Split Personality?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning?

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil - he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means - everything Gandalf reports of their speech together confirms that.

And it all depends how you define 'evil' Gandalf, as CT states, would become 'self-righteous', ordering things 'for the greater good' - & he would decide what that 'greater good' would mean & no-one would have any choice but to go along with it.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates. Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable. Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means. Sam's vision, of turning Mordor into a garden, would be an evil act, as would Galadriel's dream of turning the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien. Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Agreed Davem.

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side (PJ and several obtuse critics don't see any difference between the contending armies except one is uglier). No, Evil in Tolkien ultimately is about Selfishness, and Pride of the sort which gives selfishness full reign. Even Celebrimbor and the wielders of the Three share in this to a limited extent.

Saruman and a corrupted Gandalf would have forced Middle-earth and its peoples into their own mold, 'for their own good.' We are told that even Sauron began this way, honestly desiring order and reconstruction. Goodness knows Tolkien wrote the LR in the shadow of just such mentalities, ones that began with positive economic reforms, but which devolved into an ideologies of Death for all dissenters. The logic of the French Revolution (and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, and...): once you've created a government the people 'deserve', you decide the 'people' aren't good enough for the government*- better start lopping heads.

Denethor and Boromir fall into the conceptual trap by buying into the notion that Sauron is Evil simply because he's on the Other Side. This is of course a form of selfish pride, or solipsism- I am the Good Guy by definition; ipso facto the Enemy is Evil (sound familiar?) They've lost track of the fact that Sauron is evil because he represents compulsion and tyranny, prevailing by bulldozing opposition. The Ring is a Sauronian mechanism, its power consists in enabling the user to Do as Sauron Would Do.


*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

[Sauron the White]

from davem

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them.

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

[Quempel]

I have always thought Smeagol had a look of evilness about him in the movies, something in his eyes. The whole 'it's my birthday' speach pretty much gave me the creeps and made me think Smeagol wasn't all that good.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

What were the difference between the theatrical and EE versions regarding Smeagol claiming the Ring, if any?

Anyway, I think that PJ tries to show a bit about Smeagol's past/life by the coloration of Andy Serkis' face. Smeagol is not your tan farmboy hobbit, but a creature with paler skin and circles under the eyes, and as we know, 'evil is as evil looks' (unless they smoke pipes, then that negates the whole soothsaying). Here are Smeagol and Deagol, neither of which I would trust as they both appear to be sociopaths at the least. And fishing without beer?!? As just why did Gollum become the anti-spokesman for the Hair Club for Men in a matter of moments, whereas Frodo retains his locks throughout the entire journey? Another indication that Smeagol was more than ready to be consumed by the Ring?

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

Like a cup of joe, can't start my day otherwise.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I would be grateful if Mr William Hickli could post the link to this quote. I have done a google search, and I can find no record of this phrase having ever appeared on the 21st Century Socialism website. If this quote does in fact exist (google may have missed it), I can assure readers of this forum that Mr Hickli is using it out of context. It does not represent the editorial viewpoint of 21st Century Socialism, and it is wrong for Mr Hickli to imply that it does.

21st Century Socialism is an independent British web magazine which promotes fact-based journalism. It receives no funding from any foreign government or political party.

I will not be commenting here again, but if anyone wishes to contact me they may do so via the website.

Calvin Tucker
Co-editor http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

[Sauron the White]

While I cannot vouch for Chavez saying

"democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I did teach both US History and Government for three decades and can tell you without a doubt that such people as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all would have endorsed such a statement. In point of fact, they did with their deeds and actions. One of the most undemocratic things you can do in a free society is to force someone to join the military and partiicpate in war and the killing of other persons. You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

But all three US presidents, and others also, endorsed and utilized conscription to swell the ranks of the armed forces for the sole purpose of winning the war to save democracy. So this is not an unusual concept or one restricted to the likes of Mr. Chavez and his compatriots.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

There I would disagree. Since when is a referendum required to qualify as 'democratic?' The draft bills were passed by the people's elected representatives in Congress, as are all other laws of the United States. When FDR's draft act was passed by a single vote in 1940 everybody knew exactly what lay over the horizon.

I'm very much opposed to military conscription, but to call the American instances thereof 'undemocratic' when instituted in Constitutional manner is simply incorrect.

By contrast, what Chavez is talking about is, of course, rule by decree and other dictatorial methods should the majority of his people get tired of him. The old "one man, one vote, one time" story.

[Sauron the White]

The form of government in which Congress passes bills for the people is not a democratic one. It is the republic form of government. In a democracy, it is the people who are the government in a direct manner. Think of the 17th century New England town hall meeting. In the republican form of government, the people are represented by elected officials who then are suppose to act on their behalf. Perhaps they sometimes do. Perhaps they sometimes don't.

In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, efforts were made to take the US from the standard republican form of government more towards a democratic model. The Progressives and Populists led the way in this cause. The expansion of the franchise from adult white, male property holders to a wider demographic base was a step towards that. Because of such 20th century innovations as the referendum, initiative and recall, the US has taken on elements of both the republican from of government tinged with democracy. This is one reason why many political scientists now refer to the US system as a democratic republic.

Any military organization is by definition the opposite of a democratic unit. There is no democracy in the armed forces. To conscript someone into such a unit, is by its very nature, very undemocratic.

I cannot speak for Hugo Chavez or his brand of government. But using non-democratic methods to preserve freedom is nothing new. Chavez did not invent it. Lincoln in fact suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War even though there was no foundatin in the law for that measure. But he did so in the pursuit of a higher and longer term good.

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

I will not defend Hugo Chavez. But to act as if he alone invented the concept of the ends justifying the means is simply to ignore history.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil

Well, if we define evil as you did:

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates

then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.

he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means

I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.

Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable.

I disagree; omniscience is not required in order to stay on the moral path:

Originally Posted by Note to Melkor/Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means.

But these are certainly evil acts, in breach of the mission he received.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?
...
Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.

Originally Posted by WCH

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side

I disagree; evil has all those aspects in Ea. It is physical, in the form of the Marring. It is an ideology, in the sense already defined by davem, which I quoted above. It is also a side - Tolkien had no problem seeing that way, when he talked about Bombadil, for example:

Originally Posted by Letter #144

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, if we define evil as you did:

then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job. The problem was he thought Sauron is evil, I'm fighting Sauron, therefore I must be good.

I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.

Which is the point I'm making. Self assessment is irrelevant. Saruman, it could be argued, never thought of himself as 'evil' - & neither would Gandalf if he'd taken the Ring.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job.

I disagree; it may have suited what he (re)designed as good, but he wasn't that far down the road to not be aware that what he did contradicted his initial mission, to not use power, but to help. He sees himself entitled to break light and tarnish white, just as he arrogated the right to renounce his mission.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

Well, because this case involves a lot of self-deceiving, convincing himself that what he does is still some type of newly defined good. It is not forced from the outside upon him (which would be the case with Gandalf struggling with the ring), but he "forces" it, to a certain extent, upon himself - as long as he has a remnant of consciousness and morality.

[alatar]

Note that, logically - at least to me - no item can make one become evil without some intent on the part of the actor. Could just touching the Ring make one evil? If that were true, why didn't Sauron mount the One Ring on a pole and swing it around, touching all those that assailed him - like sowing dragon's teeth that'd be.

And if that were possible, then couldn't the converse be possible? Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur? Sauron, after touching it, would be planting daisies.

***

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

[littlemanpoet]

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Could just touching the Ring make one evil?

I certainly doubt it. Given Gandalf's words, it would take a rather long time, especially if one's nature is good and moral.

Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur?

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

I agree.

Originally Posted by lmp

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.