Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes

[Rater202]

Bilbo resisted the ring, he gave it up.

He did.... he almost went back on his agreement to and the conversation between Biblo and Gandolf about it read like an intervention.
As I observed in my Let's Read thread:

Gandalf: "Bilbo, you promised to stop smoking crack."
Bilbo: "What business is it of yours if I smoke crack?"
Gandalf: "Come on now, you'll feel better."
Bilbo: "It's my body I do what I want!"

[Vinyadan]

As for Boromir, its kind of interesting, because he doesnt really want the ring to "do good", he wants it to beat Sauron. Which is certainly good in and of itself, but in the movies at least its pretty clear that he isn't really concerned about "good" or "evil", he just wants to win because Minas Tirith needs to win, and thats the side he's on. Which plays into his conflict with Aragorn, and he kind of wraps his head around that stuff better once he gets shot.

That's described that way by Tolkien, too, in one of the letters (183), although he talks about Denethor and Sauron. Denethor saw Gondor vs Mordor as a fight between two powers, one of which had to destroy the other. He didn't see it as good vs evil. He didn't have a cause beyond Gondor. Had he won, he probably would have dealt cruelly with the defeated enemies. This explains his desire and willingness to use the Ring. He isn't worried about what he or his power might become.

...It seems clear to me that
Frodo's duty was 'humane' not political. He naturally thought first of the Shire, since his roots were
there, but the quest had as its object not the preserving of this or that polity, such as the half
republic half aristocracy of the Shire, but the liberation from an evil tyranny of all the 'humane'* –
including those, such as 'easterlings' and Haradrim, that were still servants of the tyranny.
Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had
become for him a prime motive to preserve the polity of Gondor, as it was, against another
potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason rather
than because he was ruthless and wicked. Denethor despised lesser men, and one may be sure did
not distinguish between orcs and the allies of Mordor. If he had survived as victor, even without use
of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming himself a tyrant, and the terms
and treatment he accorded to the deluded peoples of east and south would have been cruel and
vengeful. He had become a 'political' leader: sc. Gondor against the rest.
But that was not the policy or duty set out by the Council of Elrond. Only after hearing the
debate and realizing the nature of the quest did Frodo accept the burden of his mission. Indeed the
Elves destroyed their own polity in pursuit of a 'humane' duty. This did not happen merely as an
unfortunate damage of War; it was known by them to be an inevitable result of victory, which could
in no way be advantageous to Elves. Elrond cannot be said to have a political duty or purpose.

Given his reaction to Gandalf bringing Aragorn about, the preservation of his own power might also have had a large role in his mind (although it might also have had something to do with his children, and especially Boromir's wish to be king de jure and de facto).

Faramir instead has a cause. He explicitly doesn't want Gondor a mistress of slaves, even if they had been willing, loving slaves, or ruling by fear, which leads to the famous "I do not love the bright sword..." quote.

Ultimately, the cause of the West was not to be be forced into worship of Sauron as God-King, since he wasn't Eru. He would have also been the ultimate tyrant, assuming total temporal power. And, given this perspective, his servants weren't great for PR...

[DavidSh]

I remember a book that started by quoting another book in which Robin Hood sang a song that said that there were 13 months in a year. And it's also true that the Zodiac should comprise 13 signs instead of 12, if it really contained one for each constellation in which the sun dawns. The problem is that 13 is a prime number, while 12 can be divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6. Even lunar calendars tend to have 12 months for this reason, and, if allowed, to add a leap month to get back in line with the season.

There are, on average, about 29 1/2 days between new moons (or between full moons), which is about 12 7/19 months per year. Lunisolar calendars typically run on a 19-year cycle of twelve 12-month years and seven 13-month years.

I think people sometimes get confused because the orbital period of the moon (relative to the stars) is shorter than this "synodic" month.

[Bohandas]

1. The Ring is Sauron's and only Sauron can truly wield it's power, thus anyone seeking to wield the Ring must consciously or unconsciously become Sauron-like.

2. The Ring grants Power, and especially Power to Dominate Others, a power that no one can long wield in a morally pure way.

This is another example of where show don't tell is important. The ring is said to grant phenomenal cosmic power, but we don't really see that. All we see is it turning people invisible, slowing the aging process, and causing mental deterioration. Even doesn't really seem to need it except to keep it safe; its greatest known power is that it can theoretically control the ringwraiths, and Sauron seems to be able to do this perfectly well without it.

