I dislike Tolkien

[Eurytus]

You can only really see things from your perspective. From Sauron's perspective no-one could destroy the Ring. Indeed as it turned out no-one actually could.

So someone destroying the Ring would simply not been seen as a risk.

[Zahir al Daoud]

ACtually, Sauron had thousands of Orcs surrounding Mount Doom. Hardly what I would call "unguarded." And he was correct--no one could possibly willingly destroy the Ring. It took Frodo everything he had to get it to Mount Doom. He didn't have what it took to actually destroy it. No one did.

Tolkien was making a point about faith, about how the universe itself is a fallen but not evil place and how the ultimate solution to the problems of life is to refuse despair and keep on trying. He wasn't trying to tell a story where every little plot point was accounted for. One might as well complain that murder mysteries are all about people killing each other. Well, that is part of it, but that is also misleading because it then puts Murder She Wrote in the same category as snuff films.

Sauron is not stupid. He is limited in his imagination. That is his single greatest weakness that he ultimately does not understand his opponents. Thus it is by an act of compassion--Bilbo's refusal to kill Gollum when he had the opportunity but no need--all of Sauron's schemes are brought to nothing. An act he would never, ever anticipate.

Now, if this isn't your cuppa tea, fine. But there is another side to this and that is why I bring it up.

[Altherion]

Bringing the Ring to the brink was all that anyone could have done. No-one could have thrown the Ring into the fire.

EXACTLY! And it is this sort of crap that I truly despise -- the utter lack of faith in humanity (hobbits, elves, dwarves, etc.) astounds me. The entire story is written under the assumption that the battle is unwinnable by the efforts of the heroes; what is needed amounts to either dumb luck or divine intervention. I firmly believe in the idea that human beings should not act based on a Deus ex Machina event at the end of the journey unless such an event has specifically been promised by said Deus.

[Isis]

EXACTLY! And it is this sort of crap that I truly despise -- the utter lack of faith in humanity (hobbits, elves, dwarves, etc.) astounds me. The entire story is written under the assumption that the battle is unwinnable by the efforts of the heroes; what is needed amounts to either dumb luck or divine intervention. I firmly believe in the idea that human beings should not act based on a Deus ex Machina event at the end of the journey unless such an event has specifically been promised by said Deus.

It isn't about dumb luck. I think that's been pointed out enough times in this thread. I appreciate that you'd like free will to play a greater part in the story and the fact that it doesn't seems insulting to the human race. If you don't like it, you don't like it and no amount of 'explaining' on the part of those who do love LOTR is going to change your mind. I'm an atheist and I have, at times, had my own issues with the religious aspects of the work, so I do understand where you're coming from.

[Asa]

You can only really see things from your perspective. From Sauron's perspective no-one could destroy the Ring. Indeed as it turned out no-one actually could.

So someone destroying the Ring would simply not been seen as a risk.

All he would have done is to make a list of all the possible ways he could die, and make safeguards against them.

IE: If I KNEW that if someone threw my goldfish plushie into an abyssful fire, that it would kill me, even if I wouldn't think that anyone would ever possibly take my goldfish plushie for no good reason and throw into an abyssful fire, I would still take precautions against it since I knew it IS a possibility.

Sauron may have thought that no one could destroy the Ring, but he DID know that if the Ring WAS destroyed, it would kill him. Thus he knew that it was a possible way for him to die, and could have reacted against it.

And I still haven't been answered on why the Ringwraiths didn't just go invisible

Didn't Tolkien state that there were no allegories in LoTR? That he wrote it just as a story and it is what it is?

[Werthead]

There are powers in the world that can harm Nazgul. Okay, the Witch-King is safe thanks to the whole "No man may kill me" thing, but the other Nazgul aren't so lucky. Gandalf, Aragorn, the elves etc are all capable of killing Nazgul if necessary. So the Nazgul, being as cautious as perhaps Sauron should have been about Mt. Doom, go around fully armoured, with their cloaks on and on their mounts. Riding around invisible on horseback might attract the attention of the elves and other opponents capable of harming them. Plus they need to talk to their minions (like the guys in Bree) and just appearing invisible in front of them might cause them to freak out and run off.

Best argument I can think up.

[Galactus]

IE: If I KNEW that if someone threw my goldfish plushie into an abyssful fire, that it would kill me, even if I wouldn't think that anyone would ever possibly take my goldfish plushie for no good reason and throw into an abyssful fire, I would still take precautions against it since I knew it IS a possibility.

