Belling the Ring

[davem]

:
Originally Posted by Hookbill
I cannot say that I think The Ring stayed with Sauron as it suited it. I think The Ring genuinely believed that Sauron was the ultimate master; going to others was just a way of trying to get back to him ...

I'm a bit uncomforatble about the word 'belief' in this context. I'm not sure the Ring went in for belief &/or disbelief.

And even if mastered by another and used to overthrow Sauron (and Tolkien says that Gandalf is the only one who would have even a chance of acheiving this), the Ring (and thus Sauron) would still be master in the end.

I think the relationship between Sauron & the Ring is subtle - as is his relationship with Middle-earth as a whole. In a way he is present everywhere his servants & the Ring are. His 'shadow' stretches across Middle-earth, his eye ranges across the land, the Nazgul are like the fingers of his hands (nine riders, nine fingers) reaching out to take what he desires. The Ring is his will, his 'life'. He survives as long as it survives. In that sense it is very like the fairy story theme of the giant's/monster's heart. The heart is kept safe in a secret place & so the giant seems impervious to harm. The only way to kill him is to find his heart & destroy it.

As Alatar has said, the Ring does not need Sauron in order to exist (there's never any suggestion that the Ring could be destroyed by killing Sauron). How much the Ring & Sauron are one is another question. Certainly, in order to use the Ring one has to make oneself into another Sauron as much as one is made into another Sauron by the overwhelming power of the Ring (ie overwhelming once claimed). The Ring is the will of Sauron - or at least it was that to begin with - whether it changed & evolved into something more is another question. I wonder how much of an individual personality Sauron actually had by the end & how much he was 'simply' a 'force' a 'will to power'.

(That was a bit too rambling - sorry)

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm a bit uncomforatble about the word 'belief' in this context. I'm not sure the Ring went in for belief &/or disbelief.

Fair point.

His 'shadow' stretches across Middle-earth, his eye ranges across the land, the Nazgul are like the fingers of his hands (nine riders, nine fingers) reaching out to take what he desires.

Good imagery. I like the association of the nine Nazgul with Sauron's 9 fingers.

As Alatar has said, the Ring does not need Sauron in order to exist (there's never any suggestion that the Ring could be destroyed by killing Sauron).

True, but to a degree the Ring was Sauron. If Sauron was destroyed and the Ring remained, Sauron would still have an existence of sorts. And while the Ring remained in existence, wouldn't Sauron have the capability of restoring his physical body and returning to claim the Ring from whomsoever it had mastered?

In may ways, the Ring was a "failsafe" device for Sauron. His will would be preserved within it and allow him ultimately to return for as long as it remained undestroyed. And since no one in Middle-earth was capable of destroying it, Sauron was in a "win-win" situation, even when it was not in his possession. No wonder it took an act of providence to defeat the whole set-up.

So, no. I do not see the Ring as being like a cat (and I know exactly what you mean, alatar, having been "adopted" by one while at college). The Ring was not independent of Sauron, as a cat would be. Rather, it was part of him - an extension of him, as davem's imagery suggests. And it was not capable of choosing a different master. When separated from Sauron, all it could do was seek to adapt and to influence its surroundings and those around it in an effort to return to him. This was its "instinct", or "program" if you like.

Then again, as Sauron was originally conceived as a cat, perhaps the Ring was part-cat after all.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Earendilyon

If Gandalf overcame Sauron, not Sauron but the Ring would be the ultimate winner.

Which would mean, in a way, that Sauron was the ultimate winner. And it seems to me, although Tolkien does not say as much in that letter, that this would open up the possibility of Sauron regaining physical presence and returning to claim the Ring from the Ring-mastered Gandalf.

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Which would mean, in a way, that Sauron was the ultimate winner. And it seems to me, although Tolkien does not say as much in that letter, that this would open up the possibility of Sauron regaining physical presence and returning to claim the Ring from the Ring-mastered Gandalf.

