Who would have fallen?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I wish there were an entry for 'no one'

I stand by what I've said. This is 'what if' kind of poll, ain't it?

Suffering from hardships of the lone wandering, captivity, hunger and Shelob's venom, Frodo managed to carry the Ring to the very end. Guided by a ranger, morally and bodily supported by his companions, not gnawed by doubt and hesitation, inspired by Gandalf with Narya (and probably having healthy diet of lembas in abundant quantities ), Frodo would be less prone to 'succumbing'.

I know the counter arguments. I believe he would have given in anyway, but in 'what if' kind of poll, possibility of 'no one' should have been accounted for

Besides, it is not correct to place them all in line an ask away - it is Frodo who stands direct attack of temptation, other get aftereffects, no more. Fair way would be to imagine each of them in turn being appointed Ring-Bearer and than speculate. What if Gimli was appointed by the Council to carry it? What if Legolas was appointed... etc

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't hold with this "X had the chance and didn't seize the Ring" argument. I think that we can all agree that, in terms of vulnerability to the lure of the Ring, Boromir was the weakest. So, we do not even begin to consider who would be next until following Boromir's attempt. Any opportunities that any of them may have had up to that point are irrelevant because they all would have resisted given the same opportunities. The primary reason being that (in my opinion), the Ring's power (and its need to "take action" to avoid destruction) grows in strength the closer that it gets to Mordor.

The question for me, therefore, is who would have been the next person to fall to the Ring's lure had they all stayed with Frodo on his Quest to Mordor. It is quite possible that none of them would have succumbed. I believe that they all would have succumbed eventually (with the possible exception of Gandalf, being as he is described as being equal in "power" to Sauron), given sufficient time and exposure but it is possible that they would have reached Mount Doom before the Ring had an opportunity to corrupt any of them. But, if I have to choose one (which this poll requires), then I choose Aragorn.

My reasons are stated in the link that I provided. My assumption was that the character in question would have to physically seize the Ring from (and therefore either rob or attack) Frodo, as Boromir did. I agree that if it came down to a question of who would (or should) have taken the Ring in the event of Frodo's death (or apparent death), then the analysis might be different.

I also identified the order in which I thought each member of the Fellowship would "fall", given sufficent time and exposure.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

...it just really boils my tea to see people who think that Aragorn could have taken the Ring. I mean, how can you think that after Faramir gave it up? Faramir! The ultimate pallid Aragorn-wannabe! If he can resist the Ring, Aragorn certainly can.

The point is that Faramir did not have anything like the exposure to the Ring that the Fellowship would have had if they had accompanied with Frodo on his Quest all the way to the Crack of Doom. Had you included Faramir as a "putative Fellowship member" I would have chosen him, as I agree that he would have "fallen" before Aragorn.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The primary reason being that (in my opinion), the Ring's power (and its need to "take action" to avoid destruction) grows in strength the closer that it gets to Mordor.

Not sure about this. We have the Fellowship traveling with the Ring, and step by step they all get closer to Mordor. Boromir is affected, yet (as stated previously) I think the reason that he acted upon his desire at Parth Galen was that the Fellowship was at a crossroads. Boromir was soon to go East or West; the Ring was going East or West. Boromir tried to get the Ring to go West; the Ring most likely wanted to go East - why would it have wanted to go West (but that's an idea for another thread)? Anyway, my point is that the Ring's influence at Parth Galen was X.

So Sam and Frodo continue to approach Mordor, and then they are joined by Gollum. We are told that the Ring's power and influence is increasing as it approaches the Crack. We have three individuals by which we can measure this increase in power of the Ring. Unluckily our subjects are all of the same type (hobbits**).

Sam seems to be unaffected by the Ring's power. Don't remember a moment when he thought of taking it from Frodo - and after a moment of hesitation even returns it to Frodo. Yes, I know that he wanted to help Frodo carry it, yet I never read that as Sam wanting to possess the Ring - he just wanted to lighten his master's burden. Sam is present when the Ring is in the heart of Mordor, yet he is no more affected than when at Parth Galen.

Gollum wants the Ring back - he's a bit of a 'one note'. Now that he knows who carries it, and its location, he wants it more. Yet I did not read that Gollum wanted the Ring more at Cirith Ungol or when near the Black Gate or when in Ithilien when the three were 'closer' to Orodruin than they ever would be before entering Mordor. Only at the end, when Gollum sees that his chances of recovering the Ring are at a crossroads, does he act. But was this due to the Ring's or Gollum's desire?

Frodo, unlike the others, is affected more as the Ring approaches Mordor.

So it would seem, based on this thin data, that the power and influence of the Ring did not increase beyond X except for the Bearer.


**Note that humans and other Free Folk may be affected differently and could experience serious side effects including headache, intestinal discomfort and delusions of grandeur. Please consult with your Wizard before using any Ring of Power.

[the phantom]

Sam seems to be unaffected by the Ring's power.

That might be because the Ring didn't care about tempting him. The Ring was content to work on Frodo and Gollum. The Ring wants the quickest way back to its master, and it knew that Sam was a sturdy little fellow that It would have to work on a bit to get him under control. It wasn't worth the effort.

Boromir, on the other hand...

If Boromir had taken the Ring it would've gotten back into Sauron's hands fairly quickly, because Boromir fully intended on using it against Sauron. There's no quicker way for Sauron to get the Ring back than for someone to stand up and say "I have your Ring and I'm going to defeat you!"

The Ring would try and tempt people who had that sort of attitude- people who would use the Ring.

Sam and Frodo (probably hobbits in general) were not the type to try and use the Ring to contest with Sauron. When Sam had the Ring and the Ring tempted him to challenge Sauron, Sam knew he wasn't powerful enough. Here are his thoughts from ROTK when the Ring was in his possession-

He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold... Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur... but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough...

Notice two things-
1) Sam's thoughts are much like Galadriel and Boromir's when they are tempted. They all see themselves overthrowing Sauron. That proves that the Ring can have the same sort of effect on those surrounding the bearer as it does on the actual bearer.
2) When it comes down to it, Sam doesn't think he is capable, therefore he is unlikely to make the attempt. Galadriel and Boromir on the other hand, because of their pride and power, seemed to believe that they were capable, and I believe that is why they were influenced second-hand by the Ring where as Sam really wasn't.

I think its completely possible that the Ring picks its targets, and tries to work on certain individuals. If Boromir wasn't there, who would the Ring have gone to work on?

