Talk:One Ring/Archive 2

notability
I can't believe this "one" ring has its own page! do people have no lives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.228.124 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Oh, come on: nobody that writes in WP has a life!) Elphion (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a pivotal part of the story of The Lord of the Rings, as important as the main characters, if not more. Of course it deserves its own article! Darth Newdar   (talk)  07:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf handle ring?
It says he did in the article. He didn't really. He took the envelope, threw it in the fire, and pulled it out with tongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtYourService100 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He did really: "Frodo took it from his breeches-pocket, where it was clasped to a chain that hung from his belt.  He unfastened it and handed it slowly to the wizard. ... Gandalf held it up. ... For a moment the wizard stood looking at the fire; then he stooped and removed the ring to the hearth with the tongs, and at once picked it up. Frodo gasped." (FR, "The Shadow of the Past", p. 48 more or less.) Elphion (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Er...
I'm a mathematician, and probably don't have much authority on this, but didn't Gandalf say the ring-inscription in the Black Speech of Mordor at the Council of Elrond and not in "The Shadow of the Past"? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 07:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gandalf translates the rings inscription in the Shadows of The Past, "The language is that of Mordor, that I will not utter here". He speaks the words in the mordor tounge in The Council of Elrond, so the article is correct. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I replaced "read" with "translated". Elphion (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The black speech of mordor-Ring inscription
Ok so i was wondering what language is the inscription in? And where can i find a list of the symbols in that language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.210.26 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The language, as you note, is the Black Speech of Mordor. The script is a variant of Tengwar. The appendix of Return of the King shows the symbols, but the wikipedia page has plenty of resources as well.Patrickbowman (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My Precious
Why does "my precious" redirect here? In the first scene with Gollum in The Hobbit, Tolkien clearly states that "my precious" is what Gollum calls himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.216.134 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because that's only transference. The Lord of the Rings makes clear that the center of Gollum's being has become "his Precious", the One Ring.  It has taken him over, and he identifies with it. (See the chapters "Shadow of the Past", "The Taming of Smeagol", and "Mount Doom".) -- Elphion (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Unsourced Research
This article is rife with original research, speculation, and unsourced information. I don't even know where to begin addressing it. I will start in the morning, but this article definitely needs a ton of work. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam wore the ring?
Can you please cite the passage where Sam actually wears the Ring? To the best of my recollection he only carried it, and never actually put it on his finger. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Haven't got the book to hand but he wears it whilst following the Shagrat through the passages above Cirith Ungol. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a vivid passage near the end of TT describing Sam's experience and the changes in his perception when he puts on the ring shortly after leaving Frodo behind. He is trapped near the side of the road by a company of orcs, but escapes detection because he is invisible.  He is able to hear the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag (despite being a ways behind them) through his Ring-enhanced hearing.  -- Elphion (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From The Lord of the Rings 50th Anniversary Edition(Single volume Harper Collins 2005 based on the reset edition first published in 2002, which is a revised version of the reset edition first published in 1994)Page 734

''He was not aware of any thought or decision. He simply found himself drawing on the chain and taking the Ring in his hand. The head oh the orc-company appeared in the Cleft right before him. Then he put it on.''

[page break]

''The world changed, and a single moment of time was filled with an hour of thought. At once he was aware that hearing was sharpened while sight was dimmed, but otherwise then in Shelob's lair. All things about him now were not dark but vague; while he himself was there in a grey hazy world, alone, like a small black solid rock, and the Ring, weighing down his left hand, was like an orb of hot gold. He did not feel invisible at all, but horribly and uniquely visible; and he knew that somewhere an Eye was searching for him.''

