What will happen if the Ring is thrown into the fires of Mt. Doom?

[Flammifer]

All of us in this class ‘know’ what will happen. Sauron will be cast down. Victory will be achieved. The Third Age will end and the Fourth Age begin.

It is very easy to fail to realize that this is not what the first-time reader assumes will happen at the time of the Council of Elrond, nor what the participants in the Council assume.

They assume that throwing the Ring in the fire will remove a mighty, and nigh-on invincible weapon from the possibility of Sauron recovering and using it, and, remove its corruptive danger from the world. There is no assumption that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. He will still be there. Still be dangerous. Still have vast armies. Still command powerful Nazgul. Still have the ability to conquer the world. Still need to be defeated militarily.

“The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him the strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences, and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring.” says Gandalf to Frodo in ‘The Shadow of the Past’.

“There is only one way: to find the Cracks of Doom in the depths of Orodruin, the Fire-mountain, and cast the Ring in there, if you really wish to destroy it, to put it beyond the grasp of the Enemy for ever.” Says Gandalf to Frodo again.

At the Council of Elrond, Erestor says, “Then there are but two courses, to hide the Ring for ever; or to unmake it.” But again, there is no hint during the Council, that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. It will deny him the Ring, but not destroy him.

Unless I have missed something, we have not had the slightest hint that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron and achieve victory. The most we can hope for is that it will deny Sauron the Ring and perhaps allow the hope of victory by some other means.

It is important, I think, to remember this when trying to understand the actions and reactions of people during the Council of Elrond.

Would Boromir be more positive towards the extremely risky quest if he thought success would mean instant victory? High risks for high rewards might seem a lot more attractive than high risks for dubious rewards?

Would Frodo be less reluctant (and possibly less heroic) if he thought the quest was a quest for victory rather than for denial?

By the way, does anyone know; do we ever get any hints that destroying the Ring might destroy Sauron, or does it come as a complete (and eucatastrophic) surprise when the Ring goes into the Fire?

 

[Beech27]

In Return of the King, Gandalf says:

"If it is destroyed, then he will fall, and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world will be removed."

That seems pretty clear. But I don't think he presents it so bluntly at the Council.

 

[Flammifer]

Thanks Beech27,

This has not been presented at all in the book before or during the Council. At the time of the Council, I'm pretty sure that there is no assumption that destroying the Ring will destroy or cripple Sauron.

I thought I remembered it becoming clearer at some point later. I do think it would have enhanced the eucatastrophe if it had not. But, it would have made Aragorn's assault on the Black Gates seem more an act of folly than one of hope.

 

[JJ48]

The only reference I can find in this volume is right after Gloin asks about the Three.

‘But what then would happen, if the Ruling Ring were destroyed, as you counsel?’ asked Glóin.
‘We know not for certain,’ answered Elrond sadly. ‘Some hope that the Three Rings, which Sauron has never touched, would then become free, and their rulers might heal the hurts of the world that he has wrought. But maybe when the One has gone, the Three will fail, and many fair things will fade and be forgotten. That is my belief.’
‘Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance,’ said Glorfindel, ‘if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever.’

Glorifindel explicitly links the destruction of the One with the breaking of Sauron's power and the ruin of his dominion.

 

[Flammifer]

Yes, JJ48,

I guess that statement by Glorfindel might count as a hint. However, I do not think it is definitive. Glorfindel is saying that the Elves will take the risk of the Three failing if the One is destroyed, but it could easily just imply that destroying the One gives a chance of defeating Sauron by other means rather than implying that destroying the One will directly destroy Sauron. In light of all the other comments about the purpose of destroying the One to be denial of its power to Sauron, rather than the destruction of Sauron, I do not think that either the first-time reader nor the Council participants would likely take this as a new theory about why the Ring should be destroyed.

 

[Beech27]

Thanks Beech27,

This has not been presented at all in the book before or during the Council. At the time of the Council, I'm pretty sure that there is no assumption that destroying the Ring will destroy or cripple Sauron.

I thought I remembered it becoming clearer at some point later. I do think it would have enhanced the eucatastrophe if it had not. But, it would have made Aragorn's assault on the Black Gates seem more an act of folly than one of hope.

