Idea for the Council of Elrond

"Jussi Jaatinen" <1.1 DeleteThis @nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:402CED36.581440EF@nowhere.org...

 > If Sauron moves against them, they'll use it against him.

"You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

"Derek Wildstar" <gunner.TakeThisOut@argo.mil> wrote in message
news:Gg8Xb.307701$na.462203@attbi_s04...
 >
 > "Jussi Jaatinen" <1.1.TakeThisOut@nowhere.org> wrote in message
 > news:402CED36.581440EF@nowhere.org...
 >
  > > If Sauron moves against them, they'll use it against him.
 >
 > "You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo

That's one of the major differences between books and
movies.

Aris Katsaris<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

  > > "You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo
 >
 > That's one of the major differences between books and
 > movies.

I don't have the books handy but I recall that none of the major players
(Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, et cetera) were willing to even
attempt to wield the ring (with the notable exception of Boromir). To me,
that's just what Viggo's line says: to wield the ring is to invite doom.
IMHO a minor quibble at best; hardly a major difference.

--
John Goulden<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news.RemoveThis@goulden.org> wrote in message
news:c0jbqe0189g@enews1.newsguy.com...
   > > > "You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo
  > >
  > > That's one of the major differences between books and
  > > movies.
 >
 > I don't have the books handy but I recall that none of the major players
 > (Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, et cetera) were willing to even
 > attempt to wield the ring (with the notable exception of Boromir). To me,
 > that's just what Viggo's line says: to wield the ring is to invite doom.
 > IMHO a minor quibble at best; hardly a major difference.

The emphasis is different -- in the books the idea presented strongly is
that the ring's power will corrupt you and that it will be a major threat to
Sauron if someone used the ring against him.

In the movies this is simplified into "you can't wield the ring, none of us
can, the One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other monster."
or "There's only one who can master the ring.", and the idea of
Sauron fearing people wielding the ring against him is never mentioned.

Perhaps this is a "minor quibble" -- but I choose to see it as more severe
than that: the fact that this rational and amoral and *logical* course
is never mentioned as being inside Sauron's fears, means that
movie-Sauron's failure to perceive his enemies' designs is simple
stupidity rather than a consequence of his vast intelligence being
confined by the moral boundaries of his own mind.

Which means that IMO one of the most important themes of the book
is lost, the idea that Sauron is defeated because he can't even imagine
someone would wish to destroy the ring.

Aris Katsaris<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

"Aris Katsaris" <katsaris.DeleteThis@otenet.gr> took the time to write
news:c0je92$25v0$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr:

 >
 > "John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news.DeleteThis@goulden.org> wrote in message
 > news:c0jbqe0189g@enews1.newsguy.com...
   >> > > "You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo
   >> >
   >> > That's one of the major differences between books and
   >> > movies.
  >>
  >> I don't have the books handy but I recall that none of the major
  >> players (Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, et cetera) were willing
  >> to even attempt to wield the ring (with the notable exception of
  >> Boromir). To me, that's just what Viggo's line says: to wield the
  >> ring is to invite doom. IMHO a minor quibble at best; hardly a major
  >> difference.
 >
 > The emphasis is different -- in the books the idea presented strongly
 > is that the ring's power will corrupt you and that it will be a major
 > threat to Sauron if someone used the ring against him.
 >

 > In the movies this is simplified into "you can't wield the ring, none
 > of us can, the One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other
 > monster." or "There's only one who can master the ring.", and the idea
 > of Sauron fearing people wielding the ring against him is never
 > mentioned.
 >

A reasonable arguement, if the facts supported it, but they don't. For
example in FOTR the moview, when Galadriel is offered the ring by Frodo
she clearly illustrates the consequences of her wielding the ring to
defeat Sauron. While Jackson does not delve as deeply into this as
Tolkien does, he still addresses it.

Bob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
 > the One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other monster.

<<giggle>>

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

In article <Xns948E878D0872Alittlemerganseryahoo DeleteThis @130.133.1.17>,
Bob F. <littlemerganser DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
 >"Aris Katsaris" <katsaris DeleteThis @otenet.gr> took the time to write
 >news:c0je92$25v0$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr:

  >> "John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news DeleteThis @goulden.org> wrote in message
  >> news:c0jbqe0189g@enews1.newsguy.com...
   >>> > > "You can not wield it, none of us can." - Viggo
   >>> >
   >>> > That's one of the major differences between books and
   >>> > movies.

   >>> I don't have the books handy but I recall that none of the major
   >>> players (Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, et cetera) were willing
   >>> to even attempt to wield the ring (with the notable exception of
   >>> Boromir). To me, that's just what Viggo's line says: to wield the
   >>> ring is to invite doom. IMHO a minor quibble at best; hardly a major
   >>> difference.

  >> The emphasis is different -- in the books the idea presented strongly
  >> is that the ring's power will corrupt you and that it will be a major
  >> threat to Sauron if someone used the ring against him.
  >>
  >> In the movies this is simplified into "you can't wield the ring, none
  >> of us can, the One Ring answers to Sauron alone, it has no other
  >> monster." or "There's only one who can master the ring.", and the idea
  >> of Sauron fearing people wielding the ring against him is never
  >> mentioned.

