TrollinSun
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 40
What Lord of the Flies is a dim few of humanity... noooooooo
hahahaha
What Lord of the Flies is a dim few of humanity... nooooooooThere are no right hands (Aragorn is a fantasy figure).
Power corrupts. To cite Lord Acton (I hope Wiki has the quote right): "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
To sharpen the argument, I use Tom Shippey's 2000 book "JRRT - Author of the Century".
He quotes William Golding, author of the 1954 "Lord of the Flies" and the 1955 "The Inheritors", both of which take an extremely dim view on humanity, in a collection of essays published by Golding in 1965 entitled "Hot Gates":
"I must say that anyone who passed through those years [of World War II] without understanding that man produces evil as a bee produces honey, must have been blind or wrong in the head."
JRRT failed at resolving the problem of theodicy. Not something to wonder at, as every theologian in history has also failed to do so. Eru blew it.
I have.OK, I confess I have never read Golding's novel. So I take recourse to my main source of information about things I know little to nothing of, Wikipedia.
Oh, oh. "The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island [after a plane crash in the midst of an unspecified war] and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves."
This sound all too much like "public" schoolers ("public" being a British / English term meaning exactly the opposite, namely private, costly and often snobby schools for the progeny of the parasite class - but then George Orwell, the inventor or perhaps revealer of "doublespeak", was English). One group among the stranded was a choir ...
Right. That seems to make the protagonists a microscopically small (perhaps in electron microscope territory) slice of humanity. But some of their real-life equivalents (of the survivors) may be in positions of influence until today - and not just in England (Small Britain). That would explain most of the mess the world is in ...
How do they replace Sauron with Aragorn, especially ifYes, I agree with everything said there---but as much as the whole "power corrupts" quote is taken to heart, we all agree some measure of it is necessary. A kingdom, for example, was understood to be progressive compared to a bunch of scattered tribes that bicker and slaughter each other. A strong medieval king would serve the positive function of protecting the security of the common people (to some extent) from the inter-fighting among the barons.
Point is, until we all live in a utopia where there is no need for power at all, we need some. Despite what Gandalf says, they DO replace Sauron... they replace him with Aragorn. They just don't use the Ring.
*view*What Lord of the Flies is a dim few of humanity... noooooooo
hahahaha
Ah, now I get it.*view*
Is it wrong? 😐I have.
I hate it.
CL
Is it wrong? 😐
More depressing than the news of the last few weeks? 🙁It's depressing.
CL
Basically it says that we should expect evil from humanity as a given.More depressing than the news of the last few weeks? 🙁
Which does not seem to contradict recent (or less, even far less recent) news.
True enough.Which does not seem to contradict recent (or less, even far less recent) news.
'Course, that's about the parasite class, aka "leaders", to 99 plus percent.
A wild question, I know, and slightly blasphemous, but in the spirit of "trust the tale, not the teller" (as D. H. Lawrence put it), I feel I have to ask this.
We know that the One Ring confers great power, that one of sufficient strength who wields it can, in theory, not only rival Sauron but completely overthrow him. The hitch, it's said, is that then you'll just take Sauron's place---that Gandalf, had he used the Ring, would have then become Sauron in some other guise. No one really questions this, except Boromir (of course, fatally). Denethor has his doubts as well, but from a desperate position. But do they KNOW? "Because Tolkien said so" isn't really an answer.
The problem, it seems, is a certain contradiction at the heart of the story. However much Tolkien professed against allegory, it can be said, broadly, that the Ring represents a certain form of absolute power. To seize tyrannical powers to throw down the tyrant as currently standing, the argument seems to go, is to be no better than your foe, and to simply perpetuate evil. But the climax of the Third Age all hinges on Aragon taking the throne as High King, to govern all Gondor and Arnor, all the realm of old. In other words, the Men of the West hardly mean to set up an anarcho-syndalicist commune, to reference Monty Python. Aragon will rule as an absolute monarch.
"But," it will be said, "it all depends on your intention. Aragon means to lead men well, not subjugate them." Well, I'm sure that's true, and I'm not here to dump on monarchy---it has many merits, and is probably far nobler (in the right hands) than our current system. But the point is, Aragorn's after power. Power is understood here to be a good thing, to provide law and order, and finally peace. So then, why NOT use the Ring?
Presumably the Ring is under some spell of inherent evil, that whatever it does will wreak destruction, no matter what the intention at first. Let's say that's true, even though there's a lack of evidence. First of all, nobody's tried it---Isiildur lost it far too soon, and the only others to bear it were hobbits. And if Minas Ithil can become Minas Morgul, far removed from the beauty of its original structure, and Elves can be turned into Orcs, then why not the Ring into good? But alright, let's say in Tolkien's world (which is mythic, and so different from ours; it's ultimately his call)---even still, there's something unsettling here, some apparent contradiction and flip-flop. One can sympathize with Denethor's outrage that instead of being kept safe from Sauron, the Ring is sent into Mordor carried by hobbits. Yes, it all worked out in the end, but that by a million strokes of good luck. Tolkien would call it providence, and I suppose it is. But to risk the lives of everything in Middle-earth by trusting to providence rather than master your soul enough to govern wisely... this is strange.
Some of what I've said is a bit incoherent, I know, but this question's been on my mind of late. It just seems that Tolkien had some strange ideas about power, and grace. That Frodo ultimately yields and claims the Ring for his own, even at the edge of ruin for everything... well, what does this imply but that evil is something no heart can resist, that without grace, without someone there to bite your finger and fall in the magma, we'd all be lost? That's not necessarily invalid... the frame of things may indeed be structured thus... but it seems to go against all the traditional morals Tolkien would claim to believe in, absolving us all of any culpability for claiming the Ring of Power. Grace will take care of it. But then, why not just have Gandalf (or Galadriel) overthrow the Dark Lord, then let grace take care of it?
