Gandalf and the Ring

Discussions in Middle-earth lore, language and books.
Post Reply
Crafts Master
Points: 170 
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:13 am
I was watching a documentary with Christopher Tolkien about JRR Tolkien and in it he spends some time discussing magic. He refers to it as, 'the attempt, by apparatus, to influence the natural world'. He makes reference to the fact that, Gandalf, if he had the ring would be far worse than Sauron because he would be righteous. Indeed, Gandalf himself says as much during The Fellowship I believe but, my question is, why would he be worse?

I understand the point that coercion is an evil, taking away free will by magic means but why would Gandalf, coercing people to do good, be any worse than Sauron? Surely, if we take the point that free will is an absolute, i.e. any attempt to influence nature by apparatus is an evil then both are just as bad and it really doesn't matter in the long run to what end one is trying to influence another.

Does that make sense?

Arien
Arien
Points: 2 263 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 8:56 pm
I guess it’s implied that Sauron is fully aware that he is “evil”, and as such his moral compass is still correctly aligned. He chooses evil, whereas Gandalf would do evil with the Ring whilst believing it to be good

Warrior of Imladris
Points: 507 
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:33 am
I agree with Sil that Gandalf would not have thought of himself as Evil. As for Sauron, there is this video on Youtube discussing whether Sauron (and Morgoth) saw himself as evil. I haven't watched it, but it I might now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNsaw6AzHPk

I feel like I must preface this post with a spoiler alert, I am reminded of Daenerys Targaryen's speech to Jon about how she knows what's "good" and no one else gets to decide what "good" is. I kinda feel like Gandalf would go down the same path: forcing his idea of the "right way" onto others no matter the cost, while believing what he is doing is for the greater good. And we only need watch Hot Fuzz to see where "the greater good" gets you.

Warrior of Imladris
Points: 1 565 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 10:54 am
The question of why 'coercing people to do good' is wrong is a moral one.

If it is Gandalf's belief that it is valuable for individuals to choose their own path, and that righteousness is what they ought to seek for - where did he get this from? Why does he believe it? Why does he promote it?

What is the opposite? Sauron's (and formerly, Morgoth's) attitude was that man (and elf) should bow to him or die, and sometimes both, generally with an unhappy life and torture before death. He wanted control over all things, and got it (for a time). The Ainulindalë tells us that Melkor wanted the power of Eru, and his every action was in defiance of that, seeking power and control. This did not change, despite Eru telling him nothing he did would ever change the outcomes Eru wanted. "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." Melkor still fought against the Valar, of course, since he couldn't accept Eru's statement as truth; it didn't fit with what he wanted.

The Children of Ilúvatar, Elves and Men, were not part of the Ainur's making, but at least Elves were immortal. Man, as a mortal creature in Arda, was an anomaly. Because of death, man would pass out of the knowledge of all except Eru who had a different plan for man, post-life. Thus when Sauron began to turn the world dark in his creation of the Ring to control minds by supernatural means, this necessitated a supernatural response from the Valar. and the five wizards were sent out. We know next to nothing about them, broadly-speaking, and their individual goals (and any successes or failures) were not documented quite like Gandalf's (even Saruman's), so we can only speculate that they each had some particular aspect of Eru's grand plan to help along. Or not, if they failed.

We can conclude that Gandalf, as one of the Maiar sent into Arda to help the Children of Ilúvatar, was sent with a mission from Eru (or the Valar, his spokespersons in Eä). Thus Gandalf's belief in the moral rectitude of man needing to be an act of will was not a whim, arbitrarily decided, and neither was he against Sauron for some petty personal reason - he was in fact doing what he deemed the most noble thing he could ever do: following the will of his Creator.

The position that 'any interference with the natural order of Arda is wrong because it's not natural' seems flawed to me, since Eru set up Arda to have Ainur within it to order it according to his (and their) Music, thus to have Valar and Maiar in the mix is working exactly as planned.

Thus the question of how the power is used is most pertinent. The question of good and evil becomes paramount. What is good and why? What is evil and why? What did the Creator intend, and is it working as he wants it to? This is what is good. What did the Creator not intend, and what is working against his design? This is evil. Here is where the powers of the world take sides. Here is the moral problem delineated.

The question of why Gandalf would be worse than Sauron (or Morgoth) by being righteous and coercing people to be good is that he would be providing a counterfeit of the willing hearts Eru wanted - a lie more damaging than clear disobedience, and a tainting of the whole of Creation. (This is not even counting that any rebellion against such a master would inevitably be evil!) A counterfeit of the truth would be the LAST thing Gandalf wanted, but he saw the danger - and he knew the weakness in himself should he succumb to the lure of the Ring. Because he knew this weakness in himself, he could understand the lure for others and his motivation in every* cause was to stand against the dark and enable and encourage others to stand sure with him.

Gandalf could be very black and white in his outlook, which is understandable, since he had knowledge others did not - but he did rein himself in when talking to some, because he knew it was valuable for individuals to choose the path to righteousness themselves, and not have it thrust upon them. In The Hobbit, he disappears half the time, in order for Bilbo to be able to make choices, where the hobbit (and reader) would naturally lean on his wisdom. In Théoden's case, he literally restores the man's right to think for himself.

