XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: jon.lennart.beck.its.my.name@mail.its.in.danmark   
      
   "Sandman"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   news:mr-8EAB2B.10164505012013@News.Individual.NET...   
      
   > In article <50e5a242$0$56787$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,   
   > "Raven"  wrote:   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   >> Neither of these, while they possessed the Ring, knew what it was and   
   >> what it could do.   
      
   > If knowledge about the potential power is required for the ring to   
   > corrupt the owner to "dominant the world", then this is not the doing   
   > of the ring.   
      
   > It is quite clearly established that the ring can make you want it,   
   > desire it, murder for it. But as far as we know - the "corruption" of   
   > the ring stops there. The ring will not make you evil, nor will it   
   > make you want to dominate the world or rule others. We have ample   
   > evidence for this.   
      
      A parallel that I have used before is that the Ring is not a *source* of   
   evil, but a very effective *catalyst* of it.  Another way of putting it is   
   that the Ring can amplify preexisting evil.  A catalyst needs a substrate to   
   work on.  In Bombadil that substrate was  not present.  In Bilbo and Frodo   
   it was there, to a small degree.  In Sméagol to a much greater degree, or   
   else an anti-catalyst (in the form of common decency) to block evil to a   
   much lesser degree.   
      But there is not one single substrate for the Ring to work upon, that a   
   person can have in greater or lesser measure.  A noble person like Boromir   
   had a good deal less of the sort of substrate that Sméagol had, but a good   
   deal more of another: he already had much power, as a military commander and   
   heir to the rule of Gondor; and a very great need for power, to defeat   
   Sauron.   
      Gollum had the Ring for half a millennium, without knowing that it could   
   be used for more than turning him invisible.  If he had somehow learnt this   
   during that time, the Ring would have had one more "substrate" to work on,   
   which happened later anyway, after he had lost it.   
      Saruman was corrupted without being anywhere near the Ring ever.  So what   
   you say is true that the Ring had nothing directly to do with his fall.  He   
   wanted domination, and he knew that if he obtained the Ring, he would have a   
   mighty tool for that: his knowledge of what the Ring could give him   
   sufficed.   
      Which is not to say that the Ring did not have a direct influence on   
   those who came in close proximity to it.  Possessive greed for beautiful   
   things is evil, like Fëanor's greed for the Silmarils that he was the main   
   but not sole craftsman of.  The Ring catalyzed or amplified a good deal of   
   that in any that saw it.  Bilbo had little such greed, which was one reason   
   for the Ring to have such relative small hold on him.  Presumably Bombadil   
   had none.  It seems to have been Sméagol's motive for murdering his cousin.   
   It was such a pretty thing, and he wanted it so badly at once he saw it.   
      And even those that knew and abhorred what it was could not easily will   
   to destroy it, as was the case with Frodo after Gandalf had taught these   
   things to him.  He was horrified how evil it was, and fully intended to   
   fling it into the hottest part of his fire in the hope of melting it.  He   
   put it into his pocket instead, because it was so perfect and beautiful of   
   shape.  I suppose in such instances the Ring's "instinct" for   
   self-preservation kicked in, and it applied its influence very strongly.   
      
   > Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo were the ones exposed to the ring the longest   
   > yet neither of them ever once seemed to think to themselves to use it   
   > for power - even with the knowledge about the ring (Frodo) did he ever   
   > desire to put it on to rule others. The ring made him *desire* it, and   
   > there is nothing in the books that suggests that Frodo would ever   
   > become "evil" as a result of giving in to that desire. Gollum, while   
   > very protective and quite aggressive, is hardly "evil" when comparing   
   > to truly evil characters in the story.   
      
      How do you define evil?  To me Gollum was very evil, though with a chink   
   of good left in him, as Gandalf explains.  He would have killed Bilbo for   
   food, had he been hungrier when he met him, and he still had a mind to until   
   he discovered that he had lost the Ring.  Killing a fellow person because he   
   was tired of fish and wanted a change?  Not caring about the suffering and   
   fate of others so long as he can have a little pleasure?  Seeing every   
   happenstance that touches him in the light of "how can I benefit from this"   
   and "I suffered from what that person did, so I hate him"?   
      Evil is to me selfishless; lack of compassion.  It is to see the   
   suffering of another and not be distressed by it.  Sauron was wholly evil,   
   by that definition.  Gollum was less evil than Sauron in that he had the   
   rudiments of compassion left in him, such as when the "good part" of him was   
   horrified by the prospect of poor Frodo being killed and eaten by Shelob.   
      
   Kákam.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)