The Hobbit Ring-Lord?

[Kransha]

I am no dwarf, so my skills in deep-delving are not up to standard, but I do what I can. I've glanced, lately, at Tolkien's letter, and, via some hints from Tolkien and others, found this interesting tidbit and begun a brief phase of contemplation about an alternate scenario. I'm afraid I have no deep philosophical question to pose, just a technical one. I wonder now if this question has been entertained before. I couldn't find anything specific here on the Barrow-Downs, so I doubt the presence of a duplicate. But, I digress. Onto the query.

In Tolkien's Letters, the one numbered #246, Tolkien himself poses a question of sorts, and answers it. He, in this letter, discusses an a deviation from the story of The Lord of the Rings that might've occured. We know, of course, that the One Ring, the Ring of Power, plumetted into the chasm of fire in Orodruin, in the reality we know, but, what would've occured had Gollum failed to get the Ring from an invisible hobbit, Frodo, and been cast or fallen into Mt. Doom without it. This would leave Frodo with the Ring, having claimed it as his own, and poor Sam to make a very complex decision. But, that decision (would Sam push Frodo in) is not the one that I'm wondering about. The other factor of this is that, while all this was going on, the 8 Nazgûl (minus the Witch-King, thanks to Éowyn and Merry) were flying to Orodruin at the behest of Sauron. But, in Letter #246, Tolkien says that, if the Nazgûl had gotten to Frodo after he became the new "Lord of the Ring[s]"...

...they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand… That errand was to remove Frodo from the Crack . . . They would have greeted Frodo as ‘Lord’ . . . and induced him to leave Sammath Naur to look upon his new kingdom…
-Tolkien Letter #246

Well, that's a fine kettle of fish. If Frodo left Sammath Naur as the Nazgûl desired, their orders from Sauron would have been fulfilled and, to some extent, Frodo could command them. Here, things seem complicated. Was Frodo even sane enough at the time to really comprehend being the chief of the 8 Nazgûl. Would the Nazgûl listen to Sauron exclusively, Frodo exclusively, or both? Sauron still held them in servitude because of their nine rings, but the Lord of the Rings would be Frodo. Am I way off in thinking that the Nazgûl would follow Frodo's commands at all? If he, immediately, told them to level Sauron's ranks instead of those from Minas Tirith?

I doubt that the orcs of Mordor would react in the same way as the Nazgûl, obviously, since they are more servants of Sauron then the Ring, but the Nazgûl were great enemies of forces of good and, with both Eagles of Manwë and Nazgûl riding Fellbeasts attacking the orc-host at Morannon, could the orcs win, as they almost definately would've if all had gone as it was going. Sauron was defeated once before, and he did have posession of the Ring, thus was more powerful. The Sauron of the Third Age was weaker, in my opinion, especially without the Ring. Would he still be able to keep his forces ordered with another Ringmaster running around? Would the whole situation immediately backfire on Frodo? Oh, the confusion that such thoughts invariably wreak. Who's to say what would happen? I suppose that, if any answers can be given, I'd desperately like to know.

But, beyond all of this, there are even more alternate scenarios to consider. If Frodo really claim the Ring as his own, in more of a way than any before, or would he simply become a shade and a weak, reclusive, maddened creature like Gollum. Gollum never really had the oppurtunity to command, and Tolkien himself gives evidence that the Ringwraiths would listen to Frodo's whims, at least momentarily. What kind of whims are we talking about? How would friends and foes react? Would the Quest of the Ring end in everlasting victory (Frodo casts the ring/is pushed into the fire), everlasting defeat (Sauron's slaves are still in his thrall, and the Nazgûl take the Ring for Sauron), shortlived victory (Frodo keeps the Ring, but Sauron cannot be fully defeated because the Ring remains; Frodo does good instead of ill), or shortlived defeat (Frodo 'amscray's with the Ring, just to escape it all, and Sauron gains the upper hand because the Ring remains undestroyed but unused)? Am I still reading the wrong book, thinking the wrong thoughts, what?

