|
Radio! posted:Aragon and the free peoples don't attack Sauron to destroy him. They know that's impossible without also destroying the Ring- the attack at the end of RotK is just an attempt to draw Sauron's attention away from Mordor to give Frodo a chance to accomplish his mission without being discovered first. Sam's vision about what would happen if he took the Ring basically tells me that someone of sufficient will wielding the Ring would basically become like Sauron. In addition to all of their power, they'd have all of Sauron's concentrated Ringpower, and would be able to dominate and/or diminish Sauron to the point where he's a pointless, useless wraith, but not kill him.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
I think we're saying the same thing. Both Aragorn and Sauron know that Sauron can't be destroyed without also destroying the Ring. Aragorn et al. know that without the Ring their attack won't seriously harm Sauron. Sauron knows that with the Ring (as he thinks), Aragorn can diminish him, the same way he was diminished after having the Ring taken by Isildur. The first poster was saying that the attack at the end of RotK proved that Tolkien meant that Aragorn/another Ringbearer would destroy Sauron, but I don't think either Aragon's attack nor Sauron's reaction prove anything other than that Sauron could be diminished with the Ring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Sauron is a big jerk who thinks of himself as the ruler of the whole world. If those pesky men show up to his gate led by the only person in the world who can unite them against him then of course he's going to send out his army to crush the little ants. He has literally no reason not to. The Ring is even in the hands of this little army so all the more reason to go kill them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Which is yet another reason to completely ignore what an author says about their own books. I think Sauron was legitimately afraid of Aragorn wielding the Ring. While Aragon was no Elrond, much less Galadriel, still he had the blood of the Noldor in him (albeit distant) and, perhaps more importantly in Tolkien's view of magical things, he had the right to wield the Ring. It seems likely that Aragorn bested Sauron in their mental duel with the Palantir of Orthanc, so Aragorn's mental powers were formidable. Would he have been strong enough to make Sauron his slave? Who knows? But it's certainly plausible. Sauron had, in disguise, served the Númenórean kings in order to betray them and help bring about their downfall. I'm sure the thought of actually being their servant was abhorrent to a creature so accustomed to dominating the will of others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Aragorn also had the right to the Ring because Isildur had claimed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I think Sauron was legitimately afraid of Aragorn wielding the Ring. While Aragon was no Elrond, much less Galadriel, still he had the blood of the Noldor in him (albeit distant) and, perhaps more importantly in Tolkien's view of magical things, he had the right to wield the Ring. It seems likely that Aragorn bested Sauron in their mental duel with the Palantir of Orthanc, so Aragorn's mental powers were formidable. Would he have been strong enough to make Sauron his slave? Who knows? But it's certainly plausible. Sauron had, in disguise, served the Númenórean kings in order to betray them and help bring about their downfall. I'm sure the thought of actually being their servant was abhorrent to a creature so accustomed to dominating the will of others. Don't forget that Gil-Galad and one of the Numenorean kings (Tar-Minastir ?) also straight up kicked Sauron's rear end. So Aragorn was likely benefiting from a sort of inverse three-billygoats-gruff situation, where even if he didn't look all that scary by himself, each of his elder brothers had successively kicked Sauron's butt. To a truly immortal being like Sauron that wouldn't feel like ancient history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Kicked Sauron's rear end when Sauron had the Ring no less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
This is a really cool thread, I wish to poo poo it up with a dumb question: If Galadriel or someone else had mastered the one ring, would the Nazgul have immediately switched allegiance to them? That is, were they linked to Sauron or to the ring itself? Was there even a significant distinction between Sauron and the ring? I mean, they served him even when he'd lost the ring, but as the verse specifies, it's the one ring that rules and binds them, right? Is that because the power of the ring was still Sauron's even when it wasn't actually in his possession, and everyone who held the ring after his finger got lopped off wasn't really a master of it but simply a bearer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I would bet they'd fade away like Sauron would if someone else mastered the Ring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
I think that they would have served whoever bound them to service, using the Ring to do so. Nobody wielded the Ring in that fashion since Sauron, so they still serve Sauron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I think that they would have served whoever bound them to service, using the Ring to do so. Nobody wielded the Ring in that fashion since Sauron, so they still serve Sauron. Yeah, that was always my assumption. It also provides a possible explanation for why the Nazgul run away from the Fellowship instead of just ganging up on Aragorn four-on-one or whatever. From the Nazgul's perspective, if Aragorn is there and the Ring is there, there's a real danger that if they press him too far, he might just grab the thing and seize their wills with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
The Ring itself is such a difficult symbol to process these days - was it always? I mean, basically, it's hard on the surface to understand its real danger. As opposed to say, the Death Star, which is obvious. The movies walked a fine line with this, since if you did not "get" that the ring is dangerous, the entire trilogy loses most of its urgency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I think that ambiguity is somewhat deliberate on Tolkien's part, but it also goes back through history. Tolkien's ring has antecedents not just in Wagner's Ring cycle but even back like 4,000 years to the Ring of Gyges in Herodotus. So magical rings have always been a literary way of talking about abstracted Power, and since Tolkien is trying to write a Saga for England, he's using the same mechanism as in those old viking sagas and older myths and legends and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think that ambiguity is somewhat deliberate on Tolkien's part, but it also goes back through history. Tolkien's ring has antecedents not just in Wagner's Ring cycle but even back like 4,000 years to the Ring of Gyges in Herodotus. I'm trying to think of some other "Doomsday" item in other literature, prior to Tolkien, but I'm drawing a blank. It's almost a function of science fiction in the creation of actual doomsday devices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
