Attraction/addiction to the Ring

[Foe-Hammer]

I believe the ring wraiths are talking to him. Tempting him to put it on. I could be wrong. I've only seen the movie twice and the details are getting fainter the more time goes by.

[Thorin]

Harad, I think that says something about the difficulty of the changes that had to be made from the book to the movie, and where the movie had no choice but to fail in this regard and cause confusion.

The growing power of the ring over Frodo NEEDS that 17 year period. I think Tolkien made the power of the ring a gradual process throughout the book. By eliminating this 17 year period for the movie, PJ ended up undermining the power of the ring over Frodo. I don't know if there was anything PJ could have done except somehow show those 17 years passing and leave it up to the audience to put 2 and 2 together.

As for Weathertop, I think that the power of the Dark Lord and his influence was much stronger because the Ringwraiths' power was directed towards Frodo. Tolkien made it plain that whenever evil was nearby, he was tempted and drawn to put on the ring. I think the movie made that clear as well when the hobbits were hiding under the tree/rocks when the Ringwraith was sniffing right over top of them.

[Foe-Hammer]

I started reading "The Shadow of the Past" again.

This is the morning, just before Gandalf puts the ring in the fire.

"A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he ofton uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades:"

Does this prove that Frodo didn't have to wear the ring in order to "merely continue"? Then the movie would be in line with the book, AGAIN.
Damn that PJ!

Harad,

Bakshi's scene changing was a joke. I could buy the calendar bit, if it were done right.

[Haven]

I agree, I feel that Frodo would need the 17 years...but then again, that would take more time. So I think what the movie was trying to do, was show that if you have the ring, instantly you're attracted to it, b/c of dark forces and the dark forces that reside in everyone. Oh and whenever evil is near, he feels compelled to put it on. That was my take on it.

[chrome_rocknave]

Yeah--I think the 17 years was needed, also. Another thing that needed to be stressed (and was not) is that Frodo isn't some 20 year old guy! He's 50 (or somewhere in there :rolleyes: )!

[Foe-Hammer]

harad,

Yeah, thats right. I forgot that he didn't wear it around.

[aragil]

I don't think that the 17 years was needed in the movie, or in the books either. (People who haven't read the books, please shut your eyes). Remember the scene with Isildur at the Sammath Naur (sp?). He's only just gotten hold of the ring. He looks at the ring, looks at the fire, and says, 'I think I'll just keep it, as weregild for my father.' Of course, the real reason that he says this is because the ring has already taken hold of him, and he can not willingly give it up, certainly not to destroy it. We'll see almost the exact same scene with Frodo in RotK. He'll get to the cracks, look at the fire, look at the ring, and say 'I think I'll keep it, and challenge Sauron with it.' I doubt that Isildur put on the ring immediately after cutting it from Sauron's finger, or that he owned it 17 years before Elrond asked him to toss it in (Orodruin was still nigh at hand). Yet, the power the ring had on Isildur was as great (if not greater) than the power it has on Frodo at the end, and Isildur was one of the mightiest of his race.

[Grond]

An uncommon occurrence, a short post by Grond.

Why would there have to be some long period of time for the effects of the Ring to occur? It is infused with so much inherent evil that it can sense that it's time to move on. (aka Gollum drops it). Why can't we just accept that the act of passing the Ring, whether hand to hand or in an envelope is enough for the "changing of ownership". And the power of the Ring should be enough to infuse the new owner with a "desire" to keep it...even it he's never held it in his hand.

I have a way smaller problem with this than some other scenes. But.... that's just me.:)

[Grond]

As far as I can find in the texts, the only time Isildur wore the One Ring was when he attempted to escape the Orcs at Anduin, swimming across the river while invisible. The Ring slipped off his finger and he was killed by orc arrows as he could then be seen.

If anyone knows of other times he wore it, please enlighten me. :)

[Grond]

Well Harad, we're in the movie forum so I'm not sure which story you speak of. I do know that he stopped in Minis Tirith long enough to instruct Anarion's son (Isildur's nephew) in the running of the south kingdom and it was there he wrote the scroll where he described the Ring upon finding it. But all in all, you're right, that was probably days and weeks rather than weeks and months.

I don't have the chronology of years here at work, but I'm sure it would detail the year/date of his death and that could be chronicled to the defeat of Sauron and we would know exactly how much time he stayed in Minis Tirith. Got your book handy? It would be in the Appendix.:)

[Haven]

This doesn't refer to Isildur, but just a point I wanna bring up... Hobbits are more resistant to magic than humans...which could be a reason why it would take longer (say like, maybe 17 years ;) ) for the ring to take effect, even then it's not like, RARR I MUST HAVE THE RING...(sorry I couldn't think of an intelligent phrase there)

[Elin]

WRT Frodo's ownership of the ring, as portrayed in the movie, am I correct in remembering that he was the first to hold it in his hand after Bilbo "let it go" (dropped it on the floor - much inferior to the interchange between Gandalf and Bilbo in the book)? Gandalf attempted to touch it, but wouldn't/couldn't. Later, Frodo came in and picked it up. So you could say his "ownership" of the ring (or the ring's ownership of Frodo) began then.

I also don't see what would have been so difficult about showing a passage of time. But that was one of the things that bothered me the least in this film. For the record, since I'm new in the forum, I'll state that I enjoyed the film as long as I consciously blocked out my memories of the book. Lots of nice portions and aspects, but overall it missed the mark for me. Too much appeal made to the action picture crowd.

I'm enjoying reading all your posts very much - learning a lot, laughing, and delighting in "meeting" others who share my delight in ME.

Elin

[Grond]

Welcome to the forum Elin. Your post shows great wisdom. I, too enjoyed the movie but went in with no expectations as to it comparing to the book. I enjoyed it for what it was, A great movie based on the book, but, with enough changes to cause me great disappointment.:)

[Haven]

Nice to meet you Elin!...erm, now for me to get back on topic...

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Getting back to Elin's comment on the book. My reading of it was that Gandalf held the ring. Is that worrisome, logically? Or does that just show that Gandalf was so in control of himself that he could hold the ring without giving in to the dark side, i.e. using it. Its not as if the class of Wizards did not have a dark side. From FotR, Shadow of the Past, "...Gandalf held it up. It looked to be made of pure and solid gold. 'Can you see any markings on it?' he asked..."

I had completely forgotten that Gandalf held the Ring in his hand until your post made me look it up. It would seem to indicate that Gandalf had more self-control that Galadriel and Elrond. Otherwise, I have no explanation as to why one would hold it and the other would not. :)

[Greenwood]

I just came upon this thread (a bit late) but I wanted to throw in a few thoughts.

I think the word addiction is misleading. It is the mere possessing of the Ring that is the problem, not use. Grond is absolutely right in pointing out that there is no need for the 17 years that Frodo possessed the Ring in the book and that Isildur was immediately ensnared by the Ring. (An aside: there is no knowing how many times Isildur actually used the Ring. The book only mentions the time it betrayed Isildur by falling off, but if he had never used it before then, how would he have known it would make him invisible? Certainly we can assume it did not make Sauron invisible or how could Gil-galad and Elendil engaged him in combat.) Also remember the finding of the Ring in the Anduin River by Deagol and his immediate murder by Smeagol/Gollum. The Ring's evil influence is once again immediate with no need for it to be used.

I believe the reason for the 17 years in the book is that the passage of time with no sign of aging on Frodo's part is one of the things that disturbs Gandalf. From the chapter "The Shadow of the Past": "It was just at this time that Gandalf reappeared after his long absence. For three years after the Party he had been away. Then he paid Frodo a brief visit, and after taking a good look at him he went off again. During the next year or two he had turned up fairly often, coming unexpectedly after dusk, and going off without warning before sunrise. He would not discuss his own business and journeys, and seemed chiefly interested in small news about Frodo's health and doings." A couple of pages later in telling Frodo about his growing suspicions about the Ring, Gandalf says: "And all seemed well with Bilbo. And the years passed. Yes, they passed, and they seemed not to touch him. He showed no signs of age. The shadow fell on me again. But I said to myself: 'After all he comes of a long-lived family on his mother's side. There is time yet. Wait!" "And I waited. Until that night when he left this house. He said and did things then that filled me with a fear that no words of Saruman could allay. ..." The movie does a good job (I think) in showing Gandalf's disturbance about Bilbo's actions at the night of the party. It then shows Gandalf going off to the library at Minas Tirith and reading Isildur's account before coming back to do the fire test. There is no need for the 17 year delay in the movie and it would only add complications

Another thing to remember is a point I made on another thread. It is important to always keep in mind that the Ring is a character itself. In both the book and the movie Gandalf talks about the Ring's own actions: betraying Isildur, "leaving Gollum", etc. This is why I say that I think addiction is a misleading word to use in talking of the Ring. The Ring being a character in its own right also has a bearing on Frodo's behavior at Weathertop. He puts on the Ring both because the Nazgul will him to and because the Rings wants him to; in the book it says: "his terror was swallowed up in a sudden temptation to put on the Ring". At several points the movie does a good job of showing this outside influence on Frodo to put on the Ring and reveal himself. I believe someone already mentioned the scene with the Black Rider in the Shire where the hobbits hide under the log. There is also the scene at The Prancing Pony where Frodo is fingering the Ring with the same expression as when he was under the log (for you purists, in the book Frodo does say at The Prancing Pony that he felt a compulsion to put on the Ring).

A somewhat related matter is the scene at the Ford of Bruinen. (The purists are going to hate this.) I dearly love the scene in the book (it is a personal favorite) and Frodo defying the Nazgul is extremely dramatic, but it always bothered me a little that he was unable to resist the urge to put on the Ring at Weathertop when uninjured and confronting four Nazgul, but somehow does defy them at the Ford after carrying the bit of Morgul Blade in him for a fortnight and being nearly in the wraiths' world by then and confronting all nine Nazgul. The movie version avoids that question.

[Greenwood]

I had completely forgotten that Gandalf held the Ring in his hand until your post made me look it up. It would seem to indicate that Gandalf had more self-control that Galadriel and Elrond. Otherwise, I have no explanation as to why one would hold it and the other would not.

Grond

I got so involved in my long, previous post I didn't get around to mentioning that. I am glad someone else brought it up. It always seemed a bit of a slip on Tolkien's part letting Gandalf touch the Ring. Especially since Gandalf made such a point in the previous chapter, "A Long Expected Party", with Gandalf telling Bilbo: "No, don't give the ring to me. Put it on the mantlepiece."

I realize I will have now really brought down the wrath of the purists on myself by twice in two quick posts suggesting that Tolkien was slightly inconsistent where the movie was not. (Running for cover.) :) :)

[Grond]

Greenwood, an absolutely absorbing and excellent post. I agree with every single item except one. Have you guessed it? I am a purist......

