Split Personality?

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

I will try with an example.

I just finished reading the final Harry Potter novel (I'll give nothing away here). While reading it, I never came across anything that didn't fit the logic of the story and world. That is to say, I was in the milieu and the story never set anything up that contradicted the milieu. Rowling was quite consistent from beginning to end of the entire project, as far as I can tell. Her ability to do this was an achievement that Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories (a very important essay about writing myth and fantasy that ought to be read by anyone who wants to discuss such things), denoted as successfully subcreating a secondary world; the proof of her success is that it engenders Secondary Belief in her readers. If, at any point, Rowling had written anything in her story such that, say, Newtonian Physics overruled wandlore, it would have contradicted the entire milieu and the "spell" of Secondary Belief would have been broken. At this point I would have had to choose to adopt Suspension of Disbelief in order to overlook the contradiction and try to re-enter the milieu.

In the first case, there is an organic belief occurring such that the reader and writer are more or less communicating mind-to-mind, as it were. In the second, the organic connection has been broken, and the reader must make a conscious effort of the will to make work of interacting with the "breached edifice", trying to ignore the breach.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it.

Sorry, I was referring without naming to a specific school of thought, often called on these "the literati", who confronted Tolkien upon the original publication of the works. They did and still do look down their noses at fantasy and myth as not worthy of their consideration as serious literature, because it does not fit the rules they believe every work of literature ought to follow, by which they mean the modern novel with its flawed characters, relative morality, in-the-head characterization, etc. Be sure that I'm not condemning the modern novel; what I don't appreciate is the out of hand rejection of myth and fantasy because the literati refuse to countenance it, demanding it to fit their own terms.

I can see from what I've just written that you would criticize me of doing the same thing to Jackson's movies as opposed to Tolkien's books. But there is a seminal difference: Tolkien didn't buy the rights to Hemingway, for example, in order to write LotR.

Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

One would be foolish to deny such a possibility.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Morwen]

Quote:
Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?
Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Perhaps I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

[Sauron the White]

This has been brought up before, and I must say the answer has always struck me as --- to be frank --- just full of it. Self serving and mealy mouthed drivel trying to justify an obvious defect. So, again, the one huge flaw that is at the heart of the book LOTR (and thus the film also).

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Now, as usual, some will start to post about the legions of powerful Elves who once roamed Middle-earth in massive numbers and were the main obstacle to Sauron at the time he had the ring in the Second Age. So what? That does not cut it for me. If Sauron and that darn ring were so incredibly powerful, he should have been able to deal with them and come out on top. And okay, the Elves are waning in the Third Age, but Men are on the rise. Perhaps not legions of Numenorians, but armed and trained men.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

The book is flawed in its very premise. The film has the same flawed premise. And I love them both.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

That's not true. Sauron ruled all of the Great Lands save Lindon and Rivendell for nearly two millenia- his lordship was only broken by Ar-Pharazon.

[Sauron the White]

So its not true that the Last Alliance marched right into his own backyard, called him out and cut the ring from his hand? Lot of good it did him then. Why is that fact being ignored?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

He just needed a few thousand years to contemplate how to best use it, as it's been said about new Ring Lords. Did Sauron simply overreach?

[Morwen]

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Yes, the Ring is cut from Sauron's hand. Does Tolkien at any point claim that the One Ring makes the wearer invulnerable? In all that we are told about the properties of the Ring, are we ever told anything to suggest that the Ring gives one invincibility? If it is that the Ring and the Ring alone supposedly made Sauron invincible then to have it cut from his hand would be illogical within the context of the story. Tolkien would have established a rule (Ring = invincibility) that he then proceeds to disregard. But if Tolkien never established such a rule, then where is the flaw?

[alatar]

And just what was PJ's Sauron going to do with the Ring anyway, lacking even a lid within which to place it (piercing an eyelid - ouch!)?

[Sauron the White]

The flaw is a simple one. If Sauron gets the ring then he can rule the world and end all proper civilization. However, he once had the ring, attempted to do just that and was unsuccessful. The ring did not give to Sauron in the Second Age what the Free Peoples fear he will get by obtaining the ring in the Third Age. He had the ring. It failed to deliver. In fact, he had the ring right there in the Barad-dur in his own kingdom of Mordor and the Last Alliance came there, defeated his armies, then laid siege to his fortress for seven full years. What good did the ring do for him in that time? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But the whole premise of LOTR is that if Sauron gets the ring its all over but the dying... and that will soon follow.

But that was not true. Sauron had the ring, did some bad things with it on his finger .... but, in the end, had his sorry behind kicked and he vanished with the winds after it was cut off.

So much for the power of the ring on Saurons hand.

I see this as a huge flaw. I could have accepted the idea that there is this powerful being who is just inches away from total domination of all creatures if he can just get his hands on this powerful weapon. Of course, he has never had his hands on this powerful weapon but now must obtain it. But that is not the case. Sauron is NOT going after some powerful weapon that will tip the scales completely in his favor. He is simply trying to recover what was once his. In fact, the power in the ring was power that came from him in the first place.

[alatar]

• It was an arm's race - predator and prey sort of thing. If Sauron regained the One Ring, the prey may not have the time to adapt.

• It was just PR/spin. The Wise, seeing Sauron rising again and contesting their hold on the world, decided that whipping up the troops with, "If he regains the Ring, then we'll have to go back there again and cut off another finger, and wasn't it so boring the first time?" wouldn't be as successful at raising an army as it was the first time.

• Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The flaw is a simple one. If Sauron gets the ring then he can rule the world and end all proper civilization. However, he once had the ring, attempted to do just that and was unsuccessful. The ring did not give to Sauron in the Second Age what the Free Peoples fear he will get by obtaining the ring in the Third Age. He had the ring. It failed to deliver. In fact, he had the ring right there in the Barad-dur in his own kingdom of Mordor and the Last Alliance came there, defeated his armies, then laid siege to his fortress for seven full years. What good did the ring do for him in that time? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But the whole premise of LOTR is that if Sauron gets the ring its all over but the dying... and that will soon follow.

But that was not true. Sauron had the ring, did some bad things with it on his finger .... but, in the end, had his sorry behind kicked and he vanished with the winds after it was cut off.

So much for the power of the ring on Saurons hand.

I see this as a huge flaw. I could have accepted the idea that there is this powerful being who is just inches away from total domination of all creatures if he can just get his hands on this powerful weapon. Of course, he has never had his hands on this powerful weapon but now must obtain it. But that is not the case. Sauron is NOT going after some powerful weapon that will tip the scales completely in his favor. He is simply trying to recover what was once his. In fact, the power in the ring was power that came from him in the first place.

When Sauron puts the One Ring on his finger and the Elves realise that they have been betrayed they take off their rings , as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age. The concern that presents itself at the end of the Third Age is that if Sauron gets back his Ring all the work done by the Three would be laid bare. It compounds the problem that the Free Peoples have, that they cannot mount the kind of force sent against Sauron at the end of the Second Age. They are far more vulnerable at the end of the Third Age than they were in the second and it makes sense that they should be more worried about Sauron getting back his Ring. While the Ring may not render him invulnerable, the chances of repeating the feat of Isildur are slim. They may have defeated Sauron once while he bore the Ring. But that victory came at great cost and they, realistically, were skeptical of being able to do so again.

As for why Sauron wants the Ring back, this is an object as you note into which he had put the greater part of his power. Even though he may not have foreseen that his enemies would attempt to destroy it, he would not have been anxious to have one of them show up wielding it. Is it not prudent for him to guard against this?

[littlemanpoet]

STW: Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Elempi: Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Morwen: I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

You are right, Morwen. However there is a distinction between what is actually there and that which I am able to perceive. Since I have not made a thorough study of the point, I can only offer opinion.

Originally Posted by STW

The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to [Sauron's] door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

Your colorful choice of words is amusing. In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Why would Sauron let them get so close as to cut off the Ring? He was arrogant and perceived himself to be invulnerable though he was not. This relates to one of the central themes Tolkien was working with: the will to unjustly lord it over others results necessarily in self-destruction because evil is by its nature self-consumed and cannot understand selfless motivation and action.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place.

This is a mere truism and assertion absent of any supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by STW

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

There is no condescension intended; rather a distinction. There is no hidden agenda here. The distinction is clear. I wonder why you can't comprehend it.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

I'm trying to picture a concept in a party dress and lipstick and it just isn't happening; no secondary belief, I guess. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It is a clear distinction. Again, why can't you see it, STW?

Originally Posted by STW

He had the ring. It failed to deliver.

Precisely. But it does not mean what you seem to think it means. He made the Ring. It could not deliver that which he was incapable of achieving precisely because he had become evil and therefore, by definition, blind to his own weaknesses. "Wise fool." So the flaw you see is not extraneous of the work, but built into the entire milieu. I suppose it's only really a problem if one wants Sauron to win.

Originally Posted by alatar

Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

Gobtwiddle. He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

Originally Posted by Morwen

...as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.

Actually, Galadriel's ring is used to enhance everything having to do with Lorien, which is part of why she has so much to lose by the Ring's destruction. And Gandalf has Narya, which he uses a lot (fire). But yes, everything done by the three Elven rings would be laid bare if Sauron had recovered the One.

So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION.

This is an absurd suggestion, not only because of its hyperbole. If one reads fiction with this kind of analytical process going on all the time, enjoyment of the work would be deeply compromised.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Gobtwiddle. He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

Hogwash...which is what you want to do before applying lipstick.

Sauron, like Saruman and the Ents, did not anticipate this line of attack. He was worried about a new Ringlord, preferably of Rohan or Gondor make. He knew that there was some tark or man-dwarf-elf ("Man/Bear/Pig" ) running around spying on his land, but he did not think that this were that problematic or he would have had more agents/soldiers looking for the hobbits instead of going for Aragorn's band of ruffians - which would have been thwarted by the Black Gate regardless.

Did not the Witch-King, one of the fingers of the hand of Sauron, make the same mistake at Weathertop? "He will fade, then we will have him as there are no She-Elves around that can thwart us."

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, I'll give you that one, alatar, since I recollect now that Tolkien said much the same kind of thing in the story itself.

[Sauron the White]

from littlemanpoet

In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Did not the free peoples army win the decisive battle seven years before? Did they not lay siege to the Barad-dur for the next seven years before dispatching Sauron? How is this on the verge of defeat? JRRT himself, writing in Of The Rings of Power in THE SILMARILLION says they had the victory and their siege was so powerful that if forced Sauron out from his fortress.

from Morwen

where in the LotR is it stated that the Ring was supposed to protect him or that it operates as a protective device? Where is this suggested?

Where is it stated or suggested that Sauron while wearing the Ring is invulnerable to attack making it impossible for Isildur to in fact cut it from hand?

And if neither of these things is stated or suggested then how is it a flaw if the Ring doesn't do something that it's never said that it could do?

This is the second post where you mention these questions and I do not know what I wrote to elicit this line of inquiry. I am not suggesting that the ring has the power to make anyone invulnerable. No way. I am not suggesting it was suppose to protect him from Isildur. No way - no how.

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.