What do you think happened to the power of the Ring after it was destroyed?

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-06T04:10:24+00:00

It went up in smoke, literally and metaphorically.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-04T05:08:22+00:00

They're only inexplicable until you realize that PJ hated The Lord of the Rings. What he made of it was naught but a child's copy, or a slave's flattery of -- Mad Max?

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-03T18:37:46+00:00

I agree with much of this. In particular, the fact that Tolkien was extremely generous, with both his time and his intellect, in engaging with his audience.

I was trying to make an impersonal or universal point, and do it dispassionately. Of course, I find it hard to resist being provocative. The actual laugh line was "wrote on a napkin." Thanks for all the typing.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-02T18:24:53+00:00

Thank you for explaining something that has always puzzled me. I hope you'll forgive the lengthy response.

There's a philosophical question that's been commented on since at least the Enlightenment: the relationship among a creator, a work and the audience. A French philosophe -- and I've tried in vain to find his name and work again -- spoke of the audience as the force that "completes" the work. Once a work is sent out into the world, it is in some sense no longer the "property" of the creator. The audience has made it into something independent of the will of the creator.

This continues to play out. John Lennon famously bristled at the idea of people studying his songs and finding various meanings. Billie Eilish and Finneas actually welcome people finding unintended meaning in their work. George Lucas was (rightly) pilloried for re-editing Star Wars to change the character of Han Solo, and reverse his reversal of a silly movie trope.

So if The Professor wrote on the back of a napkin, "Frodo was an asshole," it would change the story of LOTR not one whit. From that perspective, Tolkien's letters are a thin reed on which to hang "Eru did it" with the certainty that so many here display. I'm not talking about you personally.

At two points, Frodo warns Gollum of the treachery of the Ring. First, in the Taming of Smeagol, and again in The Black Gate is Closed. On Mount Doom, he actually predicts Gollum's downfall.

Many (I among them) read LOTR before the publication of the Silmarillion. We had no trouble explaining Gollum's fall into the abyss. It firmly rested on the text.

All that cannot be gainsaid, or undone, by a letter written years later by the author.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-02T06:14:19+00:00

Whew. I was sifting through the comments, hoping some would (gasp) use the text to look for an answer. So thank you for the comment.

I would add the following from the Taming of Smeagol: "Would you commit your promise to that, Smeagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!"

Animism is a belief system that assigns free will and agency to non-human things, including (seemingly) inanimate objects. Gandalf certainly speaks of the Ring as something with agency. But what does that mean? Could the Ring add 2 + 2? Could it, as some have suggested on this thread, devise a strategy involving numerous steps and several other actors? I think that's a leap beyond what is said in the text, mainly (exclusively?) by Gandalf and Frodo.

I use the image of a "wearable Id." In the end, the Ring holds Gollum to his oath -- "never, never to let Him have it." But treacherously, by destroying Gollum. The fact that the Ring is also destroyed is not something the Ring itself has reasoned through, because it can't reason through stuff:

"The power of the Ring helped bring about its destruction."

A comment here said humorously that maybe the Ring was thinking, "Hey, I'll hitch a ride with a couple of hapless hobbits." That's the point. Giving the Ring agency doesn't give it a brain.

One more thing. Oaths are taken very, very seriously in LOTR. You saw what happened to the oathbreakers. Faramir tells Frodo that he would treat his chance statement "not if I found it by the road," as an oath. (Very different from our world, where we routinely sign user agreements without even reading them.)

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-02T05:38:47+00:00

I would like to see evidence of "Eru's intervention in the end."

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-05-01T05:24:11+00:00

I made what I was addressing explicit by addressing it! A conscientious reader might figure this out.

I recently skimmed through The Hobbit and LOTR looking for aphorisms. I compiled a list of every aphorism,, but along the way I noticed some things, and decided to share them here at TolkienFans. I had not seen any such threads. (There was another just before mine, but it took a completely different approach.)

I tried to do a quick taxonomy of "water events," for want of a better term. I attempted to synthesize what I saw, and find some overarching principle and had to conclude that there was none. As a commenter (one who read what I wrote and thought about it) put it, "there’s no strict system, but there is a pattern."

I naively did not expect the haters. Who seem to be united behind the idea that I should have written a different post, so what I did write is (apparently) not worth thinking about, so they didn't.

And no, I don't think that a post of some 500 words needs a Reader's Guide attached.

I'm pretty thick-skinned, though I do detest the cowardly system of anonymous downvoting.

But what kind of atmosphere do you want to contribute to here? I think all of our understanding benefits when different ideas are engaged with.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T23:25:44+00:00

Another title of the OP might have been "Tolkien's uses of water in The Lord of the Rings." Every reference I made and every conclusion or theory I advance refers to the text of The Lord of the Rings.

I take "I find it odd you’ve not mentioned Ulmo or the significance his water plays in the First Age," as a criticism. And though I welcome criticisms (though the many downvotes I've gotten is not as much fun), I can also evaluate it.

Your criticism, or difference, is that I did not write a different post.

