Rings

If the GtGs guys get the three, perhaps I have a shot at one of the others. Would I rather become a wraith or be driven mad with greed?

The seven don't *necessarilly* drive you mad. I'd say that, all told, they're the better choice.

The seven and the nine were, more or less, the same. It was the nature of the dwarves themselves, that kept them from being dominated.

I decided to split this thread because it was straying far afield from the original topic topic (yet onto a topic that I love :) ), and also because I am going mad with thread-splitting power.

@Greywind

I would contend that the Seven and the Nine were distinct in their powers and effects, each granting power according to the nature of the races for whom they were forged. It seems clear, for example, that the Nine granted invisibility, while the Seven did not.

Indeed, the Three, The Seven, and The Nine all appear to magnify the innate abilities of their respective races, and grant additional abilities that allow the bearer to achieve goals commonly desired by that race; i.e., The Three allow the bearer to preserve a semblance of the Elder Days, The Seven assist the bearer in amassing mineral wealth, and The Nine grant the power to command and gain dominion over other Men. It is my belief that these were the original powers of the Rings, as imagined by Celembrimbor. The fact that The Seven and The Nine also had a darker side was due to the influene of Anatar in their creation; the fact that that darker side was not nearly so effective corrupting Dwarves as Men is, as you said, due to the nature of the Dwarves themselves, who were created by Aulë specifically to resist dominion by Morgoth (and associated dark powers).

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the matter :)

I'd rather have these 7-9 rings (the picture shows 8, omitting White, and you could also leave out Black very logically).

I think that most of y'all would enjoy listening to The Tolkein Professor, if you don't already. Consider yourselves so advised.

I think Paul could be The Tolkein Professor…

@jffdougan

Wow! I now know what I'm doing on the plane to and from conventions this year!

The Three were untouched by the Darkness, having been forged solely by Celebrimbor.

There is also some question about the 7 and 9 being the "16 lesser rings of power."

@ Envisioner, I have no love for the Rainbow Lantern Corp.

Yeah, Sauron wasn't able to get his hands on the Three, so they remained "pure", but had he ever got hold of the One, he'd've been able to corrupt the Three as well. The Seven couldn't be twisted into making the Dwarves properly corrupt/enslaved like the Nine were for Men, so they instead amplified the Dwarves' natural tendency toward "Ooh, shiny!" and this is what caused Thror (father of Thrain, father of Thorin) to go a bit nuts with his whole obsession-over-hoarding-treasure thing, resulting in Smaug going "Ooh, many shinies in one place...yoink!".

I like the online Encyclopaedia of Arda for all my Middle Earth factfinding needs (didn't use it to type the above - did that from memory as I only reread the books a year or two ago :)). You can look up anything and there'll be a nice article on it, with references and links to related topics and everything :).

My suggestions in working through his stuff:

• Start with his Hobbit essays. They form the basis of the book he published last year.

• Then do the Tolkein and Faerie & Fantasy courses, in whichever order you like

• Listen to the old Riddles in the Dark stuff last, aside from the first episode or two where he and Dave Kale explain the project goals. It's very specific to thinking about the Hobbit film adaptations and predicting, so some of those are now outdated.

I've never understood the numbers.  1, 3, 7 and 9?  Why not 5?  Why no even numbers?  Why did the elves get fewer rings even though they live longer?

The elves got the fewest number I think because they are the hardest to tempt. Men got 9 because the race of men craved power and were therefore easy to manipulate and turn to the darkside.

Well why only nine?  If all Sauron had to do to corrupt men was to give them rings, why not manufacture several hundred rings and have an entire army of Nazgul at his command?

I'm guessing there's a lore or mythic component to the numbers. Tokien tried very hard to make names in his story invoke a feeling of old Arthurian legends. Also, high quality rings are not easy to make, especially with pre Industrial Revolution technology. I imagine he gave up whatever his social life was to make 19 of those things in such a short amount of time. It's 20 if you count the One Ring.

That's a shame.  Blackest Night was an incredible story, and was much better quality than the current Green Lantern comics.  Ever since that "War of the Green Lanterns" arc it's all gone downhill…

So the other rings actually provided some mythical such-and-such?  That's news to me!  I've only seen the flicks, as I stopped reading Fellowship in grade school after Tom Bombadil bored me to tears.

Honestly, outside of the Ring Wraiths, the other rings don't affect the plot of the books that much. At least from what I remember.

They are part and parcel to a lot of character motives

Yeah, the Hobbit would never have happened (retrospectively, after LotR was written) if the Dwarves had never had their rings - as I mentioned above, it was Thror's ring which caused him to become overly obsessive with his treasure, hoarding it and providing an irresistable pile of loot for Smaug to fly in and sit on top of. Fortunately a chance meeting in a pub over by the Shire set of a chain of events which ultimately prevented victory for the bad guys (since with Smaug dead, Sauron couldn't recruit him to kick arse in the north during the War of the Ring, meaning that the Men and Dwarves of Esgaroth, Erebor, and the Iron Hills were able to band together and defeat the armies invading from that direction while Aragorn was distracting the Mordor forces over by the Black Gate to give Frodo time to destroy the Ring). I don't recall whether any of the other Dwarven rings had any effect on any other creatures - I think a few were taken by dragons or otherwise lost, but I think Sauron got his hands on a couple of them, one of which may have been Thror's but I can't remember now.

