I love the idea that "magic" with Tolkien is the deep understanding of the world as expressed through the songs of the ainur. Ring craft is Sauron's domain because he sang it into existence at the beginning of time. It's written into the nature of reality because a Valar or Maiar made it that way. Same as any other magic- it's an idea a God or angel wove into the world. It's not magic, it's just a secret.
I find this especially delightful because even the Valar themselves don't always know how their 'themes' are going to be expressed, especially when they interact with the ideas of others. So Ulmo, for instance, is surprised to find that Melkor has turned water to vapor and now he's involved in the sky as well, in the form of clouds. Eru has to point out the emergence of the Ents to Yavanna and Manwe. So while they're far cleverer than Elves or Men, even the Ainur can be surprised and learn new tricks as history unfolds.
@@GirlNextGondorplease make a video on the Tolkien's themes of anti-technology, anti-modernity, and how the theme of the "past was better" challenges the vast majority of people's assumption that "progress" is linear (in other words, how most contemporary people just assume that things are better now than they were in the past for our species and that they can only get better...much of this based in people's near religious-like faith in the ability of technology to solve any and every problem, or what sociology calls "techno-optimism")
@@kevinrussell1144 I think this quote from Eru to Melkor in the beginning nicely sums up why he won't control and supress Melkor's evil: "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." JRRT, being a devoted catholic and all, is trying to solve the age old "problem of evil" of theological philosophy with these lines. Basically from Eru's perspective, all is going according to the divine plan, and Melkor's "discord" is not a discord at all. When you think about it, (just like the Ulmo and the clouds example from the top comment) all the beautiful stories that Tolkien tells us are born from the heroes that try to confront and oppose the evil of Melkor. No evil, nothing to oppose to and be brave against = no wonderful stories to tell.
The idea of innate power that can be traded away for some other form of gain is an important concept in many mythological traditions. Certainly in the Eddas, Sagas, Greek mythology and other inspirations of Tolkien's.
Paraphrasing Frodo's proverb to Gildor in woods of the Shire, "Go not to Tolkien scholars for council on the rings-power-org chart, for they will say both no and yes... And they'll say it in Elvish languages where yes and no mean a bunch of disparate concepts that Tolkien hadn't really finished thinking about before he died!" 🙂
😂😂 To counterparaphrase with Olwe's words: "It may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly... particularly when said friend is hell-bent on pursuing an inherently unattainable goal and is too inflamed by their own hubris to recognize it."
The more I learn about the legendarium the more I am amazed that one single mind was capable of creating all of that! Languages, mythology, history, lineages, beautiful prose and poems... And not as a fulltime job but as a mere hobby while the man had a full academic career as well! Unbelieveable😯 Thank you Lexi for fueling my appreciation.
God works in mysterious ways. LOTR is a very thorough Catholic work, Tolkien himself said so. I like to believe that God used the genius of a man like Tolkien to have such a wonderful legendarium to be created, which teaches people Christian morals and ethics. Even atheists who follow the philosophy behind LOTR become unaware more Christian-like.
@@thomashogben149 Yes, you do. LOTR is riddled with Catholic morality. That means if you lrt LOTR influence you, you are being influenced by Catholicism. Deny it all you want, it wont change facts.
@@wulfheort8021he also added elements of Germanic and Finnish pagan ideals, which creates a very interesting mix with the Catholic parts. Not really surprising since he was a massive fan of Nordic mythology, the Kalevala, and Anglo-Saxon poetry.
Fëanor says he can never remake the Silmarils. Is this an effect of him pouring his own self into the gems? Yavanna says something similar about the Trees - is this also the same as what Mairon and Melkor did?
I’ve always thought that this was more Tolkien saying that masterpieces can only be made once. Trying to repeat something that beautiful never works, it becomes forced, artificial and empty almost.
@@denislemenoir Trade uniqueness for expressibility. To make something again and again is to make it less unique. Much like how seeing the same word over and over again will sometimes rob it of meaning to the reader.
@@denislemenoir @Valdagast I think this is a case of "it's not either/or". Even in the real world, authors say that they pour their own selves into their works, that they go pregnant with, give birth to etc. a work of their art, and I guess that the idea that these things cannot be repeated is actually something that derives from real-world feelings of artists about their works. Could Tolkien have reproduced, say, the Hobbit, if it every exemplar of it was destroyed and knowing-by-heart-and-dictating-from-memory doesn't count? The Childlike Empress needs a name again, always a new one, to quote another author, Michael Ende (speaking through Morla the Ancient).
I've always thought that when Morgoth created Orodruin, he put a lot of his "power" into it. I think that Sauron was able to access this power and add his own to create the One Ring. So when Sauron has the Ring, he is easily more powerful because he is applying Morgoth's power as well as his own. This could also explain why Sauron could not resist leaving the Ring behind when he went to Numenor as a prisoner.
There's hints that I want to explore in the future suggesting that manipulating the 'Morgoth element' in Arda is the way the Rings get their powers. This would make sense with Sauron being the only one to fully understand how they work, and as you pointed out it fits with Orodruin being the place where the Ruling Ring was forged - a concentration of Morgothiness.
@@GirlNextGondor Please do make a video. The Ring of Morgoth is such an important aspect of the Legendarium, yet it is not clear what it does other than corrupt Men. If the power can be accessed by Sauron, it would clarify a lot of problems I have with Sauron and the Ring.
@Enerdhil: But didn't Tolkien say somewhere that Sauron did take the ring to Numenor, and this explains in part why he could so readily dominate the "King's Men" party there (who, granted, were prone to such persuasion by themselves)?
@@MoritzGruber7 Yes, Tolkien said Sauron was wearing the One Ring when he was in Númenor. I don't think Tolkien said he needed it to deceive the King and his Men. It was more like Sauron was not able to leave it behind. I am sure Sauron did not need to use his Ring to do anything he did in Númenor.
OMG you are easily the best Tolkien lore analyzer in the internet! There is no better feeling than just seeing notifications pop up in your channel. I always thought ring is just like a sign of becoming a ''dark lord'' , Melkor and Sauron had to spread their angelic and intangible powers into the matter to effect those in it and this is the definition of the ''evil'' in Tolkiens works. Evil beings such as Melkor or Balrogs are just so obsessed with claiming power of pyshicall matter, they simply cannot understand how much they fell in REAL power, that being more quick and effective power of divinity. Speaking of ring my head canon theory is that Sauron and Melkor are primary examples of two types of magic in Tolkiens works, magia and goeteia. Melkor since the beginning of time always tend to destroy Arda and bind anything in it to his will, in order to achieve that he used more destructive and easier method of magic, magia but this caused him fall in might more easily and pitifully. On the other hand Sauron used being of more wisdom and patience, used goeteia and such practices to gain power. This can be seen when he created ring, Sauron was just a powerfull dark entity before the one ring was made and for this period he cannot be called as dark lord imo but when he creates the ring he has power over other subjects and wills of his servants, making him a god-like being that doesnt do everything directly. Sauron used goeteia even in battles, when you analyz he just makes his opponents fear him rather than just outright kill them like Morgoth , this is an exchange because if his opponent overcomes his dark presence Sauron is not in a good position. This is why he falls in might when ring is taken from him, he doesnt lose his innate power but he loses the power as a Dark Lord so his influence on his armies; Nazgul, will power etc is weakened and when he regains the ring he once again claims this type of effectivnesses making him more enhanced in the so called '' Earth'' in the process.
This video is like intellectual, fantasy crack for my brain. Great work! I find it fascinating that Sauron couldn't grasp the idea that someone would want to destroy the one ring as he's so blinded by his desire for control and domination. But, in a way, he is sort of right as when it ultimately comes down to it Frodo doesn't want to destroy it and gives in to the temptation of taking it for himself.
Glad you enjoyed it! That Sauron, overthinker and cunning planner par excellence, would overlook something so simple is a big part of Tolkien's 'message,' if you ask me: all the might and cleverness in the world won't do you any good if you lose perspective.
@@GirlNextGondor It is concepts like that which make Tolkien's writings so compelling to me. The complex relationships between power, free will, good and evil that he wrote into his work give more and more meaning the deeper you dig into the stories... Don't want to go too deep though, wouldn't like to wake up any grumpy, ancient, shadowy, corrupted flame angels who haven't gotten enough beauty sleep.
The committed totalitarian monarchist Sauron could not conceive of the anarcho-primitivist Hobbits. Even in the real world most people who are entrenched with, defined by and benefit from, (or are simply deeply entrapped by) complex social and economic hierarchies can be so focused on their relations to those hierarchies, find it inconceivable that someone could genuinely dismiss or oppose the existence of those hierarchies. How many works of fiction have you seen where the term "anarchist" or "anarchy" is used to evoke images chaos or mass violence, or a neo-liberal writer who writes about their thinly veiled communist allegory as just being greedy and trying to put themselves on top of society in place of those currently on top. Or a religious author who cannot for the life of them write a character that genuinely does not believe in any higher powers at all or in some cases cannot even write an original religion not like his own. Some people are incapable of reaching outside of themselves.
@@GirlNextGondor Yup, it wasn't until the very end, when Frodo claimed the Ring for his own and Sauron sensed him, that Sauron realized what was happening. I think that the perspective that he lost was part of what came to him in that blinding flash of realization that he had underestimated, and been outsmarted by, Gandalf and Aragorn, and that everything he'd been focused on had been a distraction to ensure he could never rise again. It also speaks to Sauron still being intelligent, since he instantly grasped what was going on and commanded the Ringwraiths to the mountain; him understanding how and why it was happening makes his downfall even more poetic imo
I think part of the difficulty in understanding power in Tolkien's works comes from regarding them as part of the fantasy genre, from the perspective of the conventions that have evolved within the genre: power is understood in terms of mechanics, rules, "magic systems" whose logic has become a standard by which to judge the merit of a work within the conventions of the genre. When I read the account of the Fellowship in Lothlorien I'm reminded of this. I don't think the Elves would recognize the kind of "magic" that is so conventionally systematized within the genre as it has developed. That development owes a lot to game mechanics, which need to treat magic as something rational in order to keep game rules coherent. It's been a useful check for the fancies of authors who didn't have Tolkien's humility or erudition. Regarding "magic" or "power" from a more, let's say, occultist standpoint, its nature and operation in Tolkien's work makes a lot more sense. Not to say Tolkien would ever have thought of himself as an occultist or had much sympathy with those who did (recall his surmising about the Blue Wizards), but he was steeped in Iron Age folklore, which came from a worldview that took enchantment and "magic" for granted, that saw the world as full of "powers we cannot perceive" (to quote Neil Peart). Tolkien also came of age in an era of English history when crises of modern rationalism and traditional beliefs produced creative works such as _Dracula_ and mass-produced popular editions of fairy tales, as well as the heyday of occultism that produced the Rider-Waite Tarot deck. Another of Tolkien's contamporaries, Carl Jung, recorded a conversation with a spirit guide from whom he hoped to learn magic. Philemon told him at one point: "Magic happens to be precisely everything that eludes comprehension." Tolkien used words like "magic" and "bewitchments" to describe Gandalf's manipulations of fire and lights - when he was in the comic mode of _The Hobbit._ _The Lord of the Rings_ presents a much more serious, grounded view of "magic" - refusing to indulge the kinds of definitions or uses of the word that are so comfortable to reading and writing fantasy as an established genre. There are those conversations with the Elves in Lorien. There are "spells of ruin" on Grond, a "virtue" of finding on the walking sticks Faramir gives to Sam and Frodo. There are "virtues" and "powers" associated with things, places, beings, that aren't easily explained or understood. Just how it is in folk-tale, fairy-tale, ancient epic . . . and, depending on how much stock you put in this kind of thing, just how it is in real life. Consider the book _The 48 Laws of Power._ The power it speaks of isn't "supernatural" or D&D-type magic, but the power that people gain and wield through mind games and political manipulation is real and *potent.* I see something similar to the power that Sauron and his servants wield in _The Lord of the Rings._ Consider the Ringwraiths, whom Jackson equips with swords, armor and practically with character sheets showing hit points, armor class and spell level stats. In the books they are terrible but their terror and their power is not mechanical in the way that a wraith in D&D would be, nor are they terrible in the same way as Jackson's invisible swordsmen. In fact, in some ways they're weak and vulnerable. They can be banished by invoking the name of Elbereth. They are put to flight by a bunch of Hobbits blowing a horn in the middle of the night. I don't think Jackson really knew what to do with them, or how to really portray them, because he misapprehended their nature: he treats them and other bad guys like D&D monsters instead of examples of our real fears. How many of us as children could be terrified by a dark shape in the basement? ( _The Face in the Frost_ by John Bellairs is based on a sound understanding of this kind of fear.) I think when the Hobbits blew the horn in "A Knife in the Dark" they summoned a power in their collective courage and in the nature of their land that overcame the wraiths' powers of fear for the moment. I agree with your conclusion: the nature of power in Tolkien's sub-created world is, like the nature of power in our world, susceptible to shifts. It has laws, yes, but it does not work according to the "magic system" mechanics of role-playing games or genre fantasy fiction.
