The ring problem, and the solution....

[Blackhawk]

yep...i cant agree about any similarities with LOTR and TCTC as far as the Ring goes... there is no connection to any evil being if anyone holds or wears the white gold ring, and i dont really remember any actual power aside from invisibility in the LOTR ring..which is another large difference between the rings. I would only like to see these books as hour long episodes done as a series Rated R on HBO or something else that wouldnt stray from the exact storyline 13 episodes per book with gildenfire as a bonus episode in season 2..with narration in parts that cant be acted out like when mhoram is trying to deny the meld it needs to say with strain showing on mhorams face... I had to deny myself during the melds to prevent my secret of desectration being discovered by the other lords. along that line.

however i would like to see a celebrity death match with Covenant Vs Sauran in clay form. Sauran would use his ring to dissapear and TC would fry the whole boxing ring area leaving only ashes and the Saurans gold ring would plink down on the cement. and TC would Melt it with white gold into Gangster Teeth plates that said "Dont Touch Me!"

[ParanoiA]

There's a quote from LFB about the ring that I love... bear with me, I'm going from memory here, since my books are at home, and I'm at work.

It's when he's questioned by the Lords, and he rips open his shirt, exposing his ring.

"I can't bloody use it!" he cried, as if it were a talisman of power and not a symbol of his marriage.

(I'm not 100% certain of the rest, but I am positive about the "as if it were.")

No matter how much Covenant wanted to believe he had power, he couldn't escape the fact that he was a leper, and that the ring was a symbol of his loss, not his strength.

No matter how you look at it, the fact that it's his wedding ring is fundamentally important to the story. Any other ring wouldn't do, even if it were made of depleted uranium.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that's good enough. Symbol of loss rather than strength? Sure, but the idea that the ONLY way that could be conveyed in the story is with a wedding ring of white gold is creatively lazy. Seriously. He couldn't chew on this for a bit and come up with something better?

I understand your point, but keep in mind, we're only talking about a material object that needs to "respresent" something. The material object chosen by SRD may have seemed conveniently unavoidable, but only if one won't afford the effort to work around it.

Just my opinion. I'll opt for originality at the risk of effectiveness if necessary. Not many people share that view. As much as I love the chronicles, I still can't stand the freaking "ring". I tolerate it, shaking my head...

[Auleliel]

The concept of a ring as a source or channel of power has been used for thousands of years, long before LotR and Tolkien. The only problem with TCTC using a ring is that people seem to have forgotten how old the idea really is. Making references to Tolkien in a representation of TCTC would be a big mistake and would needlessly draw attention away from TCTC.

[Rigel]

Just my opinion. I'll opt for originality at the risk of effectiveness if necessary. Not many people share that view. As much as I love the chronicles, I still can't stand the freaking "ring". I tolerate it, shaking my head...

I guess we'll have to disagree then, because I'll opt for effectiveness over originality any day. I'd rather have a good book that retells something familiar than a crappy book that's new.

Like they say about music, "Good composers write good music, great composers steal good music." Or, as SRD is fond of quoting from Ecclesiastes, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity; there is nothing new under the sund."

People have been stealing ideas for art for thousands of years. Shakespeare wasn't the first to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet; he was "merely" the best, and that's why we remember him.

[Auleliel]

Good post, Rigel.

[ParanoiA]

Like they say about music, "Good composers write good music, great composers steal good music." Or, as SRD is fond of quoting from Ecclesiastes, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity; there is nothing new under the sund."

People have been stealing ideas for art for thousands of years. Shakespeare wasn't the first to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet; he was "merely" the best, and that's why we remember him.

Well then you're basically admitting defeat (in new ideas) and rationalizing theft.

To use the excuse that everybody else has done it in order to excuse yourself? Do I really need to put that into some context to point out the obvious error in that logic?

I'm not beating up on SDR, I love his writing. I just shake my head at him, and most others, for getting creatively lazy in crucial areas.

[Rigel]

It's not so much an excuse, as an admittance. Try this: Think of an original story. Seriously, on that has never been told before. OK, do you have your original idea?



Whatever it is, I guarantee the story has been told before.

I admit I was a bit shocked and saddened as I (gradually) realized the truth that "there is nothing new under the sun", until I realized that true Art isn't about creating new stories, characters or places, but in how they're presented and related.

M. Night wasn't the first director to make a movie about an alien invasion; yet "Signs" is one of the best movies of the type because of its emotional impact.

"28 Days Later" was heavily based on the book "I Am Legend", which has also spawned several other movies ("Omega Man", "The Last Man on Earth", and I believe "Night of the Living Dead" though I could be mistaken about that, not to mention the recent Will Smith adaptation). But "28 Days" was outstanding, despite all the other influences.

And it's not like Tolkien was original. Most of his ideas were adapted from older stories, Germanic and Nordic myths especially.

SRD has quite a few posts about this in the GI; his take, which I'm quite fond of, is that all art is a rehashing of old ideas. Poor artists will mimic other things they've seen, whereas the great ones will take old ideas and, through their execution, combination and presentation, make them as if they were new.

"Admitting defeat", as you say, would be cheap mimicry (which I detest). Recognizing the influences on your work is a key part of true artistry.

[ParanoiA]

Very well said, and point taken. Obviously, there's a line, a quite subjective one. I could rehash the vampire story, and not be a cheat. However, I couldn't reuse Hobbits without being put to death by angry fans.

So, perhaps the specificity of the idea and some nominal dormancy of use in literature somehow legitimates rehashing of old ideas as if they're original.

In that light, perhaps the ring was reused far too soon?

I will say though, it's not as if he "ripped off" the ring. As so many have mentioned, he certainly used it in an original way.

[wayfriend]

Very well said, and point taken. Obviously, there's a line, a quite subjective one. I could rehash the vampire story, and not be a cheat. However, I couldn't reuse Hobbits without being put to death by angry fans.

Dennis McKiernan was not put to death by angry fans . . .

[IrrationalSanity]

i dont really remember any actual power aside from invisibility in the LOTR ring

That's only because nobody who wanted to exercise the power ever actually held the ring. The One Ring essentially had power equivalent to an anti-Staff of Law (or a Staff of Anti-Law, if you prefer). Other than Gandalf's staff, and the intrinsic abilities of the elves, most magical power in the LOTR universe was channeled through rings.

There were 9 rings for mortal men (now the Nazgul, who's power still comes from their rings), 7 for the dwarves (rings all collected by Sauron), and 3 for the elves (who's rings Sauron never actually touched). Much that was accomplished in the Elven realms came from the power of Elrond's and Galadriel's rings. Gandalf held, but didn't use, the 3rd elven ring - almost from the time of its creation.

The One Ring was meant to control all of the others, and just as the SoL and Law itself eventually became indistinguishable, Sauron's power was tied up in the Ring. That's why destroying the Ring was tantamout to destroying Sauron.

[wayfriend]

Well, since it came up ... and since I just finished reading the Silmarillion last week ...

The One Ring essentially had power equivalent to an anti-Staff of Law (or a Staff of Anti-Law, if you prefer).

The One Ring enhanced the powers and attributes one already had. "Power according to one's stature." Hobbits became invisible because this is an extension of their natural ability to be undetectable when they wanted to be. In the hands of Aragorn or Gandalf, it's powers would be different, and greater. In Sauron's hands, it enhanced his ability to dominate all others with his will.

Other than Gandalf's staff, and the intrinsic abilities of the elves, most magical power in the LOTR universe was channeled through rings.

The rings were only made during the third age, and did not last much into the fourth. I don't think "most" is applicable here.

Gandalf held, but didn't use, the 3rd elven ring - almost from the time of its creation.

Cirdan had the Ring of Fire, up until the point that Gandalf arrived from the West, and Sauron was rebuilding in Dol Goldur. And Gandalf thereafter used the ring extensively, to "rekindle hearts to the valour of old".

- - - - - - - - -

Covenant's ring and Sauron's ring are very similar. Both are extensions of who and what one is. Both have a rightful weilder, but wrongful weilders can obtain varying degress of lesser power. Both are sought after by Evil Incarnate, who are also reflections of the protagonist.

