Split Personality?

[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'.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What I believe the difference to be is that they took that path willingly, they wanted to be/become/do evil, it wasn't an undesired side effect of one of their choices, while Gandalf would still be motivated by good intentions and would succumb to corruption against his will.

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil - he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means - everything Gandalf reports of their speech together confirms that.

And it all depends how you define 'evil' Gandalf, as CT states, would become 'self-righteous', ordering things 'for the greater good' - & he would decide what that 'greater good' would mean & no-one would have any choice but to go along with it.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates. Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable. Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means. Sam's vision, of turning Mordor into a garden, would be an evil act, as would Galadriel's dream of turning the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien. Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Agreed Davem.

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side (PJ and several obtuse critics don't see any difference between the contending armies except one is uglier). No, Evil in Tolkien ultimately is about Selfishness, and Pride of the sort which gives selfishness full reign. Even Celebrimbor and the wielders of the Three share in this to a limited extent.

Saruman and a corrupted Gandalf would have forced Middle-earth and its peoples into their own mold, 'for their own good.' We are told that even Sauron began this way, honestly desiring order and reconstruction. Goodness knows Tolkien wrote the LR in the shadow of just such mentalities, ones that began with positive economic reforms, but which devolved into an ideologies of Death for all dissenters. The logic of the French Revolution (and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, and...): once you've created a government the people 'deserve', you decide the 'people' aren't good enough for the government*- better start lopping heads.

Denethor and Boromir fall into the conceptual trap by buying into the notion that Sauron is Evil simply because he's on the Other Side. This is of course a form of selfish pride, or solipsism- I am the Good Guy by definition; ipso facto the Enemy is Evil (sound familiar?) They've lost track of the fact that Sauron is evil because he represents compulsion and tyranny, prevailing by bulldozing opposition. The Ring is a Sauronian mechanism, its power consists in enabling the user to Do as Sauron Would Do.


*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no evidence that Saruman wanted to become evil

Well, if we define evil as you did:

'Evil' is not a thing in itself but a corruption of good, where self aggrandisement, lust for power & contempt for other wills dominates

then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.

he was corrupted by the belief that the end justifies the means

I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.

Gandalf would not 'choose evil' because evil is not a plain & simple thing which is easily identifiable.

I disagree; omniscience is not required in order to stay on the moral path:

Originally Posted by Note to Melkor/Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

Gandalf would choose, as I said, to cut corners, over-rule others, focus on the end rather than the means.

But these are certainly evil acts, in breach of the mission he received.

Did Saruman actually consider himself evil?
...
Gandalf would become 'evil' of his own free will, but like the others he would not necessarily consider what he chose to be 'evil'.

Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.

Originally Posted by WCH

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side

I disagree; evil has all those aspects in Ea. It is physical, in the form of the Marring. It is an ideology, in the sense already defined by davem, which I quoted above. It is also a side - Tolkien had no problem seeing that way, when he talked about Bombadil, for example:

Originally Posted by Letter #144

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on