next four years. The Democrats
have only themselves to blame now.
greg A case
had no
> power over him. I don't think Tolkien would leave that
unique/powerful a
> being lying around without him/her fitting into the Ainu somewhere.
Not all
> the Maia were necessarily interested or impressed with Ea anyway.
Maybe
> Tom was just a visiting Ea to see what all the talk was about, but
since
> he was not intimately associated with Ea like the Vala were, he was
not
> as vulnerable Ea's laws (physical or mogical) as the Vala or the
Children.
> I believe either he (or Gandalf) chanracterized him as not having to
much
> interest in these matters (regarding the Ring).
>
>
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----** Mark C. Landin Northeastern State
University ** lan...@cherokee.nsuok.edu
Tahlequah, OK
**------------------------------------------------------------------------
------*
Actually, the fact that Tom wasn't affected by the ring would be contrary
to his being a Maia since Gandalf was affected by the ring and was tempted
to use it himself. Sauron was certainly affected by the ring, and Saruman
was too, although it would be hard to say that the ring's power itself
made him turn to evil.
Greg Case
The Master
>Actually, the fact that Tom wasn't affected by the ring would be contrary
>to his being a Maia since Gandalf was affected by the ring and was tempted
>to use it himself. Sauron was certainly affected by the ring, and Saruman
>was too, although it would be hard to say that the ring's power itself
>made him turn to evil.
>Greg Case
Gandalf was never affected by the ring! He never used it. Nor was he
tempted to use it. He said "Do not tempt me! For over me the Ring would
gain an even greater power...." (can't remember exact quote).
I don't know what you mean by "Sauron was affected by the Ring" seeing as
he made it.
Saruman was never affected by the Ring - he never even saw it. He was
turned to evil a) because he investigated the ways of the Dark Lord,
b) his pride drove him - he was jealous that Gandalf knew where the
Ring was and he himself, although accounted as the authority on the rings,
did not.
Tom could well have been a Maia. He had power to resist the effect of
the Ring. Gandalf could have done so as well. (By this I mean not
become invisible, etc).
c.
Michael MacKay
In a previous article, c...@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master) says:
>cas...@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (greg A case) writes:
>
>>Actually, the fact that Tom wasn't affected by the ring would be contrary
>>to his being a Maia since Gandalf was affected by the ring and was tempted
>>to use it himself. Sauron was certainly affected by the ring, and Saruman
>>was too, although it would be hard to say that the ring's power itself
>>made him turn to evil.
>
>>Greg Case
>
>Gandalf was never affected by the ring! He never used it. Nor was he
>tempted to use it. He said "Do not tempt me! For over me the Ring would
>gain an even greater power...." (can't remember exact quote).
>
Gandalf said: "With that power I should have power too great and terrible.
And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." Do
you somehow believe that Gandalf didn't know what he was talking about?
Or Galadriel, since she expresses a similar fear to Frodo in Lothlorien?
Boromir never used the ring. Do you maintain that he was therefore not
'affected' by it? I wonder how you would explain his actions at Tol
Brandir....
>I don't know what you mean by "Sauron was affected by the Ring" seeing as
>he made it.
>
Sauron put a great part of his power *into* the Ring. So much so that
when the Ring was destroyed Barad-dur and all of Sauron's dominion
collapsed. I'd call that being 'affected' by the Ring (I'd also call
it the entire premise of the LoTR.....).
>Saruman was never affected by the Ring - he never even saw it. He was
>turned to evil a) because he investigated the ways of the Dark Lord,
>b) his pride drove him - he was jealous that Gandalf knew where the
>Ring was and he himself, although accounted as the authority on the rings,
>did not.
>
Saruman said in Council that he thought the forces of the West should
*use* the Ring against Sauron, whereas Gandalf and Elrond knew that
only its destruction would be their salvation. Why do you think the
Uruk-hai were bringing hobbits to Isengard? For the same reason that
the Nazgul were trying to bring hobbits to Barad-dur --- to capture the
Ring.
>Tom could well have been a Maia. He had power to resist the effect of
>the Ring. Gandalf could have done so as well. (By this I mean not
>become invisible, etc).
>
>c.
>
Tom's invulnerability to the Ring is *evidence* (not proof) that he is
*not* a Maia. Greg Case's original point is sound.
- Michael MacKay -
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
--
John Breakwell
> Hmm. I don't think this is suggestive of anything. Remember, Bilbo *did*
> threaten Gandalf when Gandalf insisted he leave the Ring for Frodo. Also, he
> (Bilbo) referred to the Ring as "my precious" before he finally surrendered
> the Ring. By the way, this is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence
> in the whole trilogy (for me anyway) that Gollum and Bilbo were of the same
> kind.
