# The answer to Saruman's Ring



## Úlairi (Apr 10, 2002)

I have posted this thread before, but it did not get the attention is deserved, so I am posting it again hoping to get the answers I want. Don't be afraid to post, an opinion is neither right nor wrong, so, post away! Now, we know that Saruman had quite an extensive knowledge on the Lore of the Rings. Gandalf said in the Council of Elrond that:



> "He ever goes deeper into the Lore of the Rings, finding the lost secrets of their making."



Gandalf says later in the chapter: 



> "But I rode to the foot of Orthanc, and came to the stair of Saruman; and there he met me and led me up to his high chamber. He wore a *ring on his finger*."



Saruman says later in the chapter:



> "For I am Saruman the Wise, *Saruman Ring-maker*, Saruman of Many Colours!"



Now it says that Saruman wore a ring on his finger, that he was ever looking for the lost secrets of the making of the Rings of Power and he even said that he was a Ring-maker!!! This therefore brings me to the conclusion that Saruman made a Ring of Power for himself!!! Yet I do not remember nor believe that there is any reference to Saruman's Ring ever again! So, with these quotes, do you guys think that Saruman made a Ring of Power or not??? OPINIONS PLEASE!!!

I have posted this thread before, and it was never answered properly as I had hoped, I am not posting it again for answers. I am posting it again for those who have remembered this thread and have always wanted to know the answer. So here it is from the seventh volume of 'The History of Middle-earth: The Treason of Isengard' on page 138. This is what Christopher Tolkien writing in the form of a note on the subject:



> "I cannot make out the two concluding words, though the first might be 'gathered'. But whatever the words are, the meaning is clearly that Saruman had *acquired the last of the Rings* - and wore it on his finger, as appears subsequently in the this text."



Amongst all this, I have one more question that I would dearly love answered. Which of the Twenty Rings of Power was the last?


----------



## Mormegil (Apr 10, 2002)

I think that if Saruman did make his own Ring of Power, he lacked the skill of the Elves in adding power to his ring. His ring seems to grant him no extra power.

As for the last of the 20 rings. 
options...
1)The last to be made. The One Ring. This is clearly not the ring that Saruman acquired.
2)The last that Sauron reclaimed. Not one of Nine. Not one of Three. Not the One. 
I think this is the answer. Maybe Saruman got hold of one of the Seven Dwarven Rings. Which Sauron supposed had been destroyed by Dragon fire.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 10, 2002)

That's exactly what I would say. The Dwarf-rings were the only ones that were not accounted for in the War of the Ring, and 'the last' of the Rings of Power would definately mean the last one that was found.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 10, 2002)

*Dwarve Rings?*

Saron had three Dwarven rings and the other four were suposedly consumed by dragons. I wish Tolkien had gone into more detail of the history and lore of the Dwarves. The only ring I can think of is Thráin's and that was recovered in the dungeons of the Necromancer. Does anyone know anything else of the other rings?


----------



## Gil-Galad (Apr 10, 2002)

Well I think that Pontifex is right as usual.In fact some of the rings for the dwarves are lost for Sauron.So it's logical one of them to be Saruman's ring.
The last ring is the one ,cause if it's the most powerful ,it should be the last of all .,but I'm not sure.....


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 10, 2002)

> _Quote by Ulairi_
> I have posted this thread before, and it was never answered properly as I had hoped, I am not posting it again for answers. I am posting it again for those who have remembered this thread and have always wanted to know the answer. So here it is from the seventh volume of 'The History of Middle-earth: The Treason of Isengard' on page 138. This is what Christopher Tolkien writing in the form of a note on the subject:



I am not sure what you mean by "never answered properly as I had hoped". If you thought you had an answer to your question why did you post the question? And if you are saying that the answer is that Saruman had one of the 19 rings based on the passage you quote from The Treason of Isengard volume of HoLOTR, I am afraid you are wrong. The material presented in all the HoLOTR volumes are Tolkien's various early drafts. Much was changed in the final version of LOTR. What you have presented is a version that Tolkien never used. Saruman's ring is not one of the 19. In the version that you are referring to Radagast the Brown was Radagast the Grey, Shadowfax was Greyfax and Boromir was from the Land of Ond, among other differences. In the final version in LOTR Saruman had made his own ring in imitation of the rings of power. It was not one of them.

In answer to your other question, the "last" ring made was clearly the One Ring of Sauron. All others predate it.


----------



## Eomer Dinmention (Apr 11, 2002)

I partly think that Sauruman serving under Sauron, Sauron must of gave one of the dwarven rings to Sauruman.

But if Sauruman made a ring for himself, we must know that it gave him no power at all. If the ring gave him alot of power, how come he didn't use it?


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "never answered properly as I had hoped". If you thought you had an answer to your question why did you post the question? And if you are saying that the answer is that Saruman had one of the 19 rings based on the passage you quote from The Treason of Isengard volume of HoLOTR, I am afraid you are wrong. The material presented in all the HoLOTR volumes are Tolkien's various early drafts. Much was changed in the final version of LOTR. What you have presented is a version that Tolkien never used. Saruman's ring is not one of the 19. In the version that you are referring to Radagast the Brown was Radagast the Grey, Shadowfax was Greyfax and Boromir was from the Land of Ond, among other differences. In the final version in LOTR Saruman had made his own ring in imitation of the rings of power. It was not one of them.
> ...



No Greenwood, you are the one who is wrong. CT made the comment:



> "The meaning is clearly that Saruman had acquired the last of the Rings - and wore it on his finger, as appears subsequently in the this text."



Chrostopher Tolkien specifically made the point that Saruman had the last of the rings. 



> In answer to your other question, the "last" ring made was clearly the One Ring of Sauron. All others predate it.



Gee, you think? Of course I know that, you know Greenwood that I know that! What I believe Tolkien meant was that Saruman had *the last of the rings found* which was inevitably one of the dwarven rings which Saruman beat Sauron to finding it.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 11, 2002)

Ulairi - Do you think Sarumon has the ring (Thror's Ring) Thráin was wearing when we was captured and before he lost his marbles?


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 11, 2002)

That's a great way of putting it shiloh53, before he lost his marbles! That's a good one. No, I do not not believe that Saruman had Thrain's Ring, Sauron did. Of the seven dwarven rings Sauron found three, and the rest were believed to be destroyed. *I believe* that Saruman found one of the dwarven rings, a fourth, that Sauron had missed seeing and Saruman had recovered it.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

Ulairi

CT's comments refer to a version of the story that was considered but never used by Tolkien. It was not used in the final version. Saruman's ring was not one of the dwarves' rings. The seven are all accounted for as Gandalf says to Frod in The Shadow of the Past and again at the Council of Elrond. From The Shadow of the Past: "Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed."

If you are going to argue that Saruman's ring was one of the dwarves' rings than you have to say that Aragorn (or perhaps it should be Trotter) was the king of Ond.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 11, 2002)

Come on Greenwood, Gandalf wasn't right 100% of the time! I mean look, he was wrong for taking the Fellowship through Moria and he paid the price for being wrong. I believe that it is a distict possibility that it may be the fourth of the dwarven rings. Tolkien did not discredit the fact that Saruman had a ring, he clearly has it in LotR, and there is no other reference to Saruman's ring anywhere. Perhaps Tolkien chose not to elaborate on Saruman's ring and thought he'd leave it to another book he may publish or one his son CT, may publish. There is no evidence to prove that it couldn't be the fourth of the dwarven rings and you know it. I still believe that the fact it was one of the four, not three dwarven rings is still a possibility.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 11, 2002)

I think it's a very real possibility as well. No one knows for sure that the other four were consumed by Dragons. It's just an assumption that they were because we don't know any different. It was also assumed that the One ring was either lost for ever or had been washed out to sea. Besides, Dwarves are very secretive folk and would never speak openly about their rings. I don't think they even told the Dwarves in their realm that weren't in the line of the kings that they had them.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

Ulairi

The quotes you provided from LOTR disprove your contention.



