What could Aragorn have done with the Ring?

Post by Thomas Koenig
Assuming Sauron's fears would have come true, and Aragron had
brought the Ring to Minas Tirith.
What could he have done with it? Or did Sauron consider the
unexpected appearance of the Army of the Dead as something that
Aragorn had done with the Ring?

The Ring gives its wearer the power of Command. Aragorn could have used
it to strengthen the wills and resolves of the soldiers of Gondor by
directing and reinforcing their minds the same way that Sauron did his
own forces. Aragorn, as rightful king, with the Ring, would have made it
much, much more difficult for Sauron's armies to conquer Gondor.

--
David Trimboli
http://trimboli.name

bill van

2016-01-29 00:33:55 UTC

Post by David Trimboli

But Denethor, no fan of Isildul's heir, would have had Aragorn poisoned
or stabbed in the back and taken the ring for himself, only to be bested
in a contest of wills by Sauron. He hands the ring over, and dire
consequences ensue.

--
bill

Wayne Brown

2016-01-29 23:34:18 UTC

Post by bill van

Post by David Trimboli

Or else Aragorn, under the corrupting influence of the Ring, would
have accused Denethor of trying to usurp the throne and then had
him executed.

--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-30 11:14:34 UTC

Post by Wayne Brown
Or else Aragorn, under the corrupting influence of the Ring, would
have accused Denethor of trying to usurp the throne

... which is not far from what Denethor actually did.

Post by Wayne Brown
and then had him executed.

... which Denethor conveniently did himself, so to speak.

Could Aragorn, with the Ring, have commanded Mordor's armies to come
over to him? Or could a reasonable strategy have been to imitate
Saruman and build up an army of evil creatures, while using the
Ring to make sure that the citizens of Gondor do not object?

Not much good in the short term, though...

Steve Hayes

2016-01-30 11:32:05 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:14:34 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Wayne Brown
Or else Aragorn, under the corrupting influence of the Ring, would
have accused Denethor of trying to usurp the throne

... which is not far from what Denethor actually did.

Post by Wayne Brown
and then had him executed.

... which Denethor conveniently did himself, so to speak.
Could Aragorn, with the Ring, have commanded Mordor's armies to come
over to him? Or could a reasonable strategy have been to imitate
Saruman and build up an army of evil creatures, while using the
Ring to make sure that the citizens of Gondor do not object?

Strategy for what?

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-30 12:39:20 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:14:34 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
Could Aragorn, with the Ring, have commanded Mordor's armies to come
over to him? Or could a reasonable strategy have been to imitate
Saruman and build up an army of evil creatures, while using the
Ring to make sure that the citizens of Gondor do not object?

Strategy for what?

Strategy for defeating Sauron with force (by using the Ring).
This is what Sauron assumed, apparently.

Gandalf once remarked that bringing the Ring to Minas Tirith
would have been a severe blow to Sauron. I am simply not
sure why, or how.

Stan Brown

2016-01-30 15:17:03 UTC

Post by Thomas Koenig
Gandalf once remarked that bringing the Ring to Minas Tirith
would have been a severe blow to Sauron. I am simply not
sure why, or how.

If anyone claimed the Ring _and_ mastered it, that would pretty much
be the end of Sauron, just as if the Ring had been destroyed. In
either case, all the part of his own native power that he had put
into the Ring would be lost to him, and what he had retained was not
enough on its own even to keep him in a body.

But I can't see how merely taking the Ring to Minas Tirith would have
been more than a minor inconvenience to Sauron. It takes time to
master the Ring, and Sauron would not have given the Ring-claimer
that time. In the Battle of the Pelennor Fields that actually
happened, Sauron's forces came very close to winning. If Sauron had
put his whole strength into that battle -- which he certainly would
have done if the Ring was in Minas Tirith -- they would have won.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Steve Hayes

2016-01-30 18:04:24 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:39:20 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:14:34 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Strategy for what?

Strategy for defeating Sauron with force (by using the Ring).
This is what Sauron assumed, apparently.

Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

What he could not foresee was that they wanted to overthrow him but
put no one in his place, because anyone who replaced him would just
become the new Sauron.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-30 23:28:30 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

Here is the text from "The White Rider":

# He [Sauron] supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith;
# for that is what he would have done in our place. And according
# to his wisdom it would have been a heavy blow against his power.
# Indeed he is in great fear, not knowning what mighty one might
# appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to
# cast him down and take his place.

So, if Aragron had taken up the Ring and gone to Minas Tirith,
he would have (according to Gandalf) stood a chance against Sauron
in a war.

Stan Brown

2016-01-30 23:58:15 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

# He [Sauron] supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith;
# for that is what he would have done in our place. And according
# to his wisdom it would have been a heavy blow against his power.
# Indeed he is in great fear, not knowning what mighty one might
# appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to
# cast him down and take his place.
So, if Aragron had taken up the Ring and gone to Minas Tirith,
he would have (according to Gandalf) stood a chance against Sauron
in a war.

If you read carefully, that is not what Gandslf said. He said that
Sauron believed that, not that it was true. Note the phrase
"according to his wisdom".

Steve Hayes

2016-01-31 01:46:13 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:58:15 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

If you read carefully, that is not what Gandslf said. He said that
Sauron believed that, not that it was true. Note the phrase
"according to his wisdom".

Exactly.

Because according to his wisdom power was an end in itself, and he was
incapable of conceiving that anyone might not see it like that.

And so if Aragorn had behaved as Sauron expected him to, and his
strategy had been the strategy that Sauron would have used in his
place, then he might well have taken his place, and then become the
new Sauron.

That was the very thing that the Fellowship of the Ring sought to
avoid. To do what Sauron would have done in their place would have
been counterproductive, or as they say on social media, "epic fail".

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-31 14:20:05 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:58:15 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

If you read carefully, that is not what Gandslf said. He said that
Sauron believed that, not that it was true. Note the phrase
"according to his wisdom".

Exactly.

And here is my question: How would he have needed go go about it,
what tactics would he have used?

A partial answer:

A severe handicap for Sauron somebody facing Aragorn + Ring would have
been that the Nazgul could not have gone against him, so Sauron's
chief weapon would have been rendered useless at best.

However, I think we can infer some of the One's power in such a
situation from another source - the power of the Nazgul.

What they were best at was striking terror into Sauron's enemies.
It can be assumed that Aragorn, having mastered the One, would be
even better at this than all nine Nazgul together.

He might even have enticed Sauron's army to defect, or even
turn sides. Apparently, they were very dependent on continuous
reinforcements from Sauron's "till", as could be seen from their
reaction when Sauron took his mind off them during the battle
at the black gate.

