Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
Who is Tom Bombadil?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 8:29am

Post #26 of 63 (225 views)
Shortcut
I in turn don't recall any reference to spirits *created after* the Valar and Maiar ;) [In reply to] Can't Post

Can you please reference that? I generally prefer working with concrete terms we were given by Tolkien. I gather that to some, this might seem like narrow-minded labelling, but I just see no reason for me to prefer a made-up category of 'nature spirits' (or isn't it made-up?) when a character shows traits I view as Maiarin (mentioned in my reply to JWPlatt below, as are the excerpts on Ent origin I base my assumptions on; I don't feel like copying that word for word).

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 12 2013, 12:36pm

Post #27 of 63 (231 views)
Shortcut
well, since you asked... [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, there are several instances which mention spirits who are not Maiar or Valar, some of more importance than others. In the Book of Lost Tales we read, “About them fared a great host who are the sprites of trees and woods, of dale and forest and mountain-side, or those that sing amid the grass at morning and chant among the standing corn at eve…heir number is very great: yet must they not be confused with the Eldar, for they were born befoxe the world and are older than its oldest…” pg 66.

Also in the Silmarillion there is mention of “servants and helpers” of the Maiar (Valaquenta: Of the Maiar). Faeries are mentioned in The Hobbit (An Unexpected Party).

Indeed, Tolkien points towards other spirits in many locations including the creation account, “Eight remain, The Aratar, the High Ones of Arda: Manwe and Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna and Aule, Mandos, Nienna, and Orome. Though Manwe is their King and holds their allegiance under Eru, in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Iluvatar has sent into Ea.” (Silmarillion, Valaquenta, 21). In other words, there are other orders sent into Arda that are neither Valar nor Maiar. That is why the term “spirits” is used to describe such things as the barrow-wights who were “spirits” sent into dead bodies of men by the Witch-King, or the story of how the Ents come to being.

Indeed, I find it very difficult to believe that Ents can be Maiar for several reasons. First, we are told that Ents were “cured of their dumbness” by the Elves. The Elves taught them to talk. This would not be characteristic of Maiar. All incarnated and non-incarnated Maiar know how to speak and are certainly not “dumb”.
Second, the creation of the Ents shows that it was Yavanna and Manwe who were central to their creation and we know that the Valar and Maiar were the first creations of Eru and were created by his thought. On the contrary, Ents were at least partially created by the thoughts and music of Yavanna, (the following is taken from lotr.wikia.com):

Yavanna says, “My heart is anxious, thinking of the days to come. All my works are dear to me... Shall nothing that I have devised be free from the dominion of others?” Manwë responds by asking, of all she holds dear, what she would have preserved against exploitation, and she answers: "...the kelvar can flee or defend themselves, whereas the olvar that grow cannot. And among these I hold trees dear... Would that the trees might speak on behalf of all things that have roots, and punish those that wrong them!” Manwë, while deliberating, is overcome by a vision of the music of the Ainur, and grants her request: "Behold! When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar and the olvar, and some will dwell therein, and be held in reverence, and their just anger shall be feared."

It is the ‘thought” and the “music” of Yavanna which creates the Ents who are in “dumb” and cannot speak until the Elves teach them too. Tolkien uses the term “spirits” instead of Maiar here in the Silmarillion and I believe he does so intentionally because these creatures were created by the melody sung by Yavanna and are commanded to be by Manwe not Eru. The Ainur on the other hand come to be by the thought of Eru before the Music is sung. To me, it is clear that the Ents do not fit the mold of Maiar and are much closer to these other spirits which the general term Tolkienites have embraced is “nature spirit” which is not a canon term but it adequately describes the variety of spirits which seem to exist in the world of Arda that are neither Valar nor Maiar.

Not all who wander are lost


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 12 2013, 12:40pm

Post #28 of 63 (207 views)
Shortcut
however Tom avoided the call of the Ring... [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf's statement stands, the Ring has no power him, and it is clear when you read Gandalf's own statements about the Ring with Frodo, that the Ring has power over him... and Saruman... and Sauron... This I believe is due to the fact that all the Maiar and Valar are said to have had their powers "tied" to Arda when they chose to enter it. They are now a part of the created order and are subject to the rules of Arda, whereas the Ainur who stayed outside of Arda are not. The Ring, after all, belongs to Middle Earth and all, save Tom, who dwell in Arda are bound to it in some fashion.

