Tolkien related video's.

I'll never tire of revisiting that score. Fully as iconic as Star Wars if not more so.

Have to admit I skipped to the end of that.

The 10 minute Fellowship would be fun to watch. Quite a trippy experience.

Funny, I had read that first vid as "a History of ArMor". So I thought it a nice touch to start with the history of Arnor. I was thinking "How nice, we'll learn about the arMor of ArNor...Oh."

Wasn't aware of Tolkien's alternative for Gollum. Interesting that vid was inspired by Gollum's song, with lyrics by Fran Walsh. The films would have been better if it was just her and not Phillipa Boyens, though it seems they needed both of them to pull each other out of dead ends.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

ha great, we should promote Forumshire. also interesting about the deleted scenes, I noticed they were very cagey, probably knew they werent allowed to spoil any surprises, but very frustrating about Eowyn's wedding.

{{ Listening to the Sbley vid, and whilst I'm a big fan of the BBC adaptation and prefer it by quite along way to PJ's I have to disagree when he says Tolkien was wrong in asserting the story should not be told chronologicaly. I think it works better using Tolkiens format, which is why I stuck to it for my own purists edits of the film and think it works better still. Tolkien was right, if you put it chronologicaly you miss so much of the peril and lose the fog of war, of not knowing.}}

That's a very good question. Why didn't Saruman take Gandalf ring?

I immediately thought of the real answer which for some reason was left to the end of the video: the rings are hidden unless the bearer shows it. We don't know for sure that Saruman knew Gandalf had a ring. I think it's a bigger question why he didn't take his staff and Glamdring. I think it's because Saruman felt there was no escape, so no point in taking those items.

I actually disagree that the Three were invisible. Tolkien notes that they did not confer invisibility, at least in a letter, so I see no reason for them to . . . erm, be able to be invisible? Or something.

Yes yes I know . . . cue Sam in Lothlorien.

Been there

"hidden" is different from "invisible". I'd think a ring that can master the forces of nature or guide the will of masses could easily convince a single person they are not seeing something.

Well the video notes that Sam couldn't see Nenya (but he did see its light in my opinion), and Saruman couldn't see Narya.

Why not "hide" yourself then, Gandalf?

And why would Tolkien note that the Three do not confer invisibility if they "essentially" can make things unseen in the mind or minds of others? You can't make yourself invisible, but you can use it to make others think you are?

No, just make the rings invisible. A misdirection of attention from a small thing.

So it's qualified for small rings? I have a different approach in any case . . .

. . . and part of it has to do with rings being jewelry

If you're trying to get us to go "so what's this approach of yours, Elthir?  Please....we're dying to hear!"   It won't work.  You've teased it, and so we're not falling for it.  Nope.

Well, my fuller argument never swayed anyone anyway (that I know of).

Bottom line, I disagree that Galadriel's ring was invisible to Sam, and that the Three could make "themselves" invisible (or seem to be).

Just my opinion.

Okay, now you're drawing me in.  Yes, Sam saw some light from the ring, but didn't recognize it as a ring.  This is the mental diversion I'm advocating.  What else could it be? Perhaps you're saying that what the bearers are doing to hide the Three is what they could do with anything else, being powerful beings in their own right?

Which brings me to Gandalf finding Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer. How the hell would both a map and a key remain among his possessions in a place like that? I rather think Tolkien characters are somewhat akin to drug mules in the way they can port around and hide valuables for years on end.

Luckily I found a copy to paste here.

Tolkien notes that the Three do not confer invisibility, and implies [at least] that invisibility is one of those powers more directly derived from Annatar/Sauron/Aulendil/whoeverhewas.


"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."


"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." JRRT Letters



It seems odd to me that the Three, which are ultimate in potency and which Sauron had no hand in making, could be themselves invisible if they did not confer invisibility. Plus, if you are Celebrimbor, you don't necessarily need to make these rings include the power to "hide", at least when you make them, as at this point Annatar seems a nice enough guy and would possibly make a good tennis partner (doubles).

And what jewel-smith wants to hide the jewelry

But okay I admit it: Sam doesn't seem to see a ring. But he doesn't see nothing.

Although Earendil was said to be bright enough that Galadriel cast a dim shadow, it was still dark, and Frodo sees the ring when the starlight glanced off Nenya. When Galadriel first lifted up her arms: "Frodo gazed at the Ring with awe; for suddenly it seemed to him that he understood. We don't know at this point that the Ring was necessarily invisible. Frodo suddenly understands, and I think this connects to Galadriel's question later.


The second time Galadriel lifts her hand the Ring issued a great light that illuminated her alone. Frodo does ask why he cannot: "... see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them" but for me even this isn't exactly simple sight, but perception as well. As Ringbearer his "sight" has grown keener -- not his physical visual powers I think, but his ability to see that which is hidden from (the perception of) others.


But of course comes the issue of Sam: yet I note Galadriel's question compared to what had been noted about Frodo suddenly understanding: "And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger? Did you see my ring?" she asked, turning to Sam."