So, Sauron would have had to come in person - something that
he desperately wanted to avoid after the last time. Assuming
that Aragorn was equal in stature to Isildur, he could have stood
up to him, especially while strenghend by the Ring.

Post by Steve Hayes
That was the very thing that the Fellowship of the Ring sought to
avoid. To do what Sauron would have done in their place would have
been counterproductive, or as they say on social media, "epic fail".

I'm well aware of that. I am simply trying to find out what exactly
Sauron was afraid of at the time.

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-31 14:28:20 UTC

Post by Thomas Koenig
Apparently, they were very dependent on continuous
reinforcements from Sauron's "till",

Should be "will", of course.

David Trimboli

2016-01-31 23:22:55 UTC

Post by Thomas Koenig
Apparently, they were very dependent on continuous
reinforcements from Sauron's "till",

Should be "will", of course.

I kind of liked the metaphor of a cash register .

--
David Trimboli
http://trimboli.name

john

2016-02-16 00:50:59 UTC

Post by David Trimboli

Post by Thomas Koenig
Apparently, they were very dependent on continuous
reinforcements from Sauron's "till",

Should be "will", of course.

I kind of liked the metaphor of a cash register .
--
David Trimboli
http://trimboli.name

I thought it was quite fitting!!

Stan Brown

2016-01-31 20:28:49 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:58:15 -0500, Stan Brown
And so if Aragorn had behaved as Sauron expected him to, and his
strategy had been the strategy that Sauron would have used in his
place, then he might well have taken his place, and then become the
new Sauron.

And here is my question: How would he have needed go go about it,
what tactics would he have used?

We're limited in what we can say, because Tolkien was maddeningly
vague about the powers of the Ring. Invisibility (for mortals), we
know; and we know also that it could read and control he thoughts of
those wearing other Rings. The second power would do Aragorn no good,
since the Nazgûl weren't wearing their Rings, and of course the
bearers of the Three would take them off as soon as Aragorn went dark
side. The first power seems more a hindrance than a help: how can an
invisible commander win a battle?

We can guess that the Ring gives some sort of ill-defined power of
command over ordinary people.

Post by Thomas Koenig
What they were best at was striking terror into Sauron's enemies.
It can be assumed that Aragorn, having mastered the One, would be
even better at this than all nine Nazgul together.

Probably so, with practice. If we know anything, it's that whoever
mastered the Ring would ave to become a new Dark Lord in the process.

Post by Thomas Koenig
He might even have enticed Sauron's army to defect, or even
turn sides.

He might, though the Ring would not be strictly necessary for that.
Remember that Ar-Pharazon didn't have he Ring and Sauron did, yet
Sauron's troops deserted him when they saw the army of Númenor. If
Aragorn could pull together large forces he should be able to do the
same.

Post by Thomas Koenig
So, Sauron would have had to come in person - something that
he desperately wanted to avoid after the last time. Assuming
that Aragorn was equal in stature to Isildur, he could have stood
up to him, especially while strenghend by the Ring.

For "especially" read "after learning how to use". Tolkien was
crystal clear that no mortal in Letter 246:

"Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not
contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was
placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one
side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior
strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps
also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of
will in dominating inferiors."

That was Gandalf, who was a creature of the same order as Sauron. In
the same letter, Tolkien dismisses Aragorn's chances:

"Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his
will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for
its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of
equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals'
no one, not even Aragorn."

The context here is a short period after claiming the Ring. We don't
know how long it would take a new Ringlord to control the Ring, but
clearly it's not a quick process, and Sauron would not give them
leisure to do it. Remember that, though he couldn't find the Ring as
long as it wasn't claimed, the instant Frodo claimed it he knew. If
Aragorn claimed it. on the other side of the River, Sauron might not
know instantly, but it wouldn't take him more than a few minutes.
Remember the groping hand that Frodo saw on Amon Hen!

Post by Thomas Koenig
I'm well aware of that. I am simply trying to find out what
exactly Sauron was afraid of at the time.

Sauron was afraid of losing power. To a dictator that is always the
worst thing. Usually dictators who lose power are killed. But no one
would have had to kill Sauron; he would have dissipated, just as he
did in LotR when the Ring was destroyed. Letter 246 again:

"If Gandalf proved the victor [in struggle with Sauron for control of
the Ring], the result would have been for Sauron the same as the
destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken
from him for ever."

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-31 23:20:04 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
That was Gandalf, who was a creature of the same order as Sauron. In
"Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his
will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for
its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of
equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals'
no one, not even Aragorn."

[...]

Post by Thomas Koenig
I'm well aware of that. I am simply trying to find out what
exactly Sauron was afraid of at the time.

Sauron was afraid of losing power.

Sure, in the long run. However, how could bringing the Ring
to Minas Tirith have made him lose power?

Given the letter, it becomes even less clear what Gandarlf was
referring to upstream - how would bringing the Ring to Minas
Tirith have been a severe blow to Sauron's power, if Sauron could
always have counted upon winning against whoever had the Ring,
if necessary?

Looks like an inconsistency between what was published in LoTR
and Tolkien's letters - he has been known to change his mind on
occasion :-)

Sandman

2016-02-02 06:42:46 UTC

So, Sauron would have had to come in person - something that he
desperately wanted to avoid after the last time. Assuming that
Aragorn was equal in stature to Isildur, he could have stood up to
him, especially while strenghend by the Ring.

For "especially" read "after learning how to use". Tolkien was
"Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not
contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was
placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one
side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other
superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and
perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and
expenditure of will in dominating inferiors."

This is why I say that the Letters can be burdened by the events in the story.
The problem arises when the author wants to ascribe great power not only to the
weapon but also to the antagonist on his own, power that can not be bested by
even the best protagonist, making any other cause of action that to destroy the
weapon hopeless.

But in that very story, we have "mere" mortals besting the antagonist wielding
the weapon at an earlier event, an event that was needed to separate the
antagonist from the weapon to lay the foundation for the story.

I.e. if Sauron with the ring is so powerful, there probably wouldn't be a story
to begin with, because he would not have lost it to mortal men through brute
force.

While the siege of Barad-Dur isn't described in detail, Tolkien makes it clear
that Sauron was "overthrown" by a man and en elf, who were killed in the
process, but they inflicted enough damage on Sauron in the process that another
man could cut the ring from Saurons hand.

That's why I think the description in the letter fails to adequately explain
the power of both Sauron and the ring. "Magic" in lord of the rings is pretty
elusive. It's confined to small tricks and mind games at best, which I think is
good. But it takes the edge off what both Sauron and the ring actually could do
- story-internal.

--
Sandman

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-02 07:32:19 UTC

Post by Sandman
This is why I say that the Letters can be burdened by the events in the story.
The problem arises when the author wants to ascribe great power not only to the
weapon but also to the antagonist on his own, power that can not be bested by
even the best protagonist, making any other cause of action that to destroy the
weapon hopeless.

I concur.

This is also in conflict with what was said at the Council of
Elrond. The notion of using the Ring for overthrowing Sauron
was rejected on the grounds that nobody wanted to install a new
(and possibly worse) Sauron, not on the grounds that it would not
have worked.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-02 00:19:29 UTC

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 14:20:05 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:58:15 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, Sauron feared a a strategy for regime-change in Mordor.

If you read carefully, that is not what Gandslf said. He said that
Sauron believed that, not that it was true. Note the phrase
"according to his wisdom".

Exactly.
And here is my question: How would he have needed go go about it,
what tactics would he have used?
A severe handicap for Sauron somebody facing Aragorn + Ring would have
been that the Nazgul could not have gone against him, so Sauron's
chief weapon would have been rendered useless at best.
However, I think we can infer some of the One's power in such a
situation from another source - the power of the Nazgul.
What they were best at was striking terror into Sauron's enemies.
It can be assumed that Aragorn, having mastered the One, would be
even better at this than all nine Nazgul together.
He might even have enticed Sauron's army to defect, or even
turn sides. Apparently, they were very dependent on continuous
reinforcements from Sauron's "till", as could be seen from their
reaction when Sauron took his mind off them during the battle
at the black gate.
So, Sauron would have had to come in person - something that
he desperately wanted to avoid after the last time. Assuming
that Aragorn was equal in stature to Isildur, he could have stood
up to him, especially while strenghend by the Ring.

I think the most likely scenario if Aragorn had taken the ring and
attempted to use it is that he would have he would have become the
Fuehrer of Gondor, and would have treated its citizens as Sauron
treated his orcs. Gondor would have become the new Mordor, and
eventually there would have been trade agreements between Gondor and
Mordor as there were between men and pigs at the end of Orwell's
"Animal Farm".

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Stan Brown

2016-01-29 00:02:11 UTC

Tolkien was pretty vague about what the Ring could _actually_ do. It
gave Sam and Boromir and even Gollum fantasies about what would
happen if they claimed it, but we have no special reason to believe
they were true. Could the Ring really make a desert become fertile
land, for instance.

All we know for sure is that the One Ring could extend life, make its
bearer invisible, and control the thoughts of those who wore other
Rings. Everything else is kind of shadowy. Presumably there's _some_
ability to command ordinary people who aren't wearing other Rings,
but I don't think we're ever told any details. Since Sauron himself,
even without the Ring, was so terrible that he could overawe all but
the Great, what more could the Ring give him?

What we do know is that if Aragorn had brought the Ring to Minas
Tirith it would have corrupted the city. As Frodo said to Faramir,
"Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other
across a dead land filled with rottenness?"

Sandman

2016-01-29 12:40:12 UTC

No, of course not. But the ring can influence other, by the power of command.
So Sam, wearing the ring sees the desert fertile because presumably that's how
he would use his command in the long run, influence people to bring life to the
lifeless, or some such.

Post by Stan Brown
All we know for sure is that the One Ring could extend life, make
its bearer invisible, and control the thoughts of those who wore
other Rings. Everything else is kind of shadowy. Presumably there's
_some_ ability to command ordinary people who aren't wearing other
Rings, but I don't think we're ever told any details. Since Sauron
himself, even without the Ring, was so terrible that he could
overawe all but the Great, what more could the Ring give him?

Not sure what you mean by "overawe" here. We know that Sauron without the ring
still holds dominion over the nazgul, and we know he has used whatever power he
has without the ring to influence both Saruman and Denethor via palantir (one
of them "great" so to speak).

The Orcs of mordor doesn't need much "awe" I suspect in order to be driven
towards a common goal via the chain of command that presumably starts with the
nazgul.

Both Pippin and Aragorn face Sauron, however briefly, via the palantir and
neither is "overawed" and Pippin is far from one of "the Great" in any
capacity. Shaken, but still himself. This could of course be attributed to the
very short exposure whereas Denethor and Saruman had been whispered to for
years via the seeing stones.

Post by Stan Brown
What we do know is that if Aragorn had brought the Ring to Minas
Tirith it would have corrupted the city. As Frodo said to Faramir,
"Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other
across a dead land filled with rottenness?"

We know this not due to what Frodo says, but what Tolkien has said - that
corruption by the ring is in the end inevitable.

--
Sandman

Stan Brown

2016-01-30 01:10:31 UTC

By "overawe" I mean that Sauron, even without the Ring, could so
terrify almost anyone that his mere presence would reduce them to
gibbering obedience, even if they had the Ring. Tolkien doesn't give
a list, but maybe Gandalf could have withstood him. Elrond and
Galadriel are doubtful, probably not because they are not of "equal
stature" to him. Aragorn definitely could not have stood up to him in
person..

Tolkien writes in Letter 246 that, if Frodo had not been interrupted
by Gollum after claiming the Ring, Sauron would have come in person
and taken it from him. "In his actual presence none but very few of
equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals'
no one, not even Aragorn."

More at: http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim

If Frodo had years to learn to use the power of the Ring, he might
have been able to withstand Sauron, but he didn't have that time.

Sandman

2016-01-31 05:31:30 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
All we know for sure is that the One Ring could extend life,
make its bearer invisible, and control the thoughts of those who
wore other Rings. Everything else is kind of shadowy. Presumably
there's _some_ ability to command ordinary people who aren't
wearing other Rings, but I don't think we're ever told any
details. Since Sauron himself, even without the Ring, was so
terrible that he could overawe all but the Great, what more
could the Ring give him?

By "overawe" I mean that Sauron, even without the Ring, could so
terrify almost anyone that his mere presence would reduce them to
gibbering obedience, even if they had the Ring. Tolkien doesn't give
a list, but maybe Gandalf could have withstood him. Elrond and
Galadriel are doubtful, probably not because they are not of "equal
stature" to him. Aragorn definitely could not have stood up to him
in person..
Tolkien writes in Letter 246 that, if Frodo had not been interrupted
by Gollum after claiming the Ring, Sauron would have come in person
and taken it from him. "In his actual presence none but very few of
equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals'
no one, not even Aragorn."
More at: http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim
If Frodo had years to learn to use the power of the Ring, he might
have been able to withstand Sauron, but he didn't have that time.

Right, gotcha. I thought you were speaking of story-internal events only.

Statements from Letters usually have a layer of interpretation with them as
well. I mean, I don't think anyone imagines that Frodo with the ring would
instantly become this all-powerful being, and if Sauron shows up in person
right after, I think it's equally likely that he would use brute force to take
back the ring, rather than some mysterious "domination" power, right?

