# Resistance to the ring's power



## Sarah (Jun 7, 2005)

My apologies if this has already been discussed, as I've not been here in quite a while, but my boyfriend and I had a thought.

Could resistance to the ring's power be related to life-span? Men had the shortest life span and were most succeptible to the ring's power, except Aragorn, one of the Dunedain. Hobbits live longer, which explains Frodo and Sam's resiliance, and neither Gimli nor Legolas showed any attraction to the Ring. What do you say?


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 7, 2005)

Hm i don't think it was connected with life-span {elves are immortal you know so it would have no influebce on them [hm (again) did it actually have any]}.
Anyway, i think it was connected with will power- and that's why Aragorn resisted it's power so easily {and hobbits had no affinity to evil [the rings evil actually (actually most hobbits)]}.
Hm, I'm in a strange mood today (but that's not where i should be complaining). Sorry.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 8, 2005)

I think it was more related to strengh of will and wether the ring wanted you, i think the ring tried to get boromir as if boromir had got it then it would be used for evil, rather then being melted(a reasonable motive).


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 8, 2005)

I think it's obvious that willpower is the primary motivation. But Sarah's point deserves discussion. Tom Bombadil is "eldest", and the ring has no effect on him whatsoever. Where the theory would break down is Gandalf's fear to use it and Saruman's lust for it, but I would suggest that maybe Saruman's desire is based on mental projections of the advantage it would grant him, and not a pure attraction like with Gollum. Oh, great. Gollum. Well, he messes the theory up somewhat, but I think it still deserves to be explored...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 8, 2005)

Do Frodo or Bilbo have more will power than elves or the Istari? I don't think so. My opinion is that resistance to the ring is given by one's child-like nature. In christianity, children are given a special relation to Jesus (and Jesus does say "The Father and I are one" and the correlations could continue...).


----------



## Durin's Bane (Jun 8, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Do Frodo or Bilbo have more will power than elves or the Istari? I don't think so. My opinion is that resistance to the ring is given by one's child-like nature.


Which also makes sense so i'd say it's more likely to be a combination of both.
(Aragorn did have maia blood running in his veins.)


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

I don't think age is factor, though it is an interesting theory. 

I think determination, will-power, and a bit of the childlike quality Thor mentions were the main factors. Bombadil just is Bombadil. There is never any accounting for him. 

Elves can be tempted, of course. Look at Galadriel. She WANTED that ring, and I imagine if it hadn't been that she knew the Valar were testing her with it (refusing was her ticket home), she might have given in.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 9, 2005)

I think is is personallity, a mean you couls go up to most hobbits and theyed say no, but if you offered the ring to certain ones(called smegol) the were caught. Though degol sort of ruins that.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 9, 2005)

I also think it involves the person's desire for what the Ring offers. Smeagol had a great desire for power, not direct power, but a sort of sneaky power. He wanted to know things about others and cause trouble, which he did the moment he got the ring. 

Boromir wanted the Ring because he wanted to restore Gondor AND be king of it (this is based on Faramir's discussion with Frodo. . .how long does it take a steward to be a king?). 

I think already owned power is also a draw. Frodo could never be very dangerous with the ring. Gandalf with the ring would be a great force. Aragorn and Isildur would both have been tempted to great kingship of men. 

Faramir's position as younger brother, trained to follow the steward rather than be the steward, probably aided in his resistance.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 9, 2005)

I think resisitance to the Ring is primarily an individual thing though there are also differences between the different people of Middle Earth. I don't think lifespan has anything to do with it. Afterall, Isildur was a Numenorean in direct line from Elros and had a lifespan (if he hadn't been killed) far greater than normal men. And as for Aragorn's Maia blood, Isildur had the same ancestory and was a lot closer to it than Aragorn.


----------



## Sarah (Jun 9, 2005)

In regards to the wizards, gollum, and bilbo. Maybe it was related to lifespan with the exception of those whose lifespan was extended through the help of the ring. That's obvious for gollum and bilbo. For instence, Gandalf left middle earth once his task was complete, his task ended with the destroying of the ring, thus in a way his lifespan was extended through the help of the ring.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 10, 2005)

I think it is logical to assume, however, that without the ring, Frodo and Bilbo would have had a lifespan nearly identical to Boromir. Denethor, after all, was the same age as Aragorn at the time of the War and he was not near death prior to his madness. I would estimate he would live to be at least a hundred, which is not significantly different from an average Hobbit lifespan (about twenty years difference, I think?).


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 12, 2005)

Sarah has a very interesting point, but the only flaw in it was Gollum. We know that all mortals have, very, very deep in their heart, a desire for immortality. So all the mortals that knew that the Ring stopped aging, would be compelled by it. The shorter the life span of that Mortal, the more he desired the Ring. It was only Aragorn's willpower that allowed him to withstand the Ring. The fact that Gandalf the Gray didn't accept the ring could be that he didn't know that it might not have any effect on him and he didn't want to take any risks. But then, Gandalf the White would be extremely compelled by the ring; he was only a few months old at the time of the war of the ring. 
But it could all still be a big coincidence.  
By the way, a dwarf lives for about three-hundred years, so the Ring should have just a bit less effect on a dwarf than on Aragorn.


----------



## Meselyn (Jun 12, 2005)

I'm not sure it has anything to do with life-span. Though maybe more with something else.


----------



## Astran (Jun 26, 2005)

I think that the life span of a race, reflects their importance. Men are weak and stuff, but Aragorn is from another race of men. This race is more 'elfish' than the current race of men, and therefore, had longer lives and were more important. dwarves and hobbits are both higher than men (Tolkien really seemed to have no esteem for mankind. i think the war had something to do with it. Hobbits because they were peacefull (Tolkien lived during the world wars) and Dwarves too, only defended their borders and didn't want to conquer. Therefore the race of men fell for the power of the ring first of all races. And elves didn't even fall for it. Thus, they have infinite lives. 
Bombadil is another discussion..


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 27, 2005)

Bombadil didn't want the Ring. He didn't care about things of such sort. He just wanted to live happily with Goldberry, and sing, and be jolly. It's like the first book of Harry Potter. Harry could get the Sorcerer's Stone because he didn't want to use, and just desired to keep it for the time being. Bombadil had no greed in him, but all other people, except for elves did, even though if it was a tiny grain, like Aragorn did.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 27, 2005)

I would say Elves can be greedy, else we wouldn't have such a Silmaril problem. Galadriel did want the ring. She was just strong enough mentally to resist it.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 27, 2005)

Galadriel had the advantage of being Aman born so she had greater wisedom, and knew that she could not defeat evil.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 30, 2005)

Okay, the elves were greedy, but that was only a part of them, such as the Feanorians. And all the elves who were greedy, had enough wisdom and will-power to resist the Ring.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 30, 2005)

> And all the elves who were greedy, had enough wisdom and will-power to resist the Ring.


What elves did you have in mind when you said this?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 30, 2005)

I think Galadreil could be the one he was talking about, as she was greedy, she wanted to be a queen, so the ring was very dangerous to her, as it could make her queen of ME, luckily, she knew that if she did this, she would fall, and maybe for love of her family in Aman, knew that to do so would mean banishment for ever.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 4, 2005)

All elves except for the Feanorians. Which elf do you think would have been lulled by the Ring, except for Feanor and a couple of his foolish sons.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 4, 2005)

Thingol. 

Thingol was greedy enough to request a Silmaril for a bridepiece and get mixed up in that whole messy situation. Now requesting the Silmaril was only partially greed and partially "Ah-ha! That's something he could never do, so he'll never get my daughter." However, refusing to hand it over to the sons of Feanor who want it oh so much and threaten him for it, that begins to look a little like greed.

Wouldn't you just love to see what Eol or Maeglim get themselves into with rings?

As I said, Galadriel found the ring initially tempting. She is a bit of a Feanorian, though, in her pride.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 4, 2005)

> She is a bit of a Feanorian, though, in her pride.


Wait till Ithy reads that  


> Which elf do you think would have been lulled by the Ring, except for Feanor and a couple of his foolish sons.


Most of the elves preocuppied with smith art, imo. First, they would be fascinated, then get corrupted.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 7, 2005)

Fascinated, probably. Corrupted, no. Elves aren't like men or hobbits. THey don't get lulled and corrupted by evil things as much as the rest do. They would have gotten fascinated, of course; all elves like beautiful things, but getting corrupted is stretching the rubber band too far. Elves aren't like that. They're good and pure and all. It's the Valinorian in them; most have seen the light of the trees, or atleast their forefathers have.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 7, 2005)

Then why did they have so many Silmaril problems? The Silmaril was not created to corrupt. The ring was made with that very intention. 


