# The One Ring: Item or Character?



## Aglarband (Apr 3, 2004)

Should we classify the Ring as a character or as an item?

I think it should be a character as Gandalf gives it many character like qualities, and how it has power "over" people. What do you think?


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 3, 2004)

*Would the destruction of Sauron have destroyed the Ring's power?*

It must be classed as an item, because the character whose life was bound up with it already existed - Sauron. In the story, the destruction of the One Ring was also the destruction of Sauron. What we don't know is whether the destruction of Sauron would have caused the destruction of the One Ring's power too.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 3, 2004)

Aglarband said:


> Should we classify the Ring as a character or as an item?


It is both and it is neither. The Ring is a complex presence in the story of LOTR since it has aspects of both a character and an inanimate object.




Eledhwen said:


> What we don't know is whether the destruction of Sauron would have caused the destruction of the One Ring's power too.


But we do know the answer to this. Gandalf and Elrond are quite clear that Sauron was not destroyed at the end of the Second Age and was able to reform during the Third Age because the Ring still existed. Gandalf and Galadriel are also quite clear that if they (or anyone with the strength to wield the Ring) were to use the Ring to destroy Sauron they would merely become a new version of Sauron. So clearly, destroying Sauron without destroying Sauron doesn't work -- the War of the Ring at the end of the Third Age is prove of that -- and if you use the Ring to destroy Sauron, you merely replace him with a new Dark Lord.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 4, 2004)

This is going to turn out to be another argument about whether the ring was sentient or not. Well, i think it should be a character because i also think it is a sentient "being". It "wants" to return to it's master, it shrinks, falls off, rolls on the ground, "calls to" someone i.e. Frodo on some moments that are critical to it being found and brought to it's master. Also, we learn that it could survive Sauron, creating a new master.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 5, 2004)

Saermegil said:


> It "wants" to return to it's master, it shrinks, falls off, rolls on the ground, "calls to" someone i.e. Frodo on some moments that are critical to it being found and brought to it's master.


That is one interpretation certainly, that based on those passages the Ring might be considered sentient. And it is undeniable that there is a mystical and metaphysical facet to the One Ring, it isn't simply a Ring. But when reading these parts I think it would be prudent to withhold judgment based on these words used, because they are also instances of personification, one of the most common literary tools used by fictional novelists/writers. Especially the idea of the Ring 'calling' to somebody is largely personification, i.e. giving the seemingly non-sentient item sentient and even human qualities. 

And yet I personally believe that the Ring was pseudo-sentient in one way, that it actually did physically shrink or change size; and the 'calling' power it seems to possess I would attribute to the malice contained in the Ring itself, the 'evil spirit' of Sauron.. But I think that should be considered a metaphysical, 'magical' reaction rather than a sentient act.


----------



## Aulë (Apr 5, 2004)

I would say that it's a 'thing', with a bit of the Sauron 'character' thrown in there with the use of sorcery. Before Sauron did all his magic with it, it was just an ordinary object. Then Sauron put some of his character into the Ring. The Ring doesn't call out to Frodo or move, it's Sauron's presence within that makes it do that.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 5, 2004)

But it is said that the Ring could outlast Sauron's (powerful) presence in Arda and create a new Evil Master of ME. So the part of Sauron that was put in the ring is no longer part of Sauron but simply The One Ring, and that is how it cold survive Sauron.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 5, 2004)

Saermegil said:


> But it is said that the Ring could outlast Sauron's (powerful) presence in Arda and create a new Evil Master of ME. So the part of Sauron that was put in the ring is no longer part of Sauron but simply The One Ring, and that is how it cold survive Sauron.


The Ring did not have the ability to _create_ a new Dark Lord. The evil power in it would corrupt someone who was already powerful enough to wield The Ring, turning this person/being into a new Dark Lord. Think of the old saying: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Ring bestows absolute power on the person with enough power of their own to wield it and hence are toatlly corrupted. No sentience is needed on the part of the Ring to accomplish this.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 6, 2004)

What I posted was in answer to an argument that whatever signs of sentience the ring exhibited were because of Sauron. But you also provide for the answer for this argument by saying that the ring would still remain powerful even if Sauron was destroyed. You even refer to a power in the ring. By what you said it seems you support that this was not simply sauron's power. if so, how would you explain it? I say that power gave the ring sentience, or something like it.


----------



## Aulë (Apr 6, 2004)

Saermegil said:


> But it is said that the Ring could outlast Sauron's (powerful) presence in Arda and create a new Evil Master of ME. So the part of Sauron that was put in the ring is no longer part of Sauron but simply The One Ring, and that is how it cold survive Sauron.