Again, Sauron has some form of domination power without the ring, and it's
quite likely that it's this power that Tokien is in reference to in L264, i.e.
Sauron shows up and his mere presence/voice/stature/willpower bends Frodo's
"weak" will who willingly gives Sauron the ring back.

But it's not far-fetched to interpret the statement that Sauron shows up, Frodo
refuses to give up the ring and Sauron uses force, magic, the Nazgul to take
the ring from Frodo, against Frodo's will.

--
Sandman

Stan Brown

2016-01-31 12:27:16 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
By "overawe" I mean that Sauron, even without the Ring, could so
terrify almost anyone that his mere presence would reduce them to
gibbering obedience, even if they had the Ring. Tolkien doesn't give
a list, but maybe Gandalf could have withstood him. Elrond and
Galadriel are doubtful, probably not because they are not of "equal
stature" to him. Aragorn definitely could not have stood up to him
in person..
Tolkien writes in Letter 246 that, if Frodo had not been interrupted
by Gollum after claiming the Ring, Sauron would have come in person
and taken it from him. "In his actual presence none but very few of
equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals'
no one, not even Aragorn."
More at: http://oakroadsystems.com//genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-FrodoClaim
If Frodo had years to learn to use the power of the Ring, he might
have been able to withstand Sauron, but he didn't have that time.

Right, gotcha. I thought you were speaking of story-internal events only.

As indeed I was.

Post by Sandman
Statements from Letters usually have a layer of interpretation with
them as well. I mean, I don't think anyone imagines that Frodo with
the ring would instantly become this all-powerful being,

Frodo imagined it (because the Ring was tricking him); that's why he
claimed the Ring.

Post by Sandman
and if Sauron shows up in person right after, I think it's equally
likely that he would use brute force to take back the ring, rather
than some mysterious "domination" power, right?

I don't think so. Tolkien says that no "mortal" could face down
Sauron in person, not even Aragorn. When Frodo claimed the Ring, if
Sauron lost no time in getting to Mount Doom then he would simply
order Frodo to hand it over. As Galadriel said to Frodo, he would
need time to learn to dominate other wills, and of course Sauron
would not give him that time. Only Gollum's intervention and
immolation saved the West from the ultimate disaster of Sauron
getting hold of the Ring.

Post by Sandman
Again, Sauron has some form of domination power without the ring,
and it's quite likely that it's this power that Tokien is in
reference to in L264, i.e. Sauron shows up and his mere
presence/voice/stature/willpower bends Frodo's "weak" will who
willingly gives Sauron the ring back.

Well, yes. You seemed to be arguing otherwise in your previous
paragraph. Frodo's will was weak, having been sapped by long exposure
to the Ring, but he wouldn't have been able to resist Sauron even if
that were not true. Remember Pippin reduced temporarily to a
gibbering idiot with just a Skype; in person would have been more
overwhelming.

Post by Sandman
But it's not far-fetched to interpret the statement that Sauron
shows up, Frodo refuses to give up the ring and Sauron uses force,
magic, the Nazgul to take the ring from Frodo, against Frodo's
will.

Well, I don't know. I think Tolkien knew more about these matters
than we do, and he was petty definite.

Thomas Koenig

2016-01-31 14:29:13 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
I don't think so. Tolkien says that no "mortal" could face down
Sauron in person, not even Aragorn.

So how did Elendil and Isildur manage it?

Stan Brown

2016-01-31 20:30:19 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
I don't think so. Tolkien says that no "mortal" could face down
Sauron in person, not even Aragorn.

So how did Elendil and Isildur manage it?

That's a fair question. In Letter 246, Tolkien was talking about a
contest of will; the Last Alliance was a clash of arms. Also Sauron
was weaker at the end of the Second Age than at the end of the Third,
not least because he had relatively recently been killed and had to
reconstitute his body.

Sandman

2016-02-01 06:48:18 UTC

Post by Stan Brown
I don't think so. Tolkien says that no "mortal" could face down
Sauron in person, not even Aragorn.

So how did Elendil and Isildur manage it?

That's a fair question. In Letter 246, Tolkien was talking about a
contest of will; the Last Alliance was a clash of arms. Also Sauron
was weaker at the end of the Second Age than at the end of the
Third, not least because he had relatively recently been killed and
had to reconstitute his body.

How do you figure? At the end of 2nd, he was still in possession of the one
ring. Elendil and Gil-galad had overthrown him in *spite* of the one ring. They
perished while doing so, but Tolkien makes it clear that it is Isildur cutting
the ring from Saurons hand that ultimately defeats him, meaning that had he not
done that, Sauron would soon regain his strength from it.

Overthrown by Elendil and Gil-galad, "killed" by Isildur - while wielding the
one ring.

--
Sandman

Stan Brown

2016-02-02 00:02:06 UTC

[quoted text muted]
contest of will; the Last Alliance was a clash of arms. Also Sauron
was weaker at the end of the Second Age than at the end of the
Third, not least because he had relatively recently been killed and
had to reconstitute his body.

How do you figure? At the end of 2nd, he was still in possession of the one
ring.

As long as the Ring existed and had not been successfully claimed by
someone else, he had access to his native power that he had put into
it.

I've already posted the quote, but since quotes don't seem to get
much attention I won't post it again.

Sandman

2016-02-02 06:33:06 UTC

[quoted text muted] contest of will; the Last Alliance was a
clash of arms. Also Sauron was weaker at the end of the Second
Age than at the end of the Third, not least because he had
relatively recently been killed and had to reconstitute his
body.

How do you figure? At the end of 2nd, he was still in possession
of the one ring.

As long as the Ring existed and had not been successfully claimed by
someone else, he had access to his native power that he had put into
it.

Yes, that's my point. Not only that, he was *wearing* it, *wielding* it. The
entire "unstoppable" characteristics of Sauron (with or without his ring) kind
of loses its weight when he was overthrown by mortals, and then "killed" by a
mortal.

Post by Stan Brown
I've already posted the quote, but since quotes don't seem to get
much attention I won't post it again.

Much like how the rest of what I wrote was snipped and not given much attention
:-D

--
Sandman

John W Kennedy

2016-01-31 18:07:10 UTC

Right, gotcha. I thought you were speaking of story-internal events only.

As indeed I was.

Frodo imagined it (because the Ring was tricking him); that's why he
claimed the Ring.

Post by Sandman
and if Sauron shows up in person right after, I think it's equally
likely that he would use brute force to take back the ring, rather
than some mysterious "domination" power, right?

Well, I don't know. I think Tolkien knew more about these matters
than we do, and he was petty definite.

