Gandalf as Ring-lord

[Evisse the Blue]

Originally posted by Maedhros in another topic, quoted from the Letters of JRRT

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.'

This paragraph represents a perpetual mystery to me, and having seen it mentioned I'd like to bring it into discussion. (I used the search function, but I found only discussions that briefly touched this topic but didn't delve into its depths). How could Gandalf as Ring-lord remain righteous and wise, and yet worse that Sauron? And how can one make good appear detestable?

Maybe he means that during Gandalf's reign the world will become many shades of grey (no pun intended!) instead of the white vs black clear-cut distinction that had existed when Sauron was the Lord of the Ring. Even in those times, Gandalf was particularly sensitive to 'grey characters', such as Gollum, whom he showed mercy and understanding towards. If all the responsbility of the world's rule were to rest on his shoulders, he would probably take his wisdom, his pondering of choices and his great ability for compassion to its limits, therefore living in a perpetual 'twilight of doubt as to sides'. He would thus become less of a mythical hero and more of a 'modern' hero, resembling, if you will, a character of Dostoievski's or Kafka's. That's the way I see this ambiguous quote.

[Iris Alantiel]

Great topic, Evisse!

I think that the problem with Gandalf as Ring-Lord is that the Ring, regardless of who wields it, is evil. It is only capable of creating evil. Sauron is evil too, so if he used the ring, he would use it out of evil intentions, in an effort to do evil things.

The problem with Gandalf is that he would be using the ring to do good things, but the ring (having a mind of its own) would still generate evil. As a result, good and evil would get all mixed up and muddled together - grey areas, like you said. In that case, there would be no pure good left in the world; all the good works Gandalf produced would be tainted by the evils of the ring. He would have tried to do what was best for everyone, but the ring would twist everything so that there was actually nothing really good at all going on. That's how I figure he "would have made good detestable and seem evil".

Sauron is a little bit better because at least his deeds are already evil, so they can't be tainted by the ring. He just does evil things and doesn't touch goodness. It's just much less confusing that way.

[The Saucepan Man]

Many brutal and repressive dictators started out full of idealism, acting on the basis of a desire to do good. But in their utter conviction that "their way" is the best way for those ruled by them, they brook no opposition, gradually using crueler and more brutal means to quell any dissent. This is how I see Gandalf as Ringlord.

Perhaps, in implementing his desire that everyone should be treated equally and fairly, enterprise and invention would be stifled, leading to a miserable and grey society (a kind of proto-communism). Ultimately, I see a society led by Gandalf the Ringlord as being akin to a primitive version of that depicted in 1984, where, for the good of society, initiative and creativity are stifled, children are encouraged to rat on their parents, ctizens are told what is good for them and what they should believe, and dissenters are dealt with swiftly and brutally. The resultant society would be one devoid of any colour, joy or love.

[Lord of Angmar]

I agree. Few dictators, in my opinion, are cruel for the sake of being cruel. The harshness of their rule often comes from, as Saucepan Man, a desire to ensure that their own ideology will remain prominent and powerful.

I am not familiar with that quote. I take it that it was in its original form handwritten by JRR Tolkien (hence the "[illegible word]"). This is certainly an interesting topic. The quote provided seems far less explicit and more open to interpretation then Tolkien's essays and letters usually are.

[The Saucepan Man]

The harshness of their rule often comes from, as Saucepan Man, a desire to ensure that their own ideology will remain prominent and powerful.

Indeed. Any dissension in the Quiz and Quotes rooms will be dealt with brutally and efficiently. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Angmar, I hope that the omission of the word "said" was not intentional. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Although I do not (yet) have The Letters of Tolkien myself, this extract from Letter 246 comes up fairly frequently in discussion. Here is a more extensive extract:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council.

Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.'

[Finwe]

Almost all dictators or tyrants justify their actions by convincing themselves and others that what they are doing is best. Hitler thought what he was doing was best for the world, and the reason that World War II lasted as long as it did, was that all of Germany was convinced that he was acting for the best of the country.

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would probably act something like that. He would justify his actions (presumably "bad" actions) by saying that they were for the good of the "country." He would try to make all of Middle-earth fit his mold of "goodness," and in so doing, stifle all other ways of thinking.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Good topic! This quote has been stuck in my brain for quite a while...

I see the statement as somewhat of a value judgement or personal opinion on Tolkien's part. I tend to disagree with his assessment to some extent.

I think that Tolkien's problem with the way Gandalf would behave as Ring Lord has to do with Gandalf being likely to curtail people's free will. "I'm wiser than you and know better than you yourself what's best for you. Therefore I'm going to protect you from yourselves whether you like it or not. So quit trying to think for yourselves and do what I tell you, because I know best."

In a sense Gandalf would be right, because all of what he says is accurate. He is wiser than anyone else in Middle Earth, and if he had dictatorial powers, would keep everyone from getting into a lot of trouble, as would otherwise happen is they were left to their own devices.

Of course, the downside is it makes a mockery of Eru's desire for his Children to have free will.

Worse than Sauron though? I disagree. The one saving aspect is that Sauron (or Morgoth for that matter) never achieved a position of quasi-omnipotence within Middle-earth. (He can never achieve complete omnipotence since he will never be able to make himself stronger then Eru, or even the Valar). But if Sauron had won the war and regained the ring, and none could foresee his weakening, then the fact that Good remains distinct from Evil is of little use if nobody has any way of resisting Evil. So if I had to choose a Ring Lord who was all powerful, and whose will I would have no choice but to obey, I choose Gandalf.

If on the other hand, the Ring Lord was not in complete control of things (as was always the case the Sauron did have the Ring), then Tolkien's view seems more justified. Things get very morally convoluted, as when the Noldor went to Middle-earth to fight Morgoth, or Ar-Pharazon decided to attack Sauron. Yes, one side is utterly and irredeemably evil, but the "Good Guys" are a distinct shade of gray, morally speaking.

I think this quote underscores the importance of free will to Tolkien personally, and the belief that Good will always come out of Evil.

Thus, even as Eru spoke to us, shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ëa, and evil yet be good to have been"
-Manwë upon hearing the reply of Fëanor to his heralds.

Of course, the bad part about free will is that there always seem to be a certain fraction of people who never seem to put it to any use besides causing problems for everyone else. We can all probably think of people whom we wish didn't have free will, as it might make life much less problematic for the rest of us if they were indeed just acting on the command of someone like Gandalf, rather than creatively doing bad things.

Tolkien's view would almost certainly be that not be desirable though, for two reasons. First, there are always unintended consequences, and things that appear good often are not when one looks at the larger picture. Secondly, Macchiavellian type actions which might be justified in their original context often expand to the point where they are almost completely unjustified. That is what Gandalf is referring to when he says that he would be tempted to use the power of the Ring for good, but in the end the original intent would be lost.

I tend to go somewhat back and forth on this issue, depending on my mood and what problems someone has created for the world on that particular day. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lord of Angmar]

Angmar, I hope that the omission of the word "said" was not intentional.

Heh heh.
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 7:26 PM December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Evisse the Blue]

Angry Hill Troll, you state that the good vs bad distinction cannot help people if they cannot fight the evil. I disagree. Even if resistance is not possible at a point in time, hell, even if resistance is never possible, people will always benefit morally and psychologically from being able to tell the right path from the wrong path.

It is a matter of slavery of body versus a slavery of mind. Under Sauron, the people would have been slaves, endured torture and witnessed evil deeds which they were powerless to prevent. But, knowing evil for what it was, nothing could have prevented them from choosing to be good themselves and hoping and planning an escape from slavery, which would have eventually happened (even distancing ourselves from the fairy-tale happy-ending; historically and biologically all things evolve / fall apart. That makes hope a very adaptive feeling). But what would have happened if Gandalf had enslaved your mind with his great wisdom and sugar-coated yet turned to evil by the Ring intentions? Indeed, 1984 is a very good example of what would have happened, so are other utopic worlds, that show the consequence of dictatorship born out of good intentions, like Huxley's Brave new world and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 421. Some elect few would have realized something was wrong, and maybe envision a resistance, but the rest would have lived a life of slavery and evil without knowing it.

I think this quote underscores the importance of free will to Tolkien personally

Indeed - as is illustrated in this other quote here (from Letters):

the Shadow will arise again in a sense (as is clearly foretold by Gandalf, but never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy; he will direct Men and all the complications of half-evils, and defective-goods, and the twilights of doubt as to sides,such situations as he most loves (you can see them already arising in the War of the Ring, which is by no means so clear cut an issue as some critics have averred): those will be and are our more difficult fate.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:11 AM December 18, 2003: Message edited by: Evisse the Blue ]