Tolkien Forums

Post #2

CHAPTER 2: THE SHADOW OF THE PAST

Discussion points

1. Gandalf tells Frodo that a mortal who keeps a Great Ring does not die but continues living until at last every minute is a weariness, and if a mortal uses the Ring too much to become invisible, he fades - becomes invisible permanently. But this kind of fading seems different from Elven fading where the fea consumes the hroa. What does a Great Ring do to the fea and the hroa of its mortal keepers/wearers?

2. When Frodo asks whether Bilbo will be able to rest in peace, what does he mean?

3. Who made the verse about the Master-ring that makes its very first appearance in this chapter, "Three Rings for the Elven-kings..."? At least two lines are Sauron's (corresponding to the inscription on the Ring). He said that in Black Speech though. Did Celebrimbor both 'hear' it and 'perceived' its meaning (much like Frodo got the meaning of the Gildor's company singing), or did he simply know Black Speech? It is sort of interesting if this verse is not a translation of what Sauron said in full, but rather a piece of Elven lore that incorporates Sauron's words in this poetic way.

4. Why didn't Sauron generate more Nazgul by giving humans the rings recovered from Dwarves (with whom he could not reach the desired effect)? Those rings were not designed for either Dwarves or Men anyway.

5. Sauron seems to be 'overthrown' by Gil-Galad and Elendil but 'vanquished' by Isildur's cutting the Ring from Sauron's hand. Should this be understood like the fana ('body' of an Ainu) of the 'overthrown' Sauron was still in existence (still with or already most likely without 'spirit', not sure if there was a separate word for that) and this fana only disintegrated after the loss of the Ring?

6. Are the Nine rings kept by Sauron, or do Nazgul have them at the time of the story?

7. How does Sauron know where Isildur fell? (Gandalf said he knew that). Also, why does Gandalf think that Sauron considered the Ring destroyed at first?

8. Gandalf nicely lays out the logic by which, in his opinion, Sauron concluded that Gollum's ring was the One. Why didn't Gandalf himself employ this same logic to recognize the One much earlier?

9. Having told the story to Frodo, why doesn't Gandalf urge him to leave ASAP?

10. Sauron has been defeated/disembodied a few times in the past, both with and without the Ring. He should have been losing strength each time. Why is he thought unconquerable at the time of the story, in case he regains the Ring?

11. Gandalf's account on Gollum is mostly negative. What makes Gandalf still have hope for Gollum?

Post #4

Thank you, JD7, for summarizing the Chapter. I guess it was part of my job which I happily neglected... because it didn't really occur to me!

I just wanted to add that we are not limited to the points I posted. It would be great if people come with more discussion points.

My take on the points you addressed:

#1. We are not actually told if the wearers of the Nine desired immortality. If they did they got their desire actualized - the fea would cling to the hroa, instead of leaving it and traveling beyond the circles of Arda. Yet from at least the action of the One (which may be similar in that respect to the Nine or not), its possessors could not die whether they really wished or they didn't - so the fea could not leave because it was 'stuck' with the hroa, by the power of the ring (which didn't even have to be worn! It's effects were lasting). The fading element, to me, looks as if it has to do with invisibility. How this comes about is mysterious, because conferring invisibility is not an intended property of all those Rings, that's what they do to mortals who are not supposed to have them (not sure about invisibility of the Dwarves though).

#2. To me (I may be quite wrong), rest in peace means dying peacefully, and so I was startled that Frodo should refer to Bilbo this way. If Frodo just meant peaceful existence, then no problem.

#4. Why indeed not give former 'Dwarf'-rings to Men who were converted to Sauron's slaves most successfully? A simple answer might be that without the One ring he could not establish control over new carriers of a Great ring? He could still control the Nazgul even when he didn't have his Ring anymore.
Somehow he had to and was able to draw them to himself when he started to reappear. So this is not exactly clear.

