[radagastly]

Oringinally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Certainly. But as for healing and preservation, I disagree - it was not the main concern for all Elves, most of all, not for Noldor, who are exactly the ones in question here. Creating, enrichening the world, making beautiful things was the main concern for them, I believe (and that does not mean just jewels, but also cities, or songs... also e.g. if you imagine Teleri, it was ships, so it does not really go only with Noldor. Healing and preserving became prevailing concern only for the late Elves, when Middle-Earth had already reached significant stage of decay, so to say).

This may accidentally provide some insight into Celebrimbor's motives in creating the Three. Is it possible he was beginning to see the potential for harm represented by the previous sixteen Great Rings as well as at least some of the lesser rings, the ones created with Sauron's direct help? Perhaps he was given to try and heal the problems caused by these rings. After all, we don't know much about the specific intended applications of the Seven or of the Nine, or of any of the lesser rings.
Oringinally posted by Legate of Amon Lanc:

I believe we can basically distinguish two main types of, for the lack of a better word, "magic" in Middle-Earth: the sorcery (which is the evil thing and usually would operate with controlling something) and then what I would call "Art": because that is what it is, the good thing, the way to e.g. create enchanted weapons (like Glamdring or the Sting), or Silmarils, or even the Elven-cloaks, and similar things. I believe it simply requires one to sort of "enhance" or "imbue" certain thing (in case of the artifacts) with something, like in the case of Silmarils: trivially speaking, you catch some light into a crystal. So this is what I believe would happen with the Rings.

I like this distinction between "Control" and "Enhancement." Partly because I didn't think of it, so it's something new to me. Of course, enhancement is, in itself, a kind of control, though more cooperative. A race horse wins more when it allows itself to trust and be controlled by a skilled jockey. Might this actually mark the distinction between the lesser rings and the Great Rings? Consider Sauron teaching the elves greater and greater skills at capturing some kind of "enhancement" within a ring until it reached it's zenith, and then the next inevitable step in improving the craft was for the elves to impose "control" through the rings they made. This would certainly fit in with Sauron devising a "trap" which he finally sprung with the creation of the One. Just a passing thought.

elempi:

Question is, why too dangerous for men? Because of our penchant for turning things toward power and control? Or is it because being Elvish, they are simply too much for us?

I think in a world full of immortal elves, mortal men might be prone to impatience in themselves. An elf might take a hundred years to compose a single song and think nothing of the time. A man could take that long, but would likely be frustrated by it. And he probably wouldn't consider it as good. So, I guess, the answer would be a little of both. This impatience could lead to great deeds, but would also temp men toward 'shortcuts.' So mortality leads to impationce which leads risking power and control, despite the fact that it may be too much for us.

Originally posted by Boromir88:

So, I think there are clear connections between the Rings of Power and gems. The great Rings of Power, specifically having "each their proper gem."

I don't want to tangent too far away from the lesser rings, but is it too much speculation to say whatever purposes the lesser rings were made for, the maker did not set in the "proper gem." Or perhaps no gem at all? Then again, the One has no gem, and it is the most powerful Ring of the bunch; being a simple band of gold. I haven't the faintest clue where this leads the discussion, but I do think at least in ring-crafting (within the context of Middle-earth)...each having a gem is important to the rings' powers.

I wonder if anyone knows if rings (even in our real, modern world) were invented in order to wear and display a gem or for some other purpose. Only simple wedding bands in our world seem to be unadorned. Popes and Kings wear signet rings each with a gem or insignia of some kind. Does anyone know?

I suspect even the lesser rings had gems of some kind. But no two gems are alike. Diamonds have flaws and inclusions, and anyone shopping for an engagement ring learns about the four 'c's' (cut, caret, clarity and color.) Might they have had cheaper stones, or the wrong kind for their specific purpose (If, as seems to be some concensus, they each had a specific purpose?)

Originally posted by Alfirin:

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think that even the lesser rings may have had a touch of Sauron's taint. I don't think the elves considered making rings of power until Sauron proposed the idea. So while it is true that only the major rings were directly under his control, it is possible that even the first attemps had a little of him in them, and so had a dark side. Therefore I think that it is possible that, while a lesser ring would not put someone in Sauron's thrall, it might corrupt them no matter who they were.

This was my thought as well. Certainly, since the lesser rings did not grant extended life they wouldn't have time to really turn someone into a full-on Nazgul, but it could certainly lead them towards what Gandalf would call "mischief."