# Man and Dwarf Rings made them Invisible?!?



## Helm (Jun 5, 2005)

I read somewere (not by Tolkien) that the Man and Dwarf Rings made the bearer invisible. That made me raise my eyebrows. What do you guy think? Any quote?


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 5, 2005)

From Appendix A of ROTK concerning dwarves:


> The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them. But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any Ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it.


Thus, the Rings of the dwarves did not make them invisible.

As for men, I started a thread a while back (with a poll) exploring the question of whether the invisibility power of the Nine Rings given to Men could be controlled by the wearers (at least at first). The thread is here.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't see how that quote says they would not be made invisible. I see how it says they would not have longer life-spans or be wraithized by the rings. However, it says that the only power the ring weilds "over them" is greed. It does not say that the ring does not grant invisibility, or do you consider invisibility a power of the ring OVER the wearer. I would consider it a power to the wearer granted by the ring.


Of course, if you go by my never decided theory on the rings being gateways to the wraith world, you could reason that the invisibility was power over them. . .hmm.. .


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 6, 2005)

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=15223&highlight=Wraith

The thread I mentioned.

. . .and to save time: my theory:

What if the rings are doorways to the wraith world?
I know this sounds funny, but think about Eld's post. It suggest two paralel worlds taking up the same space. Within one square foot there are two square feet, a wraith foot and a (let's call it here) real foot. Where the Wraith's stood there are their wraith bodies as we see them here (their cloaks, their horses, the black breath), and in the same space but in the other world their true wraith beings.
A Ring acts as a door way to a real person which allows them to, for a time, enter the wraith world. They do, however, remain in this world in essence (in material forms such as weight and the ability to deflect sunlight. . shadows). As the Ring grows to control them it gradually stops their return passage from the Wraith world to the Real world until not even the essence remains (no more shadow, no more weight). 
Perhaps Sauron's power gives the Wraiths the ability to filter back, but when Sauron is out of power they lose it. Also, perhaps, fire and water have the ability to deprive them of this filtering back and that is why they fear it and must return to Sauron after being uncloaked to receive it again.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 6, 2005)

Very interesting theory, and one to which I would pledge my groundless belief, with two small questions. First, you mention fire and water, yet Tolkien only said that they were afraid of water, not that it harmed them. I thought that the Bruinen was "special" or blessed somehow. Maybe I'm wrong. Secondly, you suggest that the rings offer transcendence "for a time". I would see no problem in the ring sending a person between worlds permanently, or as long as they wear the ring.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 6, 2005)

That theory, will work for me. I think she ment that the ring granted Invisability to however had the one,but when you took it of it stoped.

The Great rings effects are;
Men;Invisability. Imortallity, from naturall death. Ring takes hold fast.lets them see the wraith world.
Hobbits(who are a type of men IMHO); Invisability. Imortallity, from naturall death.Ring takes hold slow.lets them see the wraith world.
Dwarves; Greed and gold.
Elves;Enhances power, lets them see the wraith world.
High elves; Super enhancement.
Anuir;Super enhancement.

This is by no means perfect so have fun picking holes in it.A good start would be how it affects tom.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't think that the Rings of Po9wer save the One can make their bearer invisible. As we know, the Ringwraiths are invisible, but they are under the Shadow of the One Ring. 
We have no information that says 'Yes, they make them invisible.'


----------



## Maerbenn (Jun 6, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> I don't think that the Rings of Power save the One can make their bearer invisible. As we know, the Ringwraiths are invisible, but they are under the Shadow of the One Ring.
> We have no information that says 'Yes, they make them invisible.'


From _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ no. 131:


> The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of _decay_ (i.e. ‘change’ viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance—this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor—thus approaching ‘magic’, a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron ... : such as *rendering invisible the material body*, and making things of the invisible world visible.


But Tolkien continues:


> The Elves of Eregion made *Three* supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: *they did not confer invisibility*.


A good site for information on the Rings is FAQ of the Rings.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't see how Tolkien's statement:


> The only power over [dwarves]that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and they were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them. But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination. Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives were not affected by any Ring, to live either longer or shorter because of it.


could be much clearer. The "*only*" power the Rings had over dwarves was to inflame their greed and lust for gold and dwarves "*could not be reduced to shadows*". That seems a pretty clear that the Rings did not have the power to make dwarves invisible. Combine that with the statement in The Silmarillion where the Rings effects, specifically on men are discussed:


> Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron.


and you have two statements about the Rings powers. One, specifically about dwarves, says the Rings only power was to inflame greed. The other, specifically about men, says the Rings can convey invisibility on men. I see no logical reason to transfer the invisibility power to dwarves.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 7, 2005)

Ingwe,


> A mortal frodo who uses one of the great rings, does not die...and if he often uses the ring to make himself invisable he fades.


From the felowship of the ring, chapter II a shadow of the past.
This shows that all great rings prolong the life of man/hobbit make it tirersome living, and that all great ring make their wearer invisable and evenulay fall to the power of the ring, unless it is a great ring(one of the three, as they have no evil).
When i hear mortol i do not think of dwarves as they are not one of the children and do not leave Arda.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 7, 2005)

Hey, here is a nice idea coming straight from a bulgarian balrog's mind: the rings of power did not make there bearer invisible, rather transport him to the wraith-world. Elves already had a form in that world so they did not disapear from the visible one.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

> One, specifically about dwarves, says the Rings only power was to inflame greed.



No, it says the "only power OVER them" was to inflame greed, as opposed to the men who could be corrupted and wraithized. Is invisibility a power over someone? If so, how? If the ONLY thing they did was increase greed, why the heck did the dwarves accept them? It would mean that they have no apparent good powers and one hidden bad. Did they just think they were pretty trinkets? That doesn't make any sense. They must have been told, "Hey, this ring will do this for you if you use it!" Therefore, greed cannot be the only power gifted, and so the statement does not limit out invisibility. 

In fact, from Maer's quote, it looks to me as if they did and only the elf rings didn't.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 7, 2005)

Hey, Durin's bane, that's good point  

I agree with you: the bearers of the Elven Rings aren't invisible but Sam couldn't see Galadriel's Ring. That's interesting... 

And I agree with you, Greenwood  It ia not said that there are invisible Drarves (I mean those who used the Rings). And Thror is not invisible! He could be seen. That is important.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> No, it says the "only power OVER them" was to inflame greed, as opposed to the men who could be corrupted and wraithized. Is invisibility a power over someone? If so, how? If the ONLY thing they did was increase greed, why the heck did the dwarves accept them? It would mean that they have no apparent good powers and one hidden bad. Did they just think they were pretty trinkets? That doesn't make any sense. They must have been told, "Hey, this ring will do this for you if you use it!" Therefore, greed cannot be the only power gifted, and so the statement does not limit out invisibility.


Dwarves had a fondness for gold and jewels even without Rings. They would be drawn to the Rings just because of their beauty. Sauron gives a dwarve one of these beautiful rings and tells him this will help you get more gold. Why wouldn't the dwarves accept the Rings from Sauron? At that point in time he was not obviously evil. Even if the Rings had "no apparent good powers" as you said, why not accept them? The Rings were beautiful afterall, and the evil property of them was unknown. I am afraid your argument is the one that doesn't make sense. Your argument requires the dwarves reject a beautiful present from a powerful lord for no reason.

As for the Nine given to Men, they gave Sauron power over them by turning them into wraiths. This was the power of the Nine Rings over men. (Your theory about the Rings being a door into the wraith world is a reasonable analogy.) There is no mention of any dwarves becoming wraiths. Quite the opposite, both Appendix A of ROTK (already quoted) and The Silmarillion:


> The Dwarves indeed proved tough and hard to tame; they ill endure the domination of others, and the thouhts of their hearts are hard to fathom, *nor can they be turned to shadows.*
> [empahsis added]


speak of the limited power of the Rings over dwarves and say they cannot be turned into "shadows". In other words, they can't be made invisible.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

I take shadows to mean that they cannot be turned into Wraiths. The way I put it was that the ring was a door and if you spent too much time on the wraith side of it, the door gets shut behind you. The way I read this is that the dwarves were too stubborn to ever have the door shut. 

Maybe I am just exaggerating the suspiciousness of dwarves. I see them as the type to look every gift horse in the mouth, even if it is a golden horse.

Also, wouldn't the dwarves be aware that men had received similar gifts? Or was this done in secret? Wouldn't they have expected (demanded?) similar or equal "powers?"


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 7, 2005)

> Also, wouldn't the dwarves be aware that men had received similar gifts? Or was this done in secret? Wouldn't they have expected (demanded?) similar or equal "powers?"


