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

[JJ48]

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.

No, I take that back. We also have to ignore the passage that Anthony quoted, which may not explicitly say, "Destroying the Ring ends Sauron and his realm," but does rather strongly suggest a connection between the unmaking of the Ring, Sauron's demise, and the Dark Tower's fall.

 

[Flammifer]

Here are all the comments on what to do with the Ring so far:

Right after reading the fire poem from the Ring, in 'The Shadow of the Past', Gandalf says to Frodo: "This is the One Ring that he lost many ages ago, to the great weakening of his power. He greatly desires it - but he must not get it."

Denying Sauron the Ring is the objective.

Gandalf to Frodo in 'The Shadow of the Past': "The Enemy is fast becoming very strong. His plans are far from ripe, I think, but they are ripening. We shall be hard put to it. We should be very hard put to it, even if it were not for this dreadful chance. The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him 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."

I read this as we have a chance of defeating Sauron as long as he does not get his hands on the Ring. He needs it to beat down all resistance and break the last defences.

"He only needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, it is his, and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it so that he could rule all the others. If he recovers it, then he will command them all again, wherever they be, even the Three, and all that has been wrought with them will be laid bare, and he will be stronger than ever."

I read this as if he gets the Ring, he will be stronger than ever. He will have power over the Three, and that is one of the last defences which he will be able to break. All the emphasis here is that we can't let him get the Ring. We must deny it to him. No suggestion that the Ring can be used against him (either through wielding or through destroying it).

Later in the same chapter. Gandalf to Frodo: "There is only one way (to destroy the Ring): 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."

I read this as destroying the Ring in the Fire will deny it to the Enemy forever. No suggestion that this will defeat or destroy Sauron.

Frodo offers the Ring to Gandalf, and Gandalf says: "No! With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself."

That seems to eliminate the possibility of wielding the Ring against Sauron (at least by Gandalf).

Gandalf to Frodo in 'Three is Company': "It may be your task to find the Cracks of Doom; but that quest may be for others: I do not know."

Gandalf is inclined to try to destroy the Ring in the Cracks of Doom long before the Council of Elrond, but not quite sure yet how.

On to the Council of Elrond.

Elrond says: "Alas! yes. Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made."

That would have got rid of it there and then, and it wouldn't be around to trouble us now. No suggestion that it would do anything to Sauron.

Elrond of the victory of the Last Alliance: "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."

If the Ring was destroyed the foundations of the Dark Tower (whether literal or figurative Tower) could be removed. No indication that Barad-Dur would just crumble if the Ring was destroyed.

Erestor: "Would he (Tom Bombadil) not take the Ring and keep it there, for ever harmless?"

Deny Sauron the Ring by putting it in the keeping of Bombadil is the first suggestion for an action plan. No thought of the Ring defeating Sauron.

Glorfindel: "Two things only remain for us to attempt: to send it over the Sea, or to destroy it."

These are two comparable plans to Glorfindel. No suggestion that one might destroy Sauron.

"Then," said Glorfindel, "let us cast it into the deeps, and so make the lies of Saruman come true."

The only focus is on how to deny Sauron the Ring.

Gandalf answers, "Not safe for ever (in the Sea). There are many things in the deep waters; and seas and lands may change. And it is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the word. We should seek a final end of this menace."

Gandalf advocates destruction over hiding, because it is a permanent solution, not because of any different impact on Sauron or the war.

Erestor says: "Then, there are but two courses, as Glorfindel already has declared: to hide the Ring for ever; or to unmake it. But both are beyond our power. Who will read this riddle for us?"

Again, hiding or destroying are presented as equivalent courses. There is no suggestion that the outcomes will be different.

Elrond: "The westward way seems easiest. Therefore it must be shunned. It will be watched. Too often the Elves have fled that way. Now at this last we must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril - to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire."

Elrond is advocating destruction because it is the road less foreseen, not because it will have different results.

Boromir: "Why do you speak ever of hiding and destroying? Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely defeat the Enemy. That is what he most fears, I deem."

Instead of just denying Sauron the Ring, why don't we use it to defeat him? We are not sure we can win against today's Sauron who does not have the Ring. Hiding and destroying are not differentiated to Boromir. They are both denying Sauron the Ring. There is no assumption that destroying would lead to instant victory.