The Elven rings are definitely important, considering they're all possessed by important characters - if I remember rightly, Gandalf has Narya (which has fiery powers and thus boost his already epic powers since they're fire-based). Galadriel has Nenya, which I think is what gives her the power she has to keep Lothlorien in its undying, "outside of time" state with all its lovely trees and stuff - after she goes into the West, I think the wood sort of goes "back to normal". I can't remember the name of the third ring but it's worn by someone else important - Celeborn or Elrond or one of those. Plus as mentioned, though Sauron wasn't able to get his hands on the Three to corrupt them during their creation, had he ever managed to regain the One, he'd've been able to do so then, thus breaking the power of Galadriel and the others, corrupting them or whatever. Thus providing another reason to need to destroy the One - apart from the fact that Sauron's regaining it would return him to full strength, it would give him power over those who formerly stood against him most strongly.

In a way, this means that the Nine have less effect, in a way. Yeah, they made the nine Men corrupt, turning them into Wraiths of the shadow world who follow Sauron's orders, emit fear wherever they go, command his armies on his behalf, and kick arse in combat, but all those things are more…immediate. The slow damage inflicted on the Dwarves and the potential corruption (or whatever would happen) of the Elves (and Gandalf?) are much more long-term. Even with the Witch King, Lord of the Nazgul, destroyed at the battle of the Pelennor Fields, Sauron's still nowhere near losing the war as a whole. It just seems like the Nine are more of a problem because the main characters, in particular the one who is writing the majority of the book (LotR is mostly written by Frodo except for the end part which is written by Sam, whereas the Hobbit is written by Bilbo, who's also responsible for the intro, "Concerning Hobbits", of LotR), because they're actively out to physically get hold of/kill him so they're more of an immediate threat.

     It's because Tolkein was a very devote Catholic. These numbers are important in biblical numerology. One is for God. Three represents the Trinity. Seven is the number of perfection and the sabbath. Nine is 3x3 so basically three trinities. In my experience if you have a question about why Tolkein wrote look to three places: Catholicism, older myths and legends (mostly fairy stories), and anti-war sentiment from his time in WW1.

From a mythological standpoint, 1, 3, 7, 9 are all powerful symbols and numbers in european mythology with a LONG history in stories, religion, and mysticism. 

1- anything singular (as in utterly unique and unable to replicate) equates to power. Works for gods, items of power, monsters, heroes (last member of their tribe, race, ninja clan, etc).  I don't think theres any other number/concept which is used as heavily. It reverberates throughout storytelling with such elements as the lone wanderer, the King, The Emperor,  the sacrifice (a single person giving themselves for the good of all), the first (insert thing here) being the most powerful, or the last (insert thing here) being the most powerful.   

3- the number three is similarly heavily used, be it in mythology, religion, and storytelling.  3 gods (often three aspects of a singular god, to get both the goodness of three and one!), such as the Christian trinity, the 3 fates, and the three aspects of the Morrigan.  This is echoed in mystical elements from classical literature, such as the three witches (which again tends to echo the Maiden, Mother and Crone- its turtles all the way down here...).

It can also be seen in a lot of fairy tales- 3 brothers set out, only 1 makes it to the end (or learns anything).

7- This is one of the best known power numbers, with deep roots in numerology and multiple cultural underpinnings.  It can be seen in eastern and middle eastern mythology  (7 gods, 7 roads, 7 brothers, the number 7 meaning togetherness, etc).  In european mythology, you see things like the 7th son of a 7th son being special and able to see through falsehoods and magic.  there are 7 days in a week (with one of them being special to a tripartite, singular god!)  Its also a number significant to alchemists and numerologists, being all about study and wisdom.  

9- at a most basic level, this is 3 times 3 (and thus powerful, but lesser).  It has roots in indian mythology, but is largely special because of it equates to three sets of three.  

Bonus- the number 4!

4 is also important, but always as part of a set.  things like the 4 elements, or the 4 treasures of ireland.  Its all about things coming together to be more than the sum of their parts.  you can see why that wouldn't be all that useful for rings (except for summoning captain planet, but that takes Heart- which equates to the 5th element, that being spirit) Basically, 4 and 5 tend to be intertwined, and are often about 4 things uniting into 1 stronger one.  Which isn't really what the rings were about.  they were more about being subservient to/ruled by the singular thing, rather than coming together to MAKE a single thing.

Sauron forged the One in secret and imbued it with so much of his power that he could not survive without it. Hence his dissolution when it was destroyed.

Celebrimbor forged the Three without the assistance of Annatar (Sauron). Once Sauron forged the One, the elves wearing the Three knew they had been betrayed and hid the Three away. The elves, being immortal and having suffered through Morgoth, did not give in to the darkness. There are three branches of elves.

The Seven were given to the leaders of the seven dwarf clans. Mostly they ended up being dragon magnets.

