In Olmer's Honor: Take Tolkien at Face Value - or is there 'Something Else'

[Valandil]

Bump!

Just to... 'kick up a little dust'!

[Attalus]

Troublemaker. Nope, there is nothing else. Tolkien is to be taken at face value. No conspiracy between Gandalf, Elrond, and the Orcs.

[Nurvingiel]

For those of us that came in late, what exactly are you suggesting Olmer? Are you suggesting Gandalf and the Elves are evil or just self-serving? IMO the plan to destroy the Ring was for the good of all Middle-earth, but you hinted that this was a byproduct of some larger plan (or something).
What do you think of the Eagles?

[Attalus]

Hm, just read the entire thread. Not convinced at all. First thing that pops out, I highly disagree that Denethor was not insane at the time of the siege of Gondor, just because he had the military situation in mind. He reminds me more of Hitler in the bunker, deploying forces that should be husbanded on the useless defence of the Pelennor. Also, just because Denethor and the Rohirrim distrusted Gandalf and the Elves, I find no evidence that any others did. Imrahil was honored for his Elvish ancestry. Aragorn was no puppet, either, or he would have laid off of Arwen. I am still waiting for evidence that the Elves knew where the Ring lay (hidden in Gollum's cave and then in the Shire) until Gandalf solved the riddle. Highly agree that The Hobbit and the LotR were popular from the word go, despite JRRT's misgivings. Lord, don't I remember the paperback publication of the pirated Ace edition in the 60's and the subsequent excitement.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Attalus

Hm, just read the entire thread. Not convinced at all. First thing that pops out, I highly disagree that Denethor was not insane at the time of the siege of Gondor, just because he had the military situation in mind. He reminds me more of Hitler in the bunker, deploying forces that should be husbanded on the useless defence of the Pelennor. Also, just because Denethor and the Rohirrim distrusted Gandalf and the Elves, I find no evidence that any others did. Imrahil was honored for his Elvish ancestry. Aragorn was no puppet, either, or he would have laid off of Arwen. I am still waiting for evidence that the Elves knew where the Ring lay (hidden in Gollum's cave and then in the Shire) until Gandalf solved the riddle. Highly agree that The Hobbit and the LotR were popular from the word go, despite JRRT's misgivings. Lord, don't I remember the paperback publication of the pirated Ace edition in the 60's and the subsequent excitement.

I can't find the quote at the moment, but G. K. Chesterton once said something along the lines that what makes one "crazy" is overindulgence or overemphasis on ONE thing--other than that intense focus, the person is as sane as anyone else.

By the way the point of this reference is that Denethor can be quite insane or going insane and still be quite a capable commander planning for the defence of the city.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

I can't find the quote at the moment, but G. K. Chesterton once said something along the lines that what makes one "crazy" is overindulgence or overemphasis on ONE thing--other than that intense focus, the person is as sane as anyone else.

Pardon my French, but this is an absurd remark , which is you can't expect from an educated person such as Chesterton. Probably the exact quote sounds different.
But any way, you ,of all people, should know that exactly unorthodox thinking and "overemphasis in ONE thing" has been ans IS a lead to many astonishing discoveries in science, this is a main force of human progress in civilization.
Honestly, I did not expect especially you to advocate against creative thinking , labeling people, who are daring to think not like a major population, crazy.


To Attalus It clearly shows in the text that Gandalf knew about the ring origin right "from the first" time he saw it in Bilbo's hands, and if Gandalf knew, so the Elves too.
When Gandalf "figured out" the Ring

[Nurvingiel]

Well I think you might have a legitimate point Olmer, convince me! Your point doesn't seem to be centred on one thing anyway.

Okay, it's unlikely that I will be conviced. But I really want to hear your point of view, because it sounds interesting.

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Olmer

Pardon my French, but this is a stupidiest remark which you can't expect from educated person such as Chesterton. Probably the exact quote sounds different. But any way, you ,as an educator, should know that exactly unorthodox thinking and "overemphasis in ONE thing" has been ans IS a lead to many astonishing discoveries in science, this is a main force of human progress in civilization.
Honestly, I did not expect you, of all people, to advocate against creative thinking , labeling people, who are daring to think not like "a herd", crazy.