Not all who wander are lost


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 1:31pm

Post #29 of 63 (204 views)
Shortcut
I view this differently. [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf and Saruman are tempted to use the Ring for different reasons. Actually, I am not overfond of the 'power over someone' thing altogether: I did read the Frodo-Gandalf dialogue, and it is plain from it to me that Gandalf is *tempted*, that the Ring is calling to him (the Ring would 'find its way' to Gandalf's heart: those words suggest that the Ring doesn't yet have it). I don't understand why Sauron should be under his own Ring's power, as it's his own essence that's in the Ring.
And that's the only known spiritual beings we have in LotR who have anything to do with the Ring. JRRT states the Ainur / spirits (he seems to interchange the terms) differ in majesty and power, and it is obvious to me taht they differ in temperament and ambition as well. I view Tom simply as a powerful Ainu -probably Maia, as I haven't yet heard an argument which would convince me that he's not one- who due to his temperament is completely incompatible with the Ring.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 2:21pm

Post #30 of 63 (207 views)
Shortcut
re: ents [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Well, there are several instances which mention spirits who are not Maiar or Valar, some of more importance than others.


I did not question this statement, but rather the one where you stated that some spirits *were created after the Valar and the Maiar*.


In Reply To
In the Book of Lost Tales we read, “About them fared a great host who are the sprites of trees and woods, of dale and forest and mountain-side, or those that sing amid the grass at morning and chant among the standing corn at eve…heir number is very great: yet must they not be confused with the Eldar, for they were born befoxe the world and are older than its oldest…” pg 66.


That sounds just like an early description of the Maiar (whose name apparently didn't exist back then) to me, or another, lesser order of the Ainur. Looking up 'sprites', the references in HoME took me -among other stuff- to: 1. Luthien's mother who was a 'sprite', while she's a Maia in later texts, and 2. Elves and Gods (Valar) and sprites watch the creation of the Sun and the Moon; no other orders are mentioned but it's hard to believe the Maiar and lesser Ainur would miss out on that, ergo IMO 'sprites' must refer to them.


In Reply To
That is why the term “spirits” is used to describe such things as the barrow-wights who were “spirits” sent into dead bodies of men by the Witch-King, or the story of how the Ents come to being.


I am not sure we can safely say these are of the same origin as the Ainur; they may just as well be ensnared fëar of dead Elves. Therefore I would not put an equation mark between barrow wights and Ents.


In Reply To
First, we are told that Ents were “cured of their dumbness” by the Elves. The Elves taught them to talk. This would not be characteristic of Maiar. All incarnated and non-incarnated Maiar know how to speak and are certainly not “dumb”.


How do we know that? IMO, verbal speech was not necessary for spiritual beings to have, as they could communicate through thought transfer. Apparently, even during the Music it is the thoughts that sing (Manwe's words to Yavanna in the paragrph you quoted - that is, in its full version), so it may not be connected to actual words at all.


In Reply To
[these creatures were created by the melody sung by Yavanna and are commanded to be by Manwe not Eru.


@ creation of Ents - they were in the Great Music, and cf. Eru: "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me", which implies the thought for Ent creation came originally from Eru himself, unlike Aule's Dwarves who gain a place in the Music by Eru's later permission.

In a world that is to an extent inconsistent, where Melian is formerly a 'sprite' and turns into a Maia, where Sauron is called 'spirit' although we know he's a Maia as well, I feel quite justified in holding on to me belief that both Ents and Tom are Maiar. They fit the loose criteria for me. :)

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 12 2013, 2:40pm

Post #31 of 63 (206 views)
Shortcut
Ainu [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Ainu


Only regarding your use of the word 'Ainu' I offer this from the wiki:


Quote
Before the Creation, Eru Ilúvatar made the Ainur or "holy ones". This Quenya name comes from the Elvish root ayan- "revere, treat with awe".[2] "Ainur only appears in plural [in Elvish texts] since after the Creation all those were Maiar includes Valar and their lesser kin, but not those who did not take part in the Great Theme, or else did not enter Eä."[2] This means that only apocryphal texts written by Men and Hobbits used the singular Ainu.


The passage also suggests, because the Ents were NOT part of The Great Theme, they are also not Ainur or Maiar.