In this area, it might be worth considering Tolkien's remarks rejecting
the WW2-allegory theory, for, even though he did not intend an
allegory, his view of how it might have been if he had intended it can
still illuminate his thoughts. (For example, Saruman may not be Stalin,
but Tolkien thought that supposing Saruman to be Stalin was the obvious
mistake to make.)

--
John W Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Steve Hayes

2016-02-02 00:04:50 UTC

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:07:10 -0500, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Right, gotcha. I thought you were speaking of story-internal events only.

As indeed I was.

Frodo imagined it (because the Ring was tricking him); that's why he
claimed the Ring.

Post by Sandman
and if Sauron shows up in person right after, I think it's equally
likely that he would use brute force to take back the ring, rather
than some mysterious "domination" power, right?

Well, I don't know. I think Tolkien knew more about these matters
than we do, and he was petty definite.

Though Tolkien rejected allegory theories (and not just WWII ones) I'm
not sure that he also rejected symbol theories, and I don't see why
one can't see the ring as a symbol of power and the desire for it. He
may not have had Lord Acton's dictum in mind when he wrote the
stories, but one can see it in that light.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

John W Kennedy

2016-02-02 04:58:04 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:07:10 -0500, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Right, gotcha. I thought you were speaking of story-internal events only.

As indeed I was.

Frodo imagined it (because the Ring was tricking him); that's why he
claimed the Ring.

Post by Sandman
and if Sauron shows up in person right after, I think it's equally
likely that he would use brute force to take back the ring, rather
than some mysterious "domination" power, right?

Well, I don't know. I think Tolkien knew more about these matters
than we do, and he was petty definite.

You and I can see the ring as a symbol of power with Tolkien's
blessing, but he did not. (See Sayers on Dante.)

--
John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it
to Windows?

Stan Brown

2016-01-30 01:13:02 UTC

Post by Sandman
Both Pippin and Aragorn face Sauron, however briefly, via the palantir and
neither is "overawed" and Pippin is far from one of "the Great" in any
capacity. Shaken, but still himself. This could of course be attributed to the
very short exposure whereas Denethor and Saruman had been whispered to for
years via the seeing stones.

First, it wasn't in person. Second, did you read what happened to
Pippin? He was (temporarily) almost insane with fear.

I may be forgetting, but I don't think Sauron actually spoke to
Denethor. He just showed him all the might of Mordor, leading him to
despair and eventually madness. For his purposes, Gondor ruled by a
depressive madman was quite sufficient.

Sandman

2016-01-30 17:43:30 UTC

Post by Sandman
Both Pippin and Aragorn face Sauron, however briefly, via the
palantir and neither is "overawed" and Pippin is far from one of
"the Great" in any capacity. Shaken, but still himself. This could
of course be attributed to the very short exposure whereas
Denethor and Saruman had been whispered to for years via the
seeing stones.

First, it wasn't in person. Second, did you read what happened to
Pippin? He was (temporarily) almost insane with fear.

Yes, temporarily. :)

Post by Stan Brown
I may be forgetting, but I don't think Sauron actually spoke to
Denethor. He just showed him all the might of Mordor, leading him to
despair and eventually madness. For his purposes, Gondor ruled by a
depressive madman was quite sufficient.

This is what Tolkien said about it:

"He [Denethor] must have guessed that the Ithil-stone [Sauron's
palantír] was in evil hands, and risked contact with it, trusting
his strength. His trust was not entirely unjustified. Sauron failed
to dominate him and could only influence him by deceits.

Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron... [while] Denethor
remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to
believe that his defeat was inevitable, and so fell into despair.
The reasons for this difference were no doubt that in the first
place Denethor was a man of great strength of will and maintained
the integrity of his personality until the final blow of the
(apparently) mortal wound of his only surviving son."

So both were heavily influenced by Sauron, but in different ways of course.

--
Sandman

Steve Hayes

2016-01-29 06:28:24 UTC

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:48:47 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Think of Boromir.

If Sauron's fears came true, Aragorn would have become Sauron, but
perhaps worse.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Steve Hayes

2016-02-09 05:44:19 UTC

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:48:47 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

A rather nice postscript to this discussion -- I saw one of those
posters on Facebook for the US elections. It featured Bernie Sanders
and Hillary Clinton, and says it all.

Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring
answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."

Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of Mordor. Why not
use this ring?"

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-09 07:29:44 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring
answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."
Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of Mordor. Why not
use this ring?"

What is the Ring in this context?

Steve Hayes

2016-02-09 08:30:40 UTC

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-09 19:20:15 UTC

["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

I have read the LoTR, thank you. This might have been inferred
that from the fact that I started this thread.

It is not clear to me how this sentence from the Council of Elrond
is applicable to current US politics.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-10 02:57:58 UTC

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
originally appeared on Facebook with a fuller explanation here:

https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

So one small graphic can help to clarify a political question, of who
to vote for in an election, and a literary question of the meaning of
a central artifact in a well-known novel.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-10 07:09:23 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.

So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Steve Hayes

2016-02-10 08:20:20 UTC

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Perhaps it is significant that the graphic appeared just before
Madeleine "We think the price is worth it" Albright publicly endorsed
Hillary Clinton..

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-10 20:32:13 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Ah, I get it. The Ring is a reference to the Ladies' room.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-11 05:44:18 UTC

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Ah, I get it. The Ring is a reference to the Ladies' room.

The nature of myth.
Source: Berdyaev 1948:70.
Myth is a reality immeasurably greater than concept. It is
high time that we stopped identifying myth with invention,
with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything,
in fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The
creation of myths among peoples denotes a real spiritual life,
more real indeed than that of abstract concepts and rational
thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life better
than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that
of symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original
phenomena of the spiritual life symbolized in the natural
world, which has engraved itself on the language memory and
creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds together
symbolically.

Why are you demanding that myth be turned into concepts?

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-11 07:17:45 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Ah, I get it. The Ring is a reference to the Ladies' room.

The nature of myth.

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
Why are you demanding that myth be turned into concepts?

Mu.

[According to Hofstadter: This question relies on assumptions
which are false; it is therefore fundamentally flawed and cannot
be answered in a meaningful way. Sort of like the old "Have you
stopped beating your wife yet?" stuff.]

So, you're trying to create your own myth about the current
political situation in the US, specifically the 2016 Democrat
primaries, by connecting it with Tolkien's myths in some way.

You're also refusing to share what your own myth is, only
alluding to its existence.

Hmm...

Steve Hayes

2016-02-11 17:59:13 UTC

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:17:45 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Ah, I get it. The Ring is a reference to the Ladies' room.

The nature of myth.

[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
Why are you demanding that myth be turned into concepts?

And that is precisely what I found wrong with the question with which
you started this thread.

