How do you kill Wyatt Earp?

[Telchar]

Let's say you live in Tombstone or Dodge City - or whatever those old western towns were called. Your enemy was the chief gunslinger in town, lets for kicks call him Wyatt Earp. You know that you would have no chance what so ever if you faced him in a duel.

What you do is his: You call him out to the main street, you mock him, and ask him to leave town! He, in return, will tell you that he now has to kill you for your insolence, and you reply -"yeah right... I'd like to see you try!!!"

So now you're standing facing each other, about to draw your guns. The next thing that happens is very surprising, at least it is very surprising to Wyatt Earp - because he drops dead, shot in the back with a Winchester from a nearby building.
To you it's not at all surprising. As it was your good friend and ally that sat ready with his riffle in the building.

So you have a problem and an enemy less, BUT the question is: Are you now

A a hero?
B a coward? or
C a cheat?


... then compare this to how Sauron was defeated... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Maéglin]

Well in the context of that story you would be a cheat. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
But base it in the context of the free peoples of Middle Earth and its just so wrong [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

In that western kind of shooting thing I would answer B) a coward. Though a stupid one. I mean what was the point in that whole thing?
But I wouldn't place that on the level with defeating Sauron...unless you give me some lines of arguments to this thing.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I have. They're very different. What's your point?

[Essex]

I compare it more to a military campaign. You send your main force to draw your enemy out and then you have the suprise attack from the flank which finishes them off.

All is fair in love and war.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, since Wyatt Earp was a lawman (of Dodge City among other places), you would be an outlaw (and a dogone yeller cheatin' one at that).

But, IF this Wyatt Earp was the meanest baddest guy in town, who was making everybody's life a complete misery and killing people left right and centre, and IF nobody else had either the guts or the ability to take him on, then you would be a hero, my son.

So, which Wyatt Earp was Sauron, again? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Telchar]

So what you guys are saying is: If you're fighting for the good and the righteous cause, it doesnt matter which way you do it!

The objective is everything - the path you walk is nothing?

As you can see Im just trying to provoke a little, as is my wont. But I seriously think that as everything else in ME is very heroic, then the plot to destroying Sauron/the Ring is just a little too sneaky, sneaky for what JRRT himself called a heroic romance.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that what Frodo and Sam achieved is worth slightly more in comparitive terms than shooting someone in the back.

But yes, when the fate of the entire world is at stake, the objective is more important than the road taken to get there. After all, you might otherwise just as well say how awful it was that Aragron and co murdered all those poor midguided Southrons and Easterlings at the Pelennor.

The end does not always justify the means, for example when it is for personal gain, and there are some "means" that would be unacceptable. For example, I don't think that Gandalf would have had much sympathy if he had suggested offering up Merry and Pippin in sacrifice, even if this did achieve Sauron's defeat. In that situation, we would wonder whether the means being used was any better than the evil it was intended to remedy. But distracting Sauron's attention while Frodo and Sam sneak through Mordor to destroy the Ring can hardly be described in these terms.

In any event, there was really very little hope of Frodo and Sam ever succeeding in their task (Gandalf recognised the hopelessness of the situation from the outset). If they had been caught they would almost certainly have died horrible deaths. And what they achieved involved terrible hardship and personal sacrifice on their (and particularly Frodo's) part. In those circumstances, I think that their endeavours can be described as pretty heroic.

I really don't see any issue here. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[ October 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Arwen1858]

I like what you said, Saucepan Man.
I think what Frodo and Sam did was very heroic. Frodo risked everything to take the ring to Mordor, and Sam risked everything to follow Frodo. MAybe the plan was sneaky, but how else would they destroy the ring? They couldn't very well walk up to the gates, knock, and ask the Mouth of Sauron to destroy it for them. And the comparison to Wyatt Earp wasn't quite right, either. I don't really know anything about him, so I'm going off of what you said in your post. Is Wyatt Earp some evil, dark lord who wants to take over Earth? Has he tricked and manipulated people to conform to his will? Does he send people out to destroy anyone who stands in his way?? If so, I think it would be heroic for someone to challenge him in the first place, because with a character like that, he could have shot you with the first word you spoke to him. And I think it does matter what way you do it, and I don't believe that the end always justifies the means, not at all. But how else would they have destroyed the ring if they weren't a bit tricky about it??

[Imladris]

The analogy of your story isn't close enough in similarites to really make a point about Middle-earth. Consider it this way: take for instance, a chess game. You are slowly and steadily being defeated. You have virtually no military left, only your queen (Gandalf or Aragorn) a horse, two pawns etc. (you get the idea) while Sauron has a few queens, all his power pieces, etc. What Aragorn and Gandalf did was pure, simple, strategy. They distracted Sauron while their two little pawns managed to get to the other side of the board. And then, of course, Sauron was checkmated. Strategy, not at all sneaky or cowardly.

I agree with Saucepan Man and Essex.

[ainur]

I'd say (a), a hero. After all, you knew going in that your friend on the roof could never bring himself to shoot Wyatt on his own. You were prepared to do whatever you could to put an end to Wyatt. The Winchester went off by accident when Wyatt's deputy, for reasons of his own, jumped your buddy to get the gun away. That's the only way he could have been beaten.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Well wait just a moment, because weren't all of Gandalf's plans sneaky in some form or another? His job was to get the free people to take down Sauron, and he did it sneakily so that Sauron wouldn't find out and totally prevent it. So it was Gandalf who was a cheat, but his cheating was ordained by the Valar, so basically it can't be called cheating at all, it is considered piety (or since he is Maiar himself, I guess mere mortals aren't qualified to judge those actions). As far as Aragorn's calling Sauron out so his eyes wouldn't be on Frodo and the backstabbing plot, Aragorn initiated a ruse. He was heroic, because reason said that to pull off that ruse, he'd still have to fight the battle of his life, regardless of whether Sauron actually showed up or not. But the ruse itself was Gandalf's trickery. I was tempted to call it cheap trickery, but it cost a lot, whether in lives, years or other things.

