XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: jon.lennart.beck.its.my.name@mail.its.in.danmark   
      
   "tony"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   news:Psidna3oF7Tx6LXPnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com...   
      
   > Thank you for your thoughtful response.  Are you saying that you believe   
   > that Galadriel was simply cautioning Frodo not to use the ring (as Gandalf   
   > and Elrond had cautioned him previously) because the ring was "altogether   
   > evil" and would "corrupt anyone who attempted to use it"?  I'm going to   
   > assume, for a moment, that this is the way you interpret the passage, in   
   > contrast to the interpretation I have advanced.  However, in the quote   
   > above, Galadriel was making an additional point about the power needed to   
   > use the Ring to read the thoughts of other ring wearers, a point not   
   > directly addressed at the Council of Elrond.  In this context, she is   
   > saying that Frodo should not attempt to use the ring to read the   
   > thoughts of  other ring wearers because he did not have sufficient   
   > power to accomplish this and it would destroy him, immediately.   
   > Obviously just using the ring briefly to turn invisible would not   
   > destroy Frodo, not immediately, although long term use of the Ring   
   > would be destructive to nearly anyone, but not everyone.   
   > For example, Tom Bombadil was not negatively affected by the Ring, and   
   > presumably would not be negatively affected by the use of the other great   
   > rings.  In fact, if you follow my reasoning here, it appears that someone   
   > with sufficient power could destoy Sauron, assuming Sauron was wearing the   
   > ruling Ring, by using another great ring.  At least, this is how I'm   
   > interpreting Galadriel's thesis. In addition, even if Bombadil did not   
   > have sufficient power to destroy Sauron in this manner, one of the   
   > Lords of the West could, I believe, because of their preeminent   
   > power levels.   
      
      We know from Gandalf that even the benign Rings would be perilous to   
   mortals, for a reason that is loosely similar to the danger that a clifftop   
   represents to a man (and taking a cue from Sam's description of Galadriel).   
   It is not the cliff's fault if he dies from jumping off it because it looks   
   so fun to be an eagle.  I don't know if Galadriel's warning to Frodo was   
   with the specific evil of the Ruling Ring in mind in addition: if by "It   
   would destroy you!" she implied a general peril of the Rings to a weak   
   wielder, or he would be immediately Gollumized, as it were.   
      But I quite disagree that anyone could use any of the lesser Rings of   
   Power to defeat Sauron while he had the One.  For one thing at least the   
   Three were not made for domination, as weapons.  But the main reason is that   
   the One was specifically made to dominate all the lesser ones, and by   
   Sauron's tutoring of the Ring-smiths they had been explicitly made   
   vulnerable to that control.  Anybody wielding a lesser Ring for any purpose   
   while Sauron held the One would become enslaved to him, and only by swiftly   
   taking off their Rings did the Elves of Eregion avoid that fate.   
      The only way that Sauron with the One could have been defeated in a   
   self-to-self confrontation (as opposed to a military one with large armies,   
   where he twice was defeated - by Ar-Pharazôn and later by the Last Alliance)   
   is if his challenger were innately stronger than he.  Imagine Aulë coming to   
   deal with his faithless former pupil.  Such a challenger would have no need   
   of the aid of another Ring of Power; it would be either irrelevant or a   
   hindrance - unless he could change that Ring and make it invulnerable to the   
   One but retaining its own power.   
      But in Middle-earth after the First Age, when the Valar had retreated   
   permanently to Valinor, Sauron was The.  Strongest.  single being.  The only   
   way that Sauron might possibly have been defeated in a self-to-self   
   confrontation is, as Tolkien described in one of his letters, if his   
   challenger (only Gandalf would have been a realistic candidate) held the   
   One.   
      Tom Bombadil could not have been such a challenger.  Remember that he had   
   no power over the One.  It was that the One had none over him.  Tom's sort   
   of strength was orthogonal to that of the Ring.  Presumably any such item of   
   power would have been as irrelevant to him, save perhaps as a pretty   
   trinket.   
      
   Hræfn.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)