84

In the Lord of the Rings, the One Ring corrupts the people near it, and it seems to have a stronger effect on anyone who sees it or touches it. Sauron and the Ring Wraiths also seem to be able to sense the One Ring when someone wears it.

Once the Council of Elrond decided to destroy it, why did they not take additional steps to help their people resist the temptation of the ring?

Put the ring into a small lockbox. Or, better yet, solidify molten metal around it. Do something so that the One Ring cannot be worn, seen, or touched without great difficulty. You can still cast the container into the Crack of Doom, and the ring would be destroyed along with it.

There are clear literary reasons for the lack of such preparations, but if there are in-story reasons not to take any such steps, I would like to know.

Keen
  • 863
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • Is this a movie question? Because things work somewhat differently in the book. – ibid Jan 12 '16 at 18:04
  • @ibid I would like to know about both, but I am more interested in the books. – Keen Jan 12 '16 at 18:08
  • 3
    I don't know about the books, but in the films the ring was able to change size at will and whisper to anyone who touched it. It may be that containing the ring like you describe isn't possible? – James Long Jan 12 '16 at 18:14
  • 13
    I think the literary reasons are one and the same; can you expand on that? Often mentioned is "the strength of men" and that it has failed. Nothing will avail you except your own perseverance. Locked in a box, Boromir might have away-ed with it, to deal with the packaging in secret, in due time. It must be dealt with in the open. Secrets, lies, obfuscation; these are the things that lead to the dark side. – Mazura Jan 12 '16 at 18:50
  • 15
    "In story" is irrelevant for two reasons. (1) Because JRR Tolkien wasn't a D&D playing munchkin, (2) nor was he an engineer (he was a philologist). . – KorvinStarmast Jan 12 '16 at 20:16
  • 5
    @KorvinStarmast Couldn't the same be said for all storytellers and their stories? This entire Stack is meant to be answered with in-story/in-universe answers. – Todd Wilcox Jan 12 '16 at 20:34
  • 4
    @ToddWilcox Fair point. I think my inner point was that since Tolkien never asked and answered that question himself, which he did for a lot of other elements behind the tale, the question is as well out of context, like "Why didn't Einstein invent a space travel method?" – KorvinStarmast Jan 12 '16 at 20:43
  • I don't think it would be any easier than deciding to destroy it. And most being won't have the will to do that. – njzk2 Jan 12 '16 at 22:25
  • 1
    Perhaps they thought that being able to use the ring for invisibility might come in handy. – Robert Jan 12 '16 at 23:01
  • 4
    There is a significant difference between the movies and the books, because in the movies, Frodo uses the ring in a situation were it turns out to be not a good idea and never uses the ring again. This renders the ring completely useless and indeed better encased the way you suggest, however, in the books, the ring is not that useless and will be used in some situations, when there is no other choice, hence, it was really bad if the ring was encased in solid metal in these situations. Of course, in-universe, the characters don’t know what will happen and could consider to encase it… – Holger Jan 13 '16 at 09:58
  • 1
    @KorvinStarmast: Oh, tell me! Why he didn't? – Zaibis Jan 13 '16 at 13:35
  • @Zaibis Because he was a philologist, not an engineer! ;-) –  Jan 13 '16 at 15:34
  • @Michael: "Why didn't Einstein invent a space travel method?" thats what I meant. :P – Zaibis Jan 13 '16 at 15:37
  • @Zaibis I know. –  Jan 13 '16 at 18:14
  • 1
    @Mazura Literary Reasons: The One Ring represents a constant evil temptation. Making it difficult to access the ring is a realistic strategy for countering temptation, but it undermines the story's theme of willpower. Also, if the One Ring more specifically represents overwhelming technological destructive power, then it is truly impossible to seal away. Destroying it demands an all-but-impossible level of willpower. – Keen Jan 14 '16 at 07:59
  • @Keen they ultimately fail the test and God has to step in and push Gollum over the edge –  Jan 14 '16 at 20:26
  • 1
    @AncalagonTheBlack Hey, Frodo got through more than 99% of the journey. That's a solid A grade. – Keen Jan 15 '16 at 09:52
  • 1
    @Keen Tolkien writes it was Frodo's courage and will to get it to that point that prompted the big guy upstairs to step in –  Jan 15 '16 at 09:53
  • @ToddWilcox This entire stack explicitly welcomes questions and answers about out-of-SFF universe topics as well? – Lexible Jul 11 '23 at 15:12

4 Answers4

113

It would possibly have had a negative effect on the bearer if they could not see it.