Olmer,

In the interest of good discussion I'll iterate my comments in a more succinct and less combative manner:

1) I believe that you have either overread or significantly misunderstood my comment
2) you attribute to me conclusions which I would not draw or state and can not be logically dervied from my statement
3) I certainly do not see how "overemphasis on one thing" can be read as a rejection of either thinking in unorthodox manners or to creativity. ONe can emphasize one thing within "the herd" as you put quite as easily as one can do the same (or not) by thinking unconventionally or being creative.
4) I also fail to see how the statement, whether I have understood Chesterton or not although after making such a charge I invite you to demonstrate that I have, can be said to be "absurd."

Further comments:

ure, some scientific discoveries have been discovered by "overemphasis on one thing", but many more have been found by sheer accident, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi showed that a good deal of scientific creativity (and sometimes other kinds) occurs not by concentration on one thing, but by knowledge, awareness, intimacy with many things and being able to make connections between disparate things.

Further, artistic creativity has frequently been equated with a kind of madness/insanity, most of a benign nature, but insantiy nonetheless. Seems to me that such a conception goes hand in hand with Iwhat I said, rather than making it diametrically opposed as your reading does.

FB

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Olmer

To Attalus It clearly shows in the text that Gandalf knew about the ring origin right "from the first" time he saw it in Bilbo's hands, and if Gandalf knew, so the Elves too.
When Gandalf "figured out" the Ring

As the posters that follow you make quite clear, Gandalf knew at once that the Ring was a magic ring, but the much-discussed lesser Rings evidently had this power too, at leat some of them. Gandalf did not suspect that Bilbo's Ring was the One until he discovered that it gave long life, quite obviously something not apparent at the time of the finding, and he did not know that Gollum's life was unnaturally pronged at that time, either. I'll quote later, but am pressed for time.

[Nurvingiel]

I'm still not convinced Gandalf knew Gollum's ring was the One Ring right away, despite this quote from the other thread:

Originally Posted by Olmer

The Grey Wizard identified the ring at once and in conversation with Frodo he accidentally not once reveals this knowledge .
This is his the most undisguised "slippage": "I wondered often how Gollum came by a GREAT RING, as plainly it was - THAT at least was CLEAR FROM THE FIRST"(LOTR, bookI, chapter II).

Is - "THAT at least was CLEAR FROM THE FIRST" part of what Gandalf says too?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think it says somewhere that Gandalfs says he should have known what it was earlier and done somethin about it.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Attalus

Troublemaker.

That was NOT my intent, but it seems that may become the result. I bumped it in the interests of stretching our minds and discussing a whole different approach to viewing Tolkien's work.

OK everyone: The idea is to discuss the ideas. You may disagree with someone, you may STRONGLY disagree with someone, but you may NOT insult persons or their positions (the word "stupid" qualifies as an insult, in either case... it IS flaming!). Most of what you who disagree with one another say can be said just as clearly without tacking on a snide comment of any sort. Please keep all comments respectful. Write as if you're talking face-to-face with friends you disagree with - but with whom you wish to remain friends.

I'll add this. Olmer's ideas ARE a bit off-beat, to the rest of my experience. However, he knows his stuff, and he presents his view of things well. He hasn't changed my mind about a single thing, but I DO think he should be as free as anyone else to express and share his ideas here.

MOST of our discussion has been very good along these lines. Most of you are saying very intelligent, very well thought-out things. I'd say 99%. However, the 1% that goes beyond bounds is what can really destroy the harmony here.

[EDIT: and this goes for both sides in this discussion... for now I will not edit any previous posts so that each of you can reconsider your own words and be a bit self-policing... so edit you own posts if you feel you need to do better to comply with the standards outlined. I will not play favorites in this and I will not allow further flaming]

Remember too - if we all agreed about everything, there really wouldn't be anything to talk about, now would there?

