Sauron's Extra Power
Nystulc
I have noticed a theory floating around here which states that the "extra"
power that Sauron gains from manufacturing and wearing the One Ring derives
from his tapping into something called the "Morgoth Element". Best as I can
gather, the "Morgoth Element" is a concept mentioned in some of Tolkien's
posthumously published notes NOT specifically in connection with the One Ring,
which essentially signifies the notion that Evil has become infused in the very
matter of creation as a result of Morgoth's primal rebellion.
What I don't understand is why anyone thinks such a theory is necessary.
Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where Sauron's
"extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of Middle
Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by these
same artifacts. The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which Sauron
did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
kingdoms, even their souls.
What am I missing here?
- John Whelan
Jussi Jaatinen
Nystulc wrote:
> Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where Sauron's
> "extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of Middle
> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by these
> same artifacts. The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which Sauron
> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
> kingdoms, even their souls.
Tolkien on several occasions makes reference to the right nature of
beings (human, elf, ainu) and the relative ranks fo the Ainur. I
sometimes think of this Ainur ranking as analoguous to a bank account -
a lesser ainu could be equivalent to an account with 100 euros in it,
and a greater one an account with 10.000 in it. Now Sauron's "balance"
would depend on whether or not he had the Ring, the Ring containing,
say, 5000 euros.
What you're suggesting is that Sauron could add to his native stature
from having the Elves under his control, which isn't IMO necessarily
possible. The Elves don't possess even one "euro" of the stuff that
Sauron is made of and so their "power" couldn't be added to Sauron's
balance. Only Eru can change the nature of beings. Morgoth, however, had
huge reserves of the "Ainu essence" that he poured into the very
elements of Arda. This is the same currency that Sauron's made of and
what exists in the Ring, and the logic behind the idea that Sauron can
tap into this power with the Ring.
The "Morgoth Element" is said to be particularly strong in gold, which
what the Ring is made of. In historic times when gold was the ultimate
store of wealth, people used to say it was an evil substance since it
spawned greed in people. Cute.
-JJ
The American
"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030602075656...@mb-m24.news.cs.com...
> Greetings
>
>
> What am I missing here?
>
HOME.
But this might be enough for now:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
T.A.
Nystulc
>news:20030602075656...@mb-m24.news.cs.com...
>> Greetings
>> What am I missing here?
>
>HOME.
As a general rule, I do not cite, as authority, Tolkien's posthumously
published notes, unless there is a particularly good reason to do so, or a
particularly good reason to assume the matter is relevant. In this case, I am
wondering why people are concocting a highly speculative theory based on a
distantly related unpublished comment, when the published materials give what
seems to me as a far superior explanation.
Also, it seemed clear from the FAQ that HOME has nothing directly to say on the
question in answer to my objection. If I am wrong, I will happily look it up.
>But this might be enough for now:
>
>http://tolkien.slimy.com/
>
>http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
I have already referred to these. Unless I have missed something, they do not
answer my objection. That is why I posted here to ask if I had missed
anything. You are going to have to be more specific.
- John Whelan.
Nystulc
>Nystulc wrote:
>
>> Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where
>Sauron's
>> "extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of
>Middle
>> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
>> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by
>these
>> same artifacts. The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
>> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which
>Sauron
>> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
>> kingdoms, even their souls.
>
>Tolkien on several occasions makes reference to the right nature of
>beings (human, elf, ainu) and the relative ranks fo the Ainur. I
>sometimes think of this Ainur ranking as analoguous to a bank account -
>a lesser ainu could be equivalent to an account with 100 euros in it,
>and a greater one an account with 10.000 in it. Now Sauron's "balance"
>would depend on whether or not he had the Ring, the Ring containing,
>say, 5000 euros.
Such an analogy may be appropriate in certain narrow contexts, but it has its
limitations as a system for measuring power. You seem to be working with a
quasi-mystical definition of "power" as something completely separate from, and
only indirectly relevant to, his goal of world conquest.
Would you say that George Bush's "power" was enhanced when he was elected
president? If not, why not? And who is more powerful, George Bush or Mike
Tyson? Who has more "Euros"?
Seems to me that Sauron's goal is not to become the bi-centennial maian boxing
champion, but rather to conquer Middle Earth and coerce its inhabitants to his
will. To say that something enhances his power, in this context, is to suggest
that it increases his power to achieve that particular goal. That is a highly
common and familiar use of the word "power" and is completely consistent with
what we know about the actual workings and consequences of his Rings scheme.
>What you're suggesting is that Sauron could add to his native stature
>from having the Elves under his control, which isn't IMO necessarily
>possible.
I am suggesting no such thing! Why are we discussing "native" stature? How
could ANYTHING increase Sauron's "native" stature. Apparently you have in mind
the idea that it somehow increased the size of some kind of spiritual
"muscles". Maybe it did, but you have as yet offered nothing in defense of
that assumption. And even if it did, and a mystical explanation is required,
the idea that he somehow stole it from the Elves, by appropriating the creative
energy invested in the Rings of Power would seem to me to be as good an
explanation as any.
> The Elves don't possess even one "euro" of the stuff that
>Sauron is made of and so their "power" couldn't be added to Sauron's
>balance.
I don't know what "stuff" you are talking about, but the "stuff" I am talking
about is POWER, specifically, Geo-Political Power and Military Power. The
Elves and Men definitely have plenty of THAT. Even after Sauron stole a
significant portion of it by means of his Ring-making plot, the Elves and Men,
in alliance, still had sufficient power to withstand and defeat Sauron. Not
only had they plenty of "Euros" to begin with, but they still had plenty left
after Sauron stole a goodly portion.
If you have a good reason for assuming another very specific sort of power is
involved, you have yet to indicate to me what it is.
>Only Eru can change the nature of beings.
This proves too much, since there is no question that Sauron DID enhance his
power. Obviously, he did so in a manner that is not in any way relevent to the
above statement.
>Morgoth, however, had
>huge reserves of the "Ainu essence" that he poured into the very
>elements of Arda.
I understand the concept, but question that it has any relevance to the
mechanism by which the forging of the One Ring led to an enhancement in
Sauron's power.
>This is the same currency that Sauron's made of and
>what exists in the Ring, and the logic behind the idea that Sauron can
>tap into this power with the Ring.
If this is the "logic" behind it, why was it necessary to involve the Elves at
all? Why is the book called "Lord of the Rings" and not "Lord of the Ring".
Why not just forge his ring in secret, and tap into the Morgoth Element all on
his lonesome, and then proceed to conquer the world?
>The "Morgoth Element" is said to be particularly strong in gold, which
>what the Ring is made of. In historic times when gold was the ultimate
>store of wealth, people used to say it was an evil substance since it
>spawned greed in people. Cute.
Cute indeed. But still no reason to believe that the "Morgoth Element" played
any significant role as a source of enhanced power.
- John Whelan
AC
> Greetings
>
> I have noticed a theory floating around here which states that the "extra"
> power that Sauron gains from manufacturing and wearing the One Ring derives
> from his tapping into something called the "Morgoth Element". Best as I can
> gather, the "Morgoth Element" is a concept mentioned in some of Tolkien's
> posthumously published notes NOT specifically in connection with the One Ring,
> which essentially signifies the notion that Evil has become infused in the very
> matter of creation as a result of Morgoth's primal rebellion.
Well, Melkor/Morgoth did place a great part of his power into Arda (thus
Arda Marred), rendering him a shadow of his former power and majesty. In
effect, Arda was "Morgoth's Ring". As to whether Sauron utilized this
element, which was (as I recall) more present in certain substances (such as
gold) than in others, I don't think anybody could say with any certitude.
>
> What I don't understand is why anyone thinks such a theory is necessary.
I for one don't think it is necessary.
>
> Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where Sauron's
> "extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of Middle
> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by these
> same artifacts.
Could you please cite the passage in the published works where Sauron's
greater powers are "stolen". The Ring allowed him to dominate the wielders
of the other Rings of Power, and apparently to also dominate lesser minds
(as I am firmly convinced he did with Ar-Pharazon). Nowhere do I recall a
statement where he could draw power from the other ringwielders. Domination
is one thing, and I suppose that means he could indirectly utilize their
power, but I don't know if that's what you mean.
>The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which Sauron
> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
> kingdoms, even their souls.
He never did anything of the kind to Elves, nor to Dwarves. Only Men,
mortal and weaker, ultimately were enslaved to Sauron. But again, I recall
no passage that says the power was drawn from Elves or Men. If you don't
like the notion of the Ring utilizing something of Arda, then I can hardly
see how inventing a solution which is not in any of the texts is any better.
I think it very likely that at least some of the Ring's powers could
possibly been the result of Arda Marred.
>
> What am I missing here?
A citation that at least shows that you have a case.
--
Aaron Clausen
Gunnar Krüger
news:20030602113948...@mb-m01.news.cs.com verlauten:
> Jussi Jaatinsen wrote:
>
>> Nystulc wrote:
>>
>>> Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear
>>> where Sauron's "extra power" came from - he stole it from the
>>> various Free Peoples of Middle Earth, especially the Elves who were
>>> tricked into manufacturing powerful artifacts for Sauron's control,
>>> and the mortal kings later enslaved by these
>>> same artifacts. The extra power, in short, comes from men and
>>> elves who invested their own powers into creating and wielding
>>> those rings which Sauron did not create himself. He appropriated
>>> their craft, their secrets, their kingdoms, even their souls.
>>
>> Tolkien on several occasions makes reference to the right nature of
>> beings (human, elf, ainu) and the relative ranks fo the Ainur. I
>> sometimes think of this Ainur ranking as analoguous to a bank
>> account - a lesser ainu could be equivalent to an account with 100
>> euros in it, and a greater one an account with 10.000 in it. Now
>> Sauron's "balance" would depend on whether or not he had the Ring,
>> the Ring containing, say, 5000 euros.
>
> Such an analogy may be appropriate in certain narrow contexts, but it
> has its limitations as a system for measuring power. You seem to be
> working with a quasi-mystical definition of "power" as something
> completely separate from, and only indirectly relevant to, his goal
> of world conquest.
If I understand him correctly, Jussi is talking about the only kind of
power, that is relevant when talking about the nature of the ring.
Your confusion to me seems to be caused by an unclear definition of the
word 'power'.
Sauron wielded a lot of power, but on two different levels. One, the more
obvious to us mere mortals, used to the politics of todays world, is wordly
power. Armies, Wealth, enthralled slaves, fighters of all sorts of pedigree
to do his bidding, Ringwraiths to scare his enemies, etc. With this power
he fought the 'conventional' part of his wars. But the ability to amass
this sort of power and to control it was due to his measure of
'otherwordly' power.
Sauron is (not was, he is bound to Arda till the end) a Maiar, an angelic
spirit, the lesser caste of the Ainu. As for the power of an Ainur, we know
that some have more and some less. What form or shape it has, of how it can
be measured, I don't know, please ask a priest of your religion to explain
measurement of heavenly might to you (and if it's understandable, send me a
note). Jussi used an analogy, that I at least can work with. Another might
be physical strength of mortals (as in your Tyson-Bush remark), although I
think strength of will, charisma and resolve are better similes (and which
of the two would win that one, Dubbya or Mike??).
The ring, to get back to that question, taps into the power reserve of the
second kind, the 'spiritual power' that Morgoth inserted into Arda. Sauron
already has a lot of this power, although very much of it is bound in the
ring. While wearing it however, he can by some device use some of the power
of Morgoth that flows in Arda and add it to his own. In this way is his
power as a Maiar enhanched.
That an enhanchement of his Maiar powers enanbles him to even better
accumulate wordly power is of course a nice effect (and not entirely
accidental).
>> What you're suggesting is that Sauron could add to his native stature
>> from having the Elves under his control, which isn't IMO necessarily
>> possible.
>
> I am suggesting no such thing! Why are we discussing "native"
> stature? How could ANYTHING increase Sauron's "native" stature.
Tapping into the power Morgoth dissipated into Arda could.
> And even if it
> did, and a mystical explanation is required, the idea that he somehow
> stole it from the Elves, by appropriating the creative energy
> invested in the Rings of Power would seem to me to be as good an
> explanation as any.
>
>> The Elves don't possess even one "euro" of the stuff that
>> Sauron is made of and so their "power" couldn't be added to Sauron's
>> balance.
I think Jussi answered you even in the post you replied to, pretty good
foresight on his part, I'd say ;)
> I don't know what "stuff" you are talking about, but the "stuff" I am
> talking about is POWER, specifically, Geo-Political Power and
> Military Power. The Elves and Men definitely have plenty of THAT.
For the confusion of powers, see above.
> Even after Sauron stole a significant portion of it by means of his
> Ring-making plot, the Elves and Men, in alliance, still had
> sufficient power to withstand and defeat Sauron. Not only had they
> plenty of "Euros" to begin with, but they still had plenty left after
> Sauron stole a goodly portion.
Sauron could not steal 'Maia essence' from either elves or men, because
they had none to start with.
And their wordly power he did not steal, he conquered them when they were
still divided.
> If you have a good reason for assuming another very specific sort of
> power is involved, you have yet to indicate to me what it is.
Beings older than the World that is have powers other than us mortals are
used to...
>> This is the same currency that Sauron's made of and
>> what exists in the Ring, and the logic behind the idea that Sauron
>> can tap into this power with the Ring.
>
> If this is the "logic" behind it, why was it necessary to involve the
> Elves at all? Why is the book called "Lord of the Rings" and not
> "Lord of the Ring". Why not just forge his ring in secret, and tap
> into the Morgoth Element all on his lonesome, and then proceed to
> conquer the world?
Because reading the minds of your enemies and being able to influence their
thoughts is quite helpful when you want to dominate them? Sauron IMHO not
really wanted to slay all men and elves, if he had been able to make them
his slaves via the ring plot, it would have pleased him a lot more.
Gunnar
--
A Short Guide to Comparative Religions:
5. Judaism - Why does this shit always happen to us?
The American
"Gunnar Krüger" <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bbg3mt$92jdi$1...@ID-48925.news.dfncis.de...
> > Elves at all? Why is the book called "Lord of the Rings" and not
> > "Lord of the Ring". Why not just forge his ring in secret, and tap
> > into the Morgoth Element all on his lonesome, and then proceed to
> > conquer the world?
>
> Because reading the minds of your enemies and being able to influence
their
> thoughts is quite helpful when you want to dominate them? Sauron IMHO not
> really wanted to slay all men and elves, if he had been able to make them
> his slaves via the ring plot, it would have pleased him a lot more.
>
I really think that some people are underestimating how badly Sauron wanted
those Three Rings.
As a being bound up into the world for the end of time he desperately wanted
those Rings for himself, IMHO.
They could heal and support him.
One could even effect time itself!
They were so powerful that Sauron, the most powerful remaining creature in
ME, had to put most of his own power into a talisman(The Ring) just to
control them.
T.A.
ste...@nomail.com
: I really think that some people are underestimating how badly Sauron wanted
: those Three Rings.
: As a being bound up into the world for the end of time he desperately wanted
: those Rings for himself, IMHO.
: They could heal and support him.
: One could even effect time itself!
I believe all three of the Elven Rings had the same effect on
time. Of course Tolkien implies in some places that all the Great
Rings had the power of warding off the decays of time, and in
other places implies that this is a special property of
the three Elvish Rings.
Stephen
Nystulc
I really don't think I am confused about the subject of power at all. My only
confusion is as to why persons on this NG find it necessary to concoct a
strange theory loosely derived from a concept that Tolkien in his wisdom chose
never to put in print.
>Sauron wielded a lot of power, but on two different levels.
Only two?
>One, the more
>obvious to us mere mortals, used to the politics of todays world, is wordly
>power. Armies, Wealth, enthralled slaves, fighters of all sorts of pedigree
>to do his bidding, Ringwraiths to scare his enemies, etc. With this power
>he fought the 'conventional' part of his wars. But the ability to amass
>this sort of power and to control it was due to his measure of
>'otherwordly' power.
We are not discussing whether some portion or aspect of Sauron's power was
"otherworldly" in origin or nature. Clearly it was. We are discussing whether
or not it is necessary to regard the *enhancement* of Sauron's power as
something siezed from Elves and Men as the published narrative so strongly
suggests.
>Sauron is (not was, he is bound to Arda till the end) a Maiar, an angelic
>spirit, the lesser caste of the Ainu.
Yes, I know.
>As for the power of an Ainur, we know
>that some have more and some less.
Yes, I know.
>What form or shape it has, of how it can
>be measured, I don't know, please ask a priest of your religion to explain
>measurement of heavenly might to you (and if it's understandable, send me a
note).
Before I do this, someone still needs to explain to me why the answer will be
relevant to this discussion. Why is it necessary to regard the *enhancement*
of Sauron's power (derived from the forging of the One Ring) as of angelic
origin? Why is it necessary to assume that this extra power must ultimately be
derived from a fellow Ainu rather than from other entities with a measure of
native power which Sauron was able to appropriate and divert to his own ends.
>Jussi used an analogy, that I at least can work with. Another might
>be physical strength of mortals (as in your Tyson-Bush remark), although I
>think strength of will, charisma and resolve are better similes (and which
>of the two would win that one, Dubbya or Mike??).
>
>The ring, to get back to that question, taps into the power reserve of the
>second kind, the 'spiritual power' that Morgoth inserted intoArda.
> Sauron
>already has a lot of this power, although very much of it is bound in the
>ring. While wearing it however, he can by some device use some of the power
>of Morgoth that flows in Arda and add it to his own. In this way is his
>power as a Maiar enhanched.
This merely repeats the theory I'm objecting to. I'm still waiting for someone
to back it up.
>That an enhanchement of his Maiar powers enanbles him to even better
>accumulate wordly power is of course a nice effect (and not entirely
>accidental).
Yes. I find it perfectly plausible to suppose that *if* Sauron were to somehow
gain an extra measure of otherwordly angelic power then this could easily have
the nice side effect of improving his ability to conquer the world (as well as
making him a better ballerina). But why do you assume that this is in fact
what occurred?
>>> What you're suggesting is that Sauron could add to his native stature
>>> from having the Elves under his control, which isn't IMO necessarily
>>> possible.
>>
>> I am suggesting no such thing! Why are we discussing "native"
>> stature? How could ANYTHING increase Sauron's "native" stature.
>
>Tapping into the power Morgoth dissipated into Arda could.
I believe it is time for you to look up "native" in the dictionary.
>> And even if it
>> did, and a mystical explanation is required, the idea that he somehow
>> stole it from the Elves, by appropriating the creative energy
>> invested in the Rings of Power would seem to me to be as good an
>> explanation as any.
>>
>>> The Elves don't possess even one "euro" of the stuff that
>>> Sauron is made of and so their "power" couldn't be added to Sauron's
>>> balance.
>
>I think Jussi answered you even in the post you replied to, pretty good
>foresight on his part, I'd say ;)
This is absurd. I already andwered Jussi's point. What is your objection?
Sauron tricked his the Elves into manufacturing artifacts of great power, which
he then appropriated for his own use. Why does it not make sense to you that
this might enhance his power? How can you object that it cannot have enhanced
his power because he and the elves are made of different "stuff"??? This
sounds to me like a total non-sequitur. You might as well argue that he cannot
conquer Middle Earth because he has only nine fingers.
>> I don't know what "stuff" you are talking about, but the "stuff" I am
>> talking about is POWER, specifically, Geo-Political Power and
>> Military Power. The Elves and Men definitely have plenty of THAT.
>
>For the confusion of powers, see above.
I don't see any confusion on my part about different types of power. I
recognize that there are all sorts and kinds of power (not just two). I am
waiting for you to back up your claim that the *extra* power Sauron gained from
the one ring was the highly specific variety you claim it is, such that it
cannot have possibly been siezed by deception from the Elves and other Free
Peoples.
>> Even after Sauron stole a significant portion of it by means of his
>> Ring-making plot, the Elves and Men, in alliance, still had
>> sufficient power to withstand and defeat Sauron. Not only had they
>> plenty of "Euros" to begin with, but they still had plenty left after
>> Sauron stole a goodly portion.
>
>Sauron could not steal 'Maia essence' from either elves or men, because
>they had none to start with.
Sure. But why is this relevant? Only because you assume (without backing it
up) that the *extra* power Sauron gained had the origin you claim it has. Stop
arguing in circles. Demonstrate first that what Sauron gained was extra "Maia
essence".
>And their wordly power he did not steal, he conquered them when they were
>still divided.
So you are saying, in tricking the Elves into making 19 "Rings of Power" for
him, his power was in no way enhanced?
>> If you have a good reason for assuming another very specific sort of
>> power is involved, you have yet to indicate to me what it is.
>
>Beings older than the World that is have powers other than us mortals are
>used to...
Sure they do. So what?
>>> This is the same currency that Sauron's made of and
>>> what exists in the Ring, and the logic behind the idea that Sauron
>>> can tap into this power with the Ring.
>>
>> If this is the "logic" behind it, why was it necessary to involve the
>> Elves at all? Why is the book called "Lord of the Rings" and not
>> "Lord of the Ring". Why not just forge his ring in secret, and tap
>> into the Morgoth Element all on his lonesome, and then proceed to
>> conquer the world?
>
>Because reading the minds of your enemies and being able to influence their
>thoughts is quite helpful when you want to dominate them?
Of course it is. Reading the minds of your enemies and having access to their
thoughts is a form of POWER. It enhances *your* power because it allows you to
appropriate *their* power. It gives you access to their knowledge. It gives
you access to their skills. It gives you access to their creative energies,
which you may then appropriate for your own use.
This is precisely the sort of power that Sauron sought, the power to dominate
others and turn them into his tools. In other words, he sought to enhance his
own power, by making Men and Elves his slaves and adding their inherent
(non-angelic) power to his own.
>Sauron IMHO not
>really wanted to slay all men and elves, if he had been able to make them
>his slaves via the ring plot, it would have pleased him a lot more.
Not only would it please him, but it would enhance his power. The enslavement
of the Ringwraiths in particular enhanced Sauron's power, for he gained nine
terrible servants under his control.
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
verlauten:
> I really think that some people are underestimating how badly Sauron
> wanted those Three Rings.
> As a being bound up into the world for the end of time he desperately
> wanted those Rings for himself, IMHO.
> They could heal and support him.
> One could even effect time itself!
Good point!
How was that quote about mortality: 'the gift of Ilúvatar, which as Time
wears even the Powers shall envy'?
Gunnar
--
Commendation, n. - The tribute that we pay to achievements that resemble,
but do not equal, our own.
[Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary]
Nystulc
>> What I don't understand is why anyone thinks such a theory is necessary.
>
>I for one don't think it is necessary.
In that case, I am confused as to what precisely you are disagreeing about
below.
>> Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where
>Sauron's
>> "extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of
>Middle
>> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
>> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by
>these
>> same artifacts.
>
>Could you please cite the passage in the published works where Sauron's
>greater powers are "stolen". The Ring allowed him to dominate the wielders
>of the other Rings of Power, and apparently to also dominate lesser minds
>(as I am firmly convinced he did with Ar-Pharazon).
I'm not sure what you are objecting to. Apparently you are quibbling over my
use of the word "stolen". Would you prefer I say "appropriated by deception"?
I also wonder if you have a narrow conception of the word "power". Sauron
tricked and decieved the Elves into manufacturing 19 "Rings of POWER," 16 of
which he was then able to appropriate for his own use. Surely it is no great
stretch to suggest that, by gaining control of 16 "Rings of POWER" that he
himself did not create, his POWER was enhanced at the expense of the Elves who
created these "Rings of POWER" for their own use.
He then gave 9 of these Rings of POWER (robbed from the Elves, not created of
his own energies) to 9 great mortal kings, and thereby enslaved nine whole
nations. These mortal kings used the Power of the Rings (powers placed in them
by the Elves, not by Sauron) to become more powerful rulers. Sauron, in turn,
used the power of the Ruling Ring to rule the rulers themselves.
>Nowhere do I recall a
>statement where he could draw power from the other ringwielders.
"Draw power"? I am trying to envisage the concept you are trying to
communicate here. You mean like a vampire? Like an invisible power cord
attached to the ring-wielders so that there energies were siphoned off to
Sauron so that they bench press less, and he bench presses more?
No. That's not what I had in mind.
Sauron's scheme has resulted in the Elves creating Artifacts which tend to
place those who wield them in positions of power within their communities. It
also gives Sauron a direct line to the minds of the persons wielding such
power. Even without the enhanced "Power of Command" that comes from being able
to access all the Rings at once, Sauron is a powerful personality, capable of
dominating most minds he comes in direct contact with. The geopolitical
implications of this should be obvious.
Even if he cannot dominate the minds the ring-wielders, he has access to their
thoughts, and knows all that they do, or have done, with their rings.
Information is an EXTREMELY valuable form of power. Or did you not know that?
And surely you are aware of the military value of instant communication.
>Domination
>is one thing, and I suppose that means he could indirectly utilize their
>power, but I don't know if that's what you mean.
Of course that's part of what I mean. Why would you imagine otherwise, unless
you have a wierd and absurdly narrow definition of the word "power." Do you
think that "power" is some specific brand-name of mystical gasoline?
Domination other minds was precisely the sort of power Sauron was most
interested in, and precisely what he most intended to achieve via his Ring
Scheme.
You have essentially put yourself in the position of saying "Sure it helps him
conquer the world, but that does not make him more powerful."
Sauron's enhanced "power" (should he sieze the One Ring) is relevant to the
plot of LOTR only to the extent that it alters the geo-political situation and
renders his prospects of complete conquest a certainty. Nobody cares how much
he can bench-press.
>>The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
>> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which
>Sauron
>> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
>> kingdoms, even their souls.
>
>He never did anything of the kind to Elves,
I was referring to Elves and Men together. Regarding Elves individually, he
mainly appropriated their craft, their secrets, and to some extent the kingdoms
they had sought to protect with their craft and their secrets. But I'm sure
you understood me. I don't know why you choose to pretend otherwise.
>nor to Dwarves.
I never mentioned dwarves, though I imagine he may have been able to access a
few of their secrets.
>Only Men,
>mortal and weaker, ultimately were enslaved to Sauron.
For these he accessed their secrets, their kingdoms, and enslaved their souls
as well. But again, I'm sure you understood my meaning.
>But again, I recall
>no passage that says the power was drawn from Elves or Men.
Umm. Do I have to find a passage that contains those precise words? Or is it
enough if I find a passage (or two) that indicates that Sauron used the Ruling
Ring to gain control of artifacts of power made by Elves, which he in turn used
to enslave kingdoms ruled by Men?
>If you don't
>like the notion of the Ring utilizing something of Arda,
I have nothing in particular against it except for the obvious fact that it is
something Tolkien chose not to incorporate into his later, published writings,
and never mentioned it at all in the context in question here.
>then I can hardly
>see how inventing a solution which is not in any of the texts is any >better.
My solution is (at the very least) derived on the information provided in the
published texts. That puts it several steps ahead of a theory far more loosely
based on some early notes that Tolkien chose not to put in print..
But I think it is more accurate to say my solution is directly from the novels
in terms of its broad outline, though I have of course paraphrased in my own
words, and insterted some interpretation with respect to details.
>I think it very likely that at least some of the Ring's powers could
>possibly been the result of Arda Marred.
Perhaps, but that modest position is not the position I was disagreeing with.
Perhaps the powers of an A-bomb have something to do with Arda Marred as well.
>> What am I missing here?
>
>A citation that at least shows that you have a case.
<Sigh> Must I really dig up quotes for this? I find it hard to imagine that
an person who had actually read and understood Tolkien's works would make such
a demand. The problem evidently involves basic conceptions and interpretations
of language. I predict it won't satisfy you, because you will quibble that
Tolkien's words are not exactly the same as what I used, and because what I
produce won't quite match this narrow notion of siphoning mystical gasoline
that you evidently have in your head.
But whatever. I shall get to work on it right away.
- John Whelan
Dave Empey
news:20030602184315...@mb-m28.news.cs.com:
>
> But whatever. I shall get to work on it right away.
>
> - John Whelan
>
In case you're feeling beleagured, let me say your position
seems quite sensible to me. For whatever that's worth.
--
Dave Empey
Gunnar Krüger
news:20030602184315...@mb-m28.news.cs.com verlauten:
[Snip - perfectly sensible explanation of his point]
>>> What am I missing here?
*g* This explanation should have been in your first post.
I think the strong resentment you got here is based on the fact that when
you wrote 'extra power', a lot of people (like myself) automatically think
'Ainu Essence => Morgoth Element' and in that context the idea of stealing
this sort of power from elves and men is, as you will certainly agree,
ridiculous.
With what you posted now, it seems clear to me, that this was not what you
ment at all, so we were really talking about different sorts of power.
So yes, you are right, in the way you discribed here, Sauron 'stole' power
from the ringbearers and -makers. Wordly power.
There remains however the additional ability of The One Ring (as of all
Great Rings) to enhance the natural powers and abilities of it's wielder.
So, when wearing The Ring, Sauron gains 'extra power' also, and this power
does not come from elves or men, but from the Morgoth Element. And that is
the sort of 'extra power' we were referring to (I for my part at least).
Hope that settles this...
Gunnar
--
Apologize, v.i. - To lay the foundation for a future offense.
Stan Brown
>I
>sometimes think of this Ainur ranking as analoguous to a bank account -
>a lesser ainu could be equivalent to an account with 100 euros in it,
>and a greater one an account with 10.000 in it
But different Ainur have different gifts or abilities -- different
in kind, not just different in degree. Does it make sense even to
ask whether Arien's account had more or fewer euro than Sauron's, or
Saruman's?
It's like asking which is more beautiful, a painting or a symphony.
You can't compare them on a single scale because they're on
different scales and there is no clear "conversion factor"/
--
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
Morgil
"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20030602184315...@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
> Aaron Clausen wrote:
>
> >> What I don't understand is why anyone thinks such a theory is
necessary.
> >
> >I for one don't think it is necessary.
>
> In that case, I am confused as to what precisely you are disagreeing about
> below.
You suggested that Sauron's *personal* level of Power
increased (that the potency of his spirit increased)
with the Power he drained from Elven rings and their
users. This is incorrect and AC disagreed with it.
But if you meant to say that Sauron by acquiring the
Rings, became stronger by having their power in his
control, you would be correct. Analogy: A good
lever gives you power to move heavy objects, but
does not make you physically any stronger. :-)
Morgil
Jussi Jaatinen
Nystulc wrote:
> >Tolkien on several occasions makes reference to the right nature of
> >beings (human, elf, ainu) and the relative ranks fo the Ainur. I
> >sometimes think of this Ainur ranking as analoguous to a bank account -
> Such an analogy may be appropriate in certain narrow contexts, but it has its
> limitations as a system for measuring power. You seem to be working with a
> quasi-mystical definition of "power" as something completely separate from, and
> only indirectly relevant to, his goal of world conquest.
In this context, yes. It pretty much goes without saying that Sauron
also had the sort of power Denethor had.
> Would you say that George Bush's "power" was enhanced when he was elected
> president? If not, why not? And who is more powerful, George Bush or Mike
> Tyson? Who has more "Euros"?
In terms of the "angelic power" Bush had zero before his "election" and
zero after since no human or elf can have any of that and remain a human
or elf.
> Seems to me that Sauron's goal is not to become the bi-centennial maian boxing
> champion, but rather to conquer Middle Earth and coerce its inhabitants to his
> will. To say that something enhances his power, in this context, is to suggest
> that it increases his power to achieve that particular goal.
You can't use the word "power" twice like that in a definition. You
could say that his "power" is related to his ability to achieve that
goal, and I certainly agree that. Certainly, in this regard the Ring
increased his power, since it allowed him to control his most "powerful"
(in this definition) opponents.
It is less contestable that the Ring increased Sauron's "power" in the
mundane meaning of the word than in the angelic meaning of the word.
However, there exist circumstantial evidence that the Ring increased
Sauron's "power" also in the angelic sense.
It might be possible to ask, where did the power of the Rings other than
One Ring come from? Certainly not from collecting taxes and social
security, since otherwise we could produce Rings of Power in the real
world. As the Rings were evil (even the Three were ultimately evil,
since their purpose was to defy the rightful order of things) a natural
candidate is the Morgoth Element/Morgoth, which are one and the same and
the source of all corruption and evil in Arda.
You might argue that the Morgoth Element isn't mentioned in the
published works, which is true. In that case you can stick to the
mundane "power" aspect of the Ring and just take them as "magical
tokens". However, apparently the good professor was engaged with the
idea of Morgoth during his later years, so we can glean some interesting
insight into the workings of the Rings from his later writings if we
choose to read them.
However, even LotR does mention that Sauron invested a large portion of
his innate (angelic) power into the Ring, so you can't escape involving
that aspect entirely even if you only look at the published works.
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> If this is the "logic" behind it, why was it necessary to involve the Elves at
> all? Why is the book called "Lord of the Rings" and not "Lord of the Ring".
> Why not just forge his ring in secret, and tap into the Morgoth Element all on
> his lonesome, and then proceed to conquer the world?
Question. If the 'extra power' Sauron received when wearing the One
came from the Elves... where did the 'extra power' the ELVES received
when wearing Great Rings come from?
Conrad Dunkerson
> Well, Melkor/Morgoth did place a great part of his power into Arda (thus
> Arda Marred), rendering him a shadow of his former power and majesty. In
> effect, Arda was "Morgoth's Ring".
Right, the concept existed for a long time and was spread throughout
the mythology. It was only the term 'Morgoth element' that was
introduced later.
> As to whether Sauron utilized this element, which was (as I recall) more
> present in certain substances (such as gold) than in others, I don't think
> anybody could say with any certitude.
Well....
"Sauron's power was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a
particular form or shape made of a particular portion of total gold.
Morgoth's power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute
(for he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was this
Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such
'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.)"
MR, Myths Transformed VII.ii
This states directly that the 'Morgoth element' was a prerequisite for
the 'magic' Sauron worked with and upon matter... and strongly implies
that the Ring ('a particular form or shape made of a particular
portion of total gold') specifically relied upon it.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I really don't think I am confused about the subject of power at all. My only
> confusion is as to why persons on this NG find it necessary to concoct a
> strange theory loosely derived from a concept that Tolkien in his wisdom chose
> never to put in print.
See the quotation in my other post in this thread. Tolkien DID put
the idea into print. He said that the 'Morgoth element' was a
prerequisite for the 'magic' Sauron worked with matter. That, in some
sense, certainly indicates that Sauron derived 'extra power' from the
Morgoth element. Whether this was the same or sole 'extra power' as
he gained while wearing the Ring is debatable, but that Tolkien wrote
it is not (unless we are questioning Christopher's veracity).
> Of course it is. Reading the minds of your enemies and having access to their
> thoughts is a form of POWER. It enhances *your* power because it allows you
> to appropriate *their* power. It gives you access to their knowledge. It
> gives you access to their skills. It gives you access to their creative
> energies, which you may then appropriate for your own use.
Based on Tolkien's statements in Letters I believe the intent was that
Sauron gained the sort of 'manipulative' power described above AND an
increase in his 'personal' power from the Ring.
DR
Sauron imbued the ring with the majority of *his own* power. Then, with the
help of the ring, he was able to rapidly rejuvenate himself. So in essence,
Sauron at full power with the ring is twice as powerful as Sauron at full
power without the ring. IIRC there are several cases of Ainu weakened and
disembodied, who rebuild their strength over time. I think Sauron basically
did this, after he forged the ring, and due to the fact that he had the ring
to draw power from, he was able to rebuild his strength quickly.
How do the Ainu rebuild their strength? Who knows, but it's not unreasonable
that they draw that strength from "the essence of Arda", of which, Melkor
was a part. If that's the case, it's not unreasonable to assume Sauron
would draw his power wholely from the Melkorian power. I don't buy the
whole conduit idea, though.
As far as the other rings: Well, he controlled the power of the nine, but
did not actually use that power directly. I would assume that would hold
true for the seven and the three as well. I think the other rings were
intended to give Sauron power over their owners, who would then use the
rings' powers to do his bidding.
DR
Nystulc
>In case you're feeling beleagured, let me say your position
>seems quite sensible to me. For whatever that's worth.
Thanks.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>You suggested that Sauron's *personal* level of Power
>increased (that the potency of his spirit increased)
>with the Power he drained from Elven rings and their
>users.
I never suggested any such thing. Where are you getting this from? And what
do you mean by "personal" level of power? His "personal" power (as opposed to
Power derived from the domination of others - which was the Ring's primary
purpose) *might* have increased in some fashion (maybe), just as Gandalf's
personal level of power increases when he has Glamdring, a personal weapon.
But nowhere do Tolkien's writings indicate that this occurred. Nor need that
imply an angelic power source. Gandalf's strength may improve after Bilbo
feeds him a ham sandwich after a long trip, but that need not imply that pigs
are infused with an unusually high concentration of the Morgoth Element.
>This is incorrect and AC disagreed with it.
I'm not sure what AC's position is, and would rather let him speak for himself.
>But if you meant to say that Sauron by acquiring the
>Rings, became stronger by having their power in his
>control, you would be correct.
I am saying that, and of course, I am correct. As far as I can tell, no
mystery remains that requires any special theory, since there is no evidence
that Sauron's power increased in any special fashion that cannot be explained
by his gaining control of 19 powerful magical artifacts that he did not himself
create.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>Question. If the 'extra power' Sauron received when wearing the One
>came from the Elves... where did the 'extra power' the ELVES received
>when wearing Great Rings come from?
You are asking a question that does not necessarily have a ready answer,
because Tolkien does not provide us with enough information regarding the
"technology" that creates powerful magic rings. I hope you are not implying
that therefore the answer must involve the Morgoth Element in some special
sense?
Those Elves who wielded the Rings of course became more powerful as a result.
It is not clear, however, that the Elven community as a whole experienced a net
gain of "power". The Elven smiths who forged these rings of course made an
enormous investment in them in terms of creative energy (a form of "power" if
you will) and the artifacts were the result.
As with any project, the Elves (as a community) hoped to gain by this project.
The benefits were expected to outweigh the costs, according to their value
system at the time. I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing as saying that
they expected (as a community, not as individuals) to become more "powerful"
but it may be that they did. Most likely, they wanted power in a defensive
sense, to protect their realms militarily and against the ravages of time and
the outside changing world. These defensive goals likely involved sacrifices
in other areas of their lives.
I think that it should be obvious that, just because a community hopes to
benefit from the objects it manufactures (including intended power-related
benefits, as when weapons are crafted for soldiers and police), is not a
situation that requires a special theory about "tapping the Morgoth element" to
explain it.
While we do not know if the Elves (as a whole) got some kind of "net power
gain", it is easy to see why Sauron got a "net power gain". The elves invested
their power to create the objects, and Sauron reaped the power-benefits by
appropriating the objects. Obviously, this works well for Sauron, regardless
of whether the power-cost-to-power-benefit analysis would have worked out well
from the Elves' POV. Even the three rings the Elves managed to retain become
useless to them, for they were unable to use them to resist Sauron..
We know from the Silmarillion that, among the Elves, high creative acts often
involve a significant (and permanent) spiritual investment. Feanor's Mother
invested so much creative energy in Feanor's birth that she lost the will to
live. Feanor therefore had such creative drive that he was able to create the
Silmarils - but it was a one-time achievement that he would never be able to
repeat. The Noldor Smiths who created the 19 Great Rings were, Tolkien says,
the Greatest Smiths ever, only matched by Feanor. To create the Rings likely
involved an investment of creative power that they could not later recover.
It is easy to imagine projects, though, that have some net "power" gain. When
I chop wood to build a fire, it is likely that I get more energy back, (a sort
of "power"), than I invested. In this case, the extra power comes from the
consumption of a natural resource. No need to assume any particular
involvement of the Morgoth Element. Of course, if the fire treacherously gets
out of control and burns down one's house, one might be inclined to blame
Morgoth. Satan generally gets the blame when bad things happen.
The Morgoth Element is, almost by definition, involved in everything, of
course. But that makes pat observations to this effect are virtually useless
to the understanding of specific situations. I assume that Glamdring, like all
material things, contains the Morgoth Element, but surely that hardly explains
why Gandalf is more powerful wielding Glamdring than while fighting with a
rusty dagger.
- John Whelan
AC
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>
>>Question. If the 'extra power' Sauron received when wearing the One
>>came from the Elves... where did the 'extra power' the ELVES received
>>when wearing Great Rings come from?
>
> You are asking a question that does not necessarily have a ready answer,
> because Tolkien does not provide us with enough information regarding the
> "technology" that creates powerful magic rings. I hope you are not implying
> that therefore the answer must involve the Morgoth Element in some special
> sense?
No, he's asking where the Elves got their power for the Rings of Power.
>
> Those Elves who wielded the Rings of course became more powerful as a result.
> It is not clear, however, that the Elven community as a whole experienced a net
> gain of "power". The Elven smiths who forged these rings of course made an
> enormous investment in them in terms of creative energy (a form of "power" if
> you will) and the artifacts were the result.
Who said anything about the Elven community as a whole? Where did the power
come from that is evidently in the Rings of Power?
>
> As with any project, the Elves (as a community) hoped to gain by this project.
> The benefits were expected to outweigh the costs, according to their value
> system at the time. I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing as saying that
> they expected (as a community, not as individuals) to become more "powerful"
> but it may be that they did. Most likely, they wanted power in a defensive
> sense, to protect their realms militarily and against the ravages of time and
> the outside changing world. These defensive goals likely involved sacrifices
> in other areas of their lives.
The Three were not intended, as Elrond stated, to be used in that fashion.
Their purpose was preservation. Where did this preservative power that we
see, particularly in Galadriel's ring, come from?
>
> I think that it should be obvious that, just because a community hopes to
> benefit from the objects it manufactures (including intended power-related
> benefits, as when weapons are crafted for soldiers and police), is not a
> situation that requires a special theory about "tapping the Morgoth element" to
> explain it.
This is just word candy as far as I can see.
>
> While we do not know if the Elves (as a whole) got some kind of "net power
> gain", it is easy to see why Sauron got a "net power gain". The elves invested
> their power to create the objects, and Sauron reaped the power-benefits by
> appropriating the objects. Obviously, this works well for Sauron, regardless
> of whether the power-cost-to-power-benefit analysis would have worked out well
> from the Elves' POV. Even the three rings the Elves managed to retain become
> useless to them, for they were unable to use them to resist Sauron..
But where exactly did the power of the Rings of Power, including the Three,
come from?
>
> We know from the Silmarillion that, among the Elves, high creative acts often
> involve a significant (and permanent) spiritual investment. Feanor's Mother
> invested so much creative energy in Feanor's birth that she lost the will to
> live. Feanor therefore had such creative drive that he was able to create the
> Silmarils - but it was a one-time achievement that he would never be able to
> repeat. The Noldor Smiths who created the 19 Great Rings were, Tolkien says,
> the Greatest Smiths ever, only matched by Feanor. To create the Rings likely
> involved an investment of creative power that they could not later recover.
Are you saying that their creative power was the source of these objects
power? Could you please provide a citation?
>
> It is easy to imagine projects, though, that have some net "power" gain. When
> I chop wood to build a fire, it is likely that I get more energy back, (a sort
> of "power"), than I invested. In this case, the extra power comes from the
> consumption of a natural resource. No need to assume any particular
> involvement of the Morgoth Element. Of course, if the fire treacherously gets
> out of control and burns down one's house, one might be inclined to blame
> Morgoth. Satan generally gets the blame when bad things happen.
That does not answer the question. Where do the Rings of Power get their
power from?
>
> The Morgoth Element is, almost by definition, involved in everything, of
> course. But that makes pat observations to this effect are virtually useless
> to the understanding of specific situations. I assume that Glamdring, like all
> material things, contains the Morgoth Element, but surely that hardly explains
> why Gandalf is more powerful wielding Glamdring than while fighting with a
> rusty dagger.
Again, you mix definitions of the word "power". We are talking about the
innate ability of the Rings of Power. Where does it come from?
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
Then we are talking about power in two different ways. Sauron's
enhancement of his earthly powers through the Ruling Ring did not come
from Elves, unless you can point me to a passage that says otherwise.
>
> He then gave 9 of these Rings of POWER (robbed from the Elves, not created of
> his own energies) to 9 great mortal kings, and thereby enslaved nine whole
> nations. These mortal kings used the Power of the Rings (powers placed in them
> by the Elves, not by Sauron) to become more powerful rulers. Sauron, in turn,
> used the power of the Ruling Ring to rule the rulers themselves.
All the Rings are subject to the One (even the Three), but I fail to
see how this means that Sauron's powers were stolen from Elves and
Men. When I speak of power, I refer to Sauron's innate abilities.
>
> >Nowhere do I recall a
> >statement where he could draw power from the other ringwielders.
> "Draw power"? I am trying to envisage the concept you are trying to
> communicate here. You mean like a vampire? Like an invisible power cord
> attached to the ring-wielders so that there energies were siphoned off to
> Sauron so that they bench press less, and he bench presses more?
>
> No. That's not what I had in mind.
>
> Sauron's scheme has resulted in the Elves creating Artifacts which tend to
> place those who wield them in positions of power within their communities. It
> also gives Sauron a direct line to the minds of the persons wielding such
> power. Even without the enhanced "Power of Command" that comes from being able
> to access all the Rings at once, Sauron is a powerful personality, capable of
> dominating most minds he comes in direct contact with. The geopolitical
> implications of this should be obvious.
I agree thus far.
>
> Even if he cannot dominate the minds the ring-wielders, he has access to their
> thoughts, and knows all that they do, or have done, with their rings.
> Information is an EXTREMELY valuable form of power. Or did you not know that?
> And surely you are aware of the military value of instant communication.
I agree thus far.
>
> >Domination
> >is one thing, and I suppose that means he could indirectly utilize their
> >power, but I don't know if that's what you mean.
>
> Of course that's part of what I mean. Why would you imagine otherwise, unless
> you have a wierd and absurdly narrow definition of the word "power."
I find your tone rather insulting, but I'll bear with it for the
moment. By power, as I explained above, I mean Sauron's innate
ability to manipulate his environment, and not the more nebulous usage
as per military might.
> Do you
> think that "power" is some specific brand-name of mystical gasoline?
> Domination other minds was precisely the sort of power Sauron was most
> interested in, and precisely what he most intended to achieve via his Ring
> Scheme.
And, other than the Nazgul, at which he failed for the most part.
>
> You have essentially put yourself in the position of saying "Sure it helps him
> conquer the world, but that does not make him more powerful."
But he didn't conquer the world. He didn't even do it when he
actually held and directly used the Ruling Ring. He came much closer
when he did not physically hold the Ring, but mainly because his
enemies were a lot weaker than they had been during the Second Age.
>
> Sauron's enhanced "power" (should he sieze the One Ring) is relevant to the
> plot of LOTR only to the extent that it alters the geo-political situation and
> renders his prospects of complete conquest a certainty. Nobody cares how much
> he can bench-press.
Now you're just getting silly.
>
> >>The extra power, in short, comes from men and elves who
> >> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which
> Sauron
> >> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
> >> kingdoms, even their souls.
> >
> >He never did anything of the kind to Elves,
>
> I was referring to Elves and Men together. Regarding Elves individually, he
> mainly appropriated their craft, their secrets, and to some extent the kingdoms
> they had sought to protect with their craft and their secrets. But I'm sure
> you understood me. I don't know why you choose to pretend otherwise.
Then you should specify to what you refer. The statement above
essentially reads that the souls of Elves *and* men were appropriated,
which is not true. Even among Men, only nine were "appropriated".
>
> >nor to Dwarves.
>
> I never mentioned dwarves, though I imagine he may have been able to access a
> few of their secrets.
Perhaps, though this is the realm of pure speculation.
>
> >Only Men,
> >mortal and weaker, ultimately were enslaved to Sauron.
>
> For these he accessed their secrets, their kingdoms, and enslaved their souls
> as well. But again, I'm sure you understood my meaning.
As I said, I did not understand your meaning, for your statement was
overly broad.
>
> >But again, I recall
> >no passage that says the power was drawn from Elves or Men.
>
> Umm. Do I have to find a passage that contains those precise words? Or is it
> enough if I find a passage (or two) that indicates that Sauron used the Ruling
> Ring to gain control of artifacts of power made by Elves, which he in turn used
> to enslave kingdoms ruled by Men?
If you would simply explain what you mean by "power", and then show
how that relates to Tolkien's use of the word "power" in reference to
Sauron and the Rings of Power, then I'm sure we could come to the end
of this misunderstanding. As it is, you seem to mix definitions, and
I confess that I have a hard time comprehending what you mean at any
given moment.
>
> >If you don't
> >like the notion of the Ring utilizing something of Arda,
>
> I have nothing in particular against it except for the obvious fact that it is
> something Tolkien chose not to incorporate into his later, published writings,
> and never mentioned it at all in the context in question here.
What "later published writings" do you refer to? The only writings
published during Tolkien's lifetime were The Hobbit, The Lord of the
Rings, Tom Bombadil, and the Road Goes Ever On. You can even stretch
it to Letters (though I wouldn't). Anything, including all the
material in the published Silmarillion, can hardly be viewed as
canonical, so you are going to have to give me a good reason why the
materials in Morgoth's Ring should be considered lesser than any
material in the published Silmarillion, if that is indeed what you
mean by "later published writings".
>
> >then I can hardly
> >see how inventing a solution which is not in any of the texts is any >better.
>
> My solution is (at the very least) derived on the information provided in the
> published texts. That puts it several steps ahead of a theory far more loosely
> based on some early notes that Tolkien chose not to put in print..
The notes in Morgoth's Ring are, as I recall, later materials, all
post-LotR.
>
> But I think it is more accurate to say my solution is directly from the novels
> in terms of its broad outline, though I have of course paraphrased in my own
> words, and insterted some interpretation with respect to details.
>
> >I think it very likely that at least some of the Ring's powers could
> >possibly been the result of Arda Marred.
>
> Perhaps, but that modest position is not the position I was disagreeing with.
> Perhaps the powers of an A-bomb have something to do with Arda Marred as well.
Another silly comment.
>
> >> What am I missing here?
> >
> >A citation that at least shows that you have a case.
>
> <Sigh> Must I really dig up quotes for this?
Yes, I think you do have to do dig up some actual quotes.
> I find it hard to imagine that
> an person who had actually read and understood Tolkien's works would make such
> a demand.
Treat me like the idiot you clearly think I am and dig up the quotes.
> The problem evidently involves basic conceptions and interpretations
> of language. I predict it won't satisfy you, because you will quibble that
> Tolkien's words are not exactly the same as what I used, and because what I
> produce won't quite match this narrow notion of siphoning mystical gasoline
> that you evidently have in your head.
Dispense with the posturing and provide the quotes.
>
> But whatever. I shall get to work on it right away.
Thank you.
--
Aaron Clausen
Nystulc
>Well....
>
>"Sauron's power was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a
>particular form or shape made of a particular portion of total gold.
>Morgoth's power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute
>(for he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was this
>Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for such
>'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.)"
>MR, Myths Transformed VII.ii
>
>This states directly that the 'Morgoth element' was a prerequisite for
>the 'magic' Sauron worked with and upon matter... and strongly implies
>that the Ring ('a particular form or shape made of a particular
>portion of total gold') specifically relied upon it.
The above suggests that the "Morgoth Element" is likely to be involved in some
sense or another whenever Black Magic is performed. That's hardly a radical
proposition, nor is it the one that I was questioning. Usually, when black
magic is performed, Satan is generally thought of as ultimately connected it
all. However, Sauron practiced Black Magic both before and after he
manufactured the One Ring. While he certainly used black magic to manufacture
the One Ring, the resulting "extra Power" were the magic artifacts he
appropriated, and not some hidden reserve of "Morgoth Power" that he was able
to extract from the rocks.
My understanding is that Morgoth's spirit has been irrevocably infused into the
matter of Arda, so that even Morgoth cannot extract the spiritual energy he has
permanently invested (and neither can the Valar extract him). It stands to
reason that Sauron cannot extract Morgoth's essence to improve his own angelic
stature. Sauron can, however, profit from the fact that Morgoth's evil will
inhabits the Earth, and is willing to cooperate with many of his evil goals.
There is no reason to believe that Sauron's native angelic power increases at
all. If anything, it seems that his native power is diminishing in other
respects, as his energies are invested in seeking the type of power he most
desires: the domination of the minds and wills of others. For instance, he
lost his ability to create a fair form after it was destroyed in the drowning
of Numenor. Perhaps this is a consequence of his investment in the Ring, or
perhaps not - but there certainly does not seem to have been an increase in his
form-shifting powers.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>Then we are talking about power in two different ways.
Apparently.
>Sauron's
>enhancement of his earthly powers through the Ruling Ring did not come
>from Elves, unless you can point me to a passage that says otherwise.
Are you really challenging me to find quotes supporting the proposition that
Sauron forged the Ruling Ring in order to sieze control of 19 Rings of Power of
Elvish manufacture, and that Sauron's geo-political and military position was
enhanced by achieving control over these artifacts?
Very well...
From "Shadow of the Past":
Three rings for the Elven Kings under the Sky
Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their Halls of Stone
Nine for the Mortal Men doomed to die
One for the Dark lord on his Dark Throne
One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Note that the rhyme tells us that the purpose of the One Ring is to find and
bind all the other rings. That's why it is called the "Ruling Ring". This
purpose actually gets inscribed on the Ring by Sauron. Notice the line "One
Ring to extract Morgoth's essence from Arda to increase the Dark Lord's innate
angelic stature" got somehow got edited out. But perhaps you can find another
quote somewhere else to the same effect. Good luck.
Here's more, from Gandalf (next page):
"The enemy lacks only one thing to give him strength and knowledge to break
down all resistance [...] He lacks the One Ring."
Note, again, no mention of innate angelic power. Sauron needs strength and
knowledge for a specific purpose: to overcome military resistance to him. He
needs military strength and strategic knowledge, adequately explained by the
mere fact that he can control all 19 Rings at once, as the next quote makes
clear.
More from Gandalf (same page):
"The Three are hidden still. But that no longer troubles him. He only
needs the One; for he made that one himself, it is his, and he let a great part
of his own former power pass into it, SO THAT HE COULD RULE ALL THE OTHERS. If
he recovers it, then he will command them all again, wherever they may be, even
the Three, and all that has been wrought with them will be laid bare, and he
will be stronger than ever." [Emphasis Added]
Note what Gandalf says Sauron's purpose is: ruling the Elvish Rings, and not
enhanced angelic stature. We now know the source of the "strength and
knowledge" that will beat down all resistance. The "strength" comes from once
again commanding the 19 from afar, and the "knowledge" comes from knowing
everything that has been wrought with the Three. The final clause is a
conclusion derived from what precedes it. There is no indication of any
enhancement of his preforging stature that is independent of his ability to
command the 19 Elvish Rings.
This from Elrond, in "The Council of Elrond":
"But all that has been wrought by those who wield the Three will turn to
their undoing, and their minds and hearts will become revealed to Sauron, if he
regains the One. It would be better if the Three had never been. That is his
purpose."
This from Silmarillion: "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age":
"Now the Elves made many rings; but secretly Sauron made the One Ring to rule
all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be subject wholly to
it, and to last only so long as it too should last. And much of the strength
and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings
was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing
potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow.
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."
Once again, no benefits to Sauron are mentioned other than those gained from
siezing control of the Elven rings, nor is any other purpose implied.
>All the Rings are subject to the One (even the Three), but I fail to
>see how this means that Sauron's powers were stolen from Elves and
>Men. When I speak of power, I refer to Sauron's innate abilities.
Well, that's what YOU are speaking of. I think it is your turn now. I have
come up with every quote I can find relevant to Sauron's purpose in forging the
One Ring, and the benefits he gains when wearing the One Ring. I can find no
reference that implies that there was ANY enhancement of "innate" angelic
powers that is independent of the benefits he gains from controlling the
Elven-rings. (Nor do I understand how any benefit can be understood as
"innate" when it is granted by an Artifact for only so long as one holds the
Artifact).
So I've done what I could. Now you find a quote that supports your position.
Show that Sauron gained enhanced abilities that were not derived from the
Elven-rings he gained control of.
<snip>
>I find your tone rather insulting, but I'll bear with it for the
>moment. By power, as I explained above, I mean Sauron's innate
>ability to manipulate his environment, and not the more nebulous usage
>as per military might.
Fine. We know what YOU mean. Find a quote that says this is what Tolkien
meant. Until you do, there is no special mystery that needs an explanation by
means of special theories.
>> Do you
>> think that "power" is some specific brand-name of mystical gasoline?
>> Domination other minds was precisely the sort of power Sauron was most
>> interested in, and precisely what he most intended to achieve via his Ring
>> Scheme.
>
>And, other than the Nazgul, at which he failed for the most part.
He gained a significant level of domination over more than merely the Nazgul.
At one point, all Middle Earth was under his sway, except for the Elvish
Kingdoms in the Northwest and their Numenorean allies.
The following is from "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" refering to the
time between the forging of the Ring and his stint as a "hostage" in Numenor.
"In the East and South well nigh all Men were under his dominion, and they
grew strong in those days and built many walls and towns of stone, and they
were numerous and fierce in war and armed with iron. To them, Sauron was both
king and god; and they feared him exceedingly, and he surrounded his abode with
fire."
>> You have essentially put yourself in the position of saying "Sure it helps
>him
>> conquer the world, but that does not make him more powerful."
>
>But he didn't conquer the world. He didn't even do it when he
>actually held and directly used the Ruling Ring. He came much closer
>when he did not physically hold the Ring, but mainly because his
>enemies were a lot weaker than they had been during the Second Age.
Yes, I know. He ultimately failed. Is this intended as a counterargument? It
is the type of power he desired, and the type he achieved to a significant
extent.
<snip>
>> I never mentioned dwarves, though I imagine he may have been
>> able to access a few of their secrets.
>
> Perhaps, though this is the realm of pure speculation.
The following is NOT speculation: he succeeded in neutralizing and ultimately
destroying them by influencing them toward greed by means of the Rings he gave
them. The plan did not work as well as he wished, but it was not without
effect in the long run.
<snip>
>> >But again, I recall
>> >no passage that says the power was drawn from Elves or Men.
>>
>> Umm. Do I have to find a passage that contains those precise words? Or is
>it
>> enough if I find a passage (or two) that indicates that Sauron used the
>Ruling
>> Ring to gain control of artifacts of power made by Elves, which he in turn
>used
>> to enslave kingdoms ruled by Men?
>
>If you would simply explain what you mean by "power", and then show
>how that relates to Tolkien's use of the word "power" in reference to
>Sauron and the Rings of Power, then I'm sure we could come to the end
>of this misunderstanding. As it is, you seem to mix definitions, and
>I confess that I have a hard time comprehending what you mean at any
>given moment.
I really don't understand your confusion. I see no need or point to precisely
define the sort of power that Sauron gained by siezing control of 19 magical
Elvish artifacts. Magical Elvish artifacts can grant all kinds of benefits to
those who control them, including Sauron. The quotes I provided above give a
rough indication of the primary benefits gained from controlling the Elvish
Rings by means of the One. I don't have Tolkien's letters on me right now, but
if I remember correctly, there are passages where Tolkien explains that the
sort of "power" that Sauron was primarily interested in was the domination of
other minds and wills. In other words, he wanted the sort of power that comes
from having lots of slaves, servants, armies, etc.
Provide a quote that demonstrates that Sauron gained any enhanced "innate"
power distinct from the advantages (primarily military, political, strategic)
that come from being able to control all the Elven-rings, and their bearers,
from a distance, and depriving the Elves of the defensive benefits of their
rings.
- John Whelan
ste...@nomail.com
: I really don't understand your confusion. I see no need or point to precisely
: define the sort of power that Sauron gained by siezing control of 19 magical
: Elvish artifacts. Magical Elvish artifacts can grant all kinds of benefits to
: those who control them, including Sauron. The quotes I provided above give a
: rough indication of the primary benefits gained from controlling the Elvish
: Rings by means of the One. I don't have Tolkien's letters on me right now, but
: if I remember correctly, there are passages where Tolkien explains that the
: sort of "power" that Sauron was primarily interested in was the domination of
: other minds and wills. In other words, he wanted the sort of power that comes
: from having lots of slaves, servants, armies, etc.
: Provide a quote that demonstrates that Sauron gained any enhanced "innate"
: power distinct from the advantages (primarily military, political, strategic)
: that come from being able to control all the Elven-rings, and their bearers,
: from a distance, and depriving the Elves of the defensive benefits of their
: rings.
:
: - John Whelan
Letter #131 discusses the Rings in considerable detail. Here are
some choice quotes (it is a long letter).
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or
slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing),
the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance -
this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced
the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic',
a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
So the rings enhanced the natural powers of the possessor.
"But secretly in the subterranean Fire, in his own Black Land,
Sauron made One Ring, the Ruling Ring that contained the powers
of all the others, and controlled them, so that its wearer
could see the thoughts of all those that used the lesser rings,
could gover all that they did, and in the end could utterly
enslave them."
Here we are told again that the One Ring controls the others, but
we are also told that it has all the powers of the the other rings,
which includes the power to enhance the possessor's natural powers.
"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'"
Note that it does not mention any other Rings, and just says
that while Sauron wore the one his power was enhanced.
At the end of the third Age, Sauron had 13(?) of the Great
Rings in his possession. If Sauron recovered the One, the Elves
would have removed the Three, has they had before, so Sauron would
not gain any power because from that. Yet the texts repeatedly suggest
that Sauron would become more powerful if he recovered the One.
That power could not come from the other Rings, because at that time
he would be the only being possessing a Great Ring. So from where would
the power come?
Stephen
Nystulc
I don't know because Tolkien never describes in detail the technology of
creating magical artifacts. It is fair to assume though, that, while
"Morgoth's Element" may infuse everything, that most the "source of power" for
most Elvish magical artifacts has not primarily to do with this Satanic
influence. Silmarils, Glamdring, Orcist, Sting, Sam's Rope, Elvish cloaks, the
Phial of Galadriel, etc, etc. The greatest of these are the Silmarils, of
course, and the Elvish Rings of Power are second to these only as powerful
artifacts.
>Certainly not from collecting taxes and social
>security, since otherwise we could produce Rings of Power in the real
>world. As the Rings were evil (even the Three were ultimately evil,
>since their purpose was to defy the rightful order of things) a natural
>candidate is the Morgoth Element/Morgoth, which are one and the same and
>the source of all corruption and evil in Arda.
The Elvish plan in creating the Rings was misguided, perhaps even "evil" in
that it fell short of what their ideal motives should have been. That
suggests, however, that such "evil" as the Elves infused into these artifacts
was derived from their own impure motives. It seems unnecessary to invoke the
"Morgoth Element". In any event, they were primarily benevolent in purpose.
Sauron may have been able to sneak some dark magic into the rings by his evil
guidance, but his primary purpose was to trick the Elves into investing their
energies in a technology that he could steal by remote control.
>You might argue that the Morgoth Element isn't mentioned in the
>published works, which is true. In that case you can stick to the
>mundane "power" aspect of the Ring and just take them as "magical
>tokens". However, apparently the good professor was engaged with the
>idea of Morgoth during his later years, so we can glean some interesting
>insight into the workings of the Rings from his later writings if we
>choose to read them.
That's nice, but no-one has presented any evidence that the Morgoth's Element
is specially relevant to the issue of Sauron's enhanced strength. The
interesting insights you mention will probably need to be applied in other
contexts.
>However, even LotR does mention that Sauron invested a large portion of
>his innate (angelic) power into the Ring, so you can't escape involving
>that aspect entirely even if you only look at the published works.
Why would I try to escape it? I am perfectly well aware that Sauron sacrificed
and invested his innate angelic power in order to sieze control of Elvish magic
artifacts, and thereby achieve geo-political domination of Middle Earth.
You need to find a quote in support of your theory that his real motive was to
sacrifice his angelic power in order to obtain even more angelic power.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>On 03 Jun 2003 21:50:17 GMT,
>Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> wrote:
>> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>>
>>>Question. If the 'extra power' Sauron received when wearing the One
>>>came from the Elves... where did the 'extra power' the ELVES received
>>>when wearing Great Rings come from?
>>
>> You are asking a question that does not necessarily have a ready answer,
>> because Tolkien does not provide us with enough information regarding the
>> "technology" that creates powerful magic rings. I hope you are not
>implying
>> that therefore the answer must involve the Morgoth Element in some special
>> sense?
>
>No, he's asking where the Elves got their power for the Rings of Power.
I know what he's asking. Since you were unable to understand my answer, I will
translate for you: "I don't know, because Tolkien does not provide a technical
manual."
>> Those Elves who wielded the Rings of course became more powerful as a
>result.
>> It is not clear, however, that the Elven community as a whole experienced a
>net
>> gain of "power". The Elven smiths who forged these rings of course made an
>> enormous investment in them in terms of creative energy (a form of "power"
>if
>> you will) and the artifacts were the result.
>
>Who said anything about the Elven community as a whole?
I just did.
>Where did the power
>come from that is evidently in the Rings of Power?
I don't know. Why don't we do a joint research project. You try to come up
with the technical specifications for making Silmarils, and I'll see if I can
find the lost scolls that tell one how to make Rings of Power.
>> As with any project, the Elves (as a community) hoped to gain by this
>project.
>> The benefits were expected to outweigh the costs, according to their value
>> system at the time. I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing as saying
>that
>> they expected (as a community, not as individuals) to become more
>"powerful"
>> but it may be that they did. Most likely, they wanted power in a defensive
>> sense, to protect their realms militarily and against the ravages of time
>and
>> the outside changing world. These defensive goals likely involved
>sacrifices
>> in other areas of their lives.
