Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

Davem, thank you for your answers.
I have some follow up questions about the Ring.

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Who had the ring without being corrupted by it? You mention Sam. Again, I ask how long he had it. My understanding is a very short time. And was he not at all affected by it? I notice that he did not give the Ring back to Frodo but rather Frodo quickly snatched it away from him.

Sam (in the book) rejected the Ring, & only 'withheld' it from Frodo in the Tower out of pity & a desire to share the burden, not out of a desire to own it himself.

Did I give you the impression I was saying the Ring was instantly corrupting? I did not intend to say that. Just that it was corrupting.

One is always free to reject the Ring. If one bears the Ring as long as Frodo, on such a long, traumatic road which ends at the Sammath Naur, one would be so weakened & vulnerable that one would almost certainly give in to it. But one is never overwhelmed against one's will & must always surrender willingly. Finally Frodo said 'Yes' to the Ring - although by that point it was all but impossible not to due to the extreme torment he had suffered. Anyone will give in to torture eventually, so Frodo is not to be blamed, but he did give in. A 'Yes' is always required.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... thank you for that explaination. Another follow-up question please.

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

This whole Faramir thing to me seems a bit of a misrepresentation. It seems that all who actually posessed the Ring for enough time for it to work its evil. Faramir was exposed to the Ring briefly and while it was owned and worn by someone else. I think it was very noble of Faramir to act as he did.... but, I would not go as far as to say he rejected the ring. He never had it to reject. Of course, the same could be said of Gandalf and Galadriel but they did so with a great deal more information and expertise at their disposal. Faramirs act was the slightest bit naive. Somewhat like an seventh grade student signing a pledge to abstain from sex. Yes, its nice and all , but ........

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.* Jackson singularly failed to appreciate this point, and invented the whole Osgiliation based on the notion that any Man (besides Aragorn) would be on it like a duck on a June bug, no matter what his previous character or moral stature.

Boromir did desire it- from the moment he saw it at the Council he coveted the Ring, or the strength he believed it would bring him (Sam says as much to his brother). Combined with spending many weeks in its vicinity,** the desire would eventually overthrow his will, even to the point of oathbreaking and betrayal.

Denethor shared this weakness, which is why Gandalf tells him that "Nonetheless I do not trust you. Had I done so, I could have sent this thing hither to your keeping and spared myself and others much anguish. And now hearing you speak, I trust you less, no more than Boromir." It is specifically Denethor he doesn't trust: not any Man or any Steward, but this particular one.

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

** I do think that the Ring can work without physical contact: but it has to have something to work on in the first place. It would have burned Denethor's mind away, we are told, even were it buried beneath Mindolluin: but that's because Denethor wanted it so. The Ring can only seduce the lustful.

[Sauron the White]

It sounds like you have nothing to worry about if you are pure of heart and harbor no negativity of any kind.

But who does that? There is nobody 100% pure of heart without a negative or selfish thought at some point. Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances. Except Tom Bombadil. Remember him? He was the being that the Ring had no power over but then JRRT does nothing with that incongruity. I think that is how we got to talking about all this in the first place.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yep- even Frodo, even Sam, even anyone, eventually.

Yes, 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.

Nobody is completely free of baser impulses. "This is a fallen world," Tolkien would say.

Bombadil is an enigma. He's meant to be. Nobody really knows what Tom is. The closest we have to an explanation of his freedom from the Ring's power is found in Letter No. 144: "If you have...renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself...then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless."

[Folwren]

Look...STW...Bombadil was not an inconsistancy, he was an exception. He was perfect. He had no self love, no personal selfishness. He was your perfect being. Is there a problem with that?

Originally Posted by STW

Thus the Ring could work on anyone given enough time and awaiting the proper allignment of luck and circumstances.

Yes, given time. However, according to Tolkien, Faramir's was such a character that could have resisted taking the Ring, had he found it by the road side. Just as there are some good kids out there in the 7th grade who would abstain from incorrect behavior (of any sort) around the other gender....something which you seem to claim to be impossible.

Disgusted,
Folwren

[Essex]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

* PJ shows this misunderstanding much earlier, with Bilbo at Rivendell. As filmed, Bilbo is momentarily transformed into a ravening little beast, lunging for the Ring; but it's very clear in the book that it's Frodo whom the Ring affects, making Bilbo look disgusting in Frodo's eyes. This moment is echoed with Sam in Cirith Ungol.

And there's the rub. One of the main reasons why films and books cannot be the same. Now putting aside my view of what you say here (I'm not sure I agree with it 100%) - how CAN a director show that the Bilbo's look is something that only Frodo 'sees' and not what actually 'happened'. without a narrator to tell us this detail it can;t work.

Yes, you're on the right track with regard to Faramir. Since he didn't desire the Ring or the power it represented in the first place, being in its vicinity was not going to change his personality or 'corrupt' him.

People seem to forget that Faramir WAS tempted by the Ring. One of the reasons he stoped himself taking it was he tied himself to his word, as Faramir himself tells Frodo. But HE WAS TEMPTED. He fought internally with himself and did not take the Ring. Therefore, to me, I see the trip to Osgiliath as a Detour. I didn't like it - but in the long run it did not make any difference.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Given the nature of hobbits - that it took an extralong time for both Bilbo and Frodo to come under the influence of the Ring .... is it not logical to infer that Sam would have indeed come under the power of the Ring if he had posessed it for a much longer period of time?

