Who would have fallen?

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I am not so sure that I agree with davem that the Ring itself is evil. It's "effect" or "influence", the product of its "instinct", is evil because it was made by someone who was evil and who intended it to behave in that way.

But I think that davem is correct in the sense that, unlike a lump of plutonium or a gun, it can, if used, only be used for evil. Or, to put it another way, only evil can come of using it.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

But I think that davem is correct in the sense that, unlike a lump of plutonium or a gun, it can, if used, only be used for evil. Or, to put it another way, only evil can come of using it.

True enough, and I've never disputed that -- though I suppose I could by pulling out that well-thumbed Eru quote: "...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."

[Lyta_Underhill]

True enough, and I've never disputed that -- though I suppose I could by pulling out that well-thumbed Eru quote: "...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."

Well thumbed, indeed! I think I made reference to it earlier obliquely (the "better to have been" thought). The conclusion is, of course ambiguous and no conclusion at all: these evils that have wrought good unintentionally may have been part of Eru's plan, the theme unaltered in his despite, but still remain evil. A contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not. "Evil will shall evil mar" also follows in this line of thought. And we come to the inevitable question of whether evil as such was part of Eru's original plan or not...and so on, ad infinitum.

Or, we could apply set theory to the problem (without using symbols, since I can't remember them):

Sauron=Evil
One Ring=Subset of Sauron
One Ring=Evil

Of course, I am being reductionist and a little silly, but I had fun. I hope you had fun reading it! Just thought: you could substitute the characteristic "Sentient" for Evil and I guess you'd get the same relationship. The real question is "what characteristic parts of himself did Sauron transfer to the Ring, and how do these characteristics interact with the non-Sauron bearers?

Cheers!
Lyta

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

Or, we could apply set theory to the problem (without using symbols, since I can't remember them):

Sauron=Evil
One Ring=Subset of Sauron
One Ring=Evil

Of course, I am being reductionist and a little silly, but I had fun. I hope you had fun reading it! Just thought: you could substitute the characteristic "Sentient" for Evil and I guess you'd get the same relationship. The real question is "what characteristic parts of himself did Sauron transfer to the Ring, and how do these characteristics interact with the non-Sauron bearers?

Cheers!
Lyta

I don't see how this is silly reductionism. It's exactly accurate. We aren't talking about something that was once good that Sauron gave life to, but rather a piece of Sauron himself. It is evil as Sauron is evil, as it is a separate embodiment of Sauron himself: its will is his will, and its power is his power. Saucepan's generalization--that to define something as evil is to attribute to it sentience--may be sound in a very non-magical world. However, since the Ring is not inhabited by a distinct fea with its own conscious mind, but does "live" as an appendage of Sauron, I think it is a patent exception to the rule.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

This question ain't easy, I'd say. The question is whom the Ring would pick to focus on, as he chose the "weakest link", the one who was easiest for it to corrupt. So the questions are in fact two: who is the other "weakest link" besides Boromir, i.e. whom the Ring would choose, and how would each member of the Fellowship end if he was chosen by the Ring and tempted.

Concerning the ways everyone could be tempted, I believe we can see a hint of "what ifs" in the meeting with Galadriel.

Originally Posted by FotR Chapter 7, The Mirror of Galadriel

And with that word she held them with her eyes, and in silence looked searchingly at each of them in turn. None save Legolas and Aragorn could long endure her glance. Sam quickly blushed and hung his head.

I consider it only a hint. But I mention it here so that you know on which I also base my thoughts. Soo...

SAM
is the easiest question and easiest answer. He was faithful and never wanted to use the Ring. I doubt the Ring would have chosen to tempt him of all the people. We can see how he reacts towards the Ring when he wields it in Mordor: there was no other subject to tempt, except for Sam, and look what the Ring did. It was a short time, on the other hand it was in Mordor itself, but the situation was very specific. And Frodo was out of the way when Sam took the Ring in the first place. Had Frodo still wielded the Ring, it will be very, very hard for Sam to choose to take it (or to threaten Frodo, imagine that!).
Chosen by the Ring: **
Fallen if chosen: *

MERRY/PIPPIN
I guess are very similar case. Maybe Pippin was a little bit more curious and everything, but as Gandalf said, he was a fool, but honest fool. There will be, I believe, a serious problem for the Ring to choose them. Also, as with Sam, Frodo would have to be out of the way for them to take the Ring. I can imagine only that after a serious pressure by the Ring, they would take the Ring from Frodo for his own good. Very unlikely.
Chosen by the Ring: *
Fallen if chosen: **

GANDALF
This is another cup of tea. We all know what Gandalf was and all his traits, so not necessary to repeat this here. Only let me say that Gandalf would surely be a very, very good bait for the Ring to focus on. He was aware of the danger, but that also means the threat to him was real.
Chosen by the Ring: ****
Fallen if chosen: ****