OK?

[Attalus]

'When did I first begin to guess?' he mused, searching back in memory. 'Let me see - it was in the year that the White Council drove the dark power from Mirkwood, just before the Battle of the Five Armies that Bilbo found his ring. A shadow fell on my heart then, though I did not yet know what I feared.

That is the Finding. Gandalf says clearly that he did not know.

I wondered often how Gollum came by a Great Ring, as plainly it was. That was clear from the first.

By 'the first,' he means the early days, when he found time to think about the Ring. What else could it be? Perhaps one of the Seven, as they were not all accounted for. It was Dwarf country, after all.

'Then I heard Bilbo's strange story of how he had "won" it, and I could not believe it. When I at last got the truth out of him, I saw at once that he was trying to put his claim on the ring beyond doubt. Much like Gollum with his "birthday present". The lies were too much alike for my comfort. Clearly the ring had an unwholesome power that set to work on its keeper at once. That was the first real warning I had that all was not well.'

Italics mine. He had, of course, already met Gollum and talked to him.

I told Bilbo often that such rings were better left unused.'

This indicates to me that this process took place over many years. In any case, if Gandalf really knew that Bilbo's ring was the One, would he have left it in the Shire, where anyone could get in and steal it, as the Riders found out, eventually. It would have been wildly irresponsible, and that is not a word that I associate with Gandalf.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

And if he had known about it sooner then he would have urged Bilbo to leave the Shire just as he urged Frodo to.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

Olmer,
1) I believe that you have either overread or significantly misunderstood my comment
FB

I have to admit that I misunderstood you . You did not mention in what context you are giving such remark, and since we
are gathering here because we all are sharing one intence focus on Tolkien's work, "overemphasising on ONE thing" , it gave an impression of the suggestion that all Mooters are "crackheads", and indeed I jumped on conclusion.

Peace?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

IMO the plan to destroy the Ring was for the good of all Middle-earth, but you hinted that this was a byproduct of some larger plan (or something).

First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.
He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)
Second of it, the Ring has been designed and done to fight the Elves and only the Elves. Now,the idea to make the Ruling Rings, which could subject the owners of them to the power of the Giver, had been offered to the Elves by Sauron, but they, seems, did not reject it , and began a laborous production of the Rings of Power.
By the way, they did not give the rings to Sauron, all of them they kept it to themselves, probably, intending to hand them out according to their own plans, bring the owners of the Ring under theirs subjection. Such division of the power worried Sauron and he made the One to keep control over overzelaous "embalmers" of the Middle-earth.
The elves got in the trap made by themselves.They understood that since the surface of the ring , their attempt to STALL the time long enought to get them out of the ME would be in danger.They need the ring to get lost again, or at the very least destroyed,so Sauron woun't be able to manipulate them. But who will risk their life for the sake of the Elves well-being? Nobody, unless the purpose of this destruction of the ring will be a self-sacrifing quest to remove a threat for all folk of the ME.
And here comes the story about Sauron trying to cover ME with darkness with the help of the Ring.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Olmer

First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.

I don't agree. Why attack Gondor, Erebor, Dale if he hated only the elves. Maybe Gondor gave him headache but what had Erebor done to him?

[Valandil]

Olmer - you're confusing me. Previously, I THOUGHT I had a handle on where you were coming from... and while I disagreed completely with your line of thinking, at least I could see some logic and consistency. I mean, if the view seemed a bit 'twisted' from my perspective, at least it seemed 'consistently twisted'. (that IS meant in a good way)

However - with some of your last few posts, you've lost me. I don't see the same consistency between them and some of the things I recall from your other posts.

I suspect that sometimes you're joking around, which most of us like to do. However, when YOU do it, because of the unorthodox nature of some of the things you DO seem to adhere to, it might just cause more confusion to those of us who are trying to 'get' what you're saying. (EDIT: that means - it's hard to tell when you're joking) But I hate to tell you not to joke around... that seems like a 'basic human right'

If you get the time, or have some things written up already... could you post some kind of cohesive statement about your interpretations of LOTR (at least those that would be 'at odds' with a more common 'face-value' interpretation)? Something that pulls it all together? That might be easier for us to understand and react to than addressing various issues piecemeal (and was sort of the whole reason I started this thread many months ago). Plus... then you might feel freer to joke around at times and know that people know you're joking.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Olmer

First of it, you have to remember that Sauron had nothing against ME dwellers, exept those, who gave him a big headache, particularily, the Elves.
He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)
Second of it, the Ring has been designed and done to fight the Elves and only the Elves. Now,the idea to make the Ruling Rings, which could subject the owners of them to the power of the Giver, had been offered to the Elves by Sauron, but they, seems, did not reject it , and began a laborous production of the Rings of Power.
By the way, they did not give the rings to Sauron, all of them they kept it to themselves, probably, intending to hand them out according to their own plans, bring the owners of the Ring under theirs subjection. Such division of the power worried Sauron and he made the One to keep control over overzelaous "embalmers" of the Middle-earth.
The elves got in the trap made by themselves.They understood that since the surface of the ring , their attempt to STALL the time long enought to get them out of the ME would be in danger.They need the ring to get lost again, or at the very least destroyed,so Sauron woun't be able to manipulate them. But who will risk their life for the sake of the Elves well-being? Nobody, unless the purpose of this destruction of the ring will be a self-sacrifing quest to remove a threat for all folk of the ME.
And here comes the story about Sauron trying to cover ME with darkness with the help of the Ring.

Sauron DID want to cover all ME with the Second Darkness. What makes you think he would do differently than before? He hated the Dwarves as blackly as he hated Elves, since Durin's folk attacked him in the War of the Last Alliance. The Elves made the Rings of Power for THEMSELVES, not for the subjugation of the wearers. The Corruption of the Seven and the Nine took place after Sauron STOLE the rings and killed their makers. The Elves stayed in ME because they loved it, putting off beyond reason their departure for the Undying Lands. As for 'embalming,' well, I wish they would 'embalm' my town to where it would look(and feel!) like Lothlórien or Imladris.

[Nurvingiel]

He did not want to be The Lord of the Big Desert, and all Men under his dominion...grew strong, and built many towns.They revered him, because for them he was both king and god. (Sil.)

I only read the Sil once, so help me out here. Was that before or after he deceived the Elves, Men, and Dwarves and made a Ring of Power in secret so he could 'rule them all'?

Are you suggesting Sauron was trying to rule all of Middle-earth benevolently? (And yes, he was going for the whole thing.)

[azalea]

This is what I think, Valandil: My interpretation is that Olmer is saying that a lot of what is said in LotR and written in the Silm is at best a one sided interpretation by the elves and elf-friends, and at worst propaganda. I see him saying that Sauron was not really as bad a bad guy as he is made out to be, that he didn't REALLY want dominion over all ME, but that is just what the elves say. I see him trying to see things from an omniscient viewpoint rather than filtered through those involved. I also think he is saying that the elves had their agenda, and that Sauron was getting in the way of that agenda. He purports that since the hobbits were so isolated, they could only get info that was one-sided and was filtered through the elves and elf-friends (although I would argue that the dwarves would have provided another viewpoint, this would still kind of support Olmer's beliefs in that when we see elf and dwarf viewpoint of a situation side by side, they are clearly both biased toward each one's own side, thus we could conclude that the elf viewpoint may indeed be biased).
The heart of Olmer's viewpoint, from what I have read, is that the hobbits became unwitting pawns in the elves' plan to get rid of Sauron. That Frodo was "sacrificed" because no elf could accomplish what he did, but that it was ultimately unnecessary due to the fact that the elves had over-hyped Sauron's evil due to their bias against him.
That's kind of what I've seen in a nutshell. I don't know if I have interpreted it correctly, or of others have or have not seen what I did, but I thought I'd write what I read in what he wrote.
I don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but I enjoy the posts, and find it interesting that he holds such a drastically different view of the situations presented in the story/ies.