THE RING and corruption

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Forgive me if something similar has already been posted but....

Of late I have been getting the impression that folks
feel the ring can corrupt people without any direct contact with them.
This runs counter to what I had always believed, which is:

A) The ring acted on the one who possessed it. This can be illustrated by Sam's close proximity to the ring without effect until he actually wore it.

B) "The desire of the ring corrupts the heart." (from The Counsel of Elrond) as opposed to the ring itself doing the corrupting.

What are the views of the venerable Wrights? Am I mistaken?

[The Saucepan Man]

Good topic, Hilde.

I'm not a venerable BD'er, but thought I'd pitch in anyway.

Doesn't Elrond's quote at your B) provide the answer? Merely seeing the Ring and/or being aware of it can trigger a desire for it in those who are particularly vulnerable to its power. Hence Boromir and Gollum are "corrupted" by their mere desire for it.

I don't believe that Boromir ever actually touches the Ring in the book. (I don't think he handles it at the Council of Elrond, but I may be wrong - I haven't got the book to hand to check.)

As for Gollum, he is, in my opinion, persuaded to kill Deagol by his desire for the Ring, before he ever touches it. I don't believe that he would have murdered Deagol otherwise.

It is intersting to note that, while great play is made of Gandalf not touching the Ring in the FotR film, he does actually handle it in the book (in A Shadow of the Past). Although even he admits to being vulnerable to its power (when Frodo offers it to him), such passing contact appears to have little or no effect on him.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Naldoriathil]

I agree with Saucepan Man. The Ring can corrupt even if you don't have it. Just take Borimir in FOTR, he never had it, but because men is such a weak race compared to Elves and such.....he fell under the power of the ring. Anymore thoughts on this interesting subject?

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Here's what I said from this thread Gollum do you pity him or hate him? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001882)

The ring has powers; it has a lure, and it can be extremely strong at times. What about Boromir? He almost killed Frodo before he touched the ri- no, actually he never touched the ring. So you can't tell me that no one wants the ring until you touch it. It doesn't matter. Just to be around it, to see it, to even know about it, it's enough to make a person do anything to get it. Just look at Saruman. He never touched it, he only heard about it and he bread armies to search for it. He even tried to make one more powerful. And Bilbo and Frodo never had to do anything to get it. Bilbo came across it by accident or the ring chose him. He did not have to kill anybody for it or take or steal it. Frodo inherited it, he also did not have to do anything to get it. And he even had knowledge of the ring. And besides, Bilbo might have killed for the ring. What if Gollum had the nerve enough to go himself and see what Bilbo's got in his pocketses? Bilbo didn't even put it on yet he was extremely reluctant to even let Gollum know he had the ring.

And here's what I said in this thread Do you wish gollum had lived? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002515)

Gollum usually was just tricked by the ring. And the reason he killed to get the ring was because of the overwhelming desire to posess it. Gollum did not hate everything. Remeber, there was a part of gollum's mind that was still gollum (or I should say Smeagol) and I think that gollum did want to change, even though it would take long. When he didn't have the ring, there were parts of him that showed that hadn't in ages. Also, even though he was quite bitter, when he didn't have the ring anymore, I think that a very (ok, not very but extremely) slow rehabilitation process began in him. You say that he hated the ring. Yes he did. He loved it and yet he hated it. This is the one thing that tore him apart. He loved it like a drug- he was addicted. But he loathed it. He had an instinctive hatred for the ring, and I think that's why he became kinder at times after he lost the ring. He realized how much he hated it and wanted to let it go but it was so hard. It was like a drug to him and very hard to quit, but even though it may not look like it, I believe that he was trying to quit; to let the ring go.

and Gollum killed Deagol because of the overwhelming desire to posses the ring and partly because the ring clouded his judgement.

And here's what I said in this thread Gollum vs Other Hobbits (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002527)

I also have a theory that the ring was a separate character in lotr. I don't think that it was just an object or a tool. When I read lotr, I get the impression that the ring was a character. It couldn't physically interact in the environment like the other characters could. It couldn't walk or talk, but it could think. I think that it had a mind and its own personality. Maybe its personality wasn't really developed but I'd describe it in one word- evil. The ring could use its mind not to communicate but to trick and confuse and to even control ring bearers. It even used ring bearer's to get closer to sauron. It had the ability leech on to a ringbearer's mind, or it was like a virus that enters the body (in the ring's case, the mind) and take over. I think that it could predict how it would get to sauron. For example, the ring purposely slipped off of isildur's finger to avoid being brought to Gondor and then under counsel, where it would be decided that it must be destroyed. Or maybe it wanted revenge for sauron. Anyway's, the ring saw gollum as an opportunity to get closer to sauron.

So, I do agree with A), but also, the ring can corrupt people without any direct contact with them, as you said. As for B), I say that the ring does the corrupting, not the desire, however, I believe that the ring uses desire to corrupt.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

It's odd, but the way I see Boromir's situation, his heart was corrupted from the desire for the ring rather than the ring itself corrupting him. It was the result of his own internal pressures. The ring represented to him the chance to save his world, to please his father and gain glory in one action. Not trying to obtain it, meant to be let opportunity pass and perhaps let the enemy gain a most powerful advantage. As I mentioned in another thread, at that point it was obvious that Aragorn would not be going to Minas Tirith. Boromir would return empty handed after a long absence.

Gollum like-wise desired the ring and that lead to his corruption.

Also Saruman.

But Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, etc. did not desire it and Frodo & Sam were not tainted by it until after touching it.

I would think Gandalf would have recognized the ring sooner if he felt its power tugging and drawing people under its influence.

Perhaps it has more to do with the person's character.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Perhaps it has more to do with the person's character.

I believe it can, however, I believe it has more to do with knowledge. Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, etc.

All of those you mentioned had been informed about the ring and had knowledge that it was eveil and should not be touched or put on. With the hobbits, they were Frodo's friend, and I don't thnk that they would take it from him or kill him for it. Hobbits are a simple folk, and I think that has something to do with it. Aragorn was no ordinary man, he was a king and I'm sure he had some knowledge of the ring. Gandalf knew much about it and he was very wise and cautious. So I think that's why they did not touch it or desire it (who knows, maybe they did). But as for Smeagol, he had absolutely no knowledge of what the ring was. And Bilbo too, he just picked it up by chance (or maybe the ring had something to do with it, I often wonder). Boromir heard about the ring. When he did, I think he was first told of the great power it had, not he cautious info that Gandalf would have given. So, he already wanted it before he knew what the dangers of it were. And when he did, he refused to acknowledge them. He was overly concerned with defending Gondor, and so that helped with the ring growing on him. Saruman was concerned with the power. I think it was the same with Boromir, but I don't think that he would use it to defend anyone, and besides, he never really understood how dangerous it was. I think he and Boromir were too ignorant. And I think that the ring can also bring out and use other negative qualities to corrupt. Desire could be considered a negative quality, especially if you look at it as lust.

[Gorwingel]

Boromir didn't even handle the ring in the movie, so that basically means that he never handled it in the book.
I never thought of that, that the people who had prior knowledge of it almost never became very corrupted about it, it almost took them by surprise. Though Frodo eventually became corrupted with it, even though he knew about it being evil (Ooops, movie moment, realizes that he has the ring for a few years or so before Gandalf actually comes back and tells him all about the ring) but that is probably because he was going to Mordor

[The Saucepan Man]

Hilde, isn't it a bit artificial to make a distinction between the power of the Ring over one who bears it and the desire for the Ring on the part of one who sees or hears of it? Both stem from the power of the Ring and what it represents to the "corruptee". Boromir desired the Ring precisely because of its power, which he felt could be used to save his people and fight of Sauron, so it is the power of the Ring that corrupts him.

As for Gollum, surely he is directly influenced by the Ring without touching it. Had Deagol found just a nice but otherwise unremarkable ring, it's unlikely that Gollum would have been moved to murder him. There must have been something more than just a fancy for a pretty ring. However, he has no idea what the Ring is. So, it must be the power of the Ring itself, rather than any conception of what it represents, that provokes Gollum to kill his friend.

Boromir didn't even handle the ring in the movie

Doesn't Sean pick it up when Frodo falls over in the snow and rolls down the hill?

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Doesn't Sean pick it up when Frodo falls over in the snow and rolls down the hill?

No, he picks up the chain that the ring is on. But anyways, I don't think it really matters what they did in the movies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Ah, good point Willie. smilies/smile.gif

[burrahobbit]

Too much talking, too much movie. It goes like this:

Desire for the Ring corrupts the soul.
The Ring causes you to desire it.
Therefore, the Ring corrupts the soul.

Not to say that the Ring always causes a person to desire it, but it often does. Sam's mind would have been on Frodo too much for there to be any time to think about the Ring.

[Beren87]

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Beren87 ]

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Thanks for all the responses!

"isn't it a bit artificial to make a distinction between the power of
the Ring over one who bears it and the desire for the Ring on the part of one who sees or hears of it? Both stem from the power of the Ring and what it represents to the "corruptee""

I agree I'm probably splitting hairs, but I disagree that the desire
For the Ring stems from the power of the Ring. I can easily imagine substituting some other major heirloom or powerful weapon and having the same response from the characters who were drawn to the ring without having touched it.

Desire for the Ring corrupts the soul.
The Ring causes you to desire it.
Therefore, the Ring corrupts the soul.


I appreciate the syllogism Burrahobbit, but question the minor premise.
Are you saying the ring inspires desire or actively instigates it?

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to
Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.


This is an interesting thought to ponder. The ring did certainly
effect Sam as long as he wore it, but didn't appear to have had a lasting
influence.

I’ve been mulling over what has been said and want to pose an additional inquiry.

Which do you hold to be true:

The Ring is an in inanimate object and a powerful tool of Sauron.

The Ring is a powerful servant of Sauron.

The Ring is has an independent will.

Or is there another view I’ve missed.

As you can probably guess, I choose the first statement.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[Arvedui III]

I think ( and knowing me I'm probibly wrong, but) that the ring is a sort of physical manifastation of Sauron. I mean, Sauron put some of himself into the Ring when he forged it, right? So then the Ring is Sauron in a sense. Maybe I'm just ranting, but anyway it's something to think about.
"They are one. The Ring and the Dark Lord

[The Saucepan Man]

I disagree that the desire
For the Ring stems from the power of the Ring. I can easily imagine substituting some other major heirloom or powerful weapon and having the same response from the characters who were drawn to the ring without having touched it.

I'm not so sure that Boromir, or even Gollum, would have been provoked into acting the way that they did simply for a valuable heirloom or powerful weapon. To my mind, there is power in the Ring itself which reaches out to the vulnerable and causes them to desire it, or perhaps enhances an existing desire. In Boromir's case, for example, maybe he started out simply desiring it as a powerful artefact, but the Ring's influence worked on that to cause him to attack Frodo for it. Something he would never have done otherwise.

Which brings me on to your second question. As I understand it, Sauron put part of himself into it when it was forged, so that it magified his power when he was in possession of it, but lessened him without it. It does have a will, but it is not an independent will - it is a part of Sauron's will. I think that this is suggested by the way Gandalf refers to the Ring. He talks of it trying to find its way back to its Master. For example, he suggests that it was the Ring that decided to part with Gollum, hoping to be picked up by a Goblin or the like (and not an unassuming Hobbit lost in the dark).

So, in my opinion, the Ring does have a will, and is able wilfully to use the power that Sauron infused it with to influence the acts of those who are most vulnerable to that power. Possibly that is those with the weakest wills, and it is only able to influence the stronger willed characters, such as Frodo and Sam, while they are Ringbearers.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[burrahobbit]

Are you saying the ring inspires desire or actively instigates it?

A bit of both.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, yes, very good. I see your point. I took Gandalf's statements to mean that it will always gravitate back towards Sauron, not seek him out. Perhaps the power the Ring magnifies the darkness and despair of certain predisposed hearts, driving them to do what they would not.

Thanks again.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Ran across this last night while reading Unfinished Tales (Disaster of Gladden Fields) and think that it would be good to add it to this thread, before it ends up on page 150 of the Book section of the Forum! smilies/smile.gif

The Orcs of the mountains were stiffened and commanded by grim servants of Barad-dur, sent out long before to watch the passes, and though it was unknown to them the Ring, cut from his black hand two years before, was still laden with Sauron’s evil will and called to all his servants for their aid.

And later

So passed the first victim of the malice of the masterless Ring: Isildur, second king of all the Dunedain, lord of Arnor and Gondor, and in that age of the World the last.


Thanks again for all the posts.

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[obloquy]

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.

It didn't affect Sam because he was a Maia.

[greyhavener]

Gandalf's response when Frodo tried to give him the ring:
With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way to the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good...The wish to wield it would be to great for my strength.

It would seem that the ring entices each according to what is in the heart. For Gandalf, the desire to do good. For Isildur, the desire to rule. For Gollum, the desire to be special. For Saruman, the desire for power.

In Galadriel's temptation:
In place of the Dark Lord, you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night!...Stronger than the foundation of the earth. All shall love me and despair!

Perhaps it was in Galadriel's heart to be worshipped.

After she has already turned down the ring and "passed the test", Frodo says again:
I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights...You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.
Galadriel replies:
I would, That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas! We will not speak more of it.

The ring does seem to be another character. While Sauron is an overt destroyer, the ring is deciever and enticer as it covertly destroys. The ring's deception is different for each. While the ring is undoubtedly Sauron's, even those those know this enticed by gaining their heart's desire. They believe they deception that they are capable of wielding it against Sauron. It is not enough for the ring to use them to get back to Sauron, it entwines itself into their hearts. It becomes precious to them. When it has ensnared and corrupted them, as with Isuldur and Gollum, it then abandons them to return to Sauron.

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Lush]

It didn't affect Sam because he was a Maia.

Yes. Sam was a Maia. Tom was really the Witch King of Angmar. And Arwen was cheating on Aragorn with Glorfindel, who was really a bleach blond all along.

[Arvedui III]

I just noticed something. Sam had no real ambition.All the other people of were tempted by the Ring did. Maybe the Ring brings out natural ambition and expolts it.

[Lush]

Sam had no real ambition

What about Rosie, then? Sam certainly wanted her, whether he explicitly stated that or not.

I don't think that Sam's secret is lack of ambition, I think his secret is his ability to keep his priorities straight, never forget his principles, and remain humble throughout. And I don't think that humility equals lack of ambition. It equals lack of selfish ambition, that's for sure. There's a difference between the two.

But you are absolutely right in the sense that it seems as if the Ring zeroes in on the subject's inherent weakness (such as selfish ambition) and works to magnify it.

[Tar-Palantir]

Glorfindel, who was really a bleach blond all along.
smilies/mad.gif

Can you cite your source please? As stated in Book 2, Chapter 1:

Glorfindel was tall and straight; his hair was of shining gold,

So it could only be natural or a dye-job. Next time do your own homework. Sheesh...

[Lush]

Oh yeah?

smilies/mad.gif

It was a wig he borrowed from Galadriel. Sheesh.

[Tar-Palantir]

Oh. That makes sense. He must have worn it to sneak into Arwen's chamber without raising suspicion, which validates your last statement. Sorry I jumped the gun, I won't question your knowledge again... http://reefcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/sad2.gif


With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol. What is it that sets these two apart? Many people have desires of differing influence, and in addition have their individual low moments that might make them further susceptible to temptation. But yet only two strike out.

Obviously Smeagol had some problems to begin with, whether evil or not, he was greedy. But this time the greed caused him to kill, I think that was not commonplace previously. Boromir obviously had some issues going on as well, but what was the trigger?

Conversely, some of those tempted face to face with the Ring, even having it offered to them, were able to refuse it. This is a huge difference in behavior, not minor. Boromir using force vs. Galadriel feeling temptation towards a freely given gift. Not really a fair comparison.

Another category could be those who knew of it's existence, yet were not offered it nor did they use force to acquire it. The Hobbits, those of the Council at Rivendell, and those two noble men of Numenor, Aragorn and Faramir. Was it not said that there was a difference in Farimir's blood from that of his father and brother? He was more noble in many ways? I forget the passage, I'll look it up later. That only leaves Isildur. And he fits in this group because he came upon it. Neither was he offered it, nor was he violent (thieving) in it's taking. His crime was in not being as resistant to it's wiles as were Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Tom.


Perhaps I created more questions than answers, but these are some of the rudementary differences I see.

-If you are resistant to magic (Tom, Hobbits) you may get away with actually wearing/possessing the Ring.

-If you are of High birth and demeanor (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir) you are equipped to refuse a direct chance at possession. But actual possession would cause corruption just the same, just faster than those more 'magic proof' Isildur would fit into this category

-If you are a lower born, lower moral being you have no defense over the influence of the Ring. This would include both Boromir and Smeagol. Yes Boromir, even though he was of prominent position and character, he was not of the 'quality' that Faramir and Aragorn were. Had any other members of this category learned of the Ring, I would presume they would follow suit in behavior to Boromir and Smeagol, just in varying degrees, like some sort of continuum that solely reflects 'how long' corruption will take, not 'if' it will happen. An example would be Butterbur VS. Ferny - one would take longer, but both would be inevitable.

So what do you think, will this boat float?

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Fain Clawmirth]

The subject of this topic has been one of the eternal questions. May it be explored and debated until there is no need to consider evil anymore!

Please forgive the somewhat random organization of the following. I was taking notes from previous posts and am under a tight time restriction ...

The Ring embodies evil. Evil is a verb, more than a passive concept--it requires an object to exist, a host, in fact, since it must feed. And it feeds best on fear. However many ways our choices can be swayed away from God/Love is how it begins to work. Those who are corrupted and never answer the call to choose again are obsessed with the products of fear--defending, controlling, attacking, protecting--all centered upon the Ring.

Gollum first responded to the rich glint of gold. Gandalf and Galadriel understood they would be ensnared by intentions of good. Boromir = noble cause. Bilbo = something shiny, then the simple possession of something unique with the power of invisibility. Frodo = well, it was thrust on him and he was eventually ensnared by the evil embodied in the Ring, yet he was redeemed.

This brings up an essential point that I believe Tolkien was trying to make in addition to the importance of awareness of choices--alone, we cannot stand against evil. It is only when we are part of a fellowship that we have a chance. What the Ring awakens, or calls to, is the desire or belief that, given the right circumstances, we can be like God--create & control people, places, and things. Every character in LOTR and Silmarillion came to a sorry end because of the attempt to usurp God.

This brings up another vital aspect--that of nature. In my opinion, nature and its manifestation of creation and, well, natural laws, embodies God. Those who were closest to the harmonies of nature were least likely to be corrupted quickly, if at all. Tom Bombadil wasnature, if you will. To him, the Ring was hardly more than an amusing piece of jewelry. Gollum was an intellectual, if you will, in the Stoor clan--curious and pretty much a loner. (I know this seems like a stretch, but look up his origins and think about it.) Boromir was a rather solitary guy who was certainly up in his head a lot, excellent warrior skills notwithstanding.

I agree with the person who mentioned humility. Before someone mentions that Faramir was clearly on the intellectual side (and I think intellect is a fine thing, btw), I will hasten to add that he also portrayed a person of true humility. Boromir thought more of himself although he rationalized it by saying he wanted to save Gondor; Faramir thought of himself less and was willing to surrender Self to a greater cause.

We all have our own Ring, and a neverending series of choices to choose our own quest--for Mt. Doom, or Self. Fear, and its myriad manifestations, and the delusion of being able to be God, even if for a Very Good Cause, are how our Rings ensnare us. I believe this was Tolkien's purpose for the Ring in LOTR. And the Ring is just a junior player compared to how all this is illustrated in the Silmarillion.

Okay, that's it. If you stayed this long, thank you for listening!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sam had no real ambition.All the other people of were tempted by the Ring did. Maybe the Ring brings out natural ambition and expolts it.

What do you mean by natural ambition? Please explain because I don't think I understand what you mean. Sam did have Rosie as an ambition, as Lush pointed out. But, do you mean that Sam's desire to be great and powerful and famous was a natural desire? I think that's what you mean, but I'm not positive. I really don't see that as natural ambition because not everyone wants to be great, powerful, or famous. And it might be different with Sam since he is a Hobbit. I think that Sam might have wanted to be great and powerful and famous for a long time, but he just never showed it. The ring brought that desire out and amplified it. And if you think about it, it could relate back to the desire for Rosie. Often times, people think that they can get the lover of their dreams if they are any one of the three (powerful/great/famous). So maybe Sam wanted to use the ring to be noticed by Rosie. Sorry if I misunderstand you Arvedui III, please explain if I did.

With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.

Because they were the only ones who really wanted it and had to take it by force.

What is it that sets these two apart?

