That's an interesting way of looking at it, but looking at it the same way, but rating characters according to the level of their suffering, you get a different result:

1. Frodo. Broken by the Ring, and possibly also by his inability to destroy it. He achieves the (almost) impossible by getting it to the very brink but receives no other reward than to have to leave the place he loves, the Shire.

2. Gollum. Driven mad by the Ring, his whole existence after losing it is centred on regaining it. So much so that when he does regain it, he leaps for joy and falls to his death.

3. Isildur. Although not much is known of the detail, we do know that bearing the Ring caused him to become less of a King, and eventually to get himself killed (due to his over-confidence?) - this could possibly be the root of the downfall of Gondor too.

4. Bilbo. Not terribly affected by the Ring at all apart from his unnaturally long life. He retires to Rivendell but seems excited by this, as though it is very much a conscious choice. He is reluctant to give up the Ring, but does so relatively easily.

5. Sam. He seems to be barely affected at all. He is able to return to The Shire and not only fully participate in life, but to increase his social position and to father a huge family. His departure (as far as we know) for the Undying Lands is more of a reward than a necessity.


If Frodo and Sam set their wills against the Ring, wouldn't they have experienced the same level of suffering in the end? Even if Sam had been the Ringbearer for as long as Frodo, I still do not think he would have suffered to the same degree; as seen in the differing reactions when each Ringbearer wears the Ring, I still believe that it has different effects on each wearer.

I'm not going to argue that it has the same effect on every wearer because I think it does not. Yet I must say that if Sam had actually worn (or carried) the ring with the purpose of destroying it for a time as long as Frodo, he would have been broken by it too. You have to take into account that Sam, when in contact with the ring, only concentrates on saving Frodo (furthermore, when he thinks Frodo is dead and takes the ring to try to finish his task, he looses hope and finds it all but impossible to go on yet when he changes his mind and decides to save Frodo he regains faith and finally achieves it. Maybe the Ring was opposing him first?)

Still, I do agree it depends on the ringbearer but not only on his character but also his purpose for the Ring. As well, whatever they choose to do with the ring depends on their character so both factors are interelated, but I think they are two distinct factors and I think that purpose is just as influential as character.

It cannot be quantified but it is to be remembered that Sam wore the ring for a considerable amount of time and when it was near its power source. It's obvious that the nearer to Mordor the ring was the more powerful it became. Therefore I would postulate that there was a great toll on Sam due to the length of time it was worn and due to the sheer power increase of the ring. I'm not sure if it would equal the total the Frodo used but the huge weight of it must have been great.

But then both his character AND his purpose were, if not possitive at least not detrimental to the ring itself, which I believe should also be taken into account. Besides even if he wore the ring, all the "wise men" say that the ring will slowly corrupt you, that you will have good intentions at first but then it'll all be perverted into evil. Perhaps a few hours is not enough to harm you, yet a few months (if not longer, how long did Frodo carry the ring) will be enough to leave a mark. We should also take into account that The Ring did not completely pervert Frodo, as it did to Gollum (who by the way had it for a MUCH longer time, even longer than Bilbo). The weak point on this reasoning is Frodo who didn't really show any adverse consequences (although he had grown greatly fond of the ring) but I guess this is where character and purpose come into play again.