THE MYTH OF INVISIBILITY!
Few pop-culture icons are more recognizable today than Frodo Baggins and his magic ring. When the mysterious gold ring was reluctantly passed on to him by his uncle Bilbo, in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the story became a literary and box office smash, spawning an entire new generation of J.R. Tolkien fans and Sci-Fi Fantasy geeks. Frodo's perilous quest to destroy the evil inherent within the ring takes us on an incredibly adventurous journey, which spans over fifteen hours of film and a decade of block-buster sequels and prequels, telling the amazing tale of the "One Ring", and the extraordinary cast of creatures bent on either wielding its power or destroying it.
One characteristic of the ring that is underscored regularly in the films; is the invisibility that it grants its wearer in the natural realm, while dangerously exposing them to evil in the spiritual realm, from which the ring has its origins. However, as original and ground-breakingly epic as this story is, this concept is not unique to literature at all, in fact, it is actually thousands of years old. As a result, many people realize the impact of Tolkien's use of this literary image, as brilliantly highlighting his considerable knowledge of "...theology, philosophy, literature, and history, ...which all contribute to the development of the symbolic, moral, and psychological significance of invisibility... (Beale)"
It also "...demonstrates his knowledge of the philosophic and literary tradition associated with the story of the ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic, a story that suggests that when people’s actions are not visible and open to the moral scrutiny of others, people may become self-serving and cease to be virtuous. (Beale)" In this ancient ethical reflection, Glaucon, the brother of Plato, asserts that if identical rings were given to a just man and an unjust man, the outcome would be the same, because both men would be corrupted by the temptation to do evil, knowing they could get away with it. Glaucon is convinced by this, that humans only act justly because they are compelled to do so by external forces, (i.e. society, etc.) which will hold them accountable for their unjust actions.
In modern day philosophy, the ramification of this type of thinking has come to be known as Ethical Egoism and to some degree, Consequentialism; i.e. basing moral principles upon what is best for my own self-interests and the consequences of my actions. In other words, "If there are no consequences, and the action promotes my own interests, it must be considered a morally acceptable act." Sound familiar? However, there is a major flaw in Gloucon's premise, which is skillfully brought out by Tolkien, in the virtuous hobbit characters who are chosen to bear the ring to its destruction.
Do we not also have internal forces, (i.e. conscience, guilt, innate sense of right and wrong, decency and goodness), working inside of us? While it may be the case, that a truly just and moral person might be tempted to use the ring, and may even give in to the illicit freedoms that it provides, their good conscience would not allow them to continue under the weight of guilt that it would produce. Ensnared by the deceptive reality that, “sin is fun for a season”, they may even enjoy their wicked deeds for a period of time, but again, this temporal existence would come crashing down in fits of self-reproach, shame, and remorse! Even if unable to stop because of the addictive nature of ring’s allure, (“My Precious”), the moral person would be filled with regret and contrition, while the immoral person would scoff at the notion of being sorry for what they had done, which is where the major distinction between the two exist.
Consider the three characters most effected by the power of the ring in the films; Gollom, a horribly gaunt creature who murdered his best friend to attain the ring, and completely gave himself over to its wicked influences, until it possessed and destroyed his life. Bilbo, who was on the very same path to destruction, until the ring was taken from him by Gandolf, and his nephew Frodo, who bore the ring under a heavy burden, occasionally failing to resist its magnetism, but ultimately had the virtue and moral fortitude to destroy the ring.
Plato's masterful metaphor of invisibility still 'rings' true today, doesn't it? (Sorry, that was bad, but I couldn't resist the pun.) No doubt, we have all imagined the things we could get away with if we were granted invisibility. But, while the ring initially provides the wearer with a sense of freedom, anonymity, and a complete lack of consequences, eventually, as the film suggests, the awareness that someone is watching you begins to take hold, and that you are not alone in this bubble of invisibility, and certainly not free from the consequences of your own actions.
Within Plato and Tolkien's brilliant symbolism, what we can ultimately see, is the reality of, "...a hidden war: the conflict between good and evil in the macrocosm of the universe, and the resistance to temptation in the microcosm of the heart... Readers who understand the deeper symbolic, moral, and psychological significance of invisibility in The Hobbit, will no longer see it as a mere magic trick to move the plot forward, but will instead appreciate the deeper meaning of the motif. (Beale)"
Keep in mind, that even if invisibility were possible, “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good. (NKJV Prov 15:3)”. I, like most people, would like to strive to be as virtuous as Frodo or even Samwise Gamgee, but I also acknowledge my fallen nature as a creature as corrupt and defiled as Gollum. In my flesh, I would love to put on the ring of invisibility, but in my spirit, I know the Lord is watching and I would rather live to please Him! “Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Mat 26:41)”
By Pastor Glen Mustian
Works Cited:
Beal, Jane, PhD. Why is Bilbo Baggins Invisible?: The Hidden War in The Hobbit. Web. 2015.
NKJV New King James Version. Holy Bible. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN: 2000. Print.
