Split Personality?

[alatar]

Sauron got a copy of The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord and began to act accordingly.

[Sauron the White]

Morwen... lets accept your explaination for the moment. So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION. Only then does my flaw not become a flaw. This is tons more info than was ever delivered in LOTR or at the Council of Elrond. Tons more.

It like comedians say about a joke that is way too complicated. If you got to explain it - forget it.

The entire premise of the book hangs on this plot device. If Sauron gets the ring then we all kiss our collective behinds goodbye. Except for a few things like
---- Sauron already had the ring
---- it did not protect him previously when he did have it
---- the power in the ring came from Sauron in the first place
--- even with the ring upon his hand, a man was able to cut it off and defeat him

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.

[Morwen]

The entire premise of the book hangs on this plot device. If Sauron gets the ring then we all kiss out collective behinds goodbye. Except for a few things like
---- Sauron already had the ring
---- it did not protect him previously when he did have it
---- the power in the ring came from Sauron in the first place
--- even with the ring upon his hand, a man was able to cut it off and defeat him

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.

where in the LotR is it stated that the Ring was supposed to protect him or that it operates as a protective device? Where is this suggested?

Where is it stated or suggested that Sauron while wearing the Ring is invulnerable to attack making it impossible for Isildur to in fact cut it from hand?

And if neither of these things is stated or suggested then how is it a flaw if the Ring doesn't do something that it's never said that it could do?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Its an internal contradiction that is at the very heart of the plot.

I also don't see such a contradiction. One element that seems to be missing from the conversation is the elves: for one thing, Sauron with the ring would control all that they have created with their rings. For another, the elves are diminishing and leaving Middle Earth. By design, they are far more endowed than Men are or were, in spirit, mind or body. While the elves were capable of keeping even Morgoth's armies at bay, the Men, who make up the dominant opposition to Sauron, cannot face him at this hour, even if Sauron is far less powerful than in the Second Age. While it could be argued that both the strength of the good and evil forces has diminished, the good side suffered most, due to the lessening numbers of the elves. I believe this is the deciding element in the projected success of Sauron if he regained the ring: he would regain much of his former power, control what the elves have achieved - while the strongest element of his opposition is all but gone.

[littlemanpoet]

STW: Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Elempi: Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Morwen: I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

You are right, Morwen. However there is a distinction between what is actually there and that which I am able to perceive. Since I have not made a thorough study of the point, I can only offer opinion.

Originally Posted by STW

The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to [Sauron's] door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

Your colorful choice of words is amusing. In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Why would Sauron let them get so close as to cut off the Ring? He was arrogant and perceived himself to be invulnerable though he was not. This relates to one of the central themes Tolkien was working with: the will to unjustly lord it over others results necessarily in self-destruction because evil is by its nature self-consumed and cannot understand selfless motivation and action.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place.

This is a mere truism and assertion absent of any supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by STW

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

There is no condescension intended; rather a distinction. There is no hidden agenda here. The distinction is clear. I wonder why you can't comprehend it.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

I'm trying to picture a concept in a party dress and lipstick and it just isn't happening; no secondary belief, I guess. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It is a clear distinction. Again, why can't you see it, STW?

Originally Posted by STW

He had the ring. It failed to deliver.

Precisely. But it does not mean what you seem to think it means. He made the Ring. It could not deliver that which he was incapable of achieving precisely because he had become evil and therefore, by definition, blind to his own weaknesses. "Wise fool." So the flaw you see is not extraneous of the work, but built into the entire milieu. I suppose it's only really a problem if one wants Sauron to win.

Originally Posted by alatar

Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

Gobtwiddle. He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

Originally Posted by Morwen

...as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.

Actually, Galadriel's ring is used to enhance everything having to do with Lorien, which is part of why she has so much to lose by the Ring's destruction. And Gandalf has Narya, which he uses a lot (fire). But yes, everything done by the three Elven rings would be laid bare if Sauron had recovered the One.

So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION.

This is an absurd suggestion, not only because of its hyperbole. If one reads fiction with this kind of analytical process going on all the time, enjoyment of the work would be deeply compromised.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Gobtwiddle. He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

Hogwash...which is what you want to do before applying lipstick.

