Lord of the Rings

That’s fair.

The Soviets made their own Lord of the Rings adaptation back in the 90s, and it has now been rediscovered.

The quality is about what you would expect from a low budget Russian adaptation.

So I mentioned earlier that I loved Saruman and so of course I loved his speech to Gandalf:

'White!' he sneered. 'It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.'

'In which case it is no longer white,' said I. 'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'

But I wondered "just what does this Many Colours thing really mean? I don't get it." I read the books in 2012 and didn't know shit. I do remember when inquiring about this passage elsewhere somebody mentioned Newton. I forgot about all of this until I was reminded of it when reading about the German thinkers Schopenhauer and Goethe:

"In 1810, Goethe published On the Theory of Colors (Zur Farbenlehre) in two volumes, having worked on it for twenty years. His motivation was anything but academic or theoretical — color theory was of direct and lasting significance for his philosophy overall. As Paul Lauxtermann explains, Goethe was repulsed by Newton's method of experimentation, specifically the way he manipulated light through prisms, putting "Nature on the rack" to make it conform to his hypotheses; a related expression of Goethe's rejection of scientific approaches that force, compel, or otherwise abuse nature is his reverence for pure math but his contempt for its application to natural phenomena in such a way that nature is "crucified." Goethe and his romantic contemporaries preferred a holistic, empirical approach to nature, as succinctly demonstrated in the penultimate strophe of Wordsworth's "The Tables Turned" (1798): "Sweet is the lore which Nature brings / Our meddling intellect / Misshapes the beauteous forms of things — / We murder to dissect."

The editor of the correspondence between Schopenhauer and Goethe, Ludger Littkehaus, offers a compelling synopsis of why Goethe rejected Newtonian methods. The pressing of light through tiny openings, effectively shattering its unity in order to demonstrate a preconceived hypothesis, smacked to Goethe of Francis Bacon's Inquisitorial torture and subjugation of nature. Goethe's attacks on Newton are therefore "a secular rebellion against the experimental scientific-technical modernism" a new aggressive spirit that "robs human beings of their domicile in the world, in their living environment," destroying the unity of nature and the harmony between nature and the subject."

Sorry, as I read and learn, I try to connect it with silly books and games. But at the very least, this or something like this must have been what was on Tolkien's mind while writing.

I've never seen him as Luddite like some say, just a critic of the modern way we apply technology and science. There are plenty of folks like that. Science has never been an impartial method to objectivity.

Nah, just look up Tolkien's Mythopoeia in which he defends myth-making.

Specifically, this passage:

And note how in the narrative Saruman's a feeble imitation of Sauron, trying to copy his works like the Rings of Power.

Saruman's a "sub-creator", not unlike Man whose creation of myths is a reflection of the true power of creation.

Edited by M84 on Apr 23rd 2021 at 9:12:08 PM

A completely random question.

Does the term "Lord of the Rings" ever actually get mentioned in verbatim in either the movie trilogy or the book?

IIRC Pippin has called Frodo a Lord of the Ring after Elrond's council (in the book) after learning what the Quest entails. Gandalf then instantly chastised him for it, saying that there is only one Lord of the Rings, Sauron, and he doesn't share his title.

That's correct, though I can't recall if Gandalf uses the plural "Lord of the Rings" or the singular "Lord of the Ring" there.

Also, in the last chapter, the Red Book of Westmarch (the book written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam about their adventures, from which Tolkien "translated" The Lord of the Rings) is called The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King.

Edited by Snicka on May 5th 2021 at 10:10:46 AM

Gandalf uses the singular "there is only one Lord of the Ring"

I found two instances of "The Lord of the Rings". Both of them are Gandalf speaking in Rivendell.

Chapter I of Book II: Many Meetings: 'Yes, I knew of them. Indeed I spoke of them once to you; for the Black Riders are the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings. But I did not know they had arisen again or I should have fled with you at once. I heard news of them only after I left you in June; but that story must wait. For the moment we have been saved from disaster, by Aragorn.'

Chapter 2 of Book II: The Council of Elrond: 'We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone?'

For a while I interpreted the title as referring to the Ring itself; as the most powerful Ring, the one to rule them all, it is a "lord" over the other rings. But no, apparently whenever the term is used, it clearly refers to Sauron.

Of course. Sauron was the one that caused the creation of the Rings of Power to begin with. He proposed them, he taught the Elves how to make them, he attempted to corrupt them, he made one that was more powerful than any other before.

Edited by theLibrarian on Jun 9th 2021 at 3:26:15 AM

So The Lord of the Rings is a book where the title character doesn't even appear in person.

Tolkien defied many traditional rules of storytelling with LOTR.

The Ring being Sauron's Soul Jar, I think you could make a case for a Double-Meaning Title—indeed, that page does include LOTR as an example.

Right, we never see him, though his influence is felt throughout the story. You never meet Sauron in person, but you are always aware that he is there in Mordor, waiting, watching, scheming, directing his forces against the heroes, a constant threat looming over the story.

Of course the movies go and make this a bit too literal with their Sauron Lighthouse...

We do almost meet Sauron in person, as I recall: Frodo perceives the Eye almost directly, such as upon Amon Hen. It's not a face-to-face encounter, but it is an encounter with Sauron's presence and will, active in the world.

Even as the lighthouse-style Eye though, Sauron still feels like a very big threat. Especially in The Hobbit, which is one of the narrative directions I approve of; where they tied it into the main series by having the B-plot of "Something is going on in Dol Guldur" and having Sauron be much more personal by overwhelming Gandalf in a magical duel and then taunting the White Council. Even if Galadriel did end up banishing him back to Mordor.

Sauron's near-physical appearance when Gollum is describing the torture he was put through is also pretty chilling in a understated sort of way as despite being physically tortured by him Gollum can only remember he still has a missing digit. And that is enough for everyone (including the audience) to work out who he's still talking about.

Closest anyone actually comes to Sauron is Pippin looking in the palantír

"So you have come back? Why have you neglected to report for so long?"

'I did not answer. He said: "Who are you?" I still did not answer, but it hurt me horribly..., so I said: "A hobbit."

'Then suddenly he seemed to see me, and he laughed at me. It was cruel.... I struggled.

But he said: "Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you understand? Say just that!"

And in a way Sauron is quite physically present throughout the whole book, since the Ring can be viewed as a piece of him.

Because, again, Sauron isn't just some nebulous Dark Lord. Sauron is a GOD. A more minor god than the major Valar, but still, when anyone who uses a Palantir gets seen by Sauron, they are being looked at with a presence that no living person except Gandalf or someone like him would be able to come face-to-face with and come out unchanged.

Aragorn is able to resist Sauron when using the palantir, but that's because Aragorn's the rightful master of the stone. And even then, Aragorn mentions that it was barely enough for him to resist Sauron.

In the movie Aragorn actually manages to scare Sauron by showing him the reforged Narsil, now Andúril, the very same sword that cut off Sauron's finger.

Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2021 at 11:57:31 PM

That dialogue sounds almost campy... but then again, so was Aragorn mugging for his palantir.

I didn't realize Gollum was missing a finger. In the book he just licks his fingers, as if he recalls an old pain.

Gaon was talking about Sauron's missing finger.

Edited by M84 on Jun 10th 2021 at 2:18:36 AM

> That dialogue sounds almost campy..

As someone else on the net pointed out,if sounds campy it's because its a second source transcribed in story from Pippin