June 22, 2004

Re: All the Cool Posts
Danny

The latest waves of posts have been great. Thanks to all the responses to get us on a Tolkien related discussion again. To Annatar, yes I enjoy your pro Sauron posts and find them quite intriguing. So don't think I hate you personally. To all those who posted about Bombadil, refreshing my memory on the Valar theory, thanks 8).

Now to continue the discussions. Annatar you stated that the only option Gandalf had at all was to destroy the ring. Wouldn't that mark Sauron's folley even more if he didn't realize that to be their only option. If destruction was the only option then Sauron was tremendously foolish to have missed that. Sure he doubted himself because of past defeats, but that doubt should have spurred him to analyze the situation from all angles and not continue to see the world as a bunch of aspiring Saurons. Such an egregious oversite will never be wisdom. Someone posted that Sauron just never thought about posting a regiment or orcs to protect mount doom. That just goes with my idea. Sauron knew that while he didn't have the ring, he was vulnerable either to a successor overthrowing him or to his being destroyed. He knew that, but he ignored one of the vulnerabilities entirely despite knowledge that halflings were inside Mordor. I don't care how you think about it but in matters of your own life and death it is utter foolishness to ignore a gillotene hanging over your neck.

On Bombadil and being selfish, I think that it is an interesting thing to think about. I personally think that we are very capable of being selfish and self centered while still being merry and presentable to others. Bombadil was kind and friendly and merry and jovial etc, but he was also selfish. We are all that way quite often. The true test of selflessness is often impossible to evaluate until you are put to the point where you have to lay everything on the line. We all have something we hold closest to our heart. Most of us would not be easily convinced to give that up even if the whole world depended on it. That is selfishness, but it is also human nature. The difference between Frodo and Bombadil was that Frodo put everything on the line and Bombadil was not willing to do that. That is a form of selfishness though it has different implications than the standard connotations the world selfish conveys.

Few have decided to try and address the begining of the Bombadil discussion. I do beleive that he should have been the bearer in more ideal circumstances, and that Tolkien placed him right as Frodo made his sacrifice of leaving the Shire to demonstrate the fundamental difference between the two characters. Of course I don't have access to Tolkien's thought processes, but that is why I would have placed a character like Bombadil there if I were writing the book.