Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
Ring Invisibility Rules - Steuard Jensen's theory answers many niggles

noWizardme
Half-elven


Oct 16 2014, 3:56pm

Post #1 of 22 (1806 views)
Shortcut
Ring Invisibility Rules - Steuard Jensen's theory answers many niggles Can't Post

Here's Steuard Jansen's clever explanation of invisibility as it is seen in the Middle-earth works


Quote
As far as I can tell from the books (and these examples in
particular), the Ring only influences light which passes through a
"skin" around its wearer, and in fact, only light which first hits the
_outside edge_ of that "skin."

In more detail, light running into the "skin" from the outside simply
passes along without being affected by anything inside (or at least,
not much; more on this later). Thus, we can see right through the
wearer, as if he were not there. On the other hand, light which runs
into the "skin" from the inside is not affected. Hence, light sources
borne by the wearer (magical or not) are visible on the outside to
precisely the extent that they would be if the Ring were not involved
at all.

This is really quite a good idea, when it comes right down to it.
Among other things, heat can be emitted as (infrared) light, and it
would be very bad for the Rings to interfere with their wearers'
abilities to regulate their body temperatures. Also, it means that
the Ring only needs to "worry about" a one sided, two dimensional
surface, rather than a full three dimensional volume, which has got to
make its job much easier.

Of course, the Ring's ability to stop influences on incoming light is
clearly not perfect: Bilbo's shadow in _The Hobbit_ is testament to
that. However, I don't think we can tell if this "flaw" was
intentional or not.

Finally, (but briefly, as I need to go), I think that the Ring depends
on a sentient being wearing it to be activated (so Frodo's finger
alone didn't cut it). Once the Ring was activated, the wearer would
have some degree of personal control over its operation. For the weak
and/or untrained, that would consist only of a subconscious list of
what counted as "carried" and what did not. For the strong, the
invisibility could be easily limited, as Galadriel confined
invisibility to her Ring alone.
http://oakroadsystems.com/...tm#Jensen_1998-09-08


This idea is a reference in an excellent ""FAQ of the Rings"
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm

(I'm sure these references are well known to the wise - in fact I found them by trying to remember a link that someone, Elizabeth I think, previously posted. But good things deserve to be re-posted periodically)

The final bit, about sentience, is very clever I think - it gets us out of issues like "why doesn't the chain on which Frodo carries the Ring become invisible" or "why doesn't invisibility extend to everything the ring-user touches, and everything that touches until everything is invisible?"

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


(This post was edited by noWizardme on Oct 16 2014, 3:58pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 16 2014, 7:22pm

Post #2 of 22 (1607 views)
Shortcut
He may be overthinking it. [In reply to] Can't Post

If we are looking at scientific explanations for how the invisibility conferred by the Rings works then we have the problem of how the wearer can see if light cannot reach his eyes. In the context of the legendarium, it may be better to simply accept the explanation that the Rings place the bearer at least partially in the spirit realm and outside of normal vision.

On the other hand, that might explain the "shadow effect" noted in The Hobbit where the bearer's shadow can be seen in bright light.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 16 2014, 7:37pm)


CuriousG
Half-elven


Oct 16 2014, 7:34pm

Post #3 of 22 (1597 views)
Shortcut
Those were my thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

The Ring's effect was more metaphysical than science-physics. Frodo was only invisible to people in the "seen" world, but became visible to in the "unseen" realm, and not, I think, by bending any light rays. Though his reasoning seems solid otherwise, and I like the detail about the Ring being activated by sentience: Frodo's severed finger should have been invisible since it wore the Ring, but it was visible, but no longer connected to a thinking body.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Oct 16 2014, 8:51pm

Post #4 of 22 (1585 views)
Shortcut
That's a good objection: yes the wearer ought not to be able to see! [In reply to] Can't Post

Perfectly right to point out that any attempt to come up with a scientific explanation is bound to fail (if not, invisibility rings would be a practical technology!) So it's hopeless, but I enjoyed it anyway:)

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Oct 16 2014, 9:18pm

Post #5 of 22 (1590 views)
Shortcut
Shadow [In reply to] Can't Post

I like the idea of sentience -- I would say not just sentience but also a will -- and that the wearer slips partially into the spirit realm.

A feature of vampire lore is that they do not cast shadows (or make reflections) because they do not have souls. Perhaps Tolkien was suggesting that while the wearer slipped partially into the spirit realm, that their spirit remained, itself shadow-like. In Tolkien's day there was a (since debunked I think) idea that the soul of a person weighed something and therefore must have substance.

