Forever?

[HerenIstarion]

Obviously the person's, the gun didn't pull the trigger by itself

But suppose gun was taunting the person with something along the 'shoot me, it would be so nice to shoot me, it will settle all difficulties right once you shoot me...' sort of whisper previous to actual pulling of the trigger?

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

Frodo, is person free from sin, i.e. already redeemed. And redeemed do not feel guilt - their guilt is over as their sins are cleansed.

Well, that depends whether you see Frodo's journey into the West as going to Heaven or going to Pugatory. If its to Purgatory (even in the Earthly Paradise) then he hasn't been completely purified by his experiences in the world. The journey to Mordor was like the Workhouse in Niggle, the West is like his time in Niggle's Parish - still a learning & purificatory experience - & his final passing beyond the circles of the World will happen when his freedom from both his earthly sufferings & his guilt resulting from them, have been attained - like Niggle passing beyond the Mountains.

[Lalwendë]

So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen (Frodo does leave Sam, this is sad and an 'evil' necessity to him).

In HoME Vol. 12 you can find The New Shadow, a story which Tolkien attempted to draft, set 100 years after the death of Aragorn. Tolkien never finished the tale, yet to attempt it, he acknowledged that ‘evil’ was still very much a real presence in Middle Earth. Tolkien said of the story:

…almost certainly a restlessness would appear about then, owing to the (it seems) inevitable boredom of Men with the good; there would be secret societies practising dark cults, and ‘orc cults’ among adolescents

Tolkien here himself says that there is potential evil in the hearts of men, that they may turn away from ‘the good’. It is a negative view of humankind, but then this is seemingly the way of things; Tolkien lived through a century of alternating peace and war, seeing his generation slaughtered and hurt, almost for nothing. So too was Frodo harmed almost for nothing, certainly for nothing of immediate benefit to Frodo; he did not return to the Shire to live as a war hero, he was broken, and his only succour was to leave his home altogether.

that depends whether you see Frodo's journey into the West as going to Heaven or going to Pugatory

He is indeed travelling to a kind of Purgatory. In the films I see Frodo’s departure portrayed as a very sad event, I agree with this, but it is also seen as something of a ‘privilege’ that he goes on the Elven ship to the West, whereas in reality, it is his only choice, it is no ‘gift’, but a necessity. And I say it is portrayed as a blessing to Frodo to go into the West, as others have told me that this is how they read the events in the film. I think that in the films, by necessity, a focus was placed upon the ring as an absolute tool of evil, and thus it does appear that it is the ring, and the ring only, which is the undoing of Frodo, when really it has worked in a more subtle way, by working on what potential is already within Frodo (and Gollum and Bilbo).

I'm not persuaded - I'm inclined to view the case of Frodo as an exeption - his utterances during his crises are not of self-blame, but of thirst, desire - he misses the Ring.

Yes, Frodo does miss the ring; he misses his dark and dreadful joy, and his ‘precious’. He is empty without it, but he is also shattered by possessing it.

I very much enjoyed Pullman's trilogy, but I did feel that, ultimately, he failed credibly to portray the massive (parallel) universe-wide war that he sought to depict. And it is there that I think that his trilogy suffers in comparison with LotR, rather than on any theological issue.

How Pullman worked on me was to show a world/worlds where the soul is disregarded; I found them immensely complex and still cannot decide the true meaning of them - yet they left me feeling utterly bereft and without hope. But yes, something fell down towards the end of the books - I shall say no more in case there are those who wish to read them without spoilers.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

How Pullman worked on me was to show a world/worlds where the soul is disregarded; I found them immensely complex and still cannot decide the true meaning of them - yet they left me feeling utterly bereft and without hope. But yes, something fell down towards the end of the books - I shall say no more in case there are those who wish to read them without spoilers.

It will be interesting to see how the movies handle the concept of 'evil', as Pullman seemed to me not have one. His 'philosophy' as displayed at the end in the dream of 'building the republic of Heaven' seemed (sorry) silly - how can you 'build' (construct) a metaphysical concept? He seemed to be confused about the whole thing. His position seems to be simply that organised religion is 'a bad thing' & that we'll all be happier without it.

I know this seems like I'm back on my anti-Pullman soapbox, but where I'm going with this is that Tolkien's understanding & portrayal of evil is, for me, far more grown up than Pullman's. But having said that it seems to me to correspond with Jackson's. Pullman doesn't seem to have any 'evil' character's in the sense of people who have chosen evil knowingly - they all seem to be either beaurocrats (sp?) or flawed 'idealists' who are doing what they think is best but sometimes getting it wrong. Maybe its this belief that leads Pullman to believe that we can make everything lovely if we really try & constrct Heaven out of bricks & mortar. Tolkien clearly didn't have the luxury of such a utopian belief, because once you've experienced true evil (as opposed to having read about it in Blake & Milton) you can't pretend it can be swept away if everyone will just be nice to each other.

[Boromir88]

Originally posted by H-I:
But suppose gun was taunting the person with something along the 'shoot me, it would be so nice to shoot me, it will settle all difficulties right once you shoot me...' sort of whisper previous to actual pulling of the trigger?

If that is the situation, then it would have qualities of the Ring. Ok, say this talking gun's wish is for somebody to pull the trigger and the Ring just wants to get back to Sauron. Well, the Ring can't just roll it's way into Mordor, it's got to be found, and somebody has to bring it to him. Again, the gun just can't pull the trigger, somebody's got to do it. And if we have this gun saying "pull me, pull me," you still have a choice, it just gets harder because now you have this voice telling you to pull it. Just like the Ring, maybe saying to Frodo "Don't destroy me, I will give you riches, power, women...etc" whatever, but he still had a choice to drop it or not.

The External Evils (The Ring and the gun) and as already said, they do play an effect, if you have this things whispering "do it, do it" or for the Ring's case "don't do it, don't do it," it definately makes your internal struggle of good and evil a lot harder. I think in the Ring's case, everyone would have done what Frodo did, if they were stuck in his spot. The thing is the person still has the choice to do it or not. As we have seen many times, people are able to resist the Ring, so it's a question of that internal good vs. evil battle within everybody. Notice Faramir called Boromir's madness on Amon Hen a "trial." A trial, meaning it's decision time, you're convicted or you are not. In Boromir's instance it's he either tries to take the Ring, or he is able to overcome it. If there is a choice in the matter then it's a "trial" of good vs evil, we all face in our hearts. To do the right thing, or the wrong thing.

I think if Sam was stuck in Frodo's spot he too wouldn't have thrown it in. I think if Gandalf carried the Ring from the Shire to Mount Doom, he might not have made it to Mount Doom, he might have tried to sieze control of it even before getting there. The Ring is a very good manipulator, and I don't see anybody being able to drop it in the fire, but there's still that choice, it just so happens in this case "internal" evil wins out over the "internal" good.

Let's look at another very good manipulator, Saruman. Now, Saruman is in no way the type of persuader the Ring is, but still when you hear the voice of Saruman, one has a choice, to hear it and be swayed by it, or to reject it. In The Voice of Saruman Chapter there are those who fall to his voice (Rohirrim Riders and I believe Merry and Pippin find it rather odd that Theoden denied Saruman) But there are those who aren't swayed by it (Gimli, Theoden, Eomer). So, it's all a question of the internal struggle, good vs. evil, whether you do or don't. It just so happens that the Ring is a much better manipulator and in the internal struggle of good vs. evil, evil wins out, and very well could win out 99% of the time.

When you are talking about manipulation and corruption it's this external power (A voice or an object) enforcing it's will against the internal will of another. Anytime when dealing with manipulation one can simply say no, the manipulator can't force you to listen to him, he can only try to "persuade" you. The external manipulator (A voice or object) can affect the outcome of the internal battle. However, when it comes down to it, once that persuader's voice is done babbling, it's up to the person, then the internal struggle begins.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien clearly didn't have the luxury of such a utopian belief, because once you've experienced true evil (as opposed to having read about it in Blake & Milton) you can't pretend it can be swept away if everyone will just be nice to each other.