ARAGORN
is a controversial character. I believe we know the arguments: one of the "weak" Men, son of Isildur, all this stuff. I don't doubt for a second that the Ring would choose him as its next target. However, I doubt it would succeed. Hereby I would like to refer to Aragorn's long labour and his journey in the past days, in resisting all temptations till the end. He could manage well even with the Palantír of Orthanc. He was not specifically tempted by the Ring as Boromir was, so maybe his reactions to Frodo are not as much of an argument. Also, all the way from Bree to Rivendell, among all the hobbits he would be the target for the Ring - yet it was not the goal of the Ring at that time to turn them against each other, rather to give them away to the Riders. So in fact, I believe Aragorn was never under the continuous temptation. Nevertheless, we have his reaction to Galadriel's gaze. That shows his devotion to his quest and that he was not willing to abandon it. It will be hard to imagine him threatening Frodo and taking the Ring from him by force.
Chosen by the Ring: *****
Fallen if chosen: ***

FRODO
Frodo is a special case as he was the Ringbearer. The only question is, would he fall to the Ring before his quest was completed? The answer is easy: no. I believe the scenario we know, with Mount Doom in the end, would have remained the same. No failure until the very end, where it was inevitable and the fate of the Ring was no longer in Frodo's hands.

GIMLI
is partially an enigma, though not necessarily. He never desired for gold nor power. There were, I believe, far better subjects for the Ring to choose. The places where the Ring could focus on Gimli would have been scarce: Moria, so that Gimli could become a Lord of Khazad-Dum; and Aglarond (the same reason). A funny idea I got is also after Lórien, if there were problems inside the Fellowship, Gimli could choose to give the Ring to Galadriel (or so the Ring would have persuaded him to think). However, I don't think any of the above scenarios are possible. Gimli always remained very calm. And in Moria, when the Orcs attacked, he didn't furiously respond "Moria is ours you filthy creatures! Now you will pay for Balin and Durin and all!" but when the immediate threat was removed, we read that "in spite of the peril he lingered by Balin's tomb with his head bowed". No, I believe Gimli was a very strong person, and if you take a closer look at Tolkien's dwarves they are all very strong and good in heart. Even Thorin, technically, was holding only what was rightfully his, and even then he wasn't completely consumed by that. I doubt the Ring could have lead Gimli to fall, even if it chose to tempt specifically him of all the company.
Chosen by the Ring: **
Fallen if chosen: **

LEGOLAS
is the second enigma. For me maybe more than Gimli. But like Gimli, he seems very little concerned by things that do not belong to him. No: I wouldn't say the Ring could choose him and succeed to tempt him. Thranduil's folk was always reserved and even Thranduil himself, despite his desire for beautiful things and gems and everything, in The Hobbit shows as a very reasonable person in the end. What else could the Ring give to the Elves of Mirkwood? Something like in Gimli's case, regaining the Southern Mirkwood and reestablishing their settlements they used to have on Dol Guldur? (personal joke ) Middle-Earth lingering under the dominion of Elves, stopping the upcoming age of Men? Legolas would have been tempted no more than, let's say, Treebeard. And as we know, Treebeard "has not plotted to cover all the world with his trees and choke all other living things". No, not Legolas.
Chosen by the Ring: **
Fallen if chosen: **


So, that leaves me with Gandalf. Very strange, very stupid, and it would take a lot of effort, but if you look at the rest, there is no one better. In other words: If anyone were to fall, it would be him.

And that is, I am not taking any "good luck" and divine influences from the outside into account here. Simply based on the characters themselves and what we know about them.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not sure I go with the idea of the Ring 'choosing' targets, especially not having some sort of directional 'seduction ray' capability. To the extent it was 'sentient' at all it was pretty insectoid, and it never displayed any autonomous abilities other than "slip off finger".

The factor that matters, consistent throughout the book, lies in the individual: lust for power. This in a sense was strongest in Gnadalf, but tempered in his case by wisdom. It would have been weakest I think in the hobbits. Legolas was a Nandorized Sinda, not a Noldo- those techno-elves were alien to his mind. Gimli? maybe closer, but Dwarves are mentally tough, and have an overriding sense of duty and obligation. Which leaves Aragorn. Aragorn appears to have wisdom on a par with Gandalf and Elrond. Were he actually in the Smath Naur, though.....

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I'm not sure I go with the idea of the Ring 'choosing' targets, especially not having some sort of directional 'seduction ray' capability. To the extent it was 'sentient' at all it was pretty insectoid, and it never displayed any autonomous abilities other than "slip off finger".

Well, not exactly. I believe there was some reason why Sméagol murdered Déagol and why it didn't simply stay with Deal and be happy for the moment. The Ring made people see things, made people think of it still, and that was not merely their own attachment to the Ring that would make them do it, that much is clear. And I am convinced it could aim its will on other people who were around (at least we know about a similar way it could "call" to the Nazgul).