What's the Worst Thing Characters had to Face in Middle Earth?

[drigel]

Good stuff here, all told pretty complete, the ideas all thought out well.. but..

Just to throw in a few that I would consider "worse", as in the most extreme, that any character had to face in ME, I am also disregarding good and evil / which is worse etc.... and to preface - my premise would be that an immortal's suffering by face value would have more efficacy than a mortal's suffering when considering the time vector... for this premise only - I actually think you guys hit on my big ones already. But, as usual, I start to think when I enter the barrows... I am probably way off track but anyways -

Míriel (or any elf who lets their fea leave their body), after giving birth to Feanor. I would throw Melian in there as well I suppose. What is worse than giving up yourself? And in Melian's case - to spent eternity in mourning...

Morgoth - from Wikki: Melkor/Morgoth's fëa was shut outside the gates of the world forever. Shut off from Arda where most of his essence remained he was unable to ever return.

Sauron after the destruction of Numenor. How far was that fall?

[Boromir88]

Do you think that Tolkien may have contrasted both Men to illustrate just how far those of Numenorean blood had fallen? Bearing in mind what Faramir says about Men:

Yes, and good points you have made. I think something else to show this would be the confrontation between Aragorn and Hama at the door into the Golden Hall. When Aragorn tries to assert his title of being "Elendil's heir" and therefor able to overrule Theoden, and Hama says doesn't matter who you are it's Theoden's rules.

Doesn't Tolkien talk about Rohan's Kings being "less royal" then Gondor's and even the Stewards? But, I agree in LOTR that we see them more equal, and that the Rohirrim are just as "royal" as Gondor. Maybe not by family name, but certainly now being able to be independent from Gondor and able to "overrule" them. As Hama makes it very clear (and Gandalf agrees) that even if Aragorn was the King of Gondor it wouldn't matter.

I also agree and think that Pride is the biggest thing that Gondorians have to overcome. Especially in the case of Denethor and Boromir. Pride can be a good thing, but overly pride is just arrogant and boastful.

Denethor, as we find out in the Appendices doesn't like anyone who's not under his command (probably one reason for why he doesn't like Gandalf, because he can't control him, he can't order him to do things).

In Boromir, he's probably the most prideful guy in the entire story. Constantly boasting about Minas Tirith, and how great the men are. When he starts falling to the Ring, how great he would be to defeat Sauron. Also, we know that he's very wary about Aragorn taking the throne, and Aragorn's claim to the throne. When Boromir is on his death bed, he "sees the light" so to say, as he gives up his pride and acknowledges Aragorn..."Go to Minas Tirith and save my people."

Then what's the difference in Faramir? Because, from what I see from Faramir, he is totally opposite from his brother and his father. He's not the boasting "Minas Tirith is so great" type guys, he puts it flat out and says..."Not if Minas Tirith was burning to the ground would I touch it." Now, I don't think this means Faramir could care less about Minas Tirith, more of just an educated man knowing that the Ring can only do harm, and wouldn't help Minas Tirith if it was burning to the ground. But what's different in Faramir? Perhaps, is the same thing with Theoden? Gandalf being sort of a mentor to Faramir, and Faramir listening and accepting Gandalf.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

When Boromir is on his death bed, he "sees the light" so to say, as he gives up his pride and acknowledges Aragorn..."Go to Minas Tirith and save my people."

It might be just the way to say "the people of my kingdom" yet we should note that Boromir says MY peope.... possesive MY, when he could have just said "Go to Minas Tirith and save them"

Yet I totally agree with Gandalf being what makes the difference between Denethor, Boromir and Faramir

[drigel]

I got another one:

How about the original elves that were ensnared, captured and enslaved by Morgoth, who used them in making the first orcs? What a brutal life that would be...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

I think it comes down to a rather simple difference. Frodo and Sam set their wills against the Ring whilst they possessed it. Bilbo never did, and Gollum never did, and Isildur never did. So I'm going to rate these five Ring bearers in terms of most to least culpible.

1. Gollum. He murdered to get the Ring, and it owned him.
2. Isildur. He had a chance to destroy it at Mount Doom, was exhorted to throw it away by Elrond (or was that just the movie?), but fell to the temptation of possessing it, making of it a family heirloom.
3. Bilbo. He happened upon it innocently, but used it readily. He didn't know it was evil, and succumbed to the effects of using it at all.
4. Sam. He did what was necessary to save the Ring from falling into the hands of the Dark Lord, setting his own will aside, ready to do what he believed to be right, even though he didn't want to; he held the Ring for a short while.
5. Frodo. He held the Ring for a long time, and set his will against it as long as he could, and sought its destruction for as long as he could.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but looking at it the same way, but rating characters according to the level of their suffering, you get a different result:

1. Frodo. Broken by the Ring, and possibly also by his inability to destroy it. He achieves the (almost) impossible by getting it to the very brink but receives no other reward than to have to leave the place he loves, the Shire.

2. Gollum. Driven mad by the Ring, his whole existence after losing it is centred on regaining it. So much so that when he does regain it, he leaps for joy and falls to his death.

3. Isildur. Although not much is known of the detail, we do know that bearing the Ring caused him to become less of a King, and eventually to get himself killed (due to his over-confidence?) - this could possibly be the root of the downfall of Gondor too.

4. Bilbo. Not terribly affected by the Ring at all apart from his unnaturally long life. He retires to Rivendell but seems excited by this, as though it is very much a conscious choice. He is reluctant to give up the Ring, but does so relatively easily.

5. Sam. He seems to be barely affected at all. He is able to return to The Shire and not only fully participate in life, but to increase his social position and to father a huge family. His departure (as far as we know) for the Undying Lands is more of a reward than a necessity.


If Frodo and Sam set their wills against the Ring, wouldn't they have experienced the same level of suffering in the end? Even if Sam had been the Ringbearer for as long as Frodo, I still do not think he would have suffered to the same degree; as seen in the differing reactions when each Ringbearer wears the Ring, I still believe that it has different effects on each wearer.

[Farael]

If Frodo and Sam set their wills against the Ring, wouldn't they have experienced the same level of suffering in the end? Even if Sam had been the Ringbearer for as long as Frodo, I still do not think he would have suffered to the same degree; as seen in the differing reactions when each Ringbearer wears the Ring, I still believe that it has different effects on each wearer.

I'm not going to argue that it has the same effect on every wearer because I think it does not. Yet I must say that if Sam had actually worn (or carried) the ring with the purpose of destroying it for a time as long as Frodo, he would have been broken by it too. You have to take into account that Sam, when in contact with the ring, only concentrates on saving Frodo (furthermore, when he thinks Frodo is dead and takes the ring to try to finish his task, he looses hope and finds it all but impossible to go on yet when he changes his mind and decides to save Frodo he regains faith and finally achieves it. Maybe the Ring was opposing him first?)

Still, I do agree it depends on the ringbearer but not only on his character but also his purpose for the Ring. As well, whatever they choose to do with the ring depends on their character so both factors are interelated, but I think they are two distinct factors and I think that purpose is just as influential as character.

[mormegil]

It cannot be quantified but it is to be remembered that Sam wore the ring for a considerable amount of time and when it was near its power source. It's obvious that the nearer to Mordor the ring was the more powerful it became. Therefore I would postulate that there was a great toll on Sam due to the length of time it was worn and due to the sheer power increase of the ring. I'm not sure if it would equal the total the Frodo used but the huge weight of it must have been great.

[Farael]

But then both his character AND his purpose were, if not possitive at least not detrimental to the ring itself, which I believe should also be taken into account. Besides even if he wore the ring, all the "wise men" say that the ring will slowly corrupt you, that you will have good intentions at first but then it'll all be perverted into evil. Perhaps a few hours is not enough to harm you, yet a few months (if not longer, how long did Frodo carry the ring) will be enough to leave a mark. We should also take into account that The Ring did not completely pervert Frodo, as it did to Gollum (who by the way had it for a MUCH longer time, even longer than Bilbo). The weak point on this reasoning is Frodo who didn't really show any adverse consequences (although he had grown greatly fond of the ring) but I guess this is where character and purpose come into play again.