# Would you have accepted/taken The One Ring?



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

*Lord of the Rings Spoilers if you have not read the book/seen the film*

Both Gandalf and Galadriel resist the desire when offered the ring by Frodo. Faramir could take it, but does not - although we all know what his brother, Boromir, would have done in the same position. Sam takes it when he thinks that Frodo is dead but manages to return it. Would you take it if offered?


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

I guess the question could also be - would you recognise the guise that the one ring might take in our world?  Would you know it is the one ring, even if you were warned?

Or you might mean whether I would accept it if I somehow could exist in Middle Earth?  

In either case, I'm far from sure that I could resist it.  It seems that the power of the ring was to use your own strength against you, and help you fool yourself that it was for the best.  Even Gandalf felt the temptation.  What chance do I have?


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

The One Ring is the ultimate symbol of power - and power that corrupts; so you can imagine yourself in Middle Earth or confronted by the equivalent magical object in this world. I would probably have been like Frodo - got hold of the darned thing by default and spent my whole time trying to offload it.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Knowing my luck I'd be an Elf like Orlando Bloom and would spend my entire time running around with a half quizzical look on my face about why we didn't just catch a ride with the giant eagles.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

If I'm honest, I'd probably pull a Boromir and try to use the Ring for good, and then be horribly destroyed by it.


----------



## zizekpress (Mar 9, 2011)

If Peter Jackson was filming it then, sure, why not?

Brett Ratner behind the camera...no way.

But really, I think most of us would've given up around the time Gandalf fell off the ledge. It's hard to die for something you don't really understand, right?


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

When I read the title of this thread, I thought about it before I opened it. I thought of it from Frodo's vantage point. When he is given the ring, he knows very little of its power and the dangers that are to find him. In his situation, I would have absolutely taken the ring. More than likely I would have placed it on my finger _long_ before Frodo did. As far as being one of the Fellowship and resisting; being honest, I doubt I could have done it for long. Eventually, I probably would have caved to the temptation.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Joseph Robert Lewis said:


> If I'm honest, I'd probably pull a Boromir and try to use the Ring for good, and then be horribly destroyed by it.


Yeah. I'd probably think I was good enough not to be corrupted and then end up with a name synonymous with cruelty and power run amok. Godwin's Law would be modified to cover references to Hitler and Geoffrey.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

No. Not with Smeagol after it. He's too creepy.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Smeagol may be creepy but he's only about 3 feet tall, so I think I'd feel pretty confident with my 3-foot height advantage over him. Plus, if I have the ring, I'm also invisible!


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Geoffrey the Dark 
Has a certain ring to it.  Oops. Sorry, accident.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Daphne said:


> *Lord of the Rings Spoilers if you have not read the book/seen the film*
> 
> Both Gandalf and Galadriel resist the desire when offered the ring by Frodo. Faramir could take it, but does not - although we all know what his brother, Boromir, would have done in the same position. Sam takes it when he thinks that Frodo is dead but manages to return it. Would you take it if offered?


I think it would depend on how much I knew about the ring. Obviously, it made Gollum off his crock and nearly drove Frodo mad too. But some of the characters, Boromir for example, didn't realize the ring would do that. Boromir thought he could handle it and use the ring for good.

So yeah, if I were coming from a place of ignorance I'd probably believe I could control the temptations that came with it and use it for positive purposes.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Some interesting responses - thank you. Of course I forgot the "borrow" option. After all, Boromir* asked Frodo: "Will you not at least let me make trial of my plan? Lend me the Ring!" - and he would have given it back all shiny and clean and barely used; right??

*The passage in the book when Boromir is trying to persuade Frodo to "lend" him the ring is a wonderful depiction of the struggle between an honourable but proud and ambitious man's best and worst self.


----------



## MrMiracle (Oct 28, 2010)

These days, a ring that makes the wearer invisible doesn't have much appeal. If anything, it seems like people would want to wear a ring that makes them _more_ visible. Nothing makes a better shield than overt fame, after all.

But I'm just being bitter. That could make a good allegorical short story, hmm.

Knowing that the ring does not grant actual power would keep me from taking it. The purpose of the rings lure and its purported powers are nothing more than a ruse to ensure that it is returned to its master.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

MrMiracle said:


> These days, a ring that makes the wearer invisible doesn't have much appeal. If anything, it seems like people would want to wear a ring that makes them _more_ visible. Nothing makes a better shield than overt fame, after all.


So, a ring of Vanity instead of True Evil Power?


----------



## Chris Culver (Jan 28, 2011)

I ask the same question when I teach book 2 of Plato's Republic. In the Republic, a man picks up a ring he finds in a chasm that forms after an earthquake.  Like in the LOTR, he's miraculously turned invisible. Unlike Frodo, the character in the Republic does all sorts of bad things. He kills the king, seduces the queen (who evidently likes invisible men), and eventually takes over. 

It's one of my favorite lessons to teach because my students actually get into it. My favorite responses so far have been "Yes, I'd take the ring so I can walk around in a girl's dorm without getting caught" and "Yes, so I can steal a pair of hot pink Jimmy Choo pumps without getting caught."

Personally, I think it'd be pretty hard to resist. It's a good question, though.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Not only would I have taken the ring, I would have killed all of the hobbits, cut Aragorn's hair, put more women in the book, and burned all the trees down.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Not only would I have taken the ring, I would have killed all of the hobbits, cut Aragorn's hair, put more women in the book, and burned all the trees down.


Blasphemy! You can do all the rest but never cut Aragorn's hair!


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Dara England said:


> Blasphemy! You can do all the rest but never cut Aragorn's hair!


Couldn't we just give him and Boromir some shampoo?

C.Culver: _It's one of my favorite lessons to teach because my students actually get into it. My favorite responses so far have been "Yes, I'd take the ring so I can walk around in a girl's dorm without getting caught" and "Yes, so I can steal a pair of hot pink Jimmy Choo pumps without getting caught."_
Interesting that they would settle for things that would make their existing life a little more interesting in a trivial way - perhaps world domination just isn't as attractive as it used to be?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

World domination is a lot of work.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Yeah, I'd definitely go the Boromir route, too, which would be problematic, as I'm allergic to being shot in the chest with arrows.


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

It depends. Can I get it in white gold instead?


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Yeah, I'd definitely go the Boromir route, too, which would be problematic, as I'm allergic to being shot in the chest with arrows.


You too? I thought I was the only one!


----------



## drenfrow (Jan 27, 2010)

I would have turned it down.  I'm a coward--I don't want that much power.  BTW, I just watched the entire extended-version trilogy last week on a 60" screen with surround sound.  Yowza!  That is the way to watch it!  The chairs vibrated with the sound at times.


----------



## Davhopkins (Mar 15, 2011)

Even if I had no motive to take the ring (i.e Boromir didn't want it for himself, just to aid Minas Tirith) and Middle Earth was in the period before The Hobbit or after the Lord of the Rings, a place of tranquil beauty, I think if exposed to the power and corruption of the ring for long enough, any mere moral would succumb to the power of the ring. Even Galadriel and Gandalf are tempted to take it, and they represent angel like beings in Tolkien's world, so I don't see how I'd ever resist!


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Not only would I have taken the ring, I would have killed all of the hobbits, cut Aragorn's hair, put more women in the book, and burned all the trees down.


Even the talking, walking trees


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

I would have said no, because if I had it I would start calling it "the precious" and find a nice cozy cave to live in while muttering to myself in the first person plural...

Not to mention nassssty hobbitss who steal from me (oh no; it's starting!)

The One Ring is nothing but trouble. Elvish writing on jewelry went out of style an Age ago.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2011)

I kept reading this topic as "Would You Have Accepted the Onion Ring?"

I would have accepted the One Ring but also Onion Rings.  I love Onion Rings.  If the One Ring had been made of Onions, though?  Probably would not have lasted through the entire there and back again.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

StephanieVoid said:


> Elvish writing on jewelry went out of style an Age ago.