When you consider Sam's temptation and his unconquered "hobbit sense", it seems unlikely that a hobbit would be the first to fall.

A hobbit (Frodo) took the Ring farther than anyone else could, a hobbit (Bilbo) gave the Ring up, and a hobbit (Sam) supported the Ring bearer to the end. Given the evidence, I think that Merry and Pippin would have fared as well as anyone.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I think its completely possible that the Ring picks its targets, and tries to work on certain individuals. If Boromir wasn't there, who would the Ring have gone to work on?

I thoroughly agree. And, if one discounts Gandalf (since he was on a level with Sauron and therefore could, as Tolkien suggests, potentially have mastered the Ring sufficiently to use it against him), who was the next most powerful member of the Fellowship, both physically and politically? The answer seems obvious to me.

Also, if we regard the Ring as a character in its own right (and I believe that we should), would it not take great glee in corrupting the descendant of he who separated it from its Master in the first place?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I thoroughly agree. And, if one discounts Gandalf (since he was on a level with Sauron and therefore could, as Tolkien suggests, potentially have mastered the Ring sufficiently to use it against him), who was the next most powerful member of the Fellowship, both physically and politically? The answer seems obvious to me.

It isn't a question of power, either physically or politically. It is a question of self-knowledge, or rather, lack of self-knowledge.

Or are you suggesting that the Ring seeks out he who would provide the best bit of sport for him (assuming the Ring as a character is a he), which then might be someone nearer his/its/her own level of self-control/ knowledge. Is the Ring's delight in the sport or in the victory?

[davem]

The Ring is at once the single most powerful object in Middle-earth & the least powerful, because it can do nothing on its own - it needs a wearer to corrupt to its will. It would 'choose' to corrupt the most powerful person, because its questionable how much power it could actually bestow on an individual. It seems to work by twisting the individual's mind so that they mis-use their own innate 'power'. If everyone was to take Faramir's approach & leave it by the wayside, it would be the single most useless thing in M-e. (Inspired by the essay 'Tolkien, King Alfred & Boethius' in Tolkien Studies vol 2).

In other words, like Gandalf, it cannot 'burn snow'. It has to find someone with the potential to be corrupted. As Bb states, its down to the self knowledge of the individual. Neither Faramir nor Aragorn are seducible because of this. Not because they are incorruptible, but because, like Gandalf, Galadriel & Elrond, they know they are & so would not listen to its call. As I said, if everyone was as wise as them the Ring could just be thrown away. It has to be destroyed because not everyone is.

[Lalwendë]

And yet the most horrible thing about the way the Ring works is that if you were Faramir or Aragorn and you knew that you ought not to pick it up, you would still not be able to leave it be. Because you would know the risk in leaving it where it was.

What would you do? Guard it and send a colleague to get help? Then you would run the risk of a weaker person coming to the rescue and just taking it. Or you could indeed just walk away, but gnawing away at you would be the knowledge that you had left this Ring lying around where anyone could find it.

The only way it can be left is if it lies somewhere it is unlikely to be discovered. But where would this be? It lay in the depths of the Anduin for centuries and it was still found. And some knew it was there and tried to find it as they were so interested in it. Then it lay under the Misty Mountains and even there it was found.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It isn't a question of power, either physically or politically. It is a question of self-knowledge, or rather, lack of self-knowledge.

Mental strength (whether that be self-knowledge, wisdom, strength of will or whatever) is relevant to the degree to which a member of the Fellowship might be able to resist the lure of the Ring were it to call to him. Physical and/or political power is relevant to the question of what the Ring might be able to achieve once one of them had succumbed to it. If we are considering which "victim" the Ring would be likely to select, all of these qualities are relevant. I consider Aragorn to be a prime target.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is the Ring's delight in the sport or in the victory?

I would say that the "sport" would be incidental to the victory - a bonus, if you like.

Originally Posted by davem

If everyone was to take Faramir's approach & leave it by the wayside, it would be the single most useless thing in M-e.

But Tolkien tells us that (with the exception of Tom Bombadil) there is no such person in Middle-earth. Given sufficient time and exposure, no one could resist the lure of the Ring. I suppose that you could draw a distinction between the Ringbearer and those who accompany him, but that is merely a matter of degree to my mind. The Ringbearer's exposure is (significantly) greater and therefore requires a greater strength of will to resist. But we can see from what happened to Boromir that it can work effectively on those who are with the Ringbearer for prolonged periods.

Originally Posted by davem

Neither Faramir nor Aragorn are seducible because of this. Not because they are incorruptible, but because, like Gandalf, Galadriel & Elrond, they know they are & so would not listen to its call. As I said, if everyone was as wise as them the Ring could just be thrown away. It has to be destroyed because not everyone is.

It had to be destroyed because no one is. I am not saying that Aragorn lacked self-knowledge, wisdom or strength of will. He had all of these qualities in spades. But each member of the Fellowship had qualities that could assist them to resist the lure of the Ring. They would all have been able to resist for a good length of time, perhaps even sufficient time to get them to Mount Doom. The question is which of them, after Boromir, would have buckled first.

There are a two things in particular about Aragorn that make him the most vulnerable in my eyes. First and foremost, he was a Man (albeit one with Elven blood). And time and time again, Tolkien makes the point that, of all the (originally good) races, Men are mentally the weakest. It was Men who were persuaded to serve both Morgoth and Sauron and it was Men who succumbed to the Rings of power. Not Elves and not Dwarves. (Although some Dwarves are said to have served Sauron, I see this as less because they could be bent to his will and more because they believed that they could get something out of it.) As for Hobbits, they are noted for their indomitability of spirit and their particular resistance to the kind of temptation that the Ring represented. And it was Aragorn's forefather who was unable to destroy the Ring when he cut it from Sauron's finger and who instead kept it for himself.

Secondly, Aragorn's wisdom, most particularly his knowledge of the nature and power of the Ring, made him vulnerable to it. Gandalf recognised this, and that is why he refused to bear the Ring. But would he have been able to do so, to resist the lure of the Ring, had he accompanied Frodo on the last stages of his Quest? Perhaps Gandalf would have been able to resist. But I do not think that Aragorn would have been able to.

[Mister Underhill]

Adding to Saucepan's case is the fact that Aragorn alone of the Fellowship has a legitimate claim on the Ring. You can almost imagine him being able to give the palantír speech I cited above about the Ring with only a few changes in the wording.

