|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 29 2015, 6:36pm
Post #26 of 61
(2215 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe someone else could pull the quotes together. What would you say the effects of wearing the Ring are?
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 29 2015, 7:19pm
Post #27 of 61
(2206 views)
Shortcut
|
It's, to my knowledge, fairly clear that the Nazgúl are simply invisible, immortal, invulnerable kings with glowing eyes that wear crowns and dark cloaks.
When Frodo puts on the Ring he gains the ability to perceive them, due to their power being bound to the Ring.
None of your other questions are touched upon in the book and certainly couldn't be considered "inconsistent". Tolkien establishes the rules of the Ringwraiths shortly after he introduces them and these rules are not broken at any point as far as I remember.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 29 2015, 7:23pm)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 29 2015, 8:07pm
Post #28 of 61
(2198 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm totally game for this amazing challenge
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But you have to go first. A real toughie to start out: Who is a character in BOTH the LOTR trilogy and TH whose name rhymes with "solemn"?
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 29 2015, 9:09pm
Post #30 of 61
(2186 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 12:06am
Post #31 of 61
(2179 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are all specific examples.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You will find quotes for and against all of those specific examples.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 12:08am
Post #32 of 61
(2180 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Odd that you don't seem able to come up with anything.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Much flailing ensues.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 30 2015, 12:10am
Post #33 of 61
(2176 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Those aren't examples, they're questions...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In that case, Gandalf is inconsistent, because "can everyone see him or just the characters that interact with him?"
You've asked a lot of questions, but haven't given any examples of inconsistencies. Give me two quotes from the book, regarding the Nazgul's appearance, that contradict each other.
I don't believe there are any.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 12:29am
Post #34 of 61
(2175 views)
Shortcut
|
ROTK suggests visible glowing eyes, everywhere else suggests invisibility. There are the same differences for every example I mentioned.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 30 2015, 1:05am
Post #35 of 61
(2165 views)
Shortcut
|
Just answer my questions, unless you're too ignorant of the text.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 30 2015, 1:51am
Post #36 of 61
(2165 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What is the relevance of your question?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Ring turns the wearer invisible to physical beings and grants them the power to perceive and manipulate the bearers of the lesser rings. It also strengthens the wearer and prolongs their lifespan.
If you're suggesting these powers are inconsistent because we are not told about every single effect as soon as the Ring is introduced, surely that is part of holding the suspense and mystery of the object. If you say that the Ring turns people invisible the second Bilbo finds it then there will be no surprise when Bilbo puts it on. 
It would be inconsistent, however, if sometimes when Bilbo put it on he was invisible and sometimes he wasn't and no explanation was given as to when it does or doesn't work. - as it is, there is nothing in the book that contradicts the given powers.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 30 2015, 1:59am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 11:04am
Post #37 of 61
(2145 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know whether you doing want to say what you think the effects of Ring were or realise, on reflection, that it would would work against your initial point.
Either way, far from the Rong being a good example of magic operating to fixed rules, it is in fact an example of the reverse. It's effects are different for different wearers, in different circumstances and we only encounter these differences on an ad hoc basis (not as a pre-stated list).
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 11:26am
Post #38 of 61
(2140 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well that's a start and immediately we see the inconsistencies.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"The Ring turns the wearer invisible to physical beings" Did it make Sauron invisible? How about the bearer's clothes and objects they are holding? Is it in fact just physical beings and all physical beings? And what about the shadow?
"and grants them the power to perceive and manipulate the bearers of the lesser rings" Did it give this power to Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Sam?
"It also strengthens the wearer" In what way and which bearers are you thinking of?
"and prolongs their lifespan" Would you see consistency in the way this operates on Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo?
So all of these things are totally consistent, except for all the occasions when they aren't (and it also has a number of other effects, which are similar)
The point is,that magic, and the Ring as an example of this, is generally mysterious and Tolkien, deliberately I would argue, doesn't set up universal rules for it.
And to take your crazy example - sometimes the ring made Bilbo invisible and sometimes it made him invisible except for a shadow which people could see, and sometimes it made things he was holding invisible and sometimes it didn't.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 30 2015, 4:57pm
Post #39 of 61
(2117 views)
Shortcut
|
Can you name a character in both LOTR and TH that rhymes with "solemn". Your unwillingness to do so means that you have no knowledge of the text or the films, right? This is the sort of bombastic nature of your insistence that I don't know anything about the text.
