THE RING and corruption

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Forgive me if something similar has already been posted but....

Of late I have been getting the impression that folks
feel the ring can corrupt people without any direct contact with them.
This runs counter to what I had always believed, which is:

A) The ring acted on the one who possessed it. This can be illustrated by Sam's close proximity to the ring without effect until he actually wore it.

B) "The desire of the ring corrupts the heart." (from The Counsel of Elrond) as opposed to the ring itself doing the corrupting.

What are the views of the venerable Wrights? Am I mistaken?

[The Saucepan Man]

Good topic, Hilde.

I'm not a venerable BD'er, but thought I'd pitch in anyway.

Doesn't Elrond's quote at your B) provide the answer? Merely seeing the Ring and/or being aware of it can trigger a desire for it in those who are particularly vulnerable to its power. Hence Boromir and Gollum are "corrupted" by their mere desire for it.

I don't believe that Boromir ever actually touches the Ring in the book. (I don't think he handles it at the Council of Elrond, but I may be wrong - I haven't got the book to hand to check.)

As for Gollum, he is, in my opinion, persuaded to kill Deagol by his desire for the Ring, before he ever touches it. I don't believe that he would have murdered Deagol otherwise.

It is intersting to note that, while great play is made of Gandalf not touching the Ring in the FotR film, he does actually handle it in the book (in A Shadow of the Past). Although even he admits to being vulnerable to its power (when Frodo offers it to him), such passing contact appears to have little or no effect on him.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Naldoriathil]

I agree with Saucepan Man. The Ring can corrupt even if you don't have it. Just take Borimir in FOTR, he never had it, but because men is such a weak race compared to Elves and such.....he fell under the power of the ring. Anymore thoughts on this interesting subject?

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Here's what I said from this thread Gollum do you pity him or hate him?

The ring has powers; it has a lure, and it can be extremely strong at times. What about Boromir? He almost killed Frodo before he touched the ri- no, actually he never touched the ring. So you can't tell me that no one wants the ring until you touch it. It doesn't matter. Just to be around it, to see it, to even know about it, it's enough to make a person do anything to get it. Just look at Saruman. He never touched it, he only heard about it and he bread armies to search for it. He even tried to make one more powerful. And Bilbo and Frodo never had to do anything to get it. Bilbo came across it by accident or the ring chose him. He did not have to kill anybody for it or take or steal it. Frodo inherited it, he also did not have to do anything to get it. And he even had knowledge of the ring. And besides, Bilbo might have killed for the ring. What if Gollum had the nerve enough to go himself and see what Bilbo's got in his pocketses? Bilbo didn't even put it on yet he was extremely reluctant to even let Gollum know he had the ring.

And here's what I said in this thread Do you wish gollum had lived?

Gollum usually was just tricked by the ring. And the reason he killed to get the ring was because of the overwhelming desire to posess it. Gollum did not hate everything. Remeber, there was a part of gollum's mind that was still gollum (or I should say Smeagol) and I think that gollum did want to change, even though it would take long. When he didn't have the ring, there were parts of him that showed that hadn't in ages. Also, even though he was quite bitter, when he didn't have the ring anymore, I think that a very (ok, not very but extremely) slow rehabilitation process began in him. You say that he hated the ring. Yes he did. He loved it and yet he hated it. This is the one thing that tore him apart. He loved it like a drug- he was addicted. But he loathed it. He had an instinctive hatred for the ring, and I think that's why he became kinder at times after he lost the ring. He realized how much he hated it and wanted to let it go but it was so hard. It was like a drug to him and very hard to quit, but even though it may not look like it, I believe that he was trying to quit; to let the ring go.

and

Gollum killed Deagol because of the overwhelming desire to posses the ring and partly because the ring clouded his judgement.

And here's what I said in this thread Gollum vs Other Hobbits

I also have a theory that the ring was a separate character in lotr. I don't think that it was just an object or a tool. When I read lotr, I get the impression that the ring was a character. It couldn't physically interact in the environment like the other characters could. It couldn't walk or talk, but it could think. I think that it had a mind and its own personality. Maybe its personality wasn't really developed but I'd describe it in one word- evil. The ring could use its mind not to communicate but to trick and confuse and to even control ring bearers. It even used ring bearer's to get closer to sauron. It had the ability leech on to a ringbearer's mind, or it was like a virus that enters the body (in the ring's case, the mind) and take over. I think that it could predict how it would get to sauron. For example, the ring purposely slipped off of isildur's finger to avoid being brought to Gondor and then under counsel, where it would be decided that it must be destroyed. Or maybe it wanted revenge for sauron. Anyway's, the ring saw gollum as an opportunity to get closer to sauron.

