The One Ring?

[doug*platypus]

Whether or not he started out simply playing Devil's Advocate (which I would've thought was against some of the guidelines of your site), Mr. Underhill has brought up what seems to be a very valid argument about the rings being the feminine component that completes their masculine owners. Very intersting about Galadriel, the only female Ringbearer, being made so masculine. And it seems an explanation has been found for Sauron's power increasing after the creation of the One. By more clearly defining his being, and by giving creedence to his feminine side, he becomes almost omnipotent. Sauron suddenly becomes greater than the sum of his parts - he invents synergy! Of course, I don't think he is ever said to have become more powerful after splitting his power like this. I think instead that the only reason he created the One Ring was to dominate the other rings, and he had to place a lot of his power into it. So when he had the Ring he was just as powerful as before, but also in control of the other rings, and when he lost the Ring his power was greatly diminished. But that should've probably been said in another thread.

Back to the original question, the One Ring is most obviously a great weapon, an inherently evil weapon, which can be used by either good or evil. Like a nuclear bomb. I think in this respect, Tolkien gives us a cautionary tale and asks us if the end can justify all means. Clearly, Gandalf, Elrond and co. do not think so. Clearly Boromir and Denethor do. This argument is at least as relevant today as fifty years ago when the books first appeared.