I beg to disagree on this point. As I see it, Sauron put a lot of his power into the Ring, but not himself! After the Ring was indeed destroyed, Sauron did still exist, but completely powerless, because he had put most of his power into the Ring, and much of the rest into restoring himself and Mordor a couple of times.
The effect of Gandalf mastering the Ring and overcoming Sauron with it, would be the same to Sauron as when it were destroyed: its power would forever be lost to him:

If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. - Letter # 246

The Ring would continue to exist, though. And the ultimate effect for Middle-earth would be disastrous, because:

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']- Letter # 246

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever.

I beg to differ with Tolkien (as is my right as reader).

Although that letter contemplates Gandalf defeating Sauron with the Ring. Perhaps, in that unique situation, Sauron's bond with the Ring, or that part of him residing within it, would be irrevocably broken.

I would still maintain that if Sauron was defeated otherwise, without that bond being broken, it would be possible for him to return to claim it from the one that it had mastered.

Note also that the letter puts paid to alatar's cat theory:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. (emphasis added)

That doesn't sound very cat-like ...

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Nor do cats get into power-tripping plays of dominance ... They don't impose their will or demand attention and affection ... They are as pure an example of unselfish, unbinding love as one can find.

!!!

Pull the other one, Bb!

Cats, like any other animal, have a highly developed territorial instinct. Unlike dogs, they refuse to tolerate others sharing their territory (but will tolerate a "carer" provided their needs are properly catered for) and will exert dominance to enforce their will in that regard. They are most certainly not averse to demanding affection, although only on their own terms. And they instinctively put themselves above all others around them (offspring excepted). Hence their propensity to adopt other "carers" when their own are not properly providing for their needs, as they see it. They are probably the most selfish creatures in existence.

I can certainly see why Tolkien originally conceived Sauron as a cat. They most certainly belong in Mordor.

[Anguirel]

Ever since the rise of Christianity, cats have been slandered, insulted, maligned and generalised. Unlikely as it may seem, O Saucepanned One, you yourself are a link in a tradition that associated cats with pagans, Satan, Judas Iscariot and witches. Even in a secular age, this distrust could not be exterminated, particularly among men. Cats fitted into a convenient nook, as of course did dogs. The intellectually lazy could lay down truism-laden laws on these domestic animals without having to think.

"You know where you are with a dog. Dogs are loyal."

Richard II's greyhound happily deserted him for Bolingbroke.

"Cats never really love humans. They're in it for the food."

In a cemetery in the south of France, I saw a Burmese cat refusing to budge from his family's crypt, lying outside the gate for days-just as dogs sometimes do.

Not all dogs are saints. Not all cats are Machiavells (come to that, Machiavelli wasn't a Machiavell.) All that glitters is not gold; things are more strange than the science of cliche declares them to be, and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pull the other one, Bb!

Cats, like any other animal, have a highly developed territorial instinct. Unlike dogs, they refuse to tolerate others sharing their territory (but will tolerate a "carer" provided their needs are properly catered for) and will exert dominance to enforce their will in that regard. They are most certainly not averse to demanding affection, although only on their own terms. And they instinctively put themselves above all others around them (offspring excepted). Hence their propensity to adopt other "carers" when their own are not properly providing for their needs, as they see it. They are probably the most selfish creatures in existence.

I can certainly see why Tolkien originally conceived Sauron as a cat. They most certainly belong in Mordor.

Oh, right. Cats were domesticated by the Egyptians and so the animals must be associated with those heathen pagans and belong in Mordor. Right. Right. Another bit of cross-cultural myopia.

For your information, my two cats do share their territorial space. Not all of it, but they have learned to 'tolerate' each other's presence in places that they both claim.

And if you're going to use territoriality as a defining factor for Mordor, let's look at the races in Middle-earth, where Aragorn won't even allow men into The Shire after the Ring is destroyed.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Not all dogs are saints. Not all cats are Machiavells (come to that, Machiavelli wasn't a Machiavell.) All that glitters is not gold; things are more strange than the science of cliche declares them to be, and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally Posted by Alatar

And so the One Ring is a cat.