Well, they are different races. Boromir was a man, while Smeagol was supposedly a hobbit. Smeagol was uninformed of the ring and the risks and dangers of it. The ring took full advantage of him. And Boromir, he had pride. He wanted to defend his country. He might also be spoiled since he is royalty, sort of. So, he might think that whatever he doesn't get, he takes. But that one's really far-fetched as there really are no indications of it and Boromir without the influence of the ring is honest and truthful and noble. But I really think that it was because Boromir was ignorant. He refused to take others advice about the ring. You may speak of it as men being weak, I just say ignorant. The ring played on Boromir's ignorance and desire. And the ring took advantage of him that way.

The Ring embodies evil. Evil is a verb, more than a passive concept--it requires an object to exist, a host, in fact, since it must feed. And it feeds best on fear. However many ways our choices can be swayed away from God/Love is how it begins to work. Those who are corrupted and never answer the call to choose again are obsessed with the products of fear--defending, controlling, attacking, protecting--all centered upon the Ring.

Sorry, but evil is an adjetive, not a verb. I really don't think that the fear aspect of the ring makes sense. They are not afraid of the ring. I think it is more-so greed than fear. And all those products of fear are products of greed. Yes, it could be the fear of losing their 'precious', but that is really greed. Fear doesn't cause someone to desire the ring or make an attempt to take it. Greed does that. Greed keeps someone from giving it up. Fear is more of a feeling one gets from possessing the ring. Greed is the thing that keeps the person defending it, trying to control it (no one but Sauron can really control the ring), attacking other who pose a potential danger them losing the ring, and protecting it.

[Tar-Palantir]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they were the only ones who really wanted it and had to take it by force.



It was a setup question Willie, I was using it to demonstrate that they were a unique class of character. It is the 'class' I wanted to define - We already know Boromir and Smeagol wanted the Ring.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it that sets these two apart?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they are different races. Boromir was a man, while Smeagol was supposedly a hobbit. (etc...)


Willie, that phrase, in the context of my post, does not mean what you think it means. It does NOT mean: what are the differences between Smeagol and Boromir? I know one is a man and one is a hobbit for goodness sake. It DOES mean: what makes Smeagol and Boromir different from every other character in the book? There was a culmination there that I don't think you addressed.

And I did not "speak of men as being weak". Boromir being ignorant? I do not think you understand the word ignorant. Ignorant means you are unaware or do not have the knowledge of something. Boromir had more information and advice than anyone could ask for. He knew the dangers of the Ring as well as anybody, he heard the warnings at the Council of Elrond, he even agreed to help destroy it. No, he was not ingorant, rather, he was full knowing.

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sorry Tar-Palantir. It does NOT mean: what are the differences between Smeagol and Boromir?

I thought you were asking what set them apart from each other. It's not my fault seeing as you did not ask what set them apart from every other person. It's hard to tell in writing sometimes if questions are rhetorical or not, or if they are set up questions. So what if I answered your questions that you weren't looking for an answer for. And I did not "speak of men as being weak". Boromir being ignorant?

I never said that you said that. I do not think you understand the word ignorant.

I do. He did know of the dangers, but in a sense he was unaware because he refused to accept it. He kept pushing the issue of taking the ring to Gondor and using it to defend against the enemy. So, if he was aware, then why did he ignore the advice of the wise? Because he was not fully aware. It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?

[Dininziliel]

What is behind greed, if not fear? The fear of not having enough, of someone having what you want, of what will happen if you do not have it all? Greed is a product of fear because when it is taken to its conclusion, there is a "must have or else" obsessive quality to it. Greed is obsessive, and when one is obsessed one is fearful of what will happen to the object of obsession and/or self if that object is not obtained.
The Ring speaks to that within each of us that is closely connected to fear--we are not used to looking for the roots of our reactions & rationalizations.

Sorry, but evil is an adjetive, not a verb. I really don't think that the fear aspect of the ring makes sense. They are not afraid of the ring. I think it is more-so greed than fear. And all those products of fear are products of greed. Yes, it could be the fear of losing their 'precious', but that is really greed. Fear doesn't cause someone to desire the ring or make an attempt to take it. Greed does that. Greed keeps someone from giving it up. Fear is more of a feeling one gets from possessing the ring. Greed is the thing that keeps the person defending it, trying to control it (no one but Sauron can really control the ring), attacking other who pose a potential danger them losing the ring, and protecting it.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.

Interesting that these two were the only told “no” they could not have the ring.

Tonight I must reread the Gladden fields chapter again, because it certainaly seemed as though Isildur did intend to give up the ring (like Frodo) if he succeeded in escaping that dreadful evening. I’m not saying that he could have easily; just the intentions were there. The fact that he acknowledged he made the wrong choice makes me feel he was not so far gone.


This brings up an essential point that I believe Tolkien was trying to make in addition to the importance of awareness of choices--alone, we cannot stand against evil. It is only when we are part of a fellowship that we have a chance.

Thanks for the lovely pearl Fain!

[Purple Monkey]

Oh, how addictively confusing! Keep this thread going!

[Tar-Palantir]

It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?


Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. How about one of these instead:

Unwise
Stubborn
Short-sighted
Overbold
Misguided

I don't blame Boromir, as he was up against a mighty power, but he was not ignorant.

[Dininziliel]

It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. How about one of these instead:

Unwise
Stubborn
Short-sighted
Overbold
Misguided


Perhaps both of these perspectives could be talking about the type of ignorance that comes from denial--you know something somewhere in your head, but it doesn't apply to you because the idea of something happening or not happening is just too much to deal with. I guess it's the kind of denial that this famous phrase refers to: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

The Ring would use denial--the Ring uses anything and everything to keep us into our small "s" selves and to turn us from Love/God or the large "S" Selves which would be the one connected to Love/God through others.

I'm gonna have to find more concrete examples when I get home and have my books. I know this sounds rather waffly.

[Tar-Palantir]

Thanks dininziliel and Willie, for the feeback. But I think our posts are coming from different angles. We'll simply never know how the Ring works, try as we might. This is why I was taking another tack, trying just to figure out who specifically did something quantifiable, and how did that manifest and relate to others involved. Guessing at a charcters emotions and levels of denial and even specific desires is just that, guessing.

It's especially difficult when some people don't know what the word ignorant means. Which, by ironic definition, would make them ignorant. Unless, of course, they are suffering through a case of denial and as such refuse better counsel or to simply open a dictionary. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/tongue.gif

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Fain Clawmirth]

ooooohhh, I wish I knew how to wield the powers of this board--how someone can get quotes from more than one person inside their replies is beyond me at this point.

anyway ...

Thanks dininziliel and Willie, for the feeback. But I think our posts are coming from different angles. We'll simply never know how the Ring works, try as we might. This is why I was taking another tack, trying just to figure out who specifically did something quantifiable, and how did that manifest and relate to others involved. Guessing at a charcters emotions and levels of denial and even specific desires is just that, guessing.
It's especially difficult when some people don't know what the word ignorant means. Which, by ironic definition, would make them ignorant. Unless, of course, they are suffering through a case of denial and as such refuse better counsel or to simply open a dictionary.


How the Ring/evil works is an infinite question. Quantifying the actions of Gollum & Boromir in order to relate those actions to others is certainly a question requiring thoughtful analysis, but it's not quite as much fun nor are the results as useful to the mind, heart, and spirit as exploring the nature of evil as manifested in the Ring. The best questions are those with no final right/wrong answers. LOTR & Silmarillion are nothing if not explorations of the infinite (in whatever form you choose to categorize it).

No, we may never know the answers, but what we discover along the way and the connections we make with others on that path may be of more value than answers to quantifiable questions.

What was called "guessing" is "exploration" to me. And, yes, these terms are a bit juxatposed.

And, I think we know what "ignorant" means. It was defined a few posts back quite adequately. I think (but do not know) smilies/biggrin.gif that exploringthe role of ignorance in LOTR makes a terrific topic--especially when the context is that of evil as embodied by the Ring.

Bilbo and Gollum certainly did not know (were ignorant) that the Ring was evil/a creation of Sauron when they found/saw it. Nor did they seem aware of its evil as time passed. Only Bilbo awoke to that fact after the incident at Rivendell w/Frodo (book and movie). We must assume Gollum had passed that particular threshold of awareness long before Bilbo found (and took, albeit peacefully in contrast to Boromir's attempt) the Ring. However, in this context, the interesting thing is that Gollum had a window of opportunity to choose again when Frodo's pity and kindness entered Gollum's awareness. Gollum's ignorance of the experience of kindness caused him to deny that call to Love, and he chose to return to darkness.

And then there's Frodo, who started the Quest full of information about the Ring, but ignorant of the experience. I suggest that it was his experience that enabled him to have pity/empathy for Gollum which proved to be all that was necessary for Iluvatar's ultimate will to triumph. (Recall Iluvatar's statement to Morgoth in Silmarillion that nothing Morgoth could do or conceive of could ultimately thwart Iluvatar's design? Frodo's solo failure atop Mt. Doom and subsequent success via his connection to both Sam & Gollum are absolutely wonderful illustrations of how Love/God/Iluvatar work--those "mysterious wonders to perform." Okay, so that's another aspect of ignorance.

Bear with me, I know this is long and getting longer ...

Now, for your good, popular notion of old-fashioned ignorance, Boromir is your man. smilies/cool.gif He definitely obtained information about the Ring during the Council of Elrond from among the wisest sources around. Yet, despite this informational knowledge, he still attempted to take the Ring and was even moved to violence to get it.

What do Boromir and Gollum have in common and how do they compare/contrast from the rest of the characters?

Well, one can count and correlate acts of violence, the number of times someone uses a certain word or phrase, and other measurable variables in connection to the Ring, but I suspect one will come up with interesting statistics and averages but no real conclusions, only conjectures (aka "guesses"). Why? Because Tolkien did not write a traditional mystery story nor a gigantic archaeological account.

He may have begun creating a world to support his languages, but when he finished he had illustrated the greatest questions, issues, elements of human experience using a fairy story/myth.

Okay, I'm done with my own thoughts. Here are some brief excerpts using the index heading "effects of the Ring upon the bearer" from The Letters of JRR Tolkien, HarperCollins, publ. 1995: Letter 131, p. 154: ...so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will [even Sauron's] to injure it ... or neglect it. (And, please don't misinterpret "lust" in its popular, biblical sense--follow the advice of a previous member and go see Mr. Webster first.)

Letter #153, p. 191: Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo insight ... (I swear I had not read that before writing the body of this post above.)

Letter #131 again, p. 160: ...the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, (and so also inevitably by lies) ...

Peace to your hearts! smilies/smile.gif

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Fain Clawmirth ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Fain Clawmirth

Gollum's ignorance of the experience of kindness caused him to deny that call to Love, and he chose to return to darkness.

No, that is not necessarily the case. It was Gollum's addiction to the ring that was resisting the conversion of Gollum to 'the good side'. And although it resisted the change, I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam. I'm speaking mainly of the chapter The Stairs of Cirith Ungol. I think that was the turning point in the struggle with Gollum, and Sam tipped the balance for the dark Gollum; that was the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't his ignorance. And we can't really say he was ignorant either since we don't know if he was familiar with kindness before the ring.

Oh yeah, and welcome to the downs. smilies/smile.gif

dininziliel

What is behind greed, if not fear? The fear of not having enough, of someone having what you want, of what will happen if you do not have it all? Greed is a product of fear because when it is taken to its conclusion, there is a "must have or else" obsessive quality to it.

No, greed is not a product of fear. It's the other way around; fear is a product of greed. Greed comes first. You have to have the desire for something before you have the fera of losing it. Why? Because how can you fear losing something you don't even have. Once you have it, you have to selfishly and greedily want to keep the ring, before the fear of losing it ever happens. So once again I say that it is not fear, it is greed.

And welcome to the downs also. smilies/smile.gif

[Fain Clawmirth]

Grounds-Keeper-Willie wrote: It was Gollum's addiction to the ring that was resisting the conversion of Gollum to 'the good side'. And although it resisted the change, I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam. I'm speaking mainly of the chapter The Stairs of Cirith Ungol. I think that was the turning point in the struggle with Gollum, and Sam tipped the balance for the dark Gollum; that was the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't his ignorance.

You know, I came across this very point in one of Tolkien's letters after my last post. (So, of course, it's a very good one! smilies/biggrin.gif ) I do think if Sam had been kinder to Gollum, well, actually Smeagol, things might have been different. Or would they? heehee If addiction is the key, pivotal point, then, no. The influence of Frodo's kindness would have faded away, especially in such close proximity to the Ring, and even more especially when the Ring was SOOOOO close to its home power base.

Gollum was a classic Greek tragic figure--his actions doomed him from the start by setting off the natural consequences of trying to usurp God's/Iluvatar's place (the taking of Deagol's life). The addiction to the Ring just sealed the deal.

Regarding greed vs. fear (or the chicken and the egg question). This is another outstanding dialogue and I hope it continues awhile longer!

Greed is the reaction to a perceived lack. How could you want something if you already had it? And what is the source of this reaction to a perceived lack? Why not just say, "aw, well--I can do without that," or "It's not that important." Why not have the feeling of peaceful disinterest? Because one becomes fearful of what will happen if a desire is not fulfilled.

Fear is usually thought of as what happens when a bus or monster or terrorist is bearing down on you at 90 miles per hour. It is this and much, much more. It is a primitive, fundamental state of mind. It's what accounts for the physical reactions or sensations that accompany greed or any other product of fear--heart rate, hypersensitivity of the senses, etc. In other words, greed and the other deadly "sins" would not have their destructive power without their source--fear.

LOTR/Silmarillion are illustrations of our relationship to God/Iluvatar/Love. We are either moving toward it, are for it, and willing to surrender ourselves to it in trust that no matter what happens and no matter how hopeless, things will be all right (Frodo, Sam, the Fellowship). Or, we are moving away from it, are against it, and unwilling to surrender anything because we have no trust--we are afraid. We are afraid because we have chosen to separate (or believe separation is possible) from God.

I suppose in a sense the definition of greed might be stretched to include what created fear. Tolkien's letters and several quotes tell that one of the basic tenets in LOTR/Silmarillion is what happens when one chooses/desires to create like God. This desire to be God is similar in nature to greed. So, in that sense, your argument is correct. But I think it is more akin to pride. Jeepers, are we on the verge of another thread here? smilies/wink.gif Or ... maybe it is simply evil doing its job. smilies/evil.gif

Where is Udun (Hell) located? In Mordor, of course. What is Mordor but the epitome, the absolute monument to and center of fear?

And on that note, I send my brothers and sisters peace amid the insanity of the world.

[Tar-Palantir]

I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam.

Love that Smeagol, eh? He had plenty of opportunity to repent after he lost the Ring to Bilbo. And when it comes to showing mercy on him, the Elves of Mirkwood did just that; at least as much as Frodo gave him anyway. And the Ring wasn't even near to tempt him to poor behavior during those days.

Frodo had Gollum's drug, his mistress; that is the only reason he showed any respect or caring of Frodo. Otherwise Gollum would have been gone in a flash...

[Dininziliel]

This only shows how strong the power of Love can be ...

In Mirkwood, Gollum was powerfully jonesing for his drug and had no choice but to track down the Ring. When he found Frodo & Sam, yes--he only wanted the Ring and would have killed them both to get it. The main point here is that Gollum was still in the throes of addiction, and when that's the case, there is no choice in the matter.

However, Gollum did go through a crisis of choice when Frodo showed pity & mercy. Gollum was able to access caring, guilt, and hope. That he could experience these things while so close to the Ring's central source, is strong evidence that Love can affect evil.

Tolkien himself said on several occasions that choice, and the power of pity/mercy (Love) are core themes in LOTR, and that Gollum-Bilbo/Frodo are the central characters illustrating this. He actually mentions that Sam's treatment and attitude was a factor in Smeagol/Gollum's decision.
So, I don't see how one can argue with the author.

As pointed out, Smeagol chose Gollum--he set his course when he murdered Deagol. Even after this, there were still chances for redemption, but .. he chose the Ring. So, into the pit he has to go!

Love that Smeagol, eh? He had plenty of opportunity to repent after he lost the Ring to Bilbo. And when it comes to showing mercy on him, the Elves of Mirkwood did just that; at least as much as Frodo gave him anyway. And the Ring wasn't even near to tempt him to poor behavior during those days.

[Tar-Palantir]

He actually mentions that Sam's treatment and attitude was a factor in Smeagol/Gollum's decision.
So, I don't see how one can argue with the author.


Pardon my ignorance here, but you'll need to provide a source or reference for that. I've never read anything that has specifically said it is Sam's fault Gollum didn't repent. I find this a ludicrous notion.

The bigger picture of course is that Gollum's integral part in the destruction of the Ring WAS his repentance for deeds done. It was quite obviously an unwilling sacrifice. All of Sam's sacrifices were quite willing as we know. The difference was in Gollum's 'desire' for the Ring - which would never have left in my opinion. That is why Frodo was his 'master' - Gollum revered him in a twisted way.

Elrond:
The very desire of it corrupts the heart.
Corrupt: Evil, debased, depraved.

[Dininziliel]

I'm gonna be looking that up for you! I don't have my books with me at present, so I hope you will be patient.

Explanations re Gollum's & Sam's relationship can be found in The Letters of JRR Tolkien edited by Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien for those who want to pursue this independently and not wait. smilies/smile.gif

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Those are some good points Fain Clawmirth.

Tar-Palantir:

Love that Smeagol, eh?

Yep, of course!!! smilies/biggrin.gif

He had plenty of opportunity to repent after he lost the Ring to Bilbo. And when it comes to showing mercy on him, the Elves of Mirkwood did just that; at least as much as Frodo gave him anyway. And the Ring wasn't even near to tempt him to poor behavior during those days.

He really didn't have much opportunity for repent. Think about it. He had the ring for about 500 years, and then he loses it. Having an addiction to something for that long does not simply make the addiction go away. Besides, at first he must be extremely furious that he lost the ring. It's an initial reaction. So what does he do? He goes out searching for it. He finds his way to Mordor, only to be tortured by Sauron. That had to spark some anger and hatred. He was forced back to Mirkwood by Aragorn, against his will. And then he had to put up with a stern wizard who is not so kind when his main priority is to question and obtain information. Then he was held captive by the elves of Mirkwood. He was bent on finding the ring but was delayed by those elves. Yes, he recieved mercy, but that was not what he needed at all. Being delayed would only make him more furious. Compassion, acceptance, or love would have been much greater than mercy. And stubborn people do not at all like being held captive against their will, or forced to do anything else against their will either. So it seems that wherever he went after leaving the mountain, he was delayed and treated inproperly.

And it doesn't really matter if the ring is around or not. The addiction is still there. The desire is still there.

Oh yes, he came out. His longing for the Ring proved stronger than his fear of the Orcs, or even of the light. After a year or two he left the mountains. You see, though still bound by the desire of it...

-Ch. 2 The Shadow of the Past, FotR

He still longs for the ring. The part of his mind that the ring controlled when he had it still had control of it even when Gollum didn't have it. I think of it as a virus- it stays with you. It still corrupts his mind, even if it is not present. And if you say that the ring no longer controls that part of the mind, since Gollum no longer has it, then fine. If that's the case, then there's a void, and the only way that Gollum's mind knows how to fill it is by getting the ring back. So, the desire fills the void until the ring can. But the desire is not as strong as the ring itself was against the part of Gollum's mind that was still Smeagol's. So Smeagol's part starts to regain what originally belonged to him. So that's why he was riviving a little. Now I'm sort of trailing off...

Frodo had Gollum's drug, his mistress; that is the only reason he showed any respect or caring of Frodo. Otherwise Gollum would have been gone in a flash...

Well, that's how Gollum felt for Frodo at first, only because Frodo had the ring. But it changed. Frodo showed Gollum love, compassion, and acceptance, and all three of those (especially together) came as a shock to him. After this, Gollum began to respect Frodo as a person, not solely as the ringbearer or his master. Frodo knows what Gollum is going through, so he symathizes with him. Gollum deeply repects Frodo for this. It sort of starts to build a relationship between them. So, the ring is not the only reason Gollum respects Frodo.

And Gollum had his chances to take the ring but he refused to. He wasn't 'gone in a flash', as you put it. Instead he tried to take up Frodo's offering of acceptance. Then Sam wakes up, and well, you know what happens.

dininziliel:

I agree with some of what you said, however, there are some parts that I disagree with. You can probably see what I mean from what I said when referring to Tar-Palantir. I really agree with what you said here Love can affect evil

That is very true.

As pointed out, Smeagol chose Gollum--he set his course when he murdered Deagol. Even after this, there were still chances for redemption, but .. he chose the Ring. So, into the pit he has to go!

I don't think that Smeagol permenantly set his course, however, I belive that he got in a rut. He could get out of it, but sadly he never did. He sometimes did redeem himself in a way by choosing not to take the ring, however it wasn't enough and in the end he did choose the ring. However I don't think he deserved to die, but he did go into the pit anyways. smilies/frown.gif

And, one thing that I noticed with you is that you seem to like putting quotes at the end of your post. Keep doing it if you want but it is best to explain quotes if you put them in your writing, and if you do explain them, you should explain them after your quote. Just some advice if you want it. smilies/wink.gif

Tar-Palantir

Gollum's integral part in the destruction of the Ring WAS his repentance for deeds done.

