"Sith Lord" <sithlordvarun@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:1141320664.725491.107040@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
4- What exactly is the advantage of the 'one ring' to Sauron now?> I mean the 7 are lost , the 3 he has no effect on and the nine he> can control without the 'one ring'.> So what can he actually do with the ring that people are so scared> of and how can he rule the world?
As Tang said, his power of domination would become greater. Also, he would know all that had been achieved with the Three, which would add to the disaster for the Free Peoples, and it would have been better if they had never been. When Sauron made the One and the wielders of the Three became aware of it, they took them off and ceased to wield them. Otherwise he would have known all that were done with them as well as become able to dominate the bearers. This was his main plan: to dominate the Elves of Eregion, foiled because they resisted by taking them off and hiding them. This angered him so much that he went to war against the Mнrdain of Eregion, seeking to take all the rings and to kill those who had refused to become his sock puppets. The Three remained idle until Sauron lost the One. When this happened the Three became free, and were used. But they were free only as long as the One did not return to Sauron - or to another great one who got it and managed to make it wholly his, usurping Sauron's place.
BTW, how comes it that a Sith lord pleads? Shouldn't the word "please" enter his ears only, not leave his lips?
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 02:11:25 UTC, "Chris Hoelscher" <chrishoelscher@insightbb.com> wrote:
ps - what would the Balrog have done had he/she/it gotten possession of the > ring?>
Well, it would have had the power to go against Sauron, in my opinion.
On the other hand, a being of it's power who has hidden for thousands of years, and before that being just a servant of Morgoth, doesn't appear to be a being to spend much time with the outside world. Though possesion of the ring could have changed things. Look at how Sam had ideas of grandeur.
Sauron may have gone underground for lengths of time, but he had excuses, such as shock at losing a ring, bodily destruction, etc.
In rec.arts.books.tolkien John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote:
<good stuff snipped>
As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But> they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,> some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in> the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
If your interest is literary in nature, then the book definitely should be given priority.
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock <jbrock@panix.com>:> I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:>
1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of> providence was required.>
2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude> them into thinking they could.>
I know these positions can be argued using writings published after> Tolkien died,
Tolkien was pretty clear about this in Letter 246. To the best of my knowledge, though the letter may have been published after he died it was written before he died.
(BTW, he did _not_ say none of the characters could have defeated Sauron with the Ring; in fact he said Gandalf might have face to face, and possibly Elrond or Galadriel by amassing military force with the power of the Ring.)
First of all, it doesn't seem to me that anybody in the book ever> expressed any doubts about whether it would be possible (not> necessarily easy, but *possible*) for Frodo to destroy the Ring,> provided of course he managed to make it to Mount Doom. Any such> doubts would have been extremely important -- undercutting the> entire logic of the Quest -- and as such I would have expected them> to be voiced.
I think for exactly that reason -- that they would undercut the logic of the quest -- the Wise would _not_ voice such doubts. (And the others, like Gimli and Legolas and maybe even Aragorn, might not have such doubts.)
Second, it always seemed very clear to me that, in the understanding> of the wise, *many* characters in the book -- not just Gandalf,> but Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, even Aragorn, and even Boromir (but> not Frodo or Sam) -- could in fact have effectively used the Ring> against Sauron.
Again, Letter 246.
Sauron's fear of this was an important element in> the plot, but if this was not possible then what did Sauron have> to be afraid of?
My understanding of Sauron is that he was not mentally stable. He was driven in large part by what we would now call a major neurosis.
Many people in Real Life are afraid of things for no objective reason, either because they don't have all the facts or because their minds are not working right. Sauron certainly had all the facts about the Ring, but he may not have known everything about the capacity of Elves like Galadriel and Dunedain like Aragorn(*). Beyond that, though, his mental processes were just twisted.
Many of us have mislaid our car keys. Think of that frantic feeling, even though you _know_ you'll find them soon, and allow it to grow for 3000 years.
(*) AFAIR, Sauron didn't even know Aragorn, the Heir of Isildur, existed until the War of the Ring.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:03:13 +0000 (UTC), jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) posted the following:
I've see a lot of arguments in these newsgroups to the effect that:>
1. The power of the Ring was such that Frodo could never have> found the will to actually destroy it, so that an act of> providence was required.
This is stated unequivocally by Tolkien in a letter.
2. None of the characters would actually have been able to use> the Ring to overthrow Sauron, although the Ring might delude> them into thinking they could.
This is also stated unequivocally, although as someone else pointed out, he says Gandalf might do it hand-to-hand, and Elrond or Galadriel might be able to do it with military might.
\My impression was always that Frodo *could* have>thrown the Ring into the fire if he had not been so weakened by>the long journey, and I think the story is stronger that way.
Tolkien's opinion is the reverse; that the willpower and strength Frodo gained from his journey were necessary for him to even reach the chamber of fire without succumbing to the Ring's lure.
As I said, these are just impressions from reading the book. But>they were pretty strong impressions. And if, as I am suggesting,>some of Tolkien's later writings obliquely contradict what is in>the book, shouldn't the book itself be given priority?
If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I was thinking when I wrote the book."
If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the> letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or> your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence> -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I> was thinking when I wrote the book."
What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it portrayed the Ring as unusable. I agree with the OP that the story makes no sense if the Ring of Power were, in fact, unusable, and it contradicts references within the story to boot. --Ber
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it> portrayed the Ring as unusable.
I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly written "a lot".
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500, Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> posted the following:
Chris Kern wrote:>
If you can find specific statements in the book that contradict the>> letters, then perhaps. But if it just contradicts your impressions or>> your opinions, I think that Tolkien's letters should take precedence>> -- especially since a lot of them are in the vein of "this is what I>> was thinking when I wrote the book.">
What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it>portrayed the Ring as unusable. I agree with the OP that the story makes>no sense if the Ring of Power were, in fact, unusable, and it contradicts>references within the story to boot. --Ber
There are two separate things here.
The movie seemed to portray the Ring as *literally* unusable by anybody but Sauron. That is, even if someone attempted to claim the Ring, they could derive absolutely no power or benefit whatsoever from it. This is false, and it is not what Tolkien's letters or the book say.
The Ring is usable in theory, but its use has such a severe corrupting effect that even if someone were able to use its power to overthrow Sauron, they would simply become a dictator in his place. Tolkien even thought that Gandalf-as-dictator would be worse than Sauron.
The problem is that as soon as someone claims the Ring (as opposed to just putting it on), Sauron immediately knows exactly where they are, and at that point they're pretty much screwed.
Michelle J. Haines 12 March 2006 21:51:18 [ permanent link ]
Stan Brown wrote:> Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:>
What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it>>portrayed the Ring as unusable.>
I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined > the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.>
That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the > knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly > written "a lot".
Well, there was one such objection, but the guy who made it had the same problem with the books. You know, the "Boromir is the unsung hero of LOTR and if all those stupid people had just gotten out of his way and let him have the ring, he would have taken care of everyone just fine" guy?
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> > What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it> > portrayed the Ring as unusable.>
I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined> the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.
I "joined the group", whatever that means, well before the movies came out, so take your stuffiness away please.
That doesn't prove there weren't any, but it does kind of cut the> knees out from under your claim of "alot" or even the correctly> written "a lot".
And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone> might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
So who cares? This reduces the Ring to the level of a D&D "object of power" that must be destroyed / placed in the center of the pyramid / returned to the fairy princess etc. removing anentire layer of complexity from the story with respect to the intentions of the wearers.