>
>The Three were not intended, as Elrond stated, to be used in that fashion.
>Their purpose was preservation.
Preservation is a defensive function.
>Where did this preservative power that we
>see, particularly in Galadriel's ring, come from?
I don't know. Why don't you find a time machine, go back to see Galadriel, and
ask her to give you the specifications.
>> I think that it should be obvious that, just because a community hopes to
>> benefit from the objects it manufactures (including intended power-related
>> benefits, as when weapons are crafted for soldiers and police), is not a
>> situation that requires a special theory about "tapping the Morgoth
>element" to
>> explain it.
>
>This is just word candy as far as I can see.
I don't know how far you can see.
>> While we do not know if the Elves (as a whole) got some kind of "net power
>> gain", it is easy to see why Sauron got a "net power gain". The elves
>invested
>> their power to create the objects, and Sauron reaped the power-benefits by
>> appropriating the objects. Obviously, this works well for Sauron,
>regardless
>> of whether the power-cost-to-power-benefit analysis would have worked out
>well
>> from the Elves' POV. Even the three rings the Elves managed to retain
>become
>> useless to them, for they were unable to use them to resist Sauron..
>
>But where exactly did the power of the Rings of Power, including the Three,
>come from?
I don't know, but I'm working on it. But perhaps you could help me out with a
problem in the meantime. I'm wondering what it is, precisely, that causes
Glamdring and Sting to glow when orcs are around, and how did the Elvish smiths
achieve this effect. Could you work on that problem for me? When you come up
with a solution, I promise i will share with you the results of my research on
Rings of Power.
>> We know from the Silmarillion that, among the Elves, high creative acts
>often
>> involve a significant (and permanent) spiritual investment. Feanor's
>Mother
>> invested so much creative energy in Feanor's birth that she lost the will
>to
>> live. Feanor therefore had such creative drive that he was able to create
>the
>> Silmarils - but it was a one-time achievement that he would never be able
>to
>> repeat. The Noldor Smiths who created the 19 Great Rings were, Tolkien
>says,
>> the Greatest Smiths ever, only matched by Feanor. To create the Rings
>likely
>> involved an investment of creative power that they could not later recover.
>
>Are you saying that their creative power was the source of these objects
>power?
I don't know (as I said).
>Could you please provide a citation?
I'll do my best.
>> It is easy to imagine projects, though, that have some net "power" gain.
>When
>> I chop wood to build a fire, it is likely that I get more energy back, (a
>sort
>> of "power"), than I invested. In this case, the extra power comes from the
>> consumption of a natural resource. No need to assume any particular
>> involvement of the Morgoth Element. Of course, if the fire treacherously
>gets
>> out of control and burns down one's house, one might be inclined to blame
>> Morgoth. Satan generally gets the blame when bad things happen.
>
>That does not answer the question. Where do the Rings of Power get their
>power from?
I don't know! I don't know! I don't know!
Please explain to me why you are asking me this question over and over again.
Do you actually expect me to be able to provide an answer? Or do you imagine
that my inability to tell you how to make magical artifacts will prove some
kind of point?
>> The Morgoth Element is, almost by definition, involved in everything, of
>> course. But that makes pat observations to this effect are virtually
>useless
>> to the understanding of specific situations. I assume that Glamdring, like
>all
>> material things, contains the Morgoth Element, but surely that hardly
>explains
>> why Gandalf is more powerful wielding Glamdring than while fighting with a
>> rusty dagger.
>
>Again, you mix definitions of the word "power". We are talking about the
>innate ability of the Rings of Power.
We are? I though YOU were talking about the "innate" abilities of Sauron.
>Where does it come from?
I don't understand your question, so I don't know.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>I think the strong resentment you got here is based on the fact that when
>you wrote 'extra power', a lot of people (like myself) automatically think
>'Ainu Essence => Morgoth Element' and in that context the idea of stealing
>this sort of power from elves and men is, as you will certainly agree,
>ridiculous.
I don't necessarily agree that the idea of vampirism is inherently ridiculous.
I do agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that the One Ring has a
vampiric function.
>With what you posted now, it seems clear to me, that this was not what you
>ment at all, so we were really talking about different sorts of power.
>
>So yes, you are right, in the way you discribed here, Sauron 'stole' power
>from the ringbearers and -makers. Wordly power.
Well, he stole the sort of power that you can steal by stealing magical
artifacts. Mainly this was wordly power (military, strategic, political), but
I do not rule out the possibility that he gained other benefits. Basically,
whatever powers the Elves conferred in their Rings, Sauron appropriated.
>There remains however the additional ability of The One Ring (as of all
>Great Rings) to enhance the natural powers and abilities of it's wielder.
I don't believe the One Ring grants any such "additional ability" to Sauron,
none, at least, that exceeds what he had before making the Ring. And how can a
power be "natural" when it is granted by an artifact?
>So, when wearing The Ring, Sauron gains 'extra power' also, and this power
>does not come from elves or men, but from the Morgoth Element. And that is
>the sort of 'extra power' we were referring to (I for my part at least).
Since no-one has demonstrated that this narrowly defined *extra power* exists
at all, there is no need to invoke the "Morgoth Element" to explain it.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
(I wrote:)
Thanks for the quote.
I'm sorry to be stubborn, as far as I can tell, the quotes you provide seem
consistent with my viewpoint. The purpose of the One Ring was to give him
complete power and control (even from afar) of all of the Elven Rings. So
naturally, when he wore the One Ring, he had access to all their powers.
>At the end of the third Age, Sauron had 13(?) of the Great
>Rings in his possession. If Sauron recovered the One, the Elves
>would have removed the Three, has they had before, so Sauron would
>not gain any power because from that.
He would gain valuable knowledge of everything that has been done with them,
would know all the secrets of Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel. Both Gandalf and
Elrond speak as though this is a matter of pivotal significance that would
pretty much put the last nail in Middle Earth's coffin. I have already
provided quotes to this effect. Also, the three ring-wielders would be forced
to stop using their Rings in resistance to Sauron.
>Yet the texts repeatedly suggest
>that Sauron would become more powerful if he recovered the One.
Yes, and when they do, they mention in connection with this thought two
explanatory facts: (1) that all that had been done with the Three would be
laid bare to him; and (2) he would be able to command all the rings, including
the Three, wherever they may be.
>That power could not come from the other Rings, because at that time
>he would be the only being possessing a Great Ring. So from where would
>the power come?
Well, for starters, it is not clear that Sauron can gain any significant
benefits from trying to wear 13+ Elvish rings at one time. It is possible that
the only way he can gain the benefit of all their powers at once is to wear the
One.
You assume that he can gain no power benefit from the Three while wearing the
One if no-one is wearing the Three. I'm not sure this is entirely the case.
The only thing that is clear is that if the wielders remove the Three, they can
avoid being controlled themselves.
During the War of the Ring, Sauron is forced to keep the Rings of Power close
to his chest, because that is the only way he can be sure of keeping control
over them. If he had the One on his finger, he could start handing these
lesser rings out once again. He could give them to his Ringwraiths (perhaps),
allowing them to become significantly more powerful, while retaining complete
and utter control over them. Alternatively, he could hand out his rings to
additional leutenants. Meanwhile, he would know all their thoughts, and see
all they saw. Instant tele-communication and total control over servants of
enhanced power. The strategic implications should be obvious to you.
- John Whelan
Nystulc
>nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message
>news:<20030602170037...@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...
>
>> I really don't think I am confused about the subject of power at all. My
>only
>> confusion is as to why persons on this NG find it necessary to concoct a
>> strange theory loosely derived from a concept that Tolkien in his wisdom
>chose
>> never to put in print.
>
>See the quotation in my other post in this thread. Tolkien DID put
>the idea into print. He said that the 'Morgoth element' was a
>prerequisite for the 'magic' Sauron worked with matter. That, in some
>sense, certainly indicates that Sauron derived 'extra power' from the
>Morgoth element. Whether this was the same or sole 'extra power' as
>he gained while wearing the Ring is debatable, but that Tolkien wrote
>it is not (unless we are questioning Christopher's veracity).
The part you concede is debatable is that part that I am challenging.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the idea that Sauron invokes Morgoth when he
practices black magic..
>> Of course it is. Reading the minds of your enemies and having access to
>their
>> thoughts is a form of POWER. It enhances *your* power because it allows
>you
>> to appropriate *their* power. It gives you access to their knowledge. It
>> gives you access to their skills. It gives you access to their creative
>> energies, which you may then appropriate for your own use.
>
>Based on Tolkien's statements in Letters I believe the intent was that
>Sauron gained the sort of 'manipulative' power described above AND an
>increase in his 'personal' power from the Ring.
So you are saying that Tolkien's letters indicate that Sauron gains certain
benefits when wearing the Ring AND (1) these benefits represent a level of
power beyond what can be explained by the power that he himself invested, and
(2) these benefits cannot be explained by his having access to all the powers
that the Elves placed in their Rings of Power.
I'd like to see the quote. I would also like to know what powers meet the
above criteria.
- John Whelan
ste...@nomail.com
: Stephen wrote:
: Thanks for the quote.
What is your interpretation of "enhanced the natural powers of
the possessor". That is the power of the Rings people have been
asking you about that you seem to be ignoring. Tolkien said
that all the Rings, including the One, had this ability. From
where did this extra power come?
Stephen
AC
> Gunnar wrote:
>
>>I think the strong resentment you got here is based on the fact that when
>>you wrote 'extra power', a lot of people (like myself) automatically think
>>'Ainu Essence => Morgoth Element' and in that context the idea of stealing
>>this sort of power from elves and men is, as you will certainly agree,
>>ridiculous.
>
> I don't necessarily agree that the idea of vampirism is inherently ridiculous.
> I do agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that the One Ring has a
> vampiric function.
>
>>With what you posted now, it seems clear to me, that this was not what you
>>ment at all, so we were really talking about different sorts of power.
>>
>>So yes, you are right, in the way you discribed here, Sauron 'stole' power
>>from the ringbearers and -makers. Wordly power.
>
> Well, he stole the sort of power that you can steal by stealing magical
> artifacts. Mainly this was wordly power (military, strategic, political), but
> I do not rule out the possibility that he gained other benefits. Basically,
> whatever powers the Elves conferred in their Rings, Sauron appropriated.
>
>>There remains however the additional ability of The One Ring (as of all
>>Great Rings) to enhance the natural powers and abilities of it's wielder.
>
> I don't believe the One Ring grants any such "additional ability" to Sauron,
> none, at least, that exceeds what he had before making the Ring. And how can a
> power be "natural" when it is granted by an artifact?
Then you are in disagreement with the author.
--
Aaron Clausen
Nystulc
He is talking about an ability granted by the Elven Rings, which, therefore,
Sauron has access to as well when wearing the One.
>That is the power of the Rings people have been
>asking you about that you seem to be ignoring.
Really? I thought they were saying things like "innate angelic power" or
"native angelic power". They claim this is something that by definition cannot
be gained from artifacts of Elvish manufacture.
>Tolkien said
>that all the Rings, including the One, had this ability.
The One had all the powers of the others, because it had access to and control
of all the powers of the others.
>From
>where did this extra power come?
Since this quote says that all the Elven rings had this power, and since other
quotes indicate that the One got its powers by appropriating all the powers of
the Elven rings, then obviously this extra power came from the Elven Rings
which Sauron stole from the Elves.
- John Whelan
Jussi Jaatinen
Nystulc wrote:
> >It might be possible to ask, where did the power of the Rings other than
> >One Ring come from?
> I don't know because Tolkien never describes in detail the technology of
> creating magical artifacts. It is fair to assume though, that, while
> "Morgoth's Element" may infuse everything, that most the "source of power" for
> most Elvish magical artifacts has not primarily to do with this Satanic
> influence. Silmarils, Glamdring, Orcist, Sting, Sam's Rope, Elvish cloaks, the
> Phial of Galadriel, etc, etc. The greatest of these are the Silmarils, of
> course, and the Elvish Rings of Power are second to these only as powerful
> artifacts.
Well, the Silmarils and the Phial of Galadriel derive their power from
the Light of the Trees, which comes from the Valar and IIRC from the
"pure light" given to Varda by Eru. Since Sauron taught the Elves how to
make the Rings, it's very plausible to suggest that the power source of
the Rings is Morgoth. The Elessar(s) drew their power from the Sun.
Sting and Sam's rope are IMO minor artefacts that can be made by the
Elves on their own. We know how to make laptops, after all.
> The Elvish plan in creating the Rings was misguided, perhaps even "evil" in
> that it fell short of what their ideal motives should have been. That
> suggests, however, that such "evil" as the Elves infused into these artifacts
> was derived from their own impure motives. It seems unnecessary to invoke the
> "Morgoth Element". In any event, they were primarily benevolent in purpose.
You're separating the Elves' impure motives and the Morgoth Element,
which perhaps isn't necessary. The impurity of their motives derives
directly and/or indirectly from Morgoth. And, again, the Rings were made
with Sauron's aid. If Arda wasn't marred, the Rings would never have
been made. The ultimate substance of the Marring is Morgoth.
> Sauron may have been able to sneak some dark magic into the rings by his evil
> guidance, but his primary purpose was to trick the Elves into investing their
> energies in a technology that he could steal by remote control.
Now there _is_ circumstantial evidence that the Morgoth Element may have
powered the Rings, but there is to my knowledge no evidence that the
Rings ran on the creative energies of the Elves.
The Elves attempted to create the same effect as the Rings and came up
with the Elessar(s), which was/were inferior to the Rings in arresting
the flow of time. The image I get from the books is that Sauron's aid
was a central element in the creation of the Rings. In fact it's even
mentioned that the later Elessar was inferior to the first one because
the Sun (the power source) was no longer as bright as during the First
Age (Tolkien apparently didn't know that the brightness of the Sun has
been slowly increasing for millions of years). Thus either the Rings
were more cunningly designed than the Elessar(s), or they were connected
to a stronger power, or both. The one key difference between the two
artefact classes (heh) mentioned is Sauron. Sauron is more cunning than
the Noldor smiths and there exists a quote that says Sauron knew how to
tap into the Morgoth Element. So we might see a pattern here:
Feanor's skill + light of the Trees -> Silmarils
Celebrimbor's skill + light of the Sun -> Elessar
Galadriel's skill + light of Silmaril -> Phial of Galadriel
Human skills + QCD -> nuclear power
Sauron's skill + Morgoth Element -> Rings (?)
The design goals of the Elessar and the Rings are the same. The reason
the Rings are better is that Sauron is smarter than Celebrinbor and
Morgoth is a greater force than the Sun. Now this is speculation, but
speculation IMO not inconsistent with the texts.
> That's nice, but no-one has presented any evidence that the Morgoth's Element
> is specially relevant to the issue of Sauron's enhanced strength. The
> interesting insights you mention will probably need to be applied in other
> contexts.
I think I have presented admittedly non-direct evidence that the Morgoth
Element may have been relevant. We should keep in mind that analyzing
Tolkien's texts isn't an exact science. To sum up the case:
1) The Elves tried to arrest the passage of time, and could only come up
with Celebrimbor's Elessar (during SA).
2) The reason quoted for the weakness of Celebrimbor's Elessar is that
the power source (Sun) was not strong enough.
3) There was no lack of skill among the Mirdain in Eregion, in fact
their skills are quoted as being very advanced.
4) After receiving Sauron's aid, the Mirdain successfully create the
Rings.
5) Sauron was smarter than the Mirdain.
6) Sauron had access to a greater source of power than the (SA) Sun.
Now the alternative to the Morgoth Element as source of the Rings' power
is that the intelligence of Sauron was behind it, or that Sauron
expended his angelic power also to the other Rings (which we know to not
be true concerning the Three). So it's either Sauron's smarts or that
and the ME that powers the Rings.
> You need to find a quote in support of your theory that his real motive was to
> sacrifice his angelic power in order to obtain even more angelic power.
I don't recall putting forward a theory of that sort. Certainly his
overriding goal was to control the Noldor.
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>> Question. If the 'extra power' Sauron received when wearing the
One
>> came from the Elves... where did the 'extra power' the ELVES
received
>> when wearing Great Rings come from?
> You are asking a question that does not necessarily have a ready answer,
I know, that's why I asked it. :)
> because Tolkien does not provide us with enough information regarding the
> "technology" that creates powerful magic rings. I hope you are not implying
> that therefore the answer must involve the Morgoth Element in some special
> sense?
Not 'must', but the 'Morgoth Element' serves as a valid possibility
for BOTH the One >and< the other Rings of Power.
The alternate explanation you have been suggesting; that Sauron's
extra power through the One coming from what the Elves put into the
other Rings does not seem to explain the extra power the Elves
themselves got.
> As with any project, the Elves (as a community) hoped to gain by this
> project. The benefits were expected to outweigh the costs, according to
> their value system at the time. I'm not sure this is exactly the same thing
> as saying that they expected (as a community, not as individuals) to become
> more "powerful" but it may be that they did.
Are you suggesting that the 'extra power' >individual< Elves received
came from multiple Elves of the community putting their 'energy' into
the Rings of Power? Possible... except that we know the Three were
forged by Celebrimbor alone. Hence, if the Elves were the sole source
of power Celebrimbor could not have been 'more powerful' while wearing
Narya, Nenya AND Vilya than he had been before creating them... which
seems to me unlikely to have been Tolkien's intent.
> We know from the Silmarillion that, among the Elves, high creative acts often
> involve a significant (and permanent) spiritual investment. Feanor's Mother
> invested so much creative energy in Feanor's birth that she lost the will to
> live. Feanor therefore had such creative drive that he was able to create the
> Silmarils - but it was a one-time achievement that he would never be able to
> repeat. The Noldor Smiths who created the 19 Great Rings were, Tolkien says,
> the Greatest Smiths ever, only matched by Feanor. To create the Rings likely
> involved an investment of creative power that they could not later recover.
All true, but not explaining how Celebrimbor could make such an
'investment of power' and come out of it with objects seemingly far
more powerful than he ever was to begin with.
I agree that the Elves were likely 'using up' some amount of their own
'sub-creative power' in forging the Rings. I agree that this power
put into 'machines' outside themselves could then be taken away from
them. However, it also seems clear that there was MORE than just that
power involved. Celebrimbor alone COULD NOT do what his Three Rings
could... otherwise he need never have made them.
> It is easy to imagine projects, though, that have some net "power" gain. When
> I chop wood to build a fire, it is likely that I get more energy back, (a sort
> of "power"), than I invested. In this case, the extra power comes from the
> consumption of a natural resource. No need to assume any particular
> involvement of the Morgoth Element.
Isn't the 'Morgoth Element' itself a 'natural resource'? Virtually
all matter on Arda is imbued with some portion of the Morgoth Element.
The ability to tap into and manipulate that element would thus
logically give great power over the natural world. Indeed, more than
the Elves could achieve on their own. AND since the power source
would then be 'Morgoth' it would also explain just WHY the Rings were
inherently flawed and corruptible.
That doesn't mean this MUST BE the case... just that it fits all of
the established facts. Which the idea of the power being solely drawn
from the Elves does not.
Conrad Dunkerson
> And what do you mean by "personal" level of power? His "personal" power
> (as opposed to Power derived from the domination of others - which was the
> Ring's primary purpose) *might* have increased in some fashion (maybe),
> just as Gandalf's personal level of power increases when he has Glamdring,
> a personal weapon. But nowhere do Tolkien's writings indicate that this
> occurred.
"But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great part of
his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant motive in
myth and fairy-story) pass into the One 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'."
Letters #131
That seems clearly to indicate that Sauron's 'personal power' was
greater while wearing the One than before he created it. Most of us
assumed this to be the 'extra power' you were referring to.
> As far as I can tell, no mystery remains that requires any special theory,
> since there is no evidence that Sauron's power increased in any special
> fashion that cannot be explained by his gaining control of 19 powerful
> magical artifacts that he did not himself create.
"But also they ['all the rings alike'] enhanced the natural powers
of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily
corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
Letters #131
ALL of the rings enhanced the natural powers of ANY possessor. And
they did so in different ways for different owners. Dwarves, for
instance, apparently did not suddenly gain access to Elven magics or
live longer as humans did. Instead they were said to become better at
accumulating wealth. Where could such a flexible / general purpose
power have come from? Was it from the 'essence' of themselves that
the Elves put into the Rings? Why would the Elves themselves then be
enhanced? Why would not the enhancement then always be 'elven' in
character rather than differing for each race / wielder? Why would
the Rings give power according to the native stature of the bearer
rather than just a pure 'addition' of the power the Elves put into
them?
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>> Whether this was the same or sole 'extra power' as he gained while
>> wearing the Ring is debatable, but that Tolkien wrote it is not
(unless
>> we are questioning Christopher's veracity).
> The part you concede is debatable is that part that I am challenging.
Well, no... you have challenged the need for the 'Morgoth Element
theory' at all because Tolkien never wrote it. In fact, he did...
just the EXTENT of involvement of the 'Morgoth Element' Tolkien
intended (and possibly the time period for which he had this
intention) are under debate.
> Otherwise, I have no problem with the idea that Sauron invokes Morgoth when he
> practices black magic..
Not 'invokes' and not ALL 'black magic'. Specifically, the passage in
question stated that the Morgoth Element in matter was REQUIRED for
Sauron to work magic on/with that matter. In short, Morgoth's
corruption of the materials of Arda allowed Sauron to manipulate those
materials in ways he would not otherwise have been able to.
>> Based on Tolkien's statements in Letters I believe the intent was
that
>> Sauron gained the sort of 'manipulative' power described above AND
an
>> increase in his 'personal' power from the Ring.
> So you are saying that Tolkien's letters indicate that Sauron gains certain
> benefits when wearing the Ring AND (1) these benefits represent a level of
> power beyond what can be explained by the power that he himself invested, and
Yes. And indeed, I believe we agree on this point... or you'll have
to explain what the subject of this message refers to.
> (2) these benefits cannot be explained by his having access to all the powers
> that the Elves placed in their Rings of Power.
No, that is not stated in what I wrote (quoted above). I will agree
that >taken in isolation< the idea that Sauron's 'extra power' could
come from having appropriated from the power put into the other Great
Rings by the Elves. Indeed, I believe that some of it DID when he
wore those Rings or controlled their bearers. HOWEVER, the idea that
this was the SOLE source of power involved in the Great Rings seems to
fail on numerous fronts - as explained in previous posts.
> I'd like to see the quote. I would also like to know what powers meet the
> above criteria.
See the quotation I supplied previously about Sauron's power being
greater while he wore the Ring than before he forged it.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Well, for starters, it is not clear that Sauron can gain any significant
> benefits from trying to wear 13+ Elvish rings at one time.
If so, then why did he? There are texts indicating that he wore the
Nine to control the Nazgul. Is that not a significant benefit? There
are also texts indicating that he had the remaining Dwarven Rings.
Why wear them if they provided no benefit? And would this not
contradict Tolkien's statement that all of the Rings enhanced the
natural abilities of their bearers? At that, would it not contradict
your view that the power of the Rings came from elven essence place
into them?
> During the War of the Ring, Sauron is forced to keep the Rings of Power close
> to his chest, because that is the only way he can be sure of keeping control
> over them. If he had the One on his finger, he could start handing these
> lesser rings out once again. He could give them to his Ringwraiths (perhaps),
> allowing them to become significantly more powerful, while retaining complete
> and utter control over them.
Agree... though it seems to me that he could certainly have given one
of the Dwarven Rings to (for instance) the Mouth and not have to worry
about 'losing control'. That he did not suggests to me that he gained
some benefit from having the Rings... which is also supported by
Tolkien's statement that they all enhanced the abilities of their
bearer.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I don't believe the One Ring grants any such "additional ability" to Sauron,
> none, at least, that exceeds what he had before making the Ring.
Tolkien's statement in Letter #131 seems to be pretty explicit that it
did.
> Since no-one has demonstrated that this narrowly defined *extra power* exists
> at all, there is no need to invoke the "Morgoth Element" to explain it.
Did you not BEGIN this thread with the clear indication that this
'extra power' DOES exist?
From your first post in this thread;
"I have noticed a theory floating around here which states that the
'extra'
power that Sauron gains from manufacturing and wearing the One Ring
derives
from his tapping into something called the 'Morgoth Element'."
"Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where
Sauron's
'extra power' came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of
Middle
Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing
powerful
artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by
these
same artifacts."
If you are suggesting that the ONLY 'extra power' Sauron gained was
his ability to manipulate others that seems at odds with many of your
arguments since and Tolkien's statement in Letters. If you are
suggesting that any enhancement to Sauron's 'personal power' came
solely from power the Elves placed into the Rings... that is a
possible alternative explanation, but arguably less grounded in things
Tolkien actually wrote (he nowhere indicated that the Elves DID put
some great amount of their own power into the Rings) and not
explaining numerous other things such as why the Elves themselves
received enhanced power from the Rings.
As to 'no need to invoke the Morgoth Element'. Tolkien himself did
that. The Morgoth Element was required for Sauron to work 'magic'
with matter. The bit about Sauron working with a 'particular portion
of total gold' seems to strongly imply that this was relevant to the
operation of the One. How relevant, exactly how it worked, and
whether Tolkien always intended this are subject to debate... but your
derisive dismissal of the 'Morgoth Element theory' seems unfounded
given the clear indication by Tolkien that it played SOME part.
ste...@nomail.com
:>the possessor".
: He is talking about an ability granted by the Elven Rings, which, therefore,
: Sauron has access to as well when wearing the One.
That is an odd interpretation of the phrase "contained and controlled"
if you ask me. The Ring contained all the powers of the other
Rings, which to me says that the Ring independently had the powers
that all the other Rings had. The Ring also controlled the other
Rings, but unless Tolkien was being redundant, "containing" and
"controlling" were different aspects of the Rings power.
So what is your interpretation of "contained".
Stephen
Chocoholic
"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030602075656...@mb-m24.news.cs.com...
> Greetings
>
> I have noticed a theory floating around here which states that the "extra"
> power that Sauron gains from manufacturing and wearing the One Ring
derives
can
> gather, the "Morgoth Element" is a concept mentioned in some of Tolkien's
> posthumously published notes NOT specifically in connection with the One
Ring,
> which essentially signifies the notion that Evil has become infused in the
very
> matter of creation as a result of Morgoth's primal rebellion.
>
> What I don't understand is why anyone thinks such a theory is necessary.
>
Sauron's
> "extra power" came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of
Middle
> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing powerful
> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by
these
> invested their own powers into creating and wielding those rings which
Sauron
> did not create himself. He appropriated their craft, their secrets, their
> kingdoms, even their souls.
>
>
Well, there doesn't seem to be any 'best' place to insert my observation so
I'll go back to the head of the thread. :)
Why does there have to be a 'source' in other beings for the power of the
Rings? This question becomes cleaerer when transposed into the physical
world that we know. Where does the 'extra power' come from when you put a
wheel under a waterfall? The environment! The knowledge of how to build a
water-wheel allows you to harness power outside of yourself. The world
itself must have some spiritual power in it, remember. It is the nature of
the universe Tolkien has created. "Magic" would not affect the world if the
world itself were not in some sense magical. If 'nature' in Arda is both
physical and spiritual, then there are both physical and spiritual forces of
nature than can be harnessed. So all the Elves did was adopt the use of a
'magical machinery' that Sauron taught them. Sauron, of course, knew more
than he told and knew that there were ways he could subvert their work once
it had been completed. This is the hazard of technology. When you rely on
things outside of yourself you become vulnerable to others gaining control
of those things. It is entirely possible that the 'Morgoth Element' was what
provided the 'back door' by which he could seize control, but it does not
have to be the sole source of the benefit/power which the Rings provided.
John B. Whelan
> nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20030603230943...@mb-m18.news.cs.com>...
>
> > Well, for starters, it is not clear that Sauron can gain any significant
> > benefits from trying to wear 13+ Elvish rings at one time.
>
> If so, then why did he?
Are you asking me why he *wore* 13+ rings at one time, 9 on each
finger, and 4+ on his toes? I am not sure that he did.
> There are texts indicating that he wore the
> Nine to control the Nazgul. Is that not a significant benefit?
While I do believe that he kept the Nine to control the Nazgul, I am
not sure that he wore all 9 at once (one on each finger) to control
the Nazgul. That is not clear, at least not to me. The Nine could
well be a significant benefit in controlling the Nazgul, even if he
only wore one at a time.
Assuming he did wear all 9 at once to control the Nazgul, that would
indeed be a "significant benefit" or sorts. But it would still leave
unanswered the question of whether he could simultaneously gain access
to all the powers of all the rings at one time. If he wore all 9 at
once, would he gain the cumulative benefit of all the powers of all
the 9 at once? That too is not clear.
Thus, even if we set aside the fact that he does not possess the Three
(the most powerful of all), there is no reason to doubt the
implication of Tolkien's words when he seems to suggest that Sauron
would become stronger, after gaining the Ring, BECAUSE he would be
able to command them all at once.
> There
> are also texts indicating that he had the remaining Dwarven Rings.
No problem. I assume these together constitute the 13+ rings we are
speaking of.
> Why wear them if they provided no benefit?
As I said, I am not aware that he *wore* all 13 at once.
*IF* he did wear all 13 at once, I would presume it was because he
gained *some* benefit from wearing them all at once - not necessarily
the *full* benefit of each. It would not necessarily follow that he
gained the simultaneous cumulative benefit of all their powers.
But maybe you meant to ask me why he KEPT them all. One possible
answer is that they have different powers, and he can switch rings as
he needs to use different powers, so that they did in fact provide a
benefit, just not a benefit of simultaneous cumulative access to all
their powers. Another answer, of course, is that, without the One
Ring, he cannot control them from a distance, and is therefore very
hesitant about handing out such enormous power to others, lest his
leutenants imagine themselves powerful enough to rebel or defect.
Thus he keeps them himself, if only to keep their power out of the
hands of those who could challenge him.
> And would this not
> contradict Tolkien's statement that all of the Rings enhanced the
> natural abilities of their bearers?
I cannot see how. I did not say that Sauron's abilities were not
enhanced by wearing Elvish Rings. I suggested that he may not have
gotten cumulative benefits from wearing multiple Elvish rings at once.
> At that, would it not contradict
> your view that the power of the Rings came from elven essence place
> into them?
I cannot remember making such a claim. I did suggest that the Elves
may have expended considerable creative and spiritual energy, which
does not sound to me like quite the same thing, nor does it seem a
radical thing to say. But if, for the sake of argument, Celebrimbor
did sacrifice Elf babies to Morgoth and infuse their "Elf Essence"
into the Rings of Power as a power source, I still do not see how this
would create a contradiction with respect to what we were just
discussing.
> > During the War of the Ring, Sauron is forced to keep the Rings of Power close
> > to his chest, because that is the only way he can be sure of keeping control
> > over them. If he had the One on his finger, he could start handing these
> > lesser rings out once again. He could give them to his Ringwraiths (perhaps),
> > allowing them to become significantly more powerful, while retaining complete
> > and utter control over them.
>
> Agree... though it seems to me that he could certainly have given one
> of the Dwarven Rings to (for instance) the Mouth and not have to worry
> about 'losing control'.
Bad example. Gandalf just snatched stuff out of his hand.
> That he did not suggests to me that he gained
> some benefit from having the Rings...
Perhaps it does suggest this. Perhaps Sauron did gain "some benefit"
from HAVING the Rings. That need not imply that he gained CUMULATIVE
SIMULTANEOUS benefit from WEARING all 13 Rings at once. Take for
example, the Nine Rings. He can wear each Ring consecutively, as he
chooses, to control each of his Nazgul, and ensure they keep in line,
and gain substantial benefit therefrom. Since each Ring is a
different tool with different powers, he can store all 13 in his
utility belt, and put on the ones he needs when he needs.
> which is also supported by
> Tolkien's statement that they all enhanced the abilities of their
> bearer.
How? If Tolkien had said that 13 swords all enhanced the fighting
abilities of their wielder, would you therefore conclude that it was
possible for someone to wield all 13 at once, for Total Cumulative
Effect.
It seems to me extremely doubtful that the Elves would have designed
the Rings so that a single wearer could simultaneously wield all their
powers and become an unstoppable tyrant. Foolish they may have been,
but hardly that shortsighted, I think. Nor does it seem to me that
Sauron would have wanted them designed that way. Sauron's intent was
that the only way a super-tyrant could sieze control of all the powers
at once, was the secret way he planned. The One Ring was the tool
intended to achieve this goal, and it makes sense to me that it was
the only way of achieving it.
- John Whelan
John B. Whelan
"Contained" is (among other meanings) a synonym of "bind", "control",
"restrain", etc. etc. You should be able to confirm this by checking
a good dictionary. So yes, it is possible that Tolkien may have been
being slightly reduntant. Do you really expect total poetic
efficiency from a hastily scribbled letter?
If the One Ring just happens to have all of the powers that the Elves
put in the Elven rings, then that is just too much of a coincidence to
be considered "independent". I think it is fair to assume that the
sources of these powers are those other Rings, especially since
Tolkien says that the very purpose of the One Ring was to sieze
control of those Rings and their powers.
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
<news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
> ste...@nomail.com wrote in message
>> So what is your interpretation of "contained".
>
> "Contained" is (among other meanings) a synonym of "bind", "control",
> "restrain", etc. etc. You should be able to confirm this by checking
> a good dictionary.
Not being a native speaker, I did just that. Here we go, Oxford dictionary:
Contain /v :
1(a) have or hold (sth) within itself
(b) be capable of holding (sth)
2(a) keep (sth/oneself) under control; keep within limits; hold back
(b) prevent (sth) from spreading harmfully or becoming more serious
I think we can safely assume that Tolkien did not mean 2(b) when saying
that the Ring 'contained and controlled' the Powers of the other rings. In
a way the Ring was made not to keep those Powers from spreading harmfully
but to make them harmful in the first place.
1(b) does not really help either, for making the Ring in a way that in only
made it capable of holding powers within itself was surely only a step in
the process, in the end the Ring surely already possesed all it's powers.
I get the picture you mean 2(a). Yes, it means keeping sth under control,
but the emphasis as I have learned to use it and now find validated by the
dict. is on keeping within limits. So in 'the Ruling Ring that contained
the powers of all the others, and controlled them' Tolkien would thus have
written that the Ring controlled the others _and_ set controlled limits to
their powers. The only limit I can readily think of that the Ring set the
others is that they cease to function once it does. But if that was what
Tolkien meant, I should think that he would have put that in so many words
for he didn't shy from making it clear in other instances.
So I too would think that 1(a) is the meaning to go by, implying that the
Ring held within itself the powers of all the others.
> So yes, it is possible that Tolkien may have been
> being slightly reduntant. Do you really expect total poetic
> efficiency from a hastily scribbled letter?
I expect Tolkien, who was a far better linguist than eiter of us, to have
been very well aware of the meaning(s) of the words he chose to use.
Gunnar
--
Contempt, n. - The feeling of a prudent man for an enemy who is too formidable
safely to be opposed.
[Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary]
Jussi Jaatinen
Gunnar Krüger wrote:
> Contain /v :
> 1(a) have or hold (sth) within itself
> (b) be capable of holding (sth)
> 2(a) keep (sth/oneself) under control; keep within limits; hold back
> (b) prevent (sth) from spreading harmfully or becoming more serious
...
> So I too would think that 1(a) is the meaning to go by, implying that the
> Ring held within itself the powers of all the others.
I take the phrase "contained and controlled" to mean that the One Ring
could be used to govern what was done with the other Rings. Remember
that the other Rings worked before the One was made, so the One cannot
contain the powers of the others and since the other Rings continued to
work after the One was made, the One doesn't work by appropriating the
magical energies of the other Rings.
Tolkien tells us what allows the One Ring to govern the others, and that
is the angelic power Sauron invested in it. This is the key feature that
separates the Ruling Ring from the other Rings of Power. Tolkien even
states to the effect that since the Rings were very powerful items,
Sauron had to invest a lot of his angelic power into the Ruling Ring in
order to control the others.
So, to get back on-topic, we can assign numerical values to the Rings:
The Elven rings each contain, say, 100 units of energy (from the Morgoth
Element)
The One Ring contains the same 100 units (from ME) + 3000 units (from
Sauron).
Therefore the One Ring has 3100 units and the 19 Rings as a whole have
1900.
Sauron before the One Ring was made, 4000. Sauron after, 4100. Sauron
without the One, 1000 but "in rapport" with the other 3100.
-JJ
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Ring held within itself the powers of all the others.
>
> I take the phrase "contained and controlled" to mean that the One Ring
> could be used to govern what was done with the other Rings. Remember
on closer examination the one ring included not only the fiery letters
but also a fiery figure
_*~~*
*~ * _*~*
* *~ *
* * *
* * *
* * *
_~ *_*
* M
_* mMMM
*~ mMMMMMMMMM
* M MM ***O
* * ~ *
* *
*_ *
~__ ____*
_* * ~~
_*~ __**~**__
_*~ _*~ ~*_
_* *~ *_
* _* * *~* *
* * * _*~*~ *
*_ ~*_ **_ _*~ *
| ~* _* *_ **~ *
* ~*~ ~*__ * *
|* ~~* *~ *
*__ * ~*_ _*~
~~*_* ~**aa**~
~*_ *
~* __*~~~*_
_* ****~~ ~*
* *
~*_____***~~~~~****_____**~
~~~~ ~~~~~
it kept going and going and going
From: Hugh G. Rection (pa_...@gershwin.coe.neu.edu )
Subject: PICTURE energizer rabbit
Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art
Date: 1994-04-10 13:47:12 PST
Gunnar Krüger
> Gunnar Krüger wrote:
>
>> Contain /v :
>> 1(a) have or hold (sth) within itself
>> (b) be capable of holding (sth)
>> 2(a) keep (sth/oneself) under control; keep within limits; hold back
>> (b) prevent (sth) from spreading harmfully or becoming more serious
>
> ...
>
>> So I too would think that 1(a) is the meaning to go by, implying
>> that the Ring held within itself the powers of all the others.
>
> I take the phrase "contained and controlled" to mean that the One Ring
> could be used to govern what was done with the other Rings.
The exact phrase was 'the Ruling Ring that contained the powers of all the
others, and controlled them'.
And yes, that most certainly means that it could be used to controll what
was done with the others, it's even explicitly stated later in that letter.
> Remember
> that the other Rings worked before the One was made, so the One cannot
> contain the powers of the others and since the other Rings continued
> to work after the One was made, the One doesn't work by appropriating
> the magical energies of the other Rings.
That was not what I was trying to imply. Maybe I should not have written
'held within itself the powers of all the others' but 'held within itself
the SAME powers AS all the others (combined?)'.
[snip the rest of the post I totally agree with]
Gunnar
--
A Short Guide to Comparative Religions:
2. Buddhism - If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Stan Brown
>There are texts indicating that he wore the
>Nine to control the Nazgul.
Really? I can remember texts that he _held_ the Nine, but not that
he _wore_ them. (I quote one in the FAQ of the Rings.) Can you
elucidate?
--
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
John B. Whelan
> nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20030603222917...@mb-m18.news.cs.com>...
>
> > I don't believe the One Ring grants any such "additional ability" to Sauron,
> > none, at least, that exceeds what he had before making the Ring.
>
> Tolkien's statement in Letter #131 seems to be pretty explicit that it
> did.
You have quoted the above line out of context and ignored the word
"such" which refers to that context. I will address Letter #131 in
another post.
> > Since no-one has demonstrated that this narrowly defined *extra power* exists
> > at all, there is no need to invoke the "Morgoth Element" to explain it.
>
> Did you not BEGIN this thread with the clear indication that this
> 'extra power' DOES exist?
I indicated that *extra power* does exist. I questioned any need to
believe in a specific narrowly defined *type* of extra power - a kind
so narrowly defined that, apparently by definition, it cannot be
obtained by stealing the powers of Elvish Rings, and therefore
requires another source and explanation of specifically "angelic"
origin.
You are going to an unnecessary degree of trouble by doing cut & paste
with the statements I write, so as to isolate them from their original
context. In the process, you are confusing yourself and others.
> From your first post in this thread;
> "I have noticed a theory floating around here which states that the
> 'extra'
> power that Sauron gains from manufacturing and wearing the One Ring
> derives
> from his tapping into something called the 'Morgoth Element'."
> "Surely Tolkien's published narrative makes it absolutely clear where
> Sauron's
> 'extra power' came from - he stole it from the various Free Peoples of
> Middle
> Earth, especially the Elves who were tricked into manufacturing
> powerful
> artifacts for Sauron's control, and the mortal kings later enslaved by
> these
> same artifacts."
That's right. You knew what my position was, since I had clearly
stated it earlier. Yet still you still managed to convince yourself,
with the help of out-of context snippage, that I was adopting an
inconsistent position. This seems unfriendly. While I do not suspect
this is deliberate, I cannot help suspecting that you are so eager to
think the worst of my arguments, that you see errors and
contradictions a bit too easily. I wish you would try a bit harder to
understand.
It also may well be that I will make (or have already made) several
mistakes in the course of these arguments - what with all this typing,
and so many snipers to defend against. I hope that when I get caught
in an error, this will not cause too much unholy glee among regulars
here who are hostile to my position, and I will be permitted to
clarify that which I have stated poorly.
> If you are suggesting that the ONLY 'extra power' Sauron gained was
> his ability to manipulate others that seems at odds with many of your
> arguments since and Tolkien's statement in Letters.
I have never suggested such a thing. I do not know, or claim to know,
in detail what sort of powers the Ring granted Sauron. Political
hegemony ("power on earth") seems to have been a major component of
his enhanced power. All sorts of other "powers" and "abilities" are
possible, and I find it hard to place different sorts of "power" into
neatly defined categories. Who knows? Maybe it did let him bench
press more. Maybe it made him a better ballerina too. Maybe it
granted him the ability to fart musical tunes. It seems likely that
it granted him ANY AND ALL powers and abilities that were granted by
the 19 great rings, plus innumerable lesser rings (including, I
suspect, those that were destroyed - their power was bound by the One
Ring, and perhaps would not have dissipated just because the rings
themselves got digested by dragons).
The only type of "narrowly defined" extra power I have questioned is
this theory of "innate angelic power" which, by alleged definition,
cannot be obtained from Elves or Elven Rings. In other words, I deny
any "type" of power inconsistent with the theory that Sauron got this
power from what the Elves invested in their Elven Rings
> If you are
> suggesting that any enhancement to Sauron's 'personal power' came
> solely from power the Elves placed into the Rings... that is a
> possible alternative explanation,
This sounds like it might be close to my position, though I am unsure
if we are using the words to mean exactly the same thing. I believe
he obtained the power from the Elven Rings, which were created by, and
belonged to, the Elves. Where the elves got the power they invested
in their Elven Rings, I do not claim to know. However they obtained
it, I imagine it was theirs to invest.
> but arguably less grounded in things
> Tolkien actually wrote (he nowhere indicated that the Elves DID put
> some great amount of their own power into the Rings)
The elves got the power from somewhere. One presumes that whatever
energy and resources they expended or accessed were theirs to expend
or access. Wherever they got it from, it became their own as soon as
they placed it in their Elven-rings, and may very well have been
theirs before-hand.
> and not
> explaining numerous other things such as why the Elves themselves
> received enhanced power from the Rings.
The possessor gained enhanced power. I am not sure that the Elven
community as a whole gained enhanced power. Possibly, a whole host of
Elves, including the Smiths, expended Elven resources of various sorts
in order to create these artifacts. The enhanced powers of the
possessor may have been balanced by an equal loss by the whole
community in terms of various "power resources" (including, but not
necessarily limited to, creative energy). While there may have been a
net gain, it seems also possible that there was no net gain but Elven
resources were just diverted towards specific goals requiring a
limited set of powerful persons to carry them out.
Any attempt to discuss this in detail will degenerate into pure
speculation. Some of the above is pure speculation, and I hope no-one
will be so rude as to demand that I actually defend such speculations,
or characterize them as "claims". "Power" and "Energy", "Cost" and
"Benefit" are bewilderingly complex subjects.
> As to 'no need to invoke the Morgoth Element'. Tolkien himself did
> that.
Try not to overgeneralize my opinions. I never said there was "no
need to invoke the Morgoth Element" any time, anywhere, or in any
context. I never even denied that the Morgoth Element played a role
in a portion of Sauron's powers. While I am no expert on the issue, I
am willing, for purposes of this discussion, to assume that it did. I
am willing to assume that a portion of the "Power" Sauron derived from
black magic, both before and after he made the Ring, came from his
ability to take advantage the cooperative spirit of Morgoth infused in
the matter of Arda.
What I said was there was no need to invoke the Morgoth Element as a
power source for the *enhancement* of Sauron's power resulting from
his creation of the One Ring. I think there is no need, because his
*enhanced* power is adequately explained by the fact that he siezed
from the Elves several artifacts of great power which he then used to
help him achieve political domination over most of Middle Earth (plus
whatever other benefits one may gain from controlling the cumulative
powers of uncounted magic rings).
> The Morgoth Element was required for Sauron to work 'magic'
> with matter. The bit about Sauron working with a 'particular portion
> of total gold' seems to strongly imply that this was relevant to the
> operation of the One. How relevant, exactly how it worked, and
> whether Tolkien always intended this are subject to debate... but your
> derisive dismissal of the 'Morgoth Element theory' seems unfounded
> given the clear indication by Tolkien that it played SOME part.
I guess it's time for me to dig up Morgoth's Ring and have a good
read. But I doubt it will impress me, because your summary, however
interesting in its own right, strikes me as containing no evidence to
help resolve the current issue. It is not enough for you to imply
"Tolkien says it plays SOME part, therefore, it must play this
specific part." That you are saying this at all suggests that it is
the best you can do.
Morgoth's Element presumably plays a role in all things material. Why
did the chicken cross the road? Because the road contains the Morgoth
Element. So does the chicken.
Because Morgoth snuck some of his black magic into the making of most
of the Elven Rings (or perhaps all the Elven Rings) it is possible
that "Morgoth's Element" may even taint the Elven rings in a special
way that exceeds its influence on your average chicken. It still
seems to me very problematic to assume that the Elves were using the
"Morgoth Element" as their main power source. While the Three were to
some extent tainted with Evil, they were not wholly evil (nor were the
Nine and the Seven, I think). I cannot believe they were entirely
powered by the Spirit of Satan, or that Elvish smiths of such great
wisdom could use Morgoth's Element as a main power source without
being aware that something was dreadfully wrong. Also, such a theory
seems to suggest circularity:
Q: Where did Sauron's "extra power" come from?
A: The Elven Rings
Q: Where did the Elven Rings get this power from?
A: From the Elves.
Q: Where did the Elves get it from?
A: Black Magic (the Morgoth Element).
Q: Who provided them with this black magic?
A: Sauron.
It would seem to me that any *enhanced* power Sauron derived from the
rings would not come from any black magic power he himself invested
(even if he did invest such dark power). Seems more likely it would
be derived from what was invested/contributed by the Elves. This is
supported by the fact that the Elven rings he most coveted were the
Three - the fairest and most powerful of them all, to whom he had
contributed the least.
- John Whelan
John B. Whelan
that
>>> Sauron gained the sort of 'manipulative' power described above AND
an
>>> increase in his 'personal' power from the Ring.
>
>> So you are saying that Tolkien's letters indicate that Sauron gains
certain
>> benefits when wearing the Ring AND (1) these benefits represent a
level of
>> power beyond what can be explained by the power that he himself
invested, and
>
> Yes. And indeed, I believe we agree on this point... or you'll have
> to explain what the subject of this message refers to.
>
>> (2) these benefits cannot be explained by his having access to all
the powers
>> that the Elves placed in their Rings of Power.
>
> No, that is not stated in what I wrote (quoted above).
Okay.
> I will agree
> that >taken in isolation< the idea that Sauron's 'extra power' could
> come from having appropriated from the power put into the other Great
> Rings by the Elves.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
> Indeed, I believe that some of it DID when he wore those Rings
> or controlled their bearers.
Okay. Assume Sauron has the One on his finger, and no others. Are
you saying he would gain no power from the Elven Rings if no-one else
was wearing them?
> HOWEVER, the idea that
> this was the SOLE source of power involved in the Great Rings seems to
> fail on numerous fronts - as explained in previous posts.
I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand this sentence. It seems a
circular, or tautological, to speak of the Elven Rings being the SOLE
source of power for the Elven Rings. As for the One Ring iself (the
only other Great Ring), it has at least one other additional source of
power other than the power provided by the Elven Rings, since Sauron
contributed a substantial portion of his own native power.
Thus, the One Ring has at least 2 sources of power: (1) Most of
Sauron's former power[*]; and (2)The Elven Rings. I believe the Elven
Rings are adequate to explain Sauron's extra power when he wore the
One, since any powers derived therefrom are above and beyond any of
his own power that he invested.
[*] Since Sauron's former power was enhanced by black magic, some
measure of black magic might be thought of as included in source #1.
Setting aside, for the moment, the unanswerable question of where the
power in the Elven Rings came from, are you suggesting that there must
be a third power source that is independent of the Elven Rings? Have
previous posts really shown there is such a 3rd source?
> > I'd like to see the quote. I would also like to know what powers meet the
> > above criteria.
>
> See the quotation I supplied previously about Sauron's power being
> greater while he wore the Ring than before he forged it.
We are not debating whether Sauron's power was greater when he wore
the Ring than before he forged it. I agree that it was.
- John Whelan
the softrat
Krüger <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>Not being a native speaker, I did just that. Here we go, Oxford dictionary:
>
>Contain /v :
>1(a) have or hold (sth) within itself
> (b) be capable of holding (sth)
>2(a) keep (sth/oneself) under control; keep within limits; hold back
> (b) prevent (sth) from spreading harmfully or becoming more serious
>
Actually Tolkien's use of the verb 'contain' includes elements of all
four of that dictionary's definitions. As to def 2b, look at the
situation from Sauron's POV.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada." --
Britney Spears
Nystulc
>"But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great part of
>his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant motive in
>myth and fairy-story) pass into the One 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'."
>Letters #131
>
>That seems clearly to indicate that Sauron's 'personal power' was
>greater while wearing the One than before he created it. Most of us
>assumed this to be the 'extra power' you were referring to.
What the above quote indicates is that Sauron *invested* inherent power in the
Ring. In return, he got enhanced "power on earth." The expression "that
power", in the third sentence, refers back to the "inherent power" of the first
sentence, not to the "power on earth" in the second.
It may be that he got some type of "personal" power, whatever that means
(though I am still unaware of any statement that clearly establishes this). I
don't think it makes sense to say he got additional "inherent" power. In any
event, the above quote supports neither proposition, and is totally consistent
with my views..
>> As far as I can tell, no mystery remains that requires any special theory,
>> since there is no evidence that Sauron's power increased in any special
>> fashion that cannot be explained by his gaining control of 19 powerful
>> magical artifacts that he did not himself create.
>
>"But also they ['all the rings alike'] enhanced the natural powers
>of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily
>corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
>Letters #131
Okay. Lets take a look at this quote in context. This quote actually comes
from several paragraphs earlier in Letter 131. Tolkien is outlining to his
publisher the history of the Elven Rings. At this point in the narrative, he
is discussing the creation of the earlier Great Rings (the Seven and the Nine).
He does not discuss the Three until the next paragraph, and the One does not
get forged for at least two more paragraphs. I think it is useful to quote the
whole paragraph, together with the line that immediately precedes it, and the
first line of the paragraph that immediately follows:
"With the aid of Sauron's lore they made *Rings of Power* ('power' is an
ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods).
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention and slowing
of *decay* (ie. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of
what is desired and loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish
motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus
approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible to evil, a lust for
domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from
Sauron (the 'Necromancer': so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and
presage on the pages of *The Hobbit*): such as rendering invisible the material
body, and making things of the invisible world visible.
"The Elves of Eregion made Three suprememtly beautiful and powerful rings
almost solely of their imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty:
they did not confer invisibility."
Please note that the context is discussion of Elvish Rings of Power. The
entire middle paragraph clearly does not refer to "all the rings alike" since
the third sentence it is not applicable to the Three. Therefore, it would seem
that the word "they" in the second and third sentences refers back to "Rings of
Power" and not to "of all the rings alike". Essentially, this paragraph is
about the Seven and the Nine. The paranthetical reference (of all the rings
alike) in the first sentence is intended to indicate that that sentence (unlike
the rest of the paragraph) applies to the Three as well. Note that the first
sentence does not seem to fit the One Ring very well at all. The first line of
the following paragraph confirms that the first sentence applies to the Three,
but the third sentence does not.
>ALL of the rings enhanced the natural powers of ANY possessor.
Probably they did. But the line you quoted does not clearly say that. It says
that the Elvish Rings of Power (perhaps not including the Three) enhanced the
natural powers of *a* possessor. It does not say *any*, and it does not seem
likely, in this context, that Tolkien has Sauron particularly in mind, since he
would hardly be concerned about the corrupting effect of Elvish Rings on
Sauron.
>And they did so in different ways for different owners.
Okay.
>Dwarves, for
>instance, apparently did not suddenly gain access to Elven magics or
>live longer as humans did.
Okay.
>Instead they were said to become better at
>accumulating wealth.
Okay.
>Where could such a flexible / general purpose
>power have come from?
I don't know, but I suspect you are going to tell me it must come from the
"Morgoth Element". I cannot see how that follows from anything you have said.
Computers grant different benefits to different users, according to the measure
and nature of their knowledge. I do not think it necessarily follows that
computers are powered primarily by the Morgoth Element (though it wouldn't
surprise me).
>Was it from the 'essence' of themselves that
>the Elves put into the Rings?
Perhaps, though I would not say so, at least not that way. Probably it was
from a variety of resources, which the Elves had access to, and which they
invested in the Rings project - including knowledge, skill, creativity, natural
resources, time, hard work, etc. - the usual. In any event, Sauron reaped
what they sowed.
>Why would the Elves themselves then be enhanced?
Why the hell not? Since when does any culture make a tool that is not intended
to enhance the capabilities of the person using it?
>Why would not the enhancement then always be 'elven' in
>character rather than differing for each race / wielder?
Why the hell not? Did Thorin swing Orcrist like an Elf would?
>Why would
>the Rings give power according to the native stature of the bearer
>rather than just a pure 'addition' of the power the Elves put into
>them?
Why the hell not? Computers don't add a "pure addition" -- why should Elven
Rings?
- John Whelan
Jussi Jaatinen
"John B. Whelan" wrote:
> Thus, the One Ring has at least 2 sources of power: (1) Most of
> Sauron's former power[*]; and (2)The Elven Rings. I believe the Elven
> Rings are adequate to explain Sauron's extra power when he wore the
> One, since any powers derived therefrom are above and beyond any of
> his own power that he invested.
Here, let's keep in mind, that the definitions of "power" aren't equal
for 1 and 2.
> Setting aside, for the moment, the unanswerable question of where the
> power in the Elven Rings came from, are you suggesting that there must
> be a third power source that is independent of the Elven Rings? Have
> previous posts really shown there is such a 3rd source?
And there does exist a good case for what powers the Elven Rings, too.
The Elves had tried, and failed, to create means to stall the decay of
Middle-Earth before. They failed because they didn't have access to
sufficient power (The Elessar(s)). When Sauron instructs them, they
suddenly succeed. We might thus suspect that what powers the Elven Rings
is something the Elves didn't have access to before Sauron instructed
them. We know that one such element, which the Elves didn't know how to
tap but Sauron did, was the Morgoth Element.
Thus whatever powers the Elven Rings cannot be something that proceeds
from the Elves, their imagination or efforts.
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> Are you asking me why he *wore* 13+ rings at one time, 9 on each
> finger, and 4+ on his toes? I am not sure that he did.
<snip various text about things being unclear>
While I agree that Tolkien never wrote that wearing two Rings of Power
at once would give more benefit than wearing just one of them I tend
to think that is a fair assumption.
BTW, the figure should be '12' rather than 13.
9 Nazgul rings + 3 Dwarven rings = 12.
>> Why wear them if they provided no benefit?
> As I said, I am not aware that he *wore* all 13 at once.
Ok... why KEEP them if they provided no benefit? Why did Sauron keep
not just the nine nazgul rings, but also the remaining three dwarven
rings with him if he did not get any benefit from doing so? Why not
hand out a dwarven ring to the Mouth or other ranking figures in his
forces? The possibility of 'defection' seems exceedingly unlikely to
me... if Sauron was an 'even match' for Gandalf wearing the One in a
battle of wills then no mortal wearing one of the other Rings would
stand a chance.
> *IF* he did wear all 13 at once, I would presume it was because he
> gained *some* benefit from wearing them all at once - not necessarily
> the *full* benefit of each. It would not necessarily follow that he
> gained the simultaneous cumulative benefit of all their powers.
Nor is it ever stated that he would receive the "simultaneous
cumulative benefit" of all the Rings if he were wearing the One.
There are indications that he'd be able to control the wearers of the
other Rings, know their thoughts, and take 'ownership' of anything
they had done with their Rings... but not that he gained the full
powers of all the Rings at once. Indeed, at best this could only
apply while the Rings were being WORN as Sauron clearly never had
access to the powers of the Three.
> I cannot remember making such a claim. I did suggest that the Elves
> may have expended considerable creative and spiritual energy
Which is precisely what I meant by 'essence'... not 'Celebrimbor
sacrificing elven babies to Morgoth'; which has got to be the most
extreme 'straw man' argument of all time.
>> Agree... though it seems to me that he could certainly have given
one
>> of the Dwarven Rings to (for instance) the Mouth and not have to
worry
>> about 'losing control'.
> Bad example. Gandalf just snatched stuff out of his hand.
Your point being? You think Gandalf could have snatched the Ring
right off his finger? You think the Mouth would not have been a BIT
more dangerous >had< he been wearing a Ring?
>> That he did not suggests to me that he gained
>> some benefit from having the Rings...
> Perhaps it does suggest this.
Good enough.
Conrad Dunkerson
> What the above quote indicates is that Sauron *invested* inherent power in the
> Ring. In return, he got enhanced "power on earth." The expression "that
> power", in the third sentence, refers back to the "inherent power" of the
> first sentence, not to the "power on earth" in the second.
So... what you are saying is that the 'power' in the first sentence is
about 'inherent power', 'power' in the third sentence is about
'inherent power', but there is no reason to suppose that 'power' in
the SECOND sentence is about 'inherent power'?
I see.
>> "But also they ['all the rings alike'] enhanced the natural powers
>> of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily
>> corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
>> Letters #131
> At this point in the narrative, he is discussing the creation of the earlier
> Great Rings (the Seven and the Nine). He does not discuss the Three until
> the next paragraph, and the One does not get forged for at least two more
> paragraphs.
Uh... it was not a direct chronological account. He spoke of "all the
rings alike". There seems no reason to assume that he meant, 'all the
rings alike... except the Three and the One'.
> Please note that the context is discussion of Elvish Rings of Power. The
> entire middle paragraph clearly does not refer to "all the rings alike" since
> the third sentence it is not applicable to the Three. Therefore, it would
> seem that the word "they" in the second and third sentences refers back
> to "Rings of Power" and not to "of all the rings alike".
If it really seems that way to you then we are reading the English
language in very different ways. I'd suggest instead that when
Tolkien talks about the Three in the next paragraph it is precisely
BECAUSE of the exception they represent to the third sentence.
>> ALL of the rings enhanced the natural powers of ANY possessor.
> Probably they did. But the line you quoted does not clearly say that.
It seems pretty clear to me;
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention and
slowing
of *decay* (ie. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the
preservation of
what is desired and loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an
Elvish
motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor..."
Yes, the next sentence also says 'they' and mentions things not
applicable to the Three... but immediately after that the Three and
this exception are specifically brought up. Ergo, it seems abundantly
clear that Tolkien was talking about the Great Rings in general and
then specific details and exceptions related to the Three and the One.
> It says that the Elvish Rings of Power (perhaps not including the Three)
> enhanced the natural powers of *a* possessor. It does not say *any*
Uh huh...
(@wheeeeeeee!)
>> Where could such a flexible / general purpose power have come from?
> I don't know, but I suspect you are going to tell me it must come from the
> "Morgoth Element".
MUST? No.
COULD? Absolutely.
You have questioned 'the need for a Morgoth Element theory'. Why the
'surprise' when some of the things possibly explained by that theory
(beyond JUST "Sauron's Extra Power") are presented?
>> Why would the Elves themselves then be enhanced?
> Why the hell not? Since when does any culture make a tool that is not
> intended to enhance the capabilities of the person using it?
So... you seem to be here indicating that the Rings were more like
tools than 'elven power batteries'. They allowed existing force to be
applied more effectively rather than increasing the available force.
Yet at the same time you say that Sauron gained 'extra power' by
appropriating it from what the Elves put into the Rings. Which would
seem to imply that the Rings DO provide an increase in available
force.
You are jumping back and forth between these two concepts as needed
for the particular point. The 'Morgoth Element' theory explains the
whole nicely. That doesn't mean it MUST be true... only that it could
be and there is no reason to dismiss it as 'unneccessary'.
>> Why would not the enhancement then always be 'elven' in
>> character rather than differing for each race / wielder?
> Why the hell not? Did Thorin swing Orcrist like an Elf would?
Uh yeah... pretty much. He used muscles in his arm to move it through
the air... seems very similar. Granted, he had shorter arms than most
Elves, but the use of the sword was the same.
>> Why would the Rings give power according to the native stature of
the
>> bearer rather than just a pure 'addition' of the power the Elves
put into
>> them?
> Why the hell not? Computers don't add a "pure addition" -- why should Elven
> Rings?
Computers do not run faster for some people than others. They do not
contain more memory when used by a programmer than when an end user is
at the keyboard. They in fact DO provide a "pure addition"... the
capabilities of a computer are FIXED, regardless of who is using it.
Now, a more skilled programmer might be able to write a more efficient
program ON a computer, but the computer itself would not change. The
same is not true of the Rings... a more skilled 'magic worker' might
be able to produce a more efficient effect with a Great Ring, but they
also just inherently get MORE out of it than some hobbit would. If
the 'motive power' of the Rings were derived from whatever was put
into them why would it not be a constant?
The the Rings grant increased power in proportion to the native power
of the user suggests to me that they do so either by 'focusing' that
native power or allowing the wielder to use their native power to 'tap
into' an even greater power source. Again, the 'Morgoth Element'
theory being a possible way of explaining this.
Conrad Dunkerson
>> I will agree
>> that >taken in isolation< the idea that Sauron's 'extra power'
could
>> come from having appropriated from the power put into the other
Great
>> Rings by the Elves.
> I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
That is a possible explanation for "Sauron's Extra Power". However, I
do not think it works as an explanation for everything Tolkien said
about the Rings.
>> Indeed, I believe that some of it DID when he wore those Rings
>> or controlled their bearers.
> Okay. Assume Sauron has the One on his finger, and no others. Are
> you saying he would gain no power from the Elven Rings if no-one else
> was wearing them?
I wasn't really speaking to that question at all, but overall I'd say
that it sounds unlikely. He clearly did not receive ALL of the power
of the Rings, else he would not have needed to capture the Three in
order to gain access to their preservation powers. Whether or not he
received some lesser measure of power from unworn Rings is unknowable,
but it seems to me unlikely and not particularly relevant.
> I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand this sentence. It seems a
> circular, or tautological, to speak of the Elven Rings being the SOLE
> source of power for the Elven Rings.
The >Elves< being the sole source of power for the Elven Rings.
> Setting aside, for the moment, the unanswerable question of where the
> power in the Elven Rings came from,
Heh... there is no absolute answer, but theories have been presented.
That's rather the whole POINT of all this isn't it? The idea that the
power of the Elven Rings came entirely from the Elves themselves does
not (to me) appear to hold up. Hence a certain other theory...
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> There are texts indicating that he wore the
>> Nine to control the Nazgul.
> Really? I can remember texts that he _held_ the Nine, but not that
> he _wore_ them. (I quote one in the FAQ of the Rings.) Can you
> elucidate?
Minor assumption on my part. If we assume that Sauron could control
the Nazgul at distance by holding rather than wearing their Rings then
there are no texts I know of which indicate that he "wore" those
rings. The texts say he 'held' or 'gathered' the Nine to control the
Nazgul. It is possible that he could do so without actually putting
the Rings on.
Of course it is then also possible that he could derive OTHER benefits
from the Rings without putting them on. Indeed, Sam and Frodo both
seem to gain some advantage just by clasping the One in their hand,
and of course the 'old age prevention' feature didn't require the One
to be worn.
Maybe a sufficiently powerful wielder could access all the powers of a
Ring just by having it in their possession, but I generally tend to
think that they had to be worn to access the major powers (such as
'total Nazgul domination at a distance').
Conrad Dunkerson
> conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote;
> You have quoted the above line out of context and ignored the word
> "such" which refers to that context.
What? Ok, restoring the 'context' of what you were responding to;
Gunnar had written;
"There remains however the additional ability of The One Ring (as of
all
Great Rings) to enhance the natural powers and abilities of it's
wielder."
You responded;
"I don't believe the One Ring grants any such "additional ability" to
Sauron,
none, at least, that exceeds what he had before making the Ring. And
how can a
power be "natural" when it is granted by an artifact?"
I then said;
"Tolkien's statement in Letter #131 seems to be pretty explicit that
it
did."
So... how did I take it out of context? Gunnar said that the One
'enhanced the natural powers of the wielder'. You said it did not. I
said Letter #131 seemed to indicate it did (the 'all the rings alike'
passage). I'm sorry, but the 'context' was clearly preserved
throughout. You indicated elsewhere that you disagreed that the
letter indicated that, but don't give me grief about 'quoting out of
context'. I didn't.
> That's right. You knew what my position was, since I had clearly
> stated it earlier.
You stated it. That it was 'clear' and I 'knew what it was' are
assumptions on your part, and incorrect ones in this case. You might
have noted the 'if you mean this' and 'otherwise if you mean THIS'
comments in my message... which ought to have made it pretty obvious
that I DIDN'T 'know what your position was'.
> Yet still you still managed to convince yourself, with the help of out-of
> context snippage, that I was adopting an inconsistent position.
@wheeeee!
> This seems unfriendly.
This seems paranoid.
> While I do not suspect this is deliberate, I cannot help suspecting that
> you are so eager to think the worst of my arguments, that you see errors
> and contradictions a bit too easily. I wish you would try a bit harder to
> understand.
I have agreed with several of your arguments and have been attempting
to understand.
> It seems likely that it granted him ANY AND ALL powers and abilities that
> were granted by the 19 great rings, plus innumerable lesser rings
> (including, I suspect, those that were destroyed - their power was bound
> by the One Ring, and perhaps would not have dissipated just because the
> rings themselves got digested by dragons).
Interesting speculation. I tend to think that power was 'lost' when
the Rings were destroyed. On the other hand, Galadriel does say, 'He
who holds the Seven and the Nine'. I suspect she was just skipping
the qualifier that 'four of the Seven had been destroyed', but perhaps
that power somehow defaulted to Sauron. Though... at that point he
did not hold the One.
> The only type of "narrowly defined" extra power I have questioned is
> this theory of "innate angelic power" which, by alleged definition,
> cannot be obtained from Elves or Elven Rings.
Ok, I wasn't involved in that branch of the thread but I recall seeing
it. I don't know that the increased power had to be partially or
wholly from an Ainur. Under the 'Morgoth Element' theory it of course
WOULD be, but I haven't been contending that any text stated this as
the 'type' of power involved.
> In other words, I deny any "type" of power inconsistent with the theory that
> Sauron got this power from what the Elves invested in their Elven Rings
> This sounds like it might be close to my position, though I am unsure
> if we are using the words to mean exactly the same thing. I believe
> he obtained the power from the Elven Rings, which were created by, and
> belonged to, the Elves. Where the elves got the power they invested
> in their Elven Rings, I do not claim to know. However they obtained
> it, I imagine it was theirs to invest.
Ah, but this I disagree with because I don't see the Elves as HAVING
power sufficient to produce the effects generated by the Great Rings.
More on this towards the bottom of the message.
> The possessor gained enhanced power. I am not sure that the Elven
> community as a whole gained enhanced power. Possibly, a whole host of
> Elves, including the Smiths, expended Elven resources of various sorts
> in order to create these artifacts.
Perhaps... except in the case of the Three. They were forged in
secret by Celebrimbor alone. Which is a very important point for the
whole 'source of power' debate (again, see below).
> Try not to overgeneralize my opinions. I never said there was "no
> need to invoke the Morgoth Element" any time, anywhere, or in any
> context.
I didn't claim otherwise. You said so just in the contect of
"Sauron's Extra Power". However, the point I was making was that
given that Tolkien did indicate that the 'Morgoth Element' was
involved to an unspecified extent and that the theory 'fits' with many
details of the Rings those facts in themselves provide a valid reason
to suggest it as a possible explanation for "Sauron's Extra Power".
> I think there is no need, because his *enhanced* power is adequately
> explained by the fact that he siezed from the Elves several artifacts of
> great power which he then used to help him achieve political domination
> over most of Middle Earth (plus whatever other benefits one may gain from
> controlling the cumulative powers of uncounted magic rings).
And I am saying that while I agree that explanation is adequate for
the 'extra power' issue I do not believe it holds up on other
details... specifically, how the Elves could produce items of such
power.
> It is not enough for you to imply "Tolkien says it plays SOME part,
> therefore, it must play this specific part." That you are saying this at
> all suggests that it is the best you can do.
Again with the 'straw man'. I have not said "must". You have
questioned the need for the >theory<.
BTW, remember the 'this seems unfriendly' bit? There has been rather
ALOT of that coming my direction - as with the above.
> While the Three were to some extent tainted with Evil, they were not
> wholly evil (nor were the Nine and the Seven, I think). I cannot believe
> they were entirely powered by the Spirit of Satan, or that Elvish smiths of
> such great wisdom could use Morgoth's Element as a main power source without
> being aware that something was dreadfully wrong.
Yet... something WAS dreadfully wrong and they were unaware of it.
Nor have I suggested that the Rings were ENTIRELY powered by the
Morgoth Element. Indeed, I have said that I believe the Elves DID put
some of their own 'power' into the Rings and that this is part of the
'extra power' Sauron received... just as you suggest. In fact, I have
agreed with your entire premise EXCEPT that the Elves alone could
produce such power.
> Also, such a theory seems to suggest circularity:
> Q: Where did Sauron's "extra power" come from?
> A: The Elven Rings
> Q: Where did the Elven Rings get this power from?
> A: From the Elves.
> Q: Where did the Elves get it from?
> A: Black Magic (the Morgoth Element).
> Q: Who provided them with this black magic?
> A: Sauron.
I'm failing to see the circle. Unless you are suggesting that the
bottom step is Sauron providing 'black magic' in the form of 'raw
power' to the Elves. That isn't claimed by anyone that I know of.
Rather, he provided KNOWLEDGE which the Elves used to construct the
Rings. What that knowledge was is debatable, but clearly it involved
an element of 'black magic' as you call it because of the innate
corruption of all the Rings.
> Seems more likely it would be derived from what was invested/contributed
> by the Elves. This is supported by the fact that the Elven rings he most
> coveted were the Three - the fairest and most powerful of them all, to
> whom he had contributed the least.
Indeed, Sauron contributed NOTHING to the Three except knowledge
Celebrimbor used in their construction. So how could it be that
Celebrimbor alone created these three items that Sauron was desperate
to get control of? If the power of the Three was, as you say above,
"invested/contributed" solely by Celebrimbor (the only Elf who worked
on them) how could they POSSIBLY be as powerful as they were? Was
Celebrimbor more powerful than Sauron?
I'd argue that there MUST have been some other source of power, and
given that Celebrimbor could not make the Three earlier that source of
power must have been something that Sauron taught to the Elves.
Now, it COULD be knowledge of how to perform 'power magnification' or
how to draw power from sunlight or any number of other things.
However, it could ALSO be how to manipulate the 'Morgoth Element', and
indeed that seems to be a good fit.
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
> And I am saying that while I agree that explanation is adequate for
> the 'extra power' issue I do not believe it holds up on other
> details... specifically, how the Elves could produce items of such
> power.
Hmmm... I don't think that Sauron "got extra power" from
elsewhere, in any meaningful sense, when wearing the One Ring,
Letter #131 notwithstanding. Let me make this analogy.
Say Fred is a valiant knight and also a skilled swordsmith.
Fred works and toils for weeks to make the perfect sword that he
can use in battle. Once he has finished it, he is a much more
formidable fighter than he was before, when he has his great new
sword. In other words,
(Fred after forging Sword) + Sword > > (Fred before Sword)
where "> >" means "is much greater than". Fred didn't "get
extra power" from elsewhere by doing this; basically, he was
devoting time and energy "offline", in his smithy, to making the
sword, so that it would enhance his power in battle.
Similarly, Sauron schemed for years and then worked
presumably for a long time and with a lot of concentration to
make the Ring. When he was finished,
(Sauron after forging Ring) + Ring > > (Sauron before Ring)
He had used his knowledge and skill to make an artifact that
enhanced his power, just like Fred. Part of that power was
power over the other Rings, but he didn't have to be drawing
power from them in order to do that. Where the sword analogy
breaks down is that Sauron had to put a lot of his own power
into the Ring when forging it:
(Sauron after forging Ring) = (Sauron before Ring)
- (Power put into Ring)
...unlike Fred, who after forging the sword was pretty much the
same as he was before. So Sauron had to actually have and wear
the Ring in order to be greater than he was before.
Furthermore, since the power in the Ring was attuned to Sauron's
power, destroying the Ring destroyed a large part of Sauron's power:
(Sauron after destruction of Ring) < < < (Sauron before Ring)
...which was the point of the whole schmozzle. I don't think
there's anything in Letter #131 that contradicts the above
interpretation.
--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
John B. Whelan
> nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote in message news:<fd166f83.0306...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Are you asking me why he *wore* 13+ rings at one time, 9 on each
> > finger, and 4+ on his toes? I am not sure that he did.
>
> <snip various text about things being unclear>
>
> While I agree that Tolkien never wrote that wearing two Rings of Power
> at once would give more benefit than wearing just one of them I tend
> to think that is a fair assumption.
I'm not sure this can be assumed, but I agree it is quite plausible.
Sauron might easily gain "more" benefit from wearing two rings, than
from wearing one. I'm not sure why you are bothering to point this
out, however. It is irrelevant to the discussion I was having with
Stephen, who needs to assume a hell of a lot more than that to make
the point he was trying to make. He needs to assume that Sauron
gained the FULL benefit of each (not just "more" benefit), and he
needs to further assume that this occurred when wearing all 13 rings
at once, not just two. And then, he needs to further assume several
more things (which you snipped).
> BTW, the figure should be '12' rather than 13.
> 9 Nazgul rings + 3 Dwarven rings = 12.
13 is better for Stephen's position, and I am willing to assume it for
purposes of argument. I thought the number was not precisely known.
> >> Why wear them if they provided no benefit?
> > As I said, I am not aware that he *wore* all 13 at once.
>
> Ok... why KEEP them if they provided no benefit?
I thought that might have been what you meant. I said so in the
previous post and then specifically addressed the issue. You snipped
it without response
> Why did Sauron keep
> not just the nine nazgul rings, but also the remaining three dwarven
> rings with him if he did not get any benefit from doing so?
Why are you responding to my post without first bothering to read it?
I do not assume that he gained "no benefit". Why assume that ALL or
NOTHING are the only options?
> Why not
> hand out a dwarven ring to the Mouth or other ranking figures in his
> forces? The possibility of 'defection' seems exceedingly unlikely to
> me... if Sauron was an 'even match' for Gandalf wearing the One in a
> battle of wills then no mortal wearing one of the other Rings would
> stand a chance.
The One is a different story from the lesser Rings. If Sauron does
not have the Ruling Ring, he cannot necessarily force a confrontation.
He does not have access, for instance, to Galadriel or Elrond, who
wear two of the Great Rings, even though (as Tolkien indicates)
neither would be a match for Sauron when wearing the One.
"Defection" is not the only danger. Another possibility is that the
bearer will be overcome on the battlefield, a situation Sauron is all
too familiar with.
But the most compelling danger, that would cause Sauron to keep the
Great Rings close to his chest, is the knowledge that his enemies had
the One Ring. The last thing he would want is to put the Mouth of
Sauron in charge of an army wearing an Elven Ring, and for Gandalf to
put on the One and start giving orders to the Mouth.
> > *IF* he did wear all 13 at once, I would presume it was because he
> > gained *some* benefit from wearing them all at once - not necessarily
> > the *full* benefit of each. It would not necessarily follow that he
> > gained the simultaneous cumulative benefit of all their powers.
>
> Nor is it ever stated that he would receive the "simultaneous
> cumulative benefit" of all the Rings if he were wearing the One.
<sigh> Very well. Let me rephrase. Assume, instead, that the "full"
benefit is what he would receive from all the Elven Rings if he were
wearing the One, whatever benefit that is. One of the many things
Stephen needs to assume, in order for his argument to make sense, is
that the benefit gained from wearing all the Rings at once, is just as
good as the "full" benefit. Okay?
> There are indications that he'd be able to control the wearers of the
> other Rings, know their thoughts, and take 'ownership' of anything
> they had done with their Rings... but not that he gained the full
> powers of all the Rings at once.
Whatever.
> Indeed, at best this could only
> apply while the Rings were being WORN as Sauron clearly never had
> access to the powers of the Three.
It is not clear that he never had access to the powers granted by the
Three. In fact, it is my understanding that he did have access to
their powers - just not to their bearers who removed them. But, as I
pointed out to Stephen, your position regarding lack of access is
another of the many things he has to assume to make his point.
> > I cannot remember making such a claim. I did suggest that the Elves
> > may have expended considerable creative and spiritual energy [remainder of sentence snipped by Conrad without indication.]
>
> Which is precisely what I meant by 'essence'... not 'Celebrimbor
> sacrificing elven babies to Morgoth'; which has got to be the most
> extreme 'straw man' argument of all time.
What straw-man argument? We are discussing a position you are
attributing to me, not one that I am attributing to you. Am I not
allowed to make a joke out of what is allegedly my own theory?
I told you that neither my serious version of the "elf creativity"
idea, nor my baby-sacrifice "Elf Essence" version, are inconsistent
with my theory. And there were a less absurd version of the Elf
Essence theory that did not involve the humorous idea of baby
sacrifice, that would not create a contradiction either. None create
a contradiction. I have not created a "straw man" out of your
argument in order to push it down. I have created a "straw man" out
of my own argument in order to hold it up. I am trying to make the
point that I am not devoted to any particular theory as to what
resources the Elves devoted to create Rings of Power.
I note that you snipped one of my sentences in mid-sentence. I would
like to request that you not do this. That way, you are less likely
to misconstrue what I write. I don't believe there is ever a
legitimate excuse for slicing off a sentence in the middle.
> >> Agree... though it seems to me that he could certainly have given
> one
> >> of the Dwarven Rings to (for instance) the Mouth and not have to
> worry
> >> about 'losing control'.
>
> > Bad example. Gandalf just snatched stuff out of his hand.
>
> Your point being?
That you might have chosen a better example. A little later, I got to
my main point. You snipped it.
> You think Gandalf could have snatched the Ring
> right off his finger? You think the Mouth would not have been a BIT
> more dangerous >had< he been wearing a Ring?
You're right. Getting a ring of the Mouth's finger might have been
more difficult. Gandalf might have to use Glamdring.
> >> That he did not suggests to me that he gained
> >> some benefit from having the Rings...
>
> > Perhaps it does suggest this. [Remainder of paragraph snipped by Conrad.]
>
> Good enough.
Good enough for what? Not good enough to support Stephen's argument,
surely.
I note that you have gone through a long post, and snipped without
indication, isolating several lines from their context in a very
confusing manner. I don't see the point. Your debating tactics seem
both desperate and unworthy.
- John Whelan
Stan Brown
>Ring just by having it in their possession, but I generally tend to
>think that they had to be worn to access the major powers (such as
>'total Nazgul domination at a distance').
Well, maybe. But I don't believe that the Nine had the power of
dominating the Nazgûl; I believe that they gave their _bearers_ the
power of dominating (or at least overawing) non-Ringbearers.
I visualize Sauron's use of the Nine to dominate the Nazgûl as three
pronged:
(1) When they became Nazgûl Sauron had the One Ring, so they became
Nazgûl with the habit of being subservient to him.
(2) Sauron had "rather an overwhelming personality", as Tolkien said
of Smaug, and it is unlikely that ever a wearer of the one of the
Nine could deny Sauron even if he didn't have the One: Tolkien tells
us that nearly anyone wearing even the One would be unable to resist
Sauron's demand to hand it over.
(3) Tolkien talks about Gollum's feelings for the One in terms that
sound very like addiction. I would assume that each Nazgûl felt
similarly about "his" Ring. Thus, by holding the Rings, Sauron kept
open the possibility of permanently depriving the Nazgûl of them.
This last point is also, I think, a major reason why Sauron could
not hand out any of the Nine to anyone else: if he handed out one of
the Nine to a new master, its hold on its Nazgûl would be broken.
without the One, Sauron couldn't reassert the complete control that
he had.
I freely admit that I don't have cites for most of the above. It
seems consistent with what Tolkien did tell us, but I'm definitely
extrapolating.
John B. Whelan
>nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message
>news:<20030606010806...@mb-m05.news.cs.com>...
>
>> What the above quote indicates is that Sauron *invested* inherent
power in
>the
>> Ring. In return, he got enhanced "power on earth." The expression
"that
>> power", in the third sentence, refers back to the "inherent power"
of the
>> first sentence, not to the "power on earth" in the second.
>
>So... what you are saying is that the 'power' in the first sentence
is
>about 'inherent power',
No. I'm not saying that. *Tolkien* is saying that. He he says
Sauron invested his "inherent power" in the One Ring. "Inherent" is
not an interpretation I attached to the word "power".
> 'power' in the third sentence is about
>'inherent power',
The phrase "that power" in the third sentence refers back to the first
sentence, and not to the second sentence. It becomes nonsense if you
try to apply it to the second sentence. Therefore, yes. The third
sentence refers to Sauron's inherent power, that he invested, yet
remains in rapport with him so that he is not diminished. It cannot
possibly refer to the enhanced "power on earth" that he gains when
wearing the Ring, as the third sentence only applies to his power when
not wearing the Ring.
> but there is no reason to suppose that 'power' in
>the SECOND sentence is about 'inherent power'?
Tolkien explicitly uses the phrase "power on earth". Both the
distinguishing phrase "power on earth" and the fact that it *is* a
form of enhanced power strongly militate against the idea that it is
also "inherent". Enhancements are rarely thought of as inherent.
>I see.
I sense sarcasm. Does it seems ludicrous to you that a sentence
referring to one type of thing could be sandwiched between two other
sentences referring to another type of thing? I cannot understand
why.
>>> "But also they ['all the rings alike'] enhanced the natural powers
>>> of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily
>>> corruptible into evil, a lust for domination."
>>> Letters #131
>
>> At this point in the narrative, he is discussing the creation of
the
>earlier
>> Great Rings (the Seven and the Nine). He does not discuss the
Three until
>> the next paragraph, and the One does not get forged for at least
two more
>> paragraphs.
>
>Uh... it was not a direct chronological account.
I don't what you mean by "direct chronological account". The account
is generally chronological, as I stated. If you mean it is not
*strictly* chronological, I agree.
>He spoke of "all the
>rings alike". There seems no reason to assume that he meant, 'all
the
>rings alike... except the Three and the One'.
You have misconstrued me if that's what you thought I meant. (You
misconstrue me an awful lot). I explicitly stated that the
parenthetical "all the rings alike" indicates that the first sentence
is intended to include the Three. However, I do not construe the
phrase to include the One, unless it makes sense to you to say that
"The chief power [of the One Ring] was the prevention and slowing of
decay (ie. change viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of
what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an
Elvish motive." Or maybe that does make sense to you. Seems likely,
to me, though that Tolkien did not have the One Ring primarily in mind
when he wrote it.
>> Please note that the context is discussion of Elvish Rings of
Power. The
>> entire middle paragraph clearly does not refer to "all the rings
alike"
>since
>> the third sentence it is not applicable to the Three. Therefore,
it would
>> seem that the word "they" in the second and third sentences refers
back
>> to "Rings of Power" and not to "of all the rings alike".
>
>If it really seems that way to you then we are reading the English
>language in very different ways.
Such things happen.
>I'd suggest instead that when
>Tolkien talks about the Three in the next paragraph it is precisely
>BECAUSE of the exception they represent to the third sentence.
I won't say this is completely unreasonable. It is certainly possible
that the middle sentence is intended to refer to the Three as well as
the earlier Elven Rings (and *might* have been intended to apply to
the One as well). However, the third sentence, describing the powers
more directly derived from Sauron, clearly does not apply to the
Three. Therefore, the phrase, "all the rings alike" does not extend
to the third sentence. Therefore, it is at least questionable that it
extends to the second sentence. This is especially true since *only*
the first sentence discusses the "chief power" of the rings, and the
phrase "of all the rings alike" is clearly attached to the phrase
"chief power".
>>> ALL of the rings enhanced the natural powers of ANY possessor.
>
>> Probably they did. But the line you quoted does not clearly say
that.
>
> It seems pretty clear to me;
As you said, it seems we read the English language differently. Note
that my position is a modest one. All I am saying is that the line is
unclear. It is you, not I, who is invoking the sentence as support
for your position. Seems to me it need not be read as supporting
either of us, and I am sure Tolkien did not have this precise argument
in mind when he wrote it.
> "The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention and
> slowing
> of *decay* (ie. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the
> preservation of
> what is desired and loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an
> Elvish
> motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor..."
>
> Yes, the next sentence also says 'they' and mentions things not
> applicable to the Three... but immediately after that the Three and
> this exception are specifically brought up. Ergo, it seems abundantly
> clear that Tolkien was talking about the Great Rings in general and
> then specific details and exceptions related to the Three and the One.
It does not seem abundantly clear to me at all. I agree that it is a
possible construction. As you said, it seems we read the English
language differently.
>>> Where could such a flexible / general purpose power have come
from?
>
>> I don't know, but I suspect you are going to tell me it must come
from the
>> "Morgoth Element".
>
> MUST? No.
> COULD? Absolutely.
If you are merely saying that you like the theory, and choose to
believe it, I have no wish to fight with you over it.
> You have questioned 'the need for a Morgoth Element theory'. Why the
> 'surprise' when some of the things possibly explained by that theory
> (beyond JUST "Sauron's Extra Power") are presented?
You seem to acknowledge that the "Morgoth Element" theory (by which I
assume you mean the idea that the Morgoth Element is the Source of
Sauron's extra power), is at best optional. I don't understand the
sentence concerning 'surpirse".
>>> Why would the Elves themselves then be enhanced?
>
>> Why the hell not? Since when does any culture make a tool that is
not
>> intended to enhance the capabilities of the person using it?
>
> So... you seem to be here indicating that the Rings were more like
> tools than 'elven power batteries'. They allowed existing force to be
> applied more effectively rather than increasing the available force.
The Rings are certainly tools. They might (AFAIK) also be (or have)
"elven power batteries", and there is no contradiction there, since
power batteries are tools, or part of tools. But I do not understand
this preoccupation with viewing Sauron's "extra power" as flowing to
him from its source the way electricity flows through modern
electronic gadgets. Surely that is, at best, an imperfect and
slightly useful analagy between different types of phenemena, and at
worst, totally misleading and at odds with what Tolkien may have had
in mind.
Take, for instance, a (non-magical) sword. Perhaps this is something
that you consider a "tool" rather than a "power source", in that it
allows "existing force to be applied more effectively rather than
increasing the available force". Nonetheless, it can be a "power
source" in all senses that seems to have been mentioned by Tolkien in
connection with the One Ring (but on a much smaller scale). If one is
evenly matched with one's enemy, it can give you strength to overcome
all remaining resistance. You can use it to instill fear in others,
and thereby dominate their wills, and force them to do what you say.
It can give you military advantage, leading to political advantage,
thus increasing one's "power on earth". (Assuming that "fighting" may
be regarded as a "natural power", it may be said even be said that a
sword increases the "natural powers" of a possessor, in that it is
more valuable in the hands of a warrior than in the hands of a
blacksmith. Of course I am still uncertain what precisely Tolkien
meant by "natural power" in that context, and am also unsure that he
had Sauron or the One Ring specifically in mind when he wrote it.)
Please don't accuse me of "claiming" that the Elven Rings (and hence
the One Ring) grant power "only" in the various senses described in
the above paragraph. I do not know, and, AFAIK, Tolkien does not tell
us. My modest claim is that powers gained from the One Ring
> Yet at the same time you say that Sauron gained 'extra power' by
> appropriating it from what the Elves put into the Rings.
I am saying that the advantages gained by gaining control over the
Elven Rings caused his "power on earth" to be enhanced. At the time
of LOTR, the balance of power was such that the advantages gained
thereby would make him "stronger than ever" and give him strength to
"crush all resistence." I believe that advantages gained from the
Elven Rings are sufficient to explain all such comments by Tolkien,
but leave open an enormous range of possibilities as to the precise
details, mechanisms, and causal relationships.
> Which would
> seem to imply that the Rings DO provide an increase in available
> force.
It implies no such thing. The Rings may well provide an increase in
available force (as distinct from "existing force applied more
effectively), but this is not implied from what you said. AFAIK, when
Tolkien makes references that imply extra power, he may have in mind
either of these concepts, or both at once. I see no need to
distinguish them for purposes of this argument.
> You are jumping back and forth between these two concepts as needed
> for the particular point.
Why do you want me to commit to specifics, when Tolkien does not? My
theory is simple. I think the type of "extra power" granted is the
type that can be explained by his having siezed control of the Elven
Rings. Some of my opponents seemed to feel that there existed a type
of power that could not have come from Elven Rings because it was
"inherent". To disprove this theory, people have thrown a quote from
letter #131 indicating that the Elven Rings increase the "natural
powers" of a possessor, and that therefore the One Ring does as well.
I'm not sure what "natural powers" means in this context, but in any
event it is clear that such powers can be derived from Elven Rings
because the quote specifically says that the Elven Rings granted such
powers to their possessors.
> The 'Morgoth Element' theory explains the
> whole nicely.
The "Elven Rings" theory explains the whole thing nicely. Anyone who
wants to take it a step further and speculate that the Elven rings
worn by Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel used the spirit of Satan as a
power source, are welcome to do so, though that seems silly to me, and
has an aura of circularity. But the Elven Rings should be the first
step in the explanation.
> That doesn't mean it MUST be true... only that it could
> be and there is no reason to dismiss it as 'unneccessary'.
I agree that it *could* be true. That is the best and only reason
that has been offered for it. I therefore dismiss it as unnecessary
(and for other reasons). You don't have to if you don't want to.
>>> Why would not the enhancement then always be 'elven' in
>>> character rather than differing for each race / wielder?
>
>> Why the hell not? Did Thorin swing Orcrist like an Elf would?
>
>Uh yeah... pretty much. He used muscles in his arm to move it
through
>the air... seems very similar. Granted, he had shorter arms than
most
>Elves, but the use of the sword was the same.
>>> Why would the Rings give power according to the native stature of
>the
>>> bearer rather than just a pure 'addition' of the power the Elves
>put into
>>> them?
>
>> Why the hell not? Computers don't add a "pure addition" -- why
should
>Elven
>> Rings?
>
>Computers do not run faster for some people than others.
Contrasted with Elven Rings, which did "run faster" for some people???
Maybe they do, for all I know, but where are you getting this from.
>They do not
>contain more memory when used by a programmer than when an end user
is
>at the keyboard.
Contrasted with Elven Rings, which do "contain more memory" for some
people??? Maybe they do, for all I know, but where are you getting
this from?
>They in fact DO provide a "pure addition"... the
>capabilities of a computer are FIXED, regardless of who is using it.
Are you suggesting there is NO fixed limit at all to the power of an
Elven Ring? Seems to me these are all finite artifacts, which at some
point reach limits of how much power they can grant.
>Now, a more skilled programmer might be able to write a more
efficient
>program ON a computer, but the computer itself would not change.
It is also true that a skilled user (including, but not limited to,
programing ability) can use more and better use of a computer's many
"powers". I am not aware that Tolkien indicates that the Rings
*themselves* change when different users make use of them.
>The
>same is not true of the Rings... a more skilled 'magic worker' might
>be able to produce a more efficient effect with a Great Ring, but
they
>also just inherently get MORE out of it than some hobbit would. If
>the 'motive power' of the Rings were derived from whatever was put
>into them why would it not be a constant?
I don't understand the need to make the fine distinctions you are
drawing here. I see no need to commit myself, since it is irrelevant
to my position.
> The Rings grant increased power in proportion to the native power
> of the user suggests to me that they do so either by 'focusing' that
> native power or allowing the wielder to use their native power to 'tap
> into' an even greater power source.
This seems reasonable (though likewise, there is no reason to commit
to it.)
> Again, the 'Morgoth Element' theory being a possible way of explaining this.
Possibly. But to me it seems unecessary and unlikely, since most
Elven Artifacts are clearly not *powered* by Morgoth's Element, and
Elves clearly have access to other sources for creating magic
artifacts. It seems to me to be one thing to suggest that Narya
might be somewhat tainted by Sauron's foul arts. It seems another to
suggest that Satan's spirit was Narya's primary power source.
If Sauron gained, from stealing Elven artifacts, *extra power"
exceeding his own investment in the project, then it makes sense to me
that these extra advantages would be derived from the contributions of
the Elves, and not the contributions of Sauron.
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
<news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
>> Again, the 'Morgoth Element' theory being a possible way of
>> explaining this.
>
> Possibly. But to me it seems unecessary and unlikely, since most
> Elven Artifacts are clearly not *powered* by Morgoth's Element, and
> Elves clearly have access to other sources for creating magic
> artifacts. It seems to me to be one thing to suggest that Narya
> might be somewhat tainted by Sauron's foul arts. It seems another to
> suggest that Satan's spirit was Narya's primary power source.
Yeah, a lot of elven artifacts have other power sources. At least two of
those (the two Elessar) were created for the specific task of arresting
decay, however, they were clearly not good enough at doing so to satisfy
the elves demands. Note that the later Elessar was even created by
Celebrimbor before he met Annatar.
After that meeting, Celebrimbor was suddenly able to create not one but
*three* very powerful artifacts all by his lonesome, each of which had the
very strong ability to arrest decay. Now, to me, it seems as if Celebrimbor
learned something about power sources for magical artifacts from Annatar.
What might that be, if not how to tap into the Morgoth Element? Any
suggestions (please including a sensible explanation of how Sauron gained
that knowledge himself) is welcome.
> If Sauron gained, from stealing Elven artifacts, *extra power"
> exceeding his own investment in the project, then it makes sense to me
> that these extra advantages would be derived from the contributions of
> the Elves, and not the contributions of Sauron.
The extra power he gained from stealing the Elven Rings could not come from
his own power contribution for he did not contribute any of his own power
to the making of the rings. He only provided the knowledge of how to access
that power.
He gained power by being able to control the thoughts, minds and actions of
the ringbearers.
One other thought. It is probably very likely that Sauron knew exactly how
the rings were created. Otherwise he would probably not be able to control
them. So if he knew the technique for creating such powerful artifacts and
if he was not planning on wearing the elven rings himself, why not imbue
the ring he was making for his own use with the same powers the others
granted?
Gunnar
--
Die Intelligenz des Fuchses basiert zu 90% auf der Dummheit der Hühner!
[Lao Tse]
Jussi Jaatinen
"John B. Whelan" wrote:
> If Sauron gained, from stealing Elven artifacts, *extra power"
> exceeding his own investment in the project, then it makes sense to me
> that these extra advantages would be derived from the contributions of
> the Elves, and not the contributions of Sauron.
But the scale of what the Elves could create was set by the Elessar(s)
at the high end and Sam's rope on the lower end. The contribution of
Sauron was what made the difference between Celebrimbor's Elessar and
the Rings.
Also, if we assume that ME was the force beind the Rings, it's easy to
understand why the Rings could be so usurped to evil, and how they would
tend to drive evil motives in people who held them.
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> Well, maybe. But I don't believe that the Nine had the power of
> dominating the Nazgul;
Not directly. See below.
> I believe that they gave their bearers the power of dominating (or at
> least overawing) non-Ringbearers.
While not the original goal of the Elves I'd agree that was probably
one of the effects of the Nine.
> (1) When they became Nazgul Sauron had the One Ring, so they became
> Nazgul with the habit of being subservient to him.
> (2) Sauron had "rather an overwhelming personality", as Tolkien said
> of Smaug, and it is unlikely that ever a wearer of the one of the
> Nine could deny Sauron even if he didn't have the One: Tolkien tells
> us that nearly anyone wearing even the One would be unable to resist
> Sauron's demand to hand it over.
Yes, this seems the best explanation for how Sauron recovered the Nine
after losing the One.
> (3) Tolkien talks about Gollum's feelings for the One in terms that
> sound very like addiction. I would assume that each Nazg l felt
> similarly about "his" Ring. Thus, by holding the Rings, Sauron kept
> open the possibility of permanently depriving the Nazg l of them.
My take is similar but less 'psychological' and more 'mystical'. I
think that each of the Nazgul became 'mastered' by his Ring in the
same way that Gollum was mastered by the One. Frodo tells Gollum that
'the One mastered him long ago' and that because of this if Frodo were
to command Gollum while wearing the One Gollum would be forced to
obey. If the same is extended to the Nazgul then Sauron could control
them if he had their Rings. Further, if he had the One he could
control the Nine Rings wherever they were.
> This last point is also, I think, a major reason why Sauron could
> not hand out any of the Nine to anyone else: if he handed out one of
> the Nine to a new master, its hold on its Nazg l would be broken.
> without the One, Sauron couldn't reassert the complete control that
> he had.
Here I look at it more from the angle of Tolkien's letter which
indicated that if Gandalf had wrested 'ownership' of the One from
Sauron it would be the same to Sauron as if it had been destroyed.
Thus, if another person were given one of the Nazgul Rings and
eventually mastered it / became mastered BY it they might take
'ownership' away from the existing Nazgul... resulting not just in a
loss of control, but the actual destruction of the Nazgul. They would
'die away into dust' as Gollum said would happen to him if the One
were destroyed.
John B. Whelan
Nice try. But in writing the above account, you have misrepresented
(by highly selective quoting) what I was actually complaining about.
You did not just accuse me of contradicting Tolkien, but of
contradicting my own original post. You based this on the assumption
that I was referring to any and all "extra power", and not any
specific type.
But since you are, as you say, *now* returning to the context of the
post (context you originally omitted), I suppose I should explain my
response to Gunnar. Gunnar's post specifically referred to the Ainu
essence --> Morgoth Element idea. In this context, he stated that in
addition to the type of power I was talking about - power that could
have come from gaining control of the Rings, there existed a different
type of power that required another explanation. In doing so, he used
Tolkien's language, but did not tell me he was doing so.
I naturally assumed he was just referring to the Ainu Essence theory
again, and indicated I did not think any such a such separate power
source existed. This is consistent with my position that any "extra
power" gained by Sauron can be explained by his having appropriated
the fruits of the Elves' investment in the Great Rings project.
Had I known what he was referring to (and had not overlooked his
parenthetical reference to Great Rings), I would have pointed out
(among other things) that the "enhanced natural powers" he was
referring to are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings grant.
It therefore makes no sense to argue that this is not the sort of
power that can be gained by siezing control of Elven Rings.
<snip>
> > This seems unfriendly.
>
> This seems paranoid.
Paranoid I may be, but you continue to be suspiciously selective in
your quoting. This post I am now responding to is yet another
example.
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
<news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
> Nice try. But in writing the above account, you have misrepresented
> (by highly selective quoting) what I was actually complaining about.
Look, if you really believe that everybody here is just out to pick on you
and make false accusations against you, might I suggest that you just plonk
every one of us and go back to having conversations with yourself? That way
you don't have to put up with criticism. :)
> I suppose I should explain my response to Gunnar.
Can't wait to read it :)
> Gunnar's post specifically referred to the Ainu
> essence --> Morgoth Element idea.
True
> In this context, he stated that in
> addition to the type of power I was talking about - power that could
> have come from gaining control of the Rings, there existed a different
> type of power that required another explanation.
True
> In doing so, he used
> Tolkien's language, but did not tell me he was doing so.
Oh, excuse my being so bold as to assume that somebody fielding a theory
explicitly contradicting Tolkien's would be sufficiently familiar with
Tolkien's own to recongnize it. Besides, when trying to descry Tolkien's
intend, I can find no fault in using Tolkien's own language...
> I naturally assumed he was just referring to the Ainu Essence theory
> again, and indicated I did not think any such a such separate power
> source existed.
Yes, I think you made that belief of yours quite clear.
However, you have as yet failed to answer the questions raised by us as to
what explanation you then have for certain powers Tolkien ascribed to the
rings and certain questions raised as to the chronology of their making.
> This is consistent with my position that any "extra
> power" gained by Sauron can be explained by his having appropriated
> the fruits of the Elves' investment in the Great Rings project.
Not *any*. Some.
> Had I known what he was referring to (and had not overlooked his
> parenthetical reference to Great Rings), I would have pointed out
> (among other things) that the "enhanced natural powers" he was
> referring to are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings grant.
First, as my army instructor used to point out quite frequently: He who can
read clearly has an advantage!
Second, yes those are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings grant.
But how? And if it is only an Elven concept/technology, then please explain
why these Elven artifacts could only be completed *after* the Mirdain were
instructed by Sauron? Does that not indicate that some power source is at
work here that is not purely elven in origin?
> Paranoid I may be
Just because you're paranoid, it does not mean they're not out to get you!
;)
SCNR
Gunnar
--
Education, n. - That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish
their lack of understanding.
John B. Whelan
> > This sounds like it might be close to my position, though I am unsure
> > if we are using the words to mean exactly the same thing. I believe
> > he obtained the power from the Elven Rings, which were created by, and
> > belonged to, the Elves. Where the elves got the power they invested
> > in their Elven Rings, I do not claim to know. However they obtained
> > it, I imagine it was theirs to invest.
>
> Ah, but this I disagree with because I don't see the Elves as HAVING
> power sufficient to produce the effects generated by the Great Rings.
> More on this towards the bottom of the message.
Tolkien does say that these are the greatest Elven smiths since
Feanor. I assumed that this at least in part to help explain how they
were able to create artifacts of great power. Please also note that
the *most* powerful of the Elven Rings, and the ones most coveted by
Sauron, were the Three that were made with almost no assistance from
Sauron.
> > The possessor gained enhanced power. I am not sure that the Elven
> > community as a whole gained enhanced power. Possibly, a whole host of
> > Elves, including the Smiths, expended Elven resources of various sorts
> > in order to create these artifacts.
>
> Perhaps... except in the case of the Three. They were forged in
> secret by Celebrimbor alone. Which is a very important point for the
> whole 'source of power' debate (again, see below).
Where is your source for this information? And does it really rule
out the possibility that major Elven resources were invested? And is
not the genius of Celebrimbor, one of the greatest smiths since
Feanor, a resource that properly belongs to the Elven community? And
would it not shift the balance of power in the world if the products
of his best work go to helping Sauron rather than the Elves?
<snip>
> > It is not enough for you to imply "Tolkien says it plays SOME part,
> > therefore, it must play this specific part." That you are saying this at
> > all suggests that it is the best you can do.
>
> Again with the 'straw man'. I have not said "must". You have
> questioned the need for the >theory<.
>
> BTW, remember the 'this seems unfriendly' bit? There has been rather
> ALOT of that coming my direction - as with the above.
I do not see what you are talking about. I (as you say) questioned
the need for the theory (as an explanation specifically for the extra
power). You (it seems) have challenged this. But you have not shown
a need for the theory. You have merely shown that those who choose to
believe it cannot be proven wrong. But if you challenge what I say,
and assert a need for a theory, you need to do more than you have
done. I am quite sure you are challenging me, but I do not see how I
have misrepresented you in any way.
> > While the Three were to some extent tainted with Evil, they were not
> > wholly evil (nor were the Nine and the Seven, I think). I cannot believe
> > they were entirely powered by the Spirit of Satan, or that Elvish smiths of
> > such great wisdom could use Morgoth's Element as a main power source without
> > being aware that something was dreadfully wrong.
>
> Yet... something WAS dreadfully wrong and they were unaware of it.
Yeah. But that something was Sauron, not Morgoth specifically.
Besides, these guys are super-smiths. They may be dumb enough to
trust Sauron and not anticipate that he would steal control of their
Rings, but it would be more difficult for them to make a flashlight
without wondering where the electricity comes from. Smithing is,
after all, their job.
> Nor have I suggested that the Rings were ENTIRELY powered by the
> Morgoth Element. Indeed, I have said that I believe the Elves DID put
> some of their own 'power' into the Rings and that this is part of the
> 'extra power' Sauron received... just as you suggest.
Is not this, by itself, sufficient to explain the enhancement in
Sauron's power? Why not then apply Occham's Razor? Sure, you can
still believe your theory if you want to, but why quibble with my
statement that no such theory is necessary?
> In fact, I have
> agreed with your entire premise EXCEPT that the Elves alone could
> produce such power.
Well, we know they did get help from Sauron. But if Sauron knows how
to enhance his own power through accessing the Morgoth Element, it
seems unlikely that the Elven Smiths have any extra expertise in the
matter to help him do what he cannot do for himself. Seems to me
that the shift in the balance of power that occurred after Sauron
pulled of his scheme is best explained by appropriating from the Elves
the benefits of their investment.
> > Also, such a theory seems to suggest circularity:
>
> > Q: Where did Sauron's "extra power" come from?
> > A: The Elven Rings
> > Q: Where did the Elven Rings get this power from?
> > A: From the Elves.
> > Q: Where did the Elves get it from?
> > A: Black Magic (the Morgoth Element).
> > Q: Who provided them with this black magic?
> > A: Sauron.
>
> I'm failing to see the circle. Unless you are suggesting that the
> bottom step is Sauron providing 'black magic' in the form of 'raw
> power' to the Elves. That isn't claimed by anyone that I know of.
> Rather, he provided KNOWLEDGE which the Elves used to construct the
> Rings. What that knowledge was is debatable, but clearly it involved
> an element of 'black magic' as you call it because of the innate
> corruption of all the Rings.
While there was apparently a degree of Evil Influence that Sauron
contributed to the Three and the Seven, the "innate corruption" of all
the rings, which you refer to, does not derive from their power
source. It stems rather from the impure motivation of the Elves who
made them. The desire for power is an impure motive, and a corrupting
influence. (Hence, no need to invoke Morgoth's Element, and impute
impure motivations to material objects themselves). It does not
matter what brand of gasoline you use. The temptation to abuse the
power remains the same. No Evil was involved in using the Three, when
they were used with the correct motives.
As far as the One Ring, goes, we do in fact have an object that seems,
itself, to have an Evil will. But we do not need to invoke the
Morgoth Element to explain this, because the One Ring is infused with
the Evil Will of Sauron.
> > Seems more likely it would be derived from what was invested/contributed
> > by the Elves. This is supported by the fact that the Elven rings he most
> > coveted were the Three - the fairest and most powerful of them all, to
> > whom he had contributed the least.
>
> Indeed, Sauron contributed NOTHING to the Three except knowledge
> Celebrimbor used in their construction. So how could it be that
> Celebrimbor alone created these three items that Sauron was desperate
> to get control of? If the power of the Three was, as you say above,
> "invested/contributed" solely by Celebrimbor (the only Elf who worked
> on them) how could they POSSIBLY be as powerful as they were? Was
> Celebrimbor more powerful than Sauron?
Was Feanor more powerful than Morgoth? The Silmarils are considered
items far greater than the Elven rings. Why did Morgoth covet them?
Why did he not just create his own? This is not the first time that
an Elf has created three wonderful artifacts, which were then coveted
by an allegedly more powerful Enemy.
Nor does it matter, much, that Sauron was more "powerful" in some
sense than Celebrimbor. This hardly prevents Celebrimbor from having
skills that Sauron might lack. Also, if US helpfully lends Cuba the
technology to to make robot aircraft, and then, after Cuba has sunk
most of its GNP into these weapons, flips a remote control switch and
causes them all to fly straight to the US, then US power has been
enhanced at the expense of Cuba, and this may help the US in its
pursuit of world hegemony. It does not matter much that US was more
powerful than Cuba to begin with.
It also seems to me that it is not the way of Evil to increase its own
power by cannibalizing itself, but rather by consuming the Good and
perverting it to Evil. Seems any enhancement in Sauron's power is
best explained by his perverting to Evil what was Good in the Rings,
not the re-consuming the Evil he himself contributed.
> I'd argue that there MUST have been some other source of power, and
> given that Celebrimbor could not make the Three earlier that source of
> power must have been something that Sauron taught to the Elves.
Would it not make more sense to argue that it is too simplistic to say
that Sauron's knowledge was the critical element, because otherwise
Sauron would gain no particular benefit from getting the Elves to make
the Rings?
> Now, it COULD be knowledge of how to perform 'power magnification' or
Ø how to draw power from sunlight or any number of other things.
Sure, which is why I say the "Morgoth Element" theory is unnecessary.
As a taint, yes (it taints all things, including the computer at which
you now stare); as a power source, no.
My understanding of the "Morgoth Element" is that it was invented to
explain the Evil that exists within material objects. I see little
evidence of such evil force in the Elven Rings, because it seems to me
that here the temptation operates directly on the mind of the user.
The moral danger they represent to the Elves who wear them involve the
temptations associated with Great Power. These are not temptations
associated with Great Power from a particular evil brand of mystical
gasoline, but from Great Power period. No matter how pure the power
source, whether from sunlight or starlight, or the spirit of a saintly
maia infused in the Gold, those with access to too much power would
still be tempted to misuse it. And sure, they would have Morgoth, the
father of lies, on their shoulder whispering Evil things in their
ears. And if Sauron held the One, they would have to deal with the
overwhelming force of Sauron's spirit as well.
> However, it could ALSO be how to manipulate the 'Morgoth Element', and
> indeed that seems to be a good fit.
Could also be? Perhaps. But, as I have said, I see no need for the
theory.
Gunnar Krüger
<news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
> Tolkien does say that these are the greatest Elven smiths since
> Feanor. I assumed that this at least in part to help explain how they
> were able to create artifacts of great power.
But only *after* they were instructed by Sauron.
> Please also note that
> the *most* powerful of the Elven Rings, and the ones most coveted by
> Sauron, were the Three that were made with almost no assistance from
> Sauron.
...apart from the critical knowledge input he made...
>> Perhaps... except in the case of the Three. They were forged in
>> secret by Celebrimbor alone. Which is a very important point for the
>> whole 'source of power' debate (again, see below).
>
> Where is your source for this information?
'The Silmarillion', 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' (page 288 in
my edition):
"Therefore the Three remained unsullied, for they were forged by
Celebrimbor alone, and the hand of Sauron had never touched them;"
> And does it really rule
> out the possibility that major Elven resources were invested?
Rule out? No. But what might those have been, not having been available
before the teachings of Sauron?
> And is
> not the genius of Celebrimbor, one of the greatest smiths since
> Feanor, a resource that properly belongs to the Elven community? And
> would it not shift the balance of power in the world if the products
> of his best work go to helping Sauron rather than the Elves?
But of course it would. That was part of the point of teaching the Elves
how to make those rings: So that whatever they were doing with them could
be controlled by The One.
> I do not see what you are talking about. I (as you say) questioned
> the need for the theory (as an explanation specifically for the extra
> power). You (it seems) have challenged this. But you have not shown
> a need for the theory. You have merely shown that those who choose to
> believe it cannot be proven wrong. But if you challenge what I say,
> and assert a need for a theory, you need to do more than you have
> done. I am quite sure you are challenging me, but I do not see how I
> have misrepresented you in any way.
Sorry, but if you are challenging what Tolkien himself wrote in one of his
letters, I think it is up to you to provide some very good explanations...
>> Nor have I suggested that the Rings were ENTIRELY powered by the
>> Morgoth Element. Indeed, I have said that I believe the Elves DID
>> put some of their own 'power' into the Rings and that this is part
>> of the 'extra power' Sauron received... just as you suggest.
>
> Is not this, by itself, sufficient to explain the enhancement in
> Sauron's power?
As Conrad has already said: No.
> Well, we know they did get help from Sauron.
True
> But if Sauron knows how
> to enhance his own power through accessing the Morgoth Element, it
> seems unlikely that the Elven Smiths have any extra expertise in the
> matter to help him do what he cannot do for himself.
Uh, want are you getting at here?
Sure, if he simply had wanted to invest part of his own power into forging
a ring which would then allow him to gain access to the Morgoth Element, he
would not have needed to deal with the Elves at all. But that was not hi
primary goal in this whole ring affair.
> Seems to me
> that the shift in the balance of power that occurred after Sauron
> pulled of his scheme is best explained by appropriating from the Elves
> the benefits of their investment.
Hm, by being able, by means of the One, to controll the minds of the
ringbearers.
> While there was apparently a degree of Evil Influence that Sauron
> contributed to the Three and the Seven, the "innate corruption" of all
> the rings, which you refer to, does not derive from their power
> source. It stems rather from the impure motivation of the Elves who
> made them. The desire for power is an impure motive, and a corrupting
> influence. (Hence, no need to invoke Morgoth's Element, and impute
> impure motivations to material objects themselves).
Almost True. But what is the source of all evil in Arda?
Morgoth!
He was the one who brought the desire for power into Arda in the first
place. So, desire for power is a fruit of the designs of Morgoth. He who
desires it follows his path. Thank you, there you go...
> No Evil was involved in using the Three, when
> they were used with the correct motives.
Hahum, so trying to stay the flow of time, which after all is the will of
Eru, is not evil? The motive is selfishness, to defy the will of God
because you don't like the way the world is moving by his will. I'd call
that Evil...and bound to fail in the end, as are all of Morgoth's guiles...
> As far as the One Ring, goes, we do in fact have an object that seems,
> itself, to have an Evil will. But we do not need to invoke the
> Morgoth Element to explain this, because the One Ring is infused with
> the Evil Will of Sauron.
You fail to take into account that even the Evil Will of Sauron is a mere
result of the Evil Will of Morgoth. Gandalf tells us that not even Sauron
was evil in the beginning...
Also, 'The Silmarillion', 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' (page
285 in my edition):
"Therefore when Eonwe departed he [Sauron] hid himself in Middle-Earth; and
he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were
very strong."
> Was Feanor more powerful than Morgoth? The Silmarils are considered
> items far greater than the Elven rings. Why did Morgoth covet them?
> Why did he not just create his own? This is not the first time that
> an Elf has created three wonderful artifacts, which were then coveted
> by an allegedly more powerful Enemy.
Well, were did the power of the Silmarils come from? Not from Feanor! Their
light was that of the Two Trees mingled, and that was made by Yavanna.
Their power to burn any evil flesh that touched them came from the blessing
of Varda, after their making. Feanors part was 'merely' to devise the
substance they were made of... As to why Morgoth could not make them
himself, well, try to imagine him getting his hands on the light of the
trees and acquiring Varda's blessing for the work of his hands...
> It also seems to me that it is not the way of Evil to increase its own
> power by cannibalizing itself, but rather by consuming the Good and
> perverting it to Evil.
Except that in Tolkien's Universe it seems to be a constant motive that in
order to gain power over the world, the forces of evil must expend their
energy into it.
> Seems any enhancement in Sauron's power is
> best explained by his perverting to Evil what was Good in the Rings,
> not the re-consuming the Evil he himself contributed.
Not any, some. He gained power over the elves by being able to control what
they were doing with their rings. The one Ring also enhanced his natural
powers.
>> I'd argue that there MUST have been some other source of power, and
>> given that Celebrimbor could not make the Three earlier that source
>> of power must have been something that Sauron taught to the Elves.
>
> Would it not make more sense to argue that it is too simplistic to say
> that Sauron's knowledge was the critical element, because otherwise
> Sauron would gain no particular benefit from getting the Elves to make
> the Rings?
Ahem, the benefit would be that after they made them and wore them, he'd be
able to control their minds? I'd not quite call that 'no particular
benefit'.
> My understanding of the "Morgoth Element" is that it was invented to
> explain the Evil that exists within material objects.
The Evil that exists within all of Arda.
> I see little
> evidence of such evil force in the Elven Rings, because it seems to me
> that here the temptation operates directly on the mind of the user.
> The moral danger they represent to the Elves who wear them involve the
> temptations associated with Great Power. These are not temptations
> associated with Great Power from a particular evil brand of mystical
> gasoline, but from Great Power period.
Yes, because Great Power, more specifically the pursuit and selfish use (by
which I mean any not in line with the will of Eru) thereof are concepts
introduced into Arda by Morgoth's rebellion ere it begann.
Gunnar
--
Die meisten Leute verwandeln die Wirklichkeit durch Träume,
dabei gilt es doch, Träume in Wirklichkeit zu verwandeln.
[Gerhard Uhlenbruck]
Bill O'Meally
"Gunnar Krüger" <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bc3cno$epicv$1...@ID-48925.news.dfncis.de...
> "John B. Whelan" lies zum Thema
> <news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
> >> Perhaps... except in the case of the Three. They were forged in
> >> secret by Celebrimbor alone. Which is a very important point for
the
> >> whole 'source of power' debate (again, see below).
> >
> > Where is your source for this information?
>
> 'The Silmarillion', 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' (page
288 in
> my edition):
> "Therefore the Three remained unsullied, for they were forged by
> Celebrimbor alone, and the hand of Sauron had never touched them;"
I often see the Three being described by people as being wrought 'in
secret'. Although it is clear that Sauron had no part in their making,
where is it stated that their making was a secret? The only secretly
forged ring that I know of is the One.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
http://wedding.weddingchannel.com/pwp/CP_Guest_View.asp?wauid=201309120
Conrad Dunkerson
> I sense sarcasm. Does it seems ludicrous to you that a sentence
> referring to one type of thing could be sandwiched between two other
> sentences referring to another type of thing? I cannot understand
> why.
In all three sentences Tolkien was talking about Sauron's 'power'
under different circumstances. It just seems very unlikely to me that
he was talking about a different 'kind' of 'power' in the second
sentence than in the other two.
>> He spoke of "all the rings alike". There seems no reason to assume
that
>> he meant, 'all the rings alike... except the Three and the One'.
> You have misconstrued me if that's what you thought I meant. (You
> misconstrue me an awful lot).
I can't imagine how that happens;
"Essentially, this paragraph is about the Seven and the Nine."
Obviously I misconstrued this to mean you were saying that the Three
and the One were excluded. Quite foolish of me.
> I explicitly stated that the parenthetical "all the rings alike" indicates
> that the first sentence is intended to include the Three.
Yes, you qualified the above statement by saying that the first
sentence was an exception. However, as I noted elsewhere, the idea
that the rest of the paragraph was not meant to refer to the same set
of Rings strikes me as an impossible reading of the text. Tolkien
spoke of 'Rings of Power' without specifying a subset, then said 'all
the Rings alike', and then said 'they' in reference to Rings a couple
of times... how can it be assumed that 'they' was meant to be 'ONLY
the Seven and Nine' when no such set was ever defined for it to refer
back to?
> You seem to acknowledge that the "Morgoth Element" theory (by which I
> assume you mean the idea that the Morgoth Element is the Source of
> Sauron's extra power), is at best optional.
Actually, the 'Morgoth Element theory' covers several different
issues... including the 'extra power'.
> I am saying that the advantages gained by gaining control over the
> Elven Rings caused his "power on earth" to be enhanced.
Meaning 'political' or 'military' power rather than any sort of
'personal' power.
Yet some of the Rings (either 'all alike' or 'just the Seven and Nine'
as you would have it) were also said to 'enhance the natural powers'
of the possessor... surely this IS some sort of increase in 'personal'
power - is it not? And if, as you have argued, the One allowed Sauron
to access the powers of the other Rings, why would he not receive this
benefit?
> I'm not sure what "natural powers" means in this context, but in any
> event it is clear that such powers can be derived from Elven Rings
> because the quote specifically says that the Elven Rings granted such
> powers to their possessors.
No argument here. As I have said repeatedly... Sauron's 'extra power'
could have come from the other Rings. However, that does not explain
where the 'extra power' the Elves gained came from.
> The "Elven Rings" theory explains the whole thing nicely.
Only so far as it goes. It does not explain how the Elven Rings
themselves worked. Only how Sauron benefited from them. Hence the
need for the 'unneccessary' Morgoth Element theory.
> Are you suggesting there is NO fixed limit at all to the power of an
> Elven Ring? Seems to me these are all finite artifacts, which at some
> point reach limits of how much power they can grant.
So what is the upper limit? They were supposed to grant power in
proportion to the native power of a possessor. No upper limit
specified. Would Manwe be able to get no more use out of the One than
Sauron could? It is possible, but assumes a restriction never given
in the texts. My theory is that the Rings allowed a wielder to use
their own native power to greater effect by manipulating the 'Morgoth
Element' in matter. Hence, the greater the native power of the bearer
the greater the effectiveness of the Ring.
> Possibly. But to me it seems unecessary and unlikely, since most
> Elven Artifacts are clearly not *powered* by Morgoth's Element, and
> Elves clearly have access to other sources for creating magic
> artifacts. It seems to me to be one thing to suggest that Narya
> might be somewhat tainted by Sauron's foul arts. It seems another to
> suggest that Satan's spirit was Narya's primary power source.
In fact I don't think the 'Morgoth Element' was the 'power source' of
the Great Rings per se. I tend to think that the Rings themselves
were powered by the 'creative energy' of their makers (the Elves and
Sauron), but designed through Sauron's instruction to allow the
wielder to influence the 'Morgoth Element' in matter. Thus, the power
the Rings >granted< would (under this view) be largely derived from
'Morgoth', but the power they >contained< would not.
Jussi Jaatinen
"John B. Whelan" wrote:
> Tolkien does say that these are the greatest Elven smiths since
> Feanor. I assumed that this at least in part to help explain how they
> were able to create artifacts of great power. Please also note that
> the *most* powerful of the Elven Rings, and the ones most coveted by
> Sauron, were the Three that were made with almost no assistance from
> Sauron.
Feänor only created the shells of the Silmarils. The light of the gems,
which is called their "essence" and "life" in Silmarillion, was from the
Gods. This has already been pointed out to you several times. We're all
in agreement that the Mirdain created the physical forms of the Rings.
And even the Three rings were created by using Sauron's knowledge, which
has been demonstrated to be the key enabler in Ring-making.
> Where is your source for this information? And does it really rule
> out the possibility that major Elven resources were invested?
Elven resources were doubtless invested (such as the precious metals and
gems that made up the Rings, and the work to form them) but as has been
demonstrated in this thread, the essential point in the Rings, the very
development that made making them possible, was Sauron's involvement. So
yes, Elven resources may have been and probably were involved, but they
were insignificant compared to Sauron's help.
> Is not this, by itself, sufficient to explain the enhancement in
> Sauron's power? Why not then apply Occham's Razor? Sure, you can
> still believe your theory if you want to, but why quibble with my
> statement that no such theory is necessary?
I think that the issue here is that the theory that the Rings worked on
the "Elven resources" invested in them doesn't sound very credible.
There are two different processes going on here:
1) Sauron wanted to gain control of the Elves, and chooses to try and
ensnare their leaders with the Rings.
2) Sauron developed the Ring-lore and imparted it to the Elves. The
Elves make the Rings using this Ring-lore.
The first deals with political power and is not contested in this
thread. The second deals with how the Rings worked. It isn't credible
(IMO) that the Rings worked on Elvish know-how and resources, since the
Elves had been trying and failing to make just this kind of artefacts
for a long time, and failed because they didn't know of a sufficiently
powerful source to tap into. Your theory posits that the Elves suddenly
found new resources within themselves after Sauron met with them. The ME
theory posits that Sauron taught them how to tap into a greater power.
> Well, we know they did get help from Sauron. But if Sauron knows how
> to enhance his own power through accessing the Morgoth Element, it
> seems unlikely that the Elven Smiths have any extra expertise in the
> matter to help him do what he cannot do for himself. Seems to me
> that the shift in the balance of power that occurred after Sauron
> pulled of his scheme is best explained by appropriating from the Elves
> the benefits of their investment.
See above, you're confusing 1) and 2) in the above paragraph.
> Would it not make more sense to argue that it is too simplistic to say
> that Sauron's knowledge was the critical element, because otherwise
> Sauron would gain no particular benefit from getting the Elves to make
> the Rings?
No, since Sauron wanted to be able to dominate the Elves. That's why he
came up with the plan in the first place. Again, 1) and 2).
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote;
> I'm not sure why you are bothering to point this out, however. It is
> irrelevant to the discussion I was having with Stephen,
I'm not sure why you are bothering to point this out, however. Your
discussion with Stephen is irrelevant to the points we were
discussing.
> And then, he needs to further assume several more things (which you snipped).
Imagine that. I snipped things related to a discussion I'm not
involved in.
> 13 is better for Stephen's position, and I am willing to assume it for
> purposes of argument. I thought the number was not precisely known.
Well, we know the 9 for certain. Gandalf tells Frodo that all but
three of the Dwarven Rings have been destroyed and then Sauron offers
the Dwarves three of their old Rings for knowledge of the One. It
could be supposed that Gandalf was mistaken and Sauron just picked the
number 'three' out of a hat, but it seems likely that this was
intended to be a valid count.
>> Ok... why KEEP them if they provided no benefit?
> I thought that might have been what you meant. I said so in the
> previous post and then specifically addressed the issue. You snipped
> it without response
The answers you gave there made sense to me except for the possibility
of defection... which I DID list my reasons for disagreeing with. As
this text came after your response on 'wearing' multiple rings there
seemed no reason to repeat it after your response on 'keeping'
multiple rings.
> The One is a different story from the lesser Rings. If Sauron does
> not have the Ruling Ring, he cannot necessarily force a confrontation.
I assume you mean from a distance? The example given (Gandalf with
Ring vs Sauron) was clearly a confrontation wherein Sauron did not
have the One... so it seems he could do it, but only in person.
Which, for purposes of 'defection' should not be a problem. How would
The Mouth, for example, get away from Sauron and set up his own power
base. Indeed, WHY would he do so? Basically, it seems to me that
Sauron could easily have given at least the three Dwarven rings to
some of his lieutenants with no serious danger of defection. That he
did not suggests that there was a benefit to him in holding on to
them.
> "Defection" is not the only danger. Another possibility is that the
> bearer will be overcome on the battlefield, a situation Sauron is all
> too familiar with.
True. Though that needn't be a problem if they were given to leaders
within Mordor.... like the Mouth.
> But the most compelling danger, that would cause Sauron to keep the
> Great Rings close to his chest, is the knowledge that his enemies had
> the One Ring. The last thing he would want is to put the Mouth of
> Sauron in charge of an army wearing an Elven Ring, and for Gandalf to
> put on the One and start giving orders to the Mouth.
I never saw the Mouth as a field commander, but yes this is a
reasonable threat. However, again if these were leaders who remained
within Mordor Sauron should have been able to control their movements
and reclaim the Rings at any time. In any case, if Gandalf (for
instance) were to claim the One Sauron would have much bigger problems
than just the Mouth (or some such) switching allegiance... as Gandalf
could at that point probably dominant the Mouth even if he WEREN'T
wearing a Ring.
>> Indeed, at best this could only
>> apply while the Rings were being WORN as Sauron clearly never had
>> access to the powers of the Three.
> It is not clear that he never had access to the powers granted by the
> Three. In fact, it is my understanding that he did have access to
> their powers - just not to their bearers who removed them.
"Narya, Nenya, and Vilya, they were named, the Rings of Fire, and of
Water, and of Air, set with ruby and adamant and sapphire; and of all
the Elven-rings Sauron most desired to possess them, for those who had
them in their keeping could ward off the decays of time and postpone
the weariness of the world."
Silm, Of the Rings of Power
That Sauron desired to possess these Rings because those who had them
could do X, Y and Z surely indicates that he could not do X, Y and Z
without possessing them. Yes? Ergo, just having the One on his hand
and the Three in existence did not allow Sauron to access their
powers.
> What straw-man argument? We are discussing a position you are
> attributing to me, not one that I am attributing to you. Am I not
> allowed to make a joke out of what is allegedly my own theory?
Excuse me, but you specifically stated that it was NOT the theory you
were presenting:
I wrote;
"At that, would it not contradict your view that the power of the
Rings came from elven essence place [sic s/b 'placed'] into them?"
You responded;
"I cannot remember making such a claim. I did suggest that the Elves
may have expended considerable creative and spiritual energy, which
does not sound to me like quite the same thing, nor does it seem a
radical thing to say. But if, for the sake of argument, Celebrimbor
did sacrifice Elf babies to Morgoth and infuse their 'Elf Essence'
into the Rings of Power as a power source, I still do not see how this
would create a contradiction with respect to what we were just
discussing."
I replied;
"Which is precisely what I meant by 'essence'... not 'Celebrimbor
sacrificing elven babies to Morgoth'; which has got to be the most
extreme 'straw man' argument of all time."
And then you continued as above. I described your theory including
the word 'essence'. Rather than reading this naturally to mean the
'creative and spiritual energy' which you had theorized you instead
suggested that I had meant 'Celebrimbor sacrificing elf babies to
Morgoth'. That is a ridiculous 'straw man' representation of my
point.
>>> I cannot remember making such a claim. I did suggest that the
Elves
>>> may have expended considerable creative and spiritual energy
> [remainder of sentence snipped by Conrad without indication.]
My response was pointing out that 'creative and spiritual energy' is
precisely what I meant by 'essence' in the claim you could not
remember making. So, you DID remember making such a claim... you just
read 'essence' to mean something absolutely bizarre rather than making
the massive leap required to assume it referred to what you had said
before.
> I note that you snipped one of my sentences in mid-sentence. I would
> like to request that you not do this. That way, you are less likely
> to misconstrue what I write.
I didn't misconstrue what you wrote. Look, here is the COMPLETE
sentence;
"I did suggest that the Elves may have expended considerable creative
and spiritual energy, which does not sound to me like quite the same
thing, nor does it seem a radical thing to say."
Joy. Snipping it at the first comma does not change the meaning.
After that you indicated that it did not sound like the same thing...
what need to include that text in my response saying that it was MEANT
to be the same thing? Since we were both saying the same thing what
need to include your statement that it was not a radical thing to say?
I snipped down to the point I wished to address... the rest does not
change your meaning on that point or provide crucial information.
> I don't believe there is ever a legitimate excuse for slicing off a
> sentence in the middle.
Reducing bandwidth? Clarifying the particular point in a
compound/complex sentence which one wishes to respond to?
You have 'chopped up' my sentences and responded to different pieces
individually. Is this not 'slicing off a sentence in the middle'?
You have also entirely discarded text that you did not feel the need
to respond to. So what precisely is the problem?
>>> Bad example. Gandalf just snatched stuff out of his hand.
>> Your point being?
> That you might have chosen a better example. A little later, I got to
> my main point. You snipped it.
