Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

more musings .....

132 views
Skip to first unread message

chrishoelscher

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 9:14:05 PM9/3/12
to
is there any evidence that Sauronwas aware of anyone who used the Ruling Ring without knowing what it was? be it Smeagol/Bilbo/Frodo - Galadriel was aware that Frodo had knowingly used the ring 3 times - but was that because she was wearing one of the three?

did the 16 have any other effect on mortals other than temporary invisibility (and eventual permanent wraithdom) for humans, and lust for gold for dwarves? would the nine have had any greater powers or less vulnerable had they been allowed to keep their rings after they became wraiths? or did the rings actually no longer serve any purpose being with them? even so (and I think this has been discussed before) - were the rings then remotely linked to the nine? could they have been redistributed to others with the intent of creating more wraiths? if there was in fact no differences in the 16 - the remaining 3<4?> previously given to dwarves and re-captured by Sauron could have been redistributed? a ring (other than the RulingRing) does not appear to be bonded with a wearer - the three were passed around - but perhaps this is not true for the 16?

thanks
Chris Hoelscher

Message has been deleted

sean_q

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 5:14:16 PM9/4/12
to
On 9/4/2012 6:21 AM, Raven wrote:

> I have not seen described how Sauron managed to take back the Nine. When
> in the presence of a Nazg�l he was powerful enough to take it, whether the
> Nazg�l liked it or not.

I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.
He gave Great Rings of Power to kings who cherished power
and so ensnared them. Since Hobbits are akin to Men,
if the Dark Lord had given one of the Nine to Lotho Pimple
he would have aspired to more than mere Thane of the Shire,
he would probably have coveted all the long leagues
of Eriador to govern.

It's true there are some apparent contradictions, such as
Galadriel telling Frodo, "You saw the Eye of him that holds
the Seven and the Nine." And I can't explain why no Ring
was found on the field at Pelennor after Merry and Eowyn
offed Number One.

But in a way it doesn't really matter who actually has
physical possession; Sauron controls the Ringwraiths and
that's what counts.

SQ
Message has been deleted

David Trimboli

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 6:22:34 PM9/5/12
to
On 9/4/2012 5:14 PM, sean_q wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 6:21 AM, Raven wrote:
>
>> I have not seen described how Sauron managed to take back the Nine. When
>> in the presence of a Nazg�l he was powerful enough to take it, whether
>> the
>> Nazg�l liked it or not.
>
> I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.
> He gave Great Rings of Power to kings who cherished power
> and so ensnared them.

I agree with Raven. We see evidence for this when Frodo threatens to put
on the Ring and command Gollum to kill himself. They both know Gollum
would be forced to obey. This is because Gollum is enslaved to the One
Ring, and its bearer may command its slaves.

If Gollum had attacked Sam while Sam had the Ring, Sam could have
commanded Gollum. However, I suspect that Sam hadn't had it long enough
to use it for command. Frodo had possessed it for years, and was deep in
its power. Sam barely scratched the surface.

So Sauron must command the Ringwraiths because he possesses the Nine. He
can't use those rings to create more Ringwraiths without losing control
over those he already has to whoever has the ring that Ringwraith is
subject to. And he can't command a wearer of one of the Nine without the
One.

So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
wearing another Ring. The Seven, Nine, and One eventually enslave their
wearers to themselves, and new wearers can command those slaves. In any
case you need sufficient stature and power to command anyone. Dwarves
seem to be immune to enslavement, though they experience other effects.

Pondering: are the Seven and the Nine interchangeable, or is a slave to
one of them only a slave to that particular ring? "Give us back our
ring! No, not that one, the other one!" Can someone wearing one of them
command someone enslaved to another ring? If Gandalf had gotten Thrain's
ring, could he have commanded the Ringwraiths with it? (I don't think
so; I think each ring has power over only its own wearers.)

--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:30:14 AM9/6/12
to
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:03 +0200, Raven wrote:
> Sauron let the Nazg�l keep their rings while he held the One. They
> became slaves to their rings, and those rings were bound to the Ruling Ring.
> When Sauron lost that, he no longer had any direct chokehold on the Nazg�l.
> So he took back the Nine.

Something has just struck me. *When* did Sauron take the Rings back
from the Nazg�l?

If it was after he took shape again in the Third Age, there's a big
problem: how did he get them to give up the Rings? At that point
they had Rings of Power and he had none. He might be terrifying, but
they were pretty terrifying themselves, and they were slaves to the
Rings, not to Sauron.[1] We can believe that Sauron could cow Frodo
into giving up the Ring right after he claimed it, but after Frodo
had 2000 years of practice in using it, he would have grown strong
enough to resist Sauron. The Nazg�l *did* have thousands of years of
practice. So I really do not see how Sauron-sans-Ring could extort
the Rings from the Nazg�l.

If it was before he lost the One at the end of the Second Age,
there's no difficulty about how he commanded them to yield their
Rings, but there *is* a difficulty about where the Rings were for the
1000-1100 years while Sauron was disembodied. One would think that
the Nazg�l, or even Orcs, would have found them and taken them during
that time.

[1] http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q79-SauronHeld

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:38:06 AM9/6/12
to
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:03 +0200, Raven wrote:
> The Three were passed around. But they were not used to enslave the
> wielder.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sauron's intent was to enslave
the Elves with the Three, as with the other Rings of Power, and if
they had worn them he would have done it. The difference is that the
Elves who were wearing them took them off the moment he put on the
One, and did not use or wear them as long as he had it.

"Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" is pretty explicit:

"And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that
were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern
the very thoughts of those that wore them.

"But the Elves were not so lightly to be caught. As soon as Sauron
set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they
knew him, and perceived that he would be master of them, and of all
that they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings."

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:38:46 AM9/6/12
to
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:14:16 -0800, sean_q wrote:
> I prefer to believe "The Nine the Nazgul keep" literally.

There are an awful lot of statements by Tolkien that go the other
way, unambiguously:

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q79-SauronHeld

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:47:31 AM9/6/12
to
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:22:34 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
> wearing another Ring.

Eventually, yes. But remember the Letters, where Tolkien says that
if Gollum hadn't interfered and the Nazg�l had reached the Cracks of
Doom, they would have *pretended* to obey Frodo, lured him out of the
Sammath Naur, blocked the entrance, and waited for Sauron to come and
take the Ring from Frodo.

http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim

It takes practice to learn to use the One for command. You can't just
put it on, start issuing orders, and be mindlessly obeyed. Galadriel
told Frodo this: "Before you could use that power you would need to
... train your will to the domination of others."
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:05:53 PM9/6/12
to
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:37:35 +0200, Raven wrote:
> It may or may not be that the Three would have become
> personal chains to three elves (probably Celebrimbor and two others) if he
> had succeeded, as apparently the Nine were personal chains to the
> Ringwraiths.

I do not know how you can make such a statement, which goes directly
against what we are told in OtRoPatTA. I quoted it in the very
article that you responded to, so you can hardly be unaware of it.

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 6:10:14 PM9/6/12
to
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:51:51 +0200, Raven wrote:
> When
> he got hold of the Nine (and the Seven) from the M�rdain and twisted them
> further into instruments for his us

You really ought to read Tolkien's "Of the Rings of Power and the
Third Age".

David Trimboli

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 9:35:20 PM9/6/12
to
On 9/6/2012 6:47 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:22:34 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
>> So, the summary of my analysis. Wearing the One lets you command anyone
>> wearing another Ring.
>
> Eventually, yes. But remember the Letters, where Tolkien says that
> if Gollum hadn't interfered and the Nazg�l had reached the Cracks of
> Doom, they would have *pretended* to obey Frodo, lured him out of the
> Sammath Naur, blocked the entrance, and waited for Sauron to come and
> take the Ring from Frodo.
>
> http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim
>
> It takes practice to learn to use the One for command. You can't just
> put it on, start issuing orders, and be mindlessly obeyed. Galadriel
> told Frodo this: "Before you could use that power you would need to
> ... train your will to the domination of others."

Yes, I mentioned all that in the bit you cut from my message. You only
quoted my summary.

Jeff Urs

unread,
Sep 7, 2012, 2:47:47 AM9/7/12
to
"Matthew Woodcraft" <mat...@woodcraft.me.uk> wrote in message
news:87y5ko4...@golux.woodcraft.me.uk...
> But then wouldn't they have known straight away that Bilbo had found the
> One Ring?