He is then wearing the ring until page 899 in book 6 where after he is only a bearer and not a wearer Koto Elessar (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious Half-world while wearing the ring
It is incorrect to imply that Sam started feeling that the world looked strange while wearing the ring. Frodo definitely experiences this on Weathertop - and possibly other places as well; can't remember exactly. 118.93.75.171 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But read the passage quoted two sections above. -- Elphion (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ring verse - origin?
I'm in the midst of reading Christopher's books about the development of LOTR, but so far he hasn't said whether his father ever gave a source for the Ring Verse. Obviously the "One Ring..." couplet was spoken and composed by Sauron during the Ring's creation...but whence the lines before and after? Would Sauron really dub himself a "Dark Lord"? I can guess that the elves composed and circulated the verse as a warning against using any of the Rings, but that's just speculation. Can anyone cite anything indicating J.R.R. had a specific source in mind at any point in the drafting of LOTR? Asat (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to grab my copy of the book, but the verses can be found in The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past", when Gandalf and Frodo first talk about the ring (right after he throws it in the fire). The two lines you're referring two are "only two lines of a verse long known in Elven-lore". Other than that, it doesn't really elaborate, and I'm not aware of any other place in the book that shows the full version. The last chapter of The Silmarillion might elaborate on that (as it concerns the rings of power) but I cannot find my copy, so I can't confirm this. - SudoGhost 05:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gandalf says in The Council of Elrond that Celebrimbor heard the words and this is how the elves knew that the Rings of Power where a trap. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was perhaps only the couplet inscribed on the Ring that they heard. It's not clear whether the other lines were spoken by Sauron at the creation of the One (or indeed composed by him at all).  It's also not clear whether the division of the rings for Dwarves and Men into Seven and Nine was clear from the beginning, or if that's just how it turned out. -- Elphion (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It will be better and easily understandable in the verse of the rings are represented pictorially, in a tree format. Anish Viswa  06:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to The Council of Elrond the words Celebrimbor heard where "Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul." Which sounds to me like the rest of the rhyme was added later by the elves. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Shrek 2
After the beginning of Shrek 2 (another movie), a person is forging a ring like the One Ring. Is it the same as the One Ring that:
 * there is inscription when on a fire?
 * ring is made on a fire?

24.24.187.165 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Solomon's Ring
There is well known legend about Solomon, Seal_of_Solomon. He had a ring that gave him great power and control over genie. At some point he lost the ring to Satan and therefore lost his power and kingdom (maybe because of pride in his power). At the end of the story he gets the ring and his kingdom back. The idea of a ring that gives power to ring-wearer and control over others goes back at least to this legend. 90.181.66.134 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and given Tolkien's religiousness it could well be that he was inspired by that legend as well. Do you have a reliable reference that compares the Solomon legend to Tolkien's Ring? If so please add it, otherwise your assessement is original research and can't be used here. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If anything, it would be the Nibelungenring - but it is not. 190.226.31.130 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Invisibility
I've removed a sentence about the effect of the ring when worn by an immortal, it was too narrow an example and not quite correct. My understanding is that;
 * All the great rings made mortals invisible (to other mortals at least).
 * All the great rings conferred unending life for mortals.
 * None of the immortal ring bearers where invisible, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf.

GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with removing the sentence -- the example is indeed narrow, but even so the conclusion says more than we know. Your bullets above also involve non-textual assumptions. Gandalf states explicitly the second, but the first is not correct (the Dwarves' Rings did not make *them* invisible), and the third generalizes from a known specific case (the bearers of the Three were not invisible) to a general conclusion never confirmed by Tolkien. (Bombadil is not clear evidence either way, of course.) -- Elphion (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The first point is a bit of an assumption yes, Gandalf says 'and if a mortal uses the ring to make himself invisible, he fades'. This could mean that a mortal with enough willpower could prevent himself from being invisible - but it is rampant O/R GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And leaves open the possibility that an immortal could use the Ring to become invisible too. We just don't know.  Even my claim about Dwarves' visibility above, on second thought, involves assumptions from other statements.  The moral is that our (natural) tendency to draw conclusions about Tolkien's world goes beyond what Tolkien himself worked out. -- Elphion (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In-universe writing style
Example:
 * History
 * Further information: Timeline of Arda
 * After its original forging (about S.A. 1600) Sauron waged the War of the Elves and Sauron against the Elves and all who opposed him.

In Tolkiens fantasy novel that is. Each and every section of the article need some phrase backreferencing to the Lord of The Ring novel/trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkien. To fulfill WP:MOSFICT. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why there is a big parent headline "Literature" to indicate that such sections contain fictional accounts as found in the literature. I have however added an explanatory paragraph and moved the "Symbolism" section out of this fictional context. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Central plot element?
The introduction to the article currently states that the Ring is "the central plot element in J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy novels".

