XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > So, when /Men/ are influenced by Sauron's wiles, they are   
   > > > corruptible; but when /Elves/ are influenced by Morgoth's lies,   
   > > > they are not. Interesting distinction.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Problem is - there wasn't "elves", Feanor is one person. And   
   > > Feanor was influenced by second-hand lies from Morgoth, not   
   > > corrupted by an item that could grant him power over others for   
   > > his own gain.   
   >   
   > This, mind you, in a context where only one Man, Isuldur, and one   
   > class of Men, the "proud and powerful" are being discussed. They are   
   > not "all Men" either.   
      
   Right - the topic wasn't the one ring though - but the nine, who were all   
   given to men, and who all were corrupted by them. As opposed to the seven,   
   who were given to dwarves and who weren't corrupted.   
      
   There are lots of corrupted persons from all races in the history of Arda,   
   but few - if any - that were corrupted by an outside luring force of a   
   magical item such as the rings. The only examples we have are the nine and   
   the one ring, and of all the people that were corrupted by it, the majority   
   were men, and one was hobbit-kind.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > The analogue to Original Sin is not the Gift of Man per se, but the   
   > turning of Men from Eru (who spoke to them directly, originally) to   
   > Morgoth. This was also "an action, or a choice" made by Men. (This   
   > is in one of the later volumes of HOME.)   
      
   This was the fear I was in reference to earlier (now snipped). The Gift of   
   Men was truly a gift, but the fear of death, driven by Morgoth, made it a   
   curse for men, which in turn could concievbly make them more suspectible to   
   using means that would grant them power for the short period alive.   
      
   Fear is not a choice.   
      
   > 3) Did JRRT every say Men were "corruptible"?   
      
   > The quote earlier given states that Sauron was surpised at how easy   
   > it was to /persuade/ (or perhaps to /influence/) Men, not to   
   > /corrupt/ them.   
      
   You snipped my reply - I asked what the supposed difference in this   
   instance would be? If they are persuaded by the power of the rings, or   
   corrupted by it, it's semantics - the end result is the same. They seek   
   power over others and use the means given to them.   
      
   > The entire use of "corruption" in this context appears to be a   
   > non-JRRT usage. Does anybody know if JRRT /ever/ used the word in   
   > his Legendarium (as opposed to, say, his scholarly works)?   
      
   Even in LotR Elrond says that the One Ring corrupts the heart, as a   
   response to Boromir. It is clear that Tolkien considered that the great   
   rings, and the one ring in particular, could corrupt the heart of people,   
   and given all the other info, it is clear that men were more suspectible to   
   this corruption than others.   
      
   It's not just a matter of semantics or quotes. It's a matter of math and   
   probability as well.   
      
   Consider this, we have 20 great rings, right?   
      
   Three of these were worn by five different persons, four of them elves, one   
   an istari, none corrupted   
      
   Seven of these rings were exposed to at least seven dwarves, none corrupted   
      
   Nine of these rings were exposed to nine men, all corrupted   
      
   The last ring was exposed to nine persons, of which four were men, two were   
   corrupted.   
      
   This means that out of 30 "exposures" to 20 rings, only 43% of those were   
   corrupted by the rings, of those 43%, 85% were men.   
      
   > 5) Advanced (?) Math   
      
   > 99.9% - 99.8% = 0.01%   
      
   > The difference /really is/ 0.01%.   
      
   I'm questioning where the supposed "reality" of 99.9% and 99.8% comes from.   
   Are those numbers you just invented? Where are you getting them from?   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)