Gandalf and the Ring...

Dúnedain · 12-08-2003, 12:22 AM

I've always found it strange how Gandalf tells Frodo has a great suspicion about the ring and fears touching it. Then he does touch it and isn't affected by it. Then he realizes it is in fact the One Ring and yells at Frodo to not tempt him with it. I'm going to post the two passages below, let's try and make some sense out of them

Quote:

The Fellowship of the Ring: The Shadow of the Past

Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt. He unfastened it and handed it slowly to the wizard. It felt suddenly very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

Gandalf held it up. It looked to be made of pure and solid gold. 'Can you see any markings on it?' he asked.

'No,' said Frodo. 'There are none. It is quite plain, and it never shows a scratch or sign of wear.'

'Well then, look!' To Frodo's astonishment and distress the wizard threw it suddenly into the middle of a glowing corner of the fire. Frodo gave a cry and groped for the tongs; but Gandalf held him back.

'Wait!' he said in a commanding voice, giving Frodo a quick look from under his bristling brows.

No apparent change came over the ring. After a while Gandalf got up, close the shutters outside the window, and drew the curtains. The room became dark and silent, though the clack of Sam's shears, now nearer to the windows, could still be heard faintly from the garden. For a moment the wizard stood looking at the fire; then he stopped and removed the ring to the hearth with the tongs, and at once picked it up. Frodo gasped.

'It is quite cool,' said Gandalf. 'Take it!' Frodo received it on his shrinking palm: it seemed to have become thicker and heavier than ever.

Now with that section, Gandalf touches it at least once, attached to a chain or not, it is still touched, unless of course the chain intercedes the feeling of it's power, which wouldn't make much sense. The text is vague when he uses the tongs to take it from the fire. He may have used his hands, and that is why Frodo gasps thinking it would have burned Gandalf, though he could used the tongs and Frodo only gasps at seeing it again. Either way, he touches it at least once.

Moving on:

Quote:

The Fellowship of the Ring: The Shadow of the Past

'But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'

'No!' cried Gandalf, sprining to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

It is like a complete reversal. Why was he not affected? And why was he not tempted when the Ring was given to him, whether it be on a chain or not?

Wayfarer · 12-08-2003, 01:00 AM

Well, I think there seems to be a difference between touching the ring and posessing it.

Gandalf didn't have a problem- or didn't evidence it if he did - simply coming into physical contact with the ring. However, what frodo was offering was to give him the ring- for keeps, so to speak. That was what the temptation was.

Dúnedain · 12-08-2003, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Well, JD, I think there seems to be a difference between touching the ring and posessing it.

Gandalf didn't have a problem- or didn't evidence it if he did - simply coming into physical contact with the ring. However, what frodo was offering was to give him the ring- for keeps, so to speak. That was what the temptation was.

I'm not JD

hmmm, that is a good point you make. However, by touching it, wouldn't it consume his thoughts even only by the touch?

Wayfarer · 12-08-2003, 01:08 AM

Obiously not. :P

Ilúvatar · 12-08-2003, 01:10 AM

I agree with Wayfarer. The difference is in Frodo actually GIVING him the Ring, not just touching it.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-08-2003, 01:11 AM

It must have been the avatars.

I agree with Wayfarer and Iluvitar. Simply touching the Ring (when he was not completely sure what it was) and taking it to guard or destroy are two entirely different matters. In the first passage, he was testing a suspicion. In the second passage, he was sure it was the One Ring. Now that he knew what it was, he would be tempted by it if it was in his possession.

By the way, great thread Dúnedain.

Edit: We're all on at the same time!

Ilúvatar · 12-08-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I agree with Wayfarer and Iluvitar. Simply touching the Ring (when he was not completely sure what it was) and taking it to guard or destroy are two entirely different matters. In the first passage, he was testing a suspicion. In the second passage, he was sure it was the One Ring. Now that he knew what it was, he would be tempted by it if it was in his possession.

Yes, it didn't seem to have a hold on people, unless it was in their possession for a while. Bilbo might have lied about where it came from in the Hobbit, but it hadn't gotten immediate hold on him. Frodo was not greatly affected by it at first, it was 17 years and he was still able to give it to Gandalf. As the quest drew on though, it became harder and harder. Isildur knew it was Sauron's Ring since he cut it from his finger. Now Smeagol, hadn't even touched it and it possessed him. Smeagol ended up killing his friend Deagol over it. However, Deagol didn't seem to be severly possessed by it right away or at all, since he was killed right away. As it says, the Ring works differently on different people. I just think it would have been harder for Gandalf to be immediately corrupted, but after knowing it was THE Ring, he just didn't want to take a chance.

