When did JRRT decide that destruction of the One Ring would destroy Sauron (effectively) and win the war?

Flammifer

Well-Known Member
As those who have read my previous posts will be aware, I maintain that the first time reader cannot be aware that destruction of the Ring will destroy Sauron and win the war until the Council of the Captains in “The Return of the King”, as it is never stated by anyone until then.

Also, none of the participants at the Council of Elrond seem to think that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron, as they all see hiding the Ring or destroying it as equivalent strategies to deny Sauron the Ring, except that destroying it prevents the risk of some other powerful person using it to become another Dark Lord.

The most common objections to this reading are:

  • “Gandalf tells Frodo in "The Shadow of the Past" that "he let a great part of his own former power pass into it, so that he could rule all the others." So Gandalf clearly understands that it represents a significant part of Sauron's native power or 'soul'.” – direct quote from a post by Forodan, but also cited by others. However, the complete quote goes on, with Gandalf saying, “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.” Sauron put a large part of his power into the Ring. But he lost it, so he is weakened. If he gets it back he will be stronger again. No suggestion whatsoever that if it is destroyed, he will become weaker than now!

  • Elrond tells the Council, “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.” Here Elrond indicates that the Ring has an effect on other things that were made with its power (the foundations of Barad-dur) that could be removed if it were destroyed. There is no real reason to read across from the foundations of the Dark Tower, that were made with the power of the Ring, to Sauron, who was not made with the power of the Ring, and assume that destroying the Ring would destroy, or make it easier to destroy Sauron. Still, is this a hint, part of his beloved foreshadowing, by JRRT? Did HE know that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron when he was writing ‘The Council of Elrond’?

  • Gloin asks what would happen (to the Three) if the One was destroyed. Elrond answers, “We know not for certain, 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.” 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.” This passage, I think, is the clearest example of possible foreshadowing by JRRT. Though it would be a mighty stretch for a first-time reader to jump from this to a clear assumption that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron.
The strongest positive evidence that no one thought that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron is Gandalf saying to Frodo, in “The Shadow of the Past”, “He (Sauron) believed that the One had perished; that the Elves had destroyed it (after the Battle of the Last Alliance), as should have been done.” If Sauron believed the One had been destroyed, and He was still around and still powerful, it stands to reason that He (the Ring’s creator) did not believe that the destruction of the Ring meant the destruction of himself. Of course, we do not have here Sauron’s own belief, but only Gandalf’s assertion of Sauron’s belief. Though it is possible to construct various convoluted interpretations wherein Gandalf would believe that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron, yet still make this assertion to Frodo, they are far-fetched. More likely Gandalf also has no intimation at this time that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron.

Now, of course, in revision, JRRT was well aware that destroying the Ring was going to destroy Sauron and win the war. Curiously, he didn’t include this fact in any of the statements or deliberations during the Council of Elrond or previously (or subsequently until the Council of Captains). He could have. Why didn’t he?

But, my main question is: Had JRRT decided that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron when he first wrote the Council of Elrond? I suspect that he had. But can anyone find any evidence in Letters, or material unpublished by JRRT, or in ‘The History of Middle-earth’?

When did JRRT decide that destroying the Ring meant victory? Why did he conceal this until ‘The Return of the King’?
 
Last edited:
For reference, here is a relevant passage from The Treason of Isengard. (Elrond is speaking.)

'The Ring must be sent to the Fire. All else is but postponement of our task. In the One Ring is hidden much of the ancient power of Sauron before it was first broken. Even though he himself has not yet regained it, that power still lives [struck out: and works for him and towards him]. As long as the Ring remains on land or in the sea, he will not be overcome. He will have hope; and he will grow, and all men will be turned to him; and the fear lest the Ring come into his hand again will weigh on all hearts, and war will never cease. 'Yet it is even as Glorfindel says: the way of flight is now the more perilous. But on the other road, with speed and care travellers might go far unperceived. I do not say that there is great hope in this course; but there is in other courses less hope, and no lasting good.'

Italic/bold is of course my own. It is worth noting, I think, that this is clearer language than survives in the published Council chapter. Though even here, if we read the text literally, the implication is that, if the ring is destroyed, then Sauron can be overcome--not that destroying the ring does the overcoming automatically.
 
Thanks Beech27,

That's interesting. My hypothesis is that JRRT knew from very early on (perhaps before he wrote the Council of Elrond) that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron and win the war. If so, then he concealed it. Perhaps to make the finale more eucatastrophic?

Anyway, your passage from 'The Treason of Isengard' not quite stating that destroying the Ring wins the war, still states that destroying the Ring is a necessary pre-condition for winning the war (at least according to Elrond. Gandalf always seems more hopeful than Elrond that Sauron without the Ring might be defeated.) Is there any indication of when this passage was written? Maybe JRRT had not decided that destroying the Ring would win the war when he first wrote 'The Council of Elrond', or, is he just concealing this (though not so completely as in the published version). I think it is clear that JRRT wanted to conceal it. He knew the fate of the Ring and of Sauron when he came to revisions, but never revised any passages in a way that would allow the first-time reader to understand, or reveal any knowledge by anyone during the Council.

Can anyone find any other evidence as to when JRRT decided that destroying the Ring destroyed Sauron?
 
I wonder if we're looking to closely, and missing it in the wider view?

It's been a while since I delved into the HoME books, and I certainly don't remember any dates, but if I remember it correctly, pretty much from the first time that the Ring going into the Crack of Doom is a thing, that is where the story ends. There's no mop-up of Sauron afterward in any drafts I remember. So it must be decided by at least that stage. But the order of events escapes me - I know he didn't get all the way to an ending we'd recognize until quite a way in.
 
Hi Amy's revenge,

I also think that JRRT meant the Ring to go into Mt. Doom from early on. But what would happen then? Would that just allow the good guys to defeat Sauron some other way, or would that win the war on it's own? When did JRRT come to that conclusion?

The first time that JRRT makes it explicit that destroying the Ring will win the war is at The Meeting of the Captains, after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. However, there is at least one really good foreshadowing before that. This is during the conversation between Frodo and Boromir, at Amon Hen, where Frodo says, "The walls of Minas Tirith may be strong, but they are not strong enough. If they fail, what then?" Boromir replies, "We shall fall in battle valiantly. Yet there is still hope that they will not fail." Frodo then says, "No hope while the Ring lasts."

This is a pretty clear indication that at least Frodo thinks by this time, that destroying the Ring improves the chances of winning the war.

Another good question would be, when did JRRT write this line from Frodo? If he wrote it in revision, well, then he was just doing some of his beloved foreshadowing, knowing the outcome? If it was in the first draft, then maybe by that point he had decided that destroying the Ring would win the war? (Though still not wanting to be too obvious about it.)
 
from the first time that the Ring going into the Crack of Doom is a thing, that is where the story ends. There's no mop-up of Sauron afterward
This could simply be a manifestation of Narrative Causality (well-defined at TVTropes, but the usual rules apply: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality). No mop-up in, for example, Star Wars, either; mop-ups aren't part of the story, which ends with the defeat of the Bad Guy and the Happily Ever After.

JRRT, of course, is subverting this by adding in "The Scouring of the Shire" after Sauron's defeat. It's nearly a whole new story/adventure tacked on after the end. It is perhaps the best part of the whole book, IMHO.
 
Maybe it's a storytelling device rather than a mistake. If we move away from the legendarium and focus on the story of the Lord of the Rings, perhaps the narrative structure helps give us an answer.

Consider this:
Frodo has to destroy the ring as we know that is necessary to help win the war.

We know other battles are being waged on multiple fronts, culminating in the Battle of Pelinor Fields.

As readers, we aren't to know the destruction of the ring will necessarily destroy Sauron. Perhaps we believe it possible, as it certainly 'feels' like how a story of this kind could go.