The Nine were given to powerful kings of men. The rings did not give more life. They simply stretched what was already there to accommodate continued existence.

But there are sets of Five and Six and Eight and Ten as well, they just don't always show up in the same cultures.  (For isntance, both China and Japan had five-element systems, while the Eightfold Path is central to Buddhism.)  "Catholicism" as an answer will have to do, I guess.

Tolkein was neither Chinese nor Japanese, nor was he a Buddhist - he took his inspiration from European folklore and language as well as his own religion. If he'd tried to include "sets" of every number between one and ten in some way I suspect it might have ended up being a bit silly.

@Ameena

Yes, I know the rings are important to character motivation and the like, but most of the time it doesn't seem to hurt an understanding of the story if you don't know about the specific rings and their effects. Dwarves had treasure, Smaug stole it, they want it back. That motivation can be understood without the background information of the ring. It's cool to know, and it definitely adds to the story, but knowing that piece of information doesn't seem to be critical to understanding the plot. This is true of most stuff in Tokien though, like Shadowfax's geneaology.

This can be shown by the LOTR movies that more or less removed most of the mention of the other rings, except in the extended edition, and were still widely popular with the audience.

Well JRR Tolkien is Catholic. So yeah, Buddhism has the Eightfold path, but that's not relevant to HIM, so why would you expect him to care enough to include it?

Because people don't always only draw inspiration from what they know most about?

Tolkien was a Linguist who loved Mythology.

The stories and world are based on the languages he created for them.

He wasn't really a writer*, in the sense that he created leanguages, then a world that they came from and the Mythology that led those groups to be what they were and the stories flow from that.  Most writers create a world to support a story, Tolkien created a world to hold the languages he wanted to write.  He also wrote the Lord of the Rings because he felt England didn't have a good enough Mythology.

His abandoned Arthurian Poem was as much an exploration of old English poetry as anything else, he seems to have had a love/hate relationship with Arthurian Legend, as the major Mythology of the English it was important to him, but he seems disappointed by it, and especially the French influences.  (I agree there, the Grail and Lancelot suck)

At least that is what I get from him.

*What I mean here is that his stories were always about the languages and exploring the people that made them, Mythology as important shared history has great impact on language, so he created languages, then created the mythology of the people that belong to that language.

Never said I did.  Like I said, we have "catholic" as the answer as to why he didn't use other numbers, but without that answer, there was no reason for him to think some numbers were more special than others.

Anything that resurrected Hal Jordan and ceased Rayner's run as the one true Green Lantern pretty much killed it for me.

Well I'm not a One True anything guy, and I loved the concept of different Rings gaining power from different mental states (calling it the Emotional Spectrum is questionable since Willpower isn't really an emotion, though you could label it Determination and it'd be closer).  However, I strongly dislike the idea that the Red, Orange and Yellow rings are not only used exclusively by evil people, but even force you to be evil in order to use them - the Red ones make you a berserk killing machine, and you can't even make constructs with them.  And there's only ever one Orange Lantern, which just stinks.

I have a headcanon/fanfic/Elseworlds thing where the other six Corps have existed since the beginning, all of them work more or less the same way except for the emotion involved, and all of them can be used by any number of people for good or for ill.  Guy Gardner becomes a heroic Red Lantern, while Hal Jordan is the Green Lantern Corps's ambassador to the Yellow Corps, with Sinestro reciprocating; the two have an extremely uneasy alliance rather than actually fighting.  John Stewart thusly becomes the "standard" Green Lantern of Earth, and Kyle Rayner was in some high-level advisory position involving either the Guardians or the Ion entity.  It's been a while since I made all this up, so I'm unclear on some of the details.  But I was immensely fond of some of the characters I started making up for it, including a heroic lady Orange Lantern who I really liked...her version of Greed was more like Luxury, she wanted everyone to wallow in obscene quantities of wealth, and basically used her Ring to grant wishes to everybody so they could all live like kings and queens.  She would fight evil by bribing the villains into laying down their arms, and then the "good" Yellow Lanterns (including Batman) would get on her case for being an enabler instead of a punisher.

The comic itself is written superbly and effectively embodies many tropes comics utilize.  Resurrection and older characters reasserting themselves as the "signature" character of that superhero title are huge themes in this comic.  Barry Allen and Hal Jordan reassert themselves in a world that has moved on.  Many of their friends have been dead for years and the world is more jaded and dark than they remember.  Older characters are reanimated as Black Lantern monstrocities that manipulate heroes and villains to further their agenda of ending all life.  It's an examination of the nature of bringing DC characters back from the dead.

Besides, Rayner is basically space Jesus as the one White Lantern in Green Lantern: New Guardians, and the Green Lantern Corps is essentially Exxon Valdez since it has recently been revealed that the various lantern corps drain the energy that powers the universe.

Basically, the current run is terrible.  Kyle Rayner's current comic is terrible.  It would still be terrible even if it were Hal, Guy, John, Simon, or Rot Lop "F-Sharp Bell Corps" Fan.  It's bad writing.  Not bad characters.

I'll take good writing with a less interesting character in a good comic rather than an interesting character being lame in a terrible comic.