Interesting.
My thoughts is that the ring contains much of Sauron's soul, it is told that the ring has a mind of it's own and I think that is why it wants to return to it's master and only answers to Sauron's callA wild question, I know, and slightly blasphemous, but in the spirit of "trust the tale, not the teller" (as D. H. Lawrence put it), I feel I have to ask this.
We know that the One Ring confers great power, that one of sufficient strength who wields it can, in theory, not only rival Sauron but completely overthrow him. The hitch, it's said, is that then you'll just take Sauron's place---that Gandalf, had he used the Ring, would have then become Sauron in some other guise. No one really questions this, except Boromir (of course, fatally). Denethor has his doubts as well, but from a desperate position. But do they KNOW? "Because Tolkien said so" isn't really an answer.
The problem, it seems, is a certain contradiction at the heart of the story. However much Tolkien professed against allegory, it can be said, broadly, that the Ring represents a certain form of absolute power. To seize tyrannical powers to throw down the tyrant as currently standing, the argument seems to go, is to be no better than your foe, and to simply perpetuate evil. But the climax of the Third Age all hinges on Aragon taking the throne as High King, to govern all Gondor and Arnor, all the realm of old. In other words, the Men of the West hardly mean to set up an anarcho-syndalicist commune, to reference Monty Python. Aragon will rule as an absolute monarch.
"But," it will be said, "it all depends on your intention. Aragon means to lead men well, not subjugate them." Well, I'm sure that's true, and I'm not here to dump on monarchy---it has many merits, and is probably far nobler (in the right hands) than our current system. But the point is, Aragorn's after power. Power is understood here to be a good thing, to provide law and order, and finally peace. So then, why NOT use the Ring?
Presumably the Ring is under some spell of inherent evil, that whatever it does will wreak destruction, no matter what the intention at first. Let's say that's true, even though there's a lack of evidence. First of all, nobody's tried it---Isiildur lost it far too soon, and the only others to bear it were hobbits. And if Minas Ithil can become Minas Morgul, far removed from the beauty of its original structure, and Elves can be turned into Orcs, then why not the Ring into good? But alright, let's say in Tolkien's world (which is mythic, and so different from ours; it's ultimately his call)---even still, there's something unsettling here, some apparent contradiction and flip-flop. One can sympathize with Denethor's outrage that instead of being kept safe from Sauron, the Ring is sent into Mordor carried by hobbits. Yes, it all worked out in the end, but that by a million strokes of good luck. Tolkien would call it providence, and I suppose it is. But to risk the lives of everything in Middle-earth by trusting to providence rather than master your soul enough to govern wisely... this is strange.
Some of what I've said is a bit incoherent, I know, but this question's been on my mind of late. It just seems that Tolkien had some strange ideas about power, and grace. That Frodo ultimately yields and claims the Ring for his own, even at the edge of ruin for everything... well, what does this imply but that evil is something no heart can resist, that without grace, without someone there to bite your finger and fall in the magma, we'd all be lost? That's not necessarily invalid... the frame of things may indeed be structured thus... but it seems to go against all the traditional morals Tolkien would claim to believe in, absolving us all of any culpability for claiming the Ring of Power. Grace will take care of it. But then, why not just have Gandalf (or Galadriel) overthrow the Dark Lord, then let grace take care of it?
Interesting.
Well now, perhaps you think too much of me. I can comment on the making of ordinary rings.... but magic rings? Those are objects of a completely different kind, and I suspect that they may take a great deal more time. It is not uncommon for a craftsperson to spend years or even decades building up the skills and equipment necessary to make a particular object. For instance, it may take only a second to strike a coin, yet the engraving on the dies, the heat-treating thereof, the creation of the press with sufficiently enormous power, the harnessing of the power necessary, and even the sourcing of the materials may take weeks, months, years, or decades, before the final moment when the object is finally brought into existence. So it would not surprise me at all to find that Sauron took a hundred years or more to craft the One Ring, given that he had to first create the elaborate conditions under which it could be made.At least for the last question, we have a professional in our TTF member @Will Whitfoot .
Can you give us some indication from your experience how long it takes an experienced jeweler to finish one ring?
OK, I suppose I could have been more precise in my wording. Like posting "how long it takes an experienced jeweler to finish one run-of-the-mill ring in our world". Though the absence of caps should have been a giveaway, as for "Sauron's trinket" I always post "The One Ring" (well, I believe I do, at least 😬 )....At least for the last question, we have a professional in our TTF member @Will Whitfoot .
Can you give us some indication from your experience how long it takes an experienced jeweler to finish one ring?
An ordinary simple unadorned ring might be the effort of a few hours or a single day for a jeweler with equipment and materials ready to hand. Something more elaborate with cut stones, multiple metals, and settings might require several days or weeks. But a magic ring, embodying a great part of the soul of the creator? Well that is an endeavor outside the ken of this humble metalworker!
Santa Claus has a beard ... so this would be Cirdan moonlighting once a year? 🤔Well, I for one believe that one particular elf used the FIVE rings to escape Middle Earth and journey into our world, where he has set himself up as a spreader of joy around the winter solstice season. Yes... I believe in Santa Claus! The rest of the year he spreads the rings around to various helpers to do good deeds all over the world, but once a year all five rings are gathered onto one hand so that he can perform the true Yuletide miracles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?