Exact that by making precautions you'd make people start wondering what all the fuzz about the goldfish plushie was all about and thus unwittingly invite your DOOM....

If they had gone invisible when they attacked at Weathertop, or in any battles for that matter, it would have been a lot more effective.

My understanding was that the cloaks *literally* gave them shape: Without mortal clothing/armour they were simply invisible presences, who couldn't act on the "mortal plane" at all, beyond causing fear.

[Asa]

There are powers in the world that can harm Nazgul. Okay, the Witch-King is safe thanks to the whole "No man may kill me" thing, but the other Nazgul aren't so lucky. Gandalf, Aragorn, the elves etc are all capable of killing Nazgul if necessary. So the Nazgul, being as cautious as perhaps Sauron should have been about Mt. Doom, go around fully armoured, with their cloaks on and on their mounts. Riding around invisible on horseback might attract the attention of the elves and other opponents capable of harming them. Plus they need to talk to their minions (like the guys in Bree) and just appearing invisible in front of them might cause them to freak out and run off.

Best argument I can think up.

They had armor on? Yeah, they could of gone cloaked just when talking to their minions, but think how amazing they'd be invisible! They could sneak into the chamber's of all the kings etc, and kill them, and just go around killing people who never could see them.

It's possible that the cloaks not only let others see them, but actually give them tangible existance. I just don't see how that works though :/

[Zahir al Daoud]

EXACTLY! And it is this sort of crap that I truly despise -- the utter lack of faith in humanity (hobbits, elves, dwarves, etc.) astounds me. The entire story is written under the assumption that the battle is unwinnable by the efforts of the heroes; what is needed amounts to either dumb luck or divine intervention.

Actually, it isn't a matter that the universe will simply insure that evil will fail. In Middle Earth, what people do definitely influences the outcome. Notice though, I didn't say what people plan but what they do.

The world is saved because Bilbo--having no idea it was even important--would not not kill someone who was defenseless. The Witch King is destroyed and Gondor saved because both Theoden and Eowyn used their sadness as fuel to act. Faramir saves all of Middle Earth because he put the truth above rules. The only reason Frodo was able to get the Ring as far as he did was because he was kind to Gollum and because Sam never wavered in his support. Likewise, Sauron was defeated because Galadriel was able to refuse the Ring, and because Gandalf sacrificed himself to save the Fellowship in Moria. Time and again throughout the story it is the nature of action--what people do and why they do it--that shapes events. But practically no one's plans go perfectly right, which is a nice piece of realism. Plans will only take you so far. At a certain point you simply have to act based upon what you know, don't give in to despair, and do the best you can. Things might look hopeless, but it is only by holding onto hope and acting upon it is there any chance at all of a happy outcome.

And isn't that a portrayal of the world as it truly is? No one knows everything. No one even knows enough! But giving into despair, while temping, simply doesn't work. Among other things it is a simple mistake because there is just as much good fortune in the world as bad, and the only ones who can take advantage of the good are those who held on. You don't have control over the whole world. No one does. You do have control over your own actions, and those actions most certainly impact the future.

Someone once described LOTR as a "sermon against despair" and I think that is fairly accurate. It isn't a formulaic lie about how we are in control of our destinies--we're not. But it is a clarion call that you're not effectless either, that you do matter, that you can shape what happens. But to some extent you have to this blind. The final outcome is not something you will know until it happens. But you will help form it, either for ill and good.

[Isis]

Didn't Tolkien state that there were no allegories in LoTR? That he wrote it just as a story and it is what it is?

LOTR was not written as an allegory. Tolkien said that he disliked allegory. He did not deny applicability though - the ability of diverse people to find relevance to their own situation in LOTR.

"I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)" Letter 131.

[Altherion]

Actually, it isn't a matter that the universe will simply insure that evil will fail. In Middle Earth, what people do definitely influences the outcome. Notice though, I didn't say what people plan but what they do.

Everything you say is fairly accurate, but it is simply not enough. Without the divine intervention, all of the sacrifices, all of the suffering would not have been enough to ensure victory. I would have been content with the ending had one of the hobbits pushed Gollum into the fire, but as it stands the end is no different than the Simarillion where at the end, the good angels just come and kick ass (the divine is just more anonymous in LotR).

[Eurytus]

All he would have done is to make a list of all the possible ways he could die, and make safeguards against them.