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't really make sense.

Gollum's 'desire' for the Ring - which would never have left in my opinion. That is why Frodo was his 'master' - Gollum revered him in a twisted way.

I don't believe the desire would have left either, but it could have died down. And if the ring was destroyed and Gollum still alive, maybe the desire would leave with the ring. It's hard to say. But, again, I don't think that Frodo was his master only because of the ring or the desire of it.

[Tar-Palantir]

Gollum's integral part in the destruction of the Ring WAS his repentance for deeds done.

I just meant that it was his last good deed (whether it was selfish in nature or not), he saved Frodo's life and maybe all of ME. Akin to Boromir trying to save Merry and Pippin, at least the way I look at it.

To me the deal with Smeagol is that he simply would never be rid of the desire for the Ring. As quoted above from Erlond, that is all it takes, the desire of it, to corrupt the heart. At the moment before entering Shelob's lair, when he woke up Sam, Sam was not overly harsh to him, he even apologized, but it didn't help. Even if Sam hadn't called him an "old villian" and a "sneak" do you think he would have stopped his plan? "Oh, by the way Frodo, there is a huge black spider ahead, sorry I forgot to mention it." He might have felt more guilty about it, but that's probably all. Too bad we'll never know!

And you know that he would most likely have died anyway once the Ring was destroyed. Obviously we can't be certain, but if Bilbo had all his years come back in a flash, so would Smeagol. A pile of bones would be it, but maybe he would have felt some of his great burden lifted before he perished, that would have been a priceless gift.

Willie, can I call you Frodo? Because you keep defending that sneak? smilies/biggrin.gif I'll be Sam of course....

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I see what you mean now.

Even if Sam hadn't called him an "old villian" and a "sneak" do you think he would have stopped his plan?

I actually think that he would have. I think that he would have made some excuse like there were orcs guarding the way and they had to go another way. But like you said, we'll never know.

I don't why i even care if Golllum would change since he probably would die when the ring is destroyed. It would just make me happy knowing he did change. I don't know why and I can't begin to explain it either.

Willie, can I call you Frodo? Because you keep defending that sneak? I'll be Sam of course....

That's Mister Frodo to you Sam! smilies/tongue.gif

[Gilbo]

smilies/eek.gif
Willie, I have to agree with your sentiment. Since I first read the book, I've been rooting for Smeagol to win the argument. When I saw it in the movie, I was STILL pulling for him. Maybe, as a fellow sinner, I need his redemption to feel some assurance of my own.
First off, Sauron endowed the Ring with a portion of his power. He invested himself into the Ring.He was corrupted by envy and when he invested his power, he invested his weaknesses,i.e.envy and greed.
Envy of Deagol's new find made Smeagol kill his friend for the Ring.
The Ring awakens desire. (envy) the Hobbits were simple folk, with simple desires, peace, quiet, second breakfastes, orderliness and cleanliness, among others.Except for silver teaspoons, they didn't seem to be tempted by precious metals.I think that this is why the Ring is slow in changing them. It's hard to equate desire for a second piece of chocolate cake with world domination.(hold this thought)
Borormir desired power and glory. I believe that he felt envy for Denethor and Aragorn and it corrupted him. Although he wished to use the Ring to defeat Sauron, his ultimate goal was to bring glory to himself, as opposed to ridding the world of a great evil.His desire was greater, thus his corruption was quicker.
Second Track.
Smeagol went back to his home after "finding" the Ring from Deagol. How long did he spend there? I believe that Gandalf says Gollum's grandmother eventually turned him out because of a series of incidents and that he continued to wander until he went to the Misty Mountains.How long?
Although his initial misdeed was grevious, he became more Hobbitlike after, doing mischief in small ways. Again, the greatness of the desire portends the immediacy of the corruption.
Gandalf, Galadriel, and elrond, all ringbearers, would have taken the Ring and used it to defeat Sauron. Their desires would have been for great good and this would have slowed the corruption. However, they were all wise enough, and filled with enough lore of the Ring to accept the fact that corruption was inevitable. This knowledge allowed them to turn it down.
I'm sorry, I seem to be going on and on. Let me get to the point. The Ring is a corupting influence based on the power and desires of its maker. This influence is in direct proportion to the power and desires of its bearer.

[Dininziliel]

Tar-Palantir wrote: Pardon my ignorance here, but you'll need to provide a source or reference for that. I've never read anything that has specifically said it is Sam's fault Gollum didn't repent. I find this a ludicrous notion.

I appreciate your patience for my efforts to provide the sources/references. smilies/smile.gif Here they are ...

Tolkien writes to his son, Christopher, "For myself, I was prob. most moved by . . . the scene where Frodo goes to sleep on his [Sam's] breast, and the tragedy of Gollum who at that moment came within a hair of repentance--but for one rough word from Sam." (Letter #94)

Tolkien writes to Houghton-Mifflin, " most grieved by Gollum's failure (just) to repent when interrupted by Sam; this seems to me really like the [i]real world in which the instruments of just retribution are seldom themselves just or holy; and the good are often stumbling blocks ....." (Letter #165)

Tolkien writes to Michael Straights, "But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly* betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultiamte value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end -- but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden . . . Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. . . I am afraid . . . we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptations, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. The 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge. The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. Need it ever have crossed his path? Need anything dangerous ever cross any of our paths? A kind of answer cd. be found in trying to imagine Gollum overcoming temptation. The story would have been quite different! By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair. After that he was lost." (Letter #181)

Christopher(? JRR?) Tolkien added an asterisk to this letter saying, "Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent."

Whew!

The italics abbreviations are Tolkien's; the bracketed parts are mine as are most of the ellipses.

I think this supports and validates much of what Willie & I have posted thus far. smilies/smile.gif

#2 post coming up ...
smilies/smile.gif

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[Dininziliel]

Here's part 2 ...

Willie wrote: I don't think that Smeagol permenantly set his course, however, I belive that he got in a rut. He could get out of it, but sadly he never did. He sometimes did redeem himself in a way by choosing not to take the ring, however it wasn't enough and in the end he did choose the ring. However I don't think he deserved to die, but he did go into the pit anyways.


Some of the content in the excerpts from Tolkien's letters in my last post speak to this. I agree that choosing again (redemption) is always possible. When I said that Gollum had sealed his fate when he murdered Deagol, I was being, ahem, kinda cute smilies/rolleyes.gif by employing a literary allusion to Greek tragedy--how Gollum qualified for bona fide classic tragic status from start to finish. While this is still legit, it (and the "into the pit he must go") implied that I thought Gollum deserved to die. This is not the case. I defer to Gandalf's eloquence on that matter ("Some that die deserve life ... can you give it to them ..." speech).

In the excerpted letters, Tolkien mentions a most essential element in the Gollum-Frodo-Sam dynamics that I don't recall us having mentioned--forgiveness. Forgiveness being, operatively, the recognition that we are, indeed, all in the same boat, and a recognition that we are all "employed" by Iluvatar/God/Love. In other words, we are the same clay, and are fully capable of the same choices.

Willie also wrote: And, one thing that I noticed with you is that you seem to like putting quotes at the end of your post. Keep doing it if you want but it is best to explain quotes if you put them in your writing, and if you do explain them, you should explain them after your quote. Just some advice if you want it.

Well, I am still getting used to message boards--their similarities and differences. All the same, I thought I was explaining things and then offering the quote as a way of referencing my remarks. I think I have figured out this board a bit better and hope I have put the cart before the horse this time? smilies/biggrin.gif

By the way--I went to see The Pianist last night. If anyone wishes to see the power of forgiveness and faith (or hope), this is one of the most powerful illustrations I have ever seen. It is a true story and it is not for the faint of heart. It spurred a long and rich conversation with my friend about Tolkien and LotR/Silmarillion afterward.

Peace and Love (they're not just for hippies anymore!) smilies/wink.gif

[Tar-Palantir]

Thank you dinenziliel for posting that.

By temporizing, not fixing the still not wholly Smeagol-will towards good in the debate in the slag hole, he weakened himself for the final chance when dawning love of Frodo was too easily withered by the jealousy of Sam before Shelob's lair.
Precisely. Though Sam may have dealt a blow, it was not he who forced the weakness on Gollum. Furthermore, it was not intentional; had Sam known Gollum's repenting state of mind in that moment he certainly would have encouraged it. We as ordinary people never know when our actions might set someone over the brink, as it is a rare quality to be forgiving to all, even those you don't like. This quality solidifies Frodo's great stature and should not soil Sam's.

But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. (from letter #181)

Ta Da! The ball is in your court Mr. Frodo. smilies/smile.gif

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Gilbo, very interesting thoughts on the ring. It makes me think...

dininziliel, yep, that does validate a lot of what I was saying.

About 'forgiveness', that is strange how we have not yet discussed it. I'm not sure if it would have made much of a difference, if any at all. It's late, and I'm tired, so maybe I'll try discussing it tomorrow or something.

Here's another bit of advice. When posting anything, cut/copy/paste can be your best friends. smilies/wink.gif

Ta Da! The ball is in your court Mr. Frodo.

I guess it's time to play!

Though Sam may have dealt a blow, it was not he who forced the weakness on Gollum. Furthermore, it was not intentional

True, but it was just coincidence. Sam and Gollum are the type of people who just don't get along. For no apparant reason they just hate each other. Sam doesn't like Gollum, so he picks on him and calls him names and stuff. Gollum doesn't like being treated this way therefore he doesn't like Sam. Sam accuses Gollum of sneaking when Gollum is on the verge of repenting. Sam didn't do this to pprevent Gollum's repentence, it was unintentional. He was doing it because he didn't like Gollum and that was a way of insulting him. However, it was wrong for Sam to insult Gollum all the time, including that time. The main thing is, instead of a minor bad thing happening (Sam insulting Gollum), a major bad thing happens (Sam prevents Gollum's repentence). So Gollum would be a changed ring addict if Sam had been a good little hobbit. Well, that's a little crude, but you see what I mean, right?

I'm tired. If you want me to explain further, I will. Until then, good night. smilies/redface.gif

[The Saucepan Man]

With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol. What is it that sets these two apart?

Seems to me that this is an interesting point that hasn't yet been as fully explored as it might.

As far as Boromir is concerned, he believes that the Ring can be used to defend his people and defeat Sauron. He is expressly told that the Ring cannot be used in this way, but he is proud and arrogant enough to believe that he can overcome its power and use it for good. (In this sense, he is ignorant: he ignores what he is told concerning the Ring, preferring his own counsel.) Now, if these were the only factors at work, I do not believe that he would have attempted to seize the Ring off Frodo by force. It is the Ring, working on these innate weaknesses in his character, that makes him resort to this uncharacteristically ignoble act.

And quite rightly, a distinction is made between Boromir's ignorance of the futility of attempting to wield the Ring and the recognition of such futility by the likes of Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn and Faramir. As representatives of the Eldar, Maiar and Edain, they have sufficient wisdom to recognise and accept its dangers and are able to resist the temptation to take it when it is freely offered to them, or when it is theirs for the taking. Can we assume from this that they would never have been tempted to seize it by force, or would prolonged exposure to it perhaps have driven even them to make a grab for it? Certainly, from what Gandalf and Galadriel say, they recognise that they would not have been able long to resist its power had they accepted it when it was offered to them.

Few others come into close enough contact with the Ring to be tempted by it. But what of Legolas and Gimli? No doubt, they too would have succumbed to its powers as Ringbearers, but would they ever have been driven to seize it? Legolas is an Elf, but relatively young. Would he have been tempted by it given sufficient time and exposure? Did Dwarves have any particular resistance, or would Gimli have succumbed? Bilbo's Dwarvish companions exhibit no particular desire for it, but then it was not at the height of its powers at that time.

And finally, what of the Hobbits? My understanding is that Hobbits display an almost unique resistance to the kind of power with which the Ring is imbued. And so they make "ideal" Ringbearers. Of course, Bilbo is reluctant to give it up, although he is able to do so. And Frodo claims it as his own on the edge of Mount Doom, although only after having succeeded in his struggle with it long enough to get it there. But they were Ringbearers, and so were directly exposed to it (as was Sam during his brief tenure as a Ringbearer, and he is also able to resist it). I doubt that Sam, Merry or Pippin would ever have been driven to try and seize it.

Which brings me to my final question, and one which has puzzled me for some time. Smeagol was originally a Hobbit (sometimes he is described as having come from a Hobbit-like race, but what else could he have been?) So, if Hobbits are supposed to be peculiarly resistant to the Ring, why is Smeagol driven to murder his friend for it by the mere sight of it? This does seem to me to be at odds with the idea of Hobbits as being the race which is most resistant to the Ring.

[Arvedui III]

Smeagul is a stoor. A type of halfing, but not a hobbit. Dunno what the real difference is. I think it wasn't Smeagul's racial weaknesses, but his own personal faults that caused him to take the ring. Acording to Gandalf, given enough time everyone succombs to the ring, so it would be only a matter of time before Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippen, Sam, ect. fell.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

The Saucepan Man

Bilbo's Dwarvish companions exhibit no particular desire for it, but then it was not at the height of its powers at that time.

Well, Sauron was not at the height of his powers, but I don't think that the ring has different levels of power. I believe that it is always at the same level. I think it was just as dangerous as it ever was and just as desirable. So, I don't think it matters. But about the dwarves. The fact of the matter is that they didn't even know about the ring. So, we don't know if they would desire it or not had they know of it.

So, if Hobbits are supposed to be peculiarly resistant to the Ring, why is Smeagol driven to murder his friend for it by the mere sight of it?

Well, as Arvedui III said, his own personal faults that caused him to take the ring

I think that a big part of it was because of Smeagol himself. He was sort of the curious and greedy type. But I think an even bigger part of it was his knowledge of the ring. What did Smeagol know about the ring? Nothing. No one told him of the ring and its dangers or risks. It just happened to cross his path. So, the ring takes full advantage of his personal faults and his complete ignorance of the ring. And Smeagol has to kill someone in order to obtain the ring. The ring also happened to cross the path of Bilbo, who also was completeley ignorant to the ring. However, he did not have to kill anyone to obtain it, all he had to do was pick it up. So, we don't know whether he would have killed anyone to obtain it. And then with Frodo and Sam, they were both well informed of the ring and its dangers and risks so they had some more resilience to the ring. And Merry and Pippin also knew of this, so they did not attempt to take it. And the reason why Bilbo could give it up while Gollum could not was because Gollum had to kill someone for it, while Bilbo did not. So right away the ring was corrupting Gollum greatly. And secondly, Gollum had it, alone, just him and the ring, for about 500 years. And Bilbo had it for a lot less. Besides that, Bilbo was living a life, not one at the roots of a mountain all alone. He lived in full interaction with other people, so he was not alone. And he had much help from Gandalf in the fight for the ring while Gollum was all alone.

Arvedui III

A type of halfing, but not a hobbit.

You can't really say a Stoor isn't a hobbit. No one knows, except Tolkien, who happens to be dead. But it is suggested that Stoors are hobbits. They're just a little isolated and distant, but that doesn't make them any less of a hobbit. And Halfling is just another word for hobbit, it's just slang.

But welcome! smilies/wink.gif

[Dain]

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, but I wanted to address a few points...
True, but it was just coincidence. Sam and Gollum are the type of people who just don't get along. For no apparant reason they just hate each other.
I'm not sure "no apparent reason" is right. Gollum is a nasty, murderous, sneaking, corrupted being who wants to kill his master and take the ring and end their quest. Sam has never met such deplorable creatures, and is filled with disgust and dislike. He doesn't see what Frodo sees because he doesn't have the ringbearer's perspective or Frodo's wisdom. But really, Samis right to be suspicious, even though it is obvious that his insults have a negative effect on poor Smeagol, particularly in one instance of very bad timing that Smeagol doesn't forget. Shame...BUT:

The main thing is, instead of a minor bad thing happening (Sam insulting Gollum), a major bad thing happens (Sam prevents Gollum's repentence). So Gollum would be a changed ring addict if Sam had been a good little hobbit. Well, that's a little crude, but you see what I mean, right?
Ah, but in the end a major major good thing happens, the distruction of the ring. I don't think Gollum could ever completely be saved, though he may have regained some of his lost "humanity/hobbitity". The ring is just too evil: it IS evil (noun, not adjective). You just can't carry evil around in your pocketses for years and not become corrupt. His sins can be forgiven, if you want, but he can't be saved (no, I didn't mean that to be Christian, just the language works...always appropriating everything...).

As for the ring, I always saw it having somewhat of a will of it's own, probably because lots of Sauron is wrapped up in it, and so it can actively play tricks and lose itself or be found or call evil things to it, but it can't really make it's owner do anything specific, only corrupt him. As for it's effect on those who haven't touched it (which is where the thread started smilies/smile.gif ), I think even for those who don't know what it is, it radiates evil and provokes desire for it. Those who have vices or vulnerabilities are obviously easier to corrupt, as well as those of less will-power. The heros in the fellowship are all remarkably strong people, especially the Hobbits. Boromir is the one with the chink in the armor that is his love and pride and desire to save his country, and his dispair and lack of hope and fear--all negative emotions which the ring can easily work with.

Last thought: perhaps the ring did have a little effect on the party of dwarves? I mean, it seems to be the greed for gold that almost starts a battle between men, elves and dwarves, but who knows? But really, the ring wasn't fully developed in the Hobbit, so it shouldn't be looked for for too many examples, I think...

Sorry, lot to catch up on!
In your last post, MLD-G-K-W, I think that good points are made. Smeagol got the ring by murder, and Bilbo by chance--Gandalf makes this point, and it's a good'un. It's not clear why Smeagol would be so suddenly captured by the ring that he would immediately kill for it, though. If a Stoor is a proto-Hobbit, Smeagol must have been a pretty weak and flawed one--but it was all downhill afterwards because of the way it started.

[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Welcome Dain! smilies/smile.gif

I'm not sure "no apparent reason" is right. Gollum is a nasty, murderous, sneaking, corrupted being who wants to kill his master and take the ring and end their quest.

I don't think Gollum always wanted to kill Frodo. Maybe when he was tracking them he did want to so he could get the ring, but when Frodo showed him mercy, love, compassion, and acceptance, I think he changed his mind. He still wanted the ring of course, and that's why he led them to the Shelob. In the time the ring had been lost from his possesion and in the time Frodo gave him a chance, I think that part of his mind that was still Smeagol's was still reletively small, but I think it was growing. So, he wanted to do the right thing, but he also wanted the ring. I think that Frodo had become a friend to him (or at least he thought so). So what does he do? He brings them to Shelob because he does not want to kill Frodo but he desperately needs that ring. He has Shelob kill Frodo to get the ring. And he kills Sam to get revenge. And by having Shelob kill Frodo, it is not a repeat of Deagol, which I think greatly tormented him for years and years. Also, I think the ring used that to corrupt Smeagol and to keep Gollum under its control. And he even used that story of the birthday present so many times that he kind of began to believe it. So, you can see how he greatly desires the ring but does not want to kill his friend, Frodo, for it.

Usually if you are like Sam and you meet someone like Gollum, you usually don't like them at all. However, you really don't hate him. If you hate him, he has to have done something to you that sparks the hatred. Atleast that's what it is like for me.But, you do bring up some good points about that when you said Sam has never met such deplorable creatures, and is filled with disgust and dislike.

I'm sort of used to that thing, but obviously Sam isn't.

and

He doesn't see what Frodo sees because he doesn't have the ringbearer's perspective or Frodo's wisdom.

Although Sam does have the ring momentarily, he does not have it long enough to have the understanding that Frodo and Gollum have. Although he does have a glimpse, and that's why he does not kill Gollum on Mount Doom. So if Sam had that glimpse of bearing the ring while Gollum was still guiding them, do you think that Gollum's and Sam's relationship might have been different, if only slightly?

So, "no apparent reason" isn't the best way of putting it. And I have a bad hobbit (oops, I mean habit smilies/smile.gif ) for not putting things in their best way.

Ah, but in the end a major major good thing happens, the distruction of the ring. I don't think Gollum could ever completely be saved, though he may have regained some of his lost "humanity/hobbitity". The ring is just too evil

Yes, the ring was destroyed, but that was coincidence. If I were in Sam's shoes, I would have helped Gollum, even if the ring would not be destroyed because I wouldn't even know that would happen anyways. So yes, good came out of it, but it was unintentional. It's really confusing and hard to explain, but do you see what I mean?

