The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices) On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices)

Your use of the term 'ironic' does not apply to what you are saying. I find no incongruity in my statements; therefore to imply irony is in error. It seems you are saying you condone cruelty and torture when it is expedient to do so. To each his own, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Again, either you are simply arguing for arguments sake, or you really do not grasp the concepts of Tolkien's work. Boromir repented of his misdeed, and gained forgiveness through repentance (an integral part of Catholic doctrine). Bilbo? I am not sure exactly where he failed to resist, can you? It was difficult for him to surrender the Ring, but he did so (and with Sam as another example, giving up the Ring of one's own free will must have been a harrowing experience). Frodo? Yes he did fail, didn't he? I believe I've stated that on several occasions, but since you fail to comprehend the mitigating circumstances surrounding his ordeal, then this conversation is irredeemable. I will repost a quote from Tolkien and then refrain from further posting in this thread (unless of course you have an epiphany or someone adds something worthwhile):

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

No, he was not absolved because he died unrepentant (again, a Catholic doctrine that Tolkien would adhere to).

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?

But Tolkien uses "doom" to mean "fate" a lot of the time so aybe what he actually means is that even if his fate is to go to Mount Doom then whatever happens there is only governed by free will, and he might not even be able to give the ring up, even though it's his fate.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

There seems to be a generally unequivocal stance on the moral implications of choices. But what about the moral implications of having no choice? Let's rephrase the question: Evil is said to be a by-product of free-will, but people do not choose to be born with free-will. And rectifying the phenomenon of free-will (i.e: through slavery, capital punishment and martial law) would be generally considered tyranny (and thus evil).

The slaves of Sauron and Morgoth are condemned for imitating the characteristics of their masters. And yet, being born under the yoke and thus having known nothing else other than the teachings of their forebears, they were probably the least evil of the lot. Of course, they get tempted by power and prestige like other "Free Peoples", but they should not be held responsible for their evil characteristics like Gollum or Bill Ferny. Aragorn did not hold Butterbur and Bree as ingrates because they did not give the Rangers credit for their protection.

Again, it seems like that the traditional stance did not offer any migitations for evil caused from being granted free will. (I believe Tolkien did write in HoME about having the need of some "Christ" coming to save the Edain under Morgoth, but that certainly did not materialise).