Forever?

[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?