Actually, have you seen any on the replica jewellery based on that used in the film? I was really impressed with the level on craftsmanship that went into creating all the jewellery/weapons etc used. Perhaps I should have confessed at the beginning of this thread that I actually have three One Rings! One for my son (which he quite properly wears on a chain around his neck like Frodo; my own (my precious) which strangely distorted on my finger one night and is still a funny shape, and one that came free with something or another and turns my finger green.


----------



## Feylamia (Mar 21, 2011)

Daphne said:


> Both Gandalf and Galadriel resist the desire when offered the ring by Frodo. Faramir could take it, but does not - although we all know what his brother, Boromir, would have done in the same position. Sam takes it when he thinks that Frodo is dead but manages to return it. Would you take it if offered?


I would if I had to (like Sam thought he did) but I wouldn't like it at all.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Oh, I'd have taken it, with full intentions of being noble. Then about halfway there I'd have put the sucker on with delusions of conquering everywhere, and promptly had my butt handed to me by Sauron.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

I can say 'no' most of the time to temptations I know are bad for me.  The One Ring represents temptations to such things as drugs (not entirely, but partly) and possibly is an allegory about sin and good-intentioned wickedness.  Yes, I have heard that Tolkien hated allegory, but I feel that was to throw people off the scent more than anything.  He used a great deal of Christian allegory in his fiction.  The ring represents several things in the work: 1.  The temptation to obtain power that only serves the self.  2.  The temptation to pleasure and seclusion that hurts both the self and others.  3.  Technology that destroys rather than heals, etc.  

Really, long story short, I think it would depend on where I was and what was happening in my life whether or not I could turn it down.  If I was depressed, and feeling powerless, then perhaps I could turn down the ring.  If I was at the top of my game, then perhaps I would do without it.  Then again, if as the second person on this thread suggested, I recognized the ring for what it was at the beginning, then I would likely turn it down.  I have managed to avoid becoming an addict on the principle of not being addicted to anything, not letting anything (save God) control my life and tell me what to do with it, so I guess the most likely answer would be 'yes," i would be able to turn it down probably 80% of the time.


----------



## Mark Adair (Dec 4, 2010)

Fun question. I'd like to think I would have taken it and delivered to its Mordorific end. I might have pulled a Boromir but it sounds like a huge responsbility to play God and all that...very tiring. Sort of a matter of destiny, right? So in Tolkien's world I guess I'd play the part as he wrote it.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I would have stayed home in the Shire.


----------



## KMA (Mar 11, 2009)

scarlet said:


> I would have stayed home in the Shire.


and had some onion rings?


----------



## M.S. Verish (Feb 26, 2010)

(From Matt)

Of course I would have taken the ring! Then I would have given it to Cash for Gold and made a fortune!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

KMA said:


> and had some onion rings?


were there onion rings in middle earth?


----------



## NapCat (retired) (Jan 17, 2011)

Daphne said:


> "...Would you take it if offered?..."


Would you turn down a lottery win??


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

NapCat said:


> Would you turn down a lottery win??


I don't gamble...


----------



## 41352 (Apr 4, 2011)

The ring is MINE! It fits my ring finger.


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

Daphne said:


> Actually, have you seen any on the replica jewellery based on that used in the film? I was really impressed with the level on craftsmanship that went into creating all the jewellery/weapons etc used. Perhaps I should have confessed at the beginning of this thread that I actually have three One Rings! One for my son (which he quite properly wears on a chain around his neck like Frodo; my own (my precious) which strangely distorted on my finger one night and is still a funny shape, and one that came free with something or another and turns my finger green.


That's cool! I know Elvish writing on rings is awesome; I was just being ridiculous.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

StephanieVoid said:


> That's cool! I know Elvish writing on rings is awesome.


It's the Hobbit fashions you want to look out for.


----------



## Blanche (Jan 4, 2010)

> If I'm honest, I'd probably pull a Boromir and try to use the Ring for good, and then be horribly destroyed by it.


