|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 9:32pm
Post #126 of 227
(4682 views)
Shortcut
|
My, that Subject-line sounds like a Maths Textbook written by Tolkien!
Question:
If there are three Nazguls heading west from Minas Morgul at 125kph and a force of Godorian soldiers in full battle-armour set out from the White City at forced march pace, where would they meet?
It'd make school much more epic!!!  Maybe Eruvandi could write it for her teaching career?
Seriously now...
.
I think it might have to do with respective hierarchy of the Races inherent powers, Obviously Elves are older and more powerful than humans, and they live longer than Dwarves, but Dwarves on their side, live longer than Men and are much stronger. Last of all, we get Men, and they are just so greedy they want more! Ok, I said I'd be serious... You get the idea. Weak people always wan to be stronger, and thus the more power you offer, the more ready they will be to take it.
If we also consider the fact that Sauron gave them out, we must also remember that he burned a lot of bridges with Elves and Dwarves-- not the best way to give out traps disguised as gifts. Maybe he just found men more receptive to his overtures.
There is also the fact of the One. I think that it, in itself, implies ego. There is one Master-ring, ergo one supreme being, Sauron. It illustrates his pride and ambition, but also highlights his power. To dominate 19 rings, he only needed one. No matter how much more powerful his ring, it still can enslave a great number of others.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 9:34pm
Post #127 of 227
(4657 views)
Shortcut
|
If you keep making rights, all you'll end up being is dizzy. 
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 9:51pm
Post #128 of 227
(4669 views)
Shortcut
|
...clearly some major events would be needed to get such a valuable artifact off the Dark Lord’s finger and into Gollum’s cave at the roots of the mountains.
I am amazed at the ability shown here to fit all this information into one chapter. I can only imagine that it ws much, much longer and had to be whittled down to include only the most pertinent information. I could very well be wrong, but that is the impression I have-- the rough block of a chapter whittled to a fine point.
The resulting popularity of a book like this among the younger set may be one of the reasons Tolkien’s stuff is regarded as too juvenile to pass for adult literature.
I have never heard that.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 10:05pm
Post #129 of 227
(4658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In some way, I think it also humanises him..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It shows how flawed he is, and makes him more relatable. I don't know if that was part of the reason for the dialogue, but for me, it has the effect of adding some tarnish to the honourable white knight of Middle-Earth. He's so busy trying to complete his mission, some things just get left out as he tires.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 10:10pm
Post #130 of 227
(4667 views)
Shortcut
|
I wonder if the idea indicates an abandoned attempt at misdirection by throwing in a side-story about lesser rings? In any case, I wonder why they are mentioned, but never spoken of again.
Maybe they are like Miss Primula's anecdotal adventures with Gandalf and the cats of Queen Beruthiel? Throw-away lines.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 10:28pm
Post #131 of 227
(4662 views)
Shortcut
|
Prof Flieger argues that most creatures are bound by "The Music" (by which the overall god Eru and his Valar sing or play the universe into being). But - as those of us who have read the Silmarillion will recall - the Music was flawed due to the rebellion of Melkor. Rather than start over again, Eru makes an extra bit of the Music, which calls into being Elves and Men. These creatures - Prof Flieger argues Men (including hobbits) especially - are to labour to correct the flaws in the world. To enable them to achieve this, they are not bound by the predestination of the Music (or are much less bound than other creatures).
I agree mostly. I'd suggest a hierarchy with Ainu being mostly bound, then Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and finally Men.
I base this on the fact that Ainu are part of Eru thoughts, and the inevitability of Melkor's wrong redounding to Good.
Elves are less confined, but still have landmarks set for their race: to awake in starlight, to live {almost} forever, to teach Men, and fade.
As creations of Aule--though adopted by Eru-- I see the barest hint of the limits of Dwarvish fate as beings crafted to 'survive' Melkor, but eventually diasppearing.
Halfling puzzle me most, but they also seem to be doomed to disappear to the edge of civilisation, f not extinct today.
My impression is that Men are the least bound-- 'Able to shape their fate beyond the Music'.