Story-wise, they differ in that one was in the hands of the rightful weilder, who's trying to keep it, and the other in the hands of the wrongful one, who's trying to lose it.

More significantly, one is about embracing the power, one is about rejecting it.

[IrrationalSanity]

I think the Hobbits who possessed it would have had far greater power had they desired it. Consider Frodo just before Gollum attacked at the end. He was just starting to feel its true power. In reality, the analogy to the Staff is still apt, as the Ring is a means of expression - with what is expressed highly dependent upon the wielder, but still circumscribed by the means.

Perhaps "most" might have been an exaggeration (I wasn't thinking of the Palantiri, for example).

Saruman made himself a Ring as well, though not much was said about it beyond its existence.

I know Cirdan gave Gandalf the ring for safe keeping becasuse Cirdan sensed Gandalf's wisdom, but I didn't think Cirdan had it for long before doing so. As far as how much Gandalf used Cirdan's ring, I'll have to dig into some references I haven't opened in a while... (I always imagined it may have had some usage in Gandalf's fireworks.)

I still find it interesting, with the Silmarillion's background, just how powerful the Wizards actually were, and even in his corruption just how much restraint Saurumon showed.

[wayfriend]

It was about 1800 years between the creation of the Three and the end of the Second age. Gandalf arrived about a thousand years into the third age. So Cirdan had Narya for about 2800 years. Is that "for long"?

Gandalf had it when he departed Middle Earth. So he had it about 2000 years at that time. And has it still.

[IrrationalSanity]

OK. I said I was a bit rusty on the details.

[Skyweir]

Well, since it came up ... and since I just finished reading the Silmarillion last week ...

The One Ring essentially had power equivalent to an anti-Staff of Law (or a Staff of Anti-Law, if you prefer).

The One Ring enhanced the powers and attributes one already had. "Power according to one's stature." Hobbits became invisible because this is an extension of their natural ability to be undetectable when they wanted to be. In the hands of Aragorn or Gandalf, it's powers would be different, and greater. In Sauron's hands, it enhanced his ability to dominate all others with his will.

Other than Gandalf's staff, and the intrinsic abilities of the elves, most magical power in the LOTR universe was channeled through rings.

The rings were only made during the third age, and did not last much into the fourth. I don't think "most" is applicable here.

Gandalf held, but didn't use, the 3rd elven ring - almost from the time of its creation.

Cirdan had the Ring of Fire, up until the point that Gandalf arrived from the West, and Sauron was rebuilding in Dol Goldur. And Gandalf thereafter used the ring extensively, to "rekindle hearts to the valour of old".

- - - - - - - - -

Covenant's ring and Sauron's ring are very similar. Both are extensions of who and what one is. Both have a rightful weilder, but wrongful weilders can obtain varying degress of lesser power. Both are sought after by Evil Incarnate, who are also reflections of the protagonist.

Story-wise, they differ in that one was in the hands of the rightful weilder, who's trying to keep it, and the other in the hands of the wrongful one, who's trying to lose it.

More significantly, one is about embracing the power, one is about rejecting it.

facinating wayfriend ..

I must get the silmarillion ..

[wayfriend]

I must get the silmarillion ..

Hy Sky.

Some of my nits were from the Silmarillion, but the main points about the two rings were all there in LOTR.

The Silmarillion is mostly NOT about the Rings of Power. There's kind of a sketchy appendix, that's it. So don't read it looking for Ring lore! Read it for its utter goodness.

[Skyweir]

on that recommendation - i can do no less!

thanks wayfriend!!

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

There's plenty of ways to go without throwing one's hands up and reusing Tolkein's talisman. I think the story is too involved, too unique, too real and special to be undermined by LOTR flashbacks.

It's not about the story, it's about marketing to those who don't know it yet. When they see a commercial about a new fantasy film (ugg, the list of the last couple is disgusting) with a ring?....

...will they bite? Some yes, most-probably not. Unless, of course, it was an astonishing film.

[wayfriend]

Hopefully the movie moguls will realize the only fantasy movies that pay off are the ones with rings, and come knocking on SRD's door again.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

lol!!! Nice. That statement is quite a paradox compared with the topic!