Evil MacGuffins (Or an excuse to gush about Lord of the Rings)
Itās kind of crazy how so much of Tolkienās worldbuilding has defined fantasy. The default for Elves and Dwarves, fantasy kingdoms, character archetypes, themes, and motifs come from Tolkienās works.
But you know whatās rarely ever redone in modern fantasy? The One Ring. Probably because works piggybacking off the success of their predecessors rarely understand the themes of what made the original so legendary *cough* teen dystopia *cough*.
Addressing the infamous Eagles āplot holeā once again for any stragglers who still think *gotcha* for this masterpiece: 1) The Eagles were busy. 2) The Eagles are not subtle at all and this mission required absolute stealth, because the one place the One Ring can be destroyed is in Sauronās house, thus the closer they get to destroying it, the closer Sauron gets to just reaching out and taking it. 3) There were 9 Nazgul and Fellbeasts in the way. 4) The Eagles are basically gods, second only to the actual gods of the world. This makes them deeply inadvisable to go anywhere near the One Ring.
Why? Yes the Ring gives you some random powers like invisibility and slower aging but its purpose is temptation and political power. As you can see in the movieās prologue, all the Rings of Power were subservient to Sauronās master ring, the One Ring, to bend to his willā¦ to varying degrees of success.
The power of the One Ring is proportional to the power of its wielder, giving you social and political influence over all your followers. So if youāre, say, a king of men, and you become Sauronās minion, youāre going to lead your kingdom to ruin doing his bidding whether you realize youāre doing it or not. If you have no political or social power, like, say a hobbit? The Ring doesnāt have much use for you and you, seeing no benefit to world domination, are more resistant to its beguiling.
All this to say: The story makes it very clear that Frodo has to be the ring-bearer because heās impervious to the Ringās wiles. Anyone more competent, like Aragorn or Legolas, or Gandalf, are more susceptible to its power. The more power you have, the more destruction you will wreak under the Ringās influence, and everyone bends to the Ringās will eventually, no matter how good your intentions.
Eagles are great. Evil Eagles would be very, very bad.
Gandalf is great. Evil Gandalf looks like Saruman, and we all saw how that went.
That is a built-in plot armor I never see in modern fictionāWhy?
One of the many messages of LOTR is not āgood always triumphsā but instead āevil always losesā. The difference being here that itās not necessarily the Power of Friendship that defeats evil, itās evilās selfish and self-sabotaging nature that eats itself to its own demise.
Example: Neither Frodo nor Sam strike the killing blow on Gollum. Gollum falls fighting Frodo for the Ring and can't let go of it to save himself. The Power of Friendship saves Frodo, but it doesn't destroy the Ring.
The One Ring is a MacGuffin like no other in that itās not just a cool inanimate and useless object that only holds meaning to the characters that want itāthe Ring is its own character enticing all these people to lust after it and fall on their own swords doing so.
Obviously, if you find the enemyās magic weapon in your possession, youāre going to want to use it against them, which is exactly Boromirās argument. Any other story and youād have a difficult time justifying why your characters wouldnāt seize this golden opportunity. In this story, by the weaponās very nature, trying to use it is exactly what it, and its creator, wants.
The point of the Ring, and at least my interpretation of its meaning, is this: When youāre going up against the evil and corrupt, you cannot let yourself become corrupted trying to defeat it, or else the cycle will never be broken. Or, āHate canĀnot driĀve out hate; only love can do that.ā
I almost wish we had seen it seriously tempt the more powerful charactersālike seeing Aragorn forced to use it in an emergency the way Frodo does several times. See what it does to him and how hard it is to resist this beguiling weaponās siren song.
āEvil weapon is super conveniently powerful and would solve all our problems but alas, it has some nasty side effectsā has been done before, frequently in anime. Usually, though, that weapon isnāt the centerpiece of the story. Itās the edgy side-characterās Hail Mary when things have gone Very Wrong.
Most LOTR copycats focus on the cool species and the magical lands and the magic systems and a generically evil villain who wants world domination. Yes, Sauron is, by modern standards, pretty one-note. He wants to rule the world. Why? Because heās Evil and Prideful. Thereās nothing wrong with a pure-evil villain, they can be highly entertaining without angst dragging them down.
However, Pure Evil villains work best when either theyāre incredibly charismatic, like Disney Renaissance villains, or theyāre just the face of the metaphor. Ozai from ATLA does not need character development, Netflix. He may be the face of the Fire Nation, but itās his regime and this one elementās unbalanced crusade for world domination thatās the āvillainā.
Sauron isnāt even a giant, corporeal eye in the book. Heās just this disembodied entity represented by the eye in visions. His influence and how it motivates legions of orcs, humans, and anyone else tempted by power, is the āvillainā.
The One Ring serves as his thematic proxy. Itās not just a magic ring, itās a cosmic mousetrap waiting to spring on anyone proud enough to think they can overcome it.
And I just never see that in modern fantasy.
TLDR; There is no MacGuffin quite like the One Ring and no, the Eagles arenāt a lazy or forgotten deus ex machina. When youāre coming up with your heroes and villains in fantasy and sci-fi, consider something like the Ring as this double-edged sword that has everyone gunning for it either unknowing that itās exactly what the villain wants, or too proud to think they can fall victim to it.
