Letters Never Sent

[vulgarweed]

Dear Tolkien Society,

I have combed all the Letters and HoME notes for this and have yet to find a definitive answer to this question; if it's in there and I missed it, please forgive me. During a sexual encounter, would the penis of the penetrator or fellatee disappear upon entering an orifice of someone wearing the One Ring? (Assuming this person is neither Sauron nor Tom Bombadil)

Sincerely,

V, who needs to know Because of Reasons, and when I tried to contact the Professor over the Ouija board, he hung up on me.

~~~

Dear Christopher Tolkien....

NOPE. You guys will have better answers anyway.




[Poll #1906920]



This is the kind of question that keeps me up at night. Perhaps I should look at my life choices.

*looks*

Yup, they're fine!

Comments

[athena799.livejournal.com]

Apropos to nothing, I'm reminded of a story I read once, might have been a fanfic (I wish I could remember) that had a character going in depth into the exact extent of an item like the One Ring as far as invisibility went. It included experiments like - If I wrap my hand around a cup it stays visible, if I lift it it goes invisible. If I wear clothing they're invisible, if I touch someone else's clothing they remain visible. The ultimate conclusion was that if the individual was supporting an item off the ground, it was invisible (which brings up the interesting question of shoes, though not pertinent to Bilbo).

So if I were to give my somewhat scientific answer it is this - the One Ring is controlled by the will of a sentient, living being (who knows about animals, I really don't). Therefore, it can only effect 1 individual at a time who is wearing it, hence why it changes its own shape to match 1 individual. It takes in also any inanimate objects the individual is supporting from the ground, ie clothing and weapons. If an item is dropped, it becomes visible again. So Sting would have been visible when Frodo dropped it on Weathertop, but not when it was in his hand.**

We actually DO have an example of someone having a part of their body inside someone who is wearing the Ring. Get your mind out of the gutter - it was Gollum biting off Frodo's finger. Since he didn't go invisible with Frodo's finger in his mouth, I think we can assume it goes both ways. I can only imagine the good Professor's reaction to learning how that scene would be interpreted by our depraved little minds.

** A note on Sting. As noted above, Bilbo actually does cast a shadow while wearing the Ring in the Hobbit. Personal headcanon is that the Ring was relatively "dormant" during that period, and so didn't extend quite as much invisibility power as it did with Frodo. But that does mean light interacts with him somehow. Without going into all the problems of actually being blind if you were to ever be completely invisible (because light would pass through your eyes) I'd like to suggest that Sting is SOMETIMES visible, and sometimes not. Namely, when it is glowing, because then it is putting off light. I think the blade itself would still be invisible, but there would be a faint glow in the air unless it was sheathed. This could be problematic during the BoFA?

-Avelera

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Apropos to nothing, I'm reminded of a story I read once, might have been a fanfic (I wish I could remember) that had a character going in depth into the exact extent of an item like the One Ring as far as invisibility went. It included experiments like - If I wrap my hand around a cup it stays visible, if I left it it goes invisible. If I wear clothing they're invisible, if I touch someone else's clothing they remain visible. The ultimate conclusion was that if the individual was supporting an item off the ground, it was invisible (which brings up the interesting question of shoes).

That sounds like some serious D&D Rules Lawyering right there, testing the limits of a magic item to a ridiculous degree. Which is exactly what real people would do with a magic item, I think. XD

Convenient that a big question centers around shoes, when the Ringbearers we spend the most time with are all hobbits, who don't wear them! (I call a common sense clause on this one - what good is a ring of invisibility if everyone can still see your shoes walking around?)

Everything you say makes complete sense. But in your example, when Frodo's finger was inside Gollum (*twitch**squick*), Frodo was the one wearing the Ring at the time, not Gollum - and he and his finger both became visible when Gollum bit it off. Which totally fits - that was the moment when the Ring changed ownership again.

I agree with your headcanon about the Ring's varying tides of dormancy and "sentience," or at least something like a Will, and that could totally account for a lot seeming inconsistencies (at the very least, as a retcon, it's no worse than Tolkien's own). But at the time Bilbo was fighting the spiders, Sting wouldn't have been glowing, because there weren't any orcs or goblins around. Could well be accounted for by the Ring being weaker, though.

Ugh, that could be VERY problematic during the BoFA. Or almost any other battle, come to think of it. Good thing Frodo never used it in Mordor, and Sam only did when he was able to win.

[athena799.livejournal.com]

Perhaps since a portion of shoes, for example the top of them, are lifted from the ground then they count as being "on" the person? I can't imagine shoes would be that big a deal, but I am a bit braindead right now. And oh yeah, I'm totally squicked out by the Gollum example, but my treacherous brain jumped up like Hermione with answer just before I wrote "we have no example of a body part inside another etc. etc." and went "NO AVELERA WE TOTALLY DO" and the realization was followed by a full-body shudder. But you are right, it would make sense if it goes both ways but it's not NECESSARILY so. I guess I'd just go back to how the Ring changes size, since it's clearly trying to be effected by only 1 sentient Ringbearer at once? If it stayed Sauron-sized two hobbits could conceivably both wear it (uncomfortably) at the same time, by shrinking to their size it prevents that. Hence even if someone were topping enough to fulfill the rules of inanimate objects, the fact that they're living beings means they don't go invisible? Someone being carried off the ground by a Ringbearer would just appear to be floating, because they're a living person, and insertion would follow the same rule. The One Ring is one-passenger only (thank you very much, the Ring says haughtily. Ain't no Ring-threesomes for this old dame.)

As to the Ring's dormancy - wouldn't YOU tune out a bit after 500 years in a cave with Gollum? There's only so many solo riddle games and muttered conversations with "precious" that I think even an evil magical artifact can take before it makes a run for it. The next 60 years was just the Ring slowly waking up out and glancing around furtively to make sure Gollum is REALLY gone this time.

I'd also like to mention that I like the idea that, as an elven blade, the fact that Sting may not be wholly effected by the Ring is a very cool theory. It's like battle of the Elven smiths, whose hunk of metal is better.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Perhaps since a portion of shoes, for example the top of them, are lifted from the ground then they count as being "on" the person? I can't imagine shoes would be that big a deal, but I am a bit braindead right now.

The person is wearing the shoes. As long as they're still fastened around the person's feet, I think they count as clothing, and become invisible as all clothing items do.

And oh yeah, I'm totally squicked out by the Gollum example, but my treacherous brain jumped up like Hermione with answer just before I wrote "we have no example of a body part inside another etc. etc." and went "NO AVELERA WE TOTALLY DO" and the realization was followed by a full-body shudder. But you are right, it would make sense if it goes both ways but it's not NECESSARILY so.

No worries, my brain does that too. But my point was it's not completely analogous because Frodo was invisible and Gollum was visible when Gollum took Frodo's finger into his mouth, so the position of visible/visible and inserting/inserted are reversed.

If it stayed Sauron-sized two hobbits could conceivably both wear it (uncomfortably) at the same time, by shrinking to their size it prevents that.

True, true - but is that really the reason the size changes? I think it changes just to choose a bearer or abandon one, selectively. And maybe Sauron didn't just wear it on his finger...

As to the Ring's dormancy - wouldn't YOU tune out a bit after 500 years in a cave with Gollum? There's only so many solo riddle games and muttered conversations with "precious" that I think even an evil magical artifact can take before it makes a run for it. The next 60 years was just the Ring slowly waking up out and glancing around furtively to make sure Gollum is REALLY gone this time.

*spittakes* Oh god yes, truth. I almost feel bad for it. Worst roommate ever.

I like that idea too. Sting has kind of a will of its own as well. I think it really enjoys being borne by hobbits. It's refreshing.