'Fruitless Victories' and Isildur's taking of the Ring

[A Trifle Sauron Fancies]

I instinctually disagreed when Dr. Olsen stated in last week's class that Isildur's 'taking' of the Ring was a good move--not that claiming it was, but that taking it away from Sauron was a good move. I couldn't figure out exactly what was bothering me about that so much until this weekend. I re-listened to the last two weeks of class for something to do while sick, and realized that two weeks ago, we spoke for a long time about the 'fruitless victories' of the War of Wrath and the War of the Last Alliance. We concluded that Elrond was essentially saying "war won't work, I've seen two victorious wars that failed to end evil forever".

I think in that framework, the War of the Last Alliance, and Isildur's taking of the Ring, are always doomed to be fruitless. War is, ultimately, an act of domination, even if it is a 'good war'. Resisting domination through war does seem to be explicitly justified by Tolkien (I'm thinking of Faramir's speech here), but in the end, one side does end up defeated and dominated by the other. I'm not sure anyone, having led armies for seven years, and taking the Ring through the rights of arms and bloodlust, could have done anything other than what Isildur did. I think that's exactly *why* the victorious wars end up fruitless.

Taking the Ring, as well, I don't think can be seen as anything other than an act of domination. We spoke of the Ring last week in a very Boromirish way: the Ring as a weapon of great power. But to Sauron, it's far more than that. The consequences to him of someone else using the Ring against him are terrible. I'm thinking primarily here of the extended version of Gandalf's discourse on this from the earlier draft of The Last Debate found in The War of the Ring, but even in the published text, the threat of his Ring being used against him is enough to panic Sauron, and to convince him to throw away his carefully crafted plans and to move more quickly than he planned--something that becomes instrumental in his destruction.

I don't mean to say that the War of the Last Alliance, and the overthrow of Sauron were the wrong things to do. I don't have an answer for what they could have done to actually win. After all, when Sauron is finally defeated for good, it's an act of Grace, springing from multiple acts of mercy. That's not something you can replicate on demand. However, I think it is fair to say that the War of the Last Alliance was always doomed to be fruitless, and to not achieve its final ends. Taking the Ring from Sauron was definitely the wrong move, because it would inevitably destroy whoever did so (Isildur is only saved from destruction by his death), but there may not have been a 'right' move under those circumstances.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

I instinctually disagreed when Dr. Olsen stated in last week's class that Isildur's 'taking' of the Ring was a good move--not that claiming it was, but that taking it away from Sauron was a good move. I couldn't figure out exactly what was bothering me about that so much until this weekend. I re-listened to the last two weeks of class for something to do while sick, and realized that two weeks ago, we spoke for a long time about the 'fruitless victories' of the War of Wrath and the War of the Last Alliance. We concluded that Elrond was essentially saying "war won't work, I've seen two victorious wars that failed to end evil forever".

I think in that framework, the War of the Last Alliance, and Isildur's taking of the Ring, are always doomed to be fruitless. War is, ultimately, an act of domination, even if it is a 'good war'. Resisting domination through war does seem to be explicitly justified by Tolkien (I'm thinking of Faramir's speech here), but in the end, one side does end up defeated and dominated by the other. I'm not sure anyone, having led armies for seven years, and taking the Ring through the rights of arms and bloodlust, could have done anything other than what Isildur did. I think that's exactly *why* the victorious wars end up fruitless.

Taking the Ring, as well, I don't think can be seen as anything other than an act of domination. We spoke of the Ring last week in a very Boromirish way: the Ring as a weapon of great power. But to Sauron, it's far more than that. The consequences to him of someone else using the Ring against him are terrible. I'm thinking primarily here of the extended version of Gandalf's discourse on this from the earlier draft of The Last Debate found in The War of the Ring, but even in the published text, the threat of his Ring being used against him is enough to panic Sauron, and to convince him to throw away his carefully crafted plans and to move more quickly than he planned--something that becomes instrumental in his destruction.

I don't mean to say that the War of the Last Alliance, and the overthrow of Sauron were the wrong things to do. I don't have an answer for what they could have done to actually win. After all, when Sauron is finally defeated for good, it's an act of Grace, springing from multiple acts of mercy. That's not something you can replicate on demand. However, I think it is fair to say that the War of the Last Alliance was always doomed to be fruitless, and to not achieve its final ends. Taking the Ring from Sauron was definitely the wrong move, because it would inevitably destroy whoever did so (Isildur is only saved from destruction by his death), but there may not have been a 'right' move under those circumstances.

You make some good points, but I think there's one detail that needs to be considered:
I think the purpose behind the 'taking' is relevant too.
If the Ring was taken from Sauron purely for the purposes of destroying it then that would be the best outcome.
The nature of Ring seems to have made that unlikely, if not impossible.
If the Ring had not been cut from Sauron's hand, but instead his whole body picked up and thrown into the fires close at hand, Isildur might have avoided the influence of the Ring.

Defeat and Dominance seems to take one of a few forms:
If Morgoth had defeated and dominated it would have ended in the destruction of all Arda;
If Sauron had defeated and dominated it would have been to order the actions of all in accordance with his wishes; and
If Sauron's forces had been defeated and dominated we are at least invited to think that the only order would be 'don't attack us again'.

 

[Flammifer]

If the 'final end' of victory is, 'to end evil forever', then all victories will be fruitless (except, perhaps, the last).

As Gandalf said to Frodo in 'The Shadow of the Past', "Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again."

Evil is inevitable in Arda Marred. Evil can be defeated, but no victory is permanent. The battle must always be fought again.

As Elrond will go on to say (in the next slide in the class), "Fruitless did I call the victory of the Last Alliance? Not wholly so, yet it did not achieve its end."

The War of the Ring and the destruction of the Ring would also not 'end evil forever'. Tolkien knew this full well. He lived through most of the 20th century. He saw 'The War to end all Wars' do no such thing. Evil arose again, in the form of Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia. Victory in WWII did not end evil. It arose again the Soviet Union and Maoist China as regimes piled up the corpses of their own citizens in tens of millions.

Perhaps Elrond was more of an optimist than Tolkien, thinking that the objective of ending evil could and should be possible in victory? Perhaps Elrond was more of a pessimist than Tolkien, thinking that victories that defeated but did not end evil were 'fruitless'?

Gandalf's perspective on evil is, I believe, wiser than Elrond's. Evil can be defeated, but it will come again. Then it is up to those 'who live to see such times' to fight it again.

 

[amysrevenge]

I think you could subtitle the entire existence of Arda as "Arda: Not Wholly Fruitless".