Hopefully that was a little more clear.

Bah. Ride a cockhorse to Banbury Cross.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, right. Cats were domesticated by the Egyptians and so the animals must be associated with those heathen pagans and belong in Mordor. Right. Right.

Er, when did I ever say that Ancient Egyptians or pagans belong in Mordor? Are you perchance assuming an imperial attitude simply by virtue of my nationality? Perhaps that's ...

... Another bit of cross-cultural myopia.

[alatar]

Great replies all. And after reading them, I see that I should clarify some points a bit - might have went a little 'off' in the original post. I'll stay away from the bullet points that I so love, however...

First off, I like cats and dogs. Both can be great companions - or not - depending on the individual pet and owner. We treat our dog as a less-capable child that does not require a college fund; yet she is part of the family and not a plaything or toy or even a 'pet.' A cat in our household would be treated similarly.

When I say that the One Ring is a cat, I mean that the Ring exhibits the stereotypical cat behavior and traits. Why? Well, first, the One Ring is not Sauron. You can't have two things be the same thing, if that makes any sense. Sauron, in making the Ring, did not clone himself, and even if he were able to do so (NOT!), the clone would be his creation and not the original. There would be inherent limitations in the secondary, and so the Ring could not be as Sauron. But I digress.

The Ring was not Sauron's child. Surely some of me is within my children, yet my children exhibit behavior that is not Ring-like (besides the obvious, yet the one daughter tends to tempt others into evil deeds ). They are autonomous; well, they will be one day I hope. The One Ring was more parasitic in nature in that it requires a host to truly be active. My kids are separate from me and can exist without me. We share many things in common, yet my children may grow up not liking Tolkien! The Ring had no such choice. It was like Sauron, and shared much of his desires.

The One Ring was not a new creation unto itself. Again, it could not reproduce, could not do much without a 'helping hand.'

So my thoughts ran thus: The Ring was not Sauron, was not his child, was not a separate autonomous individual, and so the best that I could imagine was that the Ring was like a pet of sorts - semi-autonomous and having many traits of its owner, yet also having its own special individualism.

Our pet, having been with us since puppydom, has taken on many of our family's characteristics while also adding her personality and uniqueness to the mix. It's not been that we've trained her or that she's trained us; it's been a mutual growth experience. Still the dog is more dependent on us than we on her. She (boy is she becoming famous), theoretically, could live on her own, though I'm guessing that she's really too domesticated to truly do so. She then requires an owner or a host.

The owner or host could be someone else - not me. The current host would acquire the benefits of her companionship. She protects us, she plays with us and is a great companion/member of the family - the new owner would get all of this (and for $10, she's yours! ).

But, in reality, this wouldn't work with my pet. Not only is she nuts because her genetics, we've treated her so much like family that for her to change owners would break her heart (we've left her at the parents' house for an extended weekend while we were away and it was bad). So, though the Ring might be a pet, it was not as my dog.

In the past, as mentioned, we owned a cat. Again, the cat was as much a family member as is the dog, yet the cat would catch and kill rabbits, mice and other assorted small animals, and so I would think that the cat could live on its own. Also, as I saw the same cat eat at the neighbors and also play with the same, I'm guessing that the cat could survive if we'd left town suddenly. Surely it may miss us, and we him, but to me the pet's chances of surviving and even thriving a host change seem to be greater if the pet is a cat and not a dog.

And so the One Ring is a cat.

Hopefully that was a little more clear.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Well, first, the One Ring is not Sauron. You can't have two things be the same thing, if that makes any sense. Sauron, in making the Ring, did not clone himself, and even if he were able to do so (NOT!), the clone would be his creation and not the original.

I didn't suggest that the Ring was Sauron, rather that it was an extension of his will and power. It was a separate and distinct part of him. I don't find that too incredible in a fantasy world.