We see his efforts to help Bilbo leave the Ring behind - which the film unhelpfully depicts as Gandalf bullying Bilbo, but in the book is subtly different and Gandalf's indignation cuts through the Ring's overwhelming covetousness. Gandalf not taking the Ring here, or later when Frodo offers it, is a huge testament to his integrity.

Much later we see Gandalf's speech to Frodo about "All we have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us" - and his efforts there are spent in encouragement and being a good role model - "Do not be in a hurry to deal out death and judgment; even the very wise cannot see all ends".

His words have weight with Frodo, as Frodo later makes the choices regarding Gollum which he might not otherwise have made. This helps the Ring's finale, of course, but I feel the true benefit was in the effect on Frodo's soul. If he, in conscious control of himself, had killed (or had Gollum killed) for the Ring, it would not have gone well with him thereafter. He would not have felt deserving of his end in the Undying Lands, and it might not have been offered him. Frodo was likewise benefited by the example of Galadriel, who, being tempted, got herself under control at the moment of greatest desire - she refused the Ring and all its subtlety. Sam, who gave him back the Ring after realising he was still alive (only having taken it to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands), showed extreme moral fortitude. I do feel, by having these examples, that Frodo was aided in both his quest and his personal growth morally.

Gandalf, finally boarding the ship in the Grey Havens, could finally rest in the knowledge that his task was ended, the great Enemy was defeated and the overwhelming threat to the free will of Men presented in the Ring was gone. From hereon in, the race of Men could (if they so chose) find the path to righteousness without supernatural influence stopping them.

*all the ones I can think of!!

(This is not as brief as I intended. Sorry.)

Crafts Master
Points: 170 
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:13 am
The question of why Gandalf would be worse than Sauron (or Morgoth) by being righteous and coercing people to be good is that he would be providing a counterfeit of the willing hearts Eru wanted - a lie more damaging than clear disobedience, and a tainting of the whole of Creation.
That’s a very interesting point. It seems clear from the Aulindale that Eru himself is the only one who has ultimate control in Arda and anyone else attempting to act as he would merely creates, as you say, a counterfeit. “Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own bring only, and no more” Eru says to Aule when he creates the dwarves. In taking the ring, it seems that Gandalf would be doing just that. Being an agent trying to coerce people into doing good but, unlike Eru, would have no power to allow for free will. Eru is capable of stepping in when necessary (Gollum and Gandalf himself show that) but not at the expense of free will as a whole. Gandalf wouldn’t be able to do that, therefore he would be a counterfeit Eru.

There is also the point of Melkor who was, from the very beginning, strong willed and separate from the other Valar. He was created by Eru but not for a purpose. Therefore, he sought his own dominance and role equal to that of The One in Arda. Gandalf, by contrast, was specifically sent with one task. To defeat Sauron. He was sent back after the Balrog encounter because Sauron had not been dealt with. He sailed west after the destruction of the Ring because he had. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that Gandalf possessing the Ring (and therefoe taking on a new task) would be ripping up completely what was meant to happen according to Eru’s plan.

Warrior of Imladris
Points: 1 565 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 10:54 am
Melkor's contrast with Gandalf is stark, in terms of obedience to the revealed will of Eru. *nodnod*

I've never considered Melkor being created without a purpose before. My own assumption is just that he never embraced/accepted/was content with his own role and purpose in Eru's plan, and thus what had been prepared for him was denied to him by his own actions as he lost power, and given to others who were more willing - your mileage may vary obviously!

Crafts Master
Points: 170 
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:13 am
Maybe it's more than Gandalf's purpose was more restricted. I.E. To fight Sauron and defeat him. Melkor had a part in the Music reserved for him sure and, one assumes, a part in creating Arda. But he chose not to take it because he wanted something much better than that. So, if anything, his purpose was a lot more open ended. With a greater margin for error let's say.

Warrior of Imladris
Points: 1 565 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 10:54 am
Well yes, we can definitely say that!! :smiley9:

Councillor of Imladris
Points: 455 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 11:57 am
Let's go to the source, shall we ...
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
Carpenter, Humphrey. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (pp. 332-333). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
“The love of Faery is the love of love” J.R.R. Tolkien

Guardian of the Golden Wood
Points: 2 793 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 7:54 pm
Troelsfo wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 3:35 pm Let's go to the source, shall we ...
Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
Carpenter, Humphrey. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (pp. 332-333). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Forgive me if I struggle to hold this in my mind: this letter of Tolkien is the 'source' of Christopher Tolkien's "reference to the fact that, Gandalf, if he had the ring would be far worse than Sauron because he would be righteous"? (It is a source, not the source.)

The original question was expressed by @Thorin Firehelm: "Indeed, Gandalf himself says as much during The Fellowship I believe but, my question is, why would he be worse?"

So, this source does clarify an issue: Gandalf would not (as the original post says) "be righteous," but "self-righteous." A state of self-righteousness is, evidently, the moral opposite of a state of righteousness. (A lesson for us posters on the plaza!)

However, this does not resolve your question about ultimate ends, which would be the same for Gandalf as for Sauron. I'm not sure I can do that; but I think that what everyone wrote above is on the right track. There is an extra dimension of the lie at play when we believe that with Gandalf or the Lady Galadriel running the show with the help of the One Ring all is going truly as Eru intended. Sauron says that Eru is dead, or at least that the Valor have no further interest in Middle-earth, but Gandalf would bring in the new order in the name of Eru and the Lady.
Eat earth. Dig deep. Drink water.

Post Reply