It's not just about having the power...

[Lalwendë]

If you want a perfect example of how, in Tolkien's world, merely exercising your rights or your power is not the best choice, you only have to look to Aragorn.

When entering Meduseld he wants to exercise his rights and take his weapons in, but Gandalf advises him not to do this. Aragorn could do it, and he wanted to do it, but luckily he listened to Gandalf and was instead respectful.

Much later, presumably once he has learned his lessons, he is much more cautious about entering Minas Tirith and just going "Ey up! The King is back!" He waits until he can be accepted as King. What he does is basically use consensus politics. He does not just want to rule because he has won that right or has a divine right to do so, but because the people want him to. Makes for much more effective leadership.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

There's one thing, that I am not sure how much Gandalf was aware of his own superiority to Saruman in this aspect.

That's rather Gandalf all over, isn't it? Humility is one of his defining characteristics. When asked by Manwe himself to go on this mission, he declared himself too weak and fearful of Sauron to be of any use, yet Varda understood even then that he was "not the third" of the Istari -- and Tolkien goes out of his way to mention that Curumo/Saruman heard her remark, and remembered it. Gandalf is never one to put himself forward as a figure of power to be worshiped and revered, so I suspect that even while he knows and understands his own abilities, he doesn't crow about it because he knows there are always going to be others greater than he. He has self-esteem, but not the kind of pride that led Saruman, and others, to their doom. At the time of Gandalf's capture, Saruman was still the titular head of their order, and Gandalf may have felt that it was simply not his place to act directly against him and remove him from that position without some kind of direct permission. It appears that he was given that permission when he returned from death; indeed, it may have even been a direct order, which he regrets but nonetheless carries out.

[alatar]

When Gandalf is taken prisoner in Orthanc, I think that more is going on than what we read. Saruman sets Gandalf away as something of unknown value. He does not destroy Gandalf (even if he could) as Gandalf may have some information, or some other resource, that will be of use to Saruman, who, as we know, is ducking not only the White Council but also the Eye. Saruman has other more immediate tasks at hand, and so having it out with Gandalf may have to wait. This may be his rationale, as he truly knows that he cannot overcome Gandalf and remain unscathed (sans possessing the One).

Gandalf, having been in tight spots before, merely accepts his imprisonment. He is not sure if he can escape Orthanc, at least without risking killing Saruman, and although uncomfortable, he still is alive to fight another day. His fate may be to wait out the war, until either Sauron conquers or is vanquished. While he waits, surely he thinks of what he can do to aid the war. Or maybe he knows that his fate is not to rot atop Orthanc, and that this waiting on the sidelines is actually part of the bigger plan.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Nice points, everyone.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

At the time of Gandalf's capture, Saruman was still the titular head of their order, and Gandalf may have felt that it was simply not his place to act directly against him and remove him from that position without some kind of direct permission. It appears that he was given that permission when he returned from death; indeed, it may have even been a direct order, which he regrets but nonetheless carries out.

Now, yes, this is a very interesting idea, and I like it. In any case, this would be another example of this "not misusing the power", or maybe the most fitting description is "not using the power wilfully", quite similar to Lal's example of Aragorn in Minas Tirith.

Originally Posted by alatar

When Gandalf is taken prisoner in Orthanc, I think that more is going on than what we read. Saruman sets Gandalf away as something of unknown value. He does not destroy Gandalf (even if he could) as Gandalf may have some information, or some other resource, that will be of use to Saruman, who, as we know, is ducking not only the White Council but also the Eye.

Yup, the main value of Gandalf for Saruman was that he hoped he can get the information of the whereabouts of the Ring from him. When Gandalf refused to tell him, Saruman locked him up, I believe rather because that was the only "punishment" he could, or dared to execute at the moment, and not because he would hope to actually get any more information out of him. He probably hoped that maybe something could happen... also an unleashed Gandalf could have been a lot more dangerous than an imprisoned one, for sure. The more I think of it, the more I see Saruman's situation as desperate. It's just fascinating. And Saruman is a great character
Anyway... oh yes, there was one more thing I had in mind in connection to this. When the Black Riders came to Isengard (in the Unfinished Tales, the Hunt for the Ring, in all versions of the story), Saruman tried to use the presence of Gandalf as an "instrument of negotiation" - either to get information from him or to pretend he got information from him (or, in one version, to plead for Gandalf's help).

