XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Sandman  spoke these staves:   
   >   
      
   I started to respond to this, but realised that I was making the same   
   few points several times. Therefore I will instead rearrange the   
   post, so that I can give a, hopefully reasonably coherent,   
   presentation of my main point, and then respond to any outstanding   
   points that you raise.  In all of the below, I am speaking of   
   Tolkien's intention with his book such I understand it. I realise   
   that readers may understand things differently, but that is not my   
   purpose here: I have studied Tolkien's writings, and my present   
   understanding of Tolkien's intention certainly differs in many ways,   
   large and small, from my own interpretation. Another thing is that   
   this has very little to do with any of the adaptations of /The Lord   
   of the Rings/ -- in particular the portrayal of the One Ring and its   
   agency in Peter Jackson's /The Lord of the Rings/ trilogy is very   
   different from Tolkien's portrayal of the Master Ring in his story.   
      
      
   First a bit about my vocabulary:   
   When I speak of the One Ring doing anything, I mean by that that the   
   Ring is exhibiting specific active agency -- the Ring is affecting   
   it's environment by exerting some sort of active force -- magical,   
   mental, or something else.   
      
   This is in contrast with the Ring as a passive agent -- the effects   
   that the Ring can have simply by existing. If this is the only effect   
   on someone, I shall state that the Ring is not influencing that   
   person, or exerting any force upon him or her.   
      
   I still think that we need a good definition of what we mean by   
   saying that the Ring corrupts someone -- in particular whether we   
   mean that the Ring is necessarily exerting active agency, or if   
   passive agency is sufficient.  At some point you write:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   This is as good a definition of the corruptive power of the Ring as   
   any. This certainly (I hope we agree?) requires that the Ring is an   
   active agent exerting some kind of corrupting force over the victim.   
      
   By this definition, i would say that the only known victims to this   
   corruptive power are Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo and, possibly to a lesser   
   extent, Isildur.   
      
   > Whatever "force" the ring manages to exercise on Boromir it's that   
   > of obsession.   
      
   I have to disagree strongly with that -- I do not think that the Ring   
   exercises any active force whatsoever on Boromir or his will. It   
   didn't excert any corrupting influce, and didn't actively tempt him   
   particularly.  Boromir is, in my firm opinion, corrupted exclusively   
   by the knowledge that the Ring still exists and is within his grasp.   
   Boromir was nor a particularly likable man, he was proudful and   
   arrogant (vices even his loving brother recognised in him), though he   
   could be kind and extremely helpful to those whom he felt paid him   
   the proper respect (if he acknowledged them as his peers) or   
   admiration (if they were his lessers -- the third option was called   
   'Father'). It is these vices that made Boromir (who, while certainly   
   an outstanding warrior and captain, nonetheless had an inflated   
   opinion of his own importance and skill) susceptible to the passive   
   influence of the Master Ring: simply knowing that this thing existed   
   and seeing it as within his grasp proved too much for Boromir (in   
   particular with the small prompting of Galadriel, whose magic made   
   each see clearly what he wanted most /other/ than staying true to the   
   quest).   
      
      
   Saruman's reach was so much longer that he also saw the Ring as   
   within his grasp (even before it was known that it had been found),   
   but for him it also took a deep understanding of the Ring and its   
   power before he fell.  Apart from Saruman's longer reach and deeper   
   knowledge, his fall is completely analogue to Boromir's -- the Ring   
   is not an active agent in Saruman's fall: he falls merely from   
   knowing the Ring to be within his grasp.   
      
   So, by the definition of corruption you offer above, neither Boromir   
   or Saruman are corrupted by the Ring, but they are corrupted by, if   
   you will, the idea of the Ring -- the Ring as a passive agent in   
   their corruption.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I think you are wrong here. In the end Frodo falls to the temptation   
   of power, as Tolkien puts it, the Ring's 'lure to power':   
         Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete   
       trap: a person of greater native power could probably never   
       have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of   
       less power could not hope to resist it in the final   
       decision.   
   /Letters/ no. 181, To Michael Straight, early 1956   
      
   Tolkien is quite specific that it is the Master Ring's temptatation   
   of power that Frodo in the end failed to resist: he took the Ring for   
   his own, intending to take up its power and rule Middle-earth.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   As Raven points out, neither Gollum or Bilbo knew what the Ring was   
   and could do while they possessed it. They probably had a clear idea   
   that they were somehow more important or powerful with the Ring, but   
   they put it down to the ability to grow invisible and thus never   
   tried to actually wield the true power of the Ring.   
      
   Frodo, on the other hand, and as argued above, know the Ring exactly   
   for what it was when he claimed it for his own in the Sammath Naur:   
   he claimed the /Master/ Ring, the One Ring to rule them all.   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   Exactly!   
      
   And that is, in my understanding, precisely what happened to Boromir,   
   no more and no less.   
      
      
   >> Thus, when I speak of anyone being corrupted by the Ring, I mean   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)