One Ring to Rule Them All

The Lord of the Rings is largely about power. Also as it is an epic it inevitably details the human condition, or a view of it. Corruption, or to use Christian terminology sin or fallenness, dominate the tale. This implies pretty much that humanity is significantly troubled by itself, by inherent weakness which is strong enough to dangerously corrupt. The film is also pretty manichean as despite the conflict that exists within humanity between goodness and corruption/evil there is  a ‘dark lord’ Sauron and there are insular hobbits who keep to themselves and savour peace and calm. The fact that Sauron wants complete domination over the world by wielding the ring of power, that is the ring, while the hobbits, exemplified by Frodo and Sam, are simply honest folk seeking to arrest Sauron’s power grab and ensure that peace rules throughout the world clearly colours in a ‘good’ and an ‘evil’.

All those who govern are idiots. It is difficult to try and parse if this is a critique of aristocracy or whether this is a critique of human governance in general. I think that there is barbed criticism for humans’ ability to govern themselves in general, as governors are shown to be vainglorious careerists, bad decision-makers and people who are relentlessly cynical and mistrustful. Some criticism is that political leaders are neglectful of their present family and forever trying to imagine themselves and live in the shadow of previous aristocratic generations is more of a criticism of aristocracy with nonetheless some applicability to democracies. Overall though the actions taken by the characters seem to be an indictment of human politics and governance, with non-humans (elves particularly) and Gandalf, a wizard, being those who guide successful governance. Wizards and elves rather serve as a thinly veiled type of human being, namely better and morally superior human beings who are studious and knowledgeable, while also with an awareness of the epic (that is an acknowledgement of big picture matters and not being content with the provincialism of the hobbits. Pretty much in my opinion thinking, focusing and living for the long term).

The ring corrupts all humans and all hobbits (except one, Sam, I believe) who come near it. The nine human lords who had rings which became ring wraiths, whereas the Dwarves and the Elves were not corrupted equally. And the end of the film has the ring only being destroyed by the selfish desire for the ring of Frodo and Golem clashing and unintentionally resulting in the ring’s destruction. The unintentional destruction I find a saddening moral of the story. Humanity couldn’t get its act together over a very long tale and only dumb luck leads to the survival of humanity from destruction. Furthermore many humans actually ally with Sauron to destroy the main city of humanity, humans who ride elephants and are dressed somewhat exotically…

 

There is an interesting quote at the end of the movie which touched on another issue, but I think it coheres into a harmonious view of the human condition as stated above:

Frodo: [voiceover] And thus it was. A fourth age of middle-earth began. And the fellowship of the ring… though eternally bound by friendship and love… was ended. Thirteen months to the day since Gandalf sent us on our long journey… we found ourselves looking upon a familiar sight. We were home. How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on… when in your heart you begin to understand… there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend… some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold. Bilbo once told me his part in this tale would end… that each of us must come and go in the telling. Bilbo’s story was now over. There would be no more journeys for him… save one. My dear Sam. You cannot always be torn in two. You will have to be one and whole for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to be and to do. Your part in the story will go on.

The quote in full touches on many things in the film but I’m mainly interested in the passage highlighted. There is a humanistic view that effectively all things (even if they take a while) relating to humanity can be modified and consequently all problems can be overcome. Poverty can be aided and worked out of, depression can be treated and overcome through therapy, physical wounds can be healed, ignorance can be educated and possible dangers can be rendered effectively harmless. The passage in bold I found a stark riposte to this view. Sure, the passage is largely individual and phenomenological, I have been reading Kierkegaard’s The Seducer’s Diary around the time which is perhaps why it is so poignant, but overall a powerful sense of fate and inevitability hit me when I heard that passage. Especially in the context of humankind as precariously divided internally with inherent weaknesses that corrupt that message of inevitability is really strong. Sometimes I think this view of humanity, which logically ties up with realism (well if humans are so constantly corruptible we can rely on them to constantly lust for power, right?) and, sigh, conservatism (well humans don’t deserve entitlements if they can’t wish them upon others and systems of trust can’t be established) is simply correct and I willfully go about ignoring it. I’m not sure anything could convince me to stop ignoring ‘the truth’ if that was so the case. Humanistic ideals to me are what’s true and must be pursued, even seeking such values are a fool’s hope, an uncertain hope who’s pursuit stands upon the edge of a knife.