Very true - while reading HDM I got the impression that Pullman was exceedingly well read in Milton and Blake, and in works of theology, but that he, like most of the rest of us, had shifting perceptions as to the meanings of those texts. And it takes someone who has truly experienced horror to express it most effectively. Tolkien is not alone on this either, there are many writers out there who went through sufferings, and you can tell this is true when you read their work.

As to constructing the Republic of Heaven - one side of me gets the impression from the books that this in itself was seen as an impossibility, or even an oxymoron. To have no God is to have no Heaven, so how can it be done? But another side of me sees that the Republic of Heaven means a heaven without a God, but with God as a concept. Almost the democratising of the soul as it were. By which I mean, that there is no one God, but many concepts of God. Argh! This is why I liked the books - I can't explain them; they befuddle and fascinate me at the same time. Plus, into all of this, Pullman threw concepts of quantum physics and dark matter, topics I should possibly ru away from but which I can't help spending a lot of time thinking about.

I think Pullman's evil is in the 'system'. This is a concept I can understand if not necessarily always accept. The Magisterium reminds me of our own dear Government, issuing edicts from on high about how we ought to modify our behaviour.And we do live in a godless society, something which alarms me. Not because I am in favour of organised religion - if people want one then that is their personal choice and I thoroughly respect that - but because I live in fear that our society is being turned into a nightmare of 'profitability' 'usefulness' and 'products'.

Nor can I spell beauracrat and I am one...but I can spell antidisestablishmentarianism.

When you are talking about manipulation and corruption it's this external power (A voice or an object) enforcing it's will against the internal will of another. Anytime when dealing with manipulation one can simply say no, the manipulator can't force you to listen to him, he can only try to "persuade" you. The external manipulator (A voice or object) can affect the outcome of the internal battle. However, when it comes down to it, once that persuader's voice is done babbling, it's up to the person, then the internal struggle begins

Very good points, and also slightly disturbing, especially if you consider the actions of some soldiers during war. They are given orders to do X, and if they do Y then they are breaking orders and will be disciplined; even the threat of facing death themselves. This is the voice of an external 'evil' working on the internal 'evil' of our instinct to survive, not to be beaten by our 'officer' if you will. It often makes me wonder how and why soldiers do what they do when faced with such dilemmas, and it also disturbs me if I think about that too much, as the possibility comes up that sometimes, they might want to do the thing which their higher conscience would tell them is wrong.

[Boromir88]

We've been talking a lot about the evil form of manipulation, with the Ring, but what about "good manipulation?" (Gandalf). Gandalf uses his own ways of manipulation and actually prevails.

First instance-Bag End, Bilbo. Bilbo wants to hold onto the Ring, Gandalf is that external power telling Bilbo to let it go, and he convinces Bilbo to let go the "evil."

Second instance-Amon Hen. The Eye (Sauron) and the Voice (Gandalf) battle within Frodo, so this is Frodo's own internal battle, good and evil represents the Voice and The Eye. As Davem points out Frodo see's himself as neither, but as his own person, and with this matter, he sort of is "on the fence," as he decides he's neither, but his own person.

Third instance-Theoden. Theoden's mind is overthrown (or very close to being overthrown) and Gandalf, again the external power, telling Theoden to listen, Theoden does, and he is renewed.

Now Theoden son of Thengel, will you hearken to me?" said Gandalf. "Do you ask for help?" He lifted his staff and pointed to a high window. There the darkness seemed to clear, and through the opening could be seen, high and far, a patch of shining sky. "Not all is dark. Take courage, Lord of the Mark; for better help you will not find. No counsel have I to give to those that despair. Yet counsel I could give, and words I could speak to you. Will you hear them? They are not for all ears. I bid you come out before your doors and look abroad. Too long have you sat in shadows and trusted to twisted tales and crooked promptings."

Gandalf uses his own form of manipulation, this external voice, to get across to Theoden. Theoden decides to listen to Gandalf and you know the rest of the story. Where I'm trying to go is "manipulation" seems like it's such a bad term, but could be used for good purposes. When you think about it, what Gandalf does is the same to what the other "manipulators (The Ring and Saruman) do, it's just he manipulates for a good reason. Or maybe, manipulation is too strong a word for what Gandalf does, would persuasive work?