Ditto. Yep.... that would be me.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

It's easy to say we wouldn't take the ring when the ring isn't here. If someone is quitting smoking, it's easier if there aren't cigarettes within arms reach. Yes, I would take the ring, maybe not right away, but if I was around it long enough, I'd take it. I'd convince myself I'd only use it a little, but I would take it. I don't have superhuman willpower. Despite his protestations, I think even Faramir would have been tempted eventually.


----------



## BethCaudill (Mar 22, 2011)

I would have taken the ring and become the dark and terrible Galadriel.  

Love me and Despair.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2011)

Of course I would have taken the ring, seeing as how I am already corrupted by darkside influences, I doubt anyone would notice much difference in me anyway. 

The problem with the LoTR is that there is a very clear concept of good and evil and there is no place for the actual pragmatist.  Evil characters want the ring for power and therefore think they can control it.  Good characters think they can use the ring to do good, but tend to have very short term concepts of what "good" means which is easily manipulated by evil.    Evil characters think long term but sacrifice the short term.  Good characters tend to focus on immediate misery and forget about the long term.  The pragmatist weighs the pros and cons of short term versus long term goals and plots a path accordingly.  

So yeah, give me the ring.  Then I'll turn to Gandalf and say  "Yo, dude.  Can you just teleport me over to the volcano so we can get this over with?"

I mean, seriously, what kind of a mage is he anyway?


----------



## SebastianDark (Apr 3, 2011)

taken the ring or _used_ the ring? There's a difference..

I would have taken it, to destroy it, on a similar quest as the one Frodo went on. However, I'm not sure I could have resisted _using_ it as well as he had..


----------



## BoUnCiN (Apr 6, 2011)

Gold with these trainers?

I DONT THINK SO!


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> So yeah, give me the ring. Then I'll turn to Gandalf and say "Yo, dude. Can you just teleport me over to the volcano so we can get this over with?"
> 
> I mean, seriously, what kind of a mage is he anyway?


Actually I think there is a whole intersting new area for discussion here; I was always curious why, if Gandalf was a powerful wizard, he doesn't really do much magic? Why couldn't he magically protect the eagles and take the ring himself, and the book would be over in ten pages? The height of his achievement seems to be the fireworks at Bilbo's party. What Tolkien gives us in Gandalf is more a learned master of lore - perhaps based on himself as learned Oxford Professor. A comparison between Gandalf and Dumbledore would be interesting. I wonder if Tolkien, being devoutly religious, was actually uneasy with the idea of magic?


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2011)

Daphne said:


> Actually I think there is a whole intersting new area for discussion here; I was always curious why, if Gandalf was a powerful wizard, he doesn't really do much magic?


Yeah, the logic of magic in the world was always murky and under developed. I've read books where powerful mages are limited in their abilities, but generally the book would provide the explanation as to why. Magic requires an expenditure of lifeforce or some sort of intangible energy (mana, for example), so mages can only cast so many spells per day. Or the flamboyant use of magic attracts otherworldly attention (to use a game example: in White Wolf's Mage RPG, mages that cast spells around humans risk Paradox; if a human sees an overt magic display, it screws up with the fabric of reality and bad things happen). But it is a legitimate reason why a mage with uber powers controls those powers or limits their use.

But there is never any explanation as to why Gandalf doesn't use his magic. Even at times when it would have saved countless lives.

Maybe he was just a fraud? lol


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Yeah, the logic of magic in the world was always murky and under developed. I've read books where powerful mages are limited in their abilities, but generally the book would provide the explanation as to why. Magic requires an expenditure of lifeforce or some sort of intangible energy (mana, for example), so mages can only cast so many spells per day. Or the flamboyant use of magic attracts otherworldly attention (to use a game example: in White Wolf's Mage RPG, mages that cast spells around humans risk Paradox; if a human sees an overt magic display, it screws up with the fabric of reality and bad things happen). But it is a legitimate reason why a mage with uber powers controls those powers or limits their use.
> 
> But there is never any explanation as to why Gandalf doesn't use his magic. Even at times when it would have saved countless lives.
> 
> Maybe he was just a fraud? lol


I think the reason Gandalf didn't mess with the ring was because he knew, and even said in the movies, that the desire to take the ring is part of it's trap. The moment you desire it, FOR ANY REASON, is the moment it takes you. He tried to distance himself from the desire to be even around the cursed thing.