I like the idea too that eventually the Ring would overthrow one's will, and apparently their material body, leaving only a spirit of a sort, a wraith. A wraith would be a soul or spirit not connected to a living vessel, a ghost, unlike the spirit of a wearer still "alive".

hmmm



Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 16 2014, 9:28pm

Post #6 of 22 (1574 views)
Shortcut
A Wraith's physical body... [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems that the physical body of a Wraith is not destroyed so much as it becomes permanently attached to the spirit world so that it is permanenty rendered invisible. The Nazgul do have physical bodies under their robes, but they cannot be seen by normal sight. Powerful Eldar can see a bit into the spirit realm and perceive their forms.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Oct 16 2014, 11:09pm

Post #7 of 22 (1586 views)
Shortcut
I think we may be over-intellectualizing [In reply to] Can't Post

a non-solvable quandary. There are just too many posers with this invisibility predicament.
Maybe better that we take Tolkien/Gandalf’s advice:


Quote
'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'

But, yes, great sport to theorize admittedly. Wink

And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

-John Magee - High Flight



HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell


Oct 17 2014, 2:06am

Post #8 of 22 (1573 views)
Shortcut
He that breaks a thing ... [In reply to] Can't Post

I always liked this quote from Gandalf, which I believe was applied to Sauruman. Tolkien was somewhat of a romanticist and disliked modern technology, or maybe was somewhat distrustful of it. But in his work (and I know it is not allegory, but it does slip in from time to time), he seems to have this dichotomy between nature and science. He doesn't delve into this philosophically, but he does notice that man is the only being on earth that does try break things to find out how they work.

This is actually a good trait, as it allows us to progress. However, it also has drawbacks, in that we don't appreciate things as they are. And I think this is what Tolkien was getting at. That sometimes the beauty in a thing is its mystery; trying to understand it simply cheapens its value.


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Oct 17 2014, 3:28am

Post #9 of 22 (1560 views)
Shortcut
Very well put HeWho [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, I believe Gandalf was talking to Saruman about breaking the white of his robe into many colors. Something along those lines..?

As you say, not necessarily a drawback, but if we didn’t “break” a few things Tolkienwise we would have a much more monotonous forum. There are so many mysteries and unanswerable questions in Tolkien’s work that we are just unable NOT to theorize, and I trust this doesn’t cheapen its intended significance. Just the natural curiosity of the human psyche.

And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

-John Magee - High Flight



noWizardme
Half-elven


Oct 17 2014, 6:15am

Post #10 of 22 (1572 views)
Shortcut
Science stuff! [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree about the over intellectualizing! The thing is, that I enjoy over intellectualizing on occasion (and at other times I find it silly, so I completely understand anyone finding this silly).

I was thinking about a comparison between ring invisibility in Tolkien and in HG Wells. Wells said he wanted to avoid having an unexplained gadget got from a wizard, but of course his explanation of invisibility soon descended in to "science stuff". That's because he couldn't come up with an explanation: a working scientific theory about invisibility gadgets would be an important step to making one!
Wells ends up with the kind of problem about what gets made invisible. So= if I remember correctly) the Invisible Man makes only guys tissue invisible: so he had to go naked, and is in any case given away by his (still visible) stomach contents. The idea that the Ring use it's wearer a subconscious sense of self (so including clothes and undigested food) gets round this rather pleasingly.
I think it is fair enough to say all this is moot: the mechanisms in either Tolkien get invisibility into play as a plot device, and provide it with soon be interesting weaknesses. But both Wells and Tolkien are more interested in the moral rather than physics consequences.

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


squire
Half-elven


Oct 17 2014, 12:02pm

Post #11 of 22 (1556 views)
Shortcut
The moral consequences of the Ring's invisibility feature [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that in The Invisible Man Wells is exploring the immoral effect of invisibility on the human psyche, following the ideas pioneered by Plato in his fable of the Ring of Gyges.

I'm not sure Tolkien is in the same game at all. The Ring's invisibility power is, of course, its only power in The Hobbit. In that book Bilbo suffers no bad effects at all, whether ethical, physical, or moral, from being invisible; in fact, the ring enables him to become a more moral person by the end.

Then in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien develops the thing into a truly terrifying artifact embodying the idea of raw and unstoppable power over all of humanity. The moral implications are as high as they could be, on all levels from the personal to the social and the eternal. But the original feature, fairy-tale invisibility per se, is relegated to little more than a side effect, and is little used.

