Split Personality?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will. Anyway, I think Tolkien addressed the question of overpowering evil:

Originally Posted by Letter #191

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will.

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

I'm not saying he would become instantly 'evil' - as Shippey points out, it would begin by his using the Ring to enhance his power to do good, then the temptation to cut corners would grow, & eventually he would simply do whatever he liked. CT, in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait, points out Gandalf would eventually become worse than Sauron, because he would be 'self-righteous'.

[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.

[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.