As for his limited magic, I think that was a type of Christ figure, in that I believe he had certain things he knew he must do, and did those things. In a way, he was a glorified lore master. Perhaps, like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien was of the opinion that people should fight for what they believe is true and good, or they deserve the fate they choose by giving up hope and not fighting against evil. If the wizard did all the work, no one would see how truly evil the evil was, and no one would have anything to hope for. The wizard would become just as bad as what he vanquished and people would totally depend on him to rule over them anyway. Just a thought.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2011)

Plotspider said:


> As for his limited magic, I think that was a type of Christ figure, in that I believe he had certain things he knew he must do, and did those things. In a way, he was a glorified lore master. Perhaps, like C.S. Lewis, Tolkien was of the opinion that people should fight for what they believe is true and good, or they deserve the fate they choose by giving up hope and not fighting against evil. If the wizard did all the work, no one would see how truly evil the evil was, and no one would have anything to hope for. The wizard would become just as bad as what he vanquished and people would totally depend on him to rule over them anyway. Just a thought.


But that is never actually EXPLAINED in the book. It's an assumption, like any other, and therefore just as valid as any other. But Tolkien dropped the ball in that he didn't "set up" the magic system in his world to justify Gandalf standing around with his staff up his butt while innocent people died all around him.

Though honestly, I have a hard time swallowing that justification anyway. If you have the power to stop evil and save lives, but don't do so simply to prove some metaphysical point, you're just as guilty as the evil. _Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing_. Gandalf does a whole lot of nothing in the book, other than talking.

So either Gandalf has the means to stop evil, and choses not to for some philosophical reason worth allowing innocent people to die over. Or there is something preventing him from doing so, which is never identified. It's a plot gap to be sure.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

But that is never actually EXPLAINED in the book. It's an assumption, like any other, and therefore just as valid as any other. But Tolkien dropped the ball in that he didn't "set up" the magic system in his world to justify Gandalf standing around with his staff up his butt while innocent people died all around him.

Though honestly, I have a hard time swallowing that justification anyway. If you have the power to stop evil and save lives, but don't do so simply to prove some metaphysical point, you're just as guilty as the evil. _Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing_. Gandalf does a whole lot of nothing in the book, other than talking.

So either Gandalf has the means to stop evil, and choses not to for some philosophical reason worth allowing innocent people to die over. Or there is something preventing him from doing so, which is never identified. It's a plot gap to be sure.
[/quote]

What you are doing is arguing free will vs. destiny. I think so is Tolkien to some degree. More importantly, however, you are holding this novel up to standards established in a genre this novel helped to create and was a prototype for. It's kind of like saying: "the Model T is not as good a car as a porsche, because it doesn't go as fast and was built earlier." I think that's a fallacious argument (though I don't know which fallacy it is). Gandalf was a limited wizard. He freed the king of Rohan from possession by the head of his order, along with the Steward of Gondor (with less success), both of which freed them to fight and protect themselves from Mordor. He fought a balrog with a sword single-handedly, saving a few innocent lives there, on a rickety bridge. He knew how to destroy the ring. He saved people from danger via the Eagles.

If Gandalf had taken the ring to go and destroy it, he would have eventually possessed it himself, either becoming another Sauron, or something just as bad, therefore destroying lives (that was established in the book: those who seek possession of the ring for any reason, become its slave). If he gains control of the ring, he becomes possessed of it. The reason hobbits had to be used to do this is, because for some reason they were so innocent and so without guile the ring took longer to possess them. Gandalf was willing to help Frodo and willing to follow him because he could carry it and not go insane, but actively stopping and holding Frodo was exactly what Saruman was trying to do (a step in the direction of the dark side). Again, this stuff is subtly established between the lines of the text.

One theme Tolkien played with was the desire for technology to rule the world, rather than live and let live, and at what cost was it worth to rule the world. The more control over others a character sought, the more evil that character became (examples: Saruman, Sauron, Boromir, The Steward of Gondor, Morgath, etc). The more the characters were able to control their own destinies (better or worse) and allowed others to do the same the more good they became. Gandalf was an agent of self-realization for many of the characters. If he had done other than this, he would have become, at least in Middle Earth, an evil character.

Furthermore, he had a specific mission to accomplish in Middle Earth (again, established and spoken of) and could not really go outside of that as much, and I think since, as someone said, he was a "Christianized" wizard, his powers came from the will of Eluvitar (or however it is spelled) and therefore subject to that willpower's great plan.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

I accept the argument that Gandalf didn't take the ring, because temptation was part of its power and he understood that Frodo was the right man (hobbit) for the job. But I still struggle with Tolkien's wizard(s) (dictionary definition: a man who has magical powers) being so apparently under endowed. Gandalf beats back the wolves and holds back the Nazgul at the siege of Gondor; but one does feel that Tolkien has a reluctance for his wizards to glorify the use of magic too much - and I suspect that this was for religious reasons. Even Saruman - who would not have Gandalf's scruple about holding back to let things work out in the right way - does not show much use of what we would consider traditional magic. Saruman's creation or Orcs and use of the palantir are also more suggestive of learning and power; so perhaps Tolkien did simply redefine wizard as something more like a lore-master?


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Daphne said:


> I accept the argument that Gandalf didn't take the ring, because temptation was part of its power and he understood that Frodo was the right man (hobbit) for the job. But I still struggle with Tolkien's wizard(s) (dictionary definition: a man who has magical powers) being so apparently under endowed. Gandalf beats back the wolves and holds back the Nazgul at the siege of Gondor; but one does feel that Tolkien has a reluctance for his wizards to glorify the use of magic too much - and I suspect that this was for religious reasons. Even Saruman - who would not have Gandalf's scruple about holding back to let things work out in the right way - does not show much use of what we would consider traditional magic. Saruman's creation or Orcs and use of the palantir are also more suggestive of learning and power; so perhaps Tolkien did simply redefine wizard as something more like a lore-master?


Interestingly enough, the etymology of sorcerer and wizard seem to be more about people who do divination than people who have magical powers. Therefore, Gandalf would be a wizard. Now, this is according to some loose looking on Dictionary.com and related links. By traditional magic, do you mean science and learning? The palantir, once again, suggests the irresponsible use of power (we don't know who might be listening/looking in). The orcs could represent slavish following of a cause, nazis, conformity, godlessness or the destruction of a soul, or any number of things.

For Christian writers of fantasy who don't want to be at odds with their religious beliefs while at the same time trying to write a good story that can be entertaining to everyone, magic is a touchy subject. On the one hand, we might be accused of being Satan worshipers by ignorant, even though well-meaning, people, or accused of promoting some other religion and not adhering to our own; on the other hand, we get accused of being too religiously restricted or in some way hypocritical. We want to promote truth in our novels, and yet create beauty and wonder that doesn't exist in exactly the same way on Earth, and we don't want to promote God in a way that is not flattering or respectful.

I don't think Tolkien was a coward in his presentation of magic, and part of the nature of magic is that it should inspire people to wonder. By defining everything, you lose the mystique of wonder and magic is no longer magical, which I think Tolkien was going for in his books. Again, I think Gandalf was limited to his use of magic mainly because for him, it was like borrowing a car, rather than driving a stolen one. It wasn't really his to use, and he had to use it for specific purposes aligned with his source. He was a soldier of Middle Earth's god, rather than a mercenary or robber; he used his guns for the mission, while the others used their magic for selfish gains.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Plotspider said:


> I think Gandalf was limited to his use of magic mainly because for him, it was like borrowing a car, rather than driving a stolen one. It wasn't really his to use, and he had to use it for specific purposes aligned with his source.