My take on its mechanism, by the way, is not that it makes one physically invisible, but that it makes others unable to see one, by creating a miniature shroud of Tolkien's trademark 'Shadow' into which only those who are inhabitants of both the worldly and the otherworldly planes can see. Among other things, that explains to me why the food, clothing, etc. issues are absent.

It also conforms with the "rule" that the noonday sun can pierce the shadow just a little, as revealed in The Hobbit: noon is when the true light of the world is at its very brightest. It's a clever conceit, but was invented only for the sake of some cheap escape drama and a few buttons, it seems! I honestly expected something involving this exception to the rule to come from the scene in Ithilien when the hobbits are waiting out the Rangers under the blinding noonday sun, but nothing doing. I suspect Tolkien had forgotten about the feature by then. Unfortunately, but typically given the way the story developed, Tolkien did not really want the Ring's invisibility to be a plot device in the second book, and we never hear of the sunlight thing again.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 17 2014, 6:25pm

Post #12 of 22 (1550 views)
Shortcut
...little used... [In reply to] Can't Post

I really like your reasoning here. But one thing that really strikes me every time I read LotR is that Sam wears the Ring for hours and hours in Cirith Ungol, far longer than Frodo's occasional brief exposure, and probably exceeded only by Bilbo's lengthy explorations of the Elven halls. He was, at this time, on the very brink of Mordor (and we always say that as Frodo drew closer the strength of the Ring grew). Yet, except for one brief vision, Sam experienced no adverse effects whatever.

We often say that the Ring's effect on a wearer is affected by the wearer's moral strength and purity (Hobbits don't seek power, etc.). Is Sam so much more moral than Frodo? Surely not. The dark thought is that because he is a servant class Hobbit he lacks the intelligence and sophistication to be affected. Is there another explanation?








Khim
Bree


Oct 17 2014, 7:22pm

Post #13 of 22 (1536 views)
Shortcut
I think "little used" might be the answer [In reply to] Can't Post

The Ring takes time to destroy its bearer. The Ring hasn't had enough time with Sam to exhibit the same degree of influence/power/etc. Or so it seems to me thinking quickly and briefly and oh my gotta go.......

I am Khim akin to Mim.


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Oct 17 2014, 10:34pm

Post #14 of 22 (1531 views)
Shortcut
Is there another explanation? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes. There can be no doubt that Smeagol lacked this intelligence and sophistication to a much larger degree than Sam (even from the very beginning of his possession of the Ring).

And did Sam suffer “adverse effects”? Maybe much more than we realize!


Quote
”I took it , Mr. Frodo, begging your pardon. . . and a terrible burden it is too”. …Now it had come to it, Sam felt reluctant to give up the Ring and burden his master with it again.

Was this reluctance to give up the Ring or reluctance to burden his master again?

Time of possession/wearing, and distance cannot be excluded, and IMO Sam WAS deeply affected by the Ring, and was only able to release it because of his great devotion and love of Frodo. Heart

And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

-John Magee - High Flight



squire
Half-elven


Oct 18 2014, 12:17am

Post #15 of 22 (1546 views)
Shortcut
It's not lack of "intelligence and sophistication", but it is because he is "servant class" [In reply to] Can't Post

The effect, or non-effect, of the Ring on Sam is one of the most interesting things about that section of LotR, right up there with the conflict Sam has about being his own Master (we once had a great discussion about "The Choices of Master Samwise").

Sam's undoubted intelligence and sophistication are of a different order than Frodo's or the other hobbits of the quest. His station in life is to serve, not to dominate, and he brings all his talents and desire for mastery to improving his status within that station. The Ring can get even less purchase on him than it can on Frodo, who although a hobbit, is (as Gandalf thinks) the best hobbit in the Shire and a natural leader and philosopher. Sam's fantasy of being a Warlord Gardener is Tolkien's clever joke about or parody of his entire construct of the Ring's effect on the average upper-class Englishman's sense of entitlement to power.

However, as noted already in this discussion, even Sam in the end is somewhat reluctant to surrender the Ring to Frodo, which suggests that the Ring's power of seduction is truly overwhelming in the end ("sooner or later", as the big G. puts it). And when Gandalf notes in the beginning of the story that up to that time only Bilbo has willingly foregone possession of the Ring, and that only with Gandalf's domineering aid, we have not yet seen Sam - holding the Ring which Frodo can hardly hope to seize back - willingly, even lovingly, return it to Frodo with just the slightest prodding from Frodo (i.e., "Give it to me!"). I think there is a strong suggestion that not just pity can distance a Ringbearer from from the thing's corruption (as Gandalf says about Bilbo), but also devoted love such as Sam has for Frodo.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 19 2014, 2:28am

Post #16 of 22 (1509 views)
Shortcut
Very well said!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Bravo squire! A most excellent theory that satisfies a thought that had rankled in my mind concerning this strange, penalty-free, use of the Ring in Mordor.