Granted Galadriel doesn't say "and recognize" to Sam as well, but I find it notable that "and recognize" was added to a draft at some point, where the earlier text simply had "see" for Frodo's question as well. Sam doesn't actually mention any ring of course, admittedly suggesting invisibility, but he did see something -- and to my mind something connected to what was actually going on too -- he saw "a star through your [Galadriel's] fingers."

That's not only something, but it hooks up with earlier description: " . . . and a white stone in it twinkled as if the Elven star had come down to rest upon her hand."

Sam saw something like what the narrator had earlier described.

That said, perhaps Sam would not "see" the truth even if he had noticed an actual ring: he wasn't the Bearer of the One, and as a Hobbit in general is "Halfwise" and simple -- and he'd already said he didn't want "to see no more magic" even. This would be quite like Tolkien in my opinion: a good way to illustrate perception would be to have Sam see something he thought was something else, and simply not understand what all this talk was about.


I'm not saying this is a clearly correct interpretation (especially if there is other text to consider on this point), but if Tolkien wants to keep invisibility out of the picture with respect to the Three, perhaps he would have explained this scene as being more about perception than simply visual recognition of a ring.

Sam Upset


Maybe I'd make a poor detective, but upon meeting people and talking with them (for a while even), I wouldn't necessarily be sure, an hour later or whatever, as to whether or not they were wearing any rings, unless it's made notable for some reason.

It seems odd that Sam didn't actually see any Ring, but it's arguably odd too that he should say he wondered what they were talking about, as Galadriel had already simply stated that she is wearing Nenya, the Ring of Adamant!

Even if Sam hadn't noticed an actual ring, Galadriel's statements had already revealed she's wearing one of the Three Rings.


Still, I note what occurs after Sam's vision. He appears upset by what he saw in the mirror, and we don't know how attentive he was after his experience -- and we can also "see" in part of his answer to Galadriel that his mind is (at least arguably) still on home -- wishing Galadriel would take the One and stop "them digging up the gaffer" and so on.

Boiled down, I think it's a combination of light, Sam being distracted by his vision and perhaps not even caring to understand (at least at the moment) what Frodo perceived.

It's just a possible, different interpretation, and probably not bullet proof admittedly . . . but the good news is, as I say, I copied and pasted most of this, so persuasive or not, it wasn't much work.

Again, I think I've yet to persuade anybody! But there is it

So if I read you right, you translate "did you see my ring?" to "did you recognize that I'm wearing a Ring of Power?" Sounds reasonable, except for Sam's statement "I saw a star through your finger" seems to indicate that even when a ring was right before his eyes he didn't see a ring.

{{ I think the problem here is the idea of invisibility. In the context of Tolkien is just means something which exists in the unseen world. And judging on what happens to the Ringwraiths the more you or a thing are in that unseen world alone the less and less a presence you have in the physical world.
Now the Rings of Power by their very nature exist in both the seen and unseen at the same time. But it would seem to me that their Bearer, if of strong enough intent and will could choose to conceal their Ring by having it exist primarily in the realm of the Unseen. Only revealing its presence in the physical world as a matter of choice.
But more than this I believe the very nature of the Rings, things which can exists in both worlds, makes them to mortal minds difficult to even perceive or comprehend when in the physical world- what Sam might term elf magic.

The One Ring itself looks different, more a great wheel of fire, in the unseen world than its simple golden ring form in the physical- mortal perception cant see the full thing, only the aspect of it that intrudes into the physical realm and the scope of comprehension.
So for Sam even having the ring revealed to him unhidden the fullness of what it is is simply beyond his frames of reference and beyond his ability to comprehend, so he only sees a glimpse of what is truly there that he fits into his frame of reference as best he can; a star descending onto her finger.
Frodo on the other-hand is a ring-bearer, he has the ability to see into both worlds, just as he did at the ford when he glimpsed Glorfindel as he is on the other side. So when Galadriel makes the reveal to him he does comprehend and can perceive the elvish ring, it is not hidden from him, not because its not invisible as it is to Sam but because its within his frame of reference, its within his perceptional reach.
The same elvish ring is there in-front of them both, I don't think in this instance once Galadriel chooses to reveal it that there is any masking or hiding of it going on, its purely down to Frodo being able to see both worlds and so to comprehend and perceive it, versus Sam's inability to perceive what it is beyond a glimpse he fits into his limited knowledge of the known world.

With Sam there is also an element of, well block-headedness. For all Tolkien uses hobbits to represent the sort of rural English folk he knew in his youth and the everyday soldier of the trenches he met, and for all Sam is deliberately the hero of the piece, Tolkien has always displayed a level of disdain for hobbits too, for narrow-minded thinking, for doing things or thinking things a certain way solely because they have always been so, an aversion to change and suspicion of learning and to new ideas, a small mindedness. And Sam is also displaying some of these hobbit traits in this scene too- upset at what he has seen in the mirror and having had enough of 'elf magic' for one night.
So the final thing we can add I think is Sam simply not being receptive to what is revealed, he has by this point retreated into a bit of a hobbit grump at all this outlandish stuff and closed his mind off to further magic, which so far has only proved upsetting.}}