I’ve been thinking a lot about Tolkien.

It is often remarked that a central thesis of his books is that evil provides the means of its own defeat. Sauron crafted the One Ring that killed him, Shelob impaled herself of Sam’s blade, Smaug exposed his belly to Bilbo and let him see the weak point.

I think it is less often commented on that the corollary to that is that good must still act to use those weaknesses. The Ring did not cast itself into the fires of Mt Doom but was brought by the Hobbits. Shelob was only able to impale herself because Sam kept his arm strong and held it out. The black arrow still needed to be shot into Smaug’s belly.

And a final point that I don’t see often enough is that Tolkien clearly believes good only loses if it surrenders to hopelessness. Denethor’s suicide driven by fear would have broken Minas Tirith if not for the Fellowship, Frodo would have fallen to despair if Sam had not been there to carry him, if Bilbo had seen the shot as hopeless then he never could have warned of the weak spot.

But because in those cases someone provided hope, good triumphed.

I don’t know. I’ve just been thinking about that a lot lately for some reason.

@estrogenandspite

That's a good reading. That the One Ring doomed itself (it uses Frodo to curse Gollum, which leads to sure-footed Gollum falling into Mt Doom) would support your case.

OTOH, Tolkien also believed in entropy in addition to good winning: thus elves leave, but Melkor was also out and his empire was ruled by a diminished clerk.

Further, the LotR sequel was about old-man-shouting-at-a-cult-run-by-ignorant-youths. Long way from Silmarillion! Also depressing: so much lost.

@estrogenandspite

While hope is a great tool and instrumental in each victory (and the loss of it is always precondition of evil winning: see also the tale of Húrin), there is also some ongoing thread of depression of things always getting worse. The elves leaving and industrialisation destroying both land and society being the easiest to see. Also Frodo's PTSD.