I personally think that Sauron probably could have made more rings, or even reuse not only the recovered three 'Dwarf'-rings but maybe even those Nine rings if he had them, but he probably turned to using Morgul-blades that had much the same effect, only quicker? And besides, he likely realized that human race was the only one susceptible to his influence, and so much so that he could rule humans without any rings. Immortality and therefore less effort retraining new slaves perhaps was the only practical and desirable quality of those Great rings from the Sauron's point of view. Unless Morgul-blades too made those wounded 'immortal'.

Or maybe, because all these Great rings each had their 'proper gem', they all had different qualities (just like the Three were all different), and Sauron might have had an idea (or so he thought) as to which gem was more suitable for enslaving which race... Or even which person? And so, the 'Dwarf'-rings might not be as effective with humans. (I am definitely pressing the matter too much here).

#3. I have no answer. I've always wondered this.

#4. I'd imagine after seeing what happened to the men that became the Nazgul, no man would want to take a ring from Sauron.

#11. I don't think Gandalf fully realized how powerful the Ring actually was. Look what it did to Frodo after 13 months. Gollum had it for..was it 500 years?

- And this is just a pragmatic question, which, as often is the case in fantasy, we may just have to suspend disbelief, but if Sauron did recover the Ring, how would he use it? Would it be thrown into the Eye?

As for who gave the rings to the races, I remember reading somewhere that Sauron didn't give them the rings, he just taught them how to make them. But of course, knowing how they were designed, he would then know how to create a ring that could control the others. Anyone else recognize this theory?

Hi guys.

Honestly, I believe, there is so much information and subtext in this chapter that we could spend a month discussing it and not get through it all. In light of that, would you guys agree that we move on to chapter 3? Let me know!

Post #16

"Sauron knew he could (and would) create a ring that could control the others, or knew the effect the rings would have on Men (Nazgul), why stop at 3, 7, and 9 rings? Why not make hundreds of rings. He could have had an army of Nazgul."

This is an interesting question. Seems when Sauron has departed to Mordor, to work on the One, he wasn't aware of the Three. Maybe he deemed that the number of Great rings already made was enough for his purposes. It seems conceivable that if he could make the Master ring he should have been able to make any number of 'Great' rings - again depending on the availability of gems; perhaps those were not natural but the famous Noldorin artificial gems, yet why wouldn't Sauron be able to create them as well?.. The process however may have been laborious and/or have needed much time, otherwise why even care about the existing Rings, which were under the domination of the One anyway? And also, since the original plan - ensnaring Elves with the Rings - went awry and Sauron had no clear idea on the effects of the Rings on other races, he may have been reluctant to spend lots of efforts on additional rings. Indeed Dwarves with Rings turned out useless.

And to address some other points:

6. Are the Nine rings kept by Sauron, or do Nazgul have them at the time of the story?

It seems Sauron kept them, after all. There is one place where Gandalf says that 'The Nine the Nazgul keep' or something, but maybe this is grammatical inversion. I just wonder when Sauron got the Nine...

7. How does Sauron know where Isildur fell? (Gandalf said he knew that). Also, why does Gandalf think that Sauron considered the Ring destroyed at first?

Sauron may have known where Isildur fell from Saruman who found some Isildur's belongings (or should I say heirlooms, Elendilmir I recall).

A correction. Sauron was searching the Great River near the Gladden Fields for the One ring already by 2939, when it became known to Saruman, after which the latter agreed to an attack on Dol Guldur (to prevent finding the ring by Sauron, although it wasn't there). This happens way before Saruman actually starts using the palantir (through which Sauron could learn about Isildur's death from Saruman). In The Peoples of Middle-earth (The Tale of Years of the Third Age) it is said that '...Sauron has learned the manner of Isildur's death (maybe from Orcs)...' . That is interesting...

But I think it was wishful thinking on Gandalf's part that Sauron believed the One to be destroyed.

8. Gandalf nicely lays out the logic by which, in his opinion, Sauron concluded that Gollum's ring was the One. Why didn't Gandalf himself employ this same logic to recognize the One much earlier?

9. Having told the story to Frodo, why doesn't Gandalf urge him to leave ASAP?

I am inclined to think that both #8 and #9 are mainly plot considerations. Plus of course false assurances from Saruman whose machinations took a while to unmask.

