I like Alatar's analogy of the Ring being like a drug and the Ring bearers like addicts. It certainly goes a long way towards explaining the effect it had on certain people, for just as some seem to be able to resist drugs (alcohol, tobacco whatever) so some could resist the Ring.
I had always assumed that Sauron possessed the rings himself and that they were not worn by the Nazgul. When Frodo puts on the Ring as the Nazgul attack on Weathertop, he sees them in their wraith form; hair, helmets, swords and hands are described. Rings are not. In Lothlorien, Galadriel tells Frodo that none of the rings can be hidden from the Ring bearer, so surely he would have seen rings if they had been worn.
As for using the three remaining Dwarf rings to corrupt others. Would the rings have been able to exert a corrupting force if Sauron had not yet regained the One Ring? It was the 'Master Ring', for want of a better title, made in secret to control and corrupt the others. Without it, would not the other rings made originally by the Elves have reverted to their original purpose and therefore been useless to him?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Alatar: The One is truly a being in itself. Not sure of the right word (it'll come to me sometime after I'm away from my computer), but is not the One Ring a 'little Sauron,' or id?
|
This idea of the One Ring being 'sentient' has always fascinated me. It
seems like a living being at times and is often referred to as such in the books. It adapts its size to the bearer's finger, it abandons its bearer(s) and appears to slip onto Bilbo's finger of its own accord. I suppose that it is open to interpretation, being magical and all. The idea of it being a 'little Sauron' conjures up all sorts of pictures!