 



> Celebrimbor, desperate, himself withstood Sauron on the steps of the great door of the Mнrdain; but he was grappled and taken captive, and the House was ransacked. There Sauron took the Nine Rings and other lesser works of the Mнrdain; but the Seven and the Three he could not find. Then Celebrimbor was put to torment, and Sauron learned from him where the Seven were bestowed. This Celebrimbor revealed, because neither the Seven nor the Nine did he value as he valued the Three; the Seven and the Nine were made with Sauron's aid, whereas the Three were made by Celebrimbor alone, with a different power and purpose. *[It is not actually said here that Sauron at this time took possession of the Seven Rings, though the implication seems clear that he did so. In Appendix A (III) to The Lord of the Rings it is said that there was a belief among the Dwarves of Durin's Folk that the Ring of Durin III, King of Khazad-dыm, was given to him by the Elven-smiths themselves, and nothing is said in the present text about the way in which the Seven Rings came into possession of the Dwarves.]*


 
Maybe the Dwarves took their Rings before the Men. We can only speculate... Or if the Elves gave the Rings to the Dwarves it is certain that the Men would take their Rings later (they were given by Sauron)


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

We know that Sauron did possess them for a time before the dwarves, however. Only the three were free of his touch.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 7, 2005)

Didn't the dwarves use their seven rings to make seven great vaults?


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I take shadows to mean that they cannot be turned into Wraiths. The way I put it was that the ring was a door and if you spent too much time on the wraith side of it, the door gets shut behind you. The way I read this is that the dwarves were too stubborn to ever have the door shut.


I said that I thought your theory about the Rings being a door into the "wraith world" was a reasonable analogy, but it doesn't fit as a literal description of how the Rings work. Gandalf talks of the users of the Rings "fading", and "in the end" becoming permanently invisible. This is quite different than just having a door locked against you so that you suddenly can't become visible again. 



HLGStrider said:


> Maybe I am just exaggerating the suspiciousness of dwarves. I see them as the type to look every gift horse in the mouth, even if it is a golden horse.
> 
> Also, wouldn't the dwarves be aware that men had received similar gifts? Or was this done in secret? Wouldn't they have expected (demanded?) similar or equal "powers?"


Now you are just making up your own events to suit yourself. Can you point to any actual instance of a dwarf turning down a gift of gold? Can you give any evidence that the dwarves would have known Sauron was giving Rings to Men or what the powers of those Rings might be. From the descriptions, it sounds like even Sauron wasn't fully aware of what the Rings would do since the seven did not succeed in enslaving the dwarves.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

It's kind of silly asking a question that can't be proved one way or another. We know that Dwarves love gold, but really how many incidents can you list of them accepting it? Maybe a half dozen stories of dwarves accepting treasures from others, if that? If you can only have six of them accepting, isn't it a little unreasonable to ask for one of them not accepting? And isn't it shoddy proof that they don't occassionally turn down gifts out of spite, suspicion, or stubbornness? And also, if you own the majority of the mines, why would one golden ring be such a draw? 

Now, as to them knowing about the men's rings, I didn't think the forging of the rings was all that secret. Sauron kept secret the one. The rest were given out at earliest convenence. I don't know for sure but I think it is just as likely as otherwise. 

I wasn't saying it was a perfect analogy, but my point was that the dwarves could become invisible without ever permanently losing control of their return to the "real world." I don't see what is so illogical about that. We must assume that Sauron would be able to use the One's invisibility powers without losing his substance.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 7, 2005)

> I wasn't saying it was a perfect analogy, but my point was that the dwarves could become invisible without ever permanently losing control of their return to the "real world." I don't see what is so illogical about that. We must assume that Sauron would be able to use the One's invisibility powers without losing his substance.


The problem with this is that by including Sauron we now have Three unrelated types.
Elves/Men, Dwarves, Maia.
We only know for certain that Men (and Hobbits) become invisible when wearing one of the Great Rings. There is some evidence that the sixteen rings given to Men and Dwarves may have confered invisibility to Elves but such is not stated in the stories. Dwarves are completely unrelated to Elves and Men and have a different make-up. We have nothing in the stories that describe a dwarf being invisible. As for Sauron, he is a 'Self-incarnate' Maia. As such any powers that he had for controling the invisibility of the One, or any of the others for that matter, cannot be used to prove the same for lesser beings.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> It's kind of silly asking a question that can't be proved one way or another.


You made some statements about dwarf behavior. It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask you to provide some documentation to support your statements. Calling my questions silly does not support your viewpoint.  



HLGStrider said:


> I didn't think the forging of the rings was all that secret. Sauron kept secret the one. The rest were given out at earliest convenence. I don't know for sure but I think it is just as likely as otherwise.


Once again, I will ask for some quotes from Tolkien to back up your statements. How do you know the forging of the Great Rings was public or common knowledge at the time of their forging? I especially want to see a quote from Tolkien to support your statement: "The rest were given out at earliest convenence."!! As for Sauron and the One, the books say that Sauron forged it in secret and once he put it on Celebimbor was aware of him and his designs and the elves then took off all their rings. Sauron then demanded that ALL the Rings that had been forged by the elves be turned over to him because he had given them the knowledge to make them. When they refused Sauron made war on the elves. He was able to gather up all the rings except the Three, and those he had had no hand in making. Sauron then gave out the Rings to Dwarves and Men to ensnare them. This does not fit at all with your: "The rest were given out at earliest convenence."