The Ford has always been the pivotal point in the book for me. It was at that moment, despite having a morgul wound, despite having not slept or eaten, that Frodo gains his inner strength to resist exactly what you seem happy is avoided in the movie. This scene is the most important scene in the book for Frodo. He matures, he is finally brave (He don't need no stinkin ring to face down the Nazgul) and while he still fails (sword broken, voiceless), Tolkien makes that point crystal clear (at least to me). Frodo is a character to be reckoned with. He has found his inner strength and has the will and power to go on.

But that's just me, a purist.... and I could be wrong.:)

[Greenwood]

Grond

Alas, here we will have to agree to disagree. I think Frodo has already demonstrated his tremendous strength and courage by the way he accepts what Gandalf has told him of the Ring in "A Shadow of the Past" (I would be reduced to a quivering mass of jelly -- O MY GOD! This is Sauron's ring and he is out to get me!" Actually, I probably wouldn't even have the courage to quiver -- Sauron might notice) and his acceptance of the need to leave his beloved Shire, even with the agents of Sauron in hot pursuit -- to Gildor: "You mean the Riders? I feared they were servants of the Enemy." While I love the scene in the book -- one of the trilogy's most dramatic climaxes, in my opinion -- I have never thought of it as necesssary to show Frodo's bravery or resolve. That is probably why the change in the movie doesn't bother me greatly and I don't feel it violates the spirit of the book. I think the movie has similarly shown Frodo's courage by that point: "What must I do?", before the scene at the Ford. Perhaps Jackson and I think alike. (Oh oh! I hear the swish of purist's arrows coming my way. :) )

Harad

Somewhere in another thread I have already said that Frodo putting on the Ring after leaving Amon Hen has always bothered me as the biggest single inconsistency in LOTR. The only rationale I can give for Sauron not instantly being aware of him is that the Seat of Seeing on Amon Hen is special. (Sorry, I said it again, I couldn't resist.) Similarly, it bothers me when Sam puts on the Ring after the encounter with Shelob, actually inside the border of Mordor. But, I guess the argument there is that Sauron is blinded by his own webs of darkness that protect his realm and his attention is elsewhere.

[Foe-Hammer]

I think the reason gandalf didn't want to touch the ring was because Bilbo was giving the ring up and at that time it had no owner. After Frodo took reciept of the ring, it had it's new owner (an uncorrupted owner to work on, perhapes?), and it was safe for him then. Perhapes the ring is drawn to the uncorrupted and the corrupted are drawn to the ring?

Or maybe Tolkien had his limits when it comes to writing...

[Greenwood]

I think the reason gandalf didn't want to touch the ring was because Bilbo was giving the ring up and at that time it had no owner. After Frodo took reciept of the ring, it had it's new owner

Foe

That is certainly an explanation I never thought of. I will have to try it on and wear it around for a while to see if I am really comfortable with it. :)

[Tar-Palantir]

Gandalf didn't want to touch the Ring because he was afraid of it. This fear or weakness ( a "desire to do good", if you will) was expressed by Gandalf's "do not tempt me!" speech.

Foe, I've tried to follow your logic on this "corrupt/not corrupt" theory, but I'm not seeing it. Tolkien wrote that the Ring drew the Nazgul to it. Certainly, you'd call them "corrupt", wouldn't you?

"For nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so".

[Greenwood]

Harad

We disagree on this one. Sauron and the Ring had some 2500 years to gravitate together while the Ring sat at the bottom of Anduin and then hundreds more years while Gollum possessed it under the Misty Mountains. Unless you are going to argue that like Superman vs. kryptonite and lead that the river water and the mountains blocked the "gravitation". :)

[Greenwood]

Harad

You are quite correct about Sauron putting much of his power into the Ring. You are also quite correct that the Rings "was trying to whenever possible to get back to HIM". That is why I say it needs to be considered a character in and of itself. It is more complex than just a magnet and iron filings being attracted to each other.

The problem during the time of their separation was that the Ring was ok but Sauron was not. He suffered a major blow losing the Ring and took all of that time to get back in the running.

This is a point well taken, but has its limits. Remember Sauron had already gotten back in the running in Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood. Gandalf points out in the Council of Elrond chapter that he does not think it a coincidence that the Ring left Gollum and was found by Bilbo in the same year that the White Council drove Sauron from Dol Guldur. The Ring then resides in the Shire for decades without Sauron finding it.

[Grond]

As everyone knows, I am a purist... but Tolkien's works are filled with inconsistencies and other things that don't make sense. That is why he continued to work on his world of Middle-earth until he died. That is why his son Christopher originally released The Silmarillion, UT and HoMe. To give life to the fact that Me was a changing a developing thing. Many things appear in concrete. Others are vague and hard to understand.

I'm with you guys on the issue of Frodo putting the Ring on again after almost peeing himself on Amon Hen. Doesn't make sense and a major inconsistincy. I find no defense available other that the line of sight thing and I don't like that. The only other scenario one can come up with is that at the summit of Amon Hen, he was trying to use the Ring to see what to do and in using the Ring, Sauron became aware of him. Hash that around awhile and see if it might work.

There are two very interesting threads in the Book section that might be of interest to you and have pertinence to your current conversation. They are http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=939 and http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1050. They are both intimately related to your very discussion here and have some excellent responses.

[Elin]

Hi. First, thanks for the warm welcome. :)

I enjoyed the interesting analyses by Harad, Greenwood, and Grond on the nature of the relationship between the ring and Sauron, and the ring and others. I agree that the ring functions like a character in this story, biding its time and waiting for opportune moments to be found by those who can function as vehicles to transport it back to its maker (hope that's not a run-on). Sauron poured his power and will into it, and therefore the above would follow. However, I just want to point out that we shouldn't forget two other factors, which have been mentioned here and there: 1) The character and free will of each individual who comes in contact with the ring; and 2) This other power which is also at work, the same power which arranged for Bilbo, of all people, to find the ring in Gollum's cave.

In each person-ring encounter, all 3 factors come into play, and Tolkein the master storyteller does not resort to some formula to resolve the tension. Each case is individual. When Gandalf handled it in "Shadow of the Past", he didn't grab hold of it as an owner, and, as was mentioned above, it already had a current owner - Frodo. On the other hand, the fact the Gandalf DOESN'T touch it in the movie is fine by me. It shows us clearly that he's not lusting after power, or the ring itself. (I.e. the character factor dominates.)

In addition, I think that it's important to remember that Sauron is not godlike - he's not all-powerful and all-seeing -- he's a limited being. Therefore, after his gaze passes over Amon Hen, missing Frodo because he takes off the ring in time, it's entirely possible that Frodo can don the ring straight away and not be caught in Sauron's sites, simply because Sauron has not returned his gaze to that location. As Merry said to Pippin in the gate of Minis Tirith, "It's not always a misfortune being overlooked."

Elin

[Grond]

Excellent post Elin, and welcome to the forum.

[Grond]

Harad, your point is also well taken. Maybe we'll just have to write it off to the extreme pressure of the moment that Frodo again donned the Ring without any thought. And maybe the lack of intent (thought) on Frodo's part is what kept the Eye from latching on to him. Again, I see this as an uncomfortable inconsistency that can be explained away any number of ways but none make a lot of sense.:)

[Greenwood]

Grond

Thanks for the links. I did a very quick scan and there is indeed some interesting discussion there relative to points here. I am going to have to go back and spend the time reading all the posts.


Elin

Welcome to the forum. Very good post. I am not sure how strong the arguments are concerning why it was OK for Gandalf to handle the Ring and for Frodo to put in on again after Amon Hen, but they are arguments that I hadn't thought of.

[Foe-Hammer]

Greenwood,I will have to try it on and wear it around for a while to see if I am really comfortable with it:D :D :D

Tar,

I think maybe my theory will just eventually expose the LOTR as just a book. It's like arguing the physics of dissapearing. Once the point is proven, the story loses it charm.

[Grond]

Foe, a question. Is there any work of literature that you consider to be more than just a book?

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Tar,

I think maybe my theory will just eventually expose the LOTR as just a book. It's like arguing the physics of dissapearing. Once the point is proven, the story loses it charm. Foe and Harad, I took Foe's quote to mean that his theory would expose the LotR to be just a book, as in ordinary, run of the mill, literature. If that is the case, my being mystical or not, it just isn't so. The longevity and sales volume and fan base prove that to be an ignorant statement. That is all I'm saying. And I don't mean to say you're ignorant Foe, but if you are trying to prove LotR is just a another ordinary book as any other, I call 'em like I see 'em.;)

[Foe-Hammer]

Absolutely not!

My point was that we can analize the book to the point where it loses it's fun. I was specifically talking about my theory about the rings attributes and I should probably just drop it before the charm is gone for me.

I think the LOTR is great fiction and it reaches people on a level for good that they might not reach otherwise. The world is a better place for this work.

[Grond]

Foe, my sincerest and humblest apologies then. I see where you're coming from and again want to state my admiration for the movie and the job PJ did in taking on the project. He didn't make it exactly the way I would have wanted it shown but the fact that it has grossed $300 million in two weeks is a testament to it being a "great" movie.

I won't keep beating a dead horse. Sorry about my misunderstanding.:)

[Foe-Hammer]

No prob, Bro.:)

[Gothmog]

Some thoughts about things brought up in this thread.

Gandalf touching and even holding the ring.

When Gandalf was offered the Ring first, this came unexpectedly so he was surprised and at risk from the ring. When he came to test the Ring he knew inadvance what he was planning to do. Now if you just grab a nettle unexpectedly you can sting your hand quite badly. However if you know that you are going to pick one up then you can prepair and hold it in a way that it does not hurt you. Gandalf, being an Istari could perhaps be able given time to get ready, prepair himself to be able to hold the Ring for a short time without harm. This would not allow him to keep the Ring without being corrupted, only to hold it long enough to perform the test.

Frodo and Amon Hen.

It is while Frodo is on the seat of Amon Hen and looking at Barad Dur that Sauron became aware of him. When he took of the ring and left the seat, Sauron missed him. When he then put the Ring on He was no longer on the seat of seeing and not looking at Barad Dur and therfore did not become noticable to Sauron.

These may not be correct, but they are some thing to think about in respect of the questions.

[Tar-Steve]

Galdalf not taking the ring from Bilbo:
Just want to second the post citing the difference (IMO a huge one) between Galdalf touching/examining Frodo's ring with Frodo there and receiving the ring from Bilbo and actually "possessing" (by being left alone with it) it for a short time. I put quotes around "possessing" because I recognize that technically it's still Frodo's ring ... however everyone finds a way to rationalize that the ring belong's to them. Accepting this as an explaination about Gandalf still leaves me wanting an explaination for why Sam didn't put in a claim at Cirith Ungol. Anybody? And don't give me that "loves his master" ****. Sam thinks Frodo's dead and the ring is his (Sam's) ... How does Sam undo this in his mind after wearing the ring?