Yes, the Elven rings do not corrupt while the others do, but that is because they did not come in contact with Sauron, not because the Elves are different creatures. 

Also, if it is true that they could not be corrupted, why did the council let Frodo take the ring? Frodo is a danger. Gollum has been corrupted, so Hobbits can be. If an Elf couldn't be corrupted, send an Elf. Then you wouldn't have that whole "struggle on Mt. Doom, lose a finger" issue.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 7, 2005)

Furthermore, Gandalf acknowledged that the ring could corrupt him, I don't see why an elf would have more will power or purity than an istari of the magnitude of Gandalf.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 7, 2005)

Galadriel a Feanorians? A Finwean more like, she was as proud as self-willed as all of them. (Except for the boring ones, i.e the Finarfians from Finarfin to Gil-Galad, though Felagund, Angrod and Aegnor were cool.)


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 10, 2005)

I don't think the Silmarills fully corrupted even Feanor. He just hated the fact that Morgoth had stolen it and the Valar wanted it, he was just selfish. And no one else was a bit corrupted. They were jsut following their king, Feanor, on a quest, though hopeless.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 10, 2005)

The sources of corruption in Feanor are his pride and feeling of possessiveness - Melkor's influnce, at most, just increased them. I think these two feelings corrupted him deeply and lead to his unwise actions.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

> I don't think the Silmarills fully corrupted even Feanor. He just hated the fact that Morgoth had stolen it and the Valar wanted it, he was just selfish.




I personally think that if you are willing to kill for a bad cause (among which I would include selfishness), you have been corrupted. I would also state that if you are willing to get killed for a treasure you are being greedy. 

Greed is all it would take.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 12, 2005)

> I would also state that if you are willing to get killed for a treasure you are being greedy.


What if the primary value of a treasure is a spiritual one? Isn't then self-sacrifice in this situation a moral quality?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 12, 2005)

> What if the primary value of a treasure is a spiritual one?



Are we referring to the Silmaril's in this? If so I don't think it applies. They are prized for their beauty and power rather for any good they do. Melkor desires them just as much as Thingol.

I think it can be morally good to die to save an object in extreme circumstances, but in almost all cases the value of life outweighs that of the object. The Silmarils were in most ways a power for evil. They caused the deaths of many and gave nothing back. I believe that they could have been used for good had Feanor surrendered them, but that option was voided with his vow. Only the one that returned to Valinor was put to anything resembling a good purpose. 

In some ways this is symbolic. Our coveted treasures can harm us unless we surrender them to God. Only when we give them up can they do us good.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 12, 2005)

> The Silmarils were in most ways a power for evil.


I think we should make a difference between the silmarils (which bring light upon the bearer) and the one ring, who brings corruption upon the bearer. In the latter case, no matter how hard one tries, corruption prevails. With the silmarils - their nature is pure and they even cause harm to the evil bearer.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 12, 2005)

I would say the Silmarils were made by Feanor for the purposes of beauty, a good thing in itself, but when he hoarded them selfishly, he brought into them a great evil, a curse, if you will, that could only be reversed by returning them to the Valar and undoing Feanor's original refusal. 

Of the Silmarils, two took people down to death with them when they went, correct?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 13, 2005)

I think that the simlarils were created with more than beauty in mind - but as an "insurance" against the evil that was about to come. Somehow, Feanor felt that Valinor was not safe from harm.
I know Maedhors is one person which commited suicide due to the touching of a simlaril, but who is the other one?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm trying to remember. One went into the crevice with Maedhros. One was somehow lost in the sea, and I thought an elf sunk with it, but I can't remember for certain. There is a reason I keep to the LotR's section rather than the Sil. I haven't read it in two years.

Yet when Valinor was in danger, rather than give them up willingly, Feanor took the Silmarils and hoarded them. When they could have been used for good they were kept from good and instead became instruments for evil.

It is probably this that corrupted the Silmarils, rather than their making.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 13, 2005)

Maglor only threw his simlaril into the sea, he only mourned it afterwards. 


> Yet when Valinor was in danger, rather than give them up willingly, Feanor took the Silmarils and hoarded them. When they could have been used for good they were kept from good and instead became instruments for evil.
> It is probably this that corrupted the Silmarils, rather than their making.


Hm... when Feanor hid the Silmarils, Valinor wasn't in danger. And there was very little time between his refusal to relinquish the sils and his acknoledgement that he no longer had them - so I doubt that it was his refusal that brought a curse over the sils. I think it was his later oath that "accomplished" this.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 13, 2005)

Like I said, it has been awhile since I read this, but the result is the same and the Sils were cursed.


I do think they were made with great potential for good. I once compared them to nuclear power because of this. Great potential for good. Great potential for destruction. Though again, I'm not a science major.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 21, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Then why did they have so many Silmaril problems? The Silmaril was not created to corrupt. The ring was made with that very intention.



The Ring was made by Sauron to control the other rings and the peoples of MIddle Earth. It was not made with the intention of corrupting its possessor. When Sauron made it, he never intended (or dreamt) that anyone would possess it other than himself. The Ring's power to corrupt its owner is a by-product of its immense power; it was not its intended power. Probably the best way to look at this is the saying: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Ring was "absolute power" (at least in Middle Earth). Virtually no one was immune to its power. Some, such as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel were wise enough to know that if they possessed it they would succumb to it, so they avoided it. The only one in Middle Earth who seems to be completely immune to the Ring is Bombadil, but Tolkien has intentionally left Bombadil as an enigma, so I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from his example.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 21, 2005)

But it was made with corrupt intentions. It has Sauron's own malice, own being if you will, within it. How could it therefore be anything but evil?


There are no good uses for it.
There is no way to resist its corruption.

Sounds pretty evil to me.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 21, 2005)

> Sounds pretty evil to me.


I agree. The essence of the power of the ring was corrupted, as was the master of the ring. The ring was not mere concentrated power, but a resonator, a gateway to the corruptive/corrupted aspects of the creation.


> There are no good uses for it.


I believe that good and evil always intermingle in Ea; Eru states that everything is his instrument and that evil leads to more beautiful things than the evil-doer can imagine. Furthermore, in HOME 10, there is a refference to "the strange way in which the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil".


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 21, 2005)

But it is made very clear that the ring cannot be used for good, that it will corrupt anything it touches.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 21, 2005)

HG-I think what Greenwood is trying to say is that _corruption_ in and of itself wasn't the primary motive for the creation of the ring, it may have been a secondary motive but not THE main motive, which was domination, thus corruption though inherent in the ring was not as strong a characteristic as other evil characteristics of the ring.

However Sauron could use it to corrupt certain people. i.e. the Númenóreans and perhaps other men. 



> I believe that good and evil always intermingle in Ea; Eru states that everything is his instrument and that evil leads to more beautiful things than the evil-doer can imagine. Furthermore, in HOME 10, there is a refference to "the strange way in which the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil".



I don't really see what you are getting at. HLG said that the ring was inherently evil, whether it brought about a greater good was not part of the statement, it itself could not bring good (being evil) but it could unintentionally bring about greater good (which is the general theme of the legendarium-that good is always more powerful than evil and thus some good will always spring from evil); but I re-iterate-this "after affect" was not a product of the ring itself, which was intrinsically evil, but a product which was beyond the control of the ring-the actions of others (who weren't controlled by the ring) and of "good" in general in Ea-the fact that a greater good came about because of the ring itself doesn't make the ring any less evil-it is the outside actors that counteract the evil nature of the ring.
Just because everything acts for the will of Eru doesn't mean everything is both good and evil-some things or beings are just plain evil. (Even in this case the ring differs from evil Ainur, Men, animals etc. in that it was created for evil and was never "good" in any way shape or form.)


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 22, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> But it is made very clear that the ring cannot be used for good, that it will corrupt anything it touches.


I think that this is true, but only for (most of) the inhabitants of Middle-Earth in the Third Age. In my opinion, any (good) ainu/vala-level being (first and foremost: Manwe) could use the one ring for good purposes. And Eru can put the one ring to whatever good use one could possibly think of.
@Inderjit: what are your definitions of good and evil?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 22, 2005)

Thorondor in the Council of Elrond the Elves discuss sending the ring to Valinor but the plan is rejected as the Valar would have rejected it and it would have brought evil to Valinor. Gandalf-Olorin is the WISEST of the Maia and he rejects it as it will overthrow him, even after he is sent back by Eru. 

