Man and ⛏️Dwarf Rings made them Invisible?!?

[Gothmog]

I wasn't saying it was a perfect analogy, but my point was that the dwarves could become invisible without ever permanently losing control of their return to the "real world." I don't see what is so illogical about that. We must assume that Sauron would be able to use the One's invisibility powers without losing his substance.

The problem with this is that by including Sauron we now have Three unrelated types.
Elves/Men, Dwarves, Maia.
We only know for certain that Men (and Hobbits) become invisible when wearing one of the Great Rings. There is some evidence that the sixteen rings given to Men and Dwarves may have confered invisibility to Elves but such is not stated in the stories. Dwarves are completely unrelated to Elves and Men and have a different make-up. We have nothing in the stories that describe a dwarf being invisible. As for Sauron, he is a 'Self-incarnate' Maia. As such any powers that he had for controling the invisibility of the One, or any of the others for that matter, cannot be used to prove the same for lesser beings.

 

[Greenwood]

It's kind of silly asking a question that can't be proved one way or another.

You made some statements about dwarf behavior. It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask you to provide some documentation to support your statements. Calling my questions silly does not support your viewpoint.

I didn't think the forging of the rings was all that secret. Sauron kept secret the one. The rest were given out at earliest convenence. I don't know for sure but I think it is just as likely as otherwise.

Once again, I will ask for some quotes from Tolkien to back up your statements. How do you know the forging of the Great Rings was public or common knowledge at the time of their forging? I especially want to see a quote from Tolkien to support your statement: "The rest were given out at earliest convenence."!! As for Sauron and the One, the books say that Sauron forged it in secret and once he put it on Celebimbor was aware of him and his designs and the elves then took off all their rings. Sauron then demanded that ALL the Rings that had been forged by the elves be turned over to him because he had given them the knowledge to make them. When they refused Sauron made war on the elves. He was able to gather up all the rings except the Three, and those he had had no hand in making. Sauron then gave out the Rings to Dwarves and Men to ensnare them. This does not fit at all with your: "The rest were given out at earliest convenence."

I wasn't saying it was a perfect analogy, but my point was that the dwarves could become invisible without ever permanently losing control of their return to the "real world." I don't see what is so illogical about that.

But you have yet to provide any solid evidence for invisible dwarves. We only have evidence of invisibility for humans and hobbits (and hobbits are probably a subset of humans).

 

[HLGStrider]

Honestly, we don't have evidence one way or the other for Dwarves, which is why I picked that option when I voted on the poll. There is never any story of a dwarf wearing his ring. We know Thrain had one that was taken from him in Dul Guldor; that's really the only incident in which they are mentioned. Therefore, there can't be any information one way or the other, and I think it is just as wreckless to assume that they didn't as that they did.

I am actually at work so I can't really look for quotes (that's been the condition of my last ten or so posts. . .don't tell my boss. . .). You may have noticed I haven't been checking my spelling either on these posts. . .but most of my online time is cramped now.

I made some suggestions about dwarf behavior, saying what it seems based on their temperment in the books. I can't prove it, but I don't think you have proven your theory either, so it doesn't hurt to speculate.

Actually, the only evidence we see for invisible humans are the wraiths, and I am guessing you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths.

And you didn't address Maer's quote, which I think is the most conclusive in the favor of invisible dwarves.

 

[Greenwood]

Actually, the only evidence we see for invisible humans are the wraiths, and I am guessing you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths.

Nine Nazgul, plus Isildur, plus four hobbits (Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam -- and I consider hobbits a sub-category of humans) makes a total of fourteen. A pretty reasonable sample size, especially since they are all made invisible by the Rings. And there is no evidence that "you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths". Actually, that contradicts what Gandalf tells Frodo about how the Nine Kings became wraiths.

And you didn't address Maer's quote, which I think is the most conclusive in the favor of invisible dwarves.

I will comment more fully this evening after I read the full Tolkien letter, but I see nothing there about dwarves. On the other hand, I have provided quotes from Tolkien stating that the only power the Rings had over dwarves was to inflame their greed and that dwarves cannot be turned into shadows.

 

[HLGStrider]

I wasn't counting Hobbits, but I guess I should.

Anyway, my idea about skipping the Ring Preliminaries is based on the knife on Weathertop.