If my understanding of Prof Fliger's argument that far is correct, correct, it might follow that this "put that Ring back where it came from or so help me..." mission requires a Man/hobbit. Tricky though - Men tend to have a low resistance to ring-magic; most hobbits are way too stay-at-home, so our list of candidates grows thin. [Did you hear that last bit in a Hugo Weaving voice? I wrote it in a Hugo Weaving voice...]
Ha! Funny, but quite enlightening!
Prof Flieger's essay is excellent - but I'm not sure I've fully understood it yet. However, I do notice that, from this Chapter in LOTR on, there is a sense that it must be Frodo who attempts to destroy the Ring, but there is simultaneously a huge reluctance on the part of other virtuous or wise characters to give him any direction: Gandalf will not hurry him up to leave Bag End, Gildor will not advise him beyond general safety precautions; Elrond says both that Frodo is the only one who can do this mission, but that he is free to do or not do it. Even Galadriel will not give specific instructions. At the end of Fellowship of the Ring the Fellowship awaits Frodo's decision about which way to go , and Aragorn will not allow the rest of them to decide for him (then of course, fate or chance or whatever take a turn).
I think that perhaps this is an instance of Divine Grace that produces the Eucotastrophe. Any interference from Men will be tainted with Circumstance and Fate, but by totally separating themselves from the outcome, it allows the Divine to come in and be manifest. (Could this also apply to Numenor's judgment?) I think this is why so many cultures have rituals that seek to separate individuals from others or their corporeal attachments to get to the place where the Deity can act?
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 10:49pm
Post #132 of 227
(4677 views)
Shortcut
|
Frodo is no the typical hero. As Tolkien has said, he was doomed to fail. Does this make him the Tragic Hero, glorious in failure?
Even though he does fail, that element of Eucotastrophe comes in the form of Divine Grace, and it takes a failure and turns it into a success. In so many cases, failures of the heroes are decried and they experiene hatred for it, but oft times even these serve the greater good. Bilbo's 'failure' to kill a deserving Gollum, Gandalf's 'failure' to escape the Balrog, Beren's 'failure' to retrieve the Silmaril himself, Voronwe's 'failure' to reach Aman, and so many others. They are all turned to good, but they never could have been unless the effort was made to try to accomplish an impossible task in the face of terrible odds; against all reason and hope. The men and women had to step out in faith and do what needed to be done, regardless of personal consequences. I think this takes its example from what Tolkien's considered to be the greatest Eucotastrophe-- the death and resurrection of Christ. In the deepest pit of despair, a light was kindled to dispell the darkness. The transmutation of evil is one of the highest forms of Eucotastrophe. As I have said elsewhere:
Although a person might have started doing good, they can change to do evil. Also, when one does evil, it can always be changed to good. Here we have the true causes of Tragedy and Eucotastrophe, respectively.
No, Frodo is not a Tragic Hero, but his 'failure' (If it can be called that) precludes him from being awarded that title. What is he?
A Redeemed Hero.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 11:01pm
Post #133 of 227
(4678 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree. So much of Gandalf's plans seem based on chance, and we often wonder what they were. In many cases he is called into question for not having one-- or the barest hint of one--, but I think that he was mostly dependent on that unexpected aid coming from afar (Mistakenly labeled as luck). I talk a bit about this further up thread in the post 'I am no Hero', but to further elaborate on this specific point:
I think that as an emissary of Eru, his power and thoughts processes are very Eru-centric. His basic consciousness is an acknowledgement of the supremacy of Eru and cannot fathom his failings. In mortal form, however, I think that this translates to the somewhat foggy ideas he has in planning. He knows what he needs to do, but has lost the knowledge he possessed in his true form and the confidence that it provided him. He is still acting on the subconscious knowledge that Eru will aid him, but he doesn't know why! I also think that he forsees the failure of Frodo, but he believes that the flaws in him will be redeemed-- and they were! This is the reason for a 'fool's hope', but it only seems foolish because we don't understand the true forces behind it.
This is just my own opinion, but it might help explain why Gandalf seems to act as a perennial optimist.
I love your thougts here, and hope you can look at my response to CuriousG (cited above), and share your own.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
(This post was edited by Rembrethil on Dec 18 2014, 11:03pm)
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Dec 18 2014, 11:57pm
Post #134 of 227
(4659 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It is also how Boromir reacts, in a way
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and he is a representative of the shortcomings of the thinking of Men - just take the Ring and use its power to defeat Sauron. Tolkien was an intellectual and I think his treatment of the Ring reflects his musings on who should rightfully be able to wield power. The "strong" are not the ones he picks. He picks the lesser, the small, the humble, but also to some extent, the thinkers. Bilbo had his books and so did Frodo. They didn't rely on muscle or force in their daily lives, they used their intelligence.
And so I think it is with those folks one meets who have those ideas on how Tolkien could have made it "easier" on everyone - Gandalf wear the Ring, Eagles fly the Ring to Mordor, etc. I admit to being someone who was not "Intellectual" enough to be able to read this book early in my life, couldn't get past the first few chapters, couldn't make sense of all the exposition and I think I knew that I was missing something by not getting it quite yet. It wasn't until I gained some hard-won knowledge of the world through my wanderings that I was able to pick it up and grasp its significance. I'm not unintelligent, but I couldn't work out the shadings well-enough or catch the meanings of things going by. I was a black-and-white thinker.
That brings me back to Boromir, the ability to wield power and another one of Tolkien's messages to DI (those little tidbits I carry with me when I put the book down) - Those who wield power cannot be black-and-white thinkers. They need to understand the grey (as in Gandalf  and also the myriad shadings of situations). It's never easy - there is always something to muddy things up. Best look to those who can grasp significance of the small things, who think things through than have someone grab the power (Ring) and go charging into battle.
Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 12:15am
Post #135 of 227
(4686 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think that's quite the right angle to look at it from
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's an interesting problem: is an "intellectual" better suited to wield power, because he or she sees the world in shades of grey rather than in hard-edged black and white?
In an age of warrior-kings, as LotR purports to be set in, perhaps the distinction seems more meaningful. Certainly in our world the subtle priests of the Church thought so, when confronted with the illiterate barbarians who became Kings. But Tolkien, I think, rejected the distinction as false when it came to the nut: power. As the saying goes, "power corrupts". The reason is, power is by definition the ability to force another to do ones will. Whatever the reasons one cites for the forcing -- black and white, good and evil, or grey as the question of ends vs. means -- the end result remains the use of force to override another man's will.
I think the hobbits are the best bearers of the Ring, not because they are thinkers, but because they do not want it. By the strictures of the world of Middle-earth, hobbits do not desire power. And so Frodo holds out until the end - and even then, as Tolkien knew it had to be from the first, the Ring corrupted a hobbit, as intellectual as one could wish for.
To take it further: is Elrond a black and white guy? Is Gandalf, really? Isn't Denethor the ultimate Machiavelli, skilled in the lore of Gondor, crafting plots in his tower while pretending still to be a man of the sword? Yet none of them would have been safe holding the Ring, as two admitted and one could not.
I agree that Boromir stands for those who see the Ring as the simple solution to its own problem. But Tolkien takes the sanction to the very end: Power, no matter who wields it and no matter for what good end, is evil by definition. And the Ring is one of the most brilliant symbols in 20th century literature, for that reason.
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.
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Dec 19 2014, 12:25am
Post #136 of 227
(4665 views)
Shortcut
|
never mind.
Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 12:50am
Post #137 of 227
(4667 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It isn't that the Ring corrupts Frodo. Frodo succumbs to temptation but avoids corruption.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with your point about power, and why hobbits are the best keepers of the Ring: they don't want power.
I have a slight objection to describing what happens to Frodo as his being corrupted somehow by the Ring. It's not the Ring that corrupts anyone, directly, it's the power that comes with the Ring. I actually believe that's your point, as I type this out. Hope so, anyhow.
