The "Well what next?" fox and The One Ring

[Sardy]

""Hobbits! Well what next? I have heard of Strange doings in this land but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this".

He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it."

Well, what if he HAD found out more about it? What if the prescient Fox had come into possession of The One Ring?

[Zigûr]

I have to admit I was tempted to make this exact joke in the Treebeard thread but I thought it might come across as a bit much...

To take this unnecessarily seriously, I'm afraid to say that had the poor fox seized upon the Ring while Frodo slept, almost certainly the Ringwraiths would have found it, taken the Ring and ridden back to Mordor with it. Simple.

[Marwhini]

That's what happens.

Or maybe this:



MB

[Inziladun]

Yeah, I think the One was only a danger for Ilúvatar's Children and his created Ainu servants. Animals were immune to the One's lure.

That said, I'm amused by the thought of Goldifox, Lord of the Woody End bringing in thrall all wildlife in Eriador.

[Formendacil]

It's a silly topic, no doubt, but it's got me wondering... if it was by the hands of the small that the world was to be saved from Sauron and the One Ring, why stop at Hobbits? There are humbler creatures yet in Arda: why not have Bill the Pony or Acornamir the Forgotten Chipmunk of Ithilien as the heroes of the tale?

1. The obvious answer is that Hobbits are Children of Ilúvatar where animals are not, that they are thus more preferable instruments of Eru's will than the kelvar.

2. Another answer might be that as the power of the Rings most directly threatened the Children of Ilúvatar, so it was most appropriate that they were the ones used to destroy the Rings.

3. Or perhaps it is that the Children of Eru were the special enemies of Sauron (whose animus after all was directly more specially at them than at the whole of creation, unlike Morgoth's less focused hatred to end in the annihilation of all things).

4. Or you might say that Hobbits, as the least of the Children, represent the perfect balancing point between having something real to contribute and needing Eru's help to contribute it.


Regardless, it is no doubt that case that Eru, under the following principle:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, in The Silmarillion

'Many are the strange chances of the world,' said Mithrandir, 'and help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the Wise falter.'

...could have taken things to further extremes than just Hobbits helping Elves and Wizards.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

To take this unnecessarily seriously, I'm afraid to say that had the poor fox seized upon the Ring while Frodo slept, almost certainly the Ringwraiths would have found it, taken the Ring and ridden back to Mordor with it. Simple.

Or maybe the opposite. Maybe if an animal was in possession of the Ring, it would have been almost as though it was again buried in the river sand, and it would have taken the Nazgul - or the hobbits - a longer time to find it again. Having less sentience - or free will, or independent thought, or ideals of right and wrong, or whatever else the specific difference might be - than the Children, the fox is not as susceptible to the Ring influence, and perhaps that also translates to the Ring being less "loud" about its present location. Each bearer can only get power from the Ring according to his stature, but the contrary is true too: the Ring only has abilities according to its bearer's stature. And that's aside from the fact that no one would expect a non-"human" bearer, since what man would just cast the Ring aside?

However, given that this fox can think in complete sentences, perhaps I am underestimating its power.

[Morthoron]

Would you put it
in a box?
Would you give it
to a fox?

Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not with a wizard.
Not down my gizzard.
I would not wear it
here or there.
I would not wear it anywhere.
I would not wear the Dark Lord's bling.
Please, no more posts about the Ring.

[Sardy]

Well, it certainly offers a new answer to the age old debates of 'why didn't the eagles fly the ring to Mt. Doom?' and 'why not just cast it in the ocean?'

After all, as the saying goes, ya can't trust an eagle... To say nothing of the fishes...!

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Sardy

Well, it certainly offers a new answer to the age old debates of 'why didn't the eagles fly the ring to Mt. Doom?' and 'why not just cast it in the ocean?'

After all, as the saying goes, ya can't trust an eagle... To say nothing of the fishes...!

Do people really take that "Why didn't the Eagles fly with it to Mt. Doom?" seriously?

Can people really not see what is wrong with that?

The "Use the Great Eagles to fly it back to Mordor" has to be one of the worst ideas I can think of with the One Ring.

It's doing nothing more than delivering the One Ring to Sauron by Air-Mail.

The "Cast it into the ocean" makes only marginally more sense, but it still leaves Sauron alive, and mostly "Well."

And a fish could eat the thing, get caught by some hapless fisherman, who then winds up using it and we are right back where we started.

As for the Fox, Tolkien mentions in several places the distinctions between "mere beasts" (animals without Fëa), and those who could speak. And he admits that this threw himself a curve-ball. And it is another case of having to reference back to those "underlying postulates" and "coherent theological and metaphysical systems" again.


To begin with:

How would the fox use the ring having no fingers? Is the One Ring really so accommodating that it would stay on its Paw, should it decide to "wear" it?


Why am I even thinking about this?

MB

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

How would the fox use the ring having no fingers? Is the One Ring really so accommodating that it would stay on its Paw, should it decide to "wear" it?

First of all, the Ring has an effect even when not worn directly. It can still influence the mind of people in its vicinity (Boromir), or just those who think about it for an extended time (Saruman). It can also give some power to the Bearer even when not worn directly (Frodo with Gollum on the slopes of Orodruin).

Originally Posted by Marhwini

Why am I even thinking about this?

Fun?

[Inziladun]

I'm sorry, but I just had to bring this up.

If, as is likely, a bacterium had landed on the inner surface of the Ring, would the Ring corrupt it into an evil bacterium? Would it be invisible to other bacteria? Would its life stretch out and become an unending weariness? Would it use its increased strength and stature to rule over other bacteria? Would it fight to keep other bacteria from adhering to the Ring? Would it still evolve genetically, or would it instead become a Bacteria-wraith?

With credit to these fine people.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

First of all, the Ring has an effect even when not worn directly. It can still influence the mind of people in its vicinity (Boromir), or just those who think about it for an extended time (Saruman). It can also give some power to the Bearer even when not worn directly (Frodo with Gollum on the slopes of Orodruin).



Fun?

True... I was just thinking in terms of the larger effects of the One Ring upon the world.

The Fox just having the ring and never using it might not produce the more severe effects we see upon those who actually use it.

And the Nazgûl seem to have had a harder time tracking it down unless it was actually worn.

I can just see the Nazgûl with a pack of Spectral Fox-hounds riding through the Shire hunting the Fox who has taken the One Ring.


As for the Bacterium.... Bacteria are immortal already.

And what does an "Evil Bacteria" do, even?

I'll take a look at the link...

MB