Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

It's likely since he was already a thief before the Ring was ever found. Gollum was already corrupt. The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

[alatar]

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Nice post, davem. But what of PJ's Gollum?

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them. The point of the Ring in the book is that its both the most powerful & the weakest thing in M-e - if you claim it & use it its the most powerful thing. If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The others who fell to the temptation of the Ring, lusting after it, were Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (were there others?); it may be argued that whereas they had moral weaknesses, they had not yet, when they discovered that the Ring existed, committed any deeds of moral failure.

Then again, their situation is not comparable, since they were not in the vicinity of the ring when they discovered that it existed. Furthermore, I didn't say all the others lusted, only that they were susceptible to lust - given the rather irresistible possessiveness the ring inspired. That Gollum was already weakened further takes some of his blame away; he was not in the same situation of dealing with the ring as a normal person would have been, and he did not take the road of petty theft aware of the deadly threat it would open him to. Should we all know the consequences of our small evils, our guardian angels would likely be less busy.

Originally Posted by davem

If you ignore it, leave it by the wayside (as Faramir put it) its powerless. In Tolkien's M-e you can make a moral choice not to claim it, & therefore it can gain no hold on you. It only has power over those who succumb to it. Anyone 'taken over' by the Ring has made a choice to be taken over - even Frodo right at the end has chosen to claim the Ring, though at that point he is so weakened & psychologically vulnerable that it was almost (but only almost) inevitable.

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

Originally Posted by Shadow of the past, FotR

If [a mortal] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he_ fades:_ he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last – sooner or later the dark power will devour him.

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

If you imply that one can have the ring and not be influenced by it, simply by not claiming it, I disagree. After Gandalf says that

From Gandalf's own words, even he would succumb to the ring, due to his pity and desire to use it for good (not out of lust for the ring itself).

No - I imply that one is free to reject it altogether - refuse to have it at all, even if that means inevitable defeat. If one rejects it (like Faramir) one is not tempted by it & will not succumb to it. Even if one bears it one does not have to surrender to it - though it becomes increasingly difficult not to. Gandalf & Galadriel refuse to take it because they feel they would eventually succumb & use it, but they would still have a choice in the matter. They just don't trust themselves to have it & not use it in extremis.

[Raynor]

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Your post is somewhat equivocal, davem. Don't you agree with Gandalf that anyone would eventually succumb to the dark power of the ring, regardless of one's moral nature?

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm saying that surrender to the Ring must be a willed act, but the longer ones bears the ring the harder it will be not to surrender to it. The Ring cannot overwhelm an unwilling victim, but it can wear the bearer (or those in the vicinity of the Ring) down to the point where that surrender is almost inevitable.

But we're back to the Boethian/Manichaen dichotomy here. If an individual can be made evil against their will, rather than making a conscious decision to surrender to it this calls in to question the nature & power of evil in M-e. I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writing anything that can support that. Individuals can be corrupted by evil but they must surrender to it to some degree - otherwise we must see the evil individuals in the story as victims of a force beyond themselves & thus as having no capacity for repentance - but even the worst characters are offered the opportunity to repent. The opportunity to choose is a central theme of the books.

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will. Anyway, I think Tolkien addressed the question of overpowering evil:

Originally Posted by Letter #191

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree. By this reasoning, Gandalf would become evil by will.

And how is this different from Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman - none of them were evil in the beginning. ?

I'm not saying he would become instantly 'evil' - as Shippey points out, it would begin by his using the Ring to enhance his power to do good, then the temptation to cut corners would grow, & eventually he would simply do whatever he liked. CT, in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait, points out Gandalf would eventually become worse than Sauron, because he would be 'self-righteous'.