#this is a much longer answer than you needed sooooorry

[tolkien-feels]

I had a thought. A half baked thought. But you know how there are several very legit rebuttals to the "Elrond could have pushed Isildur" position? I had another potential reason pop into my head -- what if another reason could be because of the ring's own "will"? Yeah, Elrond could've pushed Isildur into Mount Doom, but maybe the ring would have abandoned Isildur right then and just landed at Elrond's feet or something. Again, not fully flushed out thought. But I think the ring's "sentience" could also come into play, and not in Elrond's favor...

(Also I'll just take the moment now to join the other appreciate messages you've received! I love your blog, and your observations and thoughts on the text, and seeing your posts really brighten up my day! <3 )

Aww thank you! You're so nice!! <3

This got long so I'll put it under a cut

Like you said, there are many very good reasons why Elrond should Not have pushed Isildur, even if he could (and it's debatable whether he could, I think.) I do think you've got a point, and it fits in nicely with my personal headcanon that broadly speaking, it would be a greater tragedy if Elrond had killed Isildur, even if it was to take down Sauron.

"Oft evil will shall evil mar" is a comforting (and correct!) thought in Tolkien's world, and it's what allows the heroes of all stories to have absurd hope. But it's also a warning. The instant you fall to evil, there's a chance you'll bring about your downfall and worse, even if you think you are totally justified - see Saruman for a clear example.

It's bizarre that Gollum should just happen to die and get the Ring destroyed. A very unlikely chance indeed. Would it be weirder if Elrond attempted to push Isildur and the opposite kind of chance happened? Maybe both Isildur and Elrond die but the Ring escapes. Maybe Isildur dies and the Ring tempts Elrond, who (being in a bad headspace) would be extremely susceptible to temptation. Is it fair to want Elrond to roll the dice here? Is it wise?

Maybe the end justifies the means, but come on. Elrond is one of the Wise. He knows the End is not his to bring about. To slay a companion because he thinks he alone can save Middle Earth is little more than to do Sauron's work for him. Is the Dark Lord Sauron meaningfully better to have than the Dark Lord Morgoth just because Sauron is a Maia where Morgoth was a Vala? I don't think so? Why would Elvish Dark Lord Elrond be much better? Because he could easily be killed if the Ring corrupted him? In that case, someone would feel justified in trying to kill Elrond, and maybe they'd be. But then what? Would the person not then take his place as Arbiter of Life? Ruler of the Life in Arda? That sounds Morgoth-like. How many Dark Lords, great and petty, until someone decides enough is enough and mercy alone breaks the cycle, if the cycle can be broken by any Child of Iluvatar? How many have to die until that lesson is learned?

Alternatively, maybe Elrond does not get corrupted, maybe the Ring gets destroyed. Surely Men would try to get revenge, wouldn't they? And elves would have to fight back, then. An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind, and anyway, is war for revenge less deadly and dark than war for dominion? Does it make a difference why Middle-Earth has darkened, so long as it has darkened? Why kill a common Enemy only to fall into civil war?

Now, I'm not suggesting that Isildur and Elrond should've just passively waited for Fate to play out. They shouldn't! Isildur does fall by not destroying the Ring (though it's hard to blame him)! ...but how on earth does Elrond immediately, voluntarily falling as well help make matters better?? Like??? Does everybody skip over the roughly 10 thousand times when we are told and shown that what the Ring wants is for people to kill each other because "I Alone Should Determine What Happens To The Ring" -- and that the people who are able to resist the Ring are the people who choose mercy? Or, should I say, "Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need"? Elrond killing Isildur would not have been self-defense. It would've been murder, and we can go back and forth all day on whether murder is justifiable but. Satan's backyard is probably the last place in the world you want to test your theories about gray morality. Why take the chance? More importantly, why take the chance in the presence of an item designed to corrupt your very soul?

And I'm not suggesting that Elrond was standing there and thinking "Ah yes I shall take a philosophical stance here as I consider the history of Middle-Earth" or whatever. I'm absolutely not. Elrond does not kill because Elrond may be as strong as a warrior and as venerable as a king of dwarves, but he is also as wise as a wizard and as kind as summer. He has the strength and the authority to kill Isildur. He is too wise and to kind to. That's why he's Good as well as Great.

(He's also probably wise enough to know even the Wise cannot see all ends (as repeatedly emphasized in LotR), so even if he killed Isildur, and then, idk, jumped into lava holding the Ring so there's no way things would go wrong, who's to say if this wouldn't somehow become an AU where Rivendell falls and all its beauty and knowledge and warmth is lost?)

At the end of the day, it's really kindergarten levels of morality: two wrongs don't make a right. If your brother has two toys and doesn't give you one, hitting him and stealing a toy doesn't make the world a fairer place even if you let him keep the other toy. That's like. Really easy to understand. And it might not always work in the real world, but this is fantasy. Elrond's mom became a shiny bird, but what stretches your suspension of disbelief is the part where you're not supposed to be thinking cynically about morality while reading about a world where there are literal angels running around casting spells...?? Not every hero has to be an antihero burdened by hard choices. Sometimes heroes are allowed to, you know, do everything right and still fail but be comforted by the thought that they remained Good, or as Good as they can be.

Anyway sorry for the rant. If I can, let me just quote from Tolkien himself speaking on another similarly criticized, world-altering decision:

If we speak last of the "folly" of Manwë and the weakness and unwariness of the Valar, let us beware how we judge. In the histories, indeed, we may be amazed and grieved to read how (seemingly) Melkor deceived and cozened others, and how even Manwë appears at times almost a simpleton compared with him: as if a kind but unwise father were treating a wayward child who would assuredly in time perceive the error of his ways. Whereas we, looking on and knowing the outcome, see now that Melkor knew well the error of his ways, but was fixed in them by hate and pride beyond return. He could read the mind of Manwë, for the door was open; but his own mind was false and even if the door seemed open, there were doors of iron within closed for ever.

How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwë and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwë was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom.