Belling the Ring

[alatar]

Note that the following is written without the Books, a net or possibly a clue. Anyway...

We own a dog.

She's part Border Collie, meaning that she has psychological issues, but all and all, she's exactly what you would expect when you think dog. Long time ago my family *owned* a cat. I say owned meaning that we paid money for him, and we registered him with the county, and so we had documentation saying that we were his owners and were, in theory, responsible for his welfare.

But, as you might well know, you don't own a cat.

He stayed with us as it suited him. If the neighbors had put out a better spread, I think that we might not have seen him again. Cats are like that. You don't train them - they don't sit or stay - they play with you when it amuses them, and as far as they're concerned, you're there for their entertainment and pleasure. Unlike with 'man's best friend,' a relationship with a cat is like one where you're sitting by the phone all night, hoping that he/she will call, biting your nails as you know (though you're trying to hide it from yourself) that he/she is most likely out with someone else.

The One Ring was a cat.

I once thought that the One Ring was Sauron's, but more consideration makes me think that this just ain't so. It stayed with Sauron as it suited it, but was ready to changes hands when it saw a better owner.

Consider:

• The Ring was no help against the Númenóreans. I'm guessing that the Ring saw a golden opportunity in Ar-Pharazôn, and just itched to get onto his hand. Sauron may have known this and so kept his hand in perpetual 'clench.' Then again, it might have preferred ME to the Land of the Gift, and after the War of Wrath, it might not be too smart to be that close to the Valar.

• As the Ring could not be born by fish or the Valar, it made its way back to ME after the Drowning. One might think that Sauron brought it back with him, born on a dark wind or something, yet the Ring may have just followed. Back in ME, Sauron was its most familiar and best bet there, and so it returned to its so-called master.

• The Ring did not help Sauron when he faced Elendil and Gil-galad. I think that it realized that the Last Alliance was going to win, and so decided change sides and to go after Isildur, leaving Sauron. Surely when Sauron's body was broken, it had no reason to stay, but if in the War of the Ring we are to believe that a disembodied Sauron can reclaim the Ring, then why didn't go with him to wherever he hid himself for the years between his defeat and reappearance?

• It betrays Isildur at the Gladden Fields. Was it trying to get back to an evil being as it found its current bearer, the first it tasted of the mortal and good side, annoying?

• The Ring immediately leaves Déagol for Sméagol, sensing in the later a blacker heart and more potential.

• Finding no better bearer in Sméagol's village, it prompt him to leave for greener/darker pastures. Was Smeagol's spelunking into the roots of the mountain guided by the Ring, as it was trying to find a new bearer not unlike the Balrog hidden under Moria?

• Finding no other worthy bearer, the Ring leaves Gollum for Bilbo. Not much else can be made from its journey in the Hobbit, except that Bilbo uses it to kills spiders, fool elves, betray his companions and bring about the downfall of a Dragon - which precipitated a war.

• In Gandalf the Ring sees a great bearer, and so attempts to catch him. Was this what prompted it to go along with Bilbo, finding not only one who would carry it away from Gollum ("Enunciate properly or shut up already!") but someone who smelled of Istari? Was this why it allows Bilbo to walk away at Bag End, so that it can be free for the taking in the presence of Gandalf?

• The Ring goes along with Frodo, knowing that his journeys may carry it to better choices. It goes for Bombadil, yet is rejected (first time for that!). In Bree the Ring puts out the call to anyone else. Aragorn? Bill Ferny? The squint-eyed Southerner? Was someone in the room willing to get it to Saruman? Orthanc or bust?

• At Weathertop, the Ring could have stayed on Frodo's finger, yet somehow comes off. Did it still see Aragorn as a better bearer than to be returned to Sauron via the Nine? But Aragorn, like Gandalf before him, reject the Ring's affections - they're just not Ring-people.

• From Rivendell to Parth Galen the Ring works poor Boromir hard. As no other of the Fellowship could provide such a good place to live - Minas Tirith - the Ring set upon him. Through Boromir the Ring would have gotten what it liked most - power and dominion. Surely the Gondorian army, led by the Ring-enhanced Boromir (he would have thrown out his father) would have attacked Mordor. Blood would have spilled, and that might have been enough to sate the Ring. Who cared if it were Boromir or Sauron's hand that held it? For the Ring, either would do, and the end would be the same.

• Oops! In Lothlorien the Ring makes a play for Galadriel, and who could blame it? Through the Golden Lady it would have gained much power, but there's just something about those Elves that would have soured the grapes. Even at her worst Galadriel may have just embalmed ME, and where's all of the fun and blood in that? But again we see, as during Gandalf's trial, that the Ring could have willingly moved on, setting up a new Dark Lord in place of Sauron. The Ring knew no loyalty, and unless rebuffed by Gandalf, Aragorn and Galadriel, it would have used its new hands to overthrow Sauron, then set things up to its liking.

• From Parth Galen onward, the Ring's pickings are slim. It could stay with Frodo, awaiting a better choice, or go with that nutter Gollum again. Frodo's plodding took it closer to its former home, and maybe that was okay. Sauron wasn't that bad, given the choices. Still, if an orc were to come close enough, and if Shelob had fingers...

• So at Sammath Naur we finally see the stereotypical cat. The Ring is home as home it could be - like having returned to a fiery womb of sorts. Now, does it call out to Sauron? Nope. It stays with Frodo, prompting him to use it. Seeing this from Barad-dûr, did Sauron's heart not just break?