Manwë will use it for good? Why on god's green earth would Manwë want to use it? Again I don't really see where you are coming from-hypothetics are superfluous when it comes to actualities. What exactly would he use it for? Again, hypothetically how and why would a being of intrinsic good use an object of intrinsic evil to "achieve good"-he would no longer be Manwë but would become Melkor or something like that. Manwë could not change the evil nature of the ring simply because he was good-the ring was inherently evil no matter how good the intentions of the wielder are. Manwe may be more powerful than the ring, but that doesn't mean he can change the nature of the ring, no more than he can change the nature of people. (He can advise, of course, but the ring is not a person to be adviced.)

Again Eru putting the ring for "good purposes"-he could do so via outside actors not through the ring itself, which was intrinsically evil, he had the potential of course to "make the ring good" but it would no longer be the one ring and would become something different, and he wouldn't do so anyway.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 22, 2005)

My views on evil 

post #20.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 22, 2005)

I found no such refference to the ring being able to bring evil to Valinor; I don't exclude the possibility of a translation error though. And I didn't say that Manwe would use the ring for a good purpose, I only said that he could, I hope you perceive the difference. Manwe being one of the most powerful beings on Ea, far surpassing Sauron's power is not a hypothesis, but, as you reffered to, an actuality; Melkor couldn't corrupt him, I doubt that Sauron's petty ring (or the ring's weilding) could do that either, as he is free from evil, no matter what; the Elder King becoming evil is simply ... impossible. I think that Manwe could change the evil nature of the ring, esspecially with the help of other valar (thinking of Aule). In the worst case scenario, if knowledge or power are lacking, Eru could help. I believe that Eru can create whatever ("domino") circumstances in order to put the ring to a good use (you gave a somewhat similar opinion in your refference to Zadig and Jersad). And concerning the transformation of the ring into something good, if we consider the one ring as a mere raw material, then the one ring can be put to a good use in His hands. By the way, is this the definition of good you were reffering to:"any contravention of the infallible would be a contravention of good"? If not, please _clearly_ state which is.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 22, 2005)

Inderjit,

Thank you. You are correct in what I meant in my post to Ellgee. I was disputing her statement that Sauron created the Ring with the intention of it corrupting its possessor. As I said, Sauron never intended or dreamt of anyone but himself ever possessing the Ring. The Ring was, however, inherently evil and thus (as a by-product of its nature, not an intended function) would corrupt any who possessed it. I agree with you that the Ring could never be used for good, in the long run. I say in the long run because both Gandalf and Galadriel indicate to Frodo that they would start out in their use of the Ring (should they accept it from him) by using its powers to defeat Sauron and help the peoples of Middle Earth, but that in the end, the Ring would corrupt them and they would become a new Dark Lord (or Dark Queen in Galadriel's case). Tolkien makes it quite clear that the Ring cannot be tamed nor its nature changed to good. 

Discussions of what Manwe could do with the Ring are quite meaningless. It is made clear in the Council of Elrond (as you have pointed out Inderjit) that the Ring belongs to Middle Earth and would never be accepted in the West. The Silmarillion also makes it quite clear that Manwe would never come to Middle Earth, nor would any of the other Vala since the world was changed when Melkor/Morgoth was overthrown. I realize many Tolkien fans enjoy engaging in discussions of hypotheticals (i.e. Could Bombadil stand up to Sauron?, etc.), however, the hypothetical situation should not violate the basic nature of Tolkien's creation. Otherwise, one might as well discuss what the Riders of Rohan could have done at Helm's Deep with a hundred or so AK47's or Uzi machine guns.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 22, 2005)

> Tolkien makes it quite clear that the Ring cannot be tamed nor its nature changed to good.


Nobody can tame it or change it? Where exactly does he state that?


> the hypothetical situation should not violate the basic nature of Tolkien's creation.


There is no violation of the basic nature of this creation in my initial statement that any (good) ainu/vala-level being *could *(I didn't say would, even if Inderjit keeps reffering to would) use the one ring for good purposes. I am just pointing to the fact that this ring can corrupt only those who are too weak compared to it - for _them, _ the ring is too much of a challenge to wield. Others *could *use it for good purposes.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 22, 2005)

Thorondor-I don't understand the relevance of points such as;



> Melkor couldn't corrupt him



What of it? Melkor is Melkor and the ring is the ring, Melkor never attempted to _corrupt_ Manwë so your point is moot, Melkor was a being who worked for his own "evil", a being who Manwë opposed, the ring is an object that is inherently "evil" and would bring about "evil" because of it's nature, and could not (because of it's nature) directly bring about "good" no matter how powerful the wielder of the ring was. Again when you state "Manwë being one of the most powerful beings on Ea, far surpassing Sauron's power is not a hypothesis", your point again is moot because Manwë although more 'powerful' than the ring could not change the 'nature' of the ring because the ring was inherently evil he could not somehow make it "good" as the ring was inherently tainted and he didn't have the power to change the nature of people or object such as the ring simply because he was stronger and wiser than the object or person in question-the ring was inherently tainted because it was made by Sauron with evil intentions and because it still had the evil power of Sauron running through it-Manwë certainly didn't have the power to change that! If he had then surely he could have changed evil Maia, Men and Orks so that they became "good", but he could not. (He could advise them, of course.) It is not even a question of power, it is a question of nature, and the nature of the ring was evil and would be evil no matter who wielded it, if Eru could change the nature of the ring then it would no longer be the one ring but something different. And it is not just "raw material", it is not just gold, it cannot just be changed by certain beings who are more powerful than Sauron, I again have no idea where you are coming from, none of your ideas here are supported by Tolkien, in fact they contradict the central theme of the books-don't ask me to back up my views they run all the way throughout the books, one of the main themes of the books is the evil nature of the ring, read the books! And as for Maia/Valar being able to control the ring, why did the wisest of the Maia reject such a policy? Post whatever glib hypothetics you wish, I don't really want to get into a debate over this issue.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 22, 2005)

> Melkor never attempted to _corrupt_ Manwë


Did I made such a claim? I only said that Manwe was imune to any sort of corruption, even the one that Melkor could exert, as Manwe is free from evil.


> Manwë certainly didn't have the power to change that


The most powerful and skilled beings in all creation can't change the ring? I think that's clear underestimation.


> as for Maia/Valar being able to control the ring, why did the wisest of the Maia reject such a policy?


Gandalf - who in this form is just an Istari, not a Maia - only said that the ring wouldn't be accepted in Valinor, not that the Valar couldn't control the ring.
Btw, you have ignored my previous question: is this the definition of good you were reffering to:"any contravention of the infallible would be a contravention of good"?


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Nobody can tame it or change it? Where exactly does he state that?



From "The Council of Elrond" in FOTR:


> "Alas, no," said Elrond. "We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. *Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart.* Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed; as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. I fear to take the Ring, to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it."



You asked for a specific quote, so there it is, but Inderjit is correct. The evil nature of the Ring and the fact that *no one in Middle Earth* could change it, runs throughout the books and is part of the basic premise of the story.




Thorondor said:


> There is no violation of the basic nature of this creation in my initial statement that any (good) ainu/vala-level being *could *(I didn't say would, even if Inderjit keeps reffering to would) use the one ring for good purposes. I am just pointing to the fact that this ring can corrupt only those who are too weak compared to it - for _them, _ the ring is too much of a challenge to wield. Others *could *use it for good purposes.


Except for Sauron, there is no one in Middle Earth more powerful than Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. There are no "others" that you refer to. Your hypotheticals are violating the basic nature of the LOTR. The story makes it clear that no one in Middle Earth can change the evil nature of the Ring, or resist it in the long term. The book also makes it clear that the Ring cannot leave Middle Earth -- the Valar will not accept it in the West. Your hypothetical of Manwe using the Ring cannot happen in Tolkien's conception of his creation


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

> The story makes it clear that no one in Middle Earth can change the evil nature of the Ring, or resist it in the long term.


I already stated that I believe that no one in Middle Earth, during the third age, could do that; I don't know why are we arguing about this anymore.
["Except for Sauron, there is no one in Middle Earth more powerful than Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond"I think that the other two Istari and the balrog are at least as powerful as Galadriel/ Elrond.]


> Your hypothetical of Manwe using the Ring cannot happen in Tolkien's conception of his creation


Again, the problem of "would" and "could", I don't know why we keep stumbling over this issue; [even if Manwe would never use it for good, he still could use it, therefore the ring is not absolutely unusable for good]. I guess we simply have to agree that *for the beings of Middle Earth during the third age*(!) the one ring is:
- corruptive
- unalterable 
- unusable for good.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> Again, the problem of "would" and "could", I don't know why we keep stumbling over this issue


There is no problem of "would" or "could". You insist on setting up a hypothetical situation that could never occur in Tolkien's imaginary world. You then use your resolution of this impossible hypothetical as if it is a fact to "prove" your contention that the Ring "could" be used for "good". Your argument is smoke and mirrors because it has no foundation. 