This either ignores The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin (and incomplete works such as the one based on the Inklings but whose name presently escapes me), or asserts that these publications are not novels. Indeed it's arguable whether LotR is a novel. I am therefore about to insert 'two of' in the above sentence (after 'in'), although I think a reasonable alternative would be to instead insert 'two most popular' before 'fantasy'. Cheers203.6.146.5 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Now done. The incomplete novel whose title I couldn't recall was the Notion Clubb Paper. I also apologise for omitting to include an edit summary. Cheers again.203.6.146.5 (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good spot, although I've adjusted the opening because I don't think it's a central plot point in The Hobbit. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  06:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gimli, I totally agree, excellent 'adjustment'. BTW I meant Notion Club Papers, not what my fingers typed above.203.6.146.5 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Home Made Ring?
The current title picture for this article does not fit the article. This home made ring is silver, to begin with. An illustration would be far more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.89.15 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not silver, it's definitely gold. Or at least, gold colored. I'll never tell.... okay, it's gold colored. It may be not an 'exact' replica, but it's very close.--  Darth Mike  ( join the dark side ) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is slightly blurred, and is rubbish. Sorry whoever made it! I think that an image for Peter Jackson's film should be used, as its appearnce couldn't be much different from that. So, I would either move the image from the film up to the top, or get another image. I will do this if somebody else agrees with me :) Darth Newdar   (talk)  20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the replica down the page, and put an image from Jackson's films at the top. Darth Newdar   (talk)  20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An anon has moved the pictures round again; is there anybody else that thinks the movie image should be at the top, due to the low nature quality of the replica ring? Darth Newdar   (talk)  06:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The movie pics belong in the movie section. The other pic is sort of silly: a "replica"?? -- it never existed, folks.  Besides, what does it show: that the Ring was gold, round, and had writing on it.  We need a picture for that? Elphion (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would remove it. Darth Newdar   (talk)  07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the image. Darth Newdar (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose the use of this image for the article: wich is more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.144.177 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The ray tracing is more sophisticated, but it makes the Ring look like ebony rather than gold. -- Elphion (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How to handle conflicting (noncanonical sources?)
Apparently there is a new video game coming out, presumably authorized by the Tolkien estate or else they'd be in deep legal trouble, that makes claims contrary to those published in the original books (see the claim about the Ring's creator that I just reverted).

What is policy on handling matters like this? Do we have to start qualifying every claim about the fictional world with "according to [some particular work set in that world]"? That seems... unwieldy. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No. These articles are primarily about the books.  We can mention other sources in "adaptations" sections, but we need to make clear that that material is about the adaptations. -- Elphion (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Grants power according to stature
In the chapter 2 of Book 1 (Fellowship of the Rings, "Shadow of the Past"), it is mentioned that the Ring grants power according to one's stature. More specifically it is noted the after Gollum took the Ring "The ring had given him power according to his stature." This appears to be a very important characteristic of the Ring. It explains how Sauron (as a shapeshifter who could make himself tremendously tall) could use the Ring to wield great power, while smaller beings like Hobbits could to relatively little with it other than vanish when they put it on. This is not discussed in the article at all. It may also explain why after wearing the Ring for a while one would feel "stretched" like Bilbo reported: This would represent the Ring attempting to increase the stature of the wearer so that it could wield more power through the wearer. (See Chapter 1 of Book 1 [Fellowship of the Ring, "A Long Expected Party"]) EMS | Talk 18:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * One could suspect something like that, but "trying to increase the stature of the wearer" goes beyond anything Tolkien says. -- Elphion (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat that LOTR very much indicates that the ring grants power in accord with stature, and that the article should be edited to reflect that. For now, I can only stare at this page and consider how it is to be added.  WP:OR is a real issue here, which is why I am not editing this page directly. EMS | Talk 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a very old thread. However, there's no reason to suppose that "stature" literally means "height"; Tolkien appears to have meant "the wearer's existing power", as evidenced by the account in LOTR of the danger to Gandalf, Aragorn, and Galadriel of using it. But your mention of WP:OR is certainly right, we can't go there without scholarly support from WP:RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, by "stature", Tolkien undoubtedly meant "natural ability". This is already adequately covered in the "Powers" section, in the paragraph starting "To master the Ring's capabilities ...". -- Elphion (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Artefact not artifact
This shouldn't be necessary to say as the user has been ignoring and deleting the comment to this same effect that's embedded in the article itself and has ignored his own talk page too, but for the sake of procedure: User:DanielJTown, there is a policy WP:ENGVAR that says that articles may use different varieties of English as appropriate to the topic of the article. This article uses British English, and it is disruptive to repeatedly change it to the American spelling. You seem to have no purpose here other than repeatedly doing so, as well, as that is the only thing your account has ever done. Please stop. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (I am sorry my family apparently decided to have fun I will stop them in the future -DanielJTown)

