Several "I don't want to read the Silmarillion" Lord of the Rings questions....
Robert Shaw
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote
>
> Perhaps it is there, either in the LotR or the Silmarillion, but I
> haven't seen a "theory of power" in Tolkien. There are general
> observations but nothing that explains how the Ring and magic in
> general work.
>
There are some relevant comments in Tolkien's various notes
but no detailed answers.
> Thus: Is the Ring physically undifferentiated or does it have a
> structure? Is Sauron's power or essence present uniformly in the
> Ring? How is it that a physical artifact can have or appear to have a
> will? How is it possible to forge a ring of power or even any
> magical artifact? Et cetera.
>
The Ring doesn't have a real will. Tolkien didn't believe in AI and
Sauron couldn't create souls. Any appearance of mind in the ring
is either due to Sauron trying to command it or to people
anthromorphising trivial functions.
Elven magic is described as subcreation, apparently the elves put
their strength into their art and it becomes real. Sauron could do
the same but he could also manipulate that portion of Morgoth
that all matter was imbued with. Tolkien does go into quite
some detail about this, but about the metaphysical processes
involved not the practical aspects.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>The Ring doesn't have a real will. Tolkien didn't believe in AI and
>Sauron couldn't create souls. Any appearance of mind in the ring
>is either due to Sauron trying to command it or to people
>anthromorphising trivial functions.
Well, maybe. I do agree that Sauron couldn't create souls, but
remember that Sauron had "let a great part of his own power pass
into" the Ring. Along with that power could well be some
intelligence or will. Remember that Gandalf speaks of the Ring
"trying" to get back to its master. Either Sauron exerts some sort
of force field, so that the Ring is drawn to him like an electron to
a proton, or some rudimentary "will" passed along with the power
that he put into it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Opal Drake
Stan Brown wrote:
>
> Robert Shaw <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >The Ring doesn't have a real will. Tolkien didn't believe in AI and
> >Sauron couldn't create souls. Any appearance of mind in the ring
> >is either due to Sauron trying to command it or to people
> >anthromorphising trivial functions.
>
> Well, maybe. I do agree that Sauron couldn't create souls, but
> remember that Sauron had "let a great part of his own power pass
> into" the Ring. Along with that power could well be some
> intelligence or will. Remember that Gandalf speaks of the Ring
> "trying" to get back to its master. Either Sauron exerts some sort
> of force field, so that the Ring is drawn to him like an electron to
> a proton, or some rudimentary "will" passed along with the power
> that he put into it.
I've always felt that an actual part of Sauron's essence passed into
the Ring. This is what made it so powerful in the first place, i.e.,
it held a part of a very powerful Maia's spirit. This does involve
Sauron sort of splitting his soul in a way, spreading it between two
vessels, his body and the Ring. I don't know how kosher that is with
Tolkien orthodoxy, but it does explain some things. For one, it
explains how Sauron could keep coming back. After the Fall of Numenor,
and after the War of the Last Alliance, Sauron survived. The
consistency there is that the Ring was not destroyed in either case.
From the example of Saruman/Sharkey, a normal death of the body is
enough to 'kill' a Fallen Maia. If the Ring did not contain some of
Sauron's essence, it follows, at least to me, that he should have
dissipated away both times that he was killed. But he still had
one anchor in the world - the Ring. He was able to reform, however
slowly.
It also explains how a 'new Sauron' would arise in anyone who wore
the Ring. In a way, it really was Sauron trying to get back to
himself, to recombine the fractured parts of his being. The Ring,
being a part of his essence, would seduce and possess [eventually]
whoever wore it. It is sort of like carrying around a bit of the
Devil with you.
So why does the destruction of the Ring kill Sauron? Well, I think
the connection between the spirit and the body and Sauron's spirit
and the Ring are a little different. An Ainu's spirit's existence
is not tied to its fana, from what I understand. I assume that
Saruman, had he not been evil, could have reformed in Aman or some
such. But when his fana was killed, he turns to the West, as if to
seek permission, and is denied. I'm not sure where he goes, but
he certainly is not allowed to reincarnate anywhere. But when
Sauron's fana is killed, his spirit is not wholly separated from
the world. It is still anchored through the Ring. In effect, he
avoids being judged, for he is not fully 'killed', i.e., separated
from all physical manifestations of his being. That, I think, is
why he kept coming back.
But a sword often has two edges. If the Ring were destroyed, then
Sauron's fana could be destroyed, and he would have no chance of
reforming a fana, i.e., his shield behind which he hid from judgement
would be gone. Moreover, he was in the wrong place at the wrong
time when the Ring was destroyed. The Ring had been used to build
the foundations of Barad-dur. This explains why Isildur and the
victorious allies could not fully raze Barad-dur. Perhaps the power
of the Ring was necessary in the first place to even build something
like Barad-dur. When the Ring was destroyed, so was the undergirding
of the foundations. Barad-dur fell, destroying Sauron's fana
with it. But now Sauron had no anchor in the world, and sure enough,
his spirit rises up, facing West, not even seeking any permission
[still trying to grab the world as his] and is dissipated.
The advantage of this explanation is that it does not involve Sauron
creating any new souls, which he could never do anyway. The Ring,
to me, is a big magnifier. But in order to work, a magnifier needs
to be pointed at something, just like a microscope needs something on
the slide to look at. In this case, Sauron put part of his actual
essence into the Ring, which magnified its power. Thus, with the
Ring, he was more poweful than he was before he made it. However,
after the Ring was made and when he was not wearing it, he was
*less* powerful than before he made the Ring. Another second edge...
This all seems consistent to me. Anybody want to try and poke some
holes in it?
--
******************************************************
The Opal Dragon
To E-mail me, remove 'SPAM BLOCK' from return address.
~ Paul_Pippa ~
Opal Drake wrote...
:
: Stan Brown wrote:
: >
: > Well, maybe. I do agree that Sauron couldn't create souls, but
: > remember that Sauron had "let a great part of his own power pass
: > of force field, so that the Ring is drawn to him like an electron to
: > a proton, or some rudimentary "will" passed along with the power
: > that he put into it.
:
: I've always felt that an actual part of Sauron's essence passed into
: the Ring. This is what made it so powerful in the first place, i.e.,
: it held a part of a very powerful Maia's spirit. This does involve
: Sauron sort of splitting his soul in a way, spreading it between two
: vessels, his body and the Ring. I don't know how kosher that is with
:
: This all seems consistent to me. Anybody want to try and poke some
: holes in it?
:
: --
: ******************************************************
That seems like the best theory I've heard here so far.
Just one question. If Sauron had recovered the ring, how re-united
would the 2 halves of his soul become? Would they be fully integrated?
Or would he have a slightly split personality, like a Mr Hyde and Mr
Hyde?
:-)
--
~ Paul_Pippa ~
"You've never been a woman, have you?"
"I'm not sure I've ever even been a man."
(Dr Who, Interference, book 1, Lawrence Miles)
SHADoWS http://www.shadws.freeserve.co.uk
- Sherlock Holmes And Doctor Who Site -
Conrad Dunkerson
news:397F1573...@yahoo.com...
> Thus, with the Ring, he was more poweful than he was before he
> made it. However, after the Ring was made and when he was not
> wearing it, he was *less* powerful than before he made the Ring.
"While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But
even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport'
with himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other power
seized it and became possessed of it."
Letters #131
Opal Drake
Interesting. I don't think it changes my interpretation much, although
I would like to know exactly how Tolkien felt cutting the Ring off
would 'kill' Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Shock, maybe?
Öjevind Lång
>
>Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>>
>> "Opal Drake" <> wrote in message...
>>
>> > Thus, with the Ring, he was more poweful than he was before he
>> > made it. However, after the Ring was made and when he was not
>> > wearing it, he was *less* powerful than before he made the Ring.