Amon Hen:
I've got no conflicts at all with Amon Hen. Sauron is not aware of Frodo until Frodo turns his gaze to Barad-dur. Once aware, he starts to search but never finds him. The miss at Amon Hen is a TOTAL miss. Sauron's gaze moves on to other parts. Sauron has no clue where the "watcher" was or "disappeared" to. After Frodo takes off the ring, it's a reset.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Absolutely not!

My point was that we can analize the book to the point where it loses it's fun.


not sure if i should report this post :D Analizing this book may be harmful to ya health!!!!! i mean calling the purists anal retentives is one thing but encouraging the whole forum to analize even a small book is another :eek:

[Ganfromir]

Hello!
We haven't met before. I joined today and have read everything in this forum, and, possibly to my suprise, found it very interesting.

Anyway, I thought I would dare to add a few thoughts of my own.

"Addiction":

Despite all of the above discussion, I do not believe we ever came to a conclusion. I think that most of the following was discussed, but when put together it paints a far clearer picture. We started with the assumption that it is the wearing of the ring, or possibily the length of possession, which triggers the "addiction". However, then examples of lesser possessions were voiced (re: Isildur). I would like to express my opinion, which I believe another 'young gun' in Haven would agree: The 'character' of the Ring has an almost instant effect whether it be on contact, sight or other.
Controversial I know, but I have evidence!
Isildur - knowledge of the Ring's power in the hand of the foe in Sauren made him almost immediately want to keep the ring - it is not his desire to have a trophy, but as another stated, to possess the same power. No need then to discuss possible examples of wearing the ring.
Gollum - killed for the ring. An instant lust overcame him and he killed his (arguably) only friend. Surely this is enough to signal his immediate desire? To kill another within moments of seeing the ring demonstrates that the Ring does possess an instant effect upon men. AND one presumes that Gollum did not wear the ring in solitude in the cave?
Boromir - never touched it yet attacked the Bearer!

What then is this attraction?
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I would say that it allows the manifestation of mankind's ultimate desire. A book of a similar name, Lord of the Flies, is a case study on man's innate lust for control/power. The ring merely triggers this desire, often to extremes.

I agree that this analysis posses problems.
Why does Frodo seem unaffected?
A point made brilliently by another and touched at in typical Tolkien subtlety, that the Hobbits, or possibly Baggins in particular (fate/destiny is a heavy theme in the book), in their happy, care-free Shire, have a far lesser degree of "mankinds' essential illness" (W.Golding). This is a key thought of mine. What do a people so voluntarily segregated from the world know of a Power Lust to rule all (an unseen) Middle-Earth?
The answer is v.little. The desire is still there, but in a far lesser extend, for example the rather 'childish' (re: Bilbo in the 'monster' scene in the Film) desire merely to possess the attractive ring.

Sorry that I have ranted, but I hope that my insights are at least read!

Thank you for your time, and I will continue to explore this seemingly excellent web site (it beats revision!).

P.S: Gandalf touching the Ring is of minor consequence. The comment about the self-preparation is good. But also Boromir shows that one need not touch to be affected. Gandalf is just a legend! A truly great will and power in himself.

Sorry.......

[Ganfromir]

Just Baggins then. :-)

It may be important that the deed that is finally committed makes Middle-Earth legend, and no ordinary person/hobbit could have completed it.....

[Ganfromir]

indeed!

[Grond]

Not arguing, Harad... just commenting. First, remember that Gollum was in all liklihood a pure Stoor. Maybe something occurred when the three different (breeds) races of Hobbits combined to make something a little different and more resiliant or maybe as stated, it was just something in the Baggins gene. Pure speculation on all our parts but interesting speculation.

BTW, Ganfromir I enjoyed your post and welcome to the forum.

Finally Harad, your theory concerning the addiction factor is interesting also. When thinking about the addictive properties you specifically refer to three Ring Bearers in Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel so.... they have already tasted the power of a Great Ring and know the good (which would ultimately lead to evil) that could be done with the One Ring. So, while their strength and will-powers were maybe already more attuned to taking a Ring... maybe even moreso than a Boromir and moreso certainly than Aragorn who already knew the risks of use but had no Ring of Power of his own.

Make sense?? I don't know.... but maybe.:)

[Gothmog]

Again, just some thoughts.

Tar Steve, when Sam took the ring in Cirith Ungol he was the first and Only Ringbarer to do so with the intent of throwing it into the Cracks of Doom (whether he would have done so later or not is a different matter). That and the fact that he then concentrated on saving Frodo may have been what saved him from the Ring.

This is the only explanation I can think of that will cover (however badly) the point raised.

[aragil]

***Book Spoiler***



I don't think that there was a 'Baggins gene' which conferred some sort of resistance to the powers of the ring. Frodo was completely overcome in the end. As was Isildur and Gollum. Bilbo and Same alone of those who posessed the rings really gave it up. I like Gothmog's explanation for Sam. As for Bilbo, I think that the fact that he could give it up was a testament to the greatness of his character. Frodo, however, failed in the end.

[Foe-Hammer]

Sam already had a master. Therefore the Ring had no power over him.

[Ganfromir]

Aragil,

I too used to think that Frodo was actually far weaker than, say, Samwise.
However, I have changed my opinion. Bilbo was not a stronger man (yes, Hobbit) for giving the ring away. Voluntarilly dispossessing the ring is a great task, but not so great as to willfully destroy the ring forever - remember that the destruction of the Ring sees i the New Age which affects all the Ring-Bearers eventully.
Frodo's weakness in the end is testiment to his long possession of the Ring. He is the only ring bearer to stand at the Cracks of Doom with the intent to throw the burden he has carried for so long. He is exhausted by his trials. He still never truly lusted the power in the ring.

Point about Sam having a master is good - and we have seen how generally Hobbits (Gollum?) have a better resistance since their sheltered existance somewhat protects them from the power-graving effects of the ring.

Thanks for the welcome.

[Tar-Steve]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Sam already had a master. Therefore the Ring had no power over him.

I'm sorry but that's just too clean. Sam isn't entitled to escape the unscapable because his personal situation's a little different.

However, (no books here!) doesn't Sam want to keep the ring because he doesn't want Frodo to suffer from the burden of it? I would accept that rationalization of Sam's and the subsequent reluctance as evidence that the ring had a slight pull working on him; just not strong enough to put in a claim over Frodo.

(did I just answer my own question from yesterday?)

[Tar-Steve]

A response to Harad/Comments imbedded:

Gothmog & Tar-Steve,

You want it both ways with regards to Frodo & Amon Hen. Amon Hen draws Sauron to the Ringwearer, yet Sauron has no clue about Amon Hen. Who says Amon Hen draws Sauron? I think it’s pretty clear that Sauron IS clueless about Hen specific, else why check the other hills before?

1. Frodo is A) wearing the Ring, B)on Amon Hen, and C)looking at Sauron. This seems to be the elements necessary to trigger the Sauron search process. Maybe, it’s not conclusive unless you and I have different definitions for ‘conclusive’. I’ll give you your ‘A’ and add a more generic ‘B’ (in place of your B & C); that the bearer is focused on Sauron. The properties that define this focus are not available. It could be sight, or it could be thought (in spite of Hen's title) , or some thing entirely different. I cannot see where you could ‘conclude’ anything about the manifestation of this said focus or even deny that different characters might manifest it in different ways. I agree with A.

(Please keep my generic focus vs. “line of sight” + Amon Hen point in mind so I don’t have to reiterate as I go along.)

2. Why B? Because it has a line-of-sight to the Dark Tower or because it is a magical place that "sees and can be seen" without a line-of-sight? If this is true and Sauron understands the nature of ME, and he should be one of the experts, where does he think this intrusion is coming from? "Gee, I don't know," says Sauron,"no one told me it had to be a line-of-sight or some magical place of seeing and being seen." And if he does understand, what are the potential places? Would he discount Amon Hen? Based upon his prior surveillance (Moria, etc.) that would seem to be a pretty good guess. So the conclusion is that either B) is not needed or Sauron can narrow down his search to Amon Hen or a few select places if it is needed. I’m not sure what the point is here even if I accept your ‘line of sight’ argument which I don’t as I expressed earlier. It’s clear in the book that Sauron is checking the possible places by stopping at the peaks but his search fails. There is nothing in the book to conclude that Sauron didn’t immediately dispatch orders to look in the ‘select few palces’. (I think the threat to Frodo was ensnarement anyway, not discovery. To the best of my knowlegde, Sauron, Gandalf, and others still need travel time to move.)

3. Why C)? Because of the magical quantum mechanical effect that the observer affects the observed? And in this case it works so Sauron knows he is being watched but doesnt know from where. Further, given a little bit more time, he can find out. What if Frodo turns around, closes his eyes, puts up an umbrella? Does this break the link? Dunno … might .. Could beAfter all his mysterious telepathic advisor doesnt say "Turn around." He says "Take off the Ring." So the conclusion is that C) is not needed Not conclusive, not even close, at least not after the search has begun. You’re taking liberties with logical operations. The absense of the “voice” taking the time to give a laundry list of all the ways to break this link isn’t enough to conclude that the ring’s the only component of the link. Maybe a good sneeze might have done the trick, or a hot hobbit-babe drive-by.

4. So finally the Ring is off and Sauron doesnt have a clue what happened. Or he has pretty good idea and picks an unusual time to take the rest of the day off. There’s no evidence that Sauron doesn’t take action. We know that no wraiths come straight away to Amon Hen but that doesn’t mean anything because we also don’t where they are at the time, what capabilities Sauron has to communicate with them, or if they checked any other ‘few select places’ before. We only have hobbit testimony.

5. Then despite fact that Frodo was shaken, stirred, and nearly taken by the Dark Lord, 2 minutes later, because Frodo HAS read the Book and knows that Amon Hen was the key, he puts on the Ring again, and runs down to the river and starts paddling his canoe.
How much more logical and understandable to "just say no," to putting the ring on again. No argument there. But that’s just Frodo being stupid and getting lucky, not an author’s mistake. Anybody remember why he puts it on again? Were the orc fights nearby?


The only thing I can ‘conclude’ is that I can’t believe I took the time to defend my position against your arguments. :D That’s not an attack, just how academic (and dare I say NPW-ish) I think a lot of these friendly debates can be. Can you say 'overkill'?

[Grond]

Goad the good Tar-steve at your own risk.

An excellent response Tar-my man.:)

[Grond]

Did I say goad???? I meant goat!! Maaaaaa!!:) :D ;)

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Tar-Steve


However, (no books here!) doesn't Sam want to keep the ring because he doesn't want Frodo to suffer from the burden of it?

Tar,

Wouldn't that be the attitude of a devoted servant? Your reason is just a detail of my broader general statement.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Sam already had a master. Therefore the Ring had no power over him.

I would not say that the ring had No power over him, but that for the reason you stated and the points I put forward earlier, it would take far longer for the Ring to Take Hold.

[Foe-Hammer]

Alas, we'll never know. I don't think JRR really addressed it from that persective. Sam just used the ring, returned it and that's all that was ever said if I remember right.

Good points.

[Ganfromir]

Which I would agree with.
My earlier point about the sheltered Shire (alliteration, nice!), the fact that Sam also has the pure love (rather than lust) for his master, and possible simpleton out-look (a man/tween more concerned with the anecdotes of his father and to plant trees!) all mean that the Ring would find it harder to get a grip.
Note that the ring has no noticible effect on Merry and Pippin who spent a long-ish time with it, and Sam is only slightly more attracted due to more prolonged contact. (Frodo and the 17 years of it knawing at him).

[safari]

first nothing in this post is intended to be insulting to anyone.

and i've only read the last 2pages of postings.

the theory in our house as to the hobbits and the ring: is that hobbits are not ambitious by nature unlike men/wizards/etc. therefore the hobbits take longer for the ring to conquer them. men are easy suduced by the promise of power. wizards would want to use it for good. the elves like wise. but hobbits they just want to be a farming community... the promise of great power is not a strong pull on them.

[Kuduk]

Before I begin, let me just say that this is one of the best threads of this Forum, if for no other reason that it has remained on topic (or at least on Tolkien). But actually, what makes it so good are the several intriguing (and excellent!) points that have been brought up. I can't tackle them all here, but let me start with the one most pertinent to the original thread topic.

Regarding the 'attraction/addiction to the ring,' I have some thoughts and once again I will rely heavily on quotes to make them. So let's start with one will recognize from Book One, Ch.1:

'You have still got the ring in your pocket,' said the wizard.
'Well, so I have!' cried Bilbo. 'And my will and all the other documents too. You had better take it and deliver it for me. That will be safest.'
'No, don't give the ring to me,' said Gandalf. 'Put it on the mantelpiece. It will be safe enough there, till Frodo comes. I shall wait for him.'

Gandalf seems to studiously avoid touching the Ring. Thus it seems odd, when in the next chapter, Gandalf asks for Frodo to give him the ring, even if it's just 'for a moment,' and especially, when Gandalf reacts so strongly to Frodo's offer to give him the Ring. But let's look at that passage.

'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. '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.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

As others have stated, I think temptation is one of the key concepts with regard to the Ring's corrupting influence. The Ring cannot corrupt if you are not tempted. The fact that Gandalf shouts 'Do not tempt me!' twice is not an accident.

Of course, temptation alone is not the only factor in determining the degree of attraction and addiction. I think some of the others are one's own character and nature (e.g. Hobbits are 'stronger' than Men in resisting the Ring) as well as the circumstances of the individual. Gandalf hints at this when he says "I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me." Boromir is attracted to the Ring by sight not simply because he is a Man (and a lesser Man than Aragorn), but because he is also more desperate. At the Council of Elrond, he has just come from Gondor and knows firsthand that razor's edge on which Minas Tirith sits. (Interestingly, this desperation is reflected and matched later in Denethor, his father). Given the right (or 'wrong') circumstance, Gandalf could also eventually fall prey.

Gandalf asking for the Ring previously is not such a circumstance, for he is not thinking of using it. (Plus he only touches it, he never tries to put it on.) He is very preoccupied with confirming his educated guess that Frodo's ring and the One Ring and truly one and the same and the ramifications of that confirmation. He may be wondering if he should be hoping that it is and or that it isn't. If one's mind is preoccupied, it is more difficult to be tempted by a thought. For example, a smoker trying to quit who is distracted by, say, seeing someone getting murdered is less likely to be tempted to smoke a cigarette than one who is sitting around and has nothing else to think of but how many days it's been since the last puff.

Also if you read that passage carefully, Gandalf is also preoccupied with Frodo. For example, he watches Frodo closely for his reaction when the Ring is thrown in the fire. I think this is because he is also wondering how much of an effect the Ring has already had on Frodo.

Anyway, I would elaborate further but I don't want all my posts to be such marathon lengths. But I'm sure you get my drift and I'd be happy to continue on future posts. Of course, these are all conjectures based on my interpretation of what's in LotR and not on anything Tolkien might have written outside of it (including the Hobbit), so I don't expect agreement on this. Just wanted to offer my thoughts and hopefully continue the 'intriguing' nature of this thread.

Thanks.

[Foe-Hammer]

Guys, I'm still convinced that whether the ring has an owner has a part in this.
The ring has no owner when bilbo leaves it on the mantle. It has an owner when gandalf touches it. It is offered as a gift to gandalf and he refuses to touch it again. (change of ownership)

This holds true throughout the books.

[Gloer]

Read Kuduks long post again.

He makes a very consistent and detailed point.

Touching something is merely a superficial action that has no importance. Touching something with intent - that's an other thing.

Gandalf is preoccupied throwing the ring to the fire and doesn't have time to start pondering wether he should actually just keep it. That thought is too far from his current intent of testing his hypothesis.

On the otherhand when he is offered teh Ring to hold it for Frodo - he knows that there will be queter moments when he has nothing at hand. Then he smokes his pipe - but he could also get tempted to try the ring while waiting.

It is a matter of wandering mind that is engaged by the ring - When thoughts are focused on something else the ring is not able to tempt you (Maybe to distract a bit).

[Viresse]

Something about the ring really bothered me the whole time I was watching the movie. In the book Frodo always kept it on a chain secured to his breeches. It was really distracting during the movie, I kept thinking, be careful, you're gonna lose it! It took away from how important the ring was because they were so careless with it.

[Kuduk]

Originally posted by Harad
Kuduk,

I think your idea is, correct me if its not, is that since Gandalf has made a decision to not own or wield the Ring then he is safe to touch it or hold it.

Could Gandalf then carry it? Could he be the Ringbearer as long as he wills not to use the Ring?

I think you would agree that the answer is "no."

Therefore he can only hold it for an instant: 1 minute, 10 minutes, what is the limit?

I believe there is an inconsistency between his actions all the rest of the time and when he holds the Ring, simply because the Ring is so powerful by any accounts, that one can not be a little "addicted" (there's another word that could be used here) but, one is either in the snare of the Ring or not.

Nicotine is considered one of the most addictive substances in this world, but does smoking one cigarette mean you are addicted? Or to use the other analogy I think you were hinting at (and I apologize if I'm wrong), while you either are or are not pregnant, when do you think life begins?

Before anyone tries to reply, I'm not expecting answers (nor do I want any); but my point is that some questions are not as clear cut as they may seem.

With regard to the Ring and Gandalf, Harad, I agree with you that there appears to be an inconsistency. However, I never said that Gandalf was safe to hold the ring, and yes, simply saying or willing oneself not to wield it does not make one safe. But giving Tolkien the benefit of the doubt for the moment, why was it safe for him to hold it at that particular moment?

I think The Ring is incredibly powerful; but like its maker, it is not all-powerful. As you said, the Ring is not a passive player and it must work its way into a being (Some are easier than others, of course). Maybe it works in a way akin to Galadriel's mind probing where she seems to offer members of the Fellowship tempting visions of their utmost desires; but in the case of the Ring it is more relentless and opportunistic. Purportedly, one of the things that protected Bilbo to the Ring's lure for so long was his innocence. Gandalf is not immune to the Ring, but maybe the intensity of his preoccupation (after all, the question of the Ring's whereabouts has probably been burning in him for at least a couple of thousands of years) protected him in a similar fashion, but only for those moments. Would he have been safe a second time? I don't know, it would depend on the circumstances, but given long enough proximity, contact, and/or possession (thank you, Foe Hammer), he probably would eventually have become ensnared. When would he have been ensnared? I don't know. But when does one become addicted to nicotine? And when does life begin?

BTW, I'll be out of commission for the weekend so if none of you hear from me it ain't because I don't care.:p

[Kuduk]

I'm sorry, I should have started the previous post with this, but better late...

Viresse, a warm welcome from me too! :)

[Tuk Took]

Such a fantastic thread! The power and effect over each of the characters is so variable - and why not?! I get the feeling that the central theme of JRRT is about the corruptive nature of Power, in the machiovellian sense. There is a confict in every heart over good and evil; the internal fortitude is tested for each who come into contact, whether as bearer or companion. The film portrays these different "hearts" well.

However, the power is not like a mechanical entity, some battery powered trinket. There is a corruptive influence of the ring itself. [Gandalf: "The ring wants to be found."] And the ring's power is fluctuating with Sauron's growing power. Therefore, the effects are an iterative/interactive consequence of these three factors, but the ring is the link between distant and remote foes. In other words, like any non-linear process, the causal relationship isn't predictive. That is surely the mystery that JRRT has weaved in the book, and that we see on the big screen.

One of my friends who has not read the book or knows the story said to me after the movie, "Oh, I just wish they could have gotten rid of that damn ring! It would have saved them a lot of trouble." Spot on PJ!

Thanks for an interesting read!
;)

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad
The Ring is not a passive item. You cant treat it like an object no matter who you are in ME. Gandalf is playing with fire by touching the Ring.

Hmmm... Sometimes people treat each other like objects. Even the most charismatic personality might find it difficult to interrupt a scientist that is just about to make a discovery that is worth the Nobel prize.

Onehas to remember that not even the most intense and focused person has his mind occupied all the time. He will need rest and then he will dream and that is when he can be influenced.

So my point is that while the ring is active it is easier for it to influence a person that is not focused on something else. I doubt it is enough to focus on not to use the ring. That is what Kuduk probably means by the thoughts of a smoker that is quitting: he should not think about not smoking for that thought also includes the act that is avoided. Actually you are quesioning your decision all the time!

Compare Gandalf and Tom handling the ring: Tom is clearly playing with the ring, trying it and then giving it back. He is not focused on anything else. His mind is engaged by the ring, but for him it is a mere object. Nothing happens. Gandalf on the otherhand is focused on his experiment - he wants to see the writing and if he is right. That desire is dominant at that moment. Hhe can not be tempted by the power for doing good, because he wants to throw the ring in to the fire.