Originally Posted by alatar

Gandalf, having been in tight spots before, merely accepts his imprisonment. He is not sure if he can escape Orthanc, at least without risking killing Saruman, and although uncomfortable, he still is alive to fight another day. His fate may be to wait out the war, until either Sauron conquers or is vanquished. While he waits, surely he thinks of what he can do to aid the war. Or maybe he knows that his fate is not to rot atop Orthanc, and that this waiting on the sidelines is actually part of the bigger plan.

Indeed. But it's interesting to think what might have happened had Gandalf remained locked up inside Orthanc. Had Sauron launched his attack against the West and crossed the Anduin, he would have ultimately come to Isengard. Maybe Gandalf might have found a way to persuade Saruman... I am entertaining myself by this idea: with the Enemy on move, crossing Anduin and getting closer and closer to Isengard, Gandalf persuades Saruman to join forces with him, make the last effort and make the last stand against Sauron. Oh...

Originally Posted by skip spence

While I agree there was no wizard duel between the two I don't think that Gandalf allowed Saruman to imprison him because he thought it was the right thing to do. The way I see it he simply did not have a choice, not because Saruman was mightier than him, but rather because he was alone in the fastness of Orthanc, surrounded by thousands of armed servants of Saruman. Gandalf the Grey was indeed a deadly foe (and at times the aggressor too, at least against Orcs) but he could not take out armies all by himself.

Well, that's the question. I think it wasn't the necessity. Yes, I mentioned exactly this in my first post. But I believe (as I also outlined up there) it may not have been that hard for Gandalf to use some of his "magic" to get out of Isengard once he dealt with Saruman. Surely had he been determined to escape, at most he could use some "Voice of Gandalf" or unleash some horrible fire which would terrify the inhabitants - especially after he would have announced them that he had defeated their master. But the point is that this is the thing he wouldn't do. And speaking of that, he won't probably attack the guards either (as he said about Sauron, "I pity even his slaves", how more this would apply towards Saruman and some poor Dunlendings). And another thing is the intention - I don't believe Gandalf would do that even if there was only Saruman and no guards (like in the FotR movie).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Indeed. But it's interesting to think what might have happened had Gandalf remained locked up inside Orthanc. Had Sauron launched his attack against the West and crossed the Anduin, he would have ultimately come to Isengard. Maybe Gandalf might have found a way to persuade Saruman... I am entertaining myself by this idea: with the Enemy on move, crossing Anduin and getting closer and closer to Isengard, Gandalf persuades Saruman to join forces with him, make the last effort and make the last stand against Sauron. Oh...

Assume for the moment that the story plays out pretty much like it does, except that Gandalf stays atop Orthanc and Elrond sends Glorfindel in place of Gandalf (and Glorfindel knows how to take out a Balrog!). Anyway, Saruman would then be crazy to leave Orthanc to see if his Uruks were bringing hobbits to him. With Gandalf there, Saruman is then stuck in Orthanc. Could Saruman empty his holes to attack Helm's Deep when Gandalf is still there? What if Gandalf and Saruman slug it out, and Gandalf emerges victorious, as the White, smack-dab within Orthanc?

Regarding the Valar and Melkor: Maybe even the good Valar (Manwe et al) began to love the works of their hands more than obeying the will/mind/theme of Eru. Everyone downs Feanor for not yielding the Silmarils to heal the trees, but nobody (but me, but I don't like anybody ) faults the Valar for not smashing Arda if need be to remove the stain of Melkor.

Like I've said previously, Arda is as much a test for the Valar as it is for our kind.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Another interesting point to think about is the Ents. They are a bit of a mixed barrel when it comes to this debate. They have spent centuries, nay, millennia, wandering their forest, tending the trees, singing their long songs, and all along they had this power. This terrifying power that, ultimately, overthrew Saruman.

