Thanks for all the responses!
Quote:
"isn't it a bit artificial to make a distinction between the power of
the Ring over one who bears it and the desire for the Ring on the part of one who sees or hears of it? Both stem from the power of the Ring and what it represents to the "corruptee""
|
I agree I'm probably splitting hairs, but I disagree that the desire
For the Ring stems from the power of the Ring. I can easily imagine substituting some other major heirloom or powerful weapon and having the same response from the characters who were drawn to the ring without having touched it.
Quote:
Desire for the Ring corrupts the soul.
The Ring causes you to desire it.
Therefore, the Ring corrupts the soul.
|
I appreciate the syllogism Burrahobbit, but question the minor premise.
Are you saying the ring inspires desire or actively instigates it?
Quote:
It didn't have as much effect, the simpler the person was. With Sam to
Tom Bombadil for example, it had less effect.
|
This is an interesting thought to ponder. The ring did certainly
effect Sam as long as he wore it, but didn't appear to have had a lasting
influence.
I’ve been mulling over what has been said and want to pose an additional inquiry.
Which do you hold to be true:
The Ring is an in inanimate object and a powerful tool of Sauron.
The Ring is a powerful servant of Sauron.
The Ring is has an independent will.
Or is there another view I’ve missed.
As you can probably guess, I choose the first statement.
[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: Hilde Bracegirdle ]