A good friend of mine once said, "Most fantasy is about a thing, and most science fiction is about a mystery." It's quite accurate, most of the time. With regards to Galadriel the Ring-bearer (or Ring-wielder), I think she would have dominated the Nazgûl to her will. There is some small evidence that Frodo was able to do so during the attack on Weathertop. While characters in the book conjecture that the Nazgûl retreated because they did not expect resistance, and were surprised by it, I always wondered if Frodo's cry of "A Elbereth Gilthoniel!" was not in some ways a command. While he did not claim the Ring, his mere possession of it may given his words enough weight, so to speak. In addition, the Lord of the Nazgûl likely guessed that hobbits could theoretically harm him--they were not Men--and thus may have feared them, in his way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
redshirt posted:The Ring itself is such a difficult symbol to process these days - was it always? Rather than representing, say, nuclear missiles, I've always seen it on a much more personal level. I always took the ring to represent the basic selfishness, deceit, and greed that lie in all of us, and temptation to act on it. Frodo and Sam's entire journey is laden with opportunities to betray or mistrust one another, and that they do not is what gets them through. I mean, look at it this way: the ring is this tiny little bit of gold that people are willing to kill one another over (the films got this over very well, I thought. The brutality of Sméagol killing his brother in the boat was quite chilling, as was Bilbo's transformation when he demands the ring be returned), and which can only be used for selfish ends - to make one's self invisible, to dominate the minds of others, etc. To a deeply committed Christian like Tolkien, this would be the polar opposite of the charity, humility, and kindness embodied in the teachings of the church. He's not nearly as blatant as C.S. Lewis about it, but it seems like this was his intention. More on their friendship and its effects on both of their stories here: http://www.salon.com/2003/12/03/tolkien_lewis/
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:Rather than representing, say, nuclear missiles, I've always seen it on a much more personal level. I always took the ring to represent the basic selfishness, deceit, and greed that lie in all of us, and temptation to act on it. Frodo and Sam's entire journey is laden with opportunities to betray or mistrust one another, and that they do not is what gets them through. Oh, I get it. I'm saying a couple of things: 1. That it's a device that wouldn't be used today in a similar story. It's too subtle. And 2. As you say, it's personal. What risk to the world is there if Smeagol sits in his hole stroking the ring? None, really. Yes, I know, the real danger is Sauron getting it back. But for any one ring bearer, the danger is personal, not global. If Frodo got consumed by the ring, and then ran away and was never seen again, Middle Earth would not have changed much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If someone of strong enough Will used the Ring Sauron would never get it back. The One Ring is not like the 7 or the 9, which were just traps. I don't understand why so many of you are suggesting that the One Ring can be wielded/used by anyone other than Sauron. It's explicitly stated within the books AND the movies that the One Ring corrupts and destroys anyone else before telling them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
No, anyone sufficiently powerful can wield it. Yes, they will be corrupted, but that doesn't mean they will become subservient to Sauron's will. Gandalf and Galadriel both talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
I'd be interested in a quote from the books where it says that explicitly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
From Fellowship posted:And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair! And the corresponding scene from the movie as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ1jtwEi0fU
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Yes I am seconding that request for explicit references.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
This is one of my only, not criticisms, but disappointments with The Lord of The Rings - it doesn't make it very clear just what the ring could do for someone sufficiently powerful because no one ever actually does it. What would Galadriel be able to do if she put the ring on? Mind-control everyone to set her up as the evil wraith-queen of everything? Could Aragorn do that? Boromir? In other news, thanks for recommending the Tolkien Professor Podcast, thread! It's pretty great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Basically the Ring would give you the power to dominate people and plants and shape the earth to some degree. If you do that too much (Saruman) you are Evil. Some people like Galadriel are right on the line and the Ring would probably have tipped her over to outright evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Basically the Ring would give you the power to dominate people and plants and shape the earth to some degree. If you do that too much (Saruman) you are Evil. Some people like Galadriel are right on the line and the Ring would probably have tipped her over to outright evil. Not quite, that's sort of missing the point - you don't have to be particularly close to any line, you just have to be capable of being tempted by the power it offers, which everyone is. Gandalf doesn't trust himself with it: The Shadow of the Past posted:'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.' Elrond lays it out pretty clearly: The Council of Elrond posted:'Alas, no,' said Elrond. 'We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. I fear to take the Ring to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Those quotes are right in line with what I said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Then I'm confused as to what you meant. The point of those quotes is that anyone is vulnerable to the corruption of the Ring (in the form of either becoming subservient to Sauron or replacing him, if powerful enough) if they make the mistake of trying to use it, or even if they hold on to it for too long - specifically not just people who are "right on the line". It's impossible for there to be a person who is good enough to use it without becoming all Saurony, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