I've always admired Gandalf's approach and I agree whole heartedly with your theory, Legate. It was one thing that always nagged me about the way Gandalf was portrayed in the films. Throughout the book we find Gandalf as one unwilling to submit to the enemy in any way; this includes resorting to the enemy's way of doing things. Using his power to fight Saruman would make him no better than the forces he was trying to bring down.

The Ring is the ultimate example of this, I suppose. It is mentioned (I think it's in the Council of Elrond) that if one used the Ring to conquer Sauron, then that one would set him/her self up as a Dark Lord in his place. Galadriel's "in place of a Dark Lord" speech springs to mind. Among the many things the Ring can represent, the use of power to conquer, coerce and control is one of them, I think. Therefore, Gandalf refuses it. He knows that is not the way.

Coming back to the Ents (sorry, I got side tracked), they seem to be strange. They do use their strength and power to defeat Saruman. You may argue that they had every right to; he had destroyed their trees and used them to fuel his war machines. This is, I think, the point. The Ents could be seen as Saruman's greed coming to bite him in the behind. He uses the trees to further his power, and ultimately, it is those very tools, as it were, that come to bring him down.

I am also reminded of Gandalf's discussion with Denethor about The Ring. When the steward reveals his mind (or some of it) to Gandalf, regarding The One, the Wizard replies "I don't trust you". Knowing that the Ring's power is to destroy and to conquer, he does not trust anyone with it. Not even Himself.

It's rather a lot like the passage in The Bible where, upon being arrested, Jesus tells one of his disciples that he could call down legions of Angels to aid him, but he doesn’t. Real power, as it were, is not about forcing and conquering.

Gandalf, speaking to Treebeard, seems to support his actions by suggesting that he 'doesn’t want to fill all the world with trees'. I find this interesting. It implies to me that The Ents were not defeating Saruman as much as putting a stop to his actions. Hence, he is not killed by them. They don't even attempt it. That's not what they're there to do.

To paraphrase Gandalf, it's foolish to deal out death and judgement; not even the very wise can see all ends. That's Sauron's way; death, destruction, conquest, the imposing of a will. Gandalf speaks for a way of peace and none violence. I happen to like that.

[Thinlómien]

This thread has developed to be even more interesting than it was in the beginning. Amazing.

Originally Posted by Legate

Hmm, while I agree with the former cases, I have to disagree on this one, as it's not quite in the position of "power" as the other ones. This was not the question of using or not using power, it was a question of giving or not giving up something. (And maybe even about giving up power - from certain point of view. Fëanor was unable to make the Silmarils again.) It would be the same question if Fëanor just had the power to revive the Trees with no loss for himself (for example, that he could do that repeatingly just like that), and not did that. But this way, I see it as something different.

A fair point, but now this got me thinking... about suffering personal losses. Fëanor didn't do the thing that would have cost him something personally. But if we take other examples, how do they relate to personal losses? Refusing to use the power is not always good for the characters' personal good. For example, Galadriel refuses to take the Ring and in that she accepts the diminishing of her power and the loss of her realm, and ultimately, gives up Middle-Earth itself. (Hey, wow, now this is very interesting, for it sets Galadriel and Fëanor - okay I know this is problematic an a little far-fetched but who cares - the two most powerful of the Noldor, in a nice comparison. Fëanor chooses personal good over common good and the result is bad. Galadriel chooses common good over personal good and the result is good. Wouldn't it work nicely? Now, the problem of course is that we cannot judge Galadriel's decision in such a black-and-white way, because it was also partly good for her personally not to take the immense burden on herself and also, it would have been kind of for the common good if she had taken the Ring and started to make things right. Ha, actually my "problem" sounds rather feeble. Maybe it's more black-and-white after all and we can make such a comparison? Interesting...) I see I got a bit carried away, but it's very interesting. I think there's a lot to explore in the relation between common good and personal good when it comes to using or not using the power...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Wow, brilliant thoughts indeed, Hookbill and Lommy!

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Throughout the book we find Gandalf as one unwilling to submit to the enemy in any way; this includes resorting to the enemy's way of doing things. Using his power to fight Saruman would make him no better than the forces he was trying to bring down.