> "He ever goes deeper into the Lore of the Rings, finding the lost secrets of their making."



and



> "For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"



The above quotes are from the final version of LOTR and clearly show that Saruman made the ring he wore. You have presented nothing from the published LOTR to demonstrate that Gandalf's statement:



> "Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed."



is open to question or debate.

LOTR is not an actual history of real occurrences where some newly discovered documents can change the events in presented in history books. The events are whatever Tolkien clearly says they were in his published version of LOTR. Drafts of the novel can show us Tolkien's thinking as he wrote the book, but they cannot be substituted for the final version.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by shiloh53 _
> *I think it's a very real possibility as well. No one knows for sure that the other four were consumed by Dragons. It's just an assumption that they were because we don't know any different. It was also assumed that the One ring was either lost for ever or had been washed out to sea. Besides, Dwarves are very secretive folk and would never speak openly about their rings. I don't think they even told the Dwarves in their realm that weren't in the line of the kings that they had them. *



Shiloh53

That four of the dwarves' rings were consumed by dragons is not presented in the book as a conjecture. It is stated as a fact. Unless there is something else *written in LOTR to dispute this statement of fact* there is no valid reason to question it. So far I have seen nothing presented here that would place Gandalf's statement in question.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 11, 2002)

I think it's debatable whether they were consumed or not. Tolkien doesn't mention anything about the other six clans of Dwarves. Does that mean they don't exist? Also, the original version of the Hobbit had a diferent story for how Bilbo got the ring. The LOTR telling of it disputes that story. We'll just have to wait until we get to Heaven to ask Tolkien for the truth.


----------



## pohuist (Apr 11, 2002)

I guess the assumption here is that the ring on Saruman's finger, if magical, must have been one of the Rings of Power, of which only one of dwarven is not necessarily accounted for. What if that ring was one of a lesser rings that are still somewhat magical (made by elves before they acquired the knowledge needed to forge the Rings of Power)? As Gandalf said (NOT an exact quote) There are many [magical] rings, some more dangerous than the others.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by shiloh53 _
> *I think it's debatable whether they were consumed or not. Tolkien doesn't mention anything about the other six clans of Dwarves. Does that mean they don't exist? Also, the original version of the Hobbit had a diferent story for how Bilbo got the ring. The LOTR telling of it disputes that story. We'll just have to wait until we get to Heaven to ask Tolkien for the truth. *



You have presented no justification for calling the fate of the dwarves' rings debatable.

What is your basis for saying "the other six clans of Dwarves"?

As for the The Hobbit, Tolkien changed the story of how Bilbo acquired the Ring in later editions so there is no dispute between LOTR and The Hobbit. He even incorporated the fact of the change between editions into the story by saying that Bilbo had earlier given a different version essentially under the influence of the Ring to strengthen his claim on it.

If you are going to allow Tolkien's thinking in drafts of LOTR to change what is in the final published version you might as well change Aragorn back into a hobbit named Trotter.


----------



## Ragnarok (Apr 11, 2002)

Saruman studied Ring-lore, and he called himself Ring-maker, so I believe that he made his own ring in imitation of the Rings of Power, but it did not come out that powerful.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pohuist _
> *I guess the assumption here is that the ring on Saruman's finger, if magical, must have been one of the Rings of Power, of which only one of dwarven is not necessarily accounted for. What if that ring was one of a lesser rings that are still somewhat magical (made by elves before they acquired the knowledge needed to forge the Rings of Power)? As Gandalf said (NOT an exact quote) There are many [magical] rings, some more dangerous than the others. *



The ring on Saruman's finger is clearly a ring of his own devising in imitation of Sauron ("For I am Saruman the Wise, *Saruman Ring-maker*, Saruman of Many Colours!") The dwarves' rings are all accounted for. At the Council of Elrond Gloin reports that one of the reasons for Balin's attempt at Moria was the hope of finding the last unaccounted for ring of the dwarves. Surely the dwarves know what happened to their rings. They do not dispute Gandalf's story.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 11, 2002)

> At the Council of Elrond Gloin reports that one of the reasons for Balin's attempt at Moria was the hope of finding the last unaccounted for ring of the dwarves.