Tolkien says Frodo was tempted beyond his strength, beyond his capacity to endure, and further that ANY MORTAL BEING may be tempted beyond his or her capacity, and succumb to temptation. I don't know exactly how the Ring "works" and I don't think Tolkien knew exactly how it "works" either. Clearly it works by tempting one to claim ownership, and then corrupts through the power it yields the owner. It's the use of the power granted by the Ring that corrupts a person claiming ownership. Frodo did not have time to be corrupted by the use of that power, thanks to being delivered from it on the brink of disaster.
Frodo was harmed terribly by the Ring, and by that moment of succumbing to the temptation of the Ring, but he was never corrupted by the Ring.
My two cents.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Through any dark time, I always remember Frodo's claim on the side of Mt. Doom that he "can manage it" because he must.
Sometimes, I have to manage it, too, as do we all. We manage because we must.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 1:02am
Post #138 of 227
(4669 views)
Shortcut
|
|
thanks, and I am really enjoying this conversation, BUT!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
hope you can look at my response to CuriousG (cited above), and share your own.
The truth is, I am getting lost in this discussion and having a hard time following it, so feel I'm responding in a disjointed manner or missing responding at all. I'm more used to several posts at a time per chapter, which led to shorter threads but could be more easily followed.
OR! lol. I am just getting old. There is that!
Anyhow, I don't know which post you're referring to so can't check it out. Can you hyperlink it or tell me the header? Thanks.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Through any dark time, I always remember Frodo's claim on the side of Mt. Doom that he "can manage it" because he must.
Sometimes, I have to manage it, too, as do we all. We manage because we must.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Dec 19 2014, 1:28am
Post #141 of 227
(4663 views)
Shortcut
|
|
not into chapter leading mode yet. In fact...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...surprised myself jumping back in here the way I did. It was irresistible, somehow. Having fun, though. I did miss the place.
I'm glad to know there are no actual restrictions on keeping the chapter discussions to one thread, or any specific number. I like that freedom. Maybe I'll do a chapter the next time we discuss LOTR. That should be, what, 2016? LOL
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Through any dark time, I always remember Frodo's claim on the side of Mt. Doom that he "can manage it" because he must.
Sometimes, I have to manage it, too, as do we all. We manage because we must.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 1:53am
Post #142 of 227
(4658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I *think* this is the post Rem is referring to a.s...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As it seems to relate to the thread you are discussing:
"I am no hero" by Rem
We have been busy here! A lovely sort of confusion.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 1:59am
Post #143 of 227
(4655 views)
Shortcut
|
(yes!)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 2:14am
Post #144 of 227
(4650 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Reference perhaps to Tolkien's internal world
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This whole idea of a self-discovered truth, makes me think of those who ask why Gandalf did not just wear the Ring, Kill Sauron, then throw it into Orodruin.
(Replace any powerful figure as the Ring-wielder and you can cover any case of it's use.)
I mean no disrespect, but these people have missed the entire point of the tale. In many cases, I find in most cases that they have not had to opportunity to form their own conclusions because they have heard a very abbreviated and simplified version of events from someone else. Here is one of the weaknesses (if we can call it that) of Tolkien. Much of his style relies upon the slow build-up to the revelation of a grand idea. Each step taken on the path of adventure has been outlined and planned to provide the necessary information to make an informed judgement. Without having all the relevant facts, they cannot make a good judgement. To them, the Ring is simply a tool-- to be used and discarded at will. This is why I refer most people with Tolkien questions to the books. I could spend hours explaining the 'why's' and 'wherefore's', but let them take in the story and they will come to their own conclusions. I'm not saying that everyone of them will love or understand the works, but they will be afforded the opportunity to make a choice based on experience, rather than hearsay. Tolkien rarely makes broad generalisations without sufficient grounding in previous fact. This is why I tell so many people:
You have to read the books!!
Which I recall us discussing a while back. Complexity which is often layers upon layers deep in the construct of an idea, but only a glimpse of which, tip-of-iceberg-like, appears in the text. A quick example are the doors of Moria; the cryptic message, which refers to *the ring-smith* himself; yet in LOTR its a passing detail, one that except for drawn visuals does not stand out especially. Gandalf does not have fits, or launch into tedious exposition and interminable Elven songs about Celebrimor. Its just...there. A gem to be found with more knowledge, also internally gained, as you explore the world further and make connections. Something invaluable that we do right here in this Reading Room so very often.