[Lyta_Underhill]

originally posted by Lalwende:

What would you do? Guard it and send a colleague to get help? Then you would run the risk of a weaker person coming to the rescue and just taking it. Or you could indeed just walk away, but gnawing away at you would be the knowledge that you had left this Ring lying around where anyone could find it.

Perhaps the question is not "what selfish desire does the Ring offer fulfillment for for each individual," but rather, "what is the path of the Ring to his/her heart?" Gandalf, in fact, knows the path of the Ring to his heart and confides this knowledge to Frodo in Bag End. Whether or not Gandalf has the strength to wield the Ring or not is irrelevant. It is a danger that he knows as well as any of his fellows, and perhaps he questions Aragorn's ability deep down when he admonishes him not to "stumble at the end of the road." If he and Aragorn stood side by side with the Ring untaken between them, which of them would wield it most wisely? Gandalf would know in his heart that Aragorn did not have the power to wield the Ring, and if he let him take it, he would be dooming all of Middle Earth. But then we come to the question of whether Gandalf could destroy the Ring. "I will have such need of it," he says to Frodo at Bag End. At the Cracks of Doom, his need may encompass saving Middle Earth from Aragorn taking the Ring, for he knows Aragorn would fall, and he, Gandalf would be right there, the Steward of Middle Earth, failing in his task, dooming Aragorn by allowing him to fall. Certainly, if Gandalf had been there with Frodo, the danger of this happening would be even greater, for even though he thought Frodo the "best Hobbit in the Shire," he would still have doubts to his strength and sure knowledge that the dear fellow didn't have the strength to forbear claiming the Ring (and he was right, too). Here I am arguing for Gandalf's fall to the Ring, but I merely say that the path to his heart is the same as the hobbits' path to his heart--compassion.

At the Crack of Doom, Gandalf's challenge would have been the greatest, as he knows his abilities and those of his fellows. If he himself cannot destroy the Ring, then he may decide he must take it in order to save the others from it and from Sauron.

Cheers!
Lyta, just knocking off some thoughts late at night...

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

As for Hobbits, they are noted for their indomitability of spirit and their particular resistance to the kind of temptation that the Ring represented.

Of course, from a more practical point of view it could be argued that, as the Ring cannot actually bestow any 'extra' power on an individual, only corrupt them to mis-use the 'power' they already have, putting it into the hands of a Hobbit was the samrtest thing Eru caould have arranged.

Weakness can be a useful thing to exploit if you're a Deity trying to save your world.

(See what happens when you hang around with cynics.... )

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

... putting it into the hands of a Hobbit was the samrtest thing Eru caould have arranged.

I agree. Hence, my list of the order in which each member of the Fellowship should have taken the Ring if Frodo had fallen is different to my list of the order in which they would have succumbed:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pippin - Merry - Sam - Gimli - Legolas - Aragorn - (Boromir) - Gandalf

It was suggested on a thread which considered this question (and which I unfortunately cannot now find) that the best "B-Team" for the journey into Mordor would have been Pippin/Merry, with Merry playing Sam to Pippin's Frodo. I tend to agree.

[davem]

Didn't realise my spelling had been that bad The display here is stuck at about 2pt & I can't increase it, so I can't read what I'm writing too well - have to wait till its posted.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pippin - Merry - Sam - Gimli - Legolas - Aragorn - (Boromir) - Gandalf

Huh. Pippin? Really? Even considering the episode with the palantír? Pippin seems by far too immature and careless to be considered as the Bearer. I'd put him near, or at, the bottom of the list myself. Though I suppose I could see him playing Sam to Merry's Frodo.

I can't see any of the Fellowship besides Boromir attacking Frodo and wresting the Ring from him by force, even at the Crack -- at least until Frodo had "cracked" himself and claimed the Ring, which would make Frodo first to fall again. alatar's comments about Sam seem spot on here.

I'm more interested in scenarios where someone would have to take the Ring. Suppose Frodo had died in Moria, for instance? Who takes up the Ring then? Or, as I mentioned before, suppose Frodo were down in Cirith Ungol -- a more desperate situation. But I suppose we get deep into "what-ifs" then, because presumably with Gandalf and/or Aragorn in the lead, they might not have taken the Cirith Ungol route, or if they did, they'd be more wary about Shelob, more knowledgeable about the effects of her poison, etc.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, from a more practical point of view it could be argued that, as the Ring cannot actually bestow any 'extra' power on an individual, only corrupt them to mis-use the 'power' they already have, putting it into the hands of a Hobbit was the samrtest thing Eru caould have arranged.

Originally Posted by SpM

It was suggested on a thread which considered this question (and which I unfortunately cannot now find) that the best "B-Team" for the journey into Mordor would have been Pippin/Merry, with Merry playing Sam to Pippin's Frodo. I tend to agree.

Hmm, good points! When the Fellowship was being 'set up' at Rivendell it's almost inevitable that a Hobbit will be chosen to be Ringbearer. How fortunate for the 'powers that be' it was that Bilbo found the Ring, or Hobbits may have never been considered. Different races turn up for the Council, including Dwarves, Elves and Men but Hobbits are the one race which until Gollum, had never been involved with Rings of Power.

It's interesting how someone from each of these races is chosen to join the Fellowship but the majority group is of Hobbits. That cynical voice inside tells me that Gandalf noticed the potential of Hobbits right away, and he took every opportunity/advantage he could, including getting Sam to join in. I agree that it seems Merry/Pippin did make up a good B team.

Thinking about Bilbo, he set a good example with his period bearing the Ring; it was a lengthy time, but he survived relatively well. Gollum held it for much longer and he used it to hide from those he preyed upon whereas Bilbo seems to have kept the Ring to use simply to hide from his neighbours when he wanted privacy. Maybe goodness of heart (or at least lack of malicious intent) has something to do with the Ring not corrupting certain individuals quite as much as we might think it would. Maybe it is the humility of the bearer which is important?

It does make me shudder to think of what would have happened had Aragorn decided to take the ring.

[Glirdan]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pippin - Merry - Sam - Gimli - Legolas - Aragorn - (Boromir) - Gandalf

I myself would have put Sam before Merry and not Pippin, but I would put him before the rest of the Fellowship because the Hobbit's have greater will power than the rest. I'm not trying to put down Pippin or anything, but he's the type that would try anything out just to see what it does. Sam, on the other hand has more "hobbit sense" to not use it unless he is in great peril (ie. Cirith Ungol).

Idealy I'd place it like this:

Sam- Merry- Pippin- Legolas- Gimli- Aragorn- (Boromir)- Gandalf

As said before, I see Pippin as Frodo's Sam. Gimli and Legolas, Legolas for Frodo, Gimli for Sam. Finally Aragorn and Boromir or Gandalf, Aragron for Frodo and Boromir(if he lived) and Gandalf for Sam.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I'm more interested in scenarios where someone would have to take the Ring. Suppose Frodo had died in Moria, for instance? Who takes up the Ring then? Or, as I mentioned before, suppose Frodo were down in Cirith Ungol -- a more desperate situation. But I suppose we get deep into "what-ifs" then, because presumably with Gandalf and/or Aragorn in the lead, they might not have taken the Cirith Ungol route, or if they did, they'd be more wary about Shelob, more knowledgeable about the effects of her poison, etc.

The problem with that, as you said, is that there are to many if's. The route they would have taken into Mordor would have been completly different if Aragorn and/or Gandalf went with them. If they did go by Cirith Ungol, then as you said, they would have been aware of Shelob's poison effects and they would not have let the Orc band take Frodo away. They would have continued on, Aragorn probbaly carrying Frodo on his back. But, if Aragorn did go with them to Morodor, he wouldn;t have gone to the Paths of the Dead and Gondor and Rohan would have fallen. So if any of the Fellowship should have gone, it should have been Legolas and/or Gimli seeing as they didn't really do a whole lot of anything of importance. Pippin and Merry are the ones who awakened the wrath of the Ents, Gandalf was the mover of all the pieces on the the board, Aragorn had to go to the Paths of the Dead in order to save Gondor. What did Legolas and Gimli do? Accomanied Aragorn, nothing else. They didn't really have anything to do accept accompany Aragorn.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

What did Legolas and Gimli do? Accomanied Aragorn, nothing else. They didn't really have anything to do accept accompany Aragorn.

Whaddya mean? Legolas brought down an Oliphaunt single-handedly.

The reason that I would place Pippin ahead of Sam and Merry is that, for all his (early) immaturity and his undoubted curiosity, he comes across to me as having a greater spiritual strength than the other two. Sam and Merry are more down to earth and practical, which is what makes them great "side-kicks". Pippin just seems to be much more akin to Frodo than either of them, on a spiritual level.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, from a more practical point of view it could be argued that, as the Ring cannot actually bestow any 'extra' power on an individual, only corrupt them to mis-use the 'power' they already have...

What's the basis for this? Gandalf seems to think it would give him "extra" power:

Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength.

I daresay Galadriel's speech at her temptation and her discussion of the nature of the Ring implies the same.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

They didn't really have anything to do accept accompany Aragorn.

In the early drafts Malbeth's prophecy required three princes of different race to summon the Dead. I think this is why the Three Hunters went together. By the time Tolkien had changed his mind about this it was probably too late to alter the storyline.

What's the basis for this? Gandalf seems to think it would give him "extra" power:

Depends how you understand their words. My understanding is that in taking the Ring they would have rejected all moral responsibility over their own innate power & become like Sauron. Hence Gandalf would have had too much power (his own) to use 'freely'. He would have no longer been a servant of the Secret Fire, but in his own mind have become a 'Master' of it. He feared to become another Saruman. The Ring deceives one into misusing their own power - thinking like Sauron.

I see no evidence that innate power can be 'transferred' in the way you're talking about. If we look at Boromir's 'fantasy' of what he would become if he had the Ring it is nothing more than he could have done anyway. The Ring worked by convincing its bearer that it alone could give them power to do what they wished to do. It actually convinced them they could do nothing without it, that they were weak & helpless victims of circumstance. All it really seemed to do in practical terms was make them invisible.

Sauron is a 'deciever' & I see no reason to believe that his Ring would do anything else. Have you noticed that none of the bearers of the Ring become suddenly more powerful? What exactly did it enable Isildur to do? Or Gollum, or Bilbo? It merely enslaved their minds. Actually it makes them weaker, if anything - subject to their own desires. Of course, if Sauron got it back he would regain the power he put into it. I just don't see it empowering anyone else.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

Depends how you understand their words. My understanding is that in taking the Ring they would have rejected all moral responsibility over their own innate power & become like Sauron.

While I agree in principle that the Ring is deceitful, and that the price you pay in power gained is ultimately corruption and betrayal, I disagree with your assessment of the Ring as having no practical power at all.

Gandalf is not tempted to have a lack of conscience, but to have extra "strength" that he can "wield" and "use".

Galadriel: "I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp."

I daresay that Galadriel's heart doesn't desire a rejection of moral responsibility, but power. The secret hope, the temptation, is that her will will be strong enough to master the Ring's corruptive influence and use its power for good. How much native power do we suppose that Galadriel has, anyway? When her Ring loses its power, we see that what she has done in Lorien wanes and fails.

As bearers of rings themselves, both Gandalf and Galadriel have insight into how they work. Would they even be tempted by a Ring that confers no practical power? No. The power, and not just an empty promise of power, is the temptation.

Originally Posted by davem

Have you noticed that none of the bearers of the Ring become suddenly more powerful?

In fact, Galadriel expressly says that Frodo has gained some power even though he has made no effort to use or to try to learn to use the Ring: "Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?"

The Ring is a little bit like a car. You can gain certain benefits from a car just by sitting in it: you are protected from the elements, you can listen to the radio, etc. But to enjoy the full power the car has to offer, you have to will to use it -- and you have to learn how to use it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mr U

Gandalf is not tempted to have a lack of conscience, but to have extra "strength" that he can "wield" and "use".

What's interesting is that the very 'power' that Gandalf rejects in refusing the Ring is actually given to him by Eru when he returns as Gandalf the White. So it is not that the Ring is the only means to the kind of power that Gandalf wishes for. The Ring does something else - & that is the significant thing about it. We'll never know what kind of power the Ring would (or would not) bestow. This 'power' may simply be power without responsibility - ie, the Ring removes any sense of moral responsibility.

I daresay that Galadriel's heart doesn't desire a rejection of moral responsibility, but power. The secret hope, the temptation, is that her will will be strong enough to master the Ring's corruptive influence and use its power for good. How much native power do we suppose that Galadriel has, anyway? When her Ring loses its power, we see that what she has done in Lorien wanes and fails.