I tried locking it up, but I found I couldn’t rest without it in my pocket. I don’t know why. And I don’t seem able to make up my mind.’ A long expected party

Here we see Bilbo getting anxious because the ring is locked (presumably in just a chest)

It also would not have altered the ring's malevolent hold over the bearer's mind, as Gandalf says to Denethor

Denethor; yet if you had received this thing, it would have overthrown you. Were it buried beneath the roots of Mindolluin, still it would burn your mind away, as the darkness grows, and the yet worse things follow that soon shall come upon us.’ The Siege of Gondor

In addition, (credit to user void_ptr) the bearer of the ring would have struggled to accept such an attack on the ring.

Frodo is unwilling to hand the ring on its chain to Gandalf and is distressed by it being heated in his fire.

‘Well then, look!’ To Frodo’s astonishment and distress the wizard threw it suddenly into the middle of a glowing corner of the fire. Shadow of the Past

This is a similar reaction to early words of Isildur.

and maybe were the gold made hot again, the writing would be refreshed. But for my part I will risk no hurt to this thing: of all the works of Sauron the only fair. It is precious to me, though I buy it with great pain. The Council of Elrond

In short, it wouldn't have done much good and would have risked destabilising the bearer even more so.

Community
  • 1
  • 17
    To add to this (I'm only speculating though), the ring would likely have resisted encasing it in molten metal, etc. - to the point where no one would have actually been able to do that. From what I remember (don't have quotes handy), it was incredibly hard to even try to harm the ring - even with something which would have done no harm to it at all. The ring appeared utterly beautiful and precious to everyone. – void_ptr Jan 12 '16 at 21:29
  • @void_ptr very true I will expand my answer –  Jan 12 '16 at 21:30
  • If is someone could edit in a link the credited user please –  Jan 12 '16 at 21:46
  • Excellent answer. Glad you're back! – Wad Cheber Jan 12 '16 at 23:10
  • 2
    The Ring also expanded or shrank in order to fit the bearer. In Isuldur's case, it expanded in order to fall from the finger of the bearer. It may have had additional capabilities that would have resisted encasing, as hinted at by @void_ptr . – Leatherwing Jan 13 '16 at 15:18
  • @Leatherwing Indeed, the expansion alone would have allowed it to escape the encasing. It could simply expand to break off the encasing. – reirab Jan 13 '16 at 19:11
  • 1
    @reirab might be a question in that, how big could the ring expand? –  Jan 13 '16 at 19:16
  • 2
    An even better question might be, what exactly does putting the ring on one's finger do? E.g., how is this different from holding the ring in one's hand? Or perhaps even putting it on some other appendage? – void_ptr Jan 13 '16 at 19:37
  • 5
    @void_ptr I hope you're thinking of toes! –  Jan 13 '16 at 19:38
  • 3
    They sent Frodo to destroy the ring, when he could not even stand to let it be sealed away. Now that's a hopeless scenario (which good fiction demands, of course). – Keen Jan 14 '16 at 08:07
  • 1
    @Keen you're right, this point falls beside that reasoning: if the possibility of sealing it was too hard to endure (psychologically), what about the whole travel with the purpose of destroying it? It makes sense that the less the bearer carries it, the less the burden of watching its destruction. – Armfoot Jan 14 '16 at 13:14
  • 1
    I liked the way the ring could lose its chain when used, then get it back again – RedSonja Jan 14 '16 at 13:52
  • Putting the ring on made current owner a beam for Sauron. Encasing it would be a smart move. If Frodo couldn't bear encasing the Ring, then how could anyone expect him to destroy it (after additional time of growing obsession about it)? This doesn't make sense. More likely no one even came upon this idea as a result of it's influence. But again, someone like Elrond could think it through before Frodo came to the elves. – Ctrl-C Jan 14 '16 at 14:57
  • @Ctrl-C that's a movie invention. The books only once they are in Mordor does it become dangerous as a Sauron attracter –  Jan 14 '16 at 15:12
  • @Ctrl-C: I guess Gandalf would never tell Frodo if it was foreseen or even planned that Gollum will bite off the finger and finish the job inadvertently… – Holger Jan 14 '16 at 19:46
  • 1
    Frodo was able to keep it in an envelope, locked up in a chest I think, for over a year after Gandalf gave it to him. Was the ring already affecting Frodo when it was in the envelope? And also, Gandalf was able to handle the ring briefly and indirectly without being affected by it while he sealed it in an envelope and again when he cast it in to Frodo's fireplace. So couldn't he have sealed it in a slug of metal or something more permanent for Frodo to carry before giving it to him? – J Doe Oct 07 '16 at 22:25
  • @JDoe I've already answered that. And frodo had the ring round his neck when Gandalf returned after 17 years. –  Oct 08 '16 at 06:15
20