EDIT:
Or rather point 2 is an example of a place where show, don;t tell is wanted. Point 1 is if anything shown too strongly

[Hyoi]

This is another example of where show don't tell is important. The ring is said to grant phenomenal cosmic power, but we don't really see that. All we see is it turning people invisible, slowing the aging process, and causing mental deterioration. Even doesn't really seem to need it except to keep it safe; its greatest known power is that it can theoretically control the ringwraiths, and Sauron seems to be able to do this perfectly well without it.

Not just control of the ringwraiths, control of everything everywhere that was made or shaped using the power of the Great Rings. That includes a huge amount of Sauron's former power base, but more importantly it includes pretty much everything the Elves have done during the Watchful Peace. The important scenes there are the Mirror of Galadriel and Sam in the tower of Cirith Ungol. Boromir's vision at the court of Galadriel helps too. Frodo is able to perceive the mind of Galadriel in some small ways even though her power vastly outscales his. If Sauron had the Ring, he could read Galadriel's mind and could easily circumvent all her defenses both physical and spiritual. Likewise, Sam's possession of the Ring gives him the ability to mentally daunt and subdue some orcs. Someone with great personal power of their own could daunt and subdue entire nation states with a thought. It's subtle, because we only ever see the Ring used by Hobbits, and the whole reason Hobbits make such good ringbearers is that their personal power is so small that they don't give the Ring much to work with. You have to scale it up and extrapolate.

[Peelee]

Not just control of the ringwraiths, control of everything everywhere that was made or shaped using the power of the Great Rings. That includes a huge amount of Sauron's former power base, but more importantly it includes pretty much everything the Elves have done during the Watchful Peace. The important scenes there are the Mirror of Galadriel and Sam in the tower of Cirith Ungol. Boromir's vision at the court of Galadriel helps too. Frodo is able to perceive the mind of Galadriel in some small ways even though her power vastly outscales his. If Sauron had the Ring, he could read Galadriel's mind and could easily circumvent all her defenses both physical and spiritual. Likewise, Sam's possession of the Ring gives him the ability to mentally daunt and subdue some orcs. Someone with great personal power of their own could daunt and subdue entire nation states with a thought. It's subtle, because we only ever see the Ring used by Hobbits, and the whole reason Hobbits make such good ringbearers is that their personal power is so small that they don't give the Ring much to work with. You have to scale it up and extrapolate.

Neat! So the guy who killed Sauron and took the ring initially, he has a reign of terror?

[Rynjin]

Neat! So the guy who killed Sauron and took the ring initially, he has a reign of terror?

I mean, he would have if the Ring hadn't deliberately ****ed him over, on purpose. It drew a massive army to his location and then jumped off his hand at the first opportunity.

[Keltest]

Neat! So the guy who killed Sauron and took the ring initially, he has a reign of terror?

Well, he got killed, but he quite likely would have if he had lived, yes. Isildur would have been in a position of unprecedented power over... just about everything.

In the short term, you probably would have seen the armies of Gondor and Arnor forcibly conquer the remaining Mannish holdouts not already under Numenorian rule, then go after the Elves.

[Bohandas]

Neat! So the guy who killed Sauron and took the ring initially, he has a reign of terror?

No, he gets pincushioned with arrows more or less immediately.

[Peelee]

Note to self, two years is "more or less immediately".

[Keltest]

Note to self, two years is "more or less immediately".

From a historical point of view, yeah pretty much.

[animorte]

From a historical point of view, yeah pretty much.

And as far as the elves are concerned. Y'know, immortality and what-not

[DavidSh]

Note to self, two years is "more or less immediately".

For one of royal Numenorian blood. Isildur's father Elendil lived to be 322 years old, before an untimely death in combat with Sauron.

[Peelee]

From a historical point of view, yeah pretty much.

From a historical point of view, you can't have a reign of terror in two years? Just to make sure I have you correct here?

[Hyoi]

Neat! So the guy who killed Sauron and took the ring initially, he has a reign of terror?

What the other people said- if Isildur had mastered the Ring and used it to enhance his personal power, then yes, the inevitable result would eventually have been either a reign or terror or his overthrow by a new adversary. As it was, he possessed the Ring for barely a year, and as far as we know did not use it during that time except briefly while fleeing from the aforementioned ambush in which the Ring betrayed him to his death.

