Not quite. Tom Bombadil had the Ring and gave it back to Frodo, and Sam returned it to Frodo as well.
Minor quibble: Bombadil was less a ‘person’ and more a divine being, either a Maiar or an incarnation of Arda or somesuch.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but before Bilbo had the Ring, only three other people had ever possessed it, right? Sauron, Isildur, then Gollum. Sauron, of course, was using the Ring for exactly the pruposes he created it: evil. So he had no reason to want to give it up. Isildur didn’t give up the ring voluntarily, but he also didn’t have the Ring long enough for it to start making him evil. Maybe he could have resisted it once it started working it’s way on him (doubtful, but you never know) And having more willpower than Gollum is not exactly a heroic feat.
And, after Bilbo gave up the Ring, both Tom Bombadil and Samwise gave up the ring willingly, and Frodo tried on at least two or three occasions to give the Ring to someone else, but they wouldn’t take it from him. Kinda makes me wonder if the Ring was as addictive as everyone says it was, or if Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel were the Middle Earth equivalent of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. “People who use the One Ring are supporting terrorists! And, um, they might accidentally shoot their best friend with their dad’s gun! Look, it’s your future self! He’s a loser, because he used the One Ring! You don’t want to end up like him, do you?”
Miller, Deagol had the ring after Isildur. Then Smeagol killed him and took it.
You said “correct me if I’m wrong”, after all!
Isuldur was killed by a company of orcs at the gladden fields. The ring then lay hidden until it was found by Deagol. Deagol was muredered by Smeagol.
Maybe the disctiction Miller is after is that Bilbo was the only one of the three mortals who possessed the ring for any real length of time to begin his tenure with an act of kindness. If we count Sam and Deagol, we only get two out of three - Deagol didn’t have much chance, but he did wish to possess rather than give. Sam of course acted out of altruism to the quest & was certainly the only mortal to knowingly turn down the rings true powers.
Regarding Feanor:
Since I think some of the rhetoric is getting a little overblown, let me clarify my point. Feanor & Morgoth exhibit two entirely seperate characteristcs. Feanor was possessive. Morgoth wished to dominate. This is an important distinction in the morality of middle earth. One is Bad, the other is the true face of Evil. The sin of possessiveness is exhibited by many of the ‘good’ characters in the mythos to various degrees, Valar not excluded. The Valar themselves claimed the light within the Silmarils. Perhaps Aule was the only of them to truly understand that while the light was Yavanna’s, the work in capturing it within the gems was Feanor’s.
This sin, along with his pride certainly led to a fall - most notably exhibited in the kinslaying at Aqalonde (sp?) and the burning of the ships. It certainly underlies his swearing of the oath. As the oath was based on a sin, there is little reason to wonder that it rebounds on those who swore it. However, that this sin is forgivable is seen at the end of the first age - though it was a sin none the less. This is why I class him a hero in the greek tragic sense. We can see with Feanor many ways it could have been otherwise.
Morgoth however, can achive no such redemption and recieves no such empathy. His will from the time of the music of the ainur forward is directed at dominating others, subjecting their will to his own. This leads to all manner of corruptions, but all are centered on perverting the will of Illuvatar. Once the Valar truly understand this, his fate is different than that of Feanor. Where Feanor must bide his time in penance in the Halls of Mandos, from whence he may someday return, Morgoth is thrust from this world beyond the walls of night.
There has been only one mention so far of Barahir; I would nominate he and Emeldir (the parents of Beren); Barahir firstly saved the life of Finrod Felagund, for which Finrod rewarded him by bestowing his (Finrod’s) ring to him. Then Barahir also kept the lands of Dorthonion to the very end, he and his band. Emeldir, who most likely would rather have stayed by her husband’s side, was tasked with leading the women and children out of Dorthonion to safety.
Everyone else mentioned are all wonderful candidates, but in my book, Barahir and Emeldir are the ones. 
:nods: and propers to that tarragon918. My favourite is Haleth - who leads her people after her father and brother and many more are brutally slain by marauding Orcs. Finrod Felagund arranges a grant of the Forest of Brethil from the folk of Doriath - with one caveat: King Thingol requires Lady Haleth to swear an oath that she and her folk will not aid Morgoth.
“Where are Haldad my father, and Haldar my brother? If the King of Doriath fears a friendship between Haleth and those who have devoured her kin, then the thoughts of the Eldar are strange to Men.” - Lady Haleth
JRR at his best…
How about Bór? The token ‘swarthy’ guy stays true?
—3. Eoywn - she did take out the Lord of the Nazgul—
I’ve spent more wasted years of my life debating this very issue, but my take is that while both played a part, Merry struck the decisive blow. I’m sure the movie will give it all to Eowyn, since they’ve already cut out the part of the story relevant to Merry’s deed (namely, his barrow-wight sword, “no other” mortal sword could have done the job), but in the book, it was Merry’s blow that “severed the unseen sinews” and so forth that bound the Witch King to his garments and made him invincible to any mortal weapon. Whether that alone was enough to kill him, or whether Eowyn’s blow was necessary, is debatable, but you can’t forget Merry.
So slaying one’s kin to obtain their property is possessiveness, not domination? I’m sorry, but “give me what I want or I’ll kill you” is not possessiveness; it’s a will to dominate. Smaller scale than Morgoth, of course, but cut from the same cloth.
Following up on my previous post, see Mandos’ comment (Silmarillion, at p. 98):
Must disagree. If Feanor were truly exhibiting a will dominate, he would have enslaved the Teleri & had them row the boats, or murdered them all, even after he had achieved his goal (getting the boats). He did neither, he attacked, got the boats & left. Further, since he knew Fingolfin was still at Helcaraxe, he would have sent the boats back, the better to keep him under his sway. This is not to excuse the action or to pretend that Feanor did not fall. I simply find Feanor’s actions to adhere to a different literary motif. Sounds like we should agree to disagree.
Everyone has missed the most important of all:
Rose Cotton!
That’s right! Hobbit-babe, and creature of immense, yet hidden, power. Why else do you think the Ring had so little power over Sam? He was under the spell of Rosie!
Melkor’s and Feanor’s failings were the same: not will to dominate, and not will to possess. Their common sin was pride. Melkor wanted to desroy the music of the Ainur and make it his, then later during the forming of Arda, he destroyed what the rest of the Valar made in spite. Feanor laid a threat on any person who claimed a silmaril, even the Valar. He claimed the light that was not his and put his possessions over the good of the world.
They were very much alike. Melkor and Feanor both cared about nothing but themselves. Their pride may have manifested itself in different ways, but they were both overflowing with it.
Quoth ratty:
I can’t believe I’m the only one who noticed this. It was Ecthelion of the Fountain who slew (and was slain by) Gothmog. The Balrog whom Glorfindel slew (and was slain by) is unnamed. And as I understand it, there were several other 'rogs slain that fateful day, and it’s pretty clear that those who fought them were doing so to save others, so Glorfindel’s deed, while heroic, doesn’t stand out too strongly.
And while I’ll agree that the sins of Morgoth and Feanor were alike in kind, Feanor also did a good bit of good in the world, and did not despise the works of others. If he had been presented with beautiful gems or works of art created by others, he might, perhaps, take them apart to learn how they were made, but he would not destroy them out of spite like Morgoth repeatedly did.
Oops! You’re right. Why did I think it was Glorfindel? Was he related to Ecthelion? (I lost all my elf genealogies.)
I’d have to agree with others’ interpretations of the acts of Feanor- he became a pretty evil guy. He may not have started out as such; his making of the Silmarils was not at first tainted. He made them only to preserve the light of the Two Trees. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He was consumed with his own pride, and behaved in an extremely jealous fashion towards his half-brothers. He and Melkor are very similar in that regard. Feanor more or less incited the Noldor to riot in Aman, he committed armed robbery, and then abandoned Fingolfin on the ice. He wants both to possess and to dominate, and perhaps the only reason he never took it to the same level as Melkor was because he simply didn’t have the power, experience, or foresight. And he raised his sons to be the same- with a few exceptions, they all behaved in exactly the same fashion. They also did not learn their lesson, all perishing in their mad rush to uphold his oath. Even his grandson Celebrimbor makes practically the same mistake by forging the elven rings of power. He figures out Sauron’s plan, and hides the rings, but a little too late. Thus is even more trouble brought to Middle-Earth by the hereditary stupidity of Feanor’s line. Again, good intentions, horrible results.
Feanor could only be called a hero in the most Grecian literary sense: “look at how cool this guy was, and how f***ed up he is now!”
We musn’t neglect the aspect of Feanor which was probably of great import to Tolkein, and indeed made Feanor more immortal than any of his other actions. Codification of the Elvish language. In a world where language and lore are the lifeblood of civilization, such a contribution can not be lightly dismissed. Claims that Feanor was posessive could be counterweighted against his gift of written language to the Elves.
Enjoy,
Steven
I think if anyone in the whole story can be considered a hero in the Greek Tragic sense, it’s Gollum. He tried to redeem himself, tried to trust and be good, but wavered when Sam continued to insult, mock, and distrust him, then gave up entirely when he thought he was betrayed by Frodo.
I guess he could overcome the influence of the Ring alone, but not the Ring plus maltreatment (real or imagined) together.
I was actually quite sad for Gollum.
Actually, an elf named Rumil (one of the Vanyar, I believe) was the first to invent written language. Feanor just expanded and improved upon it. Also, the importance of written language can be debated in a culture whose members are immortal. Among humans, written records are invaluable, as they can transmit information down through generations. With elves, this may not be so important, since chances are that no matter how long ago something occurred, there’s somebody around who lived through it.
I’m not sure I agree with Joe Cool about Gollum. I see where you’re coming from, though. But Gollum was never great to start with. He was just some hobbit (or proto-hobbit) that had a bad attitude from day one and then found the Ring. Greek Tragic Heroes almost always start out as “the greatest of the great”- this is what makes their eventual fall so tragic. Regular people making bad decisions seems to be just a common and unremarkable aspect of life.