Gandalf was a tricky devil.

[Lush]

Telchar, I think your analogy is off because in it, the presumed "you" and Wyatt Earp both appear to be on a level playing field, which wasn't the case at all in Middle Earth.

Based on your example alone, I would choose option "b", but I find the whole scenario to be non-applicable where the defeat of Sauron is concerned.

Sauron and his minions out-matched everyone in Middle Earth at that point in time. The example of two humans on a main street with a third one hiding in the wings does not, in itself, mirror the nature of the conflict in the Lord of the Rings.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It would be slightly hypocritical for Sauron to condemn Frodo and co. for cheating while he himself had been cheating people for thousands of years.

[Kidd2323]

Two things...

1)...If you had used a name with a negative vibe -- perhaps Jesse James -- instead of Wyatt Earp, the response would have overwhelming been in favor of being a hero because JJ was such a ruthless human being and needed to be stopped at any cost. (Sauron was just as ruthless a villian as JJ was a killer.)

2)...Doesn't the old addage, "All's far in love and war," apply here?

[Lord of Angmar]

This seems to be a question of ethics, which I do not altogether understand. There are several major difference which make these two scenarios less then comparable. For one thing, a duel is a game between two men with (presumably) enough honor to accept the fact that they have a good chance of dying and refuse to stack the cards in their favor. The battle between Sauron, on both fronts (Frodo and Sam and the Host of the West) was stacked in favor of Sauron, so if any cowardice (which seems an absurd thing to call it given the seriousness of the situation) occurred and those fighting for good used deceptive strategies, it was because their enemy Sauron had been so treacherous and deceptive that it was necessary to counter. Unfortunately my post must end before it is concluded in my entirety, as I am called off on an (relatively) urgent errand. I will add more later, but I hope my stance is somewhat clear.

Cheers!
-Angmar

[the phantom]

Sauron was indeed defeated by means of deceit and trickery, but I pretty much believe what you said, Telchar-

If you're fighting for the good and the righteous cause, it doesnt matter which way you do it!

Yep, I pretty much think that. The ends DO justify the means if those means are the ONLY way to accomplish the ends (and in the case of Sauron, they did defeat him by the only means possible).

[Finwe]

There is a time and place for everything. In some situations, you need to be heroic, and stand off against your enemy, face-to-face across a plain, with your army behind you. In other situations, you might need to sneak behind your enemy's back, and destroy him through his weakness(es). Isn't that what the principle of hostage-taking is based on? If you take someone whom your enemy/opponent loves, or cares for, then you can exploit their weakness.

Gandalf knew that facing Sauron's army in open war wouldn't accomplish anything in the way of destroying the One Ring. Rather, it would fall into Sauron's hands all the quicker. He realized that they would have to be sneaky if they wanted to destroy the One Ring, and he never lost sight of that goal. Sometimes, in war, you have to be like Sir Francis Walsingham (in the movie Elizabeth), rather than a Sir William Cecil (in the same movie). You have to be able to kill while smiling and carrying on a normal conversation, but you also have to live by some sort of honor/moral code. It's just that some situations require solutions that many people would find disturbing/cowardly/immoral. Would you have preferred Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn to march right up to Barad-dur, invite Sauron to tea, and kindly ask him if they could drop the One Ring into Mount Doom? I think not.

[Maéglin]

I don't think the end justifies the means? After all what would have victory meant if you had lost all that you were fighting for in the beginning. I agree with Imladris though, using Frodo and Sam was pure strategy. Whether you call it cowardice or not is purely opinionistic. After all you can regard some of the most cunning strategies in all of history as cowardly. Blitzkrieg for example did not rely on attacking an enemy head-on by rather their flanks and targets of opportunity. Just because its a totally different theater of war does not matter. Vietnam (Guerilla warfare) also comes to mind. Your analogy is based on a duel Telchar, which was not the case in Middle Earth. it was the WAR of the Ring.

Although Lord of Angmar when you say

it was because their enemy Sauron had been so treacherous and deceptive that it was necessary to counter

I don't quite understand. Sure Sauron was treacherous in the First and Second age but he was not overly treacherous in the Third. After all, all the Free Peoples by then knew who their enemy was, it was hardly possible to pit them against each other in the face of the greater evil.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Sauron was very treacherous, Maeglin.

There is heroism all over LotR. The entire point of it, though, is the Ring -- the super-weapon of Middle-Earth. Whichever side used it would wipe out the other. This is what happened. Would they have been cowardly if they'd armed Gandalf with it, and crushed Sauron that way? The West simply chose a different way of using the Ring.

The place of the Ring is sort of similar to that of a nuclear bomb, eh.

Nice topic, by the way.

[Gilbo]

Might I direct you Learned Sirs to a humble film, with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, called The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? The circumstances are similar, Stewart bravely called Lee Marvin out, but Wayne actually delivered the death blow. Not exactly the same situation, but alike enough.
Another point, Stewart was "crowned" senator,while Wayne led a humble existence.
I wonder if Wayne cleared out the rest of the bad guys in his hometown. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]