To bear the One Ring

[Essex]

What constitutes ‘bearing’ the One Ring? Or to put it another way, when do you become a Ring Bearer such as Frodo?

I ask this question (on the book section even though prompted to mainly by the Movie section) because of the Movie Makers’ decision not to have Sam put on the Ring.

On the Faramir and the Ring thread, it was posted:

PJ & co wrote themselves into a corner by making the Ring so alluring and by letting Faramir see it.

I feel this explains the problem that the filmmakers got themselves into throughout all three films. It reached a dissapointing conclusion in that Sam did not wear the ring in the film. (at least not in the cinematic version…….).

Sauron was too powerful, i.e. He would ‘see’ it straight away.

To me this changes the end of the story TOTALLY. ie I do not believe Sam will now follow Frodo to the West as he was not a 'Ring Bearer’

Other people in other (movie) posts have argued with me that Sam WAS a Ring Bearer as he (technically if you look in a dictionary) bore the ring.

To me this is looking at it too simply. Just to hold the Ring (or keep it in your pocket) does not, to me, mean you are a Ring Bearer. I believe you have to PUT ON the ring. But to call a person who does this a ‘Ring Wearer’ does not have the same ‘ring’ to it as ‘Ring Bearer’ does it?

Is Gandalf a ring bearer (of the One Ring) then? Can we call Tom Bombadil a Ring Bearer? At least he actually did PUT ON the ring.

Anyway, after this convoluted introduction, my question is, do you need to WEAR the Ring to be considered a Ring Bearer?

[davem]

Well, its possible that the SEE will show Sam putting on the Ring. Especially as the last report I saw said it would be around 5 hrs long!

Of course, anyone who carries the Ring is 'bearing' it, but 'Ringbearer' does seem to have a specific meaning in the books - particularly in relation to the Great Rings. It is possible, I suppose, that Ringbearer is a kind of title, like 'Elf-Friend', a title or designation that must be given, & therefore wouldn't be applied to anyone who just happened to pick one of the things up - otherwise the number of Ringbearers would start to mount - Deagol, any Elf in the smithies of Eregion who was involved in the manufacture of the Rings. Gandalf says that there are many magic rings in the world. The number of 'Ringbearers' would increase massively & the title would lose its value if it just meant someone who happened to carry a Ring for a bit. My own feeling is that its a kind of 'title' bestowed (sometimes after the fact) by others with the authority to do so, & is given in recognition that what the particular individual did was worthy of some respect. After all, it seems to bring with it some kind of honour & special priviledge - like going into the West.

[The Saucepan Man]

My own feeling is that its a kind of 'title' bestowed (sometimes after the fact) by others with the authority to do so, & is given in recognition that what the particular individual did was worthy of some respect.

If a "title" bestowed by others, then it was bestowed after the event in almost every case. Even Frodo was not formally pronounced a Ringbearer until the Council of Elrond, by which time he had already been bearing the Ring for some time.

I do not agree that a Ringbearer necessarily need have done anything worthy of respect (in so far as the Ring is concerned) in order to merit the title. Neither Isildur's conduct nor that of Gollum, as regards the Ring, was exactly deseving of respect, and yet I would consider both Ringbearers.

For me, to be a Ringbearer, a person has to have borne the Ring in circumstances where they have had some basis for asserting a right over it, either by virtue of their having claimed ownership of it (Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo) or because it was entrusted to them for safekeeping or with a specific purpose in mind (Frodo).

On this basis, I would regard Sam as a Ringbearer. Frodo's right to bear the Ring derived from the fact that it was entrusted to him for the purpose of its destruction. When Frodo was apparently killed by Shelob, Sam was the only one of his companions (the Fellowship) present, and so it fell to him to complete the task with which Frodo had been charged. Accordingly, to my mind, he became a Ringbearer the moment he took the Ring from Frodo's prone body.

Assuming my reasoning holds, it applies whether or not Sam actually wears the Ring. Even if he had not put it on, he would still have had been bearing it for a purpose. After all, we would surely still consider Frodo to be a Ringbearer, even had he been able to resist wearing it throughout his entire journey to Mordor. And so, in my view, Sam is still a Ringbearer in the film.