The Ring is the ultimate example of this, I suppose. It is mentioned (I think it's in the Council of Elrond) that if one used the Ring to conquer Sauron, then that one would set him/her self up as a Dark Lord in his place. Galadriel's "in place of a Dark Lord" speech springs to mind. Among the many things the Ring can represent, the use of power to conquer, coerce and control is one of them, I think. Therefore, Gandalf refuses it. He knows that is not the way.

Truly. And you made me now to remember something. Last semester, I was bidden to write a short paper for one Ethics course which was supposed to ponder something "in some book or film we read or watched" from the point of view of some ethical problem. I picked (of course ) LotR, and I focused in particular on the topic of the Ring as a representation of a tool to gain ultimate power. I wonder whether I shouldn't try to translate the paper to English and post it here, as some thoughts from there would fit here. In any case, I will now quote a few things which seem good to point out from there (sorry for no smooth translation, I was translating "on the run"):

...Boromir... proposes that with the Ring the "Free lords of the free" should overpower Sauron. (...) Boromir may see the Ring as a tool to strenghten personal power for the sake of strenghtening the unity of different communities who would not defeat Dark Lord by force because of their disunity. I believe the author to transcend here the simple polarity of "empire of Good vs. empire of Evil" and to show that Boromir would de facto become a Dark Lord, in other words, a dictator for the sake of overthrowing the enemy, and the "free peoples", as they are often named in the book, would under his rulership cease to be free.
(...)
Saruman the Wizard, Gandalf's former ally and the leader of the council of the wizards represents the extreme position in the relation to the Ring, almost machiavellian. When Gandalf visits him with the pledge for help, he presents an unexpected offer: to join the Dark Lord, in whose defeat by the Free Peoples Saruman does not believe (after a very rational calculation); however his offer is not just forming an alliance - Saruman proposes that as "trusted friends" they could eventually earn the trust of the Dark Lord and thus influence his decisions; pity the losses on the way, but head for the goals they always wanted - knowledge and order, which they could not reach, because they lacked the power. (...) [Eventually proposing to take the Ring for themselves even without the Dark Lord] it's clear that Saruman does not hesitate to use the power as coercive measure, and whose goal is neither just social justice nor mere unity for the sake of defeating the enemy (which does not see behind the horizont of war, but does not ask the question whether the ruler who would possess the Ring, would after the end of the war give up his dictatorship without questioning); Saruman's vision is a smoothly running machinery of totalitary realm (...) such a machinery would possess the inner strength to withstand the Dark Lord, however Saruman does not take into account that his rulership would differ only a little from the rule of the Dark Lord (if ever).

Here I think is the key, and something I would like to point out, concerning the Ring: using the Ring, even for "common good" as Lommy mentioned, is something which ultimately ends bad. And now why, when surely Galadriel could have taken the Ring and "set the things to right"? Personally, this is just about the coercion. The use of power in this way - and the Ring here represents only a tool to make it fast. You could have as well made it so that Galadriel would make herself Queen of the Middle-Earth by other means. It would make no difference. But, at the moment of taking this absolute (note once again: absolute) power to "set the things right" on her own wilful intent, ultimately some trouble will arise which will be certainly for the bad. Which would be usurping the power. Which would be violating something. As with Boromir's proposal: The Free nations will no longer be Free.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Coming back to the Ents (sorry, I got side tracked), they seem to be strange. They do use their strength and power to defeat Saruman. You may argue that they had every right to; he had destroyed their trees and used them to fuel his war machines. This is, I think, the point. The Ents could be seen as Saruman's greed coming to bite him in the behind. He uses the trees to further his power, and ultimately, it is those very tools, as it were, that come to bring him down.

And indeed, isn't this also proved in the RL history? And this does not of course concern just power, but in fact, well, everything.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It's rather a lot like the passage in The Bible where, upon being arrested, Jesus tells one of his disciples that he could call down legions of Angels to aid him, but he doesn’t. Real power, as it were, is not about forcing and conquering.

Quite, quite. And speaking of the Bible, I would say the whole tale of the Ring, resp. the nature of the Ring is kind of a "meditation upon the subject of Jesus' temptation in the desert".

