But if we are dealing with a conflict of 'external' powers (which Ainulindale denies, I would say - as there is no equal but opposite force to Eru - there is only the 'void' in which Melkor seeks, but fails to find, the Secret Fire, - 'because it is with Eru), then an individual's moral choices can only affect themselves, unless 'luck' plays a part, or strength.
A
moral victory requires that 'good' wins because it is good, & evil loses because it is evil. If good wins because it happens to be stronger than evil, then its a victory of the strong over the weak, & it will be able to claim the title of 'good' for itself because history is written by the winners.
I come back to the quote from Brian Rosebury's 'Tolkien: A Cultural Phenmomenon, which I gave in a previous thread:
Quote:
|
..The defeat of the forces of evil should ideally appear, not as a lucky accident, or as a punishment inflicted from outside by a superior power (which deprives the actual process of defeat of any moral significance), but as the practical consequence of wickedness itself: Evil must appear as intrinsically self defeating in the long run. Sauron & his servants, despite their steadily growing superiiority in crude strength & terror, are hindered by weaknesses which are themselves vices: their lack of imagination, the irrational cruelty which denies them the option of voluntary assistance (the victim must be made to act against his own will), & the selfishness which disables their alliances.
|
This is the great denial of Manicheanism. For the victory of Good to have 'moral significance ', evil must be self defeating. This cannot be the case if it has the power to overwhelm the weak & innocent, & force them to do its will. Evil corrupts through temptation, by offering the individual the power to do as he will - it exploits the individual's desires, convincing them that what they want is right. But the individual must have the choice to go along with that, or reject it.
Or to quote from an essay by Michael Posa on the portrayal of evil in the movies, which I referred to in the 'Just say no, Faramir' thread:
Quote:
'The contrast between Faramir and his brother Boromir also portrays the duality of man in The Lord of the Rings. At the end of Fellowship, Boromir succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and attempts to seize it from Frodo. However, when confronted with the Ring, Faramir brashly tells Frodo that, "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway" (Two Towers 330). Philippa Boyens, an influential writer in the film project, immediately dismisses Faramir's rejection of the ring as "death on film" because of their attempt to portray the Ring as "one of the most evil things ever created" (LotR: Two Towers). He is, simply put, too good: an idea that Tolkien fan and film student Elicia Donze agrees with when she writes, "[In a] film…you simply cannot have FLAT characters" (Donze). It is true that Jackson's Faramir is much more complicated and dynamic than Tolkien's original character. Indeed, it may be difficult for an audience to comprehend how Faramir might dismiss the Ring out of hand. And yet, it would be simplistic to say that no one can outright resist the temptation embodied in the ring; doing so would take away Faramir's free will to reject evil; and Tolkien is very insistent upon the choice we all have do good.
The significance of Faramir's rejection of evil can be explored further by examining Michael Swanick's essay on his personal experience with Tolkien's work. Here, Swanick introduces the idea of the Ring as a "God-sent integrity test… to test all of creation and decide whether it is worthy of continuance" we can begin to understand the moral significance of Faramir's decision (Swanick 42). While Swanick exaggerates with this claim, since the Ring is definitely not God-sent, it is clearly true that the Quest is a test with the most dire consequences for failure. Throughout the story, the characters that resist the Ring's temptation--Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Sam and even Aragorn--are more than simply human. Gandalf is an angelic spirit, Elrond and Galadriel are elves and Sam is a hobbit. Aragorn, while a man, is descended from the lords of Númenor and is blessed with both inner strength and longevity that far exceeds other men(King 389). The Fourth Age that begins at the end of the novels is the Age of Men and so it is of the utmost importance that men, too, pass the test of the Ring. This is why Faramir must have the choice to derail the quest and it is why he does not fail. As we have seen, Tolkien shows us that we always have the choice to resist temptation and evil. Jackson and Boyens, in order to produce a film, have lost this pivotal triumph of human will--I hesitate to say "good" --over evil. They posit the Ring as a Manichaean source of evil that can create ill will within others, rather than simply magnify the desire for dominance that is already there. While it initially appears as if the movie has an added element of depth lacking in the novels, it is this depth that actually polarizes the concepts of good and evil.
|
Hope, in the sense of '
estel - faith - as opposed to
amdir - or simple optimism - requires that evil
cannot ultimately win - that by its very nature it will bring about its own defeat. So the manichaean view must ultimately be false, because otherwise there will always remain the possibility that it
could in some way become powerful enough to overcome in the end, or at the very least, as I said, that it will only lose because its not strong enough.
I just can't see Tolkien putting out that message.