Ring Technology (was Re: Ringlords Aplenty) Author: Steuard Jensen Email: sjensen -aaatt- hmc -daht- edu Date: 1998/06/15 Forums: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien ---------------------------------------------------------- Quoth <<>> (Michael Martinez): > In article <6lrs1i$e5a$1@cinenews.claremont.edu>, sjensen -aaatt- hmc -daht- edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote: > >At any rate, perhaps because too many of my friends > >are computer scientists, I have come up with an analogy that (to my > >mind, at least) makes David's view fairly clear, and shows how it can > >avoid the arguments in Michael's response. It's a little odd and > >certainly anachronistic, but I think it works. > > [snip] > > Nope. "Nope"? Not "Some of this seems incorrect" or "I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle" but "Nope"? That's a pretty quick dismissal for what I'll admit was an awfully long post (though this one is longer... sigh). Your objections are reasonable and at least some of them are quite valid, but I doubt that _everything_ I wrote was garbage; perhaps "Nope" was a bit too strong. > It doesn't work for three reasons. First, J.R.R. Tolkien was not a > computer scientist, and he conceived of the Rings and explained > their powers and history at a time when what we call computer > science was in its infancy. I understand your point here, but I _did_ say it was an analogy. I intended not to imply that the rings _were_ computers, but rather to compare aspects of their operation to potentially similar processes acting in the rings. It would indeed be ludicrous to suggest that Tolkien foresaw the entire future history of computer technology! > Secondly, your analogy fails because it doesn't take into > consideration the fact that Sauron wrote the base software. I obviously wasn't clear enough... I had hoped to suggest that it was precisely because the "base software" was his that he was able to have the control that he did. (My joke about "Mordorsoft foundation classes" wasn't just a joke.) In fact, that idea seems to mesh very well with the known fact that Sauron's knowledge was what allowed the Elves to develop the Great Rings in the first place. However, while writing my analogy, I did not want to force this to be the only possible interpretation, as it was not important for my purposes whether Sauron implanted the holes or merely observed their presence. > He wasn't taking advantage of "security holes", he was altering the > master program in the Seven and the Nine to create slaves to his > will and wraiths. Note that Tolkien says the Seven failed to turn > Dwarves into wraiths. Why would the Elves have worn Rings which > could have turned them into wraiths? The Rings had to be altered > for this purpose after the Elves lost them. I don't think that wearing one of the Great Rings would ever have turned an Elf into a wraith, and similarly, I think that it would have done so to a human whether Sauron tampered with them or no. As I understand it, the Rings were largely concerned with slowing the effects and ravages of time, preventing their wearers from decaying as quickly. Now, for Elves this is no problem: they have a literally infinite "amount of life" to draw from, so despite stretching out their vitality, they could not decrease their total "substance." For humans, the situation was quite different. As with the Elves, wearing (or owning) a Great Ring would slow the wearing of Time on their bodies, but unlike the Elves, humans were not made to have an infinite supply of "life" to draw from. (I'm not sure what exactly this "life" is, mind you, but I have an intuitive feel for it, anyway.) Therefore, they would begin to feel like butter spread over too much bread (to quote a victim) and eventually fade, their "souls" no longer able to maintain full presence in the world of the Seen. Now, Dwarves are an interesting case, as we have no reason to suspect the existence of Dwarven wraiths. On the other hand, Dwarves clearly live far longer than humans, and we don't know just what their total lifespan (or eventual fate) is. At the least, then, the fading process would be slower for them; its eventual effect is unknown. And why, then, did Gollum not fade after so many years? There are many possible answers, from the slightly longer life span of hobbits compared to the average human to their apparently greater resistance to becoming wraiths (as shown by Frodo's remarkable survival of his injury with the Morgul knife). We may never know, but I don't think this invalidates the idea. But back to the earlier article... > However, the real reason why your analogy fails is that Tolkien > specifically stated that Sauron had to put part of his power into > the One Ring. The Rings were not merely devices, but were > externalizaions of personal strength and will. Computer Science has > no parallel for that. Absolutely true: Computer Science has no parallel for externalizations of personal strength and will, just as it has no parallel for invisibility or for stretching time. (It does seem to be able to turn its practitioners into creatures resembling Gollum, but that's a different story.) All of those effects depend on something that we ignorant mortals would probably call magic, and I doubt that we could ever truly understand it. However, that can't stop us from trying, so why not draw an anology to our own "magic boxes" to try to understand those of the Elves. The anology can only go so far, and is in NO sense literally true, but at least it gives us a language to use to discuss the issues at hand. Without knowing the particular (Quenya or Sindarin) terminology of Ringmaking, I doubt that we can do much better. > For what it's worth, I majored in Computer Science in college. I have two > degrees. I understand the principles well enough to see the flaws in your > proposal. For what it's worth, I majored in Physics and Math in college, with something resembling a minor in philosophy. I have 98.6 degrees. I understand the principles of CS only moderately well, but well enough to see potential similarities (if not direct correspondences) between it and other technologies, I hope. At any rate, no personal attacks were intended in the above (but perhaps some gentle chiding here and there), and I hope that we can continue this interesting discussion. Steuard Jensen