forever...?

Sauron, the enemy of the free-peoples of Middle-Earth was defeated. The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever.

At the beginning of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' Galadrel narrates the prologue and says that Isildur had the chance to cast the ring into the fires of mount doom and DESTROY EVIL FOREVER.

Is she being that literal? If the ring is destroyed all evil will be gone forever? Surly Galadriel, of all people should know that evil can NEVER be totally destroyed. It will always exist in one way or another.

Which I think is a major theme in Tolkien's books.

What do y'all think?

I think you looked to far into it 😊

Originally posted by Smodden
Sauron, the enemy of the free-peoples of Middle-Earth was defeated. The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil [b]forever.

At the beginning of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' Galadrel narrates the prologue and says that Isildur had the chance to cast the ring into the fires of mount doom and DESTROY EVIL FOREVER.

Is she being that literal? If the ring is destroyed all evil will be gone forever? Surly Galadriel, of all people should know that evil can NEVER be totally destroyed. It will always exist in one way or another.

Which I think is a major theme in Tolkien's books.

What do y'all think? [/B]

Ack! -- this sounds like my English class. 😛

As to the theme which is the subject of this thread though, I think that it really goes without saying that Sauron's destruction will not represent an end to all evil forever, and that Galadriel's words can be interpreted accordingly. Although the external "personification" of evil has been defeated, it stands to reason (to my mind at least) that this will not mark an end to the internal evil within the hearts of Men (and the other races). Galadriel's words, to me, did not entail the whole annihilation of evil entirely but simply the evil of Sauron.

Evil for Tolkien was intimately connected with the desire for Power, Domination, and control over one's own creation. This is a psychological appreciation of evil as something we are all capable of feeling or succumbing to. It is not a bad guy or bad object which, when once removed from the scene, will lead to our liberation.

I would just say, however, that PJ translates to the filmic medium something that Tolkien did brilliantly in the novel (nevermind the "forever" part). The end of LotR is supremely non-novelistic, what with the hero "disappearing" into an ambivalent, even ambiguous exile the nature of which is not adequately explained in the narrative. Sam's own ending, the ending of the whole story, is also an extraordinary rewriting of the novelistic convention. The utter domestication of the hero in that final paragraph, his being taken "back in" by the home and hearth is something that just does not happen in novels. In the 19th C, that scene would have been played out only in epilogue form and been presented as the achievement of the hero's journey, not the conclusion of his retreat from his journey. In the 20th C that scene would not be presented at all, except as a problematic and ambiguous "real life" moment to counter the supposedly "happy ever after" conclusion it appears to be.

What I mean to say is that Tolkien, in writing his book, gives us a conclusion that goes against novelistic convention. The drawn out series of endings (including the Scouring) leads to a rather anti-climactic moment... but only from a narrative/structural point of view, not an emotional one at all.

PJ does precisely the same thing but in filmic terms. Each of the "closing shots" that he gives in the serialised endings (Mount Doom, the coronation, the return to the Shire, Frodo's departure) is large, gorgeous, rounded out with large soundtracks -- they are typical Hollywood closing shots. The fact that they keep happening, I think, hammers home the idea that there is no one way for this film to really "end"; that the story the film is telling defies the easy conventionalities and sententious simplicity of Hollywood narrative. That it is all rounded off with a shot of the closed door of 3 Bagshot Row undercuts the drive to conclusion and understanding -- the final shot of the movies is not a narrative one in which things are explained in a final way, but a shot in which the ongoing story of Sam and Rosie is hidden from us -- they go inside to live their lives, the door closes, and we are left with the image of not being able to see what is going on.

I realize that this is not entirely on point with the original point of the thread, or with the current direction, but I wanted to put that up anyway. It does seem to me, however, that this careful drive to constitute the narrative as not finished, as escaping any final conclusion, works against the prologue's assertion that evil can be destroyed "forever". The vision of "forever" that we have at the end is one of continuing life and ongoing existence/change: no-one is so naive, I think, as to think that life is perfect. So while Sauron may be gone, we are still very much in a world like the one we live in: imperfect, ongoing, and in which bad things happen.

