Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Just a wild suggestion: maybe Tolkien saw what tickled the intellectuals in Germany during the twenties and thirties and how "right" they were in calling for conservative and nationalistic values (which Tolkien shared) in comparison to the technologically driven capitalism of the US & GB at one hand and collectivism of the Soviet Union (which both Tolkien as well disliked) on the other hand? But still, in the midst of that he was able to see that a kind of aristocratic system or revolution that could fight agaisnt those two great wheels of history would betray their children in the end anyway even if it was just trying to defend the "good things" against the "evil"? So, to become a Gandalf or Galadriel one should resist the temptation to try and mold the world towards the good with power?
Heh, I'm probably babbling right now... Let's see if I can make sense of what I'm trying to say tomorrow.  |
Okay, it took me more than one reading and at first I probably understood your post completely wrong, but I believe I got it right in the end.
Anyway, I am not sure if I think Tolkien's thought would be like this, or not so specifically aimed as this, as the thing you mention is just one particular aspect derived from what I believe is more complex point behind the story.
If I were to speak for myself, the story of the Ring had for me always much deeper and much more general points in this aspect. Simply saying that power itself never achieves the victory, if one uses it as a path to some goal, because the path matters as much as the goal does. And that's what is always forgotten and what keeps being forgotten all the time, and that's what the Ring-bearing Gandalf or Galadriel would forget. That's what Saruman
did forget (even if he remained true to his goal, to get M-E rid of the threat of Sauron): "We can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means." Which was exactly why Gandalf refused. Many would not agree. But it is obvious that it works like that, even if we look at examples from our own history - no real victory, no real freedom in matters comes if it is not mutually approved and wished for by everybody and not forced upon them, even if that were "for the greater good" or "for their own good". And that is exactly why the real changes come so slowly, so slow that often one feels like "now I would just put the Ring on and change it in an instance". And that's why this "Gandalf-ish" and "Galadriel-ish" question of the Ring is actual even now and all the time on. And it's too easy to fool oneself and say "I would never succumb" and put the Ring on to use it.