Post by Thomas Koenig
So, you're trying to create your own myth about the current
political situation in the US, specifically the 2016 Democrat
primaries, by connecting it with Tolkien's myths in some way.

No, I'm saying that your original question is based on assumptiobns
about Tolkien's myth, that, if one were to try to answer it, would
turn the myth into concepts.

The cartoonist, whether you agree with him/her or not, at least "gets"
the myth, and does not attempt to allegorise it, but leaves that uop
to the reader, or viewer.

Post by Thomas Koenig
You're also refusing to share what your own myth is, only
alluding to its existence.

This flax weighs three pounds.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Paul S. Person

2016-02-11 17:16:39 UTC

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:44:18 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
The Ring in this context is that which Bernie is reluctant to use and
that which Hillary is eager to use.

Ah, I get it. The Ring is a reference to the Ladies' room.

The nature of myth.
Source: Berdyaev 1948:70.
Myth is a reality immeasurably greater than concept. It is
high time that we stopped identifying myth with invention,
with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything,
in fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The
creation of myths among peoples denotes a real spiritual life,
more real indeed than that of abstract concepts and rational
thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life better
than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that
of symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original
phenomena of the spiritual life symbolized in the natural
world, which has engraved itself on the language memory and
creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds together
symbolically.
Why are you demanding that myth be turned into concepts?

Perhaps he prefers sense to nonsense.

--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

Paul S. Person

2016-02-10 17:13:56 UTC

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Judging from his non-responses, he doesn't know himself.

Perhaps he just found a neat graphic online and decided to propagate
it, not bothering to find out what it meant.

--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

Sandman

2016-02-10 22:49:55 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The
One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."
Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of
Mordor. Why not use this ring?"

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

I think the graphic is more a method to illustrate the creators view on their
political standpoints, and not necessarily referencing an actual "enemy weapon"
that is presented before them. I.e. if they were at the council of Elrond,
Sanders would be more like Aragorn and Clinton more like Boromir. Again, in the
view of the creator of that graphic.

--
Sandman

Paul S. Person

2016-02-11 17:15:23 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The
One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."
Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of
Mordor. Why not use this ring?"

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

That actually makes a lot of sense.

Although I suspect it may give the graphic's creator too much credit.

--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

Steve Hayes

2016-02-11 18:26:14 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The
One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."
Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of
Mordor. Why not use this ring?"

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

Whether the perception is accurate or not, it tells us that if Aragord
had used the ring as postulated in the question at the beginning of
this thread, then he would have been more like Clinton and less like
Sanders.

There is, of course no way of testing this, because people in power
often find themselves doing things that they did not envisage when
they were campaigning, and that too tells us something about the One
Ring. Also, one can't observe two alternative realities and see how
each one actually behaves as president. It can be one or the other,
not both, or someone else altogether.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Stan Brown

2016-02-12 01:39:16 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

No, it depicts the attitudes of one group of people TOWARD Sanders
and Clinton. Other groups of people would have different attitudes.
Most Republicans, of course, would regard it as a choice between
Saruman and Sauron, though they might disagree about which was which.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-12 03:43:12 UTC

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:39:16 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

What do you think "perceived" means?

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Stan Brown

2016-02-12 11:23:55 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:39:16 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

What do you think "perceived" means?

I know what "perceived" means. I also know what "of" means.
"Perceived attitudes of (names)" means the attitudes that some
unnamed persons perceive (names) to hold. It does not mean the
attitudes that (names) actually hold, nor does it mean the attitudes
that those unnamed persons hold.

"Perceived" in this context is stupid anyway, apart from the wrong
choice of preposition. It implies, falsely, that particular attitudes
towards those politicians are generally held.

This subthread has lost whatever slim relevance that it might have
had to Tolkien. I won't respond to it any further, so if you want the
last word you may have it.

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-12 08:25:26 UTC

Post by Sandman
I think the graphic is more a method to illustrate the creators view on their
political standpoints, and not necessarily referencing an actual "enemy weapon"
that is presented before them. I.e. if they were at the council of Elrond,
Sanders would be more like Aragorn and Clinton more like Boromir. Again, in the
view of the creator of that graphic.

Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

And what attitudes (perceived by whom?) are these?

Steve Hayes

2016-02-12 09:49:17 UTC

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Yes. It depicts the perceived attitudes of Sanders and Clinton.

And what attitudes (perceived by whom?) are these?

The attitudes of Aragorn and Boromir perceived by those who believe
that the attitude of Bernie Sanders resembles the former and the
attitude of Hilary clinton resembles the latter.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-12 17:53:13 UTC

["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
And what attitudes (perceived by whom?) are these?

The attitudes of Aragorn and Boromir perceived by those who believe
that the attitude of Bernie Sanders resembles the former and the
attitude of Hilary clinton resembles the latter.

What would those attitudes be, specifically?

Looking back at your original posting which started this sub-thread,
this must be quite self-evident to you ("says it all"). I wonder
why you are incapable, or unwilling, to be more specific.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-13 02:14:44 UTC

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:53:13 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
And what attitudes (perceived by whom?) are these?

The attitudes of Aragorn and Boromir perceived by those who believe
that the attitude of Bernie Sanders resembles the former and the
attitude of Hilary clinton resembles the latter.

What would those attitudes be, specifically?
Looking back at your original posting which started this sub-thread,
this must be quite self-evident to you ("says it all"). I wonder
why you are incapable, or unwilling, to be more specific.

I have already explained (several times) why I am unwilling to be
specific: because being specific tends to turn myth into concepts or
allegory and thus destroys its nature as myth.

As C.S. Lewis wrote to Tolkien on 7 December 1929, after reading
Tolkien's poem on Beren and Luthien, "The two things that come out
clearly are the sense of reality in the background and the mythical
value: the essence of a myth being that it should have no taint of
allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to
the reader" (Carpenter 1978:30).

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Thomas Koenig

2016-02-13 11:10:15 UTC

["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

Post by Steve Hayes
I have already explained (several times) why I am unwilling to be
specific: because being specific tends to turn myth into concepts or
allegory and thus destroys its nature as myth.

You may argue that about Tolkien. I would still think you wrong,
but it would be a legitimate argument.

However, you were trying to make a point about current US politics
using Tolkien as an argument specifically about Sanders and Clinton.
This takes it out of the realm of myths. (Unless you want to
create your own myth about politics, but this I would not consider
valid).

To put it more strongly: I think you are abusing Tolkien to make
a political point. Your argument to defend this point is so weak
that you chose not to make it, hiding behind the "myths cannot
be explained".

However, I am also now willing to let you get you in the last word.
I will not be bothered to read your posts in the future.