The Ring could outlast the physical 'Sauron', but still some of Sauron's presence would live on in the One Ring. Have a look at this:

'Sauron (pre-Rings of Power)' = 'Sauron 1' + 'Sauron 2' (If Sauron 2 is the amount of Sauron's presence that was put into the One Ring later on).

'Sauron (after the One Ring was forged)' = 'Sauron (pre-Rings of Power)' - 'Sauron 2' = 'Sauron 1'

'One Ring' = 'Physical Ring' (item) + 'Sauron 2'

Therefore, even if the physical Sauron was destroyed, part of his spirit would live on in the One Ring. That spirit would corrupt the new bearer, not the physical ring itself. It's the same as what happened after Sauron was slayed by Isildur- the 'physical Sauron' disappeared for some time, but the part of Sauron in the One Ring remained.


----------



## Greenwood (Apr 6, 2004)

Saermegil said:


> What I posted was in answer to an argument that whatever signs of sentience the ring exhibited were because of Sauron. But you also provide for the answer for this argument by saying that the ring would still remain powerful even if Sauron was destroyed. You even refer to a power in the ring. By what you said it seems you support that this was not simply sauron's power. if so, how would you explain it? I say that power gave the ring sentience, or something like it.


This is a fantasy world. There is no one to one correlation to reality in our world. Yes, Sauron put a large part of his power into the Ring, but that power is now separate from him though there remains a "connection" of some sort. Indications in the book are that this "connection" could only be broken by someone like Gandalf, who had tremendous power of their own, claiming the Ring for himself and using the Ring's power to destroy Sauron. The end result, however, would be to merely replace one Dark Lord with another. But, the Ring itself doesn't plan all this; it is the result olf having such complete power to dominate all others that causes it. The Ring gives that complate power.


----------



## Aglarband (Apr 11, 2004)

I still havn't got a sure answer... I really wish I could figure it out. It might be an item since it had to be destroyed instead of killed. Thus showing that Tolkein and his characters saw it as a thing, which is why it had to be destroyed and not killed.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 13, 2004)

Aglarband said:


> I still havn't got a sure answer... I really wish I could figure it out. It might be an item since it had to be destroyed instead of killed. Thus showing that Tolkein and his characters saw it as a thing, which is why it had to be destroyed and not killed.


Well spotted, Aglarband. Tolkien was always careful with the words he used to sculpt his story, so this was no mistake.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 13, 2004)

Well, I didn't say it wasnt an item, just an item (a ring) with more sentience than usual rings.


----------



## Melian_the_Maya (Apr 15, 2004)

The Ring of Power was an item, thing of great power, but still an item. It did not feel, it solely did what it was meant to do: preserve the might of the Dark Lord, whomever he was. I disagree with those that say that because of this power, the One Ring is to be considered a character. After all, if the Ring of Power were a character, it could choose its master and not only by the slipping-off-his-finger trick, which he couldn't do. It was but a tool.


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 15, 2004)

But I think it does cfose Sauron as i's master, and so tries to get nmear him. Instanses in time where it choses another master are nto important because the other mastrers were just carriers the ring chose to get to Sauron. If Frodo was not going to Mordor, I do not think the ring would had stuck with him.


----------



## Melian_the_Maya (Apr 16, 2004)

No, it does not choose its master properly. It shows a certain preference to its maker... but it is clearly suggested that such a Ring on Gandalf or Aragorn would completely destroy Sauron and the Ring itself would have to obey such a master into the distruction of Sauron. And the Ring could not get unstuck from Frodo... after all, it was fastened to the chain and it could not break it and it could not disappear...


----------



## Saermegil (Apr 16, 2004)

It could give him the desire to put it on when the NAzgul were close.. and that's what it did! But as Frodo was getting closer to Mordor the ring wanted to get closer to it's master and so it remained in Frodo's keeping.


----------



## Muffinly (Apr 16, 2004)

I think of it not as its own character, but as a part of Sauron.


----------



## Aglarband (Apr 16, 2004)

Melian_the_Maya said:


> No, it does not choose its master properly. It shows a certain preference to its maker... but it is clearly suggested that such a Ring on Gandalf or Aragorn would completely destroy Sauron and the Ring itself would have to obey such a master into the distruction of Sauron. And the Ring could not get unstuck from Frodo... after all, it was fastened to the chain and it could not break it and it could not disappear...


If the chain "wore" the ring, how come IT didn't disapear...  

I take back what I said about being destroyed, as you can destroy a person and an item, yet only kill a person, and not an item, so it is more along the lines of; Tolkein never once used killed instead of destroyed, rather than him using destroyed.


----------



## Eledhwen (May 1, 2004)

Aglarband said:


> If the chain "wore" the ring, how come IT didn't disapear...  .


The chain was not flesh and blood.


----------