Elrond answers: "If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise."

Elrond echoes Gandalf's long ago sentiment that wielding the Ring will produce another Dark Lord. He does state this in a way that leaves two loopholes; 'If any of the Wise,' and 'using his own arts,' which Boromir will later recall and use as rationalizations. Elrond also echoes Gandalf in suggesting that destroying the Ring is better than hiding the Ring as it removes a dangerous object from Middle-earth forever. No suggestion that destroying the Ring will have any effect on Sauron. And, this is pretty much Elrond's final summing up.

A little later, in response to Gloin's question about what are the Three Elvish Rings doing, Elrond says: "But all that was wrought by those who wield the Three will turn to their undoing, and their minds and hearts will become revealed to Sauron, if he regains the One. It would be better if the Three had never been. That is his purpose."

Once again, Elrond is stating that the objective of dealing with the Ring is to keep it away from Sauron. So he cannot use it.

Gloin then asks, "But what would happen, if the Ruling Ring were destroyed as you counsel?"

Gloin is asking this in reference to what would happen to the Three. Elrond answers that it is unknown, "but maybe when the One has gone the Three will fail.... That is my belief." This is pretty much Elrond's last chance to add something like 'also, maybe the destruction of the One would weaken or destroy Sauron' if he held that assumption, but he does not.

Glorfindel then says, "Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance, if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever."

When a reader goes back and re-reads TLOTR, I think it is possible to see this as a hint of foreshadowing (something JRRT loves doing) that destroying the Ring might break the power of Sauron. But that is not what Glorfindel thinks. He is just saying that the Elves are willing to take the risk of the Three failing if it means getting rid of the One. And that if the One is denied to Sauron, there is still a chance that he can be defeated. We know that Glorfindel does not assume that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron, from his earlier comments, suggesting as equivalent sending the Ring over the Sea and destroying it, and then suggesting throwing the Ring into the Sea.

There are a lot of passages describing the danger of the Ring (primarily the danger of Sauron recovering it; secondarily the danger of someone else wielding it and becoming a Dark Lord), and discussing the possible courses of action to avert the dangers. All the discussion and the courses of action are aimed at denying Sauron the Ring. There is no statement from anyone that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron or result in victory. It is very hard to come to a reading that participants in the Council think that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. It is very hard to see how a first-time reader could assume that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron.

 

[JJ48]

Here are all the comments on what to do with the Ring so far:

Right after reading the fire poem from the Ring, in 'The Shadow of the Past', Gandalf says to Frodo: "This is the One Ring that he lost many ages ago, to the great weakening of his power. He greatly desires it - but he must not get it."

Denying Sauron the Ring is the objective.

And we have Gandalf explicitly linking losing the Ring with weakening power. How much moreso if it is destroyed rather than merely lost?

Gandalf to Frodo in 'The Shadow of the Past': "The Enemy is fast becoming very strong. His plans are far from ripe, I think, but they are ripening. We shall be hard put to it. We should be very hard put to it, even if it were not for this dreadful chance. The Enemy still lacks one thing to give him 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."

I read this as we have a chance of defeating Sauron as long as he does not get his hands on the Ring. He needs it to beat down all resistance and break the last defences.

Not so. Whether Gandalf believes that or not, we know it is not a universal belief due to Glorfindel's remarks concerning Bombadil. Even if Tom could be made to take the Ring to keep it safe indefinitely, Sauron would still be able to conquer all, including even Tom Bombadil in the end. And this is before taking the Ring, which would then be a prize, not the means of victory.

"He only needs the One; for he made that Ring himself, it is his, and he let a great part of his own former power pass into it so that he could rule all the others. If he recovers it, then he will command them all again, wherever they be, even the Three, and all that has been wrought with them will be laid bare, and he will be stronger than ever."

I read this as if he gets the Ring, he will be stronger than ever. He will have power over the Three, and that is one of the last defences which he will be able to break. All the emphasis here is that we can't let him get the Ring. We must deny it to him. No suggestion that the Ring can be used against him (either through wielding or through destroying it).

Again, we see that Sauron's own power is in the Ring (hence why he lost power when he lost the Ring). What would happen to it if the Ring were destroyed?