EDIT: Even Sam who held it for quite a while and had actually used it, was able to give it back to Frodo because of his friendship.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-08-2003, 01:30 AM

Yes, it also seemed to effect different races differently too. Men seemed more easily corrupted, and Hobbits seemed most resistent to it. Tom Bombadil, whatever he is, was completely immune to it.

The Gaffer · 12-08-2003, 04:57 AM

I think this is referring to what Tolkien meant by the word "ring-bearer". While we might think of this simply as a descriptive (or even figurative) term for whoever is holding or carrying the ring, it's pretty clear throughout that the status of a ring-bearer sets you apart in some literal, objective way.

I'm thinking of Sam,

who was ring-bearer only for a few hours, but still ended up taking to the Havens in the end, "last of the ring-bearers".

I wonder if you had to put the ring on at some point to become a "ring-bearer".

I also wonder if this ties in with what the ring represents in the story. It's interesting to link this with with Galadriel's voluntary extension of her "ban": only when she had rejected the ring did she revert to her true self and feel able to return to Valinor.

Tuor of Gondolin · 12-08-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I wonder if you had to put the ring on at some point to become a "ring-bearer".
_____________________________________

You may have hit on a key point.

Also, as an aside, would that make Tom Bombadil a ring-bearer?
And if so, would that strengthen the case for him being not only a maia, but a vala, since perhaps they, as a higher order then Sauron, might be immune to the ring?

brownjenkins · 12-08-2003, 05:51 PM

i remember gandalf speaking either to bilbo, or about him to frodo, mentioning the importance of bilbo "giving the ring to Frodo" (with a bit of coaxing), as opposed to gandalf taking it by force

which somewhat ties in with a belief i've always had about bombadil... the ring had no power over him because he had no need for it, not necessary because of his personal powers

the ring seems to feed off of the bearer's desires, for good or evil in the beginning... but always towards evil in the end... giving it away is kind of like saying, "i don't need you"... while accepting it almost gives it an "in" to the person bearing it... kind of like that old inviting a vampire into your house myth

Bacchus · 12-08-2003, 09:57 PM

I don't see a discrepancy. The Ring cannot corrupt instantaneously. Gandalf does not fear contact with it as he performs the fire test, because he knows that he will have no overriding reason to use it right that instant. Later, when Frodo asks him to keep it, he rightly fears the implication of holding such power and being constantly tempted by it. For example, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have been able to forebear using it in his confrontation with Saruman. Gandalf knows that he will soon be in situations where the temptation to use the power (for the greater good, initially) will be too great. A footnote to Letter 246 discusses Gandalf as a Ringlord, and posits that he would eventually be more oppressive than Sauron-picture the 'nanny state' raised to absurd levels.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-08-2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
Originally posted by The Gaffer
I wonder if you had to put the ring on at some point to become a "ring-bearer".
_____________________________________

You may have hit on a key point.

Also, as an aside, would that make Tom Bombadil a ring-bearer?
And if so, would that strengthen the case for him being not only a maia, but a vala, since perhaps they, as a higher order then Sauron, might be immune to the ring?

I think you would also have to possess it for a significant period of time, like Gollum, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo.

Tuor of Gondolin · 12-08-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel

I think you would also have to possess it for a significant period of time, like Gollum, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo.
_____________________________________

But a former traveling companion of the fat hobbit maintains he didn't possess the Precious (err, the One Ring) for a significant period of time. Instead, he gave it right back to the nice hobbit.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-09-2003, 12:00 AM

Sam didn't carry the Ring for very long, but his contribution was definitely significant.

Tuor of Gondolin · 12-09-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Sam didn't carry the Ring for very long, but his contribution was definitely significant.
__________________________________
Actually, I agree. And I thought you made a really good point with the other three ring bearers.

As someone observed in the book (I think about the Council of Elrond) in this thread there have been some "real eye openers" about the ring which expand an appreciation of its nature and characteristics, at least to me.

Wayfarer · 12-09-2003, 01:25 AM

I think you're close, but a bit off.

The term 'ring bearer' doesn't mean someone who simply touched or held the ring, but someone who bore it- someone entrusted with the burden of carrying it. Sam became a ring-bearer because he carried it when frodo was taken. Bombadil and Gandalf just touched it for moments.

**Nurvingiel** · 12-09-2003, 01:39 AM

Exactly. That's what I was getting at.

Wayfarer · 12-09-2003, 01:51 AM

*random gratuitous violence*

Elf Girl · 12-09-2003, 07:49 AM

You don't think the knowledge that the Ring was evil had anything to do with it?

EDIT: Eru, that was not what I meant to say. I meant to say, wouldn't the knowledge that the Ring could grant power affect the 'corruption factor'?