To PJ's credit, he was not consistent and the gentleman (Ottohyur?) who argued that the movie failed to show the true danger of the Ring's usability, was vociferously challenged by others on this NG (many of whom disliked the movie far more than Ottohyur did) but felt that the danger of the Ring as an object of real temptation (not false temptation) was adequately covered.
Gandalf makes a comment about what would happen if they let Saruman and> Sauron fight it out ('the winner would emerge stronger than either and> free from doubt.' or something like that), but again, this is hardly> conclusive evidence that the Ring would be usable TO DEFEAT SAURON (as> the Ring, in both book and movie, is used quite often for other> purposes).
From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit overboard in that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little too powerful, forcing the story to resolve in one of only two ways: complete victory by Sauron or prompt destruction of the Ring.
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again, it weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to *rationalize* taking the Ring from Frodo.
In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could> speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could> apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two> others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to> use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).
Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring. If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring, then his feigned posession of the Ring[bearer] is pure plot point of no thematic consequence to the larger story, of interest only to fictional conquest strategy-gamers.
Aragorn might as well have picked up the Palantir and asserted that some guy in Far Harad had the Ring, luggage mix-up, better send some troops to pick it up. He could have run Sauron ragged!
One main point that seems to be overlooked here is that it isn't> exaclty common knowledge that the Ring cannot be used; it requires> great Wisdom, so I don't see how the fact that Sauron would most likely> ultimately destroy anyone claiming the Ring detracts from or> contradicts the story at all.
It doesn't require great Wisdom if the reasons are entirely practical.
I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.
Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:50:41 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> Stan Brown wrote:>
Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:12:25 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> > > What I love are alot of you guys were pissed off at PJ FOTR because it> > > portrayed the Ring as unusable.> >
I've been in on the movie discussions since long before you joined> > the group, and I can't recall a single such objection.>
I "joined the group", whatever that means,
Well, of course I can't know when you started _reading_ the group. But according to Google your first post was Jul 1 2005.
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:> Robinsons wrote:>> Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was>> based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.>> If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
I have heard this alleged before, that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the> Ring, but I don't know if it's really a fact. Certainly Sauron is> worried that someone has it and may rise against him, but I don't know> if it is ever stated that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring (he is> worried that an Heir of Isildur lives and has wrested the palantir from> him). If you (or anyone else) has conclusive evidence of this, it> would be appreciated.
Gandalf seems pretty sure of it, and Gandalf knows a lot, and is able to see far off. The whole strategy is based on the idea that Sauron will think that Aragorn, or perhaps Gandalf himself, has the Ring. From "The Last Debate" 'We must march out to meet him at once. We must make ourselves the bait, though his jaws should close on us. He will take the bait, in hope and in greed, for he will think that in such rashness he sees the pride of the new Ringlord: and he will say: "So! he pushes out his neck too soon and too far."'
Curiously, just a bit before saying this, Gandalf says. 'Now Sauron knows all this, and he knows that this precious thing which he lost has been found again; but he does not yet know where it is, or so we hope. And therefore he is now in great doubt. For if we have found this thing, there are some among us with strength enough to wield it. That too he knows.'
That seems a pretty clear statement that there are some, at least Gandalf and Aragorn, who can wield the Ring against Sauron. The reason that Sauron knows that there are some among them who can wield the ring is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
When Eomer asks why Sauron would not think it vain to attack if they have the Ring, Gandalf says: "'He is not yet sure,' said Gandalf, 'and he has not built up his power by waiting until his enemies are secure, as we have done. Also we could not learn how to wield the full power all in a day. Indeed it can be used only by one master alone, not by many; and he will look for a time of strife, ere one of the great among us makes himself master and puts down the others. In that time the Ring might aid him, if he were sudden.'"
The gist of all Gandalf's comments in the "Last Debate" is that the Ring is very usable against Sauron. Tolkien's letter does seem a bit at odds with the book on this point.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:17:20 -0500, Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> posted the following:
"stevehim@yahoo.com" wrote:>
And what refernces does it contradict? Sauron certainly thinks someone>> might use it against him, but that doesn't mean they would succeed.
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again, it >weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to *rationalize* >taking the Ring from Frodo.
You're assuming the characters are omniscient -- they don't know it can't be used successfully.
In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could>> speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf could>> apply to Saruman as well. And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two>> others who vaguely implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to>> use the Ring (Gandalf and Galadriel).>
Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that it was>based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks Aragorn has the Ring.>If you're right, then the readers response should be: so what?
If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring,
Aragorn cannot *defeat* Sauron with the Ring, but whether or not he can hurt Sauron is not specified. Probably he can. In any case, Sauron does not know about this.
I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim >that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some >damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.
"some damage", sure. Complete defeat of Sauron -- maybe, but only if it were someone like Gandalf or Elrond.
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:
The reason that Sauron knows that>> there are some among them who can wield the ring>> is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
Im not sure what you mean. All that Sauron gleaned from the palantir,> as far as I know, is that an Heir of Isildur lived, and he [Sauron] can> no longer use the palantir.
Gandalf explicitly states that the reason Sauron knows that there are people with the power to wield the Ring against him is because Aragorn revealed himself in the Palantir.
Michelle J. Haines 13 March 2006 19:06:08 [ permanent link ]
Dirk Thierbach wrote:>
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author> with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,> who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the> shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would> be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's> actually written is quite different).
Ah yes, thank you! I knew it was a Chris somebody! And obviously felt too lazy to look it up.
This is also stated unequivocally, although as someone else >>pointed out, he says Gandalf might do it hand-to-hand, >
And presumably also e.g. Saruman (before his powers were removed). >
But it is very clear that of humans /nobody/ could have witheld the > One Ring from Sauron, face-to-face. >
In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature > could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no > one, not even Aragorn.> [Letter #246, To Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts), September 1963]
As a simple reader, I think none could master the Ring and defeat Sauron. For none could master the Ring save Sauron and he would never defeat himself (unlike Ungoliant).
Anyone powerful enough to wield the Ring (Gandalf, Saruman...) would just be used by the Ring and become a new Sauron, with nothing left of their previous being to alter the will of the Ring, which IS Sauron.
Anyone weak enough to bear the Ring without claiming it would be found and destroyed by Sauron in the end, the Ring thus getting back to its master.
The only way to defeat Sauron was through the destruction of the Ring, which could only be achieved by chance. This chance has occured through Pity.
-- nfw > Wasn't Ungoliant committed to creating a world-wide web? sounds like the sort of evil thing she'd do. she was probably the first spammer, too. -- Count Menelvagor in RABT--
The Arcane Chas 13 March 2006 21:33:22 [ permanent link ]
In article <4414B3D0.E2E10ADB@erols.com>, but only after serious contemplation, Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>"Alot" is a perfectly permissible variant.
The Arcane Chas 13 March 2006 21:47:26 [ permanent link ]
In article <1142222902.680123.233400@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, but only after serious contemplation, stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>Robinsons wrote:>> "stevehim@yahoo.com" wrote:
One main point that seems to be overlooked here is that it isn't>> > exaclty common knowledge that the Ring cannot be used; it requires>> > great Wisdom, so I don't see how the fact that Sauron would most likely>> > ultimately destroy anyone claiming the Ring detracts from or>> > contradicts the story at all.>>
It doesn't require great Wisdom if the reasons are entirely practical.>
??? I think it does require great Wisdom. For instance, Boromir isn't>all that Wise, and thinks he can wield the Ring against Sauron.
And does that argument apply to Galadriel?
I for one refuse to read the story that way (in light of your claim>> that there is no practical way an alternative Ringlord could do some>> damage without being seized by Sauron.) It cheapens the story.>
I disagree, but to each their own.
To my view there has never been any doubt that several characters could have overthrown Sauron by using the ring. The fear was not that they wouldn't succeed but that they would become that which they sought to destroy.
I readily admit that I have only let my opinion be influenced by the book itself (as published) and not by subsequent and/or additional material from the author and others.
The Arcane Chas 13 March 2006 21:51:29 [ permanent link ]
In article <dv2u7n$ha4$1@news.msu.edu>, but only after serious contemplation, stephen@nomail.com put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>The gist of all Gandalf's comments in the "Last Debate">is that the Ring is very usable against Sauron. Tolkien's>letter does seem a bit at odds with the book on this point.
This is an excellent example of why I don't allow "additional" material to "interfere" with the story as published.
The Arcane Chas 13 March 2006 21:53:31 [ permanent link ]
In article <1142227040.040293.295440@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, but only after serious contemplation, stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>And most of the story>prior to that reinforces the Ring being unusable (or at least leading>to certain corruption if used).
That's a very large distinction you're glossing over there. ;-}
Christopher Kreuzer 13 March 2006 23:20:00 [ permanent link ]
Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit> overboard in> that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little too powerful,> forcing> the story to resolve in one of only two ways: complete victory by> Sauron or prompt destruction of the Ring.>
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again,> it> weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to> *rationalize*> taking the Ring from Frodo.
I'm not sure I entirely agree or disagree (I'm still thinking about this), but I agree with your point that Tolkien's Letters that he wrote _after_ writing the story of LotR (and it is important to not confuse writing and publication dates), might not be entirely consistent with the story (though Tolkien intended them to be consistent). Tolkien often took the stance, in his letters, of an "independent" observer commenting on the tale. This Letter (#246) might not be a good example of this, as Tolkien does talk from his persepctive as the author of the tale, but this bit here, from the beginning of the letter, shows the "observer" mindset I'm talking about:
"Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of true nobility and heroism that is presented." (Letter #246)
I also get the impression, from such Letters, that Tolkien hypothetically might well have changed his mind completely in another Letter he wrote, say, a year later. He was contemplating these issues in his mind, prompted by his questions and the questions of his readers.
Christopher
-- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Troels Forchhammer 13 March 2006 23:24:24 [ permanent link ]
In message <news:4414BA10.A58CE99E@erols.com> Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> enriched us with: >
"stevehim@yahoo.com" wrote:>>
Sauron certainly thinks someone might use it against him, >> but that doesn't mean they would succeed. >
So who cares? This reduces the Ring to the level of a D&D "object> of power" that must be destroyed / placed in the center of the> pyramid / returned to the fairy princess etc. removing anentire> layer of complexity from the story with respect to the intentions> of the wearers.
It is made abundantly clear within the story that there is no way that the Ring can be used to ensure a victory for 'Good' -- any victory obtained with the One Ring will be turned to evil as the master of the One becomes mastered by the Ring.
Chris Wright, IIRC, claimed that Boromir would -- or should -- have been able to actually use the One Ring in the service of Good without corruption, but that is precisely what is made clear in the text cannot be done.
The only way that the side of Good can be victorious is through the destruction of the One Ring.
The best possible outcome that doesn't involve the destruction of the One Ring is a stalemate in which the Ring is placed outside Sauron's reach (a solution which cannot be for ever because that would require that the Ring is sent to Aman, which solution is specifically rejected during the Council of Elrond).
Using the One Ring is clearly presented as a viable possibility that could lead to the defeat of Sauron, but /not/ to the victory of Good. The result would still be that the One Ring was victorious with a new Dark Lord.
<snip>
From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit > overboard in that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little > too powerful, forcing the story to resolve in one of only two > ways: complete victory by Sauron or prompt destruction of the > Ring.
How do you reach that conclusion based on the letter (assuming that you refer to letter #246)? It is specifically stated that Gandalf /might/ 'be expected' to vanquish Sauron face-to-face, and that others, the other keepers of the Three, might have had a chance at defeating him in a military campaign.
What is made clear, however, is that using the One Ring /in any way whatsoever/ is corrupting: the Ring will, sooner or later, master its wearer; later if the wearer got it with pity and uses it sparingly for non-evil purposes, and much later if the wearer is not naturally vulnerable to the lure to power. Bilbo was coming under the mastery of the Ring and needed the 'push' from Gandalf, and Frodo was, in the end, unable to resist it.
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, > again, it weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character > to *rationalize* taking the Ring from Frodo.
Not necessarily, IMO. Boromir's mistake was to underestimate the corrupting power, not only of the Ring itself, but of the combination of the Ring and the desire for power that was always the strongest weapon of Sauron when dealing with the Rings.
The insistence that the Ring must be usable for 'Good' is based on a misunderstanding. In all of Tolkien's writings, 'power' is a bad and the desire for power corrupting. He said it himself in letter #131, "'power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except as applied to the gods" but I think he also manages to get the message across in LotR itself. Boromir's fall is directly related to his desire for the power that the One Ring could bring him. One may agree or disagree with the basic premise that power is corrupting as a real world phenomenon, but to dismiss that this is indeed a basic premise for Tolkien's writings is, IMHO, a misunderstanding.
This, however, isn't necessarily known or recognised by the characters themselves, and thus Boromir does rationalise using the Ring against Sauron (at the council). Though he is, at that point, told about the Ring, he doesn't fully believe it, and that, then, leads to his Ring-influenced attempt to take the Ring from Frodo.
I cannot, however, make sense of the statement about "any good, powerful character to *rationalize* taking the Ring from Frodo." Theft is never good, and a character who would rationalize robbery cannot in any event be 'good' -- there is a contradiction of terms there.
In any case, Saruman is of the same order, so one could>> speculate that the comment in Tolkien's letter about Gandalf>> could apply to Saruman as well.
In particular since the stated reason for Gandalf possibly being able to master Sauron in direct confrontation is that he was 'an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.' This obviously also applied to Saruman.
And in that Letter Tolkien addresses the two others who vaguely >> implied they may supplant Sauron had they tried to use the Ring >> (Gandalf and Galadriel).
Elrond and Galadriel, actually. The arguments would possibly also apply to CГrdan (as a former keeper of one of the Three, the arguments applied to Elrond and Galadriel probably also applies to him).
Whether the case can be extended to other people, e.g. Glorfindel and Aragorn, is impossible to say. Aragorn could never have hoped to win in a direct confrontation, but such was not even contemplated for the Wise: they contemplated a military campaign, and in such a situation Aragorn might be able to use the Ring also. Whether he could, in the end, have successfully conducted a military campaign against Sauron is, IMO, highly doubtful: Sauron would not have given him the time he would need to control the powers of the One.
Which again, weakens Aragorn's feint at the Gate by implying that> it was based on a meaningless misunderstanding: Sauron thinks> Aragorn has the Ring. If you're right, then the readers response> should be: so what?
Either I misunderstand your objection, or you misunderstand the situation.
Aragorn's feint would have been meaningless if Sauron could know for sure whether Aragorn had the Ring or not, but though Gandalf isn't exactly a master of Ring-lore, I think we can trust his assessment in this respect, so Sauron could not know.
Sauron would have learned, to his regret, if someone else had actually mastered the Ring, but that would have taken many, many years even for the Elven keepers of the Three, and though Aragorn might have been able to use the Ring against Sauron, he would probably never have been able to actually master the Ring.
The feint, then, was to act with the rash confidence of someone deluded by the Ring's temptations of power, leaving Sauron to deal with the possibility that the army included not only notable names, but also actually the One Ring. There was /never/ any question whether they, with or without the Ring, would pose any threat to Sauron: they knew perfectly well that even if Aragorn had had the Ring, they would be relatively easily defeated by Sauron.
If Aragorn cannot hurt Sauron with or without the Ring, then his> feigned posession of the Ring[bearer] is pure plot point of no> thematic consequence to the larger story, of interest only to> fictional conquest strategy-gamers.
I wholly dislike this kind of 'if the author disagrees with me, then it is without literary value' arguments, and when it is used to beat up a poor straw man it seems even worse.
Still, nobody has stated anywhere that Aragorn with or without the Ring would be unable to hurt Sauron -- I don't know where you got that ludicrous notion from.
That Aragorn, with the Ring, would never be able to vanquish Sauron in a /direct/ confrontation, is miles away from saying he couldn't hurt Sauron.
He would not have been able, alone, to repeat the deed of Elendil, Gil-galad, Elrond, CГrdan and Isildur: to throw Sauron down, but that was never the issue either.
Aragorn with the Ring, slowly building his strength as he learned to use (not master) the Ring, would indeed have posed a threat. Not, perhaps, ultimately a threat capable of victory against Sauron, but certainly enough to set Sauron back quite a bit. Some of the Elven keepers with the Ring would have put it even closer -- depending on their strategy, they might even have won, though they'd have to lay half of Middle-earth in ruins and cast themselves up as a new Dark Lord.
<snip foolishness>
-- Troels Forchhammer Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
If no thought your mind does visit, make your speech not too explicit. - Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Christopher Kreuzer 13 March 2006 23:29:49 [ permanent link ]
Troels Forchhammer <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:> In message <news:4414BA10.A58CE99E@erols.com>> Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> enriched us with:
<snip>
This reduces the Ring to the level of a D&D "object>> of power" that must be destroyed
<snip>
This D&D comment reminded me of the debate about "power" not being a linear scale like in D&D, and then I read this:
In all of Tolkien's writings, 'power' is a bad and> the desire for power corrupting. He said it himself in letter #131,> "'power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except> as applied to the gods"
So the context in which a word like "power" or "powerful" is used _is_ important. Tolkien does distinguish "power" as applied to the gods as being a different case.
But I wonder why no-one brought up the "power is corrupting" idea in the debate about power not being linear. These must be many different sorts of "power" being discussed here. What terminology is best to distinguish the types of power being discussed?
Christopher
-- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Troels Forchhammer 13 March 2006 23:59:12 [ permanent link ]
In message <news:sjq812lpdpa81tu7jtqlr0ahj0laebpf7j@4ax.com> Chris Kern <chriskern99@gmail.com> enriched us with: >
<snip>
There are two separate things here.
<snipping complete agreement>
The problem is that as soon as someone claims the Ring (as opposed> to just putting it on), Sauron immediately knows exactly where> they are, and at that point they're pretty much screwed.
I am not completely convinced of this.
Yes, when Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, Sauron was immediately aware of him, but this happened inside the borders of Mordor, where Sauron's power was apparently greater.
He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. [...] 'And anyway all these notions are only a trick,' he said to himself. 'He'd spot me and cow me, before I could so much as shout out. He'd spot me, pretty quick, if I put the Ring on now, in Mordor. [LotR VI,1 'The Tower of Cirith Ungol']
Sam has a clear perception that things change once he passed into Mordor. Dark tyrant or not, Sauron is still the rightful ruler of Mordor, and as such his power might very well be increased within the borders of Mordor.
On the other hand it could also be read as simply a reduction of choices -- that merely using the Ring without claiming it was impossible within the borders of Mordor, and that the claiming the One Ring always and everywhere would be an immediate challenge detectable by Sauron.
It can, I think, be argued both ways based on the published text, but I'd be happy to see any other evidence either way.
It does seem that Gandalf is certain that one might /use/ the Ring (for more than just to become invisible; e.g. for taking over the command of all the troops or building a strong army) without detection, but it is uncertain whether that would require a claim of ownership.
-- Troels Forchhammer Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Giving in is no defeat. Passing on is no retreat. Selves are made to rise above. You shall live in what you love. - Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/
The Arcane Chas 14 March 2006 01:03:08 [ permanent link ]
In article <1142282566.538583.107250@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, but only after serious contemplation, stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>
The Arcane Chas wrote:>> In article <1142222902.680123.233400@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, but>> only after serious contemplation, stevehim@yahoo.com>> <stevehim@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;>> >Robinsons wrote:>> >
??? I think it does require great Wisdom. For instance, Boromir isn't>> >all that Wise, and thinks he can wield the Ring against Sauron.>>
And does that argument apply to Galadriel?>
Well, she didn't try to take the Ring when offered, and he did when not>offered, so I think that is the difference.
True, but she did believe she could prevail over Sauron if she was armed with the ring.
"All shall love me and despair!"
She was Wise, he was not>(not meaning to demean Boromir in any way, but that was not one of his>virtues).
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:MPG.1e7f7d0156b16a4898a221@news.individual.net: > Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:12:51 GMT from Troels Forchhammer > <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid>:>>
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author> > with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,> > who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the> > shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would> > be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's> > actually written is quite different).>
Ah yes, thank you! I knew it was a Chris somebody! And obviously> felt too lazy to look it up.
You don't remember Ottohyur? He also defended Saruman. But he had his own reasons for disliking the second and third movie. Can you explain to me what in heck you guys think Boromir has to do with the wieldability of the Ring?
The only possible connection I can see between the two entirely different subjects is that if the Ring was not usable then Boromir is just another example of how the story is weakened -- his character, already one of the more weakly drawn characters, becomes pathetic instead of tragic. or even worse, not a character at all but a mere object lesson. After all, it is not simply true that Boromir would have been destroyed by the Ring or by Sauron, he would in fact be a mere dupe if none were capable of wielding the Ring against Sauron.
I can't comprehend the poverty of experience that someone who took that approach to the books, of assuming the Ring is a mere symbol of Sauron's power as an antagonist, would suffer. It removes the entire moral dimension from the book. Gawd, no wonder the movies began to suffer from this lack of moral complexity towards the end. This discussion is making me re-evaluate what the movies were trying to say about the ring.
In article <dv2u7n$ha4$1@news.msu.edu>, but only after serious> contemplation, stephen@nomail.com put finger to keyboard and produced> the following;> >The gist of all Gandalf's comments in the "Last Debate"> >is that the Ring is very usable against Sauron. Tolkien's> >letter does seem a bit at odds with the book on this point.>
This is an excellent example of why I don't allow "additional" material> to "interfere" with the story as published.
Good point. Which gets back to my line of thinking, I agree with Stephen, John Brock and others that it makes no sense to argue that the Ring was unusable as a potential weapon against Sauron (one which would corrupt its bearer and his or her followers, regardless of the outcome.) Heck, it's one of the core themes of the book, right?
From a game-theory perspective, Tolkien might have gone a bit> > overboard in> > that letter making Sauron's hold on the Ring a little too powerful,> > forcing> > the story to resolve in one of only two ways: complete victory by> > Sauron or prompt destruction of the Ring.> >
This weakens the story if you read it after _Letters_, since, again,> > it> > weakens the motivation for any good, powerful character to> > *rationalize*> > taking the Ring from Frodo.>
I'm not sure I entirely agree or disagree (I'm still thinking about> this), but I agree with your point that Tolkien's Letters that he wrote> _after_ writing the story of LotR (and it is important to not confuse> writing and publication dates), might not be entirely consistent with> the story (though Tolkien intended them to be consistent). Tolkien often> took the stance, in his letters, of an "independent" observer commenting> on the tale. This Letter (#246) might not be a good example of this, as> Tolkien does talk from his persepctive as the author of the tale, but> this bit here, from the beginning of the letter, shows the "observer"> mindset I'm talking about:>
"Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I> feel that it is central to the whole 'theory' of true nobility and> heroism that is presented." (Letter #246)>
I also get the impression, from such Letters, that Tolkien> hypothetically might well have changed his mind completely in another> Letter he wrote, say, a year later. He was contemplating these issues in> his mind, prompted by his questions and the questions of his readers.
If he had nothing to fear from Aragorn ultmately revealing himself,> Sauron would immediately start wondering what they were planning if they> wanted him to think Aragorn had the ring. What was he, born yesterday?> Like any good lawyer, Sauron would see through a gambit (allowing the> Ring to fall into the hands of ARAGORN, A MORTAL) if it was destined to fail.
correction: I mistyped "Sauron" --> ARAGORN, A MORTAL
Heck, if that were the case we can safely speculate that the Wise> would have taken steps against Aragorn to correct any such foolishness (ahem).>
Not just that Sauron would expect them to, but they WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE> done so -- the prospect of assured suicide would have been temptation enough.>
So I think it falls apart STORY-WISE to assert that Aragorn would have necessarily> failed. You have to look at what makes a better story. The "Aragorn as> Darth Vader" angle is certainly a lot more interesting than the "Aragorn> as yet another foolish human no more capable of defeating Sauron than> Boromir" angle.
I will give you a hint, however: people's posting names and accounts>> > change over a 6-8 year period.
Then maybe it would be better to keep one name, or even use your>> complete real name instead of an invented one (as many others do), so>> people know whom they are talking to.
It's not necessarily any of your (bleep) business how or why my e-mail> account is set up, now, is it??
No, it's not. But if you use different "handles", you shouldn't complain that people don't recognize you. If you want people to recognize you, use them same "handle". Otherwise complaining about it is a bit silly, isn't it?
It almost sounds as if you are trying to prove that I was not> posting on this forum for years.
Why should I want to? Though it would help if you just told people your old "handle", if *you* want to prove (for whatever reason) that you have been posting here for years. In case you think that this is important for some reason.
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author>> with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,>> who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the>> shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would>> be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's>> actually written is quite different).
Google clearly is fucking around with your settings.
Maybe. Do you have a message id of an Ottohyur posting in rabt? Then we all can check.
For instance, I have to use a different browser to search the Google> DejaNews archive, since they screwed around with it last.
I am using Konqueror to search the Google archive, and so far, it has always worked.
You are obviously either thinking of someone else, or more likely,> Google is retroactively changing people's settings as their account> changes, so that their handle changes on old posts.
Why should I think that? I searched for "Ottohyur" in the author field. Didn't find any postings. So either the name is spelled wrong, he has X-No-Archive set, Google is broken, or you remembered wrongly and no one of this name ever posted in rabt (don't know about aft). Since the name Ottohyur doesn't ring a bell, the last alternative is quite probable. OTOH, that's not really important, because obviously Michelle was talking about Chris Wright, and not the Ottohyur you mentioned.
No need to invent complicated conspiracy theories.
Which is fucked up. Can you understand what I am trying to say?
No.
I use a NEWS READER which is far more reliable than Google.
So do I. It's called "tin", as you can easily find out by looking at the headers.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:16:59 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> Alot is a contraction and as such is perfectly permissible in any language.
Now you're just being silly. It's not permissible in French, or Spanish, or Finnish, or any other language I can think of. And it's not a contraction in English, it's an illiteracy. (English contractions, every one of them, are indicated by apostrophes.)
Be a grownup: either admit you made a mistake and move on, or don't admit it but move on. Either way, your problems with English and the Google archives are off topic.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:51:18 -0600 from Gary <specializedallez@yahoo.com>:> For those who wish to read the aftermentioned letter, you can find it here:> http://ce.sharif.edu/~khoshbakht/archive/The Letters Of JRR Tolkien.pdf
[1] Please include context[2] so we know what the heck you're talking about. Articles arrive at different servers in different orders, and at any given server some will never arrive. You cannot assume that "the previous article" to you means the same thing to anyone else.
In rec.arts.books.tolkien Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> wrote:> "Michelle J. Haines" wrote:>
Dirk Thierbach wrote:>> >
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author>> > with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,>> > who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the>> > shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would>> > be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's>> > actually written is quite different).>>
Ah yes, thank you! I knew it was a Chris somebody! And obviously>> felt too lazy to look it up.
You don't remember Ottohyur? He also defended Saruman. But he had his> own reasons for disliking the second and third movie. Can you explain> to me what in heck you guys think Boromir has to do with the wieldability > of the Ring?
I cannot remember any Ottohyur, and Google doesn't show any author> >> > with this name in rabt. However, I can remember Chris Wright in rabt,> >> > who indeed did try to interpret LotR with Boromir in the role of the> >> > shining hero. And IIRC no one tried to stand up for him (which would> >> > be a bit silly, given that the role of Boromir in LotR as it's> >> > actually written is quite different).> >>
Ah yes, thank you! I knew it was a Chris somebody! And obviously> >> felt too lazy to look it up.>
You don't remember Ottohyur? He also defended Saruman. But he had his> > own reasons for disliking the second and third movie. Can you explain> > to me what in heck you guys think Boromir has to do with the wieldability> > of the Ring?>
It was Ottoyuhr. I remember him, as does google.
Now I will be banished for misspelling his proper English surname. (grin)
I thought for a minute it might be Ottoyhur for some reason. (Where are the teuncers when you need em! I will continue to use alot alot, er, as much as possible! And I reserve the right to change my handle as well, with proper attribution. but I don't mean to annoy anyone by doing so.)
BTW, I have not been around quite long enough to really understand TEUNC. I didn't used to post that often. I do know misspelling is big with them, tho. (<-- that tho is a Benjamin Franklinism, not a teuncism, I believe)
Now back on the subject of what Boromir has to do with the utility of the Ring, we are obviously not meant to believe that he could have wielded it successfully even if such a thing is possible, since he was clearly a victim of hubris and the manner of his attempted acquisition of the Ring would in the end, I think, in Tolkien's moral universe have telegraphed the outcome.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:16:59 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> > > Alot is a contraction and as such is perfectly permissible in any language.> >
Now you're just being silly. It's not permissible in French, or> > Spanish, or Finnish, or any other language I can think of. And it's> > not a contraction in English, it's an illiteracy. (English> > contractions, every one of them, are indicated by apostrophes.)> >
Be a grownup: either admit you made a mistake and move on, or don't> > admit it but move on. Either way, your problems with English and the> > Google archives are off topic.>
Why are you so obnoxious to people?
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. This was a follow up to Chris Kern and Dirk Thierbach's suggestion that I was somehow fronting for some other guy named Chris who had opinions about Boromir that they apparently found intolerable enough to killfile. The implication sounded like they thought I (and any other "defenders of Boromir" out there?) was a sock puppet because I could not "prove" to them when I started posting to this NG, which was before the movies came out. It was a bit rude, and to add insult to injury Google groups doesn't work on my browser so if they had a problem with it I can't help them. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the Ring and I thought it was accepted that the Ring was at least theoretically of some utility to a (sufficiently corrupted) character to make it a point that folks argued about over the movie version (whether or not it portrayed Galadriel as tempted or merely possessed, for instance.)
I don't see what it has to do with the nobility of Boromir, who can only be considered noble if the Ring offered him something remotely plausible. If the entire class of humans is incapable of using the Ring in a practical fashion, it makes Boromir seem more like a lab rat conditioned by the Ring to attack Frodo by delusions.
This is especially true since nobody but the Wise seems to really know how the Ring works, and Boromir deosn't seem to value invisibility.
That doesn't make Boromir a candidate for using the Ring, since he obviously didn't have the character for it. Too many weaknesses for the Ring to exploit. He was not wise enough to begin to learn how to wield it. He just wasn't Ringlord material.
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:>> In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:>>
Robinsons wrote:>> >> The Arcane Chas wrote:>> >>
In article <4414B3D0.E2E10ADB@erols.com>, but only after serious> <snip>>> That may be how you spell the word, but that is not how a>> large chunk of the English speaking population spells the word.>> Or perhaps more accurately, that is not a word used by a large>> chunk of the English speaking world.
Well, that's how it is spelled on any periodic table I have ever seen.
As I tried to state initially, I really don't think spelling (or> grammar) is generally important enough to nitpick, as long as the> speaker's point is getting across. I only chose to comment on it since> it was being discussed quite a bit. Now, it is threatening to hijack> this thread (which I am, admittedly, contributing to).
Language is flexible. Common misuages and misspellings become correct over time. Resistance is futile.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:52:43 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock <jbrock@panix.com>:> I suppose if you are the author you can always say "Well, Gandalf> may have *thought* that some of them with the strength to wield> the Ring, but in fact he was mistaken". But isn't that kind of> cheap?
I think you raise a valid point, in general. Fortunately, I can answer it within the story, without pulling any rabbits out of hats.
In I 2 Gandalf tells Frodo, "But there is only one Power in this world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits." So even within the context of the story there's the possibility that Gandalf makes an incorrect deduction about the Ring.
As to this _specific_ point, I don't see any need to defend Gandalf here. He says there are some in the West with the strength to wield the Ring, and we've seen Gandalf himself imply that he's one of them, when Frodo offers him the Ring at the Council of Elrond. Galadriel (in the Mirror chapter) certainly seems to feel she could use it, and Tolkien confirms this in Letter 246. (He also mentions Elrond as a possibility, in the same Letter.)
I think Gandalf's implication with "among us" is not just himself, but pre-eminently Aragorn. But Gandalf is not saying that any "among us" could _master_ the Ring, in the sense of using it for good without becoming a new Dark Lord.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:42:53 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> So I will still use it alot as an adverb.
The emperor Augustus consistently misspelled certain Latin words and stuck to them as a point of pride. Closer to home, Tolkien admitted "Dwarves" was wrong, but stuck to it with the rather specious explanation that it distanced his Dwarves from the creatures of previous stories.
But, in Lloyd Bentsen's(*) words, you ain't no Augustus and you ain't no Tolkien.
It's your prerogative to write as you chose, but you have to be prepared to take the consequences. If you write like someone who doesn't know standard English, on a point even non-native speakers get right, people will naturally conclude that you don't know standard English. And if you act obnoxious when corrected, people will naturally conclude that you're obnoxious.
(*) Was it Lloyd Bentsen who told someone in a Presidential debate, "You ain't no Jack Kennedy"? I have only a dim memory of this, and would welcome a clarification.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:01:48 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:> Google groups doesn't work on my browser
It must be a very, very, very strange browser, then, because searching the archives requires nothing more than standard HTML. Hell, lynx can do it just fine.
I like that. That you can apologise for something you did wrong, even if some of the things you were berated about weren't wrong. Stan can be gruffy sometimes but beneath that, he's a sweet guy, really. I don't know how Chris "Gondor has no king" came into this; I suggest we forget about him.
Michelle J. Haines 14 March 2006 23:23:17 [ permanent link ]
Robinsons wrote:>
Are you guys being so nasty towards me because you are> misidentifying me with somebody named Chris (who has a> Boromir fixation that has nothing to do with my -- and > John Brock et al's -- point?)
Or, I'm not talking to or about your at all. Chill.
BTW, I have not been around quite long enough to really understand TEUNC. > I didn't used to post that often. I do know misspelling is big with them, tho. > (<-- that tho is a Benjamin Franklinism, not a teuncism, I believe)
In article <MPG.1e80e31fa9377bd898a23a@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:52:43 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock ><jbrock@panix.com>:>> I suppose if you are the author you can always say "Well, Gandalf>> may have *thought* that some of them with the strength to wield>> the Ring, but in fact he was mistaken". But isn't that kind of>> cheap?
I think you raise a valid point, in general. Fortunately, I can >answer it within the story, without pulling any rabbits out of hats.>
In I 2 Gandalf tells Frodo, "But there is only one Power in this >world that knows all about the Rings and their effects; and as far as >I know there is no Power in the world that knows all about hobbits." >So even within the context of the story there's the possibility that >Gandalf makes an incorrect deduction about the Ring.>
As to this _specific_ point, I don't see any need to defend Gandalf >here. He says there are some in the West with the strength to wield >the Ring, and we've seen Gandalf himself imply that he's one of them, >when Frodo offers him the Ring at the Council of Elrond. Galadriel >(in the Mirror chapter) certainly seems to feel she could use it, and >Tolkien confirms this in Letter 246. (He also mentions Elrond as a >possibility, in the same Letter.)>
I think Gandalf's implication with "among us" is not just himself, >but pre-eminently Aragorn. But Gandalf is not saying that any "among >us" could _master_ the Ring, in the sense of using it for good >without becoming a new Dark Lord.
I entirely agree that no one, not even Gandalf, could use the Ring without being corrupted and becoming a new Dark Lord. That is a central plot point of the story, and it was very clear to me the first time I read the book. What I am arguing is that -- according to the the most reasonable interpretation of the text of the book -- there were several characters, among them in particular Aragorn, who did in fact have the strength of will to use the Ring to overthrow Sauron (although not without great effort, or the possibility of failure if they acted rashly). Beyond that I am saying that their rejection of this course of action -- the rejection of short term victory because of the certainty of long term defeat -- becomes less noble if there isn't even the possibility of short term victory, and that this would weaken the story. I think the story as written clearly includes that possibility, and is the better for it. -- John Brock jbrock@panix.com
John W. Kennedy 15 March 2006 00:30:30 [ permanent link ]
Robinsons wrote:> Stan Brown wrote:>
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:16:59 -0500 from Robinsons <wrob@erols.com>:>>> Alot is a contraction and as such is perfectly permissible in any language.>> Now you're just being silly. It's not permissible in French, or>> Spanish, or Finnish, or any other language I can think of. And it's>> not a contraction in English, it's an illiteracy. (English>> contractions, every one of them, are indicated by apostrophes.)>>
Be a grownup: either admit you made a mistake and move on, or don't>> admit it but move on. Either way, your problems with English and the>> Google archives are off topic.>
Why are you so obnoxious to people?>
a) Grownups do not engage in spelling flames. I have no problem with> alot, it is a common spelling and I will continue to use it.
"Say it now and say it loud, I'm illiterate and I'm proud."
**PLONK**
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
In alt.fan.tolkien John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
Why are you so obnoxious to people?>>
a) Grownups do not engage in spelling flames. I have no problem with>> alot, it is a common spelling and I will continue to use it.
"Say it now and say it loud,> I'm illiterate and I'm proud."
**PLONK**
Are you serious? No offence (at least not much) meant to Stan, but it was he who started nitpicking about Robinson's spelling. Surely Stan is right and Robinson wrong, but we shouldn't be ganging up on him.
In alt.fan.tolkien Troels Forchhammer <Troels@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
snip> The Ring gives you power according to you stature, and therefore the > powers it granted to the Hobbits were very minor. On the finger of > Gandalf, Elrond or Galadriel, it would have been far more terrible.
Even Aragorn or Boromir would have gained much more from using the > Ring than did the Hobbits, and Aragorn would doubtlessly have been a > serious opponent if he used the One Ring against Sauron, regardless > of whether he stood a chance of winning the final victory or not.
snip
Your article again demonstrate that we cannot ignore the differences in power or stature in Middle-earth whatever Mr Brown says.
John W. Kennedy 15 March 2006 03:19:15 [ permanent link ]
Tamim wrote:> In alt.fan.tolkien John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:>
Why are you so obnoxious to people?>>>
a) Grownups do not engage in spelling flames. I have no problem with>>> alot, it is a common spelling and I will continue to use it.>
"Say it now and say it loud,>> I'm illiterate and I'm proud.">
**PLONK**>
Are you serious? No offence (at least not much) meant to Stan, but it> was he who started nitpicking about Robinson's spelling. Surely Stan is> right and Robinson wrong, but we shouldn't be ganging up on him. >
(sorry for my spelling muistikes)
Spelling errors are generally unimportant. Demanding that one's spelling errors be accepted without question, on the other hand, is the sign of an egomaniac and/or an anti-intellectual. I don't have time for either. Life's too short.
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
BTW, I have not been around quite long enough to really understand TEUNC.> > I didn't used to post that often. I do know misspelling is big with them, tho.> > (<-- that tho is a Benjamin Franklinism, not a teuncism, I believe)>
But he never spell it 'hto', that impaster.
I am deeply opposed to the hto and think it should be sidbanded.
I like that. That you can apologise for something you did wrong, even> if some of the things you were berated about weren't wrong. Stan can> be gruffy sometimes but beneath that, he's a sweet guy, really. I> don't know how Chris "Gondor has no king" came into this; I suggest we> forget about him.
Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.
Death to the imperialist royalist running dogs from the Global North!
It must be a very, very, very strange browser, then, because> searching the archives requires nothing more than standard HTML.> Hell, lynx can do it just fine.
Well, if you want me to, I can pull up my other browser and complete Dirk's request that I prove my own existence, but I don't mind the fact that it is hard to trace people by a common handle with any preciseness on Google. We have enough problems here in the USA as it is. Anyone with a research interest in any of the stuff we're discussing can probably find me bitching about it several years ago. I just post infrequently. And yeah, I complained to Google since it's a pretty simple website. But my browser is crummy anyhow.
Spelling errors are generally unimportant. Demanding that one's spelling> errors be accepted without question, on the other hand, is the sign of> an egomaniac and/or an anti-intellectual. I don't have time for either.> Life's too short.
Accept my spelling errors or I shall taunt you a second time. And you won't even realize it. Ni! Ni!
Christopher Kreuzer 15 March 2006 12:04:43 [ permanent link ]
[Rearrange]
Steve Morrison <Geirroeth@aol.com> wrote:
P.S. Could someone quote this, so Stan will see it?
With pleasure. Thanks for this interesting tidbit.
Stan Brown wrote:>
(*) Was it Lloyd Bentsen who told someone in a Presidential debate,>> "You ain't no Jack Kennedy"? I have only a dim memory of this, and>> would welcome a clarification.>
Yes -- in the 1988 debate between Bentsen and Dan Quayle, Bentsen> argued Quayle was too young and underqualified to be vice-president,> and Quayle pointed out in response that JFK had been approximately> the same age and had held no more high-level offices when he became> president. Bentsen's riposte was, "Senator, I served with Jack> Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.> And, Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy!">
In alt.fan.tolkien Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote: snip
Why should I think that? I searched for "Ottohyur" in the author> field. Didn't find any postings. So either the name is spelled wrong,> he has X-No-Archive set, Google is broken, or you remembered wrongly> and no one of this name ever posted in rabt (don't know about aft).> Since the name Ottohyur doesn't ring a bell, the last alternative is> quite probable.
I'm quite sure Ottoh**** posted quite much a few years back. The problem is that I don't remember how the gooddam name was spelled.
OTOH, that's not really important, because obviously> Michelle was talking about Chris Wright, and not the Ottohyur you> mentioned.
No need to invent complicated conspiracy theories.
Which is fucked up. Can you understand what I am trying to say?
No.
I use a NEWS READER which is far more reliable than Google.
So do I. It's called "tin", as you can easily find out by looking at> the headers.
Direct: Military:> Istari - possibly not considered (but probably) > Keepers - probably not possibly> Mortals - certainly not not considered>
This doesn't consider other high-ranking Elves such as e.g. > Glorfindel or Celeborn, who would not be able to defeat Sauron in > direct confrontation, but who would, IMO, stand as good a chance as > the Elven keepers of the Three, even if they would have to spend some > more time upon it. >
For mortals the big question would be if they would be allowed long > enough time to be victorious (militarily) before becoming wraiths. > What would happen if they should become a wraith under the dominion > of their own Ring is, IMO, a completely different question.
Snip
Therefore it is completely irrelevant how large a threat Aragorn, > Gandalf or anyone else could have posed to Sauron, wielding the One > Ring -- the important thing is not actual reality, but what they > believed was reality.
That said, it remains relevant IMHO to enlighten the potential of Aragorn. Where does he stand between a simple В«mortalВ» and the rightful heir of Elros, given a long lifespan, elven and divine lore and blood, and thus a somewhat В«brotherВ» of Elrond, with comparable potential, strengthened and refreshed by an elven education in Imladris, an errand life beside the Wise (Gandalf) and the Mighty (the Steward of Gondor)?
I think he is mainly the one Gandalf spoke of about the revealing through the palantir that В«some among [them] could wield the RingВ».
-- nfw > Wasn't Ungoliant committed to creating a world-wide web? sounds like the sort of evil thing she'd do. she was probably the first spammer, too. -- Count Menelvagor in RABT--
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:57:54 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> (ellipses by Stan):> What I am arguing is that ... there were several characters, among> them in particular Aragorn, who did in fact have the strength of> will to use the Ring to overthrow Sauron. ... Beyond that I am> saying that their rejection of this course of action -- the> rejection of short term victory because of the certainty of long> term defeat -- becomes less noble if there isn't even the> possibility of short term victory, and that this would weaken the> story. I think the story as written clearly includes that> possibility, and is the better for it.
I don't remember hearing this point before, but I think it's a very good one. There's no moral credit in giving up something you can't have anyway.
I think this is one of the several differences between Boromir and his brother Faramir: Boromir was willing to risk the long-term harm for the sake of short-term victory, and Faramir wasn't.
As you point out, Aragorn wasn't either willing to take that risk either.
I tend to agree with you that Aragorn _could_ have used the Ring to defeat Sauron militarily. He was obviously a charismatic leader on his own -- look at how Eomer nearly worshipped him, on very short acquaintance. With the Ring he'd have been turning away volunteers.
Denethor didn't have the choice to use the Ring or turn away from it, but I get the strong impression from his discussion with Gandalf that if Frodo had come to Minas Tirith Denethor would have taken the Ring from him and used it to defeat Sauron, or tried to anyway. Then, as Frodo said to Faramir, there would have been "two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness?" (That particular passage always gives me a chill.)
LotR is a fantastic answer (fantastic in both senses of the word) to the lie that the end justifies the means. The poisoned nature of the Ring illustrates beautifully that if you use evil means toward a good end, you'll change so much that you'll no longer want the good.
14 Mar 2006 23:14:24 GMT from Troels Forchhammer <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid>:> Though only hinted at in the book, both would turn good into evil. > The last paragraph of letter #246 deals with Gandalf as a Ring-lord, > but I think the same would apply, more or less, to Galadriel as the > bright Ring-Queen.
