Who would have fallen?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

Depends how you understand their words. My understanding is that in taking the Ring they would have rejected all moral responsibility over their own innate power & become like Sauron.

While I agree in principle that the Ring is deceitful, and that the price you pay in power gained is ultimately corruption and betrayal, I disagree with your assessment of the Ring as having no practical power at all.

Gandalf is not tempted to have a lack of conscience, but to have extra "strength" that he can "wield" and "use".

Galadriel: "I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp."

I daresay that Galadriel's heart doesn't desire a rejection of moral responsibility, but power. The secret hope, the temptation, is that her will will be strong enough to master the Ring's corruptive influence and use its power for good. How much native power do we suppose that Galadriel has, anyway? When her Ring loses its power, we see that what she has done in Lorien wanes and fails.

As bearers of rings themselves, both Gandalf and Galadriel have insight into how they work. Would they even be tempted by a Ring that confers no practical power? No. The power, and not just an empty promise of power, is the temptation.

Originally Posted by davem

Have you noticed that none of the bearers of the Ring become suddenly more powerful?

In fact, Galadriel expressly says that Frodo has gained some power even though he has made no effort to use or to try to learn to use the Ring: "Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?"

The Ring is a little bit like a car. You can gain certain benefits from a car just by sitting in it: you are protected from the elements, you can listen to the radio, etc. But to enjoy the full power the car has to offer, you have to will to use it -- and you have to learn how to use it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Gandalf is not tempted to have a lack of conscience, but to have extra "strength" that he can "wield" and "use".

What's interesting is that the very 'power' that Gandalf rejects in refusing the Ring is actually given to him by Eru when he returns as Gandalf the White. So it is not that the Ring is the only means to the kind of power that Gandalf wishes for. The Ring does something else - & that is the significant thing about it. We'll never know what kind of power the Ring would (or would not) bestow. This 'power' may simply be power without responsibility - ie, the Ring removes any sense of moral responsibility.

I daresay that Galadriel's heart doesn't desire a rejection of moral responsibility, but power. The secret hope, the temptation, is that her will will be strong enough to master the Ring's corruptive influence and use its power for good. How much native power do we suppose that Galadriel has, anyway? When her Ring loses its power, we see that what she has done in Lorien wanes and fails.

This assumes that the Three work in exactly the same way as the One. Being made by Sauron I would speculate that it works differently. The Three certainly enhance the innate abilities of their wielders, but we cannot state that the One will do the same thing. My feeling is that rather than transferring its power to the wielder it subsumes their own abilities & takes them over - rather than bestowing its power on them it uses their power & 'forces' them to obey its will. They don't recieve any power from it, the power in the Ring works according to its nature & cannot be controlled or directed by the individual wearer. They get to be no more powerful than they ever were.

In fact, Galadriel expressly says that Frodo has gained some power even though he has made no effort to use or to try to learn to use the Ring: "Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?"

I accept that is what she believes, & certainly Frodo sees more than he had been able to. But Galadriel has only known her Elven Ring. She is speaking about something she does not have direct experience of - & this is something Tolkien warns about repeatedly. The true nature of the Ring is never clearly explained in the book. What she is effectively saying to Frodo is that in order to 'use' the power of the Ring he would have to think more like Sauron - the more he was like Sauron the more he would gain power from the Ring. Which is simply another way of saying that the Ring would find it easier to work its will through him.

Again, the Ring is both the most powerful & the least powerful object in Middle-earth. If it finders a wearer who 'attunes' him/herself to it its power will be the better able to work through them. If everyone rejects it it is useless.

Gandalf & Galadriel are tempted by the desire for absolute power - which corrupts absolutely - something they both realise when it comes to the test, & so reject the Ring when it is offered. The desire for absolute power may be motivated by a wish to do good, but having it will inevitably corrupt one who has no right to it - to whom it is not innate.

In Galadriel's words I think we see a glimpse of her mind - she has come to believe that the One is controllable by an act of will & she states as much to Frodo. If she had believed for all those centuries that all it could do was enslave its user she would not have desired it for so long. Yes, she states that its power is controllable & accessible to one who trains his/her will to that task - Tolkien wrote that, but he also wrote the accounts of the Ring bearers & none of them gain any real power from the Ring beyond invisibilty & expanded awareness.

EDIT

Thinking about it, it may be that Galadriel was correct in what she said - in that Frodo would have been able to 'use' the Ring's power to do things - but only if the Ring allowed him, & only in order that it could gain control over him more easily. I still don't believe it would be possible to dominate it & use it freely.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Again, the Ring is both the most powerful & the least powerful object in Middle-earth. If it finders a wearer who 'attunes' him/herself to it its power will be the better able to work through them. If everyone rejects it it is useless.

An interesting way to phrase it, davem! I've heard this very thing applied to religious dogma and political systems as well. One could apply it to the written word in many forms--words are dangerous, but impotent if none read them or heed them. But once read, they cannot be forgotten. This is a vague corollary to Frodo's loss of innocence in his assumption of the Ring quest and appears to be backed by the law of Entropy, the original Fall of Man and many other human observations/history/literature, etc.

Is the evil, like Melkor's unwitting introduction of the beauty of snowflakes, better to have been, or is it simply entropy, a one way inevitable road that corrupts everything (better to have been, and yet still it remains evil.) . I can't help but wonder if this phenomenon is a psychological byproduct of a civilization trapped by the philosophy of time and its one way nature. I still haven't gotten the brainpower together to sit down and figure out "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. Maybe one day, if it isn't too late!

Cheers!
Lyta (sorry for the divergence from the topic!)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

An interesting way to phrase it, davem! I've heard this very thing applied to religious dogma and political systems as well. One could apply it to the written word in many forms--words are dangerous, but impotent if none read them or heed them. But once read, they cannot be forgotten. This is a vague corollary to Frodo's loss of innocence in his assumption of the Ring quest and appears to be backed by the law of Entropy, the original Fall of Man and many other human observations/history/literature, etc.

I think the thing about the Ring is that you can never 'control' it - it is impossible to become 'Lord of the Ring'. You can only become its slave. You make yourself like Sauron & you will do what Sauron did & nothing other. The 'power' it offers is an illusion, because the Ring will never surrender its control. When your mind & its' are one it will work through you. Its like a gun offers you the power of life & death over others, but in order to have that power you have to make yourself into a murderer. The Ring does not offer one the chance to be an all powerful good person. Like the Ringwraiths one must make oneself into what the Ring/Sauron wants in order to make use of the 'power' the Rings offer. That comes from within the individual, not outside them.

If you claim the Ring you become weaker, not stronger - the 'power' is a delusion. In the end you are 'neither living nor dead', merely a 'wraith', a means for the Ring to be operative in the world. So, in the end, it is still the Ring which is powerful. Hence, to reject the Ring, to leave it by the wayside, makes it impotent. The Ring, & the Ring alone, is 'Lord of the Ring'. Even Sauron himself was a 'victim' of his own creation. He could not exist if it did not & he could only use it in the way he designed it to work. Effectively, he enslaved himself.

I think this in part accounts for Frodo's feeling of failure at the end - he realised that all he had chosen at the end was 'slavery'.