More importantly, your claim that the ring is inconsistent is still wrong. Here is the distinction that you seem to be confused about: The ring having different effects on different people does not equate to "inconsistency". The ring having differing properties does not mean it is inconsistent. If Bilbo disappears when he wears it but Sauron does not this is not inconsistent; it is a property of the ring. An inconsistency would be if THE SAME CHARACTER was sometimes invisible and sometimes not, and no explanation was given.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 30 2015, 8:33pm
Post #40 of 61
(2111 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm afraid I can't think of any character
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That fits your bill. Certainly Gollum doesn't rhyme with solemn.
Well, that's too different types of inconsistency. So you are happy to say that the ring has completely different effects on different wearers (which goes far enough to suggest my point) but seek to say that it has consistent effects on the same wearer. Also not true. The same wearer experiences different effects based on circumstances.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 30 2015, 10:57pm
Post #41 of 61
(2112 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But none of these are inconsistent...?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Everything in the book that you claim is inconsistent is limited to a set of very specific rules that are fully explainable within the reality of the book. Unlike PJ's Nazgul issue, nothing in the book happens just because it looks cool or because it suits the situation at the time, everything has a logic behind it.
"Did it make Sauron invisible?"
No. It's only physical beings that become half-shifted into the wraith world when wearing the Ring. Sauron, being a powerful maiar spirit, already occupied both the physical and non physical worlds. His physical appearance was only a fabrication, and as such he had the ability to change forms. Because he already occupied the physical and non physical worlds, wearing the Ring had no effect on his appearance. Similarly Gandalf and Galadriel, who are also maiar spirits, would not have turned invisible and would instead have turned more powerful, but bent by the dark will of Sauron.
"...the power to perceive and manipulate the bearers of the lesser rings" Did it give this power to Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Sam?
It takes a powerful and knowledgeable being to fully utilize the Ring's power. But in theory, Frodo could have learned to manipulate the bearers and also had the ability to read their minds. But as Galadriel says, he simply never considered attempting to use that ability. Isildur is the only bearer that spent years studying and trying to understand how to fully use the Ring. But he was murdered before he was able to put it to use.
"It also strengthens the wearer"
There are many quotes that mention the enhancing abilities of the Ring, particularly on maiar and other powerful characters. It can be assumed from these quotes that the Ring enhances the characteristics of the wearer. A strong bearer becomes stronger, a brave one becomes braver and even beauty is apparently enhanced.
"and prolongs their lifespan" Would you see consistency in the way this operates on Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo?
Yes. Gollum lived to about 600 (such a long time that he had become deformed, from living in the dark so long and having a bad diet). Bilbo lived until at least 131 and Frodo would probably have also lived a long life had he kept the Ring.
None of that is inconsistent. There is a logic and an explanation to all of your questions and none of it contradicts previously stated rules. You can poke holes into tiny details all you want, but there are no huge contradictions to the same scale as those presented in the movie.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 30 2015, 11:09pm)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 30 2015, 11:13pm
Post #42 of 61
(2099 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gollum doesn't rhyme with solemn?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 31 2015, 3:36am
Post #43 of 61
(2084 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 31 2015, 9:12am
Post #44 of 61
(2073 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are answering a different question.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You posted what you said were a very simple and consistent set of effects of the ring, then I pointed out various occasions when your statements weren't true. Now you are, semingly in agreement that your original effects statement isn't, in fact, consistently the case, moving on to defend the point that these are inexplicable (which is not a suggestion that has been made).
You also seem to be of the view that mystery is bad in this respect. I don't think that at all, so for me the last sentences are all the wrong way round. I think retaining the mystery and opaque mechanics of magic is far, far better than the mechanistic "Harry Potter" alternative.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 31 2015, 9:17am
Post #45 of 61
(2073 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not unless you are pronouncing one in none standard English somehow.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Have a look at them in IPA if you aren't sure - the ending sounds are quite different.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 31 2015, 11:56am
Post #46 of 61
(2067 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps they don't in "standard spriggan"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd think that you're winding me up at this point, but you seem serious. I'm curious, could you spell the two out phonetically as they sound in your head (as opposed to reality) so I can see what you're talking about?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 31 2015, 5:18pm
Post #47 of 61
(2055 views)
Shortcut
|
You'll see my point at some point I'm sure.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 31 2015, 7:29pm
Post #49 of 61
(2039 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If it were me I'd go for phonetics...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 31 2015, 8:00pm
Post #50 of 61
(2035 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Or we could go with Sir Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
https://youtu.be/chRAtXl_5so?t=20
Sounds a lot like "Gaw-lum", or "Gol-um", but maybe it's pronounced "Ga-LOOOM", or "GOLA-Loomz" and all the actors in the film got it wrong. That's a definite possibility. According to Dictionary.com Solemn is pronounced "Sol-uh m". But I think they also got it wrong and the n is not supposed to be silent. So it's actually pronounced "Sol-um-NUH", which means you are absolutely correct.
|
|
|
|
|