>>
>> "While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But
>> even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport'
>> with himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other power
>> seized it and became possessed of it."
>> Letters #131
>
>Interesting. I don't think it changes my interpretation much, although
>I would like to know exactly how Tolkien felt cutting the Ring off
>would 'kill' Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Shock, maybe?
Sauron was dead (killed by Elendil and Gil-galad) when Isildur cut the Ring
off his finger. That is something to be glad of; the alternative would have
indicated that Isildur was a sadist, or terribly greedy.
Öjevind
Stan Brown
[snip quote from Letter #131]
>Interesting. I don't think it changes my interpretation much, although
>I would like to know exactly how Tolkien felt cutting the Ring off
>would 'kill' Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Shock, maybe?
I haven't gone back to reread the Letter, but the quote does not
contradict my earlier impression that Sauron was "killed"(*) and
_then_ the Ring finger was cut off. Has anyone a text that clearly
establishes the order of events?
(*) I put "killed" in quotes because I still have trouble accepting
it, even though I agree the arguments are pretty convincing. I just
think of Sauron as stunned and unconscious, or perhaps his physical
body worn out in combat. I can understand killing the body that he
wears, but I just can't understand how an immortal spirit can be
killed. After all, if someone rips your clothes, you yourself do not
fall down unconscious.
Russ
>>I would like to know exactly how Tolkien felt cutting the Ring off
>>would 'kill' Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Shock, maybe?
>
>I haven't gone back to reread the Letter, but the quote does not
>contradict my earlier impression that Sauron was "killed"(*) and
>_then_ the Ring finger was cut off. Has anyone a text that clearly
>establishes the order of events?
>
>(*) I put "killed" in quotes because I still have trouble accepting
>it, even though I agree the arguments are pretty convincing. I just
>think of Sauron as stunned and unconscious, or perhaps his physical
>body worn out in combat. I can understand killing the body that he
>wears, but I just can't understand how an immortal spirit can be
>killed. After all, if someone rips your clothes, you yourself do not
>fall down unconscious.
I think you have it right. Sauron's physical body was killed but his spirit,
or fea, was indestructible.
Russ
David Salo
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> Sauron was dead (killed by Elendil and Gil-galad) when Isildur cut the Ring
> off his finger. That is something to be glad of; the alternative would have
> indicated that Isildur was a sadist, or terribly greedy.
Isildur, on the other hand, claimed to have "dealt the enemy his
death-blow". When, some time back, I was trying to string the various
accounts of the last battle on Orodruin together into a coherent story, I
was obliged to assume that Gil-galad and Elendil together did such a good
job on Sauron that he was rendered physically powerless; thus enabling
Isildur to walk up to him and cut the Ring from his finger. On the other
hand, as long as Sauron held the Ring, his body would remain "alive" and
able to be repaired (however badly damaged); but with the Ring removed, he
would no longer have the power to keep hroa and fea together, and his body
would dissolve (like Saruman's).
The alternative would be that Isildur lied and was trying to take
Elendil's credit for killing Sauron.
David Salo
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.13ef60489...@news.mindspring.com...
> I haven't gone back to reread the Letter, but the quote does not
> contradict my earlier impression that Sauron was "killed"(*) and
> _then_ the Ring finger was cut off. Has anyone a text that
> clearly establishes the order of events?
"Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron.
Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his
power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows."
Letters #131
It is elsewhere stated that Isildur used the hilt shard of Narsil
to cut the ring off Sauron... which would again indicate that this
action took place after the fall of Elendil (as Narsil 'broke
beneath him'). The claim that Isildur dealt the death stroke could
refer to a never mentioned 'last blow' as Gilgalad and Elendil were
dying OR to the act of cutting the ring free itself.
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> clearly establishes the order of events?
>
>"Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron.
>Isildur, Elendil's son, cuts the ring from Sauron's hand, and his
>power departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows."
>Letters #131
That would do it; thanks!