• And so on...

_____

Anyway, all my ramblings above are just to suggest that the One Ring was not Sauron's, would have left him in a heartbeat for a better bearer, and was responsible in part for choosing its bearer and disposition.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think it’s well documented that Tolkien was not 'a cat person', but I'm not convinced that The Ring was a direct parody. As Tolkien says in the forward, "Many people mistake allegory for applicability". I think this is a case of applicability; The Ring can have many meanings to the reader and writer (I'm trying not to get into the canonicity argument here). But, yes, The Ring did have many 'cat-like' qualities as you said.
I cannot say that I think The Ring stayed with Sauron as it suited it. I think The Ring genuinely believed that Sauron was the ultimate master; going to others was just a way of trying to get back to him, through the weaker minded. I don't think The Ring would even let someone who wielded it overthrow Sauron, in a way; Sauron had The Ring under his spell... Well, that's how I read it...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I cannot say that I think The Ring stayed with Sauron as it suited it. I think The Ring genuinely believed that Sauron was the ultimate master; going to others was just a way of trying to get back to him ...

I agree. To the extent that the Ring did have a will of its own, it was merely an aspect of Sauron's will - an extension of his will, if you like. It would suffer no other master. And even if mastered by another and used to overthrow Sauron (and Tolkien says that Gandalf is the only one who would have even a chance of acheiving this), the Ring (and thus Sauron) would still be master in the end.

[davem]

:
Originally Posted by Hookbill
I cannot say that I think The Ring stayed with Sauron as it suited it. I think The Ring genuinely believed that Sauron was the ultimate master; going to others was just a way of trying to get back to him ...

I'm a bit uncomforatble about the word 'belief' in this context. I'm not sure the Ring went in for belief &/or disbelief.

And even if mastered by another and used to overthrow Sauron (and Tolkien says that Gandalf is the only one who would have even a chance of acheiving this), the Ring (and thus Sauron) would still be master in the end.

I think the relationship between Sauron & the Ring is subtle - as is his relationship with Middle-earth as a whole. In a way he is present everywhere his servants & the Ring are. His 'shadow' stretches across Middle-earth, his eye ranges across the land, the Nazgul are like the fingers of his hands (nine riders, nine fingers) reaching out to take what he desires. The Ring is his will, his 'life'. He survives as long as it survives. In that sense it is very like the fairy story theme of the giant's/monster's heart. The heart is kept safe in a secret place & so the giant seems impervious to harm. The only way to kill him is to find his heart & destroy it.

As Alatar has said, the Ring does not need Sauron in order to exist (there's never any suggestion that the Ring could be destroyed by killing Sauron). How much the Ring & Sauron are one is another question. Certainly, in order to use the Ring one has to make oneself into another Sauron as much as one is made into another Sauron by the overwhelming power of the Ring (ie overwhelming once claimed). The Ring is the will of Sauron - or at least it was that to begin with - whether it changed & evolved into something more is another question. I wonder how much of an individual personality Sauron actually had by the end & how much he was 'simply' a 'force' a 'will to power'.

(That was a bit too rambling - sorry)

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

And even if mastered by another and used to overthrow Sauron (and Tolkien says that Gandalf is the only one who would have even a chance of acheiving this), the Ring (and thus Sauron) would still be master in the end.

Tolkien discussed the what-if-Gandalf-used-the-Ring scenario in Letter # 246. If Gandalf overcame Sauron, not Sauron but the Ring would be the ultimate winner:

Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

Remember, though, that Letter # 246 is a draft; the book doesn't say whether or not a 'clean copy' was actually sent.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm a bit uncomforatble about the word 'belief' in this context. I'm not sure the Ring went in for belief &/or disbelief.

Fair point.

His 'shadow' stretches across Middle-earth, his eye ranges across the land, the Nazgul are like the fingers of his hands (nine riders, nine fingers) reaching out to take what he desires.

Good imagery. I like the association of the nine Nazgul with Sauron's 9 fingers.

As Alatar has said, the Ring does not need Sauron in order to exist (there's never any suggestion that the Ring could be destroyed by killing Sauron).

True, but to a degree the Ring was Sauron. If Sauron was destroyed and the Ring remained, Sauron would still have an existence of sorts. And while the Ring remained in existence, wouldn't Sauron have the capability of restoring his physical body and returning to claim the Ring from whomsoever it had mastered?

In may ways, the Ring was a "failsafe" device for Sauron. His will would be preserved within it and allow him ultimately to return for as long as it remained undestroyed. And since no one in Middle-earth was capable of destroying it, Sauron was in a "win-win" situation, even when it was not in his possession. No wonder it took an act of providence to defeat the whole set-up.

So, no. I do not see the Ring as being like a cat (and I know exactly what you mean, alatar, having been "adopted" by one while at college). The Ring was not independent of Sauron, as a cat would be. Rather, it was part of him - an extension of him, as davem's imagery suggests. And it was not capable of choosing a different master. When separated from Sauron, all it could do was seek to adapt and to influence its surroundings and those around it in an effort to return to him. This was its "instinct", or "program" if you like.

Then again, as Sauron was originally conceived as a cat, perhaps the Ring was part-cat after all.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Earendilyon

If Gandalf overcame Sauron, not Sauron but the Ring would be the ultimate winner.

