I always got the impression that the lesser Rings were easier to pass on. Is there any evidence that the Elven Rings, that Sauron never touched, exerted the same sort of possesive compulsion the One Ring did?
Bugger. On preview, Grey has answered my question.
Sam was capable of it and did, I believe, show some mercy to Gollum at times. He was deeply suspicious of Gollum and arguably not unwise to do so. It may have been a mistake, but it was one only by the slimmest of margins, and because he and Frodo were in such a vulnerable position.
It wasn’t jealousy but extremely rational fear - was this gollum not, after all, the same monster that had hunted Bilbo and has gone all the way into Mordor and back? As far as he was concerned, Gollum was out to kill them both. We may partly even chalk this up to the power of the Ring itself, which is known to try and compel those around it.
Not one of them would have fallen immediately, not even to the One Ring. Gandalf did briefly handle it.
Yes, but not at the level that Tolkien seems to imply.
No, it was a mistake. It’s possible to be both cautious as well as compassionate. Sam was neither - he was just blindingly suspicious.
I think “extremely rational” is a stretch. You cannot marry that with Tolkien’s terms of “a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional ‘wisdom’”. Sam was all too willing to put Gollum in a bottle labelled “Toxic”. But as written, that’s what his character was *supposed * to do to drive the story. Sam’s purpose is to highlight Frodo’s nobleness.
Again, I need to stop using the term “immediately” as I keep being misinterpreted. We’re dealing with an object that is several thousand years old. “Immediate” is a short period of time relative to several thousand years. From the Ring’s perspective, Aragorn, Faramir and Gandalf would have immediately succombed.
Re: Who could destroy the ring?
Now, are we talking about who could do it, after holding on to it for months and months like Frodo did, possibly even putting it on a few times, are are we saying who could simply drop it in Mt.Doom if they immediatly found themselves there with the ring in hand.
As to the former: I think only Bilbo, in his early years just after getting it. he willingly gave it up after having it for several years. Granted, it took some cajolling from Gandalf to make him give it up, but he did fully intend to, the ring just made his mind “forget” that he never really did. Since I’m not too familiar with the books, I’m unsure of other characters not in the moves (like Tom Bombadill.)
As to the latter: lots of people. Pretty much any hobbit could do it. Most elves and dwarves, I would imagine, and several Humans, including Faramir, Aragorn, and anyone who really understood it’s power, or, like hobbits, just had no desires for power/wealth/etc…
The One Ring contained a so-called “Morgoth Element” (not JRR’s term, I don’t think) which the lesser rings did not possess. There is a quantum difference between the One Ring and the others. Giving away one of the 3, 7, or 9 is nothing compared to actually destroying the One while standing above the fires where it was forged.
I think Tolkein’s point about Sam was that he was that type of person, much like the Yorkshire folk of his day, or the small-towners of today (or any age), who are simple, very loveable, but ultimately frustrating in character. The reason for the frustration is just as Tolkien says: they are myopic, small-minded, and giving to assumption about things without ever considering a broader view. Sam was just that, a simple gardener, who confidently had the world and how everyone should behave in it figured out, and couldn’t step beyond that view point. It’s interesting to see Bilbo’s gentle contempt for his own people (who I posit is somewhat of a reflection of Tolkien himself), because even though they are good, and honest, and even kind-hearted, ultimately they will be the ones lined up with pitch forks and torches when Frankenstein comes to town, or making laws against gay marriage because “it just ain’t natural” or whatever. They fear the unknown, and rather than open up to it, regress and push away, deride or otherwise distance themselves from it. So Sam is definitely a loveable character, and a general decent chap, but lacking in the kind of depth and maturity required to see beyond the tip of his nose. I think the movies make him seem grander than the book’s intent.
Re Sam’s Characterization: I agree with Scule, who points out that the movies make him seem grander than in the books. Frodo is obviously more noble, and in a tragic sense, heroic, in the books. This is somewhat lost in the movies (despite surprisingly good performance by the actors).
Some comments re this interesting discussion prompted by the original post: Though I’ve read the LOTR books many times, as well as many books about them, I had simply never considered the question of whether anyone would be capable of destroying the ring. It’s amazing the discussions one can get into over a “simple” fantasy book that some critics have so blithely dismissed.
Here’s your original use of the word:
If you use a word in a different way from what everyone else would understand, the misinterpretation is not the responsibility of the audience.
And of course, if you mean relative to the Ring, then everybody would have succumbed “immediately”. That makes that accusation against Sam not just wrong, but meaningless.
In “Shadows of the Past”, Gandalf says that after losing the Ring, Gollum’s pleasant memories of his pre-Ring life "would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end’ unless he could be cured. That’s toxic. Gandalf also says there was “little hope” of his cure, although he does pity Gollum. My point is Sam was not alone in his feelings and in that respect he was not that much worse than anyone else, so singling him out is not justified. Gollum being evil (but not quite hopelessly) is one of the things the story depends on, and he was depicted as so from the beginning. Gollum was in that “bottle” before Sam knew he existed.
From a portion of the letter you quoted:
Rereading that passage, I think it says that Frodo’s “patience and mercy” “gained” Frodo the Mercy shown to him, not his sufferings. It was the way he reacted to them. Gollum showed no patience and mercy, IIRC, from his seizure of the Ring until at least he met Frodo. So how did he get the grace if he didn’t earn it? On his previous life? Sam had a pre-Gollum life, too.
And Tolkien says “gained”, not “earned”, a subtle but perhaps significant difference. And from another part of the letter (emphasis added):
But I think any further discussion of “given” vs. “earned” vs. “gained” would get us into theological and even sectarian areas.
Not consciously, at any rate. You think that didn’t influence you to read things into Sam regardless? <shrug>
Well said. JRRT later wrote that all of Arda itself was “Morgoth’s Ring” and made passing reference in later writings to Sauron creating the One Ring in part to tap into the power that Melkor had let flow from himself into all of creation.
And I believe I retracted both uses and clarified what I meant. What’s your point? Mine is that many people seem to be under the impression that Sam was impervious to the Ring, and suggest that he may have been a better Ringbearer than Frodo. I don’t believe that to be the case. I think he could have borne the Ring, but not to Mt. Doom, based primarily on Tolkien’s letter which describes the differences between Sam and Frodo - differences that are real, deliberate and necessary to the story.
You know, I’m really not sure what you’re arguing here. You’re pointing out Gandalf’s pity for Gollum, admit that Frodo exhibited pity as well, but have yet to provide any instance where Sam did. That would leave Sam “alone in his feelings” wouldn’t it? And I don’t think you can label Gollum as evil - your quoted section describes an evil “part” of him. Is he a good guy? Of course not. But I think he only plays the villain in The Hobbit, which I personally have a hard time connecting the rest of LOTR to (just because it’s so different stylistically and thematically). But if you have a strong connection to Gollum through The Hobbit, I can understand. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on the purpose of Gollum’s character, because I have a feeling it’s pretty different from mine.
Then are you saying that this “Mercy” is something different than the “highest honour” also mentioned in that passage that was rewarded to Frodo specifically for his sufferings?
That’s a great quote. But I don’t think it helps the Sam-lovers out there. Frodo specifically was given/had gained/whatever a certain quality. Sam had not. Period.