This assumes that the Three work in exactly the same way as the One. Being made by Sauron I would speculate that it works differently. The Three certainly enhance the innate abilities of their wielders, but we cannot state that the One will do the same thing. My feeling is that rather than transferring its power to the wielder it subsumes their own abilities & takes them over - rather than bestowing its power on them it uses their power & 'forces' them to obey its will. They don't recieve any power from it, the power in the Ring works according to its nature & cannot be controlled or directed by the individual wearer. They get to be no more powerful than they ever were.

In fact, Galadriel expressly says that Frodo has gained some power even though he has made no effort to use or to try to learn to use the Ring: "Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger?"

I accept that is what she believes, & certainly Frodo sees more than he had been able to. But Galadriel has only known her Elven Ring. She is speaking about something she does not have direct experience of - & this is something Tolkien warns about repeatedly. The true nature of the Ring is never clearly explained in the book. What she is effectively saying to Frodo is that in order to 'use' the power of the Ring he would have to think more like Sauron - the more he was like Sauron the more he would gain power from the Ring. Which is simply another way of saying that the Ring would find it easier to work its will through him.

Again, the Ring is both the most powerful & the least powerful object in Middle-earth. If it finders a wearer who 'attunes' him/herself to it its power will be the better able to work through them. If everyone rejects it it is useless.

Gandalf & Galadriel are tempted by the desire for absolute power - which corrupts absolutely - something they both realise when it comes to the test, & so reject the Ring when it is offered. The desire for absolute power may be motivated by a wish to do good, but having it will inevitably corrupt one who has no right to it - to whom it is not innate.

In Galadriel's words I think we see a glimpse of her mind - she has come to believe that the One is controllable by an act of will & she states as much to Frodo. If she had believed for all those centuries that all it could do was enslave its user she would not have desired it for so long. Yes, she states that its power is controllable & accessible to one who trains his/her will to that task - Tolkien wrote that, but he also wrote the accounts of the Ring bearers & none of them gain any real power from the Ring beyond invisibilty & expanded awareness.

EDIT

Thinking about it, it may be that Galadriel was correct in what she said - in that Frodo would have been able to 'use' the Ring's power to do things - but only if the Ring allowed him, & only in order that it could gain control over him more easily. I still don't believe it would be possible to dominate it & use it freely.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Again, the Ring is both the most powerful & the least powerful object in Middle-earth. If it finders a wearer who 'attunes' him/herself to it its power will be the better able to work through them. If everyone rejects it it is useless.

An interesting way to phrase it, davem! I've heard this very thing applied to religious dogma and political systems as well. One could apply it to the written word in many forms--words are dangerous, but impotent if none read them or heed them. But once read, they cannot be forgotten. This is a vague corollary to Frodo's loss of innocence in his assumption of the Ring quest and appears to be backed by the law of Entropy, the original Fall of Man and many other human observations/history/literature, etc.

Is the evil, like Melkor's unwitting introduction of the beauty of snowflakes, better to have been, or is it simply entropy, a one way inevitable road that corrupts everything (better to have been, and yet still it remains evil.) . I can't help but wonder if this phenomenon is a psychological byproduct of a civilization trapped by the philosophy of time and its one way nature. I still haven't gotten the brainpower together to sit down and figure out "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. Maybe one day, if it isn't too late!

Cheers!
Lyta (sorry for the divergence from the topic!)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

An interesting way to phrase it, davem! I've heard this very thing applied to religious dogma and political systems as well. One could apply it to the written word in many forms--words are dangerous, but impotent if none read them or heed them. But once read, they cannot be forgotten. This is a vague corollary to Frodo's loss of innocence in his assumption of the Ring quest and appears to be backed by the law of Entropy, the original Fall of Man and many other human observations/history/literature, etc.

I think the thing about the Ring is that you can never 'control' it - it is impossible to become 'Lord of the Ring'. You can only become its slave. You make yourself like Sauron & you will do what Sauron did & nothing other. The 'power' it offers is an illusion, because the Ring will never surrender its control. When your mind & its' are one it will work through you. Its like a gun offers you the power of life & death over others, but in order to have that power you have to make yourself into a murderer. The Ring does not offer one the chance to be an all powerful good person. Like the Ringwraiths one must make oneself into what the Ring/Sauron wants in order to make use of the 'power' the Rings offer. That comes from within the individual, not outside them.

If you claim the Ring you become weaker, not stronger - the 'power' is a delusion. In the end you are 'neither living nor dead', merely a 'wraith', a means for the Ring to be operative in the world. So, in the end, it is still the Ring which is powerful. Hence, to reject the Ring, to leave it by the wayside, makes it impotent. The Ring, & the Ring alone, is 'Lord of the Ring'. Even Sauron himself was a 'victim' of his own creation. He could not exist if it did not & he could only use it in the way he designed it to work. Effectively, he enslaved himself.

I think this in part accounts for Frodo's feeling of failure at the end - he realised that all he had chosen at the end was 'slavery'.

[Formendacil]

Turning back to the original question of the thread, and not the interesting, verbose discussion it has currently sidled into, I have to confess that I voted with Master Fordhim.

This is due, mainly, to reading the thread title, seeing it was a poll, reading the POLL, and making my selection- all before reading the initial post of Fordhim's.

As a general rule, I post before reading so that my opinion before anyone has a chance to affect it, is most clearly shown. That is, after all, the point of a poll.

Normally, this works well enough, but this time, I fear that my answer may be somewhat confused.

When I voted for Gandalf, I was answering the question of the POLL: "Which of the Fellowship would succumb to the Ring first?". I interpreted this in the sense of "if every member of the Fellowship was given a 'One Ring', who would succumb first?" And I stick by my answer. Gandalf had the greatest power and the greatest ambitions. If he were to receive a Ring (and not rid himself of it), he would turn to evil the most quickly.

However, I then read, to my chagrin, the question posed in the opening POST: "If the Fellowship remained together, who would crack next?"

This is, in my opinion of course, a very different question. Naturally, it assumes that Gandalf didn't fall in Moria, and that the Fellowship stuck together- assumptions that I am willing to make for the sake of discussion. However, my answer now changes drastically. If the Fellowship remained together, I do not think that it would be Gandalf who would go first, but rather, one of the younger hobbits. I think it would be Merry.