If I sprouted wings, maybe I "could" fly (though the possession of wings does not automatically mean the power of flight), but since I cannot grow wings, and never can in the real world, a discussion of whether I "could" or "would" fly is utterly meaningless.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

> If I sprouted wings, maybe I "could" fly (though the possession of wings does not automatically mean the power of flight), but since I cannot grow wings, and never can in the real world, a discussion of whether I "could" or "would" fly is utterly meaningless.


False analogy; Manwe and co. do have the ability to change the ring. The ring is not unalterably evil, as far as the valar (at least!) are concerned.


> You insist on setting up a hypothetical situation that could never occur in Tolkien's imaginary world.


You are making a logical fallacy (the "negative proof"): just because it didn't happen (Manwe using the ring for good/changing it) it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen - as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

You can underline and emphasize your statements all you want. That does not prove anything. Tolkien clearly states (through Elrond) that the Ring is unalterably evil and cannot be changed or used for good by anyone in Middle Earth. It is also clearly stated that the Ring cannot be taken to the West. You insist on a hypothetical that violates Tolkien's creation. 




> just because it didn't happen, it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen


Neither does it prove that it could happen. It doesn't even provide any evidence for the possibility of it happening. Talk about "logical fallacies!


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 23, 2005)

> Neither does it prove that it could happen.


I think that you are putting words in my mouth since I never claimed that the fact that Manwe didn't change the ring is a proof that he could. The fact that Manwe can change the ring is based on his nature and power, given to him by Eru.


> You insist on a hypothetical that violates Tolkien's creation


 It could only contradict the _historical _conditions (the ring couldn't be taken to Valinor - according to Elrond) not the physical laws (i.e. Manwe being able to change the ring). That's the only reason which for we are arguing: you are talking about "history" and I am talking about "physics", we are both right in our own way.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 23, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> The fact that Manwe can change the ring is based on his nature and power, given to him by Eru.


There is no such fact in LOTR. Manwe is not even mentioned in LOTR. We do, however, have clear statements by Tolkien through his characters that The Ring was unalterabnly evil and could not be used for good without corrupting the user.




Thorondor said:


> It could only contradict the _historical _conditions (the ring couldn't be taken to Valinor - according to Elrond) not the physical laws (i.e. Manwe being able to change the ring). That's the only reason which for we are arguing: you are talking about "history" and I am talking about "physics", we are both right in our own way.


Your so-called "physical laws" are merely your opinions. They are not based on anything in LOTR.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 24, 2005)

"But Gandalf has revealed to us that we cannot destroy it by any craft that we here possess,' said Elrond."
"We here possess" doesn't mean that no one, nowhere in Middle Earth can't alter it.
"And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it."
For good or ill, if it needs emphasis.
["Manwe is not even mentioned in LOTR." The first place that I can think of is in annex A, Kings of Numenor, when Ar-Ardunakhor is presented.]
The ring is stated to by unalterable by the means that the beings of Middle Earth had at that time (or the means that our characters knew of). Why are we going back to Middle Earth beings, again??
Yes, Lotr doesn't refer to the powers of the valar. [But why do you discard the rest of Tolkien's work, where we get a glimpse of the true power of the valar, esspecially of Manwe's (him also being in special relation with Eru)?]


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 26, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> "But Gandalf has revealed to us that we cannot destroy it by any craft that we here possess,' said Elrond."
> "We here possess" doesn't mean that no one, nowhere in Middle Earth can't alter it.


But there is no one in Middle Earth (except for Sauron) more powerful than those present.



Thorondor said:


> "And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it."
> For good or ill, if it needs emphasis.


Suggesting that this means The Ring could be used for "good" is indeed a tortured reading. It merely means it belongs in Middle Earth.



Thorondor said:


> "Manwe is not even mentioned in LOTR." The first place that I can think of is in annex A, Kings of Numenor, when Ar-Ardunakhor is presented.


Saying that the eighteenth generation descendent of Elros took his throne as "Lord of the West" does not constitute a mention of Manwe. A reader of LOTR would still have no clue who Manwe was.




Thorondor said:


> The ring is stated to by unalterable by the means that the beings of Middle Earth had at that time (or the means that our characters knew of). Why are we going back to Middle Earth beings, again??
> Yes, Lotr doesn't refer to the powers of the valar. [But why do you discard the rest of Tolkien's work, where we get a glimpse of the true power of the valar, esspecially of Manwe's (him also being in special relation with Eru)?]


We are going back to Middle Earth beings because they are the beings of LOTR. The Valar are no longer of Middle Earth. When Ar-Pharazon set foot on Aman, the Valar "laid down their guardianship" and the world was changed. As for Tolkien's other writings, LOTR stands seperate from The Silmarillion and all Tolkien's posthumously published writings. Tolkien never had a chance to reconcile them with LOTR. You are trying to change the character of LOTR based on what amounts to drafts of Tolkien's writings assembled by his son.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 27, 2005)

> You are trying to change the character of LOTR based on what amounts to drafts of Tolkien's writings assembled by his son.


 I don't think that you are right by "eviscerating" LOTR from the rest of Tolkien's work; Sam says that what they are experiencing is a mere continuation of the past. Furthermore, about the drafts:"The faults that may appear in my record are, I believe, in no case due to errors, that is statements of what is not true, but omissions, and incompleteness of information, mostly due to the necessity of compression, and to the attempt to introduce information en passant in the course of narrative which naturally tended to cut out many things not immediately bearing on the tale."


> But there is no one in Middle Earth (except for Sauron) more powerful than those present.


In what sense more powerful? I don't think that crafting skills were the speciality of those present. Furthermore, Elrond says "the means we here possess"; it could be possible that if they had such means (is he reffering to the means of Feanor/Celebrimbor?), then they could affect the ring.


> Suggesting that this means The Ring could be used for "good" is indeed a tortured reading. It merely means it belongs in Middle Earth.


Convenient interpretation; however, evil always leads to good:
"it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that _out of it new good should constantly come_. One especial aspect of this is the strange way in which _the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil_"
"yet through this suffering there came also, _as maybe in no other way could it have come_, the victory of the Elder Days: the downfall of Angband and the last overthrow of Melkor"
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For _he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined._"
Btw, what is your definition of good and evil?


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 27, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I don't think that you are right by "eviscerating" LOTR from the rest of Tolkien's work; Sam says that what they are experiencing is a mere continuation of the past. Furthermore, about the drafts:"The faults that may appear in my record are, I believe, in no case due to errors, that is statements of what is not true, but omissions, and incompleteness of information, mostly due to the necessity of compression, and to the attempt to introduce information en passant in the course of narrative which naturally tended to cut out many things not immediately bearing on the tale."


Who are you quoting and in what context? 

If we are going to treat Tolkien's drafts as equivalent to the published LOTR then let us start calling Frodo by the name Bingo Baggins and discuss how the hobbit Strider ends up as the king of Gondor.



Thorondor said:


> In what sense more powerful? I don't think that crafting skills were the speciality of those present. Furthermore, Elrond says "the means we here possess"; it could be possible that if they had such means (is he reffering to the means of Feanor/Celebrimbor?), then they could affect the ring.


It is quite clear what Elrond means. The Ring can be destroyed at Orodruin, but not anywhere else. Feanor and Celebrimbor are irrelevant. They have been dead literally for ages.



Thorondor said:


> Convenient interpretation; however, evil always leads to good:
> "it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that _out of it new good should constantly come_. One especial aspect of this is the strange way in which _the evils of the Marrer, or his inheritors, are turned into weapons against evil_"
> "yet through this suffering there came also, _as maybe in no other way could it have come_, the victory of the Elder Days: the downfall of Angband and the last overthrow of Melkor"
> "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For _he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined._"
> Btw, what is your definition of good and evil?


Once again you are invoking material that is not in LOTR to change the nature and character of LOTR. Your philosophical/metaphysical discussion belongs to The Silmarillion, not LOTR. In LOTR there is a chance (more than a chance) that Sauron will recover the Ring and prevail. And if Sauron regains the Ring, "his victory will be sill be swift and complete: so complete that none can forsee the end of it while this world lasts." -- Gandalf at the Last Debate in ROTK. If there is not such a possibility then there is no story. The Ring is evil and cannot be turned to good.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 28, 2005)

> The Ring is evil and cannot be turned to good.



Well, I ask you again, what is your definition of good and evil?


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 28, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> Well, I ask you again, what is your definition of good and evil?


In LOTR the lust for absolute power and domination over others is clearly evil. 

I have no interest in engaging in a metaphysical discussion about good and evil in the real world, if that is what you are asking that we engage in.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 28, 2005)

Another quote from the Letters, concerning good and evil:


> All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in





> In LOTR the lust for absolute power and domination over others is clearly evil.


 I doubt that the ring has such lust. 


> I have no interest in engaging in a metaphysical discussion about good and evil in the real world, if that is what you are asking that we engage in.


No, I would like a definition from a moral point of view.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 29, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> Another quote from the Letters, concerning good and evil:


When giving a quote it is necessary to give the specific source of the quote so that it is possible to look up the original and see the context.



Thorondor said:


> I doubt that the ring has such lust.


Yes, the Ring is primarily an object, but it is quite clear that it eventually inspires such lust in all who possess it, and even some who have not actually possessed it. It is clear that in LOTR, Tolkien meant this to be a universal and unalterable feature of the Ring.


----------



## Haldatyaro (Jul 29, 2005)

Isildur was _not_ corrupted by the Ring as it was portrayed in the films. He took possession of it as he deemed was his right as the surviving victor and leader in the war. He never claimed the power of the Ring for himself, or set himself up as the next Lord of the Rings.

From _Unfinished Tales_, "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields":


> There was a pause, though the most keen-eyed among the Dúnedain said that the Orcs were moving inwards, stealthily, step by step. Elendur went to his father, who was standing dark and alone, as if lost in thought. "Atarinya," he said, "what of the power that would cow these foul creatures and command them to obey you? Is it then of no avail?"
> 
> "Alas, it is not, senya. I cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three."


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 29, 2005)

> When giving a quote it is necessary to give the specific source of the quote so that it is possible to look up the original and see the context.


By all means (" Letter 64, "To Cristopher Tolkien", 30.04.1944):


> I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapour, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historical version is, of course, not the only one. All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'. No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitaris. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general, and so it is in our own lives. .... But there is still some hope that things may be better for us, even on the temporal plane, in the mercy of God. And though we need all our natural human courage and guts (the vast sum of human courage and endurance is stupendous, isn't it?) and all our religious faith to face the evil that may befall us (as it befalls others, if God wills) still we may pray and hope. I do. And you were so special a gift to me, in a time of sorrow and mental suffering, and your love, opening at once almost as soon as you were born, foretold to me, as it were in spoken words, that I am consoled ever by the certainty that there is no end to this. Probably under God that we shall meet again, 'in hale and in unity', before very long, dearest, and certain that we have some special bond to last beyond this life - subject of course always to the mystery of free will, by which either of us could throw away 'salvation'. In which case God would arrange matters differently.


A quite inspiring letter, I would say.


> Yes, the Ring is primarily an object, but it is quite clear that it eventually inspires such lust in all who possess it, and even some who have not possessed actually possessed it. It is clear that in LOTR, Tolkien meant this to be a universal and unalterable feature of the Ring.


I disagree; Tom is an obvious exception; Isildur is also an exception, as Haldatyaro pointed out, as his scroll, read by Gandalf, says: the Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these great matters shall grow dim". 
And if all that Gollum wants is "Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh from the sea", I doubt that this equates the lust for world domination. Also, I don't think that dwarves are susceptible to fall to this lust. [Elbereth, Earendil, Luthien, Beren - they are also part of the universe of Lotr, and I can hardly imagine them as being corruptible by the lust.]

I certainly doubt that Sauron designed the ring to inspire such lust in others. 
[Likewise, you can't label the silmarils (which are good by their nature) as evil just because they inspire "evil" lusts.]


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 30, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> A quite inspiring letter, I would say.


Yes, it is a very nice letter. Thank you for taking the time to type it out. It is, of course, interesting to read Tolkien's views on the state of the world during the height of World War II. The letter, however, is not about LOTR. If Tolkien had said that in writing LOTR he meant to explore his personal views and philosophy of our world and that LOTR was meant to reflect those views and that philosophy, then the letter might be relevant. In fact Tolkien does not say anything like this. What he does say in the Foreward to the 2nd edition of LOTR is:


> _The Lord of the Rings_ has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print ten years ago; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.





Thorondor said:


> I disagree; Tom is an obvious exception;


Bombadil is an exception to everything in LOTR and cannot be used to prove anything. Bombadil is not an equivalent to any other life form in LOTR or The Hobbit (or The Silmarillion for that matter). As Tolkien famously said (in Letter 144):


> And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).





Thorondor said:


> Isildur is also an exception, , as Haldatyaro pointed out, as his scroll, read by Gandalf, says: the Great Ring shall go now to be an heirloom of the North Kingdom; but records of it shall be left in Gondor, where also dwell the heirs of Elendil, lest a time come when the memory of these great matters shall grow dim".
> And if all that Gollum wants is "Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh from the sea", I doubt that this equates the lust for world domination. Also, I don't think that dwarves are susceptible to fall to this lust. [Elbereth, Earendil, Luthien, Beren - they are also part of the universe of Lotr, and I can hardly imagine them as being corruptible by the lust.]


Isildur was killed before the Ring could fully possess him. Haldatyaro's quotes from UT ignores relevant passages from LOTR. In The Council of Elrond chapter in LOTR, Elrond says:


> "Alas! yes," said Elrond. "*Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made*. But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest; and by Gil-galad only Cirdan stood and I. *But Isildur would not listen to our counsel.*
> " 'This I will have as weregild for my father, and my brother,' he said, and therefore whether we would or no, he took it to treasure it. But soon he was betrayed by it to his death; and so it is named in the North Isildur's Bane. *Yet death maybe was better than what else might have befallen him.*[emphasis added]


You mention Gandalf at The Council of Elrond quoting from Isildur's scroll. Critically important to understanding the power of the Ring and its power over Isildur are the last two sentences Gandalf quotes from the scroll:


> But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing; of all the works of Sauron the only fair. *It is precious to me*, though I buy it with great pain.[emphasis added]


Can anyone seriously contend that Tolkien having Isildur call the Ring "precious to me" is accidental and meaningless in light of Gollum's constantly referring to it as his "precious" and Bilbo using the same word, "precious" when Gandalf is trying to convince him to leave it to Frodo after Bilbo's birthday party? Clearly Tolkien meant us to know that the Ring was already influencing Isildur. As for the power of the Ring we have only to look back to Gandalf's talk with Frodo in The Shadow of the Past in FOTR:


> "A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. .... Yes, sooner or later -- later, if he is strong or well-meaning, but neither strength nor good purpose will last -- sooner or later the dark power will devour him."


And later, in the same chapter when Frodo asks Gandalf to take the Ring:


> "No!" cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. "With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." His eyes flashed and his face was lit by a fire within. "Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength.


Returning again to The Council of Elrond, we have Elrond:


> "Alas, no," said Elrond. "We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Saruman and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even dealier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Suaron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. ..."


Later Galadriel tells Frodo essentially the same thing when Frodo offers her the Ring.

As for Gollum, did you not read the sentences that preceded the "Eat fish every day ..." quote you gave. They are (Gollum talking to himself):


> "No, sweet one. See, my precious: if we has it, then we can escape, even from Him, eh? Perhaps we grows very strong, stronger than Wraiths. Lord Smeagol? Gollum the Great? _The_ Gollum! Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh fish from the sea. Most Precious Gollum! Must have it. We wants it, we wants it, we wants it!"


Certainly sounds like a lust for power to me. When quoting something, you really should not take selected pieces that give a completely false impression of the meaning of the original.

Elbereth, Earendil, Luthien, and Beren are irrelevant to this discussion. Luthien and Beren are long dead and Elbereth and Earendil are no longer in Middle Earth. All are from a time before the Ring.



Thorondor said:


> I certainly doubt that Sauron designed the ring to inspire such lust in others.


Certainly, Sauron did not design the Ring for that purpose. He never expected the Ring to be possessed by anyone but himself. But, he designed it to give him domination over all the other rings and through them domination of Middle Earth. That evil will to domination of all of Middle Earth is the integral and unchangeable heart of the Ring and its power and no one in Middle Earth can resist it in the long run.


----------



## Alcuin (Jul 31, 2005)

I speculate that Sauron did design the Ring to inspire a lust for power in others, and in two ways. One way may be incidental to the nature of the Ring, but the other should be purposeful and deliberate.

The incidental means to inspire a lust for power in others is that the Ring is filled with Sauron’s own evil will and with the greater part of his native strength. “The very desire of it corrupts the heart,” said Elrond to Boromir at the Council of Elrond. (Alas for Boromir: Elrond perhaps saw more clearly with his heart Boromir’s desire than he could – or would – say.) The purpose of the Ring was to dominate those who bore the other Rings of Power; perhaps in modern terms we would describe it as a software backdoor Trojan. But I imagine that Sauron, even more than Smaug, had a rather overwhelming personality, and that those long exposed to the Ring were seduced by Sauron’s own lust from his power within the Ring, however it was housed there.

The other means would be more deliberate. Sauron was wise, though evil. How could be recover the Ring were it separated from him? Harvard Lampoon put that question well, dripping with sarcasm, in _Bored of the Rings_:


> This Ring, no other, is made by the elves,
> Who’d pawn their own mother to grab it themselves.
> Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop,
> This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop.
> ...


 
If a bunch of undergraduate satirists in late 1960s Cambridge (Mass.) could describe the problem, surely a Maia – perhaps the most powerful of all the Maiar – could see it for himself? How to recover the Ring should it become lost or separated from its maker? First it must be spared destruction at all costs, for its loss would be Sauron’s undoing:


> But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing; of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain.


So it ensnared Isildur, and later Gollum (“Preciousss. _Gollum!_”), who murdered Déagol for it. Consider Gandalf’s conversation with Frodo at Bag End:


> ’[Gollum] hated [the Ring] and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.
> 
> ‘A Ring of Power looks after itself, Frodo. _It_ may slip off treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. … But as far as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever [handed it on to someone else’s care].’


Later Frodo, at Gandalf’s urging, tries to dispose of the Ring even for a moment:


> …The gold looked very fair and pure, and Frodo thought how rich and beautiful was its colour, how perfect was its roundness. It was an admirable thing and altogether precious. When he took it out he intended to fling it from him into the very hottest part of the fire. But he found that he could not do so, not without a great struggle. He weighed the Ring in his hand, hesitating, and forcing himself to remember all that Gandalf had told him; and then with an effort of will he made a movement, as if to cast it away – but he found that he had put it back in his pocket.
> 
> Gandalf laughed grimly. ‘You see? Already you, too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not “make” you – except by force, which would break your mind…’


It captured Boromir, too, but Frodo eluded him, and Boromir redeemed himself first by his submission to Aragorn’s reproach at Parth Galen and then by his defense of Merry and Pippin. Even at a great distance, and having never handled it or even seen it, it seduced and corrupted Saruman, and perhaps even Denethor. Only those who renounced power were resistant to this lure: Gandalf at Bag End; Bombadil (who had taken what Tolkien described as a “vow of poverty” of power); Elrond, who would not claim the High Kingship of the Elves in Middle-Earth; Galadriel, who at last vowed to “diminish … and remain Galadriel.” Faramir resisted by his honor, later reflected in his immediate willingness to gladly surrender his authority as Ruling Steward to Aragorn, the rightful King of the Dúnedain.

The temptation by the Ring of Sam is described in detail:


> Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to overthrow Barad-dûr. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.


But as the passage continues, it is Samwise – whose name means “half-wise” – who understands the temptation for what it is:


> In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that helped him most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.
> 
> ‘And anyway all these notions are only a trick,’ he said to himself. ‘He’d spot me and cow me, before I could so much as shout out. He’d spot me, pretty quick, if I put the Ring on now, in Mordor. …’


The Ring is a machine designed to preserve and enhance the power of Sauron. I believe it is “programmed” to seduce those nearby, and most especially its bearers, to desire it and defend it at all costs. I believe it is specifically designed to induce them to regard it as “Precious.” To accomplish this, it preys upon each individual’s clear or latent desire for power. Bombadil, Elrond, Gandalf, and Galadriel resisted by renouncing power and authority over others. Frodo, who sought no power over others, resisted until injured, sick, starved, and exhausted, the Ring overwhelmed him in the Sammath Naur, where his will collapsed and he succumbed at last. Sam resisted through his love for Frodo and his “spiritual center.” Aragorn at the Last Debate when in a position to take the Rule of Gondor as victor in battle said, “Nevertheless I do not yet claim to command any man. Let others choose as they will,” and true to his upbringing as foster-son of Elrond, waited for the proclamation of the people after the downfall of the Lord of Rings.


----------



## Greenwood (Jul 31, 2005)

Alcuin,

Excellent post with some highly relevant quotes. I agree with very nearly everything you say. My disagreement is that I don't think Sauron, when making the One Ring, ever conceived of the possibility of losing it.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 31, 2005)

> If Tolkien had said that in writing LOTR he meant to explore his personal views and philosophy of our world and that LOTR was meant to reflect those views and that philosophy, then the letter might be relevant.


If he wasn't exploring his personal views and philosophy, then what was he exploring?
I think he told us himself:
Tolkien's 1971 BBC Interview


> Middle-earth is simply an old fashioned word for the world we live in, as imagined and surrounded by the ocean...at a different stage of imagination.


And from Letter 142:


> The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.


His own beliefs were reflected in his work, that is why I gave all his insights on good and evil.


> "No, sweet one. See, my precious: if we has it, then we can escape, even from Him, eh? Perhaps we grows very strong, stronger than Wraiths. Lord Smeagol? Gollum the Great? _The_ Gollum! Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh fish from the sea. Most Precious Gollum! Must have it. We wants it, we wants it, we wants it!"


I think it is a matter of debate (at least) if Gollum has a lust for world domination, as long as he only wants fish.


> Bombadil is an exception to everything in LOTR and cannot be used to prove anything


Tolkien tells us what Tom is (Letter 153): 


> the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge


Any embodiment of such a spirit is incorruptible.
In my opinion, the lust that the ring inspires is something that actually _contravenes _Sauron's (initial) plans.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 31, 2005)

> I think it is a matter of debate (at least) if Gollum has a lust for world domination, as long as he only wants fish.


 
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=12216

We are debating it right here! MU HA HA HA! Elgee is becoming a link demon!


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 31, 2005)

> A quite inspiring letter, I would say.



It is just that-a letter, it does not refer to the ring or back up your ideas.



> In my opinion, the lust that the ring inspires is something that actually contravenes Sauron's (initial) plans



There is no arguing against that-that the ring could have positive side-effects which it had no control over due to it's lust, so could Morgoth, Sauron and the Orks, that is not the crux of the argument, and the fact that the ring can inadvertantly bring about good doesn't make the ring good, because the ring never intended to bring about good. The ring is no less evil because it can bring about good, it just means it is less powerful than good. 
And Tolkien never talks about Bombadil using the ring for "good".


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 31, 2005)

> It is just that-a letter, it does not refer to the ring or back up your ideas


You skipped the part about evil leading to good.


> The ring is no less evil because it can bring about good, it just means it is less powerful than good.


I am satisfied with that; good and evil always intermingle.


> because the ring never intended to bring about good


I am not sure if we are to talk about the ring as a person - although it would be interesting.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Jul 31, 2005)

The One Ring is inherently evil, Sauron imbued it with his malice and rage. It is an object of negativity. To my mind this is part of a duality. The greatest resistance to that power is when one has no desire for power, the very thing the One Ring represents.

Frodo simply seeks to destroy the One Ring, he doens't want to use it for good or evil, he simply wishes to dispose of it and be rid of it. Hence he has the greatest resistance to its influence.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jul 31, 2005)

> You skipped the part about evil leading to good.



A superfluous remark in regards to my other points in the post.



> am satisfied with that; good and evil always intermingle.



Again you are arguing against yourself. Good and evil always intermingle yes, but that doesn't mean the ring is good, it just means the ring can bring about good-though not intentionally.


----------



## Alcuin (Jul 31, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> My disagreement is that I don't think Sauron, when making the One Ring, ever conceived of the possibility of losing it.


Greenwood, let me see if can convince you. Then I must return to my exile in the salt-mines of Nurn.

When I first read the trilogy after reading _The Hobbit_, the idea that the Ring had been “trapped” at its creation by Sauron in case it was separated from him seemed screamingly obvious to me all through the books. This Ring is Sauron’s very existence. I can’t see how he could be so foolish as to fail to envision a backup plan in case he lost control of the Ring: to fail to do this could be immediately fatal to him. 

Consider that when Tolkien began Lord of the Rings, the tale of Thû and Lúthien, Huan, Beren, and Finrod had been in place for 15 or 20 years at the least. Thû had already been threatened with disembodiment once, and perhaps this was part of the thread of the original Silmarillion stories that drew Tolkien to select Thû to be “Sauron” in the new tale, where Sauron is disembodied by the loss of his precious Ring. 