About "Power" and its different usage in languages. You talked about the fact the word comes from the latin. French's word for "Power" is the word "Pouvoir" (pronounced Poo-Vwar) wich is both a noun and a verb. The noun refers to the ability to do something. It can refer to legal and political concepts (Le pouvoir d'un dictateur, la séparation des pouvoirs législatifs, exécutifs et judiciaires), but can also refer to other things. With the influence of pop culture, "Le pouvoir" can refer to supernatural abilities. "Un pouvoir magique" (A magical power). Or something more coming from agency "Avoir du pouvoir sur sa vie" (Having power over one's own life). All of this doesn't seem that different from english. But in english, there is the specific meaning of forces. A power plant. I'm not aware, in my own language, that there is something similar in french. We can call it "Une centrale" (A center from wich energy is produced) and generally comes with a descriptive of what kind of energy is produced there. Mainly, power plant is translated as "Centrale Électrique". But a nuclear power plant, or nuclear plant, will be called "Centrale nucléaire". So instead of using the word "Power plant", the word "Centrale" seems to be the "equivalent". And since it refers to a center, it reveals that the place from wich power originates seems more important than the power, the energy itself. In my region of Québec, there are a lot of hydroelectric power plants. Workers in the mid XXth century called it "Travailler sur le pouvoir" (Work on the power) wich is a francisation of the term "Work on the power plant". The main reason of this is that the bosses were mostly english speakers and often, words travelled from the english people in power (see what I did there) to the french speaking workers (In a funny inversion of how english got its french influences Tolkien hated so much because of the Normand elite) This shows how words and meanings attached to them can travel from a language to another. But with time, that borrowing of english terms in french disappeared, as the english speaking bosses either left or assimilated themselves to the french speaking communities. As for the verb, the verb "Pouvoir" litterally means "To be able to", "To can". Saying "Je peux" (conjugation of the verb "pouvoir" at the present indicative, first person singular) means "I can". This comes to reinforce that notion of you having (or not) the power to run a marathon. In french, the term "Pouvoir" is even more closely linked to that meaning of being able to, through its preservation of the latin verb POTERE (wich migrated to Po-ere with the dropping of the T, and the eventual adding of the sound "V" linking the vowels creating Po-v-ere etc.) Sorry for the tangent. Hope some language enthusiasts here found this interesting.
Definitely interesting - thank you! One point to consider, though, is that although French does not use 'pouvoir' as 'physical power' (energy in time), it uses 'puissance', which has the same root (in fact it derives from puissant, which is the present participle of 'pouvoir')
Tangents always welcome, especially etymological. I suppose in US English it wouldn't be that unusual to call such a place an 'electrical plant' or 'nuclear plant' etc. And there are other kinds of 'plant' than power, eg chemical plants. (Side note, couldn't find anything substantiated, but a few ideas for why it would be called a 'plant' and not a center, a 'works,' a factory, etc. included: 'Plant' is short for 'plantation;' a reference to assembly lines being inspired by plants (presumably a central stalk fed by roots with leaves at intervals along the way?), a reference to a large building or operation being 'planted' on the earth, and a distinction between a 'plant,' where physical or chemical *conversions* take place, versus a 'factory' where an object is made. All interesting; no idea which if any is true.) I did wonder whether 'power' was a particularly fitting word to investigate, since having a Latin origin suggests that not only the English-speaking world but also the Romance languages would have a similarly broad conception of the word. And my limited knowledge of Latin suggests that there were plenty of derivatives and extended senses even for 'potere.' So it seems to be a more universal, 'human' assumption to contrast against those of our fictional Elves.
@@dlevi67 Faramir describes Aragorn as "puissant" when talking to Eowyn. From the Online Etymology Dictionary: craft (n.) Old English cræft (West Saxon, Northumbrian), -creft (Kentish), "power, physical strength, might," from Proto-Germanic *krab-/*kraf- (source also of Old Frisian kreft, Old High German chraft, German Kraft "strength, skill;" Old Norse kraptr "strength, virtue"). The ultimate etymology is uncertain. Sense expanded in Old English to include "skill, dexterity; art, science, talent" (via a notion of "mental power"), which led by late Old English to the meaning "trade, handicraft, employment requiring special skill or dexterity," also "something built or made." The word still was used for "might, power" in Middle English.
@@charlesstanford1310 You are not making much sense. Craft is not etyomologically from the same root as power. Puissant entered English from Norman French in the 12th Century; it became obsolete and replaced by the hybrid 'powerful', coupling a Latin root to a Saxon suffix. It remains true that English can use one term ("power") to express both the physical, scientific meaning and the other more abstract ones. French (and other Romance languages) use two: pouvoir and puissance, potere and potenza (IT), poder and potencia (ES), poder and potência (PT). English has 'potency', but again it only has the "non physicist" meaning (and it is more restricted than the Romance equivalents above).
@@dlevi67 I guess I should have made two separate comments. I posted that about "Craft" to offer a comparison of Germanic to Romance words for similar concepts. Sorry for the confusion.
I think the chief insight I drew from listening to this analysis is maybe a deeper understanding of how Tolkien related to this legendarium in terms of fairy story: he assumed the role of an outside observer and reteller rather than overtly exercising authority as creator and owner of the world. Thus he gave himself plenty of latitude to let a few principles stay mysterious even as he presented the stories that depended on them; he refused to enforce a “foolish consistency.”
Reading the material in HoMe you really see him wavering between two impulses: the love of mystery and 'remoteness' and the love of exploring and building up details about his world. They were in tension, but there was sufficient space in his mind for two such hobgoblins!
The more one digs into Tolkien, the more it becomes plain he was operating on a higher level of intellect than most of us. The fact that you can explore his world so thoroughly is a credit to you.
Nah man, he just really liked the stuff he was interested and put it to paper. A lot of people can do something not dissimilar with the right mix of passion, time and dedication.
Thank you for a Great video and a lot of inspiring thoughts. From my understanding, the One ring functions under a couple of simple rules. 1) It resonates with the natural powers of the wielder and increases them. 2) It tempts the wielder with new powers or illusions of it. 3) All the wishes of the wielder turn to the darker path. 4) It turns not only wielder but people surrounding him to darkness. 5) All gained darkness feeds it's true master and his plans
9:23 Interestingly, this is a distinction that Catholic philosophy draws between “hope-as-habit” (one of the three theological virtues, which are supernaturally gracious gifts), and the merely natural “hope-as-passion.” Saint Thomas Aquinas explains this distinction in the Summa (Secunda Secundae, Question 17, Article 1). I think a lot of Tolkien’s “peculiarities” and the quirks in his worldbuilding become a lot clearer when viewed through his deeply held Catholic faith and love for the scholastic tradition of Aquinas, Augustine, and Bonaventure.
I remember an old commercial for ferrairo Roche chocolate, fancy dinner party at an embassy, oh mr ambassador with these ferrero Roche your spoiling us . Well with you content ms lexi your spoiling us. Lol
This was a really great video, it gave me the first real sense of what it actually meant for Tolkien to be "creating a world to hold his languages". I can imagine the act of deciding which words to split up and how to split them up must have contributed a lot to the sheer depth of meaning the legendarium feels like it has. Thinking about why a culture would define two different types of hope, and have no word for magic is such a rich source of inspiration to create a culture.
I actually watched instead of listening this time, and I have to say that the art you use is utterly gorgeous. There is a picture of Tol Sirion with Thangorodrim in the background that had me searching with a flashlight under the furniture fir my jaw.
I think it not pedantry if you are not forcing your knowledge (especially with your accustomed humility) upon others, but offering it for those interested, accompanied by a willingness to engage in respectful debate. Thank you yet again for another wonderful video.
3:14 How can Sauron's power in Arda be enhanced over his original power? I see it this way: Sauron converted some of the power he had in the unseen realm into power over Arda through the forging of the ring.
The power of the Ring is definitely wrapped up, somehow, in making the Unseen Seen and vice-versa, I'm not sure which direction it primarily goes or if this would vary depending on the user, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of it.
After Lexi's video, I think of the Ring as a lens. It definitely has a focusing aspect, but it also necessarily blurs the fringe and completely difracts at the edge, and to be useful, it must be turned this way and that.
The Rings of Power are force multipliers. Morgoth blew his load trying to bend the world to his will and became dangerously diminished. (Creating Ancalagon must have really left him short of breath.) Sauron learned from the fate of his master and already possessing great skill in smithcraft, he forged the Rings. And his plan worked with Dwarves and Men.
Poor tolkien, as you said, he was instrested in how words change meaning over time but didn't foresee the line in Sam's song "Golden showers" changing 😅 hahah. Glad Peter changed it for the extended edition
17:55 if the Ring enhances the natural power of the possessor, then all who hoped to use the Ring against Sauron, were indeed fools. A stronger Boromir still isn't no where near as powerful as Sauron. 23:50 Sauron was right. Even Frodo didn't want to destroy the Ring. It was destroyed by pure chance/fate, not intentionally.
My personal intellectual project for my own satisfaction is to completely understand Tolkien's legendarium as deeply as I can at it's most advanced form of development as it existed in his head.
I really enjoy your contemplations since they make me think more deeply about my own writting as well as exploring the aplicability of discussed ideas and concept into the cosmogony of my setting. Thank you for the content of such thought provoking quality.
When Saurons power is described it could sometimes be about his empire, armies etc. At other times it could be his personal power. We know that there is a difference between Sauron with a ring and without: In the second age, the elves could not use the three rings because Sauron had the one ring and they would have been dominated by Sauron (his original plan). In the third age the elves used their rings without fear of domination.
That's exactly it - such a simple concept but I feel like people get so caught up in sourcing evidence and building arguments they overlook the possibility that "Sauron's Power" might mean different things depending on context. It could be political power, talent, physical power, "personal" power, etc. I think especially where this word is concerned there's ample evidence that Tolkien himself recognized the distinctions. I did leave off any discussion of the 'power' the Ruling Ring had over the others in this one - but you're of course right; in addition to its general enhancement powers, the Ring did have a very specific purpose. Without it, Sauron couldn't interfere with the use of the Three (though the other 16 were apparently still susceptible to his influence). I imagine he found this endlessly irritating 😅
@@GirlNextGondor Sauron spent a long time in the third age to reclaim the nine and the seven rings of power(three of them had survived). it's possible that Sauron did this because the Nazgul were enslaved by their own rings. Since he no longer posessed the one ring, he needed to take back the nine rings to fully control the Nazgul. Just a theory.
Fascinating. It’s interesting how much ambiguity and interpretation can be applied to the most base concept of the narrative. Another core theme in his writings which I find extremely compelling are the concepts of order and chaos. Perhaps even more central to the transformation of Melkor to Morgoth and the impetus for Mairon’s initial draw towards him, it’s the difference between the two. While existing simultaneously are the two mutually exclusive or critically linked for the existence of the other? What interpretations can be drawn from their meanings and application? Does power in the form of physical magic derive from one or both? Is dark magic rooted exclusively in chaos and vice versa? I find this questions provocative and at the heart of what Tolkien conceived as the central conveyance of creation.
When talking about Sauron's power being enhanced with the ring or diminished without the ring I think there is more to it than that. When Sauron's body was destroyed in the fall of Numenor he himself was weakened because he lost his own form. He could no longer shape shift for example into were creatures or a vampire, he no longer possessed a physical form in which to do so. He was nothing but spirt, trapped in the known world in spirit form. This lack of a physical form took a great deal of his power regardless of the possession of the ring which was meant to enhance his power not of himself but a power over others. The true power of the ring was to gain power over others. Because Sauron had no true physical form he had to spend all of his time and energy slowly becoming powerful again even though he had no physical form. He was no longer skin, flesh and bones, he was spirit and not much different than the Nazgul who were able to exist both in the known world and that of the unseen world. Sauron was struggling for a great deal of time just to gain back what was lost. The reason he desired to gain back possession of the ring was because it would enable him to once again attempt to control and dominate others who had free will, not Orc's and Trolls and Nuzgul who had no real free will of their own but to control those who opposed him with that free will. The same beings of good who held the "sacred fire" to resist within them. He knew that without the ring his diminished power due to the loss of his form would be futile in the end. He lost his form fleeing Numenor, spent ages rebuilding himself (whatever that means) then when he was ready he launched the war of the last alliance and lost his form once again because it was the ring that held him together as a being with form. Before the loss of his physical body at the fall of Numenor he was indeed powerful and the ring enhanced, not his innate power but his power and control over others. He transferred some of his own power into the ring in order to achieve this but doing this did not diminish his power, it just altered where that power resided. Once his physical body was lost all of this changed. This is why he needed his ring back because it held a portion of his previous power which would allow him to once again attain physical form and also control over others. I know my own explanation here is convoluted sorry. But I think my point came across I hope
Your commentary highlights the fact that we hang on every written word and utterance of JRRT. The depth of his thought is wonderfully engaging, if endlessly frustrating.
3:14 I don't see a problem with this part. Sauron can enhance his own power with the Ring like we can enhance our ability to smash things by making a hammer with the very hands that are inferior at smashing compared to a hammer. There is an upper limit on what tools can do for us, but we can enhance ourselves by our own power. 3:50 This part, by my interpretation, just means that Sauron didn't lose access to the power he put into the Ring no matter where the Ring was. To put it in crude mathematical terms: Sauron before forging the Ring is at 100% power. Sauron wearing the Ring is "enhanced", so at more than 100% power because the Ring enhances his power, like a tool or a catalyst and he still has access to the power that he put into the Ring. Sauron who is not wearing the Ring is "not diminished" which means he is at 100% power, because while it is said that he needs to wear the Ring for it to make him more powerful, it is also said that he does not lose access to the initial power he put into the Ring (no matter where it is). The Ring does two things here: Contain Sauron's power (which he always has access to) and enhancing Sauron's power (which requires wearing it).