10. Sauron has been defeated/disembodied a few times in the past, both with and without the Ring. He should have been losing strength each time. Why is he thought unconquerable at the time of the story, in case he regains the Ring?

The Valar thought so, and Gandalf represents their point of view. The Valar definitely don't have much trust in Men, while very little Elven force and magic remained in Middle-earth by the end of the Third age. Sauron above all desires order (as he understands it). But order seems to go against the nature of Men. And additionally memories that Sauron has been overthrown in the past by a Man (Isildur), even if not entirely true, may remain as inspiration. It may take much longer but Sauron's defeat doesn't seem impossible. There always remains a direct intervention by Eru as a last resort.

I think we may be ready to move on to Chapter 3 now, if others agree. But I don't think 1 week is generous, it is barely adequate; of course depending on what was meant - one week for reading, or for both reading and discussing? Chapters vary too, some may need longer discussions and more time. Two weeks might be ok, but we seem to take longer time per chapter so far.

'1. One has to wonder about the "sniffing" that the Nazgul did while they hunted about for Frodo. It is said that they had terrible sight in the daylight so maybe that is why they employed their other senses? '

"They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but out shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us... And at all times they smell the blood of living things... Senses, too, there are other than sight or smell. We can feel their presence - they feel ours more keenly. Also... the Ring draws them".

This all is from a chapter well ahead, 'A Knife in the Dark', and is told by Aragorn, at which I keep wondering - how does he know? From Elrond? From the lore of Dunedain who had to deal with the Witch-King in the past?..

2. '... I feel that it was the Ring's power making Frodo wish to put on the Ring, therefore making himself known to the nearby Nazgul.

Remember: "The Ring wants to be found." Or was it possibly that the Nazgul was casting fear before it which made Frodo wish he could use it to disappear and escape?'

It seems both are true, Frodo doesn't want to be seen by the Nazgul and the Ring would be convenient to use as he thinks; yet the desire to put it on is also irrational, likely the influence of the Ring itself.

'4. In this Chapter Tolkien gives the Elves a greater weight than he had in the Hobbit. For the first time we get to know them as very shrewd individuals and very capable of using the natural woods about them to create comfortable surrounds like magic. Unlike the silly song-singing imps that Tolkien makes them out to be as Bilbo and the Dwarves come to Rivendell in the Hobbit.'

This depends, for a reader, on the order in which the books were read. The Elves in the very early legends are already quite serious; whoever started with the Lost Tales might actually be surprised with the silly Rivendell creatures from The Hobbit... But maybe not with the hostility of the Elves from Mirkwood.

I would also mention that Gandalf suddenly feels anxious at the end of June, after staying in the Shire for over two months. Later he says that a cloud of anxiety was on his mind, and he had a foreboding of some danger. I was always wondering how that came to pass.

Also there is this cute scene when a fox comes across the sleeping hobbits. The fox is portrayed as a smart creature, so there is little wonder that animals in Middle-earth were able to transmit messages. This episode is already present in the early versions.

Gildor was indeed discussed as thoroughly as possible, yet I just noticed that when talking to Frodo he noted that he already knew 'a little', apart from what he could read in Frodo's face and thought. What does he know, and how?

Would it be fair to say that at the beginning of the LOTR trilogy the Elves still reflect the demeanor and ways of the Elves in the hobbit, but as the series goes on, they become more and more somber (ie. Elrond, Legolas, Haldir)? If so, do you guys think this was intentional, or is it a case where "the story started telling itself"? And then, of course, in the Silmarillion Elves are very somber, stoic perhaps, prone to war, and some seemingly evil (Feanor). What's strange is that the Silmarillion was started long before LOTR and finished after the trilogy, so my question would be, why would Elves behave differently in one book (Silmarillion) than another (The Hobbit).

I feel like Tolkien may have had mixed feelings about what he wanted Elves to be, because I just can't see him intentionally writing an entire race in the same fantasy world as having controversial behavior and lifestyles, depending on the book. Of course, that is HUGE conjecture. Hope this all makes sense.