Well, you have an increase in the power of the Ring as the Hobbits approach Orodruin, but you also have a decrease in Frodo's will & inner strength. Whether Sam would have succumbed to the influence of the Ring is a bit more difficult. If it was to save Frodo he might have used it, or to save the Shire possibly, but he has already rejected its temptation in the Pass. The Ring can only tempt one by offering what one really desires, so if one does not desire what it offers one is not going to be tempted by it.I'm not sure its a question of being 'pure of heart' though. Faramir does have desires - to see Gondor restored to what it was in past days & a King on the throne again - but what he realises is that the Ring cannot bring that about. Faramir is a Numenorean at heart & would never put any trust in Sauron or his works. Faramir would not succumb & claim the Ring, because he does not want Gondor to go the way of Numenor.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it. Thus, it was easier for him not to pursue it. I compared this to a seventh grader taking a pledge of sexual abstinence in that the child has not yet participated in this activity (hopefully), has limited information and does not know what he/she would be missing except from misinformation. Thats all.

You say Bombadil was a perfect being. You may be right. I don't know. I find that concept a difficult one for me to comprehend - the idea of a perfect being living with the rest of the flawed beings. Heaven, maybe.

My problem with Bombadil is that he does nothing to advance the story or resolve it despite the amazing incongruity that he seems alone in being completely beyond the power of the Ring. What does Tolkien do with this amazing creature and the dilemma of the Ring? Nothing? It seems pointless to even introduce him into this tale. Save him for something else or keep him to his own little book.

WCH - so after todays exchange, it seems by earlier statement is not so incorrect after all. You and davem took exception to it

Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

If I had added the qualifying word EVENTUALLY after the statement "how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it..." it seems that would be correct.

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?

And to all.... I have so enjoyed our exchanges today. Very civilized.

[Folwren]

Well...I took your comment abount abstinence a little differently, is all. The subject of... well, yeah... is extremely taboo about my house and so I did, unfortunately, wish to reply in a rather heated manner. I was disgusted that you would compare the Ring to that which you mentioned (lol... the quote 'He that we do not name' comes unbidden to my mind), for I do not believe it is an accurate comparison at all. And here is not the proper place to discuss it.

Edit: Whoops, I forgot Bombadil.

I don't know if what I said about him being perfect is right, either. I believe that is the case with his character...but one can not be absolutely certain with Bombadil.
And it is a difficult concept to comprehend. However, there are two things to consider - one, he did not live with other flawed beings. He was actually set apart. Yes, it was possible to reach him, but he did not live among others. Two, there has been a perfect being on this Earth (our earth) before, and He was not set physically apart as Bombadil. He walked among us.

And although I do not agree with you about him doing nothing to further the story, I will not go into great deal to disagree with you. All I will say is something that I believe davem has said before - All the adventures that took place with or near Bombadil (in the three chapters of The Old Forest, In the House of Tom Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow Downs) were a huge part of the development of Frodo and even a bit of the other three hobbits. Not to mention their enchanted swords with which Merry ended up hurting the Witch King with.

-- Folwren

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But a character doesn't have to "advance the story." There's more to fiction than mere plot! Bombadil is a comment, if you like: a conception of a truly free, especially care-free, being. It's one with this that Bombadil appears rather ridiculous, even goofy- because he just doesn't care. He's all id, no ego.

He also serves to point out that in the real world, even the imagined 'real' world, there are always Exceptions: anomalies, bits that don't fit, things that can't be shoved into pigeonholes.

But if we're looking for Bombadil's *function* in the narrative- he is there to develop Frodo's (and thus the reader's) growing awareness of Middle-earth, its strangeness and its vast weight of history. Gandalf began this process, but Bombadil reinforces and widens it: especially since he uses no names or dates or specific events, just a great sweep of Time. Tolkien after all reveals his canvas gradually; he does *not* drop the reader into a slam-bang prologue full of epic sound and fury. That can wait.


On the corruption of the Ring: not exactly. The Ring will eventually overcome anyone who *possesses* it long enough. Some especially vulnerable individuals can be corrupted simply by wanting to possess it. But those who are merely in its vicinity, and aren't tempted to claim it, are in no particular danger: neither Frodo's companions (save Boromir), nor Faramir. Gandalf feared to take it, to possess it, even to touch it: but he obviously suffered no ill-effects from merely travelling with Frodo!

And so, again, the Osgiliation was entirely unnecessary. PJ & Co would have done better, IMO, to concentrate on the differences between the two brothers' personalities, rather than their relationship with their father (which is another whole area of complaint, however). If the audience were shown that Faramir is quite a different individual from Boromir, then his resistance makes perfect sense (and Denethor's treatment of him subsequently both more understandable and more painful).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Folwren ..... I do enjoy discussing these issues with you but I do not really know what I did to both anger and disgust you. My comment about the abstinence pledge was NOT to say anything negative about them. I was comparing it to Faramir not wanting the Ring. He really has very little knowledge about the Ring, has never had it, has never used it and is rather naive about it.

Faramir does not need to know anything about the Ring - though he would know about Isildur & the fall of Sauron. All he would need to know is that the Ring is the work of the Enemy. For that reason alone he would reject it. He is not 'naive' in the sense that while he may not know much about the Ring per se he does know a great deal about Sauron, & as far as he is concerned the Ring=Sauron

Davem... do you then agree with the last postings of both Folwren and William Cloud Hickli that eventually, given the right conditions, everyone would succumb to the Ring?

No. None of the Valar would succumb. Neither would Tom (we are explicitly told so), or, in my opinion, would Goldberry. As Mr Hicklin has pointed out, & leaving aside those exceptions to the rule, only those who possess the Ring (either physically or mentally) would be at risk of falling to it. However, the Ring could only tempt them to claim it, it could never force them to. Of course, it could manouvre them into using it - either for some trivial, 'innocent' purpose (hiding from annoying relatives) or 'for the greater good' (to save an innocent person) but the possessor would have to make the decision themselves. They would probably succumb - 'probably' is as far as we can go, in that it wouldn't be possible to hand over the ring to every inhabitant of M-e & watch to see what happened.