This is very cool! I alwsys thought something very similar to this. I assumed that the ring took a certain portion of Sauron's....essence? if you will, and anchored it more firmly in the physical realm by pouring it into an actual physical object. He embodied part of himself. In a similar way to how Morgoth poured much of himself into the corruption of Middle Earth, and therefore increased his influence in subtle and nearly ubiquitous ways. The cost of that increase of total influence being that he spread himself thin and became less potent when taking acute action in person. Sauron, being Aule's pupil, seems to have devised that keeping his earthly investment on his personage gave him the best of both options. If Sauron's essence is in the ring and in himself, it technically still exists in total so long as the ring exists in the physical realm. Therefore he is not diminished without it so much as less dynamic. Part of him was still out there, corrupting and controlling people and turning proto-hobbits into flat-footed sushi connoisseurs with dissociative identity disorder. His total force of will, his intention, still existed, but it could not be wholly unified and therefore made most effective unless he was in possession of the ring. Sort of like how I'm supposed to be walking my dog right now, but I was also writing this comment. My intention was split and therefore I stepped in dog sh*t. Now this does raise a few questions. If that part of Sauron "dies" with the ring, does that mean Morgoth's power diminishes every time a creature embodying a portion of his will is slain? It seems unlikely. And since Barad-dur immediately collapses and the orcs return to monke when the ring is destroyed, was Sauron still able to access some of the benefits of that physical embodiment and work somewhat in concert even without possession of that part of himself? Edit- I know this video is 2 years old but I really hope she sees this.
Just started watching your channel, GREAT artwork number 1 and I get breaking things down in Tolkien’s universe bud I also feel like he intentionally left a lot of things grey so our own imagination will feed the story so everyone has a slightly different way of seeing the story. Great video BTW!
Regarding Morgoth and Sauron and their "power," it seems to me that there might be two forms of power involved here. One would be an internal, inherent form of power that they have a certain amount of when they come into existence. This may be true of all who have a fëa. This explains the growing weakness of Morgoth as he poured this power into Arda. On the other hand, there is another externally accessible power that can be used, even drained, but can be restored. A simple example would be someone goes for a walk. Depending on the individual, the person may be able to a relatively short distance, or a somewhat longer one, or a very long one. But eventually the walker must rest and possibly drink and eat to restore their ability to keep walking. But they can do this and if they work on their own capabilities they can be able to walk longer before needing to rest. Perhaps some combination of these two concepts might resolve some of the peculiarities of what on the surface appear to be Tolkien contradicting himself.
Your instincts appear to have support: while innocently gathering sources I ran into another section of Myths Transformed, about the possibility of Morgoth regenerating himself - even the possibility that he could 'recall' some of his dispersed power from Arda. Didn't have time to fully explore it in this one, but it was both fascinating and horrifying. I think the 'walking' metaphor is a good one because it also fits with, eg, Sauron being exhausted after Numenor's fall and needing time to get his feet back under him (so to speak😆). And also it seems that there's a tipping point after which you lose even the ability to try to restore yourself - in abovementioned essay Tolkien says that Morgoth, being so tremendously great in his beginnings, would have retained his ability to regenerate even after his profligacy - but the remnants of Sauron (and presumably Saruman?) would not have been cause for concern.
I wonder if the enhancement to his power is due to the fact that sauron put much of his being within the great ring and it’s connection to the other rings. If so, does it mean that because the ring governs and is connected to the other rings in some way, when he wears it, he has access to the other ring bearer’s ‘power’, essentially pulling from them and adding to his own?
I have a question, for which I don't think there is an answer so I'm more likely asking for your opinion: you mentionned that for a long time during the third age no one knew the ring still existed. For the elves or Istari (and men) I could agree because of their lack of knowledge, but Sauron must have known the ring was still out there somewhere right? I don't remember the exact timeline but at some point Saruman begins searching for the ring. I wonder what happened, he might have obtain some intel, or maybe the fact that Sauron was still active made Saruman realize that the ring was still present. Anyway just sharing my thoughts, thanks for this video, so glad you're back!
Are not the three elven rings different than how rings of power were described at the end? They are meant to slow decay, but don't seem to give the wielder an obsession with power/domination. It seems that is something added to all the other rings by Sauron.
Hard to say exactly - in the letter the passage is from, Tolkien's been chronologically describing the history of the Second Age. He tells about Rings of Power made with Sauron's 'help,' stops to comment on the powers of the Rings generally, and then describes the creation of the Three, being 'directed to the preservation of beauty' and remaining 'unsullied.' It seems they weren't quite as attuned to domination, but on the other hand Tolkien considers even the Three a misguided attempt to alter or control the flow of history. My own theory is that while the Three weren't as actively corruptive as the others, anything that increases one's power beyond what is natural carries the *risk* of inflaming that person's pride, and you'd have to be very wise and very cautious to use them rightly.
@@GirlNextGondor Perhaps the difference is that they were able to overcome the temptation to power and ultimately give up the power of their own rings by helping to destroy the one ring of Sauron. It seems we can see this especially in the character arc of Galadriel.
I always thought it interesting that Treebeard says of Saruman "He is plotting to become a Power", with a capital p. Who are the other Powers, that Saruman seeks to join?
Magic, in all of the forms we see it, is a direct response of matter to the will, and Tolkien's understanding of this fact--informed by his theology--is why his handling of it is more satisfying than what can be found in the works of other authors. Throughout the legendarium, the Ainur, and to a lesser degree the Elves, put a bit of their will into the matter that they are working on. An Elf explains this to the hobbits in The Fellowship of the Ring. Men's will is confined to their bodies, because they do not truly dwell in Ea, and therefore they are unable to make matter do anything except by handling it in strict compliance with its natural properties.
According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot exist when it is present and cannot exist when it is absent, but it can be transformed from one state to another. Accordingly, the power that Sauron transferred to the One Ring comes from his spiritual incarnation. The power it imparts to the One Ring is essentially about focusing power in order to perform a specific function (controlling wills and thus dominating them).
This was great. I liked your broad perspective. To me devices is a very powerful way to understand both the plans,devised by Sauron, and his machinations to concentrate his power. Enough pun I Garoua d. What I mean is we can think of it like a clockwork mechanism, it takes our energy and concentrates it any a way which makes it very effective whilst limiting what it can do. Such is the one ring. I feel also in some ways it draws on the marring of Arda, to make it more powerful. Thanks as ever GNG and keep up the good work.
Interesting question - I think 'not permanently', in the sense that Bilbo - and Sam, though much less - were also 'injured' by the ring, but they never claimed it to the extent and in the way Frodo did (never mind at Sammath Naur - think of 'Smeagol Tamed'); I don't think it was the act of claiming it, just living with it for a while - and, in the case of Frodo, through terrible events. Tolkien said that the time they spent in Valinor was meant to repair these injuries, which is why I'm saying 'not permanently' - but I have no evidence for that beyond the fact that Tolkien saw the stay in Valinor as finite in time.
@@dlevi67 Yeah I always saw his stay in Vallinor as being at peace in the hospitality of the elves for the remainder of Frodo and Bilbo's days rather than them staying there forever.
I just finished my second read of Return of the King. Ah that whole scene with Gollum and Frodo struggling on the crack of doom is just so good. Really I’m glad that Gollum could die happy. He didn’t have an easy life.
I might suggest another framework for interpreting Tolkien's concept(s) of power, specifically relating to the ideas of internal/innate power and external efficacious power. In Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy different types of souls have different powers. Power here is understood primarily as ability. While it may be a bit beyond the scope of this conversation, I would also add that "soul" in this context is understood simply as the unifying principle of life in a given entity. It is that which makes the thing one being that is alive. All of the powers of the soul are thus unified by the soul into facets of a single being. So, for example plants have a soul, since they are alive, and they act as a unified being. The plant soul has the powers of growth, reproduction, metabolism etc. It may have limited powers of sensation, but not to the degree that we would generally consider it to be sentient. The souls of lower animals have all the powers of the plant soul, plus they add to those the powers of sensation either as completely new, or to a much greater degree. For example, plants may be able to sense light, but we would not say that they have the power of sight, which many / most animals do possess. Human souls have all the powers of both plant and animals souls, and they add the power of rationality. These are not exhaustive considerations, but the hopefully serve to illustrate the point of the different powers possessed by different types of souls. This ought to also demonstrate that some types of souls are much greater, or much more powerful than others. They have much more ability. One of the ways in which those greater powers are manifest is in greater capacity to affect and influence the world around them. Most, if not all of the abilities, or powers, of the soul can be manifest in the world around us. This leads us to the concept of external efficacious power. For example, my power of sight interacts with the world around me, and allows me to sense the world, to gather input or receive stimulus from the world, etc. It also allows me to navigate the world, and thus to interact with the world. My power of locomotion allows me to move about the world and to move other things in the world, which gives me the capacity to make changes in the world. My power of intellect allows me to make sense of the world, to interpret the input that I receive from sight, hearing, and so on. It allows me to understand and formulate thoughts and to plan, and have intentions. My power of will, in a sense, stands above all the others, except perhaps the intellect, because it allows me to direct them and to make use of them. When Tolkien talks about the internal / innate power of a being, I submit that he is primarily talking about power in this sense, the powers of the soul. This enumerates the abilities of a being, but it also can govern the degree of the abilities. In other words, a more potent integrating principle can produce greater order. A greater soul can produce more powerful abilities. For example, the power of sight found in the elvish soul may be a greater degree of that power than that which is found in the Human soul, thus elves may be able to see better than humans. In Aristotelian / Thomistic thought, the soul is the organizing principle of the body. The material body is formed according to the soul. Thus if a soul has a greater degree of the power of sight, the eyes of the physical body may be formed with better sight. This leads to the second key principle, which ties into the outward, external, manifestation of power in the world. The idea of instrumentality. In this philosophy, the organic body is the instrument of the soul. The Greek word "organ" literally means "tool" or "instrument". Thus the soul has the power of sight, but the eyes are the "organ" or the instrument of sight. In other words, the soul sees through the eyes. The soul acts through the body. Particularly in a Christian, Thomistic sense, this should not be understood to mean that the body is merely a puppet being played by the soul. The two are a complete unity, but one is the active principle and the other is the medium of action. So, the physical form, the body of elves is higher, and more powerful than the body of humans because the soul of the elves has different powers, both in kind and in degree. Here is where we finally come to the pay off. As the body and the soul are a complete unity, it follows that the powers of the soul and the capacities of the body are perfectly matched, baring deformity or injury. They are natural to each other. However, what if it were possible to externalize a power of your soul into an object that was not your body? What if, for example, you could take something of your power of sight and imbue it into a pair of glasses, or a crystal ball. This could allow you to create what in modern terms we call a "force multiplier". The idea here is that you create something that magnifies an existing ability. It increases the effects in some way. This is essentially what all technology is. Consider a calculator. We have taken our innate ability to do mathematical calculations, and put it into a device that does math much more quickly and with more reliability than we do. We have essentially externalized our ability to do math, and in so doing we have magnified, or multiplied our power to do math far beyond what we are naturally capable of. However, there is a cost. Because we have externalized or "outsourced" our own natural ability, we have also diminished our own innate ability. Because of computers and calculators, very few people can do math anymore. In the primary reality this is the result of disuse and we could regain the ability if we worked at it. We have been doing this in our efforts to control nature for a few centuries now. we have been externalizing our own natural abilities into machines to make our power greater so that we can 'conquer' nature and bend the world to our will. Tolkien was deliberately pointing this out, and asking the question, what are we losing by doing this? There is a kind of devil's bargain that is inevitable in seeking outward domination. When you seek to dominate others, and seek to dominate the world, you inevitable lose control of yourself. The most important control, is self-control. There is a profound truth which Tolkien was aware of that if you have perfect self-control, you leave everything else free to be itself, but the more you seek to control the world around you, the less control you have over yourself, and the less yourself you will be. Now, consider this idea of externalization of power in more "magical" terms. What if you could literally take part of the power of your soul and put it into a physical object, outside of yourself? It would serve as a force multiplier to you. It would give you easier control over your own power, it would magnify it, but it would also diminish you as you are in yourself. Of course, for a human this would be much different than for an Ainur. The Ainur do not have physical bodies by default. They can take on physical forms as they will, but they do not have the same natural unity of body and soul that humans have. The elves, it would see, at least those who beheld the light of the trees also have a different kind of existence in this regard since they exist at once in both the physical and the spiritual realm, in a way that humans do not. This is suggestive of one reason why using a ring of power is so inherently dangerous to a mortal. To the Ainur, or the Eldar, the power that is put into the ring is an externalizing of their own powers of the soul. It may magnify their power in the external world, but it is fundamentally a power that is natural to them. Thus they are not overshadowed by it. This is why immortals do not vanish when they wear one of the rings of power. Instead the ring vanishes. It is suggestive that the ring melds into them rather than over-powering them. When a mortal wears a great ring, however, the power of soul that is in the ring is greater than that of the mortal who wears it. Thus the ring overpowers the mortal and makes him invisible. If he wears the ring often and long, then it will overshadow him completely and he will fade. More specifically the great rings (except the three) were made specifically to work on the power of will. Specifically they were made to lay the minds of their wearers open to Sauron and to extend his will over them. Thus the ring itself has will. The power of will is what Sauron put into it. Mortals who wear it will fall to that will and be overpowered by it. Or if they are strong enough, they could dominate it, but in order to do so they would have to train their will to the domination of other wills, which would essentially make them another Sauron.
I think that line from Galadriel about magic is your most oft quoted one from the books, seems to come up a lot in your discussions, and it is indeed an interesting one.
Good stuff, but there is an explanation on the 'upper limit' of Sauron's power enhancing itself. It's specifically because it controls the other rings. Their very existence makes him more powerful. When the One Ring is destroyed, all the other rings (even the elven rings, which he had no hand in personally making) lose all of their power. Being one of the Maiar, he isn't actually completely destroyed, he's an immortal angelic being, since he's one of the Ainur. He's probably like Saruman (also a Maia) after his death in the Shire; a wandering disembodied spirit with no way to go to the West. Sauron 'dies' when the One Ring is destroyed in Mount Doom, but he can't actually die. He just possesses no power. In fact, JRR Tolkien had begun work on a follow up to Lord of the Rings where people had 'orc cults' that worshipped Sauron as a god. It was never completed (obviously, if it were we'd probably be reading it right now), but it does provide a bit of a glimpse into what Sauron is actually like. It makes sense when you consider Tolkien's worldview. He was a very devout Catholic, and while he hated allegory, he admitted in his letters his works contained much allegory. Eru is the Judeo-Christian God, for example, just in Arda. Aragorn even sings a hymn at one point to Ulmo, the Vala of the Sea, that's seriously just a translated English Catholic hymn to Mary of the Sea, except, you know, masculine. That also makes sense, since Aragorn is a descendant of 'The Faithful', the Numenoreans who continued worship of Eru Illuvater and honoured the Valar.
Yes, and the "enhancement" effect to Sauron's power caused by the One Ring could be that it made it more focussed (specifically for the purposes of dominating ring-wearers) and he probably wanted it back to ensure no-one could destroy it, or use it against him. Interesting also to compare the elf-forged materiality of the Silmarils and their fascination for even the likes of Morgoth: "But the Silmarils were tainted by arrogance and lust by anyone who desired them, starting with Morgoth, then Fëanor. As the Oath of Fëanor proclaimed, it resulted in evil ends, such as the Fall of the Noldor, the Doom of Mandos, Kinslayings and the destruction of Doriath."
@@frankshailes3205 Of course. Tolkien even said if Gandalf took the One Ring, he could theoretically master it, but he'd actually be worse than Sauron. The reasoning being Olorin (Gandalf) was so powerful and good, he would try and forcibly make the entirety of Arda good, ultimately corrupting his own selfless and good nature to a terrible nightmarish evil, by forcing people to obey his own broken concept of good. It's why he says, "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. "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." Gandalf was entirely aware of how powerful he actually is. Imagine Gandalf as the lord of the rings. He'd be absolutely terrifying because he'd force everyone to be good, which would annihilate the concept of free will, which in Catholic theology, which Tolkien was obviously big on, would be an incredibly terrible evil.
@@AnnPMadera There's that issue of the _Sandman_ comics where two angels take over Hell and make it worse. From one theological standpoint, it was the desire to force everyone to do good which created Satan in the first place.
Fantastic discussion of power, missing "only" a consideration of Michel Foucault's oeuvre! I prob missed something, but my prior understanding of one reason that possession of THE ring could increase Sauron's power stems from being able to gain control over the 3 elvish rings...
The abstract definition of power you offer here reminds me of concepts such as dao and chi, which are meant to be descriptions of manifest power rather than, say, the numerical, allegedly fixed, hierarchical power expressed in something like Dragonball. It's also worth noting power that falls outside the abilities of an individual. Even the mightiest elves and Ainur amass armies, and although this is not *strictly* the power of the Ring, this aspect must have been on Gandalf's mind during his explanation to Frodo. Tolkien was, of course, a veteran warrior and enthusiast of early mediaeval history, and LotR is more concerned with military detail than any of his other works. Naturally, I don't mean to refute the video discussion of Tolkienian magical power at all, but I do mean to suggest that the word is used frequently to include mundane power -- even if that's just a Nazgul's attempt to verbally bully the dwarves of Erebor. 💀
One of the things Tolkien says a lot regarding the 'power' of Sauron and Morgoth, even where it's facilitated by some divine or magic device or ability, is that it leaves them *dependent* on the people and things they've controlled - I think sometimes readers, myself included, are too eager to create a distinction between 'mundane' and 'magic' power, since Tolkien (and the Elves) don't seem too concerned with the methods and focus more on the motives. Nazgul, for instance, have a power to spread terror, but even a regular mortal could have invoked a good deal of alarm with veiled threats of Sauronic assault. Even moreso had he been instructed in the dark and terrible arts of rhetoric and body language. So drawing the line is And yes - I think Tolkien would have recoiled in horror from any serious attempt to ascribe levels or numbers to 'power.' It is fun to photoshop scouters onto Sauron's face, though....
@@GirlNextGondor Difficulty in drawing the line is, I believe, strongly intentional. Tolkien's approach toward magic is heavily dependent upon themes, which is why I believe we're so enchanted by its implication in absence of overt evidence -- think of the lightning during Gandalf's encounter with the wraiths at Weathertop. Excellent video and discussion as always.
I feel what Tolkien meant in regards to the dimishing and strengthening of sauron's power both with and without the ring was poorly explained. My take on that concept was this, the voice of the maia was influential in creating the universe through their singing, meaning the power of ones voice and their power to influence the world are almost one and the same, Sauron and Saruman both are known for corruptive communication as well. When Sauron made the ring he essentially copied his influence or "voice" into the ring therefore allowing it to influence like he but as an independent unit, almost like a recording of his voice. Now when sauron is without the ring he still as powerful, or influential, as he was before he made it, but when his second voice in the form of the ring is physically with him sauron's and the ring's natural and recorded voices influence in aplitative harmony together, therefore enhancing sauron's power when with the ring but also technically not diminishing when without. P.s. I'm fully aware this analogy does not work in the context of why he died, I know that you don't die if someone destroys a recording of your voice.
As someone who's ben working on a fantasy novel for far too long now, I can attest both to the desire to "fudge" things, as well as one's ideas evolving (or devolving) over time, as well as forgetting lore you created between drafts. It's not made any easier by the tendency of works in the genre to grow like Topsy.
One of my favorite things about Tolkien is, when he discovers a contradiction or wants to change things around, he often uses it as an excuse to do more worldbuilding. His rationale for why there were two Glorfindels, for instance, created a whole interesting backstory for the character, when it started out as a simple case of grabbing a name from his histories. Elrond and Elros have a similar origin.
S created the ring. I feel like we can enhance ourselves through the act of creating. I know I feel strangely powerful while playing a gig or painting or even dancing. T had it right, Music IS Magic. Ainulindale 🎼
I hadn't considered that angle! -the act of creation does feel 'empowering' when it's going well, and surely Tolkien recognized and enjoyed the benefits of 'flow' as much as any of us. Yet it's also a persistent theme that by creating something you're letting a part of yourself manifest, and thus pass out of your control. We see it with Morgoth and Sauron, yes, but also Feanor with the Silmarils and Yavanna with the Trees. Something I'll have to give more thought to....
The power of the one ring is essentially supranatural vision or insight. Frodo uses it before the fellowship breaks, for example, but of course he is drawn to Sauron and is terrified. It basically puts you in the spiritual world where ordinary rules do not apply. So you could use it to know anything, see all lands, into all minds etc but more particularly what other ringbearers are doing, as long as you have the will to challenge Sauron. Galadriel tells Frodo not to use it (good advice) because he is not willful enough. But he could try, if he put his mind to it, or is panicked and he does at one point. Thats why the wise (Gandalf and Elrond) are tempted but refuse it. It's a wicked thing created by a will to dominate - nobody should have it, however useful. That's why Sauruman wants it. That's why Sauron put so much into it and wants it back so bad and why it would make him relatively unstoppable in the third age. It wouldn't make him invincible (they took it from him) but almost. An 'applicable' equivalent would be government surveillance
I am thinking that maybe the hobbits (Frodo, Bilbo, Smeagol) became invisible when wearing the One Ring because hobbits had natural abilities to hide and move silently. Sauron no doubt had access to a greater range of power when wearing the Ring but the most noteworthy thing that happens when hobbits wear the Ring is invisibility (or for Frodo passing into the ethereal world).
Sauron's creation of the One Ring is his singular act of genius achieving something that was even beyond what Morgoth ever conceived. He found a way to alloy some part of the essence of his being with the stuff of Arda, and in doing so created an artifact that made him more powerful in his own right than he was before he created it. In addition to enhancing his own innate power it also contained within it the power to dominate the wearers of other rings that were created by a related method. So long as Sauron possessed the ring he could exercise domination over those who wore the other rings of power. So long as the ring existed Sauron's enhancement of his innate abilities was increased. His innate abilities within Arda were themselves a function of his embodiment in Arda. When his body was destroyed those innate abilities were destroyed with him until he could re-manifest himself. Presumably as he re-manifested himself the continuing existence of the ring enhanced his abilities at each 'stage' of his re-manfestation. In other words, manifestation is not simply a matter of 'poof, I have a new body and therefore I am now back, and with full power.' As a side note, in thinking about this it occurs to me that the reason that Gollum sees a hand that is missing a finger is that in some sense re-constituting the removed finger would be more 'beautiful' than only being able to manifest without. Perhaps this was in some sense an unstated message from Eru Illuvatar foreshadowing Sauron's ultimate failure.
You know, now I wonder how much power Celebrimbor transferred into the Three. I wonder if his investment ensured that by some mysterious brain fog he'd be unable to craft or even conceive of something of similar greatness. I know Tolkien never mentions this, but creating these artefacts must leave you with an empty feeling, knowing you've just sacrificed the better part of your freedom to change your life and your powers of creation...
The one ring drew power from the other rings of power . The 9 , the 7 , even the 3 . To do this Sauron had to put all the power he had that could control the others as 1. Sauron diminished himself putting some of his power into the ring , but reaped so much more when the 1 that is bound with all the others was worn .
I disagree with your point that the Ring just transmutes power. There's no indication that Celebrimbor lost any significant amount of his power by creating the Three Rings, and there's no hint that Sauron put any of his angelic powers into the Seven or the Nine. Only the One Ring, which was created last, was infused with his power, so the other rings weren't drawing their might from it. So at least the Three, Seven, and Nine did actually grant additional (angelic) powers to their wearers. They were either drawing power from some hidden source (there’s a theory here in the comments about this being Morgoth's power within Arda) or they were violating the first law of thermodynamics, so to speak, i.e., creating additional power. Furthermore, we actually know that the One Ring did in fact increase Sauron's angelic power to a new level. It’s stated somewhere (sorry, I’m not so well-versed in the lore that I can give citations) that Sauron would have been more powerful than ever if he had gotten the Ring during the events of The Lord of the Rings. Finally, I don't see how character traits like empathy, self-awareness, and repentance are derived from angelic power, given their very different distribution among people with comparable power levels. To conclude: All the Rings, except for the One, enhance or increase someone’s power without drawing on innate angelic power. The One Ring, which did require innate angelic power to create, gives back more power than it took. That’s what makes the Rings so special, and why they are called the Rings of Power: They grant power that wasn’t there, or at least not accessible, before their creation.
I love the idea that "magic" with Tolkien is the deep understanding of the world as expressed through the songs of the ainur. Ring craft is Sauron's domain because he sang it into existence at the beginning of time. It's written into the nature of reality because a Valar or Maiar made it that way. Same as any other magic- it's an idea a God or angel wove into the world. It's not magic, it's just a secret.
I find this especially delightful because even the Valar themselves don't always know how their 'themes' are going to be expressed, especially when they interact with the ideas of others. So Ulmo, for instance, is surprised to find that Melkor has turned water to vapor and now he's involved in the sky as well, in the form of clouds. Eru has to point out the emergence of the Ents to Yavanna and Manwe. So while they're far cleverer than Elves or Men, even the Ainur can be surprised and learn new tricks as history unfolds.
The real magic and power was the ability to sing stuff into existence in the first place.
@@GirlNextGondorplease make a video on the Tolkien's themes of anti-technology, anti-modernity, and how the theme of the "past was better" challenges the vast majority of people's assumption that "progress" is linear (in other words, how most contemporary people just assume that things are better now than they were in the past for our species and that they can only get better...much of this based in people's near religious-like faith in the ability of technology to solve any and every problem, or what sociology calls "techno-optimism")
@@kevinrussell1144 I think this quote from Eru to Melkor in the beginning nicely sums up why he won't control and supress Melkor's evil:
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
JRRT, being a devoted catholic and all, is trying to solve the age old "problem of evil" of theological philosophy with these lines. Basically from Eru's perspective, all is going according to the divine plan, and Melkor's "discord" is not a discord at all. When you think about it, (just like the Ulmo and the clouds example from the top comment) all the beautiful stories that Tolkien tells us are born from the heroes that try to confront and oppose the evil of Melkor. No evil, nothing to oppose to and be brave against = no wonderful stories to tell.
The idea of innate power that can be traded away for some other form of gain is an important concept in many mythological traditions. Certainly in the Eddas, Sagas, Greek mythology and other inspirations of Tolkien's.
Paraphrasing Frodo's proverb to Gildor in woods of the Shire, "Go not to Tolkien scholars for council on the rings-power-org chart, for they will say both no and yes... And they'll say it in Elvish languages where yes and no mean a bunch of disparate concepts that Tolkien hadn't really finished thinking about before he died!" 🙂
😂😂 To counterparaphrase with Olwe's words: "It may be the part of a friend to rebuke a friend's folly... particularly when said friend is hell-bent on pursuing an inherently unattainable goal and is too inflamed by their own hubris to recognize it."
You make a powerful argument 😀
The more I learn about the legendarium the more I am amazed that one single mind was capable of creating all of that! Languages, mythology, history, lineages, beautiful prose and poems... And not as a fulltime job but as a mere hobby while the man had a full academic career as well! Unbelieveable😯
Thank you Lexi for fueling my appreciation.