Wagner and Tolkien's common source
This is a good article, so it surprises me that there is a section on Tolkien and Wagner, but no section on what is in all likelihood their common inspiration in Norse mythology. I am hesitant to add this kind of material to an article that has already reached GA, because I assume that the main editors must consider it irrelevant as it is not included. Am I correct in my assumption?--Berig (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The matter is discussed at J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. I don't think we need (another) section on that here, but we could have a brief mention - all that is needed (if anything is) is a clause along the lines of "though they have a common source in Norse mythology": the lead actually says so already. I'll see if a further tweak is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Still, I feel that Andvarinaut and its role in the Völsung tradition that Tolkien loved so much that he wrote his own retelling, should have at least as much space as is given to Nodens.--Berig (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, repetition it is: my view remains that this is overkill, ignoring the fact that this is a wiki with links and a family of articles that cover inevitably overlapping topics, hopefully intelligently, i.e. without repeating everything everywhere. I've written a single Norse'n'Wagner section as the two are strongly interconnected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now, it is better :-). I understand that Tolkien's answer to being compared to Wagner has made it inseparable from the topic of Andvaranaut. I also understand what you mean by overlapping. However, I have been studying page views between articles, and especially when they have been at DYK to see how much of the visits that spill over to linked articles. It does not appear that many editors, actually follow links between articles, and nowadays I believe that is something only those really interested do.--Berig (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Better" is a value judgement, and it's disputable for the reasons given. "Less open to challenge" might be nearer the mark, and even that's always a hostage to fortune. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree!--Berig (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"endowed with a malevolent sentience" - or should it be "agency"?
The "powers" section contains the statement,

"As the Ring contained much of Sauron's power, it was endowed with a malevolent sentience. While separated from Sauron, the Ring strove to return to him by manipulating its bearer to claim ownership of it, or by abandoning its bearer.T 20"

It's been a long time since I last read the trilogy, but I don't recall that the Ring has "sentience" as much as "agency". It can't be said to have will, but it is not a passive object either. The better word, in my opinion, is "agency".

I'm not familiar with the source that's provided and it's not online, so I can't tell if the word "sentience" originates with the source or with the author of this section of the article.

In summary

I propose changing the word "sentience" to "agency"

If anyone would like to make an argument for keeping the word "sentience" please let your voice be heard.

Thank you!

--CoffeeHawk (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)== ==


 * Well, the source given is one of Tolkien's letters (quite a long one, pp. 325-333). In it, he uses different words of the ring: "pressure", "temptation", "power". I can't see "sentience" there. "Agency" indeed seems preferable, I'll fix it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The word “sentience” does not appear in “The Letters of JRR Tolkien” so it’s a fair change.

It is discussed thusly…

While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in ‘rapport’ with himself: he was not ‘diminished’.

That to me doesn’t sound like it has its own sentience. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Addiction to power in The Lord of the Rings into One Ring
The concept of addiction to power in LOTR seems to be encapsulated by the One Ring. I don't see any content here that couldn't be or indeed isn't already covered in the article on One Ring. Seems, to me, to be unnecessary duplication. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Mm, the article could have been more developed, there is no shortage of material, and I'd left it in a rather minimalist state. I've now added tables and quite a bit of text which should go some way to answering your doubts, covering power in general in the book (showing that the matter is wider and "older" than the Ring, though of course it's a focus: Sauron fell into evil and the lust for power before he created the Ring, while Saruman, imitating him, is seduced by pride and power without ever coming close to the Ring), the moral effects of the Ring, and the overcoming of the addiction. These clarify, too, that the Addiction to power article is principally academic in focus, i.e. what have scholars said about how power works in the book. That is different from the One Ring article, whose focus is necessarily somewhat popular and aimed at readers of the book and fans of Peter Jackson's films as well as at the general reader. Granted, the Addiction article is in large part a subsidiary, so one might think at first blush that it could fit into the One Ring article as a subsection; but a) it's considerably too long to go in there, as it would be longer than all the other Analysis subsections put together, b) power corrupted characters in The Silmarillion, appearing as already corrupt by the time they are first encountered in The Lord of the Rings, so the article has as already mentioned a wider extension than simply the Ring, c) it's different in readership, as just explained, and d) Tolkien's use of the attraction of power to illuminate character is more about morality than about some artifact, no matter how shiny. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)