Paul S. Person

2016-02-13 18:02:29 UTC

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

Post by Thomas Koenig
To put it more strongly: I think you are abusing Tolkien to make
a political point. Your argument to defend this point is so weak
that you chose not to make it, hiding behind the "myths cannot
be explained".

I agree that he is abusing Tolkien.

I don't think he is making any sort of point, political or otherwise.

And he doesn't appear to be trying very hard to do so either.

I think he lacks two things: any idea whatseoever of what, if
anything, the graphic means; and the honesty required to admit this.

--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

Steve Hayes

2016-02-14 05:09:45 UTC

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Thomas Koenig
["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]

You may argue that about Tolkien. I would still think you wrong,
but it would be a legitimate argument.
However, you were trying to make a point about current US politics
using Tolkien as an argument specifically about Sanders and Clinton.
This takes it out of the realm of myths. (Unless you want to
create your own myth about politics, but this I would not consider
valid).
To put it more strongly: I think you are abusing Tolkien to make
a political point. Your argument to defend this point is so weak
that you chose not to make it, hiding behind the "myths cannot
be explained".
However, I am also now willing to let you get you in the last word.
I will not be bothered to read your posts in the future.

I have no desire to have the "last word". I don't think there can ever
be a "last word" on the works of Toklien. They remain popular because
people see in them things that speak to their lives and current
situation. This is one corrent instance of that.

I have no direct interest in the outcome of the US election, since I
live 10000 miles away.

In this case it's all about perception -- how do Bernie Sanders
supporters perceive the difference in attitudes between Bernie Sanders
and Hillary Clinton? The graphic shows that at least some of them see
it as in some way analogous to the difference between Aragorn and
Boromir.

What exactly does the ring represent in this context?

I suggest that the moment you try to pin it down, you lose it. Because
that's an invitation to discuss the intricacies of American politics
and lose sight of Tolkien altogether. Could the ring represent the
military-industrial complex, the mainstream media, neo-liberalism, or
does it have something to do with the endorsement of Hilary Clinton by
Madeleine "We think the price is worth it" Albright? Or is it a
combination of all these things? You'd have to ask them.

But the fact is that they do see it in that way. Would Tolkien have
seen it in that way if he had been alive? I don't know, and in a way
that is beside the point. The point is that people living today see
"The Lord of the Rings" as somehow illuminating their lives and
helping them to interpret the world around them.

There can only be a "last word" when people stop doing that, and that
will be when they stop reading Tolkien.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Taemon

2016-02-14 11:07:32 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
What exactly does the ring represent in this context?
I suggest that the moment you try to pin it down, you lose it.

That's a bloody bad cartoon, then.

a***@gmail.com

2016-03-13 01:47:46 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
Bernie Sanders: "You cannot wield it! None of us can. The
One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other master."
Hillary Clinton: "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of
Mordor. Why not use this ring?"

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

If the Ring = State Power, HRC and BS both want to wield it, to eventual
ill effect. HRC as Denethor, Bernie as Saruman, the remaining GOPers
Sauron and his Nazgûl*, and the hobbits are represented by the Libertarians. Treebeard is the Green Party.

YMMV, of course, based on your politics.

Kevin R

*I wouldn't count Rand Paul in that number. Maybe he's Radogast.

Steve Hayes

2016-02-14 06:24:11 UTC

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Here is a link to an article about the differences between Bernie
Sanders and Hilary Clinton.

https://t.co/AujzcqwgAJ

I post this here not to start a debate on the details of US politics,
but rather how it does, or does not, relate to "The Lord of the
Rings".

So if you are looking for specifics of what the Ring might represent
in this context, perhaps you will find them in this article.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Wayne Brown

2016-02-19 15:53:17 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Here is a link to an article about the differences between Bernie
Sanders and Hilary Clinton.
https://t.co/AujzcqwgAJ
I post this here not to start a debate on the details of US politics,
but rather how it does, or does not, relate to "The Lord of the
Rings".
So if you are looking for specifics of what the Ring might represent
in this context, perhaps you will find them in this article.

I've been following this thread for three weeks now because I thought
from the beginning that the Ring was being compared to some particular,
specific, identifiable THING. I thought both you and the cartoonist
were saying, "Just as Boromir would have used the Ring and Aragorn
wouldn't, so Hilary would use X and Bernie wouldn't" and I've been
motivated by a desire to know exactly what X actually IS. I thought
that the reason this comparison was made at all was because X was such
a clear, obvious, unmistakable thing that everyone would be expected
to see it immediately and I was annoyed that I couldn't see it.

So I was consumed with curiosity to know what it was, like wanting
to look up the answer to a riddle I couldn't solve. It was even more
annoying to see people keep asking for specifics but no specifics were
being given. I'm not interested in general philosophical differences
between Clinton and Sanders (I don't intend to vote for either and
so have little interest in them in general) but I did have simple
intellectual curiosity about what specific identifiable THING the
cartoonist (and you) had in mind when making the comparison. If there
wasn't one specific thing, or if you're not willing to say what it
was, then there was never anything in this discussion to interest me
and I regret having wasted my time reading this thread at all.

--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

Steve Hayes

2016-02-20 02:43:04 UTC

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:53:17 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:09:23 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:30:40 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig

What is the Ring in this context?

To know that, you'll need to read "The Lord of the Rings".

Sorry, I should have added that you would need to have a little
knowledge of current US politics. I've posted the graphic that
https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/the-one-ring/

I am roughly familiar with current US politics. However, both
your posts and your blog entry are entirely unclear about what
you mean.
So, again: What is the Ring in this context? What does it say
about US elections (apart from "quite a lot", which does not
give any information)?

Here is a link to an article about the differences between Bernie
Sanders and Hilary Clinton.
https://t.co/AujzcqwgAJ
I post this here not to start a debate on the details of US politics,
but rather how it does, or does not, relate to "The Lord of the
Rings".
So if you are looking for specifics of what the Ring might represent
in this context, perhaps you will find them in this article.

The Lord of the Rings is not intended to be allegory, and it is
therefore difficult to find a one-to-one comparison with a specific
"thing". It has rather to do with the style and approach.

I am not in the USA, and I hoped that people in the USA (where I
assume the cartoon originated) might be able to clarify or expand on
the thesis.

What I do see is that the One Ring is a symbol of power in various
forms, but Tolkien is not specific about it either. It has properties
like making the wearer invisible and making them live longer, but also
tends to enhance characteristics like greed and graspingness.

Being outside the USA, I probably tend to see it in a different
perspective, which is probably also different from that of whoever
produced the cartoon. The cartoon looks as though it is based on
something else, showing where Sanders and Clinton stand on various
issues that voters will be called to decide on. The cartoonist has
chosen to illustrate the differences by picking issues that voters
will not be specifically called upon to decide about. I've seen
another, probably from the same cartoonist, comparing their tastes in
jazz. This is probably not their actual stated tastes in jazz, but the
cartoonist's perception of it.