Which would mean, in a way, that Sauron was the ultimate winner. And it seems to me, although Tolkien does not say as much in that letter, that this would open up the possibility of Sauron regaining physical presence and returning to claim the Ring from the Ring-mastered Gandalf.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

We own a dog.
. . . .

But, as you might well know, you don't own a cat.


The One Ring was a cat.

I think perhaps it is dog owners/ lovers who have this false notion of cats (although I freely admit I could be wrong, having been attacked and bitten several times by dogs as a child; and, no, they weren't rabid and neither am I).

Of course one does not 'own' a cat. Cats are neither slaves nor property nor material objects. Nor do cats get into power-tripping plays of dominance. Cats are not possessive in their love. They don't impose their will or demand attention and affection. They respect their owner's agency. They are as pure an example of unselfish, unbinding love as one can find.

Dogs, on the other hand, are into relationships of dominance and control, even if they appear to be the submissive partners. They, after all, often let their masters know when they want a walk. Yet it is the humans who are the ones who call 'stop' in the activities. This whole notion of 'training' reflects the deplorable and abysmal concept of hierarchy, dominance and control which is the very antithesis of real friendship and love.

I would be very tempted to say the Ring was a dog were I not so aware of how cruelly people have usurpt animals to serve human designs. Or perhaps a horse. Yes, that might possibly fit. Sauron cracking his whip to demand more speed, more distance, more extension of control. No wonder Rohan was so greatly at risk.

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Which would mean, in a way, that Sauron was the ultimate winner. And it seems to me, although Tolkien does not say as much in that letter, that this would open up the possibility of Sauron regaining physical presence and returning to claim the Ring from the Ring-mastered Gandalf.

I beg to disagree on this point. As I see it, Sauron put a lot of his power into the Ring, but not himself! After the Ring was indeed destroyed, Sauron did still exist, but completely powerless, because he had put most of his power into the Ring, and much of the rest into restoring himself and Mordor a couple of times.
The effect of Gandalf mastering the Ring and overcoming Sauron with it, would be the same to Sauron as when it were destroyed: its power would forever be lost to him:

If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. - Letter # 246

The Ring would continue to exist, though. And the ultimate effect for Middle-earth would be disastrous, because:

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']- Letter # 246

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever.

I beg to differ with Tolkien (as is my right as reader).

Although that letter contemplates Gandalf defeating Sauron with the Ring. Perhaps, in that unique situation, Sauron's bond with the Ring, or that part of him residing within it, would be irrevocably broken.

I would still maintain that if Sauron was defeated otherwise, without that bond being broken, it would be possible for him to return to claim it from the one that it had mastered.

Note also that the letter puts paid to alatar's cat theory:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. (emphasis added)

That doesn't sound very cat-like ...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Nor do cats get into power-tripping plays of dominance ... They don't impose their will or demand attention and affection ... They are as pure an example of unselfish, unbinding love as one can find.

!!!

Pull the other one, Bb!

Cats, like any other animal, have a highly developed territorial instinct. Unlike dogs, they refuse to tolerate others sharing their territory (but will tolerate a "carer" provided their needs are properly catered for) and will exert dominance to enforce their will in that regard. They are most certainly not averse to demanding affection, although only on their own terms. And they instinctively put themselves above all others around them (offspring excepted). Hence their propensity to adopt other "carers" when their own are not properly providing for their needs, as they see it. They are probably the most selfish creatures in existence.

I can certainly see why Tolkien originally conceived Sauron as a cat. They most certainly belong in Mordor.

[alatar]

Great replies all. And after reading them, I see that I should clarify some points a bit - might have went a little 'off' in the original post. I'll stay away from the bullet points that I so love, however...

First off, I like cats and dogs. Both can be great companions - or not - depending on the individual pet and owner. We treat our dog as a less-capable child that does not require a college fund; yet she is part of the family and not a plaything or toy or even a 'pet.' A cat in our household would be treated similarly.

When I say that the One Ring is a cat, I mean that the Ring exhibits the stereotypical cat behavior and traits. Why? Well, first, the One Ring is not Sauron. You can't have two things be the same thing, if that makes any sense. Sauron, in making the Ring, did not clone himself, and even if he were able to do so (NOT!), the clone would be his creation and not the original. There would be inherent limitations in the secondary, and so the Ring could not be as Sauron. But I digress.

The Ring was not Sauron's child. Surely some of me is within my children, yet my children exhibit behavior that is not Ring-like (besides the obvious, yet the one daughter tends to tempt others into evil deeds ). They are autonomous; well, they will be one day I hope. The One Ring was more parasitic in nature in that it requires a host to truly be active. My kids are separate from me and can exist without me. We share many things in common, yet my children may grow up not liking Tolkien! The Ring had no such choice. It was like Sauron, and shared much of his desires.

The One Ring was not a new creation unto itself. Again, it could not reproduce, could not do much without a 'helping hand.'

So my thoughts ran thus: The Ring was not Sauron, was not his child, was not a separate autonomous individual, and so the best that I could imagine was that the Ring was like a pet of sorts - semi-autonomous and having many traits of its owner, yet also having its own special individualism.

