[davem]

SpM

But there must always remain the possibility that evil will win. Otherwise, why bother to struggle against it? Evil will not necessarily bring about its own defeat. This can only occur as a result of the choices made by those who seek to struggle against it.

H-I

So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.

But Evil cannot 'win' in the sense of having an overall victory, because it has no objective or 'real' existence (according to Ainulindale) - it is an option - one can choose to behave in a particular way, which could be classed 'evil', but it has no existance in the sense that Illuvatar has, or even that the things created by Illuvatar have - evil does not possess the Secret Fire which alone guarantees true 'existence'. This is confirmed by its inability to create, only mar what has been created.

So, even if the forces which fight for good were defeated, evil's victory would not last, because, being unable to create, only mar, it would turn on itself & so bring about its own destruction. It has no original source from which to draw power, or even existance- even the things which serve evil owe their existence to Illuvatar. If He were to withdraw his will for their existance, they would cease to be.

H-I

Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself.

Not so, because others have chosen to serve evil, so they constitute an external threat which must be confronted. Evil may have no true objective existance, but those who serve it do - if some group of terrorists, who believed that a giant pink elephant who lives on the dark side of the moon had ordered them to plant bombs in shopping malls, started killing people they would have to be stopped, because they would constitute a real threat, but their existence wouldn't prove the existence of the giant pink elephant.

Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.

I can't find any evidence for this in the 'theology' of Middle Earth. For me, Tolkien is saying the opposite all through the Legendarium. The theological stance is in no way dualistic - I can't see any evidence for dualism in Middle Earth - the only ones who propose the idea are Morgoth & Sauron.

SpM

He (Gollum) may even have had a shot at freeing himself of the Ring in the early days, although Frodo's failure to do precisely that in this chapter suggests that he was unlikely to have been able to do so. But, after so many years of possessing it, his will was utterly mastered. He did indeed have no will left in the matter while under its dominion.

Of course there comes a point where the individual has surrendered themselves to evil for so long that its almost impossible to break free, but its always a case of almost as far as I can see. If the Ring had completely mastered Gollum then when it left him there would have been nothing left of him to do anything. Smeagol still lurks there - in the early drafts of the chapter he even plans to give the Ring away, just to be free of it, & I think there are still echoes of this in the final version - Gandalf says he loves & hates it - as he loves & hates himself - if the Ring had completely mastered him, what would the source of that 'hate' of the ring be? Hatred is an act of will - if he can feel hatred for the Ring, his will has not been completely mastered by it.