Thoughts?

Hmm. That makes sense; I just hate to think he was writing for audiences/publishers and not fully for his own love of the mythos he created.

From an earlier post:

'Towards danger; but not too rashly, nor too straight'---Gandalf

What does he mean "nor too straight"?

Post #28

I was casually reading "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" and I came upon a letter that answers the whole "silliness of the Hobbit" situation rather nicely.

Tolkien was asked by Walter Allen, how he felt writing for children differs from writing for adults and Tolkien said this:

Letter #215

"When I published The Hobbit - hurriedly and without due consideration - I was still influenced by the convention that 'fairy-stories' are naturally directed to children (with or without the silly added waggery 'from seven to seventy'). And I had children of my own. But the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method, which if I had not been rushed, I should have corrected. Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes."

Later in the same letter he said:

"The relation between The Hobbit and its sequel is I think this. The Hobbit is a first essay or introduction (consideration will admit I think that it is a very just point that which to begin the narration of the subsequent events) to a complex narrative which had been brewing in my mind for years. It was overtly addressed to children for two reasons: I had at the time children of my own and was accustomed to making up (ephemeral) stories for them; I had been brought up to believe that there was a real and special connexion between children and fairy-stories."

Then Tolkien admits:

"I think that The Hobbit can be seen to begin in what might be called more 'whimsy' mode, and in places even more facetious, and move steadily to a more serious or significant, and more consistent and historical.....But I regret much of it all the same....."


I suppose saying any more about the topic would be fodder for another thread as I am guiding this conversation off course, severely. Just thought I would share with you what I had uncovered in the uncanny event that I just Read something which paralleled our conversation about the difference of Elvish Behavior from The Hobbit to LOTR.

Teralectus,
Might I add to your piece regarding "and this whole topic about how elves behave - is us looking much deeper into the story and seeing things that really nobody else ever thinks about while reading the books, yet at the same time everything we're talking about is still relevant" that the topics brought up in this thread can be found scattered through out the other threads and topics contained in our Tolkien Forums.
That these topics show up in this thread emphasizes that we re-connect with the archetypal themes such as elves, rings, wizards and good vs evil and even moral ambiguity.
I might suggest that while we are reading this chapter by chapter we remember that we have a wealth of resources in our Forum that will fit with "everything we're talking about is still relevant."

And that proves that people really are thinking about such things while reading the book.

Bear

Teralectus,

Meant no correction ... just a different perspective ...
I think your observations are right on from your POV.
Bear

Hello Book Clubbers,

I am going to be out until Friday and seeing as we are kind of in a lull, I am going to (unless anyone objects) post the discussion topics for chapter four today. Feel free to carry on ahead of me this week. I don't know how often I will be able to be on until Friday, but I want to keep this going. Discussion topics should be up later today.

Also, a note: I am the first person to admit I love digging through every source of Tolkien's works to find answers to questions, but thanks to so some friendly shared insight, I noticed our "Lord of the Rings" book club is delving into other Tolkien works (the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, even letters from Tolkien). While I do enjoy using as many resources as possible to find answers, I feel like with any work of Tolkien, asking one question just leads to two more, and most questions never get sufficiently answered before we move on to the next question, unless we set boundaries. So I propose that anything from the trilogy is fair game to cite as a source in a discussion, with exceptions if you deem something to be "common knowledge" that is not explicitly written in the LOTR text. This will keep our "Lord of the Rings" book club about "The Lord of the Rings." What do you guys think?

- Teralectus

There are some odds and ends questions, but there are quite a few questions I am raising regarding the Black Riders.

A. It seems that as the series goes on, the Nazgul become more and more menacing. In these early chapters, they just come off as mysterious, creepy nuisances (to me at least).

1. On ~p.96, it says, Under the morning sun the prospect of seeing a whole troop of them [the Black Riders] did not seem very alarming to him [Pippin]. Right after that, though, the text shows that Frodo is more afraid of them than Pippin is. Is this because Frodo has the Ring and knows/assumes they are after him, or because he just has a better sense of how sinister these "Black Riders" actually are?