I think everyone has touched nicely on the problems. Even buried in a hunk of metal, there were going to be people who would worry and obsess over the thing. Mind experiment: Imagine the paranoia of the bearer of the hunk-embedded Ring, when others start walking around with THEIR hunks of metal claiming that the One Ring was inside. Eventually, the ring's hold on its victims would force someone to break the hunk of metal-- just to see if the Ring was still there!

Once you accept the literary concept of the One Ring bearing a terrible spell, bending the minds of its victims, it pretty much limits what anyone other than Tom Bombadil (or other resistant entities) can do with it.

The reason Elrond and Gandalf and Galadriel wanted to destroy (and not "hide") the Ring is they could sense the threat it held, even to them-- the threat it could EVENTUALLY seduce them into believing they could do good with it. This threat shuts off any attempt to hide it, move it, bury it, encase it or whatever. Because someone would know where it is. And, at the very elemental level, its former Master and his servants could always sense it and would be forever seeking it.

Steve Olivier
  • 201
  • 1
  • 2
  • 12
    Also the fact that destroying the ring was the only way to win. Sauron had an army that was going to destroy mankind whether he retrieved the ring or not. Hide the ring? Lose. Sauron gets the ring? Double lose. Destroy it? Win. – Premier Bromanov Jan 12 '16 at 22:37
  • 2
    @PremierBromanov True, though I'm pretty sure that throwing it into Mt. Doom will be equally effective, even if it is encased in a little metal. – Patrick M Jan 13 '16 at 05:37
  • @PatrickM well then its a logistical problem, and thats a can of worms im gonna avoid lol – Premier Bromanov Jan 13 '16 at 15:18
  • c.f. the Frog and Toad children's story about the cookies. The only real solution was for the cookies to be utterly consumed. – labyrinth Jan 13 '16 at 23:54
  • If everyone could sense where is the Ring, that duplicate scenario wouldn't make sense. Therefore this whole answer in invalid. – Ctrl-C Jan 14 '16 at 14:51
  • 4
    The OP wasn't suggesting hiding it instead of destroying it. The suggestion was to help resist temptation while carrying it to be destroyed. This answer seems to be answering a different question than the one asked. – Peter Cordes Jan 14 '16 at 16:53
  • 2
    There is no need to encase the ring in metal, just to fill it with metal. – Joshua Sep 29 '16 at 18:33
4

Excellent answers, but I would like to add one additional point: had the Ring been unable to be worn, say at Rivendell, the quest would have failed. The Ring was worn to good effect twice:

  1. When Boromir tried to take the Ring, Frodo used it to escape him.
  2. Sam used it to escape orcs in Minas Morgul.

In both of these cases, it is highly likely the Ring would not have been destroyed. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. But the Fellowship at least had the freedom to use the Ring as a last resort, and it proved needful.

Michael Foster
  • 3,454
  • 1
  • 16
  • 38
4

There are some good answer here, especially user46509's top-ranked answer. I'd like to add two related reasons not to do this:

First, what Men (or Elves) can do they can undo. Asking Frodo to carry a Ring he could not touch would have just made the temptation all the worse (just tell someone that they can't have the goodies set out before them and the goodies' attractiveness increases). And the Ring would have played on this human foible and made it worse.

Before he got to Mordor, Frodo would have been battering the chunk of metal with rocks trying to get at the Ring inside. Even if he failed -- very likely -- this would have distracted him from his task and would likely have called unwanted attention to him.

Second, unless it was done very carefully, this would have seemed to Frodo a sign that he was not really trusted by the Council. Not a good way to motivate people to do their best!

Sometimes trust is the best strategy.

Mark Olson
  • 41,115
  • 8
  • 176
  • 176
  • 2
    "just tell someone that they can't have the goodies set out before them and the goodies' attractiveness increases" -> As a parent of a 4yr and 2yr old, this is too accurate – Wondercricket Jul 11 '23 at 14:41