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

To paraphrase Gandalf, it's foolish to deal out death and judgement; not even the very wise can see all ends. That's Sauron's way; death, destruction, conquest, the imposing of a will. Gandalf speaks for a way of peace and none violence. I happen to like that.

And not only you

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

A fair point, but now this got me thinking... about suffering personal losses. Fëanor didn't do the thing that would have cost him something personally. But if we take other examples, how do they relate to personal losses? Refusing to use the power is not always good for the characters' personal good. For example, Galadriel refuses to take the Ring and in that she accepts the diminishing of her power and the loss of her realm, and ultimately, gives up Middle-Earth itself. (Hey, wow, now this is very interesting, for it sets Galadriel and Fëanor - okay I know this is problematic an a little far-fetched but who cares - the two most powerful of the Noldor, in a nice comparison. Fëanor chooses personal good over common good and the result is bad. Galadriel chooses common good over personal good and the result is good. Wouldn't it work nicely? Now, the problem of course is that we cannot judge Galadriel's decision in such a black-and-white way, because it was also partly good for her personally not to take the immense burden on herself and also, it would have been kind of for the common good if she had taken the Ring and started to make things right. Ha, actually my "problem" sounds rather feeble. Maybe it's more black-and-white after all and we can make such a comparison? Interesting...) I see I got a bit carried away, but it's very interesting. I think there's a lot to explore in the relation between common good and personal good when it comes to using or not using the power...

I actually think your comparison is not far-fetched at all and that it actually fits quite well and even more, the Fëanor-Galadriel comparison is more than fitting by itself, as these two are in a big contrast. Only if we take - also related to the topic of power - the reasons of their coming to Middle-Earth in the first place, while of course Fëanor was driven by the lust for revenge and regaining the Silmarils, they both had the intention to found their own realms in Middle-Earth. Especially Galadriel's tale I find just fascinating and very complex. I would not run about it in full here, but I will point out several interesting things: Galadriel's first idea was to have some realm to rule, to put it plainly. It's written just like that. When she came, she had to accept the position of a mere refugee, what more, she was one of the "accursed Noldor" in Thingol's realm, had there not been Melian, I can imagine she could have suffered worse fate of being expelled from Doriath etc. Yet still, at the end of the First Age, there's a new hope for her and she again has the chance to have her own realm in M-E. But again, this comes into ruin, and as at last she takes the realm of Lórien, it is not - I am sure - the way she imagined it; it's a small island lost in time and eventually slowly fading in the fading world, she "missed the train" (or the Age), the world is no longer the world of great Elven Kings and their realms, as Gil-Galad falls as the last. It is also noteworthy that neither she nor Celeborn adopt the titles of "King" or "Queen" of Lothlórien, but are merely called "Lord and Lady". And now the great paradox, funnily enough, at this very moment, when slowly she learns and then she ceases to desire for power at last, the Ruling Ring itself comes into her hands. I find this simply fascinating. She gets (in fact) everything she desired for in her "youth", or even more actually (rulership of the whole Middle-Earth if she took the Ring), yet only at the moment when in fact she does not want it anymore and the only thing she wishes for is so that all this could end and if there only was a ship to bring her back to the West.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If you want a perfect example of how, in Tolkien's world, merely exercising your rights or your power is not the best choice, you only have to look to Aragorn.

Or Tom Bombadil. He could have easily enslaved everything within his land land to be his to own and control. He could have forced everthing to be his slave. And just by singing. And since he choosses his borders, what's to stop him taking over the whole of middle earth. Yet he doesn't. He is content with a simple life and doing things himself. He could have had a huge suply of slaves, but still, he doesn't use them.
I just wonder why he doesn't get rid of the Barrow-Wights. He only gets rid of them after they misbehave ("you naughty boy!"). But maybe he has pity on them, or maybe they just don't concern him. He doesn't do things just because he can.

And since they talked together, who knows what ideas spread...



Anyway, Gandalf learnt much during his imprisonment. Surely that is a gain.