Our pet, having been with us since puppydom, has taken on many of our family's characteristics while also adding her personality and uniqueness to the mix. It's not been that we've trained her or that she's trained us; it's been a mutual growth experience. Still the dog is more dependent on us than we on her. She (boy is she becoming famous), theoretically, could live on her own, though I'm guessing that she's really too domesticated to truly do so. She then requires an owner or a host.

The owner or host could be someone else - not me. The current host would acquire the benefits of her companionship. She protects us, she plays with us and is a great companion/member of the family - the new owner would get all of this (and for $10, she's yours! ).

But, in reality, this wouldn't work with my pet. Not only is she nuts because her genetics, we've treated her so much like family that for her to change owners would break her heart (we've left her at the parents' house for an extended weekend while we were away and it was bad). So, though the Ring might be a pet, it was not as my dog.

In the past, as mentioned, we owned a cat. Again, the cat was as much a family member as is the dog, yet the cat would catch and kill rabbits, mice and other assorted small animals, and so I would think that the cat could live on its own. Also, as I saw the same cat eat at the neighbors and also play with the same, I'm guessing that the cat could survive if we'd left town suddenly. Surely it may miss us, and we him, but to me the pet's chances of surviving and even thriving a host change seem to be greater if the pet is a cat and not a dog.

And so the One Ring is a cat.

Hopefully that was a little more clear.

[Anguirel]

Ever since the rise of Christianity, cats have been slandered, insulted, maligned and generalised. Unlikely as it may seem, O Saucepanned One, you yourself are a link in a tradition that associated cats with pagans, Satan, Judas Iscariot and witches. Even in a secular age, this distrust could not be exterminated, particularly among men. Cats fitted into a convenient nook, as of course did dogs. The intellectually lazy could lay down truism-laden laws on these domestic animals without having to think.

"You know where you are with a dog. Dogs are loyal."

Richard II's greyhound happily deserted him for Bolingbroke.

"Cats never really love humans. They're in it for the food."

In a cemetery in the south of France, I saw a Burmese cat refusing to budge from his family's crypt, lying outside the gate for days-just as dogs sometimes do.

Not all dogs are saints. Not all cats are Machiavells (come to that, Machiavelli wasn't a Machiavell.) All that glitters is not gold; things are more strange than the science of cliche declares them to be, and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Well, first, the One Ring is not Sauron. You can't have two things be the same thing, if that makes any sense. Sauron, in making the Ring, did not clone himself, and even if he were able to do so (NOT!), the clone would be his creation and not the original.

I didn't suggest that the Ring was Sauron, rather that it was an extension of his will and power. It was a separate and distinct part of him. I don't find that too incredible in a fantasy world.

I suppose that it depends upon whether you regard the Ring as a "character" in the story. If you see it purely as an object in which Sauron imbued part of his power then no, it is not a part of him. But I see it differently, as you seem to do with your comparison of it to a pet. The Ring was a "character" in the sense that it could adapt itself and exert influence independently.

But it could not have a life of its own. Sauron could create it, but could not imbue it with a life of its own, just as Aule could not imbue his Dwarves with life. Only Eru could do that. So, if you regard the Ring as a "living character", as I do, it's life, will, spirit, fea, call it what you will, had to come from somewhere. Either he trapped an evil spirit within it, which would give it a measure of independent will, or he imbued it with part of his own life, or fea. I do not regard the Ring as having an independent will. Although it could act independently, it was acting according to the (disjointed) will of its master. I can only conclude, therefore, that he imbued it with part of his own will.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Anguirel

The intellectually lazy could lay down truism-laden laws on these domestic animals without having to think.

Actually, I was speaking from experience. They can of course make very good companions, as long as their carer recognises the reality of the relationship.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

... and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

Try telling that to all the poor teachers, parents and minor offenders who have been assigned there.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pull the other one, Bb!

Cats, like any other animal, have a highly developed territorial instinct. Unlike dogs, they refuse to tolerate others sharing their territory (but will tolerate a "carer" provided their needs are properly catered for) and will exert dominance to enforce their will in that regard. They are most certainly not averse to demanding affection, although only on their own terms. And they instinctively put themselves above all others around them (offspring excepted). Hence their propensity to adopt other "carers" when their own are not properly providing for their needs, as they see it. They are probably the most selfish creatures in existence.

I can certainly see why Tolkien originally conceived Sauron as a cat. They most certainly belong in Mordor.

Oh, right. Cats were domesticated by the Egyptians and so the animals must be associated with those heathen pagans and belong in Mordor. Right. Right. Another bit of cross-cultural myopia.

For your information, my two cats do share their territorial space. Not all of it, but they have learned to 'tolerate' each other's presence in places that they both claim.

And if you're going to use territoriality as a defining factor for Mordor, let's look at the races in Middle-earth, where Aragorn won't even allow men into The Shire after the Ring is destroyed.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Not all dogs are saints. Not all cats are Machiavells (come to that, Machiavelli wasn't a Machiavell.) All that glitters is not gold; things are more strange than the science of cliche declares them to be, and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally Posted by Alatar

And so the One Ring is a cat.

Hopefully that was a little more clear.

Bah. Ride a cockhorse to Banbury Cross.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, right. Cats were domesticated by the Egyptians and so the animals must be associated with those heathen pagans and belong in Mordor. Right. Right.

Er, when did I ever say that Ancient Egyptians or pagans belong in Mordor? Are you perchance assuming an imperial attitude simply by virtue of my nationality? Perhaps that's ...