Going back to the topic, it is imperative to take heed on one of the quotes in The Silmarillion.

Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days. (The Silmarillion, "Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath"😉

Evil will eventually grow again in the land. Nothing can be totally good and nothing can be so totally evil. As good prevails, evil will come to crush it, and as evil resides, good will eventually come to destroy it. It's an ever changing cycle of life. 🙂

Originally posted by Smodden
Sauron, the enemy of the free-peoples of Middle-Earth was defeated. The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil [b]forever.

At the beginning of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' Galadrel narrates the prologue and says that Isildur had the chance to cast the ring into the fires of mount doom and DESTROY EVIL FOREVER.

Is she being that literal? If the ring is destroyed all evil will be gone forever? Surly Galadriel, of all people should know that evil can NEVER be totally destroyed. It will always exist in one way or another.

Which I think is a major theme in Tolkien's books.

What do y'all think? [/B]

i think she means the wvil that was sauron..yeah, once the ring was destroyed its bye bye sauron. but not to all evil in middle earth

lol seeing shadowys reply and then nazgul's humors me.....sorry.

ah jeepers me SB, your a frickin geniuse with your replies. I forgot howmuch I missed reading them they do infact pass alot of time.

Pretty plain and simple, evil was kickin about before the ring and evil would still be there after the ring. With the ring destroyed there are still the likes of mouth of sauron ect.

Ah thought occured - if the ring was destroyed back in the war of the last alliance....would Saruman of turned to his evil ways? my guess would be yes, but not at the point of the third age 3018....he had evil in his blood from the start so of course we would turn evil.

Originally posted by Discos

Ah thought occured - if the ring was destroyed back in the war of the last alliance....would Saruman of turned to his evil ways? my guess would be yes, but not at the point of the third age 3018....he had evil in his blood from the start so of course we would turn evil.

But if the ring were destroyed...from whence would Saruman's evil come from?

This question has bothered me for a long time, I can't help thinking though, that it is ulitmatly YOURSELF who is responsible for your evil...but in movies...and books,...what about the influence from other powers??? The ring? And if the ring had not existed...would evil still exist in others???
Another example is Doc Ock...and his arms...remember the chip that was destroyed, and gave the arms some control over him????
Is the evil, a result of yourself...or because of the ring?

After re-reading s-b's post I found this part helpfull...

Evil for Tolkien was intimately connected with the desire for Power, Domination, and control over one's own creation. This is a psychological appreciation of evil as something we are all capable of feeling or succumbing to. It is not a bad guy or bad object which, when once removed from the scene, will lead to our liberation.

Very good point. Everyone has the ability, (and even desire?) to succumb to evil...
and maybee your own GREED...or powerhungryness...can cause you to do evil deeds>>>?

???
I'm just a little unsure of some things.

the ring didnt give saruman his evil, it just gave him the extra nudge out the window for him to use it - and whatnot.

Originally posted by Discos
Ah thought occured - if the ring was destroyed back in the war of the last alliance....would Saruman of turned to his evil ways?

Originally posted by Smodden
This question has bothered me for a long time, I can't help thinking though, that it is ultimately YOURSELF who is responsible for your evil...but in movies...and books...what about the influence from other powers??? The ring? And if the ring had not existed...would evil still exist in others???
Another example is Doc Ock...and his arms...remember the chip that was destroyed, and gave the arms some control over him???? Is the evil, a result of yourself...or because of the ring?

Within all of us, there is a drive towards power, control, domination of others, wanton destruction, etc. There is a “war” going on within us constantly. This is not a war merely inspired by an external force. Even if there were no “Ring of Power”, if there were no evil “out there”, we would still face evil because it exists within us and must be overcome or it will overcome us.