When Frodo offers her the Ring in the Mirror chapter, she says "All shall love me and despair!" To me that means that she _knows_ she'd turn into something like Jadis of Charn (tyrannical and cruel) if she had the Ring.
14 Mar 2006 23:14:24 GMT from Troels Forchhammer <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid>:> In message <news:44169F92.D57CD4A7@erols.com> > Robinsons <wrob@erols.com> enriched us with: > > The entire point of the Ring is that it is capable of getting > > so-called "good" characters to rationalize evil acts, or even > > to rationalize getting off their high horse and getting down > > and dirty with the not-so-good characters, so to speak. >
Well, I disagree about the use of 'rationalize' -- I don't think that > it is a rational process,
Just an FYI, the word rationalize doesn't mean what it rationally should. It's actually the opposite of true rationality.
To rationalize something is to find or invent reasons for it that look good enough to fool oneself but are really no reasons at all. Rationalizing is finding "reasons" to do what one has already decided to do anyway, on non-rational grounds.
My AHD4 says "To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): "Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments" (Janice Castro)." That's only the third meaning given, but IMHO the first two meanings are no longer more common.
I think Boromir _was_ rationalizing to an extent. He may have sincerely believed he could use the Ring without being corrupted by it, but if he did then he was rejecting the advice of Gandalf and Elrond. If he were being rational, he'd have said "They know more about it than I do, so even though want this thing I have to accept that it would be bad." But basically he wanted the power of the Ring, and then persuaded himself that "these elves and half-elves and wizards" were wrong.
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:57:54 +0000 (UTC) from John Brock <jbrock@panix.com>:> their rejection of this course of action -- the rejection> of short term victory because of the certainty of long term defeat> -- becomes less noble if there isn't even the possibility of short> term victory, and that this would weaken the story.
You're right IMHO, but I'll add a grace note: it's not necessary that short-term victory actually be possible, only that they believe it is. Aragorn is exactly as noble if he rejects the Ring believing that he could have a short-term victory, whether his belief is mistaken or not.
As I said in my other note, I do believe Aragorn could have achieved a military victory over Sauron with the help of the Ring. His remote (collateral) ancestor Ar-Pharazon did it without the Ring, in fact when Sauron had the Ring, by overawing Sauron's armies into deserting. I think Aragorn could have won over at least Sauron's human allies. Then with the forces of the West it would have been enough to beat Sauron's army of Orcs, especially since the Orcs would have been cowed by Aragorn. (Remember Sam in the Tower of Cirith Ungol. Aragorn, being fearless himself, would have been incomparably more frightening to the Orcs.)
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:04:43 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk>:> Steve Morrison <Geirroeth@aol.com> wrote:>
P.S. Could someone quote this, so Stan will see it?>
With pleasure. Thanks for this interesting tidbit.>
Stan Brown wrote:> >
(*) Was it Lloyd Bentsen who told someone in a Presidential debate,> >> "You ain't no Jack Kennedy"? I have only a dim memory of this, and> >> would welcome a clarification.> >
Yes -- in the 1988 debate between Bentsen and Dan Quayle, Bentsen> > argued Quayle was too young and underqualified to be vice-president,> > and Quayle pointed out in response that JFK had been approximately> > the same age and had held no more high-level offices when he became> > president. Bentsen's riposte was, "Senator, I served with Jack> > Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.> > And, Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy!"> >
Thanks to you both. The Usenet Improvement Project[1] does sometimes seem to me to have a baby-with-the-bathwater aspect. The signal/noise ratio from Google Groups is so close to zero that I've had to block them all for my blood pressure, but I do regret losing the occasional article that would actually be worth reading.
I do wish we could persuade the good people to abandon Google Groups and get a real newsreader. There are plenty of free news servers out there, or IMHO the $10 or $20 that news.individual.net charges per year (not per month) is a bargain.
Christopher Kreuzer 15 March 2006 23:36:03 [ permanent link ]
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
<snip>
Thanks to you both. The Usenet Improvement Project[1] does sometimes> seem to me to have a baby-with-the-bathwater aspect. The signal/noise> ratio from Google Groups is so close to zero that I've had to block> them all for my blood pressure, but I do regret losing the occasional> article that would actually be worth reading.
Of course, you will have to unblock at some future date to sample the signal-to-noise ratio and see if it has improved...
I do wish we could persuade the good people
Remember that 'bad' people may be those with the potential to be 'good'. Unless of course you meant the good people in the sense of "the good, kind and friendly people of the virtual realm of Google Groups".
Christopher Kreuzer 15 March 2006 23:43:52 [ permanent link ]
stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Further, if we are to explicitly deny something> Tolkien himself said in Letters (which is really what's going on> here) then Letters becomes a somewhat meaningless work.
Rather, I think this discussion illustrates that Tolkien's speculations should be treated as such. Seriously, some of what he says in Letters is just his speculations as an observer (imagine Tolkien's alter ego engaging in Usenet discussions about LotR), not as the author laying down the law - though I haven't decided which stance I think Tolkien was taking in this particular case.
Christopher
-- --- Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
In rec.arts.books.tolkien stevehim@yahoo.com <stevehim@yahoo.com> wrote:
Further, if we are to explicitly deny something Tolkien himself> said in Letters (which is really what's going on here) then Letters> becomes a somewhat meaningless work.
Do you really think all the insights and anecdotes of Tolkien's life are meaningless? I suppose if all you care about is 'what did Tolkien think happened in Middle-Earth', then your assessment is correct. But there is a whole lot more to to life than that. In any case, Tolkien cannot tell us what the book says. He can tell us what he intended for it to say, and he can tell us what he thinks it says, but only the book can tell us what the book says.
stephen@nomail.com wrote in news:dv9vss$hu5$1@news.msu.edu:
[snip]
In any case, Tolkien cannot tell us what the book says. He can> tell us what he intended for it to say, and he can tell us what> he thinks it says, but only the book can tell us what the book says.
Troels Forchhammer 16 March 2006 00:23:03 [ permanent link ]
In message <news:MPG.1e820e7435fa477098a24e@news.individual.net> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> enriched us with: >
14 Mar 2006 23:14:24 GMT from Troels Forchhammer > <Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid>:>>
<snip>
Well, I disagree about the use of 'rationalize' -- I don't think>> that it is a rational process, >
Just an FYI, the word rationalize doesn't mean what it rationally > should. It's actually the opposite of true rationality.>
To rationalize something is to find or invent reasons for it that > look good enough to fool oneself but are really no reasons at all.> Rationalizing is finding "reasons" to do what one has already> decided to do anyway, on non-rational grounds.
Gah! Thanks . . .
My only defence shall be that I, at least, didn't apply the Danish meaning (which is 'to make more efficient by cutting processes and, in particular, cutting the human resources').
In that case I can hardly disagree that Boromir did 'rationalise' -- he did 'devise self-satisfying, but incorrect reasons' for his desire for the Ring and for his attempt to take (prior to 'waking up' from his madness).
I hope that Brian will accept my apology for the misundertanding: we don't seem to be very far from each other on that part of the issue, then.
-- Troels Forchhammer Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Giving in is no defeat. Passing on is no retreat. Selves are made to rise above. You shall live in what you love. - Piet Hein, /The Me Above the Me/
In article <Xns9787E3579490B19283305@130.133.1.4>, Mдsterkatten <nopspam@nospam.com> wrote:>stephen@nomail.com wrote in news:dv9vss$hu5$1@news.msu.edu:
In any case, Tolkien cannot tell us what the book says. He can>> tell us what he intended for it to say, and he can tell us what>> he thinks it says, but only the book can tell us what the book says.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
