80. If my weakest troops fail to eliminate a hero, I will send out my best troops instead of wasting time with progressively stronger ones as he gets closer and closer to my fortress.
http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

The criticism I most often agree with, when considering Book I, is that the tone and style is uneven in a way that is almost unknown in the later books, where Tolkien plays with his styles like a cathedral organist. Book I alarmingly varies between a kind of childlike jollity and the more somber quasi-terror/quasi-awe that characterizes the later books in the epic. Examples include some of the Bag End, birthday party, and Crickhollow scenes, the infamous fox, Tom Bombadil's less-inspired doggerel, and the encounter with the stone trolls. The jollity is a hangover from The Hobbit, written when the book was simply a sequel about another perilous quest. I do think that Tolkien, who confessed that he enjoyed writing the perfectly vapid hobbit-dialogue that his editors and friends hated and that can now be found in appalling quantities in HoME, had a hard time letting it go - and so some of it survived even the backward rewrite when he knew well what he had accomplished.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "Eeriely the new power of the Ring to corrupt the powerful also seems rather flexible and comes into play only as needed to enhance the drama and suspense rather than in a consistent way". I really don't see any logical inconsistency on Tolkien's part here, if that's what you imply. The difference between the solidity he shows when dealing with this central theme in the story compared to the more inconsistent way he deals with the workings of the invisiblity device, only illustrates IMO your point about the way he thought thematically when writing and re-writing the book.

Dragon-sickness is another example - in The Hobbit there are hints that there is something magically perilous about Smaug's treasure. But this idea stays in the background - common-or-garden avarice may be enough to bring four of the five armies nearly to blows, before Bilbo and the need to ally against the army of orcs intervene. Interesting to hear from Squire that Tolkien considered a dragon-sickness based sequel. Perhaps he was setting this up in the Hobbit, but then didn't need to use the idea?

I guess I've never understood any of the problems people have had with Faramir not appearing to be tempted by the Ring. The Ring works on a combination of the motivations and the innate power of each person, it needs something to work with. Not everyone are driven or fuelled by the desire of a kind of mastery or extension of their own abilities that lend them susceptible to want to have or use the Ring, and people can also be aware of their own weaknesses and therefore decide to keep away from the kind of dangers The Ring represents. While I find some of Faramir's statements or ways of expressing his views a bit grand, I don't find his general reasoning for not wanting The Ring particularly difficult to believe or understand, whether we consider them just in the context of the story or compared to real life. Gandalf for instance is aware of how he could delude himself into thinking that he only would use the Ring for good purposes and fears to take the Ring, why shouldn't Faramir be able to show a similar level of awareness of the dangers of his own fallibility? I am interested in your viewpoint, Elostirion - was it always the same or did it evolve over time?Well as a device, Faramir's attitude provides a force of conflict between himself and Denethor. Plus it allows Frodo to proceed, aided and rested, through Ithilien. I suppose it is possible that Faramir is, as Denethor accuses him of wanting to be, a throwback to great Kings of Old. (Of course if one was a throwback to Isildur, watch out). It is just a shadowy point - the why of Faramir's seeming resistance to the Ring from the get-go. He explains it - not would I pick it up if I found it by the wayside (paraphrasing) but WHY? Has he thought upon it that deeply? And how is his judgment in his short life so close to that of the Wise? I guess I just feel like it is a bit of an oddity. (Note, though - I didn't note it in first reads, only later, once I had more familiarity with other characters' reactions.) I will also say he is one of my favorites - maybe because he is a bit of a puzzle, one of the enigmas. In perusing JRRT's own words on Faramir, he says that he appeared "Unbidden" and rather unwanted but not unliked into the story, and the dream about the Great Wave is JRRT's own dream, which he gives to Faramir. So I can only theorize that if JRRT felt a certain connection with this Man on a personal level (enough to hand him over his own recurring dream), perhaps that explains Faramir's relative and slightly unexpected purity in the matter of the Ring. (Faramir seems too to have been a conduit for expressing the greatness of Numenor, which JRRT says himself that if any more lines about history are given to Faramir it will have to be shoved into Appendices.)

As to your second point about Cirdan and Elrond, it's and interesting point and it's true that Tolkien didn't explicitly explain it or elaborate on it. You've provided some possible reasons for their actions yourself, though, which seem quite credible to me. It seems completely illogical to me and toally at odds with what we know of Cirdan and Elrond's characters to actually attack one of their chief allies for the sake of "the greater good". Moreover much of Tolkien's criticism concerning the power of The Ring is also a criticism of the utilitarianism which taking the Ring at the cost of Isildur's life or by force would represent, an utilitarianism which Saruman clearly subscribes to. And if Cirdan or Elrond actually had seized The Ring from Isildur, who knows how their later actions would have compared to their original intentions, since they've started their dealing with the Ring by wresting it by force? Starting with seemingly good intentions is certainly not a guarantee of a good result in the end.Yes, the reasons I gave I guess MUSTbe a strong statement about the moral code of Elrond and Cirdan, although it is not spelled out. But really, Elves have done darker deeds for much less good reasons - though not them personally. I suppose the entire fate of Middle Earth might be justification for action against Isildur here though; so as you say, the utilitarian ethics of Saruman MIGHT be unjustified here...but considering what's at stake, they might not. And I guess one must balance the wisdom of avoiding becoming entangled with the Ring to allowing it to exist, in the hands of a Mortal man, when they know what Isildur does not - that it MUST be destroyed. Purely as a Devil's Advocate, and analyzing the choice on its face versus the idea of their actions being a plot device - it seems a bit like JRRT has the Elves rather mortgage the future of ME against their own ethics. (I must jump to Film for a second, where Elrond shouting to Isildur "Destroy It!' and Isildur leaving, turns his back - I like the moral dilemma Elrond is having here.) None of these points in any way detract from the story for me, just to be clear. They merely arise in the arena of inquiry and dissection (that affectionate scrutiny again, CG!) and the original concept in the thread of internal consistency.

would certainly result in a worse situation than Smeagol taking the ring by force due to their infinitely greater power. I doubt they would have murdered an ally, and they may have known enough of the ring to realise that forceful possesion of it would lead them on an irrovecibly evil course.