Anyway, I have already explained why I don't think that those quotes you provided say what you say they say.

 

[Greenwood]

Anyway, my idea about skipping the Ring Preliminaries is based on the knife on Weathertop.

All the Morgul knife at Weathertop shows is that there is another way to be made into a wraith. It says nothing about the way Rings work in turning a man into a wraith.

I have already explained why I don't think that those quotes you provided say what you say they say.

I am afraid that contending "The only power over [dwarves] that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things" can still mean that the Rings have the power to make dwarves invisible is a severe torturing of the English language. Especially when it also says "[dwarves]could not be reduced to shadows"! A wraith is just someone who has been permanently reduced to a shadow, but it clearly states dwarves could not be reduced to shadows in the first place.

 

[Durin's Bane]

As for Sauron and the One, the books say that Sauron forged it in secret and once he put it on Celebimbor was aware of him and his designs and the elves then took off all their rings. Sauron then demanded that ALL the Rings that had been forged by the elves be turned over to him because he had given them the knowledge to make them. When they refused Sauron made war on the elves. He was able to gather up all the rings except the Three, and those he had had no hand in making. Sauron then gave out the Rings to Dwarves and Men to ensnare them.

So actually all the rings were made in a simmilar way and were not 'dwarven' or 'man's' rings in the begining. In my opinion if you give a 'dwareven' ring to a man it'll give him powers as a 'man' ring and vice versa. So it doesn't matter which ring you give but to whom you give it.

 

[Greenwood]

So actually all the rings were made in a simmilar way and were not 'dwarven' or 'man's' rings in the begining. In my opinion if you give a 'dwareven' ring to a man it'll give him powers as a 'man' ring and vice versa. So it doesn't matter which ring you give but to whom you give it.

Given the Rings' history, that seems a reasonable opinion.

 

[Alatar]

It is a good opion.
I am saying that men get pushed into the wraith world whilst wearing the ring, but dwarves will not be enslaved so the cannot enter the wraith world, as to do so makes you liable to being enslaved by sauron, and eventually lose you personallity, as the more time you spend as a wraith, the bigger the rings power over you gets.

 

[HLGStrider]

I am afraid that contending "The only power over [dwarves] that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things" can still mean that the Rings have the power to make dwarves invisible is a severe torturing of the English language. Especially when it also says "[dwarves]could not be reduced to shadows"! A wraith is just someone who has been permanently reduced to a shadow, but it clearly states dwarves could not be reduced to shadows in the first place.

This only works if you take "reduced to a shadow" to mean made invisible. I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible. A Wraith lacks will, soul, and life, three things I would argue both Frodo and Bilbo possessed while wearing their rings. In fact, it is only the pull of the ring to Wraithhood that is tempting them to lose their will. When wearing the ring, Frodo was in the Wraith world, but he wasn't a Wraith. He was not a natural inhabitant of that world, rather a trespasser. That is why they needed the stab of a knife to add permanence to his condition.

If you took out the word OVER from that sentence, I would agree with you full heartedly, but it is there, and I can't believe it is there carelessly.

When Frodo wore the ring, Sauron had certain powers over him, I would say. He could detect and feel Frodo, probably see into his thoughts, and he would have some ability to sway Frodo and pull him towards Wraithhood. These are the rings powers over Frodo.

On the other hand, I would say the Invisibilty is simply wielding the ring like a sword. Using the one ring to look into Galadriel's mind would also be wielding the ring's power (I don't think Frodo was doing this, but it was suggested that Sauron would if he could get the One). Neither of these powers would I classify as the Ring's power over the wearer.

When you say someone or something is over you, I take it to mean something is either superior to you or controling you. You can argue that by giving someone power you are actually exacting power over them (Ie, if you give a man money in order to have him become dependent on you or obligated to you), but the two are not the same thing. They are only related.

I don't think I'm twisting. If anything I think adding OVER into the phrase if that is what Tolkien meant by it was actually a shoddy, ambiguous use of the language. . .IF that is what he meant. I don't see him as being that careless with important points of his life's work.

 

[HLGStrider]

Oh, and my point about the knife was exactly that, that there were other ways besides the natural way to be made wraiths. . .but the Ring Wraith arguement is a shoddy one made between one too many balance transfers at works, so I'll just drop it here.

 

[Ingwë]

We know that Sauron did possess them for a time before the dwarves, however. Only the three were free of his touch.

Maybe. But from this quote:

[It is not actually said here that Sauron at this time took possession of the Seven Rings, though the implication seems clear that he did so. In Appendix A (III) to The Lord of the Rings it is said that there was a belief among the Dwarves of Durin's Folk that the Ring of Durin III, King of Khazad-dыm, was given to him by the Elven-smiths themselves, and nothing is said in the present text about the way in which the Seven Rings came into possession of the Dwarves.]

it is not clear what happened with their Rings.

Didn't the dwarves use their seven rings to make seven great vaults?

Yes, there is such info in the LotR.

I still think that the only Rings that make someone invisible are the Rings of the Men. And I agree that Sauron can control the One Ring because he himself forged the One in Mordor and he is its Master.

And the situation of the Knife is different to me. It is a Knife not!Ring!

 

[Greenwood]

I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible.

I agree. But, being invisible means being made into a shadow (at least in Middle Earth). In The Hobbit and in LOTR (I believe) it is said that when wearing the Ring a person still casts a dim shadow.

A Wraith lacks will, soul, and life, three things I would argue both Frodo and Bilbo possessed while wearing their rings.

A wraith's will is subject to Sauron's and his soul may be in subjection to Sauron, but the wraith still has them and still lives. If a wraith was not alive, how could the head Witch King be killed at the battle of Pelennor Fields? And yes, I agree Frodo and Bilbo (and Sam) were still in control of all three when they wore the Ring.

You are equating being a shadow with being a wraith and arguing that when it says dwarves could not be reduced to shadows it means they could not be made into wraiths. But Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Gollum were all made into shadows by the Ring without being made into wraiths. "Shadow" clearly does equal wraith, though a wraith is a shadow. When it says dwarves could not be reduced to shadows, it means they could not be made invisible.

When wearing the ring, Frodo was in the Wraith world, but he wasn't a Wraith. He was not a natural inhabitant of that world, rather a trespasser. That is why they needed the stab of a knife to add permanence to his condition.

Yes, when Frodo wore the Ring he was in the wraith world (Gandalf tells him that at Rivendell), and if the broken peice of the morgul knife had succeeded in piercing his heart he would have become a wraith, at which point the Ring would have been irrelevant (as far as Frodo being in the wraith world is concerned).

When Frodo wore the ring, Sauron had certain powers over him, I would say. He could detect and feel Frodo, probably see into his thoughts, and he would have some ability to sway Frodo and pull him towards Wraithhood. These are the rings powers over Frodo.

Here I disgree strongly. I think you letting yourself be influenced by the movie's portrayal of the Ring. In the books, there are only two times when Sauron is aware of anyone wearing the Ring and both are special situations. One is when Frodo wears it as he sits on the Seat of Seeing at Amon Hen. We can infer this is a special place, just from its name. Sauron is unaware of Frodo before he sits on the Seat (when he wears the Ring to escape from Boromir) and Sauron is unaware of Frodo when Frodo puts the Ring back on after leaving the Seat of Seeing. Indeed, even while Frodo is on the Seat of Seeing wearing the Ring, Sauron only seems to be aware of him when Frodo actually gazes towards Barad-dur. The only other time Sauron is aware of Frodo is when Frodo puts on the Ring at the Cracks of Doom and claims it for himself. The Crack's of Doom where the Ring was forged is certainly a special place and no one has before claimed the Ring as their own (a dorect challenge to Sauron). Sauron is unaware of Sam wearing the Ring and clearly was unaware of Bilbo when he wore the Ring. And Sauron certainly was unaware of Gollum wearing the Ring under the mountains when Sauron was in Dol Guldur.

I don't think I'm twisting. If anything I think adding OVER into the phrase if that is what Tolkien meant by it was actually a shoddy, ambiguous use of the language. . .IF that is what he meant. I don't see him as being that careless with important points of his life's work.

The passage means that the dwarves could not be subjugated to Sauron by the power of the Rings and one of the means of that subjugation was moving the Ring's possessor into the wraith world. It is the combination of the two passages together, "the only power of the Rings was to inflame the dwarves greed", and "the dwarves could not be reduced to shadows", that clearly states they could not be made invisible.