Right. I was just responding to the second part of your question (and the second part of your comment above): "By the way, does anyone know; do we ever get any hints that destroying the Ring might destroy Sauron, or does it come as a complete (and eucatastrophic) surprise when the Ring goes into the Fire?"

When the ring is destroyed, we basically know what will happen.

I think this is an increasingly hard question to answer, since any first-time reader now knows this is the type of story where the Dark Lord is destroyed, because of Tolkien's permanent shadow (not a pejorative) over the fantasy genre. And so it is interesting to see that the text doesn't really give us a completely clear indication--at least, not compared to what will be presented later.

 

[JJ48]

I'm sorry, but I think that is a misreading of the text.
‘Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance,’ said Glorfindel, ‘if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever.’

What is the chance the Elves are willing to endure? Clearly, he is referring to what Elrond just said, that either the Three will continue to work or they will utterly fail. That is the chance the Elves are taking. And yet, they are willing to do so, so long as by it ("it" referring to the loss of the Three, and by extension, the destruction of the One) Sauron falls. Perhaps you're thinking of his use of the words "if" and "may", but I think it clear from the context that these are words of logical consequence, not doubt. The fact that everyone in the Council goes along with it and seems to be talking under the same assumption indicates, to me, that either they simply trust the words of the experts in this field, or else they've already asked such questions and had them answered in some part of the Council for which we don't have the text.

Would a first-time reader parse Glorifindel's words this carefully? Maybe not. But then, I also don't think a first-time reader is going to second-guess--without cause--everything any character says. I don't think we can make the leap from, "A first-time reader may not have read the words carefully enough to grasp their implication," to, "No one at the Council has any reason to think destroying the Ring will accomplish anything beyond denying Sauron an auto-win."

I do not think that either the first-time reader nor the Council participants would likely take this as a new theory about why the Ring should be destroyed.

I agree, because I don't think it is a new theory. I think this is the assumption most in the Council are already operating under.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

I can see your reading. But I think it is not so definitive. We will accept the chance that the Three may fail, if 'this contributes to' ('by it') the power of Sauron being broken. Perfectly 'possible to read this as, 'in the pursuit of defeating Sauron we are willing to destroy the Ring and risk the destruction of the Three. Of course, it is possible to read it your way too. However, we have had the three quotes I gave (plus a few more less direct) stating that the purpose of destroying the ring was to deny it to Sauron, not to destroy Sauron. '

Erestor has just stated, as equivalent strategies, hiding the ring forever or destroying it. These would not be equivalent strategies if destroying the Ring destroyed Sauron. So, Erestor, at least, does not think that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron. Frodo has heard that destroying the Ring denies it to Sauron several times from Gandalf, and that must be the assumption that he is working under. The alternative suggestions made, of entrusting the Ring to Tom Bombadil, or throwing it into the Sea, are never compared and contrasted to destroying it as "Well those would deny Sauron the Ring, but the Fires of Doom would destroy Sauron." We never get that objection to those proposals, the only objections we get are practical. When comparing and contrasting hiding the ring versus destroying it, no difference in purpose ever gets discussed at the Council, only differences in risk.

So, I think it is very difficult to support a reading that the Council are operating under the assumption that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron.

I also think it difficult to read the passage as the Council understanding Glorfindel to be saying that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron. Surely if they thought Glorfindel was introducing a new concept (and all the evidence is that this would be a new concept to them) then they would react and question, "What do you mean Glorfindel? Did you just mean that you think destroying the Ring might destroy Sauron?"

Glorfindel himself is the one who suggests casting the Ring into the Sea. If he thought that the difference between hiding the Ring (in the Sea) and destroying it (in the Fire) was the difference between denying Sauron the Ring and destroying Sauron, surely he would have mentioned it?

 

[JJ48]

If anyone thought that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron, then of course they probably would have said so. They don't because, as we know from reading the text, destroying the Ring does not destroy Sauron, but maims him to the point of no longer being a threat.

I guess what I find really dissatisfying about the "deny Sauron" reading is that I feel that destroying the Ring makes absolutely no sense with it. If destroying the Ring denies it to Sauron but accomplishes nothing else, then they take the enormous risk moving the Ring to destroy it and then still have to be able to beat Sauron and his armies afterwards. But if they have the means to defeat Sauron and his armies afterwards, why not do it before destroying the Ring, and then destroy it, when it's much safer to do so? The fact that the Council is seeking a permanent solution, as well as the fact that this Council of seemingly intelligent beings even considers such a plan leads me to believe that they must believe that destroying the Ring will do something more than merely deny it to Sauron.

As for why they don't contrast this more against hiding the Ring, I cannot say. The only guess I can come up with is that maybe they think that the depths of the ocean or long distances will hinder Sauron's connection to it and weaken him a bit. Though I don't find the "Ring power is like radio waves" theory completely convincing, I personally find it slightly more plausible than the idea that people are backing taking an enormous risk for absolutely no gain.

 

[Flammifer]

Totally agree with you JJ48, that it does seem to make no sense (or little sense). Yet, I think it is hard to read the text otherwise up through the Council of Elrond (and later).

I find it puzzling. Of course, as Beech 27 pointed out, by the time of the Return of the King, it becomes clearer that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron.

I do think it is hard to remember (or recover) that as a first time reader (especially before TLOTR had become a commonly known trope, even to non-readers) it would be hard to interpret the quest as a quest to destroy Sauron rather than deny him.

It is very hard to recall what I thought as a first-time reader. It was long ago. Long before The Silmarillion was published. I was young. I was not a very careful reader in those days, and was definitely being propelled along by the narrative.

I think, as best as I remember, my impressions reaching the Council were something like: Well, Aragorn and Boromir, with maybe some of the others are going to go off to Gondor and fight. Frodo and Gandalf with Sam (and who else?) are going to try to sneak into Mordor and throw the Ring in the Fire. I can see why Boromir (as a General of Armies and a Strategist) might be a little dubious about this whole plan. I can see why Frodo is rather reluctant too. Let's read on and see what happens!

I am pretty sure that I had the impression that destroying the Ring was an act for the good of the world, not directly for causing the destruction of Sauron. This had the effect of making Frodo seem more saintly, and less 'warrior hero' 'or 'secret agent hero' than might otherwise have been the case.

Now, why did JRRT write it this way? I really don't have a good idea even yet. (All suggestions welcome!) Was it another part of his frequent veiled mystery and slow reveal? Had he not yet figured out that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron? Did he intend this unforseen consequence to feature in an even more eucatastrophic and unexpected ending (but later changed his mind)? Did some people (Gandalf? Elrond?) realize or hope that destroying the Ring would destroy or weaken Sauron but were loth to reveal this? If so, why?

This is actually a reading of TLOTR that I really can't explain away, but also struggle to explain.

I would really like to hear Corey's (or anyone else's) take on this.

 

[Anthony Lawther]

Earlier in the Council, Elrond states

`Fruitless did I call the victory of the Last Alliance? Not wholly so, yet it did not achieve its end. Sauron was diminished, but not destroyed. His Ring was lost but not unmade. The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed; for they were made with the power of the Ring, and while it remains they will endure.

emphasis added

So this explicitly describes a belief, stated by Elrond and challenged by none, that the destruction of Ring will lead to a destruction of the Dark Tower, and hints at destruction of Sauron as a possibility. This can be read either literally, metaphorically, or both.

The physical foundations of the Dark Tower, forged somehow employing the power of the Ring, will be seen to crumble when Gollum takes the ring into the fires of Mt Doom.
Sauron's empire can be referred to as the Dark Tower, or as 'Sauron' (The Abhorred). The Ring is the basis of Sauron's imperial power: without the One, he loses control of the Nine, and therefore the empire. This is not literal destruction of Sauron, but is functional destruction of Sauron.

So I think we have the situation that we get it both ways simultaneously:
Sauron is not personally destroyed, but he is neutralised and his empire, and therefore the threat to the Free Peoples, is now weakened to the point that the remnants of the western kingdoms can destroy the threat they pose. None of which is possible while the Ring exists, which is why the options to hide the Ring are dismissed.

The fact that these options are dismissed in the way that they are is interesting. Why do Elrond and Gandalf not simply state that we only have one option that frees Middle-Earth from Sauron?
Perhaps because the majority of the attendees at this Council are Elves who could conclude that now is the time to head the Grey Havens, rather than stay and fight for freedom in Middle-Earth. How differently would things have gone if the Elves of Lothlorien had not been present to repel the forces from Dol Goldur, instead being on their way to the coast?

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

Elrond's comment does not really say that destroying the Ring will destroy (or essentially destroy the threat of) Sauron. The foundations of Barad-Dur will endure as long as the Ring remains, says Elrond. That does not mean that Barad-Dur will crumble upon the destruction of the Ring.

In the War of the Last Alliance, the victorious Alliance invaded Mordor, broke the Dark Tower, but could not remove the foundations. It seems logical to suppose that if the Ring was destroyed, another invading army could also break the Dark Tower, and remove it's foundations.

Now, if we want to go beyond the literal reading to the symbolic reading, (which I think is a good idea, and I agree with you that 'The Dark Tower' might be symbolically representing Sauron's empire), then I think the same analogy might apply when interpreting Elrond's comment. In this case, we might interpret Elrond as saying that destroying the Ring could make it easier to destroy Sauron's empire (militarily or by some other means thereafter).

If, however, Elrond intended this interpretation when he made that statement, it is curious that he never brings this up as an advantage in outcome from destroying the Ring versus hiding it, when that is debated. The only difference in outcome discussed between these two options is that destruction is more permanent, and that the Ring ever being found again by anyone would be a bad thing. So, perhaps Elrond's comment was actually meant more literally than symbolically.

As far as discouraging the Elves from fleeing Middle Earth, I would think that hopes of instant victory, or of weakening Sauron, by destroying the Ring, would make Elves more likely to stay and hope, and less likely to flee?

 

[Anthony Lawther]

There is no evidence offered to suggest that the West is at any risk from Sauron, so it seems quite believable that they would seek refuge there with the Ring. Some well meaning Elves might think that heading West with the Ring is the best thing they can do in the effort to defeat Sauron.
Something along the lines of 'Ok, Men, and Half-Elven if you are going to stay: We'll be taking this Ring with us into the Uttermost West. Send us a postcard when you've defeated Sauron and we might come back to visit'.

Keep in mind that the Elves have been sailing West for quite some time, and so their numbers are already significantly depleted. Elrond has stated that military means won't be enough to defeat Sauron. If Gandalf & Elrond genuinely believe that hiding the Ring won't be enough, I could easily see them walking the line between generating sufficient concern to ensure the mission to destroy the Ring is undertaken, and not generating so much concern those present at the Council scatter like startled gazelle.

It is concerted effort that is needed to defeat Sauron, and while the destruction of the Ring is the pivot point, it isn't the only effort that matters.

In some respects, it is surprising that what seems to be the only Wood Elf present joins the company, while all of the Rivendell Elves stay out of it. Presumably they send someone else to tell Thranduil to prepare for assaults from the mountains, from the east, or both; maybe Gloin delivers the warning on his way back to Erebor.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Anthony,

You are correct that Elves might well think to take the Ring to the West. In fact, they do think of this. Glorfindel says, "Then if the Ring cannot be kept from him for ever by strength, two things only remain for us to attempt: to send it over the Sea, or to destroy it."

Elrond responds, "But Gandalf has revealed to us that we cannot destroy it by any craft that we here possess (Note: If Gandalf did reveal this to the Council, the revelation is not recounted in TLOTR account of the Council. Also, mysterious as to how Gandalf knows.), and they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it."

How Elrond knows that 'they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it', is unknown. Also, I wonder what exactly 'they who dwell beyond the Sea' would do to 'not receive it' if it showed up on a ship from the Grey Havens? It might end up in the ocean. Which is exactly the course of action Glorfindel immediately suggests.

Regardless, if Elves accept this pronouncement of Elrond, the option of fleeing West with the Ring seems to be ruled out. In which case, if Elrond thought that destroying the Ring would help in defeating Sauron (rather than just deny him the Ring) I would think that saying so would encourage Elves to remain in Middle-earth in hope, instead of fleeing West in panic. However, Elrond makes no such suggestion.

Note, that Glorfindel is concerned only with keeping the Ring from Sauron. There is no suggestion that destroying the Ring will destroy, or seriously weaken Sauron.

 

[Flammifer]

In Return of the King, Gandalf says:

"If it is destroyed, then he will fall, and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world will be removed."

That seems pretty clear. But I don't think he presents it so bluntly at the Council.

Later, after the Council of Elrond, it becomes clear that destroying the Ring will not just keep the Ring from Sauron, but will destroy Sauron (for all practical intents and purposes). Beech27 gives us this passage from The Return of the King, where Gandalf states this explicitly.,

This passage comes from 'The Last Debate', just in time to make the case for advancing towards Mordor, to keep Sauron distracted and hope that that will help Frodo complete the mission.

How Gandalf suddenly knows this is not explained. Or, if he always knew this, why he didn't bring it up earlier (say at the Council of Elrond) is not explained.

Does anyone know if this passage is the first time it is clearly stated that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron? Are there any earlier clear indications, or even reasonably clear hints?

 

[Beech27]

I myself cannot find any earlier clear indications—though they may exist. If there are none, then it may be that Gandalf the White knows something that Gandalf the Grey did not.

I also wonder if Gandalf and Elrond don’t just see the impossibility of their discovering the Ring at this hour as being a suggestion. That is, if the ring were “meant” to stay hidden, then it would have rolled into the sea, or ended up anywhere except in their hands. That they got it means they’re supposed to have it. And if they’re supposed to have it, then they’re supposed to do something with it: the only question is whether to destroy it or use it. They believe it must be the former.

Perhaps they don’t know exactly what will happen, but they believe such a risk will offer a corresponding reward.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi Beech27,

I absolutely love your suggestion that maybe Gandalf the White knows something that Gandalf the Grey did not. I think I will adopt that as an hypothesis, as it seems a very reasonable way to understand one of the mysteries, how Gandalf becomes aware that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron, later on in TLOTR.

I also like your second suggestion, that Gandalf and Elrond have an intuition that destroying the Ring is what is 'supposed' to happen. That they don't know that it will lead to instant victory, but they hope that if things are done that are 'supposed' to be done, better things will happen. I have always interpreted Gandalf and Elrond as favoring destroying the Ring (that is pretty clear during the Council). But I don't think they know during the Council that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron (or they would have said so). However, a feeling or intuition that sending the Ring to the Fire is the right thing to do seems to me very likely in Gandalf and Elrond's minds.

 

[JJ48]

Elrond responds, "But Gandalf has revealed to us that we cannot destroy it by any craft that we here possess (Note: If Gandalf did reveal this to the Council, the revelation is not recounted in TLOTR account of the Council

I think it's clear from this passage that the Council has discussed things that are not explained in the text. To my mind, there are only two possibilities, then:
1. The Council, or at least several in the Council, know what will happen when the Ring is destroyed and are not mentioning it because it's the underlying assumption that goes without saying.
2. Every single person in the Council is an utter imbecile.

My reasoning for #2 is that if they don't know (or at least suspect) that destroying the Ring accomplishes something beyond keeping it away from Sauron, then the plan is not only nonsensical, but quite literally the stupidest thing they could possibly decide to do short of mailing the Ring directly to Sauron.

Furthermore, I maintain that the words of Elrond and Glorfindel concerning the effect of the One's destruction on the Three is proof that they know that the One's destruction will be an active blow against the Enemy and not merely a way to deprive him of one potential weapon.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

I agree with you that the Council has certainly discussed things that are not in the text. (The text says so.) And it is quite possible that Gandalf did reveal his thoughts on what would and would not destroy the Ring in unreported Council discourse.

I do not agree that anyone in the Council assumes or believes that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. Close reading does not support this interpretation at all. If you believe in the value of close reading, you should accept that what close reading reveals is correct, even if unpalatable.

There is no reading (that I can see) which supports the interpretation that Council attendees believe that destroying the Ring confers instant victory. All the evidence is that they assume that destroying the Ring just denies it to Sauron, and also to anyone else.

So, although I think that this assumption creates many problems, I think we have to accept it and then work out what it means and how it works.

 

[JJ48]

All the evidence is that they assume that destroying the Ring just denies it to Sauron, and also to anyone else.

If we just outright ignore the implications from the discussion about the Three and the fact that simply denying the Ring to Sauron makes absolutely no sense, then I agree.