And I still believe that Gollum could have been saved. I'll argue that to the death. smilies/wink.gif

As for the ring, I always saw it having somewhat of a will of it's own

Check out this thread Do you consider the ring a character in LotR? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002535). I think you'll enjoy it. smilies/smile.gif

[Dain]

I think I agree with you on most points. I was just illustrating Sam's point of view at the time when he made the most hurtful remarks (accusing Gollum of sneaking when he wasn't, which turns Gollum back to the bad path). He's just very protective of Frodo and can't see Gollum's better side (well, he sees slinker and stinker, but likes neither all that well). I think the revulsion that most people (elves, Faramir's men) feel at the sight of Gollum is an indication of how bad Gollum seems--not just ugly but evil. He's rather cute in some of his funny lines in the book and the film, but really he isn't a very nice peice of work, and that's why Sam (and most) are so repulsed by him. We pity him, and forgive his faults, but we shouldn't forget his bad side. I agree that Sam should have been more accepting, but Gollum had that nagging desire for the ring in the back of his mind, even when he was Smeagol serving "nice master", so his suspicion isn't completely unfounded. Of course, it isn't productive either, and that's the shame of it. Sorry I went all over this again, I think we basically agree on this.

I'm not so sure about Gollum being "saveable," though. I don't know why, but I think even though he might be brought back to 90% of Smeagol and remember how to be partly his old self again, the effects of the ring cannot be completely washed off him. That's not his fault, and I think that saves him in a way, but he can not be brought back, if you see what I mean. It's not very clear what I mean, is it... smilies/wink.gif

[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Grimbold]

You explained that just fine, Dain. As with Frodo, the Ring's corruption would never be worn off, especially since he lived for 500 years in the mountains with the Ring!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

the effects of the ring cannot be completely washed off him

Ok, now I see what you mean. Yes that's true, there are some permenant effects of bearing the ring, especially for 500 years. But what I meant by being saved was that he didn't have to be his old self again, but be enough of his old self to be able to give up the ring. It's really hard to explain. Maybe what I mean is that he has to recover past 50% so that he has the majority of himself. I'm really not sure what I mean myself, sorry.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, Sauron was not at the height of his powers, but I don't think that the ring has different levels of power. I believe that it is always at the same level. I think it was just as dangerous as it ever was and just as desirable.

Fair enough, Willie. I did not express it very well. But the Ring's power does vary, both in response to its Master's increasing power and in response to its proximity to Mordor. For example, it is Sauron's increasing power that causes it to abandon Gollum after some 500 years. As Gandalf says:

So now, when its master was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum.

I always imagine the Ring to be a much more dangerous object at the time of Frodo's tenure as Ringbearer than at the time Bilbo was in possession of it. Bilbo's use of the Ring in the Hobbit has markedly less effect on him than it does on Frodo, when he uses it. I know that the idea of the Ring was not really developed when the Hobbit was written, but the concept works nevertheless. The Ring's effects on its bearer become much more marked with Sauron's growing power, and also the nearer the Ring comes to its Master and the fires in which it was forged. Sam experiences this in the Tower of Cirith Ungol:

As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the depths of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable save by some mighty will.

Dain, you said:

As for the ring, I always saw it having somewhat of a will of it's own, probably because lots of Sauron is wrapped up in it, and so it can actively play tricks and lose itself or be found or call evil things to it, but it can't really make it's owner do anything specific, only corrupt him.

That, for me, is spot on. Gandalf makes the point that it is trying to get back to its Master, and this is why it slips its bearer at various points. And no, it can't directly force its bearer to do anything specific, but acts on its bearer's mind, trying to seize on perceived weaknesses, to make him act in a certain way. In particular, it seeks to make its bearer use it in such a way so as to make itself more apparent to its Master and his servants, for example by wearing it.

The analogy with a drug is a good one, since it can almost have a hallucinatory effect on its bearer's mind. We can see this most markedly when Sam wears the Ring:

The world changed, and a single moment of time was filled with an hour of thought. At once he was aware that hearing was sharpened while sight was dimmed ... All things about him were not dark but vague; while he himself was there in a grey hazy world, alone like a small black solid rock, and the Ring, weighing down his left hand was like an orb of hot gold.

Then, later, in the Tower of Cirith Ungol:

As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself ... Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-Dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it as his own, and all this could be.

Very trippy! These passages, I think, best reflect the effect of the Ring on the bearer at the time when it is at the height of its powers, in the sense that Sauron's might is at its greatest since the Last Alliance and the Ring is as close to him and to its place of birth as it has been since then. And Sam was not even wearing the Ring when it sought to tempt him to seize it as his own.

But, as Dain pointed out, this thread is really about the effect on the Ring on those who do not touch it. That Boromir was the first of the Fellowship to succumb is not surpring, and the reasons have been explained in a number of posts above. But I still think that it could have corrupted any of them given sufficient time, and particularly the nearer they came to Mordor. And I get the sense that the Hobbits would have been the last to succumb, given their particular resilience to it.

Which brings me back to Smeagol/Gollum again, and to the question of why he succumbed so quickly, which I don't think has been fully explained yet. Yes, Willie, I agree that Smeagol/Gollum is particularly corrupted by it as its bearer and less able to give it up than the likes of Bilbo, because he came by it by murder. But that does not explain why he committed the murder in the first place, having practically just set eyes upon it.

It is said that Smeagol was a Stoor. But Stoors were Hobbits. As the prologue to LotR explains:

Before crossing the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides.

In fact, Gandalf guesses that his people were "of the hobbit-kind: akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors". And I think that we can take Gandalf's guess as pretty accurate.

Willie, you said:

I think that a big part of it was because of Smeagol himself. He was sort of the curious and greedy type. But I think an even bigger part of it was his knowledge of the ring. What did Smeagol know about the ring? Nothing. No one told him of the ring and its dangers or risks. It just happened to cross his path. So, the ring takes full advantage of his personal faults and his complete ignorance of the ring.

Well, Gandalf describes Smeagol as the "most inquisitive and curious-minded" of his family (which was a family of high repute amongst his folk). And greed is suggested by the fact that he is said to have murdered Deagol for the Ring "because it looked so bright and beautiful". But nowhere is it suggested that he was particularly evil or malicious before taking possession of the Ring.

I am still puzzled as to how a being of the Hobbit-kind, even an inquisitive and (possibly) greedy one, can be moved to murder his friend almost the instant he sees the Ring, simply because it is "bright and beautiful". The only explanation that I can think of is that his kind were less resistant to the Ring than Hobbits later became. But that to me is not a wholly adequate explanation. Does anyone have any further thoughts?

[Tar-Palantir]

Does anyone have any further thoughts?


On that subject just two. One came from earlier in this thread, a quote from one of Tolkien's Letters:
The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would have never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path. (letter #181)
The second thing that sticks with me, although it is short I believe it fits well with the Semagol/Deagol incident. It is from Elrond speaking at the Council in Rivendell:
The very desire of it corrupts the heart.
The meaning of that sentence is quite clear. But what is not clear is whether or not that applies to one who does not know it is a Ring of Power, but rather thinks it's just a ring of beauty/value. I would guess it applies anyway because of the intelligence/power of the Ring, calling out to even the ignorant mind. It may have called to Smeagol, as if sensing his desires and his suitability for corruption. Perhaps being 'suitable for corruption' was not the case with Deagol and the Ring chose Smeagol, just a thought. Also, we have a plea in murder cases these days called crime of passion. His lapse may have been minute and due to overwhelming desire, but as to whether he regretted it, who knows, I don't think he did regret it. And if he didn't, then that throws out 'crime of passion' or 'momentary insanity' theories out. Because how could the Ring be 100% control in such a short (less than a day) period of time? It wasn't. So my conclusion is that Smeagol was a mean little sort who was not against murder for the right reason, the Ring pushed him just enough by amplifying his desires, the murder took place and Smeagol went about his business of being mean again. His tricks got worse and worse due to the Rings influence, his heart got twisted more and more, and eventually he was booted out by his Grandmother. Then eventually came isolation and unfathomable torture for the next 500 years at the whims of the Ring.

Kinda rambled on at the end there, but that's my take. smilies/smile.gif

[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the reference to the letter, Tar-Palantir. smilies/smile.gif It is the first solid evidence that I have seen that Smeagol was an unsavoury character before taking the Ring. And it certainly does help in explaining the almost instantaneous effect of the Ring on him, although it also upsets my image of pre-Ring Smeagol. smilies/frown.gif

Clearly, he becomes twisted (further) under the Ring's influence, although Gandalf does refer to the murder of Deagol haunting him(the reason for him creating the pretence of it the Ring being his birthday present), which suggests that he may have felt some remorse.

[Dain]

Willie, I think I understand what you mean about Smeagol being saved, and I agree. Not 100% recovery, but enough to realize, maybe, the evil that he has become and the desire to change and give up the precious (which we basically see in the two-faced debate in the film, but I can't remember that being as strong in the book).

Here's a thought on why the ring took Smeagol so quickly: it had been lying there so long (2400 years!), perhaps it was releasing all it's pent-up, evil, "come-and-get-me" power into the first promising thing to disturb it? I mean, I also thought that Smeagol was a bit bad before he got the ring, and that that helped. However, the ring was probably so desparate for attention at that point that it just warped the poor hobbit's mind so fast he didn't know what hit him. (Sorry the word choice is a bit vague and colloquial, but I think you get the gist of my idea). Do you think the ring preferred Smeagol to Deagol in any way? Maybe it sensed an easier target, or maybe it had no idea and didn't care. Interesting...

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Dain

it had been lying there so long (2400 years!), perhaps it was releasing all it's pent-up, evil, "come-and-get-me" power into the first promising thing to disturb it?

That's a very interesting thought. I think that might be the case, however we cannot be sure. And it brings me to another thought. Thinking of the ring as another character again, do you think it has sort of a stamina? If the ring had all that power building up, it could have been sort of training. It might have just been thinking of how it was going to get back to its master and preparing itself for the first chance that comes along. So it was ready for Deagol and Smeagol. But when Smeagol took it to the mountain, I think that the ring began to battle with Gollum's mind. It kept fighting to get out of the mountain I'm sure. And it probably did some serious damage by corrupting Gollum's mind, even though he put up a tough fight. So the ring slips off Gollum and is picked up by Bilbo. Now maybe the ring didn't really corrupt him because the ring was exhausted from the battle with Gollum. It's just a thought, but I find it rather interesting.

And Do you think the ring preferred Smeagol to Deagol in any way?

That is one thing I have always wondered myself. I wonder if the ring wanted Smeagol to take the ring, or if Smeagol all by himself did and the ring didn't expect that. Hmmm...

The Saucepan Man

But the Ring's power does vary

Yeah, you're right. But it wouldn't matter anyways since the dwarves didn't know about it.

I always imagine the Ring to be a much more dangerous object at the time of Frodo's tenure as Ringbearer than at the time Bilbo was in possession of it.

Do you think this has anything to do with the stamina idea? I think that that could be a factor, since teh ring had time to recover strength. But, also in The Hobbit, the focus of the story is no the treasure and Smaug, not the ring. But in LotR, the focus is on the ring, so it is more suspenseful there, whereas in the hobbit it wasn't. And besides that, the ring wasn't as developed in The Hobbit as you mentioned.

[Dain]

I'm not sure the ring has stamina, really. And I don't see it as being controlling in a way that it could have made Gollum leave the mountain, but it could get lost in the hopes of leaving the mountain itself, and draw Bilbo and his groping fingers right to itself. I think what I meant was sort of that it would have tried to glow really really brightly and beautifully and temptingly (figuratively) when the unfortunate pair found it because it wanted to be found and this was it's first and last chance for a while, besides the nassty fishes.

I think the strength of the ring depends mostly on whether Sauron is back and looking for it, eh? I mean, that's why it left Gollum, anyway. But then, Sauron was kicked out of Dol Goldur and the ring went back to low-power standby for a while, and was also luckily in the hands of some rather innocent, simple, unknowing and downright good folk, so it was thwarted for years. I forget what the real timings were like (film confusion, ack!), but if anybody had been using it when Sauron was really getting going in Mordor again, I bet it would have exerted a stronger corrupting influence and/or found someway to lose itself. I don't think it could have made Bilbo march to Mordor, but Bag End might have turned into a little Gollum-cave... smilies/wink.gif Does the timing work at all? When did Bilbo surrender the ring and how strong was Sauron then compared to the long years when he had it?

[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Dininziliel]

Regarding Gollum's capacity for redemption: Dain wrote:

Ah, but in the end a major major good thing happens, the distruction of the ring. I don't think Gollum could ever completely be saved, though he may have regained some of his lost "humanity/hobbitity".

In The Letters of JRR Tolkien Tolkien wrote that if Gollum had managed differently to get the Ring from Frodo that the focus would have shifted from Frodo to Gollum. Tolkien said that, logically, Gollum would have then been able to see the futility of the whole thing--he would never be able to withstand Sauron given his location. Add to this Gollum's fear and hatred of Sauron, his love for Frodo, thwarted as it may have been, and his desire to keep the Ring, the only thing to do would be to keep the Ring and jump into Doom. Tolkien suggests that all this may have actually occurred to Gollum as he began to fall.

There are several replies I want to make, so instead of one, long gargantuan post, I'm going to do 2-3 shorter ones.

On to #2.

[Dininziliel]

Regarding Sam's seeming extreme animosity toward Gollum, Grounds-Keeper Willie wrote:

Usually if you are like Sam and you meet someone like Gollum, you usually don't like them at all. However, you really don't hate him. If you hate him, he has to have done something to you that sparks the hatred.

This is another reference to Letters of JRR Tolkien again--Tolkien made a brief mention of Sam's being jealous of Gollum. I think that if I had slogged through muck & mire slogging and toiling away on his behalf and Frodo was getting a bit testy w/me, and then I see Frodo trusting and having all that pity and special consideration for Gollum, I might be a tad sharp-tongued myself.

And when I am tempted to be sharp with either pen or tongue in "real" life, it helps me to remember the effect of Sam's behavior toward Gollum.

[Dininziliel]

Here's #3 and the last one for now.

Re how/why certain characters responded differently to the Ring ...

This question assumes that the Ring, the embodiment of evil, has a linear, black and white cause-and-effect relationship to those around it/carrying it. It presumes that evil always looks/feels/is a certain identifiable way--that it has logic and reasoning.

Evil is insane, subtle, baffling, and yet strangely simple. If I understand Tolkien's & CS Lewis' approach towards evil, it is that it is more like a 2 year-old on a 2 week tweak-out. It has no sense or even reference point for right or wrong, good or bad--it only wants what it wants with an intense single-minded intent on having it. It works best in the dark alone with its object. And when it goes unchecked, it will eventually destroy its host. This leads back to the questions re Gollum & Boromir vs. Frodo & Bilbo and others in proximity to the Ring.

Both Gollum & Boromir were similar in that they were solitary types who kept their own counsel. They were also primarily concerned with self and what they wanted. Frodo & Bilbo were very connected to other people and to the earth as were all the others who resisted the Ring. Gollum and Boromir did not look much further past their own desires; the Frodo & Bilbo, et al, sought connection and harmony w/the earth. Saruman fits in with this tack as well--a loner, concerned with his own ambition/desire, he is corrupted by desire for the Ring under Sauron's influence.

Dain wrote: Here's a thought on why the ring took Smeagol so quickly: it had been lying there so long (2400 years!), perhaps it was releasing all it's pent-up, evil, "come-and-get-me" power into the first promising thing to disturb it?

This same idea occurred to me as I was reading through the latest posts on this thread (and I've read all of them). I think there's something to this.

In 2460 (Third Age), the Appendix to LotR says that "Sauron returns with increased strength to Dol Guldur." In 2463, Deagol "finds" the Ring. And, as was also mentioned earlier, the Ring left Gollum in the Misty Mountains at the same time Sauron emerged from Mirkwood. Clearly, the Ring makes a strong effort in response to Sauron's energy. It would make sense that after over 2,000 years at the bottom of a river the Ring would exert a considerable influence since Sauron had moved out in the open.

I guess my intention with all of this is to emphasize that the question of who/how responded in what way to the Ring is an interesting and worthy question, but it is when we examine our assumptions about evil and Love that it becomes a matter of profound importance.

Peace.

[Dininziliel]

Frodo & Bilbo, et al, sought connection and harmony w/the earth

Ahem ... this should have read, " ... sought connection with others with others and harmony w/the earth." smilies/biggrin.gif

[Dain]

Both Gollum & Boromir were similar in that they were solitary types who kept their own counsel. They were also primarily concerned with self and what they wanted. Frodo & Bilbo were very connected to other people and to the earth as were all the others who resisted the Ring. Gollum and Boromir did not look much further past their own desires
I think you are being a bit unfair to Boromir. He was a bit of a loner in the Fellowship because he was the only representative of his people and the rest were friends already (bar Gimli, but Legolas seemed to fit in). If we hear about his exploits in Gondor, he was not selfish, necessarily, but proud and headstrong, and a very valiant warrior and beloved captain. He was just overcome by fear and years of constant fighting with little or no hope, and then the thought of sending a Hobbit (something he'd never seen before, but looked like a child) into Mordor with it seemed like a terrible idea to him. He was looking for a way to save his people, and I think that's how the ring got to him, not because he thougth only of himself and not of others--on the contrary he was always thinking of Gondor. But, that's probably another thread.
It would make sense that after over 2,000 years at the bottom of a river the Ring would exert a considerable influence since Sauron had moved out in the open.
I agree. The fact that the ring is found three years after Sauron's return is a big clue to how it responds to his power, and backs up my earlier post, I think.

[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Gollum and Boromir did not look much further past their own desires

Whoa, I don't agree that Boromir didn't look past his own desires.

[Dondagnirion]

SaucepanMan:
Did Dwarves have any particular resistance, or would Gimli have succumbed? Bilbo's Dwarvish companions exhibit no particular desire for it, but then it was not at the height of its powers at that time.

The answer to that is quite simple. Gimli of course, could have succumbed. He would have succumbed because the ring does have somewhat of a degree of power over each and every race. You will remember the only thing in ME that it has absolutely no affect on is Tom Bombadil, and lets face it, NO ONE knows who or what he is at all. Gimli, however, would have without question been the last to succum to the rings power. My evidence to this effect is because each of the rings given to the dwarves were not specifically meant to govern their race but to give power to shape gold and craft jewelry, ETC. Since most of the power of the dwarven rings were devoted to the shaping of gold that was how the ring would have corrupted dwaves: through desire of gold. This would cause Gimli to have fallen last since it would have least effect on him. Some may argue the Legolas would have fallen last for somewhat the same reason (since the Elvish rings were moreso meant to heal hurts of the land than to govern elves and since Sauron never even directly touch the Elven rings and since he had no part in making them) this point is valid but is negated because when Sauron crafted the one ring he obviously had elves in mind knowing that they would be his biggest opponents in ME. This specific targeting of elves by the power of the ring is shown by the effect it had on Galadriel herself "I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this." Since she was the greatest of the Noldor, equalled in greatness only be Faenor himself and being wiser (Faenor only being considered her equal because of his skill with weapons and crafts) her barely passing the test shows that Legolas would not nearly have the stuff to pass it being not even of Noldorin origin. Well, there is my arguement, let the logic-holes be pointed out ASAP please *grin*.

Dondagnirion
"There is no spoon."

[Dininziliel]

Dain writes: I think you are being a bit unfair to Boromir. He was a bit of a loner in the Fellowship because he was the only representative of his people and the rest were friends already (bar Gimli, but Legolas seemed to fit in). [QUOTE]

What was Aragorn ... chopped liver? smilies/smile.gif

Dain continues: [QUOTE] If we hear about his exploits in Gondor, he was not selfish, necessarily, but proud and headstrong, and a very valiant warrior and beloved captain. He was just overcome by fear and years of constant fighting with little or no hope, and then the thought of sending a Hobbit (something he'd never seen before, but looked like a child) into Mordor with it seemed like a terrible idea to him. He was looking for a way to save his people, and I think that's how the ring got to him, not because he thougth only of himself and not of others--on the contrary he was always thinking of Gondor.


and Hilde writes: Whoa, I don't agree that Boromir didn't look past his own desires.

Yes, Boromir is concerned about Gondor, but not quite to the altruistic extent portrayed in the movie.

Let me amend my previous post's statement slightly ...
The glory of Gondor was Boromir's [I]personal agenda[I]. He was undeniably brave and valiant, but he was undeniably afflicted by envy, pride, and vanity. Refer to "The Council of Elrond" ...

...a hundred and ten days I have journeyed all alone so he has been in isolation for a fair amount of time. (This addresses the solitary aspect in common w/Gollum mentioned earlier.)

Then there is his recitation of Faramir's recurrent dream, which Boromir had only once, and although both the dream and their father supported Faramir to go to Rivendell, Boromir usurped Faramir's appointed task. Listen to his choice of words and what they imply about his personality:

Therefore my brother, seeing how desperate was our need, was eager to heed the dream and seek for Imladris; but since the way was full of doubt and danger, I took the journey upon myself. Loth was my father to give me leave, and long have I wandered by roads forgotten, seeking the house of Elrond, of which many had heard, but few knew where it lay. [QUOTE] There's a note of overweening pride and a bit of an inferiority complex. He seems almost obsessed with proving himself. He's also whining a bit. If anyone has a right to sing the blues, it's Aragorn, who does relate his case. But the tone is markedly different--no whining or pride.