Uh... what? I didn't see anything in your post which explained why it
was a 'bad example' or talked further about Gandalf snatching stuff
from the Mouth.
> You're right. Getting a ring of the Mouth's finger might have been
> more difficult. Gandalf might have to use Glamdring.
Under a flag of truce? Interesting.
>>> Perhaps it does suggest this. [Remainder of paragraph snipped by
Conrad.]
>> Good enough.
> Good enough for what?
Good enough in the sense that we had reached SOME level of agreement.
> Not good enough to support Stephen's argument, surely.
Uhh.... I never said I was supporting Stephen's argument. Indeed, I
never mentioned it at all. Without going back to look I don't even
know what Stephen's argument WAS.
> I note that you have gone through a long post, and snipped without
> indication,
As you do. Indeed, as EVERYONE does.
> isolating several lines from their context in a very confusing manner.
> I don't see the point.
To isolate the individual points I wish to respond to? You know...
standard basic Usenet discussion 101?
I'm sorry, I am not going to quote paragraphs of stuff related to some
discussion you are having with Stephen when it has no bearing on any
of my points.
> Your debating tactics seem both desperate and unworthy.
Yeah... I follow normal usenet discussion standards. Horrible.
Gunnar Krüger
<news:1178b6d1.03061...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
> So what is the upper limit? They were supposed to grant power in
> proportion to the native power of a possessor. No upper limit
> specified. Would Manwe be able to get no more use out of the One than
> Sauron could? It is possible, but assumes a restriction never given
> in the texts.
Very theoretical discussion, given that Manwe would never even consider
making use of anything tainted with the essence of Melkor. Or that he would
aspire to greater stature that was given to him in the first place. I
picture him as being quite contend with his place and power in this world.
That's what makes him and the other Valar so special: They are above the
corruption of Melkor.
Gun'intotalagrementwiththerestofyourpost'nar
--
Gunpowder, n. - An agency employed by civilized nations for the settlement of
disputes which might become troublesome if left unadjusted.
Gunnar Krüger
<news:cijvdvs50f6rpcnam...@4ax.com> verlauten:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:52:46 +0200, in rec.arts.books.tolkien Gunnar
> Krüger <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> Not being a native speaker, I did just that. Here we go, Oxford
>> dictionary:
>>
>> Contain /v :
>> 1(a) have or hold (sth) within itself
>> (b) be capable of holding (sth)
>> 2(a) keep (sth/oneself) under control; keep within limits; hold back
>> (b) prevent (sth) from spreading harmfully or becoming more serious
>>
> <snip flawed analysis>
>
> Actually Tolkien's use of the verb 'contain' includes elements of all
> four of that dictionary's definitions. As to def 2b, look at the
> situation from Sauron's POV.
Ok, so even if you do not agree with my analysis, would you agree with the
conclusion that in this case 'contain' is not just a redundant repetition
of 'control' but means more than just the latter?
Gunnar
--
Mammalia, n. - A family of vertebrate animals whose females in a state of
nature suckle their young, but when civilized and enlightened
put them out to nurse, or use the bottle.
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<bbl1hf$10c9$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
:> Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> wrote:
:> : Stephen wrote:
:> :>
:> :>What is your interpretation of "enhanced the natural powers of
:> :>the possessor".
:>
:> : He is talking about an ability granted by the Elven Rings, which, therefore,
:> : Sauron has access to as well when wearing the One.
:>
:> That is an odd interpretation of the phrase "contained and controlled"
:> if you ask me. The Ring contained all the powers of the other
:> Rings, which to me says that the Ring independently had the powers
:> that all the other Rings had. The Ring also controlled the other
:> Rings, but unless Tolkien was being redundant, "containing" and
:> "controlling" were different aspects of the Rings power.
:>
:> So what is your interpretation of "contained".
: "Contained" is (among other meanings) a synonym of "bind", "control",
: "restrain", etc. etc. You should be able to confirm this by checking
: a good dictionary. So yes, it is possible that Tolkien may have been
: being slightly reduntant. Do you really expect total poetic
: efficiency from a hastily scribbled letter?
Who says it was a hastily scribbled letter? I never imagined
Tolkien to be hasty. In any case, there is a a lot of room between
"total poetic efficiency" and redundancy.
: If the One Ring just happens to have all of the powers that the Elves
: put in the Elven rings, then that is just too much of a coincidence to
: be considered "independent". I think it is fair to assume that the
: sources of these powers are those other Rings, especially since
: Tolkien says that the very purpose of the One Ring was to sieze
: control of those Rings and their powers.
: - John Whelan
The purpose of the One Ring was to sieze control of the wearers
of the other Rings. Clearly the One Ring did not have access
to the powers of the other Rings, or else Sauron would not
have so greatly desired the Three Rings. If he had access to
their power through the One, why would he have needed physical
possession of them?
I noticed in other messages you mention my "theory" and
my "assumptions". I was actually not espousing any particular
theory. I was providing quotes from Tolkien which at least to
me and others, indicate that the One Ring enhanced the natural
powers of its possessor, and that the power of the One Ring was
not purely "political". Personally I think there are far
too many inconsistencies in the history of the Rings to
work out a rational theory of how they operated. At one time
they were all works of Sauron, and there were many Elf and
Goblin wraiths in the world. At another time they were works
of Feanor stolen by the Enemy. The Three being separate
and different than the others was a late development, and
Tolkien was never too clear about exactly what that difference
was. All the Rings warded off decay, but the three were
created with a "different power and purpose", and "of all the Elven-rings
Sauron most desired to possess them [the Three], for
those who had them in their keeping could ward of the decays of
time and postpone the weariness of the world." What does
that mean? I do not know.
Stephen
Conrad Dunkerson
> But in writing the above account, you have misrepresented (by highly
> selective quoting) what I was actually complaining about.
Yes. That's right. Highly selective quoting... of every single
bloody word in the entire 'point-counterpoint' of discussion. How
could anyone see through my 'misrepresentation' when all they have to
go on is everything that was said? Gads I'm dastardly.
> You did not just accuse me of contradicting Tolkien, but of
> contradicting my own original post.
I see. So, when I wrote;
"Tolkien's statement in Letter #131 seems to be pretty explicit that
it did."
I was not suggesting that what Tolkien said in letter #131 seemed to
contradict you, but that you were contradicting yourself? Wow. I had
no idea I was saying that. I certainly worded it poorly what with
mistakenly attributing it to Tolkien and all.
<@wheeeeeeee!>
John B. Whelan
> "John B. Whelan" lies zum Thema
> <news:fd166f83.03060...@posting.google.com> verlauten:
>
> > Nice try. But in writing the above account, you have misrepresented
> > (by highly selective quoting) what I was actually complaining about.
>
> Look, if you really believe that everybody here is just out to pick on you
> and make false accusations against you, might I suggest that you just plonk
> every one of us and go back to having conversations with yourself? That way
> you don't have to put up with criticism. :)
WTF are you talking about? When have I ever suggested that everybody
here is just out to pick on me and make accusations against me? You
are tempting me to make counter-suggestions that just would not be
polite.
> > I suppose I should explain my response to Gunnar.
>
> Can't wait to read it :)
>
> > Gunnar's post specifically referred to the Ainu
> > essence --> Morgoth Element idea.
>
> True
>
> > In this context, he stated that in
> > addition to the type of power I was talking about - power that could
> > have come from gaining control of the Rings, there existed a different
> > type of power that required another explanation.
>
> True
>
> > In doing so, he used
> > Tolkien's language, but did not tell me he was doing so.
>
> Oh, excuse my being so bold as to assume that somebody fielding a theory
> explicitly contradicting Tolkien's would be sufficiently familiar with
> Tolkien's own to recongnize it. Besides, when trying to descry Tolkien's
> intend, I can find no fault in using Tolkien's own language...
I do not understand what your problem is here. I was explaining my
response to your post. This was not in any way intended to "find
fault" with you, or in any way imply that you had done anything wrong.
> > I naturally assumed he was just referring to the Ainu Essence theory
> > again, and indicated I did not think any such a such separate power
> > source existed.
>
> Yes, I think you made that belief of yours quite clear.
> However, you have as yet failed to answer the questions raised by us as to
> what explanation you then have for certain powers Tolkien ascribed to the
> rings and certain questions raised as to the chronology of their making.
I do not know what specifically you are referring to. I have done a
heck of a lot of typing. If I have missed anything important, I do
not know what it was, and the above statement does not tell me.
> > This is consistent with my position that any "extra
> > power" gained by Sauron can be explained by his having appropriated
> > the fruits of the Elves' investment in the Great Rings project.
>
> Not *any*. Some.
I was describing my position, not yours.
> > Had I known what he was referring to (and had not overlooked his
> > parenthetical reference to Great Rings), I would have pointed out
> > (among other things) that the "enhanced natural powers" he was
> > referring to are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings grant.
>
> First, as my army instructor used to point out quite frequently: He who can
> read clearly has an advantage!
My appologies for overlooking it. I have already acknowledged a
possible error in overlooking it. This nyah-nyah jeering that you are
now doing in response does not reflect to your credit.
> Second, yes those are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings grant.
> But how? And if it is only an Elven concept/technology, then please explain
> why these Elven artifacts could only be completed *after* the Mirdain were
> instructed by Sauron? Does that not indicate that some power source is at
> work here that is not purely elven in origin?
It does not necessarily indicate anything regarding their "power
source". The fact that the most powerful artifacts were made with the
least assistance from Sauron suggests (to me at least) that Sauron's
guidance had little to do with the "power source".
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
<news:fd166f83.03061...@posting.google.com> ...
> Gunnar Krüger <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:<bc35lm$f7gmv$1...@ID-48925.news.dfncis.de>...
> WTF are you talking about?
About the fact that you complain in about every other post about people
misquoting you selectively.
I know that sometimes what I post is not 'The Truth' and that people more
knowledgeable than myself will point out weak points in my argumentation to
me or even (gasp) correct me where I'm wrong. I actually look forward to
that, because from those responses I can learn something. And I still stand
a lot to learn about Tolkien's works. That is the whole point of discussing
his works with others in this group, at least IMHO. Please forgive me if
I'm wrong but *my personal impression* is that take criticism of your
theory quite personal. I for my part, in disagreeing with you, am not
trying to hurt you personally or make you look bad or anything of that
sort. I'm just trying to point out where I find what I feel to be weak
spots in your argument, where I take the liberty to disagree with your
theory. And to this I try to present my reasons, and ask you questions, so
that you can, in answering, have a chance of convincing me, if your theory
proves better than my current one.
It's just that constant complaints about being misquoted are not very
convincing towards that end.
>>> I naturally assumed he was just referring to the Ainu Essence theory
>>> again, and indicated I did not think any such a such separate power
>>> source existed.
>>
>> Yes, I think you made that belief of yours quite clear.
>> However, you have as yet failed to answer the questions raised by us
>> as to what explanation you then have for certain powers Tolkien
>> ascribed to the rings and certain questions raised as to the
>> chronology of their making.
>
> I do not know what specifically you are referring to. I have done a
> heck of a lot of typing. If I have missed anything important, I do
> not know what it was, and the above statement does not tell me.
I'll try to make it clear once more at the bottom of the post.
>>> This is consistent with my position that any "extra
>>> power" gained by Sauron can be explained by his having appropriated
>>> the fruits of the Elves' investment in the Great Rings project.
>>
>> Not *any*. Some.
>
> I was describing my position, not yours.
And I was stating my (partial) disagreement.
>> First, as my army instructor used to point out quite frequently: He
>> who can read clearly has an advantage!
>
> My appologies for overlooking it. I have already acknowledged a
> possible error in overlooking it. This nyah-nyah jeering that you are
> now doing in response does not reflect to your credit.
OK, true, you got a point here. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.
>> Second, yes those are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings
>> grant. But how? And if it is only an Elven concept/technology, then
>> please explain why these Elven artifacts could only be completed
>> *after* the Mirdain were instructed by Sauron? Does that not
>> indicate that some power source is at work here that is not purely
>> elven in origin?
>
> It does not necessarily indicate anything regarding their "power
> source". The fact that the most powerful artifacts were made with the
> least assistance from Sauron suggests (to me at least) that Sauron's
> guidance had little to do with the "power source".
Then please provide me with a different answer to the questions. Merely
stating that you do not agree with my explanation of them does not really
convince me. (You asked about questions unaswered. There are three in the
above paragraph.)
OK, once more.
1. Celebrimbor tried to make an artifact to restrain the decaying effect of
time. The result was the second Elessar, wrought entirely with Elven
Knowledge. This artifact was less powerful than the Three.
2. Celebrimbor meets Sauron and receives his teachings.
3. Celebrimbot now forges the Three. Alone. The most powerful artifacts of
their time, save the One Ring only. Probably the most powerful artifacts
wrought by any Elf since the Silmarils were completed by Feanor. (And their
powers did not come from Feanor either...)
What would you propose was the nature of Sauron's teaching to Celebrimbor
that suddenly enabled to do something he was previously utterly unable to
do, if it does not have anything to do with accessing some power previously
unavailable to him? And please do also propose a theory as to how Sauron
would have gained that knowledge that is as plausible as his being able to
teach something about Morgoth Element.
Gunnar
--
Viele Menschen bewältigen nicht Arbeit in einer bestimmten Zeit,
sondern nur Zeit mit Arbeit. [Joan Barfoot]
the softrat
wrote:
>
>Ok, so even if you do not agree with my analysis, would you agree with the
>conclusion that in this case 'contain' is not just a redundant repetition
>of 'control' but means more than just the latter?
>
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I often see the Three being described by people as being wrought 'in
> secret'. Although it is clear that Sauron had no part in their making,
> where is it stated that their making was a secret? The only secretly
> forged ring that I know of is the One.
Interesting. I have skimmed the likely passages in the books and done
a search on Google and not come up with anything to prove the 'secret'
part. It is possible that this is a 'transfer' since Celebrimbor was
said to have forged the Three "alone" while Sauron forged the One
"alone and in secret". On the other hand, the fact that Celebrimbor
is said to have worked alone might perforce imply that he did so in
secret... why else would the rest of the 'brotherhood' and/or
'Annatar' not be involved? On the other other hand, I've always
wondered how Sauron seemed to know about the Three from the start if
they were made in secret. There is also a passage which indicates
that Sauron left Ost-in-Edhil before the Rings were completed - which
might explain why he wasn't involved in the Three (with no secrecy
required) or imply that he did not know about them.
Anybody got a more direct quote? I assumed there was one, because
this bit of 'lore' has been around for a long time (pretty much back
to the start of the groups judging by Google), but I couldn't find it
in the books. Wouldn't be the first time that an idea has been
'solidified' and carried forward through discussion without absolute
grounding in the texts.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Tolkien does say that these are the greatest Elven smiths since
> Feanor. I assumed that this at least in part to help explain how they
> were able to create artifacts of great power.
Certainly. However, the fact that Celebrimbor was the second greatest
elven smith of all time does not (to me) explain how he could create
artifacts that would grant such great power that a Maia like Sauron
would be desperate to obtain them.
> Please also note that the *most* powerful of the Elven Rings, and the
> ones most coveted by Sauron, were the Three that were made with almost
> no assistance from Sauron.
We don't really know that. They were made by Celebrimbor alone, but
how much he relied on Sauron's teachings (as we know he did) in doing
so is unknown. Certainly he could not have made them WITHOUT the
knowledge Sauron had given him.
> Where is your source for this information?
As noted elsewhere the quotation indicates that Celebrimbor worked
alone though not neccessarily in secret.
> And does it really rule out the possibility that major Elven resources
> were invested?
I'd think so... unless we are talking about some sort of easily
transportable resource. Could the Elves extract 'creative power' and
trade it about between themselves?
> And is not the genius of Celebrimbor, one of the greatest smiths since
> Feanor,
Indeed, THE greatest.
> a resource that properly belongs to the Elven community? And
> would it not shift the balance of power in the world if the products
> of his best work go to helping Sauron rather than the Elves?
I'm not sure where this is coming from or going to. Yes those things
are true, but what do they have to do with Celebrimbor's ability to
create the Three while working alone?
> I do not see what you are talking about. I (as you say) questioned
> the need for the theory (as an explanation specifically for the extra
> power). You (it seems) have challenged this. But you have not shown
> a need for the theory. You have merely shown that those who choose to
> believe it cannot be proven wrong. But if you challenge what I say,
> and assert a need for a theory, you need to do more than you have
> done.
Perhaps we should talk about what you mean by 'need'. I'd say that
the 'need for the theory' is that it fits numerous known facts and is
not contradicted by any. You seem to be suggesting that more is
required for a theory to be 'needed'. At that point... what is the
'need' for your theory that the 'extra power' Sauron received came
solely from the other Rings? Exactly what are the conditions under
which a theory is "needed"?
> I am quite sure you are challenging me, but I do not see how I have
> misrepresented you in any way.
I can't recall saying that you had (other than perhaps the
'sacrificing babies' bit). I said that you have been 'unfriendly' or
'hostile'. Trust me on this one. :)
> Yeah. But that something was Sauron, not Morgoth specifically.
Not alone. Yes, Sauron was the source of the problem but the fact is
that there was something wrong with the RINGS themselves and the Elves
never knew it until Sauron put on the One. As such the idea that 'the
Rings could not tap into the Morgoth Element without the Elves knowing
that something was wrong' seems suspect to me... something WAS wrong
with the Rings and the Elves never knew it.
Of the Elves putting some of their own 'creative power' into the
Rings;
> Is not this, by itself, sufficient to explain the enhancement in
> Sauron's power?
In theory yes (as I have said repeatedly). However, it does NOT
explain the enhancement in the >Elves'< power.
> Why not then apply Occham's Razor?
I find that this is a common and absolutely useless tool for
discussion. I >DO< apply Occam's Razor... and thereby arrive at what
appears to me to be the simplest explanation meeting all the known
facts; that the Rings tapped into the Morgoth Element. :]
The problem is that perceptions of what the simplest explanation IS
differ and therefor 'applying Occam's Razor' inevitably leads each
individual right back to the position they held from the start.
> Well, we know they did get help from Sauron. But if Sauron knows how
> to enhance his own power through accessing the Morgoth Element, it
> seems unlikely that the Elven Smiths have any extra expertise in the
> matter to help him do what he cannot do for himself.
Well clearly the Elves know or can do SOMETHING that Sauron could not
because he desired the Three for the >ability< they could give him
rather than just the 'raw power'. The Three could 'hold back the
decay of time' in some way that Sauron apparently could not do without
them. In making them Celebrimbor achieved something that Sauron was
apparently incapable of - though it required the knowledge he gained
from Sauron as well. I agree that there is no reason to suppose the
Elves would be 'better able to access the Morgoth Element', but
clearly Celebrimbor was able to APPLY it or whatever other source of
power in a way Sauron could not.
> While there was apparently a degree of Evil Influence that Sauron
> contributed to the Three and the Seven, the "innate corruption" of all
> the rings, which you refer to, does not derive from their power
> source.
How do you know? Do you have any source for this?
> It stems rather from the impure motivation of the Elves who made them.
Again, source? Tolkien stated that the corruption was present even in
the Three because they were made with knowledge gained from Sauron.
He DID indicate that Sauron was able to use the Elves desire for
'power' to prevent decay to manipulate them, but not to my knowledge
that this was the SOURCE of corruption in the Rings.
> Was Feanor more powerful than Morgoth? The Silmarils are considered
> items far greater than the Elven rings. Why did Morgoth covet them?
Because they were pretty. Seriously. The Silmarils were works of
unequaled BEAUTY and majesty. At that, their power came not just from
Feanor but also (primarily) the light of the Trees.
> Why did he not just create his own?
Morgoth? Not exactly an expert on beauty.
> Nor does it matter, much, that Sauron was more "powerful" in some
> sense than Celebrimbor. This hardly prevents Celebrimbor from having
> skills that Sauron might lack.
True. Indeed, I argue that he must have... but it does not change the
fact that the Three were incredibly powerful items with no apparent
power source except Celebrimbor and possibly whatever knowledge Sauron
imparted to him.
> It also seems to me that it is not the way of Evil to increase its own
> power by cannibalizing itself, but rather by consuming the Good and
> perverting it to Evil. Seems any enhancement in Sauron's power is
> best explained by his perverting to Evil what was Good in the Rings,
> not the re-consuming the Evil he himself contributed.
Don't know what this refers to, but it doesn't sound like anything I
have been trying to argue.
> Would it not make more sense to argue that it is too simplistic to say
> that Sauron's knowledge was the critical element, because otherwise
> Sauron would gain no particular benefit from getting the Elves to make
> the Rings?
Not really. We KNOW that Sauron's knowledge was the critical element.
Tolkien states that the Elves of Eregion became as great as they did
precisely BECAUSE of the information they received from Sauron. Yet
clearly Sauron DID get benefits from sharing that knowledge... likely
including some of the Elves own ideas and (most importantly) the Elves
incorporating their own ideas into Rings that Sauron could control.
Bill O'Meally
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1178b6d1.03061...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for the reply Conrad.
I've brought upthis point a few times in the past but only got the sense
that it was either ignored or there was a collective head scratching.
:-)
Yes, there does seem to be an assumption that the Three were wrought in
secret, but I have never seen a quote supporting this notion.
Tar-Elenion
OMea...@wi.rr.com says...
Not directly mentioning the making of the Three but mentioning the
secrecy around the Rings:
"I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves
kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any
case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them."
Letter 211
--
Tar-Elenion
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Not directly mentioning the making of the Three but mentioning the
> secrecy around the Rings:
> "I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves
> kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any
> case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them."
> Letter 211
There are also numerous references to the locations / keepers of the
Three being secret. These might suggest secrecy surrounding the Three
in general. However, keeping knowledge of the Rings secret from Men
and concealing the locations of the Three are different from having
forged them in secrecy. These things might imply that they WERE also
>made< in secret, but it could as easily mean that their making was
known to all the Elves of Eregion and only kept secret from Men.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I've brought upthis point a few times in the past but only got the sense
> that it was either ignored or there was a collective head scratching.
> :-)
Yeah, I saw a couple of those instances when I was searching Google.
> Yes, there does seem to be an assumption that the Three were wrought in
> secret, but I have never seen a quote supporting this notion.
There are some which can be read to suggest it (that Celebrimbor
worked alone, that the Rings in general were kept secret, that
information about the locations of the Three was a secret, et cetera)
but nothing I can find offhand which makes it anything like a
certainty.
Bill O'Meally
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1178b6d1.03061...@posting.google.com...
And nothing that suggests the making of the Three were any more a secret
than the other rings (apart from the One)
Bill O'Meally
"Tar-Elenion" <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19518d0ce...@netnews.attbi.com...
> Not directly mentioning the making of the Three but mentioning the
> secrecy around the Rings:
>
> "I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The
Elves
> kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In
any
> case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them."
> Letter 211
But this only suggests (to me) that the creation of *all* the Rings of
Power may not have been common knowledge. At least something that may
not have been shared with Men. The One, in particular was a complete
secret, only known to the Elves when Sauron first attempted to use it.
Stan Brown
> On the other hand, the fact that Celebrimbor
>is said to have worked alone might perforce imply that he did so in
>secret... why else would the rest of the 'brotherhood' and/or
>'Annatar' not be involved?
I think 'Annatar' would not have been involved in any event because
after the forging of the Sixteen he went off to Mordor to make the
One to hijack control of them.
Someone recently said (and I thought it was you, but I could be
mistaken) that it's quite possible Sauron had no idea the Elves were
ever going to make any Rings after the Sixteen.
--
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
Conrad Dunkerson
> I think 'Annatar' would not have been involved in any event because
> after the forging of the Sixteen he went off to Mordor to make the
> One to hijack control of them.
He may have left even before the first sixteen were completed;
"Sauron himself departed from Eregion about the year 1500, after the
Mirdain had begun the making of the Rings of Power."
UT, Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn
However, that could also be taken to imply that the very reason Sauron
left was that he didn't know more Rings were to be made. Perhaps
Celebrimbor hadn't come up with the idea for the Three yet, or perhaps
he had and did not tell Sauron.
> Someone recently said (and I thought it was you, but I could be
> mistaken) that it's quite possible Sauron had no idea the Elves were
> ever going to make any Rings after the Sixteen.
Could you be referring to;
"There is also a passage which indicates that Sauron left Ost-in-Edhil
before the Rings were completed - which might explain why he wasn't
involved in the Three (with no secrecy required) or imply that he did
not know about them."
That's from further down in the same message you were responding to
(and refers to the text quoted above), but it is the only recent
posting of mine which I can think of that touched on the subject.
Nystulc
>Let us start by imagining that "John B. Whelan" wrote in
><news:fd166f83.03061...@posting.google.com> ...
>
>> Gunnar Krüger <Fen...@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:<bc35lm$f7gmv$1...@ID-48925.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>> WTF are you talking about?
>
>About the fact that you complain in about every other post about people
>misquoting you selectively.
Every time a post purports to say what *my* views are, and does so incorrectly,
I do feel obliged to try to set the record straight. At a certain point, if I
have to do this constantly, I start to become a little testy and impatient. I
never suggested that Conrad, or anyone else, was misconstruing me deliberately
(and explitly said so). But I did suggest (at one point) that, if others were
to try a little harder to understand what I was saying, I might be able to
spend less time retyping and clarifying views already adequately expressed.
It seems that the appropriate response, if I complain that I have been
misconstrued, would be for my opponents to acknowledge the clarification of my
views and move on. This, it seems to me, would be the best way of showing me
that the error was in good faith.
Conrad's response, on the other hand, has been to vigorously deny that he has
misconstrued me, and to proceed to attempt to "prove" by extensive (and
selective) cut-and-paste that my views are actually other than I claim them to
be. His stubborn, die-hard stance has the effect of refusing to allow me the
privilege of saying what my own opinions are. He has absolutely proved that he
will not listen to me when I attempt to explain my own position.
>I know that sometimes what I post is not 'The Truth' and that people more
>knowledgeable than myself will point out weak points in my argumentation to
>me or even (gasp) correct me where I'm wrong.
I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong. People (including Conrad) have
pointed out to me things I don't know in these posts. I have not altered my
core opinion, and I do not believe that anyone has a right to demand that I do,
but I have certainly acknowledged the information..
>I actually look forward to
>that, because from those responses I can learn something. And I still stand
>a lot to learn about Tolkien's works.
I agree.
>That is the whole point of discussing
>his works with others in this group, at least IMHO.
I agree.
>Please forgive me if
>I'm wrong but *my personal impression* is that take criticism of your
>theory quite personal.
Forgive me, but I do not think your personal impression is correct. I also
suspect you have not formed this impression so much based on my complaints
themselves, but rather to sarcastic characterizations and reconstructiosn of
them by Conrad. Sarcastic mis-presentations of other people's opinions is one
of Conrad's specialties.
That's the annoying part about other person mischaracterizing your opinions.
If I do ignore his posts (as I now would like to do), then people like you read
them and accept their mis-portrayals of my views at face value. If I respond
with continued attempts to set the record straight, and Conrad refuses to
accept the clarifications as he is sure to do, things quickly degenerate into
an argument about who said what.
>I for my part, in disagreeing with you, am not
>trying to hurt you personally or make you look bad or anything of that
>sort.
I was not really under the impression that you were, though I confess that all
these posts together have put me in a generally annoyed and impatient mood. In
any event, regardless of your motives, there may be little point in continuing
this debate with you. I have tried to answer all your points below but, with
one exception, it seems to me that I am merely repeating things I have already
said. After this goes on too long, one must accept that there is a failure to
communicate one's ideas, and simply give up.
>I'm just trying to point out where I find what I feel to be weak
>spots in your argument, where I take the liberty to disagree with your
>theory. And to this I try to present my reasons, and ask you questions, so
>that you can, in answering, have a chance of convincing me, if your theory
>proves better than my current one.
I don't doubt any of this. However if (as may happen) you present an incorrect
understanding of my position, it seems to me that I have a right to point this
out, and clarify.
>It's just that constant complaints about being misquoted are not very
>convincing towards that end.
I'm sorry, but this logic puts me in a "no-win" situation, and in certain
circumstances (which I believe apply here) effectively denies me the right to
say what my own opinions are. Seems to me that if another attributes my views
to me, and does so incorrectly, if is perfectly understandable for me to try to
correct and clarify. I have already accepted that there is no point in trying
to communicate with Conrad, because he will not attempt to understand my
position. It may well be time for me to leave this debate entirely.
Just recently, Conrad accused me of having said that the phrase "of all the
rings alike" referred only to the Seven and the Nine, excluding the Three. I
made it clear that this was not what I had said, nor was it what I had meant.
Conrad has still not acknowledged the clarification, and has, in fact, posted a
response designed to prove that he did not construe me incorrectly. He
achieved his proof by means of tactics I should probably not go into, because
it is just more of the same. This is not communication of ideas.
Why don't you look over those posts, and tell me if my clarification of my
opinion regarding the "of all the rings alike" phrase was unreasonable, such
that I should not be permitted to do so? (I do not even think it can be fairly
said that my view was not clearly stated the first time). Can you point to any
other place where my clarification of my own views are too unreasonable to be
acknowledged and accepeted? Are you suggesting that my attempts to clarify my
own position destroy my credibility? If so, why?
<snip>
>>> Second, yes those are precisely the sort of powers that Elven Rings
>>> grant. But how? And if it is only an Elven concept/technology, then
>>> please explain why these Elven artifacts could only be completed
>>> *after* the Mirdain were instructed by Sauron? Does that not
>>> indicate that some power source is at work here that is not purely
>>> elven in origin?
>>
>> It does not necessarily indicate anything regarding their "power
>> source". The fact that the most powerful artifacts were made with the
>> least assistance from Sauron suggests (to me at least) that Sauron's
>> guidance had little to do with the "power source".
>
>Then please provide me with a different answer to the questions. Merely
>stating that you do not agree with my explanation of them does not really
>convince me. (You asked about questions unaswered. There are three in the
>above paragraph.)
I note the three questions in the above paragraph, and provide my answers.
Q1: How precisely do the Elven Rings grant their powers?
A1: I don't know. I could easily speculate and invent any number of detailed
fictional scenarios, without involving the Morgoth Element, but I hesitate to
do so, because my opponents would then challenge me to prove something which,
of course, I could not prove, it being merely my own invention. If you really
doubt my ability to write such a fan-fictional scenario, I will reluctantly
oblige, and send you one in private email.
Q2: Why were the Rings only completed *after* the Elven Smiths had been
instructed by Sauron?
A2: There are two answers, both of which I think are probably correct, and
played a roll. One is that Sauron played the role of "tempter" and guided the
Elven Smiths towards investing their abilities in improper goals. Second is
that Sauron did not merely "tempt" but also provided technological guidance
towards the achievement of these improper goals. I suppose you will know ask
me what precisely was the technological assistance that Sauron granted, and my
answer would be the same as my answer to question #1.
Q3: Does that Does that not indicate that some power source is at work here
that is not purely elven in origin?
A3: I do not see how this implies this. You are going to have to explain your
logic. You seem to be suggesting, that unless I present my own speculative
scenario, I must therefore accept yours. Nor do I know what you mean by a
"purely elven" power source. Do toasters have a "purely human" power source?
What about Glamdring and Sting? And even it were established that the power
source were not "purely elven", why would that imply that the "non-elven power
source" in question were the Morgoth Element?
>OK, once more.
>
>1. Celebrimbor tried to make an artifact to restrain the decaying effect of
>time. The result was the second Elessar, wrought entirely with Elven
>Knowledge. This artifact was less powerful than the Three.
I'm not sure where this info comes from, but I'm fine with it..
>2. Celebrimbor meets Sauron and receives his teachings.
Okay.
>3. Celebrimbot now forges the Three. Alone. The most powerful artifacts of
>their time, save the One Ring only.
Okay.
>Probably the most powerful artifacts
>wrought by any Elf since the Silmarils were completed by Feanor. (And their
>powers did not come from Feanor either...)
No problem here. I trust you are not suggesting that, since the powers of the
Silmarils did not stem from Feanor alone, therefore they must have come from
the Morgoth Element.
>What would you propose was the nature of Sauron's teaching to Celebrimbor
>that suddenly enabled to do something he was previously utterly unable to
>do, if it does not have anything to do with accessing some power previously
>unavailable to him?
I do not know, but because I do not know, does not mean the answer need involve
power sources generally, nor the Morgoth Element specifically. The advances
and "new powers" associated with the computer age have very little to do with
the electricity that powers virtually all of them. Computers are becoming
significantly more "powerful" just about every year, and the advances have
nothing to do with the "power source".
>And please do also propose a theory as to how Sauron
>would have gained that knowledge that is as plausible as his being able to
>teach something about Morgoth Element.
Again, I am reluctant to propose a specific theory, because speculation
regarding the precise workings of magical artifacts doesn't help one much.
However, I cannot see why a theory *not* involving the "Morgoth Element" would
be any less plausible. In the real world, scientific and technological
advances come about all the time because different scientists share and
coordinate their different scientific knowledge and different creative gifts.