>
Sounds good to me. I didn't think them different. Tne Hobbits were just as
corruptible as humans and should really just be regarded as just a
different flavour of humankind. Size isn't Everything.
Cameron Newham
> Gandalf said: "With that power I should have power too great and terrible.
> And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." Do
> you somehow believe that Gandalf didn't know what he was talking about?
> Or Galadriel, since she expresses a similar fear to Frodo in Lothlorien?
I don't see what you are trying to get at. My point still holds.
Perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean.
> Boromir never used the ring. Do you maintain that he was therefore not
> 'affected' by it? I wonder how you would explain his actions at Tol
> Brandir....
I maintain that he never *used* it. So, his actions were driven by a lust
for the Ring, he wasn't necessarily affected by it. I don't see Merry or
Pippin being affected - and they were part of the Company.
> >I don't know what you mean by "Sauron was affected by the Ring" seeing as
> >he made it.
> >
> Sauron put a great part of his power *into* the Ring. So much so that
> when the Ring was destroyed Barad-dur and all of Sauron's dominion
> collapsed. I'd call that being 'affected' by the Ring (I'd also call
> it the entire premise of the LoTR.....).
>
I wouldn't. Face it, "Sauron being affected by the Ring" is a *bad*
way to phrase the idea.
> >Saruman was never affected by the Ring - he never even saw it. He was
> >turned to evil a) because he investigated the ways of the Dark Lord,
> >b) his pride drove him - he was jealous that Gandalf knew where the
> >Ring was and he himself, although accounted as the authority on the rings,
> >did not.
> >
> Saruman said in Council that he thought the forces of the West should
> *use* the Ring against Sauron, whereas Gandalf and Elrond knew that
> only its destruction would be their salvation. Why do you think the
Saruman never said (to my knowledge) that the Ring should be *used*.
If he had said that then Gandalf would never have trusted him to the
extent that he did. Nor would Elrond. Do you take Gandalf and Elrond
as idiots?
> Uruk-hai were bringing hobbits to Isengard? For the same reason that
> the Nazgul were trying to bring hobbits to Barad-dur --- to capture the
> Ring.
And your point is.....?
Please, if you are going to try and counter my point, then at least
bring something relevant in.
> >Tom could well have been a Maia. He had power to resist the effect of
> >the Ring. Gandalf could have done so as well. (By this I mean not
> >become invisible, etc).
> >
> Tom's invulnerability to the Ring is *evidence* (not proof) that he is
> *not* a Maia. Greg Case's original point is sound.
Likewise, I never said Tom *was* a Maia! I said he "could well have been".
As Tolkien himself said, TB was an intentional enigma. *what* he is we
will never know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| _ _, ____ _ __ _ .__ | |
|(__(_|_/ / /_(/_/ (_(_)_/ /__ | UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION |
| | of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED. |
|c...@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au | |
|c...@adied.oz.au | -- R. E. McElwaine, BS Phys/Astro UW-EC |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael MacKay
In a previous article, c...@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) says:
>In article <1993Apr15.1...@freenet.carleton.ca> ac...@Freenet.carleton.ca writes:
>
> > Boromir never used the ring. Do you maintain that he was therefore not
> > 'affected' by it? I wonder how you would explain his actions at Tol
> > Brandir....
>
>I maintain that he never *used* it. So, his actions were driven by a lust
>for the Ring, he wasn't necessarily affected by it. I don't see Merry or
>Pippin being affected - and they were part of the Company.
>
You and I clearly do not agree on what the word "affect" means. I think
it means "produce (material) effect on" (OED). I don't care if Boromir
never came within a thousand leagues of the Ring --- if he felt a lust for
the Ring as you acknowledge, then the ring affected him. I also maintain
that the ring affected people who never even knew about its existence, by
the disruption in their lives brought about by the War of the Ring. Perhaps
you would like to let us in on your world-view that denies that even when
the Ring produces an effect in Boromir it is nevertheless not affecting
him.
Richard Wang
I think this argument about whether or not Sauron, Gandalf, Boromir, et.
al. were "affected" by the ring is degenerating into a disagreement over
semantics. Surely the lust for power that seized Boromir could be
construed as the Ring's "effect" on him; or are we making the point that
only those people the Ring turns invisible are truly "affected" by it?
Let's decide what "affect" means and stick to that.
Richard Wang
rw...@husc.harvard.edu