[Thinlómien]

I'm not going to take part in the Gandalf-Saruman debate, as it has been discussed rather thoroughly already, and I don't want to get entangled in it as well. Great points, everyone, though...

If you think of it, there are really dozens of examples when not using the power is the course of action for the good guys and proves to be a right choice in the end. Many examples have already been mentioned, but I would like to add a few.

There is the Gollum-case, already mentioned once. Bilbo had in his power to kill Gollum, but he didn't. Neither did Gandalf choose that fate for Gollum, but rather left him to the Wood-Elves' keeping. And as we know, that ultimately saved the whole quest from failure. (Also, maybe we could even mix the Faramir-Gollum thing with this too.)

Also, in Mordor, Sam got the Ring and he was filled with visions of healing Mordor and defeating Sauron. He could have taken the chance and tried, but he would have been defeated and the quest would have failed. He was humble enough to realise it. (Although, this is an interesting case, because we don't know what he would have really been able to and what was just madness caused by The Ring. Surely just a simple Hobbit couldn't have overthrown Sauron even if he had the Ring? But the key point is that he would surely have been able to do something, and he chose not to use the power of the Ring to do so.)

And Denethor, he's maybe a really good example. As long as he refused to use the power of the palantír, things were fine. But when he submitted to it, decided to use his immense power of mind to wield the power of the palantír, he was doomed.

Then there are tons of other examples, surely. But I'd actually love to "twist" the setting a little. Are there any cases where having the power and not using it is actually bad?

I can immediately think of one case. Fëanor, whose Silmarils might have had the power to heal the Trees. He refused. This created much woe, and I think it nurtured the obsessive pride and will of possessing that Fëanor and his kin had over these jewels. Also, I'm pretty sure it worsened many relationships in Aman, but I'm too lazy to walk to an other room, take the Sil from the bookshelf and check...

Are there other examples? I'm pretty sure there are, at least in the Sil, but I can't think of them right now. Furthermore, I have the feeling that we will soon have to define the word "power" or this debate will get all too messy...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Are there other examples? I'm pretty sure there are, at least in the Sil, but I can't think of them right now. Furthermore, I have the feeling that we will soon have to define the word "power" or this debate will get all too messy...

I think Tolkien uses "power" both in the sense of physical or metaphysical might, but also (and possibly more significantly) as Authority, as in the power of a king over subjects, or of a general over armies. Either works in the debate, I believe.

Another instance of the negative effect of having power and not using it is the situation with the Valar and Melkor in the First Age and before. I wish I had the time to go dig up the pertinent quotes ('cause I don't recall precisely where they are), but Eru was not happy with the Valar hauling the Elves off to Valinor for safekeeping while they allowed Melkor to have his way with Middle-earth. He would have preferred that they deal with him more expediently, and trust in him to protect his Children. They had both the might and the authority to do so, but put it off and put it off until the confrontation inevitably caused tremendous loss of life and destruction to Middle-earth. If they had exercised their power much sooner -- say, when he destroyed the Lamps, before the Elves awakened -- much misery and woe would have been avoided later.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I can immediately think of one case. Fëanor, whose Silmarils might have had the power to heal the Trees. He refused. This created much woe, and I think it nurtured the obsessive pride and will of possessing that Fëanor and his kin had over these jewels. Also, I'm pretty sure it worsened many relationships in Aman, but I'm too lazy to walk to an other room, take the Sil from the bookshelf and check...

Hmm, while I agree with the former cases, I have to disagree on this one, as it's not quite in the position of "power" as the other ones. This was not the question of using or not using power, it was a question of giving or not giving up something. (And maybe even about giving up power - from certain point of view. Fëanor was unable to make the Silmarils again.) It would be the same question if Fëanor just had the power to revive the Trees with no loss for himself (for example, that he could do that repeatingly just like that), and not did that. But this way, I see it as something different.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

I think Tolkien uses "power" both in the sense of physical or metaphysical might, but also (and possibly more significantly) as Authority, as in the power of a king over subjects, or of a general over armies. Either works in the debate, I believe.