The United States got the Atom Bomb in part because Einstein and other German
scientists fled the Nazis, and ended up sharing his efforts with those of
American scientists. Virtually all scientific advances are built on the
sharing of knowledge, sometimes including secret knowledge. The "Morgoth
Element" is, in the real world, virtually never invoked as a rational
explanation for such occurrences. (On the other hand, if anyone were to argue
that the Atom Bomb were ultimately the work of Morgoth, I would not argue too
much.)
What I object to most about the "Morgoth Element" theory is not merely that it
is unnecessary, but rather that it undermines any moral message or point to the
Rings story as it relates to the dangers or corrupting influence of "Power".
Tolkien tells us that the motives of the Elven Smith's were tainted, and that
it was wrong of them to seek the kind of power they sought, and that it was
wrong of them to listen to the whisperings and "temptations" of Sauron.
Tolkien also indicates that the Elven Rings were not inately evil when the
goals and motives of their use were appropriate (ie. when used to counter the
power of Sauron and heal the hurts inflicted thereby.)
The "Morgoth Element" theory suggests that the goal *itself* was not tainted,
and became tainted only because the Elven Smith's used the wrong brand-name of
mystical gasoline. It suggests that the project would have been okay if only
the Elven Smiths had got their gasoline from Manwe's gas station rather than
Morgoth's. It suggests that the evil stems from a polluted "power source"
rather from the Elves' own corrupt motives.
No doubt, Morgoth did some whispering and tempting of his own - but I do not
think this idea of the Devil sitting on one's left shoulder giving bad advice
is intended to be related to the Morgoth Element theory, which I understand to
be concerned separately with the influence of the Devil on the material world
(as opposed to the human or elven soul).
- John Whelan
Gunnar Krüger
<news:20030613163011...@mb-m19.news.cs.com> ...
> At
> a certain point, if I have to do this constantly, I start to become a
> little testy and impatient. But
> I did suggest (at one point) that, if others were to try a little
> harder to understand what I was saying, I might be able to spend less
> time retyping and clarifying views already adequately expressed.
Sorry, but even though I have been trying really hard to understand your
line of reasoning, to me it wasn't yet adequately expressed, for I still
hadn't gotten it. Your fault or mine, take your pick ;)
> It seems that the appropriate response, if I complain that I have been
> misconstrued, would be for my opponents to acknowledge the
> clarification of my views and move on. This, it seems to me, would
> be the best way of showing me that the error was in good faith.
Well, but what if one still did not get it after you explained it a second
time? Shall we just shut up or ask again?
> I have not altered my core opinion, and I do not believe that anyone
> has a right to demand that I do
No, probably not :)
>> Please forgive me if
>> I'm wrong but *my personal impression* is that take criticism of your
>> theory quite personal.
>
> Forgive me, but I do not think your personal impression is correct.
OK, correction accepted.
> [something about Conrad I can't comment on for I really do not know Conrad]
> I have tried to
> answer all your points below but, with one exception, it seems to me
> that I am merely repeating things I have already said. After this
> goes on too long, one must accept that there is a failure to
> communicate one's ideas, and simply give up.
Probably true... :(
> I don't doubt any of this. However if (as may happen) you present an
> incorrect understanding of my position, it seems to me that I have a
> right to point this out, and clarify.
Oh, you are most welcome to clarify what you meant, if I weren't interested
I wouldn't have answered in the first place ;)
> ['all the rings alike debate']
> (I do not even think it can be fairly said that my view was
> not clearly stated the first time).
Hate to admit it, but even though I thought I got your meaning, I must say
your interpretation of the letter was not one I share.
> I note the three questions in the above paragraph, and provide my
> answers.
>
> Q1: How precisely do the Elven Rings grant their powers?
> A1: I don't know. I could easily speculate and invent any number of
> detailed fictional scenarios, without involving the Morgoth Element,
> but I hesitate to do so, because my opponents would then challenge me
> to prove something which, of course, I could not prove, it being
> merely my own invention.
OK, I thought so. Please understand that when faced with a theory that is
'merely your own invention' and one that is Tolkien's, I side with Tolkien.
It is his subcreation after all.
What kept nagging me all the time, I noticed in reading this last post, is
that I could not understand *why* you were looking for some theory not
involving the ME. I'll come to that later in this reply.
> Q2: Why were the Rings only completed *after* the Elven Smiths had
> been instructed by Sauron?
> A2: There are two answers, both of which I think are probably
> correct, and played a roll. One is that Sauron played the role of
> "tempter" and guided the Elven Smiths towards investing their
> abilities in improper goals.
Sauron probably stroked their ambitions quite a bit. But I really believe
that the basic wish to forge such artifacts was already present in the
Mirdains minds, as seen in Celebrimbor's making of the Elessar.
> Second is that Sauron did not merely
> "tempt" but also provided technological guidance towards the
> achievement of these improper goals.
Certainly.
> I suppose you will know ask me
> what precisely was the technological assistance that Sauron granted,
> and my answer would be the same as my answer to question #1.
Which again leeds me to my question as to why you are unwilling to accept
Tolkien's answer.
> Q3: Does that Does that not indicate that some power source is at
> work here that is not purely elven in origin?
> A3: I do not see how this implies this. You are going to have to
> explain your logic.
I'll try.
> Nor do I know what you mean by a "purely elven" power source.
One the elves could have accessed without anybodys help. Such as whatever
power was infused into Glamdring, Sting and the ropes from Lórien.
> And even it were established that the power source were not "purely
> elven", why would that imply that the "non-elven power source" in
> question were the Morgoth Element?
Well, the fact that it became available *after* Sauron's teachings would
imply that it was something Sauron knew about, but the elves did not. ME
would be a possible explanation, since Sauron would be in a very good
position of having been able to gain knowledge about it's use, whereas the
Noldor were not.
> You seem to be suggesting, that unless I present
> my own speculative scenario, I must therefore accept yours.
You don't have to, but I was getting the impression that you were trying to
convince us of your's?
> No problem here. I trust you are not suggesting that, since the
> powers of the Silmarils did not stem from Feanor alone, therefore
> they must have come from the Morgoth Element.
*g* not really... But the power source of the Silmarils (Yavanna's power
and Varda's blessing) surely was not that powering the rings...
> The advances and "new powers" associated with the
> computer age have very little to do with the electricity that powers
> virtually all of them. Computers are becoming significantly more
> "powerful" just about every year, and the advances have nothing to do
> with the "power source".
True, but please note the fundamental difference between our 'modern world
of progress' and Tolkien's world where time does not bring progress but
wearieness and decay. The power of the elves of ME have been dwindling and
waning ever since the Noldor arrived from Aman. It is quite a different
mind set. We only ever here about old knowledge that has been lost, hardly
ever of new knowledge being developed (save pipeweed). A little different
from what we know today...
> However, I cannot see why a theory *not*
> involving the "Morgoth Element" would be any less plausible.
It might be plausible, I've just not seen one yet...
> In the real world, scientific and technological advances...
As I said above, Tolkien's world really is not the real world, especially
not in the regard of technological advance.
> The "Morgoth Element" is, in the real world, virtually
> never invoked as a rational explanation for such occurrences.
Om, in the real world, 'Satanic influence' and 'rational explanation' are
mutually exclusive in most discussions I usually participate in...
In the real world, I do not believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God,
nor that evil came into the world through the influence of a personified
Satan.
When trying to understand Tolkien's vision of Arda however, it is very
sensible to assume that both exist, since that is how Tolkien has explained
it to us.
> (On
> the other hand, if anyone were to argue that the Atom Bomb were
> ultimately the work of Morgoth, I would not argue too much.)
In the real world, I'd call that notion nonsense, in Tolkien's world, I'd
agree.
> What I object to most about the "Morgoth Element" theory is not
> merely that it is unnecessary, but rather that it undermines any
> moral message or point to the Rings story as it relates to the
> dangers or corrupting influence of "Power".
Thank you. This finally helps me understand the *why* of your opposition to
the ME-theory. That had really kept me wondering.
> Tolkien tells us that the
> motives of the Elven Smith's were tainted, and that it was wrong of
> them to seek the kind of power they sought, and that it was wrong of
> them to listen to the whisperings and "temptations" of Sauron.
True.
> Tolkien also indicates that the Elven Rings were not inately evil
> when the goals and motives of their use were appropriate
He does tell us however they these goals were ultimately futile. You can
try to arrest the flow of time but in the end you will necessarily fail,
for you can not oppose the will of God, who knows how it will eventually
end, for this is how he designed to world to be.
> The "Morgoth Element" theory suggests that the goal *itself* was not
> tainted, and became tainted only because the Elven Smith's used the
> wrong brand-name of mystical gasoline.
I'm not sure about that. What if he's trying to tell us that we might have
to goals, to arrest time and to keep things the way we like them now and
not to care about those who are supposed to come after us and what they
might like to do with the world in their time.
> It suggests that the project
> would have been okay if only the Elven Smiths had got their gasoline
> from Manwe's gas station rather than Morgoth's.
Maybe it tells us that this sort of power simply is not in us and will
never be granted to us within the law of the world (Eru's law, of which
Manwe is the keeper)? Maybe it tells us that this sort of power can only
come from Morgoth, for this sort of power, strong enough to upset the law
of the world is evil in itself? Maybe it tells us that rebelling against
our appointed place in the world and seeking this sort of power is evil,
for if that sort of power were ment to be in our hands, it would have been
granted to us?
> It suggests that the evil stems from a polluted "power source"
> rather from the Elves' own corrupt motives.
I'd hold that even to seek for such power is evil, since the simple fact
that this power can only be gained from an evil source should tell you to
back of. It's not what you aim for, it's what you achieve that determines
good and evil in this interpretation. Remember that Tolkien was catholic.
> No doubt, Morgoth did some whispering and tempting of his own - but I
> do not think this idea of the Devil sitting on one's left shoulder
> giving bad advice is intended to be related to the Morgoth Element
> theory, which I understand to be concerned separately with the
> influence of the Devil on the material world (as opposed to the human
> or elven soul).
I don't know. True, the part about the ME being infused into the substance
of Arda probably only refers to physical matter, but the way I see it, all
evil in the world and every instance of someone seeking power not appointed
to him by Eru ultimately stems from Morgoth's rebellion and his spirits
still whispering to the minds of those who will hearken.
Gunnar
--
Edible, adj.- Good to eat, and wholesome to digest, as a worm to a toad, a toad
to a snake, a snake to a pig, a pig to a man, and a man to a worm.
Nystulc
>> Q1: How precisely do the Elven Rings grant their powers?
>> A1: I don't know. I could easily speculate and invent any number of
>> detailed fictional scenarios, without involving the Morgoth Element,
>> but I hesitate to do so, because my opponents would then challenge me
>> to prove something which, of course, I could not prove, it being
>> merely my own invention.
>
>OK, I thought so. Please understand that when faced with a theory that is
>'merely your own invention' and one that is Tolkien's, I side with Tolkien.
>It is his subcreation after all.
OK, but understand that you are preaching to the converted. If you desire to
convince me that this is in fact "a theory that is Tolkien's", you cannot
invoke in argument the premise that this is "a theory that is Tolkien's." If I
accepted that premise, the debate would already be over, and you would have
won. As far as I am concerned, this "theory" is simply fan-fiction.
>What kept nagging me all the time, I noticed in reading this last post, is
>that I could not understand *why* you were looking for some theory not
>involving the ME. I'll come to that later in this reply.
But I am *not* looking for "some theory not involving the ME" - none beyond
what Tolkien's words tell us: that Sauron will become stronger if he gains the
One, and that this is related to his gaining control over the elven rings. I
see no need to engage in speculation regarding "power sources" and other
details, as an alternative to the sort of speculation that I consider
unnecessary to begin with. To my mind, it is no more necessary to know the
"power source" of Elven Rings than it is to know the "power source" for
Glamdring. The rings were created by, and properly belong to, the Elves, and
we know that Sauron gains additional strength from appropriating their
benefits.
Up til now, I have merely argued that the "Morgoth Element" theory of Sauron's
extra power when wearing the One, is unnecessary fan-fiction. I could (and
just did) go a bit further, and argue that it is *bad* fan fiction that is a
poor fit with what Tolkien wrote for various reasons, but it was hardly
necessary that I do this and upset fans of the theory more than necessary.
<snip>
>> Nor do I know what you mean by a "purely elven" power source.
>
>One the elves could have accessed without anybodys help. Such as whatever
>power was infused into Glamdring, Sting and the ropes from Lórien.
I actually think it presumes too much to assume that the "technology" that
created Glamdring, Sting, and the Lorien ropes, has no relation to any
assistance or guidance or sharing of information the Elves may have had from
Maia or various other beings over the course of their long history.
>> And even it were established that the power source were not "purely
>> elven", why would that imply that the "non-elven power source" in
>> question were the Morgoth Element?
>
>Well, the fact that it became available *after* Sauron's teachings would
>imply that it was something Sauron knew about, but the elves did not.
It implies their new technology utilized information Sauron shared with them.
Sauron may have learned from the Elves as well.
> ME would be a possible explanation,
Sure, if you like fan fiction. But didn't you just insist it was "Tolkien's"
explanation?
> since Sauron would be in a very good
> position of having been able to gain knowledge about it's use, whereas
> the Noldor were not.
One of my problems here is that Sauron already had the ability to enhance his
own power through dark arts invoking Morgoth's spirit infused in Arda. Even if
I accept the fan-fiction that the ring scheme enhances his power by enabling
him to tap more of Morgoth's Element, it will do so only by appropriating the
abilities and powers of the Elves to achieve more than he could do on his own.
This brings us right back to the fact that his power-enhancement comes from
appropriating the benefits of the Elves' labor. This works much the same, in
principle, no matter what natural resources are being tapped by the Elves'
labor, and the ME-twist on the story becomes essentially irrelevant to helping
us understand what happened.
>> You seem to be suggesting, that unless I present
>> my own speculative scenario, I must therefore accept yours.
>
>You don't have to, but I was getting the impression that you were trying to
>convince us of your's?
No. I am questioning the need for fan-fiction speculation. No-one has denied
that "my" theory is actually Tolkien's. They just want to add to it.
Nobody questions that Sauron, when wearing the One Ring, derives advantages
from controlling rings of power made by Elves. Nobody questions that Tolkien
wrote words to this effect. They just want to add to the story: Tolkien's,
not mine.
<snip>
>> The advances and "new powers" associated with the
>> computer age have very little to do with the electricity that powers
>> virtually all of them. Computers are becoming significantly more
>> "powerful" just about every year, and the advances have nothing to do
>> with the "power source".
>
>True, but please note the fundamental difference between our 'modern world
>of progress' and Tolkien's world where time does not bring progress but
>wearieness and decay.
I cannot note any "fundamental difference" between Elven technology and ours
because I do not know how Elven Technology works. That is exactly my point. I
do not think you can fairly assume that an advance in Elven technology equates
to an advance in its power source.
>The power of the elves of ME have been dwindling and
>waning ever since the Noldor arrived from Aman. It is quite a different
>mind set. We only ever here about old knowledge that has been lost, hardly
>ever of new knowledge being developed (save pipeweed). A little different
>from what we know today...
This only supports what we already suspect - that the Elves could not have
achieved what they did without the help they got from Sauron. It does not in
any way imply that such advance as they *did* achieve must have been related to
the "power source".
>> However, I cannot see why a theory *not*
>> involving the "Morgoth Element" would be any less plausible.
>
>It might be plausible, I've just not seen one yet...
Nor have you seen one for Glamdring or Lorien Ropes. None is needed, IMHO.
Nor have we seen an scientific explanation for the precise workings of Lembas
(nor would Tolkien want you to have one, as he explains in one of his letters).
>> In the real world, scientific and technological advances...
>
>As I said above, Tolkien's world really is not the real world, especially
>not in the regard of technological advance.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Tolkien's tales are not science fiction,
set in some alternate world or alternate universe. They are far more analagous
to Myths and Fairy tales, which are set in, and seek to explain in some
non-literal fashion, the world we live in. In any event, I cannot remember
what point I was making, since you do not quote it. It is therefore hard for
me to discern if your response constitutes a relevant objection to whatever it
was I was saying.
>> The "Morgoth Element" is, in the real world, virtually
>> never invoked as a rational explanation for such occurrences.
>
>Om, in the real world, 'Satanic influence' and 'rational explanation' are
>mutually exclusive in most discussions I usually participate in...
Om, isn't that what I just said, more or less?
>In the real world, I do not believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God,
Okay, but understand that this will not give you any particular advantage in
understanding what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote things. Tolkien does
believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God.
> nor that evil came into the world through the influence of a personified >
Satan.
I'm not sure Tolkien regards this as essential to Christian doctrine,
especially if Satan must be imagined as a single entity. But Tolkien would
certainly regard it as a meaningful myth, with relevance to the "real world"
even if not "literally" true. Read his essay "On Fairy Stories" if you want
his attitudes on the truth value of myths and fairy tales.
>When trying to understand Tolkien's vision of Arda however, it is very
>sensible to assume that both exist, since that is how Tolkien has explained
>it to us.
It "exists" but is best understood as a primordial origin myth designed, like
all such myths, to explain the workings of the real world (in a non-literal,
non-scientific fashion). There is no need to assume any particular relevance
to the War of the Ring (occurring relatively late in the history of the world,
much like our own era), especially when Tolkien does not invoke it for this
purpose.
>> (On
>> the other hand, if anyone were to argue that the Atom Bomb were
>> ultimately the work of Morgoth, I would not argue too much.)
>
>In the real world, I'd call that notion nonsense, in Tolkien's world, I'd
>agree.
If you believe that myths are "nonsense" when applied to the real world, then
you cannot claim much insight into Tolkien's mindset.
>> What I object to most about the "Morgoth Element" theory is not
>> merely that it is unnecessary, but rather that it undermines any
>> moral message or point to the Rings story as it relates to the
>> dangers or corrupting influence of "Power".
>
>Thank you. This finally helps me understand the *why* of your opposition to
>the ME-theory. That had really kept me wondering.
Whatever. I don't really understand the confusion, nor do I understand your
preoccupation with my motives. You ought to be able to respond to the content
of my ideas without reference to my motives.
>> Tolkien tells us that the
>> motives of the Elven Smith's were tainted, and that it was wrong of
>> them to seek the kind of power they sought, and that it was wrong of
>> them to listen to the whisperings and "temptations" of Sauron.
>
>True.
>
>> Tolkien also indicates that the Elven Rings were not inately evil
>> when the goals and motives of their use were appropriate
>
>He does tell us however they these goals were ultimately futile.
No. They were used to heal and repair hurts inflicted by Sauron on Middle
Earth, and in the end this work was never undone by Sauron because he never
siezed the One. Those are the appropriate goals and motives that I was
referring to, and, as they contributed to Sauron's eventual defeat, they were
not ultimately futile.
>You can
>try to arrest the flow of time but in the end you will necessarily fail,
>for you can not oppose the will of God, who knows how it will eventually
>end, for this is how he designed to world to be.
This was the inappropriate goal.
>> The "Morgoth Element" theory suggests that the goal *itself* was not
>> tainted, and became tainted only because the Elven Smith's used the
>> wrong brand-name of mystical gasoline.
>
>I'm not sure about that. What if he's trying to tell us that we might have
>to goals, to arrest time and to keep things the way we like them now and
>not to care about those who are supposed to come after us and what they
>might like to do with the world in their time.
I don't understand this comment.
>> It suggests that the project
>> would have been okay if only the Elven Smiths had got their gasoline
>> from Manwe's gas station rather than Morgoth's.
>
>Maybe it tells us that this sort of power simply is not in us and will
>never be granted to us within the law of the world (Eru's law, of which
>Manwe is the keeper)? Maybe it tells us that this sort of power can only
>come from Morgoth, for this sort of power, strong enough to upset the law
>of the world is evil in itself? Maybe it tells us that rebelling against
>our appointed place in the world and seeking this sort of power is evil,
>for if that sort of power were ment to be in our hands, it would have been
>granted to us?
Once again, you appear to be talking about the sort of "power" that, by your
own standards, could not exist in the "real world". Therefore, you deprive
Tolkien's moral messages about the corrupting influence of power of any
real-world relevance.
>> It suggests that the evil stems from a polluted "power source"
>> rather from the Elves' own corrupt motives.
>
>I'd hold that even to seek for such power is evil, since the simple fact
>that this power can only be gained from an evil source should tell you to
>back of. It's not what you aim for, it's what you achieve that determines
>good and evil in this interpretation. Remember that Tolkien was catholic.
I am aware that Tolkien was Catholic. The rest of this paragraph makes no
sense to me, and appears to have nothing much to do with Catholocism, or
Christianity generally.
>> No doubt, Morgoth did some whispering and tempting of his own - but I
>> do not think this idea of the Devil sitting on one's left shoulder
>> giving bad advice is intended to be related to the Morgoth Element
>> theory, which I understand to be concerned separately with the
>> influence of the Devil on the material world (as opposed to the human
>> or elven soul).
>
>I don't know. True, the part about the ME being infused into the substance
>of Arda probably only refers to physical matter, but the way I see it, all
>evil in the world and every instance of someone seeking power not appointed
>to him by Eru ultimately stems from Morgoth's rebellion and his spirits
>still whispering to the minds of those who will hearken.
<shrug> Your version of the "Morgoth's Element Theory of Sauron's Extra Power"
is so broad that I can hardly object to it, except to say I think it would be
more simple and accurate to call it the "Morgoth Theory of Evil," and not
confuse things by throwing in the word "Element". According to this theory,
Morgoth is not only involved in Sauron's Extra Power Derived From the Elven
Rings, but is also involved in Lobelia's Extra Wealth Derived from Bilbo's
Silver Spoons.
Jussi Jaatinen
Nystulc wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, this "theory" is simply fan-fiction.
So you're still not convinced Tolkien implied that Sauron used the ME in
creating the One Ring, and, by implication, that the ME was also
involved in the creation and workings of the Elven Rings? However, at
the end of your post you appear to have come around to this POV.
> Up til now, I have merely argued that the "Morgoth Element" theory of Sauron's
> extra power when wearing the One, is unnecessary fan-fiction. I could (and
> just did) go a bit further, and argue that it is *bad* fan fiction that is a
> poor fit with what Tolkien wrote for various reasons, but it was hardly
> necessary that I do this and upset fans of the theory more than necessary.
We've been here before.
> >> Nor do I know what you mean by a "purely elven" power source.
> >One the elves could have accessed without anybodys help. Such as whatever
> >power was infused into Glamdring, Sting and the ropes from Lórien.
> I actually think it presumes too much to assume that the "technology" that
> created Glamdring, Sting, and the Lorien ropes, has no relation to any
> assistance or guidance or sharing of information the Elves may have had from
> Maia or various other beings over the course of their long history.
This is sophistry. Clearly the original intent was to refer to a power
source that was in the pool of knowledge of the Mirdain before Sauron
showed up.
> >> And even it were established that the power source were not "purely
> >> elven", why would that imply that the "non-elven power source" in
> >> question were the Morgoth Element?
> >Well, the fact that it became available *after* Sauron's teachings would
> >imply that it was something Sauron knew about, but the elves did not.
> It implies their new technology utilized information Sauron shared with them.
Exactly and precisely so, which is why people consider the ME-theory
relevant.
> Sauron may have learned from the Elves as well.
This, on the other hand, is irrelevant to the above.
> > ME would be a possible explanation,
> Sure, if you like fan fiction. But didn't you just insist it was "Tolkien's"
> explanation?
ME is Tolkien's concept and not fan fiction.
> One of my problems here is that Sauron already had the ability to enhance his
> own power through dark arts invoking Morgoth's spirit infused in Arda. Even if
> I accept the fan-fiction that the ring scheme enhances his power by enabling
> him to tap more of Morgoth's Element, it will do so only by appropriating the
> abilities and powers of the Elves to achieve more than he could do on his own.
> This brings us right back to the fact that his power-enhancement comes from
> appropriating the benefits of the Elves' labor. This works much the same, in
> principle, no matter what natural resources are being tapped by the Elves'
> labor, and the ME-twist on the story becomes essentially irrelevant to helping
> us understand what happened.
You're still insisting on confusing Sauron's motives (domination of the
Elves) and what powered the Rings (ME).
> Nobody questions that Sauron, when wearing the One Ring, derives advantages
> from controlling rings of power made by Elves. Nobody questions that Tolkien
> wrote words to this effect. They just want to add to the story: Tolkien's,
> not mine.
Is somebody questioning that Sauron gains advantage from wearing the One
in addition to the advantages he gains from controlling the other Rings?
I think that's been established pretty firmly already.
> >The power of the elves of ME have been dwindling and
> >waning ever since the Noldor arrived from Aman. It is quite a different
> >mind set. We only ever here about old knowledge that has been lost, hardly
> >ever of new knowledge being developed (save pipeweed). A little different
> >from what we know today...
> This only supports what we already suspect - that the Elves could not have
> achieved what they did without the help they got from Sauron. It does not in
> any way imply that such advance as they *did* achieve must have been related to
> the "power source".
When the issue of Celebrimbor's Elessar is considered, then it certainly
does imply just that.
> >> Tolkien also indicates that the Elven Rings were not inately evil
> >> when the goals and motives of their use were appropriate
> >He does tell us however they these goals were ultimately futile.
> No. They were used to heal and repair hurts inflicted by Sauron on Middle
> Earth, and in the end this work was never undone by Sauron because he never
> siezed the One. Those are the appropriate goals and motives that I was
> referring to, and, as they contributed to Sauron's eventual defeat, they were
> not ultimately futile.
The goals of the Rings were to allow the Elves to remain in Middle-Earth
(as active parts in history) and protect them from sadness which comes
from the change and decay. So the goals were selfish and inappropriate
and in direct conflict with e.g. the Prophecy of the North, according to
which the Noldor will "become as shadows of regret before the younger
race that cometh after". The motives of the Rings were as corrupt as the
motives of Ar-Pharazon when he invaded Valinor. (and indeed, the primus
motor behind both projects is the same) The Noldor and Numenoreans
wanted to overstep their place in the world and, indeed, to have it both
ways.
> Once again, you appear to be talking about the sort of "power" that, by your
> own standards, could not exist in the "real world". Therefore, you deprive
> Tolkien's moral messages about the corrupting influence of power of any
> real-world relevance.
Okay, so if we talk of the Palantiri do we then also render useless any
possible moral messages related to them?
> <shrug> Your version of the "Morgoth's Element Theory of Sauron's Extra Power"
> is so broad that I can hardly object to it, except to say I think it would be
> more simple and accurate to call it the "Morgoth Theory of Evil," and not
> confuse things by throwing in the word "Element". According to this theory,
> Morgoth is not only involved in Sauron's Extra Power Derived From the Elven
> Rings, but is also involved in Lobelia's Extra Wealth Derived from Bilbo's
> Silver Spoons.
The "Sauron's Extra Power" theory most discussed in this thread refers
to the extra power Sauron got exclusively from the One Ring, the sort of
angelic power that Tolkien wrote he got from it and not the sort of
political power you always refer to.
But now it's nice to see that finally you're coming over to the Morgoth
Element school of thought.
-JJ
Conrad Dunkerson
> Every time a post purports to say what *my* views are, and does so
> incorrectly, I do feel obliged to try to set the record straight.
> Conrad's response, on the other hand, has been to vigorously deny that he has
> misconstrued me, and to proceed to attempt to "prove" by extensive (and
> selective) cut-and-paste that my views are actually other than I claim them to
> be. His stubborn, die-hard stance has the effect of refusing to allow me the
> privilege of saying what my own opinions are. He has absolutely proved that
> he will not listen to me when I attempt to explain my own position.
Actually, so far as I can recall this is the first that you have
suggested that I have 'purported to say what YOUR views are'. Indeed,
that is rather surprising given that I have been ASKING you to explain
your views for some time.
Nor was this new (so far as I can see) complaint the cause of your
pointed comments at me so far as I know... there you complained that I
was 'taking you out of context' and 'using selective quoting'... never
mind that I quoted the entire conversation going back three or four
messages - it was 'selective'.
<snip the rest because I'm tired of being insulted for no good cause>
John B. Whelan
> Nystulc wrote:
>
> > As far as I am concerned, this "theory" is simply fan-fiction.
>
> So you're still not convinced Tolkien implied that Sauron used the ME in
> creating the One Ring, and, by implication, that the ME was also
> involved in the creation and workings of the Elven Rings?
This is incorrect. If I clarify, I will be repeating myself. No need
for that.
<snip>
> > >> Nor do I know what you mean by a "purely elven" power source.
> > >One the elves could have accessed without anybodys help. Such as whatever
> > >power was infused into Glamdring, Sting and the ropes from Lórien.
> > I actually think it presumes too much to assume that the "technology" that
> > created Glamdring, Sting, and the Lorien ropes, has no relation to any
> > assistance or guidance or sharing of information the Elves may have had from
> > Maia or various other beings over the course of their long history.
>
> This is sophistry.
Screw you too.
> Clearly the original intent was to refer to a power
> source that was in the pool of knowledge of the Mirdain before Sauron
> showed up.
I'd prefer you let Gunnar speak for himself.
<snip>
> > > ME would be a possible explanation,
> > Sure, if you like fan fiction. But didn't you just insist it was "Tolkien's"
> > explanation?
>
> ME is Tolkien's concept and not fan fiction.
True. Same as Elf Babies. Gunnar and I were discussing whether it
was an "explanation" for something else. But never you mind that.
<snip>
> You're still insisting on confusing Sauron's motives (domination of the
> Elves) and what powered the Rings (ME).
I do not claim to have information that is more precise than that
which Tolkien provides. I am not writing fan fiction for you.
Tolkien never discusses "what powered the rings" and appears to have
no more interest in the question than in the question of "what powered
Glamdring".
<snip>
> Is somebody questioning that Sauron gains advantage from wearing the One
> in addition to the advantages he gains from controlling the other Rings?
> I think that's been established pretty firmly already.
These different advantages are impossible to distinguish. Tolkien
never distinguishes them. The purpose of the One is to achieve
control of the Elven Rings. He never controls the One without
controlling the others as well.
<snip>
> The goals of the Rings were to allow the Elves to remain in Middle-Earth
> (as active parts in history) and protect them from sadness which comes
> from the change and decay. So the goals were selfish and inappropriate
> and in direct conflict with e.g. the Prophecy of the North, according to
> which the Noldor will "become as shadows of regret before the younger
> race that cometh after". The motives of the Rings were as corrupt as the
> motives of Ar-Pharazon when he invaded Valinor. (and indeed, the primus
> motor behind both projects is the same) The Noldor and Numenoreans
> wanted to overstep their place in the world and, indeed, to have it both
> ways.
Good work. You get an A in Elvish history. Minor quibble: the rings
themselves have no goals - they are merely tools used by others who
made them for an improper purpose. But it was also possible to use
the rings without such improper goals. Gandalf (at the very least)
wielded the Ring of Fire, without in any way failing on a moral level.
Tolkien explicitly states that the rings could be used for
appropriate goals, in resisting and repairing the hurts Sauron
inflicted on the world, and no doubt this is exactly how Gandalf used
Narya. The goals of Elrond and Galadriel were perhaps less pure, but
the same is true to a significant extent of them as well.
> > Once again, you appear to be talking about the sort of "power" that, by your
> > own standards, could not exist in the "real world". Therefore, you deprive
> > Tolkien's moral messages about the corrupting influence of power of any
> > real-world relevance.
>
> Okay, so if we talk of the Palantiri do we then also render useless any
> possible moral messages related to them?
Incorrect. You are not following the coversation.
> The "Sauron's Extra Power" theory most discussed in this thread refers
> to the extra power Sauron got exclusively from the One Ring, the sort of
> angelic power that Tolkien wrote he got from it and not the sort of
> political power you always refer to.
You have got things exactly in reverse. Tolkien never wrote about
enhanced angelic power at all. He clearly does speak of enhanced
worldly power in various contexts. That must be what you meant to
say. No doubt you are dyslexic, and accidentally transposed some
words.
> But now it's nice to see that finally you're coming over to the Morgoth
> Element school of thought.
Nice to see that you've come around to the Morgoth's Element theory as
an explanation for the burning of Esgaroth, Bilbo's missing silver
spoons, poor elf-dwarf relations, the fragility of Narsil, the
occasional violence of coastal waters, the mysterious disappearance of
socks in the laundry, the drowning of Frodo's parents, the drowning of
Numenor, the malevolence of mosquitoes, fear of death, the murder of
Lotho, Eowyn's deathwish, the destruction of Pompey, the pain of
childbirth, the pain of arthritis, World War II, the destruction of
the World Trade Center, Adam Sandler movies, and pedophile priests.
Once the "Morgoth Element" theory becomes an all purpose explanation
for anything evil, all I can do is shrug and say "who cares"? If this
is how you want to win the argument, you are welcome to your victory.