HLGStrider said:


> I wasn't saying it was a perfect analogy, but my point was that the dwarves could become invisible without ever permanently losing control of their return to the "real world." I don't see what is so illogical about that.


But you have yet to provide any solid evidence for invisible dwarves. We only have evidence of invisibility for humans and hobbits (and hobbits are probably a subset of humans).


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

Honestly, we don't have evidence one way or the other for Dwarves, which is why I picked that option when I voted on the poll. There is never any story of a dwarf wearing his ring. We know Thrain had one that was taken from him in Dul Guldor; that's really the only incident in which they are mentioned. Therefore, there can't be any information one way or the other, and I think it is just as wreckless to assume that they didn't as that they did. 

I am actually at work so I can't really look for quotes (that's been the condition of my last ten or so posts. . .don't tell my boss. . .). You may have noticed I haven't been checking my spelling either on these posts. . .but most of my online time is cramped now.

I made some suggestions about dwarf behavior, saying what it seems based on their temperment in the books. I can't prove it, but I don't think you have proven your theory either, so it doesn't hurt to speculate.

Actually, the only evidence we see for invisible humans are the wraiths, and I am guessing you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths. 

And you didn't address Maer's quote, which I think is the most conclusive in the favor of invisible dwarves.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Actually, the only evidence we see for invisible humans are the wraiths, and I am guessing you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths.


Nine Nazgul, plus Isildur, plus four hobbits (Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam -- and I consider hobbits a sub-category of humans) makes a total of fourteen. A pretty reasonable sample size, especially since they are all made invisible by the Rings. And there is no evidence that "you can skip the invisible preliminaries to make wraiths". Actually, that contradicts what Gandalf tells Frodo about how the Nine Kings became wraiths.



HLGStrider said:


> And you didn't address Maer's quote, which I think is the most conclusive in the favor of invisible dwarves.


I will comment more fully this evening after I read the full Tolkien letter, but I see nothing there about dwarves. On the other hand, I have provided quotes from Tolkien stating that the *only* power the Rings had over dwarves was to inflame their greed and that dwarves *cannot be turned into shadows*.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 7, 2005)

I wasn't counting Hobbits, but I guess I should. 

Anyway, my idea about skipping the Ring Preliminaries is based on the knife on Weathertop.

Anyway, I have already explained why I don't think that those quotes you provided say what you say they say.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Anyway, my idea about skipping the Ring Preliminaries is based on the knife on Weathertop.


All the Morgul knife at Weathertop shows is that there is another way to be made into a wraith. It says nothing about the way Rings work in turning a man into a wraith.



HGLStrider said:


> I have already explained why I don't think that those quotes you provided say what you say they say.


I am afraid that contending "The only power over [dwarves] that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things" can still mean that the Rings have the power to make dwarves invisible is a severe torturing of the English language. Especially when it also says "[dwarves]could not be reduced to shadows"! A wraith is just someone who has been *permanently* reduced to a shadow, but it clearly states dwarves could not be reduced to shadows in the first place.


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 8, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> As for Sauron and the One, the books say that Sauron forged it in secret and once he put it on Celebimbor was aware of him and his designs and the elves then took off all their rings. Sauron then demanded that ALL the Rings that had been forged by the elves be turned over to him because he had given them the knowledge to make them. When they refused Sauron made war on the elves. He was able to gather up all the rings except the Three, and those he had had no hand in making. Sauron then gave out the Rings to Dwarves and Men to ensnare them.


So actually all the rings were made in a simmilar way and were not 'dwarven' or 'man's' rings in the begining. In my opinion if you give a 'dwareven' ring to a man it'll give him powers as a 'man' ring and vice versa. So it doesn't matter which ring you give but to whom you give it.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 8, 2005)

Durin's Bane said:


> So actually all the rings were made in a simmilar way and were not 'dwarven' or 'man's' rings in the begining. In my opinion if you give a 'dwareven' ring to a man it'll give him powers as a 'man' ring and vice versa. So it doesn't matter which ring you give but to whom you give it.


