Relinquishing the Ring

Based on the following point adduced by VFR reader Jeff Geatches, my argument about a possible flaw (or, alternatively, a brilliant finesse) in the plot of The Lord of the Rings may have to be revised. He writes:

I am glad to hear you are reading the LOTR and are well into it. It was an enlightening exchange you had on it at VFR; yourself showing an incredible understanding without having read it.

One minor correction to what you said about no one voluntarily destroying the ring. Bilbo actually did give it away, though he didn’t destroy it and this he did with great difficulty, and he was the only one. Neither Sauron (of course), Isildur, Gollum, or Frodo managed to avoid its enslavement. The lesser rings had differing effects on their possessors, completely tied to their respective race: Elves were able to harness the power of their Three and use it for good; Dwarves were driven to war and conquest with their Seven that caused temporal calamity, though their souls were spared; the nine Kings of Men were enslaved even into the spirit world and bound to the one Ring. Sam did also relinquish it freely but his possession was so brief that he was never quite considered a Ring bearer. Also his love for his master was present to overcome any lust for the Ring. It goes to show that for Tolkein temptation runs along a continuum involving not only a person’s strengths (such as wisdom and love) but his weaknesses (such as pride and arrogance). Hobbits were endowed in this economy with the very strengths and lack of weaknesses that made them fit Ring bearers. Tolkien hints at an appreciation and love of distinct people groups that is so absent from the imperial liberalism prevalent in the West today.

As I’m sure you already see there is a depth to the books that could never be in the movies. I have read them several times and get new meaning and enjoyment every time. Unlike the hopeless sentimentalism at the end of the movie, which seemed to never end, the end of the books is emotional in the best sense of the term. It always brings a tear to my eye.

These works are a real blessing to the canon of Western Literature. Enjoy.

Mr. Geatches is of course correct: Bilbo did give away the Ring, which undermines my thesis. However, as he also points out, for Bilbo to walk away from his house without taking the Ring with him, leaving it in the control of Gandalf who is his respected master and who is going to hand it over to Bilbo’s beloved nephew Frodo, is not the same as physically throwing it away or attempting to destroy it. Still, my argument, that everyone should have known that it would be simply impossible for anyone to throw away the Ring, is weakened by the fact of Bilbo’s voluntary (if extremely reluctant) relinquishment of it.

Mr. Geatches adds:

My point was really a quibble. I think your thesis is pretty close, if not right on. If Bilbo had stood at the precipice could he have cast it in? We don’t know but I find it doubtful. Tolkien (with Gandalf as his proxy) leaves open the possibility of doing this deed but makes it clear it is very improbable. He follows the biblical examples of David vs. Goliath and foolishness as wisdom in the whole journey to Mount Doom. As Boromir said in the movie at the Council of Elrond, “it is folly”, and it was.

Now I realize my thesis still holds, because, of course, Bilbo wasn’t the Ring bearer, Frodo was. and so Bilbo’s ability to let go of the Ring was irrelevant. Gandalf already knew that Frodo did not have the will to throw away the Ring, yet neither he nor Frodo ever pointed this out.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 19, 2005 12:40 AM | Send