Now I have just got to get that Eye-of-Sauron-spotlight from the films out of my head! Sly

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Oct 19 2014, 10:10am

Post #17 of 22 (1510 views)
Shortcut
well wasn't one of the major themes of the story meant to be [In reply to] Can't Post

friendship, love, loyalty, all the best attributes possible in people getting them further than power ever could. Elrond saw this at the Council yet many people in RL fail to and keep posting questions such as, why didn't Glorfindel go, or why didn't the Eagles fly them to the Cracks of Doom. It is as you say, this love that prevented Sams corruption and helped the Quest succeed, especially when you consider the ironic circumstances of Sam temporarily abandonig the quest to save Frodo from the Tower of Cirith Ungol. Ironic in the sense that this abandonment of the quest for the sake of the love of a friend actually helped the quest succeed. If he had not done so it is highly likely that Frodos continued capture would have eventually resulted in discovery of the Quest.


HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell


Oct 20 2014, 6:59pm

Post #18 of 22 (1504 views)
Shortcut
Another overlooked aspect.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Is how the bearer comes by the ring. Isildur takes it out of anger after his father is killed in battle with Sauron. Deagol finds it, but before he can claim it, Sméagol murders him. Bilbo finds it inadvertently, but then makes up a lie to lay his claim to it as well.


Frodo is given the ring, but over time it becomes "precious" to him as well. Eventually he claims it as his own at the Cracks of Doom (you can see this happening throughout his trek that the Ring was overcoming his free will).


Now Sam takes the ring as a "burden" to fulfill the quest, and only because he believes Frodo to be dead. So Sam takes it with the best intentions, unlike the others with maybe the exception of Frodo. I think this is a major reason the ring doesn't take hold of him right away; he doesn't claim the ring as his. But as others have pointed out, even his short tenure with the ring makes it difficult to give up, and over time, it likely would have seduced him as well.


The Ring's power over a person is based on their stature, but also it seems their intent in coming by the ring also matters, not just their moral character.


CuriousG
Half-elven


Oct 20 2014, 8:38pm

Post #19 of 22 (1485 views)
Shortcut
Excellent point, HeWho [In reply to] Can't Post

"Now Sam takes the ring as a "burden" to fulfill the quest, and only because he believes Frodo to be dead. So Sam takes it with the best intentions, unlike the others with maybe the exception of Frodo. I think this is a major reason the ring doesn't take hold of him right away; he doesn't claim the ring as his. But as others have pointed out, even his short tenure with the ring makes it difficult to give up, and over time, it likely would have seduced him as well.


The Ring's power over a person is based on their stature, but also it seems their intent in coming by the ring also matters, not just their moral character. "

I think the Ring had to have had a profound effect on Sam or he wouldn't have been called a Ring-bearer and granted passage to the West. If it really had so little effect on him--imagine Frodo asking him to hold it for 15 minutes while he took a shower or somethimg--I don't think he'd get the Ring-bearer designation.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Oct 20 2014, 11:28pm

Post #20 of 22 (1482 views)
Shortcut
isildur took it as weregild which is a price for restitution [In reply to] Can't Post

 which is seen as justified and quite different to taking it in anger


HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell


Oct 21 2014, 1:42pm

Post #21 of 22 (1465 views)
Shortcut
Not mutually exclusive... [In reply to] Can't Post

Generally, when you take something as restitution, it is because you have been aggrieved for some reason or another. Of course he took it as a weregild, Just because he was justified doesn't mean he wasn't still angry (after all, he could have decided not to take the ring or tossed it into the fire after he took it). but he was still angry.


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 22 2014, 2:01am

Post #22 of 22 (1517 views)
Shortcut
Well, as it has been posited elsewhere... [In reply to] Can't Post

Perhaps his feeling of entitlement to the Ring as restitution was his downfall? Maybe the initial attitude he had when taking it had an effect on how deeply the Ring could manipulate him? He felt he deserved the Ring, so it became 'precious' to him and it gave him another reason to keep it. Effectively, he sowed the seeds of his own destruction by placing a claim on the Ring and trying to validate it himself-- Like Bilbo's lying in trying to make himself out as the rightful owner rather than a thief.

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?

 
 

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.