XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Sandman  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > In article ,   
   >  Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>   
      
      
      
   >> 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.   
   [...]   
   >   
   > I agree with all of the above, but nothing is definitive here.   
   > Your interpretation is as good as mine I suppose.   
      
   I agree -- I don't know of any explicit statement by Tolkien that   
   addresses this particular issue.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I am fairly sure that I would claim that Boromir was not only   
   stronger, but also that he was, from the outset, nobler. I tend to   
   paint Boromir fairly dark, because I think there's a tendency to   
   ignore his faults, but he was also a noble man and certainly no 'mean   
   sort of thief' as Sméagol was already before he laid eyes on the   
   Ring.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   It /could/, but I am convinced that it did not.   
      
   -- and with that conviction, there really is no fundamental   
   differences between the fall of Boromir and the fall of Saruman --   
   there are, IMO, no external forces acting on either of them: only   
   their inner knowledge that the One Ring existed and could give them   
   the power to achieve their dreams (by dominating others) and that it   
   was within their reach.   
      
      
      
   > I know what Tokien says, but (as I mentioned earlier) his stories   
   > contradicts him. If someone can hold on to the ring for centuries   
   > and still not become lured by its power, which I maintained that   
   > Gollum never was, regardless of his hyperbolic speech to himself   
   > *while not having the ring*.   
      
   I don't agree that his writings contradict his descriptions --   
   rather, I think his later descriptions fit extremely well with the   
   book.   Gollum never had the least idea that the Ring could give him   
   any further power than to turn him invisible (and it is quite   
   doubtful that it could -- it gives power according to the stature of   
   the person wielding it, and Gollum's stature was very small from the   
   start).   
      
   After his sojourn in Mordor, Gollum knew what his precious really   
   was, and thus we see him suddenly having delusions of a grandeur that   
   he would never be able to achieve even with the Ring (equivalent to   
   Sam's delusions) -- delusions brought about by the idea of wielding   
   all that power that the One Ring was rumoured to give to its wielder.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I disagree.   
      
   You disagree that Tolkien is quite specific? I really don't see any   
   other way to interpret his statements in letters #181, #191, #192 and   
   #246 combined.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Then the claim falls flat. If the bearer needs to have knowledge   
   > about the power, then this is not a certainty. It loops back to   
   > the idea that if you are suspectible to being corrupt without the   
   > ring, the ring will just help you on your way.   
      
   Clearly I am not making myself clear here -- sorry.   
      
   Anyone who wields the One Ring and uses it to dominate others will   
   inevitably fall to evil very quickly. This is inevitable and very   
   quick.   
      
   Anyone who possesses the One Ring and uses it to become invisible   
   will inevitably fall to evil, but it may take a very long time -- for   
   a Hobbit even more than half a millennium -- before this process is   
   irrevocably complete.   
      
   Anyone who possesses the One Ring without using it even to become   
   invisible will inevitably fall to evil, but it may take even longer   
   than it did for Gollum.   
      
   There are no other choices -- you cannot take up the Ring and set   
   things right without using it to dominate others, so once you start   
   to actively unlock any of the powers of the One Ring, you will be   
   using it for domination, and your fall to evil will be quick and   
   inevitable.   
      
   The crucial bit is /power/. Bilbo used the Ring to become invisible   
   at need, but using it to escape unwelcome guests is hardly a route of   
   domination and control, I'd say. Gollum also used it for   
   invisibility, but he used that to uncover secrets of his clan and   
   blackmail the people of his clan, which can, I think, arguably be   
   called a kind of domination. Later using it to feed on orkish imps is   
   more debatable -- do we 'dominate' the prey when we kill it in the   
   forest?   
      
   Any of the greats of Middle-earth, from Saruman, Gandalf and   
   Galadriel to Aragorn and Boromir, taking up the Ring to use its   
   powers to achieve their goals would have to use it to dominate others   
   -- that is the power that it offers -- and so they would quickly fall   
   to evil.   
      
   I am reminded also of the letter (#155) in which Tolkien goes in   
   details about the differences between the 'Elf-magic' of Galadriel   
   and what she calls the 'deceits of the Enemy', revealing that the   
   true difference is 'only by motive or purpose or use', and adding   
   that 'The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is   
   specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills' and to   
   'bulldoze both people and things' or 'terrify and subjugate'.   
      
   The distinctions I am trying to set up are also of purpose and motive   
   with respect to using the One Ring. It is, as Gandalf also explains   
   to Frodo, a good purpose slows the corrupting effect, but using it to   
   e.g. vanquish Sauron would, again inevitably (because this is /the/   
   power of the Master Ring), involve that 'supremely bad motive' of   
   dominating other wills, of bulldozing the world to your purpose, and   
   so it would quickly turn even the best of motives (such as Gandalf's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)