12-08-2003, 01:00 AM	#2
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	Well, I think there seems to be a difference between touching the ring and posessing it. Gandalf didn't have a problem- or didn't evidence it if he did - simply coming into physical contact with the ring. However, what frodo was offering was to give him the ring- for keeps, so to speak. That was what the temptation was. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned Last edited by Wayfarer : 12-08-2003 at 01:08 AM.

12-08-2003, 01:08 AM	#4
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	Obiously not. :P __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

12-08-2003, 01:57 PM	#10
Tuor of Gondolin Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Posts: 1,215	Originally posted by The Gaffer I wonder if you had to put the ring on at some point to become a "ring-bearer". _____________________________________ You may have hit on a key point. Also, as an aside, would that make Tom Bombadil a ring-bearer? And if so, would that strengthen the case for him being not only a maia, but a vala, since perhaps they, as a higher order then Sauron, might be immune to the ring? __________________ Democrat for Kerry-Edwards! Take Back America Aure entuluva!

12-08-2003, 09:57 PM	#12
Bacchus Elven Warrior Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Houston TX USA Posts: 245	I don't see a discrepancy. The Ring cannot corrupt instantaneously. Gandalf does not fear contact with it as he performs the fire test, because he knows that he will have no overriding reason to use it right that instant. Later, when Frodo asks him to keep it, he rightly fears the implication of holding such power and being constantly tempted by it. For example, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have been able to forebear using it in his confrontation with Saruman. Gandalf knows that he will soon be in situations where the temptation to use the power (for the greater good, initially) will be too great. A footnote to Letter 246 discusses Gandalf as a Ringlord, and posits that he would eventually be more oppressive than Sauron-picture the 'nanny state' raised to absurd levels. __________________ Yet neither by wolf, nor by Balrog, nor by Dragon, would Morgoth have achieved his end, but for the treachery of Men. Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

12-08-2003, 11:44 PM	#14
Tuor of Gondolin Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Posts: 1,215	Originally posted by Nurvingiel I think you would also have to possess it for a significant period of time, like Gollum, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo. _____________________________________ But a former traveling companion of the fat hobbit maintains he didn't possess the Precious (err, the One Ring) for a significant period of time. Instead, he gave it right back to the nice hobbit. __________________ Democrat for Kerry-Edwards! Take Back America Aure entuluva! Last edited by Tuor of Gondolin : 12-08-2003 at 11:56 PM.

12-08-2003, 01:10 AM	#5
Ilúvatar Hobbit Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 37	I agree with Wayfarer. The difference is in Frodo actually GIVING him the Ring, not just touching it.

12-08-2003, 05:51 PM	#11
brownjenkins Advocatus Diaboli Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Reality Posts: 3,767	i remember gandalf speaking either to bilbo, or about him to frodo, mentioning the importance of bilbo "giving the ring to Frodo" (with a bit of coaxing), as opposed to gandalf taking it by force which somewhat ties in with a belief i've always had about bombadil... the ring had no power over him because he had no need for it, not necessary because of his personal powers the ring seems to feed off of the bearer's desires, for good or evil in the beginning... but always towards evil in the end... giving it away is kind of like saying, "i don't need you"... while accepting it almost gives it an "in" to the person bearing it... kind of like that old inviting a vampire into your house myth

12-09-2003, 12:07 AM	#16
Tuor of Gondolin Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Posts: 1,215	Originally posted by Nurvingiel Sam didn't carry the Ring for very long, but his contribution was definitely significant. __________________________________ Actually, I agree. And I thought you made a really good point with the other three ring bearers. As someone observed in the book (I think about the Council of Elrond) in this thread there have been some "real eye openers" about the ring which expand an appreciation of its nature and characteristics, at least to me. __________________ Democrat for Kerry-Edwards! Take Back America Aure entuluva!

12-09-2003, 01:25 AM	#17
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	I think you're close, but a bit off. The term 'ring bearer' doesn't mean someone who simply touched or held the ring, but someone who bore it- someone entrusted with the burden of carrying it. Sam became a ring-bearer because he carried it when frodo was taken. Bombadil and Gandalf just touched it for moments. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

12-09-2003, 01:51 AM	#19
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	random gratuitous violence __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

12-09-2003, 07:49 AM	#20
Elf Girl Lurker Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Lothlórien Posts: 3,419	You don't think the knowledge that the Ring was evil had anything to do with it? EDIT: Eru, that was not what I meant to say. I meant to say, wouldn't the knowledge that the Ring could grant power affect the 'corruption factor'? __________________ There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium... Last edited by Elf Girl : 12-09-2003 at 05:29 PM.