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 12 2013, 7:22pm

Post #32 of 63 (200 views)
Shortcut
So Maiar can be classified as "dumb"? [In reply to] Can't Post

The reality is the maiar are never classified as dumb and speechless. If you so desire to expand the definition of Maiar as someone who is "dumb", Treebeard's own words, then that's your prerogative. Now as I pointed out in the above post, The Ainur (=Valar/Maiar) were created before the Music by the thought of Eru alone. Ents, contrary to this, are at least partially created by a third party (Yvanna) through the Music. So if you want to go against how the Ainur are defined in the first several chapters of the Silmarillion then that is up to you, but there has been plenty of evidence shown to you that the Ents do not fit what we know of the Maiar nor the Ainur. So the evidence against Ents being Maiar far outweigh any sugestion that they are for there really is no evidence to suggest that they are.

As far as how the Ring works, that is a point where many of us (myself included) are often inconsistent in how we speech/write about it. That is the subject of my work I am preparing for the TORN symposium so I will defer till then on that subject (my research is not yet complete).

Not all who wander are lost


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 8:15pm

Post #33 of 63 (202 views)
Shortcut
That is not what I said. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The reality is the maiar are never classified as dumb and speechless. If you so desire to expand the definition of Maiar as someone who is "dumb", Treebeard's own words, then that's your prerogative.


I said that they did not necessarily need speech, not that being mute was the common characteristics for them.
Furthermore, I would like to ask where it is written black on white that '*all* Maiar, incarnate and non-incarnate, knew how to speak'. As it's stated by you with absolute certainty, but doesn't ring a bell with me, I'd like to broaden my horizon so to speak. :)


In Reply To
Now as I pointed out in the above post, The Ainur (=Valar/Maiar) were created before the Music by the thought of Eru alone. Ents, contrary to this, are at least partially created by a third party (Yvanna) through the Music.


That's not quite what you said earlier, and what I objected to: the mention of Yavanna only and not Eru as the creator of the Ents, and further that the Ents were 'commanded to be by Manwe, not Eru'.


In Reply To
So if you want to go against how the Ainur are defined in the first several chapters of the Silmarillion then that is up to you, but there has been plenty of evidence shown to you that the Ents do not fit what we know of the Maiar nor the Ainur. So the evidence against Ents being Maiar far outweigh any sugestion that they are for there really is no evidence to suggest that they are.


With all respect, I find this part arrogant, as we are talking about opinions only. We presented our arguments, and I get that I have not convinced you, which is fine by me as your arguments did not convince me. However, I do not care for the hints that your opinion is somehow better than mine, and that mine 'goes against the Silmarillion definitions'.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 12 2013, 8:34pm

Post #34 of 63 (189 views)
Shortcut
my apologies [In reply to] Can't Post

This is why I am not a big fan of online communication, there is no way to pick up on tone and friendly jest, I do not mean to be arrogant or to belittle anyone. My Point is simple though, you earlier stated that you did not want to use terms which were not used by Tolkien, hence your use of Maiar. So I was focusing on how Tolkien has described the Ainur and the Maiar in his works, And surely he never says, "All Maiar speak," yet we know that all the Maiar sang the Great Music and thus had functioning "brains"... While I do believe that I am correct on this, (as I am sure you think you are correct), I do believe this goes beyond mere Opinion. The question is not whether or not we both have opinions but whose opinions are closer to accounting of what the texts says. The Maiar are explained in detail, never with the negative though though (that is explaining what they cannot do) and the origins of the Ents are explained and all I am saying is that what we know of both of their origins they do not appear to be the same, thus it is arguing with no support that that they are as you suggest. I mean no offense by this, and I am more than willing to reconsider my position if given textual warrant to do so. But for me I agree with your earlier statement, we should be bound to the text of Tolkien when trying to describe things and it appears that the descriptions of Maiar we have are contrary to the descriptions of the Ents beginnings that we have.

I believe this would be a much more pleasant conversation to have in person and we would both enjoy it and perhaps we would come much closer in our definitions/arguments.Wink

Not all who wander are lost


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 8:48pm

Post #35 of 63 (184 views)
Shortcut
Interesting! [In reply to] Can't Post

That's certainly food for thought, thanks!
It'll probably take me some time, but I want to have a look at the online Parma, if that's the same one as the one referenced in the quote. Because I'm wondering about the wording in the quote - especially the odd segmentation of the text in the 'includes Valar' part. And also about the 'or else didn't enter Ea'.