My reasoning is that the Ring would be putting out its siren call to ALL the Fellowship, but that Gandalf and Aragorn would be the most immune by reason of their very conscious decisions to refuse the Ring. Gandalf in Bag End, and Aragorn in Bree have both clearly refused to take the Ring. Legolas is an Elf who has pretty much no ambitions that we are shown, and is probably the best in the Fellowship at taking things on faith. "Gandalf said so, so it must be so." Gimli, as a Dwarf, has what might be called genetic immunity. He'd be tempted, but the Rings don't work all that well on Dwarves to begin with, as demonstrated by the Seven.

That leaves the three Hobbits. Sam is easily eliminated by his return of the Ring to Frodo in the RK- a giving up of the Ring not done by any other. Even Bilbo needed help.

We are now left with Merry and Pippin. For reasons given, many people seem to think that Pippin would go first. He is, after all, the less wise, more curious, and more foolhardy of the two. But I think it would be Merry.

The Ring would be more attractive to Merry. Merry is more worldwise, and knows more of what it could do. The temptations for him on that score would therefore be greater. Furthermore, Merry IS the closer friend to Frodo. Pippin is close, but Merry is closer. Merry knew him longer, for one thing, going back at least to the Party, and probably to Frodo's orphanage in Brandy Hall. What's more, Merry sometimes acts more like Frodo's caretaker. He worries more about Frodo's health than Pippin does. Pippin is a good deal more blythe about things. And I see the temptation striking Merry through his caring heart. Frodo wilted the closer they got to Mordor, and I don't see that being any easier for Merry than for Sam, but I CAN see Merry taking the Ring away out of compassion.

And don't anyone say that being a hobbit gives Merry immunity. Smeagol fell to the Ring's call at a glance. It's only AFTER the Ring has taken hold that being a hobbit adds any advantage.

However, based on the question that the POLL was asking, I still feel that Gandalf was the right answer. Even more than Boromir. If the Fellowship was all given Rings, somehow made to take them, and someone yelled "Ready, Set, GO!", I think Gandalf would have gone first. Boromir second. Aragorn third.

[davem]

I think the problem is that no-one apart from Gandalf & Aragorn could use the Ring more or less straight away. Any of the others would, as I pointed out earlier, have to 'train their minds' to its use - ie attune themselves to it. This would have taken a good while in the case of the Hobbits, Gimli, Legolas & even Boromir. If any of them had taken the Ring the others would have simply slapped them around & taken it & given it back to Frodo - & I include Legloas, Gimli & Boromir as 'slappees'.

So, we're not talking about who might desire the Ring but about who was a real threat if they had it. Only Gandalf & Aragorn were potential Ring users - both have a 'dark side' to their characters, & a willingness, in the 'right' circumstances to 'do what's necessary' - think back to their treatment of Gollum when they captured him. Both were 'ungentle' which we can only take to mean they were fairly brutal.

Yet we know that both Gandalf & Aragorn were aware enough of the danger the Ring presented not to go that way.

In short, no-one who was a potential Ring user was a potential Ring claimer. All those likely to fall were not strong enough to get away with taking it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, no-one who was a potential Ring user was a potential Ring claimer. All those likely to fall were not strong enough to get away with taking it.

davem, though I understand your argument, I'm not sure that the Ring could successfully be reclaimed from one of the slappees. Gandalf was able to help Biblo let go of the Ring, yet this was many years and many miles from Bag End (e.g. they are now a lot closer to a more potent Sauron). Boromir unsuccessfully tried to take it from Frodo; what chance would someone, even Gandalf, have against one of the Fellowship who took the Ring to do something with it?

What if Boromir got the Ring from Frodo? Would Aragorn or Gandalf have been able to get it back? Would Boromir have run off to Minas Tirith with his prize, leaving the Fellowship to fend for themselves? Somehow I feel that if he did take the Ring, then he would have died shortly thereafter by misadventure.

Would Gandalf have to break 'one of the rules' to rend the Ring from Boromir? Would Aragorn have to kill him? What would or could they do against an invisible warrior?

Anyway, Merry and Pippin would have done something foolish after acquiring it (I don't see them as takers), and a storyline could have developed in which the Ring would have to be recovered from Orcs or something. Legolas, Gimli and Sam would not take the Ring, and if they did, they would give it back.

[Dimcollowen]

I agree i don't think Gandalf would have succombed to its power....althought it would be a lot stronger nearer to Suaron.
I know that Aragorn would never succomb the Ring...no matter what he or any else thinks.
I think that if Sam had taken it he would have just given it back to Frodo...and I think Frodo might have succombed to the Ring....he sort-of did by the end. (at Mt. Doom where he decides to keep the Ring.....)
Legolas i don't think would have fallen. Elves are powerful enough to be able to resist it. but you never know. If he had fallen and taken the RIng there would be numerous problems...i think that he Legolas had taken it he would have been able to wield it....not entirely but just alittle.
If Gimli got the Ring i have no clue what he would have done....I am not to sure would ever have fallen to the power of the RIng.
The ones I would definatley say would be Merry and Pippin. They wouldn't have known what to with it though so they probably would just pull pranks and stuff like that.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Legolas i don't think would have fallen. Elves are powerful enough to be able to resist it. but you never know. If he had fallen and taken the RIng there would be numerous problems...i think that he Legolas had taken it he would have been able to wield it....not entirely but just alittle.
If Gimli got the Ring i have no clue what he would have done....I am not to sure would ever have fallen to the power of the RIng.

I can't see Legolas OR Gimli falling right away, either. Legolas has to be the most humble elf I've ever seen, even with his proud words at the beginning. He learns easily and quickly, and bows to others (worthy others) with no qualms (i.e., the total nonexistence of any explicated possibility or even inkling in Legolas' mind of taking over Mirkwood/Eryn Lasgalen after his father). He seems to have no desire to rule even his own realm,though he is the heir of Thranduil. (Unless there are other siblings first in line I know nothing of, but I imagine them also playing Tra-la-la-lally with the addition of lots of wine...holdover from The Hobbit!).

Gimli is one over whom gold has no dominion, as Galadriel has noticed; what is more, Sauron had a whole lot of trouble bending the Dwarves to his will using the seven Dwarven Great Rings and just set himself to gather them up again. It is said Dwarves are slow to change and keep their affairs to themselves. I can't see them expanding their realms, unless it was someplace Dwarves had claimed, occupied and had been lost (i.e., Moria). Even then, in the hands of a Dwarf, the Ring would fare much the same as it did with Gollum, hoarded, hidden away, never to see the light of day.

