XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
      
   >    
   > 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.   
      
   I don't think anyone here has talked about any specific adaptation or   
   portrayal of the ring, but rather the original work.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I.e. what I've said all along. Check.   
      
   > 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.e. also what I've said all along.   
      
   > 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:   
      
   There is no such thing as "passive agency". I.e. the ring's agency   
   over Saruman is the same agency a piece of cheese in Bag End has on   
   him - i.e. none. "agency" is an act in and of itself. Agency means   
   that the subject acts to produce a particular result.   
      
   The ring existing, and Saruman knowing about its powers, is *not* an   
   agency of the ring, nor is it the ring *corrupting* Saruman, since   
   that would require the ring to exert its agency upon him.   
      
   The corruption of Saruman is inherit in Saruman, and him becoming evil   
   is not the force of the ring.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   As much as alcohol or narcotics is as well - only supposedly more   
   conscious and more "magically".   
      
   > 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.   
      
   And Boromir. Obsession at least, maybe not addiction.   
      
   > > 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).   
      
   I agree with all of the above, but nothing is definitive here. Your   
   interpretation is as good as mine I suppose.   
      
   Smeagol feels an instant obsession when seeing the ring, so quickly   
   and so violently that he kills for it almost instantly. This was   
   without any knowledge about the ring. Boromir knew more about the ring   
   than Smeagol yet didn't kill to get it, so you could claim that   
   Boromir was a stronger person than Smeagol.   
      
   Neither Frodo nor Bilbo felt any sudden urge when presented with the   
   ring, and the addiction and obsession came later. Much later for   
   Bilbo, quite a bit sooner for Frodo.   
      
   My point is that the ring most certainly has the power of quick and   
   violent obsession, which makes it likely that - on top of Boromirs   
   inherit lust for power, the ring could very easily have exerted the   
   same force upon him.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The enormous difference being, of course, that Boromir was exposed to   
   the ring and Saruman was not - making them everything but "analogues"   
   to each other.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Agreed - with the added possibility that this obsession/idea became an   
   active action with Boromir due to some active influence from the ring.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)