... Another bit of cross-cultural myopia.

[alatar]

I think that the Saucepan Man has stated my thoughts more concisely than my attempts have proved. Thanks.

And I did not wish this thread to become the flashpoint of the dog-lovers/cat-lovers civil war. Again, I used the word cat as (1) I personally observed certain behavior of this common animal and (2) we all know to which kind of animal I'm referring. Sigh.

Anyway, what's always pushed me away from the 'One Ring is Sauron's' camp is that is seems to me that the Ring would have been just as happy with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Aragorn - okay, so maybe not Elrond .

I think that somewhere it states that Sauron, knowing more about the Ring than any other, fears that someone, possibly one of the above mentioned, will claim the Ring, overthrow him and set up a new shop. To me this does not sound like an object that is completely a part of and loyal to Sauron. Would one be able to utterly destroy Sauron yet keep the Ring? Don't know, but it seems that Sauron fears that another worthy Ring claimer will not do the Dark Lord's bidding nor make life comfortable for the same.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by alatar

... Would one be able to utterly destroy Sauron yet keep the Ring?

Isildur, ring any bells?

[edit] He he, 'Ring' any bells [/edit]

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Isildur, ring any bells?

Okay, so I'm as blind as a ...oh, better not say, as I wouldn't want to inadvertently offend yet another animal . Didn't see that. Anyway, what I mean is that not vanquish Sauron then remove his Ring (like in the case that you've noted), but use the Ring to vanquish Sauron, such as if Galadriel were to take possession of the One Ring and actively use it to destroy Sauron.

It would just be sooo much more helpful if y'all could see what I'm thinking instead of relying on what I write...Thanks for the help HtG.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Isildur, ring any bells?

Sauron wasn't utterly destroyed. He came back.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I have absolutely nothing to add in the cats vs. dogs debate, however, if I might draw a couple of literary device parallels, albeit both more contemporary references (don't read if you don't wish to be spoiled for "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" or "His Dark Materials", please don't read them!):


1. Parallel (possibly conscious, certainly subconscious) with Horcruxes from Harry Potter, the fixing of part of one's "soul" within a thing or person by use of magic. The destruction of a Horcrux results in the loss of that part of the soul fixed inside it. The One Ring might have been a predecessor/inspirational model for this, as part of Sauron is fixed inside the Ring, and to destroy it is to destroy him.

2. Parallel with the fantastic application of quantum entanglement from His Dark Materials. This theory, which I haven't really looked into has something to do with imprinting materials with certain identical "quantum states," which cause them to be intertwined and thus, one particle feels the effect of a force inflicted upon the other particle, even if they are separated by a great distance. The way it is used in "His Dark Materials" reeks of witchcraft, really, and who would have thought the fields of Modern Physics and Magic could be brought so close together! But in a way, this is the relationship of Sauron to his Ring. He feels it, if only faintly at a distance, but since it can only be destroyed in the Fires of Orodruin, we get the sense that it has to be in proximity to him. If there had been a dragon extant, perhaps the Ring could have been consumed in that way and some sort of "quantum entanglement" proven, but of course, we all know the dragon would just sit on it, hoarding it like all its other treasure!

I guess I'm not trying to prove anything with this post, especially not whether the Ring is canine or feline in nature, just that this "entanglement" idea is pervasive and thus in my mind, a feature of its applicability.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Formendacil]

Interestingly enough, I am a cat person. I like cats, I find them intelligent company, and someday I would like to acquire one for myself (currently, certain parents make that unfeasible). And I am not a dog person. I can appreciate them as a part of other people's lives and loves, but to me they hold no attraction.

And yet, I agree with Alatar's camp in that there is more Cat-applicable material in the Ring than there is Dog-applicable material. Interesting...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

We live with two cats and two dogs, so I shan't enter the cat vs dog debate other than to say that as far as I am concerned its cats AND dogs.

The Ring is much more like a Platypus: something that just should not and could not really be, and yet, strangely, is...

[Mithalwen]

Isn't Sam the ultimate faithful hound? Even when he has wife and child he still wants to follow Frodo over sea......

I wonder if there will be a correlation between the cat/dog preference of downers and other major issues such as balrog wings.

Obviously I am a cat person although I don't have one in residence at the moment (despite the kind but rather impractical offer from a fellow downer to rectify this) ...my lifestyle means I will have to stick to my gorgeous comets Xue-er and Xinran - oh their sweet smily fishy faces each morning ......

Cats are not selfish. One of our cats would stay close by you if you were ill or alone in the house. Others would keep you company on walks and always welcome you home. When they bring you their kill, they are treating you as their kitten and "feeding you" - they can't understand while we don't appreciate it ( especially when they are trying to give you food for a journey and leave assorted rodents and birds in a half packed suitcase). They act selflessly as hotwaterbottles.

Cats are beautiful, mysterious, of ancient nobility, inspiration to poets, hardy and long (nine) lived (and the houseless fea of a cat will long haunt its home - you see a flicker of tail disappearing around doors) and slightly above the ways of humans - though they graciously agree at times to spend time with us mere mortals and give us the benefit of their wisdom...

The ring is not a cat .... cats are elves!!!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

.... cats are elves!!!

I agree.

