XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> Sandman spoke these staves:
>
> > I just don't agree with that definition of "desire". Desiring the
> > ring would not be analogous to being corrupted by the ring, if you
> > ask me.
>
> Hmm -- I think we are talking at cross purposes when speaking of
> being corrupted by the Ring.
>
> The Ring, in my considered opinion, is not an active agent in
> corrupting anyone -- not even Frodo or Boromir. They are all
> corrupted by their own desire for power -- they are tempted by the
> idea of the power that the Ring would bring them and once they give
> in to that temptation, knowing the Ring for what it is -- by taking
> the Ring for their own (Frodo), or by seeking to possess it for
> themselves (Saruman and Boromir), they fall to the corruption.
It is established that men are easily corrupted by it while Hobbits
aren't. Frodo is a great example, to me, of someone that was
ultimately corrupted by the ring. He never wanted it for the power it
would provide, nor do I ever get the feeling that he "desires" the
ring as such. For him it is a burden that he cannot let go of. He is
growing dependant on it and feel empty when the ring is not with him.
This echoes very much Bilbos relationshop with the ring - and quite
possibly Gollums as well, only Gollum had more time to let this
obsession/addiction grow. Niether of these three had any interest what
so ever in the inherit "power" of the ring as a means to rule others.
> Just as it is, at all point, possible by free will to resist the
> power of Saruman's voice, so is it at all times possible for anyone
> by their free will, to resist the Ring's 'lure to power', to resist
> the temptation. The /only/ exception to this is Frodo's situation in
> the Sammath Naur -- Tolkien is quite clear that Frodo has spent all
> his force of will and now no longer has enough strength of will to
> resist the temptation (which was at that point at its greatest), and
> so Frodo falling prey to this temptation is not seen as a moral
> failure. Boromir and Saruman, however, both give in to the
> temptation fairly easily: they do not spend any force of will on
> resisting the temptation, and therefore giving in to the temptation
> (i.e. seeking actively to possess the Ring) indicates their fall,
> their corruption.
I agree about Boromir, but disagree about Saruman. I have no doubt
that Saruman would have fallen, or be corrupted, by the ring had he
been given a chance. The difference between the two is that Boromir
was confronted with the ring and fell for the temptation and tried to
take it for himself. Saruman desires the ring and it's possible power,
yet he is never given the chance to fall for this temptation. Merely
seeking it, for whatever purpose, wouldn't really be "corruption" as
far as I'm concerned.
> I think it is crucial to understand that it is /not/ the Ring as such
> that is the corrupting agent. The agency of the Ring is fairly
> limited, and in this it can only tempt -- it can make the idea of
> itself and the power one could wield through it seem extremely
> attractive, and resisting this temptation requires some force of
> will, but only when, like Frodo, you carry it for months while its
> temptation grows steadily will the required force of will become a
> problem. It is /not/ the Ring that corrupts Boromir: it is Boromir.
This argues with itself to me. The "temptation" of power needs not be
a force by the ring - Boromir could, and does, covet this power
without the ring exercising any inherent ability at all. We know what
the inherit power of the ring does to someone using it. We see it in
Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo. It's a matter of obsession and addiction to
the ring, and in that lies the corruption. Whatever "force" the ring
manages to exercise on Boromir it's that of obsession. This of course
is quite in line with what we know about the difference between men
and hobbits with regards to the ring.
> Thus, when I speak of anyone being corrupted by the Ring, I mean that
> they are giving in to this desire for power, the idea of domination
> and control of the world, not that the Ring in any way is an active
> agent in that corruption.
In which case, the only persons to ever been corrupted by the ring in
the history of Middle Earth would be Boromir and Isildur, right? I
mean, Saruman surely desires it for its power, yet has no opportunity
to "give in" to it, however likely it is that he would.
> > Gandalf desires the ring, sees how it can be used for good, but
> > won't take the ring in fear of being corrupted by it.
>
> Not in fear -- in utter certainty. There is, in Tolkien's world, no
> way that /anyone/ could take up the Ring and not turn into an evil
> Ring-lord: this is inevitable. Had Gandalf taken the Ring, he would
> have become evil, not because the Ring would somehow have changed his
> mind, but simply because he would be giving in to the desire to
> dominate the world, to control it and shape it as he wanted it to be.
I know what Tolkien says, yet Gollum is a great example of someone who
had the ring for centuries without "giving in" to a desire to dominate
the world. Bilbo had it for some sixty years without a single thought
about world domination.
I don't doubt that this *could* happen, but it's hardly, or rather,
it's *evidently* not the case for everyone that use the ring.
> > Saruman desires the ring, and has no chance to be corrupted by it
> > since he never has the chance to use it.
>
> He is corrupted by the desire for the Ring. You might say that
> Saruman is corrupted by the very /idea/ of the Master Ring, the idea
> of all that power.
Saruman is corrupt, yes, in the sense that he is no longer an Istari
with the purpose to aid the free people of middle earth. Yet I
maintain that he has in no way been "corrupted by the ring". Whatever
actual force the ring can influence you with, it has not done that to
Saruman.
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