I think the same can be said of the moral journey. That path by small steps has the most value when felt internally I think, and as you point out it requires all the info, all the steps. I know my own journey was not a single-read event. Read #1 was discovery, #2 pleasure in rediscovery and details and sometime later (read, I dunno, #20?) I noticed that quietly these ideas and values had quietly crept into my own soul, and stayed there ever since. Will it be so for everyone? I am sure not necessarily. But to many, I think the enjoyment has to go deeper than the mere story.
A bit OT, we all know I enjoy the films. But a big 'why' of that is the hope that it helps people to find their way to text.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 2:19am
Post #145 of 227
(4656 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I should never tell you to MYOB Rem!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Especially since I brought it up!
I'm just not a fan of the Lord Protector's changes to and track record in Ireland. I think it contributed to much strife and social and religious schisms with consequences reaching into our times.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 2:46am
Post #146 of 227
(4637 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Lack of easy solutions...(in relation to Boromir's One Note Solution)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Advantage of Being Dumb #3: You have a solution to every problem.
Ex: "If people are starving in Africa, they should move to France." (Scott Adams)
I see where you are going with this *I think*.
If I read you right, it relates a bit to what Rem and I were just discussing on the moral journey in LOTR which, though guided by the author here, must be an internal event (like what you finally got to in reading LOTR yourself). I think one can liken this to Boromir, the polarized poster child of the best yet the worst of men. He has a clarity of thought, but also blinders to the thoughts of others. He has imagination but one that is rather narrow and thus hijacked by the Ring. He is intensely loyal but this borders on the disastrous as he cannot waver even in the face of new information. Boromir, in his journey, only makes it to where we, the reader, has been probably since Gandalf explained the Ring to Frodo with just as much, if not more, information than we had. He has formulated The Solution, and no other one will do ... maybe in a sense that is his black-and-white thinking, and what prevents his own 'internal event' from happening? Assisted/sabotaged by the proximity of the Ring, who can smell a potential courier to Sauron a mile away (?)
(This post was edited by Brethil on Dec 19 2014, 2:54am)
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Dec 19 2014, 3:02am
Post #147 of 227
(4633 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Zero lefts means you're all right. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 19 2014, 3:10am
Post #148 of 227
(4627 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually did a school project oh.... 8 or so years ago on him. From my limited recollection, I got the impression that he was a step towards what England would eventually become--constitutional monarchy. He was not the end, but a stop on the path and improvement from the Royalist regime. I did not particularly like the confiscations in Ireland, but who's perfect. Like I said, I saw him as a stop on the path towards where England, and Ireland, are today, and those steps take us both up and down.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Dec 19 2014, 3:11am
Post #149 of 227
(4627 views)
Shortcut
|
Brethil linked to it, but it is called "I am no Hero". Are you using Threaded View? It helps me a whole lot!
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea
Dec 19 2014, 3:15am
Post #150 of 227
(4629 views)
Shortcut
|
I was mainly trying to point out the way Tolkien seemed to portray his fellow man. Elves were an ideal, Dwarves were unfinished, orcs twisted almost out of recognition but not quite and all were creations of his imagination. He could make them whatever he wanted them to be. But it was his fellow man that he had the most experience with and therefore the most ... err.. subtext. Hobbits were miniature versions of what could be the best of man (and the worst, see Lotho). They were smaller, weaker-looking man-like beings living the typical British life of the country, the closest to man of all the created beings, so a similar subtext crept in there too.
The line about the ring affecting the person wearing it according to his own powers is more important to the equation. So of course Elrond and Gandalf, even though they see grey would not accept the ring because they knew better. Aragorn also, with all his experiences knew not to take it. This other thought was merely a sidelight to highlight the difference between the two men and even the men and hobbits.
(Must remember this is the Reading Room and therefore requires a bit more thought and preparation before clicking "Post Reply".  )
Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, but....
[
