From: pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Maleability of the Music ( was Re: Sauron and the destruction of the ring) Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 17 Apr 2000 22:22:17 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000417182217.10644.00001329@nso-fn.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:17408 In article , brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes: >Even the *three*, which were essentially passive Rings, were not >entirely incorrupt. After all, they were designed and used to alter >the natural processes of Middle-earth. Eru, and the Valar under >him, had designed and built Middle-earth subject to change and >decay, as a necessary part of the development of new things. By >preserving the past, the wielders of the Elven-rings were in a >sense still rebelling. As a side question, could the nature of the rings powers be construed to be a subversion of Eru's design that (seemingly) allowed only men to alter the Music? If this is so, then the dwarven and elven rings were more of a perversion of nature than the rings for mortal men. And if this isn't an example of changing the music, what might be considered one? Where does the line between plain old free will; possesed by all of the Children of Iluvatar; and some further power to alter the Music exist? How do you have degrees of free will? Breathe Peace PB "... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..." C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian" ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Maleability of the Music ( was Re: Sauron and the destruction of the ring) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:28:37 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <20000417182217.10644.00001329@nso-fn.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.b1.ae X-Server-Date: 24 Apr 2000 02:28:43 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:17689 Said pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: > As a side question, could the nature of the rings powers be construed to be >a subversion of Eru's design that (seemingly) allowed only men to alter the >Music? If this is so, then the dwarven and elven rings were more of a >perversion of nature than the rings for mortal men. I don't think the Music was altered, just suspended. Neither Men nor Elves changed their nature, but Men delayed their deaths for a number of centuries. By the way, Galadriel showed her repentance (IMHO) in the Mirror of Galadriel chapter, when Frodo asks what she wants and she answers "That what should be shall be", even if it means the fading of the Elves. But I don't want to overstate this. The Three were not evil. The Elves didn't try to change things with them or coerce any free people; they just used them to preserve things unstained. No holder of the Three sought power for its own sake. Somehow I think holding back change is less serious morally than forcing change, though I'm not sure I could defend that position. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/ Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm ###### From: pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Maleability of the Music ( was Re: Sauron and the destruction of the ring) Lines: 56 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 24 Apr 2000 03:51:23 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000423235123.01883.00002071@nso-cn.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:17681 In article , brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes: >I don't think the Music was altered, just suspended. Neither Men >nor Elves changed their nature, but Men delayed their deaths for a >number of centuries. I don't know if the music was altered or not. If it was it probably wasn't the due to the rings but due to the users of them. I've just never come across a good understanding of mens "virtue to shape their life....beyond the Music of the Ainur, _which is as fate to all things else_" (my emphasis). The thread at the time seemed to offer a good segue into the question of what is the difference between free choice among the Children and exactly what parts the music/fate controls and what parts it doesn't. Was what happened with the rings from start to finish "fated"? Were the things that the Elves or Dwarves did with them fate or subversions of fate? Right now my concept says that they were part of the music/fate and the preservation of Lorien was fated to happen, but then I have to consider Galadriel's free will and if she even had any and I get all muddled again. >By the way, Galadriel showed her repentance (IMHO) in the Mirror of >Galadriel chapter, when Frodo asks what she wants and she answers >"That what should be shall be", even if it means the fading of the >Elves. I'm not sure that it is repentance as much as acceptance of or surrender to inevitability but in a way even that could be construed as repentance of actions taken in contradiction to the will of the Valar, so I'd agree with you there. >But I don't want to overstate this. The Three were not evil. The >Elves didn't try to change things with them or coerce any free >people; they just used them to preserve things unstained. No holder >of the Three sought power for its own sake. Somehow I think holding >back change is less serious morally than forcing change, though I'm >not sure I could defend that position. No, the rings were not evil but I'm not sure about the last part. There is still the element of force used to alter the natural processes of things, whether that force is used to speed up, slow down, or alter course of a natural flow of events I believe is inconsequential. I saw a comic strip a couple of weeks ago, I think it was "Non-Sequiter," that had a panel that said "If conservationist had lived in 'such and such prehistoric time' " and showed two people running up to help a beached fish back into the water and the fish was supposed to be what was to develop into the first land based life form to come from the sea. It sort of puts the whole Conservation thing into perspective. Evolution doesn't work without risk to promote change. In the end Force is Force regardless of what it is used for. It may look good in comparison to another force but only in comparison. Breathe Peace PB "... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..." C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian"