The One Ring?

[doug*platypus]

Whether or not he started out simply playing Devil's Advocate (which I would've thought was against some of the guidelines of your site), Mr. Underhill has brought up what seems to be a very valid argument about the rings being the feminine component that completes their masculine owners. Very intersting about Galadriel, the only female Ringbearer, being made so masculine. And it seems an explanation has been found for Sauron's power increasing after the creation of the One. By more clearly defining his being, and by giving creedence to his feminine side, he becomes almost omnipotent. Sauron suddenly becomes greater than the sum of his parts - he invents synergy! Of course, I don't think he is ever said to have become more powerful after splitting his power like this. I think instead that the only reason he created the One Ring was to dominate the other rings, and he had to place a lot of his power into it. So when he had the Ring he was just as powerful as before, but also in control of the other rings, and when he lost the Ring his power was greatly diminished. But that should've probably been said in another thread.

Back to the original question, the One Ring is most obviously a great weapon, an inherently evil weapon, which can be used by either good or evil. Like a nuclear bomb. I think in this respect, Tolkien gives us a cautionary tale and asks us if the end can justify all means. Clearly, Gandalf, Elrond and co. do not think so. Clearly Boromir and Denethor do. This argument is at least as relevant today as fifty years ago when the books first appeared.

[doug*platypus]

...sorry, left something out!

It was interesting what was said about a ring taking the place of a spouse, and about Sam being a ringbearer as well. I've always been a little confused by the last line in the book, Sam: "Well, I'm back." Of course he was back! But maybe it also means that since the ringbearers, particularly Frodo have left Middle-Earth, that Sam is now able to settle down with Rosie. He definitely seems to have been more devoted to Frodo than to Rose. I don't think the fact that he cooks for Frodo makes him feminine, though. Bilbo and Beorn are both excellent cooks.

[Airerûthiel]

You know how there's a theory that LotR is meant to be a religious allegory, with Frodo as a Christ figure and Sauron as the Devil? Well, for my Religious Studies coursework essay I wrote about the book and I said that I thought the Ring represented things about evil (power etc) that tempt good people to turn to evil. Just my idea, but you never know...

Other readings of the book have the Ring representing the need to grow up, but to me that doesn't make much sense as to why it was destroyed, because otherwise the effects of the Ring would be inevitable - unless there was some kind of idea of a Peter Pan-type figure represented by hobbits...and I'm waffling now so I'd best shut up. Just an idea.

[SamwiseGamgee]

I think perhaps it is important to distinguish between allegory and symbolism. Allegory is something like Animal Farm, a direct retelling of a chain of events, often simplified for easier understanding. Symbolism, however, is far wider. It is perfectly feasable that Tolkien wrote LoTR with the thought in mind that The One Ring would symboliose the corrupting nature of power, but did not write LoTR as some kind of WWII allegory. I hope you can understand the subtle though, I think you'll agree, rather important difference.

[Noldorin King]

If the One Ring did represent something it would not be just power...it would be a system of government that, instead of being perverted by the one who runs it (or wear it in the matter of the One Ring),does not convert itself but changes the nature of the holder into the level of higher evil. a government system, be it communist socialism or democratic capitalism, is always geared towards a common goal, that is, order. but in our case, there's always a problem concerning the authority who of course holds power, they may abuse it and thus pervert the system that is good in its very own nature(the end does not justify the means). In the One Ring, however, we see a reciprocation because it would turn out that its bearer is not the origin of evil but the Ring itself and performs the perversion through its weapon, the ringbearer. It controls the being and put an urge to do its will; to be found by its maker and complete the destruction they both started...

[SamwiseGamgee]

I hate to do so, Noldorin King, but I disagree that The Ring would symbolise a government system etc. I think the very essence of LoTR is quite simple. Essentially it is the classic tale of good rising victorious over evil. Now, sure, Tolkien uses many tools to get there- for example the different sub-genre of hero and the recurring theme of loyalty in those heroes- but the core is simple. That's why I feel it's not an over-simplification to say that The One Ring simply shows the perverting nature of power, and not a government system (although I do agree generally with your comments on the driven nature of both capitalist and communist systems).

[Sharkû]

This is a follow-up to two chapter discussion post which you can find here and here respectively. Since what I want to say has nothing at all to do with that chapter, but very much with what has been written in this thread, I'm going to put it here.

The ring-giving as a gesture of a ruler towards his subjects is something Middle-earth and the historical world definitely have in common. In the instances where a ring is passed, even in a mood of gratitude, such as Barahir's ring, it is still a sign of fief, demanding mutual keeping of terms such as protection and service in arms. Sauron took this one step further with his rings, especially the Nine.

In this light, Sauron showing up in Eregion and passing out rings, even in disguise, is bold, if not insolent. The underlying intention of ensnaring the Elves must not have seemed so underlying at all. The Three, in contrast, might appear more as an effort of the Gwaith-i-Mirdain to claim a leading rôle among the Elves, or rather, to strengthen those Elves which already had a standing of their own in their position. Still, I'd say the Three are more like powerful artifacts of which one is just a keeper; the power of the rings themselves and the defiance of Sauron for which they stand are more important.

Sauron creating a ring for himself can certainly have many implications, just read above for some musings on the matter.
What is striking is that by forging and giving a ring to himself, he states that there is noone else to give him a ring, i.e. noone who could be his lord, noone who could be above him. In that regard, merely forging the ring to keep for yourself is an act of proud defiance of Eru; taking it as a ruling ring even more so.

[Evisse the Blue]

What is striking is that by forging and giving a ring to himself, he states that there is noone else to give him a ring, i.e. noone who could be his lord, noone who could be above him. In that regard, merely forging the ring to keep for yourself is an act of proud defiance of Eru; taking it as a ruling ring even more so.

Taking this a little bit further - the self-assumed title 'the lord of the rings' would be like a blasphemy, meaning 'the supreme lord'. Maybe this is why Gandalf reprimands Pippin so harshly when he jokingly calls Frodo 'Lord of the Rings'.