[J.R.R. Tolkien] Why Lord of the Rings?

[Tar-Palantir]

No. You are arguing with MY image, as such - you are arguing with the master, quite silly indeed.

But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

You make my own case Legolas - the Ring would have been the master in the end. Hmmm.. dare I even call it "Lord"? In case you failed to notice, I said "corruption aside". Perhaps I should not have called those others possible Lords of the Ring - but they possessed the capacity to wield it - not necessarily for good. The Ring is evil certainly, but that is not at debate.

No where in the quote you provided does it say that the Ring would have found it's way back to Sauron, that only he could wield it's power. It only says corruption would take place even through the desire to do good.

I can see the other side of the coin most assuredly, while you are obviously 100% certain. Bully for you, but let me reiterate - this is MY view only, I was not trying to sway anybody one way or the other. You are trying to stifle my apparently illogical view of something that is very open for interpretation. Very open.

I feel like saying it again - so I will: I enjoy thinking of it this way, it increases my pleasure.

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]