Of course, an incorrigible pro-Maiarin-origin fan like me is already searching for a way to accomodate their mental image with the newly gained info. ;) So I will pipe in yet again, and wonder aloud how we can be sure that the spirits who would, when summoned from afar, become Ents by assuming likenesses or entering the shapes of the olvar, did not take part in the Great Music? As I view it, the spirits could be taking part in the Music, and just the thought/concept of Ents could be newly arisen during the course of the Music.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


Darkstone
Immortal


Jun 12 2013, 8:57pm

Post #36 of 63 (191 views)
Shortcut
Still [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I said that they did not necessarily need speech, not that being mute was the common characteristics for them.
Furthermore, I would like to ask where it is written black on white that '*all* Maiar, incarnate and non-incarnate, knew how to speak'. As it's stated by you with absolute certainty, but doesn't ring a bell with me, I'd like to broaden my horizon so to speak. :)
.


"Osanwe-kenta -Enquiry into the Communication of Thought" has some interesting statements about the use of speech by the Valar. For example:

"The hröa and tengwesta have inevitably some like effect upon the Valar, if they assume bodily raiment. The hröa will to some degree dim in force and precision the sending of the thought, and if the other be also embodied the reception of it. If they have acquired the habit of tengwesta, as some may who have acquired the custom of being arrayed, then this will reduce the practice of ósanwe. But these effects are far less than in the case of the Incarnate."

Depending on how broad the term "Valar" is used this passage would seem to support your argument.

******************************************
Pippin: "When you guys fall in the forest, does it make a sound?"
Bregalad: "Are you kidding? Scott fell last week and he hasn't shut up about it since!"


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 12 2013, 9:28pm

Post #37 of 63 (185 views)
Shortcut
no offence taken! :) [In reply to] Can't Post

Glad to have cleared this up. Now where's that handshake smiley when one needs it... Cool


In Reply To
And surely he never says, "All Maiar speak," yet we know that all the Maiar sang the Great Music and thus had functioning "brains"... While I do believe that I am correct on this, (as I am sure you think you are correct), I do believe this goes beyond mere Opinion.


I'm beginning to think it doesn't - my (re)reading of that part of the Silm. left me with the impression that during the Great Music no words were used, but rather sounds as if of music instruments, or perhaps it was all imagined, on the level of thoughts (bizarre to try to conceive of something like that!). I guess I ought to look into the mind-to-mind talking and Valarin again as well, now that I got myself into this, oh boy. ^ ^

I agree on Maiar being - well, not being brainless, but perhaps with varying degrees of brightness as well as of power. That's why I read 'dumb' and 'mute' as perhaps some of the lesser ones (because frankly, I never took the Ents to be exceptionally powerful) having issues mastering their forms enough to produce speech, let alone a verbal one which was probably quite unnecessary until the meeting with the first Elves.


In Reply To
The question is not whether or not we both have opinions but whose opinions are closer to accounting of what the texts says.


But I think it's apparent from the discussion we've had so far, that there is seldom a unified reading of a text for each and everyone, which makes me leery of the entire 'let's judge who is closer to the text/truth' concept. Exchange of pro and con arguments is fine with me, claiming one set is closer to JRRT's words when there's a clear difference in people's readings - not so much. I think there was a very enlightening discussion on multiple readings and elitism in a recent much-posted-in thread in Feedback, where others stated what I'm aiming at here in more fitting words. :)


In Reply To
thus it is arguing with no support that that they are as you suggest. I mean no offense by this, and I am more than willing to reconsider my position if given textual warrant to do so. But for me I agree with your earlier statement, we should be bound to the text of Tolkien when trying to describe things and it appears that the descriptions of Maiar we have are contrary to the descriptions of the Ents beginnings that we have.


But that's just the thing: it appears *to you* that the descriptions of Maiar and Ents are contrary, they do not seem very remote to me. I too am willing to reconsider my viewpoint, but so far am not convinced that certain characters' Maiarinness is impossible, whereas others are certain of it. And again it is *to you* that it appears that my claims have no support; I gave my reasons which didn't satisfy you, whereas yours haven't satisfied me, hence my continual counterarguments. Pity there is so little known of the Maiar, I'd have welcomed more information to work with.


