Quote:
We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.
The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.
So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.
But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.
|
Yes, the Ring is cut from Sauron's hand. Does Tolkien at any point claim that the One Ring makes the wearer invulnerable? In all that we are told about the properties of the Ring, are we ever told anything to suggest that the Ring gives one invincibility? If it is that the Ring and the Ring alone supposedly made Sauron invincible then to have it cut from his hand would be illogical within the context of the story. Tolkien would have established a rule (Ring = invincibility) that he then proceeds to disregard. But if Tolkien never established such a rule, then where is the flaw?