I just meant Galadriel is already so close to evil already that there wouldn't be a honeymoon of goodness or whatever. It wasn't some point about the Ring generally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Oh, okay. I don't necessarily agree about Galadriel either, but that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Galadriel is tough because she changed so much over the years. Near the end apparently JRRT was starting to consider her like the second most powerful elf of the first age after Feanor, after initially being just a bit player besides Loth Lorien. But you know she just takes over a group of Sylvan elves ( a ruthless matriarchy!) , reads peoples minds, uses her power to change nature. She is a riff off of Saruman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Those quotes are right in line with what I said. You were saying it was possible for someone other than Sauron to wield the ring with their own will, and even suggested that they could use it to supplant Sauron which is laughably false, in which these quotes contradict. As long as the One Ring exists, Sauron will always be there to corrupt/destroy them over time, hence the meaning that only Sauron can wield it. The ring can never be used for good nor ones own desires/needs. euphronius posted:I just meant Galadriel is already so close to evil already that there wouldn't be a honeymoon of goodness or whatever. It wasn't some point about the Ring generally.  Are you sure you're reading the same book as the rest of us?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:
Hey, for that he's got a case. If you look at Galadriel's history in the Silmarillion she's relatively shady. She was one of the leaders of the rebellious Noldor and thus as close to Feanor's guilt as anybody we surviving by the time of the events in LotR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
She is definitely towards the evil side in the Tolkien universe given her lust and desire for power, control, and dominion. She never quite gets there though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Isn't Galadriel the only person surviving from the Noldor's exile? I don't even think Cirdan is that old, is he? Also I think in the Simarillion there is actually an attempt to distance Galadriel from Feanor's guilt specifically. It's explicitly noted that she doesn't take the Oath, but only goes to Middle-Earth out of her desire to rule a place of her own. She has her own kind of corrupt desires separate from Feanor's kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Cirdan was one of the Teleri who stayed behind to look for Thingol; he's even older than Galadriel. e: Thranduil's probably up there too. Lord Hydronium fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:You were saying it was possible for someone other than Sauron to wield the ring with their own will, and even suggested that they could use it to supplant Sauron which is laughably false, in which these quotes contradict. As long as the One Ring exists, Sauron will always be there to corrupt/destroy them over time, hence the meaning that only Sauron can wield it. The ring can never be used for good nor ones own desires/needs. Radio! posted:Also I think in the Simarillion there is actually an attempt to distance Galadriel from Feanor's guilt specifically. It's explicitly noted that she doesn't take the Oath, but only goes to Middle-Earth out of her desire to rule a place of her own. She has her own kind of corrupt desires separate from Feanor's kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:As long as the One Ring exists, Sauron will always be there to corrupt/destroy them over time, hence the meaning that only Sauron can wield it. But if that were the case, then why would Sauron fear Aragorn and rush hastily to meet him outside Mordor? Aragorn's bluff would have been worthless unless Sauron had some fear of a powerful usurper. Put another way, Sauron is no fool, if no one could wield the One Ring without becoming his thrall, then rather than be incapable of considering the possibility that someone would destroy it, he would fear only that and just that, and all his efforts would be to prevent that, trusting that his ring would do the rest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Yeah, she's kind of creepy and its neat to see how someone who initially seems wise (in LotR) takes on a more sinister note after you read the Silmarillion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:But if that were the case, then why would Sauron fear Aragorn and rush hastily to meet him outside Mordor? Aragorn's bluff would have been worthless unless Sauron had some fear of a powerful usurper. Put another way, Sauron is no fool, if no one could wield the One Ring without becoming his thrall, then rather than be incapable of considering the possibility that someone would destroy it, he would fear only that and just that, and all his efforts would be to prevent that, trusting that his ring would do the rest. See my earlier post for my opinion on Aragorn the Ring-wielder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Elrond quite clearly says that someone with sufficient power could overthrow Sauron using the Ring, but they would become another Dark Lord in the process. I could see Gandalf or Galadriel being powerful enough to do it, what with them already being wielders of the elven rings, and being, respectively, a demi-god cut from the same stock as Sauron and an immortal magician who is "the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-earth", with the attendant corruption and fall that comes to all who use the One Ring (replacing Sauron as Dark Lord/Lady and Enemy of Good, not somehow managing to turn the ring helpful and life affirming), but that's just personal opinion, not out right stated. And this, of course, being the very reason that they don't take the Ring from Frodo, despite the much easier time they'd have getting it to Mount Doom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 06:30
|
|