Then we see his doubt and suspicion of Aragorn's claim--which, unlike his skepticism about the hobbits, is unjustified.

[QUOTE] I was not sent to beg any boon, but to seek only the meaning of a riddle,' answered Boromir proudly. 'Yet we are hard preseed, and the Sword of Elendil would be a help beyond our hope--if such a thing could indeed return out of the shadows of the apst.' He looked again at Aragorn, and doubt was in his eyes.

This does not seem all that important until you read the appendix. Here we learn the background behind why Boromir looked at Aragorn with suspicion at Rivendell. In fact, to Boromir, Aragorn is an actual threat. Check out the section in Appendix A toward the end of "The Stewards" that begins with "Ecthelion II, son of Turgon ..." When you figure out who Thorongil was, and considering how Boromir felt about his father you begin to get a different picture of Boromir. In the book, he is not quite the lovable guy Sean Bean played so very well (best death scene of all time, IMO).

The last part of this section of Appendix A says:

...Boromir, five years the elder, beloved by his father, was like him in face and pride, but in little else. Rather he was a man after the sort of King Earnur of old [who went off to battle Sauron mano a mano and was never heard of again, leaving Gondor without a king], taking no wife and delighting chiefly in arms; fearless and strong, but caring little for lore, save the tales of old battles.

Again, note the implication of being a loner--no wife.

It then talks about Faramir saying a little further on:

[QUOTE] ... by many in those days his courage was judged less than his brother's. But it was not so, except that he did not seek glory in danger without a purpose.[QUOTE]

At one point, Boromir urges his father to renounce stewardship and claim kingship of Gondor. Even Denethor sees the hubris in this and chides Boromir by saying that "10,000 years is not enough time" to weaken the oath of Stewards of Gondor; other, lesser houses may do such things, but not those whose heritage is Numenor. (Maybe someone knows where this is? I just saw the whole quote last night, but for the life of me, I cannot find it now!)

There is also mention in one of the reference books to LotR of Denethor and the preceding stewards scorning the possibility of Isildur's heir (whomever he might down through the generations) resuming kingship. Probably because they felt they had stayed faithful to Gondor while its kings abandoned Gondor either for vainglorious reasons like Earnur or the heirs of Isildur hid out with the elves and then left to run off with the Dunedain up north.

At any rate, no ... Boromir was not an evil man, but, yes ... he had a weakness and it was pride and desire for glory through power (kingship, being the "bossy brother" cited in Appendix A, etc.). This was how he did not see past his own desires and this is what he had in common with Gollum.

I know it seems mean to liken Boromir to Gollum, but evil is an equal opportunity slavemaster. And, again, we're talking about the book Boromir.

I tried to clean up the messy quote separations. I've got the hang of cut/paste/copy etc., but dial-up is heck! I apologize for the crazy quiltedness.

Peace.

[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[Dain]

I admit, it's a little while since I read FotR, so I may have been overly influenced by wonderul Sean Bean. When I said Boromir was the only representative of his people, I meant Gondor, and possibly his point of view on it. I mean, Aragorn is, as you noted, a sort of threat to him--but the film portrayal also brought out the fact that Boromir didn't think much of Aragorn for staying away. So, the only two men in the party don't have much chance of getting along, which further isolates Boromir. He, who used to command, now has to follow Gandalf and then Aragorn and listen to the council of Elrond, all of whom he respects, of course, but he's so obsessed with Gondor and it's struggle that he has problems with anyone he sees as not actively helping. Basically, Boromir is a much more "ordinary" man than Aragorn or Denethor or Faramir, who are all embued with the last sparks of the greatness of Numenor.

About Dwarves, I don't think Gimli would have had any better chance at resisting. The Dwarf rings were tainted and made Thrain and Thror eventually go mad, and I don't know what the one would have offered a Dwarf, either. See my earlier posts about Dwarves and the ring in the Hobbit. Anyway, it just wasn't his (or Legolas) burden to take up, so I think that's the main reason they didn't pick it up. Plot-wise it would have been very silly; the hobbits were meant to do it.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Dininziliel, I still do not agree with your assessment of Boromir. Yes, yes, I remember those passages, but feel your interpretation of them is tainted by preconceptions. Perhaps my own is as well.

There is a big difference between a proud man who is obsessed with what he feels his duty is, and a bossy and self-serving one. Most people, even heroes are flawed.

I do feel that Boromir was in a bad place at a bad time, yet he was the next in line to the steward’s role. He hadn’t the subtlety or temperament to handle it, but he tried to do what he thought was right with great vigor. Possibly modeling himself on those he could identify with or admire. And he had been trained to be self reliant.

As far as Thorongil was concerned, he was under cover and left Gondor long before Boromir was around. I don’t see anyway that he could have made the connection to Aragorn or possibly have known how well traveled and experienced he was. (I do think Aragorn was concerned that Denethor might recognize him and this was one of the reasons he tried to avoid entering Minas Tirith prematurely.)

Boromir was like his father in pride. I think that his behavoir in Rivendell echoed this.

Sorry this is so rushed but I wanted to respond.

[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[The Saucepan Man]

SaucepanMan: Did Dwarves have any particular resistance, or would Gimli have succumbed? ...

The answer to that is quite simple. Gimli of course, could have succumbed. He would have succumbed because the ring does have somewhat of a degree of power over each and every race.


About Dwarves, I don't think Gimli would have had any better chance at resisting.

I thoroughly agree. As I said earlier:

But I still think that it could have corrupted any of [the Fellowship] given sufficient time, and particularly the nearer they came to Mordor. And I get the sense that the Hobbits would have been the last to succumb, given their particular resilience to it.

[Tar-Palantir]

I like Faramir's summation of Boromir's traits the best:
If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle, I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it.
Parentheses are from the text, not my commentary. Add to this the insidiously alluring nature of the Ring and you have an explosive mixture.

[Dininziliel]

What he (Tar-Palantir) said ... smilies/biggrin.gif

Also, Boromir (Denethor, too) should have been welcoming Aragorn with open arms (no pun intended) and all due propers despite their historically-based attitude. But they were unwilling to do that because they had already been corrupted by pride & fear. Well, actually, pride is a product of fear, but we've already been there and done that re greed & fear.

I was most interested in the movie portrayal of Boromir. It was very important that he be written for the screen as in the book. He was the character easiest for us Fourth Agers to relate to. In fact, now that I think of it, he may be the only character in all of LotR, Hobbit, Silmarillion who is so accessible to us.

I have a special fondness for Boromir, though it may not have seemed like it. It is because I can see how I would have done what he did (well, maybe not the fighting 'cause I'm just a goil smilies/redface.gif ). And because his final redemption and the part he played in Frodo's doing what Frodo had to do just about broke my heart--book and movie.

Peace to every person everywhere from this one in U.S.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Also, Boromir (Denethor, too) should have been welcoming Aragorn with open arms (no pun intended) and all due propers despite their historically-based attitude. But they were unwilling to do that because they had already been corrupted by pride & fear. Well, actually, pride is a product of fear, but we've already been there and done that re greed & fear.

I was turning this over in my mind and wondered how I would feel if it suddenly made sense for the US to be ruled by the UK again. (I know it's vastly different) But British rule was just yesterday compared to the stretch of time from Elendil to Denethor! I don't know...it's just another point to ponder. Both may have had common language etc. but the culture and politics are different. Don't you suppose Boromir and Denethor might have seen a king of the Arnor line as an outsider?

On the death of Ondoher and his sons, Arvedui of the North Kingdom claimed the crown of Gondor, as the direct descendant of Isildur, and as the husband of Firiel, only surviving child of Ondoher. The claim was rejected. In this Pelender, the Steward of Ondoher, played the chief part.

The Council of Gondor answered: "The crown and royalty of Gondor belongs solely to the heirs of Meneldil, son of Anarion, to whom Isildur relinquished this realm. In Gondor this heritage is reckoned through the sons only; and we have not heard that the law is otherwise in Arnor."

Appendix A of LoTR

[Dain]

Don't you suppose Boromir and Denethor might have seen a king of the Arnor line as an outsider?


I agree, it's hard to expect them to be happy about the man who's going to come and take back the thing they've dedicated their lives to protecting, and relagate them back to vassaldom. Yes, theoretically they should welcome Aragorn with open arms, but you can't fault them for being a little resentful--especially of some dirty ranger out of the north. I must say again that I loved the way Sean Bean played it in the films--sometimes resentful and jealous, sometimes excited about the return of his king. I can't remember how exactly it came off in the book. Anyway, it's all a bit OT, this Boromir discussion (not saying I mind, but...). Does that mean we're all satisfied with the ring discussion? I know I've enjoyed it. Cheers!

[Dininziliel]

I wish I could find the passage where Denethor chides Boromir for wanting his father to renounce stewardship and claim kingship. Denethor tells him that not even 10,000 years would be enough to weaken the integrity of the stewards' oath to maintain Gondor for the return of the king. It's very stern and full of special pride in honoring a Gondoran oath.

That being said, yes--there was considerable resentment over the very idea that a king would return. Denethor's thinking was that the stewards had been more steadfast to Gondor than the kings had. Boromir did not question his father. To their way of thinking, stewards "trumped" kings.

This is all very condensed and without references, but I'm tired.

As for closing this thread--well, sure, but it's hard to see how the very heart of the book has been exhausted. Perhaps it is too philosophical (license for opinion and conjecture) and not ideally suited for message boards?

It has been a lot of fun. I feel privileged to be allowed among people who have such command of the subject and are so articulate!

Peace to every person everywhere from this one in the U.S.

[Tar-Palantir]

I wish I could find the passage where Denethor chides Boromir for wanting his father to renounce stewardship and claim kingship. Denethor tells him that not even 10,000 years would be enough to weaken the integrity of the stewards' oath to maintain Gondor for the return of the king. It's very stern and full of special pride in honoring a Gondoran oath


If I recall - this is actually a tale related by Faramir to Frodo near there first meeting in Ithilien (before Henneth Annun). I think. smilies/smile.gif

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

'And this I remember of Boromir as a boy, when we together learned the tale of our sires and the history of our city, that always it displeased him that his father was not king. "How many hundreds of years needs it to make a steward a king, if the king returns not?" he asked. "Few years, maybe, in other places of less royalty," my father answered. "In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice." Alas! Poor Boromir. Does that not tell you something of him?'

TTT book 4 The Window on the West


I agree this is rather off track. But interesting. smilies/wink.gif

[ March 08, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[Bill Ferny]

In most threads about the one ring, the discussion often hinges on the observation that the ring’s influence is like drugs and addiction:

The analogy with a drug is a good one, since it can almost have a hallucinatory effect on its bearer's mind.

Drug abuse is a form of escapism. Most drugs either lessen consciousness (thus delineating inhibition and self knowledge) or heighten pleasure. Addiction occurs either when the person requires the narcotic for basic physiological functions, or when the person mentally can no longer deal with life with out the affects of the narcotic. Granting that the ring, if like a drug, affects others in the same way that drugs mentally lead to addiction (rather than physiological addiction), then we can draw some conclusions about how the ring “corrupts the soul.”

If Gollum, for example, is mentally addicted to the ring, how does the ring function for Gollum? If it is like a drug it either lessens consciousness or heightens pleasure. From the narrative it is clear that the ring heightens pleasure, by presenting to the individual an “hallucinatory effect” of self-aggrandizement and power.

I’m often struck by the temptation of Galadriel in relation to this question. Is the vision that she receives of herself as a great and terrible queen an hallucination? If the ring is simply likened to a drug that heightens pleasure, then we would have to concede that the vision is simply an hallucination, or deception.

But I’m not convinced that her vision is a total deception. There is no doubt in my mind that if Galadriel did seize the ring she would indeed become a very power person, great, terrible and no doubt evil, and eventually through her power she would become another, albeit rather grand, servant of the ring’s true master, Sauron. In short, there has to be more to this than the drug/addiction model. The ring is not a passive tool, but contains a will and power, granted dependant upon Sauron, but a will and power that is far more active than a mere narcotic that heightens pleasure.

Gollum is twisted and corrupted by the ring, but the ring does heighten certain sense and physical attributes. Gollum’s body in many ways is an improvement on the original, especially if we consider the fact that his physical attributes were especially helpful for a life at the roots of the mountains surrounded by orcs (who would naturally be drawn to the call of the ring in the same way that orcs were naturally called to the ring at Gladden Fields). If I was to live the life of a murderer, sneak and thief, I would cherish many of Gollum’s physical abilities. 500 years with no generation makes natural adaptation an impossible theory to explain Gollum’s physical transformation, so it had to be the ring. An undeniable fact from the narrative is that the ring unnaturally prolongs the bearer’s life. Drugs have a tendency to do the exact opposite.

Despite the ring’s obvious ability to deceive, the ring can not be limited to the drug/addiction model only. The ring has active operation; it can change the physical and mental attributes of the bearer. The changes are all at root evil, but they are real, and they correspond to the desires and natural inclinations of the bearers. Thus, Gollum’s doom is not a matter of being able to overcome addiction (though this might be a relatively small part of it), but a struggle to overcome the councils of a real being that has both physically transformed Gollum into a rather sleek machine of mischief and provided him a long life with plenty of delicious raw fish and goblin meat.

I do think that Hilde’s original distinction between the power of the ring, and the temptation or desire to possess the ring is a valid one. The ring has the power to transform the bearer. It also has the power to allure others… but only according to its active desire to return to its master. We should not confuse one operation with the other.

[Tar-Palantir]

Thank you Bill Ferny for this post, you never cease to provide thougthful analysis. I would like to touch on one more factor that you alluded to but discarded, that of denial. Denial is an intrinsic part of the addictive personality, and a primary symptom of the disease of addiction.
Despite the ring’s obvious ability to deceive, the ring can not be limited to the drug/addiction model only. The ring has active operation; it can change the physical and mental attributes of the bearer. The changes are all at root evil, but they are real, and they correspond to the desires and natural inclinations of the bearers. Thus, Gollum’s doom is not a matter of being able to overcome addiction (though this might be a relatively small part of it), but a struggle to overcome the councils of a real being...
It is this nature of what I will call individualized deception, the 'intelligent' quality of the Ring which you touched on, that most mimics the lure or attractiveness of a drug - whether or not the drug has been taken; whether or not the drug has been been discarded. This drug need not be of the narcotic variety, but may just as easily be the lure of power, money, lust, freedom from insecurity, adrenaline, etc.

In the cases of Boromir and Galadriel it is the denial of the true nature of the Ring that makes the acquisition of it plausible ("well, why shouldn't I take it?" type of thinking rather than "I absolutely have to have it, that's what I came here for." type thinking). The momentary and fleeting nature of their 'tests' is not a saving grace, especially in the case of Boromir. Quite clearly, a single moment of weakness can be all that is necessary to fall from a day or a lifetime worth of valiant resistance. Galadriel to felt this, but at her test, in that moment, she was strong enough to survive. Perchance Boromir had too many tests to face on the quest and succumed at the last. The danger facing most recovering addicts is not a need for the Ring (drug), but the denial present that makes it seem like a good idea to get it back - despite the knowledge of it's ruinous nature. Boromir too suffered from a denial of the truth, he was unknowingly blinded to the wisdom of the those that had educated him. Smeagol is different, he did not choose to give up the Ring, and that is a major first step in true recovering addicts. So Smeagol was not a 'recovering addict', he was still consciously consumed with the desire for it, which was his dilemna. Quite different than the phenomenon of denial.

Tar

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Bill Ferny]

Tar,

You make a number of insightful points.

Quite clearly, a single moment of weakness can be all that is necessary to fall from a day or a lifetime worth of valiant resistance.

While this aptly applies to the recovering addict, it also aptly applies to the temptation to experiment with narcotics, in general. In fact, it aptly applies to any temptation toward vice. In the case of the ring, the temptation is to take from the ring what it offers… not so much a drug like affect, but the real power that one seeks.

There are countless “what if so-and-so got the ring” threads on the forum. I’m inclined to agree with those who claim that those who might get the ring would indeed receive from the ring what they desire, but in the end these gifts from the ring would only serve the will of Sauron when the ring finally abandons its bearer at an opportune time in order to return to its master. Sure, why not keep it? A very valid question considering what the ring can really do.

Take Gollum, for example. He isn’t exactly a fine and upstanding citizen before the ring enters his life. His life in the Misty Mountains was as much a product of his own desire, as it was the ring’s desire to remain hidden. The ring, like a little demon of temptation, constantly sits on Gollum’s shoulder feeding him advice, giving him what he desires, increasing Gollum’s dependency on the ring. The ring, perceiving its master’s growing power, is not lost by Gollum, but abandons Gollum. That is the most cruel act of the ring in the whole mythology.

If anything, the ring resembles an abusive tyrant-like spouse more than a narcotic. Even though Gollum’s love has used him, reduced him to co-dependency, and abandoned him, he, just like the co-dependant, battered wife who still seeks the abusive husband, still loves and desires the ring. The truly tragic element is the fact that the ring would never allow itself to be possessed by Gollum again.

Denial is certainly an important aspect, highlighted by the fall of Boromir. The fall of Boromir isn’t the first time a good person let down his guard and embraced vice in order to overcome an obstacle. I agree with those who say that Boromir was not ignorant of the ring’s evil. He simply chose in the face of despair (an indication for us, given Tolkien’s personal beliefs, that Boromir had already fallen into evil) to grasp vice in order to overcome the obstacle. To me, there is no doubt that Boromir would have saved Gondor by the power of the ring. Of course, Gondor would have quickly come under Sauron’s sway, anywho. The only solution was not in the salvation of the White City, but in the destruction of Sauron. Boromir, because of his despair, was not willing to sacrifice Gondor in order to rid the world of Sauron.

Denial, or sacrifice, then becomes the mark of the heroes. They are able to deny themselves their own personal desires, desires that the ring could fulfill, in the interest of ridding the world of Sauron and his ring. Galadriel does this; Gandalf does this; Elrond must have been tempted, as well, as would have Aragorn. The main difference, then, is one of hope versus despair. The temptation of the ring is far more potent on those who lack all hope. People lack hope because they are unable or unwilling to see beyond their losses, their self-denials and their sacrifices, thus not seeing the wisdom in such self-denials and sacrifices.

[Tar-Palantir]

Very good. However, I think there is a difference between the phenomena of denial and the act of denying oneself something. I don't think elaboration is necessary save to say that true denial is a subconscious act, hence it's destructiveness.

Your thoughts on hope or the lack thereof, might play a large part here, but not so was not the case with Smeagol, or with Bilbo who, even with out dramatic events on either end of, or during, his possession, struggled with the release of the Ring. With neither was it a case of grasping for their last hope like what might have been felt by Boromir. So there is definitely an addictive quality manifesting with the ownership of the Ring - quite a different subject than the lure it brings to the non-bearer, as they truly cannot know what it feels like to bear the Ring.

Although I rather like the analogy of the dangerous spouse, I am skeptical of it's application towards Bilbo. For my part, I am more likely to believe the comfort and security of bearing the Ring or possessing the Ring, for whatever unknown gifts it may give (strength, peace, plain old endorphin release). It must have some physical effect (as you noted earlier), maybe beneficial in the short term but obviously destructive in the long term, and the fallout must have been similar to withdrawal symptoms because even Gollum could not wear it 24/7, too painful. Frodo in this line of thought is made to look even more heroic in his resistance to the Ring, being a bearer, and a wearer, like he was.

On to hope (or lack of it). This lack cannot be the reason either Bilbo or Frodo ended up with the Ring, it came to them. Perhaps a Smeagol lover will claim otherwise, but I would be hard convinced that he did it for any reasons other than his own selfish ones. In fact, the example of these three draws a very clear line in the sand - who knew beforehand of the power of the Ring? This hope you speak of can only fall into the equation when ones knows what one is taking. Appearing to their eyes as their 'last', 'only' or 'best' hope.

Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel all had their own rings, knowing what is was to bear such a Ring - the drawbacks and advantages, they more than any could see the true nature of the One. Their hope would be bolstered and not so easily lost (or they could always run away to Valinor, hehe smilies/smile.gif ). The remainder of the Fellowship I do believe would have struggled and perchance failed to deliver the Ring to Orodruin with Frodo, as Boromir did.

Boromir, why oh why did you fail? Was not his hope bolstered by the successful journey through Moria and Lothlorien? Could he not see that perhaps a chance at victory existed now? Maybe you are correct that he already had fallen into evil, it would explain much. But his act of theft came from lack of hope in the path that he was on, and he needed to change it, no? Why was it up to him? What made him the arbiter of the fate of all?

Haha, here is yet another characteristic of addicts and alcoholics, self-centerdness. The ability to let ones own needs, wants, and wishes to supercede those of all others. Surely this trait cannot be attributed to any but the pair of Boromir and Smeagol. Forget about what brought this to be, as the reasons of each are surely opposite to those of the other character. The end result however is a narrowing of awareness, a lack of any vision beyond their own desire. Lack of hope (boromir), fear of abondonment or lost in regret (Smeagol) are pitiable states of mind, but if they are not addressed one loses perspective. Self-seeking, that is the heart of their dilemna. As if they do not see the plain as day facts that their behavior or choices are focused purely on self. That is delusional.

May I add that to the pile of addictive traits? Self-seeking? The lost ability to listen to those about you, those wiser (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf), those more skilled (Aragorn), those more clear-headed (rest of the fellowiship).

I have to stop typing now as I think my points are made and I'm rambling.

Tar

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Bill Ferny]

Tar we are finding ourselves in agreement. I’m not opposed to the use of the word addiction in regards to the ring’s power over the bearer. Vice is probably the most addicting thing in the world. However, I’m a bit iffy about using the narcotic/addiction model to explain the ring’s temptation on other’s, and likening the ring’s power to the power of narcotics seems to me to over-simplify the ring’s potency.

So there is definitely an addictive quality manifesting with the ownership of the Ring - quite a different subject than the lure it brings to the non-bearer, as they truly cannot know what it feels like to bear the Ring.

I’m in complete agreement with this. There’s a distinction between the ring’s power over the bearer, and its power to tempt others to take it. Part of the ring’s power over the bearer is indeed addictive, but not addictive in the sense that narcotics are addictive. There’s more here than endorphin release (great phrase, btw). Its more like the addiction the wicked have for vice; the gluttonous man is addicted to over-indulgence, for example. The gifts of the ring are addictive, but like vice, these gifts are also accompanied by evil councils and an unremitting desire to see to the subjection of the bearer to the ring’s true master.

Although I rather like the analogy of the dangerous spouse, I am skeptical of it's application towards Bilbo.

The analogy is a rather loose one, and like all analogies it has obvious limitations. In regards to Bilbo, though, there are some indications from the narrative that his dependency upon the ring is subtly growing year by year as is the ring’s abuse. Bilbo remains a rather “odd fellow” despite the fact that there are other hobbit families known for their eccentricities. It would seem that Bilbo would gravitate toward these less respectable families, but he does not. In fact, he apparently has a tendency toward privacy and isolation. He uses the ring to increase his isolation by avoiding others. He doesn’t take a wife. He parleys only with a single person, Frodo, which can be judged as a rather selfish relationship. These are all hints that the ring’s counsels are having their affect. Given a bit more time (say 500 to 1000 years) Bilbo would have achieved ultimate isolation and privacy by having murdered every hobbit in the Shire. The ring’s intelligence, like a dominating tyrant, inspires the bearer to evil action through a growing relationship of absolute dependence of the bearer on the ring and subtle manipulation. Eventually, the ring would cast off Bilbo when he no longer served the ring’s purpose.

On to hope (or lack of it). This lack cannot be the reason either Bilbo or Frodo ended up with the Ring, it came to them. Perhaps a Smeagol lover will claim otherwise, but I would be hard convinced that he did it for any reasons other than his own selfish ones. In fact, the example of these three draws a very clear line in the sand - who knew beforehand of the power of the Ring? This hope you speak of can only fall into the equation when ones knows what one is taking. Appearing to their eyes as their 'last', 'only' or 'best' hope.

Agreed. Interesting notable: Frodo is the only ring bearer that is not initially tempted to take the ring (and maybe Sam as well). I’m sure that if Bilbo knew what he was getting into, he wouldn’t want the ring either, and perhaps even Smeagol (though something in my gut says he would, anyway). Is that the mysterious resistance that hobbits have? The thread has already covered lack of ambition on the part of hobbits, and hobbit simplicity, humility, etc. There’s a lot merit to those posts.

Haha, here is yet another characteristic of addicts and alcoholics, self-centerdness.

Chicken or egg? What comes first, self-centeredness or substance abuse and addiction?

[Dininziliel]

So much to say and I want to keep it simple!

While reading the last 3-4 posts, Bilbo's road song sprang to mind--"The road goes ever on and on ... where many paths and errands meet ... and wither then? ..." Suddenly, it had a new twist to it.

Addiction is one form of evil (a very popular one for this era smilies/evil.gif ). Abusive relationships is one form of evil. Shaving the truth for personal gain is one form of evil. Taking the easy way out of unpleasantness. Carrying a burden far beyond one's capacity over a long period of time ... There are myriad forms of temptation, and they all lead to Rome (Mordor, for our purposes here smilies/smile.gif ) The song stays the same no matter who's on stage; the same principle is at work and bent on one single outcome.

Boromir, because of his despair, was not willing to sacrifice Gondor in order to rid the world of Sauron.

I think this raises an essential and crucial issue. Whether despair is a common principle in succumbing to temptation or the reason Boromir fell is arguable. What is key is that, despite knowing a great good could be realized, Boromir chose a smaller good. In Boromir's mind, he had two goods to choose from--defeating Sauron and evil (with the ultimate outcome including Gondor's long-term safety!) and saving Gondor now. He chose the short-term, more immediate gratification. That kind of thinking is classic and symptomatic of the main points raised in the last 3-4 posts.

Denial, self-centeredness, gotta-have-it-now, despair, tunnel vision (a form of denial), etc., are just some of the 101+ forms of fear. And fear is what paves the road for evil.

The main difference, then, is one of hope versus despair.

This segued into the personal sacrifice aspect of denial exemplified in Galadriel & Elrond denying personal desire and gain for the greater good.

Having just started earnest study, I cannot claim to know Tolkien's stance on the relationship between faith and hope. I think the movie weighs in heavily on the hope aspect and think they did a brilliant job of it. But I wonder if Tolkien might not say that faith--choosing the path toward light/Love/goodness/God beyond all hope of any success, is the heart of the matter.

I think what made Galadriel's passing on the Ring so important is that she went through all the phases of awareness and acceptance in choosing light over darkness in a matter of minutes before Frodo's eyes. By the time she had arrived at her final choice, it was no longer a sacrifice or matter of self-denial--there was simply no further point or reason to take the Ring.

Faramir had clearly gone through this process, but probably over a much longer period of time while growing up. He did not have to think too hard about the matter.

"Good night, Captain, my lord," he [Sam] said. "You took the chance, sir."
"Did I so?" said Faramir.
"Yes sir, and showed your quality: the very highest."
Faramir smiled. "A pert servant, Master Samwise. But nay ... there was naught in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done."

Another thought occurred to me while I was searching through "The Window on the West" for the Denethor-Boromir account. (Thanks, Tar-Palantir--I shall rest upon sweeter dreams this night for your kind assistance smilies/smile.gif )

Galadriel means "light" or "radiance", right? Think of what happened when she trained her attention on Boromir. Like sunlight on a vampire. (Let me hasten to say that I am not suggesting Boromir was a vampire--the evil inside him was.)

I think we do evil a favor when we think of it and good in, well, black and white, all or nothing terms. As has been said earlier, evil is not passive. And neither is good. They are both continual processes requiring continual choices. That's why it is so important to stay focused on wanting the light instead of the darkness.

Peace, now more than ever.

[Tar-Palantir]

This was fun reading, thanks Mr. Ferny. Apologies for the glaring errors in sentence structure, I just re-read my post, wowsers.

I am in agreement with you as well, I like it when that happens. Bilbo's reclusiveness might be a clue to the nature of his relationship with the Ring, although he did also spend much of his time with Sam, enjoying the telling of his tales. I love this idea:
Bilbo would have achieved ultimate isolation and privacy by having murdered every hobbit in the Shire.
Extreme measures to say the least, but it does not sound so far fetched to me. Thankfully the process was interrupted. I think Tolkien sends a clear message to us by rewarding Bilbo for willfully parting with the Ring. I have so many analogies dancing around in my head, but I do believe I'll spare you all. smilies/smile.gif

Chicken or the Egg? Dunno. But Boromir definitely believed that his country should be served above all else. And Smeagol definitely believed that he deserved that ring for his birthday. It's mine, my own, my preciousss.

What is key is that, despite knowing a great good could be realized, Boromir chose a smaller good. In Boromir's mind, he had two goods to choose from--defeating Sauron and evil (with the ultimate outcome including Gondor's long-term safety!) and saving Gondor now.

I don't think he chose the smaller good in his mind. He chose the greater good that he could see. The only other choice would be to set the Ring in the hands of the enemy, via a Hobbit named Frodo. Personally I choose to define it as denial because he was seemingly oblivious to the Council's proclamations and his own better judgement.

If the Ring weren't so bloody evil and conscious of itself, this would be easier to define, most certainly!

dininziliel - I too like that chapter, it is very pleasant reading.

Tar

[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Bill Ferny]

If the Ring weren't so bloody evil and conscious of itself, this would be easier to define, most certainly!

Scribe: Master, why do you call evil a mystery after defining it so masterfully?

Saint Thomas Aquinas: Because evil belongs to man.

[Dininziliel]

I don't think he chose the smaller good in his mind. He chose the greater good that he could see. The only other choice would be to set the Ring in the hands of the enemy, via a Hobbit named Frodo. Personally I choose to define it as denial because he was seemingly oblivious to the Council's proclamations and his own better judgement.


Yes, well said!


Scribe: Master, why do you call evil a mystery after defining it so masterfully?

Saint Thomas Aquinas: Because evil belongs to man.

Oh, very well done! Thank you.

The world in a grain of sand. Lovely. Evil, but lovely! smilies/wink.gif

There is one aspect of addiction that is very relevant to this discussion but has not been mentioned yet.

Addicts/alcoholics get stuck on the habitrail of More. Gottagetit, gotta get more, gottagetit now.

I may be in the fog on this, but the notion of More doesn't seem to be a factor in either behavior or attitude. It is as mere possession of the Ring is sufficient. Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo didn't go trying to score more rings or to more of a high off the Ring--they simply became progressively lost and consumed within its consciousness. I am thinking that could lead to delineating the defining factor between evil itself and the things it makes/uses.

Whatcha think?

[Tar-Palantir]

Addicts/alcoholics get stuck on the habitrail of More. Gottagetit, gotta get more, gottagetit now

The defining quality of a practicing addict is an inability to stop once they have started. The theory that one is too many and a thousand never enough. This saying mirrors your more, more, more idea - there comes a point at which the 'hole' or need simply cannot be filled and the only option is to use more to get back back to the place they need to be; when the drug stops working but the addict can't stop needing it. It becomes a gruesome balancing act in the end. I have seen it up close many times. It is progressive and there is no reverse button, no victory can be had while using continues. If the Ring relates to alcohol for instance and that is your weakness, you wouldn't be searching for other drugs (rings) because that doesn't fill the hole properly. You would be using the Ring you have (alcohol) as often as you can - which Smeagol did.
or to more of a high off the Ring
it seems possession of it alone was a high and provided some comfort to the bearer; like an addictive substance or behavior would, a case of dependency - not knowing how or if they will function without it - or at least believing so while in the throes of it, which passes eventually once the poor soul is liberated of the vice, hence one's reluctance to part with it. All three (Bilbo, Frodo, Gollum) were sorely put out when it came time to leave the Ring. Perhaps mere possession is even more rewarding than actual wearing.

Thanks for your points dininziliel , the analogies can seemingly go on ceaselessly! It's fun to discuss but the inescapable conclusion is that there is no finite answer. In my mind it is the EVIL with a capital E nature of the Ring which is the driving factor in LotR. While, on the other hand powders, liquids and chemicals are all neutral substances, requiring MIS-use to wreak their brand of chaos.

Cheers,
Tar

[Bill Ferny]

Perhaps mere possession is even more rewarding than actual wearing.

Possession entails more on an ontological and mental level than merely wearing something. After all you can wear or use something that doesn’t belong to you, but when you possess something that means it is absolutely subject to your will. Apply that to an intelligent and emotive being, and possession becomes a complicated and frightening concept.

I think that there is a parallel between the bearer possessing the ring, and the ring coming to possess the bearer, not too much unlike demonic possession. Oh crap! That was another analogy.

[Dininziliel]

In my mind it is the EVIL with a capital E nature of the Ring which is the driving factor in LotR. While, on the other hand powders, liquids and chemicals are all neutral substances, requiring MIS-use to wreak their brand of chaos.

Oh, dear ... I'd thought this was the very point I was laboring to articulate. Evil is the generator and sustainer; addiction is a product of the generator and a vehicle for sustaining Evil.

I assume there has already been a discussion thread about Tolkien's treatment/portrayal of evil. It seems that, that is what the discussion has been approaching yet avoiding due to its vague nature?

[Dain]

You guys are doing great, but I don't have much to add to your current thoughts. We had mentioned Dwarves a page or so back, so I thought I'd pop this in, since I found it while doing work somewhere else...
Though they could be slain or borken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it.
I don't know if this means they could actually have resisted the one's other effects (I doubt it), but apparently they wouldn't have been as physically affected. Probably has something to do with being Children of Aule instead of/(as well as) Illuvatar.

[Dininziliel]

I don't know if this means they could actually have resisted the one's other effects (I doubt it), but apparently they wouldn't have been as physically affected. Probably has something to do with being Children of Aule instead of/(as well as) Illuvatar.

I think a case can be made in favor of the Dwarves' ability to resist being ensnared by the Ring.

Here's what I found in The Letters of JRR Tolkien:

#156--"They are ...a variety of incarnate rational creature."
#153 --"...orcs -- who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted ..."

From The Silmarillion, "The Rings of Power and the Third Age": "The Dwarves indeed proved tough and hard to tame; they ill endure the domination of others, and the thoughts of their hearts are hard to fathom, nor can they be turned to shadows. They used their rings only for the getting of wealth; but wrath and an overpowering greed of gold were kindled in their hearts, of which evil enough after came to the profit of Sauron."

From Duriez: " ... designed by Aule to resist the evils of Morgoth ... though proud, Dwarves resisted evil. Like their shaper, Aule, dwarves were drawn to the substance of the earth ... A great temptation for them was possession."

(I chose a secondary source for that excerpt because he summed up 2-3 other primary sources more succinctly and without personal interpretation.)

Taking the Letters excerpts, we can infer that Tolkien considers both dwarves and orcs to be "rational" {cause & effect experience governs their thinking & feeling--if I remember & have interpreted correctly), the orcs went one way--insanity and perversion--while darves remained sane. From the current posts, we know that Dwarves were inextricably bound to the earth made by Aule, then given life by Iluvatar. This would have given them a balance and grounding that would act as a buffer between them and Evil.

The excerpt from The Silmarillion says that, although Dwarves were snared by lust to possess gold, they were able to resist being snared by Sauron. If memory serves, there is a fuller passage than the two I found citing Thrain II's capture and torment, where it is said that Thrain withstood the torments of Dol Guldur and died without surrendering.

The last excerpt establishes the fact that Dwarves were made to resist evil. In fact, Dwarves were made from the desire for Love--Aule, a Valar & a staunch and steadfast foe of Morgoth, made Dwarves so that he could love "something other than" himself and teach to love the creations of Iluvatar. While they succumbed to greed for gold, they were fiercely independent in ths greed like everything else about them.

Recalling Thorin, he was a pain in the neck and endangered everything and everyone around him because of his single, bloody mindedness about the Arkenstone, but I just can't see him being seduced by the Ring by virtue of the same bloody mindedness which typified Dwarves at their worst.

I will end here. The research took some time, it is late and I wish to take in the little bit of moonlight on the snow that's starting to gleam in the freezing air.

Peace ... smilies/smile.gif

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I am in agreement with you as well, I like it when that happens.

Ok, you've had your fun. Time for me to jump in! Here comes the disagree-er. smilies/wink.gif

But really, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just point out parts I disagree with of really agree with. So, try not to look at me as a negative person who never or rarely agrees with anything. I'm not saying anyone sees me as that, I just want to explain myself a little.

Ok, here I go

Bill Ferny:

how does the ring function for Gollum?

The ring was like a drug, and for Gollum, it was very very terrrible. At first, it was like a high t have it. Gollum liked having the ring as he could find out secrets and become invisible. However, after a short while, the ring grew on his mind and became a part of him. I'm not sure if it really gave off a high, but for Gollum, the ring had a hold on Gollum from the start, so it's hard to tell if he recieved any high or not, other than a false one made of lies by the ring.

An undeniable fact from the narrative is that the ring unnaturally prolongs the bearer’s life. Drugs have a tendency to do the exact opposite.

If you think about it, it can also be looked at as doing exactly what drugs do (decrease life) instead of the opposite (prolong life). Sure, someone who has the ring and keeps it will have their life prolonged, but when the starts to take over your mind, do you really have your life? The ring screws it all up and your life in your community with friends and family and a lot of other things begin to rip away from you and are somewhat destroyed by the ring. And that's if your life isn't taken away from you. In a way, the ring ends your life. I think it's possible to get it back, however hard it may be, but others would disagree with me.

Tar-Palantir:

Smeagol is different, he did not choose to give up the Ring, and that is a major first step in true recovering addicts. So Smeagol was not a 'recovering addict', he was still consciously consumed with the desire for it, which was his dilemna.

Well, I say what I said to you in I think i found another hidden meaning... (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002128) I'm not sure if you read it yet, but here it is: Well Samwise, the thing with Gollum searching was that he tried to let the ring go, even though he couldn't. He couldn't because as you said, he went to great lengths looking for his precious. And he got more desperate the closer they got to Mt. Doom. However, the reason I say that he was trying to quit was because he had a chance to take it, but chose not to. Many times he could have done away with Sam and Frodo and taken the ring. Like at Ithilien. Gollum is very cunning and crafty. He could have strangled Sam first, or came up with another way of ending his life, while Frodo was separated from him. And then Gollum could have killed Frodo and taken the ring. Do you recall the steps at Cirith Ungol? When it said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gollum looked at them. A strange expresssion passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass , shaking his head as in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee-but alost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried hmi far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiable thing.
But at that touch Frodo stirred and cried out in his sleep, and immediately Sam was wide awake. The first thing he saw was Gollum-'pawing at master,' as he thought.

'Hey you!' he said roughly. 'What are you up to?'

'Nothing, hothing,' said Gollum softly. 'Nice Master!'

'I daresay,' said Sam. 'But where have you been to-sneaking off and sneaking back, you old villian?'

Gollum withdrew hmiself, and a green light flickered under his heavy lids. Almost spider-like he looked now, crouched back on his bent limbs, with his protruding eyes. The fleeting moment had passed, beyond recall.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly believe that Gollum was debating whether he should really take them to Shelob or not. Smeagol was fighting the addiction of the ring right there. He was wieghing the worth of his drug, the ring versus the power of friends, acceptance, love, compassion, etc., which he had not been offered in over 500 years. And he found that friends and the other stuff was more important than having the ring. His battle was was hard fought and well deserved. It was a major step forward in the right direction. But then because of Sam, he was knocked backed 5 steps in the opposite direction; too far to ever recover from.


So, I do think that he was recovering, even if only a little, but he was still addicted. The addiction of the ring stays with you just like it does with a drug. No ringbearer (save Tom) will ever be fully cured. Remember Bilbo? The ring never really twisted him and ruined his life (well maybe it did, but just play along) and he gave it up. He let the ring go, but he was still addicted. At Rivendell, Bilbo is dying just to look at it. So, the addiction stays.

Basically what I am saying is that since Gollum had the chance to take it at times, but chose not to, he was refusing it. By refusing it, Gollum was somewhat recovering.

Well, I actually have to go now. I would like to respond to Bill Ferny again, then dininziliel, then Tar-Palantir again, then dininziliel again, and finally, Tar-Palantir. Sorry I can't do it now, I'll find time for it tomorrow.

[Tar-Palantir]

Thanks for the (predictable) response Frodo. smilies/smile.gif smilies/tongue.gif

Let me tell you something here. Gollum was NOT repented during that scene, maybe he was thinking about it, maybe he was just feeling sad over the choices he has made. But that is the extent of it. If anyone but Frodo had had the Ring their life would have been forfeit at the slimy hands of a mental patient. Had he been TRULY willing to give up his debauchery then the lengths he would have needed to go to were right there at his feet and he did not choose them. The boat had already left the docks, his indecision cost him big-time. And his decision to lead them to Shelob was an 11th hour move to wrest back his disgusting "precious" that is hard to justify. May I reiterate - 'About to' does not mean 'has' or 'is'.

Realting his problem to a drug problem: Do you know any practicing addicts? I do.
1. There is nearly always remorse for their actions or for things they left behind. (As evidenced in Gollum's last moments with Frodo. But remorse alone is not enough.)
2. No one person can get them sober OR cause them to keep using. (Frodo in this case can not assuming full responsibility, and neither can Sam, it is Gollum's responsibility.)
3. Even if they get sober the risk is high they will use again. (This one's obvious, you said yourself that Ringbearers never get over it 100%, I would add that is especially true for one placed as precariously as Gollum is.)
4. They have an uncanny knack for biting the hand that feeds them. (Just ask Frodo the nine-fingered, or Aragorn, or Sam who also got bitten. And those are just literal examples.)
5. Cannot tell friend from foe, everybody seems as a foe. (This is how an addict hurts everybody around them. Their actions become more and more self-centered and everyone else becomes a meal ticket, and everyone else becomes 'responsible' for their plight, "poor little me" "poor Smeagol" "why me"? usually followed by "why not that guy instead?" That dog don't hunt, it's their responsibility).