You would think so, particularly since Bilbo actually wore it in
Gandalf's presence.

--
Jeff

Message has been deleted

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 7, 2012, 9:10:46 PM9/7/12
to
I think the real explanation is story external: Bilbo's ring was just
a little magic invisibility ring. It didn't become the One Ring
until Tolkien started work on his "sequel".

Story internally, it's harder. We can say that Bilbo had no idea of
what the ring was, except that he knew it gave invisibility. He had
no knowledge of its potential to command, and therefore had no
ability to try to use it for command. So the bearers of the Three
would not have been aware of Bilbo, as they were of Sauron, because
Bilbo's use of the Ring was essentially passive where Sauron's was
active.

But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when Bilbo
approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After all, Bilbo
should have been just as visible as Glorfindel. Well, maybe Gandalf
just wasn't looking in that direction, or had his entire mind on the
conversation with the Dwarves.

That's not entirely a convincing explanation, but it may be the best
we can do.

Bill O'Meally

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 12:45:56 PM9/8/12
to
On 2012-09-07 20:10:46 -0500, Stan Brown said:
>
> But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when Bilbo
> approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After all, Bilbo
> should have been just as visible as Glorfindel. Well, maybe Gandalf
> just wasn't looking in that direction, or had his entire mind on the
> conversation with the Dwarves.

The narrative tells us that Gandalf was as astonished as any of the
Dwarves when Bilbo appears to have slipped past Balin and appears
suddenly in their camp. However, the narrator is Bilbo himself. How
could he know what Gandalf actually did or did not see? Gandalf does
give Bibo a "queer look" upon his explanation as to how he escaped the
goblins and got past Balin as if he "guessed" at what Bilbo left out.
Story internally, at least consistent with LotR, perhaps he "saw" what
Bilbo left out.
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

tenworld

unread,
Sep 10, 2012, 1:47:48 PM9/10/12
to
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:05:54 PM UTC-7, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:37:35 +0200, Raven wrote:
>
> > It may or may not be that the Three would have become
>
> > personal chains to three elves (probably Celebrimbor and two others) if he
>
> > had succeeded, as apparently the Nine were personal chains to the
>
> > Ringwraiths.

Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies. And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 11, 2012, 6:29:47 AM9/11/12
to
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
> Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies. And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.

On what basis do you say "without wearing"? We know that Galadriel
was wearing her Ring because Frodo say her. And we know that Elrond
was wearing his because it was mentioned in OtRoPatTA.

They couldn't dare use or wear their Rings in the Second Age, while
Sauron had the One. But when the One was lost, they were free to
wear and use their Rings safely.

Please do something about your line lengths - thanks!

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Sep 11, 2012, 9:01:25 AM9/11/12
to
In message <news:MPG.2ab46520b...@news.individual.net>
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:47:47 -0400, Jeff Urs wrote:
>>

[The Keepers of the Three sensing any use of the Master Ring]
>> particularly since Bilbo actually wore it in Gandalf's presence.
>
> I think the real explanation is story external: Bilbo's ring was
> just a little magic invisibility ring. It didn't become the One
> Ring until Tolkien started work on his "sequel".

There is little doubt that this explanation is quite correct.

Sometimes we ought, I think, accept that /The Hobbit/ and /The Lord
of the Rings/ (and even more so the stories of /The Silmarillion/
still, despite all of Tolkien's effort to correct that situation,
happen in different worlds -- in the world of /The Hobbit/, Gandalf
is a more ordinary type of (human) wizard (without any Ring of
Power), and Bilbo's Ring is merely an innocent ring of invisibility.

The idea presented in /The Lord of the Rings/ that these stories
actually happen in the same world is a pretence -- in many ways the
two are 'worlds apart'.

> Story internally, it's harder. We can say that Bilbo had no idea
> of what the ring was, except that he knew it gave invisibility.
> He had no knowledge of its potential to command, and therefore had
> no ability to try to use it for command. So the bearers of the
> Three would not have been aware of Bilbo, as they were of Sauron,
> because Bilbo's use of the Ring was essentially passive where
> Sauron's was active.

