XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
      
      
      
   > > 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).   
      
   But that's the source of the contradiction. If knowledge about, or   
   "stature" is required for the rings lure to power, then the "lust to   
   dominate the world" is everything but "inevitable". It is a   
   possibility, certainly, but you need to have more parameters than just   
   possession of the one ring for this to become true.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Which, again, was hyperbolic speech to himself when not in possession   
   of the ring, so the "delusions of grandeur" was not - as far as we   
   know - a result of the ring exerting any force on Gollum at the time.   
   I.e. his delusions of grandeur may very well be the same as the   
   delusions of grandeur we see in Saruman - i.e. without the influence   
   of any active force from the ring - and thus without any of the   
   "inevitability" of the rings lure to power.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   I disagree that Frodo ultimately took the ring with the intention to   
   rule Middle Earth, yes.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Ah, but that is quite a different stance than found in Letters #181,   
   where any user, regardless of "power" or "intention" could never   
   resist the rings "lure to power" - while at the same time we have   
   Gollum "resisting" this for over 500 years. Quite obsessed, even   
   violently so - but no "lure to power" that is inevitable found there.   
      
   I, for one, agree with your above paragraph - that anyone that would   
   use the ring for domination has already taken the first step to his   
   own downfall - the ring will only help him on his way.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   This, however, doesn't follow. Where is it stated that anyone using it   
   to become invisible will turn "evil"? The two things has no apparent   
   connection. *using* the ring in whatever way may very well further   
   enhance its grasp on you, but after 500 years, Gollum may have been a   
   vile and violent creature, but hardly outright *evil*. And if the ring   
   can't - after 500 years - make on small little hobbit become lured   
   into its visions of power and world domination, when would it? 500   
   years is not a long time in Middle Earth, but still a very long time   
   regardless. If a righteous and stronger of will person would take the   
   ring (Aragorn, Gandalf) would it take a thousand years? Two thousand   
   years?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Disagree. We have nothing to support this.   
      
   > 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 One ring was meant to dominant others, and *using* it would indeed   
   require that power to be utilized, which would inevitably lead to your   
   own downfall. But becoming invisible was not utilizing this power if   
   you ask me.   
      
   > 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'm not arguing with that at all - I am arguing with Tolkiens words   
   that it is *inevitable* that this would happen to anyone, not only   
   those that would use it to dominate others. Gollum and Bilbo are two   
   examples of users that had it for a long time without any sign of this   
   happening. And I still maintain that this is true for Frodo as well.   
      
   > 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   
   > would initially be) to evil (as Tolkien implies when he says that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)