[Silme]

What a great thread this is..... I've always found the corruptive power of the Ring and it's owner's addiction to it one of the most intriguing aspects in the book. And Tom Bombadil handling the Ring so easily and it not affecting him in any way, as Gandalf says "The Ring has no power over him". Why? Is it only 'cos "He is his own master" or 'cos he simply doesn't want or need the Ring? Or... hmmmm... I just read the bit of the Council of Elrond - it says "Such things have no hold in his mind" so the Ring in fact was nothing to Tom, and so couldn't affect him. I'm not sure if this made any sense.....:rolleyes:

[Ganfromir]

Well how this thread has grown!
This was the first thread I read, and got me hooked on the forum, and yet it is still the best.

I think that the issue over the handling by Gandalf is not necessarily an inconsistancy. Both times he refuses the ring it is when he has to 'refuse' it since it is offered to him. With Bilbo abandoning the ring it would be free to be possessed by another; the pull of the Ring would be far greater at this juncture since then Gandalf would be the possesser of the Ring, the Ring-Bearer as it were. He then would have to face his innermost desires in order to abandon the Ring again. this applies to the offer of Frodo too.
It is not the physical handling of the Ring which increases its hold, but merely that when 'given' the Ring, the offer of supreme power rather than the desire to have it from another is at work. I have shown earlier how other characters are attracted to the Ring by a lust for power, but a certain threshold has to be crossed before the character takes action. As mentioned by another above (sorry I forget who you are!) Boromir surcomed as his desire for the power of the Ring was heightened by his experiences of the Darkness. In contrast Aragorn, though still drawn to the ring, can, at least up until Frodo departs, withstand its lure.
Therefore, when Gandalf handles the ring, he is in a similar position as Aragorn - he desires the ring, but the knowledge of another possessing is enough to prevent the lust from overcoming him. Frodo is the bearer and both of these other characters have not yet crossed the moral threshold to 'steal' the ring. In contrast, when the ring is offered, it would be substantially harder to refuse once held.

In conclusion of this incomprehensible waffle (!), the physical handling is only important in light of the status of the Ring's ownership (relative possession as a derivative of title (see English land law!!!!!)) so Gandalf could touch the Ring from Frodo as the lure of the Ring would have been no greater then than when walking alongside the Bearer.

Please can this make sense.....

Keep up the good work on the thread, and hello the new 'faces'.

[Ganfromir]

No disrespect meant, but I don't think you grasped the main point of my argument.
Yes, it is the possession that is key, for what else would define a 'Bearer'? However, if Gandalf did assume the duty to carry the ring then he would be 'in possession' and so become the bearer.
I didn't argue the 'intentions' point, just that a one off handling is really no different from seeing the ring, or being aware that it is there; either way the power of the ring, which you thought I was demeaning, would eat away at the character.
Hope we don't fall out over this..........

[Ganfromir]

Hello again Harad!
I think I am being taken too literally. Handling does not count since it has the same effect as knowledge; it would not accelerate Gandalf's desire for the Ring. That is innate. It is more that if he continued, and for longer durations, to hold the Ring, then he would become its possesser (adverse possession LPA 1925!). The more intense his connection with the Ring the harder it will be to give back until he will not.
Therefore, it would not be 'ok' to allow Gandalf to carry the Ring for his initial intentions would become irrelevant - with the Ring its power would take hold of him, praying on his mind. But to touch it for a short while, when mentally prepared to give it back (for this decision can be made before he touches it safely since the Ring-touching will not increase his latent desire), is not to possess. Re: amimus possidendi.
Any chance we shall agree?!

[Gloer]

Any chance Harad that you are just seeing the world a bit too black and white?

Ganfromir's point on legal posession can be effecting the possible temptation to have the ring. More you stand for legal rights, the longer you resist the temptation of the ring to try to take it or claim it while in temporary posession.

This combined with the psychological factors of fucus and engagement are a far conclusive and realistic view on the effect compared to the idea Harad is so keen to present: that the ring takes over the mind of anyone who touches it.

Harad - where does the evil come? From the bearer or the ring?
I tend to believe that the ring is merely enchancing the evil tendencies in the bearer or anyone who is engaged to think about it and desire it (Saruman, Boromir, Denethor).

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Harad


What are Gandalf's or Galadriel's evil tendencies?

Is it possible for anyone but Eru to be perfect? I tend to think not, which leads me to the conclusion somewhere deep down inside everyone, even in Gandalf or Galadriel there might be something evil, even though under all normal circumstances (i.e. without the One Ring) it would never come out.

[Foe-Hammer]

Harad,

You sure are making this diffucult. :)

Gandalf et al, said they would use it for good but eventually would alll be for naught, because the ring belongs to Sauron.

Gandalfs desire to wield the ring for good when he knew it would end in disaster was what stopped him from holding/accepting the ring when it had no owner or was offered freely to him. He would not take it by force, therefore it was safe to hold men he tossed it in the fire.

I think this holds true and consistant through out the book.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad


What are Gandalf's or Galadriel's evil tendencies?


At least Galadriel pretty much reveals her inner capability. She already tries to preserve her realm and stop natural effects of time and aging with the ring she has. That is sll good. With the one ring she would probably do the same to all ME. Now is that good?

Gandalf I don't know. He says he would be too eager to do good with the ring. He councels and brings hope to others, he takes away grief and hopelessness - I suppose he could end up making everyone happy even when there was reason to cry?

Anyway. Good intentions sometimes cause more harm. Especially with high doses.

[Eonwe]

reading this thread i have little to add (as usual)

1) Don't you think there is some difference between Gandalf being offered the ring (in which I can imagine he looks electrocuted like Galadriel:D ) and saying don't tempt me, and the time when he holds the ring? Yes/No only.

2) What is that difference? minimum 300 words

3) Stupid question? Would there be any additional effect from already having a great ring of the elves (same as Elrond Vilya, Galadriel Nenya, Gandalf has Narya when he holds the one ring). Would the others "know" when he puts it on? Is this how Gandalf "knew" Frodo had it on at Amon Hen? (Celebrimbor knew when Sauron put the one ring on, and had been betrayed)

4) I suppose the similarity to Bombadil holding it has been beaten to death? Is there no similarity?

Let's talk about addictions again, its so funny when Harad says smack.:D

[Grond]

Well, Grond has been a busy boy this weekend. I have again reread The Fellowship of the Ring so that I would have the prose fresh in my mind for the very purpose of responding to this thread. I will know give you my take on this issue and you can accept it, discount it or choose to ignore it. But my conclusion is based on writings in the book and the actions and reactions of the characters involved. My first conclusion is that none of the Wise appear reluctant to hold or touch the Ring, except for Gandalf at the very beginning of "An Unexpected Party". My quotes and analysis of this issue is summarized below.

1) In "A Long Expected Party", Bilbo is wont to give up the Ring and finally asks Gandalf to take the envelope (which holds the Ring). Gandalf refuses and suggests that Bilbo place in on the mantle. In the author's words, "Bilbo took out the envelope, but just as he was about to set it by the clock, his hand jerked back, and the packet fell on the floor. Before he could pick it up, the wizard stooped, grabbed the envelope and set it in next to the clock on the mantle." ***This is the only place I find in the book where Gandalf shows any hesitation at touching the Ring and at that moment it is ownerless!***

So Gandalf touches the Ring, in a way, but grabs quick and quickly sets it on the mantle. This makes perfect sense to me, since the Ring is changing ownership. Gandalf wants to keep Bilbo focused on leaving the Ring but doesn't want to touch it himself. At the last, he is willing to make a quick grab and holds the envelope for only a few seconds. In conclusion, I would say that he prefers not to handle the Ring but ends up handling it anyway.

2) In "The Shadow of the Past", Gandalf very clearly handles the Ring as he throws it in the fire with no apparent apprehension. This is likely because it is "possessed" by Frodo. Frodo is distressed that Gandalf has it but not the other way around. Later Frodo asks, "Will you not take the Ring?" Gandalf draws away and says, "No! With that power I should have power too great and terrible..." His fear is not in touching the Ring, but in possessing it.

3) At "The Council of Elrond", all of the wise refuse to possess and/or use the Ring, but the issue of touching the Ring never comes up. In fact Glorfindel states, "...two things only remain for us to attempt: to send it over the Sea, or to destroy it." Again, an inference that whoever was to take it across the Sea or destroy it would have to touch it. At this time, Frodo had not volunteered for anything and was still hoping he was going to be on his way home to the Shire shortly, without the Ring in his possession.

4) In Lorien, Galadriel too is offered the Ring and refuses. She shows no feeling one way or the other about touching the Ring, only that possessing it would turn her to evil.

In conclusion, the only slight inconsistency is in Gandalf hesitating to take the envelope at the very beginning of the book and this is easily explained that it is occuring during a time when the Ring is being released from one owner and going to a new one. That's my take after a long review. And.... you can take it or leave it.
:)

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Harad
Butt...

Why didnt he keep that same philosophy, load it into his backpack, and saddle up for Morrrrrdorrrr?

The desire to do good would work on him. And if he were given the ring to hold, what would be the purpose? To "trick" the ring into who the owner is? If the owner isn't responsible for it, then it really isn't his and it would belong to whoever was carrying out the quest.

The ring knowsssssssssss.......

[Grond]

Another interesting finding this weekend came to me in the chapter of "The Mirror of Galadriel". In it, Galadriel states, "You have not tried. Only thrice have you set the Ring upon your finger since you knew what you possessed. Do not try! It would destroy you..." This statement relates to something said on this or another related thread concerning whether Frodo had ever actually worn the Ring before Bree (The movie shows the Ring sealed in an envelope until Frodo's departure from the Shire.) I feel Galadriel's statement gives credence to the theory that Frodo had used the Ring at least a few times during the time since Bilbo's departure, else, why would Galadriel say "only thrice... since you knew..."?

My apologies for posting this here. I couldn't find the original thread, but all of the posters on that thread are here as well.:)

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad
Butt...

Why didnt he keep that same philosophy, load it into his backpack, and saddle up for Morrrrrdorrrr?

I suppose he could do that. But I pressume that by the time he reaches Mordor Sauron has detected him and prepared for a confrontation. Now what happens?