I have other thoughts on this, but, if these questions inspire discussion, or just straight answers, I'll be happy enough to serve.

[Imladris]

Hmmm....I am hesitant to offer another scenario.

Tolkien stated that the Nazgul would obey Frodo momentarily and induce him to leave Mount Doom. However, Frodo is a very strong hobbit so say the least. I doubt that he would fall so easily pray to their lies. In time, couldn't the Nazgul become Frodo's Ringwraiths, faithful to him alone? Couldn't the power of the Ring make the Nazgul faithful to him? As I understand it they are bound to the Ring...

Am I way off in thinking that the Nazgûl would follow Frodo's commands at all? If he, immediately, told them to level Sauron's ranks instead of those from Minas Tirith?

If I am correct in thinking that it is the Ring that binds them, then wouldn't the real question be Would Frodo have the strength of will to make them do that?

Of course, the Ring is Sauron's so ultimately Frodo would fall, but it would be interesting to see how long he could last as Lord of the Rings.

What kind of whims are we talking about? How would friends and foes react?

Well...I would assume that Frodo would first do the noble things ("win" the war, rebuild what had been destroyed, etc). Undoubtedly the wise on the good side would be displeased.

I wonder what would become of the whims though, noble as they might be. Would they gradually become a curse disguised in blessing? Rather like the White Witch climbing over the wall for the apple instead of going through the Gate.

[Kuruharan]

If the Ring had not been destroyed, there is no question of anything happening but Sauron achieving total victory.

It would take Frodo far too long to truly master the Ring (or as Tolkien himself pointed out, for it to master him) for Frodo to gain anything even vaguely resembling true obedience from the Nazgul, if such a thing were possible. However, he had no time. And in any case, Sauron still retained primary control of their wills, and would have retained them so long as he held the Nine Rings.

Tolkien did indicate the Nazgul would have been rather conflicted, but Sauron was still their master. However, their only purpose was to detain and deliver, as Tolkien said, get Frodo to Barad-dur or wait until Sauron came, whichever happened to be more convenient. Whatever, happened, they would not have flattened Sauron’s army. They would have kept Frodo on the mountain and not taken him anywhere, perhaps gone to the lengths of killing their flying beasts if it proved necessary.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"Would the Quest of the Ring end in everlasting victory (Frodo casts the ring/is pushed into the fire), everlasting defeat"
=============
Certainly not "everlasting" defeat. The valar, or, if necessary, Iluvatar would
have eventually intervened. My understanding of free will, and in particular the
pre-Christian Christian LOTR philosophy, is that this can lead to long periods
of "darkness" if evil is ascendant (much of the Second Age, for example) but that
eventually there would be a redress of events. Think of Gandalf's commment
somewhere that he would not have failed if anything survived which could
flourish (I don't recall the quote- obviously). And also Eru's comment to Melkor:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

One could imagine, over several hundreds of years, and with some powerful, but hidden, maia emissaries, gradual unrest leading to Sauron's overthrow, thus
allowing free will of good and evil peoples, including a failure of good peoples to
effectiively unite and act leading to defeats- thus free will acts of good guys and
bad guys having a real effect, while still allowing for an eventual "redemption"
of Middle-earth.

==================
As for the Ringwraiths, it seems highly probable they would not have really
followed Frodo. (In Letters):

...they would have obeyed or feigned to obey any minor commands of his that did not interfere with their errand-laid upon them by Sauron, who still through their nine rings (which he held) had primary control of their wills.

[Fingolfin II]

I agree with Kuru and Tuor- Sauron still had primary control of their wills through the Nine Rings, as Tuor evidenced in that excerpt from one of Tolkien's letters.

As well as Frodo not being strong enough to master the Nazgul and the fact that they would most likely feign obedience, I think Kuruharan is correct in saying that if the Ring had not been destroyed, Sauron would acheive complete victory. Unless, of course, if Gandalf or Saruman claimed it (and maybe Elrond and Galadriel too).

Gandalf himself said - I believe in the chapter 'The Last Debate', though it might be somewhere else in RotK - that even if one of them claimed the Ring it would take more than a day to completely control. By that time the odds are high that Sauron would have already taken the Ring back.

Also; Gollum claimed the Ring as his own. However, he could not master the Nazgul, nor could Bilbo. True, they didn't try, but I still think the point holds firm that if this scenario occurred, Sauron would get the Ring back sooner or later, whether Frodo tried to command the Nazgul or not.

[ivo]

Interesting thread Kransha!
I'm a bit surprised that Tolkien mused over an alternate scenario. Because I think it could not have gone otherwise. Of course the story could have gone different (Frodo 'commanding' the Nazgul), but never Frodo could have wield the powers of the Ring without being corrupted. Gandalf warns for this hybris constantly.

Eru and the Valar sang their song, which cannot be changed, so in a way they are also bond to Fate. Which leaves us with the staggering paradox of fate and free will, which no doubt has been discussed abundantly at this forum, but Tuor mentioned it as well. I would like to share a thought about that.

If Frodo had said 'no thanks, I just stick with Hobbiton' to Gandalf, of course the quest would have failed. So how can we talk about 'it had to happen this way', about fate.
A solution might be that it's not in his nature to stay in the Shire. Frodo had to say yes, because that's who he is. I am convinced that we cannot escape ourselves and that in our lives we go a certain direction without even knowing it. Doesn't this rule out free will? I tend to look at it like this: the more we know ourself, the more insight we have, the more free we are. Being free might be: being without doubt.

But does this mean that we can lay back and trust upon this knowledge, and let our lives take it's course?
Not at all. And this is crucial to me. Though Frodo knows he cannot do otherwise (that is: accepting the quest) he is constantly full of anxiety. Just as Aragorn is full of anxiety (is he worth of being the new King), even Gandalf is full of anxiety. I think it's possible to both have faith and be anxious at once. Because you still have to do the job, in Frodo's case: because you still have to face the lands of Mordor. Even Christ is anxious ('let this cup pass me'), because he still has to face crucifixion.

A last example, that of Abraham and Isaak, as described by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling.
Abraham is told to kill his son, to prove his faith to God, even though God promised him to have great offspring. Abraham believes that this promise still willl be fulfilled and that in some way he will get Isaak back. But at the same time he has to face a three day journey to the top of a mountain (it is called Moria) where it has to take place. Never in his life has Abraham been through such agonizing, anxious days.

At the crucial moment, God stays his hand, and Abraham is released. That is I think a eucatastrophe.

Sorry for straying, I cannot help it.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I can't at the moment recall where I saw this, but I do remember reading at one point that Tolkien actually plotted out four different endings for the climax at the Crack of Doom. One is the published version, which is the only one he could go with. But he felt it important to know what the other scenarios would be, so that he could know what was at stake, I suppose. The other three are the one cited by Kransha, one in which Frodo takes the Ring and is pushed into the fire by Sam, and one in which Gollum has the Ring and Frodo pushes them both into the fire.

But to respond to this interesting 'what if' -- remember what Gandalf said: "There is only one Lord of the Rings." The One is Sauron's, it is -- in essence -- Sauron. Frodo could not claim it for his own, he could only be claimed by it. The Nazgul would still be enslaved to/by the Ring, but they answer only to Sauron and not the one who happens to be wearing the Ring (remember at Weathertop? They stabbed Frodo when he had the Ring on -- in fact, he was even more vulnerable then). Had Frodo been able to keep the Ring, the Nazgul would have fooled him, led his out, then taken him straight to Sauron where poor Frodo would have been driven into a state worse than madness by having the Ring forcibly taken by him by Sauron himself. And then, well, pretty much a bad ending for everyone.

So no Hobbit Ring-Lord -- just a very very sad little hobbit in the dungeons of Barad Dur, being tormented from time to time with the knowlege that all his friends were, dead, hope was lost, and the world now in the eternal dominion of the Dark Lord.

I'm really happy that Tolkien gave us the ending that he did!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I do remember reading at one point that Tolkien actually plotted out four different endings for the climax at the Crack of Doom.

I think that there was an addiitonal scenario, mentioned in the Letter which Kransha referenced. One where Gollum ends up throwing himself into Mount Doom. I have to say, however, that it was one that did not ring true to my impression of Gollum.

As to the question at hand, Galadriel tells Frodo (in The Mirror of Galadriel):

Only thrice have you possessed the Ring upon your finger since you knew what you possessed. Do not try! It would destroy you. Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor. Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others.

I am pretty sure that Frodo was not sufficiently powerful at Sammath Naur, even having claimed the Ring as his own, to bend it to his will. Certainly, he had not trained his will for the purpose of domination. So, I suspect that the will of the Ring would have superseded Frodo's own will giving him no dominion over the Nazgul, even though their own servitude, through the Nine Rings, was governed by the One Ring. And since the Ring's will was Sauron's will, it is doubtful that Frodo would have had any dominion over them. So, as the Letter suggests, they would only have feigned subservience to him.

What is interesting is that the Letter first referenced suggests that Frodo would only have had the capability of controlling the Ring once he claimed it as his own. Until that point, despite using it and deriving some of its benefits (invivibility, for example), he had no possibility of using it to his own ends because his intention was to destroy it. It is only once he claimed it as his own that this became a possibility, although Frodo was ill-equipped (thankfully) to bend it to his own will. But it does suggest that someone with the power to wield the Ring (Saruman, for example) would have been in a pretty good position to use it against Sauron almost as soon as it came into his possession - provided that he took the precaution to claim it, rather than simply bear it. But someone in possession of it but not prepared to claim it as his own, Gandalf for example, would perhaps have been in a far more vulnerable position as far as Sauron's will was concerned, because if he did not claim it, then the Ring would still be working primarily for Sauron.

[Kuruharan]

It is only once he claimed it as his own that this became a possibility, although Frodo was ill-equipped (thankfully) to bend it to his own will. But it does suggest that someone with the power to wield the Ring (Saruman, for example) would have been in a pretty good position to use it against Sauron almost as soon as it came into his possession - provided that he took the precaution to claim it, rather than simply bear it.

I'm not sure it would really have been as easy as all that. Wrenching control of it and then trying to use it against Sauron (or one might say against its own self) would have been a tremendous struggle. The point is hammered at us incessantly that the Ring belonged to Sauron. I don't think this tie was something that could be broken without great trauma to all concerned.

It might have been a very clever trick on the part of the Ring to simply go along with the claimant, and then betray the claimant at some critical juncture.

[littlemanpoet]

I tend to agree with Kuruharan. Frodo may be the strongest willed Hobbit ever to walk the paths of Middle Earth, but consider how difficult Aragorn found it to face Sauron by means of the Palantir.

What must be remembered here is that during all this time, Frodo has been resisting the Ring, and it has finally overcome his will. Thus, his will is broken, except as it agrees with the Ring. The wills of the Ringwraiths are similarly broken - to Sauron and to the Ring - by means of their rings. The Ring being claimed by someone who is not Sauron, may throw the Nazgul off for a little while, but in the end it would come down to the stronger will. Sauron's will has never been broken. His will would hold sway.

I find Sam's dilemma to be the most interesting thing to consider. I think it's safe to assume that the Nazgul arrive pretty quickly after Frodo claims the Ring. Gollum is sill there, and if he doesn't get the Ring from Frodo, it is because Frodo has killed him. Sam would witness this, and realize that the quest to destroy the Ring has either failed, or is about to fail unless he does something.

I can imagine Sam thinking to himself, "Well, Sam, this is why you've been sent along with Mr. Frodo, but what an awful choice! Do I do my duty by Mr. Frodo, or by Gandalf, may he rest in peace? But no, my true duty to Mr. Frodo is to take the Ring from him. But I mustn't take it for myself! That's no good! Then there's only one thing to do, and I can't do it! I can't push him over the edge, even though he did it to the poor miserable creature! But there's no other way. This is an evil day, to be sure!" And Sam, as would any good and loyal servant Hobbit, or perhaps any good World War One soldier, would do the only thing that he could stand to do, and that would be do tackle his dear beloved master so that they both fall into the abyss; because he knows he couldn't live with himself if he betrays his master and/or the quest.

But it would be a different tale, and one that Tolkien couldn't tell. In On Faerie Stories, Tolkien writes,

...the "consolation of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. [Tolkien's capitalizations] Almost I would venture to say that all complete fairy stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story.

For Sam to kill himself and Frodo in order to save the quest, the story could not have a happy ending. It would suddenly be turned into a Gotterdammerung kind of bitter and cold Norse saga. Maybe a lot of Tolkien's critics would have liked it better that way, but I don't think Tolkien could have written it.

Maybe my imaginative scenario is not necessarily the only way; it does seem that way to me, though.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What must be remembered here is that during all this time, Frodo has been resisting the Ring, and it has finally overcome his will. Thus, his will is broken, except as it agrees with the Ring.

Ironic, but true. When Frodo was still in his own mind, he had the will to resist the Ring (somehow). He might have given in at times, especially in circumstances that trouble hovers so near him, but he was always quick to recognize his mistake. But at the Crack of Doom, he no longer tried to resist the Ring beckoning to him...it even seems to me he was more than glad to finally claim the Ring for his own. But then, he was no longer Frodo...his will has finally been mastered by the Ring. In effect, he has become a second Gollum, albeit of stronger will.

It is possible that it was the Ring's idea to have Itself "mastered" by Frodo. Because come to think of it...they were kilometers away from Sauron. The Ring was almost home! However, It was about to be destroyed. So It had to trick Frodo into being in control, made easier since Frodo's will was slowly weakening as the journey progressed. Definitely it would be easier for Sauron to get the Ring back if the Bearer is not about to destroy It. With Frodo being so much weaker compared to Sauron, the Dark Lord could get the Ring back in a snap despite Frodo's resistance. As a bonus, It could call Sauron and announce It's presence within the realm. Absolute victory for evil, no doubt!

As for the Valar's intervention, that could be delayed. Eru could make himself known again to the people of Middle Earth through their despair. Something like the way we only call on God when we're at the pits. But that's another story.

[A_Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

But to respond to this interesting 'what if' -- remember what Gandalf said: "There is only one Lord of the Rings." The One is Sauron's, it is -- in essence -- Sauron. Frodo could not claim it for his own, he could only be claimed by it. The Nazgul would still be enslaved to/by the Ring, but they answer only to Sauron and not the one who happens to be wearing the Ring (remember at Weathertop? They stabbed Frodo when he had the Ring on -- in fact, he was even more vulnerable then). Had Frodo been able to keep the Ring, the Nazgul would have fooled him, led his out, then taken him straight to Sauron where poor Frodo would have been driven into a state worse than madness by having the Ring forcibly taken by him by Sauron himself. And then, well, pretty much a bad ending for everyone.

Alone, that Sauron sent the Ring-Wraiths to regain the One Ring, could be the prove, that Frodo or someone else is not able to control the Nazgul using the One Ring.
Sauron being an expert in Ringlore would not send the Ring-Wraiths, if there has been a minimal chance, that the actual ringbearer could master them.
Sauron himself seems to not trust alone of the power of the One Ring to control the Nazgul. He had taken their rings and held them.
I also think that Frodo could not master the ring in this short time. He had used it very few times, self Galadriel (see quote posted by Saucepan) said, that he needed to practise his will before he can try to use the ring (save becoming invisible).