The key word there is "possible".

It was not possible that someone could seek to destroy the Ring so it was not necessary to guard against it.

And I still haven't been answered on why the Ringwraiths didn't just go invisible

In Unfinished Tales it specifically states that the terror they caused was even greater when they were unclad. Covered in robes it hid their true nature and their true terror to a degree. This made it possible for them to conduct their mission in secrecy. Which Sauron deemed necessary.

Everything you say is fairly accurate, but it is simply not enough. Without the divine intervention, all of the sacrifices, all of the suffering would not have been enough to ensure victory. I would have been content with the ending had one of the hobbits pushed Gollum into the fire, but as it stands the end is no different than the Simarillion where at the end, the good angels just come and kick ass (the divine is just more anonymous in LotR).

The Angels don't just come and kick ass. They only come because an emissary of both Elves and Men (Earendil) risked all to beg them to assist.

Only that sacrifice and daring allowed them to become involved.

It is exactly the same with Frodo.

If you don't get it I suspect that you are missing the central point that Tolkien is trying to make.

[Galactus]

It's possible that the cloaks not only let others see them, but actually give them tangible existance. I just don't see how that works though

Magic.

D'oh.

Incidentally, that was also the reason they had to retreat at Rivendell: They lost their cloaks adn thus their ability to interact with the physical world.

[Altherion]

The Angels don't just come and kick ass. They only come because an emissary of both Elves and Men (Earendil) risked all to beg them to assist.

Only that sacrifice and daring allowed them to become involved.

Precisely. This is why I said it is exactly the same as LotR, only LotR is more subtle about it.

If you don't get it I suspect that you are missing the central point that Tolkien is trying to make.

I think we get the same thing because you keep saying the things that I'm thinking of. It's just that you're fine with it and I'm not. I don't like the fact that all of the suffering, sacrifice, courage and toil of the elves and men in the Simarillion only buys them a chance to beg for help. And I don't like the same idea repeated in LotR with all of the suffering, sacrifice, courage and toil of the hobbits and men only being enough to bring the Ring to the brink.

[Asa]

The key word there is "possible".

It was not possible that someone could seek to destroy the Ring so it was not necessary to guard against it.

Yes it was, seeing as it happened.

Sauron KNEW that he would be destroyed if the Ring was thrown into Mt. Doom. So, surely he can just ask himself "Under what conditions could the Ring be put into the fires?" and there are many...such as 1. Someone deciding to destroy it. 2. A hawk someone getting hold of it and flying into the fires out of pure mischance..3. Someone decidingg to destroy it, and he goes there with his friend. The guy who wanted to originally destroy it decides he can't, so his friend pushes him into the fire to make sure it's destroyed...etc, etc. There are many possibilities for getting the ring there and destroyed, but they all require one thing: For the ring to get taken there. So, might as well just post some sentries there...

[Eurytus]

Yes it was, seeing as it happened.

No it didn't.

No-one chose to destroy the Ring. It was not possible to do so.

[Slurktan]

I don't like the fact that all of the suffering, sacrifice, courage and toil of the elves and men in the Simarillion only buys them a chance to beg for help.

Just as a sidenote, I'd argue that the plight of the Elves did absolutely nothing to sway the Valar either way. I believe that the Valar would have been content to let them all die as they would all end up in Mandos's halls anyways. The suffering of the Edain is what made the Valar act.

[Asa]

No it didn't.

No-one chose to destroy the Ring. It was not possible to do so.

It was not possible that someone could seek to destroy the Ring

Frodo sought to destroy the ring. In the end he wasn't able to, but earlier he did seek to destroy the ring.

Regardless, the possibility of it getting destroyed by accident is still there, or someone trying to destroy it, unable to in the end, and due to mischance it gets destroyed. So, Sauron knew if the ring died he would, and he could of perhaps figured that they may try and destroy it since it was their only hope of beating it, and thus put some damn sentries at Mt. Doom.

[Eurytus]

he could of perhaps figured that they may try and destroy it since it was their only hope of beating it,

No he couldn't. As I and others have said. If you can't understand that fundamental point about the nature of the Ring and Sauron then the conversation is not worth having as you will never see it.

[Asa]

No he couldn't. As I and others have said. If you can't understand that fundamental point about the nature of the Ring and Sauron then the conversation is not worth having as you will never see it.

So he couldn't fathom that it could be destroyed by accident either?