1. Gandalf is defeated and Sauron get the ring.

2. Gandalf decides with quiet approval from the ring - to use it. He beats Sauron and makes the way to the Mt. Doom. But by that time he probably has desire to fix other evil deeds of Sauron too. Instead of destroying the ring he becomes a good all powerful wizard of ME. His power makes everyone happy and wittless Hobbits. Can that be evil? ( I keep remembering the End of the World by a giant marshmellow man in the Ghost busters)

3. Gandalf manages to avoid Sauron's gaze. By the time he reaches Mt. Doom he will not choose to do what he came there for. Just like Frodo. And then Gollum jumps and struggles the ring from the huge all powerful wizard? Nope. Go back to point 2.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Grond:
Its about time you read the book.
1. "hesitation" in that he asks for it to be placed in an envelope? Good point...Why hesitate when he doesnt know? Why hold it when he does know?
2. Not gonna buy it...Take the Ring, Own the Ring...thats my poisonal philosophy. It certainly works for enemies...why not friends?
3. I didnt see Elrond leaping across the table to examine it. He passes.
4. Likewise with Galadriel.."Frodo, do you mind if I look at or touch this object that has been at the center of our existence for the last 1000 years?" She passes.

1) I'm confused by your answer to 1. Gandalf did not want to touch the envelope that Bilbo had the Ring in at all. He only did so because Bilbo was showing reluctance to give it up. When Bilbo dropped the envelope, Gandalf retrieved it to keep him from being tempted to grab it again. Gandalf allowed his concern for Bilbo to supercede his fear of touching the envelope. Where is the inconsistency in that?

2) Touch the Ring does not necessarily equal owning the Ring as is illustrated by Gandalf's very own actions. He touches the Ring but does not "lose himself" and become an "Evil Lord".

3) Elrond doesn't pass. Where is that in the book. The Ring is only held up by Frodo and no one else handles it. You can read anything you want into that but you cannot say Elrond or anyone else passes. You may say, neither Elrond nor anyone else asked to handle the Ring. Elrond passes indicates that he refused an offer and no offer was ever made.

4) Your viewpoint totally confuses me. None of the wise are thrilled about touching a "thing" that has their very existence tied up within it. So, no..... Elrond nor Galadriel asked to examine or even look at the Ring. Understandable? Yes. Could they do it and remain pure? Surely. Only if they made a claim on the Ring and attempted to use it would they be consumed by it. And, if they possessed it for a long time or need drove them, they may be turned sooner.

No one seems to have taken the viewpoint that Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond (and probably Cirdan) are the Greatest of Good on Middle-earth. Bilbo resisted horribly negative effects of the Ring for years and years.... so did Frodo. Why is it so hard for everyone to think that these Greats could do less? Surely all of them could have. I just fail to find any reference in the book where it says touching the Ring = instant corruption. Someone show me please.

[Eonwe]

good lord I am agreeing with Foe

"A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays with the idea of handing it on to some one else's care--and that only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing, and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him"

I am afraid that this passage makes me disagree with the possession=in your hand. The Ring was perilous to Gandalf more when Frodo offered it to him, since that was the keeper giving the Ring up. In the case of Gandalf handling the ring, (similar to Bilbo handling the ring when Gollum was the keeper) the Ring did not decide by itself to leave Frodo, so Gandalf did not posses it.

BTW -- Harad I completely agree that Frodo putting on the Ring with Sauron looking around Amon Hen is troubling, the UT says that the palantir could see through obstacles as long as their was light to see things with.

This is fun. But I still wish sometimes I could drink beer instead.:D

Trivia question: How did Gandalf suspect originally that it was a Great Ring, instead of a lesser ring (not the writing!)

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad
Gloer,

Your scenario is purposely ridiculous.
Substitute Frodo for Gandalf and it becomes more ridiculous.

And I bet that Gollum could sneak up and bite off Gandalf's finger.

And Foe,
Once Gandalf holds the Ring, he is responsible for it. What could Frodo do, if Gandalf walked out with it? Hence it is at that moment, Gandalf's responsibility.

Harad - I am only continueing from your hypothesis:

What would happen if Gandalf got the ring to be taken to mt. Doom? He would fail the task just like Frodo.
What then? He could have the capability to wield a power great enough through the ring to destroy Sauron and all evil creatures.
What then? Gandalfs tyrannical welfare state. This is not ridiculous. It is obviously funny in a way, but still very logical.

And what about walking of with the ring when Frodo still has it?Gandalf could just as well take it from him by force and bullying his authority.

I am tempted to use my bullying authority to take your keyboard from you. I think you write all too much. Maybe you should do something else for a change. At least you have stated your point of view several times. If it is not convincing anyone else just give up? I cerainly gave up convincing you already...

[Eonwe]

when was the ring taken from a bad guy to a good guy?

1) Isildur -- Sauron is effectively dead beaten by Elendil and Gil-Galad. (Contrary to the movie finger cutting off scene)

2) Gollum -- Gandalf says above what happened

when when? who's talking about loaning?

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad
Gloer,
I am glad you have given up. Bub-bye

Eonwe,


I was just using your words as my guide. Using this principle, if Isildur took the ring from Sauron and the Ring did not decide by itself to leave Sauron, then Isildur did not possess it.

Now, have that beer.

Here again you have difficulty of understanding Harad.
I am not leaving the discussion. It very interesting and very good points of views have been represented. Some of them I agree with some I do not agree with.

It is only that I feel you Harad are immune to logical arguments. You have made up your mind and nothing can turn your mind. It is not rational and therefore it is useless to try to get you to admit that you could be wrong at anything. So I don't even try.
You have your views. They spark a lot of very good conversation which is all very well.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Eonwe
reading this thread i have little to add (as usual)

1) Don't you think there is some difference between Gandalf being offered the ring (in which I can imagine he looks electrocuted like Galadriel:D ) and saying don't tempt me, and the time when he holds the ring? Yes/No only.

2) What is that difference? minimum 300 words

3) Stupid question? Would there be any additional effect from already having a great ring of the elves (same as Elrond Vilya, Galadriel Nenya, Gandalf has Narya when he holds the one ring). Would the others "know" when he puts it on? Is this how Gandalf "knew" Frodo had it on at Amon Hen? (Celebrimbor knew when Sauron put the one ring on, and had been betrayed)

4) I suppose the similarity to Bombadil holding it has been beaten to death? Is there no similarity?

Let's talk about addictions again, its so funny when Harad says smack.:D


1) Yes
2) Differences:
Proprietary:
- a good highly moral person (Gandalf) accepts and respects basic proprietory rights
- those rights include right to possess the property, competence to transfere it or to destroy it
- a loan is a transfere of posession without rights for furhter transfere or destrying the object and with obligation to return the object
- If Gandalf therefore was given the ring as a loan he would respect his obligation and return the ring to Frodo
- If Gandalf therefore was offered the ring, he would be able to keep it

Psychological:
- the ring tempts anyone who thinks about having it for themselves, there is no need for rings presence (Saruman)
- the ring does not tempt anyone who is thinking about something else than having it for themselves

Therefore Gandalf finds it easy to handle the ring while making the experiment: the thought of having the ring does not pass his mind while he is preoccupied and at that moment he also really wasn't in posession of the ring in the legal terms of a loan since Frodo was right there guarding his actions.

And again it is very much a different situation if Gandalf is the owner of the ring. He could not avoid being engaged with the question what he would do with the ring, his ring, his preciousssss... (and so on)

3) I think Galadriel knew when Frodo had used the ring.

4) Bombadil...

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Harad
Gloer,
Logic is my business, I thinks its your parttime hobby.

I believe that os your business. You are very keen on finding inconsistent aspects from the rings effects.
You have obviously decided that it would be more logical if the ring would affect anyone who touches it. Why is that?
It is not more logical - it is only a simple explanation.

And it is simply not how the ring works in the books (movie?)

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Gloer,
Your "legalistic" interpretation of the Ring has no supporting evidence in LOTR. Instead the evidence is that possession of the Ring is ownership of the Ring in every single case except one. That is Gandalf's holding of the Ring--thus an inconsistency.

Your tediously repeated arguments dont get any more convincing. If Gandalf can control his intentions in one instance...why not 2 or 10 or 1000 instances. Enough so he never "intends" to own the Ring or never "intends" to use the Ring. Just "intends" to carry the Ring and "intends" to destroy the Ring.

Where is this mystical "Owner of the Ring" besides the one currently possessing it? No can possess it without holding it. Going going gone.

P.S.
Look up Occam's Razor, Gloer. I know this was directed at Gloer but am wondering where you're coming from. You say "if Gandalf can control himself in one instance, then why not 2 or 10 or 1000......" I challenge you to show me one instance where he touched the Ring and did not control himself.

My assertion is that Gandalf has always been able to control his intentions. Please tell me of one instance where he wouldn't touch the Ring.. The only place that anything like that happens is in "An Unexpected Party" and he ends up touching it there in the end by picking the envelope up and placing it on the mantle as Bilbo originally asked him to do anyway. Was he reluctant? Yes. Did he do it anyway? Yes. Was there any other instance of Gandalf refusing to touch the Ring???? No!! He took it to throw it into the fire. He was then asked by Frodo to take the Ring to own. That he refused. He didn't mind touching at need, but to take it to own is a different beast altogether. The same would apply for Elrond, Galadriel, Cirdan and the rest of the Wise. Where is the error in this logic? You bluff a good game but have not shown me one fact to gainsay my statements.

[Eonwe]

Harad -- this is the key to your future understanding of this matter:

Sauron was gone!

"It may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it."

If Frodo was dead when Gandalf handled it -- you are saying the situation would be the same?

[daisy]

re: ownership of the ring.

I was under the impression that the ring is not owned by anyone, including Sauron, as it is an entity unto itself and therefore almost has a consciousness, as it seems to speak to the creature who has it, yet it is owned by no-one, including Frodo.

I mean, yes, he possesses it, or carries it physically, but it possesses him.

You can possess something physically but not own it. Just ask the student of mine who is walking around with my 'borrowed' cel phone!!

Also Eonwe, Sauron was never truly gone, not as long as the ring survived.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Grond,
I have to argue all over the map here. Your argument is opposed to the other arguments and I am in the middle.

If Gandalf could control himself as he does thruout--I agree with you there--THEN--

Why can't he do the same for an extended period of time. If he can pick up the Ring and throw it in the fire, why can't he pick up the Ring and walk across the room with it. Then walk out the door with it. Then get on his horse with it. Then ride out of the Shire with it. All the time controlling himself. And NEVER, taking it to "own."

Again what does "own" mean except "possess"? If he owns it on his horse, then he owns it in Bag End. If he doesnt own it in Bag End, he doesnt own it on his horse. I guess I'm just confused as to what the original argument really is. As to your comments above.... Gandalf surely could have taken the Ring and hauled butt on his horse, in a cart, in a box or with a fox. It wouldn't matter. As to how long it would have been before the Ring started to pull on him and tempt him to use it.... surely almost immediately. As to how long he could have resisted it... given Bilbo and Frodo as guides... Gandalf surely could have resisted a long time. Why didn't he take the Ring? Because by the time he was sure it was the One Ring, Frodo was the owner and would have been loathe to give it up. Gandalf also felt that other powers were at work and felt that Frodo would have some important part to play in the Ring's ultimate resolution.