Sauron, like Saruman and the Ents, did not anticipate this line of attack. He was worried about a new Ringlord, preferably of Rohan or Gondor make. He knew that there was some tark or man-dwarf-elf ("Man/Bear/Pig" ) running around spying on his land, but he did not think that this were that problematic or he would have had more agents/soldiers looking for the hobbits instead of going for Aragorn's band of ruffians - which would have been thwarted by the Black Gate regardless.

Did not the Witch-King, one of the fingers of the hand of Sauron, make the same mistake at Weathertop? "He will fade, then we will have him as there are no She-Elves around that can thwart us."

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, I'll give you that one, alatar, since I recollect now that Tolkien said much the same kind of thing in the story itself.

[Sauron the White]

from littlemanpoet

In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Did not the free peoples army win the decisive battle seven years before? Did they not lay siege to the Barad-dur for the next seven years before dispatching Sauron? How is this on the verge of defeat? JRRT himself, writing in Of The Rings of Power in THE SILMARILLION says they had the victory and their siege was so powerful that if forced Sauron out from his fortress.

from Morwen

where in the LotR is it stated that the Ring was supposed to protect him or that it operates as a protective device? Where is this suggested?

Where is it stated or suggested that Sauron while wearing the Ring is invulnerable to attack making it impossible for Isildur to in fact cut it from hand?

And if neither of these things is stated or suggested then how is it a flaw if the Ring doesn't do something that it's never said that it could do?

This is the second post where you mention these questions and I do not know what I wrote to elicit this line of inquiry. I am not suggesting that the ring has the power to make anyone invulnerable. No way. I am not suggesting it was suppose to protect him from Isildur. No way - no how.

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.

[Morwen]

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.

At the Second Age the Free Peoples were capable of matching the military might of Sauron (with Ring) with military might of their own. They are NOT able to do this in the Third Age and in fact a Ringless Sauron was already a grave threat to them. To argue that "Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world" ignores the fact that the ability of the Free Peoples to oppose him has changed dramatically.
Given that they cannot hope to overcome Sauron by mililtary means they have to look for other options to defeat him. And in discussing their options at the Council of Elrond it is made clear that sending the Ring to the Fire is not merely a matter of keeping it out of Sauron's hands. It is in fact considered their best hope of defeating him. The premise therefore isn't simply that "we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all". No, "we have to destroy the Ring because doing so will rid us of the problem of Sauron once and for all".

[Sauron the White]

Morwen... yes, yes, yes... I have heard that standard explaination before and it seems to be part of the doctrine among the faithful. But it just rings hollow with me. After all, the army of men did pretty well against Sarumans Uruks at Helms Deep. How could anyone know so without a doubt in advance that the free peoples had no chance? Battles and wars are not fought or won on paper.

One thing I have learned here in the past year is there is some type of general rules which apply to all debates here. It goes something like this.

JRRT never made a mistake. His books are perfect and without error. If you think you have found an error, it is you who are in error because the books are perfect. The standards which apply to JRRT and his books apply to nothing else and are special and are little understood by the great masses. And the films suck because they are not the books.

Do any of you ever concede anything? This gets really frustrating after a while.

[Finduilas]

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Did not the free peoples army win the decisive battle seven years before? Did they not lay siege to the Barad-dur for the next seven years before dispatching Sauron? How is this on the verge of defeat? JRRT himself, writing in Of The Rings of Power in THE SILMARILLION says they had the victory and their siege was so powerful that if forced Sauron out from his fortress.

Oops. I guess you're right. That means that the Eldar allied with the Numenorean Faithful, were still strong enough at the end of the Second Age to defeat Sauron with the Ring, and Isildur threw away their chance. Wow. That really puts Isildur's foolishness in stark relief. No wonder the Valar sent the Istari, especially with the waning of the Eldar.

Originally Posted by STW

I have heard that standard explaination before and it seems to be part of the doctrine among the faithful. But it just rings hollow with me.

If you have evidence to prove Morwen's argument false, you'll have to do better than "rings hollow with me".

By the way, I've conceded a couple of points to you. You haven't conceded any, in spite of the clear explanations and examples I've given you, especially in regard to the objective, real distinction between secondary belief and willing suspension of disbelief. What it seems to come down to is that you're accusing the lot of us of "closed mindedness", which appears to be the pot calling the kettle black.