As for Merry and Pippin, I could see Merry falling before Pippin, although I think Pippin would also fall eventually and possibly in an attempt to save Merry from the Ring. (Clarification: I think Merry is in deeper danger of falling, Pippin in more immediate but less complete danger, if that makes any sense.) Pippin wanted to stop Frodo from heading toward Mordor, and I imagine Merry would know more of the Ring than Pippin does, having observed its use even before Sam or Pippin (his surreptitious watching of Bilbo). I can see Merry having more concrete plans for the future at the time of the War of the Ring than Pippin, who is on the Quest to protect Frodo, because he cares for his friend. (This, BTW, looks like a mirror and an echo to his observations later of Beregond's daring deeds done for love of Faramir, during which time what is buried subconsciously in Pippin comes to conscious realization--at Rauros, however, he only knows he should stop Frodo because he is afraid for him.)

SPM's designation of the B-Team seems apt, as Pippin, having fewer 'plans' and dreams for application of power than Merry, would be the best choice to carry something as abstractly menacing as the Ring. However, he is also too immature at that point to resist properly (on second thought, I think Frodo had a bit of trouble with this himself!). Who can tell if Pippin would have heeded the striving of Gandalf with Sauron on Amon Hen--"take it off, fool!" as Frodo did at the last moment. One thing I do think is that he would have realized it was Gandalf, not necessarily in reality, but in a spiritual realm. Pippin and Gandalf have this very similar serendipity about them, and they are very connected--after all, Pippin is Gandalf's 'project.' Perhaps this is mere fancy, but there does seem to be something, a "Sixth Sense" if you will, behind Pippin's actions, like unto perhaps the extraordinary senses that Frodo gains through his carrying the Ring, and which Sam seems to have innately through his connection with the Earth.

One thing I could say is that Pippin, not having the harsh teachings that Frodo had already had on the road (or having had them only secondhand, as did everyone else) would not be nearly as equipped as Frodo to carry the Ring at this closer locale to Mordor. Pippin would have been more vulnerable, and if he had the Ring, he would make the same mistakes Frodo made earlier, but he wouldn't have the distance and time buffer that Frodo did, so it would be MUCH more dangerous. I hate to think of it! I'll stop now, but I wanted to put out these few thoughts!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

davem Boromir unsuccessfully tried to take it from Frodo; what chance would someone, even Gandalf, have against one of the Fellowship who took the Ring to do something with it?

What if Boromir got the Ring from Frodo? Would Aragorn or Gandalf have been able to get it back? Would Boromir have run off to Minas Tirith with his prize, leaving the Fellowship to fend for themselves? Somehow I feel that if he did take the Ring, then he would have died shortly thereafter by misadventure.

Would Gandalf have to break 'one of the rules' to rend the Ring from Boromir? Would Aragorn have to kill him? What would or could they do against an invisible warrior?

I don't think any member of the Fellowship could have taken the Ring & 'done anything with it'. It wasn't someting you could use instantly - as Galadriel points out to Frodo. I also suspect that Gandalf & very probably Aragorn could have overcome even an invisible Boromir. How long had Frodo borne the Ring - yet he still knew Boromir was strong enough to take it from him. You also have to take into account that the Ring did not call to just anybody - it was seeking Sauron & seemed to display some degree of intelligence. I'd say that only someone who had 'mastered' it (ie become enslaved by it to the point that it could work through them) would have been able to wear it & remain visible - ie like Sauron. Anyone who was made invisible by it would not have been able to do anything with it - does that make sense? And in bright sunlight the bearer would still cast a shadow.

I don't think Gandalf or Aragorn were potential victims because they knew the nature of the Ring - so why would it bother trying to tempt them? It chose the weakest - the ones most easily dominatable. If Boromir or anyone else had worn the Ring for any period of time they would have drawn the servants of Sauron to themselves - particularly the Ringwraiths, who the bearer could not have dominated.

[VanimaEdhel]

My reasoning is very similar to many people before me, so I won't go into great detail, repeating the reasoning behind my decision.

Like so many others, it came down to Merry and Pippin in my opinion. A major contributing factor is the fact that those were the two that seemed to have the least knowledge regarding the ring. Through either recently acquired knowledge (especially first-hand) or old lore, the others seemed to be more aware of the ring's position in the world - its history and power. I think that Merry, if the Fellowship had stayed together, would have seen the subtle effects of the ring - seen how it was changing all of them. While he is in no regard unintelligent, I don't think that Pippin would have been quite as aware of the power beginning to turn him and his companions. I think Merry would have been perceptive enough to realize the danger, however. Pippin was also the most curious of the group - more than once his curiosity put the group in danger. If they remained together, I think it would have only been a matter of time before the seduction of the ring, mixed with his own curiosity, would have overcome him. As all of his other blunders, Pippin would have had no harm in mind - in fact he may not have even had good deeds in mind - but would have found himself in danger.

Then, however, falls the fact that it seems that Hobbits were particularly strong when it comes to the ring. They, as a race, have far less ambition than men, Dwarves and Elves. And I don't see any particular desire for power coming from Merry or Pippin. But the others knew of the power so well - Gandalf, Aragorn and Legolas best of all. Gimli did not seem to have enough personal drive to be affected and Sam is another Hobbit - he did begin to feel the effects when he was wearing the ring himself, but he was far stronger than any mortal would have been.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by alatar

...what chance would someone, even Gandalf, have against one of the Fellowship who took the Ring to do something with it?

This is an excellent question, and one whose answer is not as clear-cut as some speculation on this thread would lead you to believe. Letter 246, in which Tolkien expounds at length on the events at the Crack and possible alternative outcomes, is particularly relevant to the question of the Ring's power or lack thereof. Like so many topics in Tolkien, it offers no easy, pat answers, though something caught my eye which suggests that the Ring does have power which would be instantly accessible to a claimant.

The situation as between Frodo with the Ring and the Eight might be compared to that of a small brave man armed with a devastating weapon, faced by eight savage warriors of great strength and agility armed with poisoned blades. The man's weakness was that he did not know how to use his weapon yet; and he was by temperament and training averse to violence. Their weakness that the man's weapon was a thing that filled them with fear as an object of terror in their religious cult, by which they had been conditioned to treat one who wielded it with servility.