It's about more than just Gollum though, what about the others that were tempted or succumbed? How do you see it all tying together with Gollum? We have discussed the Drug/Addict scenario pretty thouroughly, maybe somwone has some other brainstorms?

Demonic possession anybody? Bill? smilies/smile.gif
We could cross check all examples of corruption with those of the Nazgûl, maybe get some insight that way? smilies/biggrin.gif

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[The Saucepan Man]

In short, there has to be more to this than the drug/addiction model. The ring is not a passive tool, but contains a will and power, granted dependant upon Sauron, but a will and power that is far more active than a mere narcotic that heightens pleasure.


Well, this thread has moved on a long way since I last posted. But, since I have been quoted as an example of one of those drawing an analogy between the Ring and a drug,(thanks, Bill smilies/rolleyes.gif ), I thought that I would avail myself of the opportunity to explain myself further.

Of course, I agree that the Ring is not the same thing as a drug. The point I was making is that some of its effects are analagous tho those of narcotic substances, particularly the altered state of reality and the craving for it.

The quotes that I gave in my original post on this illustrated that Sam experienced an altered state of reality, when he put the Ring on. "The world changed, and a single moment of time was filled with an hour of thought". This is an alteration in his perception of time. Time does not actually slow down, it only does so in Sam's mind. Later, when he is tempted by the Ring (without even putting it on), he feels himself "enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself". Again, the change is not real, it is brought about in Sam's mind by the Ring.

As for the "hallucinations" experienced by Sam and others when they are tempted by the Ring, these are not real. They represent the Ring showing the "temptee" what he or she can achieve with it. They are, of course, deceptions or "half truths", since the Ring in reality wants to use them to get back to its Master. And here, the analogy with drugs does break down, because drug-induced hallucinations are just that - hallucinations. They are not brought about by an external force (such as those induced by the Ring), but are a product of the drug acting on the user's brain.

By the by, Galadriel's vision of her fate were she to take the Ring is interesting. She sees herself as becoming a dark and terrible Queen to replace the Dark Lord. Was her vision accurate, or was she deceived? Wouldn't she just become subordinate to the will of Sauron, or was she strong enough to defeat him with the Ring and replace him? Just an aside, but something that is not altogether clear to me.

The other drug-like aspect of the Ring is the growing addiction to it experienced by the Ringbearer. Frodo, for example, finds it increasingly difficult to resist the temptation to wear it the longer he bears it, and the nearer he comes to Mount Doom. Also, those who have previously borne the Ring for any length of time, namely Bilbo and Gollum, crave it. Gollum is the clearest example of this, and I agree with most of that which has been said above on this. I have always felt that he hatched the plot to deliver Frodo and Sam up to Shelob when he first suggested going through the passage at Cirith Ungol, when they were at the Black Gate, or possibly even before. He held off from attacking Sam and Frodo largely through the fear of being caught and killed. Yes, he was moved by Frodo's kindness for a while. But I believe that, deep down, his overriding desire was for the Ring. Ultimately, his "craving" would have prevailed, regardless of his apparent betrayal at the Forbidden Pool or Sam's unkind words to him.

So, we have the Ring altering the bearer's perception of reality, and we have it inducing addiciton and craving. Similar effects to those produced by drugs. But I agree that its effects go way beyond those of any drug. As has been pointed out, it brings about pronounced physical changes in the bearer, not least their increased longetivity. And, unlike any drug, it has a will of its own (or at least a part of its Master's will), and attempts ploys to acheive its own ends.

Again ,this leads me to an interesting aside. The Ring deserts Gollum, and on a number of occasions Frodo finds it on his finger when he appears not consciously to have put it on himself. Presumably, it can not physically move, in the sense of jumping off its bearer's finger, or out of his pocket, so this too must be some kind of effect that it has on the bearer's mind, making him do something that he cannot consciously recall doing. The Ring doesn't escape from Gollum, it causes him to drop it.

Finally:

I do think that Hilde’s original distinction between the power of the ring, and the temptation or desire to possess the ring is a valid one. The ring has the power to transform the bearer. It also has the power to allure others… but only according to its active desire to return to its master. We should not confuse one operation with the other.

I am still not convinced by this. It is the power of the Ring that acts on the mind of its bearer and causes physical changes in him. But it is also the power of the Ring that causes others to desire it. And I do not mean this in a passive sense, as in "Oh, that is a powerful Ring, I must have it". The Ring actively tempts others to desire it and, in the cases of Boromir and Gollum, to seize it. I do not think that Boromir's belief (that the Ring could be used to defend Gondor and fight Sauron) alone would have caused him to attack Frodo for it. The Ring worked upon Boromir's mind, encouraging his belief in this respect to the stage where he was provoked into a very uncharacterisic act. As for Gollum, he had no idea of the power of the Ring when he first laid eyes on it, and yet murdered his freind for it. Again, the Ring was calling to him.

So the Ring is actively exercising its power both when it is influencing the Ringbearer (physically and mentally) and when it is seeking to tempt another into taking possession of it. And in both cases, its purpose is identical: to get back to its Master. The only real difference that I can see (other than that the bearer has actual possesion of it) is that the Ring can have no physical effect on anyone other than its bearer.

Oops, jus seen Tar-Palantir's comment:

We have discussed the Drug/Addict scenario pretty thouroughly, maybe somwone has some other brainstorms?

Demonic possession anybody?

Oh well, I've typed it all now. It will just have to stand. smilies/tongue.gif

Demonic possession? Isn't that more Saruman's style? Or was that just a film that I saw? The Exorcist, perhaps ... smilies/evil.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

[Dininziliel]

Dain, I tried to get something going re dwarves, but ... smilies/frown.gif

I do not think that Boromir's belief (that the Ring could be used to defend Gondor and fight Sauron) alone would have caused him to attack Frodo for it. The Ring worked upon Boromir's mind, encouraging his belief in this respect to the stage where he was provoked into a very uncharacterisic act. As for Gollum, he had no idea of the power of the Ring when he first laid eyes on it, and yet murdered his freind for it. Again, the Ring was calling to him.

Yes! Now, picture a group of diverse types of people at a social event. One looks with lustful urge at the wine glasses on a tray. Another eyes a pack of cigarettes on a table with wistful longing. Another spots someone sexually attractive across the room and plots perversities. Yet another sees a well-known wealthy person and moves toward him/her with the intention of picking his/her pockets. Over there you see a white person with an expression of disgust as she/he watches every move of a mixed race couple. In the corner stands a person in dire straits and feeling sorry for himself/herself looking longingly at another person who has poise and exudes self-confidence. And that one that left to go to the bathroom is opening up the medicine cabinet to see what's inside, taking items off the shelf and checking them out. Last, there is a person tapping his/her foot impatiently, giving short shrift to those attempting to exchange pleasantries while looking at the clock on the wall and harrumphing over the many things she/he needs to do. I think you get the picture.

Everyone in that room sees something that draws their attention and sends them into a kind of intense reverie. What Tolkien did was lump all of those things, and myriad others, into one thing--the One Ring. One Ring to find us all and in the darkness bind us.

Try it next time you go outside. See how often the One appears and who puts it on.

Garsh, I'd just intended to do a little thing and I made a big production of it. I really just wanted to do a short post to see if I successfully copief an html image to "my picture" here at Barrow-Downs. If someone would be so kind as to send me PM on the process I'd be obliged for your kindness. I found an image on the Google image site and have only a vague idea what to do with it.

Peace!

Oh, wait a minute ....
No ringbearer (save Tom) will ever be fully cured.

Correct in saying no Ringbearer will ever be cured--genuine addiction is by definition and nature never cured, simply arrested. Bombadil did hold the Ring to look at it, then tossed it into the air, then gave it back to Frodo. Does this make him a Ringbearer? He could have swallowed it and it wouldn't have affected him--that's not the point. It doesn't seem correct to term Tom a Ringbearer for the half minute or so he spent with it. A picayune point, perhaps, but it's late and I tend to pheel piqued when I'm phagged out. smilies/wink.gif

Peace.

[Tar-Palantir]

And here, the analogy with drugs does break down, because drug-induced hallucinations are just that - hallucinations. They are not brought about by an external force (such as those induced by the Ring), but are a product of the drug acting on the user's brain.

It seems to me more like Pavlov's Dog. Just being near a desired thing can fire neurotransmitters, giving you a physical (chemical) response. Hallucination as well is rather like a dream state, one can measure the brain activity and bodily functions (heart rate, muscle flexion, BP, respiration) that are active in sleep dreams, waking dreams 'daydreams', phobias, imaginings of all sorts. If the feelings serve a purpose (calmness, euphoria, pain relief) the phenomena of craving may set in - without ever having used a substance or touched an object.

Good points SaucepanMan.

My updated philosphy on all this is that individual behavior is similar to addict behavior, but initial response, craving and corruption is sourced more from the Evil of the One Ring on a sliding scale of predisposition. Yeah, that sounds right to me. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

dininziliel:

Does this make him a Ringbearer?

No, that doesn't, but Tom did put the ring on and didn't dissapear. Also, he seemed to have no desire for it other than curiosity. Maybe he was like, "What is the big deal with this ring?" and then he puts it on, nothing happens and he probably thinks, "what's so big about this? It doesn't do anything." Maybe Tom, in his land, was unaffected by things while he was in his own borders. Just a thought, but the point is he did put it on. Maybe, if he were outside those specified borders, the ring might have some effect on him. But he is an enigma and we know reletively little of him, especially what he is.

Bill Ferny:

His life in the Misty Mountains was as much a product of his own desire, as it was the ring’s desire to remain hidden.

Interesting thought. I always thought that the ring didn't count on Gollum hiding in the Misty Mountains, but the ring's desire to remain hidden is a good one. Then, after rethinking, I don't think that it ever expected Gollum to stay for that long. But now, thinking again, maybe it wanted to stay hidden all that time. Someone (I'm really sorry, I can't remember who) suggested that the ring left Gollum to get out of the Misty Mts. because of a sort of sense or link with Sauron. When Sauron rose to power again, it was only about 2-3 years before the ring left Gollum. Was this idea brought up in this thread? Sorry, I can't remember.

If anything, the ring resembles an abusive tyrant-like spouse more than a narcotic.

Actually, I think of the ring more as a leech, cancer, or a virus. A leech, because it attaches to you, not only physically, but more importantly, mentally. It sucks the life out of you. All of your youth, health, (sometimes) reputation (if it can), and friends/family. And also, in doing so takes away your [free]will, bit by bit, and as much as it can, sometimes until it is sucked dry. I see it as a cancer because it can be very dangerous and deadly. It attacks vital parts, but unlike certain cancers, the ring goes specifically for the mind. And it attacks the mind and eventually dominates the mind. And, I see it as a virus because for one, a virus can never be cured, just as the ring has permenant effects and a ringbearer will never be fully healed of the consequences from bearing/wearing the ring. It infects the mind and spreads out. It eventually dominates the mind and can sway a ringbearer's decisions and possibly control them. One reason why I don't really look at it as a tyrant spouse is because you said still loves...the ring

when actually he hated it and more-so loathed it, but he was stuck with it by the addiction, which shows his dependency on the ring.

On to your post after that one:

Given a bit more time (say 500 to 1000 years) Bilbo would have achieved ultimate isolation and privacy by having murdered every hobbit in the Shire.

If you actually think about it, that would never happen. Either the ring would have left Biblo and found its way back to Sauron, or Sauron would have the ring taken by force.

Frodo is the only ring bearer that is not initially tempted to take the ring (and maybe Sam as well)

Well, you can include Tom also, but does he really count? And what do you mean by this? I could say Isildur wasn't tempted since after he cut it off Sauron, it was up for grabs. Please explain.

dininziliel:

Denial, self-centeredness, gotta-have-it-now, despair, tunnel vision (a form of denial), etc., are just some of the 101+ forms of fear. And fear is what paves the road for evil.

What is it with you and fear??? smilies/wink.gif But really, what is it? I don't think I agree with your statement, but it just get's so confusing when you add all those other factors into it that I get lost in my own thoughts...

I think the movie...

Well, I don't want to be a jerk or anything, and I'm not singleing you out, but please, can we leave the movies out of this? The movies were mentioned other times too, but this forum is the books section, so can we leave it at that? And it's not that when the movies were mentioned here that they were really brought into the debate, but I don't want it to get confusing or have others start bringing the movies into the discussions. I am asking and being calm as to avoid some big argument.

Galadriel's passing on the Ring so important is that she went through all the phases of awareness and acceptance in choosing light over darkness in a matter of minutes before Frodo's eyes. By the time she had arrived at her final choice, it was no longer a sacrifice or matter of self-denial--there was simply no further point or reason to take the Ring.

I don't neccesarily agree with this. What you said is part of it, but I think a bigger part is that she herself bore a ring. She had experience and knowledge on the matter and even though her ring was not the one ring, it was still a ring that having, can show the dangers of the ring. Do you understand what I'm saying? And even though she rejected the ring, it was still hard to do, as the ring tempted her desires. She did have reason to take the ring (to achieve power), but she was well aware of the folly of this and the falsehood of the offer teh ring presented to her. Here's a question, did Frodo come up with the idea to give the ring to Galadriel, or did the ring influence him to do this? Frodo might have done it to rid himself of the burden or to give it to someone wiser thinking it would be better off in their hands (or on her finger). And the ring might have done this to have someone powerful take it (the ring) so it could corrupt her and make it easier for Sauron to pinpoint where the ring was, and easier for Sauron to get it back, and to prevent it from being destroyed. Or was it both? Just a thought.

Think of what happened when she trained her attention on Boromir...the evil inside him...

I don't think that there was really evil in him. I think it may have looked like there was evil and that it didn't like Galadriel 'shining her light' on it. But I think that anyone would be freaked out if someone looked into your mind and tested you through horrible temptations.

Tar-Palantir:

Bilbo's reclusiveness might be a clue to the nature of his relationship with the Ring, although he did also spend much of his time with Sam, enjoying the telling of his tales. I love this idea:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilbo would have achieved ultimate isolation and privacy by having murdered every hobbit in the Shire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think that Bilbo's reclusivness was due that much to the ring. He was not the type of person that Smeagol was and because of that, he was never kicked out of the Shire (which could have happened if he was like Smeagol), as Smeagol was kicked out of his community. And Bilbo always had someone that loved him and someone to love back (Frodo, Gandalf...). Besides that, Bilbo, even before the ring, seemed to be sort of isolated. True, it might be a clue to the relationship of the ring, but it is hard to tell.

Smeagol definitely believed that he deserved that ring for his birthday.

I don't really think so. I think that this was his front for taking the ring and killing Deagol, which I think haunted him all his life. And maybe the ring haunted him for this or, it didn't and it 'helped' Gollum come up with that excuse. But, you never know, after all that time he could very well have believed if lied about it so much. Some people actually lie so much that they believe themselves. I think that this was Gollum's way of pushing his guilt aside, which didn't help at all.

dininziliel:

Addicts/alcoholics get stuck on the habitrail of More. Gottagetit, gotta get more, gottagetit now.

Yes, they become addicted, and need it more frequently until they are consumed by the drug (alcohol is a drug).

the notion of More doesn't seem to be a factor in either behavior or attitude. It is as mere possession of the Ring is sufficient. Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo didn't go trying to score more rings or to more of a high off the Ring--they simply became progressively lost and consumed within its consciousness.

Yes, because there is no possibiltiy of more. Just to have it is enough, but you can draw levels of it by how obsessed they are if the ring, and how much time a day they need to feel the ring, look at it, put it on, etc. It is not limited as you can always wear the ring, so it is infinite.

Tar-Palantir:

The theory that one is too many and a thousand never enough.

Well, I see it as 'more' being too much. When you get to that point, you know you're addicted. And everytime you want or need more, it is the drug talking. It shows your addiction adn dependency of it.

when the drug stops working but the addict can't stop needing it.

As time goes on and the more you use the drug, you naturally develop a tolerance to it. The bigger the tolerance, the more you need to consume to reach your high and satisfaction, and after a while it becomes a matter of your tolerance vs. your addiction. You're not becomeing satisfied, but you still need the drug, and that's the point where the user finds themself stuck in their own rut.

...because that doesn't fill the hole properly.

Actually no. When you no longer reach that high, or get bored, you move on. You search for other drugs, bigger and harder. It doesn't matter what fills your hole as long as it gives you tht feeling, and satisfies your need for it. It doesn't have to be what your used to. If alcohol didn't work anymore, then you'd maybe move on to marijuana, and after that, you'd be wide open to many other drugs. Weed is a gateway drug as it leads to many others. You'd get bored of weed and move on to coke, and then you might be doing heroine and look how far you've gone just to satisfy that need. You don't care what kind of drug, as long as it fills that widening gap of your need. Well, with the ring, you can't go any higher, but take a look at Galadriel. She had a ring, and then she was tempted by the one ring. It's like if her ring was beer. She drinks it just because she likes the taste, not so she can get drunk. Ocassionally, she probably might get drunk. I'm sure she likes it. When the one ring comes along, it can represent weed. She wants to do it, realizing that she can get high, which would be so much greater than her occasional drunkness, she assumes. However, she also realizes the dangers of doing this and wisely she refuses. The one ring had an ultimate downward spiral to it and she was well aware of it. So rather than taking it, and getting what the ring offered, she refuses it and avoids her downfall. Do you see what I mean?

On to your next post, after mine:

Gollum was NOT repented during that scene

Yes that is true, but he was on the verge of being repented. And I have to say that he would have if Sam had not waken up or at least refrained from insulting Gollum.

Had he been TRULY willing to give up his debauchery then the lengths he would have needed to go to were right there at his feet and he did not choose them.

He was truly willing at that moment and (I assume) made the decision not to lead them to Shelob. But he could not activly lead them away from Shelob until they started moving again on their way. But before he could fulfill it, Sam prevents it. He wakes up and you know the story, then Gollum changes his mind and his chance for repent is gone.

Do you know any practicing addicts?

Yes.

There is nearly always remorse for their actions or for things they left behind. (As evidenced in Gollum's last moments with Frodo. But remorse alone is not enough.)

Yes, but Gollum had more than just remorse, he had a will to change taken away by Sam.

No one person can get them sober OR cause them to keep using. (Frodo in this case can not assuming full responsibility, and neither can Sam, it is Gollum's responsibility.)

It is Gollum's responsibility as you said. Gollum got a hold of this (even if only for a minute) and couldn't have done it without help from Frodo. Frodo and Sam do not have responsibility in this, you are right, but Sam has fault in causing Gollum from losing his responsibility.

Even if they get sober the risk is high they will use again. (This one's obvious, you said yourself that Ringbearers never get over it 100%, I would add that is especially true for one placed as precariously as Gollum is.)


True, but once you get past the step of giving it up, it is much easier from there. He could have held out until it was destroyed. If he truly wanted to change he would have left Frodo and Sam to do it when they got far enough that they did not need Gollum's help, avoiding the temptation of the ring. After that, the threat of the ring is gone and a great burden would be lifted. Although he would have probably died shortly after.

They have an uncanny knack for biting the hand that feeds them. (Just ask Frodo the nine-fingered, or Aragorn, or Sam who also got bitten. And those are just literal examples.)

But it is different after he gives it up for good. He would have stopped this.

Cannot tell friend from foe, everybody seems as a foe. (This is how an addict hurts everybody around them. Their actions become more and more self-centered and everyone else becomes a meal ticket, and everyone else becomes 'responsible' for their plight, "poor little me" "poor Smeagol" "why me"? usually followed by "why not that guy instead?" That dog don't hunt, it's their responsibility).

This is not neccessarily true. This can happen in some cases, but it most definately does not apply to all.

It's about more than just Gollum though, what about the others that were tempted or succumbed? How do you see it all tying together with Gollum?

It is more than just about Gollum however, I like referring to Gollum most as we have the most infromation Gollum when looking at ringbearers. I'm just referring to the ring part of their lives. With Frodo, you see a lot, and you see how first hand he is affected by the ring, but with Gollum, we have a history of him and see frist hand the affects of the ring, and the desire/addiction of it.

We have discussed the Drug/Addict scenario pretty thouroughly, maybe somwone has some other brainstorms?

Yes, but surprisingly we haven't discussed a major aspect of this; depression.

The Saucepan Man:

Time does not actually slow down, it only does so in Sam's mind.

I think maybe it is another enhancement the ring gives. Maybe it is not time slowing down in Sam's mind, but rather the ring speeding up the mind of Sam, so everything seems slower.

Presumably, it can not physically move, in the sense of jumping off its bearer's finger, or out of his pocket, so this too must be some kind of effect that it has on the bearer's mind, making him do something that he cannot consciously recall doing. The Ring doesn't escape from Gollum, it causes him to drop it.