[Morwen]

StW, I am not attempting to give you a "standard explaination" of any sort. I am presenting my opinion of the text, how I understand what Tolkien has written.

Helm's Deep was one battle. When the representatives of the Free Peoples meet in Rivendell their own assessment of their position is that they cannot hope overcome Sauron by force of arms. Hence the the plan to send the Ring to Fire. Indeed when Aragorn and co march to Black Gate , I don't recall anyone saying they hoped with an army of about 6000 to defeat Sauron. They are simply hoping to buy the Ringbearer time. This is what is presented in the text. If I am to find this reasoning flawed then it would have to be on the basis that there is evidence in the text to suggest that everyone, at the Council of Elrond and afterwards, is being unduly pessimistic; that despite their assertions they really were capable of somehow defeating the war machine of Sauron by military means and that capability is being ignored so everyone could embark on a quest to Mount Doom.

At this point I'm not sure what it is that I'm supposed to be conceding. Why is it that you find it difficult to concede that the position of the Free Peoples in the Third Age is markedly different from that in the Second? What is it about that assertion that seems hollow to you or doesn't make sense?

[Quempel]

Winning one battle does not mean there is enough military strength to win the war. And wars are won in the mind and on paper long before they are won in the battle field. No general is going to send troops out all willy-nilly without a plan, well not a winning general. So yes there was a victory at Helms Deep, but had it not been for the Army of the Dead, Rohan and Gondor would have fallen during the battle at Pelenor Fields, fact it the free living men could not over come the massive army without the aid of the Army of the Dead, and they were a one time shot.

[davem]

Morwen has already stated the situation perfectly. The 'Free People' are already, by the time of the story, effectively finished. Sauron is going to win - he has overwhelming forces & is moving towards the final victory. Its not that the Ring will enable him to break a stalemate, let alone to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Its not a case of 'If Sauron gets this he'll win' but of 'If he gets this then our only chance of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat is gone - but if we can destroy the Ring he will fall'.

Of course there are some (as at the Council) who seem to believe that just keeping the Ring from him ('send it over the Sea'/'give it to Bombadil' etc) will be enough, but they are soon put in their place.

The basics of the plot: Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

[alatar]

Didn't Gandalf say something about your valor being vain, as even without the Ring, the tidal waves of Sauron were coming Westward, and so one could either ride out to meet him or endure siege after siege in whatever strong places remained - regardless, the end of the Free Folk was certain. Sauron, even before his first cup of coffee in the morning was already planning total domination of Middle Earth, and there were few if any on the other side that had the same devotion for keeping that from happening - even Gandalf took a break now and again.

With the Ring Sauron's victory was certain; without, his victory was mostly certain and only delayed somewhat, and a few islands (Rivendell, Lothlorien, the Old Forest) eventually would be all that remained free, and in time even these would fall. Was destroying the One Ring the Third Age's 'Eärendil moment?'

And I concede lipsticked pigs and glycogen.

[Sauron the White]

After reading and rereading the points made by several people here, I do admit that it makes sense now. This particular point from davem rings true

Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

That does make sense and fits in with some of the Council speeches. I thank all of you - Morwen, alatar, Quempel and littlemanpoet for making good arguements. Findulias said

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

Kind of makes me feel like Homer Simpson and should say "DOH".

I do think that the whole Sauron needs the ring appears at first to be a contradiction... but you have all explained that to me to my satisfaction. I guess he really did not need it and that was the weakness in my position.

I am learning that sometimes looking at this stuff is like somebody from the 19th century explaining why a huge battleship made of metal and concrete could never float. The more you learn, the more it makes sense. Thanks to all.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I am learning that sometimes looking at this stuff is like somebody from the 19th century explaining why a huge battleship made of metal and concrete could never float. The more you learn, the more it makes sense. Thanks to all.

What happened? Don't tell me you suddenly believe a laden Dwarf can run 135 miles in 3.5 days?!? My heart can only take so much...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Is that an African Dwarf or a European Dwarf?

[Sauron the White]

The dwarf run all those miles?????

NEVER!!!!!!

[littlemanpoet]

AND NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED SPLIT PERSONALITY....

[alatar]

So when Gollum finally regains the Ring before he takes his lava swim, is he Smeagol, Gollum or still the split personality?