Given the Rings' history, that seems a reasonable opinion.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 8, 2005)

It is a good opion.
I am saying that men get pushed into the wraith world whilst wearing the ring, but dwarves will not be enslaved so the cannot enter the wraith world, as to do so makes you liable to being enslaved by sauron, and eventually lose you personallity, as the more time you spend as a wraith, the bigger the rings power over you gets.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

> I am afraid that contending "The only power over [dwarves] that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things" can still mean that the Rings have the power to make dwarves invisible is a severe torturing of the English language. Especially when it also says "[dwarves]could not be reduced to shadows"! A wraith is just someone who has been *permanently* reduced to a shadow, but it clearly states dwarves could not be reduced to shadows in the first place.



This only works if you take "reduced to a shadow" to mean made invisible. I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible. A Wraith lacks will, soul, and life, three things I would argue both Frodo and Bilbo possessed while wearing their rings. In fact, it is only the pull of the ring to Wraithhood that is tempting them to lose their will. When wearing the ring, Frodo was in the Wraith world, but he wasn't a Wraith. He was not a natural inhabitant of that world, rather a trespasser. That is why they needed the stab of a knife to add permanence to his condition. 

If you took out the word OVER from that sentence, I would agree with you full heartedly, but it is there, and I can't believe it is there carelessly. 

When Frodo wore the ring, Sauron had certain powers over him, I would say. He could detect and feel Frodo, probably see into his thoughts, and he would have some ability to sway Frodo and pull him towards Wraithhood. These are the rings powers over Frodo.

On the other hand, I would say the Invisibilty is simply wielding the ring like a sword. Using the one ring to look into Galadriel's mind would also be wielding the ring's power (I don't think Frodo was doing this, but it was suggested that Sauron would if he could get the One). Neither of these powers would I classify as the Ring's power over the wearer. 

When you say someone or something is over you, I take it to mean something is either superior to you or controling you. You can argue that by giving someone power you are actually exacting power over them (Ie, if you give a man money in order to have him become dependent on you or obligated to you), but the two are not the same thing. They are only related.

I don't think I'm twisting. If anything I think adding OVER into the phrase if that is what Tolkien meant by it was actually a shoddy, ambiguous use of the language. . .IF that is what he meant. I don't see him as being that careless with important points of his life's work.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

Oh, and my point about the knife was exactly that, that there were other ways besides the natural way to be made wraiths. . .but the Ring Wraith arguement is a shoddy one made between one too many balance transfers at works, so I'll just drop it here.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 9, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> We know that Sauron did possess them for a time before the dwarves, however. Only the three were free of his touch.


Maybe. But from this quote: 


> [It is not actually said here that Sauron at this time took possession of the Seven Rings, though the implication seems clear that he did so. In Appendix A (III) to The Lord of the Rings it is said that there was a belief among the Dwarves of Durin's Folk that the Ring of Durin III, King of Khazad-dыm, was given to him by the Elven-smiths themselves, and nothing is said in the present text about the way in which the Seven Rings came into possession of the Dwarves.]


*it is not clear what happened with their Rings.* 




Durin's Bane said:


> Didn't the dwarves use their seven rings to make seven great vaults?


Yes, there is such info in the LotR. 

I still think that the only Rings that make someone invisible are the Rings of the Men. And I agree that Sauron can control the One Ring because he himself forged the One in Mordor and he is its Master. 

And the situation of the Knife is different to me. It is a *Knife * *not!Ring*!


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 9, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible.


I agree. But, being invisible means being made into a shadow (at least in Middle Earth). In The Hobbit and in LOTR (I believe) it is said that when wearing the Ring a person still casts a dim shadow. 


HLGStrider said:


> A Wraith lacks will, soul, and life, three things I would argue both Frodo and Bilbo possessed while wearing their rings.


A wraith's will is subject to Sauron's and his soul may be in subjection to Sauron, but the wraith still has them and still lives. If a wraith was not alive, how could the head Witch King be killed at the battle of Pelennor Fields? And yes, I agree Frodo and Bilbo (and Sam) were still in control of all three when they wore the Ring.

You are equating being a shadow with being a wraith and arguing that when it says dwarves could not be reduced to shadows it means they could not be made into wraiths. But Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Gollum were all made into shadows by the Ring without being made into wraiths. "Shadow" clearly does equal wraith, though a wraith is a shadow. When it says dwarves could not be reduced to shadows, it means they could not be made invisible.


HLGStrider said:


> When wearing the ring, Frodo was in the Wraith world, but he wasn't a Wraith. He was not a natural inhabitant of that world, rather a trespasser. That is why they needed the stab of a knife to add permanence to his condition.


Yes, when Frodo wore the Ring he was in the wraith world (Gandalf tells him that at Rivendell), and if the broken peice of the morgul knife had succeeded in piercing his heart he would have become a wraith, at which point the Ring would have been irrelevant (as far as Frodo being in the wraith world is concerned).


