Love this look at power and corruptibility. I wonder, too, if those who stick to their values inherently tend to be denied power, also--by being unwilling to compromise. It seems to me that often the moral man (or woman) who stands on principle often suffers for it, rather than being rewarded for it. But I guess that's another question, too: who does society reward power to, and why? Thanks for sharing! This will definitely be floating around in my head all day. ^_^
Great thoughts. For my part, I’ve long been a fan of the idea that absolute corruption is a red herring - that every tyrant is doing their own little sad battle with their own consciousness, but ultimately it’s the tyranny that is remembered or portrayed most vividly. As soon as you get out of archetypal figures and into the nuanced interiors of characters the possibility of absolutes in general melts away. Modern fiction likes to challenge this, giving us characters like your “Space Hitler,” but I would be hard pressed to find one with any decent rendering that I couldn’t find some sympathy for at least a little. In these cases, the question of absolute power/corruption starts to look a lot like that of nature/nurture, and is just as unanswerable. Fertile grounds for thought though. Thanks for this.
Hey Parker, great essay. I’m a massive fan of both Spencer and Tolkien. More than just Spencer’s attack on religion, I wonder if Tolkien disliked Spencer’s deconstruction of the idea of a messiah more specifically—the motif of messiah entails mass death and dictatorship to Spencer. His exploration of the idea is interesting though. Do you see any messianic motifs in Tolkien? Some people point to Gandalf (fighting the Balrog and dying and coming back to life, etc.)
Another place to pull them apart is the focus on character’s psychology in Dune, as opposed to the flatter, more “epic” and poetic characters in Lord of the Rings.
In addition to Bombadil, Faramir also willingly gives up the ring if I remember correctly from the book—and that’s crazy because he’s a man!
Those are just some additional thoughts that sprang to mind. Great piece. I’d love to do an essay on analyzing the philosophy of Dune sometime.
Thanks for the essay. I think defining corruption would help. I also agree with the other comment about tyrannical acts being most-remembered despite whatever attempts that person in power made to avoid them. Can they be avoided, and if not, does that prove corruption? I'm not sure. I can think of several acts by leadership in recent history that look like corruption from the outside, but may have seemed like difficult, but sensible choices in the moment for that leader--whereas one of us looking in from the outside would immediately see how they were wrong. Is it the power or is it the perspective?
I would say that the two statements, if we look at them carefully, don't even seem to be mutually exclusive. Yes, power allures the corruptible. However, there is a good bunch of people who seek power not for its allure, but either for a just cause or that the power is thrust upon them, and usually, they tend to get corrupted too. Come to think of it, they get corrupted because the vast majority of people lured by power are corruptible that it is bound to have an effect.
Love this look at power and corruptibility. I wonder, too, if those who stick to their values inherently tend to be denied power, also--by being unwilling to compromise. It seems to me that often the moral man (or woman) who stands on principle often suffers for it, rather than being rewarded for it. But I guess that's another question, too: who does society reward power to, and why? Thanks for sharing! This will definitely be floating around in my head all day. ^_^
Great thoughts. For my part, I’ve long been a fan of the idea that absolute corruption is a red herring - that every tyrant is doing their own little sad battle with their own consciousness, but ultimately it’s the tyranny that is remembered or portrayed most vividly. As soon as you get out of archetypal figures and into the nuanced interiors of characters the possibility of absolutes in general melts away. Modern fiction likes to challenge this, giving us characters like your “Space Hitler,” but I would be hard pressed to find one with any decent rendering that I couldn’t find some sympathy for at least a little. In these cases, the question of absolute power/corruption starts to look a lot like that of nature/nurture, and is just as unanswerable. Fertile grounds for thought though. Thanks for this.
Hey Parker, great essay. I’m a massive fan of both Spencer and Tolkien. More than just Spencer’s attack on religion, I wonder if Tolkien disliked Spencer’s deconstruction of the idea of a messiah more specifically—the motif of messiah entails mass death and dictatorship to Spencer. His exploration of the idea is interesting though. Do you see any messianic motifs in Tolkien? Some people point to Gandalf (fighting the Balrog and dying and coming back to life, etc.)
Another place to pull them apart is the focus on character’s psychology in Dune, as opposed to the flatter, more “epic” and poetic characters in Lord of the Rings.
In addition to Bombadil, Faramir also willingly gives up the ring if I remember correctly from the book—and that’s crazy because he’s a man!
Those are just some additional thoughts that sprang to mind. Great piece. I’d love to do an essay on analyzing the philosophy of Dune sometime.
Thanks for the essay. I think defining corruption would help. I also agree with the other comment about tyrannical acts being most-remembered despite whatever attempts that person in power made to avoid them. Can they be avoided, and if not, does that prove corruption? I'm not sure. I can think of several acts by leadership in recent history that look like corruption from the outside, but may have seemed like difficult, but sensible choices in the moment for that leader--whereas one of us looking in from the outside would immediately see how they were wrong. Is it the power or is it the perspective?
I would say that the two statements, if we look at them carefully, don't even seem to be mutually exclusive. Yes, power allures the corruptible. However, there is a good bunch of people who seek power not for its allure, but either for a just cause or that the power is thrust upon them, and usually, they tend to get corrupted too. Come to think of it, they get corrupted because the vast majority of people lured by power are corruptible that it is bound to have an effect.