Sauron is wise, he is knowledgeable, and he’s already tasted defeat in Tolkien’s universe when as Thû in the old stories, Huan overthrew him at Tol Sirion. Think about this from Tolkien’s point of view as story-teller. In writing the Lord of the Rings, he is deliberately drawing the characters in _The Hobbit_ into the mythos he has already been creating for 25 or 30 years. He needs a backstory, he needs actors, and he needs motivation. Using the Ring to tie the Necromancer of _The Hobbit_ to Thû in the existing material is an inspired choice to solve a difficult problem: at once, the two stories, the lesser of which is a kind of one-off accidental success that incidentally uses names and places from his existing legendarium, not only gives him greater depth from which to write the tale he has agreed to construct at the behest of Stanley Unwin, it also allows him to construct that tale as an extension of his beloved mythos.

If we try to look at Sauron from the author’s point of view – what did he know about that character in 1937? – we can say these things. Thû is already Morgoth’s lieutenant, second in power and authority only to his master in dire evil. He is a master of werewolves, of shape-shifting, of sorcery (remember Gorlim the Unhappy), and of necromancy. He has tasted bitter, humiliating defeat at the hands of an Incarnate, Lúthien. 

Tolkien conceives that Thû, now called Sauron as language in Middle-earth evolves, has created a device, the Ring, through which he can defeat the Elves and thus rule all of Middle-earth. Does Sauron believe that he will lose possession of the Ring? Of course not! Who would – who _could_ – take it from him? But to believe that Sauron made no provision for losing the Ring, now instilled with the very essence of his being, would be a gross negligence on the part of the arch-villain, an oversight so glaring that he scarcely earns the “arch” in his villainy. 

By whatever means – programming, sorcery, Sauron’s evil essence bound within it – the Ring is able to exert an influence on its surroundings. Everyone who possesses it considers it “Precious,” seemingly to the same degree that Sauron considers it precious himself. It works to return to its master: betraying Isildur by drawing on the orcs at Gladden Fields and then slipping off in the shallow water; capturing Déagol and then Sméagol; slipping onto Frodo’s finger in the Prancing Pony; urging him to wear it in the barrow, on Weathertop, at the gates of Minas Morgul. The Ring is a nasty little item.

I don’t think Sauron is imagined to have concocted some complicated scheme to retrieve the Ring if it went missing. But let’s face it: he planned and executed his masterwork over a period of centuries, something that Tolkien sketched out while he was writing the Lord of the Rings. He is wise: he has foresight: he must know that he can lose the thing because it _is_ a _thing_, and in that event, he has to be able to get it back as quickly as possible. What he probably can’t imagine is that he would separated from it for over 3,000 years. 

What then does Sauron require? Well, an oft-repeated idea in the tale is that a new possessor wouldn’t know all about it as soon as he got it, so that resolves the problem of, “I got your ray-gun, and I’m gonna shoot you with it.” If what Sauron envisions is that someone else can get the Ring away from him, he needs two basic things to happen, and a third if he can provide for it.

The other person in possession of the Ring mustn’t destroy it at once. Gandalf noted this: the Ring had an unwholesome effect on its possessor from the get-go. Everyone who has its immediately considers it “Precious.” That saves it from immediate destruction when Isildur cuts it from Sauron's hand.
It needs to be able to shrink or expand at inconvenient moments. Where it was tight on a finger, it needs to suddenly fall off without warning. That way, Sauron can get it in a fight or other confrontation. Once he had it, the other guy would be toast. (Sauron must have been terribly shocked by the combined strength of Gil-galad, Elendil, Elrond, Círdan and Isildur. It’s no wonder he was trying to get to Sammath Naur, where his power was greatest, to fight them; and it is no wonder that Aragorn’s revealing himself and Narsil reforged to Sauron in the palantir filled Sauron with an urgency to attack.)
If possible, it needs to be able to work its way back to Sauron if he summons it.
Items number 1 and 2 are pretty darn simple in Tolkien’s universe. (#1 is quite impossible in the real world, but hey! this is a story.) I think all three of these characteristics are present in the Ring. None of them require sentience, as such, and perhaps all of them are merely incidental to the nature of the Ring as the repository of Sauron’s power. But I think that they are the result of some basic fallback position on Sauron’s part to recover the Ring were it temporarily removed from his possession in a fight or some other context. I can’t imagine that crafty, sly, cool-headed, calculating old Sauron would not have prepared some plan for just such an event.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 1, 2005)

Alcuin,

As usual, you write with eloquence and considerable knowledge, however, I remain unconvinced. The attributes we see in the Ring I believe are solely due to the nature of the Ring, not any intent on Sauron's part when he made it to protect it or to get it back should he lose it. Thus I agree with the the idea expressed in your comment: "perhaps all of them are merely incidental to the nature of the Ring as the repository of Sauron's power." To go beyond that I think we need some clear indication from Tolkien that he envisioned Sauron intending to have a plan for regaining the Ring should he lose it. You have presented rationales for why Tolkien might have done this, but none of it is grounded in any thing Tolkien wrote that can be read as directly stating, or even implying, this intent on his part. I consider the following passage from his letter 131 to be directly relevant to this discussion:


> ..... He rules a growing empire from the great dark tower of Barad-dur in Mordor, near to the Mountain of Fire, wielding the One Ring.
> 
> But to achieve this he had been obliged to let a great part of his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant motive in myth and fairy-story) pass into the One Ring. While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in "rapport" with himself: he was not "diminished". Unless some other seixed it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place. This was the essential weakness he had introduced into his situation in his effort (largely unsuccessful) to enslave the Elves, and in his desire to establish a control over the minds and wills of his servants. There was another weakness: if the One Ring was actually _unmade_, annihilated, then its power would be disolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will. But that he never contemplated nor feared. The Ring was unbreakable by any smithcraft less than his own. It was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying subterranean fore where it was made -- and that was unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought. It was in any case on his finger.


I see nothing in the above to indicate Sauron having a plan to regain the Ring should he lose it, nor any indication that Tolkien thought Sauron would be thinking about such a plan. Just the opposite. As an observer of the situation, Tolkien points out the flaws and dangers to Sauron of his creating the Ring and investing so much of himself in it, but there is no indication of Sauron thinking of these things. In fact Tolkien specifically says, Sauron "never contemplated or feared" the destruction of the Ring. Tolkien gives the reasons why Sauron would never think of anyone destroying the Ring, and chief among them is that the nature of the Ring made it impossible for anyone to destroy. Thus, the first of your "basic things" in your proposed plan of Sauron's never comes up. Sauron cannot even conceive the idea of the Ring being destroyed. It is inherent in the very nature of the Ring that no one can destroy it, so how could Sauron contemplate the idea of someone destroying it. It is not possible to make a plan concerning something that you have never thought of. As for losing the Ring, as Tolkien says: "It was in any case on his finger." I do not think it is an accident that Tolkien ends this particular discussion with that statement. Personally, I see Sauron as akin to a megalomaniac who has such a high view of his own power that he is incapable of thinking of anyone else being equal to him, let alone more powerful. To such a person, the thought of losing is impossible. At least, that is my personal view.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 1, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> If he wasn't exploring his personal views and philosophy, then what was he exploring?
> I think he told us himself:


Tolkien told us himself what he was exploring in the Foreward to LOTR that I have already quoted.



Thorondor said:


> His own beliefs were reflected in his work, that is why I gave all his insights on good and evil.


That Tolkien's beliefs *influence* his work, I do not dispute. That everything in his writing must therefore exactly adhere to those beliefs does not follow as an inevitability. Authors of fiction write stories all the time that are not exact counterparts to their personal beliefs. Tolkien stated his goals in his Foreward. Are we to consider him a liar or dissembler?



Thorondor said:


> I think it is a matter of debate (at least) if Gollum has a lust for world domination, as long as he only wants fish.


Who says he *only* wants fish? "*Lord Smeagol? Gollum the Great? The Gollum!* Eat fish every day, three times a day, fresh fish from the sea." Contending that the above passage means Gollum *only* wants wish is like saying an emperor who demands tribute from his people and surrounding countries *only* interest in being emperor is gold.



Thorondor said:


> Tolkien tells us what Tom is (Letter 153): .... Any embodiment of such a spirit is incorruptible.


That in no way changes the fact that Bombadil is unique in Middle Earth and cannot be used as an example to prove anything about any other thing/person in Middle Earth.



Thorondor said:


> In my opinion, the lust that the ring inspires is something that actually _contravenes _Sauron's (initial) plans.


The creation of the Ring by Sauron certainly makes him vulnerable and leads to his eventual destruction, but not because of the lust the Ring inspires. It leads to his destruction because he has invested so much of his own power in it, that when it is destroyed Sauron himself is reduced to the "vanishing point" as Tolkien puts it. (See the excerpt from Tolkien letter 131 I quote in my post above.)


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 1, 2005)

> Again you are arguing against yourself.


Is there any instance where the idea that good and evil intermingle is at odds with any of my statements?