As far as the "fear" of the Great to touch the Ring, I just plain disagree with the assertion. None of the Great showed any fear in the book to touch it, only to possess and wield it. There isn't any evidence anywhere to support your "touch it at your own risk" theory.

As to your own/possess question. Own is not the important word in the formula. The important word is possession, which is much more than owning and is a two-way street insofar as the Ring is concerned. After all, there is only one true owner of the Ring and that would be Sauron. The possession issue is two-fold. One is when a person comes in to contact with the Ring and decides to keep it. 1) Isildur - cuts finger, keeps Ring. 2) Smeagol/Gollum - see Deagol has it, kills Deagol, gets Ring. 3) Bilbo - finds Ring in hall of cave, keeps Ring. 4) Frodo - given Ring by Bilbo, keeps ring.

Secondly is the effect the Ring has on the bearer in the longer term. In this second part both the bearer and the Ring are involved. The bearer grows more and more obsessed with the Ring while at the same time the Ring has laid claim to the bearer. The best example of this situation would be Gollum. He had the Ring on his person for a long time and used it regularly. He had not yet been consumed to a wraith state but was surely perverted.

On the whole, I just don't think that any of the Greats holding, touching, feeling, spit shining the Ring would have been any problem. The real schitzoid responses only occurred when the Ring was offerred to them as a token for them to take control of. I just think that doesn't show a breakdown of logic on the part of the author. Amon Hen.....maybe. Here, I don't see it.:)

[Ganfromir]

It's so unfair that you are all, I presume, American!
I manage, while sleeping, to miss a whole 2 extra pages on this thread.

Anyhow, since i last appeared it is clear that the general concensus is on the side of Grond/Gloin/Myself and others.

Touching the Ring is not the big deal in itself.
Even when being around Frodo the character's lust for the Ring has to be controlled eg. by Gandalf, Galadriel et al. When the wizard touches the ring he is battling with himself not to keep the ring - this continues throughout the book. As stated by another above, he is one of the Wise and can obviously brase himself to return the Ring.
However (and I can feel Harad staring at me now) if Gandalf continued to hold the ring (even with another 'intention') then he would become its possessor and he would eventually surcome like all others to the power of the Ring.
Harad, when you have scoffed at 'intention' before I believe you miss understood. What I think the rest of us mean is just that Gandalf was prepared not to attempt to keep the Ring and so was focused on this SHORT task. Before you start quoting "10 seconds, 10 minutes, 10 days" etc etc this means that the 'intention' thing does not remove the effect of the Ring, merely that for that time it is still owned/possessed by Frodo and Gandalf can deal with the Ring as he always has to, with caution.

Hope this is clear, and can you all go to bed at daytime so I can be awake when you post your replies?!

[Gothmog]

Logic, the tool by which we prove to others that which we already belive ourselves.

OK lets have a look.

Gandalf made no effort to prepair himself?
He had been away from the shire for more than nine Years. When he got back it was in the evening. He started telling Frodo about the Ring but stopped.
'Last night you began to tell me strange things about my ring, Gandalf,' he said. 'And then you stopped, because you said that such matters were best left until daylight. Don't you think you had better finish now? You say the ring is dangerous, far more dangerous than I guess. In what
way?'

So I think that nine years would be ample time to prepair, plus Gandalf waited in the house until daylight and he probably rested to be most ready for the task he had to perform.


. . But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they
were perilous.
'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the dark power will devour him.'

Now Gandalf was talking about the Elven-Rings and Mortals in this case and we know that the Elves and the Istari do not have a problem with these Rings.

So What about the One Ring, what is the difference between the Elven-Rings and the One Ring.
for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency;

This is from the Silmarilion and shows that the difference between the rings is a matter of degree. So the Elven-rings are perilous to mortal but not to non-mortal. The One ring would likely to be as perilous to the non-mortal.

So as the quote about the perils to mortals show It does depend upon your intent. This is just for Keeping the ring, using it means that It would work on the keeper faster and more effectivly.

So Gandaf held the Ring for a short time; But what did he do while he was holding it?
. Give me the ring for a moment.'

Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt. He unfastened it and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.
Gandalf held it up. It looked to be made of pure and solid gold. 'Can you see any markings on it?' he asked.
'No,' said Frodo. 'There are none. It is quite plain, and it never shows a scratch or sign of wear.'
'Well then, look!' To Frodo's astonishment and distress the wizard threw it suddenly into the middle of a glowing corner of the fire. Frodo gave a cry and groped for the tongs; but Gandalf held him back.
'Wait!' he said in a commanding voice, giving Frodo a quick look from under his bristling brows.
No apparent change came over the ring. After a while Gandalf got up, closed the shutters outside the window, and drew the curtains. The room became dark and silent, though the clack of Sam's shears, now nearer to the windows, could still be heard faintly from the garden. For a moment the
wizard stood looking at the fire; then he stooped and removed the ring to the hearth with the tongs, and at once picked it up. Frodo gasped.
It is quite cool,' said Gandalf. 'Take it!' Frodo received it on his shrinking palm: it seemed to have become thicker and heavier than ever.


Now in this quote there is nothing to indicate that Gandalf was looking at the Ring. He is talking to Frodo and seems to be concentrating on Frodo's reactions to his questions and actions.

He Takes the Ring and Holds it up for Frodo to see, asks a question then throws it into the fire still concentrating on Frodo. He next drags it out of the fire with Tongs and then picks it up and gave it straight to Frodo.

Concidering the point of the second quote and the fact that there is a defference of degree between the Elven-rings and the One Ring there is no incosistancy in this. The more that Gandalf handled the Ring the greater the risk from the ring, but he had to check that his deductions were correct so the slight risk from contact that he was prepaired for had to be taken. it would have been illogical not to have done this and no one else could do the test. The other occations when he refused to touch the Ring when offered. On these as well as increasing the risk due to more contact, these times also included definate temptation as the Ring was Offered to him as a gift. He would have had to acknowledge possession of the Ring in such a case giving the Ring an opening to gain a hold on him. There is no evidence that he did so in Bag End.

As to 'did Gandalf know how long was safe?' Idoubt it very much, so he made sure that he did not have to hold it for long. He was sitting by the fire ready to throw it in, when he took it out of the fire he gave quickly back to Frodo. After that he did not want to touch it again.

[Gloer]

I would like to have explained how come Saruman is so obsessed by the ring even when he never even gets to 100 miles distance from it - let alone gets to touch it like Gandalf that still is less affected.

I presume Gandalf and Saruman were from the beginning both as strong and good.

My hypothesis is that since Saruman is engaged for a long time in the study of the ring lore, he gets more influenced by the ring than Gandalf that handles the ring in the Bag End.

Gandalf has studied the history of the ring just enough to identify it. He has not done general research like Saruman. When Gandalf has enough information for the experiment he returns to Shire and uses that information. He is not engageing himself in studying how the ring can be used for that leads to temptation to keep it and use it.

Saruman on the otherhand has no specific reason to study the ring lore exept for that it might be generally useful against Sauron to understand his ring thoroughly. He has no apparent aim to find&destroy it as soon as possible. Therefore he becomes obsessed by the ring from a far until he wants to find it, keep it and use it.

I must point out that the effect of addiction, attraction, obsession is in the mind of the victim. Thoughts do not need material connection. They can be projected to the ring anytime anywhere.

I admit though that the presence of the ring, it's visibility and holding it greatly enchances the risks. Temptation is great when possibility to have the ring are realistic and apparent.

"Out of sight - out of mind. " "Chance makes a thief."

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Harad


And Foe,
Once Gandalf holds the Ring, he is responsible for it. What could Frodo do, if Gandalf walked out with it? Hence it is at that moment, Gandalf's responsibility.

Harad,

Because Gandalf is a "good" person, the desire to use the ring for good is very strong. Because he is not a bad person, the temptation to take the ring from frodo is not there at all. He would have to take the ring by force from anyone who owned it, and he is just not tempted by that, so it is safe to touch the ring.

Now, when the ring has no owner, or is offered to him, he fear is great and he will not touch it because the temptation to do good is great, yet he knows that evil will come of it. :)

[Grond]

Harad, my final thoughts on this issue (I'm sure everyone is glad these are my final thoughts) versus your concrete and immovable stance.

You continue to refer to Gandalf first refusing to touch the Ring and then casually touching it when "testing" it. He never refused to touch the Ring....ever. Either you're not reading all the posts and the book or you're reading a different book and thread than I am. The following points which you have yet to address.

1) Gandalf told Bilbo not to hand it to him but Gandalf then picked it up after it was dropped anyway. Even after he didn't want to at first.

2) Later in the book, Gandalf casually holds the Ring to examine it to prove that it is indeed the One. (You're biggest problem with JRRT logic lies here, I assume and you have been offerred numerous logical counter arguments as to why this could/would happen.)

3) Gandalf refuses ownership of the Ring and then gives his "do not tempt me speech" where he shows that he is not prepared to use/possess the Ring even though Frodo is offerring it to him. None of the Wise at the Council of Elrond has any desire to tangle with the Ring either. The famous "it is a matter of man" routine is pulled. Also, to counter many of your other arguments, the Wise in general and Gandalf in particular, come to the opinion that the "Quest" lies with Frodo and no other. No one appears to fear the physical presence of the Ring.... only the implications of ownership/use.

4) In Lorien, Galadriel is also offerred the Ring for her to "own". See 3 for answer. No one shows any "fear" at the implication of touching the One only in possessing. And since you have such a problem with the possession issue, I will say that they are all offerred the Ring to be their own by the current owner. A permission to "own" is granted by the present owner who appears willing to "give it up."

Harad, your steadfast/stubborn arguments are flying in the face of the logic of the rest of the responders on this thread. Either we are all misguided/ignorant people or maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your own logic and see if there might be a small "flaw" in it. Although, having dealt with you on numerous threads, I don't know why you might admit you could be wrong now..... you never have before.:rolleyes:

[Eonwe]

It's been a great show! As good as Sammy in '69!

"If my ideas are so dumb, how come nobody supports them? "

HAhaHAHAHAHAHAROTFLROTFL!! (See you shouldn't have told me what that meantROTFL)

"If you can't prove that UFO's don't exist, they must exist!"

(Aristotle called this an argument from fallacy, not allowed in philosophy)

Anyway just to clear things up, I was saying Sauron was gone in the same way that Frodo was gone, after Shelob hit his neck and Sam took the ring. Incapacitated.

Now where's my coat? I forget where I parked.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Thanks to all for taking the time to show me the error of my ways. And why is it largely G-men: Grond, Granfromir, Gloer, and Gothmog? I smell conspiracy.