He may not have matched them for quantity but In my opinion, Tolkien definitely matched Goethe and Shakespeare for quality.
God works in mysterious ways. LOTR is a very thorough Catholic work, Tolkien himself said so. I like to believe that God used the genius of a man like Tolkien to have such a wonderful legendarium to be created, which teaches people Christian morals and ethics. Even atheists who follow the philosophy behind LOTR become unaware more Christian-like.
@@wulfheort8021no we don't 😊
@@thomashogben149 Yes, you do. LOTR is riddled with Catholic morality. That means if you lrt LOTR influence you, you are being influenced by Catholicism. Deny it all you want, it wont change facts.
@@wulfheort8021he also added elements of Germanic and Finnish pagan ideals, which creates a very interesting mix with the Catholic parts. Not really surprising since he was a massive fan of Nordic mythology, the Kalevala, and Anglo-Saxon poetry.
Fëanor says he can never remake the Silmarils. Is this an effect of him pouring his own self into the gems? Yavanna says something similar about the Trees - is this also the same as what Mairon and Melkor did?
I’ve always thought that this was more Tolkien saying that masterpieces can only be made once. Trying to repeat something that beautiful never works, it becomes forced, artificial and empty almost.
@@denislemenoir Trade uniqueness for expressibility. To make something again and again is to make it less unique. Much like how seeing the same word over and over again will sometimes rob it of meaning to the reader.
@@denislemenoir @Valdagast I think this is a case of "it's not either/or". Even in the real world, authors say that they pour their own selves into their works, that they go pregnant with, give birth to etc. a work of their art, and I guess that the idea that these things cannot be repeated is actually something that derives from real-world feelings of artists about their works. Could Tolkien have reproduced, say, the Hobbit, if it every exemplar of it was destroyed and knowing-by-heart-and-dictating-from-memory doesn't count?
The Childlike Empress needs a name again, always a new one, to quote another author, Michael Ende (speaking through Morla the Ancient).
I've always thought that when Morgoth created Orodruin, he put a lot of his "power" into it. I think that Sauron was able to access this power and add his own to create the One Ring. So when Sauron has the Ring, he is easily more powerful because he is applying Morgoth's power as well as his own. This could also explain why Sauron could not resist leaving the Ring behind when he went to Numenor as a prisoner.
There's hints that I want to explore in the future suggesting that manipulating the 'Morgoth element' in Arda is the way the Rings get their powers. This would make sense with Sauron being the only one to fully understand how they work, and as you pointed out it fits with Orodruin being the place where the Ruling Ring was forged - a concentration of Morgothiness.
@@GirlNextGondor
Please do make a video. The Ring of Morgoth is such an important aspect of the Legendarium, yet it is not clear what it does other than corrupt Men. If the power can be accessed by Sauron, it would clarify a lot of problems I have with Sauron and the Ring.
@@GirlNextGondor I am deeply delighted by the phrase "a concentration of Morgothiness"
@Enerdhil: But didn't Tolkien say somewhere that Sauron did take the ring to Numenor, and this explains in part why he could so readily dominate the "King's Men" party there (who, granted, were prone to such persuasion by themselves)?
@@MoritzGruber7
Yes, Tolkien said Sauron was wearing the One Ring when he was in Númenor. I don't think Tolkien said he needed it to deceive the King and his Men. It was more like Sauron was not able to leave it behind. I am sure Sauron did not need to use his Ring to do anything he did in Númenor.
I really like your channel. I appreciate Tolkien channels that combine a depth of knowledge with a depth of analysis. Good job!
OMG you are easily the best Tolkien lore analyzer in the internet! There is no better feeling than just seeing notifications pop up in your channel. I always thought ring is just like a sign of becoming a ''dark lord'' , Melkor and Sauron had to spread their angelic and intangible powers into the matter to effect those in it and this is the definition of the ''evil'' in Tolkiens works. Evil beings such as Melkor or Balrogs are just so obsessed with claiming power of pyshicall matter, they simply cannot understand how much they fell in REAL power, that being more quick and effective power of divinity.
Speaking of ring my head canon theory is that Sauron and Melkor are primary examples of two types of magic in Tolkiens works, magia and goeteia. Melkor since the beginning of time always tend to destroy Arda and bind anything in it to his will, in order to achieve that he used more destructive and easier method of magic, magia but this caused him fall in might more easily and pitifully. On the other hand Sauron used being of more wisdom and patience, used goeteia and such practices to gain power. This can be seen when he created ring, Sauron was just a powerfull dark entity before the one ring was made and for this period he cannot be called as dark lord imo but when he creates the ring he has power over other subjects and wills of his servants, making him a god-like being that doesnt do everything directly. Sauron used goeteia even in battles, when you analyz he just makes his opponents fear him rather than just outright kill them like Morgoth , this is an exchange because if his opponent overcomes his dark presence Sauron is not in a good position. This is why he falls in might when ring is taken from him, he doesnt lose his innate power but he loses the power as a Dark Lord so his influence on his armies; Nazgul, will power etc is weakened and when he regains the ring he once again claims this type of effectivnesses making him more enhanced in the so called '' Earth'' in the process.
This video is like intellectual, fantasy crack for my brain. Great work!
I find it fascinating that Sauron couldn't grasp the idea that someone would want to destroy the one ring as he's so blinded by his desire for control and domination. But, in a way, he is sort of right as when it ultimately comes down to it Frodo doesn't want to destroy it and gives in to the temptation of taking it for himself.
Glad you enjoyed it!
That Sauron, overthinker and cunning planner par excellence, would overlook something so simple is a big part of Tolkien's 'message,' if you ask me: all the might and cleverness in the world won't do you any good if you lose perspective.
@@GirlNextGondor It is concepts like that which make Tolkien's writings so compelling to me. The complex relationships between power, free will, good and evil that he wrote into his work give more and more meaning the deeper you dig into the stories... Don't want to go too deep though, wouldn't like to wake up any grumpy, ancient, shadowy, corrupted flame angels who haven't gotten enough beauty sleep.
The committed totalitarian monarchist Sauron could not conceive of the anarcho-primitivist Hobbits. Even in the real world most people who are entrenched with, defined by and benefit from, (or are simply deeply entrapped by) complex social and economic hierarchies can be so focused on their relations to those hierarchies, find it inconceivable that someone could genuinely dismiss or oppose the existence of those hierarchies. How many works of fiction have you seen where the term "anarchist" or "anarchy" is used to evoke images chaos or mass violence, or a neo-liberal writer who writes about their thinly veiled communist allegory as just being greedy and trying to put themselves on top of society in place of those currently on top. Or a religious author who cannot for the life of them write a character that genuinely does not believe in any higher powers at all or in some cases cannot even write an original religion not like his own. Some people are incapable of reaching outside of themselves.
@@GirlNextGondor Yup, it wasn't until the very end, when Frodo claimed the Ring for his own and Sauron sensed him, that Sauron realized what was happening. I think that the perspective that he lost was part of what came to him in that blinding flash of realization that he had underestimated, and been outsmarted by, Gandalf and Aragorn, and that everything he'd been focused on had been a distraction to ensure he could never rise again.
It also speaks to Sauron still being intelligent, since he instantly grasped what was going on and commanded the Ringwraiths to the mountain; him understanding how and why it was happening makes his downfall even more poetic imo
I think part of the difficulty in understanding power in Tolkien's works comes from regarding them as part of the fantasy genre, from the perspective of the conventions that have evolved within the genre: power is understood in terms of mechanics, rules, "magic systems" whose logic has become a standard by which to judge the merit of a work within the conventions of the genre. When I read the account of the Fellowship in Lothlorien I'm reminded of this. I don't think the Elves would recognize the kind of "magic" that is so conventionally systematized within the genre as it has developed. That development owes a lot to game mechanics, which need to treat magic as something rational in order to keep game rules coherent. It's been a useful check for the fancies of authors who didn't have Tolkien's humility or erudition.
Regarding "magic" or "power" from a more, let's say, occultist standpoint, its nature and operation in Tolkien's work makes a lot more sense. Not to say Tolkien would ever have thought of himself as an occultist or had much sympathy with those who did (recall his surmising about the Blue Wizards), but he was steeped in Iron Age folklore, which came from a worldview that took enchantment and "magic" for granted, that saw the world as full of "powers we cannot perceive" (to quote Neil Peart). Tolkien also came of age in an era of English history when crises of modern rationalism and traditional beliefs produced creative works such as _Dracula_ and mass-produced popular editions of fairy tales, as well as the heyday of occultism that produced the Rider-Waite Tarot deck.
Another of Tolkien's contamporaries, Carl Jung, recorded a conversation with a spirit guide from whom he hoped to learn magic. Philemon told him at one point: "Magic happens to be precisely everything that eludes comprehension."
Tolkien used words like "magic" and "bewitchments" to describe Gandalf's manipulations of fire and lights - when he was in the comic mode of _The Hobbit._ _The Lord of the Rings_ presents a much more serious, grounded view of "magic" - refusing to indulge the kinds of definitions or uses of the word that are so comfortable to reading and writing fantasy as an established genre. There are those conversations with the Elves in Lorien. There are "spells of ruin" on Grond, a "virtue" of finding on the walking sticks Faramir gives to Sam and Frodo. There are "virtues" and "powers" associated with things, places, beings, that aren't easily explained or understood. Just how it is in folk-tale, fairy-tale, ancient epic . . . and, depending on how much stock you put in this kind of thing, just how it is in real life.
Consider the book _The 48 Laws of Power._ The power it speaks of isn't "supernatural" or D&D-type magic, but the power that people gain and wield through mind games and political manipulation is real and *potent.* I see something similar to the power that Sauron and his servants wield in _The Lord of the Rings._ Consider the Ringwraiths, whom Jackson equips with swords, armor and practically with character sheets showing hit points, armor class and spell level stats. In the books they are terrible but their terror and their power is not mechanical in the way that a wraith in D&D would be, nor are they terrible in the same way as Jackson's invisible swordsmen. In fact, in some ways they're weak and vulnerable. They can be banished by invoking the name of Elbereth. They are put to flight by a bunch of Hobbits blowing a horn in the middle of the night. I don't think Jackson really knew what to do with them, or how to really portray them, because he misapprehended their nature: he treats them and other bad guys like D&D monsters instead of examples of our real fears. How many of us as children could be terrified by a dark shape in the basement? ( _The Face in the Frost_ by John Bellairs is based on a sound understanding of this kind of fear.)
I think when the Hobbits blew the horn in "A Knife in the Dark" they summoned a power in their collective courage and in the nature of their land that overcame the wraiths' powers of fear for the moment. I agree with your conclusion: the nature of power in Tolkien's sub-created world is, like the nature of power in our world, susceptible to shifts. It has laws, yes, but it does not work according to the "magic system" mechanics of role-playing games or genre fantasy fiction.
Can't understand why you don't have a million views. Just found this channel and it is so good!!
😍
About "Power" and its different usage in languages.
You talked about the fact the word comes from the latin. French's word for "Power" is the word "Pouvoir" (pronounced Poo-Vwar) wich is both a noun and a verb.
The noun refers to the ability to do something. It can refer to legal and political concepts (Le pouvoir d'un dictateur, la séparation des pouvoirs législatifs, exécutifs et judiciaires), but can also refer to other things. With the influence of pop culture, "Le pouvoir" can refer to supernatural abilities. "Un pouvoir magique" (A magical power). Or something more coming from agency "Avoir du pouvoir sur sa vie" (Having power over one's own life).
All of this doesn't seem that different from english.
But in english, there is the specific meaning of forces. A power plant. I'm not aware, in my own language, that there is something similar in french. We can call it "Une centrale" (A center from wich energy is produced) and generally comes with a descriptive of what kind of energy is produced there. Mainly, power plant is translated as "Centrale Électrique". But a nuclear power plant, or nuclear plant, will be called "Centrale nucléaire". So instead of using the word "Power plant", the word "Centrale" seems to be the "equivalent". And since it refers to a center, it reveals that the place from wich power originates seems more important than the power, the energy itself.
In my region of Québec, there are a lot of hydroelectric power plants. Workers in the mid XXth century called it "Travailler sur le pouvoir" (Work on the power) wich is a francisation of the term "Work on the power plant". The main reason of this is that the bosses were mostly english speakers and often, words travelled from the english people in power (see what I did there) to the french speaking workers (In a funny inversion of how english got its french influences Tolkien hated so much because of the Normand elite) This shows how words and meanings attached to them can travel from a language to another. But with time, that borrowing of english terms in french disappeared, as the english speaking bosses either left or assimilated themselves to the french speaking communities.
As for the verb, the verb "Pouvoir" litterally means "To be able to", "To can".
Saying "Je peux" (conjugation of the verb "pouvoir" at the present indicative, first person singular) means "I can". This comes to reinforce that notion of you having (or not) the power to run a marathon. In french, the term "Pouvoir" is even more closely linked to that meaning of being able to, through its preservation of the latin verb POTERE (wich migrated to Po-ere with the dropping of the T, and the eventual adding of the sound "V" linking the vowels creating Po-v-ere etc.)
Sorry for the tangent. Hope some language enthusiasts here found this interesting.
Definitely interesting - thank you! One point to consider, though, is that although French does not use 'pouvoir' as 'physical power' (energy in time), it uses 'puissance', which has the same root (in fact it derives from puissant, which is the present participle of 'pouvoir')
Tangents always welcome, especially etymological.