I suppose that it depends upon whether you regard the Ring as a "character" in the story. If you see it purely as an object in which Sauron imbued part of his power then no, it is not a part of him. But I see it differently, as you seem to do with your comparison of it to a pet. The Ring was a "character" in the sense that it could adapt itself and exert influence independently.

But it could not have a life of its own. Sauron could create it, but could not imbue it with a life of its own, just as Aule could not imbue his Dwarves with life. Only Eru could do that. So, if you regard the Ring as a "living character", as I do, it's life, will, spirit, fea, call it what you will, had to come from somewhere. Either he trapped an evil spirit within it, which would give it a measure of independent will, or he imbued it with part of his own life, or fea. I do not regard the Ring as having an independent will. Although it could act independently, it was acting according to the (disjointed) will of its master. I can only conclude, therefore, that he imbued it with part of his own will.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Anguirel

The intellectually lazy could lay down truism-laden laws on these domestic animals without having to think.

Actually, I was speaking from experience. They can of course make very good companions, as long as their carer recognises the reality of the relationship.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

... and no one belongs in Mordor out of hand, human, cat, dog, iguana, ideally even Orc.

Try telling that to all the poor teachers, parents and minor offenders who have been assigned there.

[alatar]

I think that the Saucepan Man has stated my thoughts more concisely than my attempts have proved. Thanks.

And I did not wish this thread to become the flashpoint of the dog-lovers/cat-lovers civil war. Again, I used the word cat as (1) I personally observed certain behavior of this common animal and (2) we all know to which kind of animal I'm referring. Sigh.

Anyway, what's always pushed me away from the 'One Ring is Sauron's' camp is that is seems to me that the Ring would have been just as happy with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Aragorn - okay, so maybe not Elrond .

I think that somewhere it states that Sauron, knowing more about the Ring than any other, fears that someone, possibly one of the above mentioned, will claim the Ring, overthrow him and set up a new shop. To me this does not sound like an object that is completely a part of and loyal to Sauron. Would one be able to utterly destroy Sauron yet keep the Ring? Don't know, but it seems that Sauron fears that another worthy Ring claimer will not do the Dark Lord's bidding nor make life comfortable for the same.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by alatar

... Would one be able to utterly destroy Sauron yet keep the Ring?

Isildur, ring any bells?

[edit] He he, 'Ring' any bells [/edit]

[davem]

Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).
[The draft ends here. In the margin Tolkien wrote: 'Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.']- Letter # 246

'He would have made good detestable & seem evil'. Meaning what, exactly? If good pushed to an extreme - where it is inescapable, where it is forced on one & one cannot escape it - will at that point seem 'evil', then it must be an essential part of the victory of good that it is optional, that individuals may choose evil.

It seems that Tolkien foresaw Gandalf going around banning this, that & the other, forcing people to do 'the right thing' - or else. Yet, if good can be made to seem evil how are we to judge what is good & what is evil? Where are the objective standards by which things are pigeonholed as 'good' & as 'evil'? Is what Sauron does objectively evil, or does it merely seem evil because he attempts to impose his control absolutely?

I suppose what I'm asking is how could it be that the imposition of 'good' by Gandalf, 'ordered for the benefit of his subjects' come to be seen as evil? Would all Gandalf's subjects consider what he did 'evil', or only some of them?

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

All I can think is that in Tolkien's mind individual freedom is the most important thing. What the Ring does is work through the wielder to remove freedom, first from them & then from all others - its shape is the key - it is round, closed off, limited - like the post Fall of Numenor world. The world of the first Two Ages was flat, & the thing about a flat world is that it is not necessarily limited - it could stretch forever, & contain infinite possibilities. A round world is, however large, finite. I wonder if Sauron had any inkling of the consequence of the Numenorean rebellion, if he knew that the world would be made round - was it in the Music that he sang in? The Ring is the perfect symbol of limitation, & the perfect symbol of the round world of the Third Age.