Grond:
Gandalf does not touch the Ring when Bilbo leaves it. I decided to read FOTR last night, rather than extract these ideas from pure thought, and a rousing good read it is. The ring is in an envelope, and Gandalf picks up the envelope. And finally, Grond, are my arguments "steadfast/stubborn" because I am alone with my view? Do the numbers of people arguing a point absolve them from being "steadfast/stubborn"?

Now if you "steadfast/stubborn" types agree to this, we can end this debate. Ahhh Harad, I thought your earlier reference to Gandalf mightily fearing the Ring was from the scene at BagEnd with Bilbo where he declined to touch it. If that is not the case, then my apologies for misunderstanding. It should, however, be noted that when he hesitated to touch it at the first, it was in an envelope, just as it was when he finally did touch it. (I don't remember Bilbo saying, "Wait a minute and let me put it in this envelope and lick it!":)

As to your potential stubbornness..... a person is stubborn when faced with conflicting and supported opinions contrary to their own beliefs, they continue to deny the possibility that the other's beliefs might be right. You have agreed that our opinions have substance and could be right. Hence, you are not stubborn in this instance.;)

Harad, my friend (and I mean that), these discussions could be shortened markedly if you would simply agree that interpretations are different and the author (many times purposely) leaves matters up in the air for the reader to grasp, as he may. Your vehemence does make for good and fair debate, so I am not faulting you. Grond loves a good debate.:)

And with that, the thread is resolved as far as Grond is concerned.:cool:

(And I have exceeded 1000 in my posts; who woulda thought??)

[Ganfromir]

Wow.
Not quite concensus, but close. And a good debate it was.

But a 1000+ replies - oh dear........

[Gothmog]

Harad, I have only one dificulty with your summary:
Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind.


So Gandalf Will Not do anything that might harm Frodo, therefore he has to do the test himself.

Other than that, your summary was my argument therefore of course I agree.

[Gothmog]

ok Harad. I haven't yet seen the Film so I cannot be specific. But concidering that the book had pleanty of time to show how the ring can get a hold on someone there was no problem with showing how Gandalf could for a short time overcome the seduction of the Ring. However, the film has a far more limited amount of time to do the same thing. So I can see the value in not having Gandalf touch the Ring in the Film as this would help to show the danger of it. After all if Gandalf One of the Three most powerful entities in Middle-earth (Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron) fears to touch it, then it Must be bad.

[Foe-Hammer]

Foe:
What you say is true. Gandalf's intentions are pure. But my point is that the Ring is stronger than Gandalf's intentions. If the Ring were not stronger than Gandalf's intentions, then Gandalf could permanently touch the Ring under the circumstances that you outlined.

But the ring is not stronger than Gandalfs will not to take the ring by force. But to offer the ring to him freely would test his resolve to attempt to do good with the ring.

Gandalfs desire to be good, is stronger than his desire to do good things with the ring. There for he can hold the ring when it belongs to someone else, but cannot hold it when it does not have an owner or is offer to him.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Harad
Then as long as Gandalf doesnt change his philosophy, ie. he wont use the Ring even to do good, and as long as Frodo remains the "owner" then Gandalf can continue to hold the Ring. This can last indefinitely. For example, long enuf for Gandalf, together possibly with Frodo, to walk to Mordor and throw the Ring in the Cracks of Doom.

Then that makes Gandalf "responsible" for the ring, and thus, the owner.

I think you're trying to argue real world logic into a work of fiction. I the real world, there are no magic rings that makes you invisable. Gandalf would be tossed into a loony bin. :)

[Foe-Hammer]

Like I said, real world logic doesn't apply in a fantasy world.

[Grond]

Harad! I thought we were in agreement and now I've been gone playing tennis for four hours and your back with the same old argument. Did you not resolve to accept that someone may touch the Ring without owning/possessing it? I thought I gave you a logical explanation of going from A to B to C, except I think I numbered them 1, 2, 3 and 4. If you are back with the same viewpoint, this thread will never end and all the while never go anywhere either.

I am out of it. The case for my point has been stated as well as can be. So, make up your mind and start a new thread. I know I'm going to. We're going to debate how hard headed Harad really is and can he ever be swayed from a position once he's made his mind up.:)

BTW, I, too, thought the movie made this subject we debate, much clearer and easier for the audience to understand by having Gandalf and all the Wise appear afraid of the Ring. That flies in the face of the author's intent but does a better job of conveying the message of the danger of the Ring, given the limited time and plot line that can be devoted to the issue. :cool:

[Gloer]

... this thread is excellent!

It just wont conclude ever!?

Well I am too confused about all the points of views that I leave it to you guys to make the arguments.

[Foe-Hammer]

Gloer,

It's really not confusing at all.

My opinion happens to be the correct one in this discussion.;)

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Gloer,

It's really not confusing at all.

My opinion happens to be the correct one in this discussion.;)

i havent post a reply in this thread and i know my opinion is correcter hehe

not confusin at all :D

[Greenwood]

I should probably let sleeping dogs lie, but in looking through the FOTR I came across a passage that bears on the question of whether peope other than the Ringbearer could touch the Ring. In the chapter "The Ring Goes South" as the Fellowship is preparing to leave Rivendell, Elrond is seeing the company off. Elrond says: "This is my last word, .... The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom, On him alone is any charge laid: neither to cast away the Ring, nor to deliver it to any servant of the Enemy nor indeed to let any handle, it save members of the Company and the Council, and only then in gravest need. ... " [emphasis added]

This would seem to me to indicate that Elrond did not completely rule out the possibility of someone, including himself (he is a member of the White Council) actually touching the Ring, but that it should happen only in extreme circumstances.

Somewhere early on in this thread I said I didn't particularly like Tolkien having Gandalf handle the Ring (before the fire test), especially since Gandalf was so reluctant to touch the Ring when he was convincing Bilbo to give it up. While I still would have preferred to somehow avoid Gandalf actually handling the Ring, given the above passage from Elrond, I cannot say that Tolkien was inconsistent in never allowing, or in this case contemplating, anyone but a Ringbearer touching the Ring, except for the fire test.

When I raised my objection to Gandalf's touching the Ring with no apparent concern when he had earlier showed such reluctance, Foe-hammer suggested: "I think the reason Gandalf didn't want to touch the ring was because Bilbo was giving the ring up and at that time it had no owner. After Frodo took reciept of the ring, it had it's new owner." At the time I replied: "I will have to try it [Foe-hammer's reasoning] on and wear it around for a while to see if I am really comfortable with it." Well, I guess I can now say that though the reasoning still chafes a bit, I am willing to accept it.

[Foe-Hammer]

I find that a little cream helpsd with the chaffing.....:) i use lots!

[Ged]

Hi everyone, interesting thread.

Amon Hen:
From memory Frodo has the ring on and looks all around the lands, seeing things far more distant than would be possible. His glance then turns towards Barad Dur, and it is then that Sauron becomes aware of him. Sauron's gaze is illustrated by a dark cloud that races towards Frodo. (Remember, Sauron has the Nazgul hunting around the east bank of the Anduin, so does have a fairly good idea where the company might be.)
As Sauron's gaze/cloud races towards Frodo, an alternative focal point of power appears in Frodo's mind, struggling in some way with Sauron's. "Take it off! Fool! Take it off!" (I always liked this bit because I hadn't peeped and this was the first intimation I got that Gandalf was still alive.) So, Gandalf assists Frodo take off the ring and the dark cloud passes overhead and races off towards the lands to the north.
In this context, it is not unlikely that Frodo could have worn the ring for a short time whilst Sauron's eye was searching elsewhere. Also, (just made this up) could Gandalf not have assisted in misdirecting Sauron in some way? Maybe Sauron became aware of Gandalf?
None of this explains why Frodo would have this knowledge or the confidence to wear the thing after what he had just experienced at the summit.

Gandalf touching the ring:
If I may make so bold, (in a manner of speaking), I think the film treatment is better (sacriledge!). Why should Gandalf pick it up? He has spent hundreds/thousands of years resisting the temptation to find and use it (unlike Saruman who has actively sought for it). In fact the scene in the film where he first goes to pick it up, and the flash appears, then he withdraws and sits mumbling before the fire I think is very effective.

These scenes are very true to the feeling of the book. They're not identical but they don't have to be identical.

[Greenwood]

Harad

I don't see firm evidence for the Ring being some sort of "evil magnet" in the books. Yes, the watcher at the gates of Moria grabs Frodo and in the fight at Balin's Tomb an orc chieftain tries to skewer Frodo, but only the Nazgul and Gollum are portrayed in the books as being "drawn" to the Ring and they are special cases. There is no evidence that the balrog was drawn toward Frodo as opposed to merely coming after the entire Fellowship as intruders in Moria. As for Shelob, she went after Frodo because Gollum already had Sam by the throat. When Sam and Frodo are being hunted in Mordor after escaping from the orc tower, they are hunted by ordinary means using a trained tracker. If the Ring drew evil creatures to itself then Sam and Frodo should have had every orc in Mordor heading fro them as they made their way to Mount Doom through Mordor.

[Ged]

Harad,

There is no doubting the corrupting nature of the ring for those who wear or possibly carry it, or for those who desire it. As to whether evil is attracted to the ring?

It is interesting the number of examples of beings in the book who certainly shouldn't know that Frodo carries the ring, but go straight for him, avoiding other members of the company. I'm thinking of the Watcher of the Lake before the doors of Moria and the Orc Chieftain in the Chamber of M. (troll in the film). Somehow they knew he had the ring. Could they sense it because he was close by? They must have been able to, because from memory not even Sauron actually KNOWS that Frodo has the ring until it is too late for him. These beings therefore hadn't been "told" to get Frodo.

Tolkien did say that the ring attracted the riders, particularly if worn.

As for it only being "evil" that can sense the near presence of the ring? This cannot be true, because, for example, Galadriel certainly becomes aware of the "ringbearer" as soon as he enters her domain. Bombadil also seems to know of it, even though Frodo doesn't volunteer the information. So, it must "broadcast" its prescence in some way, and of course it is predominently evil creatures who are lured.

As for the ring being "sentient"? When I first read the books that was my take. But when it "slips" off a finger, I didn't suppose it necessarily to change its shape (although JRRT alludes somewhere to it not always seeming the same size doesn't he?), rather to it affecting the bearer to its will.

[Eonwe]

sorry for jumping in, I need to say this:

RoTK The Tower of Cirith Ungol:

"It stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold out a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom..."

"He sprang out to meet Shagrat with a shout. He was no longer holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing menace to the slaves of Mordor..."

The Rings presence could be felt in some cases at least.</