Gandalf to Frodo in 'Three is Company': "It may be your task to find the Cracks of Doom; but that quest may be for others: I do not know."

Gandalf is inclined to try to destroy the Ring in the Cracks of Doom long before the Council of Elrond, but not quite sure yet how.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "...not quite sure yet how." Gandalf seems pretty clear on the concept, just not who is actually going to carry it out.

On to the Council of Elrond.

Elrond says: "Alas! yes. Isildur took it, as should not have been. It should have been cast then into Orodruin's fire nigh at hand where it was made."

That would have got rid of it there and then, and it wouldn't be around to trouble us now. No suggestion that it would do anything to Sauron.

No suggestion either way, actually.

Elrond of the victory of the Last Alliance: "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."

If the Ring was destroyed the foundations of the Dark Tower (whether literal or figurative Tower) could be removed. No indication that Barad-Dur would just crumble if the Ring was destroyed.

We have parallels being drawn. Sauron diminished, the Ring lost, and the Dark Tower broken are all paralleled; as are Sauron destroyed, the Ring unmade, and the Dark Tower's foundations removed. No causal relationship is explicitly stated, but some connection is drawn.

Erestor: "Would he (Tom Bombadil) not take the Ring and keep it there, for ever harmless?"

Deny Sauron the Ring by putting it in the keeping of Bombadil is the first suggestion for an action plan. No thought of the Ring defeating Sauron.

Correction: No mention of the Ring defeating Sauron. Just because a character doesn't explicitly say something does not automatically mean no one there is thinking about it. (Note, also, that it Erestor's suggestion. Even if he doesn't think destroying the Ring would do anything, it doesn't mean Gandalf and Elrond don't know.)

Glorfindel: "Two things only remain for us to attempt: to send it over the Sea, or to destroy it."

These are two comparable plans to Glorfindel. No suggestion that one might destroy Sauron.

The more I think about it, the less I think sending it over the sea is merely an act of hiding the Ring. It's entirely possible that they're thinking those in the West may possess a way to destroy the Ring which they themselves don't.

"Then," said Glorfindel, "let us cast it into the deeps, and so make the lies of Saruman come true."

The only focus is on how to deny Sauron the Ring.

Possibly, though I'm beginning to wonder if removing the Ring from Middle-earth wouldn't affect things somehow, if such a thing could be accomplished. Perhaps moving the Ring out of range would diminish Sauron's power, or removing it from his domain would cut him off from it. This bears some investigation.

Gandalf answers, "Not safe for ever (in the Sea). There are many things in the deep waters; and seas and lands may change. And it is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the word. We should seek a final end of this menace."

Gandalf advocates destruction over hiding, because it is a permanent solution, not because of any different impact on Sauron or the war.

In fairness, the utter ruin of Sauron would make a pretty final end.

Erestor says: "Then, there are but two courses, as Glorfindel already has declared: to hide the Ring for ever; or to unmake it. But both are beyond our power. Who will read this riddle for us?"

Again, hiding or destroying are presented as equivalent courses. There is no suggestion that the outcomes will be different.

They are presented as the only options left. I don't think we can automatically assume they are equivalent.

Also, I'm beginning to think Erestor may not be the sharpest sword in the armory...

Elrond: "The westward way seems easiest. Therefore it must be shunned. It will be watched. Too often the Elves have fled that way. Now at this last we must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril - to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire."

Elrond is advocating destruction because it is the road less foreseen, not because it will have different results.

Which says nothing about whether it will have different results.

Glorfindel then says, "Yet all the Elves are willing to endure this chance, if by it the power of Sauron may be broken, and the fear of his dominion be taken away for ever."

When a reader goes back and re-reads TLOTR, I think it is possible to see this as a hint of foreshadowing (something JRRT loves doing) that destroying the Ring might break the power of Sauron. But that is not what Glorfindel thinks. He is just saying that the Elves are willing to take the risk of the Three failing if it means getting rid of the One. And that if the One is denied to Sauron, there is still a chance that he can be defeated. We know that Glorfindel does not assume that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron, from his earlier comments, suggesting as equivalent sending the Ring over the Sea and destroying it, and then suggesting throwing the Ring into the Sea.

This is not what he says. The chance he speaks of is that the Three will either fail or not fail. The power of Sauron being broken is not spoken of as a chance, but as a condition for the Elves to take the chance.

 

[JJ48]

(Continued, due to post-length limits)

There are a lot of passages describing the danger of the Ring (primarily the danger of Sauron recovering it; secondarily the danger of someone else wielding it and becoming a Dark Lord), and discussing the possible courses of action to avert the dangers. All the discussion and the courses of action are aimed at denying Sauron the Ring. There is no statement from anyone that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron or result in victory. It is very hard to come to a reading that participants in the Council think that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. It is very hard to see how a first-time reader could assume that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron.

I guess it depends on how you're reading the text. If you're only doing a close reading, and only considering what is explicitly mentioned in the text, then you are correct; but I feel you're then likely missing the forest for the trees. If we take a step back and think about what we know and have been told, I think we can see it somewhat differently.

We know that the Free Peoples must not wield the Ring (from Boromir's pitch and rebuke).
We know that if the Ring is merely hidden and unused, Sauron wins (from the discussion about Tom Bombadil).
Therefore, we can conclude that the Free Peoples cannot win through fighting strength alone, and if the Ring's destruction merely denies it to Sauron and accomplishes nothing else, Sauron wins.
We know that there are incredibly wise people in the Council who should know this much or be able to easily figure it out (Erestor excepted).
We know that not everything talked about in the Council was explicitly recorded.
We surmise that the text (from within the story itself) was written by multiple individuals, and may be limited by their own knowledge and memories.

From these, I see three possibilities:
1. The Council knows only the information they have explicitly mentioned, and have still decided to take the enormous risk of sending the Ring to Sauron's territory without any idea of actually accomplishing anything.
2. The Council (or at least some of the Council) know that destroying the Ring will accomplish something beyond merely denying it to Sauron, but this was either discussed outside of the Council ahead of time, or was known/assumed by enough present without discussion.
3. The Council did, in fact, discuss this, but the author either failed to record it or misunderstood the arguments.

Of these three, I reject #1 outright. If they do not know or suspect that destroying the Ring deals an active blow to Sauron, then destroying the Ring accomplishes nothing except increasing the odds that Sauron will reclaim it. If Sauron can beat them with the Ring hidden, he should also be able to beat them with the Ring destroyed, if the two options are equivalent. This decision would make the Wise out to be morons, which is inconsistent with their portrayal in the text. If this were a children's book with absurd humor, I could buy that; but in an epic where some characters are consistently portrayed as having good sense (even if not infallible), it's conspicuously out-of-place. Given multiple possible readings, if any of them are completely inconsistent with the text as a whole, I feel I must reject it.

#3 is possible, though I feel that relying too much on fallible narrators to explain away potential plot holes runs the danger of becoming a cop-out. For that reason, even though it's possible, I would not personally use it unless there were no other options.

So, #2 is the reading I feel fits best. It may not have lots of explicit support from the text, but it is, I feel, consistent with it (at any rate, moreso than the others).

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

You are stretching. Stretching a lot.

I am not a post-modernist. But I agree with the post-modernists that there are almost infinite possible interpretations of a text. So, yes, your interpretation is a possible interpretation.

Where I disagree with the post-modernists, is that I think there are only a limited set of those interpretations that are valid..

Yours is not among that set.

No one makes a statement that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron.

All the evidence is that the Council participants do not assume this.

It is implausible that a first-time reader should assume this.

Yes, it turns out to be true that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron. But we do not understand this until much later in TLOTR. It is not understood at the time of the Council of Elrond, either by the participants or by the first-time reader.

 

[JJ48]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter, unless you can come up with some possibility that is consistent with the story and isn't one of the three I listed above.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

Happy to agree to disagree.

By the way, an interesting subject you mentioned in your post is the divergent comments about whether Sauron without the Ring can be defeated.

As you point out, Elrond, in the discussion about stashing the Ring with Tom Bombadil, seems to indicate that neither Bombadil nor Rivendell nor the Havens can hold out against Sauron even if he does not have the Ring. This contradicts Gandalf's earlier comments to Frodo, that the Enemy still lacks one thing he needs to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance and that is the Ring.

The implication is that Gandalf has hope that Sauron without the Ring can be defeated, whereas Elrond is less sanguine.

I think it is a curious divergence of thought. Does Elrond have less hope than Gandalf? Or are the different views representative more of how each wants to influence and impact their audiences when they make these statements?

 

[JJ48]

One last note for those interested (though it has no bearing on this particular discussion): because it seems to me inconceivable that the Council would embark on this action without any real reason to do so, it occurred to me to wonder whether Tolkien himself knew their purpose, or if this was a case of Tolkien just letting the flow of the story take him and retconning an explanation in later. Looking through the History of Middle-earth, I think I found a likely indicator.

'But on the other road [toward Mordor rather than the West],' said Elrond, 'with speed and skill the travellers might go far unmarked. I do not say there is great hope in the quest; but only in this way could any lasting good be achieved. In the Ring is hidden much of the ancient power of Sauron. Even though he does not hold it that power still lives and works for him. As long as the Ring lives on land or sea he will not be overcome. While the Ring lasts he will grow, and have hope, and the fear lest the Ring come into his hand again will ever weigh on the world. War will never cease while that fear lives, and all Men will be turned to him.' (The Return of the Shadow, p403; brackets and emphasis mine)

In this version of the text (from back when Trotter was still a hobbit), Elrond made perfectly clear that the reason they needed to destroy the Ring was because it contained power that Sauron could still access so long as it was around. Obviously, this version never made it into the printed text, so it doesn't help our hypothetical first-time reader. However, given my previous objections to the plan without such information, it seems plain to me that--regardless of what the characters may or may not have known at the time--the author knew the plan was a sound one (if a bit desperate), and was not simply winging it.

 

[Flammifer]

Very interesting JJ48.

I wonder if JRRT at some point decided to bury the thought that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron in order to create a more eucatastrophic ending when it did? If so, he eventually watered down the surprise, through Gandalf's speech to the Allied commanders in 'The Return of the King'. This, was perhaps necessary if he wanted to move the armies towards the Black Gate, as otherwise, this strategy of hope would have seemed like a strategy of folly.

I don't have the History of Middle Earth available right now. Does it shed any light on when that passage in 'The Return of the King' first appeared?

 

[JJ48]

Looking at The War of the Ring, the first draft I see of the debate of the Lords of the West does seem to involve it, though less directly. Gandalf says:

"I have (like a fool, said Denethor) set the Ring at a great risk that our Enemy will regain it, and so utterly overwhelm us; for to retain it would be to risk the certainty that ere the last throes came upon us one among us would take it, and so bring about at least as great an evil. But still we have set our hands to war. For resist we must while we have strength--and hope. But now our salvation, if any can be achieved, does not rest upon our deeds of arms, yet it may be aided by them. Not by prudence, I say, of the lesser wars of Men. But by a boldness, even a rashness, that in other case would be folly. For our hope is still, though daily it grows fainter, that Sauron has not recovered the Ring, and while that is so he will be in doubt and fear lest we have it. The greater our rashness the greater his fear, and the more will his eye and thought be turned to us and not elsewhere where his true peril is." (The War of the Ring, p402)

In this version, Gandalf does not explicitly describe what will happen to Sauron, but does indicate that Sauron's true peril is with Frodo's quest, not with the Armies of the West.

After that, Christopher merely says that the debate passage grew closer and closer to the printed text through a series of drafts, but only highlights portions of significant difference, none of which include this particular discussion. On page 404, he precedes a section with, "A following draft reaches Gandalf's argument as it appears in [Return of the King]..."

 

[Flammifer]

Hi JJ48,

Interesting. In this passage, I think that JRRT is hiding that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron (though he is dropping a hint of his beloved foreshadowing in the last few words). The timing between earlier drafts of passages at the Council of Elrond, and this draft would be interesting. Any time during drafts that JRRT has both the Council and the Captains' Meeting assuming that destroying the Ring destroys Sauron, or any time neither assume destroying the Ring destroys Sauron, things are clear. Either he is telling the story with full reveal from early on, or he is concealing the link between destroying the Ring and destroying Sauron (I suspect to enhance the eucatastrophic ending). What is baffling is when the assumptions or statements at the two meetings are different (which I think is the case in the published text). Curious.