Flaws in Lord of the Rings... Yes in the book.

[Imladris]

They are absolute, satanic evil! Because they want to dominate the world!

Not really. What makes these people "evil" is what they did to people under their rule and the terms that you used really refer to only Hitler and Sauron (I don't recall hearing that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are termed as evil). What Hitler and Sauron did was terrible: they massacred innocent people. That's what made them evil. -- that's why they are termed evil. It's not because they wanted to dominate the world.

quote: The lesson is not that power is evil, merely that the evil of power is evil, which goes without saying.

I think I understood that... maybe... I guess in that way it makes sense. But the way Tolkien portrays it just screams "Power is evil! Stay away from it! And evil is evil, there is no second side to it!" Those critics that compare the ring with nuclear weapons are making this a lot worse too.

This is my two cent's worth: Tolkien did not think that power in and of itself is evil. The power of the elves and of the Three Rings clearly attest to that. In fact, I fail to see why you think he screams that power is evil. If Tolkien thought that anything was evil it would be technology (this theory clearly pervades the books). I think what Tolkien was trying to drive at was that power could be used for good or for evil: The elves used there's for good, and Sauron used his for evil.

It's the definition of good and evil in LOTR that makes it 2D.

So what is your definition of good and evil?
Let's hear it from good old Mr. Webster, shall we?

Evil: 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

I know that "morally bad and wrong" and "wickedness" is relative but I'm sure we can agree that murder and stealing and betrayal are morally wrong, which is what Sauron has done. Regardless of that, I'm sure that Sauron fits these four definitions of "evil".

How about good?

Good: Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor: a good experience; good news from the hospital.

1. Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing: a good exterior paint; a good joke.

Worthy of respect; honorable: ruined the family's good name.

Attractive; handsome: good looks.

As you can see, this also fits the good guys. What you are basically saying is that we have a flat 2d definition of good and evil. Goodness, we are a boring society aren't we?

quote: We see a good, righteous kind of power at work in Imladris and Lorien

And what distinguishes that beside the fair appearance and the author's words?

We don't really know much about the elves. What we do know is that they were seekers of knowledge and that they avoided human affairs. We also know that they did not murder innocent civilians, did not ravage the countryside, and that they were lovers of nature. Now imagine dingy huts for Imladris and Lorien, haggard hags and old men for elves. Yet, even though they are not fair in appearance, these ugly people are doing the same as the fair elves of Lorien. According to the definition above, how is that still evil? Now, I am not saying that there were not "evil" individual elves. I'm sure that every elf had his faults. What I am saying is that the elvish nation as a whole are good.

You said or agreed that Eowyn was flat. She is not: she is bitter, she is sad, she loves her father, she has a hopeless crush upon Aragorn and she must learn to look past the ambition and to look at the character. She learns to do this and thus marries Faramir. That is hardly flat or 2d.

I believe this has rambled on enough, so I add just a parting word. When I say that a nation is good or evil, I am referring to the nation as a whole, not individual members of that race.

Cheers!
Istawen