> Good and evil always intermingle yes, but that doesn't mean the ring is good, it just means the ring can bring about good-though not intentionally.


How can any of the manifestations of evil be purely evil, if, inevitably, their fate is to bring about good and so become instruments of good?


> Tolkien told us himself what he was exploring in the Foreward to LOTR that I have already quoted...Authors of fiction write stories all the time that are not exact counterparts to their personal beliefs


I am not sure that his forewords contradicts in any way his view of the relationship between evil and good. That 1971 interview was about Lotr itself, and Tolkien acknowledges that Lotr "got sucked in" in his world mythology. So Lotr reflects this world ("Most people have made this mistake of thinking Middle-earth is a particular kind of Earth or is another planet of the science fiction sort but it's just an old fashioned word for this world we live in, as imagined surrounded by the Ocean" - same Lotr interview) through his interpretation of myth ("splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God").


> Contending that the above passage means Gollum *only* wants wish is like saying an emperor who demands tribute from his people and surrounding countries *only* interest in being emperor is gold.


The ring induces lust for power, but power is a very subjective notion. Gollum lives in a very narrow world, with no such concepts of ruling over others. For him, the ultimate achievement of power in life is fish eaten three times a day, because his life is driven by basic needs.


> That in no way changes the fact that Bombadil is unique in Middle Earth and cannot be used as an example to prove anything about any other thing/person in Middle Earth.


Tom is unique as a typology, and, in theory, others too could manifest his condition of being entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge and thus be immune to the ring.
"The creation of the Ring by Sauron certainly makes him vulnerable and leads to his eventual destruction, but not because of the lust the Ring inspires". The fact that the ring induces in others a lust to posses it is a source for more enemies or contenders.]


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 1, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I am not sure that his forewords contradicts in any way his view of the relationship between evil and good.


I never contended Tolkien's Foreward contradicts his personal views. As I have said, of course, Tolkien's beliefs will likely be reflected in his written work. What I have said is you cannot take a letter written to his son during the height of World War II in which he discusses the condition of the world (with no reference to LOTR) and make it apply to LOTR.



Thorondor said:


> The ring induces lust for power, but power is a very subjective notion. Gollum lives in a very narrow world, with no such concepts of ruling over others. For him, the ultimate achievement of power in life is fish eaten three times a day, because his life is driven by basic needs.


But the power the Ring promises to its possessor is total domination over others. Sauron created it to give him domination over all the other rings (the nine, the seven and the three). He did not create it to fulfill personal wishes like some sort of genie from The Thousand and One Nights. Gollum does not need to become "Lord Smeagol. Gollum the Great. _The_ Gollum!" to eat fish three times a day. If the most that Gollum can think of getting after becoming Gollum the Great or _The_ Gollum, is fish three times a day, that is merely a reflection of his own petty nature.



Thorondor said:


> Tom is unique as a typology, and, in theory, others too could manifest his condition of being entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge and thus be immune to the ring.


You cannot have Bombadil as unique in Middle Earth (as Tolkien says he is) and still contend others could be the same as him. In that case he is not unique!



Thorondor said:


> The fact that the ring induces in others a lust to posses it is a source for more enemies or contenders.]


That Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, etc. (as well as Elendil, Gil-galad, Celebrimbor, etc.) had nothing to do with the Ring's inducing a lust for power in its possessors.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 1, 2005)

> What I have said is you cannot take a letter written to his son during the height of World War II in which he discusses the condition of the world (with no reference to LOTR) and make it apply to LOTR.


Why can't it be applied? It's the same world as the real one mentioned in the letter (see the above quote) and Tolkien makes it pretty clear, in the same interview about Lotr, that his work is a religious one.
Btw, what is your position towards my (somewhat retorical) question:
How can any of the manifestations of evil be purely evil, if, inevitably, their fate is to bring about good and so become instruments of good?


> If the most that Gollum can think of getting after becoming Gollum the Great or _The_ Gollum, is fish three times a day, that is merely a reflection of his own petty nature.


 So, do we agree that Gollum is another exception to the ring inducing a lust for world domination?


> You cannot have Bombadil as unique in Middle Earth (as Tolkien says he is) and still contend others could be the same as him.


I think that by the word "spirit" Tolkien reffers to a state of mind, an attitude and not to a single possible person which can manifest this state of mind/attitude.


----------



## Inderjit S (Aug 1, 2005)

> How can any of the manifestations of evil be purely evil, if, inevitably, their fate is to bring about good and so become instruments of good?



Glib analysis-the ring didn't intend to bring about any good, it was not made to bring about any good, it was not in its nature to bring about good-it was the actions of outside characters which brought a greater good which the ring neither aimed for or desired. Based on your argument, Morgoth, Sauron, Glaurung and the Orks were all "good" because they brought about good even though they never meant to do so, heck Hitler was good because I guess his actions brought a greater good in some ways....it just doesn't make sense to attribute a label to a thing which didn't intend to do anything worth labelling, it is plain casuistry.



> How can any of the manifestations of evil be purely evil, if, inevitably, their fate is to bring about good and so become instruments of good?



It is just plain sophistry, if I murder my next door neighbour but that somehow brings about a greater good then that doesn't make my actions right because I never intended to do so-I merely intended to kill. The same with the ring. Plus I think you are diverging from your original argument-that the ring could be used for good, to another argument, that the ring brought about good, though it didn't mean to.



> So, do we agree that Gollum is another exception to the ring inducing a lust for world domination?



Hate to but Greenwood said that the ring gave power according to the stature of the ringbearer-as Gollum lacked the will to dominate others (or strong characters) he would naturally lack the power for world domination-only a few could achieve that with the ring, but he would still use it for evi, which is the crux of the argument-it really doesn't help your argument in any way.



> I think that by the word "spirit" Tolkien reffers to a state of mind, an attitude and not to a single possible person which can manifest this state of mind/attitude.



What? Tolkien clearly points out that Tom is an enigma, I don't see how any of the above is relevant, however pretty it may or may not sound.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 2, 2005)

I don't think I can add anything worthwhile to Inderjit's excellent and well-reasoned post.


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 2, 2005)

Okay. So having slept on it I decided on one comment.



Thorondor said:


> So, do we agree that Gollum is another exception to the ring inducing a lust for world domination?


BTW, "world domination" was your phrase, not mine.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Aug 2, 2005)

> it was not in its nature to bring about good


I think it was, since even Melkor is an instrument of Eru.


> Plus I think you are diverging from your original argument-that the ring could be used for good, to another argument, that the ring brought about good, though it didn't mean to.


There is no diverging - I have stated from the begining that I believe Eru to be able to use the ring for good.


> Tolkien clearly points out that Tom is an enigma, I don't see how any of the above is relevant, however pretty it may or may not sound.


Tom as a person is an enigma but his symbolism / (arche)type is not.


> BTW, "world domination" was your phrase, not mine.


As a phrasing, yes, but I was reffering to your previous statement that "In LOTR the lust for absolute power and domination over others is clearly evil".


----------



## Greenwood (Aug 2, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> I think it was, since even Melkor is an instrument of Eru.


You can think what you like, but there is no support in LOTR for your position. The opposite is clearly stated.



Thorondor said:


> There is no diverging - I have stated from the begining that I believe Eru to be able to use the ring for good.


Once again, you may believe what you wish, but there is no support in LOTR for your position that the Ring can be used for good. Yours is a "the ends justifies the means" argument and that kind of reasoning is clearly rejected in LOTR. The position of LOTR is clearly that using evil to achieve good corrupts good and turns it into evil.



Thorondor said:


> Tom as a person is an enigma but his symbolism / (arche)type is not.


Bombadil as sentient being in Middle Earth is unique and is intended to be an enigma (Tolkien has stated this). He is not a man, hobbit, elf, dwarve, ent or any other kind of Middle Earth creature. His example cannot be used to say anything about the Ring's effect on other Middle Earth sentient beings.



Thorondor said:


> As a phrasing, yes, but I was reffering to your previous statement that "In LOTR the lust for absolute power and domination over others is clearly evil".


But your phrasing is not what I said and carries different implications than what I said. That one of the returns that Gollum can imagine for having such power and domination is to have fresh fish three times a day tells us about the limitations of Gollum's imagination. It says nothing about the limits of the Ring.


----------



## Daranavo (Aug 2, 2005)

It was always my belief that the "inherent" evil of the ring had nothing to do with its ability to manipulate its wielder or the way in which the ring was used. This would also apply even to a wielder who could resist its power. The "Evil" of it was that as long as it was in use by either a good or evil entity or person, it allowed for the return of its maker which ofcourse was evil. No matter what good had come from its use.


----------