But we don't know for sure it will do this. It could help end the war and stop another Dark Lord rising in the future. It'll certainly hamper Sauron.
But there is no indication that the Ring is the same as catching a Golden Snitch; effectively rendering all prior actions moot.

Thus we are very invested in all fronts at once.

And when at last the Ring does destroy Sauron, it becomes an act of eucatastrophe

Of course, the end of the war doesn't mean the end of all suffering. Though the big conflict is won, there is still work to be done to mend and heal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet she is the writer more concerned with in-the-moment action and the pacing of those action sequences. It seems a real oversight to construct an entire game the outcome of which is dictated by a singular entity making action external to it utterly irrelevant. It brings a resolution to the action but distracts from anything around it. And yet I suppose, that speaks directly to the narrative and the message of those stories. Harry is a Golden Snitch. And as he clearly is the central protagonist, he is meant to consume focus.

Tolkien is less concerned with having a linear action narrative and wants us to keep our eyes on all fronts as he is telling the history of a world at the same time.

In addition, when Harry wins his wider 'game', by defeating Voldemort, the action is over. A real win-or-lose scenario. We see no suffering after that.

With Tolkien's world, there is no object which brings an end to all suffering. Sauron is destroyed but it is clearly important to him that we know pain is not irradiated by that action. Which of course, really upsets the pacing of an action-oriented plot and is not nearly as 'cinematic' or palatable to a modern audience, as the Potter books are intended to be. Thus why it wasn't in the movie, which makes sense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, in Tolkien’s worldview though ‘beyond all shadows rides the sun and stars forever dwell’ and we should not ‘say the day is done not bid the stars farewell.’

I've sung Sam Song's to my kids since they were little as a lullaby. I hope it's a message they hold onto
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When Sauron was killed by Gil-Galad and Elendil, and the Ring taken from him by Isildur, he was destroyed for an age until Tolkien decided that the Necromancer driven from Mirkwood in The Hobbit, was indeed Sauron come to life again, who had been regaining his power over a very long time. It's some time in the writing of Book I that the Necromancer becomes Sauron.

Sauron had no idea that the Ring was not destroyed after that battle. And after Isildur's death it disappeared and memory of it was lost. When the Wise raised the issue, Saruman assured them it had gone down the river to the sea, lost forever. (Though Gandalf points out at the Council that seas and lands change.) I would guess that neither the Wise nor Sauron guess that Sauron grew again over the Third Age because the Ring still existed, but I think it is very possible that his power and life force was tied to the Ring. When he re-established himself in Mordor and began gathering armies from the east and south, he still had no reason to think the Ring still existed, but perhaps that is what made his growing strength possible. Certainly he becomes stronger after Bilbo finds the Ring. Maybe that's what Elrond is thinking of at the Council.

But if losing it and having it disappear for over 1000 years could put him out of commission for that long, who is to say how long its destruction would put him out of commission, even if he didn't die forever? So his power was destroyed for millennia at the least, even if he wasn't destroyed forever. But if my thoughts in the above paragraph are true, and his regrowth was only possible because the Ring still existed, then he is indeed destroyed when it is. The power of all the Rings is destroyed, and so begins the Age of Man. But I think Tolkien was still working it all out long after the Lord of the Rings was published.

Rob, what a lovely idea for a lullaby.
 
Hi Rachel,

My main point is that neither the first-time reader, not the participants in the Council of Elrond, are aware that destroying the Ring will win the war. And then, to wonder about JRRT and when he decided that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron and win the war.

You make some excellent points, but, here are some other thoughts:

Those at the Council had no particular reason to think that losing the Ring is what caused Sauron to disappear for 1,000 years. It might well have seemed to them that killing him on the slopes of Orodruin was the primary cause of his long disappearance.