[Folwren]

Not Smeagol. I believe Smeagol was before the Ring...not an innocent figure, but certainly more innocent than the creature that owned the Ring.

He was Gollum...Gollum as Gollum was when Bilbo took his Precious. Not happy, but able to survive and willing to be consumed.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Not Smeagol. I believe Smeagol was before the Ring...not an innocent figure, but certainly more innocent than the creature that owned the Ring.

He was Gollum...Gollum as Gollum was when Bilbo took his Precious. Not happy, but able to survive and willing to be consumed.

Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Yeah. I agree with this. But I don't buy "split personality"; I think that all the Smeagol that had remained inside the creature got snuffed out when Sam chose his words badly at the moment he almost repented.

And of course, it was Smeagol himself who did the 'snuffing'. He chose to respond the way he did to Sam's words. Sam , effectively, passed him a loaded gun & Smeagol chose to put it to his own head & pull the trigger. One could argue that if Sam hadn't given him the 'gun' he wouldn't have killed himself, but one can't argue that Sam pulled the trigger himself.

But ... Gollum is Smeagol & vice versa. They are not two different beings in the same body, he is a single being who makes a moral choice. We are dealing here with Smeagol making a final choice that he doesn't care anymore - Smeagol is Gollum with the remnants of a conscience, Gollum is Smeagol having decided that conscience is going to get him nowhere - he casts it aside with less regret than Sam later casts away his pans.

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster - of course, by that time its actually easier to take that last little step than to turn around & trek all the way back, but the point is all along his long road Smeagol has been in control of his choices. Smeagol/Gollum is no more a 'split personailty' in the psychological sense than any of us who have had that inner argument with ourselves over whether or not to take the last cake or leave it for the missus, whether or not to leave our details when we shunt that parked car when there's no witnesses about or to use the Bart Simpson Get out of jail free' card - 'It was like that when I got here'. Of course, the first few times we argue with ourselves over whether or not we should do it, but the more often we choose the former & give in the easier it becomes. That's simply about having a conscience & choosing to act in accordance with it or ignoring it or more usually constructing complex justifications ('the cake would have gone off/they wouldn't mind me having it', 'Its only a small scratch & hardly worth making a fuss over - in fact, anyone who would make a fuss over such a small scratch is such a petty minded jerk that they're not worth the hassle I'd have to go through', 'That vase was an accident waiting to happen - balanced so precariously on that little table....'). As I said, every step down that road gets easier to make, & turning around & going back gets harder & harder, but I think that's the kind of person Tolkien is showing us in Smeagol, rather than an individual suffering from a mental disorder. Smeagol/Gollum is not mentally ill, but morally corrupt - as a result of his own choices.

Of course, that's not to say that his failure to repent isn't tragic - it is (didn't Tolkien say he wept?) - but by that point it was pretty much inevitable. One feels that if Sam had woken up & simply said 'Good morning' Smeagol would have taken it the wrong way. The idea that at that point, so close to getting his hands on his Precious, anything was going to stop him, is I think mistaken. He still, I believe, intended to lead them to Shelob & take his Precious back, but in what would prove to be the last flare of conscience & empathy in him (before he killed it) he fleetingly considered the consequences of that act.... Sam's words simply enabled Smeagol to make the choice he really wanted to make all along. He could proceed with his plan, but blame Sam for 'forcing him into it'

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We have here not so much a 'split personality' as an individual who makes a moral choice to finally & completely become a monster

I do think that there are two personalities acting in our villain. As Gandalf says:

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered.

Thus, I would say that what Tolkien was trying to portray in Gollum was not a split personality in the sense of multiple personalities of rather equal standing, split from the same root - but a mind crushed by a power greater than it, which has taken under its dominion almost all its willpower. I believe it is safe to say that Smeagol would not have done worse deeds than theft or pranks if he didn't have the ring. If we are to take the Shire as a point of reference for Smeagol's lands too, then killing another hobbit is rather out of the question, and his past wouldn't justify, in my opinion, his going down that road by himself. To be more exact, the two personalities at work would be Smeagol - and the ring's taint on his mind.

[littlemanpoet]

Although I see where Raynor is coming from in regard to the "chink in his mind", and even though the Ring is an overwhelming artifact, davem's point remains valid that Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it.