This is perhaps most apparent in Jackson’s theme of “the weakness of Men”: a different emphasis perhaps than Tolkien’s theme, but it is there nevertheless. And what is this weakness, but an inherent (and therefore internal) vulnerability to succumb to evil.

Take the temptations of Boromir and Faramir. They were not only struggling with the external evil of the Ring, but also with weaknesses within themselves. The Ring is playing on their internal desires. In Boromir’s case, this is (as in the book and the movie) his desire for the power to defend his land. In Faramir’s case (and this clearly is a change from the book), it is his desire to prove himself to his father. In both cases, the external influence of the Ring produces an inner conflict. (It is, in many ways, a shame that the film missed the opportunity to convey Denethor’s struggle with despair. The Denethor that we meet in the films is way past the struggling stage, and is portrayed as little more than an obstructive villain. However, it would have taken a significant amount of additional film time to develop this aspect of his character.)

Throughout the three films, Aragorn struggles with self-doubt, and this produces within him a reluctance to fulfill his destiny. This is an aspect of his character that is expanded from a small section in the book (the self-doubt following Gandalf’s fall) to form a major theme of the films. And it is not an external struggle with evil, as embodied in Sauron or the Ring, but an internal struggle, playing out within Aragorn himself, against an inherent weakness within him.

As for Frodo, well he is clearly struggling to resist giving into the Ring throughout the film trilogy. But is he fighting a desire within himself, or is he struggling with the external evil of the Ring? Both most likely, but it’s difficult to tell, because I think that the book is ambiguous on this. We never get to learn what it offers to Frodo in return for his submission to it. But I can understand his actions at least. He had the Ring for so long, he was obviously weighed down, wounded, spiritually demoralized because of it, and he in return became attached to it. Who wouldn't have? If somebody was stuck in Frodo's spot, who wouldn't have done what he did?

A final example of internal struggle may, I think, be seen in the character of Saruman. In this case we see the consequences of one who has lost his inner struggle. In the films, there is, in my view, sufficient in the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman to suggest that he has succumbed to the evil within himself rather than any external force.

Having said all that, I would agree that the films focus primarily on the external struggle with evil, as represented by Sauron and the Ring – and of course Saruman, but there are internal struggles going on too.

The Ring is powerful indeed, but there are those who can resist it: Bombadil, Galadriel, Faramir, Aragorn, Sam, and Bilbo. Then there are those who can't: Frodo, Boromir, and Gollum. Out of the ones who resisted, the person who had it the longest was Bilbo, and he gave it up freely (with a little nudge to help him of course), but he gave it up rather easily.

One has a choice, there is always a choice within somebody, the Ring can't control how somebody reacts to its power. All it can do is lure a person to it, and some people are lured by it, but others didn't fall for it. As I stated before, if there are those who can resist the Ring's lure, then I think that goes to prove that it's more of an internal struggle, more than the external Ring's force of controlling people. One has a choice in the matter of doing it or not doing it. There are those with the strong enough "will" to resist it, and there are those who can't. Making it the internal conflict within each person.

Uhm...I don't think I really answered your question. 😐

😂

Originally posted by Discos
Ah thought occured - if the ring was destroyed back in the war of the last alliance....would Saruman of turned to his evil ways? my guess would be yes, but not at the point of the third age 3018....he had evil in his blood from the start so of course we would turn evil.

To begin with, if the Ring was destroyed in the War of the Last Alliance, Saruman will be completely non-existent in Middle-earth (along with the other Istari for that matter) since they were only sent there by the Powers to aid the people of Middle-earth against Sauron. 🙂

But assuming that the Valar still sent them anyway even though the Ring was destroyed already in the WLA just because they feel like it, then refer to my previous post. 😉

^^ lol ah we're both fools then, I forgot about that as well.

nice reading the extra long post anyway 😂

Those who do not fight evil are, at the end, serving it.
That's a cool line! 😄