Split Personality?

[Morwen]

My point is very simple.

The entire LOTR revolves around the idea that the ring must be destroyed because if Sauron gets it he will then take over Middle-earth. Supposedly, the ring is the only thing standing in the way of his all out domination of all the peoples of the world.

But that is a serious flaw in the entire underpinnings of the novel and plot. You see , Sauron already had the ring and had it for a good long time. And while he did conquer some lands and the peoples upon it, he certainly was not able to do what everybody at the Council of Elrond fears will happen if he gets it again.

Premise: we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all.
Flaw: Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world and kill or enslave everyone.

That is my point.

At the Second Age the Free Peoples were capable of matching the military might of Sauron (with Ring) with military might of their own. They are NOT able to do this in the Third Age and in fact a Ringless Sauron was already a grave threat to them. To argue that "Sauron already had the ring for a long time and did not rule the world" ignores the fact that the ability of the Free Peoples to oppose him has changed dramatically.
Given that they cannot hope to overcome Sauron by mililtary means they have to look for other options to defeat him. And in discussing their options at the Council of Elrond it is made clear that sending the Ring to the Fire is not merely a matter of keeping it out of Sauron's hands. It is in fact considered their best hope of defeating him. The premise therefore isn't simply that "we have to destroy the ring or Sauron will get it and rule the world and kill or enslave us all". No, "we have to destroy the Ring because doing so will rid us of the problem of Sauron once and for all".

[Sauron the White]

Morwen... yes, yes, yes... I have heard that standard explaination before and it seems to be part of the doctrine among the faithful. But it just rings hollow with me. After all, the army of men did pretty well against Sarumans Uruks at Helms Deep. How could anyone know so without a doubt in advance that the free peoples had no chance? Battles and wars are not fought or won on paper.

One thing I have learned here in the past year is there is some type of general rules which apply to all debates here. It goes something like this.

JRRT never made a mistake. His books are perfect and without error. If you think you have found an error, it is you who are in error because the books are perfect. The standards which apply to JRRT and his books apply to nothing else and are special and are little understood by the great masses. And the films suck because they are not the books.

Do any of you ever concede anything? This gets really frustrating after a while.

[Finduilas]

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

[Morwen]

StW, I am not attempting to give you a "standard explaination" of any sort. I am presenting my opinion of the text, how I understand what Tolkien has written.

Helm's Deep was one battle. When the representatives of the Free Peoples meet in Rivendell their own assessment of their position is that they cannot hope overcome Sauron by force of arms. Hence the the plan to send the Ring to Fire. Indeed when Aragorn and co march to Black Gate , I don't recall anyone saying they hoped with an army of about 6000 to defeat Sauron. They are simply hoping to buy the Ringbearer time. This is what is presented in the text. If I am to find this reasoning flawed then it would have to be on the basis that there is evidence in the text to suggest that everyone, at the Council of Elrond and afterwards, is being unduly pessimistic; that despite their assertions they really were capable of somehow defeating the war machine of Sauron by military means and that capability is being ignored so everyone could embark on a quest to Mount Doom.

At this point I'm not sure what it is that I'm supposed to be conceding. Why is it that you find it difficult to concede that the position of the Free Peoples in the Third Age is markedly different from that in the Second? What is it about that assertion that seems hollow to you or doesn't make sense?

[Quempel]

Winning one battle does not mean there is enough military strength to win the war. And wars are won in the mind and on paper long before they are won in the battle field. No general is going to send troops out all willy-nilly without a plan, well not a winning general. So yes there was a victory at Helms Deep, but had it not been for the Army of the Dead, Rohan and Gondor would have fallen during the battle at Pelenor Fields, fact it the free living men could not over come the massive army without the aid of the Army of the Dead, and they were a one time shot.

[davem]

Morwen has already stated the situation perfectly. The 'Free People' are already, by the time of the story, effectively finished. Sauron is going to win - he has overwhelming forces & is moving towards the final victory. Its not that the Ring will enable him to break a stalemate, let alone to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Its not a case of 'If Sauron gets this he'll win' but of 'If he gets this then our only chance of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat is gone - but if we can destroy the Ring he will fall'.

Of course there are some (as at the Council) who seem to believe that just keeping the Ring from him ('send it over the Sea'/'give it to Bombadil' etc) will be enough, but they are soon put in their place.

The basics of the plot: Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

[alatar]

Didn't Gandalf say something about your valor being vain, as even without the Ring, the tidal waves of Sauron were coming Westward, and so one could either ride out to meet him or endure siege after siege in whatever strong places remained - regardless, the end of the Free Folk was certain. Sauron, even before his first cup of coffee in the morning was already planning total domination of Middle Earth, and there were few if any on the other side that had the same devotion for keeping that from happening - even Gandalf took a break now and again.

With the Ring Sauron's victory was certain; without, his victory was mostly certain and only delayed somewhat, and a few islands (Rivendell, Lothlorien, the Old Forest) eventually would be all that remained free, and in time even these would fall. Was destroying the One Ring the Third Age's 'Eärendil moment?'

And I concede lipsticked pigs and glycogen.

[Sauron the White]

After reading and rereading the points made by several people here, I do admit that it makes sense now. This particular point from davem rings true

Sauron has arisen again & is about to destroy us & take over the world & we thought there was nothing we could do but surrender or go down fighting. Now, however, we have found his Ring, his one vulnerability. If we can destroy the Ring we can destroy him. If he gets hold of it again our only chance to defeat him will be gone.

Sauron doesn't need the Ring to win, he just needs to stop any enemy capable of using it claiming it for himself (or, though this never crossed his mind, destroying it)

That does make sense and fits in with some of the Council speeches. I thank all of you - Morwen, alatar, Quempel and littlemanpoet for making good arguements. Findulias said

Some of us are willing to concede to minor mistakes. But do you really expect any of us people who defend the books so much that you call us 'purists' to concede that the very foundation of the book and incredible story is faulty? That's really asking a lot.

Kind of makes me feel like Homer Simpson and should say "DOH".

I do think that the whole Sauron needs the ring appears at first to be a contradiction... but you have all explained that to me to my satisfaction. I guess he really did not need it and that was the weakness in my position.

I am learning that sometimes looking at this stuff is like somebody from the 19th century explaining why a huge battleship made of metal and concrete could never float. The more you learn, the more it makes sense. Thanks to all.