[The Saucepan Man]

Some compelling arguments have been put forward as to why the alternative scenario envisaged by this thread would have been less satisfying than the way in which it was actually written. Certainly, I agree with Legolas that it would have been a great disappointment if Sam had simply ambled up Mount Doom and thrown the Ring in.

I have a very clear memory of thinking, when I was first reading LotR, what an anti-climax it would be if they made it to Mount Doom and simply threw the Ring in. Notwothstanding the travails of actually getting to Orodruin, it would just have seemed too easy. Perversely, therefore, I was actually rather relieved when Frodo claimed the Ring as his own and refused to destroy it. In consequence, the events of Sammath Naur were (and remain) utterly compelling to me and thankfully brought no sense of anti-climax whatsoever.

Somehow I doubt that, even had he killed off Frodo at Cirith Ungol, Tolkien would simply have had Sam willingly destroy the Ring. He knew the nature of the Ring too well to allow that to happen. Despite having borne the Ring for a shorter period and having successfully resisted its lure at Cirith Ungol, I don't believe that even Sam would have been able willingly to destroy it. I suspect, therefore, that Tolkien would have come up with something different.

Whether it would have been as satisfying as the way the story actually turns out, we cannot tell. I tend to agree that it would probably not have been, for the reasons already stated by others. But, since we are used to it being the way it is and find it so compelling, it is difficult to imagine it being as good any other way.

Perhaps, had Tolkien written of Frodo dying at Cirith Ungol, Sam journeying with the Ring to the Crack of Doom and there claiming it as his own and Gollum somehow being (involuntarily) involved in its destruction, we would be saying how much more satisfying that was than if Frodo had survived and made it to Mount Doom with Sam.