Unlike Frodo, who fought the Ring's influence all the way to the Crack of Doom, Gollum colluded with the Ring's influence. The only exception to this collusion was Frodo's mercy, which opened the door on that chink.

That said, I don't think there is quite the determinism going on that davem implies (or ast least I infer ). There was just as much a chink of hope as there was a chink of light that Gollum might repent; otherwise it would not be the kind of tragedy that it was.

But it's interesting to consider that Tolkien wept over this scene. I remember doing so too. One grieves only for those things that one loses, that one loves (or at least likes). So for all of Gollum's moral corruption and monstrous deeds, we still are helped to see something piteous and, well, human and sympathetic, about this fallen Hobbit.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

Gollum lusted for the Ring and committed murder to get it

True, but with the exception of Tom, everyone in the book is susceptible to lusting for the ring. Do you think he would have killed if this wasn't the one ring?

[littlemanpoet]

It's likely since he was already a thief before the Ring was ever found. Gollum was already corrupt. The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

[alatar]

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them. The point of the Ring in the book is that its both the most powerful & the weakest thing in M-e - if you claim it & use it its the most powerful thing. If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

Then again, their situation is not comparable, since they were not in the vicinity of the ring when they discovered that it existed. Furthermore, I didn't say all the others lusted, only that they were susceptible to lust - given the rather irresistible possessiveness the ring inspired. That Gollum was already weakened further takes some of his blame away; he was not in the same situation of dealing with the ring as a normal person would have been, and he did not take the road of petty theft aware of the deadly threat it would open him to. Should we all know the consequences of our small evils, our guardian angels would likely be less busy.

Originally Posted by davem

If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

If [a mortal] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he_ fades:_ he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

No - I imply that one is free to reject it altogether - refuse to have it at all, even if that means inevitable defeat. If one rejects it (like Faramir) one is not tempted by it & will not succumb to it. Even if one bears it one does not have to surrender to it - though it becomes increasingly difficult not to. Gandalf & Galadriel refuse to take it because they feel they would eventually succumb & use it, but they would still have a choice in the matter. They just don't trust themselves to have it & not use it in extremis.

[Raynor]

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will. Anyway, I think Tolkien addressed the question of overpowering evil:

Originally Posted by Letter #191

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will.

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning. ?

I'm not saying he would become instantly 'evil' - as Shippey points out, it would begin by his using the Ring to enhance his power to do good, then the temptation to cut corners would grow, & eventually he would simply do whatever he liked. CT, in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait, points out Gandalf would eventually become worse than Sauron, because he would be 'self-righteous'.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning?

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil - he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means - everything Gandalf reports of their speech together confirms that.

And it all depends how you define 'evil' Gandalf, as CT states, would become 'self-righteous', ordering things 'for the greater good' - & he would decide what that 'greater good' would mean & no-one would have any choice but to go along with it.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates. Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable. Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means. Sam's vision, of turning Mordor into a garden, would be an evil act, as would Galadriel's dream of turning the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien. Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Agreed Davem.

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side (PJ and several obtuse critics don't see any difference between the contending armies except one is uglier). No, Evil in Tolkien ultimately is about Selfishness, and Pride of the sort which gives selfishness full reign. Even Celebrimbor and the wielders of the Three share in this to a limited extent.

Saruman and a corrupted Gandalf would have forced Middle-earth and its peoples into their own mold, 'for their own good.' We are told that even Sauron began this way, honestly desiring order and reconstruction. Goodness knows Tolkien wrote the LR in the shadow of just such mentalities, ones that began with positive economic reforms, but which devolved into an ideologies of Death for all dissenters. The logic of the French Revolution (and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, and...): once you've created a government the people 'deserve', you decide the 'people' aren't good enough for the government*- better start lopping heads.

Denethor and Boromir fall into the conceptual trap by buying into the notion that Sauron is Evil simply because he's on the Other Side. This is of course a form of selfish pride, or solipsism- I am the Good Guy by definition; ipso facto the Enemy is Evil (sound familiar?) They've lost track of the fact that Sauron is evil because he represents compulsion and tyranny, prevailing by bulldozing opposition. The Ring is a Sauronian mechanism, its power consists in enabling the user to Do as Sauron Would Do.


*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."