Man and ⛏️Dwarf Rings made them Invisible?!?

Alatar · Jun 10, 2005

Greenwood i had mistyped.
I think that even wraiths had a foot in the real world, as they can weild weapons. But gandalf says that thier real cloaks give shape to their nothingnes,

Greenwood · Jun 10, 2005

Alatar said:
I think that even wraiths had a foot in the real world, as they can weild weapons.

Yes, they had to still exist in the real world since as both of us have said they wield real weapons. Also, at Weathertop Aragorn says that all weapons perish that pierce the Witch King's flesh. That would not be possible if he did not exist in the real world. And of course, there is the fact that the Witch King was killed in the battle before Minas Tirith and that took place in the real world.

Alatar said:
But gandalf says that thier real cloaks give shape to their nothingness,

I think we are dealing here with Tolkien's use of somewhat poetic language. What he is referring to is the fact that the Nazgul are permanently invisible in the real world -- their invisibility is their "nothingness".

[added in edit: Just noticed this is my 1500th post! Weeeee!]

HLGStrider · Jun 10, 2005

As only you, Alatar, and I have given opinions on this statement and Alatar said it could be read either way, I think we don't have a good sample size to say only I consider it ambiguous.

If you want to give me other quotes that refer to Frodo or Bilbo when wearing the ring "as shadows" rather than as "having shadows" then you might have a case.

Greenwood · Jun 10, 2005

HLGStrider said:
If you want to give me other quotes that refer to Frodo or Bilbo when wearing the ring "as shadows" rather than as "having shadows" then you might have a case.

As the old saying goes: It is a distinction without a difference.

HLGStrider · Jun 11, 2005

You know, I used to have a friend who would reply, "Same difference" everytime anyone corrected him. It doesn't make a very convincing arguement.

Now, I'm not correcting you, but I think these are two very distinct and also very different things we are referring to. As it is, I think the question remains open, but it seems we've driven everyone else out of this thread. . .hello? Forum? Where are you?

Alatar · Jun 12, 2005

Well i'm here, i've been on a camp but though i know that there is no evidence i am saying that the man ring make them invisable, where dwarves do not.
On thijng about tolkein, he has changed the language, elves are now tall, and dwarfs is spelt dwarves.

Helm · Jun 19, 2005

I'm also here! Beerly able to keep up with the reading, not posting. Pant!! I suppose Greewood did not prove anything if you say shadow = wraith. But otherwise Greenwood is right. In the same breath Greenwood has not been disproved if you say shadow = wraith. Maybe this is one of those Tolkien Mysteries. Anywho my vote goes with Greenwood.

Thorondor_ · Jul 31, 2005

I think that the following quote form Letter 131, to Milton Waldman makes it pretty clear that all the rings confer invisibility (emphasis added):

The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron ('the Necromancer': so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and presage on the pages of The Hobbit): such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible.

Greenwood · Jul 31, 2005

Thorondor,

Two points: 1) When you say "all" the rings I assume you are not including the three elven rings in that "all". The very next paragraph after the one you cited in letter 131 says:

The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty; they did not confer invisibility. [emphasis added]

2) A key question here has been whether the rings confer invisibility on anyone who possesses them. As I have pointed out earlier, Tolkien states that because of their nature the only effect they had on dwarves was to inflame their greed for gold and wealth.

HLGStrider · Aug 1, 2005

I still say invisibility is not an effect but an application. For instance, if I put on my make up in the morning, I am applying it. If it gives me a rash it has had an effect on me.

So I would argue that the Dwarves could apply the rings towards invisibility without it affecting (effecting. ..? I hate those words) them.

Thorondor_ · Aug 1, 2005

1) When you say "all" the rings I assume you are not including the three elven rings in that "all".

[Well, it wasn't me to say "all" rings, it was the original quote.] You are correct, however, the topic of the thread is about the rings of the men and of the dwarves, so the quote is relevant to our topic.

2) A key question here has been whether the rings confer invisibility on anyone who possesses them. As I have pointed out earlier, Tolkien states that because of their nature the only effect they had on dwarves was to inflame their greed for gold and wealth.

