XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Likely. Also easier to exploit the greed for wealth and power, as   
   > > Tolkien explains in LOTR: Appendix A. And if the Numenoreans could   
   > > be corrupted by their greed for power, surely normal men were even   
   > > more likely to fall victim of it as well.   
   >   
   > > And the lore is, according to Gandlaf in The Shadow of the past:   
   >   
   > > "Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared   
   > > them"   
   >   
   > > They were "proud and great", "and so", i.e. "therefore" they were   
   > > ensnared. This in contrast to the seven and the three, who never   
   > > ensnared anyone.   
   >   
   > I read that differently: Sauron chose nine "proud and great" Men   
   > and, by giving them rings, ensnared them. It was the rings that   
   > ensnared them, not being "proud and great".   
      
   A valid interpretation, of course. But the mere fact that men *could* be   
   ensnared by the rings, when the other races could not is what seals the   
   deal. The information "proud and great" is an emphasize of them being   
   ensnared. "Proud and great" isn't naturally seen as a complimentary   
   description.   
      
   > BTW, Galadriel, in at least one of her histories, had some   
   > expierience with being "proud and great". This is the /test she   
   > passed/, when Frodo offered her the Ring. Being "proud and great" is   
   > what she will "diminish" from, and pass into the West.   
      
   I'll buy that, but Galadiral is not "elves", or a race. She is one person.   
   We're talking about a description of a race as a whole.   
      
   > One might also ask if such Elvish Lords as Thingol and Elrond were,   
   > perhaps, abusing their power a bit when they set such high prices on   
   > a Man marrying their daughter. Abuse of power is, of course, one of   
   > the many signs of -- corruption (in a different sense from other   
   > uses here).   
      
   If one would stretch the definitions to call this corruption, which I   
   wouldn't, it's still not a sign of them being easily corrupted by an   
   outside influence, like a great ring.   
      
   > So I think you are on to something here, just not quite the way I   
   > would see it.   
      
   Fair enough :)   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > That would seem to be the only way in which Men can be said to   
   > > > be more "corruptible" than Elves. But that is not a /moral/   
   > > > difference, for Men cannot reasonably be blamed for it.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, morality is tricky. One could make a case out of the fact   
   > > that men are mortal, so with less time in Arda, they are more   
   > > easily lured into taking advantage of things to become powerful in   
   > > the shortest amount of time, or even be corrupted by things that   
   > > could prolong their lives, which is more likely the natural lure   
   > > of the nine.   
   >   
   > The difference was being able or unable to sense the danger of the   
   > rings and so avoid or not avoid wearing them.   
      
   How so? The dwarves weren't, as far as I know, able to sense any danger in   
   the seven, and didn't avoid wearing them either.   
      
   > Morality is indeed tricky, but it always eventually involves blame. A   
   > person who is immoral is also blameworthy. When a behavior (alcoholism is   
   > a good example) ceases to be immoral and becomes, in effect, a medical   
   > condition, alcoholics (well, recovering alcoholics specifically) cease to   
   > be blameworthy. If Men were by nature more amenable to Sauron's   
   > deceptions, the blame would lie with He Who made them.   
      
   Not sure anyone has talked about blame here. Whether or not men themselvesd   
   are to blame for them being more easily corrupted hasn't been in   
   discussion. And I think it's inherent in the description that they are not   
   to blame. I mean, if you describe a race as such, it's supposedly a trait   
   found in the majority of them, and not merely a common *choice* by them. I   
   don't think anyone is claiming that most men choose to be corrupted.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Unless, of course, it is regarded as a result of something like   
   > > > Original Sin.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, the Gift of Men was something that was regarded a gift from   
   > > the start, men welcomed their death, or at least treated it as a   
   > > gift. It was Morgoth that ruined the gift, where they came to fear   
   > > death rather than cherish it. So if one were to accept that fear   
   > > of death makes you easier to corrupt while alive, you should blame   
   > > Morgoth.   
   >   
   > OTOH, if something like Original Sin exists (and it certainly   
   > appears to, as I think you are noting), then blame goes elsewhere.   
   > But the key to Original Sin is that it is Man (speaking generically)   
   > who makes the decision.   
      
   Which is natural, since the original sin was commited by man. The Gift of   
   Men was not something as a result of an action, or a choice, by men. It's   
   not really analogous.   
      
   > But the vocabulary is then wrong. If Men are subject to something   
   > like Original Sin, they are not "corruptible" -- they are already   
   > corrupt in a sense in which the Elves are not.   
      
   I think it's wise not to mix in christianity into this mix :)   
      
   > Previous information supplied suggests that JRRT never said that Men   
   > were more /corruptible/ than Elves, only that they were more easily   
   > persuaded.   
      
   Not sure what the difference, in the current topic, is supposed to be.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > And "more corruptible" is comparitive. If the fact is that 99.8%   
   > > > of Elves are corruptible and 99.9% of Men are corruptible, then   
   > > > Men are clearly "more corruptible" than Elves, but the reality   
   > > > is that the difference is of no importance at all.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > How is that a "reality"?   
   >   
   > Think about it.   
      
   > Try and come up with a situation where a difference in incidence   
   > rates of 99.9% and 99.8% is going to cause people to say "the 99.9%   
   > group is more than the 99.8% group" in a way that credibly   
   > produces a difference like that claimed here between Men and Elves.   
   > The two groups are so close together that, in the real world, there   
   > would be no point to distinguishing them. Generally speaking.   
      
   I meant - how it is a reality that the difference is supposedly 0.1%?   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > When Isildur greedily took the ring for himself, both Elrond and   
   > > Cirdan told him to destroy it, which surely makes for a bigger   
   > > difference than a supposed 0.1% in corruptibility.   
   >   
   > I don't see how being told to destroy it indicates any difference in   
   > corruptibility.   
      
   You have three people being exposed to the ring, one is human and two are   
   elves. One of them decides to keep it and the two others tells him to   
   destroy it.   
      
   > Now, failing to take their advice might be relevant -- but only if,   
   > by "corruptability", you mean "not being willing to destroy a   
   > hard-won battle trophy just because two Elves tell you to".   
      
   I don't think you really think Isildur only saw the ring as a mere trophy.   
      
   > Unless, of course, by "more corruptible", you mean "less inclined to   
   > take orders from Elves".   
      
   It wasn't orders, it was council.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > All that said, Feanor *were* influenced by Morgoth's lies and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)