I've seen, in social media, various people's perceptions of Clinton
and Sanders, and occasional links to articles describing the
differences, but this particular one was the only one I've seen
comparing them to LOTR.

But since then I have seen something else that might help to make it
more specific for you.

This was the public endorsement of Hilary Clinton by Madeleine
Albright.

The thing that I chiefly remember Albright for is an aggressive US
foreign policy, for example, in a discussion of US hegemony in the
Middle East:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

—60 Minutes (5/12/96)

And she was also the one who rejected attempts to find a peaceful
solution in Yugoslavia, but pressed for Nato bombing at Rambouillet in
1999 -- see here for details

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/22_rambo.htm

This kind of thing makes Hilary Clinton look more like Sauron than
Bernie Sanders does. So perhaps the specific "thing" the Ring stands
for is hegemony, which is one form of power.

The Albright-Clinton approach seems to be that the end justifies the
means, and that it is OK to be evil to defeat evil -- wjhich seems to
be in line with Boromir's approach.

Sanders, on the other hand (in the cartoonist's view, at least), seems
to take the "don't be evil" approach, the one Google used to espouse.

I find it difficult to conceive of "the end justifies the means " as a
specific THING, but if there is any one "thing" that differewntiates
the attitude of Aragorn from that of Boromir, that's it, a "we think
the price is worth it" approach.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius

Taemon

2016-02-20 08:08:26 UTC

"I don't get it."
"I can't explain it because the Lord of the Rings isn't an allegory!"

A seriously bad cartoon, that.

Stan Brown

2016-02-20 13:24:17 UTC

Post by Taemon
"I don't get it."
"I can't explain it because the Lord of the Rings isn't an allegory!"
A seriously bad cartoon, that.

IMHO this is one occasion where it _is_ justifiable to blame the
messenger.

Jerry Friedman

2016-02-20 16:39:22 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:53:17 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown

...

Post by Wayne Brown
I've been following this thread for three weeks now because I thought
from the beginning that the Ring was being compared to some particular,
specific, identifiable THING. I thought both you and the cartoonist
were saying, "Just as Boromir would have used the Ring and Aragorn
wouldn't, so Hilary would use X and Bernie wouldn't" and I've been
motivated by a desire to know exactly what X actually IS. I thought
that the reason this comparison was made at all was because X was such
a clear, obvious, unmistakable thing that everyone would be expected
to see it immediately and I was annoyed that I couldn't see it.

The Lord of the Rings is not intended to be allegory,

True.

Post by Steve Hayes
and it is
therefore difficult to find a one-to-one comparison with a specific
"thing".

Not true, in my opinion. There's no difficulty in reading it, or
a specific incident in it, as allegory if one wants to.

By the way, are the two characters' lines in the cartoons quotations
from the Jackson movie?

Post by Steve Hayes
It has rather to do with the style and approach.
I am not in the USA, and I hoped that people in the USA (where I
assume the cartoon originated) might be able to clarify or expand on
the thesis.
What I do see is that the One Ring is a symbol of power in various
forms, but Tolkien is not specific about it either. It has properties
like making the wearer invisible and making them live longer, but also
tends to enhance characteristics like greed and graspingness.
Being outside the USA, I probably tend to see it in a different
perspective, which is probably also different from that of whoever
produced the cartoon. The cartoon looks as though it is based on
something else, showing where Sanders and Clinton stand on various
issues that voters will be called to decide on. The cartoonist has
chosen to illustrate the differences by picking issues that voters
will not be specifically called upon to decide about. I've seen
another, probably from the same cartoonist, comparing their tastes in
jazz. This is probably not their actual stated tastes in jazz, but the
cartoonist's perception of it.
I've seen, in social media, various people's perceptions of Clinton
and Sanders, and occasional links to articles describing the
differences, but this particular one was the only one I've seen
comparing them to LOTR.
But since then I have seen something else that might help to make it
more specific for you.
This was the public endorsement of Hilary Clinton by Madeleine
Albright.
The thing that I chiefly remember Albright for is an aggressive US
foreign policy, for example, in a discussion of US hegemony in the
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
And she was also the one who rejected attempts to find a peaceful
solution in Yugoslavia, but pressed for Nato bombing at Rambouillet in
1999 -- see here for details
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/22_rambo.htm

I don't think Albright is particularly remembered for that here.
And most of the publicity about her endorsement of Hilary Clinton has
been about her statement that there's a special place in Hell for
women who don't help other women.

Post by Steve Hayes
This kind of thing makes Hilary Clinton look more like Sauron than
Bernie Sanders does. So perhaps the specific "thing" the Ring stands
for is hegemony, which is one form of power.
The Albright-Clinton approach seems to be that the end justifies the
means, and that it is OK to be evil to defeat evil -- wjhich seems to
be in line with Boromir's approach.
Sanders, on the other hand (in the cartoonist's view, at least), seems
to take the "don't be evil" approach, the one Google used to espouse.
I find it difficult to conceive of "the end justifies the means " as a
specific THING, but if there is any one "thing" that differewntiates
the attitude of Aragorn from that of Boromir, that's it, a "we think
the price is worth it" approach.

That's not how I understand it. They both take the approach of thinking
the price is worth it, since they're both happy to kill as many
Easterlings and Southrons, and leave as many widows and orphans in the
East and South as it takes. However, Aragorn understands that using
the Ring is not a means to the desired end--Middle-earth free of any
Dark Lord--and Boromir believes it only reluctantly and can be tempted
by the Ring to abandon that belief. As you said elsewhere in the
thread, Aragorn understands that using the Ring would be
counterproductive.

I don't think we know much about either Aragorn's or Boromir's views
on ends and means, though I suspect that they're like those of Faramir,
who wouldn't snare even an orc with a falsehood. I'll be happy to
be corrected.

However, something about ends and means might have been what the
cartoonist had in mind.

--
Jerry Friedman

Jerry Friedman

2016-02-21 14:24:37 UTC

...

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
This was the public endorsement of Hilary Clinton by Madeleine
Albright.
The thing that I chiefly remember Albright for is an aggressive US
foreign policy, for example, in a discussion of US hegemony in the
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
And she was also the one who rejected attempts to find a peaceful
solution in Yugoslavia, but pressed for Nato bombing at Rambouillet in
1999 -- see here for details
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/22_rambo.htm

...

Also, I think most Americans would gave the main credit or blame for
those actions to Bill Clinton--I would, anyway--and we've known for
a long time that Hillary has his endorsement.

--
Jerry Friedman

Stan Brown

2016-02-11 11:19:38 UTC