 

[HLGStrider]

Anyway, I wanted to clarify my side in this debate. I am not arguing for the "invisible" side but rather for the "not stated" side.


Which has the advantage that I don't have to prove anything, just sit here and do my best to disprove things.

 

[Alatar]

I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible.

Yes as it says in LotR that if a mortol is to become a wraith, he must use it often, or hav it for a long time. Gollum is a natural this world creature but he is all ready become subject to the ring, the master of the ring can make him do whatever he wants, but he has his own soul.
This sounds like the description of the the nazgul, they are slaves to who ever holds there rings.
This shows that the being slaves to will, comes before being wraiths,as gollum, though he is a slave, is not a wraith.

the dwarves could be reduced to shadows.

This is as much prof as we are going to get, thoughthe language can be twisted either way.

 

[HLGStrider]

I agree. But, being invisible means being made into a shadow (at least in Middle Earth). In The Hobbit and in LOTR (I believe) it is said that when wearing the Ring a person still casts a dim shadow.

This is a very poetic stretch of the language. Being a shadow and making one are not the same thing. Saying that Bilbo was the shadow the Goblins saw by the door would mean that by grabbing the shadow they could have gotten ahold of him. If anything, the fact that they still cast a shadow shows that they are still part of the real world, for only a solid body can cast a shadow. . .it would be interesting to know whether an uncloaked wraith would cast a shadow. Is it ever mentioned one way or another? I always assumed their cloaks and steeds would be cause shadows, and we really only see them in that guise.

 

[Alatar]

And if whislt unclocked, would there shadows look like what frodo saw,the kings, or the black riders

 

[Greenwood]

This is a very poetic stretch of the language.

It is not really a stretch. And Tolkien wrote very poetically. The language means the dwarves could not be reduced to only their shadows.

Saying that Bilbo was the shadow the Goblins saw by the door would mean that by grabbing the shadow they could have gotten ahold of him.

Bilbo's shadow was just that, his shadow. But the goblins could have grabbed him. Of course, Bilbo is still in the real world as well as in the invisible world -- that is why his buttons flew off when he squeezed through the partly open door. Also Gollum could not have grappled with Frodo on the edge of the Cracks of Doom and bitten off his finger if Frodo was not still in the real world. That is one of the reasons I said your view of the Rings as doors into the wraith world is a good analogy but only partly works. Wearing the Ring you are still in both worlds and the Nazgul are still in both worlds, afterall they wield physical weapons in this world.

Alatar,

I think you mistyped. The quote is that dwarves could not be reduced to shadows.

 

[HLGStrider]

Also Gollum could not have grappled with Frodo on the edge of the Cracks of Doom and bitten off his finger if Frodo was not still in the real world

And if he is still in the real world, he is technically not a wraith and I would argue not a shadow, but rather a flesh and blood hobbit temporarily un-see-able.

The language means the dwarves could not be reduced to only their shadows.

I still think it is a stretch. I admit Tolkien could be poetic. He was a genius, and I grant genuises their fair share of complex metaphors, but I don't think he would intentionally use one so ambiguous in an explanatory paragraph.

And if whislt unclocked, would there shadows look like what frodo saw,the kings, or the black riders

One naked-man-shadow looks much the same as another, so if you take off the cloaks and the crowns, I think you would just get a man shadow (the crowns might remain, but I think the crowns were there under the cloaks anyway.

 

[Greenwood]

And if he is still in the real world, he is technically not a wraith and I would argue not a shadow, but rather a flesh and blood hobbit temporarily un-see-able.

Of course he is still in the real world; of course he is not a wraith and of course he is still a flesh-and-blood hobbit temporarily unseeable. We agree on all of that. Our disagreement is on your insistence on making shadow = wraith. They are not equivalent. Bilbo and Frodo wearing the Ring were not wraiths. They still existed in the real world, but the only thing of them that could be seen in the real world was their shadows -- they had been reduced to shadows, not wraiths.

I admit Tolkien could be poetic. He was a genius, and I grant genuises their fair share of complex metaphors, but I don't think he would intentionally use one so ambiguous in an explanatory paragraph.

But, it is not ambiguous, except apparently to you.