HLGStrider said:


> When Frodo wore the ring, Sauron had certain powers over him, I would say. He could detect and feel Frodo, probably see into his thoughts, and he would have some ability to sway Frodo and pull him towards Wraithhood. These are the rings powers over Frodo.


Here I disgree strongly. I think you letting yourself be influenced by the movie's portrayal of the Ring. In the books, there are only two times when Sauron is aware of anyone wearing the Ring and both are special situations. One is when Frodo wears it as he sits on the Seat of Seeing at Amon Hen. We can infer this is a special place, just from its name. Sauron is unaware of Frodo before he sits on the Seat (when he wears the Ring to escape from Boromir) and Sauron is unaware of Frodo when Frodo puts the Ring back on after leaving the Seat of Seeing. Indeed, even while Frodo is on the Seat of Seeing wearing the Ring, Sauron only seems to be aware of him when Frodo actually gazes towards Barad-dur. The only other time Sauron is aware of Frodo is when Frodo puts on the Ring at the Cracks of Doom and claims it for himself. The Crack's of Doom where the Ring was forged is certainly a special place and no one has before claimed the Ring as their own (a dorect challenge to Sauron). Sauron is unaware of Sam wearing the Ring and clearly was unaware of Bilbo when he wore the Ring. And Sauron certainly was unaware of Gollum wearing the Ring under the mountains when Sauron was in Dol Guldur.



HLGStrider said:


> I don't think I'm twisting. If anything I think adding OVER into the phrase if that is what Tolkien meant by it was actually a shoddy, ambiguous use of the language. . .IF that is what he meant. I don't see him as being that careless with important points of his life's work.


The passage means that the dwarves could not be subjugated to Sauron by the power of the Rings and one of the means of that subjugation was moving the Ring's possessor into the wraith world. It is the combination of the two passages together, "the only power of the Rings was to inflame the dwarves greed", and "the dwarves could not be reduced to shadows", that clearly states they could not be made invisible.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

Anyway, I wanted to clarify my side in this debate. I am not arguing for the "invisible" side but rather for the "not stated" side. 


Which has the advantage that I don't have to prove anything, just sit here and do my best to disprove things.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 9, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> I think there is more to being a wraith than being invisible.


Yes as it says in LotR that if a mortol is to become a wraith, he must use it often, or hav it for a long time. Gollum is a natural _this _ world creature but he is all ready become subject to the ring, the master of the ring can make him do whatever he wants, but he has his own soul.
This sounds like the description of the the nazgul, they are slaves to who ever holds there rings.
This shows that the being slaves to will, comes before being wraiths,as gollum, though he is a slave, is not a wraith.



> the dwarves could be reduced to shadows.


This is as much prof as we are going to get, thoughthe language can be twisted either way.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

> I agree. But, being invisible means being made into a shadow (at least in Middle Earth). In The Hobbit and in LOTR (I believe) it is said that when wearing the Ring a person still casts a dim shadow.


 
This is a very poetic stretch of the language. Being a shadow and making one are not the same thing. Saying that Bilbo was the shadow the Goblins saw by the door would mean that by grabbing the shadow they could have gotten ahold of him. If anything, the fact that they still cast a shadow shows that they are still part of the real world, for only a solid body can cast a shadow. . .it would be interesting to know whether an uncloaked wraith would cast a shadow. Is it ever mentioned one way or another? I always assumed their cloaks and steeds would be cause shadows, and we really only see them in that guise.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 9, 2005)

And if whislt unclocked, would there shadows look like what frodo saw,the kings, or the black riders


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 9, 2005)

HLGStider said:


> This is a very poetic stretch of the language.


It is not really a stretch. And Tolkien wrote very poetically.  The language means the dwarves could not be reduced to only their shadows.


HLGStrider said:


> Saying that Bilbo was the shadow the Goblins saw by the door would mean that by grabbing the shadow they could have gotten ahold of him.


Bilbo's shadow was just that, his shadow. But the goblins could have grabbed him. Of course, Bilbo is still in the real world as well as in the invisible world -- that is why his buttons flew off when he squeezed through the partly open door. Also Gollum could not have grappled with Frodo on the edge of the Cracks of Doom and bitten off his finger if Frodo was not still in the real world. That is one of the reasons I said your view of the Rings as doors into the wraith world is a good analogy but only partly works. Wearing the Ring you are still in both worlds and the Nazgul are still in both worlds, afterall they wield physical weapons in this world.

Alatar,

I think you mistyped. The quote is that dwarves could *not* be reduced to shadows.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 10, 2005)

> Also Gollum could not have grappled with Frodo on the edge of the Cracks of Doom and bitten off his finger if Frodo was not still in the real world



And if he is still in the real world, he is technically not a wraith and I would argue not a shadow, but rather a flesh and blood hobbit temporarily un-see-able.



> The language means the dwarves could not be reduced to only their shadows.


 
I still think it is a stretch. I admit Tolkien could be poetic. He was a genius, and I grant genuises their fair share of complex metaphors, but I don't think he would intentionally use one so ambiguous in an explanatory paragraph.



> And if whislt unclocked, would there shadows look like what frodo saw,the kings, or the black riders


 
One naked-man-shadow looks much the same as another, so if you take off the cloaks and the crowns, I think you would just get a man shadow (the crowns might remain, but I think the crowns were there under the cloaks anyway.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 10, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> And if he is still in the real world, he is technically not a wraith and I would argue not a shadow, but rather a flesh and blood hobbit temporarily un-see-able.


Of course he is still in the real world; of course he is not a wraith and of course he is still a flesh-and-blood hobbit temporarily unseeable. We agree on all of that. Our disagreement is on your insistence on making shadow = wraith. They are not equivalent. Bilbo and Frodo wearing the Ring were not wraiths. They still existed in the real world, but the only thing of them that could be seen in the real world was their shadows -- they had been reduced to shadows, not wraiths.


HLGStrider said:


> I admit Tolkien could be poetic. He was a genius, and I grant genuises their fair share of complex metaphors, but I don't think he would intentionally use one so ambiguous in an explanatory paragraph.


But, it is not ambiguous, except apparently to you.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 10, 2005)

Greenwood i had mistyped.
I think that even wraiths had a foot in the real world, as they can weild weapons. But gandalf says that thier real cloaks give shape to their nothingnes,


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 10, 2005)

Alatar said:


> I think that even wraiths had a foot in the real world, as they can weild weapons.


Yes, they had to still exist in the real world since as both of us have said they wield real weapons. Also, at Weathertop Aragorn says that all weapons perish that pierce the Witch King's flesh. That would not be possible if he did not exist in the real world. And of course, there is the fact that the Witch King was killed in the battle before Minas Tirith and that took place in the real world.



Alatar said:


> But gandalf says that thier real cloaks give shape to their nothingness,


I think we are dealing here with Tolkien's use of somewhat poetic language. What he is referring to is the fact that the Nazgul are permanently invisible in the real world -- their invisibility is their "nothingness".


[added in edit: Just noticed this is my 1500th post! Weeeee!]


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 10, 2005)

As only you, Alatar, and I have given opinions on this statement and Alatar said it could be read either way, I think we don't have a good sample size to say only I consider it ambiguous.

If you want to give me other quotes that refer to Frodo or Bilbo when wearing the ring "as shadows" rather than as "having shadows" then you might have a case.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 10, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> If you want to give me other quotes that refer to Frodo or Bilbo when wearing the ring "as shadows" rather than as "having shadows" then you might have a case.


As the old saying goes: It is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 11, 2005)

You know, I used to have a friend who would reply, "Same difference" everytime anyone corrected him. It doesn't make a very convincing arguement. 

Now, I'm not correcting you, but I think these are two very distinct and also very different things we are referring to. As it is, I think the question remains open, but it seems we've driven everyone else out of this thread. . .hello? Forum? Where are you?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 12, 2005)

Well i'm here, i've been on a camp but though i know that there is no evidence i am saying that the man ring make them invisable, where dwarves do not.
On thijng about tolkein, he has changed the language, elves are now tall, and dwarfs is spelt dwarves.


----------



## Helm (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm also here! Beerly able to keep up with the reading, not posting. Pant!! I suppose Greewood did not prove anything if you say shadow = wraith. But otherwise Greenwood is right. In the same breath Greenwood has not been disproved if you say shadow = wraith. Maybe this is one of those Tolkien Mysteries. Anywho  my vote goes with Greenwood.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 31, 2005)

I think that the following quote form Letter 131, to Milton Waldman makes it pretty clear that all the rings confer invisibility (emphasis added):


> The chief power (_of all the rings alike_) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. _And finally they had other powers_, more directly derived from Sauron ('the Necromancer': so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and presage on the pages of The Hobbit): such as _rendering invisible the material body_, and making things of the invisible world visible.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 31, 2005)

Thorondor,

Two points: 1) When you say "all" the rings I assume you are not including the three elven rings in that "all". The very next paragraph after the one you cited in letter 131 says:


> The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty; *they did not confer invisibility*. [emphasis added]


2) A key question here has been whether the rings confer invisibility on anyone who possesses them. As I have pointed out earlier, Tolkien states that because of their nature the *only* effect they had on dwarves was to inflame their greed for gold and wealth.


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 1, 2005)

I still say invisibility is not an effect but an application. For instance, if I put on my make up in the morning, I am applying it. If it gives me a rash it has had an effect on me. 

So I would argue that the Dwarves could apply the rings towards invisibility without it affecting (effecting. ..? I hate those words) them.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 1, 2005)

> 1) When you say "all" the rings I assume you are not including the three elven rings in that "all".


[Well, it wasn't me to say "all" rings, it was the original quote.] You are correct, however, the topic of the thread is about the rings of the men and of the dwarves, so the quote is relevant to our topic.


> 2) A key question here has been whether the rings confer invisibility on anyone who possesses them. As I have pointed out earlier, Tolkien states that because of their nature the *only* effect they had on dwarves was to inflame their greed for gold and wealth.


I think we should distinguish between the power that the rings wield over the bearers ( "the only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things") and the power that bearers can wield with the help of the ring ("And finally they had other powers, such as rendering invisible the material body").
Similarly, the One ring can wield a power of corruption over the bearer but also the bearer could wield a certain power (of domination in this case) through the use of the ring.
Furthermore, I think that the quote from Appendix A of ROTK concerns only the negative effects of the rings (resulting from the the will of Sauron: But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination; Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will) and not the "neutral" qualities, such as preservation of what is desired or loved ("more or less an Elvish motive") or rendering invisible the material body.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 1, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> Furthermore, I think that the quote from Appendix A of ROTK concerns only the negative effects of the rings (resulting from the the will of Sauron: But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination; Though they could be slain or broken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will) and not the "neutral" qualities, such as preservation of what is desired or loved ("more or less an Elvish motive") or rendering invisible the material body.


BUT, "rendering invisible the material body" was *not* a "neutral" quality! It was how the rings possessor's were turned into wraiths. The "invisibility power" was derived directly from Sauron. Look at the quote from Letter 131 that you posted:


> And finally they had other powers, *more directly derived from Sauron* ('the Necromancer': so he is called as he casts a fleeting shadow and presage on the pages of The Hobbit): *such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible.* [emphasis added]


Therefore, under your own interpretation the passage from the Appendix must also include the "invisibility power" since it is a negative effect derived from Sauron. Tolkien says the "only power" of the rings over the dwarves was to inflame their lust for gold and precious things. Are you contending that invisibility was a "power" the dwarves possessed themselves or derived from something other than the rings? I would agree that all the rings (the nine and the seven) could make men (and hobbits) invisible, but dwarves are a different kind of creature, from a different creation. Tolkien has said the rings affected them differently.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 1, 2005)

> It was how the rings possessor's were turned into wraiths.


I think that "power over" specifically reffers to power to subdue them to Sauron. The users of the ring wouldn't become wraiths if there was no One ring.


> Therefore, under your own interpretation the passage from the Appendix must also include the "invisibility power" since it is a negative effect derived from Sauron.


Not everything pertaining to Sauron is evil per se; afterall, it was his lore that made possible the creation of the three rings.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 1, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> Not everything pertaining to Sauron is evil per se; afterall, it was his lore that made possible the creation of the three rings.


The only reason Sauron assisted the elves of Eregion in making "rings of power" was to ensnare them. The only reason the Three were not evil is that Sauron had no part in their making and never touched them.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 1, 2005)

Should I presume you agree that "power over" specifically reffers to power to subdue them to Sauron and not to all the "powers of" the rings ?


> The only reason the Three were not evil is that Sauron had no part in their making and never touched them.


But would the other rings become evil without the existence of the one ring?


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 1, 2005)

Elrond makes it clear that the "other rings" were different from the Elven rings in that the Elven rings were never made to further power or wealth, but to preserve and they were never "sullied" by Sauron. I guess the other rings would have had the "taint" in them, which may well have inspired lust if they were given to mortals, however the Gwaith-i-Mirdain at the time didn't "see" it.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 2, 2005)

Another excellent post by Inderjit.

Sauron made the One Ring to control (dominate) all other rings. All the rings, save the Three, were already tainted because Sauron had a hand in making all of them (except the Three).


----------



## Ingwë (Aug 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> But would the other rings become evil without the existence of the one ring?


I think they will become Evil because the Dark lord Sauron played part in the creation of these Rings. The works of the Smiths weren't Evil but they turned to Evil. Nothing is evil till another Evil thing turn the good to Evil. And, of course, there is a source of Evil.


----------



## Aglarband (Aug 21, 2005)

I remember reading in (I think the 3rd age section of the Silmarilion) that the Witch-King of Angmar was able invisible when he used his ring, and thus learned much about his enemies.


----------