Relevant quotes, emphasis mine:

"sooner or later - later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last - sooner or later the dark power will devour him"

"Its strength is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who already have a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so.

Note that Elrond is not saying that the Ring has some magical mind control that turns good people evil. He's saying that the very nature of the power the Ring provides and of the desire for that power corrupts the heart.

From a historical point of view, you can't have a reign of terror in two years? Just to make sure I have you correct here?

The right question is "how many years of peace is a reign of terror worth?" The perspective of the good guys in LOTR (and by extension, Tolkien) is that a victory that only lasts a generation before you become the very evil you sought to destroy isn't worth it.

[Keltest]

From a historical point of view, you can't have a reign of terror in two years? Just to make sure I have you correct here?

I mean, if you were handed the resources to do it immediately, you could probably do it, but besides Isildur not having that, the ring also took like 50 something years to really affect Bilbo. Isildur would have been affected in subtle ways in that time, not "begin a reign of terror."

[Peelee]

I mean, if you were handed the resources to do it immediately, you could probably do it, but besides Isildur not having that, the ring also took like 50 something years to really affect Bilbo. Isildur would have been affected in subtle ways in that time, not "begin a reign of terror."

Didn't Aragon say Isildur was a king? As in, someone who already had the resources to do it immediately? And also a human, and much more susceptible to the ring than Hobbits, which is why Gandalf refused to take it from Frodo to start with? Not to mention having the ring in Mount Doom, like literally inside of it within throwing distance of the lava it came from, where the ring would be at its absolute strongest, per comments above?

[Bohandas]

I remember a book that started by quoting another book in which Robin Hood sang a song that said that there were 13 months in a year. And it's also true that the Zodiac should comprise 13 signs instead of 12, if it really contained one for each constellation in which the sun dawns. The problem is that 13 is a prime number, while 12 can be divided by 2, 3, 4, and 6. Even lunar calendars tend to have 12 months for this reason, and, if allowed, to add a leap month to get back in line with the season.

This is also why the Hobbit calendar used 12 months, and not 13. It's actually very close to the French Republican Calendar, as they both use 12 months of 30 days each, starting on the 21st or 22nd day of months from the Gregorian calendar, and add 5 days (or 6 in a leap year) outside the months: at year's end in the French one, or in Summer and Yule for the Hobbits. In the oldest form, the Hobbit year started after the harvest, like the French one (21st-22nd September), and also had no weeks; the French calendar also didn't have them, as it used decades of 10 days instead.

There are, on average, about 29 1/2 days between new moons (or between full moons), which is about 12 7/19 months per year. Lunisolar calendars typically run on a 19-year cycle of twelve 12-month years and seven 13-month years.

I think people sometimes get confused because the orbital period of the moon (relative to the stars) is shorter than this "synodic" month.

People. The moon hasn't been relevant since 1972

[Hyoi]

Didn't Aragon say Isildur was a king? As in, someone who already had the resources to do it immediately? And also a human, and much more susceptible to the ring than Hobbits, which is why Gandalf refused to take it from Frodo to start with? Not to mention having the ring in Mount Doom, like literally inside of it within throwing distance of the lava it came from, where the ring would be at its absolute strongest, per comments above?

I feel like you're doing the thing where you deliberately interpret a setting in such a way as to make it not make sense, then complain that it doesn't make sense.

Isildur obtained the Ring in the aftermath of a 12-year long war that absolutely devastated the resources of all the participants. In that war Sauron's physical body was destroyed and his spiritual potency so damaged that it would take centuries for Sauron to recover to the point that he could even begin to direct his servants again. The Ring was likewise weakened during this time. Isildur was, by all reports, both strong-willed and well-intentioned, thus he would be expected to resist the Ring's temptation for some time (see Gandalf quote above). As I mentioned above, Isildur also is not known to have used the Ring at all during that two-year period. He spent the entirety of that time helping reorganize and rebuild the kingdom of Gondor, which had been devastated by the war. We don't see an Isildur reign of terror because Isildur wisely didn't use the Ring, even though he couldn't bring himself to destroy it. However even after just two years we see the cracks beginning to show when Isildur uncharacteristically flees from battle, abandoning his men and using the Ring to flee invisibly (his men urged him to do so and he did so reluctantly, but it's still out of character for him). As far as we know, the day Isildur died is the first time he ever used the Ring, and also the first time he ever selfishly placed his survival/interests above those of his people.