I also thought that the ring could not physically move, but it actually can. The only way it can move is by incresing/decreasing size. I don't know how big it would get or how small, but it changes to fit the new ringbearer. And, the ring does escape from Gollum (well not really escape, I say it was more of a 'ditching'). It grew just a little bit bigger, so it could slip off, using the struggle between Gollum and his meal, and the force of gravity. I think though, sometimes it tries to 'escape' by influencing the decisions of the ringbearer. Like when I rambled on about how the ring might have tried to get to Galadriel.

[Tar-Palantir]

Good post Mr. Frodo sir. I always appreciate your thoughts, I thought you'd nail me for the mental patient comment, thanks for the restraint. smilies/smile.gif
Actually no. When you no longer reach that high, or get bored, you move on. You search for other drugs, bigger and harder. It doesn't matter what fills your hole as long as it gives you tht feeling, and satisfies your need for it. It doesn't have to be what your used to. If alcohol didn't work anymore, then you'd maybe move on to marijuana
This is flat out wrong. Drugs act in different ways on the body, alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, opiates, prescription meds, they each have a very different high. Almost all users have a 'drug of choice', some are dual addicted/cross addicted, but there is usually one in particular that is the crux. Believe me, I have worked with these people for years.
but once you get past the step of giving it up, it is much easier from there
How far past? 1 day, 1 week, 60 years? When does the 'safe zone' arrive? When are they 'normal' again? I am afraid that it is never easy, especially when you have a lifetime of wreckage to clean up like Gollum. Is he supposed to go live in a cave again? Who would accept him like that? Hopefully somebody, but it would be a concern. If he was an outcast would he be happy? Anger, depression, fear might return and trigger old behavior.
but Sam has fault in causing Gollum from losing his responsibility.

We'll forever disagree on this one Frodo. smilies/smile.gif
depression
Prozac for all the Ringbearers, my treat! smilies/smile.gif Depression goes hand in hand with the hopeless state of mind Boromir might have been in, but what about the others?

I'll buy a pitcher of Entdraught for the first person that nails down a concrete theory on this Ring!

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Here's a question, did Frodo come up with the idea to give the ring to Galadriel, or did the ring influence him to do this? Frodo might have done it to rid himself of the burden or to give it to someone wiser thinking it would be better off in their hands (or on her finger). And the ring might have done this to have someone powerful take it (the ring) so it could corrupt her and make it easier for Sauron to pinpoint where the ring was, and easier for Sauron to get it back, and to prevent it from being destroyed. Or was it both?

Excellent question, Willie. I think that it is a bit of both. Maybe Frodo was (on a conscious level at least) looking for someone else to take this burden from him. So, perhaps the Ring used that initial thought to persuade him to offer it to Galadriel. But, given the (for want of a better word) addictive quality of the Ring, would he really have been able to surrender it to her, when it came down to it? Perhaps he was not far gone enough at that stage. And here's another thought. I have speculated on the Ring's ability to reach out to others to tempt them to take it. Perhaps it had this effect on Galadriel, but she was able to resist the temptation. Would the Ring have considered Galadriel a good candidate as Ringbearer? I suppose this comes down to my earlier question: would she, under the Ring's influence, have become a Dark Power in her own right, or would she have been subordinated to Sauron's will?

When you no longer reach that high, or get bored, you move on. You search for other drugs, bigger and harder. It doesn't matter what fills your hole as long as it gives you tht feeling, and satisfies your need for it.

I don't necessarily agree that one drug leads to another. My drugs of choice (alcohol and nicotine) have not (to date at least) led me on to seek anything heavier. But that's by the by. It is not a question of moving onto a bigger and better Ring. The increasing addiction to the Ring manifests itself (as has been pointed out) in an increasing desire to touch it, feel it and wear it. But then, it has also been pointed out (by Bill, I think) that contact with the Ring became too much for Gollum after a (long) while.

Gollum had more than just remorse, he had a will to change taken away by Sam.

I still think that Gollum would have led them to Shelob (or tried some other ploy to gain back the Ring) irrespective of Sam's actions. Yes, maybe Frodo's kindness relieved the craving for a while. But it was always there under the surface. In a way, Gollum was looking for an excuse to be denied his "recovery".

I also thought that the ring could not physically move, but it actually can. The only way it can move is by incresing/decreasing size.

Good point. That ring's a bell (no pun intended). Does anyone know if there is an actual reference to the Ring changing its width. This would certainly be a useful ability for the Ring, since it would be able to slip off its bearer's Ring to reveal him at just the wrong moment, or perhaps constrict itself so that it could not be removed.

Depression goes hand in hand with the hopeless state of mind Boromir might have been in, but what about the others?

I'll buy a pitcher of Entdraught for the first person that nails down a concrete theory on this Ring!

Now you're talking Tar-Palantir. smilies/wink.gif Well, there's always Denethor, but his depression was brought on more by hopelessness and despair in the face of what seemed to him to be an overhelming force ... and perhaps a lack of the Ring? In a way, he craved it, even though he had never set eyes on it.

[Tar-Palantir]

would she, under the Ring's influence, have become a Dark Power in her own right, or would she have been subordinated to Sauron's will?

They are one, the Ring and the Dark Lord. I think eventually and inevitably. Perhaps the power of the Ring she may have mastered, but the will of the Ring (which is what is giving us the most problem in understanding) would have worked on her mind ceaselessly, could she hold out for decades, centuries or millenia? Which poses one more question, that I think there is an answer for, but I don't know it: What if Sauron were vanquished but the Ring yet existed? Would it be impossible to complete destroy him without destroying the Ring? And a follow up question:

If Gollum had lived through it, would he get to sail to Valinor with the rest of the Ringbearer gang? http://www.reefaquariumguide.com/forums/images/smilies/new/idea.gif

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Arvedui III]

I like Gollem so I'd like to think that he would. But without the ring his life would have no propose, since the ring had done ireversible( gosh, I need to learn how to spell) damage. Sadly, I think Gollem may have ended his own life rather then going with the "stuuppid hobbitisis" to Valinor.
(Wow! That's really depresing smilies/frown.gif )

[Dininziliel]

Willie: Interesting thought. I always thought that the ring didn't count on Gollum hiding in the Misty Mountains, but the ring's desire to remain hidden is a good one. Then, after rethinking, I don't think that it ever expected Gollum to stay for that long. But now, thinking again, maybe it wanted to stay hidden all that time. Someone (I'm really sorry, I can't remember who) suggested that the ring left Gollum to get out of the Misty Mts. because of a sort of sense or link with Sauron. When Sauron rose to power again, it was only about 2-3 years before the ring left Gollum. Was this idea brought up in this thread? Sorry, I can't remember.

I recall posting about Sauron emerging from Mirkwood 2-3 years prior to Gollum's emerging from Misty Mtns, but am unsure if I posted it here or elsehwere.

I think the idea about the Ring's will having Gollum go into hiding is pregnanat with possibilities for this discussion. I'd like to offer a twist on this: working on the notion that no event occurs without it being willed, what if was not the Ring's will to go/stay in hiding? what if it was not the Ring's will to emerge when it did with Bilbo? And regarding Bilbo finding the Ring ...what will was behing that? I am positing the notion that it was a greater will than Sauron's and/or the Ring's for any or all of that--certainly for Bilbo.

If a greater will was responsible for the Ring coming to Bilbo and subsequent bearers, then what was the intention regarding their respective fates as individuals fate, not only as a bearer of the Ring. One could say they were selected for sacrifice, or, they were selected for a kind of immortality, or ... what other possibilities are there?

The presumption (classical use of the word) that there was/is a greater intelligence/will/force at work governing everyone and everything to a certain outcome is a frame that, when put onto the tale, changes its colors and patterns.

Not a new notion, granted, it's all in (The Silmarillion, but this is a more specific aspect that has not yet been discussed. How can we claim to have exhausted the subject of the Ring and corruption without examining the nature of its opposite? I was so excited when I read that part of Willie's post that I immediately replied without reading the other posts. Maybe I should go do that, huh?

Peace, and my admiration to the people and their leaders of Britain in demonstrating what a democracy looks like today/yesterday!

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Tar-Palantir:

This is flat out wrong.

No, it is not flat out wrong. I think that we're both wrong. It depends and varies in different cases. I know at least know two people who moved on and had started from alcohol. They do have different highs, and they do have drugs of choice, but sometimes it doesn't matter. Some people don't realize what they are getting into and have gone too far before they do. They just want it so bad they don't care what they do, as long as they get high. It may not have been like that for the people that you worked with, but were they alcoholics? If they were, then you really might not be dealing with the people that moved on from there and got hooked on something else. The people I know have gone past alcohol, past weed, and farther than that, and they still were not satisfied. It is sad and the saddest part was that they were never satisfied. Some drugs hit them hard and they preferred it, but still, they were dangerous and hard and they had gone a long way from alcohol before they got there. I think you get what I'm saying and I really don't want to talk about them anyomore. The point is that it varies, but the people I knew were never satisfied; they always had to go up a level, then after a while move on.

How far past? 1 day, 1 week, 60 years?

It depends. And I'm not saying that it is easy, I'm saying that once they willingly give it up, a great burden is lifted. It is always very hard to face your addiction to a drug after you have quit and you are offered it or even near it, as it can be tempting enough. I think that Gollum had it long enough to see what it had done to him and to know that he did not need it anymore, and that having friends was more important than the ring, and also, that he could not have both.

We'll forever disagree on this one Frodo.

Yes, we will. I don't think I'll ever change my mind on this, and I think that it is the same for you.

The Saucepan Man:

would she, under the Ring's influence, have become a Dark Power in her own right, or would she have been subordinated to Sauron's will?

Either way she would have fallen, but I think that it would be under her own right. I seem to have the impression that any great or powerful person who obtains the ring and is corrupted, will be under their own right as Sauron could not harness their power. I think it was said somewhere that Gandalf could have become worse than Sauron had he taken the ring (I think, but I'm not really sure). So it would be similar with Galadriel, but even if her will was weaker than Sauron's, her will still would be too great for Sauron to harness. I'm kind of shakey on this question.

I still think that Gollum would have led them to Shelob (or tried some other ploy to gain back the Ring) irrespective of Sam's actions.

Well, I still think he wouldn't. Looks like you got company Sam! smilies/smile.gif

dininziliel:

If a greater will was responsible for Bilbo finding and bearing the Ring, and subsequent bearers

Are you suggesting destiny or something else? It seems very interesting.

[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Dininziliel]

Willie: What is it with you and fear??? But really, what is it? I don't think I agree with your statement, but it just get's so confusing when you add all those other factors into it that I get lost in my own thoughts...

This is easily answered by any recovering addict/alcoholic. It's been answered in the litany on fear from Dune (" ... Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration ..."). A Course in Miracles will give the best answer (but it will really confuse the noodle. smilies/smile.gif And, I believe that Jung, Buddha, may have been big on fear being at the core of all our problems.

We normally think of fear as something threatening our physical self. This makes it difficult to see its other forms. What is always, always present in fear? Extreme self-concern. Left uninterrupted (or, no interventions for the drug subthread fans out there), the Ring's ultimate outcome is for the bearer to become utterly absorbed and consumed by self, like Orobouros (sp?). There's only so much self to absorb/consume, and then you fade out into wraithhood or, if your will is industrial strength Maiar, you turn to consuming/absorbing others.

What propels simple desire into compulsion? Why do we say one must have courage and faith to confront evil? What makes it so hard to act on faith or trust alone when we know it is the right thing to do?

Tolkien has said that nothing was ever evil in its origin. If that is true, then what could possibly turn something good into something evil, unless it involved answering a perceived threat to one's sense of self? What's "evil" spelled backward? (Sorry. Couldn't resist.) smilies/evil.gif

Okay, enough of that. I hoped this helped a bit.

BTW, I could find nothing in my favorite source, The Letters of JRR Tolkien that connected fear to evil. smilies/biggrin.gif

Peace.

[Dininziliel]

Willie: I think maybe it is another enhancement the ring gives. Maybe it is not time slowing down in Sam's mind, but rather the ring speeding up the mind of Sam, so everything seems slower. I'm re-reading LotR right now and I will be on the lookout for this--interesting idea!

And, about mentioning the "m" word ... Ah, irony! I have read, and support the rules of the dead in this forum. My sole reason for mentioning the movie is due to my concern that the movie was affecting the perception and discussion of the book! smilies/smile.gif

Tar-Palantir: Prozac for all the Ringbearers, my treat! ... I'll buy a pitcher of Entdraught for the first person that nails down a concrete theory on this Ring! I hope it's non-alcoholic Entdraught smilies/wink.gif

Saucepan: Does anyone know if there is an actual reference to the Ring changing its width. We are told that the Ring changes in weight--"The Shadow of the Past" ("It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.") And there are the many mentions of the heaviness of the Ring dragging Frodo down the closer they got to Mt. Doom. Back to "Shadows ...," Gandalf mentions the Ring slipping off the fingers of Gollum and Isildur. Then in "The Council of Elrond" Gandalf recounts Isildur's description of the Ring, " 'Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth to shrink, though it loseth neither its beauty nor its shape.' "

Tar-Palantir re the Ring mastering/being mastered by Galadriel: They are one, the Ring and the Dark Lord. I think eventually and inevitably. Perhaps the power of the Ring she may have mastered, but the will of the Ring (which is what is giving us the most problem in understanding) would have worked on her mind ceaselessly,
Yes! and nice delineation.

And is it defining the will of the Ring that we have been dancing with all this time? In Letters, Tolkien says: "A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." [# 131]

Tar-Palantir also wrote: Would it be impossible to complete destroy him [Sauron] without destroying the Ring? And a follow up question: If Gollum had lived through it, would he get to sail to Valinor with the rest of the Ringbearer gang? To the first question, a shy and tentative "Yes" for the same reason given regarding Galadriel--they are one and the same. But ... completely destroy Sauron? Hmmm ...

And to the last question, based on the fact that Tolkien stated nothing is evil in its beginning, and that the Valar understood the nature of evil in the Ring (I guess none of us are Valar smilies/tongue.gif ), and the chances Melkor got before Iluvatar finally booted his butt out like of Arda/ME like a watermelon seed, and because Gollum was on the verge of choosing Love (that's already been covered in previous excerpts from Letters) ... I'm going to say, "Yes," Gollum would be allowed to board a boat to the Undying Lands.

Excellent question!

Peace.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

If Gollum had lived through it, would he get to sail to Valinor with the rest of the Ringbearer gang?

I would say yes. dininziliel said it good. I think it's only fair that he should go.

[Dininziliel]

Tar-Palantir: Would it be impossible to complete destroy him [Sauron] without destroying the Ring?

Can't say why the above idea brought this idea to mind, but ... why did not another Maiar (a good one) make a ring of Love & truth to nullify Sauron's? The Valar would have had to sanction this for it to be of any worth, so the essential question here is why didn't the Valar or even the Ainur commission a One Ring to find them all and in the light of Love bind them?

Oh, I think I'm going to answer my own question--free will. Iluvatar created his beings to have free will. Otherwise, no story, no book, nowhere for us dear departed to haunt cyber space.

But ...! This brings up the topic of free will which I don't think has been explored enough. Then again, it's been some time since I read the original posts.

Guess I'm just thinking out loud.

Peace.

[ February 27, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ]

[The Saucepan Man]

What if Sauron were vanquished but the Ring yet existed? Would it be impossible to complete destroy him without destroying the Ring?

Isn't that what happened at the Last Alliance? Sauron was defeated and, had Isildur cast the Ring into Mount Doom, he would have been destroyed. But Isildur didn't, so Sauron lived on and slowly regained his strength to the stage where he could start looking for the Ring.

And a follow up question:
If Gollum had lived through it, would he get to sail to Valinor with the rest of the Ringbearer gang?

Interesting question, Tar-Palantir. I suppose it would depend whether he repented his past deeds or not. If not, I wouldn't see him being accepted into Valinor. But, if he did, why not? Perhaps they should have set up a refuge for recovering Ring addicts on Tol Eressea. smilies/biggrin.gif

I think it was said somewhere that Gandalf could have become worse than Sauron had he taken the ring (I think, but I'm not really sure). So it would be similar with Galadriel, but even if her will was weaker than Sauron's, her will still would be too great for Sauron to harness.

Your probably right about Gandalf, Willie. But he was a Maia, like Sauron. And I believe that, in his Maia form, he was equal in power to Sauron, if not more powerful. So he, with the Ring, would have been more than a match for Sauron and for Sauron's will working through the Ring. So, perhaps would have become a Dark Lord in his own right. Might the same be said of Saruman, had he succeded in bringing the Ring to Isengard? He portrays himself to Sauron as an ally, but he no doubt had designs of his own.

But Galadriel was an Elf, albeit a powerful one, and I would speculate therefore that she would not have been able to resist the evil will of the Ring. I agree with Tar-Palantir on this:

They are one, the Ring and the Dark Lord. I think eventually and inevitably. Perhaps the power of the Ring she may have mastered, but the will of the Ring (which is what is giving us the most problem in understanding) would have worked on her mind ceaselessly ...

And now the thread moves inexporably to the subject of free will ...

This brings up the topic of free will which I don't think has been explored enough. Then again, it's been some time since I read the original posts.

Now, where's Bill when you need him ... smilies/wink.gif

[Dininziliel]

Saucepan Man wrote: Your probably right about Gandalf, Willie. But he was a Maia, like Sauron. And I believe that, in his Maia form, he was equal in power to Sauron, if not more powerful. So he, with the Ring, would have been more than a match for Sauron and for Sauron's will working through the Ring. So, perhaps would have become a Dark Lord in his own right.

I thought I recalled Tolkien saying something about this. It proved to be a very enlightening little piece of research:
{This is long, but every bit of it is germaine to most of what has been discussed thus far, at least on this page of the thread)

First he says that no mortal, not even Aragorn could have taken the Ring and bested Sauron. Then Tolkien says: "Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him -- being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the ring to fill minds with imagination of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption, and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great)."

So, thanks! Gandalf, for not taking the Ring.

To me, this says that once you put on evil, evil you become. It's just that simple. It's not a matter of will power; it's a matter of choice and commitment to that choice.

Peace to every one from one who wishes for peace in the U.S. smilies/smile.gif

[Alatáriël Lossëhelin]

Does anyone know if there is an actual reference to the Ring changing its width.
---------------------------------------------

We are told that the Ring changes in weight--"The Shadow of the Past" ("It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.") And there are the many mentions of the heaviness of the Ring dragging Frodo down the closer they got to Mt. Doom. Back to "Shadows ...," Gandalf mentions the Ring slipping off the fingers of Gollum and Isildur. Then in "The Council of Elrond" Gandalf recounts Isildur's description of the Ring, " 'Yet even as I write it is cooled, and it seemeth to shrink, though it loseth neither its beauty nor its shape.' "

A further note from "Shadows..." Gandalf says about Bilbo "Though he had found out that the thing needed looking after; it did not seem always of the same size or weight; it shrank or expanded in an odd way, and might suddenly slip off a finger where it had been tight." "Yes, he warned me of that in his last letter,' said Frodo, 'so I have always kept it on its chain.'"

To me, this says that once you put on evil, evil you become. It's just that simple. It's not a matter of will power; it's a matter of choice and commitment to that choice.

Very well said, dininziliel.

[Dininziliel]

willie quoted me and after that he added a question: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a greater will was responsible for Bilbo finding and bearing the Ring, and subsequent bearers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting destiny or something else? It seems very interesting.



Remember when Gandalf told Frodo that perhaps he was meantto have the Ring? My question/suggestion related to the will behind the Ring's travels throughout time. It's not destiny, unless one defines destiny as synonym for the greater will of Iluvatar. So, I am suggesting it is the will of God as Tolkien conceived God, that is shaping events according to natural law established when Arda/Earth was created.

At one point in SillmarillionIluvatar tells Melkor that nothing Melkor does can even ultimately subvert the will (I think the word was actually "plan") of Iluvatar.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Sorry if I am addressing something from far back in the thread. I haven't checked back here in a while.

Here's a question, did Frodo come up with the idea to give the ring to Galadriel, or did the ring influence him to do this? Frodo might have done it to rid himself of the burden or to give it to someone wiser thinking it would be better off in their hands (or on her finger). And the ring might have done this to have someone powerful take it (the ring) so it could corrupt her and make it easier for Sauron to pinpoint where the ring was, and easier for Sauron to get it back, and to prevent it from being destroyed. Or was it both?


This is interesting to ponder in view of Sauron’s plans to attack Lothlorien & Rivendell first (UT). Galadriel must have had a certain amount of aniexty regarding the prospect. I’m wondering if after she came in contact with Boromir she saw the folly in pursuing the ring as an advantage in the upcoming war. (Or saw perhaps evidence of the corrupting influence it had.) At any rate, the character did show quite a bit of self-control, as did Gandalf!