I'm sure we can device many intelligent, and even reasonably
consistent, models for explanation. Another option might be to look
at /intention/ -- what is a Ring of Domination other than a means for
transmitting your own intention forcefully? Perhaps the combination
of Sauron's personal power (which made the Master Ring so much more
powerful) and the force of his intention combined to transmit this
intention to the keepers of the Three, whereas Bilbo's and Frodo's
much smaller personal power (and much weaker will), with no intention
of dominating the three keepers made any incidental transmission of
intention so much weaker that Gandalf couldn't even pick it up at a
distance of mere feet . . .

Perhaps . . . :-)

I cannot but wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have solved the riddle in a
different way -- I am sorry that his test readers advised him to stop
his efforts to rewrite /The Hobbit/ in 1960 -- the result might not
have been /The Hobbit/ that they knew, but I think it is likely to
have become a better book, more in line with its sequel.

> But shouldn't Gandalf have seen Bilbo "on the other side" when
> Bilbo approached the campsite east of the goblin tunnels? After
> all, Bilbo should have been just as visible as Glorfindel.

Well, this much, at least, should be more explainable: if we accept
that the light is an expression of spiritual qualities (implied also
by the light in the face and eyes of the Noldor as they arrive fresh
from Valinor) that normally obscured by the visible body, then there
is no reason that Bilbo should have been particularly visible -- he
had, after all, never lived in the Blessed Realm and was definitely
not one of the might among the Firstborn :-) (even if do not accept
Rateliff's view of the 1960 Bilbo as something of a blundering fool).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192

tenworld

unread,
Sep 11, 2012, 12:14:21 PM9/11/12
to
On Sep 11, 3:29 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
> > Since both Elrond and Galadriel used the powers of the ring to protect their respective locations, It appears that a ring's power can be used without wearing it and transmitting its location. That may be where some the of confusion lies.  And gandalf certainly used the power of his ring to inspire others, and maybe even fight the Nazgul at the great battle.
>
> On what basis do you say "without wearing"?  We know that Galadriel
> was wearing her Ring because Frodo say her.  And we know that Elrond
> was wearing his because it was mentioned in OtRoPatTA.
>
> They couldn't dare use or wear their Rings in the Second Age, while
> Sauron had the One.  But when the One was lost, they were free to
> wear and use their Rings safely.
>
> Please do something about your line lengths - thanks!
>
OK, that makes more sense.

As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
maybe there is a default setting.

Jeff Urs

unread,
Sep 11, 2012, 9:20:07 PM9/11/12
to
"tenworld" <t...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:af6b4b2c-a6c9-407d...@rg9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
> maybe there is a default setting.

I don't believe so; it's just something you have to keep in mind (or
you could compose your replies in something that does wrap and copy
them to GG's posting form).

--
Jeff

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 12, 2012, 9:01:03 PM9/12/12
to
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:

> As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
> maybe there is a default setting.

"It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

tenworld

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 11:28:50 AM9/13/12
to
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:01:02 PM UTC-7, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT), tenworld wrote:
>
>
>
> > As far as lengths I am using "NEW GOOGLE GROUPS" now,
>
> > maybe there is a default setting.
>
>
>
> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

LOL

in the aerospace world we call it "learning curve".
Plus I was fishing hoping someone else is using
*NEW* Google Groups and would have advice.

fred

unread,
Sep 15, 2012, 11:09:52 PM9/15/12
to
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>
> I cannot but wonder if Tolkien wouldn't have solved the riddle in a
> different way -- I am sorry that his test readers advised him to stop
> his efforts to rewrite /The Hobbit/ in 1960 -- the result might not
> have been /The Hobbit/ that they knew, but I think it is likely to
> have become a better book, more in line with its sequel.
>

Isn't that why we are now getting three movies?

--

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Sep 16, 2012, 6:39:05 AM9/16/12
to
In message <news:1kqin6p.kt2nui10z8gowN@[192.168.0.33]>
fr...@fred.com (fred) spoke these staves:
I don't think that I'd say that that is the reason -- I very much
doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John Rateliff's /History
of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published letters (the internal evidence
from their /LotR/ trilogy at least suggests they are not), and I
don't know that I would think that they ought to be that.

I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
/LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure. I have seen many
speculations that I find very likely, though I think such a decision
is rather more complex and probably involves a number of both
rational and irrational reasons.