 >A reasonable arguement, if the facts supported it, but they don't. For
 >example in FOTR the moview, when Galadriel is offered the ring by Frodo
 >she clearly illustrates the consequences of her wielding the ring to
 >defeat Sauron. While Jackson does not delve as deeply into this as
 >Tolkien does, he still addresses it.

True. And even earlier in the same movie, when Gandalf rejects
Frodo's offer the Ring, his dialog -- taken, like Galadriel's, from
the book -- also seemed to imply that, although the long-term
results would be very bad, he *could* in fact use the ring against
Sauron if he so chose.

Nevertheless I would have to agree that dialog written for the
movie -- as opposed to dialog taken from the book -- appears to
imply that no one other than Sauron has the ability to master the
Ring.

IOW, I think the movie contradicts itself on this point. I think
this happened because Gandalf's and Galadriel's words in these
instances are some of the most memorable in the book, and Jackson
wanted to use them as is, but he also wanted to simplify the plot
by taking away from the good guys the option of using the Ring to
overthrow Sauron. A pity, because this simplification seems totally
unnecessary to me.
--
John Brock
jbrock DeleteThis @panix.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

John Brock <jbrock RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
: Nevertheless I would have to agree that dialog written for the
: movie -- as opposed to dialog taken from the book -- appears to
: imply that no one other than Sauron has the ability to master the
: Ring.

In Letters, Tolkien says pretty much the same thing. Gandalf is
the one other being who might have been able to master the Ring.
Everyone else would have had no chance of withholding the Ring from Sauron.
Others could have apparently used the Ring to command armies, but
they could not have used it directly against Sauron. All he would
need to do is show up and take the Ring. It is not clear how effective
an army would be against Sauron, nor how effective he would be against an army,
so it is not clear what anyone with the Ring could actually do against
Sauron.

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

On 13 Feb 2004 22:43:32 GMT, stephen.RemoveThis@nomail.com wrote:

 >John Brock <jbrock.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
 >: Nevertheless I would have to agree that dialog written for the
 >: movie -- as opposed to dialog taken from the book -- appears to
 >: imply that no one other than Sauron has the ability to master the
 >: Ring.
 >
 >In Letters, Tolkien says pretty much the same thing. Gandalf is
 >the one other being who might have been able to master the Ring.
 >Everyone else would have had no chance of withholding the Ring from Sauron.
 >Others could have apparently used the Ring to command armies, but
 >they could not have used it directly against Sauron. All he would
 >need to do is show up and take the Ring. It is not clear how effective
 >an army would be against Sauron, nor how effective he would be against an army,
 >so it is not clear what anyone with the Ring could actually do against
 >Sauron.
 >
 >Stephen

I don't know if I would say that Gandalf could "master" the ring. He
might have been able to defeat Sauron using the power of the ring, but
in the end he would end up just as evil and corrupt as Sauron because
of the ring. It was wholly evil.

I think it would be better said that the ring would master Gandalf.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

On 13 Feb 2004 22:43:32 GMT,
stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com <stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
 > John Brock <jbrock RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:
 >: Nevertheless I would have to agree that dialog written for the
 >: movie -- as opposed to dialog taken from the book -- appears to
 >: imply that no one other than Sauron has the ability to master the
 >: Ring.
 >
 > In Letters, Tolkien says pretty much the same thing. Gandalf is
 > the one other being who might have been able to master the Ring.
 > Everyone else would have had no chance of withholding the Ring from Sauron.
 > Others could have apparently used the Ring to command armies, but
 > they could not have used it directly against Sauron. All he would
 > need to do is show up and take the Ring. It is not clear how effective
 > an army would be against Sauron, nor how effective he would be against an army,
 > so it is not clear what anyone with the Ring could actually do against
 > Sauron.

Tolkien's letter has an enormous caveat; that such a confrontation was never
envisioned. Someone like Aragorn, and probably even Elrond, Galadriel,
Gandalf, Elrond, and for all I know, the Balrog, wouldn't attack like this.
Tolkien, from what I can tell of the letter, was doing a bit of "who's
tougher, Batman or Spider Man".

Perhaps, in the end, Sauron might never actually be rendered impotent by
another Ringwielder, but he might be rendered superfluous. If his armies
are defeated, then what's the difference.

And I'd argue that that was exactly what Sauron was afraid of. When Aragorn
revealed himself to Sauron in the Palantir, Sauron rushed his forces out of
Mordor before their time. That's not the actions of an individual who isn't
worried that one of his enemies has the Ring, but the actions of someone
who, knowing what he knows about the Ring (and who would know better),
wanting to nail Gondor before the new wielder has a chance to master the
Ring.

--
Aaron Clausen

tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

AC <mightymartianca.TakeThisOut@yahoo.ca> wrote:
: On 13 Feb 2004 22:43:32 GMT,
: stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com <stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote:
:> In Letters, Tolkien says pretty much the same thing. Gandalf is
:> the one other being who might have been able to master the Ring.
:> Everyone else would have had no chance of withholding the Ring from Sauron.
:> Others could have apparently used the Ring to command armies, but
:> they could not have used it directly against Sauron. All he would
:> need to do is show up and take the Ring. It is not clear how effective
:> an army would be against Sauron, nor how effective he would be against an army,
:> so it is not clear what anyone with the Ring could actually do against
:> Sauron.