I think we should distinguish between the power that the rings wield over the bearers ( "the only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things") and the power that bearers can wield with the help of the ring ("And finally they had other powers, such as rendering invisible the material body").
Similarly, the One ring can wield a power of corruption over the bearer but also the bearer could wield a certain power (of domination in this case) through the use of the ring.
Furthermore, I think that the quote from Appendix A of ROTK concerns only the negative effects of the rings (resulting from the the will of Sauron: But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination; Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will) and not the "neutral" qualities, such as preservation of what is desired or loved ("more or less an Elvish motive") or rendering invisible the material body.

Greenwood · Aug 1, 2005

Thorondor said:
Furthermore, I think that the quote from Appendix A of ROTK concerns only the negative effects of the rings (resulting from the the will of Sauron: But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination; Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will) and not the "neutral" qualities, such as preservation of what is desired or loved ("more or less an Elvish motive") or rendering invisible the material body.

BUT, "rendering invisible the material body" was not a "neutral" quality! It was how the rings possessor's were turned into wraiths. The "invisibility power" was derived directly from Sauron. Look at the quote from Letter 131 that you posted:

And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron ('the Necromancer': so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and presage on the pages of The Hobbit): such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible. [emphasis added]

Therefore, under your own interpretation the passage from the Appendix must also include the "invisibility power" since it is a negative effect derived from Sauron. Tolkien says the "only power" of the rings over the dwarves was to inflame their lust for gold and precious things. Are you contending that invisibility was a "power" the dwarves possessed themselves or derived from something other than the rings? I would agree that all the rings (the nine and the seven) could make men (and hobbits) invisible, but dwarves are a different kind of creature, from a different creation. Tolkien has said the rings affected them differently.

Thorondor_ · Aug 1, 2005

It was how the rings possessor's were turned into wraiths.

I think that "power over" specifically reffers to power to subdue them to Sauron. The users of the ring wouldn't become wraiths if there was no One ring.

Therefore, under your own interpretation the passage from the Appendix must also include the "invisibility power" since it is a negative effect derived from Sauron.

Not everything pertaining to Sauron is evil per se; afterall, it was his lore that made possible the creation of the three rings.

Greenwood · Aug 1, 2005

Thorondor said:
Not everything pertaining to Sauron is evil per se; afterall, it was his lore that made possible the creation of the three rings.

The only reason Sauron assisted the elves of Eregion in making "rings of power" was to ensnare them. The only reason the Three were not evil is that Sauron had no part in their making and never touched them.

Thorondor_ · Aug 1, 2005

Should I presume you agree that "power over" specifically reffers to power to subdue them to Sauron and not to all the "powers of" the rings ?

The only reason the Three were not evil is that Sauron had no part in their making and never touched them.

But would the other rings become evil without the existence of the one ring?

Inderjit S · Aug 1, 2005

Elrond makes it clear that the "other rings" were different from the Elven rings in that the Elven rings were never made to further power or wealth, but to preserve and they were never "sullied" by Sauron. I guess the other rings would have had the "taint" in them, which may well have inspired lust if they were given to mortals, however the Gwaith-i-Mirdain at the time didn't "see" it.

Greenwood · Aug 2, 2005

Another excellent post by Inderjit.

Sauron made the One Ring to control (dominate) all other rings. All the rings, save the Three, were already tainted because Sauron had a hand in making all of them (except the Three).

Ingwë · Aug 3, 2005

Thorondor_ said:
But would the other rings become evil without the existence of the one ring?

I think they will become Evil because the Dark lord Sauron played part in the creation of these Rings. The works of the Smiths weren't Evil but they turned to Evil. Nothing is evil till another Evil thing turn the good to Evil. And, of course, there is a source of Evil.

Aglarband · Aug 21, 2005

I remember reading in (I think the 3rd age section of the Silmarilion) that the Witch-King of Angmar was able invisible when he used his ring, and thus learned much about his enemies.

Man and ⛏️Dwarf Rings made them Invisible?!?

Did the Man and Dwarf Rings make the bearer Invisible

Yes

No

Don't know/No evidence either way

The Blue Wizzard

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

All Knowing Magic Cat

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

All Knowing Magic Cat

The Blue Wizzard

New Member

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

All Knowing Magic Cat

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Well-Known Member

Bootylicious

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil

Creeping Death

Member

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency