Lords and Ladies of the Rings

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I've always thought that destroying the ring was the ONLY way to COMPLETELY defeat Sauron. Other ways could set him back a few years or perhaps a few millenia, but he'd eventually win. I think Sauron's ring plan was PERFECT and FOOL-PROOF in the end no matter which course of action was taken.

The best laid plans of mice, men, and maiar oft go awry. I don't think Tolkien ever intended Sauron's ring to make him invincible.

M-E is a world fighting the Long Defeat, but Tolkien's long defeat is not the long defeat of the northern mythology. Tolkien's God (speaking of Eru) is not temperamental and concerned overconcerned with deeds of valor. He is mindful of the plight of his Children and his theme prevails in the end. In Tolkien's version of the Long Defeat the evil is always going to be dominant until the very end. But charactersitic of this trend is that men (or elves etc.) always have a chance. The evil is everpresent and overwhelming, but not permanent or indestructible. Darkness always falls again, but the stars always shine through to give men reason to hope.

If you say that Sauron could never be permanently incapacitated except through destruction of the Ring and that the ring couldn't be destroyed by the will of any creature mortal or immortal or even of the people of the Gods, you've reduced the world to a single equation where Sauron wins. His strength continues to increase and his power continues to grow over time. How long is it before Eonwe falls to his will? And then will the lesser Valar be corrupted as well? Perhaps this is a bit of an exaggeration of what you were saying. But I don't think that Sauron was, or ever would have been unbeatable.

Sophia

[ May 25, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]