View Single Post
Old 09-09-2005, 02:12 PM   #28
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']- Letter # 246
'He would have made good detestable & seem evil'. Meaning what, exactly? If good pushed to an extreme - where it is inescapable, where it is forced on one & one cannot escape it - will at that point seem 'evil', then it must be an essential part of the victory of good that it is optional, that individuals may choose evil.

It seems that Tolkien foresaw Gandalf going around banning this, that & the other, forcing people to do 'the right thing' - or else. Yet, if good can be made to seem evil how are we to judge what is good & what is evil? Where are the objective standards by which things are pigeonholed as 'good' & as 'evil'? Is what Sauron does objectively evil, or does it merely seem evil because he attempts to impose his control absolutely?

I suppose what I'm asking is how could it be that the imposition of 'good' by Gandalf, 'ordered for the benefit of his subjects' come to be seen as evil? Would all Gandalf's subjects consider what he did 'evil', or only some of them?

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

All I can think is that in Tolkien's mind individual freedom is the most important thing. What the Ring does is work through the wielder to remove freedom, first from them & then from all others - its shape is the key - it is round, closed off, limited - like the post Fall of Numenor world. The world of the first Two Ages was flat, & the thing about a flat world is that it is not necessarily limited - it could stretch forever, & contain infinite possibilities. A round world is, however large, finite. I wonder if Sauron had any inkling of the consequence of the Numenorean rebellion, if he knew that the world would be made round - was it in the Music that he sang in? The Ring is the perfect symbol of limitation, & the perfect symbol of the round world of the Third Age.

And I think that proves beyond any argument that it is like a cat
davem is offline   Reply With Quote