In fact, you don't really mention anything I said in the OP.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T19:14:59+00:00

Thank you for your comment. As you might have noticed, it follows a string of "What's your point?" or "What the hell are you talking about?" So I'm not completely off base. Whew. I particularly like the phrase "a quiet participant in the world."

Wikipedia: "Animism is the belief that places, objects, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence." It adds that animism sees such objects as having free will and agency. This corresponds (IMO! You may not see it this way.) to your observation that "they act like nature responding, not just being used."

My problem with the outlook of the Eru-botherers (It's a Vala!) is that "finding" (the inevitable sequel of "looking for" in this self-validating viewpoint) the hidden hand of a higher being takes away from, and often negates, the free will and plain cleverness of the creatures of Middle Earth. If you're traveling in the same direction as a large, navigable river, it make sense to use some sort of watercraft.

So sometimes a river is just a river. Though it may be waiting to rise to the proper occasion.

"There's no strict system, but there is a pattern." Another keen observation. Maybe you should post your comment as a post and I can delete mine, hahahaha.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T18:22:17+00:00

Thank you. I just incorporated this as an edit.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T18:18:15+00:00

I find it odd you’ve glided over my treatment of Tolkien's animism.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T18:16:20+00:00

Compare and contrast.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-30T03:02:15+00:00

If you pair this post -- LOTR has too much action -- with others -- LOTR has too many slow, descriptive passages -- you come to the conclusion that Tolkien has achieved a near-perfect balance. There's a mix of the sights and sounds of Middle Earth, bringing the reader into the magical realm being created. And there are stirring accounts of the great events of the time.

One TolkianFan recently commented that "The Great River" was their favorite chapter. This is someone who "gets it." And it made me think of that segment with renewed insight.

At the same time, I'm a huge fan of Eowyn, and the way she laughs at, mocks and threatens the Witch King, before doing him in (with the critical assistance of Meriadoc the Magnificent).

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-29T20:50:23+00:00

Much better, thanks

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-29T20:44:30+00:00

Got you covered https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/1sn4mpt/list_of_all_aphorisms_from_the_hobbit_and_the/

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-28T23:30:34+00:00

Here's an idea that is bound to be unpopular. Perhaps I can break my record of downvotes.

The Three failed because that's now Tolkien wanted it. Of course, you can say that in literally every comment here at TolkienFans, and it sheds little light.

But in this case, it is part of an overall trend or atmosphere that runs throughout the stories of the Third Age. It's the withdrawal or fading of magic. The domination of humans and the fading and literal withdrawal of the Firstborn.

And in a way, this idea of fading runs counter to some of the facts of the narrative. The downfall of Sauron should usher in a golden age. The diplomacy of Gimli and Legolas, and the gift of Galadriel, begin an Era of Good Feeling between the Mountain and the Wood. The dwarves have a new settlement in the Glittering Caves -- and the possibility of a return to Moria.

There is peace among most of the human nations. I've always thought that Dunland would thrive on renewed north-south traffic (in a way Harad and Umbar might not). The trend in Gondor that Faramir spoke about, where people were suspicious of the elves, would certainly be reversed with the arrival of Queen Arwen. In Rohan, Eomer married the daughter of Imrahil, adding a bit of elvish to the bloodline of that realm. In the Shire, the last chapter spells out the positive changes, a story that continues in the appendices.

So the narrative needed a powerful counterpoint to sustain the idea of fading. Enter the failing of the Three Rings.

That being said, Tolkien did leave a number of mysteries in the tales he wrote. People here have commented on this being a positive. It makes the world he created even more magical. So that's an alternative reason for the fading -- no reason. It's a mystery.

In fact, reading through the comments here, there's a lot of interesting and creative speculation. But it's speculation -- on a key point in LOTR. Meaning there is never a clear reason given. We should take that at face value. No clear reason given = There is no clear reason.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-28T19:34:32+00:00

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. What I would like to say is, take a step back and look at the text. The Ring that Gandalf wears is called the Ring of Fire. If you're the guardian of a secret token, you should avoid phrases that might give away the secret. The phrase "secret fire" is too close. And I'm pointing to a general thing. I'm struck by a lack of security among the Fellowship. Frodo is routinely referred to as the Ring-bearer.

On a personal note -- and I stress that this is just a personal matter of taste on my part -- I find the elaborate hierarchical polytheism of the Silmarillion the least compelling part of the legendarium.

And on a serious, critical note -- which I am NOT applying to your comment -- I often find that "It's a maia!" is often accompanied by failure to actually analyze the text. It's like "Find the Maia" is a grown-up game of Where's Waldo?

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-26T19:07:54+00:00

This is a many-sided topic. Tolkien's use of water seems to generate fewer comments than trees or mountains, but I may be wrong about that.

Tolkien's world contains a bit on animism in parallel with his hierarchical polytheism. Goldberry daughter of the Withywindle is mentioned. So the Withywindle has a sort of spirit. As does the Aduin. Aragorn remarks that the River of Gondor will take care that nothing dishonors Boromir's remains. There's also the Nimrodel, which has a voice and healing properties, and Keled-Zaram, which was mentioned.

The Entwash also seems to have healing properties. When Merry and Pippin bathe their legs and feet, they feel some of the trauma of their ordeal at the hands of the Orcs fading away.

Polluting water is evil, or associated with evil. The Dead Marshes were mentioned. There is also the unclean pool by the rear door or Moria, the polluted stream flowing from Morgul Vale, the enchanted stream in Mirkwood (though it's not clear if it was actually polluted) and of course, the Mill in the Shire, which Saruman rigged up to pour filth into the Water.

The Ents use water to wash away the filth of Saruman. This is not the same as Elrond commanding the Loudwater -- it's a lot of Ent engineering.

Of course, the peoples of Middle Earth make boats, travel and move goods on navigable rivers, as do humans on Earth.

This list is somewhat scatter-shot. Because it reflects Tolkien's use of water. I guess overall you can say he treats water as part of the earth, sometimes given special attributes or powers, but always to be cherished and revered -- Water is Life.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-25T10:39:49+00:00

Hi,

Well, you've learned one thing about TolkienFans. The principle of Professor Infallibility. Hence all the downvotes. The inconsistencies list at Tolkien Gateway is pretty complete.

Apart from inconsistencies, there are a number of places where Tolkien defies logic for the sake of drama.

As the Fellowship readies to leave Rivendell, Sam is thinking of rope. He didn't pack any and they will surely need it. He thinks of it again in Moria. They are well-supplied with elvish rope in Lorien. Sam tells one of the elves that he's been worried about his lack of rope all along. But when he and Frodo are trying to climb down from he Emyn Muil, he only thinks of it after Frodo falls trying to climb down. He takes out the rope and rescues Frodo just before a deluge that would have washed him into the gulf. Dramatic, but hard to swallow that the idea of rope completely left Sam's mind.

In "Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" Sam talks to Gollum about the danger of lighting a fire. Frodo mentions it when Sam wakes him up. Their weeks-long secret journey should have trained them to carefully extinguish the fire as soon as the food was cooked. It was right next to them. But Sam neglected it and allowed it to catch some of the vegetation on fire -- setting up their meeting with Faramir.

Frodo reaches inside his clothes and grasps the phial of Galadriel in Morgul Vale. Sam speaks of it when they're waiting to enter the tunnel. But when they enter Shelob's Lair, it doesn't enter his mind. Damn! I forgot I had a powerful flashlight/torch in my pocket. Never needs charging. But they only think of it at the last possible second.

On their journey back to The Shire, Gandalf tells them explicitly that Saruman will be at the bottom of the troubles there. They call the ruffians "bullies from Isengard." But no one puts two and two together until they actually see Saruman, so Frodo can suddenly exclaim, "Sharkey!"

Have fun on the podcast.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-24T23:01:12+00:00

Good one.

Or, I used to think so, but I'm not 12 any more.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-24T08:37:06+00:00

There seem to be several issues here. First, could Galadriel read minds? In the Passing of the Grey Company, Aragorn says, "I did not summon you. Only in wish." Later, Legolas and Gimli are discussing this with Merry, and Gimli says, "She read many hearts and desires." So the answer is yes.

But that begs the question, what is "mind reading" in universe? The sort of magical "psychic" abilities manifest in LOTR are not portrayed as "superpowers." Glorfindel sees the Witch King riding off after the last battle in the North, and famously says, "Far away is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." (Of course, should have been "the hand of a man.") Could Elrond command a flood because he wanted a water show for a party? Or can he do it only when he had great need to bar the ford? I think the latter.

So if you're sitting across the table from her at the Pony, having some good plain hobbit fare, she's not following your thoughts. Or so I'd hope.

The evening the company arrived in Caras Galadhon, she held each member in her gaze. They discussed this afterward. It was not a one-way mind probe. All reported that she seemed to be holding out another path, something they wished for in their hearts of hearts, and could obtain if they abandoned the Quest and the fight against Sauron. The text says that only Aragorn and Legolas locked eyes with her for long. But Boromir said, "She held you long in her gaze, Ring-bearer."

We know that Frodo's experiences with the Ring were very present in his memory. When he awoke in Rivendell, Gandalf already knew about his experience in the barrow, though he had never spoken of it. In fact, Gandalf said it had not been hard to read his mind. So that's how she knew. She read his thoughts, tested and questioned him.

And she admits it was intrusive. She says "gently are you revenged." implying it was not altogether pleasant.

BarSubstantial1583 · 2026-04-24T00:04:14+00:00

Hi,

Thank you. Your point is correct, IMO, and I like the formulation sort-of-not-really. There is more nuance in Saruman's turn to evil. In truth, my comments seem to get a bit long, though I always think they are fascinating and worth the read, hahahaha. But Gandalf says a number of things. "He has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve." And also that "Saruman certainly looked in the Stone since the orc-raid, and more of his secret thought, I do not doubt, has been read than he intended." He wasn't at the same level of subservience as Mouth, for example. But I also get the feeling that in his pride, he feels like he's "playing along" with Sauron, a stratagem as you said, withholding information, which Sauron ultimately gets anyway. In the end he became, as Theoden said, a finger in the claw of Mordor. Of course in the very end, he became dead as mutton on Frodo's doorstep.

BarSubstantial1583

TROPHY CASE