I suppose in US English it wouldn't be that unusual to call such a place an 'electrical plant' or 'nuclear plant' etc. And there are other kinds of 'plant' than power, eg chemical plants.
(Side note, couldn't find anything substantiated, but a few ideas for why it would be called a 'plant' and not a center, a 'works,' a factory, etc. included: 'Plant' is short for 'plantation;' a reference to assembly lines being inspired by plants (presumably a central stalk fed by roots with leaves at intervals along the way?), a reference to a large building or operation being 'planted' on the earth, and a distinction between a 'plant,' where physical or chemical *conversions* take place, versus a 'factory' where an object is made. All interesting; no idea which if any is true.)
I did wonder whether 'power' was a particularly fitting word to investigate, since having a Latin origin suggests that not only the English-speaking world but also the Romance languages would have a similarly broad conception of the word. And my limited knowledge of Latin suggests that there were plenty of derivatives and extended senses even for 'potere.' So it seems to be a more universal, 'human' assumption to contrast against those of our fictional Elves.
@@dlevi67 Faramir describes Aragorn as "puissant" when talking to Eowyn.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
craft (n.)
Old English cræft (West Saxon, Northumbrian), -creft (Kentish), "power, physical strength, might," from Proto-Germanic *krab-/*kraf- (source also of Old Frisian kreft, Old High German chraft, German Kraft "strength, skill;" Old Norse kraptr "strength, virtue"). The ultimate etymology is uncertain.
Sense expanded in Old English to include "skill, dexterity; art, science, talent" (via a notion of "mental power"), which led by late Old English to the meaning "trade, handicraft, employment requiring special skill or dexterity," also "something built or made." The word still was used for "might, power" in Middle English.
@@charlesstanford1310 You are not making much sense. Craft is not etyomologically from the same root as power. Puissant entered English from Norman French in the 12th Century; it became obsolete and replaced by the hybrid 'powerful', coupling a Latin root to a Saxon suffix.
It remains true that English can use one term ("power") to express both the physical, scientific meaning and the other more abstract ones. French (and other Romance languages) use two: pouvoir and puissance, potere and potenza (IT), poder and potencia (ES), poder and potência (PT). English has 'potency', but again it only has the "non physicist" meaning (and it is more restricted than the Romance equivalents above).
@@dlevi67 I guess I should have made two separate comments. I posted that about "Craft" to offer a comparison of Germanic to Romance words for similar concepts. Sorry for the confusion.
I think the chief insight I drew from listening to this analysis is maybe a deeper understanding of how Tolkien related to this legendarium in terms of fairy story: he assumed the role of an outside observer and reteller rather than overtly exercising authority as creator and owner of the world. Thus he gave himself plenty of latitude to let a few principles stay mysterious even as he presented the stories that depended on them; he refused to enforce a “foolish consistency.”
Reading the material in HoMe you really see him wavering between two impulses: the love of mystery and 'remoteness' and the love of exploring and building up details about his world. They were in tension, but there was sufficient space in his mind for two such hobgoblins!
The more one digs into Tolkien, the more it becomes plain he was operating on a higher level of intellect than most of us. The fact that you can explore his world so thoroughly is a credit to you.
A lot of it was just good, old obscurantism.
Tolkien was a brilliant man, but he was also just a man.
Nah man, he just really liked the stuff he was interested and put it to paper. A lot of people can do something not dissimilar with the right mix of passion, time and dedication.
Thank you for a Great video and a lot of inspiring thoughts. From my understanding, the One ring functions under a couple of simple rules.
1) It resonates with the natural powers of the wielder and increases them.
2) It tempts the wielder with new powers or illusions of it.
3) All the wishes of the wielder turn to the darker path.
4) It turns not only wielder but people surrounding him to darkness.
5) All gained darkness feeds it's true master and his plans
9:23 Interestingly, this is a distinction that Catholic philosophy draws between “hope-as-habit” (one of the three theological virtues, which are supernaturally gracious gifts), and the merely natural “hope-as-passion.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas explains this distinction in the Summa (Secunda Secundae, Question 17, Article 1).
I think a lot of Tolkien’s “peculiarities” and the quirks in his worldbuilding become a lot clearer when viewed through his deeply held Catholic faith and love for the scholastic tradition of Aquinas, Augustine, and Bonaventure.
Wonderful! Thanks, Lexi! :)
Thank you so much, Dorwin! So glad you enjoyed it! 💖
@@GirlNextGondor It was outstanding!
I remember an old commercial for ferrairo Roche chocolate, fancy dinner party at an embassy, oh mr ambassador with these ferrero Roche your spoiling us . Well with you content ms lexi your spoiling us. Lol
Served up in a little gold wrapper just for you mr. Nolan 🤣
@@GirlNextGondor agh thank you , i want one now ( or four )
Thanks Lexi! You are cranking these out!
Again an indepth analyses that helps to understand Tolkien even more and what is missed by most readers (including me). Thank you.
This was a really great video, it gave me the first real sense of what it actually meant for Tolkien to be "creating a world to hold his languages". I can imagine the act of deciding which words to split up and how to split them up must have contributed a lot to the sheer depth of meaning the legendarium feels like it has. Thinking about why a culture would define two different types of hope, and have no word for magic is such a rich source of inspiration to create a culture.
Ooh… nice music at beginning! Now I have an excuse to delay morning yard work!
I really liked that track 😊
Maybe you can open an inquiry about the exact meaning of 'yard work' and delay even further?...
@@GirlNextGondor that could trigger a complete re-negotiation of the Great Chore Split Agreement of 1996… and that’s a scary thought!
Whoa - I just looked at my phone and saw this, haha. Watching now.
I actually watched instead of listening this time, and I have to say that the art you use is utterly gorgeous. There is a picture of Tol Sirion with Thangorodrim in the background that had me searching with a flashlight under the furniture fir my jaw.
www.deviantart.com/jonathanguzi/art/Tol-Sirion-559467588
^^ this one? He has a particularly excellent Nargothrond too ;)
Love the opening imagines thanks lexi .
Great great video. I am very glad one of my favourite and most interesting Tolkien Tubers is back. I hope you are well.
I think it not pedantry if you are not forcing your knowledge (especially with your accustomed humility) upon others, but offering it for those interested, accompanied by a willingness to engage in respectful debate. Thank you yet again for another wonderful video.
Good point, I comfort myself with the knowledge that my audience is far from captive 😁. Glad you enjoyed!
Great analysis of a VERY tricky subject. Love the attention to detail!
3:14 How can Sauron's power in Arda be enhanced over his original power? I see it this way: Sauron converted some of the power he had in the unseen realm into power over Arda through the forging of the ring.
The power of the Ring is definitely wrapped up, somehow, in making the Unseen Seen and vice-versa, I'm not sure which direction it primarily goes or if this would vary depending on the user, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of it.
After Lexi's video, I think of the Ring as a lens. It definitely has a focusing aspect, but it also necessarily blurs the fringe and completely difracts at the edge, and to be useful, it must be turned this way and that.
The in-depth scholarly analysis of your videos never stops to amaze me. Well done, again!
Thank you so much! 🥰
The Rings of Power are force multipliers. Morgoth blew his load trying to bend the world to his will and became dangerously diminished. (Creating Ancalagon must have really left him short of breath.)
Sauron learned from the fate of his master and already possessing great skill in smithcraft, he forged the Rings. And his plan worked with Dwarves and Men.
Poor tolkien, as you said, he was instrested in how words change meaning over time but didn't foresee the line in Sam's song "Golden showers" changing 😅 hahah. Glad Peter changed it for the extended edition
You're doing great work with your video's; don't give up, love 'em!
Thank you so much! 🥰
17:55 if the Ring enhances the natural power of the possessor, then all who hoped to use the Ring against Sauron, were indeed fools. A stronger Boromir still isn't no where near as powerful as Sauron.
23:50 Sauron was right. Even Frodo didn't want to destroy the Ring. It was destroyed by pure chance/fate, not intentionally.
The discussion of the two elvish meanings of hope alone should make every Tolkien fan take notice of your work. This is some incredible analysis.
Such a great video 💕. Really loved it!
My pleasure as always!
Wow, you are just cranking this out! Nice job!
I just saw I used the same terminology as the other person. I guess that's what you truly are doing. Haha
My personal intellectual project for my own satisfaction is to completely understand Tolkien's legendarium as deeply as I can at it's most advanced form of development as it existed in his head.
What is (unlimited) power?
*Force lighting Intensifies*
😂
I really enjoy your contemplations since they make me think more deeply about my own writting as well as exploring the aplicability of discussed ideas and concept into the cosmogony of my setting. Thank you for the content of such thought provoking quality.
Wow, I really liked this vid. I appreciate that you can have nuanced speculation on this topic that I believe is super important! Great job
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! Definitely a topic that calls for nuance 😉
When Saurons power is described it could sometimes be about his empire, armies etc.
At other times it could be his personal power.
We know that there is a difference between Sauron with a ring and without:
In the second age, the elves could not use the three rings because Sauron had the one ring and they would have been dominated by Sauron (his original plan).
In the third age the elves used their rings without fear of domination.
That's exactly it - such a simple concept but I feel like people get so caught up in sourcing evidence and building arguments they overlook the possibility that "Sauron's Power" might mean different things depending on context. It could be political power, talent, physical power, "personal" power, etc. I think especially where this word is concerned there's ample evidence that Tolkien himself recognized the distinctions.
I did leave off any discussion of the 'power' the Ruling Ring had over the others in this one - but you're of course right; in addition to its general enhancement powers, the Ring did have a very specific purpose. Without it, Sauron couldn't interfere with the use of the Three (though the other 16 were apparently still susceptible to his influence). I imagine he found this endlessly irritating 😅
@@GirlNextGondor Sauron spent a long time in the third age to reclaim the nine and the seven rings of power(three of them had survived).
it's possible that Sauron did this because the Nazgul were enslaved by their own rings.
Since he no longer posessed the one ring, he needed to take back the nine rings to fully control the Nazgul.
Just a theory.
Wisdom is power. In that case your power is limitless.
WOW! this was amazing!
Unlimited Power! . . . Wait, wrong franchise! 😄
Tune in next month for a discussion on varieties of power in the Force and....
Very intelligent, inspiring and original analysis!
new drinking game: Take a shot everytime the word "power" is said.
🍻
Fascinating. It’s interesting how much ambiguity and interpretation can be applied to the most base concept of the narrative. Another core theme in his writings which I find extremely compelling are the concepts of order and chaos. Perhaps even more central to the transformation of Melkor to Morgoth and the impetus for Mairon’s initial draw towards him, it’s the difference between the two. While existing simultaneously are the two mutually exclusive or critically linked for the existence of the other? What interpretations can be drawn from their meanings and application? Does power in the form of physical magic derive from one or both? Is dark magic rooted exclusively in chaos and vice versa? I find this questions provocative and at the heart of what Tolkien conceived as the central conveyance of creation.
Great video! This warms my lit major heart!
Lit majors of the world unite! 🥹
When talking about Sauron's power being enhanced with the ring or diminished without the ring I think there is more to it than that. When Sauron's body was destroyed in the fall of Numenor he himself was weakened because he lost his own form. He could no longer shape shift for example into were creatures or a vampire, he no longer possessed a physical form in which to do so.
He was nothing but spirt, trapped in the known world in spirit form. This lack of a physical form took a great deal of his power regardless of the possession of the ring which was meant to enhance his power not of himself but a power over others. The true power of the ring was to gain power over others. Because Sauron had no true physical form he had to spend all of his time and energy slowly becoming powerful again even though he had no physical form. He was no longer skin, flesh and bones, he was spirit and not much different than the Nazgul who were able to exist both in the known world and that of the unseen world. Sauron was struggling for a great deal of time just to gain back what was lost.
The reason he desired to gain back possession of the ring was because it would enable him to once again attempt to control and dominate others who had free will, not Orc's and Trolls and Nuzgul who had no real free will of their own but to control those who opposed him with that free will. The same beings of good who held the "sacred fire" to resist within them. He knew that without the ring his diminished power due to the loss of his form would be futile in the end. He lost his form fleeing Numenor, spent ages rebuilding himself (whatever that means) then when he was ready he launched the war of the last alliance and lost his form once again because it was the ring that held him together as a being with form.
Before the loss of his physical body at the fall of Numenor he was indeed powerful and the ring enhanced, not his innate power but his power and control over others. He transferred some of his own power into the ring in order to achieve this but doing this did not diminish his power, it just altered where that power resided. Once his physical body was lost all of this changed. This is why he needed his ring back because it held a portion of his previous power which would allow him to once again attain physical form and also control over others.
I know my own explanation here is convoluted sorry. But I think my point came across I hope
Thank you for creating and continuously building this. Incredibly well done 🙌❤️🤘
Wonderful video! Thank you so much for the lovely video. I will use an ambiguous amount of power to specifically transmute that like button for you!
And I in turn will avoid trying to quantify how much of your power you've expended in doing so 😆thank you kindly!
Beautiful mind. Thanks for all your videos.
So nice of you to say that, glad you enjoyed!
@@GirlNextGondor I find your videos very helpful in my own "Tolkien thinking processes" so to say :D
Your commentary highlights the fact that we hang on every written word and utterance of JRRT. The depth of his thought is wonderfully engaging, if endlessly frustrating.
3:14 I don't see a problem with this part. Sauron can enhance his own power with the Ring like we can enhance our ability to smash things by making a hammer with the very hands that are inferior at smashing compared to a hammer. There is an upper limit on what tools can do for us, but we can enhance ourselves by our own power.
3:50 This part, by my interpretation, just means that Sauron didn't lose access to the power he put into the Ring no matter where the Ring was. To put it in crude mathematical terms: Sauron before forging the Ring is at 100% power. Sauron wearing the Ring is "enhanced", so at more than 100% power because the Ring enhances his power, like a tool or a catalyst and he still has access to the power that he put into the Ring. Sauron who is not wearing the Ring is "not diminished" which means he is at 100% power, because while it is said that he needs to wear the Ring for it to make him more powerful, it is also said that he does not lose access to the initial power he put into the Ring (no matter where it is).
The Ring does two things here: Contain Sauron's power (which he always has access to) and enhancing Sauron's power (which requires wearing it).
This is very cool!
I alwsys thought something very similar to this.
I assumed that the ring took a certain portion of Sauron's....essence? if you will, and anchored it more firmly in the physical realm by pouring it into an actual physical object. He embodied part of himself.
In a similar way to how Morgoth poured much of himself into the corruption of Middle Earth, and therefore increased his influence in subtle and nearly ubiquitous ways. The cost of that increase of total influence being that he spread himself thin and became less potent when taking acute action in person.
Sauron, being Aule's pupil, seems to have devised that keeping his earthly investment on his personage gave him the best of both options.
If Sauron's essence is in the ring and in himself, it technically still exists in total so long as the ring exists in the physical realm. Therefore he is not diminished without it so much as less dynamic. Part of him was still out there, corrupting and controlling people and turning proto-hobbits into flat-footed sushi connoisseurs with dissociative identity disorder. His total force of will, his intention, still existed, but it could not be wholly unified and therefore made most effective unless he was in possession of the ring.
Sort of like how I'm supposed to be walking my dog right now, but I was also writing this comment. My intention was split and therefore I stepped in dog sh*t.
Now this does raise a few questions. If that part of Sauron "dies" with the ring, does that mean Morgoth's power diminishes every time a creature embodying a portion of his will is slain? It seems unlikely. And since Barad-dur immediately collapses and the orcs return to monke when the ring is destroyed, was Sauron still able to access some of the benefits of that physical embodiment and work somewhat in concert even without possession of that part of himself?
Edit- I know this video is 2 years old but I really hope she sees this.
This made me appreciate Tolkien's languages a whole lot more. Thank you (:
A high powered video for sure! 😁
🌩🌩
Just started watching your channel, GREAT artwork number 1 and I get breaking things down in Tolkien’s universe bud I also feel like he intentionally left a lot of things grey so our own imagination will feed the story so everyone has a slightly different way of seeing the story. Great video BTW!
Regarding Morgoth and Sauron and their "power," it seems to me that there might be two forms of power involved here. One would be an internal, inherent form of power that they have a certain amount of when they come into existence. This may be true of all who have a fëa. This explains the growing weakness of Morgoth as he poured this power into Arda. On the other hand, there is another externally accessible power that can be used, even drained, but can be restored.
A simple example would be someone goes for a walk. Depending on the individual, the person may be able to a relatively short distance, or a somewhat longer one, or a very long one. But eventually the walker must rest and possibly drink and eat to restore their ability to keep walking. But they can do this and if they work on their own capabilities they can be able to walk longer before needing to rest. Perhaps some combination of these two concepts might resolve some of the peculiarities of what on the surface appear to be Tolkien contradicting himself.
Your instincts appear to have support: while innocently gathering sources I ran into another section of Myths Transformed, about the possibility of Morgoth regenerating himself - even the possibility that he could 'recall' some of his dispersed power from Arda. Didn't have time to fully explore it in this one, but it was both fascinating and horrifying.
I think the 'walking' metaphor is a good one because it also fits with, eg, Sauron being exhausted after Numenor's fall and needing time to get his feet back under him (so to speak😆). And also it seems that there's a tipping point after which you lose even the ability to try to restore yourself - in abovementioned essay Tolkien says that Morgoth, being so tremendously great in his beginnings, would have retained his ability to regenerate even after his profligacy - but the remnants of Sauron (and presumably Saruman?) would not have been cause for concern.
My impression is that Melkor poured his power into all of Ea, not just Arda.
You might be interested in looking into ideas like "quiddity" or "ousia".
I wonder if the enhancement to his power is due to the fact that sauron put much of his being within the great ring and it’s connection to the other rings. If so, does it mean that because the ring governs and is connected to the other rings in some way, when he wears it, he has access to the other ring bearer’s ‘power’, essentially pulling from them and adding to his own?
Great video keep up the good work
I have a question, for which I don't think there is an answer so I'm more likely asking for your opinion: you mentionned that for a long time during the third age no one knew the ring still existed. For the elves or Istari (and men) I could agree because of their lack of knowledge, but Sauron must have known the ring was still out there somewhere right?
I don't remember the exact timeline but at some point Saruman begins searching for the ring. I wonder what happened, he might have obtain some intel, or maybe the fact that Sauron was still active made Saruman realize that the ring was still present.
Anyway just sharing my thoughts, thanks for this video, so glad you're back!
Are not the three elven rings different than how rings of power were described at the end? They are meant to slow decay, but don't seem to give the wielder an obsession with power/domination. It seems that is something added to all the other rings by Sauron.
Hard to say exactly - in the letter the passage is from, Tolkien's been chronologically describing the history of the Second Age. He tells about Rings of Power made with Sauron's 'help,' stops to comment on the powers of the Rings generally, and then describes the creation of the Three, being 'directed to the preservation of beauty' and remaining 'unsullied.' It seems they weren't quite as attuned to domination, but on the other hand Tolkien considers even the Three a misguided attempt to alter or control the flow of history. My own theory is that while the Three weren't as actively corruptive as the others, anything that increases one's power beyond what is natural carries the *risk* of inflaming that person's pride, and you'd have to be very wise and very cautious to use them rightly.
@@GirlNextGondor Perhaps the difference is that they were able to overcome the temptation to power and ultimately give up the power of their own rings by helping to destroy the one ring of Sauron. It seems we can see this especially in the character arc of Galadriel.
I always thought it interesting that Treebeard says of Saruman "He is plotting to become a Power", with a capital p. Who are the other Powers, that Saruman seeks to join?
Magic, in all of the forms we see it, is a direct response of matter to the will, and Tolkien's understanding of this fact--informed by his theology--is why his handling of it is more satisfying than what can be found in the works of other authors. Throughout the legendarium, the Ainur, and to a lesser degree the Elves, put a bit of their will into the matter that they are working on. An Elf explains this to the hobbits in The Fellowship of the Ring. Men's will is confined to their bodies, because they do not truly dwell in Ea, and therefore they are unable to make matter do anything except by handling it in strict compliance with its natural properties.
Hearing a pleasant female voice talking about Tolkien and all things LOTR is fast becoming my favorite ❤❤❤
According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot exist when it is present and cannot exist when it is absent, but it can be transformed from one state to another. Accordingly, the power that Sauron transferred to the One Ring comes from his spiritual incarnation. The power it imparts to the One Ring is essentially about focusing power in order to perform a specific function (controlling wills and thus dominating them).
This was great. I liked your broad perspective. To me devices is a very powerful way to understand both the plans,devised by Sauron, and his machinations to concentrate his power. Enough pun I Garoua d. What I mean is we can think of it like a clockwork mechanism, it takes our energy and concentrates it any a way which makes it very effective whilst limiting what it can do. Such is the one ring. I feel also in some ways it draws on the marring of Arda, to make it more powerful. Thanks as ever GNG and keep up the good work.
Love the epic smarm in the like / subscribe prompts 😂
Have u found any Fingolfin or Annatar artwork on the calibre of the ones in your video? Can't find that one masterpiece...
Did claiming the one ring permanently affect Frodo and contribute to his being unable to fully enjoy the world after the defeat of sauron in some way?
Interesting question - I think 'not permanently', in the sense that Bilbo - and Sam, though much less - were also 'injured' by the ring, but they never claimed it to the extent and in the way Frodo did (never mind at Sammath Naur - think of 'Smeagol Tamed'); I don't think it was the act of claiming it, just living with it for a while - and, in the case of Frodo, through terrible events.
Tolkien said that the time they spent in Valinor was meant to repair these injuries, which is why I'm saying 'not permanently' - but I have no evidence for that beyond the fact that Tolkien saw the stay in Valinor as finite in time.
@@dlevi67 Yeah I always saw his stay in Vallinor as being at peace in the hospitality of the elves for the remainder of Frodo and Bilbo's days rather than them staying there forever.
Glad to see a Girl Nerd LOTR too, didn't know they exist, too
I just finished my second read of Return of the King. Ah that whole scene with Gollum and Frodo struggling on the crack of doom is just so good.
Really I’m glad that Gollum could die happy. He didn’t have an easy life.
I might suggest another framework for interpreting Tolkien's concept(s) of power, specifically relating to the ideas of internal/innate power and external efficacious power.
In Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy different types of souls have different powers. Power here is understood primarily as ability. While it may be a bit beyond the scope of this conversation, I would also add that "soul" in this context is understood simply as the unifying principle of life in a given entity. It is that which makes the thing one being that is alive. All of the powers of the soul are thus unified by the soul into facets of a single being.
So, for example plants have a soul, since they are alive, and they act as a unified being. The plant soul has the powers of growth, reproduction, metabolism etc. It may have limited powers of sensation, but not to the degree that we would generally consider it to be sentient.
The souls of lower animals have all the powers of the plant soul, plus they add to those the powers of sensation either as completely new, or to a much greater degree. For example, plants may be able to sense light, but we would not say that they have the power of sight, which many / most animals do possess.
Human souls have all the powers of both plant and animals souls, and they add the power of rationality.
These are not exhaustive considerations, but the hopefully serve to illustrate the point of the different powers possessed by different types of souls. This ought to also demonstrate that some types of souls are much greater, or much more powerful than others. They have much more ability. One of the ways in which those greater powers are manifest is in greater capacity to affect and influence the world around them.
Most, if not all of the abilities, or powers, of the soul can be manifest in the world around us. This leads us to the concept of external efficacious power.
For example, my power of sight interacts with the world around me, and allows me to sense the world, to gather input or receive stimulus from the world, etc. It also allows me to navigate the world, and thus to interact with the world.
My power of locomotion allows me to move about the world and to move other things in the world, which gives me the capacity to make changes in the world.
My power of intellect allows me to make sense of the world, to interpret the input that I receive from sight, hearing, and so on. It allows me to understand and formulate thoughts and to plan, and have intentions.
My power of will, in a sense, stands above all the others, except perhaps the intellect, because it allows me to direct them and to make use of them.
When Tolkien talks about the internal / innate power of a being, I submit that he is primarily talking about power in this sense, the powers of the soul. This enumerates the abilities of a being, but it also can govern the degree of the abilities. In other words, a more potent integrating principle can produce greater order. A greater soul can produce more powerful abilities. For example, the power of sight found in the elvish soul may be a greater degree of that power than that which is found in the Human soul, thus elves may be able to see better than humans.
In Aristotelian / Thomistic thought, the soul is the organizing principle of the body. The material body is formed according to the soul. Thus if a soul has a greater degree of the power of sight, the eyes of the physical body may be formed with better sight.
This leads to the second key principle, which ties into the outward, external, manifestation of power in the world. The idea of instrumentality.
In this philosophy, the organic body is the instrument of the soul. The Greek word "organ" literally means "tool" or "instrument". Thus the soul has the power of sight, but the eyes are the "organ" or the instrument of sight. In other words, the soul sees through the eyes. The soul acts through the body.
Particularly in a Christian, Thomistic sense, this should not be understood to mean that the body is merely a puppet being played by the soul. The two are a complete unity, but one is the active principle and the other is the medium of action.
So, the physical form, the body of elves is higher, and more powerful than the body of humans because the soul of the elves has different powers, both in kind and in degree.
Here is where we finally come to the pay off.
As the body and the soul are a complete unity, it follows that the powers of the soul and the capacities of the body are perfectly matched, baring deformity or injury. They are natural to each other.
However, what if it were possible to externalize a power of your soul into an object that was not your body? What if, for example, you could take something of your power of sight and imbue it into a pair of glasses, or a crystal ball.
This could allow you to create what in modern terms we call a "force multiplier". The idea here is that you create something that magnifies an existing ability. It increases the effects in some way.
This is essentially what all technology is.
Consider a calculator. We have taken our innate ability to do mathematical calculations, and put it into a device that does math much more quickly and with more reliability than we do. We have essentially externalized our ability to do math, and in so doing we have magnified, or multiplied our power to do math far beyond what we are naturally capable of. However, there is a cost.
Because we have externalized or "outsourced" our own natural ability, we have also diminished our own innate ability. Because of computers and calculators, very few people can do math anymore. In the primary reality this is the result of disuse and we could regain the ability if we worked at it.
We have been doing this in our efforts to control nature for a few centuries now. we have been externalizing our own natural abilities into machines to make our power greater so that we can 'conquer' nature and bend the world to our will. Tolkien was deliberately pointing this out, and asking the question, what are we losing by doing this?
There is a kind of devil's bargain that is inevitable in seeking outward domination. When you seek to dominate others, and seek to dominate the world, you inevitable lose control of yourself. The most important control, is self-control. There is a profound truth which Tolkien was aware of that if you have perfect self-control, you leave everything else free to be itself, but the more you seek to control the world around you, the less control you have over yourself, and the less yourself you will be.
Now, consider this idea of externalization of power in more "magical" terms. What if you could literally take part of the power of your soul and put it into a physical object, outside of yourself?
It would serve as a force multiplier to you. It would give you easier control over your own power, it would magnify it, but it would also diminish you as you are in yourself.