Here's your proof that there is one unacounted for. Surely they aren't refering to Thror's Ring. Gloin and Balin both learned from Gandalf in the Hobbit that Thorin had it when he was captured by the Necromancer. Gloin didn't dispute Gandalfs claim because they are very secretive about themselves and especially the ring.

The only books I've read are the Hobbit, LoTR, and the Sil. I'm only basing my arguments on what I know.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

Shiloh53

There is no mention of dwarves' rings in The Hobbit. It is in The Council of Elrond chapter of LOTR that Gandalf tells Gloin about the Necromancer (Sauron) getting the last ring of the dwarves from Thror's father in Dol Guldur.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 11, 2002)

Greenwood - I'm sure your right there. I don't have my books with me at work. I'm really enjoying this healthy debate. I don't know for sure if Saruman had one of the seven rings. Frankly, I didn't even remember the part in the book about him having a ring or that he was a ring maker. I'm just so fastenated with the Dwarves, and my only wish for the Tolkien books is that they had included more of the Dwarven lore.

I kindly bow down and admit you are right.


----------



## Ged (Apr 11, 2002)

Greenwood,

As usual, you fight a very convincing fight, and make your case with skill, a lot of bookwork, and a degree of learning. 

So, Christopher Tolkien's opinion of his OWN father's work is so completely wrong, you say! Well, thank you for telling us all.


----------



## pohuist (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> The ring on Saruman's finger is clearly a ring of his own devising in imitation of Sauron ("For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!") . *



That could have been a mere bragging by Saruman. There is no independent confirmation that he indeed forged this ring. I also did not mean that not all dwarven ring were accounted for. I was merely expressing the view that IF he did not forge that ring himself and even IF not all dwarven rings were accounted for (there was an argument about it), there still exists another possibility that nobody mentioned -- a lesser ring.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ged _
> *Greenwood,
> 
> As usual, you fight a very convincing fight, and make your case with skill, a lot of bookwork, and a degree of learning.
> ...



Ged

I have not disputed Christopher Tolkien's interpretation of his father's handwriting on a manuscript page. I cannot imagine anyone in a better position to read JRRT's writing. That is not the point. The point is that what Ulairi has presented from The Treason of Isengard volume of HoME is an earlier draft of LOTR that JRRT considered and did not use in his final version. I find the History of the Lord of the Rings volumes fascinating because they show us JRRT's evolving creation, but it is a misuse of these volumes to change the clear meaning of what JRRT placed in his published LOTR by substituting material from drafts that he himself chose not to use. In LOTR Saruman calls himself a "Ringmaker" when he displays a ring on his finger to Gandalf. This statement of Saruman's makes no sense is this ring was one of the original rings of power. We also have the clear statements in LOTR that all the other rings are accounted for. 

We also find in the HoME volumes that Treebeard was a villain at one point and at another point he and some ents fought in the battle of Pelennor Fields before Minas Tirith. I do not doubt that Christopher Tolkien found these things in his father's manuscripts. However, it makes no sense to rewrite the published version of LOTR to include these possibilities.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> That could have been a mere bragging by Saruman. There is no independent confirmation that he indeed forged this ring. I also did not mean that not all dwarven ring were accounted for. I was merely expressing the view that IF he did not forge that ring himself and even IF not all dwarven rings were accounted for (there was an argument about it), there still exists another possibility that nobody mentioned -- a lesser ring.



pohuist

There is no "independent confirmation" of anything in LOTR. Nothing presented in LOTR provides justification for doubting Saruman calling himself a "Ringmaker" or for doubting Gandalf's statement that all the other rings of power are accounted for (including the dwarves'). As for it being one of the "lesser rings" JRRT gives us absolutely nothing in LOTR to base such a speculation on.


----------



## Ged (Apr 11, 2002)

Greenwood,

You are discussing Tolkien's evolving vision, which is all well and good. 

What I am saying is that Christopher Tolkien's view is different from yours. That is all.


----------



## pohuist (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> pohuist
> ...



That is indeed true.

However, by "independent confirmation" I meant some work of Tolkien (Sil, UT, etc) confirming the view presented in his other work (for example you could find that Sauron is a Maia in both Sil AND UT). From Saruman being a Ringmaker doesn't necessarily follow that the ring he wore was forged by him. It could have been a piece of jewelry, or a lesser ring based on which he forged another ring and kept the latter somewhere in Orthanc. I am not arguing that my view is more plausible than yours, I am just saying that you cannot conclude from the book that my view is necessarily wrong. IMHO, for a debate to be meaningful, one should explore all possible options.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ged _
> *Greenwood,
> 
> You are discussing Tolkien's evolving vision, which is all well and good.
> ...



Ged

I have no reason to disagree with Christopher Tolkien's view on this matter and I do not. CT says that in a draft of LOTR his father places one of the lost rings of power on Saruman's finger. I have no reason to doubt this. The point here is that this version of Saruman's ring was clearly rejected by his father because it is not in the final version of LOTR.



> _Quote by pohuist_
> From Saruman being a Ringmaker doesn't necessarily follow that the ring he wore was forged by him. It could have been a piece of jewelry, or a lesser ring based on which he forged another ring and kept the latter somewhere in Orthanc.



Pohuist

Can you suggest a reason Tolkien would write: "He [Saruman] wore a ring on his finger." Followed on the next page by: "For I am Saruman the Wise; Saruman Ring-maker; Saruman of Many Colours." If Tolkien did not mean his readers to believe that the ring Saruman wore was made by him, especially since there is never any other mention of this ring anywhere else in LOTR?


----------



## Turgon (Apr 11, 2002)

I find myself in agreement with Greenwood on this point - and I don't think he's trying to dispute the excellent work Christopher Tolkien did with HoME, but that at the end of the day the only real corpus of Tolkien's work is the Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion (all though of course this was an unfinished work). One of the dangers of HoME are the many, many conflicting accounts of many different events. LOTR must be taken as the official history of the War of the Ring, as this is what Tolkien himself intended.


----------



## pohuist (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Greenwood _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Greenwood,

Let me repeat, I do not suggest that my view is more plausible than yours. I offered a possibility -- you think it is wrong. It probably is wrong. But it seems to me that you insist there is no way I can be right. I disagree that from the information in the book it is possible to positively conclude that. I can think of many reasons. Again, your view is probably more plausible. The term 'Ring Maker' was applicable to Sauron. By wearing a ring and claiming to be "Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours", Saruman could try to show Gandalf that he is at least a match in power to Sauron, he could make his own rings being as powerful as Sauron's and Gandalf should cooperate. Gandalf did not buy it and the ring never appears again.


----------



## lilhobo (Apr 12, 2002)

i havent read this whole thread but from the Book i would guess that Saruman's ring might be the Key to Orthanc that Treebeard got from Saruman in exchange for releasing the wizard.....Tolkien just never explained it


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 12, 2002)

I'm sorry Greenwood, I just couldn't help myself from not posting. I just thought it funny that you were having an argument with a junior member (who isn't bad a presenting facts), however, I found it amusing. Well, the search is complete and as Turgon said, there are many conflicts of evidence in HoME. Greenwood, you were right all along and I knew it from post one. I just gave a false opinion to see if someone would catch a sniff of my argument, which they did and based their arguments upon it which were entirely false. I was conducting an experiment in this thread, and you were all my guinea pigs. I'm sorry, I shouldn't play God with you all, but I thought it rather funny. Of course I knew what Christopher Tolkien was basing his statement on his father's rejected facts Greenwood, and I left you to the argument I completely agreed with. Once again I'm sorry, but I just found it too funny. For all those who are fighting against Greenwood, he's right, you guys caught a sniff of a false statement I made and opened it up for debate.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 12, 2002)

*False argument*

So what you are saying is that you intentionally tried to steer other members into what you knew to be a falsehood? Dirty Pool old man.
That is no way to establish a legitimate discourse on the subject, and moreover, it is a good way to ruin your credibility. Fooling others may be fun in its place. however, you should be careful as to not cross the line.

Not a rebuke, just an observation
RD


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 12, 2002)

Yes Rangerdave, that is what I am saying, it was only a little fun and from now on I swear not to make fools out of others. It was just a joke guys, but toying with other peoples minds is wrong, despite the fact it can be quite funny.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 12, 2002)

Ulairi

Rangerdave is right that posting false statements that you know are false is not a way to win friends or confidence in any of your posts on the forum. While I know that the departed Harad is merely on Tolkien forums because he likes to stir up trouble and debate anything (you are experiencing this on his Gollum thread on the other forum), I think most members are here because they have an interest in Tolkien and his writings. 

As for debating a topic with a "junior" member, I pay no attention to the member "status" of the others on the forum. It is only indicative of how many posts the person has on this forum. It says nothing about the members knowledge of Tolkien's writings. If Tolkien himself were still alive and joined the forum, he too would be stuck with a label of junior member until he posted the required number of message. I dislike the status titles like "junior" and "senior" because of their false implication of inferiority or superiority of one member over another.


----------



## Lord Melkor (Apr 12, 2002)

Well, why Saruman`s Ring couldn`t be his own, equal in power to 9 and 7? He was a Maia of Aule, he propably posessed crafting skills equal to greatest of Noldor.


----------



## Gamil Zirak (Apr 12, 2002)

It's not the crafting of the ring that is the hard part. Saruman didn't have the power of Sauron to put into his ring nor did he have the flaims of Mount Doom to shape the ring. It's obvious that Saruman wasn't as powerful because he wouldn't openly stand out against Sauron. He had the ring on when he didn't openly go against Sauron.

_I just re-read your post Melkor and realized you weren't talking about the one. So disregard that up there._

Celebrimbor was tought by Annatar, Sauron, on how to forge the Nine and the Seven. Those rings were only designed to ensare the wearer. Why would Sarumon need a ring like that? He would need a ring that could control the other rings (i.e. the one). Read the top part of this message to see why that wouldn't work.


----------



## SpencerC18 (Apr 12, 2002)

Saruman made the ring I don't think he would have settled for a dwarven ring. He was aspiring to be like Sauron so he would have to make it.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 12, 2002)

Welcome, Spence. 
That is a possibility, but as we know so little of the potency of Maiar magical powers it is hard to say how he could have made a powerful magic ring and what it would do.


----------



## SpencerC18 (Apr 12, 2002)

Sauron was a Majar and he made the one ring, so I think Saruman could make his own just not as powerful.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 12, 2002)

Perhaps, but Saruman was not even close to as powerful as Sauron! The Istari in general were not terribly powerful Maiar, and Sauron was the most powerful Maia in history to have so radically changed the course of the happenings of M-E. (Eönwë was the most powerful, I think, if he wasn't a Vala.) 
And I know Saruman could have made his own, that's what I'm saying. I just mentioned that we do not know whether he could make a 'magical' ring or not.


----------



## pohuist (Apr 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ulairi _
> *I'm sorry Greenwood, I just couldn't help myself from not posting. I just thought it funny that you were having an argument with a junior member (who isn't bad a presenting facts), however, I found it amusing. Greenwood, you were right all along and I knew it from post one. I was conducting an experiment in this thread, and you were all my guinea pigs. I'm sorry, I shouldn't play God with you all, but I thought it rather funny. *



Your knowledge is not absolute, my learned friend, may you be the most senior member of any Tolkien forum, and many people thought the question interesting, so it is legitimate. I humbly thank you for complimenting my way of presenting facts. Your ways of amusing yourself, though, are rather questionable; you may learn more than Tolkien from Greenwood (whom you seem to admire), who, while fiercely and persuasively defending his views, does so with respect for others. As for my junior member status, you only joined this forum 3 month ago, and while I can't hope to average 6.22 posts a day (some people have to work as you will find out when you grow up), even at your tender age you should have learned not to prejudiced. I am sure they teach it in whatever high school you attend. 



> _Originally posted by lilhobo _
> *i havent read this whole thread but from the Book i would guess that Saruman's ring might be the Key to Orthanc that Treebeard got from Saruman in exchange for releasing the wizard.....Tolkien just never explained it *



That doesn't seem plausible. First, keys to Orthanc are mentioned in other writings (UT for examle), and its never suggested its a ring. Second, as Greenwood pointed earlier, Saruman called himself 'Ring-maker' while wearing a ring, and it would seem strange that Gandalf would discuss this if the ring was merely a key to the tower.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pohuist _
> *
> 
> Your knowledge is not absolute, my learned friend, may you be the most senior member of any Tolkien forum, and many people thought the question interesting, so it is legitimate. I humbly thank you for complimenting my way of presenting facts. Your ways of amusing yourself, though, are rather questionable; you may learn more than Tolkien from Greenwood (whom you seem to admire), who, while fiercely and persuasively defending his views, does so with respect for others. As for my junior member status, you only joined this forum 3 month ago, and while I can't hope to average 6.22 posts a day (some people have to work as you will find out when you grow up), even at your tender age you should have learned not to prejudiced. I am sure they teach it in whatever high school you attend.
> ...



No one's knowledge is perfect. I seem to have made some enemies so I will apologise once more. The status of a member is indicative of how many posts they have posted, NOT their level of intelligence. My knowledge of Tolkien has never been absolute, but it has always been extremely good, like that of Greenwood. I was dared to try this approach by a psychiatrist I know, so I did. It was more her experiment than mine, but she had promised me that I'd get a good laugh out of it and I did. I'm not going to listen to her anymore. Toying with people's minds are wrong and I apologise to everyone who argued from my 'false statements', if anyone wishes to expel me from my own thread, please feel free to do so. I won't post my true opinion here if no one wants me to. I am sorry to especially pohuist, who I know has quite a good knowledge of Tolkien. I am afraid I have just stuck with stereotyping people, and I won't do it anymore.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 13, 2002)

To everyone out there, I am sorry.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 13, 2002)

Hey, don't sweat the small stuff.

I did not mean to chew you out or anything. Just next time let the others in on the joke. 
And yes, making fun of the ignorance of others can sometimes be funny, but that kind of humor is too easy. It is much better to use wit and intelect to produce humor. And judging by your posts, you have wit and intelect in vast supply. So don't stoop to the easy way out. 

Apology is not necessary. 
RD


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rangerdave _
> *Hey, don't sweat the small stuff.
> 
> I did not mean to chew you out or anything. Just next time let the others in on the joke.
> ...



Rangerdave, thankyou for your kind compliments. The psychiatrist will pay! And Rangerdave, are you a teacher of English? I believe that you mentioned it somewhere, I have always held English teachers in very high regard.


----------



## Rangerdave (Apr 15, 2002)

No I am not a full fledged teacher of anything. I work as a substitute teacher of LIterature and European History (both high scool and junior colleges) while I finish up work on my PhD in British History.

I hope to land a full time gig at either a University or private school after completion of my degree.

Thanks for the compliment though.
RD

More proof that academincs can't spell.


----------



## Úlairi (Apr 15, 2002)

LOL! Yes, some of us seem to have that problem. *whispers* I'll let you on in a little secret of mine, when I spell something wrong, and someone picks it up on this forum, I say that it was a typo!


----------