: Tolkien's letter has an enormous caveat; that such a confrontation was never
: envisioned. Someone like Aragorn, and probably even Elrond, Galadriel,
: Gandalf, Elrond, and for all I know, the Balrog, wouldn't attack like this.
: Tolkien, from what I can tell of the letter, was doing a bit of "who's
: tougher, Batman or Spider Man".

: Perhaps, in the end, Sauron might never actually be rendered impotent by
: another Ringwielder, but he might be rendered superfluous. If his armies
: are defeated, then what's the difference.

But Sauron would still exist, and Sauron all by himself is a fearsome
being. If Aragorn had claimed the Ring, what could he actually do
to Sauron? Why couldn't Sauron just confront Aragorn and take the
Ring from him. What could anyone do to prevent it? Gandalf the White
was impervious to normal and even not so normal weapons. The Nazgul
may or may not have been affected by normal weapons. Do you really
think that Sauron could be physically stopped from confronting Aragorn,
or someone else who had the Ring, even if his armies had been defeated?

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

On 14 Feb 2004 05:13:01 GMT,
stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com <stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote:
> AC <mightymartianca.TakeThisOut@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>: On 13 Feb 2004 22:43:32 GMT,
>: stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com <stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote:
>:> In Letters, Tolkien says pretty much the same thing. Gandalf is
>:> the one other being who might have been able to master the Ring.
>:> Everyone else would have had no chance of withholding the Ring from Sauron.
>:> Others could have apparently used the Ring to command armies, but
>:> they could not have used it directly against Sauron. All he would
>:> need to do is show up and take the Ring. It is not clear how effective
>:> an army would be against Sauron, nor how effective he would be against an army,
>:> so it is not clear what anyone with the Ring could actually do against
>:> Sauron.
>
>: Tolkien's letter has an enormous caveat; that such a confrontation was never
>: envisioned. Someone like Aragorn, and probably even Elrond, Galadriel,
>: Gandalf, Elrond, and for all I know, the Balrog, wouldn't attack like this.
>: Tolkien, from what I can tell of the letter, was doing a bit of "who's
>: tougher, Batman or Spider Man".
>
>: Perhaps, in the end, Sauron might never actually be rendered impotent by
>: another Ringwielder, but he might be rendered superfluous. If his armies
>: are defeated, then what's the difference.
>
> But Sauron would still exist, and Sauron all by himself is a fearsome
> being.

Well, Sauron existed even after the Ring was destroyed, so that's not much
of an argument. But I'm being picky. Yes, Sauron would have been largely
intact.

> If Aragorn had claimed the Ring, what could he actually do
> to Sauron?

Kick the cr*p out of him militarily. Picture someone even tougher than
Ar-Pharazon who doesn't treat with Sauron, but merely sets about wiping out
his armies and driving him away.

>Why couldn't Sauron just confront Aragorn and take the
> Ring from him.

Sauron would have to get to him first.

> What could anyone do to prevent it?

Sauron certainly wasn't invincible. Are you suggesting he could get by
armies insanely loyal to Aragorn?

> Gandalf the White
> was impervious to normal and even not so normal weapons. The Nazgul
> may or may not have been affected by normal weapons. Do you really
> think that Sauron could be physically stopped from confronting Aragorn,
> or someone else who had the Ring, even if his armies had been defeated?

I would imagine that Sauron could indeed be stopped. He was at the end of
the Second Age, and he possessed the Ring then.

--
Aaron Clausen

tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond 

<stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message news:c0kaot$1t4t$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> AC <mightymartianca RemoveThis @yahoo.ca> wrote:
> : On 13 Feb 2004 22:43:32 GMT,
> : stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com <stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>
> : Perhaps, in the end, Sauron might never actually be rendered impotent by
> : another Ringwielder, but he might be rendered superfluous. If his armies
> : are defeated, then what's the difference.
>
> But Sauron would still exist, and Sauron all by himself is a fearsome
> being. If Aragorn had claimed the Ring, what could he actually do
> to Sauron? Why couldn't Sauron just confront Aragorn and take the
> Ring from him. What could anyone do to prevent it?

Sauron of the second age was overthrown by Gil-galad and Elendil. I
assume that his battle with them occured at the same time Sauron's army
was fighting the army of the Last Alliance.

So, what could a whole army do to prevent it? Quite a lot, I'd think, if
two people alone could throw him down, even at a time when he was
more powerful than at the end of the Third.

> Gandalf the White
> was impervious to normal and even not so normal weapons. The Nazgul
> may or may not have been affected by normal weapons. Do you really
> think that Sauron could be physically stopped from confronting Aragorn,
> or someone else who had the Ring, even if his armies had been defeated?

Yeah, I do so think it.

Aris Katsaris
 >> Stay informed about: Idea for the Council of Elrond