And I think that proves beyond any argument that it is like a cat

[Lyta_Underhill]

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

This line of thought reminds me of the argument my husband and I have over Gandalf's "abandonment" of the hobbits before they return to the Shire and begin the Scouring. Gandalf as Ring Lord could easily have wiped out the threat to the Shire without the hobbits having had to do anything. But then, the hobbits might sink into apathy and weakness, allowing Gandalf to "do good" for them, rather than them acting for their own and others' good by taking the initiative in the Shire.

Would this inaction, the 'Gates of Paradise' thinking of never having to fight for good again acually erode the people under its sway and turn them into idle subjects in an ordered Good Universe? And what happens to the idle? The peace of the Fourth Age under Elessar theoretically degrades into "Orc Cults" after his passing (according to the few pages of the draft Tolkien wrote of "The New Shadow" I think it was called, no references handy though). The idleness of peace has spread its own 'evil.' And that was not even an overly managed peace.

I'm not sure exactly what I am trying to say, but it does seem necessary as davem points out, for an individual to have free will and to make a choice to 'do good,' or else it is not 'good' at all, but merely an adherence to a code for whatever reason. Perhaps it ties in with the idea of sentience being a necessary component for evil or good...perhaps.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Celuien]

A new theory:

• The Ring attempts to ensnare victims. It has no intention of giving it keepers access to its powers, but instead tempts them, only to abandon them when a better prospect comes along.
• The Ring, after it captures a weaker keeper, proceeds to devour its victim. Just look at Gollum.
• The Ring has no thought other than its own survival.
• While the Ring is semi-independent, it is an extension of Sauron (Sauce and davem put it very well). As long as Sauron is the main power around, it will follow him. However, if a new, stronger keeper were to come along and displace Sauron, it would enter the service of its new keeper.

What animal is wily, devious and at the same time meets the odd combination of independence and dependence enough to meet all of these conditions? The wolf. The Ring isn't a pack leader, but rather one of the higher ranking members, still subservient to the alpha wolf, but independent enough to act on its own when necessary.

(Just a cat-person's rambling thoughts...)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

It would seem that Good= freedom to choose (even to choose bad things) & evil is having no freedom, even if that lack of freedom means that you will do 'good' because that's all you are allowed to do. Yet if you do good won't you be assured of a reward? Wouldn't Gandalf actually be throwing open the gates of Paradise to his subjects by making it impossible for them to do anything that would get them sent to hell? So why would he be 'worse than Sauron' if he did that?

I think that the idea here is that to do 'good' the person needs to be proactive in doing good, not passive in that they have no choice but to do good. If there is no choice in the matter, then that person has never had the opportunity to weigh up right and wrong and come to the correct decision. Even though good is being done, it is effectively being carried out by a machine.

It has much to do with rights and responsibilities; we have things to which we are entitled, but to have those things we must also be responsible for our actions. Comparing this to the real world, a Gandalf in possession of the Ring would be a benevolent dictator; he would not have been chosen by the people, nor would he have necessarily earned the right to be the leader. He might indeed be very 'good' and have everyone's best interests at heart, but the simple fact that he had overwhelming power would be wrong as it would negate any sense of responsibility in the people. The closest example I have any experience of is the 'nanny state', where people are fined or punished for not doing 'the right thing', whether it be recycling their newspaper or only taking children on holiday outside term time. These are things which people ought to do, but removing the choice also takes away their freedom to choose to act in the right way.

We know that Gandalf has been sent to Middle-earth to help in the struggle against Sauron, but he has not been asked to take control of this struggle, he is there to advise, to offer counsel. With the Ring he would possibly succeed in the first sense of his mission in that he could overthrow Sauron, but he would also fail in the second sense of his mission, in that he would have done so by taking power, taking the decisions away from the leaders of the races of Middle-earth.

One of the strongest messages of the story is that there is no one, overarching power that can fight Sauron, it is the ordinary people who must do so, the Theodens and Aragorns and Frodos. Gandalf can only advise, and even though he is most persuasive in his arguments, he cannot force.

In that sense, Gandalf is the cat, using his wits and his powers of persuasion to get his way, to get his message across and achieve his mission.