Of course, for a human this would be much different than for an Ainur. The Ainur do not have physical bodies by default. They can take on physical forms as they will, but they do not have the same natural unity of body and soul that humans have. The elves, it would see, at least those who beheld the light of the trees also have a different kind of existence in this regard since they exist at once in both the physical and the spiritual realm, in a way that humans do not.
This is suggestive of one reason why using a ring of power is so inherently dangerous to a mortal. To the Ainur, or the Eldar, the power that is put into the ring is an externalizing of their own powers of the soul. It may magnify their power in the external world, but it is fundamentally a power that is natural to them. Thus they are not overshadowed by it. This is why immortals do not vanish when they wear one of the rings of power. Instead the ring vanishes. It is suggestive that the ring melds into them rather than over-powering them.
When a mortal wears a great ring, however, the power of soul that is in the ring is greater than that of the mortal who wears it. Thus the ring overpowers the mortal and makes him invisible. If he wears the ring often and long, then it will overshadow him completely and he will fade.
More specifically the great rings (except the three) were made specifically to work on the power of will. Specifically they were made to lay the minds of their wearers open to Sauron and to extend his will over them. Thus the ring itself has will. The power of will is what Sauron put into it. Mortals who wear it will fall to that will and be overpowered by it. Or if they are strong enough, they could dominate it, but in order to do so they would have to train their will to the domination of other wills, which would essentially make them another Sauron.
I think that line from Galadriel about magic is your most oft quoted one from the books, seems to come up a lot in your discussions, and it is indeed an interesting one.
Good stuff, but there is an explanation on the 'upper limit' of Sauron's power enhancing itself. It's specifically because it controls the other rings. Their very existence makes him more powerful. When the One Ring is destroyed, all the other rings (even the elven rings, which he had no hand in personally making) lose all of their power. Being one of the Maiar, he isn't actually completely destroyed, he's an immortal angelic being, since he's one of the Ainur. He's probably like Saruman (also a Maia) after his death in the Shire; a wandering disembodied spirit with no way to go to the West. Sauron 'dies' when the One Ring is destroyed in Mount Doom, but he can't actually die. He just possesses no power. In fact, JRR Tolkien had begun work on a follow up to Lord of the Rings where people had 'orc cults' that worshipped Sauron as a god. It was never completed (obviously, if it were we'd probably be reading it right now), but it does provide a bit of a glimpse into what Sauron is actually like.
It makes sense when you consider Tolkien's worldview. He was a very devout Catholic, and while he hated allegory, he admitted in his letters his works contained much allegory. Eru is the Judeo-Christian God, for example, just in Arda. Aragorn even sings a hymn at one point to Ulmo, the Vala of the Sea, that's seriously just a translated English Catholic hymn to Mary of the Sea, except, you know, masculine. That also makes sense, since Aragorn is a descendant of 'The Faithful', the Numenoreans who continued worship of Eru Illuvater and honoured the Valar.
Yes, and the "enhancement" effect to Sauron's power caused by the One Ring could be that it made it more focussed (specifically for the purposes of dominating ring-wearers) and he probably wanted it back to ensure no-one could destroy it, or use it against him. Interesting also to compare the elf-forged materiality of the Silmarils and their fascination for even the likes of Morgoth: "But the Silmarils were tainted by arrogance and lust by anyone who desired them, starting with Morgoth, then Fëanor. As the Oath of Fëanor proclaimed, it resulted in evil ends, such as the Fall of the Noldor, the Doom of Mandos, Kinslayings and the destruction of Doriath."
@@frankshailes3205 Of course. Tolkien even said if Gandalf took the One Ring, he could theoretically master it, but he'd actually be worse than Sauron. The reasoning being Olorin (Gandalf) was so powerful and good, he would try and forcibly make the entirety of Arda good, ultimately corrupting his own selfless and good nature to a terrible nightmarish evil, by forcing people to obey his own broken concept of good.
It's why he says, "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. "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."
Gandalf was entirely aware of how powerful he actually is. Imagine Gandalf as the lord of the rings. He'd be absolutely terrifying because he'd force everyone to be good, which would annihilate the concept of free will, which in Catholic theology, which Tolkien was obviously big on, would be an incredibly terrible evil.
@@AnnPMadera There's a good detailed projection of how the plot might've progressed if Gandalf took the ring: ua-cam.com/video/U_gFEN-GhiQ/v-deo.html
@@frankshailes3205 Damn, that is good. Very well done.
@@AnnPMadera There's that issue of the _Sandman_ comics where two angels take over Hell and make it worse.
From one theological standpoint, it was the desire to force everyone to do good which created Satan in the first place.
Fantastic discussion of power, missing "only" a consideration of Michel Foucault's oeuvre!
I prob missed something, but my prior understanding of one reason that possession of THE ring could increase Sauron's power stems from being able to gain control over the 3 elvish rings...
Nice work
The abstract definition of power you offer here reminds me of concepts such as dao and chi, which are meant to be descriptions of manifest power rather than, say, the numerical, allegedly fixed, hierarchical power expressed in something like Dragonball.
It's also worth noting power that falls outside the abilities of an individual. Even the mightiest elves and Ainur amass armies, and although this is not *strictly* the power of the Ring, this aspect must have been on Gandalf's mind during his explanation to Frodo. Tolkien was, of course, a veteran warrior and enthusiast of early mediaeval history, and LotR is more concerned with military detail than any of his other works.
Naturally, I don't mean to refute the video discussion of Tolkienian magical power at all, but I do mean to suggest that the word is used frequently to include mundane power -- even if that's just a Nazgul's attempt to verbally bully the dwarves of Erebor. 💀
One of the things Tolkien says a lot regarding the 'power' of Sauron and Morgoth, even where it's facilitated by some divine or magic device or ability, is that it leaves them *dependent* on the people and things they've controlled - I think sometimes readers, myself included, are too eager to create a distinction between 'mundane' and 'magic' power, since Tolkien (and the Elves) don't seem too concerned with the methods and focus more on the motives. Nazgul, for instance, have a power to spread terror, but even a regular mortal could have invoked a good deal of alarm with veiled threats of Sauronic assault. Even moreso had he been instructed in the dark and terrible arts of rhetoric and body language. So drawing the line is
And yes - I think Tolkien would have recoiled in horror from any serious attempt to ascribe levels or numbers to 'power.' It is fun to photoshop scouters onto Sauron's face, though....
@@GirlNextGondor Difficulty in drawing the line is, I believe, strongly intentional. Tolkien's approach toward magic is heavily dependent upon themes, which is why I believe we're so enchanted by its implication in absence of overt evidence -- think of the lightning during Gandalf's encounter with the wraiths at Weathertop.
Excellent video and discussion as always.
I feel what Tolkien meant in regards to the dimishing and strengthening of sauron's power both with and without the ring was poorly explained. My take on that concept was this, the voice of the maia was influential in creating the universe through their singing, meaning the power of ones voice and their power to influence the world are almost one and the same, Sauron and Saruman both are known for corruptive communication as well. When Sauron made the ring he essentially copied his influence or "voice" into the ring therefore allowing it to influence like he but as an independent unit, almost like a recording of his voice. Now when sauron is without the ring he still as powerful, or influential, as he was before he made it, but when his second voice in the form of the ring is physically with him sauron's and the ring's natural and recorded voices influence in aplitative harmony together, therefore enhancing sauron's power when with the ring but also technically not diminishing when without.
P.s. I'm fully aware this analogy does not work in the context of why he died, I know that you don't die if someone destroys a recording of your voice.
Your level of scholarship in this video😮❤️
As someone who's ben working on a fantasy novel for far too long now, I can attest both to the desire to "fudge" things, as well as one's ideas evolving (or devolving) over time, as well as forgetting lore you created between drafts. It's not made any easier by the tendency of works in the genre to grow like Topsy.
One of my favorite things about Tolkien is, when he discovers a contradiction or wants to change things around, he often uses it as an excuse to do more worldbuilding. His rationale for why there were two Glorfindels, for instance, created a whole interesting backstory for the character, when it started out as a simple case of grabbing a name from his histories. Elrond and Elros have a similar origin.
Love your videos.
"Cardiovascular inadequacy." 👌🏻
S created the ring. I feel like we can enhance ourselves through the act of creating. I know I feel strangely powerful while playing a gig or painting or even dancing. T had it right, Music IS Magic. Ainulindale 🎼
I hadn't considered that angle! -the act of creation does feel 'empowering' when it's going well, and surely Tolkien recognized and enjoyed the benefits of 'flow' as much as any of us. Yet it's also a persistent theme that by creating something you're letting a part of yourself manifest, and thus pass out of your control. We see it with Morgoth and Sauron, yes, but also Feanor with the Silmarils and Yavanna with the Trees. Something I'll have to give more thought to....
@@GirlNextGondor ☯️
@@GirlNextGondor You might enjoy watching _The Mindscape of Alan Moore._
I believe Simon tolkien said he thinks Tolkien was closest to God when he was creating.
The power of the one ring is essentially supranatural vision or insight. Frodo uses it before the fellowship breaks, for example, but of course he is drawn to Sauron and is terrified. It basically puts you in the spiritual world where ordinary rules do not apply. So you could use it to know anything, see all lands, into all minds etc but more particularly what other ringbearers are doing, as long as you have the will to challenge Sauron. Galadriel tells Frodo not to use it (good advice) because he is not willful enough. But he could try, if he put his mind to it, or is panicked and he does at one point. Thats why the wise (Gandalf and Elrond) are tempted but refuse it. It's a wicked thing created by a will to dominate - nobody should have it, however useful. That's why Sauruman wants it. That's why Sauron put so much into it and wants it back so bad and why it would make him relatively unstoppable in the third age. It wouldn't make him invincible (they took it from him) but almost. An 'applicable' equivalent would be government surveillance
Nice work thanks
Hooray a gng Saturday
Great video
I am thinking that maybe the hobbits (Frodo, Bilbo, Smeagol) became invisible when wearing the One Ring because hobbits had natural abilities to hide and move silently. Sauron no doubt had access to a greater range of power when wearing the Ring but the most noteworthy thing that happens when hobbits wear the Ring is invisibility (or for Frodo passing into the ethereal world).
Sauron's creation of the One Ring is his singular act of genius achieving something that was even beyond what Morgoth ever conceived. He found a way to alloy some part of the essence of his being with the stuff of Arda, and in doing so created an artifact that made him more powerful in his own right than he was before he created it. In addition to enhancing his own innate power it also contained within it the power to dominate the wearers of other rings that were created by a related method. So long as Sauron possessed the ring he could exercise domination over those who wore the other rings of power. So long as the ring existed Sauron's enhancement of his innate abilities was increased. His innate abilities within Arda were themselves a function of his embodiment in Arda. When his body was destroyed those innate abilities were destroyed with him until he could re-manifest himself. Presumably as he re-manifested himself the continuing existence of the ring enhanced his abilities at each 'stage' of his re-manfestation. In other words, manifestation is not simply a matter of 'poof, I have a new body and therefore I am now back, and with full power.'
As a side note, in thinking about this it occurs to me that the reason that Gollum sees a hand that is missing a finger is that in some sense re-constituting the removed finger would be more 'beautiful' than only being able to manifest without. Perhaps this was in some sense an unstated message from Eru Illuvatar foreshadowing Sauron's ultimate failure.
"I no want peace, only conflict"- Big Sauron, probably.
Brilliant. Swiftdrop I name you....
You know, now I wonder how much power Celebrimbor transferred into the Three. I wonder if his investment ensured that by some mysterious brain fog he'd be unable to craft or even conceive of something of similar greatness. I know Tolkien never mentions this, but creating these artefacts must leave you with an empty feeling, knowing you've just sacrificed the better part of your freedom to change your life and your powers of creation...
I like your introduction.
Thank you! 🥰 Been having fun with After Effects.
POWA! UNLIMITED POWAAA!!
Sheev Palpatine, ever since he managed to use the Force.
The one ring drew power from the other rings of power . The 9 , the 7 , even the 3 . To do this Sauron had to put all the power he had that could control the others as 1. Sauron diminished himself putting some of his power into the ring , but reaped so much more when the 1 that is bound with all the others was worn .
3:21 this is kinda stupid criticism. He put his power into the ring to enhance it. Enhance means to improve, make it more than.
I disagree with your point that the Ring just transmutes power. There's no indication that Celebrimbor lost any significant amount of his power by creating the Three Rings, and there's no hint that Sauron put any of his angelic powers into the Seven or the Nine. Only the One Ring, which was created last, was infused with his power, so the other rings weren't drawing their might from it.
So at least the Three, Seven, and Nine did actually grant additional (angelic) powers to their wearers. They were either drawing power from some hidden source (there’s a theory here in the comments about this being Morgoth's power within Arda) or they were violating the first law of thermodynamics, so to speak, i.e., creating additional power.
Furthermore, we actually know that the One Ring did in fact increase Sauron's angelic power to a new level. It’s stated somewhere (sorry, I’m not so well-versed in the lore that I can give citations) that Sauron would have been more powerful than ever if he had gotten the Ring during the events of The Lord of the Rings.
Finally, I don't see how character traits like empathy, self-awareness, and repentance are derived from angelic power, given their very different distribution among people with comparable power levels.
To conclude: All the Rings, except for the One, enhance or increase someone’s power without drawing on innate angelic power. The One Ring, which did require innate angelic power to create, gives back more power than it took.
That’s what makes the Rings so special, and why they are called the Rings of Power: They grant power that wasn’t there, or at least not accessible, before their creation.
Epic content!!