Well, what I had in mind, rather, was the power in the sense of... power to do something, power over another: be it over a person, over a living creature, over a tree or plant, over a city or a mountain, over the earth itself (the latter ones rather in the "magical" way). I can recall only very few moments when somebody excercised a power over a piece of land, for example the Girdle of Melian, or Lothlórien (here it was seen very well) - but still, the Elven Rings were made "to preserve and not to rule", and even here it was just the land that was affected, or rather, unaffected: unaffected by time and changes in the world outside; whereas the animals, inhabitants, plants inside could roam/grow freely. In contrary to that, for example Sauron (and Saruman in his latter days) did his best to not only excercise power over his slaves, but also to change Mordor to his image (in a much more crude way, Saruman also did the same with Isengard and later with the Shire, which is a brilliant example of the use of power, now meaning the whole physio-geographical AND socio-economical sphere taken together).

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Another instance of the negative effect of having power and not using it is the situation with the Valar and Melkor in the First Age and before. I wish I had the time to go dig up the pertinent quotes ('cause I don't recall precisely where they are), but Eru was not happy with the Valar hauling the Elves off to Valinor for safekeeping while they allowed Melkor to have his way with Middle-earth. He would have preferred that they deal with him more expediently, and trust in him to protect his Children. They had both the might and the authority to do so, but put it off and put it off until the confrontation inevitably caused tremendous loss of life and destruction to Middle-earth. If they had exercised their power much sooner -- say, when he destroyed the Lamps, before the Elves awakened -- much misery and woe would have been avoided later.

Oh, ho, ho, wait here a little bit. I was under the impression that actually the excercice of power against Morgoth was later viewed as bad, or at least the way it went. I am now speaking about the battle for Utumno: I don't know where I read it, but I think somebody quoted some Letters or HoME, and it was maybe hinted even in the Sil itself, that Valar later wished that they had not attacked Morgoth like that, the idea was something like that even just seeing the lights in the North and the ground shaking etc. scared most of the Elves and that caused lots of them to be afraid of Valar or see them indeed as horrible Gods capable of destroying whole lands etc., and lots of them decided not to come to Aman because of this. I am not sure about that, as I am not Letter-or whatever expert, but I can imagine that and it sounds logical to me.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

It is true that the Valar regretted the War of Wrath and the destruction it caused to the lands of Middle-earth, but it is also true that Eru felt that this situation could have been avoided if the Valar had dealt with Melkor much sooner, rather than allow him to have so much free rein in ME, both before the Elves awakened and after. I have done a lot of reading and research in all of the books, including the Letters and HoME books, but I haven't read through any of them recently enough to remember precisely where these references are. *sigh* I know where most of my copies of the books are: buried in my office, all too literally, so I don't really have access to them right now. As soon as I can get at them, I must read through them again, 'cause I can remember many things, but can't tell you exactly where it appeared. *double sigh* They say the memory is the first thing to go, and they may be right....

Now that said, in one of the few books I do have access to (UT), it is said about the Istari and the fact that they were sent in humble human forms:

"And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men or Elves by open display of power."

The error, from other references I recall but cannot quote (at the moment), was twofold: that the Valar used a display of power to influence the Elves so that they would come to Valinor for protection, and that they had put off a final confrontation with Melkor for so long, such seclusion was (at least in their minds) necessary. This was not what Eru would have wanted; he would have preferred for the Valar to trust him to safeguard his Children while Melkor was dealt with (or better, deal with him before the Children awakened). They didn't, and they made mistakes in both the use of Authority and Might.

I REALLY need to get a bulldozer and clean out the years of detritus that have buried my office....

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, do buldooze then, if you have chance I would really like to know, if there's anything particular to say to this aspect, especially if that was from Eru himself.

However, indeed what you quoted is what I had in mind: the "amending the errors of old", especially in this context with might of Valar put in contrast to the humbleness of the Wizards, speaks for not using the power by the Valar when it came to the Elves and the war and that's how I have always understood it. Of course the situation was a little different there when Melkor, one of the Valar himself was reigning there, but that was just the time when Valar had to adapt to the fact that the world is no longer a battlefield of gods but that there are also different subtler, yet free beings emerging.