We don't know what Isildur would have done had he survived. Maybe he would have found the strength of will to give up the Ring. But what we're told by the story is that if Isildur had kept the Ring and used it, he would have inevitably succumbed to corruption.

[Vinyadan]

Isildur immediately had a major moral failure when he didn't destroy the Ring and used the argument that he kept it as compensation for the death of his father.

But he never used the Ring in its full power, because it caused him immense pain (it hurt him when he wore it, even just to become invisible) and because he wanted to bend the Ring to his own will, before employing it to bend the will of others, and he never was strong enough for that, and realised he would never be. He tells his son all of this when they are attacked by the Orcs on the way to Arnor, and his son asks him why he isn't using the Ring to order the Orcs to retreat.

It's in Unfinished Tales, "Gladden Fields".

[Rynjin]

From a historical point of view, you can't have a reign of terror in two years? Just to make sure I have you correct here?

TBH I'm not sure if you can even have a "reign" in just 2 years.

[Lord Raziere]

TBH I'm not sure if you can even have a "reign" in just 2 years.

No, pretty sure you can.

the period during which a sovereign rules.

This definition referring to length of time does not define a minimum length one needs to meet to qualify their time ruling as a "reign". Therefore a reign can be anywhere from 1 second to infinity.

[Rynjin]

No, pretty sure you can.



This definition referring to length of time does not define a minimum length one needs to meet to qualify their time ruling as a "reign". Therefore a reign can be anywhere from 1 second to infinity.

Short reigns don't rule, therefore the reign itself is bogus, dude

[Peelee]

I feel like you're doing the thing where you deliberately interpret a setting in such a way as to make it not make sense, then complain that it doesn't make sense.

I'm not complaining about a setting. I'm saying I dislike specific aspects of the ring, as was spoken about out-of-narrative by Tolkien and retold to me either via internet or others on here, and then asking how the narrative resolves itself regarding these comments. For example:

Isildur immediately had a major moral failure when he didn't destroy the Ring and used the argument that he kept it as compensation for the death of his father.

But he never used the Ring in its full power, because it caused him immense pain (it hurt him when he wore it, even just to become invisible) and because he wanted to bend the Ring to his own will, before employing it to bend the will of others, and he never was strong enough for that, and realised he would never be. He tells his son all of this when they are attacked by the Orcs on the way to Arnor, and his son asks him why he isn't using the Ring to order the Orcs to retreat.

It's in Unfinished Tales, "Gladden Fields".

This pretty much answers my questions perfectly.

Completely separately:

From a historical point of view, you can't have a reign of terror in two years? Just to make sure I have you correct here?

TBH I'm not sure if you can even have a "reign" in just 2 years.

Note to self, make more bets with Rynjin.

[Rynjin]

Note to self, make more bets with Rynjin.

I don't gamble anymore...not after what happened last time...

[Lord Raziere]

Short reigns don't rule, therefore the reign itself is bogus, dude

The list of shortest reigning monarchs disagrees.

There have been monarchs that have reigned for less than a DAY, two years doesn't even get you on the list of shortest reigning monarchs, because the upper end is less than a year. if you want to make top ten shortest, you got to get in the range of minutes.

[Rynjin]

The list of shortest reigning monarchs disagrees.

There have been monarchs that have reigned for less than a DAY, two years doesn't even get you on the list of shortest reigning monarchs, because the upper end is less than a year. if you want to make top ten shortest, you got to get in the range of minutes.

Those aren't "rules" bro, they're "lames"

Like total buzzkills

[Lord Raziere]

Those aren't "rules" bro, they're "lames"

Like total buzzkills

hot take, I think you just jelly cause you can't beat their monarchy reign speedrun record.

[Keltest]

hot take, I think you just jelly cause you can't beat their monarchy reign speedrun record.

Eh. You get to less than a day, they all start getting contested by virtue of having never actually been legally monarch.

[Rater202]

If I had a genie one of my wishes would be for every flat earther to float off into space just long enough to see with their own eyes that the earth is ****ing round and then be brought safely back down.

I don't want to hurt anybody but I think that this is the only possible way to strangle that mass delusion.