The connection being that both regard humans with disdain and consider them as having been put on the earth to cater to their needs.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Sauron wasn't utterly destroyed. He came back.

Yes, thus proving that it couldn't happen! That was the point I was trying to make, but I have, after reading some of The Letters, begun doubting my theories... oh dear...

[Lalwendë]

Looking at it one way, there is a vested interest for Sauron in the Ring appearing to be 'sentient'. If anyone who finds it immediately associates it with 'evil' then it is highly unlikely that anyone will want to keep it. Hence tales of Isildur's 'fall' are highly beneficial to Sauron; they spread the reputation of the Ring as being something you simply do not want to keep. Likewise, the evil reputation can be of benefit when it appears to 'tempt' certain people who think they are strong-willed enough to master it.

As a concept, the Ring is incredibly powerful. Whether it actually does have any sense of being 'evil' is debatable as it is an object. That depends on whether we believe in 'magic' or not. I shall come back to that...

All of those who come into physical or visual contact with the Ring, or who at least hear of it have an opinion. In the main we see characters who don't want anything to do with it, e.g. Gandalf, Faramir. We also see characters who do want to deal with it (usually in a tangible sense) such as Bilbo, Gollum, Boromir, Frodo - all of whom have their own reasons for doing so. Only one character remains unmoved by it, Tom Bombadil. Does he view it as a simple object?

But to accept the story, to be immersed into it and accept the danger that faces Middle-earth, the reader too must believe the 'magic', that the Ring is evil. If we don't, then wouldn't the story become redundant?

I currently believe the power of the Ring is linked somewhat to osanwe; Sauron has poured much of his own mind/fea/something like that into its creation, and the 'call' of the Ring acts on those principles. Of course, that's my current way of thinking, maybe I'll read something else to change my mind sooner or later, because the Ring is something of an enigma.

Whether the Ring is a 'cat' or 'like a cat', depends on how you view cats. I can see one Bagpuss-like specimen now, sleeping off his dinner; this cat offers comfort when his owners are upset or ill. He has to be carried to bed at night, and he is trained to 'speak' to his mum when he wants something. That doesn't sound ring-like to me.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Saucy

Er, when did I ever say that Ancient Egyptians or pagans belong in Mordor? Are you perchance assuming an imperial attitude simply by virtue of my nationality? Perhaps that's ...

Quote:
... Another bit of cross-cultural myopia.

No, actually it was by virtue of the fact you have kept promising to elaborate on your own ideas for your Doest LOTR have cross-cultural appeal? thread but so far have failed to do so.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Cats are beautiful, mysterious, of ancient nobility, inspiration to poets, hardy and long (nine) lived (and the houseless fea of a cat will long haunt its home - you see a flicker of tail disappearing around doors) and slightly above the ways of humans - though they graciously agree at times to spend time with us mere mortals and give us the benefit of their wisdom...

Oh dear. I'm not sure this bringing up of the number nine will help cats out, although I love your post, Mithalwen and completely agree about the houseless fea of a cat. And the sharing of their quest victories.

Originally Posted by Alatar

I think that somewhere it states that Sauron, knowing more about the Ring than any other, fears that someone, possibly one of the above mentioned, will claim the Ring, overthrow him and set up a new shop. To me this does not sound like an object that is completely a part of and loyal to Sauron. Would one be able to utterly destroy Sauron yet keep the Ring? Don't know, but it seems that Sauron fears that another worthy Ring claimer will not do the Dark Lord's bidding nor make life comfortable for the same.

Frankly, I think the Silmarils had a similar effect to the Ring in creating desire in the beholder. And that covetousness sounds very much more Eruvian than feline or even canine. That sub-creative desire to make a totally-controlled creation which is completely irresistable. I think that 'take me, have me, surrender to me' is much closer to someone who insists upon having all the music all his way than any animal could possibly suggest.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Frankly, I think the Silmarils had a similar effect to the Ring in creating desire in the beholder. And that covetousness sounds very much more Eruvian than feline or even canine. That sub-creative desire to make a totally-controlled creation which is completely irresistable. I think that 'take me, have me, surrender to me' is much closer to someone who insists upon having all the music all his way than any animal could possibly suggest.

I understand the comparison of the Ring to the Silmarils in regards to desire, yet never did it seem that the jewels made something happen, or took some action on their own. Hate to say it, but the Silmarils were more bovine as they seemed happy just sitting around chewing their cud, whether in Fëanor hands, Morgoth's crown, the sky, sea and earth.

[davem]

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']- Letter # 246

'He would have made good detestable & seem evil'. Meaning what, exactly? If good pushed to an extreme - where it is inescapable, where it is forced on one & one cannot escape it - will at that point seem 'evil', then it must be an essential part of the victory of good that it is optional, that individuals may choose evil.

It seems that Tolkien foresaw Gandalf going around banning this, that & the other, forcing people to do 'the right thing' - or else. Yet, if good can be made to seem evil how are we to judge what is good & what is evil? Where are the objective standards by which things are pigeonholed as 'good' & as 'evil'? Is what Sauron does objectively evil, or does it merely seem evil because he attempts to impose his control absolutely?

I suppose what I'm asking is how could it be that the imposition of 'good' by Gandalf, 'ordered for the benefit of his subjects' come to be seen as evil? Would all Gandalf's subjects consider what he did 'evil', or only some of them?

