Sir Eowyn
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 312
A wild question, I know, and slightly blasphemous, but in the spirit of "trust the tale, not the teller" (as D. H. Lawrence put it), I feel I have to ask this.
We know that the One Ring confers great power, that one of sufficient strength who wields it can, in theory, not only rival Sauron but completely overthrow him. The hitch, it's said, is that then you'll just take Sauron's place---that Gandalf, had he used the Ring, would have then become Sauron in some other guise. No one really questions this, except Boromir (of course, fatally). Denethor has his doubts as well, but from a desperate position. But do they KNOW? "Because Tolkien said so" isn't really an answer.
The problem, it seems, is a certain contradiction at the heart of the story. However much Tolkien professed against allegory, it can be said, broadly, that the Ring represents a certain form of absolute power. To seize tyrannical powers to throw down the tyrant as currently standing, the argument seems to go, is to be no better than your foe, and to simply perpetuate evil. But the climax of the Third Age all hinges on Aragon taking the throne as High King, to govern all Gondor and Arnor, all the realm of old. In other words, the Men of the West hardly mean to set up an anarcho-syndalicist commune, to reference Monty Python. Aragon will rule as an absolute monarch.
"But," it will be said, "it all depends on your intention. Aragon means to lead men well, not subjugate them." Well, I'm sure that's true, and I'm not here to dump on monarchy---it has many merits, and is probably far nobler (in the right hands) than our current system. But the point is, Aragorn's after power. Power is understood here to be a good thing, to provide law and order, and finally peace. So then, why NOT use the Ring?
Presumably the Ring is under some spell of inherent evil, that whatever it does will wreak destruction, no matter what the intention at first. Let's say that's true, even though there's a lack of evidence. First of all, nobody's tried it---Isiildur lost it far too soon, and the only others to bear it were hobbits. And if Minas Ithil can become Minas Morgul, far removed from the beauty of its original structure, and Elves can be turned into Orcs, then why not the Ring into good? But alright, let's say in Tolkien's world (which is mythic, and so different from ours; it's ultimately his call)---even still, there's something unsettling here, some apparent contradiction and flip-flop. One can sympathize with Denethor's outrage that instead of being kept safe from Sauron, the Ring is sent into Mordor carried by hobbits. Yes, it all worked out in the end, but that by a million strokes of good luck. Tolkien would call it providence, and I suppose it is. But to risk the lives of everything in Middle-earth by trusting to providence rather than master your soul enough to govern wisely... this is strange.
Some of what I've said is a bit incoherent, I know, but this question's been on my mind of late. It just seems that Tolkien had some strange ideas about power, and grace. That Frodo ultimately yields and claims the Ring for his own, even at the edge of ruin for everything... well, what does this imply but that evil is something no heart can resist, that without grace, without someone there to bite your finger and fall in the magma, we'd all be lost? That's not necessarily invalid... the frame of things may indeed be structured thus... but it seems to go against all the traditional morals Tolkien would claim to believe in, absolving us all of any culpability for claiming the Ring of Power. Grace will take care of it. But then, why not just have Gandalf (or Galadriel) overthrow the Dark Lord, then let grace take care of it?
Interesting.
We know that the One Ring confers great power, that one of sufficient strength who wields it can, in theory, not only rival Sauron but completely overthrow him. The hitch, it's said, is that then you'll just take Sauron's place---that Gandalf, had he used the Ring, would have then become Sauron in some other guise. No one really questions this, except Boromir (of course, fatally). Denethor has his doubts as well, but from a desperate position. But do they KNOW? "Because Tolkien said so" isn't really an answer.
The problem, it seems, is a certain contradiction at the heart of the story. However much Tolkien professed against allegory, it can be said, broadly, that the Ring represents a certain form of absolute power. To seize tyrannical powers to throw down the tyrant as currently standing, the argument seems to go, is to be no better than your foe, and to simply perpetuate evil. But the climax of the Third Age all hinges on Aragon taking the throne as High King, to govern all Gondor and Arnor, all the realm of old. In other words, the Men of the West hardly mean to set up an anarcho-syndalicist commune, to reference Monty Python. Aragon will rule as an absolute monarch.
"But," it will be said, "it all depends on your intention. Aragon means to lead men well, not subjugate them." Well, I'm sure that's true, and I'm not here to dump on monarchy---it has many merits, and is probably far nobler (in the right hands) than our current system. But the point is, Aragorn's after power. Power is understood here to be a good thing, to provide law and order, and finally peace. So then, why NOT use the Ring?
Presumably the Ring is under some spell of inherent evil, that whatever it does will wreak destruction, no matter what the intention at first. Let's say that's true, even though there's a lack of evidence. First of all, nobody's tried it---Isiildur lost it far too soon, and the only others to bear it were hobbits. And if Minas Ithil can become Minas Morgul, far removed from the beauty of its original structure, and Elves can be turned into Orcs, then why not the Ring into good? But alright, let's say in Tolkien's world (which is mythic, and so different from ours; it's ultimately his call)---even still, there's something unsettling here, some apparent contradiction and flip-flop. One can sympathize with Denethor's outrage that instead of being kept safe from Sauron, the Ring is sent into Mordor carried by hobbits. Yes, it all worked out in the end, but that by a million strokes of good luck. Tolkien would call it providence, and I suppose it is. But to risk the lives of everything in Middle-earth by trusting to providence rather than master your soul enough to govern wisely... this is strange.
Some of what I've said is a bit incoherent, I know, but this question's been on my mind of late. It just seems that Tolkien had some strange ideas about power, and grace. That Frodo ultimately yields and claims the Ring for his own, even at the edge of ruin for everything... well, what does this imply but that evil is something no heart can resist, that without grace, without someone there to bite your finger and fall in the magma, we'd all be lost? That's not necessarily invalid... the frame of things may indeed be structured thus... but it seems to go against all the traditional morals Tolkien would claim to believe in, absolving us all of any culpability for claiming the Ring of Power. Grace will take care of it. But then, why not just have Gandalf (or Galadriel) overthrow the Dark Lord, then let grace take care of it?
Interesting.
