|
|
Post by Eyalan on Mar 9, 2007 22:31:15 GMT -5
I've been pondering on something for a while, and heard some thoughts about it other places. Now I like to hear what you think...
Why do you think Tolkien used rings as the main source of power in the story? Why not Sauron's crown or Sauron's sceptre or Sauron's finger nail?
Rings...they're kinda neutral, don't you think? Not a real sign of power or evil?
Why not the Black Tree of Barad-Dûr as opposed to the White Tree of Minas Tirith or the Two Trees of Valinor...
Any thoughts??
|
|
|
|
Post by Haldir on Mar 9, 2007 23:04:06 GMT -5
Sauron's finger nail? ;D Nice one.
My opinion... The rings are wearable and convenient... they're hard to remove and they can't be stolen off one's finger. And they're not like HUGE beacons that everyone can clearly see (crowns and scepters ;D) and I think they were probably meant to be more concealed than flashy.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexei on Mar 9, 2007 23:08:25 GMT -5
Rings work well for the plot. Perhaps in The Silmarilion could've gotten away with Sauron crafting crowns or sceptres, but certainly it wouldn't work so well in The Hobbit and LotR.
As a personal oppinion, I'd say we can relate more to rings than a fingernail. We have wedding rings, and school rings, rings for other things besides. I agree that they don't appear to ever be a sign for evil power. But power itself, certainly (they are strong enough symbols that just about every Western marriage includes them). Sauron wouldn't have wanted to craft something that appeared evil from the outset. He wanted to fool everyone. Creating nine Death Maces of Power wouldn't trick too many people.
Aside from that, the name just doesn't have the same ring to it (I'm very sorry for that).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eyalan on Mar 9, 2007 23:16:18 GMT -5
Rings work well for the plot. Perhaps in The Silmarilion could've gotten away with Sauron crafting crowns or sceptres, but certainly it wouldn't work so well in The Hobbit and LotR. As a personal oppinion, I'd say we can relate more to rings than a fingernail. We have wedding rings, and school rings, rings for other things besides. It sure is very symbolic, I agree on that. But it's not very reliable... |
|
|
|
Post by Caitríona Casidhe on Mar 10, 2007 23:29:44 GMT -5
i think rings are good tho. i think it was prolly the first obvious thing that came into tolkiens mind when he was coming up with stuff, because like alexei said, its simbolic. i wonder if tolkien ever thought about diff objects from rings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feanor on Apr 7, 2007 10:03:14 GMT -5
well, for one thing a ring is a symbol of the Eternal, the Everlasting,  which I imagine would be sauron's desire, for him and his empire. secondly, it's something that can be used for ages at a time, without stuff breaking etc. a chain would have shackels breaking off, same with a bracelet, or basicly any other object you carry on your body. |
|
|
|
Post by Haldir on Apr 7, 2007 10:17:58 GMT -5
That's a good point... I never knew that rings symbolized that.
But Rings can get lost... which Sauron obviously realized later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Apr 7, 2007 17:00:39 GMT -5
My opinion... The rings are wearable and convenient... they're hard to remove and they can't be stolen off one's finger. And they're not like HUGE beacons that everyone can clearly see (crowns and scepters ;D) and I think they were probably meant to be more concealed than flashy. ^ pretty much what he said. also, they might be more deceiving. |
|
|
|
Post by Eyalan on Apr 8, 2007 23:01:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies so far everyone!  Nightmare is probably right about the big beacon thing, but it's so unlike Sauron to not be overdramatic about it. Hmm perhaps he's smarter then I thought ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lasseg on Apr 10, 2007 0:40:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the replies so far everyone! Nightmare is probably right about the big beacon thing, but it's so unlike Sauron to not be overdramatic about it. Hmm perhaps he's smarter then I thought ;D Well, he did come back as a big, flamey eyeball, so I have to agree with you that subtlety really wasn't Sauron's strong suit. Probably it was because rings were already an accepted accessory in Middle Earth, and were commonplace enough that they just wouldn't draw suspicion. Sauron may not be the master of subtle, but surely even he had the sense to be sneaky if it would achieve his own ends. Besides, like someone else pointed out, rings are harder to lose than other things. You don't generally put them down to eat, or bathe. The only way you lose a ring is if you take it off yourself, or if someone cuts your finger off, or otherwise incapacitates you so they can steal it. It's very easy to keep track of, unless you remove it, or it's removed from you. |
|
|
|
Post by FËÅNØR ÐÆ on Apr 17, 2007 4:47:47 GMT -5
'n another thing...The Lord Of The Crowns doesnt sound as good...The Lord Of The Rings has a nice...ring to it  and originally sauron came back as the necromancer...not a flamey eyeball, that wasnt untill he was confident his power had grown enough to show himself. after all, the numenoreans call him Sauron The Deceiver. and Rings, well they would have been more acceptable to all species on middle earth, I mean how often dya see an elf with a scepter? or a dwarf? rings were just a lot more common, and used by all races. |
|
|
|
Post by Miluiel Greenleaf on Oct 13, 2007 10:20:52 GMT -5
I think rings were the logical choice. Like Feanor said, they symoblize eternity. It's very difficult to break even a normal ring, unless it's one of those junky dollar store ones. So I suppose it could be considered symbolic. Rings are also far more easy to transport then a crown or sceptre. They're also far more common, therefore more inconspicuous.
|
|