That rings true for me


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But that is never actually EXPLAINED in the book. It's an assumption, like any other, and therefore just as valid as any other. But Tolkien dropped the ball in that he didn't "set up" the magic system in his world to justify Gandalf standing around with his staff up his butt while innocent people died all around him.
> 
> Though honestly, I have a hard time swallowing that justification anyway. If you have the power to stop evil and save lives, but don't do so simply to prove some metaphysical point, you're just as guilty as the evil. _Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing_. Gandalf does a whole lot of nothing in the book, other than talking.
> 
> So either Gandalf has the means to stop evil, and choses not to for some philosophical reason worth allowing innocent people to die over. Or there is something preventing him from doing so, which is never identified. It's a plot gap to be sure.


I have heard the "why didn't Gandalf just ride the Eagles into Mordor thing" before, and though I have been arguing one way against it, I think I've just had a brainstorm about something else. Why didn't they take the Eagles into Mordor? Because Sauron was still alive and he had his own airforce. Though Gandalf might have been tempted to get the ring for himself (as I said before), those huge giant Eagles airlifting the ringbearer into Mordor might have screamed to the Nazgul on the backs of their dragons: "Hey, ring delivery! Come and get us! Know exactly where the ring is!"

Another reason the hobbits were used is because they ran completely and utterly against Sauron's psychology and strategy. Sauron believed might makes right and that physical and absolute control through fear and hatred equals absolute power. The ideas of trust and hope were alien to him, so the concept of entrusting their secret weapon to the meekest and seemingly weakest characters was also completely alien to him. Further, this mirrors Biblical truths for Tolkien (David and Goliath, Jesus Christ being humble and meek himself, etc.). They used the hobbits and did not aggressively storm the gates is because they knew Sauron would not look for such a peculiar attack. Of course, he also had Nazgul flying around and if they knocked the ringbearer or the ring down from whoever was on the Eagle, they could track it much easier than a mortal could and there was a much greater chance of someone bad finding it in Mordor than a hobbit who would take a hundred years to corrupt.

Further, Gandalf might have mirrored Winston Churchill's intelligence strategy in WWII. When they broke Germany's codes and could listen in on what the Germans were doing, they did not necessarily act on it immediately. They waited until something big was about to go down, and then they used their intelligence, and this was because they were afraid the Germans would find a better code. If Gandalf had stormed the gates of Mordor, and failed, or been killed, or been corrupted, they would have lost what strategic intelligence he could provide, first and least of all. More importantly, they might have him, Saruman, AND Sauron against the good guys, and that would have been quite bad. Gandalf was the only one who could defeat Saruman in any kind of open combat, and even he didn't do it, and not even he could stand up against Sauron by himself. He knew that he was needed as a guide behind the wall, rather than surrendering himself to death or defeat by the enemy and adding to the threat against the light. In that way, he DID preserve lives. Hmmm. Maybe Gandalf also represented German scientists defecting to the United States during the war as well. Better they work for us than the enemy, yes? Again, preservation of lives by giving the right side the advantage and NOT giving the other side the benefit of knowledge.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

I think it's simpler than that.

The reason they could not use the eagles as a shortcut is the same reason they decided to use a hobbit like Frodo as the bearer.  Only somebody who is sufficiently weak could take the ring to its destruction.  The eagles are sentient beings with their own agendas and power struggles, and not simply feathered fighter jets.  An eagle lord or warrior would be just as likely to do a "Boromir" and seize the ring, or be corrupted by it as any other powerful individual.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

mashadutoit said:


> I think it's simpler than that.
> 
> The reason they could not use the eagles as a shortcut is the same reason they decided to use a hobbit like Frodo as the bearer. Only somebody who is sufficiently weak could take the ring to its destruction. The eagles are sentient beings with their own agendas and power struggles, and not simply feathered fighter jets. An eagle lord or warrior would be just as likely to do a "Boromir" and seize the ring, or be corrupted by it as any other powerful individual.


Good point there.


----------