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

All I can think is that in Tolkien's mind individual freedom is the most important thing. What the Ring does is work through the wielder to remove freedom, first from them & then from all others - its shape is the key - it is round, closed off, limited - like the post Fall of Numenor world. The world of the first Two Ages was flat, & the thing about a flat world is that it is not necessarily limited - it could stretch forever, & contain infinite possibilities. A round world is, however large, finite. I wonder if Sauron had any inkling of the consequence of the Numenorean rebellion, if he knew that the world would be made round - was it in the Music that he sang in? The Ring is the perfect symbol of limitation, & the perfect symbol of the round world of the Third Age.

And I think that proves beyond any argument that it is like a cat

[Lyta_Underhill]

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

This line of thought reminds me of the argument my husband and I have over Gandalf's "abandonment" of the hobbits before they return to the Shire and begin the Scouring. Gandalf as Ring Lord could easily have wiped out the threat to the Shire without the hobbits having had to do anything. But then, the hobbits might sink into apathy and weakness, allowing Gandalf to "do good" for them, rather than them acting for their own and others' good by taking the initiative in the Shire.

Would this inaction, the 'Gates of Paradise' thinking of never having to fight for good again acually erode the people under its sway and turn them into idle subjects in an ordered Good Universe? And what happens to the idle? The peace of the Fourth Age under Elessar theoretically degrades into "Orc Cults" after his passing (according to the few pages of the draft Tolkien wrote of "The New Shadow" I think it was called, no references handy though). The idleness of peace has spread its own 'evil.' And that was not even an overly managed peace.

I'm not sure exactly what I am trying to say, but it does seem necessary as davem points out, for an individual to have free will and to make a choice to 'do good,' or else it is not 'good' at all, but merely an adherence to a code for whatever reason. Perhaps it ties in with the idea of sentience being a necessary component for evil or good...perhaps.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Celuien]

A new theory:

• The Ring attempts to ensnare victims. It has no intention of giving it keepers access to its powers, but instead tempts them, only to abandon them when a better prospect comes along.
• The Ring, after it captures a weaker keeper, proceeds to devour its victim. Just look at Gollum.
• The Ring has no thought other than its own survival.
• While the Ring is semi-independent, it is an extension of Sauron (Sauce and davem put it very well). As long as Sauron is the main power around, it will follow him. However, if a new, stronger keeper were to come along and displace Sauron, it would enter the service of its new keeper.

What animal is wily, devious and at the same time meets the odd combination of independence and dependence enough to meet all of these conditions? The wolf. The Ring isn't a pack leader, but rather one of the higher ranking members, still subservient to the alpha wolf, but independent enough to act on its own when necessary.

(Just a cat-person's rambling thoughts...)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

I think that the idea here is that to do 'good' the person needs to be proactive in doing good, not passive in that they have no choice but to do good. If there is no choice in the matter, then that person has never had the opportunity to weigh up right and wrong and come to the correct decision. Even though good is being done, it is effectively being carried out by a machine.

It has much to do with rights and responsibilities; we have things to which we are entitled, but to have those things we must also be responsible for our actions. Comparing this to the real world, a Gandalf in possession of the Ring would be a benevolent dictator; he would not have been chosen by the people, nor would he have necessarily earned the right to be the leader. He might indeed be very 'good' and have everyone's best interests at heart, but the simple fact that he had overwhelming power would be wrong as it would negate any sense of responsibility in the people. The closest example I have any experience of is the 'nanny state', where people are fined or punished for not doing 'the right thing', whether it be recycling their newspaper or only taking children on holiday outside term time. These are things which people ought to do, but removing the choice also takes away their freedom to choose to act in the right way.

We know that Gandalf has been sent to Middle-earth to help in the struggle against Sauron, but he has not been asked to take control of this struggle, he is there to advise, to offer counsel. With the Ring he would possibly succeed in the first sense of his mission in that he could overthrow Sauron, but he would also fail in the second sense of his mission, in that he would have done so by taking power, taking the decisions away from the leaders of the races of Middle-earth.

One of the strongest messages of the story is that there is no one, overarching power that can fight Sauron, it is the ordinary people who must do so, the Theodens and Aragorns and Frodos. Gandalf can only advise, and even though he is most persuasive in his arguments, he cannot force.

In that sense, Gandalf is the cat, using his wits and his powers of persuasion to get his way, to get his message across and achieve his mission.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I agree.

The connection being that both regard humans with disdain and consider them as having been put on the earth to cater to their needs.

I don't see any evidence for elves treating men as servants.... and don't get me started on why cats are better than men....

[alatar]

Thanks for all of the wonderful insights!

Gandalf is a cat!?! Ouch!

Anyway, just wanted to add that I know of two citations of dogs and cats in Tolkien's world and so will build a case using those (and will exclude any contrary evidence ).

Huan - This dog is the companion of Luthien and Beren during their quest for the silmarils. It not only kills the Red Maw, but also defeats Sauron. Pretty impressive canine resume.

The cats of Queen Berúthiel - These ten cats were used to spy on others; the nine black ones spied upon the populace, and the white one kept watch on the nine (as you just can't trust them! ). Last seen sailing southward on a boat with the banished Queen, who was as loved as her pets. Surely these felines loved and were loyal to their Queen, yet everyone else feared and despised them.

Need I say more?

