Why didn't 🧝Elrond 💀Kill Isildur and destroy the Ring?

[Grond]

If you think about it maybe he didn't want the Ring destroyed if it was destroyed the Elves would essentialy lose their homes... I think it wasn't untill he was away from the Ring that he saw he that he should have done more.

I don't know that I buy this argument. I seem to remember that Gil-galad had both of the Ring of Fire and the Ring of Air in his possession and only gave them Elrond and Cirdan near the end of the war. Elrond would not have used the power of his Ring to preserve Imladris until after the Last Alliance.

Cheers,

grond

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur. Isildur was at that point an ally or friend, and--as far as I can see--displayed (at that point) no signs of "turning" or ambitions of setting himself up as another Dark Lord.

Given the letter that Gandalf reads thousands of years later, it is quite possible that Isildur didn't quite grasp the Ring's power or significance when he took it from Sauron--perhaps only the Wise had that knowledge. Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force: they either perish (e.g. Gollum, Boromir), or become Sauron themselves. Gandalf understood that: surely Elrond would have, also.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur. Isildur was at that point an ally or friend, and--as far as I can see--displayed (at that point) no signs of "turning" or ambitions of setting himself up as another Dark Lord.

Given the letter that Gandalf reads thousands of years later, it is quite possible that Isildur didn't quite grasp the Ring's power or significance when he took it from Sauron--perhaps only the Wise had that knowledge. Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force: they either perish (e.g. Gollum, Boromir), or become Sauron themselves. Gandalf understood that: surely Elrond would have, also.

One wonders how thoroughly Tolkien had thought out these ramifications at the time he wrote the passages. The fascinating thing about Tolkien was that he simply seemed to sit until something came bubbling up to consciousness, often surprising him as much as anyone. Tolkien is just about the only writer that comes to mind who depended almost solely upon such waiting around for ideas to burst into his awareness and then working them out, rather than sitting down and consciously planning out the story arc: beginning, middle and end.

The basic technique of any story is to put a character into some sort of more or less dire situation and then work him out of it, either to success or to failure. But Tolkien simply waited until his subconscious came up with something for him to work with. This is a much more common thing among composers (although they too do a whole lot of conscious structural planning and predetermination of thematic material). It seems to be rare for a writer.

LOTR seems unique in the world of the long novel, to be based and dependent almost solely on spontaneous outpouring of the subconscious, rather than predesign. This is partly why it took him so long to write it: many times he was stumped for long periods of blankness: his subconscious was still working things out and had nothing to present to him — all he could do was wait.

Barley

 

[Eledhwen]

...many times he was stumped for long periods of blankness: his subconscious was still working things out and had nothing to present to him — all he could do was wait.

Barley

I know that feeling! And reading through Letters of JRRT, he himself was often surprised at the interconnectedness (thx Mr. Adams) of his storylines - even to how The Hobbit, a childrens story written to amuse his son at boarding school, turned out to fit the Middle-earth jigsaw.

A mind that ran language construction in background was, I think, ideally suited to the unique (for a successful writer) storywriting techniques he used.

Tolkien was more closely acquainted with Elrond and Isildur than anyone. I believe that the Betrayal in the time of Celebrimbor gave the Elves an insight into the One Ring (thanks to the Three) that made the prospect of any Elf taking the ring at all, let alone by force, very unlikely (though Galadriel admitted to being tempted in her relative youth), as they knew the risk that, upon taking up the Ring to destroy it, they risked being unable to complete the task.

Can anyone remind me who were the Elf ringbearers at the time of the betrayal? They were the ones, wearing Rings of Power that had not been molested by Sauron, who would have felt that treachery most keenly - the ones whose insight into the real nature of the One Ring and its 'relationship' with Sauron and the other rings would be the most complete; apart from Sauron himself.

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?

I have a request. Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"

Because I certainly don't think about the question "Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?" in the sense of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?", but evidently some here do (nothing wrong with that, of course). And as a result, I think we end up talking at cross-purposes.

 

[Grond]

Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?

I have a request. Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"

Because I certainly don't think about the question "Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?" in the sense of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?", but evidently some here do (nothing wrong with that, of course). And as a result, I think we end up talking at cross-purposes.

The thread starter would be the one to "redirect" the direction back to the stated question. As long as the starter doesn't object/intervene then propounding additional questions/theories is entirely okay. If you would like to "redirect" the dialogue, feel free to propound additional theories, ideas, propositions, etc.

Cheers,

grond

P. S. Narrowly adhering to a thread's topic will maintain focus but will often severely limit the discussion.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Why didn't Elrond destroy the One?Can we at least decide from the outset whether we are going to consider questions like these from "inside Middle-Earth", so to speak, engaging with a fictive world in the fullest possible sense--suspending disbelief and all that; or are we really just supposed to think about the question in terms of "Why did Tolkien write it this way?"

Excellent point! Going to the "outside" (as I often do) leads to less fun if one enjoys free speculation, but to more fun if one enjoys examining the nuts and bolts of Tolkien's thought processes, and the actual history of his writing process. Getting "into" Middle-earth as if everything is real puts us on an entirely different path. I'm up for either way, so which road shall we take? After all, each one goes ever on and on!

Barley

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I don't want to redirect the dialogue. I was just making an observation that the fact that the topic can be interpreted in more than one way, and that--as a consequence--the discussion can veer off into multiple paths, can be lost on some, leading to confusion.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I just don't think Elrond would have seen any good reason to intervene--certainly not to the point of killing or injuring Isildur...Thousands of years later, Gandalf would not force Frodo or Bilbo to relinquish the Ring: they would have to give it up of their own accord. There is, perhaps, an evil fate for those who would take the Ring from another by force...

And if Elves and Wizards had foresight and used it ... another complication! And how far ahead could they see, and to what extent, and did it always work? This surely would have been a crucial factor! I daresay it must have been limited, like their magic, which obviously wasn't powerful enough to eliminate war and tragedy during three Ages.

Barley

 

[Arvedui]

Are we about to discuss foresight?

How about this from Ósanwe-Kenta, Note 6 where Pengolodh elaborates:

No mind, he asserts, knows what is not in it. All that it has experienced is in it, though in the use of the Incarnate, dependant upon the instruments of the hröa, some things may be 'forgotten,' not immediately available for recollection. But no part of the 'future' is there, for the mind cannot see it or have seen it: that is, a mind placed in time.

How would that fit in the question at hand?
Maybe Elrond is not speaking about what he should have done at the time in question, but talking from hindsight?

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Are we about to discuss foresight?

How about this from Ósanwe-Kenta, Note 6 where Pengolodh elaborates:

How would that fit in the question at hand?
Maybe Elrond is not speaking about what he should have done at the time in question, but talking from hindsight?

He's clearly talking from hindsight; the question remains, though--what counsel did he and Cirdan give to Isildur regarding the One Ring? Would they have been as aware of its power and its nature back then--compared with what the Wise knew about the Ring at the time of the Council of Elrond? How much would Saruman's research--when he was still to all appearances on their side--have contributed to this knowledge?

 

[Daranavo]

I have learned some new information here. Elrond could never destroy the ring. He, elves, Gandalf, all were TERRIBLY susceptable to its power. It would of overcame them much quicker then it did Isilduir.

Saruman wanted the ring for himself. Which was his reason for sending HIS orcs for the hobbits. He felt he could tap into its power. However flawed his thoughts were. He would of never had time enough to master it.