Split Personality?

[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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, if we define evil as you did:

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

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job. The problem was he thought Sauron is evil, I'm fighting Sauron, therefore I must be good.

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.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

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

Which is the point I'm making. Self assessment is irrelevant. Saruman, it could be argued, never thought of himself as 'evil' - & neither would Gandalf if he'd taken the Ring.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job.

I disagree; it may have suited what he (re)designed as good, but he wasn't that far down the road to not be aware that what he did contradicted his initial mission, to not use power, but to help. He sees himself entitled to break light and tarnish white, just as he arrogated the right to renounce his mission.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

Well, because this case involves a lot of self-deceiving, convincing himself that what he does is still some type of newly defined good. It is not forced from the outside upon him (which would be the case with Gandalf struggling with the ring), but he "forces" it, to a certain extent, upon himself - as long as he has a remnant of consciousness and morality.

[alatar]

Note that, logically - at least to me - no item can make one become evil without some intent on the part of the actor. Could just touching the Ring make one evil? If that were true, why didn't Sauron mount the One Ring on a pole and swing it around, touching all those that assailed him - like sowing dragon's teeth that'd be.

And if that were possible, then couldn't the converse be possible? Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur? Sauron, after touching it, would be planting daisies.

***

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

[littlemanpoet]

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

I'm thinking here of the CoH review in the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450

Here the fallen archangel and the dragon organise the doom that the defiant Húrin must watch helplessly, which culminates in his son and daughter unknowingly marrying one another. Is Túrin right to call himself “master of doom”? He continues defiant, and kills the dragon; but when he and his sister separately learn the truth, they both kill themselves. Tolkien offers no judgement on this; but in The Lord of the Rings Túrin is known as one of the great heroes, “the mighty Elf-friends of old”.

The Lord of the Rings is silent about his story, but its own centre might be called equally dark. Providence arranges for Frodo to bear a temptation so strong that in the end he must give way. But he endures for long enough to ensure that, when he does give in, the world can still be saved (by his dark other self destroying itself — he himself is too much damaged to go on living in the world).

It would be more reassuring to believe that God never allows us to face a temptation that we are unable to endure; but Tolkien’s view looks uncomfortably realistic.

Of course, this perhaps takes the thread off topic, but if we only had CoH from Tolkien would we take a different message from Tolkien about the nature of evil? The most interesting thing to me about CoH is that there is no Ring to either claim or reject.

Or what about this one http://www.sfreviews.net/tolkien_children_of_hurin.html

The Children of Húrin draws an impressive balance between the modern and the classical. Darker and less redemptive by light-years than The Lord of the Rings, its story is unutterably sad, but viscerally powerful in the way literature's greatest tragedies have been. And Alan Lee's peerless art — the color plate of Glaurung between pages 224-25 is beyond Hugo-worthy — enhances the story's sense of consequence. Perhaps a book better read by those already a little deeper into Tolkien than casual fans who picked up the trilogy in the wake of the movies, The Children of Húrin is an impassioned exercise in mythmaking, a story that cuts to the darkness within its hero, to find a frightened child.

Is Turin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault - or is it simply a 'fault' - is it some inner 'darkness'/evil'? How different is Boromir to Turin - is it the Ring which corrupts him, or is the Ring equivalent to Morgoth's curse?

Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

How about starting a new thread in Books on this so that anybody who's interested in this particular aspect can find it without having to dig 6 pages into a movie thread on Split Personality?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Could just touching the Ring make one evil?

I certainly doubt it. Given Gandalf's words, it would take a rather long time, especially if one's nature is good and moral.

Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur?

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

I agree.

Originally Posted by lmp

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole. I guess it comes down to this: Tolkien was a master at holding in tension such things as evil, as well as many other things that modern minds tend to pick apart and take sides on. It's part of what he's doing to build myth in LotR. .... and to keep this on the movie topic, it's something that Jackson just seems to have had no inkling of, because the movie consistently interprets the book by splitting up these unities.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole.

I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements. I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.

I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos.

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.

As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by alatar

I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos.

Wise words from a wise man . With power comes responsibility .

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.