So, I do agree with A), but also, the ring can corrupt people without any direct contact with them, as you said. As for B), I say that the ring does the corrupting, not the desire, however, I believe that the ring uses desire to corrupt.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

It's odd, but the way I see Boromir's situation, his heart was corrupted from the desire for the ring rather than the ring itself corrupting him. It was the result of his own internal pressures. The ring represented to him the chance to save his world, to please his father and gain glory in one action. Not trying to obtain it, meant to be let opportunity pass and perhaps let the enemy gain a most powerful advantage. As I mentioned in another thread, at that point it was obvious that Aragorn would not be going to Minas Tirith. Boromir would return empty handed after a long absence.

Gollum like-wise desired the ring and that lead to his corruption.

Also Saruman.

But Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, etc. did not desire it and Frodo & Sam were not tainted by it until after touching it.

I would think Gandalf would have recognized the ring sooner if he felt its power tugging and drawing people under its influence.

Perhaps it has more to do with the person's character.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Perhaps it has more to do with the person's character.

I believe it can, however, I believe it has more to do with knowledge.

Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, etc.

All of those you mentioned had been informed about the ring and had knowledge that it was eveil and should not be touched or put on. With the hobbits, they were Frodo's friend, and I don't thnk that they would take it from him or kill him for it. Hobbits are a simple folk, and I think that has something to do with it. Aragorn was no ordinary man, he was a king and I'm sure he had some knowledge of the ring. Gandalf knew much about it and he was very wise and cautious. So I think that's why they did not touch it or desire it (who knows, maybe they did). But as for Smeagol, he had absolutely no knowledge of what the ring was. And Bilbo too, he just picked it up by chance (or maybe the ring had something to do with it, I often wonder). Boromir heard about the ring. When he did, I think he was first told of the great power it had, not he cautious info that Gandalf would have given. So, he already wanted it before he knew what the dangers of it were. And when he did, he refused to acknowledge them. He was overly concerned with defending Gondor, and so that helped with the ring growing on him. Saruman was concerned with the power. I think it was the same with Boromir, but I don't think that he would use it to defend anyone, and besides, he never really understood how dangerous it was. I think he and Boromir were too ignorant. And I think that the ring can also bring out and use other negative qualities to corrupt. Desire could be considered a negative quality, especially if you look at it as lust.

[Gorwingel]

Boromir didn't even handle the ring in the movie, so that basically means that he never handled it in the book.
I never thought of that, that the people who had prior knowledge of it almost never became very corrupted about it, it almost took them by surprise. Though Frodo eventually became corrupted with it, even though he knew about it being evil (Ooops, movie moment, realizes that he has the ring for a few years or so before Gandalf actually comes back and tells him all about the ring) but that is probably because he was going to Mordor

[The Saucepan Man]

Hilde, isn't it a bit artificial to make a distinction between the power of the Ring over one who bears it and the desire for the Ring on the part of one who sees or hears of it? Both stem from the power of the Ring and what it represents to the "corruptee". Boromir desired the Ring precisely because of its power, which he felt could be used to save his people and fight of Sauron, so it is the power of the Ring that corrupts him.

As for Gollum, surely he is directly influenced by the Ring without touching it. Had Deagol found just a nice but otherwise unremarkable ring, it's unlikely that Gollum would have been moved to murder him. There must have been something more than just a fancy for a pretty ring. However, he has no idea what the Ring is. So, it must be the power of the Ring itself, rather than any conception of what it represents, that provokes Gollum to kill his friend.

Boromir didn't even handle the ring in the movie

Doesn't Sean pick it up when Frodo falls over in the snow and rolls down the hill?

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Doesn't Sean pick it up when Frodo falls over in the snow and rolls down the hill?

No, he picks up the chain that the ring is on. But anyways, I don't think it really matters what they did in the movies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Ah, good point Willie. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[burrahobbit]

Too much talking, too much movie. It goes like this:

Desire for the Ring corrupts the soul.
The Ring causes you to desire it.
Therefore, the Ring corrupts the soul.

Not to say that the Ring always causes a person to desire it, but it often does. Sam's mind would have been on Frodo too much for there to be any time to think about the Ring.

[Beren87]

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Beren87 ]

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Thanks for all the responses!

"isn't it a bit artificial to make a distinction between the power of
the Ring over one who bears it and the desire for the Ring on the part of one who sees or hears of it? Both stem from the power of the Ring and what it represents to the "corruptee""

I agree I'm probably splitting hairs, but I disagree that the desire
For the Ring stems from the power of the Ring. I can easily imagine substituting some other major heirloom or powerful weapon and having the same response from the characters who were drawn to the ring without having touched it.

Desire for the Ring corrupts the soul.
The Ring causes you to desire it.
Therefore, the Ring corrupts the soul.

I appreciate the syllogism Burrahobbit, but question the minor premise.
Are you saying the ring inspires desire or actively instigates it?

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to
Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.

This is an interesting thought to ponder. The ring did certainly
effect Sam as long as he wore it, but didn't appear to have had a lasting
influence.

I’ve been mulling over what has been said and want to pose an additional inquiry.

Which do you hold to be true:

The Ring is an in inanimate object and a powerful tool of Sauron.

The Ring is a powerful servant of Sauron.

The Ring is has an independent will.

Or is there another view I’ve missed.

As you can probably guess, I choose the first statement.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[Arvedui III]

I think ( and knowing me I'm probibly wrong, but) that the ring is a sort of physical manifastation of Sauron. I mean, Sauron put some of himself into the Ring when he forged it, right? So then the Ring is Sauron in a sense. Maybe I'm just ranting, but anyway it's something to think about.
"They are one. The Ring and the Dark Lord

[The Saucepan Man]

I disagree that the desire
For the Ring stems from the power of the Ring. I can easily imagine substituting some other major heirloom or powerful weapon and having the same response from the characters who were drawn to the ring without having touched it.

I'm not so sure that Boromir, or even Gollum, would have been provoked into acting the way that they did simply for a valuable heirloom or powerful weapon. To my mind, there is power in the Ring itself which reaches out to the vulnerable and causes them to desire it, or perhaps enhances an existing desire. In Boromir's case, for example, maybe he started out simply desiring it as a powerful artefact, but the Ring's influence worked on that to cause him to attack Frodo for it. Something he would never have done otherwise.

Which brings me on to your second question. As I understand it, Sauron put part of himself into it when it was forged, so that it magified his power when he was in possession of it, but lessened him without it. It does have a will, but it is not an independent will - it is a part of Sauron's will. I think that this is suggested by the way Gandalf refers to the Ring. He talks of it trying to find its way back to its Master. For example, he suggests that it was the Ring that decided to part with Gollum, hoping to be picked up by a Goblin or the like (and not an unassuming Hobbit lost in the dark).

So, in my opinion, the Ring does have a will, and is able wilfully to use the power that Sauron infused it with to influence the acts of those who are most vulnerable to that power. Possibly that is those with the weakest wills, and it is only able to influence the stronger willed characters, such as Frodo and Sam, while they are Ringbearers.

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[burrahobbit]

Are you saying the ring inspires desire or actively instigates it?

A bit of both.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, yes, very good. I see your point. I took Gandalf's statements to mean that it will always gravitate back towards Sauron, not seek him out. Perhaps the power the Ring magnifies the darkness and despair of certain predisposed hearts, driving them to do what they would not.

Thanks again.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Ran across this last night while reading Unfinished Tales (Disaster of Gladden Fields) and think that it would be good to add it to this thread, before it ends up on page 150 of the Book section of the Forum! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The Orcs of the mountains were stiffened and commanded by grim servants of Barad-dur, sent out long before to watch the passes, and though it was unknown to them the Ring, cut from his black hand two years before, was still laden with Sauron’s evil will and called to all his servants for their aid.

And later

So passed the first victim of the malice of the masterless Ring: Isildur, second king of all the Dunedain, lord of Arnor and Gondor, and in that age of the World the last.

Thanks again for all the posts.

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]

[obloquy]

It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.

It didn't affect Sam because he was a Maia.

[greyhavener]

Gandalf's response when Frodo tried to give him the ring:

With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way to the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good...The wish to wield it would be to great for my strength.

It would seem that the ring entices each according to what is in the heart. For Gandalf, the desire to do good. For Isildur, the desire to rule. For Gollum, the desire to be special. For Saruman, the desire for power.

In Galadriel's temptation:

In place of the Dark Lord, you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night!...Stronger than the foundation of the earth. All shall love me and despair!

Perhaps it was in Galadriel's heart to be worshipped.

After she has already turned down the ring and "passed the test", Frodo says again:

I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights...You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.

Galadriel replies:

I would, That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas! We will not speak more of it.

The ring does seem to be another character. While Sauron is an overt destroyer, the ring is deciever and enticer as it covertly destroys. The ring's deception is different for each. While the ring is undoubtedly Sauron's, even those those know this enticed by gaining their heart's desire. They believe they deception that they are capable of wielding it against Sauron. It is not enough for the ring to use them to get back to Sauron, it entwines itself into their hearts. It becomes precious to them. When it has ensnared and corrupted them, as with Isuldur and Gollum, it then abandons them to return to Sauron.

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Lush]

It didn't affect Sam because he was a Maia.

Yes. Sam was a Maia. Tom was really the Witch King of Angmar. And Arwen was cheating on Aragorn with Glorfindel, who was really a bleach blond all along.

[Arvedui III]

I just noticed something. Sam had no real ambition.All the other people of were tempted by the Ring did. Maybe the Ring brings out natural ambition and expolts it.

[Lush]

Sam had no real ambition

What about Rosie, then? Sam certainly wanted her, whether he explicitly stated that or not.

I don't think that Sam's secret is lack of ambition, I think his secret is his ability to keep his priorities straight, never forget his principles, and remain humble throughout. And I don't think that humility equals lack of ambition. It equals lack of selfish ambition, that's for sure. There's a difference between the two.

But you are absolutely right in the sense that it seems as if the Ring zeroes in on the subject's inherent weakness (such as selfish ambition) and works to magnify it.

[Tar-Palantir]

Glorfindel, who was really a bleach blond all along.

[img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Can you cite your source please? As stated in Book 2, Chapter 1:

Glorfindel was tall and straight; his hair was of shining gold,

So it could only be natural or a dye-job. Next time do your own homework. Sheesh...

[Lush]

Oh yeah?

[img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

It was a wig he borrowed from Galadriel. Sheesh.

[Tar-Palantir]

Oh. That makes sense. He must have worn it to sneak into Arwen's chamber without raising suspicion, which validates your last statement. Sorry I jumped the gun, I won't question your knowledge again...


With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol. What is it that sets these two apart? Many people have desires of differing influence, and in addition have their individual low moments that might make them further susceptible to temptation. But yet only two strike out.

Obviously Smeagol had some problems to begin with, whether evil or not, he was greedy. But this time the greed caused him to kill, I think that was not commonplace previously. Boromir obviously had some issues going on as well, but what was the trigger?

Conversely, some of those tempted face to face with the Ring, even having it offered to them, were able to refuse it. This is a huge difference in behavior, not minor. Boromir using force vs. Galadriel feeling temptation towards a freely given gift. Not really a fair comparison.

Another category could be those who knew of it's existence, yet were not offered it nor did they use force to acquire it. The Hobbits, those of the Council at Rivendell, and those two noble men of Numenor, Aragorn and Faramir. Was it not said that there was a difference in Farimir's blood from that of his father and brother? He was more noble in many ways? I forget the passage, I'll look it up later. That only leaves Isildur. And he fits in this group because he came upon it. Neither was he offered it, nor was he violent (thieving) in it's taking. His crime was in not being as resistant to it's wiles as were Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and Tom.


Perhaps I created more questions than answers, but these are some of the rudementary differences I see.

-If you are resistant to magic (Tom, Hobbits) you may get away with actually wearing/possessing the Ring.

-If you are of High birth and demeanor (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir) you are equipped to refuse a direct chance at possession. But actual possession would cause corruption just the same, just faster than those more 'magic proof' Isildur would fit into this category

-If you are a lower born, lower moral being you have no defense over the influence of the Ring. This would include both Boromir and Smeagol. Yes Boromir, even though he was of prominent position and character, he was not of the 'quality' that Faramir and Aragorn were. Had any other members of this category learned of the Ring, I would presume they would follow suit in behavior to Boromir and Smeagol, just in varying degrees, like some sort of continuum that solely reflects 'how long' corruption will take, not 'if' it will happen. An example would be Butterbur VS. Ferny - one would take longer, but both would be inevitable.

So what do you think, will this boat float?

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

The subject of this topic has been one of the eternal questions. May it be explored and debated until there is no need to consider evil anymore!

Please forgive the somewhat random organization of the following. I was taking notes from previous posts and am under a tight time restriction ...

The Ring embodies evil. Evil is a verb, more than a passive concept--it requires an object to exist, a host, in fact, since it must feed. And it feeds best on fear. However many ways our choices can be swayed away from God/Love is how it begins to work. Those who are corrupted and never answer the call to choose again are obsessed with the products of fear--defending, controlling, attacking, protecting--all centered upon the Ring.

Gollum first responded to the rich glint of gold. Gandalf and Galadriel understood they would be ensnared by intentions of good. Boromir = noble cause. Bilbo = something shiny, then the simple possession of something unique with the power of invisibility. Frodo = well, it was thrust on him and he was eventually ensnared by the evil embodied in the Ring, yet he was redeemed.

This brings up an essential point that I believe Tolkien was trying to make in addition to the importance of awareness of choices--alone, we cannot stand against evil. It is only when we are part of a fellowship that we have a chance. What the Ring awakens, or calls to, is the desire or belief that, given the right circumstances, we can be like God--create & control people, places, and things. Every character in LOTR and Silmarillion came to a sorry end because of the attempt to usurp God.

This brings up another vital aspect--that of nature. In my opinion, nature and its manifestation of creation and, well, natural laws, embodies God. Those who were closest to the harmonies of nature were least likely to be corrupted quickly, if at all. Tom Bombadil wasnature, if you will. To him, the Ring was hardly more than an amusing piece of jewelry. Gollum was an intellectual, if you will, in the Stoor clan--curious and pretty much a loner. (I know this seems like a stretch, but look up his origins and think about it.) Boromir was a rather solitary guy who was certainly up in his head a lot, excellent warrior skills notwithstanding.

I agree with the person who mentioned humility. Before someone mentions that Faramir was clearly on the intellectual side (and I think intellect is a fine thing, btw), I will hasten to add that he also portrayed a person of true humility. Boromir thought more of himself although he rationalized it by saying he wanted to save Gondor; Faramir thought of himself less and was willing to surrender Self to a greater cause.

We all have our own Ring, and a neverending series of choices to choose our own quest--for Mt. Doom, or Self. Fear, and its myriad manifestations, and the delusion of being able to be God, even if for a Very Good Cause, are how our Rings ensnare us. I believe this was Tolkien's purpose for the Ring in LOTR. And the Ring is just a junior player compared to how all this is illustrated in the Silmarillion.

Okay, that's it. If you stayed this long, thank you for listening!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sam had no real ambition.All the other people of were tempted by the Ring did. Maybe the Ring brings out natural ambition and expolts it.

What do you mean by natural ambition? Please explain because I don't think I understand what you mean. Sam did have Rosie as an ambition, as Lush pointed out. But, do you mean that Sam's desire to be great and powerful and famous was a natural desire? I think that's what you mean, but I'm not positive. I really don't see that as natural ambition because not everyone wants to be great, powerful, or famous. And it might be different with Sam since he is a Hobbit. I think that Sam might have wanted to be great and powerful and famous for a long time, but he just never showed it. The ring brought that desire out and amplified it. And if you think about it, it could relate back to the desire for Rosie. Often times, people think that they can get the lover of their dreams if they are any one of the three (powerful/great/famous). So maybe Sam wanted to use the ring to be noticed by Rosie. Sorry if I misunderstand you Arvedui III, please explain if I did.

With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.

Because they were the only ones who really wanted it and had to take it by force.

What is it that sets these two apart?

Well, they are different races. Boromir was a man, while Smeagol was supposedly a hobbit. Smeagol was uninformed of the ring and the risks and dangers of it. The ring took full advantage of him. And Boromir, he had pride. He wanted to defend his country. He might also be spoiled since he is royalty, sort of. So, he might think that whatever he doesn't get, he takes. But that one's really far-fetched as there really are no indications of it and Boromir without the influence of the ring is honest and truthful and noble. But I really think that it was because Boromir was ignorant. He refused to take others advice about the ring. You may speak of it as men being weak, I just say ignorant. The ring played on Boromir's ignorance and desire. And the ring took advantage of him that way.

The Ring embodies evil. Evil is a verb, more than a passive concept--it requires an object to exist, a host, in fact, since it must feed. And it feeds best on fear. However many ways our choices can be swayed away from God/Love is how it begins to work. Those who are corrupted and never answer the call to choose again are obsessed with the products of fear--defending, controlling, attacking, protecting--all centered upon the Ring.

Sorry, but evil is an adjetive, not a verb. I really don't think that the fear aspect of the ring makes sense. They are not afraid of the ring. I think it is more-so greed than fear. And all those products of fear are products of greed. Yes, it could be the fear of losing their 'precious', but that is really greed. Fear doesn't cause someone to desire the ring or make an attempt to take it. Greed does that. Greed keeps someone from giving it up. Fear is more of a feeling one gets from possessing the ring. Greed is the thing that keeps the person defending it, trying to control it (no one but Sauron can really control the ring), attacking other who pose a potential danger them losing the ring, and protecting it.

[Tar-Palantir]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they were the only ones who really wanted it and had to take it by force.

It was a setup question Willie, I was using it to demonstrate that they were a unique class of character. It is the 'class' I wanted to define - We already know Boromir and Smeagol wanted the Ring.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it that sets these two apart?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they are different races. Boromir was a man, while Smeagol was supposedly a hobbit. (etc...)

Willie, that phrase, in the context of my post, does not mean what you think it means. It does NOT mean: what are the differences between Smeagol and Boromir? I know one is a man and one is a hobbit for goodness sake. It DOES mean: what makes Smeagol and Boromir different from every other character in the book? There was a culmination there that I don't think you addressed.

And I did not "speak of men as being weak". Boromir being ignorant? I do not think you understand the word ignorant. Ignorant means you are unaware or do not have the knowledge of something. Boromir had more information and advice than anyone could ask for. He knew the dangers of the Ring as well as anybody, he heard the warnings at the Council of Elrond, he even agreed to help destroy it. No, he was not ingorant, rather, he was full knowing.

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sorry Tar-Palantir.

It does NOT mean: what are the differences between Smeagol and Boromir?

I thought you were asking what set them apart from each other. It's not my fault seeing as you did not ask what set them apart from every other person. It's hard to tell in writing sometimes if questions are rhetorical or not, or if they are set up questions. So what if I answered your questions that you weren't looking for an answer for.

And I did not "speak of men as being weak". Boromir being ignorant?

I never said that you said that.

I do not think you understand the word ignorant.

I do. He did know of the dangers, but in a sense he was unaware because he refused to accept it. He kept pushing the issue of taking the ring to Gondor and using it to defend against the enemy. So, if he was aware, then why did he ignore the advice of the wise? Because he was not fully aware. It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?

[Dininziliel]

What is behind greed, if not fear? The fear of not having enough, of someone having what you want, of what will happen if you do not have it all? Greed is a product of fear because when it is taken to its conclusion, there is a "must have or else" obsessive quality to it. Greed is obsessive, and when one is obsessed one is fearful of what will happen to the object of obsession and/or self if that object is not obtained.
The Ring speaks to that within each of us that is closely connected to fear--we are not used to looking for the roots of our reactions & rationalizations.

Sorry, but evil is an adjetive, not a verb. I really don't think that the fear aspect of the ring makes sense. They are not afraid of the ring. I think it is more-so greed than fear. And all those products of fear are products of greed. Yes, it could be the fear of losing their 'precious', but that is really greed. Fear doesn't cause someone to desire the ring or make an attempt to take it. Greed does that. Greed keeps someone from giving it up. Fear is more of a feeling one gets from possessing the ring. Greed is the thing that keeps the person defending it, trying to control it (no one but Sauron can really control the ring), attacking other who pose a potential danger them losing the ring, and protecting it.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

With regards to the the Ring though, why is then that only two characters actually made an attempt to take the Ring? Boromir and Smeagol.

Interesting that these two were the only told “no” they could not have the ring.

Tonight I must reread the Gladden fields chapter again, because it certainaly seemed as though Isildur did intend to give up the ring (like Frodo) if he succeeded in escaping that dreadful evening. I’m not saying that he could have easily; just the intentions were there. The fact that he acknowledged he made the wrong choice makes me feel he was not so far gone.

This brings up an essential point that I believe Tolkien was trying to make in addition to the importance of awareness of choices--alone, we cannot stand against evil. It is only when we are part of a fellowship that we have a chance.

Thanks for the lovely pearl Fain!

[Purple Monkey]

Oh, how addictively confusing! Keep this thread going!

[Tar-Palantir]

It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. How about one of these instead:

Unwise
Stubborn
Short-sighted
Overbold
Misguided

I don't blame Boromir, as he was up against a mighty power, but he was not ignorant.

[Dininziliel]

[quote] It's like he was hearing the advice, but he wasn't listening to it. He know what they were saying, but he either didn't understand it, or he refused to understand it. Do you see what I mean?/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. How about one of these instead:

Unwise
Stubborn
Short-sighted
Overbold
Misguided

Perhaps both of these perspectives could be talking about the type of ignorance that comes from denial--you know something somewhere in your head, but it doesn't apply to you because the idea of something happening or not happening is just too much to deal with. I guess it's the kind of denial that this famous phrase refers to: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

The Ring would use denial--the Ring uses anything and everything to keep us into our small "s" selves and to turn us from Love/God or the large "S" Selves which would be the one connected to Love/God through others.

I'm gonna have to find more concrete examples when I get home and have my books. I know this sounds rather waffly.

[Tar-Palantir]

Thanks dininziliel and Willie, for the feeback. But I think our posts are coming from different angles. We'll simply never know how the Ring works, try as we might. This is why I was taking another tack, trying just to figure out who specifically did something quantifiable, and how did that manifest and relate to others involved. Guessing at a charcters emotions and levels of denial and even specific desires is just that, guessing.

It's especially difficult when some people don't know what the word ignorant means. Which, by ironic definition, would make them ignorant. Unless, of course, they are suffering through a case of denial and as such refuse better counsel or to simply open a dictionary. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

ooooohhh, I wish I knew how to wield the powers of this board--how someone can get quotes from more than one person inside their replies is beyond me at this point.

anyway ...

Thanks dininziliel and Willie, for the feeback. But I think our posts are coming from different angles. We'll simply never know how the Ring works, try as we might. This is why I was taking another tack, trying just to figure out who specifically did something quantifiable, and how did that manifest and relate to others involved. Guessing at a charcters emotions and levels of denial and even specific desires is just that, guessing.
It's especially difficult when some people don't know what the word ignorant means. Which, by ironic definition, would make them ignorant. Unless, of course, they are suffering through a case of denial and as such refuse better counsel or to simply open a dictionary.

How the Ring/evil works is an infinite question. Quantifying the actions of Gollum & Boromir in order to relate those actions to others is certainly a question requiring thoughtful analysis, but it's not quite as much fun nor are the results as useful to the mind, heart, and spirit as exploring the nature of evil as manifested in the Ring. The best questions are those with no final right/wrong answers. LOTR & Silmarillion are nothing if not explorations of the infinite (in whatever form you choose to categorize it).

No, we may never know the answers, but what we discover along the way and the connections we make with others on that path may be of more value than answers to quantifiable questions.

What was called "guessing" is "exploration" to me. And, yes, these terms are a bit juxatposed.

And, I think we know what "ignorant" means. It was defined a few posts back quite adequately. I think (but do not know) [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] that exploringthe role of ignorance in LOTR makes a terrific topic--especially when the context is that of evil as embodied by the Ring.

Bilbo and Gollum certainly did not know (were ignorant) that the Ring was evil/a creation of Sauron when they found/saw it. Nor did they seem aware of its evil as time passed. Only Bilbo awoke to that fact after the incident at Rivendell w/Frodo (book and movie). We must assume Gollum had passed that particular threshold of awareness long before Bilbo found (and took, albeit peacefully in contrast to Boromir's attempt) the Ring. However, in this context, the interesting thing is that Gollum had a window of opportunity to choose again when Frodo's pity and kindness entered Gollum's awareness. Gollum's ignorance of the experience of kindness caused him to deny that call to Love, and he chose to return to darkness.

And then there's Frodo, who started the Quest full of information about the Ring, but ignorant of the experience. I suggest that it was his experience that enabled him to have pity/empathy for Gollum which proved to be all that was necessary for Iluvatar's ultimate will to triumph. (Recall Iluvatar's statement to Morgoth in Silmarillion that nothing Morgoth could do or conceive of could ultimately thwart Iluvatar's design? Frodo's solo failure atop Mt. Doom and subsequent success via his connection to both Sam & Gollum are absolutely wonderful illustrations of how Love/God/Iluvatar work--those "mysterious wonders to perform." Okay, so that's another aspect of ignorance.

Bear with me, I know this is long and getting longer ...

Now, for your good, popular notion of old-fashioned ignorance, Boromir is your man. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img] He definitely obtained information about the Ring during the Council of Elrond from among the wisest sources around. Yet, despite this informational knowledge, he still attempted to take the Ring and was even moved to violence to get it.

What do Boromir and Gollum have in common and how do they compare/contrast from the rest of the characters?

Well, one can count and correlate acts of violence, the number of times someone uses a certain word or phrase, and other measurable variables in connection to the Ring, but I suspect one will come up with interesting statistics and averages but no real conclusions, only conjectures (aka "guesses"). Why? Because Tolkien did not write a traditional mystery story nor a gigantic archaeological account.

He may have begun creating a world to support his languages, but when he finished he had illustrated the greatest questions, issues, elements of human experience using a fairy story/myth.

Okay, I'm done with my own thoughts. Here are some brief excerpts using the index heading "effects of the Ring upon the bearer" from The Letters of JRR Tolkien, HarperCollins, publ. 1995: Letter 131, p. 154:

...so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will [even Sauron's] to injure it ... or neglect it.

(And, please don't misinterpret "lust" in its popular, biblical sense--follow the advice of a previous member and go see Mr. Webster first.)

Letter #153, p. 191:

Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo insight ...

(I swear I had not read that before writing the body of this post above.)

Letter #131 again, p. 160:

...the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, (and so also inevitably by lies) ...

Peace to your hearts! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Fain Clawmirth ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Fain Clawmirth

Gollum's ignorance of the experience of kindness caused him to deny that call to Love, and he chose to return to darkness.

No, that is not necessarily the case. It was Gollum's addiction to the ring that was resisting the conversion of Gollum to 'the good side'. And although it resisted the change, I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam. I'm speaking mainly of the chapter The Stairs of Cirith Ungol. I think that was the turning point in the struggle with Gollum, and Sam tipped the balance for the dark Gollum; that was the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't his ignorance. And we can't really say he was ignorant either since we don't know if he was familiar with kindness before the ring.

Oh yeah, and welcome to the downs. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

dininziliel

What is behind greed, if not fear? The fear of not having enough, of someone having what you want, of what will happen if you do not have it all? Greed is a product of fear because when it is taken to its conclusion, there is a "must have or else" obsessive quality to it.

No, greed is not a product of fear. It's the other way around; fear is a product of greed. Greed comes first. You have to have the desire for something before you have the fera of losing it. Why? Because how can you fear losing something you don't even have. Once you have it, you have to selfishly and greedily want to keep the ring, before the fear of losing it ever happens. So once again I say that it is not fear, it is greed.

And welcome to the downs also. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Grounds-Keeper-Willie wrote:

It was Gollum's addiction to the ring that was resisting the conversion of Gollum to 'the good side'. And although it resisted the change, I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam. I'm speaking mainly of the chapter The Stairs of Cirith Ungol. I think that was the turning point in the struggle with Gollum, and Sam tipped the balance for the dark Gollum; that was the final nail in the coffin. It wasn't his ignorance.

You know, I came across this very point in one of Tolkien's letters after my last post. (So, of course, it's a very good one! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ) I do think if Sam had been kinder to Gollum, well, actually Smeagol, things might have been different. Or would they? heehee If addiction is the key, pivotal point, then, no. The influence of Frodo's kindness would have faded away, especially in such close proximity to the Ring, and even more especially when the Ring was SOOOOO close to its home power base.

Gollum was a classic Greek tragic figure--his actions doomed him from the start by setting off the natural consequences of trying to usurp God's/Iluvatar's place (the taking of Deagol's life). The addiction to the Ring just sealed the deal.

Regarding greed vs. fear (or the chicken and the egg question). This is another outstanding dialogue and I hope it continues awhile longer!

Greed is the reaction to a perceived lack. How could you want something if you already had it? And what is the source of this reaction to a perceived lack? Why not just say, "aw, well--I can do without that," or "It's not that important." Why not have the feeling of peaceful disinterest? Because one becomes fearful of what will happen if a desire is not fulfilled.

Fear is usually thought of as what happens when a bus or monster or terrorist is bearing down on you at 90 miles per hour. It is this and much, much more. It is a primitive, fundamental state of mind. It's what accounts for the physical reactions or sensations that accompany greed or any other product of fear--heart rate, hypersensitivity of the senses, etc. In other words, greed and the other deadly "sins" would not have their destructive power without their source--fear.

LOTR/Silmarillion are illustrations of our relationship to God/Iluvatar/Love. We are either moving toward it, are for it, and willing to surrender ourselves to it in trust that no matter what happens and no matter how hopeless, things will be all right (Frodo, Sam, the Fellowship). Or, we are moving away from it, are against it, and unwilling to surrender anything because we have no trust--we are afraid. We are afraid because we have chosen to separate (or believe separation is possible) from God.

I suppose in a sense the definition of greed might be stretched to include what created fear. Tolkien's letters and several quotes tell that one of the basic tenets in LOTR/Silmarillion is what happens when one chooses/desires to create like God. This desire to be God is similar in nature to greed. So, in that sense, your argument is correct. But I think it is more akin to pride. Jeepers, are we on the verge of another thread here? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Or ... maybe it is simply evil doing its job. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

Where is Udun (Hell) located? In Mordor, of course. What is Mordor but the epitome, the absolute monument to and center of fear?

And on that note, I send my brothers and sisters peace amid the insanity of the world.

[Tar-Palantir]

I believe that Gollum would have changed if it weren't for Sam.

Love that Smeagol, eh? He had plenty of opportunity to repent after he lost the Ring to Bilbo. And when it comes to showing mercy on him, the Elves of Mirkwood did just that; at least as much as Frodo gave him anyway. And the Ring wasn't even near to tempt him to poor behavior during those days.

Frodo had Gollum's drug, his mistress; that is the only reason he showed any respect or caring of Frodo. Otherwise Gollum would have been gone in a flash...