Those at the Council did not know how long Sauron 'disappeared' after being killed. The Wise did not suspect Sauron of 'taking shape again' until 2060 Third Age, which was confirmed by Gandalf's scout into Dol Guldur in 2063. Of course, once they knew that it was Sauron in Dol Guldur, they suspected (but had no way of knowing) that it had been him in Dol Guldur since 1100 Third Age, when a shadow first fell on Mirkwood. Of course, they don't know (and nor do we) if that was the earliest that Sauron 'took shape again'. Was he behind the first invasion of the Easterlings in 490 Third Age?

If Gandalf thinks that Sauron thinks that the Ring was destroyed (but Sauron is still here and almost all-powerful), this is evidence that Gandalf has no notion at this time that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron. But JRRT (at least in revision - probably earlier) already knows that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron and win the war. He does not reveal this to the first-time reader, until the Meeting of Captains in The Return of the King.

My main point here, is to remind people that first-time readers have no idea that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron and win the war. (Most people in this class - indeed most people even who have not read the book nor seen the movie - are so familiar with the story that they know that destroying the Ring results in victory, and they have forgotten that the first-time reader does not know this at all.)

Interpretations of The Council of Elrond can change when one realizes that debate on what to do with the Ring is just a debate on how to keep it away from Sauron, not a debate on how to defeat Sauron. It particularly makes Boromir's doubts much more understandable. I imagine that if Boromir thought throwing the Ring in the Fire might produce great rewards, as well as incurring great risks, he might have supported it more enthusiastically?
 
I think that at the Council, both Elrond and Gandalf have figured out that victory can only come from destroying the Ring. Elrond implies it, and Gandalf says there and later to Theoden that their hope lies in the East, that is, with Frodo. At the very least, he makes it clear that victory is not possible without Frodo's success. But I agree that the others attending the Council don't understand as much about the Ring.

I'm trying to remember what it was like to read it for the first time. I hadn't read The Hobbit, and LOTR was all that existed at the time (1966 would have been the second edition, I think). I did not know anything about the story except that I had friends who had read and loved it. I remember refusing to believe Gandalf had died, and feeling triumphant when he showed up as early in The Two Towers as he did. I remember cutting classes one morning to finish The Return of the King. I was reading it as a story, and I don't think I cared very much about the nature of the Ring, it was the characters I cared about and what happened to them. I remember being surprised at how much I was enjoying the accounts of battles - that really wasn't my thing. Certainly, I was reading it much more simply than this class is, and this is the first time I have ever looked at it in context of the legendarium, or read any more than the Silmarillion (eagerly when it was first published). I remember how I felt when Gandalf stood on the mound in front of the Black Gates and cried that the reign of Sauron was ended, and then when Frodo came to the Cracks of Doom. Very powerful then, and it still is.

As for Boromir, he is provincial, not just about Minas Tirith, but about the primacy of military victory. What he says before they leave Lorien stands out to me - "If you wish only to destroy the Ring," he said, "then there is little use in war and weapons; and the Men of Minas Tirith cannot help. But if you wish to destroy the armed might of the Dark Lord, then it is folly to go without force into his domain and folly to throw away..." He can only think in those terms. The Men of Minas Tirith will fight valiantly until the end comes. He talks of destroying the armed might of Mordor, not the power behind that armed might. I don't know that he would have been able in any case to see the Ring as more than a powerful weapon.
 
Hi Rachel,

I think that both Gandalf and Elrond have arrived at the insight, or vision that destroying the Ring is important. Gandalf has pretty much reached that idea back in The Shadow of the Past. But, I don't think that either of them knows at the time of the Council that destroying the Ring will destroy Sauron and win the war. Gandalf first states that at the Meeting of the Captains in The Return of the King.

If Gandalf or Elrond had had that opinion at the time of the Council, you would think they would have told people. But they did not.

Also, I doubt that Gandalf would have opined to Frodo that Sauron thought the Ring had been destroyed at the end of the second age, without further elaboration, if he thought that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron.

JRRT, of course, knew (at least when he came to revision) that destroying the Ring would destroy Sauron. But he did not allow that to be revealed to the first-time reader at the time of the Council of Elrond.
 
Back
Top