Tolkien, Master of Ambiguity, suggests two possible readings here, I suppose: on the one hand, he explicitly attributes great offensive power to the Ring (supposing you know how to use it); then a moment later he relates the Ring's power to that of an icon -- possibly more powerful as an idea than actually powerful.

But I'm also quoting a little bit out of order. A few paragraphs back, Tolkien seems to suggest beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Ring has some power to offer even an unskilled user, supposing that he uses it in the 'proper' spirit, i.e., aggressively:

It is an interesting problem: how Sauron would have acted or the claimant have resisted. Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the Ring. The wearer would not be invisible to them, but the reverse; and the more vulnerable to their weapons. But the situation was now different to that under Weathertop, where Frodo acted merely in fear and wished only to use (in vain) the Ring's subsidiary power of conferring invisibility. He had grown since then. Would they have been immune from its power if he claimed it as an instrument of command and domination? Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive...

alatar is also right to bring up the Ring's power of invisibility as a factor which, all by itself, could cause a lot of difficulty for someone trying to take the Ring from a claimant.

[Mister Underhill]

Addendum: Forgot to add that the Ring-claimer's theoretical power over the Nazgûl at the Crack may derive from the Ruling Ring's power over the "nine rings for Men", once again plunging the issue into ambiguity...

[davem]

The man's weakness was that he did not know how to use his weapon yet; and he was by temperament and training averse to violence. Their weakness that the man's weapon was a thing that filled them with fear as an object of terror in their religious cult, by which they had been conditioned to treat one who wielded it with servility.

I suppose the question is whether the Ring would allow itself to be used against the Nazgul - I think this assumes the Ring is morally 'neutral' & has no innate consciousness - which goes against the idea of its calling out to potential users & desiring to get back to Sauron.

Would they have been immune from its power if he claimed it as an instrument of command and domination? Not wholly. I do not think they could have attacked him with violence, nor laid hold upon him or taken him captive...

Again, this assumes that the bearer could use the Ring to make the Nazgul act in a way that they did not wish to - but their desires would have conformed with thehequestion is whether the Ring would have submitted to Frodo in those circumstances.

[Mister Underhill]

I think you credit the Ring too much with a mind and will of its own.

[alatar]

While preparing a new thread regarding the Ring (oddly in regards to the post just made by Mr. Underhill), I came across some information about the One Ring. Anyway, just want to add this thought: who put the Ring on the chain while Frodo was being healed in Rivendell? Assumptions are Elrond or Gandalf, and if we believe the later, then this is yet another instance of Gandalf refusing the Ring.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Anyway, just want to add this thought: who put the Ring on the chain while Frodo was being healed in Rivendell?

The Mysterious 10th Bearer

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think you credit the Ring too much with a mind and will of its own.

Well, its either the Ring itself, or Sauron working through the Ring. I think the latter causes many more problems in terms of explaining how it behaves - that would mean that Sauron was in touch with the Ring & so knew where it was & what it was doing.

Where do the fantasies the Ring produces arise? The Ring often behaves as if it has a mind & will of its own - its stated that the Ring decides abandon Gollum for instance, & that it slipped off Isildur's finger, that it temps Frodo to put it on, etc. Now, is all this to be understood metaphorically, or does the Ring have some kind of 'intelligence' - & if so, to what degree? How much of himself did Sauron pour into it? It seems to function autonomously too often simply to be an object of power.

[Mister Underhill]

You make it sound like such a black and white proposition. I agree that the Ring is not a completely inanimate object. But does it have the ability to analyze a situation and then "decide" whether or not it will "allow" itself to be used? How aware is it? How sentient is it? It's also stated that Sauron is "exerting all his power to find it or draw it to himself". Are the Ring's "actions" more "reactions" to this signal that Sauron is broadcasting? You assume that Sauron working on (or through) the Ring means he knows where it is and what it is doing. This need not be so. When I listen to my Walkman, the radio station works through it without knowing where my Walkman is or what it is doing. A computer can act "autonomously", but it obviously does not necessarily follow that it is intelligent or aware. The Ring, when worn, creates a sort of conduit to Sauron -- but clearly it lacks the ability to call out to him or to make a report on its location and situation.

Also, I notice that you were quick to point out earlier in the thread that Gandalf and Galadriel's ideas about how the Ring works are only theoretical and cannot be relied upon, but are now willing to take Gandalf's speculation that the Ring "decided" to "abandon" Gollum at face value. Which way do you want it?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

You make it sound like such a black and white proposition. I agree that the Ring is not a completely inanimate object. But does it have the ability to analyze a situation and then "decide" whether or not it will "allow" itself to be used? How aware is it? How sentient is it?

Ok, let me try this:

I'd say it is sentient to some degree, but the point is that it is only usable by someone in the 'right' frame of mind (ie someone who has gone a long way down the road to becoming like Sauron, & is able to use it in the only way that it is possible to use it - ie one would not be able to use it to do 'good'. Using it would be very similar to using crack cocaine - the addiction would begin almost instantaneously.

It's also stated that Sauron is "exerting all his power to find it or draw it to himself". Are the Ring's "actions" more "reactions" to this signal that Sauron is broadcasting? You assume that Sauron working on (or through) the Ring means he knows where it is and what it is doing. This need not be so. When I listen to my Walkman, the radio station works through it without knowing where my Walkman is or what it is doing. A computer can act "autonomously", but it obviously does not necessarily follow that it is intelligent or aware. The Ring, when worn, creates a sort of conduit to Sauron -- but clearly it lacks the ability to call out to him or to make a report on its location and situation.

But the Walkman & computer are not 'evil'. I think this is the point. The Ring is evil - evil is a(n im)moral 'force'. Its not a case that the Ring can be used for evil, but that it is evil in & of itself. As if your computer could only be used to access paedophilia because it was designed to do only that & also that if you used your computer you would become instantly addicted to that. More so, as if it was able to draw you to use it, had that purpose as part of its making. That doesn't, I accept, require your computer to be 'autonomous' - but it would bebehaving as if it was.

Also, I notice that you were quick to point out earlier in the thread that Gandalf and Galadriel's ideas about how the Ring works are only theoretical and cannot be relied upon, but are now willing to take Gandalf's speculation that the Ring "decided" to "abandon" Gollum at face value. Which way do you want it?

I'm going by what the Ring does - based on that I think Gandalf's 'speculation' here is correct.