Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
It is not that the Ring lacks in evilness so much as it lacks in capacity to achieve absolute evil. Because I'm a professional nitpicker, I would therefore distinguish between absolute evil and complete evil. The Ring, in my opinion is not absolute evil but rather complete evil. There is nothing good about the Ring*, but it is not absolutely evil because it does not have the capacity to effect that much evil--and not only because it cannot grant power equivalent to that possessed by Manwë or (formerly) Melkor, but because it has to GRANT evil. The Ring is an evil tool, but it is not as evil as it could be because it cannot effect its will alone. Granted, it does seem to have a will of itself, which is why it is substantially more evil than other tools capable of producing evil, but it is not capable of evil action on its own, but requires assistance--assistance in proportion to whoever is wielding it; greater in the case of Galadriel or Gandalf, less in the case of Sam or Gollum.
|
I would agree with
Formendacil (and the instances he noted) that the One Ring is not an Absolute Evil, particularly since it did effect good consequences in some limited aspects of the story, such as when invisibility saved Bilbo from Gollum, Orcs and spiders, or when Sam appeared as a great warrior Elf. Granted, these instances were merely a by-product of the Ring's power and not its primary function; however, even these limited aspects allowed for 'good' to eventually prevail over 'evil', and therefore there cannot be an 'absolute' appellation attached to it.
In addition, Frodo could still show compassion and mercy while in possession of the Ring; a Ring exhibiting the characteristics of 'absolute evil' would override such virtuous thoughts immediately, or at least confound such feelings on a greater level much sooner.