Tom Bombadil cannot be considered a Ringbearer, since he only touches the Ring to examine it. Even though he puts it on, he never has any right to it. Neither is Gandalf a Ringbearer (of the One Ring, that is). I might be getting mixed up with the film (and I have no book to hand), but doesn't he lift it with a pair of tongs? But even if he does actually touch it, he does so only with the intention of passing it to Frodo.

Deagol is slightly more difficult. He does claim ownership of it, but has possession only momentarily - until strangled by Smeagol. Then again, on the basis of his momentary possession, I think that I would class him as a Ringbearer.

So, for me, the list of Ringbearers (excluding Sauron himself) is: Isildur, Deagol, Smeagol/Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam.

[Essex]

thanks for the 2 good replies showing different viewpoints.

Saucepan's view has made me think more about my view that you would have to WEAR the ring, but I still think you would (and been tempted by it?) to become a ringbearer.

PS

but doesn't he lift it with a pair of tongs?

Yes, you are mixing it up with the film. In the book Gandalf takes the ring from Frodo, throws it in the fire (not in an envelope!). He does move the ring to the hearth with the tongs, but then picks it up and hands it to Frodo.

[Finwe]

It may not have been apparent in the movie, but in the book, Sam was profoundly affected by the One Ring. I remember that the passage describing his brief sojourn in the tunnel adjacent to the one Frodo was in said something about his senses being enhanced, although a grey mist seemed to lie on everything. He also saw a vision of Mordor being turned to a large field of flowers, and himself wielding a flaming sword, as Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, leading an army to conquer Mordor. He was definitely tempted by the Ring, so in my mind, that more than qualifies him as a Ringbearer.

[The Saucepan Man]

Saucepan's view has made me think more about my view that you would have to WEAR the ring, but I still think you would (and been tempted by it?) to become a ringbearer.

So, had Frodo carried the Ring all the way to Cirith Ungol with the intention of destroying it, but without ever having worn it, and then been killed there by Shelob or the Orcs of the Tower, you wouldn't class him as having been a Ringbearer?

Yes, you are mixing it up with the film.

Ah yes. I thought that I might be. Thanks. But the point still holds that Gandalf cannot be classed as a Ringbearer (of the One Ring).

He [Sam] was definitely tempted by the Ring, so in my mind, that more than qualifies him as a Ringbearer.

Ah, but the question is whether someone who has never worn the Ring (such as Sam in the film) can be classed as a Ringbearer. I think that they can if they bear it in circumstances where they have some right (assumed or otherwise) to do so.

[davem]

I think it comes down to the question of whether 'Ringbearer' is some kind of formal title, or just a way of describing someone who happens to have a/The Ring at any one time. When Gandalf says 'Let the Ringbearer decide', rather than 'What do you say, Frodo?' He seems to be implying that Frodo has an extra authority. If we go back to the Elf-Friend thing, an Elf-Friend is not just somebody who is friendly to Elves, it is a 'title' bestowed by Elves on someone of another race, in recognition of something the individual has done. These titles seem to be very important - don't know if anyone has looked into this issue in ME, but Aragorn seems fairly dripping with titles, which are more than just different names, as is the case, for instance, with Olorin's many names among the different races.

I still feel that Ringbearer is more than simply a description of what a particular individual happens to be doing/have done. It implies some kind of 'right' conferred - either by others or by Eru (who 'intends' Bilbo to find it & Frodo to have it) or by the Ring itself (which 'intends' Isildur to save it). After all, none of the Rings are merely things, they are also 'forces' - though to what extent they have 'wills' of their own - as the One is perhaps implied to have - is another question. If the One symbolises 'sin', will to power, to dominate, evil, the Machine, etc, then the 'bearer' is bearing more than a piece of metal. Perhaps 'Ringbearer' has a more 'metaphysical' dimension, & requires some kind/degree of knowledge of its nature & willingness to bear it.

Sorry, I'm writing this as it comes to me. I think I need to spend a bit more time considering this. [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]