As for the overall tone of the film, I have long said that I thought
it likely that the /Hobbit/ films would be more mature in tone than
the book, and so match the /LotR/ film trilogy from the same people.
This, I think, has the ironic effect that the film-makers probably
will address (most likely inadvertently) some of the faults that
Tolkien himself came to see in his famous children's book. Whether
I'm correct, and if so, how this will work with the other changes
that they are surely making to the story of course remains to be
seen.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)

John W Kennedy

unread,
Sep 17, 2012, 11:43:56 AM9/17/12
to
On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
> three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
> /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.

I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf simply
disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again near the end
with only a few sentences' explanation is weak construction for a novel
and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is gets away with it /because/
it's only a children's book.

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"

tenworld

unread,
Sep 17, 2012, 12:11:31 PM9/17/12
to
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:39:05 AM UTC-7, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message <news:1kqin6p.kt2nui10z8gowN@[192.168.0.33]>
...
>
> > Isn't that why we are now getting three movies?
>
> I don't think that I'd say that that is the reason -- I very much
>
> doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John Rateliff's /History
>
> of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published letters (the internal evidence
>
> from their /LotR/ trilogy at least suggests they are not), and I
>
> don't know that I would think that they ought to be that.
>
I think there is a difference between wasnt aware and chose to
change the story (which is standard Hollywood MOO). I would bet they
read every Tolkien book if for no reason than to mine for ideas.

>
> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
>
> three films based on the /The Hobbit/

trilogies are greater than the sum of the parts at least where media
revenue comes into play. But there is a lot of material in the appendices
and I think they couldnt resist the chance to interpret it in this movie.

Paul S. Person

unread,
Sep 17, 2012, 12:34:57 PM9/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
>> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to make
>> three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff from the
>> /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.
>
>I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf simply
>disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again near the end
>with only a few sentences' explanation is weak construction for a novel
>and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is gets away with it /because/
>it's only a children's book.

You do realize that the assertion that the extra material will be from
the appendices is the best case scenario, do you not?

Given PJ's track record, a lot of the additional material will have no
more to do with anything JRRT wrote than Aragorn's flashback scenes in
/TT/ did.

I mean, the mere fact that PJ's Aragorn has to be mollicoddled by
Arwen into doing /what he has already promised to do/ is enough to
show the difference between anything PJ comes up with and what JRRT
had in mind.

My criterion for a well-done book or movie is not whether every single
"i" is dotted and every single "t" is crossed but whether or not the
book is worth reading or the movie is worth seeing. So having Gandalf
vanish for the rather obvious plot purpose of allowing Bilbo to show
his stuff doesn't bother me at all.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Sep 18, 2012, 3:12:46 AM9/18/12
to
In message
<news:ea763b3e-f96f-4c4f...@googlegroups.com>
tenworld <t...@world.std.com> spoke these staves:
>
> On Sunday, September 16, 2012 3:39:05 AM UTC-7, Troels Forchhammer
> wrote:
>>
>> I very much doubt that the film-makers are familiar with John
>> Rateliff's /History of the Hobbit/ or Tolkien's published
>> letters (the internal evidence from their /LotR/ trilogy at
>> least suggests they are not), and I don't know that I would
>> think that they ought to be that.
>
> I think there is a difference between wasnt aware and chose to
> change the story (which is standard Hollywood MOO). I would bet
> they read every Tolkien book if for no reason than to mine for
> ideas.

I have seen it claimed (unfortunately I can't remember when or where)
that Jackson did not picture Sauron during the War of the Ring as
embodied because he believed that this would contradict Tolkien's
intention. Such a belief is consistent with a not very attentive
reading of /The Lord of the Rings/ itself, but it becomes impossible
once you've read /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ and other works.

Quite possibly I should have said that 'the internal evidence from
their /LotR/ trilogy combined with their published reasoning
regarding their decisions at least suggests that they are not'
[familiar with anything beyond the two books to which they have the
rights]. I have seen David Bratman say that Jackson's professed love
for Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ is like a guy who consistently
buys his girlfriend presents that she loathe in the firm belief that
it is exactly what she wants: he may love her, but he certainly has
made no effort to get to know her. This is, I think, a very accurate
metaphor: Jackson (and his scripting team) does not love Tolkien's
story (which he has made no effort to get to know), but he loves his
own image of the story.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Sep 18, 2012, 3:29:01 AM9/18/12
to
In message <news:5057453c$0$1219$607e...@cv.net>
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:
>
> On 2012-09-16 10:39:05 +0000, Troels Forchhammer said:
>>
>> I really couldn't say what is the reasoning behind the choice to
>> make three films based on the /The Hobbit/, with some extra stuff
>> from the /LotR/ appendices thrown in for good measure.
>
> I do not see why it needs to be more than that having Gandalf
> simply disappear in the middle of the story and then appear again
> near the end with only a few sentences' explanation is weak
> construction for a novel and worse for a film. The book-as-it-is
> gets away with it /because/ it's only a children's book.

Sorry, I was being imprecise. I understand well the reasoning behind
the inclusion of related matter from the appendices of /The Lord of the
Rings/ (though I think that there is more to it than explaining
Gandalf's absence -- such could be achieved with less).

It was specifically the decision to do three rather than two films that
I wouldn't wish to guess the reasoning behind, though I think we'd be
doing the film-makers (as distinct from those who invest in the films)
a gross injustice if we claim that it is due to any single reason alone
(the investors, on the other hand, will be concerned with whether it
gives them a higher return on their investment, which is as it should
be).

Regarding Gandalf's disappearance, I find myself more agreeing with
Paul on that -- not only is it clear that Gandalf, from the story-
external point of view, has to disappear to allow Bilbo to shine, but
his disappearance has been foreshadowed from the beginning of the book,
and with greater urgency ever since they reach Wilderland, so it is
certainly an expected disappearance. Whether the explanation (that the
white wizards 'had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in
the south of Mirkwood') is sufficient for the purpose is probably a
matter of taste -- at least I think it does sufficiently explain why
Gandalf did not beforehand divulge what his appointment was about.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz

Stan Brown

unread,
Sep 18, 2012, 7:29:20 AM9/18/12
to
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:12:46 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> I have seen David Bratman say that Jackson's professed love
> for Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ is like a guy who consistently
> buys his girlfriend presents that she loathe in the firm belief that
> it is exactly what she wants: he may love her, but he certainly has
> made no effort to get to know her. This is, I think, a very accurate
> metaphor: Jackson (and his scripting team) does not love Tolkien's
> story (which he has made no effort to get to know), but he loves his
> own image of the story.

Beautifully stated.
Message has been deleted

John W Kennedy

unread,
Sep 18, 2012, 3:54:00 PM9/18/12
to
Of course. But the fact that any adult reader with a reasonably
developed critical faculty can see /why/ Gandalf has to depart does not
mean that it is handled in a way that is entirely satisfactory; it
remains a somewhat clumsy improvisation. (Shakespeare and Dante are
also guilty of doing the same, so I'm not picking on Tolkien in
particular. Even I -- si parva licet componere magnis -- have done so.)

--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Paul S. Person

unread,
Sep 19, 2012, 12:32:46 PM9/19/12
to
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:54:00 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snippo>

>> Regarding Gandalf's disappearance, I find myself more agreeing with
>> Paul on that -- not only is it clear that Gandalf, from the story-
>> external point of view, has to disappear to allow Bilbo to shine, but
>> his disappearance has been foreshadowed from the beginning of the book,
>> and with greater urgency ever since they reach Wilderland, so it is
>> certainly an expected disappearance. Whether the explanation (that the
>> white wizards 'had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in
>> the south of Mirkwood') is sufficient for the purpose is probably a
>> matter of taste -- at least I think it does sufficiently explain why
>> Gandalf did not beforehand divulge what his appointment was about.
>
>Of course. But the fact that any adult reader with a reasonably
>developed critical faculty can see /why/ Gandalf has to depart does not
>mean that it is handled in a way that is entirely satisfactory; it
>remains a somewhat clumsy improvisation. (Shakespeare and Dante are
>also guilty of doing the same, so I'm not picking on Tolkien in
>particular. Even I -- si parva licet componere magnis -- have done so.)

That is what "suspension of disbelief" is all about.

A successful writer (or director/actors/whoever in the case of a film)
causes the reader or viewer to suspend his or her disbelief and accept
the story as presented.

No matter how many holes it may have when considered logically. Or how
"unsatisfactorily" it may have been handled.

If JRRT failed to suspend your disbelief on this point in /TH/, that
may be a misfortune for you, but it works for me and, I suspect, for
quite a few others.

An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
it. Even though I clearly wasn't.

Logic, schmogic. This is art.

Michael Cole

unread,
Sep 19, 2012, 8:16:35 PM9/19/12
to
on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :

> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.

<pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
</pet peeve>

--
Michael Cole


Clams Canino

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 12:54:27 PM9/20/12
to

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message

> We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and the
> actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence was a retcon
> by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing more than "mysterious
> wizard business" to add some pepper to the plot.

It's fun to note that the whole matter of TH moving into LOTR, as it relates
to the greater mythology, became for Tolkien a great case of "the tail
wagging the dog".
We know TH was not "supposed" to be a part of the greater mythology. Then he
borrowed a little bit, and then LOTR took it all full circle - requiring
rewrites in both TH and The Silmarillion to try to get it all "back in
line".
So yes, "retcon" reigned supreme in very general way. :)

What I find more fascinating, is now that he's commited to 3 films; Will
Jackson be tempted to cross the line and draw a bit from Unfinished Tales?
(Has Jackson even seen UT?)
As I recall there is a good amount of matter in there concerning the "Quest
For Eribor." as Gandalf relates the story to Frodo after the War of the
Ring. I'm particularly thinking of the metting in Bree, and some dialogue
between Gandalf and Thorin that would be telling if included. I believe
it's also that book (UT) that contains "The Search for the Ring" which has
bearing on the time between the two stories.

So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all from any
other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has by now read any of
the outside material.

Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission..... :)

-W



Mike Sullivan

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 1:02:14 PM9/20/12
to Clams Canino
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, Clams Canino wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > We have to keep in mind that the entire Sauron story line and the
>
> > actions of the White Council to explain Gandalf's absence was a retcon
>
> > by Tolkien. When TH was written, it was nothing more than "mysterious
>
> > wizard business" to add some pepper to the plot.
>
>
>
> It's fun to note that the whole matter of TH moving into LOTR, as it relates
>
> to the greater mythology, became for Tolkien a great case of "the tail
>
> wagging the dog".
>
> We know TH was not "supposed" to be a part of the greater mythology. Then he
>
> borrowed a little bit, and then LOTR took it all full circle - requiring
>
> rewrites in both TH and The Silmarillion to try to get it all "back in
>
> line".
>
> So yes, "retcon" reigned supreme in very general way. :)
>
>
>
> What I find more fascinating, is now that he's commited to 3 films; Will
>
> Jackson be tempted to cross the line and draw a bit from Unfinished Tales?
>
> (Has Jackson even seen UT?)
>
> As I recall there is a good amount of matter in there concerning the "Quest
>
> For Eribor." as Gandalf relates the story to Frodo after the War of the
>
> Ring. I'm particularly thinking of the metting in Bree, and some dialogue
>
> between Gandalf and Thorin that would be telling if included. I believe
>
> it's also that book (UT) that contains "The Search for the Ring" which has
>
> bearing on the time between the two stories.

Given the history of what Jackson inserted into the LOTR films, it's more likely he'll be borrowing from Star Wars or Hunger Games than from UT.



Paul S. Person

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 1:12:28 PM9/20/12
to
I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

Maybe I've seen /The Apostle/ once too often ... or been influenced by
something else.

Julian Bradfield

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 3:32:16 PM9/20/12
to
On 2012-09-20, Clams Canino <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
> So... I for one will be watching to see if the films draw at all from any
> other "outside" material. This assuming that Jackson has by now read any of
> the outside material.
>
> Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission..... :)

I don't think the Estate has a Christian view of the virtues of
forgiveness. It's rather Old Testament.

They do give permission in a reasonable cause. For the LotR musical, I
wanted to use Elvish drawn from outside LotR to create the bits of
Elvish dialogues and lyrics, and we got permission for that.
But somehow I doubt that Jackson is ever going to get any permissions
at all from the Estate.

Clams Canino

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 4:08:23 PM9/20/12
to

"Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnk5mrq...@coffee.inf.ed.ac.uk...
>
> I don't think the Estate has a Christian view of the virtues of
> forgiveness. It's rather Old Testament.
>
> They do give permission in a reasonable cause. For the LotR musical, I
> wanted to use Elvish drawn from outside LotR to create the bits of
> Elvish dialogues and lyrics, and we got permission for that.
> But somehow I doubt that Jackson is ever going to get any permissions
> at all from the Estate.

I very much tend to agree regarding "permissions".
One of the thinkgs I plan to look for is "added material" that resembles UT
material in "Guest for Erebor" or "Hunt for the Ring". I'm sure the Estate
will be looking as well. :)

-W


Clams Canino

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 4:09:35 PM9/20/12
to

"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message

"Guest for Erebor"

er... Quest.... Erebor.. <sigh>

-W


de...@pointerstop.ca

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 7:51:14 PM9/20/12
to inv...@microsoft.com
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:17:00 PM UTC-3, Michael Cole wrote:
> on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>
> > When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
> > scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
> > Revelations).
>
> <pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
> </pet peeve>

That's not only pedantic, but wrong. There is no /Revelation/. There is /The Revelation of St. John the Divine/, colloquially known as /Revelations/.

Clams Canino

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 8:28:07 PM9/20/12
to

<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:d76a2458-b9a7-46e1...@googlegroups.com...
"The Book of the Revalation...." is another way it's put.

But yes... colloquially, if expressed as a "one word thing", it's usually
said "Revalations".

As in: "You'll find that passage you seek in Revalations."

-W


Michael Cole

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 8:29:48 PM9/20/12
to
No. What we have is a book with no title, generally referred to by the
first word of that book, being "apokalypsis", which translates as
"unveiling" or "revelation". We have no official title, thus /The
Revelation of St. John the Divine/ is a colloquialism. And
/Revelations/ *is* wrong, no matter how often it is used.

--
Michael Cole


Message has been deleted

Steve Hayes

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 2:16:39 AM9/21/12
to
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:12:28 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:16:35 +1000, Michael Cole
><inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>>
>>> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
>>> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
>>> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
>>> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
>>> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
>>> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.
>>
>><pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
>></pet peeve>
>
>I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

Revelations are what one used to read in the News of the World, before it
closed down, as the vicar said to the barmaid.


--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/LITMAIN.HTM
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Steve Hayes

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 3:16:38 AM9/21/12
to
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:12:28 -0700, Paul S. Person
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:16:35 +1000, Michael Cole
><inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>on 20/09/2012, Paul S. Person supposed :
>>
>>> An excellent example, for me, is a film called /The Seventh Sign/.
>>> When I first watched it, I started out appalled at the extremely small
>>> scope of the effects of the scrolls (compared to their effects in
>>> Revelations). By the end of the film I was totally convinced that I
>>> was watching the end of the world very much as Revelations describes
>>> it. Even though I clearly wasn't.
>>
>><pet peeve> Revelation. There is only one of them. No 's' on the end.
>></pet peeve>
>
>I agree. The "s" should be regarded as a very minor typo.

Michael Cole

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 4:08:23 AM9/21/12
to
Lewis formulated on Friday :
> In message <k3gcec$o72$1...@dont-email.me>
> Since it has no title, I can't see how you can say the title people use
> to refer to it is in any way wrong.

Well yes, you could refer to it as "John's Excellent Adventure", but
then no one would know what you are referring to, so it would be a bit
silly. As such, we would generally use the common reference for the
book as its title.

> Who says it is wrong?

Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
that titles the book, "Revelations"

--
Michael Cole


Julian Bradfield

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 4:49:32 AM9/21/12
to
On 2012-09-21, Michael Cole <inv...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Who says it is wrong?
> Every one who has translated and printed it. Find me a copy of a Bible
> that titles the book, "Revelations"

Not being a Bibliophile, I can't do that; but I can show that people
have been calling it [the Book of] Revelations for more than half a
millennium, by the simple expedient of looking in the OED.
Such people include well known divines like Robert Wilberforce, and the
translator into English of Swedenborg's exegesis (translation
published 1812), and many other writers.

To quote the OED,
c. In pl. in sense 2a, now regarded as informal and by some as
incorrect.

de...@pointerstop.ca

unread,
Sep 21, 2012, 9:57:34 AM9/21/12