2. On ~p.96, it says Gildor only gave Frodo "hints and riddles" regarding the Nazgul. Why would he not fully inform Frodo what he was up against?

3. On ~p.106, Farm Maggot describes his encounter with a Black Rider, who talks seemingly quite colloquially and even offers Maggot a bribe in gold. This seems like very human (or Man, Elf, Dwarf) behavior for something as dark and twisted as the Nazgul seemed to be portrayed as later in the books. Do you think Tolkien's perception of what he wanted the Nazgul to be changed over time as he wrote?

4. Why, do you think, were the Nazgul given horses and not fell beasts right from the beginning? Stealth purposes perhaps?

B. Regarding the hobbits and their journey specifically.

5. Sam speaks about having some sort of purpose that he needs to accomplish, something he says he "must see it through," on ~p.98. Do you think Gandalf selected Sam as Frodo's companion because he just happened to be in the right place at the right (or wrong) time and figured a companion for Frodo wouldn't hurt, or do you think Gandalf had some sort of "wizard's intuition" that Sam would play a large role in Frodo's journey?

6. Any idea what that gold drink was that the Elves gave the hobbits (~p.101) and does it ever appear in the series again?

7. Despite the famous "fool of a Took" line, Pippin seems actually quite pragmatic and intelligent in this chapter, even taking initiative at a time in trying to wake the group to keep moving them along. Not to get off track, but this is not how he was portrayed in the films. What role, as a character, do you think Tolkien meant for Pippin to play? (ie. a guide, comic relief, etc.)

8. How many of you do/enjoy reading the songs and poems (a recurring element in the series)?

9. Does anyone else get disoriented in your mind when reading about where the hobbits are when traveling throughout the Shire without consulting a map?

Teralectus wrote:

---

There are some odds and ends questions, but there are quite a few questions I am raising regarding the Black Riders.

 

A. It seems that as the series goes on, the Nazgul become more and more menacing. In these early chapters, they just come off as mysterious, creepy nuisances (to me at least).

2. On ~p.96, it says Gildor only gave Frodo "hints and riddles" regarding the Nazgul. Why would he not fully inform Frodo what he was up against?

I had wondered this myself often. Sometimes, I think it's for the reason Gildor states of giving the wrong advice. But, perhaps it's also because Elves don't like to speak of evil things in detail. Also, it was nighttime when this conversation happens; Gandalf didn't want to speak of them at night either in Chapter 2. Could it be for the same reason?

Jaido, don't you think that being told I'm not going to tell you because it's too scary, is more scary than being told what's what? At least, my imagination will go nuts once I hear that.

3. On ~p.106, Farm Maggot describes his encounter with a Black Rider, who talks seemingly quite colloquially and even offers Maggot a bribe in gold. This seems like very human (or Man, Elf, Dwarf) behavior for something as dark and twisted as the Nazgul seemed to be portrayed as later in the books. Do you think Tolkien's perception of what he wanted the Nazgul to be changed over time as he wrote?

Is Farmer Maggot using his own "voice" to quote the Nazgul? I never thought of it as being a direct conversation. And remember, even if it was a direct conversation, the Nazgul were once human.

4. Why, do you think, were the Nazgul given horses and not fell beasts right from the beginning? Stealth purposes perhaps?

 I agree, stealth.

B. Regarding the hobbits and their journey specifically.

 

6. Any idea what that gold drink was that the Elves gave the hobbits (~p.101) and does it ever appear in the series again?

Wasn't it Miruvor (or miruvoir)?

8. How many of you do/enjoy reading the songs and poems (a recurring element in the series)?

I like some of the poems and some I find tedious and skip over them. Shh, don't tell.

9. Does anyone else get disoriented in your mind when reading about where the hobbits are when traveling throughout the Shire without consulting a map?

 Yes, which is why I wound up on this site in the first place, looking for a decent map. I have found some, but I want a really detailed map that shows each journey up close and personal.

 

---