Anyway, if I were to post a poll, which I won't, and I were to ask which pet the One Ring were more like, and I were to restrict the poll to 'dog' or 'cat' (which I wouldn't, seeing how most polls require much consideration, meaning that I would have to list each and every animal known to exist or to have ever once existed, and even including fantasy creatures plus the 'other' and 'all of the above options,' the poll still wouldn't be fit for purpose...), which would you choose based on the information regarding these pets as seen above?

[Mithalwen]

What about the "Hounds of Sauron" at Eregion? And cats are so obviously superior to dogs............as well as men

[alatar]

Having recently read HoME, it's noted that Beren originally was tormented by Tevildo, the Prince of Cats, who Tolkien shows as having all of the wonderful properties ascribed to cats. They toy with their prey before killing it, they lay around most of the day and do not serve Melkor well at all (unlike the loyal canine cousin Carcharoth).

[Nazgûl-king]

Interesting theory alatar! I never thought of the ring, choosing it’s barer.

[Groin Redbeard]

How Dog's Think: Wow! You give me a home, you protect me, you feed me, and you put a roof over my head. You must be God!

How Cat's Think: Wow! You give me a home, you protect me, you feed me, and you put a roof over my head. I must be God!

Very true Alatar, the Ring is like a cat.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by alatar

• The Ring was no help against the Númenóreans. I'm guessing that the Ring saw a golden opportunity in Ar-Pharazôn, and just itched to get onto his hand. Sauron may have known this and so kept his hand in perpetual 'clench.' Then again, it might have preferred ME to the Land of the Gift, and after the War of Wrath, it might not be too smart to be that close to the Valar.

Originally Posted by alatar

• As the Ring could not be born by fish or the Valar, it made its way back to ME after the Drowning. One might think that Sauron brought it back with him, born on a dark wind or something, yet the Ring may have just followed. Back in ME, Sauron was its most familiar and best bet there, and so it returned to its so-called master.

I was under the impression that the Ring helped Sauron cloud the minds of the Númenóreans, and that he carried it back to ME himself. Tolkien was under the same impression:

"Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended."

(Letter 211)

Originally Posted by alatar

• Surely when Sauron's body was broken, it had no reason to stay, but if in the War of the Ring we are to believe that a disembodied Sauron can reclaim the Ring, then why didn't go with him to wherever he hid himself for the years between his defeat and reappearance?

You're jumping the gun here. Who says we are to believe that? Sauron was disembodied for a considerable time. By the time of the War of the Ring, however, he had regained physical form:

"You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand."

– Gandalf in "Many Meetings", FOTR.

"That would be Minas Ithil that Isildur the son of Elendil built," said Frodo. "It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy."

"Yes, he has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough," said Gollum, shuddering.

–"The Black Gate Is Closed", TTT.

"Let the Lord of the Black Land come forth! Justice shall be done upon him."

– The heralds of Gondor in "The Black Gate Opens", ROTK.

Note also that Sauron needs a road to get to the Chambers of Fire.

So I don't think there's any reason to assume that he could have actually wielded the Ring while disembodied.

[Nerwen]

Mind you, that was all just for the sake of argument. As regards your main point, alatar: yes, the Ring is much more like a cat than like a dog.

And I am a cat-lover. Cats vary, of course:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Whether the Ring is a 'cat' or 'like a cat', depends on how you view cats. I can see one Bagpuss-like specimen now, sleeping off his dinner; this cat offers comfort when his owners are upset or ill. He has to be carried to bed at night, and he is trained to 'speak' to his mum when he wants something. That doesn't sound ring-like to me.

I have one just like that... but another who is the archetypical scheming, disdainful feline. Oh, and cats do display dominance behaviour. I've got four of them– I should know. (On the other hand, mine get on fairly well with each other.)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I was under the impression that the Ring helped Sauron cloud the minds of the Númenóreans, and that he carried it back to ME himself. Tolkien was under the same impression:

Maybe he got that wrong.

You're jumping the gun here. Who says we are to believe that? Sauron was disembodied for a considerable time. By the time of the War of the Ring, however, he had regained physical form:

How did that work? Was he somewhat formed - visible - and as the years accrued, become more and more solid, finding that one day he could no longer walk through doors? Did his DPI (dots per inch, like on a printer) go from 1 to a few million over a time? Or did part of his body form, and so by the time of Gollum's capture, he was complete? Does this mean that the orcs, rebanding after the War of the Last Alliance, worship the Nose of Sauron (anyone remember a Woody Allen film like this), then the Face of Sauron, then the Head and Shoulders...?

Did he restart as a cockroach, then move up the ladder to a coney, then to a wolf, then to his somewhat humanoid form? Did he possess a body of another? Assume that he can shed flesh as he may have done at the Drowning. could he not don some other like a new shirt?

Or assume that there's some other mechanism. Whichever - why, after going through all of the trouble of reincarnation - or whatever the process was - would he then not regrow Finger #10? Makes me have doubts.

Sauron was a master of disinformation (See Denethor) and in reality might as well have been reformed as St. Nick - Santa Claus. He has black hands - gloves, is magical, is a giver of gifts (Annatar?) and purportedly can see all and know all. Doesn't he have Nine flying creatures at his beck and call? Hmmm...

Note also that Sauron needs a road to get to the Chambers of Fire.

Or was this a make-work project that kept the orcs busy and the Orc Public Works union happy?