In Reply To
I believe this would be a much more pleasant conversation to have in person and we would both enjoy it and perhaps we would come much closer in our definitions/arguments.Wink


Very true. :)

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


KasDel
Rivendell


Jun 12 2013, 11:49pm

Post #38 of 63 (203 views)
Shortcut
Who is Tom Bombadil ? [In reply to] Can't Post

Father Time... Mother Nature. IMHO!

KasDel the Last


gandalfsbeard
Registered User

Jun 13 2013, 12:15pm

Post #39 of 63 (180 views)
Shortcut
I believe both of you, Dik and Ranger, are missing an important fact... [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien wrote on several occasions that the Maiar and Valar could not reproduce with one another. It is for this very reason that he rules out the Great Eagles from being Maiar, even though there was plenty of evidence to suggest they were Maiar. So Tolkien said they could not be all because they reproduce with each other, ie Entings.

Yes, I know and Tolkien knew that Melian had Luthien but that was with an Elf not another Maiar. And yes Ungoliant reproduced with spiders (we are even sure what she is) but he offers a clear interpretation that the Maiar and Valar cannot reproduce with each other, so it appears that Ranger is in the right here... When the creator of the world speaks, we would be wise to listen...


(This post was edited by gandalfsbeard on Jun 13 2013, 12:15pm)


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 13 2013, 3:57pm

Post #40 of 63 (174 views)
Shortcut
Loose Ends [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Tolkien wrote on several occasions that the Maiar and Valar could not reproduce with one another. It is for this very reason that he rules out the Great Eagles from being Maiar, even though there was plenty of evidence to suggest they were Maiar. So Tolkien said they could not be all because they reproduce with each other, ie Entings.


Which brings us back to several points of this thread which caused this digression about the Ent's lineage. There is substantial evidence and reason, and very little to the contrary, that the Ents are not Maiar and are probably lower in order than Bombadil. Therefor it is consistent that Treebeard could be affected by the ring - moreso than Gandalf - while Tom is not. This is not to say Treebard might not be affected, but that Tom's immunity does not confer to Treebeard by lineage.


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 13 2013, 5:35pm

Post #41 of 63 (158 views)
Shortcut
exactly... [In reply to] Can't Post

Platt, that is why I am focusing my studies on the Ring right now trying to better understand its power and functions for at the heart of the Bombadil mystery is why the Ring "has no power over him." I should have it ready for the TORN Symposium.

Not all who wander are lost


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 13 2013, 7:43pm

Post #42 of 63 (160 views)
Shortcut
Good one, thanks! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no answer to this one. Smile

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 13 2013, 7:56pm

Post #43 of 63 (162 views)
Shortcut
But can we be sure that resistance to the Ring can be measured by greatness? [In reply to] Can't Post

I still believe it has more to do with motivation and certain character traits, as seen in the slow influence of the Ring on the hobbits, as opposed to its influence on some greater people (Galadriel, Faramir etc.).

I am still not sure I understand in what sense you guys use 'affected'. I distinguish between the Ring itself trying to call to people, and between people reacting to it, while Tom's extraordinariness is for me in his failing to respond, in not letting himself be affected. There's IMO no evidence that the Ring tried to call to him, but neither is there evidence that it didn't.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 13 2013, 8:11pm

Post #44 of 63 (153 views)
Shortcut
Affected [In reply to] Can't Post

Invisibility, the change of perspective between the wraith and living worlds, and the inability for Sauron or the Nazgul to detect the ring while Tom wore it would be high on my list of effects. The One Ring was utterly inert to Bombadil. It was just a band of metal to him where it had no influence over him, nor he over it.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 13 2013, 8:11pm)


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 13 2013, 8:39pm

Post #45 of 63 (158 views)
Shortcut
But we can only compare these effects between Tom and mortals who put the Ring on... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Invisibility, the change of perspective between the wraith and living worlds, and the inability for Sauron or the Nazgul to detect the ring while Tom wore it would be high on my list of effects.


... There's no saying, it appears, what the Ring would have done for another high being, say, an Elf, or a Maia (unless we count Sauron himself).

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 13 2013, 8:48pm

Post #46 of 63 (165 views)
Shortcut
Speaking For The Elves And Maiar [In reply to] Can't Post

I think Galadriel and Gandalf made their case very well to Frodo.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 13 2013, 8:48pm)


rangerfromthenorth
Rivendell

Jun 13 2013, 9:08pm

Post #47 of 63 (158 views)
Shortcut
Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman all make that case [In reply to] Can't Post

I do not think that "greatness" or power has much to do with being "under the power of the Ring" as Gandalf states. For if Tom is greater than Sauron why would he not be able to defeat Sauron if they gave the Ring to Tom and thus Sauron was Ringless? If Tom is greater Maiar than Sauron and thus not under power of the Ring then he should be able to defeat Sauron when Tom possessed the Ring (theoretically as they talk about it at Elrond's Council). But they say he could not defeat a ringless Sauron, yet Gandalf says the Ring is the only thing which will give them surety of defeating Sauron, Saruman believes the same thing and are clearly under the power of the Ring... So how is Tom both greater than Sauron and less than? Again this is why the Maiar theory of Tom is flawed, it can't have it both ways, if Tom is greater than Sauron then Sauron would fall to him, if Tom is a less powerful Maiar then he would be under the sway of the Ring.

It may have to do more with motivation but I have reservations about that too (Gandalf said he would take the Ring to do good but through him it would twist motivation and turn him to evil) The Ring appears to affect both the will and motivation of its wearer.... But perhaps Tom's will is different, but then again why? In the Silmarillion we are told that all of the Ainur (=Vala/Maia) who entered Arda had there powers bound to the Earth. So again, we have a problem explaining Tom as a Maia....

Not all who wander are lost


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 13 2013, 9:39pm

Post #48 of 63 (146 views)
Shortcut
Misunderstanding? [In reply to] Can't Post

I was speaking about the three characteristics you listed as effects of the Ring - invisibility, indetectability, both worlds. I said we have no immortals who put the Ring on except for Tom for us to compare with Tom on these three. Only mortals put on the Ring apart from Tom.

You seem to be talking about temptation and effect on one's mind. That's a different thing for me, and one I believe to stem from one's personality and nature, not from immortality/origin/greatness/power/etc.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 13 2013, 10:04pm

Post #49 of 63 (147 views)
Shortcut
Wearing The Ring [In reply to] Can't Post

I see. We saw six characters I can think of actually wear the ring: In order - one Maiar, one man, one Stoor Hobbit, two Harfoot (?) Hobbits and Bombadil. Galadriel certainly put on a display effected by the temptation of the ring.

I don't think the absence of a comparative sample is all that germane to the discussion. It feels more like a fallback position. Wink I think we can trust the word and evidence of Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel, and Bombadil.


dik-dik
Lorien


Jun 13 2013, 10:45pm

Post #50 of 63 (139 views)
Shortcut
moot point ahead...? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
We saw six characters I can think of actually wear the ring: In order - one Maiar, one man, one Stoor Hobbit, two Harfoot (?) Hobbits and Bombadil. Galadriel certainly put on a display effected by the temptation of the ring.


Yes, but one cannot say with certainty that she would have disappeared or become visible to the wraiths or be in both worlds. That was your choice of attributes that define being affected by the Ring, not mine. For me these three are more like physical manifestations that are shown on mortals, as the only immortal to wear the Ring except for its maker was Tom. We cannot know if Galadriel, Gandalf etc. would have disappeared/been detectable for the nazgul, thus for me these three characteristics are not a reliable evidence of the Ring's influence on Tom as opposed to other immortals.

Temptation on the other hand, is something entirely different for me, and I agree that Tom wasn't tempted by the Ring's call, whereas Galadriel or Gandalf were.


In Reply To
I don't think the absence of a comparative sample is all that germane to the discussion. It feels more like a fallback position. I think we can trust the word and evidence of Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel, and Bombadil.


Evidence of what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the entire discussion we've had on Tom vs. others, revolves around the fact that I'm convinced it was Tom's character that prevented him from being mentally affected by the Ring (or if you wish, the Ring having no power over his mind). You on the other hand, seem to imply it's not because of Tom's selfless/unambitious/etc character, but rather because of him being a greater being than anyone else in Middle-earth. Is that it?

I am definitely not 'falling back', but I think it's becoming clear our readings are very different, and our views and reasonings apparently cannot be compromised.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me." ~ Paul Eddington

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.